Talk:Discourse marker

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 7 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pt9913a. Peer reviewers: Otkri, Lauratoner01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2018 and 3 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shannibal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Technobabble

Removed to talk, this paragraph is so technical, it makes no sense to the average person:

Discourse markers are usually polyfunctional elements. Discourse markers can be understood in two ways. Firstly, as elements which serve to the union of utterances (in this sense they are equivalent to the term connective). Secondly, as elements which serve to a variety of conversational purposes .

Inclusionist (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Huge amount of material deleted

The anon User:142.1.147.229 deleted a huge amount of material, which was added by User:Zpunja :

Origin of the Principles of Epistemology/Knowledge Building Discourse Markers: The term Discourse Markers for analyzing Knowledge Building discourse was first discovered by then a PhD Candidate by the name of Zahra Punja who in November 2004 formulated her theory of epistemology while trying to understand the most effective method of analyzing sophisticated and complex medical discourse generated in an online Knowledge Building Environment called Knowledge Forum. Dr. Punja reviewed older articles on reading and writing published by Marlene Scardamalia, Carl Bereiter, Pamela Paris and other educational researchers specializing in this area of specific research. She discovered interesting elements from the literature that served the purpose of marking text and identifying examples and instances of Knowledge Building. She then reorganized and reclassified the ideas from various sources and formulated her theory which she called "Principles of Epistemology". Her theory of Knowledge Building Discourse Markers was an adaptation of Scardamalia & Bereiter’s (1993) theory of Knowledge Building and Scardamalia’s (2002) twelve Knowledge Building Principles. Principles of Epistemology/Knowledge Building Discourse Markers: A common criticism prevalent amongst educators is that the Knowledge Building Principles are complex, abstract and hard to remember due to the complex language and sheer quantity of them (i.e. 12). It is clear that the language used by Scardamalia and Bereiter is quite poetic in nature, however, researchers need to understand and appreciated that the language has been purified to its most refined state over the decades of theory building and improvement. Nevertheless, the need to make this theory understandable to new researchers is ever present and required in order for people to partake fully in knowledge work. In this outline, Principles of Epistemology Discourse Markers are used synonymously with Knowledge Building Discoruse Markers, however expressed hopefully in a more simplier form. A way to effectively address this criticism is to attempt to further purify this process of knowledge work. Thus, the paragraphs below provide an alternate approach developed by Zahra Punja in 2004 which explain Knowledge Building by proposing a set of nine Principles of Epistemology (POE), using the word KNOWLEDGE as the mnemonic to remember them. These principles are a modification of Scardamalia's (2002) 12 Knowledge Building Principles. The proposed nine Principles of Epistemology using the word KNOWLEDGE as the mnemonic are as follows: Knowledge advancing across communities and frontiers, New and original idea generation and development, Ongoing revisions and idea improvement, Written meta-cognitive reflections and explanations, Laudable initiatives undertaken by community members, Evidenced-based contributions, Democratic planning and decision-making, Generation of contextual understanding and solutions, and finally, Emergent assessment & self-governed monitoring. In essence, these proposed set of nine principles of epistemology aim to make Knowledge Building’s distinct properties easily recognizable and therefore easy to judge as desirable. In addition to this, this summary also provides a set of Knowledge Building Discourse Markers to help practitioners identify specific incidences of knowledge work in their discourses. As such, Discourse Markers like Biological Markers are designed to provide desirable literary techniques and identify desirable meta-structures present in the discourse analysis for ideal knowledge work to happen. In the paragraphs to follow, an explanation of each of the nine Principles of Epistemology and its respective Discourse Markers adapted from Marlene Scardamalia's decades of research on reading and writing. The first principle of epistemology is Knowledge Advancing across Communities and Frontiers which can be defined as inter/intra community knowledge advancement or in other words sharing and advancing knowledge between and within communities and professions, within and across borders. This principle is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Idea Diversity, Symmetric Knowledge Advancement and Community Knowledge principles from her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) framework. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, it has been proposed that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in - learners sharing their diverse interpretations or experience and evidence, communities building off each others advances, members between and within communities initiate new initiatives that advance the frontiers of their profession and members and communities co-authoring ideas, discoveries and inventions that are generated to further generate collective wealth as the Discourse Markers. These Discourse Markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in students enjoying planning as an activity, where personal biases are recognized, where there is an attempt to persuade or get reader to think, where learners are reconciling competing ideas and attempting to resolve opposing points. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided students grouping for basic orienting information, relating only to personal experiences and noting pros and cons. It seems that all the points Scardamalia has argued in her three knowledge building principles (2002) can be amalgamated under this one principle of epistemology. The second principle of epistemology is New and Original Idea Generation and Development which can be defined as the development of a timeless and profound ideas that apply to many contexts and situations. This idea is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Rise Above principle from her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) framework. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, it is suggested that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in sophisticated theorizing whereby new ideas are developed from understanding difficult text and resisting opposing arguments or in other words, as well as a new perspective/way at looking at an old phenomenon, where an idea that solves problems unlike any idea before, as the Discourse Markers. These discourse markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in graphical literacy (theoretical model understanding and development), creative synthesis of diverse ideas, strong ideas that apply across time, space and context, advance toward becoming an expert on the topic in terms of knowledge gains and expert problem solving abilities, conceptual understanding, educationally valuable knowledge, a distinctive viewpoint on the topic as well as a significant contribution to knowledge base. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided students forming polemic, overstated, dogmatic and simplistic arguments, reproducing conventional wisdom, demonstrating typical personal reactions or familiar scenarios and showing evidence of minor or no contribution to their knowledge base. As such, it is believed that all the points that Scardamalia has argued through the decades can be reorganized under this principle of epistemology. The third principle of epistemology is Ongoing Revisions and Idea Improvement which could be defined as the process of purifying the text or as some philosophers have called it, engaging in the process of "alchemy". This idea is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Improvable Ideas and Pervasive Knowledge Building principles from her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) theory. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, it is suggested that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in a continual revision of ideas and simultaneously engaging in elaborating-and-simplifying to get at the essence of an idea, as the discourse markers. These discourse markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in using goals as a criterion for selecting ideas, elaborating and reformulating goals, ability to sustain planning, critically examining past decisions and anticipating difficulties. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided students producing first drafts as final drafts, a lack of revisions or in other words, one time only development and production of an idea. As such, it is believed that all the points Scardamalia has argued in her two knowledge building principles (2002) can be regrouped under this principle of epistemology. The fourth principle of epistemology is Written Metacognitive Reflections & Explanations which can be defined as the process of making thinking explicit in a written form where it can be revised and scrutinized through peer review. This idea is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Knowledge Building Discourse principle from her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) theory. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, it is proposed that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in expert thinking and problem solving is made explicit in written form, and where the writing process reveals gaps in knowledge, as the relevant discourse markers. These discourse markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in producing attention-getting facts, ideas, expressions or points, especially in opening or closing sentences, demonstrating evidence of the beginnings of a dialectical process, understanding the function of planning cues (i.e. scaffolds), discourse having a distinctive manner of presentation, focus on a central idea or point, a definite line of thought (even if rambling) runs through text, an elaborated statement of position is provided, mature note-making as well as a reflective essay like character. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided students producing discourse that has a character of an encyclopedia article (i.e. monotone presentation of facts presented as unchanging, fixed, permanent, without reference sited, devoid of personality or individual expression), knowledge telling or egocentric self expression, vacuous statements such as “it depends”, “it’s good”, “it’s bad”, “they should” and “they shouldn’t” , a list structure as well as an unfocused collection of subtopics. As such, Punja (2004) argues that all the points Scardamalia has argued in this knowledge building principle (2002) can be reorganized under this new principle of epistemology. The fifth principle of epistemology is Laudable Initiatives Undertaken by Community Members which can be defined as noteworthy or praiseworthy efforts generated at the grass-roots level by community members taking responsibility. This idea is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Community Responsibility and Epistemic Agency principles in her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) theory, as the members are not only taking charge and responsibility, but are initiating laudable initiatives. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, it is proposed that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in responsible and selfless communal behavior that is undertaken to advance ones’ own or better another community, as well as heroic efforts undertaken to resolve real world problems and crisis, as the discourse markers. These discourse markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in attempting to convey interestingness to the team, active pursuit of knowledge, and student generated questions which call for explanations. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided students giving factual explanations. As such, Punja (2004) theorizes that all the points Scardamalia has argued in her two knowledge building principles (2002) can be reorganized under this principle of epistemology. The sixth principle of epistemology is Evidenced-based Contributions which can be defined as using research to substantiate contributions to the community. This idea is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Constructive Uses of Authority principle in her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) theory. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, it is proposed that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in citing authoritative sources to support arguments where contributions are shared to help advance community understanding as the discourse markers. These discourse markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in reading and working with difficult text, deeply comprehending difficult text, engaging in research and complex searching for causal or explanatory information to further their understanding of the problem, coming up with a satisfactory answer to a significant challenge requiring integration of complex and possibly divergent information from multiple reference sources as well as reflective use of information sources to answer questions one doesn’t know the answer to. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided students need to rely on unsupported statements of opinion. As such, Punja (2004)believes that these points Scardamalia has argued through the decades can be reorganized into this principle of epistemology. The seventh principle of epistemology is Democratic Planning and Decision-Making which can be defined as all members from all levels of the hierarchy taking responsibility to advance the collective understanding. This idea is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Democratization of Knowledge principle in her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) theory. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, it is proposed that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in members on all levels of the hierarchy contributing to the higher level communal goals, as the discourse markers. These discourse markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in teachers and managers taking interest in pursuing student generated ideas and questions. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided executive level planning and decision making or solely by people outside the immediate context. As such, Punja (2004) believes that these ideas of Scardamalia can be reorganized under this new principle of epistemology. The eighth principle of epistemology is Generation of Contextual Understanding and Solutions which can be defined as focusing on developing context-specific understanding of the problems affecting the context or situation or culture or people, as well as finding solutions to these real problems or issues. In Scardamalia’s original theory, deepening understanding appears, on a superficial level of understanding of the Knowledge Building theory, to have more significance or importance than finding solutions. This is however, untrue. The search for solutions and discovering solutions is motivated and generated by a deepened understanding of the problems and issues. This debate again is similar and consistent with Scardamalia & Bereiter’s Knowledge Building theory which emphasizes idea improvement at all levels. Furthermore, the process of deepening understanding is a process-driven activity and as given the fact that product is part of the process, the product in this case, the solution, is a necessary part of the equation. This idea is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Real Idea, Authentic Problems principle in her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) theory. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, it is proposed that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in learners initiating questions and problems that interest them, ideas emerging from real events that have real feelings and consequences that generate from them as well as where deepened understanding motivates the search and quest to solve real world problems, thereby helping to find desirable solutions for the context, as the relevant discourse markers. These discourse markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in demonstrating wonder (i.e. reflecting curiosity, puzzlement, skeptism, or a knowledge-based speculation) , knowledge-based (questions stimulated by events such as reading a text or based on an interest of the student and spontaneously emerges from an effort to understand the world, personal involvement/experience and feelings integrated with more objective information or interest in topic, and finally evidence of uncertainty, questioning or speculation demonstrated suggesting an effort to get at the truth of the matter or to resolve problems involved in the issue. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided the generation and focus on text-based (questions prompted by and about the text). As such, the discourse markers for this new emphasis on solution generation from deepened understanding should indicate the potential for or better evidence of an advance in learners initiating questions and problems that interest them, ideas emerging from real events that have real feelings and consequences that generate from them and where deepened understanding motivates the search and ability to successfully solve real world problems, and effectively overcomes the lack of understanding of the culture and its unique needs and the need for standardized protocols and procedures that do not and have not applied to local contexts. This Punja (2004) believes is what constitutes the ideas under this new principle of epistemology. Finally, the ninth principle of epistemology is Emergent Assessment & Self-Governed Monitoring which can be defined simply as emergent assessment that is developed in context by the community members who engage in continuous self evaluation and monitoring and seek external evaluation by people outside their domain. This idea is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Embedded and Transformative Assessment principle in her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) theory. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, it is proposed that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in members engaging in continual self and other internal and external assessment and evaluation, as the relevant discourse markers. These discourse markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in increased ability to monitor and analyze thinking, and demonstrate recognition of problems at the planning level. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided time-fixed standard assessment tools not aimed to measure critical thinking, problem solving or deepened understanding variables, instead focusing on the acquisition and temporary retention of content and outdated facts. Thus, Punja (2004) believes that these ideas should be reorganized under this new principle of epistemology which attempts to make this process of assessment more explicit. In conclusion, this new approach to explaining Knowledge Building is aimed at making the abstract ideas of knowledge work more apparent and acceptable to resistant cultures. By making the ideas about knowledge building more explicit and easy to remember, knowledge workers can more easily partake in monitoring and regulating their own behavior, thereby maximizing their contribution to society. == External links == Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. USA. Punja, Z. (2004). Nine Principles of Epistemology and its Discourse Markers to Advance Understanding of Knowledge Building in the Medical Profession. Paper presented to PhD Thesis Committee, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. University of Pennsylvania - Annotation guidelines - Filler Type : Discourse Marker (DM) Project Spotlight - Dialogue Design Guide

Inclusionist (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This had all quite rightly been deleted, as it was irrelevant to the article and related to the poster's own doctoral research. I have once again deleted this useless section. Robertoalencar (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My English teacher wrote Discourse Marker next to the word "Another". I am very confused :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.80.213 (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

examples?

please give some examples of use in conversation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.69.107 (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Discourse markers do have meaning

The statement that discourse markers do not change the meaning of a sentence or have a somewhat empty meaning is based on a very narrow definition of 'meaning' and, if it shouldn't be removed completely at least needs to be qualified. The sentences "Oh, he's a real dick", "Actually, he's a real dick", "I mean, he's a real dick" all have distinct meanings in the sense that they relate the speaker's knowledge or assumptions of the recipient's attitude toward the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.9.37 (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In terms of the truth or falsity of an assertion, nothing changes when different discourse markers are used. They only indicate a speaker's feeling towards a statement, and don't alter the meaning of the assertion. For example: 'well, he's terrible at football', 'Umm, he's terrible at football'. In 'Actually, he's a real dick', 'actually' is not used in the sense of him physically being a dick, but rather the speaker feeling strongly about his assertion. Likewise 'I mean' and 'oh' don't alter the substance of the statement that 'he is a real dick'. They are clearly not the same as 'I am saying that he is literally a penis'--whatever that means. Although I prefer Swan's definition which I posted, I don't think it's controversial to say that discourse markers are empty of meaning; or at least quantifiable meaning. 189.165.69.185 (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review: Wkim456

I don't think there is enough information here. True its very technical, but its also so brief. I think more information should be added about discoure markers usage and origins. Especially the origins, I would like to know when this term was first invented and by who and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkim456 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Camaraderie Discourse Marker?

I specifically have in mind "dude" as a discourse marker. I name it a camaraderie discourse marker (which falls within interpersonal usage?) because of this paper: http://www.pitt.edu/~kiesling/dude/dude.pdf. But I'm not married to term "camaraderie marker," so I welcome any ideas or insights for this kind of discourse marker. The paper asserts: "Indeed, the data presented here confirm that dude is an address term that is used mostly by young men to address other young men; however, its use has expanded so that it is now used as a general address term for a group (same or mixed gender), and by and to women. Dude is developing into a discourse marker that need not identify an addressee, but more generally encodes the speaker’s stance to his or her current addressee(s). The term is used mainly in situations in which a speaker takes a stance of solidarity or camaraderie, but crucially in a nonchalant, not-too-enthusiastic manner. Dude indexes a stance of effortlessness (or laziness, depending on the perspective of the hearer), largely because of its origins in the 'surfer' and 'druggie' subcultures in which such stances are valued. The reason young men use this term is precisely that dude indexes this stance of cool solidarity."

My questions succinctly: Is there an existing term that defines the "camaraderie discourse marker" described above. If yes, please provide the term and definition; if no, what term and definition should we use? Are there other examples (English) of this marker? I expect so. Gnarzikans (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, "Dude" often functions as an elliptical discourse marker that signals turn-taking, a topic this article neglects so far. This article has been identified as "Start Class," so there's a chance someone will expand it accordingly. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 12:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Origin of the term

I don't know who coined the term discourse marker, but it certainly wasn't Deborah Schiffrin. A cursory web search shows Chaudron & Richards used the term in 1985, and according to Google books, the term was coined in 1956. The now-deleted link to the Deborah Schiffrin obituary is clearly erroneous. So too is the initial publication date of her book, which was in 1987, not 1988, which was a second publishing. The most that can be accurately said about Schiffrin in the lede is that she popularized the term with her 1987 book. It's not particularly noteworthy that Schiffrin had earlier published her use of the term in 1982, which wasn't as acclaimed as her 1987 publication. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)