Preview

Russian language at school

Advanced search
Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Functional characteristics of pedagogical discourse: pragmatic markers in school teachers’ speech

https://doi.org/10.30515/0131-6141-2026-87-1-68-76

Abstract

This article examines the pragmatic organisation of school discourse based on Russian language and lite-

rature classes in grades 5–7 of secondary schools. Particular attention is given to school teachers’ use of pragma tic markers (i.e., units that have lost their original lexical meaning and perform specific pragmatic functions in discourse) as a communicative strategy for holding dialogues in the classroom. Audio recordings of teachers’ speech were converted to text format using the Whisper automatic speech recognition system and then analysed to detect the presence of 60 pragmatic markers. The research results indicate that Russian language and literature teachers frequently use only about 50 % of the pragmatic markers typical of colloquial dialogic speech. Thus, this kind of speech can be classified as a distinct type of discourse. The most common functions of pragmatic markers in teachers’ speech are demarcation and metacommunication. A distinctive feature of teachers’ use of pragmatic markers is frequent combination of pragmatic functions. The unit itak (English so, thus) seems to play a prominent role in structuring pedagogical discourse. The subject taught and the teacher performance do not appear to significantly influence the distribution of pragmatic markers in teachers’ speech. Thus, pragmatic markers primarily enable teachers to structure discourse and manage the dynamics of classroom communication. They also perform an organising role in discussions aimed at developing new knowledge in students.

About the Author

V. O. Prokaeva
Saint Petersburg State University
Russian Federation

Valeria O. Prokaeva, PhD student, Research Engineer

Saint Petersburg



References

1. Karasik V. I. Language circle: personality,

2. Makarova D. V. The expressiveness of the teacher’s explanatory monologue as a means of emotional interaction in pedagogical discourse. Prepodavatel XXI vek. 2007;(2):157–162. (In Russ.)

3. Pragmatic markers in everyday Russian speech. Comp. and ed. by N. V. Bogdanova­Beglaryan. Saint Petersburg: Nestor­Istoriya, 2021. 516 p. [Pragmatic markers... 2021]. (In Russ.)

4. Guide to discursive words in the Russian language. Ed. by A. N. Baranov, V. A. Plungyan, E. V. Rakhilina. Moscow: Pomovskiy & Associates, 1993. 207 p. (In Russ.)

5. Razlogova E. E. On the specific uses of modal words: Filler words in Russian and French speech. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 9: Filologiya = Lomonosov Philology Journal. 2003;(6): 152–169. (In Russ.)

6. Sergomanov P. A., Bysik N. V. Teaching practices: research and its platformization in the digital age. Obrazovatelnaya politika = Educational Policy 2022:89(1):54–65. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/2078­838Х­2022­1­54­65.

7. Fung L., Carter R. Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogical settings. Applied Linguistics. 2007;28(3):410–439. (In Engl.) https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm030.

8. Husbands C., Pearce J. What makes great pedagogy? Nine claims from research. Research and development network national themes: theme one. UK: National College for Teaching and Leadership, 2012. P. 1–15. (In Engl.)

9. Omaggio A. C. The relationship between personalized classroom talk and teacher effectiveness ratings: some research results. Foreign Language Annals. 1982;14(4):255–269. (In Engl.)

10. Othman Z. The use of okay, right and yeah in academic lectures by native speaker lecturers: Their “anticipated” and “real” meanings. Discourse Studies. 2010;12(5):665–681. (In Engl.) https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610376365.

11. Vickov G., Jakupcevic E. Discourse Markers in Non­Native EFL Teacher Talk. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. 2017;7(4):649–671. (In Engl.) https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.4.5.

12. Walsh S. Investigating classroom discourse. concepts, discourse. Moscow: Gnosis, 2004. 389 p. London: Routledge, 2006. 192 p. (In Engl.) https:// (In Russ.) doi.org/10.4324/9780203015711.


Review

For citations:


Prokaeva V.O. Functional characteristics of pedagogical discourse: pragmatic markers in school teachers’ speech. Russian language at school. 2026;87(1):68-76. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30515/0131-6141-2026-87-1-68-76

Views: 19

JATS XML

ISSN 0131-6141 (Print)
ISSN 2619-0966 (Online)