The effect of teaching Structural Discourse Markers in an EF...
Próximas questões
Com base no mesmo assunto
Ano: 2026
Banca:
COPEVE-UFAL
Órgão:
IFAL
Prova:
COPEVE-UFAL - 2026 - IFAL - Professor EBTT - Língua Inglesa |
Q3953938
Inglês
The effect of teaching Structural Discourse Markers in an EFL classroom setting
[...] Recent studies in corpus linguistics have examined specific aspects of spoken grammar particularly in unplanned speech. According to McCarthy and Carter (2001), spoken grammars have uniquely special qualities that distinguish them from written ones [...]. In spoken discourse, according to Fung and Carter (2007), the amount and frequency of DM use is significant in comparison to the use of other forms because they serve important interpersonal functions.
Therefore, DMs act as influential interactional features rather than having a purely grammatical function. One of the most important features of DMs is to constitute and organize talk [...]. There is acknowledgement that DMs have a pragmatic meaning in discourse and consequently play a significant role in speakers’ pragmatic competence because they contribute to the pragmatic meaning of utterances. Thus, there is the view that DMs contribute to the interpretation of an utterance rather than to its propositional content [...]. There are a limited number of studies conducted on the instruction of DMs in EFL contexts. All studies revealed similar findings, namely explicit instruction has a positive impact on learners’ production. The main difference being that each study focused on a different genre: writing skills, oral production and listening comprehension, respectively. In all these studies the addition of a post-test would have been beneficial to measure the long-lasting effects of teaching DMs on learners’ acquisition. Rahimi and Riasati (2012) stated that using DMs will help learners to perform better in spoken skills. In English as a Second Language context (ESL) Jones (2009) carried out a small-scale study with two groups, both of which were given the same DMs using two different teaching approaches: illustration, interaction and induction (III) and presentation, practice and production (PPP). The results demonstrated that PPP had a considerable effect on learners’ use of the taught DMs [...].
Available in: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1101735.pdf. Acess on: Feb. 2, 2026.
According to the text’s perspective,
[...] Recent studies in corpus linguistics have examined specific aspects of spoken grammar particularly in unplanned speech. According to McCarthy and Carter (2001), spoken grammars have uniquely special qualities that distinguish them from written ones [...]. In spoken discourse, according to Fung and Carter (2007), the amount and frequency of DM use is significant in comparison to the use of other forms because they serve important interpersonal functions.
Therefore, DMs act as influential interactional features rather than having a purely grammatical function. One of the most important features of DMs is to constitute and organize talk [...]. There is acknowledgement that DMs have a pragmatic meaning in discourse and consequently play a significant role in speakers’ pragmatic competence because they contribute to the pragmatic meaning of utterances. Thus, there is the view that DMs contribute to the interpretation of an utterance rather than to its propositional content [...]. There are a limited number of studies conducted on the instruction of DMs in EFL contexts. All studies revealed similar findings, namely explicit instruction has a positive impact on learners’ production. The main difference being that each study focused on a different genre: writing skills, oral production and listening comprehension, respectively. In all these studies the addition of a post-test would have been beneficial to measure the long-lasting effects of teaching DMs on learners’ acquisition. Rahimi and Riasati (2012) stated that using DMs will help learners to perform better in spoken skills. In English as a Second Language context (ESL) Jones (2009) carried out a small-scale study with two groups, both of which were given the same DMs using two different teaching approaches: illustration, interaction and induction (III) and presentation, practice and production (PPP). The results demonstrated that PPP had a considerable effect on learners’ use of the taught DMs [...].
Available in: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1101735.pdf. Acess on: Feb. 2, 2026.
According to the text’s perspective,
Gabarito comentado
Confira o gabarito comentado por um dos nossos professores
Gabarito: E
Fundamento decisivo: A chave estava na oposição feita pelo texto entre função pragmática/interacional e conteúdo proposicional ou função puramente gramatical; o trecho "rather than to its propositional content" elimina as alternativas que deslocam o foco para gramática ou conteúdo.
Tema central: função dos discourse markers
Análise das alternativas
A
Errada
Está errada porque inverte o critério expresso no texto. A passagem citada afirma que os DMs contribuem para a interpretação do enunciado, e não para seu conteúdo proposicional.
B
Errada
Está errada porque desloca a importância dos DMs para estrutura e função gramatical, quando o texto afirma exatamente o contrário: eles atuam como traços interacionais influentes, e não por uma função puramente gramatical.
C
Errada
Está errada por generalização indevida. O texto destaca relevância dos DMs no discurso falado, especialmente na fala não planejada, mas não afirma que todo enunciado oral e escrito precise necessariamente deles para ser inteligível.
D
Errada
Está errada porque contradiz diretamente o texto. O autor diz que a adição de um post-test teria sido benéfica para medir efeitos duradouros, o que indica que esse post-test não foi apresentado nos estudos mencionados.
E
Certa
A alternativa E corresponde à perspectiva do texto ao afirmar que os discourse markers têm importância principalmente por suas funções pragmáticas na interação oral. O texto os apresenta como elementos com significado pragmático no discurso e ligados à interpretação do enunciado, não ao conteúdo proposicional.
Pegadinha da questão
A confusão real era trocar função pragmática/interacional por conteúdo proposicional ou função gramatical; outra armadilha era ler a menção ao post-test como se ele tivesse sido aplicado.
Dica para questões semelhantes
- Quando o texto opõe explicitamente duas funções com estruturas como “rather than”, a correta é a alternativa que respeita essa oposição sem inverter os polos.
- Em questões de perspectiva do texto, priorize a tese central repetida em mais de um trecho, aqui: interação, pragmática e fala.
- Se o texto usa formulação hipotética como “would have been beneficial”, não trate isso como fato ocorrido.
Clique para visualizar este gabarito
Visualize o gabarito desta questão clicando no botão abaixo
Conheça nossos planos