ANALYSIS OF CONNECTION TYPES AND THE USES OF DEBATES IN LEARNING

Bulus Wayar

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


Keywords


genre, discourse, mood, coherence, semantics, syntax

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.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.252

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Bulus Wayar

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2018. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.


This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).