Discourse markers in L2 learners' responses to teacher‐generated compliments during classroom interaction.

This study explores discourse markers (DMs) as they occur with compliment responses (CRs) in classroom interactions among Iranian learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). Using the tenets of conversation analysis, this paper draws on data from teacher–student interactions in several private language institutes in Iran. After audiorecording and transcription of the compliment–response exchanges, 148 DMs were identified within the responses. These sequences were analyzed to find out how DMs are combined with four distinct CR types; accept, mitigate, reject, and request interpretation. DMs were also identified and categorizedbased on their frequency of occurance and semantic features to allow comparison with previous findings. The results of this study revealed that Iranian EFL learners resorted to a limited number of DMs in responses to teacher‐generated compliments, with "linking" DMs being the most favorable type. Moreover, some DMs were accompanied by a specific CR type which helped the formation of an intended illocutionary force by the complimentee. It was also observed that a DM or a combination of these markers can stand alone as a legitimate and functional response to compliments, which further reveals that DMs can contribute to both semantic and pragmatic meaning. These findings clearly suggest that explicit teaching of DMs in English language classes should be taken into consideration, as these linguistic elements can provide learners with important tools to convey their intended meaning more smoothly and effectively. The Challenge: Research on discourse markers (DMs) among nonnative speakers of English is scarce. In addition, more often than not, DMs are investigated based on their frequency and type, but not how they can act as a pragmatic marker; that is, in accord with how they can convey a specific illocutionary force when embedded in speech acts such as complimenting, requesting, and apologizing, to name a few. In the same vein, communicative approaches have highlighted the influence of a discourse‐pragmatic conceptualization of linguistic elements, which refers to the use of language in context, and not in a vacuum. Moreover, research findings have not sufficiently explored the link between the linguistic elements and the social contexts accompanied them, especifically in the realm of DMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]