No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Abstract
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
... Fuller (2003) claims that text typology is crucial to determining marker's choice by native and non-native speakers, and that L1 and L2 use of discourse markers is related to speech context in terms of register, type of discourse and frequency rate. Text typologies that have received most attention from an L1/L2 contrastive perspective are spoken descriptions and narratives produced after a visual prompt (Aijmer 2004;Hasselgren 2002;Bustos Gisbert 2015), conversations and/or interviews (Hays 1992;Sankoff et al. 1997;Iglesias Moreno 2001;Romero Trillo 2002;Fuller 2003;Aijmer 2004;Hasselgren 2002;Müller 2005;Pascual Escagedo 2015) and, most recently, telephone conversations (Köch and Thörle 2019;Thörle 2016) Although DMs constitute one of the features distinguishing spontaneous speech from planned talk (Fox Tree and Schrock 1999), the DMs used in non-native unplanned monologic oral texts have not yet been analyzed in depth. It should be noted that numerous studies on the acquisition of DM has been carried out based on the LINDSEI corpus (Aijmer 2004(Aijmer , 2009(Aijmer , 2011Buysse 2007Buysse , 2009Buysse , 2011Buysse , 2012Buysse , 2017Gilquin 2008;Jendryczka-Wierszycka 2009) that contain, in addition to other text types, unplanned narratives. ...
... In this sense, not only are the simplest markers acquired earlier, they also get explicit attention in the context of the L2 classroom. According to Hays (1992), L2 learners' ability to use particular DMs is largely due to (a) how relevant markers are for developing ideas, and (b) the fact that they are usually explicitly taught (p. 29). ...
... Having said that, the difference between native and non-native speakers is not so much related to the DM functions as to the forms available to express them. Crucially, Propositional markers (i.e., conjunctions), but not discourse and modal markers, seem to be readily acquired by our L2 learners; in this sense, our results coincide with those reported by Hays (1992) for and, but and so by Japanese learners of L2 English. Several explanations may be offered for this finding: first, these are elements that are essential for the expression of (basic) ideas; secondly, they do have a clear equivalent in the learners' L1 and, finally, explicit teaching of these elements is done in the L2 classroom. ...
This study analyzes the use of discourse and modal markers by learners of Spanish as a foreign language (FL) in unplanned oral narratives. To do this, we compared two different corpora: narratives produced by native speakers and those produced by intermediate (B2) learners of Spanish (L1 Dutch). Following a functional approach to modal and discourse marking (Cuenca in The rise of modern genomics, Eumo, Vic, 2006; Cuenca, in Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description, 2013), we identified and classified markers according to three macro-functions (propositional, structural, and modal). On the one hand, the total frequency of markers as well as the frequencies of each function were compared in native and learner production. On the other hand, we considered coincidence and divergence in the use of all markers so that forms produced only by native speakers, forms produced only by learners, and forms equally used by both populations are identified. Results show that in the case of markers with a Propositional function, FL learners’ production very much resembles that of native speakers of Spanish. However, for Structural and Modal functions, non-native speakers do not seem to have acquired/incorporated markers that are more specific to informal registers, failing to assign the appropriate discursive values to sentence-level adverbs and connectors (sí `yes’, o ‘or’), or resorting to paraphrase strategies (e.g. cómo decir, cómo se dice ‘how do you say’). Our results indicate the need to include more instances of informal input in the FL classroom.
... The development of corpus linguistics has enabled datadriven quantitative and qualitative analyses of the use of DMs by native speakers (NSs) of English (e.g., Lenk, 1998;McCarthy & Handford, 2004). However, a relatively limited amount of research has been conducted concerning DM use in terms of second language acquisition, especially in the Japanese EFL context (see Hays, 1992;Shimada, 2011). ...
... Only a few researchers have empirically investigated DM use in the speech of Japanese English learners. Hays (1992) described the acquisition of DMs by Japanese college students of various English proficiency levels. His analysis of the spoken data revealed that although the markers and, but, and so were frequently used, you know and well were rarely uttered by Japanese students learning English. ...
... Moreover, Mann-Whitney tests showed that significant differences existed between the two databases in the frequency of DMs in the interpersonal category (U = 110, p = .040). Therefore, the results support those of previous studies (e.g., Hays, 1992;Miura, 2011;Shimada, 2011), in finding that there was a significant discrepancy between Japanese learners and NSs of English in the frequency of DMs. ...
In this study, the use of discourse markers (DMs) in the speech of Japanese learners of English was investigated. To explore the features of their DM use, corpora of nonnative and native English speakers’ speech were analysed using the methodology called Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis. A frequency analysis of DMs revealed significant differences between Japanese learners’ and native speakers’ speech, supporting earlier findings. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the learner corpus data suggest that Japanese learners may use the marker so more frequently than other nonnative English learners, while also using certain interpersonal or cognitive function markers such as you know, I mean, and just less frequently. The findings suggest the need for language instructors and materials writers to understand the characteristics of Japanese learners’ interlanguage and to provide them with appropriately designed DM input. 本研究は、日本人英語学習者の話し言葉における談話標識（discourse markers: DMs）の使用を調べたものである。日本人英語学習者のDMs使用の特徴を探るために、対照中間言語分析の手法に基づき、非英語母語話者と英語母語話者の話し言葉コーパスを分析した。まず、日本人英語学習者と英語母語話者の話し言葉におけるDMsの使用頻度を分析したところ、先行研究と同じく、大きな差が見られた。次に、非英語母語話者の話し言葉を量的・質的の両面で分析した結果、日本人英語学習者が、他の非英語母語話者に比べてsoを多く使用し、you know, I mean, justなどの対人関係的、認知的機能をもつDMsをあまり使用しないことが明らかになった。その結果は、教師や教材作成者が日本人英語学習者の中間言語の特徴を理解し、学習者に対して慎重にDMsをインプットしていく必要性があることを示唆している。
... 3.2 Previous studies on 'but' and 'so' by L2 learners Although but and so used by L2 English speakers are less studied than some DMs such as like, well, and you know, several scholars have published findings on their use. Hays (1992) found that Japanese speakers of English used and, but, and so at much higher rates than other markers such as because, well, I mean, oh, and you know. He labeled and, but, and so ideational markers because he claimed that these markers related to text not pragmatics. ...
... The literature review shows that but and so occur most frequently in the speech of both native and non-native English speakers (e.g. Fung and Carter 2007;Hays 1992). In addition, use of but by L2 speakers is under-studied in the literature. ...
... When equal variances are assumed, df is 13; when equal variances are not assumed, df is not 13. Hays (1992) found that but and so were the second and third most frequently used DMs by Japanese speakers of English. Fung and Carter (2007) found that Hong Kong speakers of English used but more frequently than native speakers of English. ...
Previous studies have found that but and so occur frequently in native and non-native English speakers’ speech and that they are easy to acquire by non-native English speakers. The current study compared ideational and pragmatic functions of but and so by native and non-native speakers of English. Data for the study were gathered using individual sociolinguistic interviews with five native English speakers and ten L1 Chinese speakers. The results suggest that even though the Chinese speakers of English acquired the ideational functions of but and so as well as the native English speakers, they underused the pragmatic functions of them. The findings indicate that there is still a gap between native and non-native English speakers in communicative competence in the use of but and so. The present study also suggests that speakers’ L1 (Mandarin Chinese) and overall oral proficiency in oral discourse affect their use of but and so.
... The development of corpus linguistics has enabled datadriven quantitative and qualitative analyses of the use of DMs by native speakers (NSs) of English (e.g., Lenk, 1998;McCarthy & Handford, 2004). However, a relatively limited amount of research has been conducted concerning DM use in terms of second language acquisition, especially in the Japanese EFL context (see Hays, 1992;Shimada, 2011). ...
... Only a few researchers have empirically investigated DM use in the speech of Japanese English learners. Hays (1992) described the acquisition of DMs by Japanese college students of various English proficiency levels. His analysis of the spoken data revealed that although the markers and, but, and so were frequently used, you know and well were rarely uttered by Japanese students learning English. ...
... Moreover, Mann-Whitney tests showed that significant differences existed between the two databases in the frequency of DMs in the interpersonal category (U = 110, p = .040). Therefore, the results support those of previous studies (e.g., Hays, 1992;Miura, 2011;Shimada, 2011), in finding that there was a significant discrepancy between Japanese learners and NSs of English in the frequency of DMs. ...
JALT Journal is the research journal of the Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT). It is published semiannually, in May and November. As a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting excellence in language learning, teaching, and research, JALT has a rich tradition of publishing relevant material in its many publications. Links • JALT Publications: http://jalt-publications.org • JALT Journal: http://jalt-publications.org/jj • The Language Teacher: http://jalt-publications.org/tlt • Conference Proceedings: http://jalt-publications.org/proceedings • JALT National: http://jalt.org • Membership:
... In a study which investigated the use of different types of discourse markers by Japanese learners of English in their first, second, or third year of study, Hays (1992) found that while discourse markers but, and, and so were used frequently, very few learners used well and you know. Hays speculates that there is a developmental order for the acquisition of discourse markers (cf. ...
... When all discourse markers are sorted by class level, the distribution of these discourse markers shows that -as suggested by previous research (Hays, 1992;Lee, 1999) -the average .020 a This is proficiency level of the student when the discourse markers were uttered. ...
... 13 The small collection of discourse markers in our study supports previous studies that showed that language learners use discourse markers less frequently than native speakers of the language (Weinert, 1998;Trillo, 2002). Also, previous studies showed that students with a higher proficiency in the learned language who are more acculturated to the L2 environment are more likely to use more discourse markers (Hays, 1992;Lee, 1999) and the trends of discourse markers usage in our data support this finding. Our results show that more proficient students, those in the upper level classes, use more of the focal discourse markers and they are also the students who it appears are more acculturated to English language speaking cultures of the US. ...
This study investigated the classroom interaction and in-home, bilingual interviews of 17 adult learners of English with no previous formal English language instruction in order to find the frequency of use and some functions of forms of language which are not explicitly taught: the discourse markers well, you know, and like. Previous findings in this area are based most often on data from more advanced language learners and do not present a clear picture of which learners use these markers more often or why. Results of the current study show that this set of learners uses few discourse markers. A review of the focal students’ background information (including language use patterns outside the classroom) suggests that the students who use more discourse markers may be the students who are more acculturated to the US. This suggests that the students who comprise the population at the data collection site, in general, remain, to some degree, isolated from English language culture in the US.
... The discourse indicators or markers employed by the Japanese EFL learners are documented by Hays (1992). The most prevalent markers, which have more referential significance, are and, but, and so, according to the frequency of the employed markers. ...
... It has been discovered that Ariel's (1994) grouping is particularly useful for explaining the acquisition of pragmatic markers. According to Hays (1992), and, but, and so pragmatic markers, which are on the clear end of the continuum, are the most often employed pragmatic markers by Japanese EFL learners. Advanced Finnish EFL learners and British speakers were compared by Nikula (1996: 89), who found that the non-native spokespersons found it simpler to use accurate markers, that possess fairly clear implications. ...
According to pragmatics, the method by which a language user interprets a sentence representation offered by grammar based on the surrounding context to ascertain the messages and affects the speaker intended to express. The goal in this paper is with a particular aspect of that procedure, namely, the aspects in which the syntactically coded meaning of a sentence serves as a clue as to the straightforward, literal signals that the speaker wanted to convey. Pragmatic markers answer to the impulsive, interactive, communal, cordial, and courteous components of speaking and are a crucial part of verbal competency. Since pragmatic markers play a variety of roles in distinct spoken language interpersonal settings, a variety of conceptual frameworks have been taken into account in describing and constraining their multi-functionality. Pragmatic markers are chiefly categorized into four types. Basic markers provide additional conceptual information beyond the hypothetical sense. Commentary pragmatic markers contain procedural definition that signals the communication as a remark and propositional meaning that covers the full message. Parallel markers add a full message to the basic message when signaling. Discourse markers that indicate how the fundamental message relates to the previous conversation and give the addressee guidelines for how to understand the speech to which the discourse marker is connected.
... To sum up this section, these reviewed studies and other similar studies such as those of Hays (1992), Müller, (2004) and Trillo (2002) focused on ESL learners who were still in the acquisition process of English, and didn't relate their use of DMs to their English proficiency level. In addition, these studies, except that of Warsi (2000), investigated the use of DMs in ESL essays without telling them that their ability to use DMs was under evaluation. ...
... The pattern of results obtained in this section is consistent with previous research (e.g., Hellermann & Vergun, 2007;Hays, 1992;Lee, 1999;Warsi, 2000) which concluded that students with higher level of proficiency in English are more likely to use more DMs accurately. Unlike these studies which didn't use any types of measurements to link their subjects' level of English proficiency to their use of DMs, the current study employed a the computerized English proficiency test to relate the subjects' English proficiency level to their acquisition rate of certain English CDMs. ...
This study examined the Arabic-English speakers' acquisition rate of certain contrastive discourse markers (CDMs): but, however, nevertheless, despite that/this, in contrast, instead, on the contrary, and on the other hand. The subjects were 26 Arabic-English speakers and 25 English native speakers. They were given a judgment test consisting of 30 multiple-choice items. In addition, a computerized English proficiency test was administered to the Arabic-English speakers. The results showed that Arabic-English speakers were far behind their English native counterparts in their correct scores on the CDMs judgment test. Unlike native speakers of English, the Arabic-English speakers lacked the knowledge of the core meanings of the English CDMs, the restrictions they impose on their occurrence between the two sequences they link, and their possible occurrences. Language experience did not contribute to the Arabic-English speakers' performance on the English CDMs judgment test.
... It occurs with a relatively high frequency in the ET subcorpus, however, with no instance in the CT sub-corpus. Such a discrepancy may be explained by the development order of acquisition (Hays, 1992;Cf. Hellermann and Vergun, 2007). ...
... Hellermann and Vergun, 2007). In a study on the use of different types of discourse markers by Japanese learners of English in their first, second, or third year of study, Hays (1992) found that while discourse markers but, and, and so are used frequently, very few learners use well. This led him to speculate that there might exist a developmental order for the acquisition of discourse markers. ...
This exploratory research compares the interactive metadiscourse use by native English-speaking English for academic purposes (EAP) writing teachers in the United Kingdom and their non-native counterparts in the Chinese contexts. The analysis is based on a self-compiled corpus, including two sub-corpora, which were composed of instructor contributions to classroom discourse: eight sessions of EAP lessons from the Chinese context and eight sessions of EAP lessons from the British context. Adopting an interpersonal model of metadiscourse, the two sub-corpora were compared to examine the similarities and differences in their use of interactive metadiscourse. Findings of the comparative analysis reveal that EAP teachers from both contexts rely heavily on transition markers and frame markers to organize their teaching but differ in particular linguistic realizations. This may indicate the impact of a range of factors such as logical preferences, development order of acquisition, discourse community, and speech community on teachers’ interactive metadiscourse strategies. The article concludes with a few implications for metadiscourse research in spoken academic genres.
... In the pedagogical settings of English as a foreign language, the variety of translations causes the student to have difficulty acquiring the discourse markers. The study on discourse markers in language education has been receiving attention (e.g., Fung and Cartner 2007;Hays 1992;Shimada 2014). Well is also discussed in English education and in the domains of language acquisition across many languages (e.g., in Swedish Aijmer 2011;in French Gilquin 2008;in Norwegian Hasselgren 2002a, 2002bin German Müller 2004, 2005in Spanish Romero Trillo 2002;in Japanese Hays 1992;Shimada 2014). ...
... Database of Spoken English Interlanguage (LINDSEI), Shimada (2014: 59) reports that Japanese and Chinese learners of English used the two markers well and really less frequently than other non-native English learners. Hays (1992) provides a similar result for well by investigating university students of different proficiency levels in Japan. Well was used by three of over thirty-six students whom he investigated, and most of the students used the discourse markers and, but, and so. ...
... This observation is echoed by Sankoff and her colleagues (1997), who emphasise that "discourse markers are of particular interest because they constitute an aspect of the language not taught in school" (Sankoff et al., 1997: 193). This view is in concert with Hays (1992), who suggests that DMs are acquired in a developmental order by EFL learners. Commenting on Hays (1992), Koczogh (2007) argues that those "DMs which have bigger semantic weight and are taught first and overtly are on the ideational plane and these are the ones that are present first in the speech of language learners" (Koczogh, 2007: 46). ...
... This view is in concert with Hays (1992), who suggests that DMs are acquired in a developmental order by EFL learners. Commenting on Hays (1992), Koczogh (2007) argues that those "DMs which have bigger semantic weight and are taught first and overtly are on the ideational plane and these are the ones that are present first in the speech of language learners" (Koczogh, 2007: 46). Arguably, the acquisition of DMs by EFL learners is influenced by several variables, such as a learner's sojourn abroad (Hellermann & Vergun, 2007), the level of bilingualism (Maschler, 2000), and a learner's exposure to the EFL teacher's input (Rose, 2005). ...
This article presents and discusses a computer-assisted case study of the use of discourse markers (further—‘DMs’) in oral discourse in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) by pre-service teachers in Norway. The aim of this case study is to explore the use of DMs by pre-service teachers (further referred to as ‘participants’) in EFL classroom by means of analysing the participants’ answers to the questionnaire that is designed to address the use of DMs in oral discourse in EFL after their school practice. The case study is informed by the view of DMs as “sequentially dependent elements that bracket units of talk” (Schiffrin, 1987: 31). The quantitative analysis of the participants’ questionnaires in statistical program SPSS version 18.0 (2009) indicates that the participants’ repertoire of DMs in their oral discourse in EFL classroom consists of such DMs as also, and, as, because, besides, but, especially, if, OK, or, so, and then. Additionally, the participants note that they do not use the following DMs during their teaching practice at school, e.g. indeed, moreover, and rather. These findings and their linguo-didactic implications will be further discussed in the article.
... Regarding the acquisition of DMs in foreign language contexts, a correlation has also been found between proficiency and native-like use (Hays, 1992;Lee, 1999). However, even high-proficiency learners underutilize DMs and/or fail to use them appropriately (Hellerman and Vergun, 2007;Romero Trillo, 2002;Weinert, 1998). ...
... However, even high-proficiency learners underutilize DMs and/or fail to use them appropriately (Hellerman and Vergun, 2007;Romero Trillo, 2002;Weinert, 1998). One explanation is the fact that, despite their acknowledged importance, DMs are not properly taught in school contexts or not taught at all (Hays, 1992;Müller, 2004Müller, , 2005Romero Trillo, 2002;Sankoff, Thibault, Nagy, Blondeau, Follonosa and Gagnon, 1997;Weinert, 1998). In the same vein but with the opposite effect, Müller (2004) found that German students of English overused some DMs when compared to native speakers of the language and she explained that this was probably connected to how the discourse marker "well" was presented in the English textbooks. ...
This study compares the linguistic abilities of CLIL and EFL learners regarding their need for repair sequences, their ability to avoid L1 use and their production of discourse markers while narrating stories in English. Data were collected from a CLIL and an EFL group (n. 15 and 11) of (Spanish/Basque) adolescents narrating a story twice over a two year period (ages 13 and 15). The analyses of the learners' production revealed differences between groups as well as changes in both groups over time. Repairs in the CLIL group were often generated in English and dropped over time unlike in the EFL group. Also, the CLIL learners incorporated the repairs gradually less often in their subsequent speech while the EFL learners did so more and more frequently suggesting two different attitudes towards the language. Finally, discourse markers were used in the L1 in both groups but the EFL group underutilized them.
... There is one important reason for DMs to be of particular interest in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Some of the markers such as y'know and like, may not be taught explicitly in language programs (Hays 1992;Hellermann and Vergun 2007). Therefore, a speaker's use of L2 DMs may be good indicators for measuring the effect of exposure to the target language community on his/ her L2 pragmatic competence (Sankoff et al. 1997). ...
... Both the L1 and two exposure groups used 'marking lexical or content search' function at the highest rate among the five functions. Hays (1992) mentions that y'know would not be expected to be used frequently by L2 English speakers unless learners are exposed to the target language discourse community. In my study, however, Peng in the lower exposure group used y'know at a high rate in the data, while the other four speakers in the lower exposure group did not use it at all. ...
Discourse markers (DMs) are of particular interest in the field of second language acquisition because a speaker’s use of L2 DMs may be good indicators for measuring the effect of exposure to the target language community on his/her L2 pragmatic competence. Previous studies lack detailed comparisons of the use of DMs in terms of frequency, variety, and function by a higher exposure group and a lower exposure group of L2 users. Previous studies lack native English speakers as baseline data as well. The current study investigates the effect of English exposure on the use of English DMs by Chinese speakers of English studying in the U.S. Data for the study were gathered using individual sociolinguistic interviews with five native English speakers and ten Chinese speakers of English at the University of Florida. The L2 exposure amount was assessed according to their total hours of natural/social English exposure since beginning to study English. Results showed that the higher exposure group used DMs at a higher rate and a wider variety than the lower exposure group. The L2 speakers acquired six native-like markers (
... However, the studies about the use of discourse markers in English by second or foreign language speakers are limited. Hays (1992), Trillo (2002), Müller (2004) and Fung and Carter (2007) are notable authors within this field of investigation who searched the use of discourse markers by different groups who speak another language as their first language. ...
... In fact, it can be argued that there is a tendencyof non-native speakers to use DMs in their presentations. This result also supports the previous studies on the DMs by Hays (1992), Lee (1999) and Hellermann&Vergun (2007), who claim that students with a higher proficiency in the learned language are more likely to use DMs. Although the participants of the current research corpus are not acculturated to the foreign language environment, they are upper level students of English and their use of DMs is significant, which supports Hellerman and Vergun's (2007) statement that students of higher proficiency levels use more focal DMs. ...
This study investigated the production of discourse markers by non-native speakers of English and their occurrences in their spoken English by comparing them with those used in native speakers’ spoken discourse. Because discourse markers (DMs) are significant items in spoken discourse of native speakers, a study about the use of DMs by nonnative speakers is necessary and guiding. Thus, the study was based on two specific corpora. First, a research corpus was composed using the transcriptions of the course presentations of twenty non-native undergraduate students studying at an English Language Teaching (ELT) program in Turkey. To compare the data, transcripts of student presentations of native speakers were attained with the help of MICASE Corpus. The occurrences of the discourse markers in both corpora were determined with frequency analysis. The results indicated that non-native speakers of English use a limited number and less variety of discourse markers in their spoken English. The study therefore highlights the importance of the need for raising non-native speakers' awareness of using discourse markers in their spoken English, and recommends implications for English language teaching.
... They have been studied in a variety of languages and examined in a variety of genres and textual or interpersonal contexts. These studies have generally focused on the analysis of DMs in classroom academic genres (Abdi 2002;Bunton 1999;Mauranen 1993), informal settings (Muller 2004;Romero-Trillo 1997), oral discourse (Hays 1992), listening comprehension (Eslami Rasekh and Eslami Rasekh 2007; Flowerdew and Tauroza 1995), reading (Abdollah Zadeh 2006; Jalilifar and Alipour 2007), and student writings (Connor 1984;Field and Yip 1992;Intraprawat and Steffensen 1995;Johnson 1992). One especially interesting area of investigation in studies of discourse markers is the corpus-based comparison of DMs in texts written by advanced Non-native Speakers (NNS) of English and Native Speakers (NS), which is where the present study enters the picture. ...
... They have been studied in a variety of languages and examined in a variety of genres and textual or interpersonal contexts. These studies have generally focused on the analysis of DMs in classroom academic genres (Abdi 2002;Bunton 1999;Mauranen 1993), informal settings (Muller 2004;Romero-Trillo 1997), oral discourse (Hays 1992Intraprawat and Steffensen 1995;Johnson 1992). One especially interesting area of investigation in studies of discourse markers is the corpus-based comparison of DMs in texts written by advanced Non-native Speakers (NNS) of English and Native Speakers (NS), which is where the present study enters the picture. ...
This article examines whether there are differences in the frequency of discourse markers (DMs) between Native English (NE) and Non-native English (NNE) corpora of political media discourse. Based on the grammatical-pragmatic perspective of discourse markers (Fraser, 2004), the discourse markers identified in the corpora were divided into four semantic categories: contrastive discourse markers (CDM), elaborative discourse markers (EDM), implicative discourse markers (IDM) and temporal discourse markers (TDM). The results revealed that: (i) in both corpora, implicative discourse markers (IDMs) and elaborative discourse markers (EDMs) have the lowest and highest frequency counts respectively, (ii) there are significant differences across the four types of discourse markers in both corpora, (iii) there is no significant difference in the aggregated frequency of discourse markers across NE and NNE political news discourse, and (iv) there are no relative NE/NNE frequency differences within each category of discourse markers. The findings point to the need for revisiting Kaplan's contrastive rhetoric, and provide evidence for the plausibility of a "universal discourse competence" in advanced NNE written discourse.
... Numerous studies deal with definitions and different functions of DMs by native speakers (e.g., Schiffrin, 1987 on English;Miracle, 1991 on Mandarin Chinese). Studies of DM use by L2 speakers are gaining more and more attention too (e.g., Aijmer, 2004;Fuller, 2003a;Fung and Carter, 2007;Hays, 1992;He and Xu, 2003;Hellermann and Vergun, 2007;Liao, 2009;Müller, 2005). In order to examine what factors might influence the use of DMs by L2 speakers, we need to examine the use of DMs in their L1 to see if some markers are similar semantically and functionally in both languages. ...
... The results of the present study also show that a wide variety of English DMs (e.g., like, just, y'know, I mean, sort of/kind of, etc.) were frequently used by the native English speakers, while not by the non-native English speakers. Instead, the non-native English speakers used other markers more often, for example, I think, yeah/yes, etc. Discourse markers are not taught explicitly in curriculum or classroom (Hays, 1992;Hellermann and Vergun, 2007;Sankoff et al., 1997); therefore, it is not easy for non-native English speakers to employ them in a native-like way. ...
This study investigates the effect of native language (Mandarin Chinese) on the use of English discourse markers by L1 Chinese speakers of English. Few previous studies have been conducted on this area. Data for the study were gathered using individual sociolinguistic interviews with five native English speakers and ten L1 Chinese speakers. Results show that three Chinese discourse markers were found to have some influence on their corresponding English expressions. The L1 Chinese speakers using the deliberative function of I think in medial or final position (while the native English speakers did not) may have transferred their use of I think from their L1 wo juede because wo juede can mark the deliberative meaning in medial or final position. Second, the L1 Chinese speakers used yeah/yes as a backchannel after the interlocutor's reaction “uh huh” or “ok” while the native English speakers did not. This use may be transferred from the corresponding Chinese expression dui because dui was found to have the same use in the data. Finally, ah was found to perform a clause-medial function (followed by self-correction) by the L1 Chinese speakers; however, the native English speakers did not use ah for that function. The corresponding Chinese expression a was found to have the same correction function.
... Correspondingly, research has shown that when these discourse markers are not used appropriately (or not used at all) the learner's talk is deemed as deficient (Dailey-O'Cain 2000;Hellerman and Vergun 2007;Müller 2004Müller , 2005. Empirical studies on the acquisition of pragmatic discourse markers have found that frequency of discourse marker use increases as learners' proficiency levels in the foreign language increase (Hays 1992;Hellerman and Vergun 2007;Lee 1999). Nonetheless, even high-proficiency learners underutilize them and/or fail to use them appropriately (Hellerman and Vergun 2007;Romero Trillo 2002;Weinert 1998). ...
... Nonetheless, even high-proficiency learners underutilize them and/or fail to use them appropriately (Hellerman and Vergun 2007;Romero Trillo 2002;Weinert 1998). One likely explanation is the fact that, despite their acknowledged importance, discourse markers are not taught in school contexts (Hays 1992;Müller 2004;Romero Trillo 2002;Sankoff, Thibault, Nagy, Blondeau, Follonosa and Gagnon 1997;Weinert 1998). Romero Trillo (2002 in a corpus-driven comparison of the use of discourse markers in native and non-native children and adults finds that proficient non-native speakers of English do not show a competent use of discourse markers. ...
This paper seeks to explore the effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) instruction on the oral production of 15 high-school learners who were recorded while narrating the same story at two different points in time (at age 13 and at age 15). The students were Basque-Spanish bilinguals and received both regular English as a foreign language (EFL) classes and CLIL classes in high school. CLIL is a methodological option with increasing acceptance in schools throughout Europe (Marsh and Wolf 2007) and consists of teaching different school contents (science, maths, art etc.) in the target language placing the teaching focus equally on both the content and the language. More specifically, this paper analyses the learner’s use of the first languages (L1s) (Basque and Spanish) and the learners’ morphosyntactic development while narrating a story. Our objective is to carry out a thorough analysis of the evolution of these aspects over the two year period by combining quantitative and qualitative analysis in order to get insights into the possible effects of CLIL instruction
... Postojanje razvojnog, sekvencijalnog redosleda u usvajaju DM sugeriše Hays (1992) u svojoj studiji o upotrebi markera od strane japanskih studenata na I-III godini studija engleskog kao L2: markeri na ideacionom planu i s većom semantičkom težinom (but, and, so) podučavaju se i upotrebljavaju pre nego oni koji su imaju uže pragmatičku, interakcionu funkciju (well, you know), a koji se u studentovoj produkciji javljaju u kasnijoj fazi. I druge studije ukazuju na postojanje sekvencijalnosti u usvajanju DM. ...
... Using frequency counts, Hu, Brown and Brown (1982) compared the use of cohesive devices by Chinese and Australian university students and found that the Chinese used more conjunctions, while the Australians engaged more lexical cohesiveness. Hays (1992) investigated the use of DMs by Japanese language learners and found that "but", "and" and "so" were frequently employed. Overall, these studies highlight the different ways in which students from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds employ cohesion devices in their writing, and the potential challenges they may face in creating cohesive and coherent texts. ...
Cohesion is deemed an indispensable component of writing, contributing to both the organisation of texts as well as the reader’s comprehension of the content. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the utilisation of discourse features in the academic writing of students. It specifically focuses on the cohesive devices employed by students and their level of awareness regarding cohesion and coherence. The research was conducted in the Dhanbad district, with a particular emphasis on technical students studying English for specific purposes. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the topic, this study also reviewed and analysed previous research that explored the usage of cohesive devices and the relationship between cohesion frequency and high-quality writing. This background research provided valuable insights into the existing body of knowledge and helped establish a foundation for the present study. The data analysis demonstrates that students possess the ability to incorporate various cohesive devices into their writing, indicating their awareness of discourse features. However, their usage is somewhat limited due to a restricted repertoire of discourse markers, which affected the range and diversity of cohesive devices employed in their writing. Overall, the paper sheds light on the significance of cohesion in academic writing, emphasising its role in organising texts and facilitating reader comprehension. It highlights the current state of students’ awareness and usage of cohesive devices in their writing, providing valuable insights for educators and curriculum developers to enhance students’ proficiency in this area.
... This lack of knowledge may be due to the multifunctional nature of well as it has 12 functions (as is revealed in this study) that operate at textual, interpersonal and interactional levels, and interpersonal and interactional functions constitute half of these 12 functions. The argument that discourse marker functions that operate at non-textual planes/levels such as interactional and interpersonal are expected later than textual functions (Hays 1992) may be the case in the use of well by Turkish speakers of English. Additionally, although the Turkish equivalents of well are said to have functions that are similar to well, these equivalents (i.e. ...
The present study focuses on the use of five spoken discourse markers, namely so, like, you know, I mean and well, by Turkish and British university students. Previous research shows that non-native speakers generally differ from native speakers in their use of discourse markers. However, the literature on Turkish EFL learners has been limited, and mostly restricted to planned and monologic speech. This gap was addressed in a quantitative and qualitative analysis of a Turkish learner corpus and the Louvain Corpus of Native English Conversation, both containing informal interviews. The Turkish students significantly underused four out of the five discourse markers examined. They used these items in functions that serve mostly at the textual domain, while the British students made use of a higher proportion of interpersonal and interactional functions. Individual functions of these discourse markers were discussed, and supported with direct quotations from the data.
... In an investigation on Japanese EFL learners' use of different types of DMs in three consecutive years of their study. Hays (1992) found that some DMs were used more frequently (but, and, so) than others (well, you know). This lead Hays to suggest that DMs are acquired in a developmental order. ...
The objective of the current study was to analyse the type and the frequency of discourse markers (DMs) used in Iranian scholars’ written articles published in English and to compare them with the published articles written by English native scholars. To this end, the DMs of 30 articles published by Iranian scholars were randomly selected and Fraser’s (2006) taxonomy was used to categorize and analyse the DMs used in them. Similarly, 30 articles written by native English scholars were selected from English journals and analysed in terms of their use of DMs. The data from both types of articles were compared to investigate the differences between Iranian scholars’ use of DMs compared to the native English scholars’ use of DMs in academic papers. The results indicated that from among the DMs, elaborative discourse markers were the type with the highest frequency used in Iranian scholars’ articles, followed by temporal, contrastive and implicative discourse markers used in Iranian scholars’ academic articles. This pattern of DMs usage differed significantly from the distribution of DMs by native English scholars in their published papers. The results further claimed that, on the whole, the mean of discourse markers used in Iranian articles was higher than that of native English articles.
... One of the upstanding discourse studies is classroom discourse which is not only various in its type but also numerous in terms of the number of studies. Hays [6] investigated oral classroom discourse, reading discourse has been investigated by several scholars among them are ABDOLLAHZADEH [7], discourse in lecture has also been studied by Dailey-O'Cain [8] & Pérez and Macià [9], and discourse in EFL writing has been investigated by [10]. Fraser [11] looked on the relationship between the use of discourse markers, and the students' essay writing score. ...
... DMs have been investigated in classroom oral discourse (Hays, 1992), informal settings (Lee, 1999;Muller, 2004;Trillo, 2002), reading (Abdullah Zadeh, 2006;Jalilifar & Alipour, 2007), lectures (Dailey-O'Cain, 2000;Perez & Macia, 2002), academic genres (Abdi, 2002;Blagojevic, 2003;Bunton, 1999;Longo, 1994;Mauranen, 1993;Ventola & Mauranen, 1993), and student writings (Connor, 1984;Field & Yip, 1992;Intraprawat & Steffensen, 1995;Johns, 1984;Johnson, 1992;Karasi, 1994;Norment, 1994;Steffensen & Cheng, 1996). These studies have targeted their use patterns of frequency. ...
Teachers’ capability in shaping learner contributions (SLC), as a part of Classroom Interactional Competence (CIC), has been evidenced to play a key role in opening up precious opportunities for learners’ involvement, and consequently learning. Yet, very few studies to date have explored how teacher education programs (TEPs) can develop teachers’ capability to SLC. To fill up this lacuna, a TEP, founded on the principles of dynamic assessment (DA), was implemented with four EFL teachers serving as participants. In so doing, teachers partake in one-on-one DA sessions, during which the teacher educator tried to assist them to develop a deepened insight into the strategies they adopted to shape their learners’ contributions. In such dialogic context, the feedback was calibrated to create and nurture the zone of proximal teacher development (ZPTD). Detailed microgenetic analysis of the teachers’ regular classrooms, a total of 36 hours, indicated a rise in the total frequency and variety of the SLC strategies each of them employed. However, it was found that teachers’ type of development differed greatly from one another. The results also manifested that interactional strategies are likely to be context-specific. Results are discussed and some pedagogical implications are presented.
... Most studies investigating pragmatic items in the speech of foreign language learners focus solely on students of English Linguistics in tertiary education (e.g. Hays, 1992;House, 1996;Pulcini & Furiassi, 2004;Gilquin, 2008;Mukherjee, 2009). However, as Kasper and Rose (2002, p. 219) point out, not all foreign language environments are the same, and each offers a different kind of learning opportunities for pragmatic strategies. ...
This paper investigates how foreign language learners use discourse markers (such as so, well, you know, I mean) in English speech. These small words that do not contribute much, if anything at all, to the propositional content of a message but modify it in subtle ways, are often considered among the last elements acquired in a foreign language. This contribution reports on close scrutiny of a corpus of English-spoken interviews with Belgian native speakers of Dutch, half of whom are undergraduates majoring in Commercial Sciences and half of whom are majoring in English Linguistics, and sets it off against a comparable native speaker corpus. The investigation shows that the language learners exhibit a clear preference for "operative discourse markers" and neglect or avoid "involvement discourse markers". It is argued that in learner speech the former take on functions typically fulfilled by the latter to a greater extent than in native speech, and that in some cases the learners revert to a code-switching strategy to cater for their pragmatic needs, bringing markers from Dutch into their English speech. Finally, questions are raised as to the place of such pragmatic devices in foreign language learning.
... There are some investigations related to the use of CDMs by EFL (English as Foreign Language) learners at abroad. For instance, Hays (1992,) discovered that EFL learners employ so frequently. Schleppegrell (1996) did a survey on the use strategies of because by EFL learners and found that EFL cannot use because suitably, that is the learners ignored the pragmatic differences of DMs in spoken English and written English. ...
Chinese English Majors mainly write argumentative compositions which itself is a kind of causal relations. Thereby, causal discourse markers, as one of the Discourse Markers can be employed in their argumentations to tighten the coherence and logical relations. Based on the results of other scholars’ previous research, this thesis applies questionnaires to investigate the reasons of using causal discourse markers in English majors’ oral and written English. According to the analysis of questionnaires, the reasons that caused English majors using of causal discourse markers are as follows: 1) lack of stylistic awareness; 2) intentionally avoiding making mistakes; 3) time factor (timed); 4) negative L1 transfer; 5) teachers’ influence. The results generated from the data analysis and discussions have also provided some pedagogical implications.
... Data on the interaction of proficiency level with the rate of PM use are potentially revealing if we consider the possibility that there might be a developmental path in the acquisition of PMs. Both Scarcella (1983) and Hays (1992) speculated that learners acquire and use only certain PMs at lower levels of proficiency before acquiring others to use in more varied contexts at higher proficiencies. This suggestion is supported by Hasselgreen's (2004) study: She proposed three hypothetical stages of development in the use of PMs that are exemplified by each group of speakers in her study (lower proficiency learners, higher proficiency learners, and native speakers). ...
This study investigates the use of pragmatic markers (PMs) by learners of English at varying proficiency levels. The study analyzes data from a university-level oral proficiency exam that categorized Chinese and Korean English-as-a-second-language (ESL) speakers into four proficiency levels and compares data with those of native speakers taking the same test. Findings indicate that PM use generally rises with proficiency level. The rates of PM use showed a dramatic increase between the highest and second-highest proficiency group. The highest proficiency ESL group used PMs at the same rate as native speakers. The study also found that the variety of different PMs used goes up steadily with proficiency level. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for understanding how second language learners? use of PMs develops.
... This study added empirical evidence to the relevance of pragmatic and metalinguistic features such as PMs to language learning. Nevertheless, these aspects of communicative competence are delayed and not easily picked up in a non-native speaking environment where exposure to their use in the discourse community is limited (Hays, 1992). In such a context, the major platform for learning and using the language is the classroom which is typically characterized by use of unnatural linguistic input that is overly well-formed, standardized and isolated, as well as lack of ''depictions of conversational data or with effective strategies for facilitating spoken communication in English'' (Burns, 1998:106). ...
This paper investigates the use of pragmatic markers by college learners of English in China. It compares the use of pragmatic markers in different contexts by students at different proficiency levels. An audio-video instrument called the Video Oral Communication Instrument was conducted to elicit ratable speech samples. Stenström's (1994) inventory of the most common lexical items in spoken interaction was adopted as the analytical model. Quantitative and qualitative analyses indicate that advanced students were more active and involved than intermediate students in the use of pragmatic markers, and showed a greater sensitivity to different types of simulated interactive context. The findings suggest that the proficiency level relates to the way pragmatic markers are used both generally and across contextual variations.
... Work has also been done on DMs in second language acquisition, although no study has addressed second language learners' use of DMs in different contexts. Hays (1992) analyzed a corpus of English interviews with native speakers of Japanese to see what DMs the speakers mastered. The highest numbers of speakers demonstrated ability to use and, but, and so (36, 33, and 25 speakers, respectively), which are ideational markers and, because they are crucial for developing ideas, are overtly taught. ...
This research analyzes the discourse marker (DM) use of native speakers and non-native speakers in two speech contexts, interviews and conversations. The findings indicate that native speakers use oh and well more in the conversation data, a difference which is also found in the non-native speaker data. The native speakers use like and y'know more frequently in the interview data, but the non-native speakers do not show a difference in the use of these markers across contexts. Instead, non-native speaker discourse is characterized by formulaic use of some DMs and an overall lower rate of DM occurrence.
... Variability of scope refers to "the extent to which a marker instructs the hearer/analyst to search the previous discourse or even go beyond the discourse to search their encyclopedic knowledge for a potential effect" (Bell, 2010(Bell, , p. 1925. Hays (1992), investigating the use of different types of DMs by Japanese learners of English in their first, second, or third year of study, found that while DMs 'but', 'and', and 'so' were used frequently, very few learners used 'well' and 'you know'. Hays speculates that there is a developmental order for the acquisition of DMs. ...
The aim of the present study was to investigate the frequency and the type of discourse markers used in the argumentative and expository writings of Iranian EFL learners and the differences between these text features in the two essay genres. The study also aimed at examining the influence of the use of discourse markers on the participants' writing quality. To this end the discourse markers used in two essays (an argumentative and an expository) written by the participants of the study were analyzed. The results indicated a hierarchy of use of discourse markers in both essay types with elaborative markers (mainly "and") the most frequently connectors used in both essay types. Next came contrastive and inferential markers; reason, exemplifier, and conclusive markers, respectively, were the least frequently used connectors. The results, moreover, indicated that, on the whole, the mean of discourse marker use was significantly higher in argumentative essays than in expository essays. As for discourse marker categories, contrastive and conclusive markers were used more frequently in argumentative than in expository essays. The results, nonetheless, showed that the use of discourse markers cannot be a significant predictor of the writing quality in argumentative and expository compositions of Iranian undergraduate EFL students.
... DMs have been investigated in classroom oral discourse (Hays, 1992), informal settings (Lee, 1999;Muller, 2004;Trillo, 2002), reading (Abdullah Zadeh, 2006;Jalilifar & Alipour, 2007), lectures (Dailey-O'Cain, 2000;Perez & Macia, 2002), academic genres (Abdi, 2002;Blagojevic, 2003;Bunton, 1999;Longo, 1994;Mauranen, 1993;Ventola & Mauranen, 1993), and student writings (Connor, 1984;Field & Yip, 1992;Intraprawat & Steffensen, 1995;Johns, 1984;Johnson, 1992;Karasi, 1994;Norment, 1994;Steffensen & Cheng, 1996. These studies have targeted their use patterns of frequency. ...
The aim of this study was to investigate discourse markers in descriptive compositions of 90 Iranian students who were selected from two universities. Without any instruction, they were given a topic to write a descriptive composition per week for 8 weeks. 598 compositions were collected, and they were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively by three raters following Fraser's (1999) taxonomy of Discourse Markers. Findings showed that students employed discourse markers with different degrees of occurrence. Elaborative markers were the most frequently used, followed by inferential, contrastive, causative, and topic relating markers. There was a direct and positive relationship between the quality of the compositions and the number of well-functioned discourse markers. Results also revealed statistically significant differences between the use of discourse markers and composition quality in the groups. Graduate students used more discourse markers, and this led to more cohesive texts.
... DMs have been investigated in classroom oral discourse (Hays, 1992), informal settings (Lee, 1999;Muller, 2004;Trillo, 2002), reading (Abdullah Zadeh, 2006;Jalilifar & Alipour, 2007), lectures (Dailey-O'Cain, 2000;Perez & Macia, 2002), academic genres (Abdi, 2002;Blagojevic, 2003;Bunton, 1999;Longo, 1994;Mauranen, 1993;Ventola & Mauranen, 1993), and student writings (Connor, 1984;Field & Yip, 1992;Intraprawat & Steffensen, 1995;Johns, 1984;Johnson, 1992;Karasi, 1994;Norment, 1994;Steffensen & Cheng, 1996. These studies have targeted their use patterns of frequency. ...
English Language Teaching, Vol.1, No.2, December 2008, all in one file
The main purpose of this study is to investigate the syntactic and prosodic features of discourse markers (henceforth DMs) used by native and non-native speakers of English. Towards this end, an analysis model has been developed. It includes some of the DMs used and their functions. The proposed analysis model also includes the syntactic features such as types and positions of DMs, prosodic features, which incorporate types and functions of tones, and acoustic features associated with the DMs. The analysis model has been applied to native and non-native spoken discourse samples. The first sample includes two unstructured interviews between five participants (three native and two non-native speakers of English), whereas the second sample includes other two interviews between five non-native speakers of English. Based on the results obtained from analysing such data, it is concluded that: (1) syntactically, like native speakers, non-native speakers have the choice to use the DMs at any position in discourse, (2) prosodically, non-native speakers tend to be more assertive and affirmative in their use of DMs than the native speakers of English, and (3) when non-native speakers converse with each other, the prosodic features of some of their DMs seem to be nearly the same in terms of pitch change/direction and duration. In the light of such findings, it is recommended that a list of DMs including their 2 functions, syntactic and prosodic features can be developed and incorporated as part of a speaking skill program for developing EFL students' spoken language proficiency.
This study examines the functional variability of so in essays written by 200 L1 English speakers (ENSs) and 400 Japanese EFL learners (EFLs). Using quantitative and qualitative approaches, this study elucidates discourse marker usage of so in each group, thereby establishing the normative patterns of use among ENSs and the features specific to L2 English writers. The findings suggest that ENSs use so strategically as a preface to stance-taking by carefully selecting and adjusting the information to be established as common ground with the reader. EFLs use so in a manner distinctly different from ENSs, displaying varying degrees of understanding and difficulty in utilising the word’s discoursal properties. The study concludes that it is important for L2 English learners to learn the uses of so not only as a connective marker with resultative meaning but also as a resource for projecting stance and assertion.
Yes and no allow an easy management of talk-in-interaction and, unlike other classes of discourse markers, occur from early stages of L2 acquisition onwards (Perdue 1993; Bernini 1996, 2000; Andorno 2008a for L2 Italian). However, problems in their use can arise in replies to negative utterances such as “Didn’t you hear the news?”, “You didn’t read the news, did you?”, as in this case speakers have to choose one of the two conflicting values possibly encoded by the particles — either asserting a positive/negative polarity for the proposition at issue or confirming/reversing the negative polarity conveyed by the previous speaker. Since Pope (1973), a distinction has been drawn between languages with polarity-oriented particles, such as English yes/no , and languages with agreement-oriented particles, such as Japanese hai / iie . The study compares the use of Italian sì/no and other routines such as echo-constructions in native speakers and L2 learners with either a polarity-oriented or an agreement-oriented L1. Results show that cross-linguistic influence can affect the use of sì/no in L2, as pointed for other domains of pragmatic competence (Gass & Selinker 1992; Kasper 1992; Jarvis & Pavlenko 2008). Results further show that, even when learners lack pragmalinguistic competence in the use of particles, they treat replies of confirmation or rejection differently, thus revealing sociopragmatic sensitivity similar to that of native speakers in recognising the markedness of disagreement replies.
In this book, Adolphs and Carter explore key approaches to work in spoken corpus linguistics. The book discusses some of the pioneering challenges faced in designing, building and utilising insights from the analysis of spoken corpora, arguing that, even though writing is heavily privileged in corpus research, the spoken language can reveal patterns of language use that are both different and distinctive and that this has important implications for the way in which language is described, for the study of human communication and for the field of applied linguistics as a whole.
The pragmatic marker well has received a lot of attention in studies on native speaker discourse and has served as an interesting testing ground for theories accounting for the multifunctionality of pragmatic markers. In the rapidly expanding body of research on pragmatic markers in learner English well has also claimed a prominent position, but so far no comparison has been made of how learners of varying mother tongue backgrounds use well. This article offers a Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis (cf. Granger 1996) in scrutinizing well as a pragmatic marker in the Dutch, French, German, Spanish and Chinese components of the Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage (LINDSEI) and comparing these results with Aijmer's (2011) findings for the Swedish component of LINDSEI and a comparable native speaker corpus. Well is shown to be more prevalent overall in each of the learner corpora than in the native corpus, except for the Chinese (in which well displays a marginal incidence). This overall discrepancy between the learners and native speakers only holds for the speech management functions of well; its attitudinal functions are significantly less common in the learners' discourse than in the native speakers'. The observed differences are attributed to a complex interplay of factors, involving, among others, the learners' limited inventory of pragmatic markers, their extensive exposure to well, L1 interference, and the speech context.
As far as the communicative nature of writing is concerned, cohesion is regarded as an essential textual component both in creating organized texts and rendering the content comprehensible to the reader. Many researchers have explored the connection between the use of cohesive devices (CDs) and the quality of the writing. To gain more insight into this area, this study reviewed some studies focusing on the use of CDs and the relationship between the number of CDs and writing quality. The analysis of collected data from different EFL/ESL researchers has shown that the learners were able to use various CDs in their writings. Additionally, the study highlighted some of the cohesive problems in writing and the possible pedagogical implications for teachers. The purpose of the present study is to investigate CDs used in different genres composed by learners from around the globe and the relationship between the use of CDs and quality of their essays. The findings also provide insight into the abilities of native and nonnative writers to convey their ideas into written forms. The results of this research will provide us with insights into the general pattern of CDs in EFL/ESL learners' academic and nonacademic writing. This would help to identify students' problems in using CDs, for instance, overuse or underuse of certain categories, and, thereby, modify teaching writing and incorporate a more precise plan for teaching the appropriate use of CDs.
This paper investigates the use of the discourse marker by German EFL speakers as compared to its use by American native speakers (NS). The analysis is based on 70 conversations in which pairs of university students retold and discussed a short silent movie they had been shown. All instances of in these conversations were categorised according to the function assumed in the interaction. Of the twelve functions found in the data, nine were used more by the EFL than by the native speakers. The EFL speakers also used more frequently than native speakers did in comparison to the discourse marker , especially in comparable functions of the two markers. Several possible explanations for these results are discussed in the paper; the most likely ones are the respective frequencies of and in German textbooks of English and an overuse of in an attempt to avoid the German-sounding .
The Bulgarian discourse marker xajde (‘come on/let's/why don’t we,…’) is analyzed in terms of speech act and politeness theory, focusing primarily on its hedging functions in informal symmetrical discourse. Xajde is usually phonologically reduced, utterance-initial, and has “social and/or expressive” rather than “referential or descriptive functions” [Schiffrin, Deborah, 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge [reprinted 1996]]. Analysis of informal spoken and e-mail data shows that xajde: (1) prefaces action-initiating utterances such as orders/requests, advice/suggestions, warnings, offers, promises, etc.; (2) marks leave-taking as a pre-closing or closing device; (3) accompanies agreements or (4) expressions of surprise. Basically, xajde is a redundant but effective politeness marker or a hedge, which minimizes the imposition on hearer's autonomy in action-initiating utterances, or minimizes a potential threat to other speakers’ positive face in responses to their utterances. These functions reflect relationships among speakers from closely-knit networks, their need to maintain bonds, and focus on emotions and empathy. Using xajde appropriately can bridge the gap between sounding coercive and empathizing with people, and between being rude and being polite. Overusing the marker or using it with imperative intonation, however, can express impatience and increase pressure on the hearer.
Pragmatic markers are an important part of the grammar of conversation and not simply markers of disfluency. They have a number of functions that help the speaker to organise the conversation and to express feelings and attitudes. Advanced EFL learners use frequent pragmatic markers such as
well
. However their use of
well
diverges from the native speaker norm. The present study uses data from the Swedish component of the LINDSEI corpus and its native speaker counterpart (LOCNEC) to examine similarities and differences between native and non-native speakers. The overall picture is that Swedish learners overuse
well
, although there are considerable individual differences. Thus learners use
well
above all as a fluency device to cope with speech management problems but underuse it for attitudinal purposes. Pragmatic markers cannot be taught in the same way as other lexical items but it is important to discuss how and where they are used.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.