ANALYSIS OF CONNECTION TYPES AND THE USES OF DEBATES IN LEARNING

Authors

  • Bulus Wayar Department of English, Gombe State University, Nigeria

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.252

Keywords:

genre, discourse, mood, coherence, semantics, syntax

Abstract

This paper explores the syntactic and semantic of discourse connectives typically produced in a competitive setting. The discourse was produced by 98 students comprising 12 secondary schools. Coherence in discourse can be achieved by different mechanisms at play: morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. Morphologically, tense, for instance, helps to mark temporal relations, guiding the reader in the interpretation of progressions or flashbacks in time. One syntactic mechanism is sentence mood (indicative, imperative and interrogative). Mood is a structural marker of pragmatic meaning. Semantically, verb meaning can point to certain relations, cause, trigger, provoke, or effect which can all indicate a cause relation. Pragmatically, phenomenon such implicature establishes propositions that are not explicitly present in the text, but are constructed in the minds of the speakers. The aim was to unveil through analysis whether discourse uttered under this environment could be disorienting. Contrary from the expectation, the result indicated connectives worked on different levels which provided tacit and coherent interactions. 

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

References

Alba–Juez, L. (2009). Perspective on Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice. Cambridge Scholar Publishing.

Belinda, C. (2010). Discourse Connectives in Genre of Financial Disclosure: Earnings of Presentation vs earning release. Journal of Pragmatics, 42.

Bernadez, J.M. (1990) in Alba–Juez, L. (2009). Perspective on Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bucciarelli, M. (2010). Proffering a discourse in different communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42.

Ewbank, H.L. & Auer, J.J. (1951). Discussion & Debate: Tools of a democracy. New York: Appleton – century Croft.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd edition. Edward Arnold: London.

Harris, Z. (1952). Discourse Analysis. Language, 28, 1 -30.

Harris, Z. (1972a). Discourse Analysis. Language, 28, 1 -30.

Jerome, L. & Algara, B. (2006). English Speaking Union London Debate Challenge: 2005/2006 Final Evaluation Report. Cambridge & Chelmsford: Angela Ruskin University.

Kimmel, M. (2010). Why we mix metaphors (and mix well): Discourse coherence, conceptual metaphor and beyond. Journal of Pragmatics, 42.

Leech, G.N. & Svartvik, J. (1994). A Communicative Grammar of English. Pearson: London.

Proulx, G. (2004). Integrating Science Methods Critical Thinking in Classroom Debate on Environmental issues. The American Biology Teacher, 66, (1): 26 -33.

Semblak, W.D. & Shield, D. (1996). The Effects of Debates Training on Students’ Participation in the Bicentennial Youth Debate. Journal of American Forensics Association

Shroeder, A. & Shroeder, P. (1995). Educational Perspective. The Forensics of Pi Kappa Delta (80), 13 – 21.

Walker, M. & Warhurst, C. (2000). In most classes you sit around very quietly at table and get lectured at debate assessment and student learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 5 (1), 33 – 49.

Warner, E. & Brushke, C. (2001). Gone on debating: Comparative academic debate as atool of empowerment for urban American paper presented at the 2001 western State communication. Coeur Arlene, Idaho.

Zarei, F. Discourse Markers in English: International Research. Journal of Applied & Basic Sciences. Vol. 4. 107 – 117.

Downloads

Published

2016-09-24

Issue

Vol 2, No 5 (2016)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).