Content uploaded by Mohammed Nasser Alhuqbani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohammed Nasser Alhuqbani on Dec 28, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
1
11
1
c
cc
c
Ayn
AynAyn
Ayn
, Journal of
, Journal of, Journal of
, Journal of the Saudi Association
the Saudi Association the Saudi Association
the Saudi Association
of Languages and Translation
of Languages and Translationof Languages and Translation
of Languages and Translation
The Acquisition of English Contrastive Discourse
Markers by Arabic-English Speakers1
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani2 (Ph.D.)
Key words: Discourse analysis, Discourse markers, contrastive discourse
markers, language acquisition, Arab learners of English
Abstract: 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.
1 I would like to thank Professor Bruce Fraser, my academic adviser at Boston University
2000-2004, for introducing me to discourse markers and providing me with feedback
about his research and the current development in discourse markers. He always answers
my questions about discourse markers via the e-mail, and directs me to new studies,
approaches and links. I also thank Dr. Jilani Warsi for e-mailing me the English CDMs
judgment test with the correct responses.
2 Dr. Mohammed Nasser Alhuqbani is an assistant professor of Applied
Linguistics/Psycholinguistics, and the director of the Department of Languages and
Translation at King Fahd Security College (KFSC). Dr. Alhuqbani is the developer of the
two English programs designed for the internal security officers at the Higher Institute for
Security Studies. He also helped in developing similar programs at Naif University for
Security Sciences. He has been supervising and teaching in these programs since 2005. Dr.
Alhuqbani has published several scholarly papers, articles in local newspapers, and books.
His most recent book entitled "Bilingual Children's Metalinguistic Awareness" was
published in August, 2008 in Germany. For his complete CV, you may visit his website at:
www.alhuqbani.com
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
2
22
2
the
However, higher level of proficiency in English was found to be crucial in
the acquisition rate of these CDMs. Arabic-English speakers who were
proficient in English performed better than their counterparts who were
not proficient in English.
L Introduction
In recent years, a sizeable body of linguistic inquiry has been concerned
with the study of connective words such as but, however, instead, as a result,
etc. in English and other languages. In the literature, researchers
approach these connective words under a variety of labels including
discourse markers (Schiffrin, 1987, 2008; Fraser, 1990, 1997, 1999, 2005,
2008), discourse connectives (Blakemore, 1987; 1992; 2002), discourse operators
(Redeker, 1991), cue phrase (Knott, 2000; Knot & Dale, 1994; Knott &
Sander, 1998; Sander & Noordem, 2000), discourse particles (Schorrup,
1985), semantic conjuncts (Quirck et al, 1985), sentence connectives (Halliday &
Hasen, 1976), pragmatic formatives (Fraser, 1988, 1990; Schiffrin, 1987). In
addition, researchers disagree on what words are considered connectives.
For example, Fraser (1999) rejected Shciffirn's classification of Oh!, Look!, Y'
know as connective words. In this paper, the term discourse markers
(hereafter DMs) will be adapted because it is the most wide-spread and
considered to be the most inclusive (Barderia, 2008; Fisher, 2008), and the
focus will be on the acquisition of contrastive discourse markers (hereafter
CDMs) by Arabic-English speaking adults holding bachelor degrees in
English.
Definition and meaning of a DM
Despite wide research interest in the area of DMs from around 1985
(Schorrup, 1985; Schiffrin, 1987, etc.) to the present (among others, Fraser,
2008; Bazzanella, 2008), a generally acceptable definition and unified
treatment of DMs are still lacking (Bazzanella, 2008; Fraser, 1999; Hussein,
2008b). This might be due to the fact that DMs is relatively a new area of
research (Malamud-Makowski, 1997) and the disagreement among
researchers on what to classify as DMs (Fraser, 2005). Schiffrin (1987) gives
a thorough account of the importance of DMs to discourse coherence. In
so doing, she employs conversational analysis as her approach towards the
analysis of DMs. According to her, DMs are “sequentially dependent
elements which bracket units of talks” (Schiffrin, 1987, p. 31). This
definition characterizes DMs as dependent in their occurrence on the
context where they may occur. They also function as brackets by which the
boundaries between the units of talk are signaled. Schiffrin’s definition is
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
3
33
3
the
inexhaustive. That is, she only dealt with and, because, but, I mean, now, of, or,
so, then, well and y’ know.
Fraser defines DMs as “lexical expressions, independent of the basic
sentence structure, which signal a sequential relationship of a specific sort
between the basic message conveyed by the utterance of which they are a
part and some earlier message, and they have a core meaning signaling the
general nature of this relationship” (Cited in Malamud-Makowski, 1997,
p.17). Fraser’s definition is more comprehensive and discernible than
Schiffrin’s because of his treatment of a large number of DMs in English
and other languages. In another context, Fraser (1999, p. 936) briefly
defined DMs as “a linguistic expression . . . which: (i) has a core meaning
which can be enriched by the context, and (ii) signals the relationship that
the speaker intends between the utterance the DM introduces and the
foregoing utterance . . ." These two definitions in fact summarize most of
the characteristics associated with DMs.
To begin with, Fraser argued that every DM has a core meaning. To
explain this, let us examine the following examples. DMs are henceforth
italicized in bold by the researcher for emphasis.
(1) a) John was sick So DM, don’t expect him.
b) John was sick, so scj he went to bed. (Fraser, 1993, p.6)
In (1a), so has the meaning of a DM since it relates the proposition in
sentence 2 (henceforth S2) with the proposition in sentence 1 (henceforth
S1). So here signals a consequent relationship. It is used to relate two
separate messages. In (1b), so functions as a subordinate conjunction (scj).
Two propositions are connected with the same message. As part of its core
meaning, a DM gives the green light for the interpretation of the
commentary message in a given context. That is, the DM, which introduces
the message in S2 provides the hearer with a comment on the basic
message in S1. To demonstrate this, let us consider the following examples
furnished by Fraser.
(2) a) John is very sick. Therefore, he was admitted to the hospital.
b) Sandy delivered a baby. Therefore, she took a leave from her job.
c) I like Laura. Therefore, I would do whatever she asks me. (Fraser,
1993, p.7)
The core meaning of therefore is the same in the three examples given
above. However, the DM therefore allows different interpretations for the
contexts where it occurs. It is the job of the hearer to figure out the
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
4
44
4
the
intended core meaning inserted within the particular discourse context
(Fraser, 1993).
Although DMs have core meaning, they don’t contribute to the
propositional content of either S1 or S2. According to Fraser (1993, p. 6),
“a discourse marker does not participate as a part of the propositional
content of the sentence. It is detachable and may be deleted without
changing the content meaning of the grammaticality of the sentence.”
Malamud-Makowski supports Fraser’s view and maintains that a DM is “a
part of a sentence, but it is not part of the proposition expressed in such
sentence” (1997, p. 20). The following examples explain this point further.
(3) a) Mohammed is a Saudi. In contrast, Ali is Egyptian.
b) Nora speaks French. And Anna speaks Japanese.
The two DMs in contrast in (3a) and and in (3b) do not affect or change
the meaning of the two sentences. They merely function as lexical clues by
which the hearer can sense some relationship between the two segments.
The absence of the DMs in contrast and and is unharmful to the meaning of
the proposition in S1 and S2. Let us delete the DMs from the two sentences
and see what might happen to their meaning.
(4) a) Mohammed is a Saudi. Ali is Egyptian.
b) Nora speaks French. Anna speaks Japanese.
The meaning in (4a) and (4b) is still intact. This, in fact, raises another
issue in the area of DMs. This issue is that whether the meaning of DMs is
procedural or conceptual. Fraser claims that the meaning of a DM is
procedural rather than conceptual. He maintains that “an expression with
a conceptual meaning specifies a defining set of semantic features, as the
case with a boy and hypothesis. On the other hand, an expression with a
procedural meaning specifies how the segment it introduces is to be
interpreted relative to the prior. . .” (Fraser, 1999, p. 944).
Position of DMs
As a result of not being part of the structure or the meaning of a sentence,
DMs can occur in various positions within a sentence. Some of them may
occur in sentence-initial position. Others may occur in sentence-medial
position. A few of them may occur in sentence-final position (Fraser, 1993).
Fraser supplied the following examples to show this.
(5) “I am willing to ask the dean to do it.
i. However, you know he won’t agree.
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
5
55
5
the
ii. You, however, know that he won’t agree.
iii. You know, however, that he won’t agree.
iv. You know that he won’t agree, however” (Fraser, 1993, p. 5)
Categories of DMs
Fraser (1993) divided DMs into four groups. They all share the function of
relating the proposition in S2 to the proposition in S1. These groups are
as follows:
1. Parallel DMs. This group includes markers such as also, alternatively,
analogously, and, by the same token, correspondingly, equally, likewise, or,
otherwise, similarly, too. As their meanings indicate, these DMs show some
parallelism between the current message and the previous message. The
following example explains this function.
(6) Jack played tennis, and Mary read a book. (Fraser, 1999, p. 939)
In this example, and is used as a DM which signals that S2 is parallel to
S1. Moreover, and indicates that S2 and S1 are independent of each other.
That is, both of them can stand by itself with no change in meaning.
2. Elaborative DMs. This group includes DMs such as above all, also, besides,
for instance, for example, that is, similarly, indeed, in addition, moreover, etc.
This category of DMs point out that S2 is an expansion of the
proposition given in S1. The following examples are illustrative of this
group.
(7) a. He is poor. Moreover, he is uneducated.
b. I will help you. Similarly, I will take care of Martha. (Fraser, 1999,
p. 941)
3. Inferential DMs. This group includes DMs such as accordingly, as a result,
hence, thus, therefore, etc. The DMs of this group are used to show that the
proposition in S2 is the result of the proposition in S1. S2 is the effect to
the cause stated in S1. The following examples illustrate the function of
this group.
(8) a. There was considerable flooding. As a result, farmers went
bankrupt.
b. The bank has been closed all day. Thus, we couldn't make a
withdrawal. (Fraser, 1999, p. 939)
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
6
66
6
the
4. Contrastive DMs. This group includes DMs such as but, however,
nevertheless, otherwise, on the contrary, in contrast, in comparison, instead, on
the other hand, despite this/that, nonetheless, still, etc. These DMs, as their
name indicates, signal contrast between the proposition in S2 and the
proposition in S1. The following examples illustrate this contrast.
(9) a. John went swimming, but Mary went sailing. (Fraser, 2008, p.
201)
b. A: Fred is a real gentleman. B: On the contrary, he's a bore.
(Fraser, 2008, p.193)
The latter category will be the focus of this paper and only but, however,
despite this/that, instead, nevertheless, on the other hand, in contrast, and on the
contrary will be treated in this paper.
Theoretical approaches to the study of DMs
There are two main theoretical accounts of DMs: coherence-based account
and relevance-based account. The former includes researchers, among
others, Schiffrin (1987, 2008), Fraser (1988, 1990, 1993, 1997, 1999, 2005,
2008), Redeker (1990, 1991), Zwicky (1985), and Goria (1997, 1998). The
latter includes researchers such as Blakemore (1987, 1992, 2000, 2002),
Iten (1998, 2005), Wilson and Sperber (1993), and Hussein (2008a, 2008b).
Due to space restrictions, the current paper will focus only on Schiffrin
(1987, 2008) in the coherence group and Blakemore (1987, 2000, 2002) in
the relevance group in an attempt to briefly explain the major theoretical
grounds behind the study of DMs.
Coherence-based account of DMs
In the first book titled Discourse Markers, Schiffrin (1987) discussed ten DMs:
well, so, but, now, then, and, or, because, y' know, and I mean. She investigated
these DMs in relation to discourse coherence. Schiffrin argues that DMs
contribute to the coherence of discourse through relating different
components of talk in the sense that the interpretation of any component is
dependent on the interpretation of the other. She argues that:
Since coherence is the result of integration among different components
of talk, any device
which simultaneously locates an utterance within several emerging
contexts of discourse
automatically has an integrative function. That is, if a marker acts like
an instruction to
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
7
77
7
the
consider an upcoming utterance as speaker-focused on prior text within
an information state,
with a simultaneous instruction to view that utterance within a particular
action structure, then
the result is a type of integration between those components of talk.
(Schiffrin, 1987, p. 330)
In order to show how her model functions in relation to discourse
coherence, the CDM but will be discussed here. She described but as a
marker of three types of contrast: a referential contrast, a functional contrast,
and a contrastive action.
Schiffrin's use of referential contrast can be accounted for in terms of
Lackoff's dichotomy: semantic opposition but and denial of expectation but (Bell,
1998). Schiffrin provided the following examples to explain this point.
(10). "Jane: I used t' go every summer. My mother'd send me down with
relatives. But I
used t' cry I wanted to go home. I didn't like it.
Debby: When you go home. You liked the summer there. No?!
Jane: I'm not one for staying too long down there. (Schiffrin, 1987,
p. 156)
(11). “Debby: And you were born in North Philadelphia.
Ira: a. No. I was born in uh in- in South Philadelphia.
b. but I moved to North Philadelphia when I was a year old.”
(Schiffrin, 1987, p.159)
In (10), there is a sense of denial of expectation. Contrary to the
expectation that children enjoy being at the seashore with their relatives,
Jane did not enjoy her time. In contrast, North Philadelphia and South
Philadelphia are semantically opposed in (11). There is also a semantic
contrast between being born and being a year old.
But marks functional contrast in that it signals ideas units, as shown in
(12).
(12). “a. You're not livin' in a world where you have equality completely.
b. You put that in this world, I'll go along with it.
c. If I stays that way,
d. And where it does not make any difference . . . .
e. Yes. I'll go with that in a second.
f. I won’t disagree with anything.
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
8
88
8
the
g. But the- the Arabs call us infidels. . .
h. The Christian call us pagans. . . ” (Schiffrin, 1987, p. 154)
In (12), Henry and Irene are both Jewish who hold different ideas about
intermarriage between people with conflicting religions. Irene does not
believe in such marriage, and she believes that one day there will be one
religion. In contrast, Henry shows extreme position towards such
intermarriage on the basis that Jewish are tolerant of other people who are
in turn intolerant of Jews. The utterance presented by but marks the
contrast between the hypothetical situation (that would force him to
disavow his position) and the actual situation (that allows him to maintain
his position)” (Schiffrin, 1987, p. 154). Schiffrin further described this
contrast as inferable only because a particular proposition violates
speaker/hearer expectations, which is not based on prior proposition in the
discourse, but on expectation which is influenced by background
experience and knowledge.
Finally, Schiffrin contended that but functions as a point-marking device.
That is to say, the speaker may return to a previously stated idea or action
to support his or her position. She refers to this as contrastive action but. She
provides the following example to support her view.
(13). Henry: a. And not- and there is less=
Irene: b. But it’s not a matter of –even-=
Henry: c.=Henry if they have more money-even if they don’t have
the money-
Henry: d. But today there is less respect
[Henry continues] (Schiffrin, 1987, p. 164)
In this example, but signals Henry’s return to a previous point to defend
himself against Irene’s challenge.
However, but is not only used to correct misunderstanding or defend
one's position, but it can also be used to perform a remark which disagrees
with a previous remark, as in (14)
(14). Henry: Y'see you move across the way, you live in a big house.
And, you belong to eh may be a country club.
Zelda: eh: it's a different phase of living!
But it doesn't necessarily mean you have to! (Schiffrin, 1987, p.
144)
Schiffrin’s treatment of DMs lack comprehensive data. She focused on
certain DMs in the conversations of a few Jewish speakers in Philadelphia.
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
9
99
9
the
The sample is not adequately representatives. It only included a few
speakers whose English was not the language of heritage. Moreover, the
subjects appeared to be influenced by their Jewish background which
makes the data restricted to the type of conversation they produced.
Relevance-based account of DMs
Within the framework of the Principle of Relevance Theory, as proposed by
Sperber and Wilson (1986, 1995), Blakemore (1987, 1989, 1992, 2000,
2001, 2003) examined the semantic and pragmatic uses of DMs in English.
She argued that the Principle of Relevance Theory is important in that it helps
the hearer understand the function of discourse connectives such as but.
She contended that “a speaker who has a specific interpretation in mind
may direct the hearer toward the interpretation by making a certain set of
contextual assumptions immediately accessible thus ensuring their selection
under the Principle of Relevance” (Blakemore, 1989, p. 21). Based on this
view, Blakemore (2000) rejected Grice’s (1975) notion of conventional
implicature, which says that propositions are implicit in the sense that they
are not part of what is said. She argues that linguistic expressions such as
therefore and but do not give rise to conventional implicature, but rather
encode procedural meaning.
Blakemore treated DMs as linguistic devises which the speaker may use
to constrain the hearer’s interpretation of a given utterance. According to
her, these devices do not contribute to the propositional content of the
utterance in which they occur. Instead, they guide the interpretation
process by determining certain context and contextual effects. In other
words, DMs are conceptually empty but have procedural meanings.
Relevant to the focus of this study is Blakemore's (2003) focus on the
English CDMs but, however, and nevertheless. She argues that these three
CDMs have the effects of contradiction and elimination. She describes the
relationship between these CDMs as:
. . . while but can always be used in utterances where however and
nevertheless are acceptable, however and nevertheless cannot always be used in
utterances where but is acceptable. Moreover, it seems that nevertheless is
more restrictive than however, since while there are utterances in which both
are acceptable, there are also cases in which however is acceptable but not
nevertheless.
Blakemore, therefore, agrees with Fraser (1997, 1999, 2005) in that but
imposes the least restrictions on its occurrence as a DM, and can appear
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
10
1010
10
the
almost in all positions of the other CDMs. She provides the following
examples to explain the relationship between these three CDMs, and to
show the constraints they have over the interpretation of the utterances
they introduce.
(15) [in response to ‘ She’s had a very difficult time this semester’.
a. But I think she should hand in some of the work.
b. However, I think she should hand in some of the work.
c. Nevertheless, I think she should hand in some of the work.
(16) [in response to ‘Have you got my article?’]
a. Yes, but the last page is missing.
b. Yes, however, the last page is missing.
c. Yes.?Nevertheless the last page is missing.
(17) [speaker, who is in shock, is given a whiskey]
a. But I don’t drink.
b. ?However I don’t drink.
c. ?Nevertheless I don’t drink. (Blakemore, 2003, p. 5)
In (15), the three CDMs but, however, and nevertheless are acceptable. In
(15.a), but is used because it is the most general meaning and makes the
cognitive effect of contradiction and elimination salient. However in (15.b) is
acceptable because there is an assumption communicated by the preceding
utterance which the speaker regards as relevant. In (15.c), nevertheless is
acceptable because it is uttered in response to an utterance which could be
understood to communicate an answer to the question of whether a student
should be absolved from handing assessed work. In (16), only but and
however are acceptable. Nevertheless is not acceptable because it is not
possible to construe the speaker's utterance of "yes" as an answer to a
question which is contradicted by the nevertheless segment. In (17), only
but is acceptable. However is not acceptable because there has simply been
no other assumption communicated that could carry a guarantee of
relevance. Nevertheless is not acceptable because no assumption is
communicated which contradicts an assumption in the context which is an
answer to a question raised (explicitly or implicitly) by the preceding
discourse.
To sum up this section, there seems to be a striking similarity in the way
the relevance theorists and coherence theorists view the role of DMs in
utterance interpretation. According to both views, DMs have a constraining
function. For coherence theorists DMs constrain the relational
prepositions which express the coherence relations the hearer needs to
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
11
1111
11
the
recover in order to interpret a discourse. In other words, they treat DMs as
linguistic elements that contribute to the coherence of discourse by
encoding cohesive relationships between discourse units (Hussein, 2008b).
For relevance theorists, DMs constrain the interpretation process by
guiding the hearer towards the intended context and contextual effects.
To put it differently, DMs encode cognitive information which controls the
relevance relations between discourse units by constraining the choice of
contextual information under which an utterance is relevant (Hussein,
2008b). However, both the relevance and the coherence approaches view
DMs as having a facilitating role (Martinez, 2004).
What are CDMs?
Fraser (1997) introduced the term "contrastive" to describe a particular
group of DMs such as but, however, on the contrary, etc. As indicated
previously he called this group "contrastive discourse markers." He argued
that there are specific meaning distinctions between each of these CDMs.
According to Fraser (1997), these CDMs differ from each other in terms of
their syntactic patterns, meaning and the type of restrictions they impose
on their occurrence. These prosperities of CDMs, as outlined by Fraser
(1997), are discussed in details in the following pages.
Syntactic aspects of CDMs
Fraser (1997), who is classified by Hussein (2008b) in the coherence group,
suggests that CDMs have four syntactic patterns, although in each case the
CDM relates two discourse segments. He contends that the first pattern
involves the CDMs contrary to expectations, conversely, even so, however,
nevertheless, nonetheless, on the contrary, on the other hand, and still. In this
pattern, the CDM introduces an S2, where the S2 occurs as a separate
syntactic segment. This is illustrated in (18)
(18) a) John was late in leaving home. However, he arrived on time.
b) It may rain. On the other hand, it may not.
c) Harry is no gentleman. On the contrary, he is a rude bore.
(Fraser, 1997, p. 3)
The second pattern suggested by Fraser involves only one CDM, but,
which occurs both in initial-S2 position, like however, and as a connective
joining S1 and S2. This behavior of but is shown in (19)
(19) a) John enjoys riding. But Harry likes walking.
b) John enjoys riding, but Harry likes walking. (Fraser, 1997, p. 3)
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
12
1212
12
the
Fraser (1997) suggests a third pattern which involves the CDMs despite
(this/that), in spite of (this/that), in comparison (with/to this/that), in contrast
(to/with this/that), instead (of (doing) this/that); rather (than (do) this/that. Like the
first class, the function of these CDMs is to introduce an independent S2.
However, Fraser argues that each of these CDMs occurs with the pronoun
(this or that) filled in with a modified form of S1, and occur in a “reverse”
pattern. Fraser provided the sequences in (20) to explain his points.
(20) a) John was late in leaving home. Despite this, he arrived on time.
b) Despite being late in leaving home, John arrived on time.
c) John arrived on time, despite being late in leaving home.
(Fraser, 1997, p. 3)
Fraser argues that only in (20a) does despite this (a prepositional phrase)
function as a DM. In (20b-c), despite is functioning as a preposition, taking
as its object a nominalized form of S1.
The last pattern given by Fraser involves the CDMs although (=however),
and whereas (=in contrast), which introduce a segment only when it is
combined syntactically with S1. This pattern is illustrated in (21)
(21) a) John was late in leaving home. However he arrived on time.
b) John was late in leaving home, although he arrived on time.
c) The Democrat’s mascot is a donkey. In contrast, the Republican’s
mascot is an elephant.
d) The Democrat’s mascot is a donkey, whereas the Republican’s
mascot is an elephant. (Fraser, 1997, p. 3)
With regard to the syntactic sequences of CDMs, Fraser (1997) suggested
the following four possible sequences of CDMs:
1. <Declarative. CDM+ Declarative>
According to Fraser, all CDMs can occur in this pattern. The example
in (22) illustrates this syntactic sequence.
(22) We didn't leave late. But, we arrived late. (Fraser, 1997, p. 7)
2. < Declarative. CDM+ Imperative/Interrogative>
Fraser argues that only but and however can occur in this pattern. He
provides the following example to support his argument.
(23) a. The shipment of candy has arrived. But/However, don't touch it.
b. It's all alright Sue wasn't here today. But/However, when will she
be able to come?
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
13
1313
13
the
(Fraser, 1997, p. 4)
3. <Imperative. CDM+ Declarative>
Only four CDMs can occur in this pattern: but, however, instead and
rather. The examples in (24) illustrate this point.
(24) a. Take a letter. But/however, I don't want you to send it right
away. (Fraser, 1997, p. 4)
b. Don't sit down. Instead/rather, I want you to take a walk with me.
4. <Imperative. But+ imperative>
In this syntactic pattern, Fraser claims that only six CDMs can occur: but,
however, instead, rather, on the other hand, and on the contrary. Fraser provides
the following examples to support his claim.
(25) a) Take a letter. But/However, tell me if I am going too fast.
b) Don’t smoke tobacco. Instead/Rather, chew the stuff (Instead).
c) Keep the faith. On the other hand, don’t be stupid about it.
d) Don’t stop. On the contrary, keep going until you see the red
house. (Fraser, 1997, p. 3)
Fraser (1997, p. 4) summarizes these syntactic sequences of CDMs in
Table 1.
Table 1 - Co-occurrence of CDM with Syntactic Types
BU HO OT CN CM CV NV IN RA CY
D-D OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
D-I/Q OK OK * * * * * * * *
I-D OK OK * * * * * OK OK *
I-I OK OK OK OK * * * OK OK OK
BU=but; HO=however; OT=on the other hand; CN=in contrast; CM=in comparison; CV=conversely;
NV=nevertheless; IN=instead; RA=rather; CY=on the contrary
Fraser presents a third aspect of the syntactic patterning of CDMs in
which all, except on the contrary, can occur in S2 as a CDM when S2 is
introduced by but.
(26) a) Jim gave a book to Mary, but, in contrast, Dave gave her a doll.
b) It may rain. But, on the other hand, it may not.
c) A: Fred didn’t like the movie. B: *But, on the contrary, he rather
enjoyed it. (Fraser, 1997, p. 3)
Finally, Fraser maintains that all CDMs except though occur in the initial
position of S2. Those occurring in medial position include all except but,
rather, and though, while in final position occurrence is limited to despite that,
however, instead, nevertheless, and though. Fraser illustrates these facts in (27).
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
14
1414
14
the
(27) a) It may rain. It (*on the other hand) may not, (*on the other hand).
b) Fred likes pie. Hank (in contrast) likes ice cream, (*in contrast).
c) A: Harry is fat. B: He (*on the contrary) is thin, (*on the contrary).
d) He didn’t take the letter. He (*rather) left it on the table,
(*rather).
e) We started late. We (still) arrived on time, (*still). (Fraser, 1997,
p. 3)
The meaning of CDMs
Fraser (1997) divided CDMs on the basis of meaning into three classes.
The first class includes the CDMs but, however, on the other hand, in contrast,
in comparison, despite this/that, and nevertheless. This group of CDMs signals
that the speaker intends the explicit message conveyed by S2 to contrast
with an explicit or indirect message conveyed by S1. The second class
includes the CDMs instead and rather. This group of CDMs signals that the
speaker intends the explicit message conveyed by S2 to correct a message
conveyed by S1. The last class includes the CDMs on the contrary, quite the
contrary, and contrariwise. This group signals that the speaker intends the
explicit message conveyed by S2 to be correct while the message conveyed
by S1 to be false. Fraser (1997, p. 6) displays the relationship between
these CDMs in Figure 1.
Chart 1 Relationship of CDMs
But
However Instead
On the other hand
Rather
In contrast
Nevertheless
In comparison
Conversely On the contrary
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
15
1515
15
the
According to Fraser (1997), CDMs in Figure 1 can be divided into three
main classes, each with a different type of procedural core meaning which
imposes restrictions on the details of the relationship between S2 and S1.
Fraser describes but and its class as imposing the least restrictions on the
relationship between S2 and the S1 with which it is contrasted. He
maintains that
The restrictions imposed by but (and its subclasses) are of a different
type from those imposed by instead/rather and on the contrary, such that
where one of these can occur, the other two cannot. To the extent to which
but and on the contrary, for example, occur with the same S2 and S1, the
segments are interpreted quite differently. . . . But can always substitute for
however but not vice-versa, since the restrictions imposed by however are
greater than those for but. The restrictions for however are less than those
for either on the other hand or nevertheless, whose restrictions are mutually
exclusive. Hence, on the other hand requires a relationship between S2 and
S1 which precludes nevertheless from occurring, and vice-versa. In contrast
requires a relationship more restrictive than on the other hand but less
restrictive than for either in comparison or conversely, whose restrictions also
do not overlap. The other two classes consist of a subclass with two
members, instead and rather, whose S2-S1 relationship partially overlaps and
a single CDM, on the contrary. (Fraser, 1997, p.6).
Fraser (1997) maintains that the mutual exclusiveness of the three main
classes discussed above can be shown by considering sequences like those in
(28), which distinguishes but from on the contrary, (29), which distinguishes
but from instead, and (30), which distinguishes on the contrary from instead.
(28) a) John didn’t walk to school. On the contrary/*But, he rode in a
limo.
d) We didn’t leave late. But/*On the contrary, we arrived late.
(29) a) Sue didn’t get out of bed this morning. Instead/*But, she went
back to sleep.
e) John is not fat. But/*Instead, Jim is thin.
(30) a) Fred is not a gentleman. On the contrary/*Instead, he is a
rogue.
d) He should have picked it up. Instead/*On the contrary, he just
left it lying there.
Fraser (1997) characterizes the core meaning of each (sub) class of the
CDMs and, where relevant, shows that it can be distinguished from the
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
16
1616
16
the
other subclasses based on the restrictions it imposes on the relationship
between S2 and S1.
In the following pages, the CDMs researched in this paper (i.e., but,
however, on the other hand, in contrast despite that/this, on the contrary, instead,
nevertheless) will be discussed individually to characterize their core
meanings, the restrictions they impose on their occurrences between S2
and S1, and their possible occurrence.
But
Fraser (1997, 2005) argues that the core meaning of but is to signal simple
contrast, and the speaker will select it when intending to highlight a
contrast. However, the S1 message with which the direct S2 message is
contrasted may be the direct, indirect, presupposed, or entailed message of
S1. The task of the hearer when but occurs is to find which of the messages
associated with S1 is the target on this particular occasion. There are few
clues to guide one. In those cases where the direct S1 message is the target
of the contrast, as in (31),
(31) a) John is tall. But Sam is short.
b) The WFL is a pretty good deal. Good salary; good hours; good
working conditions.
But the NFL is everybody’s dream and few make it there.
(Fraser, 1997, p. 8)
The two messages in (31a) contrast in at least two corresponding areas.
In most cases, the order of S2 and S1 is irrelevant and can be reversed with
no change in interpretation, at least when the segments are coordinated
into a single sentence. These contrasts may be along well-defined continua,
such as height, weight, scores, the identity of people, or it may involve
contrasts which are less obvious, as in (31b).
Fraser (1997) argues that if one cannot find two specific areas of contrast
between the direct S2 and S1 messages, the messages may nevertheless be
contrasted in one of several other ways. First, there may be only one area of
contrast but an also, too or either will be present, or at least implied, as in
(32).
(32) a) John gave toys to Mary. But he gave toys to Jane (, also/too.)
b) Harry plays tennis. But he (also) plays golf.
c) Sam is short. But Harry is short (, too.)
d) Tim is not short. But Max is not short (, either.)
e) Take some apples. But take some pears (, too.) (Fraser, 1997, p. 8)
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
17
1717
17
the
Second, S2 may be the negative of S1, with emphatic stress on one S2
constituent. Fraser calls this the “protest” but, which, in contrast to the prior
cases, must involve two speakers.
(33) A: Harry is honest.
B: But he’s NOT honest. (Fraser, 1997, p. 8)
In (33), S2 indirectly contradicts S1, and hence denies S1. But the denial
arises from a contrast of a special sort, which involves the content of S2 and
S1, not as a function of the core meaning of but.
And third, S2 may consist of only the reason or justification for an
assertion which had been deleted, as illustrated in (34).
(34) A: James is not in his office.
B: But (he IS in his office since) I just saw him there.) (Fraser,
1997, p. 9)
If an explicit contrast cannot be found, the hearer is forced to look
further for a target S1 message. One option is to see if S2 contrasts with a
presupposed message of S1, as illustrated in (35),
(35) a) A: Three of my four kids are in school. (Presupposed: The
fourth is not.)
B: But all of your children are in school. (Fraser, 1997, p. 9)
or to look for an entailed message of S1, as illustrated in (36).
(36) a) A: Nancy is enjoying being a bachelor. (Entailed: Nancy is a
male)
B: But Nancy is female. (Fraser, 1997, p. 9)
Finally, the target of the CDM but may be implied, an indirect message
of S1, as illustrated in (37).
(37) a) John is a politician. (Implied: Politicians are dishonest.) But he
is honest.
b) We started late. (Implied: We would arrive late.) But we arrived
on time. (Fraser, 1997, p. 9)
In these cases, S2 contrasts with an indirect message that, in the
speaker’s view, could be implied from S1. The accessibility of the
implication varies. In (37a), the “He is honest” contrasts a widely-held
implication that all politicians are dishonest and the speaker of (37a)
presumably wants to dispel any notion that this is his viewpoint. In (37b),
the obvious implication from starting late is arriving late.
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
18
1818
18
the
Fraser (1997) argues that the order of S2 and S1 is critical, and S2 and
S1 cannot be interchanged when the target of S2 is an implied,
presupposed or entailed message. Thus, (38a) does not mean the same
thing as (38b), though with the proper framing, it is quite coherent.
(38) a) John is a politician. But he is honest.
b) John is honest. But he is a politician. (Fraser, 1997, p. 10)
However
According to Fraser (1997), However differs from but, but not very much.
Like but, it can have as its target the direct S1 message,
(39) John is tall. However, Sam is short. (Fraser, 1997, p. 10)
and an indirect message conveyed by S1 as in (40).
(40) John is a politician. (Implied: Politicians are dishonest) However,
he is honest.
(Fraser, 1997, p. 10)
Unlike but, however cannot be used in the protest use.
(41) A: Let’s go. B: *However/But, I CAN’T go (I am not ready yet.)
(Fraser, 1997, p. 10)
Fraser (1997) explains the differences between but and however. He
argues that while but signals a simple contrast between S2 and S1, with no
particular emphasis on either S2 and S1, hence the interchangeability of
the segments when the target is the direct message conveyed by S1, the
core meaning of however signals that S1 is being emphasized, placing the S2
message in a more subordinate role. Fraser maintains that that this
difference is difficult to show because but can occur in all however contexts,
and can be interpreted as emphasizing S2 when it does so.
Nevertheless
As Chart 1 above shows, nevertheless is a proper subset of however but
separate from the other CDMs we have been discussing. This is due to the
fact that with nevertheless, S2 exclusively targets an indirect message of S1
while the CDMs just discussed (e.g., on the other hand, in contrast, and in
comparison) all targeted the direct S1 message. But in contrast to but and
however, which also may target an indirect message of S1, when the S1
message is implied, the restriction for nevertheless is narrower: the
implication cannot be just any old implication; it must be expected.
As can be seen in (42), the sequence with nevertheless is unacceptable
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
19
1919
19
the
because of the direct message conveyed by S1 as the target.
(42) John is tall. *Nevertheless/However Sam is short. (Fraser, 1997, p. 14)
The second point can be seen by considering the sequence in (42). In
(43) the indirect message is expected and nevertheless can occur.
(43) We started late. (Expected implication: We will arrive late.)
Nevertheless we arrived on time. (Fraser, 1997, p. 15)
In contrast, in (44) there are sequences for which there is no expected
indirect messages and in these cases, however but not nevertheless can occur.
(44) a) He is very overweight. *Nevertheless/However, he speaks Italian.
b) I appreciate your concern. *Nevertheless/However you know that
Barbara has been having a lot of trouble lately. (Fraser, 1997, p.
15)
According to Fraser and Malamud-Makowski (1996), there are two
additional restrictions on the occurrence of nevertheless. First, the content
of S2 cannot be the negation of the explicit S1 proposition, as in (45).
(45) I can go at 4 p.m. tomorrow. *Nevertheless/But/However, I can't go
if you insist on coming along.
Second, the mood of the first segment cannot be imperative and usually
not performative, as in (46).
(46) Don't go away. *Nevertheless/But, be quiet. (Fraser and Malamud-
Makowski, 1996, p. 869).
On the other hand
Fraser (1997) contends that the core meaning of on the other hand is more
specific than however and it signals that the contrasting S2 message must be
an alternative to the direct S1 message around a specific topic. There is
sometimes only one area of contrast, such as (47a), and the contrast is not
necessarily an opposite, nor along the same continuum, though it may be.
According to Fraser, this can be seen in that the sense of alternatives
becomes more apparent when on the one hand introduces S1.
(47) a) (On the one hand) we could leave. On the other hand, we could
stay.
b) (On the one hand), we could leave. ? On the other hand, it
wouldn’t do us much good.
c) (On the one hand), my car isn’t very old. *On the other hand, I
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
20
2020
20
the
don’t want to sell it right away. (Fraser, 1997, p. 11)
Although all the sequences have a common topic, for example, whether
to leave, when we consider (47b-c), we find that S2 is not a viable alternative
to S1 within the topic area. Hence the incoherence of these sequences.
To distinguish on the other hand from however, Fraser (1997) claims that
the former DM requires an S2-S1 relationship which is narrower than that
tolerated by however. This is illustrated by the examples in (48).
(48) a) I hope you understand my dilemma. On the other
hand/However/But, I’m not sure I understand it myself.
b) New York used to be a nice city. *On the other hand/However,
today, it stinks.
(Fraser, 1997, p. 3)
where there is insufficient symmetry of the alternative in (48a-b) to
permit on the other hand.
To show that the restrictions on the S2-S1 relationship for on the other
hand and nevertheless do not overlap and thus they fall into different
subclasses, let's consider the example in (49).
(49) a) I blame you for this mess. On the other hand/*Nevertheless, I
understood why it occurred.
d) John is a Republican. Nevertheless/*On the other hand he is honest
. (Fraser, 1997, p. 12)
In contrast
In contrast signals that S2 must be interpreted as a contrast with the explicit
proposition of S1. It requires that the S2 make a specific contrast with S1
along two specific contrast areas. It highlights a specific contrast between
the two messages. In (50b) we see that the subject can be the same as long
as there are two areas of contrast, while in (50c), we see that with only one
point of contrast, in contrast requires that too, also, or either be present.
(50) a) John is fat. In contrast, Jim is thin.
b) John can't see very well. In contrast, he can hear perfectly.
c) I don't like peas. In contrast, I don't like carrots (either).
(Fraser, 1997, p. 12)
The requirements of the S2-S1 relationship for in contrast are narrower
than those of on the other hand as shown by the following examples.
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
21
2121
21
the
(51) a) The US is a democracy. In contrast/On the other hand, Iran is a
totalitarian state.
b) Sara gave books to the girls. *In contrast/On the other hand, Mary
gave toys to the boys. (Fraser, 1997, p. 13)
The contrast must be discernable not one that is implicated (as in 52a),
it has not to be an expression of desire as in (52b), or a performative as in
(52c).
(52) a) We have arrived. *In contrast/But, we are late.
b) Get the supplies. *In contrast/But, don't load them into the truck
yet.
c) I apologize for omitting your name from the list. *In
contrast/But, I don't apologize for not introducing you to the
president. (Fraser & Malamud-Makowski, 1996, p. 872).
Despite (this/that)
As with nevertheless, despite this/that is more restrictive more than but and
however. It signals that S2 must be interpreted as a denial of a proposition
associated with S1, either explicitly or implicitly, but not a proposition
associated with the context. Furthermore, there is a sense that this denial is
unexpected, given the content of the first utterance. This is illustrated in
(53).
(53) Harry is a Republican. (Expected implication: He is dishonest).
Despite that, he is honest.
(Fraser, 1997, p. 15).
While there is a clear connection to the proposition in the first utterance
in (53), there is apparently no relation between what S2 denies and a
proposition related to S1in (54). Hence the acceptability.
(54) Boston used to be a terrific city. *Despite this/But, it is the auto-
theft capital today. (Fraser & Malamud-Makowski, 1996, p. 809)
The CDM despite (this/that) imposes two restrictions on S1. First, the
content of S2 cannot be the negation of the explicit S1 proposition, as in
(55).
(55) He shouldn't go with the fever. *Despite that/But/However, he should
go if he feels better.
(Fraser & Malamud-Makowski, 1996, p. 809)
Second, the mood of the first utterance cannot be imperative, and
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
22
2222
22
the
usually not performative, as in (56a-b).
(56) a) Sit down. Despite this/ But, don't say anything.
b) I apologize for saying that. *Despite that/But, I really mean it.
Instead
Fraser (1997) argues that Instead is separate from but and those CDMs
associated with it such as however, in contrast, and nevertheless. For Fraser,
instead differs in an important way from the CDMs already discussed. These
CDMs are normally uttered by the speaker who has contributed S1, though
a second speaker is sometimes found whose contribution is what the first
speaker might have said anyway. Segment S1 is usually negative and
specifies the absence or lack of fulfillment of some state of the world, either
directly or by implication. The function of instead is to signal acceptance of
S1 message but using S2 to set the record straight about what really
happened or should have happened. This is shown in (57).
(57) a) Ryan had anticipated that he would simply show up and be part
of the team. Instead he was forced to try out like all the rest of
the players.
b) Harry won’t take the letter off the table. Instead, he will just
leave it. (Fraser, 1997, p. 16)
Fraser (1997) states some interesting constraints on instead. First, he
argues that if the S1 message is negative, it must be explicitly negative, as
shown in (58).
(58) a) Sam wouldn’t agree. Instead, he mounted an all-out battle.
b) Sam disagreed. *Instead, he mounted an all-out battle. (Fraser,
1997, p. 16)
An implied negative reading of S1 for instead can also be accomplished
by the modal combinations, could have, should have, might have, or was going
to which imply negation, as is shown in (59).
(59) a) She should have taken it. Instead, she left it lying there.
b) Harry could have gone, you know. Instead, he didn’t bother.
(Fraser, 1997, p. 16)
In these cases, it is an indirect message of S1 (e.g., She didn’t take it)
with which the message conveyed by S2 contrasts.
On the other hand, when these modal combinations occur in the S2
message, the S1 message need not be negated.
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
23
2323
23
the
(60) a) Mark played the piano for them. Instead, he should have
danced.
b) Mark didn’t play the piano for them. *Instead, he should have
danced. (Fraser, 1997, p. 16)
In contrast, for some people instead may not occur with be, where the S1
message contains a predicate nominal or attribute.
(61) a) It is not the government that is to blame. ?Instead, it’s the
politicians.
b) Mary is not pretty. *Instead, she is quite ordinary looking.
(Fraser, 1997, p. 16)
It’s rather curious that although instead is in a separate class from but,
and but cannot substitute for instead, and vice-versa, if instead is used in
medial or final position, but can introduce S2, as shown in (62).
(62) a) Jane didn’t want to go, but wanted to stay and play, instead.
b) Mark played the piano for them. But he should have danced
instead. (Fraser, 1997, p. 17)
On the contrary
Finally, Fraser presented a third class of CDMs which consists of a lone
member, on the contrary and a few variations. It signals that the speaker
intends the explicit message conveyed by S2 to be correct while the
message conveyed by S1 to be false. There are two cases. In the case where
S2 and S1 are uttered by different speakers, as in (63), there is no
restriction on S1. In either positive or negative case, the on the contrary can
introduce the contrary to S1 as S2, an explanatory comment, or both.
(63) a) A: Harry is not tall. B: On the contrary, (he is tall) He is over 7
feet.
b) A: Harry is tall. B: On the contrary, (he is not tall). He is quite
short. (Fraser, 1997, p. 17)
On the other hand, with only one speaker, S1 must be an explicitly
negative sentence and there may be no contrary S1 present, as the
examples in (64) illustrate.
(64) a) Harry is not happy. On the contrary, he is extremely depressed.
b) Harry is unhappy. *On the contrary, he is extremely depressed.
c) He didn’t win first prize. On the contrary, he won two first prizes.
What is rejected in (64a-c) is the accuracy of S1, and the message of S2 is
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
24
2424
24
the
designed to convey a more extreme message.
Note that the CDM in contrast discussed above do not occur where on the
contrary occurs and vice versa. The reason appears to be that in contrast
introduces a proposition which is compared with S1, whereas on the contrary
introduces a proposition which denies S1 (Fraser, 1997).
Studies related to the acquisition of DMs
There are few studies that attempted to investigate the acquisition of DMs
by foreign learners of English. This might be due to the small portion
given to DMs in foreign language teaching, and the relatively new
theoretical research trend towards the study of DMs, which has turned in
the last ten years or so into a growth industry in linguistics, with dozens of
both theoretical and descriptive articles appearing yearly (Fraser, 1999).
Demirci and Kleiner (1997) investigated the use of DMs by 4 advanced
Turkish learners of English who had resided in the USA for 3 years as
students. They attempted to answer the questions of whether nonnative
speakers use DMs, whether they use some markers and not others and
whether there are nonnative uses of certain markers. The results showed
that DMs were employed extensively by participants. However, the
participants differed from each other in several respects. Although all
participants made use of some DMs, some participants employed a wider
range of markers than others. Some learners used certain markers
extensively, while others utilized the same markers rarely if at all. In
addition, the results suggest that those markers and those markers'
functions in the L2 which are also available in the first language will be
acquired first with relative use.
Warsi (2000) examined whether non-native speakers of English know
how to use CDMs appropriately to link S2 and S1 and make the sequences
coherent, and how they differed in their usage of CDMs from that of native
speakers of English. The subjects were 10 Russian speaking advanced
English speakers and 10 native speakers of English. Each group received a
close test, consisting of 30 multiple-choice questions. The 30 questions
included eight CDMs: but, however, in contrast, instead, on the contrary, on the
other hand, nevertheless, and despite (this/that). Overall, the analysis of the
results showed that there were slight variations in the judgments of the
native speakers of English in terms of the possible occurrence of CDMs and
the restrictions that are imposed on them by their core meaning. In
contrast, there was a great deal of variations among the Russian speakers
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
25
2525
25
the
advanced ESL students' test answers. Warsi attributed this to a gambit of
factors such as proficiency levels, exposure to the target language, language
transfer, etc.
Following Fraser's (1999) taxonomy of DMs, Martinez (2004) conducted
a study to measure the use of DMs in the expository compositions of 78
first-year Spanish undergraduate students in English. The results showed
that students employed a variety of DMs with some types used more
frequently than others. Elaborative DMs were the most frequently used,
followed by CDMs. The results also revealed a statistically significant
relationship between the scores of the compositions and the number of
DMs used in the same compositions. That is, the larger the number of
DMs used, the higher the score of the compositions.
Ying (2007) investigated the similarities and differences in the usage of
DMs among three types of university students: native speakers of English,
non-native Chinese students, and non-native Japanese students. Ying
examined and compared the compositions of those subjects to pinpoint the
similarities and difference in their usage of DMs. The results revealed that
the three groups of students shared a few characteristics with regard to
frequency and types of DMs used in their English essays. There was an
obvious difference among the three groups of students in their preferences
for particular types of DMs. Native speakers of English used more DMs
than nonnative speakers of English. In addition, there were frequent
minuses of DMs in the compositions of nonnative speakers.
Hellermann and Vergun (2007) highlighted the importance of culture in
the acquisition of DMs. They investigated the use of DMs by 17 beginning
adult learners of English. Those subjects had no previous formal English
language instructions. The purpose of this study was to find the frequency
of use of some functions of forms of language which are not explicitly
taught: DMs well, you know, and like. The two researchers examined the
students' classroom interactions and in-home bilingual interviews. These
interactions were video-recorded. The results showed that this set of
learners uses few DMs. Hellermann and Vergun concluded their study by
suggesting that those students, to some degree, were isolated from the
English language culture in the US, which may account for their few uses of
DMs in their interactions.
In another study following Fraser's (1999) taxonomy of DMs, Jalilifar
(2008) investigated DMs in descriptive composition of 90 Iranian students.
Jalilifar collected 598 compositions. Three raters analyzed these
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
26
2626
26
the
compositions qualitatively and quantitatively. The results showed that
students employed DMs with different degree of occurrence. Elaborative
DMs (e.g., for example, moreover) were the most frequently used, followed by
inferential DMs (e.g., as a result, hence), contrastive DMs (e.g., but, however),
causative (e.g., so), and topic making markers. The results also indicated
that there was a direct positive relation between the quality of compositions
and the results of well-functioned DMs.
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. This unconsciousness of being tested in DMs might have
affected the students' production of DMs. Thus, the current study is an
attempt to focus on students who already have bachelor degrees in English
to measure their ability to judge the acceptability of CDMs in certain
sequences. It also attempts to link their use of DMs to their proficiency
level in English.
Research Problem
It follows from the forgoing discussion that since DMs facilitate
communication, it is logical to suppose that the lack of DMs in the second
language, or their inappropriate use, could, to a certain degree, hinder
successful communication or lead to misunderstanding. Second language
learners must learn to signal the relations of their utterances to those which
proceed and follow. Hence, in terms of communication competence,
second language learners must acquire the appropriate use of DMs of the
second language. It is plausible to suppose that those nonnative speakers
who are competent in the use of the DMs of the second language will be
more successful in interaction (both oral and written) than those who are
not. However, despite this and the fact that theoretical research findings
in DMs studies have shown that these DMs are polysemic and have
different interpretations on both the sentence and text level, teaching these
DMs to foreign students fail to provide the students with the multiple uses
of these DMs which mean that students graduate lacking the knowledge of
the actual uses of DMs. This is very much attributable to the absence of
solid and coherent research on the acquisition of English DMs in general
and CDMs in particular by learners of English as a second and/or foreign
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
27
2727
27
the
language. Studies on second language acquisition, for the most part, have
focused on the development of learners' acquisition of linguistic forms
(phonological and syntactic) that are introduced by an instructor or text
and that are the explicit focus of attention in the language classroom
(Hellermann & Vergun, 2007; Warsi, 2000). In addition, the few studies
which recently have attempted to investigate the acquisition of DMs by
foreign learners of English focused on learners who were in the process of
acquiring English, and hence had limited English proficiency, which may
not yield a full picture of their acquisition of DMs. Moreover, the majority
of these studies dealt with the learners' essays without having them aware of
being tested in DMs. The current study, therefore, attempts to bridge this
gap in second language research by examining the acquisition of CDMs in
learners who already have bachelor degrees in English/linguistics and how
language experience and their current English proficiency are related to
their acquisition rate of the English CDMs.
Significance of the study
Within the past fifteen years or so there has been an increasing interest in
the theoretical status of DMs, focusing on what they are, what they mean,
and what functions they manifest. These DMs were found to play a great
role in facilitating the process of communication, the ultimate goal of
language teaching. However, it was only in the last four or six years that
researchers began to recognize the significance of researching how second
language learners understand the discourse functions of these DMs, and
how to implement the recent DMs theoretical findings in language
teaching. To the best of my knowledge, DMs have been overlooked by
researchers who investigated the acquisition of English by Arab students,
especially those would-be-teachers and translators. A possible
interpretation of why DMs are not on the teachers' agenda is that teaching
of these DMs is not usually part of the teachers' curricular focus on formal
or functional aspects of language. This lack of focus on DMs by classroom
teachers is not unusual. For example, in one of popular resource book for
language teachers, the Grammar Book by Celce-Murcia and Larsen-
Freeman, 1999, there is no mention of the role of DMs in the linguistic
system or how they might or might not be incorporated into pedagogical
practice. Hence, the current study derives its significance from addressing
a very important issue in language teaching; that is the acquisition of DMs,
which has been overlooked for a long time in the teaching of English for
Arab learners.
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
28
2828
28
the
Purpose of the study
The current study was designed to investigate the acquisition of CDMs by
Arabic-English speakers and relate their rate of acquisition to their current
English proficiency. This study (a) examined the differences between
Arabic-English speakers' use of CDMs and native speakers of English; (b)
determined how distant or close the Arabic-English speakers are to the
standard form of native speakers of English in the use of CDMs; (c)
identified the difficulties that face Arabic-English speakers with the use of
CDMs; (d) determined the relationship between Arabic-English speakers'
proficiency/language experience in English and their use of CDMs; and (e)
suggested general pedagogical and research implications related to DMs.
Research Questions
The present study addressed the following four research questions:
1. What are the differences and similarities between Arabic-English
speakers' use of CDMs and native speakers of English?
2. How far or close are the Arabic-English speakers from the standard
form as represented by native English speakers?
3. What are the difficulties that face Arabic-English speakers with the
use of English CDMs?
4. What is the effect of language experience and English proficiency
level on the Arabic-English speakers' acquisition rate of English
CDMs?
Method
Subjects
Fifty one subjects participated in this study. Twenty-six native speakers of
Arabic with bachelor degrees in the English language answered a judgment
test. There were 23 Saudi, 2 Sudanese students and one Kuwaiti student.
They were all males. They were attending an intensive course in Security
terminology and Translation at Naif Arab University for Security Sciences
(NAUSS). Except one student who was above the age of 50, the age of all
subjects ranged from 27 and 40 years old. Out of the 26 subjects, only 10
work as translators. The others have jobs unrelated to language use. The
majority of the subjects have finished their undergraduate English program
4-8 years ago, and a few finished their English study 10 or 15 years ago.
The other subjects were 25 native speakers of English. They were male and
female undergraduate, graduate students and English instructors. This
group of subjects was used in this study as a normative group to which the
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
29
2929
29
the
Arabic-English speaking subjects' performance on the judgment test was
compared.
Instrument
A ready-made judgment test, consisting of 30 multiple-choice questions,
was given to both groups, i.e., Arabic-English speakers and native English
speakers at different times. The 30 questions included eight CDMs: but,
however, nevertheless, despite that/this, on the contrary, instead, on the other hand,
and in contrast. This judgment test was adapted from Warsi's (2000) study
in which he compared the performance of advanced Russian English
learners in the USA with native English speakers. These sequences used by
Warsi were further used and discussed by Fraser (1997, 1999, 2005, 2008)
in several studies. This implies that this judgment test is valid in that it
tests what it was designed to test. Judgment tests are of high explicitness
in which subjects are required to select among a number of alternatives
based on a given text (Seliger & Shohamy, 1989). Before applying the test,
Warsi (2000) discussed the possible answers to all 30 questions with a
professor of linguistics at Boston University who is a native speaker of
English, heads the applied linguistics program, and has taught courses in
linguistics for almost 30 years. The researcher of this study obtained the
actual test with the correct responses from Warsi via the e-mail. The
subjects, both native and non-native speakers of English were presented
with two sequences of sentences in each question. They were asked to put
"+" if one or all of the three CDMs make the sequence acceptable, or to put
"-" if neither one is acceptable, or to put "?" if not sure whether or not the
CDMs link the two sequences.
Despite the fact that the judgment test was a ready-made procedure that
was tried out and used by previous research, the researcher of this current
study carried out a pilot study to examine the clarity and validity of this
test, and to avoid any possible problems during the actual administration of
the actual research. According to Seliger and Shohamy (1989), "In using
ready-made procedures there can never be a guarantee that they have been
tried out with exactly the same type of subjects as the researcher is using in
the research. It is therefore always advisable to try out the procedure
beforehand, regardless of the types of procedure used." The researcher
tried out the judgment test on 5 Arabic-English speakers with bachelor
degrees in the English language. They were pursing their security diploma
at King Fahd Security College. They were instructed on how to answer the
test. The subjects answered the judgment test without showing any
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
30
3030
30
the
difficulty in terms of instruction, vocabulary, and overall clarity. This
encouraged the researcher to proceed and apply the judgment on the
actual research population.
To relate their rate of acquisition of the English CDMs under
investigation to their level of proficiency in English, an English proficiency
test was administered to the Arabic-English speaking adults. This
computerized proficiency test included 4 parts: Grammar (two parts),
English vocabulary, and reading comprehension. It has been used several
times to measure the English proficiency of those applicants to the English
program at the Higher Institute for Security Sciences, King Fahd Security
College. It has been found to be effective and easy to score. In addition,
the Arabic-English speakers were divided into two groups based on their
language experience. The reason of doing so was to examine the effect of
language experience on their performance on the English CDMs judgment
test.
Procedures of data collection and analysis
The data collection process took place at NAUSS. The researcher gave out
the judgment test to the Arabic-English speaking subjects personally in the
classroom. They were instructed on how to answer the English CDMs
judgment test. An example was provided to show them how to answer the
judgment test correctly. No dictionaries were allowed during the test. The
researcher assumed that since the Arabic-English speaking adults have
bachelor degrees in the English language, and as revealed by the pilot
study, they would know all the vocabulary on the test. The researcher
collected the close test sheets by the end of the session which approximately
lasted from 25 to 40 minutes. A few days later, the Arabic-English
speaking subjects were given a proficiency test in English. The test lasted
for 90 minutes. It was administered and collected by the researcher. With
regard to native speakers of English, the judgment test was sent out to
more than 60 subjects via the email. They were requested to answer the
test following their intuition as native speakers of English, and not to
consult any dictionary. Only 25 English native speakers emailed the
English CDMs judgment test back.
The data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively using the SPSS
(Statistical Package for Social Science). The results were analyzed by
totaling the correct and incorrect responses, and comparing means and
standard deviations for both groups. The t-test procedure was further used
to compare the performance of the two groups on the judgment test, and
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
31
3131
31
the
to determine any relationship between the Arabic-English speakers' English
proficiency level/language experience and their acquisition rate of the
English CDMs.
Results & discussion
Arabic-English speakers' test scores vs. native English speakers' test scores
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the native English
speakers' and the Arabic-English speakers' test scores on the English CDMs
judgment test.
Table 2. Means and standard deviations of the English native speakers' and the
Arabic-English speakers' scores on the English CDMs judgment test.
English native speakers
(n= 25)
Arabic-English speakers
(n=26)
CDMs
M SD M SD
But 14 1.19 11.30 1.69
However 11 .70 8.15 2.11
Nevertheless 9.88 .92 6.34 2.51
Despite this/that 9.60 .50 7.26 2.79
On the other hand 12.40 .70 7.57 1.77
On the contrary 8.80 .40 5.73 1.84
In contrast 6.64 .48 3.38 1.38
Instead 11.40 .64 8.15 3.08
Total 83.60 3.48 57.69 9.76
But
As shown in Table 2, the English native speakers had a mean of 14 and
Arabic-English speakers had a mean of 11.30. A t-test was administered to
show any significant difference between the two groups. There was a
statistically significant difference between the two groups (t= 6.549,
p<.05). According to Warsi (2000), there were 12 possible occurrences of
but in the CDM judgment test, and there were three instances where but
couldn't have occurred. The English native speakers showed slight variation
in their judgments of the acceptability of but in the 15 sequences used in
the CDM judgment test. Their test scores ranged from 11 to 15.11 out of
25 subjects obtained the full correct scores (15). While only two subjects
scored 11, the remaining 12 subjects had either 13 or 14 correct scores. In
contrast, Arabic-English speakers showed a great variation in their scores to
the 15 sequences in which but occurred. Their test scores ranged from 8 to
14. While only two subjects scored 8 out of 15, the remaining 24 subjects
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
32
3232
32
the
scored 10 and above, which means they were more aware of the discourse
functions of but in English. However, compared with their scores on the
other CDMs, it seems that the majority of the Arabic-English speakers were
close in their scores to the English native speakers' scores. A possible
interpretation of this comes from the literature. According to Fraser (1997,
2005) and Blakemore (2003), but imposes the least restrictions on the
relationship between S2 and S1 with which it is contrasted, and hence can
substitute for almost all the other CDMs. It seems that this is the reason
that helped the Arabic-English speakers obtain scores closer to that of
English native speakers.
However
There were 9 possible occurrences of the CDM however, and 4 instances
where it couldn’t have occurred. As shown in Table 2, the English native
speakers had a mean of 11 and Arabic-English speakers had a mean of
8.15. A t-test was administered to show any significant difference between
the two groups. There was a statistically significant difference between the
two groups (t= 6.587, p<.01). As pointed out in the literature (e.g., Fraser,
1997; Blakemore, 2003; Warsi, 2000), the CDM however can almost always
occur with but. This may account for the slight variation in the English
native speakers' scores on 13 sequences in which however occurred. Their
correct scores ranged from 10 to 12. By contrast, Arabic-English speakers
showed a great variation in their scores, ranging from 4 to 13. Only one
subject was able to obtain the full correct scores (13). One subject scored
11, and five subjects scored 10. The majority of the subjects (n=19) scored
9 and less. It seems that the Arabic-English subjects were not aware of the
coexisting of however with but, and hence ruled out the possibility of using
however as a linkable CDM in the instances where but was possible.
Nevertheless
The CDM judgment test included 11 sequences in which nevertheless
occurred as a possible linkable CDM. There were 5 possible occurrences of
nevertheless in these sequences, and 6 instances where it couldn't have
occurred. A t-test analysis showed that the 25 English native speakers had a
mean of 9.88, the 26 Arabic-English speakers had a mean of 6.34, and the
two means differed significantly (t=6.609, p<.01). Once again, English
native speakers performed better than Arabic-English speakers. They
showed slight variation in their test scores, which ranged from 8 to 11.
Only two subjects scored 8 out of 11, while the majority scored 10 and
above. This might be due to the coexisting of nevertheless with but and
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
33
3333
33
the
however (Warsi, 2000). In contrast, the Arabic-English speakers manifested
a great variation in their test scores. Their scores ranged from 1 to 11.
Only one subject obtained the full correct score (11). The majority of the
subjects scored below 8. Again, it seems that the Arabic-English subjects
were not aware of the concurrence of nevertheless with but and however, and
hence ruled out the possibility of using nevertheless as a linkable CDM where
it is used with these two CDMs.
Despite this/that
This CDM occurred 10 times in the CDM judgment test. There were 6
possible occurrences of despite this/that, and 4 instances where it couldn't
have linked the two sentences in the given context. A t-test analysis showed
that the 25 English native speakers had a mean of 9.60, the 26 Arabic-
English speakers had A mean of 7.26, and the two means differed
significantly (t=4.107, p<.01). The English native speakers performed
better than the Arabic-English speakers. They showed slight variation in
their test scores, which ranged from 9 to 10. Only two subjects scored 9,
while the remaining 23 subjects obtained the full correct scores (10). In
contrast, the Arabic-English speakers showed a great variation in their test
scores. Their scores ranged from 0 to 10. Only 7 subjects obtained the full
correct score (10). The remaining subjects scored below 8. One subject
obtained zero scores and another obtained just one correct score.
In contrast
There were 7 instances in which in contrast appeared in the CDMs
judgment test. Three of these instances permitted the use of the CDM in
contrast, and four instances didn't allow the use of this CDM. A t-test
analysis indicated that the 25 English native speakers had a mean of 6.64
and the Arabic-English speakers had a mean of 3.38, and the two means
differed significantly (t= 11.080, p< .01). The English native speakers
performed better than the Arabic-English speakers on the CDMs judgment
test. The former scores ranged from 6 to 7, which show a strong
agreement among the speakers with regard to the core meanings and
possible occurrences of in contrast. The later showed a great variation in
their scores. Their scores ranged from 0 to 6. Only one subject scored 6
out of 7, and five subjects scored 5. The remaining 20 subjects scored less
than 4.
On the contrary
The number of occurrences where the CDM on the contrary could have
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
34
3434
34
the
occurred was 3, and where it couldn't have occurred was 6. The t-test
analysis showed that English native speakers had a mean of 8.80 and the
Arabic-English speakers had a mean of 5.75. As with the previous CDMs,
English native speakers scored better that the Arabic-English speakers. A t-
test indicated a statistically significant difference between the two groups
(t= 8.125, p< .01). The English native speakers' test scores ranged from 8
to 9, which indicate that they were in agreement in their choices. While
only five subjects scored 8 out of 9, the remaining 20 subjects obtained the
full correct scores. With respect to the performance of the Arabic-English
speakers on the CDMs judgment test, they demonstrated a great variation
in their scores. Their scores ranged from 1 to 9, with only two subjects
scoring the full correct scores 9 out of 9. The remaining 24 subjects scored
5 and less.
On the other hand
The CDMs judgment test included 13 instances where the CDM on the other
hand occurred as a possible linkable DM. Three instances permitted the
use of on the other hand to link the two S2 and S1, and 10 instances didn't
allow the use of this CDM. The score means for the English native
speakers was 12.40 and 7.75 for the Arabic-English speakers. The
independent-samples t test indicated that the two groups differed
significantly (t= 12.681, p< .01). Native speakers of English scored much
better than the Arabic-English speakers. Their scores ranged from 11 to
13. This shows that English native speakers, as with the other CDMs
discussed above, are in agreement about what sequences allow and disallow
the use of on the other hand to link S2 and S1. Once again, the Arabic-
English speakers displayed a great variation in their scores, which ranged
from 4 to 11. None of them obtained the full correct scores. Only 2
subjects scored 11 and two others scored 10. The remaining 22 subjects
scored less than 9.
Instead
There were 12 instances in the CDMs judgment test in which instead
occurred. The possibility of this CDM occurring between the two sequences
was 5. There were 7 instances in which instead couldn't have been used to
link the two sequences. To show any significant difference between the
English native speakers and Arabic-English speakers, a t-test was
administered. The t-test analysis indicated that the English native
speakers had a mean of 11.40 and the Arabic-English speakers had a mean
of 8.15. The difference between the two means was statistically significant
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
35
3535
35
the
(t=5.158, p< .01). English native speakers performed much better than
Arabic-English speakers. The former scores ranged from 10 to 12, which
means that the variation between them was very slight and hence they were
homogenous in their performance. Half of the 25 subjects obtained the
full correct scores. A possible interpretation of why native speakers of
English showed very slight variation in their test scores is that instead is
restricted and presupposes a negative meaning in S1( Fraser, 1997; Warsi,
2000). It seems that this was the clue that helped native speakers of
English obtain the full correct scores. In contrast, Arabic-English speakers
didn't seem to understand this property of the English CDM instead and
hence showed a great variation in their scores. Their test scores ranged
from 0 to 12. Only four subjects obtained the full correct scores. The
majority of the subjects scored 8 and below. One subject scored zero on the
CDMs judgment test.
To conclude, as the data show, there was a very slight variation in the
judgment of the native speakers, both in terms of the possible occurrences
of CDMs and the restrictions that are imposed on them by their core
meanings. This is consistent with Warsi's (2000) study in which his 10
English native speakers showed slight variation in their scores on the CDMs
judgment test. As Warsi put it, this is not alarming because in some cases
the distinctions among CDMs may not be as precise as someone may
propose. That is, English native speakers tend to have idiosyncratic ways of
judging what is appropriate in their native language and what is not. Since
the focus of this current study is not to examine the acquisition of English
CDMs by native speakers of English, and since the differences in their
judgment are not large enough to draw serious attention, it is reasonable to
ignore the minor variation in the native speakers’ choice of CDMs for the
purposes of this study.
With regard to the Arabic-English speakers who hold bachelor degrees
in the English language, there was a big difference between their test scores
and that of English native speakers, both in terms of the possible
occurrences of CDMs and the restrictions that are imposed on them by
their core meanings. This is indeed very alarming because the Arabic-
English hold bachelor degrees in the English language, and some work as
translators in government ministries. Their overall performance on the
English CDMs judgment test suggests that they lack a knowledge of the
textual and linguistic environments in which these CDMs could occur or
couldn’t. It is this knowledge that helped English native speakers obtained
higher scores on the CDMs judgment test. As indicated in the literature
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
36
3636
36
the
(e.g., Hellermann & Vergun, 2007), DMs are not taught as a separate
course in the English foreign context at the university level. These DMs
are usually taught as vocabulary items and/or as expressions of coherence in
a writing course. Students majoring in English usually graduate with no
firm theoretical and practical knowledge of what DMs are, what they mean,
and what functions they manifest. This might be justified on the basis that
the study of DMs in general and CDMs in particular is new and has in
recent years turned into a growth industry in linguistics (Fraser, 1997).
However, there seems to be other possible factors contributing to the
Arabic-English speakers' poor performance on the English CDMs judgment
test such as language experience and language proficiency. These two
important factors are examined and discussed in the next section.
The effect of the English language experience on Arabic-English
speakers' performance
Table 3 shows that the means and standard deviations of the Arabic-
English speakers' scores on the English CDMs judgment test according to
their language experience. As stated in the research method, the Arabic-
English speakers were classified into two groups: experienced and
inexperienced. The experienced group included 10 translators who have
from 3 to 16 years of experience in the field of translation. The
inexperienced group included 16 subjects whose jobs don't require the use
of English.
Table 3. Means and standard deviation of Arabic-English speakers' scores on the
CDM judgment test according to language experience.
Experienced Group
(n=10)
Inexperienced Group
(n=16)
CDMs
M SD M SD
But 11.10 1.72 11.43 1.71
However 7.40 2.98 8.62 1.20
Nevertheless 6.90 1.96 6 2.80
Despite this/that 8.10 2.28 6.75 3
On the other hand 7.80 1.22 7.43 2
On the contrary 6.50 1.71 6.25 1.80
In contrast 3.20 1.31 3.50 1.46
Instead 9 3.6 7.62 2.87
Total 59.90 10.27 56.31 9.49
The statistical analysis of the results showed that language experience
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
37
3737
37
the
had no effect on the Arabic-English subjects' performance on the English
CDMs judgment test. For each CDM in each group, a t test procedure was
administered. The means of the two groups (experienced and
inexperienced) for each individual CDM didn't differ significantly at the
p<.01 level. To flag any significant difference between the two groups in
terms of their overall performance on the English CDMs judgment test, the
total points for each group were computed using the t test procedure.
Again, the means of the two groups didn't differ significantly at the p<.01
level.
The findings in this section suggest that CDMs are teachable and may
not be acquired merely through language experience. Previous research
(e.g., Hellermann & Vergun, 2007; Ying, 2007) highlighted the importance
of teaching these DMs explicitly to the students. It was clear from the
previous discussion of the differences between English native speakers and
Arabic-English speakers that the later group performed poorly on the
CDMs judgment test because they were not aware of the core meanings of
these CDMs, the restrictions they impose on their occurrence between S2
and S1, and their possible occurrences. According to Hellermann &
Vergun (2007), learners of English who experience learning English in its
native environment and who are more acculturated to it may show better
performance in their use of DMs that those who are not. This is not the
case with the Arabic subjects who learn English in a foreign setting, and
therefore they only can learn DMs through formal instructions. It seems
that lack of such formal instructions caused their poor performance on the
CDMs judgment test.
The effect of English language Proficiency level on Arabic-English
speakers' performance
Table 4 presents a classification of the Arabic-English speakers
according to their scores on the English proficiency computerized test.
Table 4. Classification of the Arabic-English speakers according to their scores
on the English proficiency computerized test.
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
38
3838
38
the
English less Proficient Group English proficient Group
N % N %
1 67 1 94
2 64 2 92
3 41 3 73
5 67 4 83
6 57 5 83
7 51 6 88
8 51 7 83
9 68 8 83
10 53 9 79
11 43 10 85
12 63 11 74
13 59 12 75
14 48
As Table 4 shows, there were 14 subjects classified as less proficient in
English compared to 12 subjects who were classified as proficient in
English. According the English proficiency computerized test, none of the
26 subjects obtained the perfect scores on the test (150 points). Based on
their scores, subjects are classified automatically as beginning (scores less
than 69%), advanced intermediate (70-89%), advanced (90 and above). For
the sake of comparison, the subjects were classified into two groups: less
proficient group (those who scored less than 69%) and proficient group
(those who scored 70 and above).
Table 5 displays the means and standard deviations of the Arabic–
English speakers' scores on the English CDMs judgment test according to
their English proficiency test scores.
Table 5. Means and standard deviation of Arabic-English speakers' scores on the
CDMs judgment test according to their English proficiency level
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
39
3939
39
the
English less Proficient
Group (n=12)
English proficient Group
(n=14)
CDMs
M SD M SD
But 10.75 1.35 11.78 1.84
However 8.25 2.22 8 2
Nevertheless 5.33 2.64 7.21 2.11
Despite this/that 5.58 2.81 8.71 1.85
On the other hand 6.66 1.37 8.35 1.73
On the contrary 4.58 1.31 6.71 1.68
In contrast 2.83 1.58 3.85 1.99
Instead 6.16 2.97 9.85 1.99
Total 50.16 6.11 64.14 7.38
To reveal any statistically significant difference between the two groups,
a t test analysis was administered for each CDM. With regard to the CDM
but, the two groups didn't differ significantly (t =
-1.605, p=122). Similarly, the two groups didn't differ significantly in
their use of however (t= .211, p=835). With respect to their use of
nevertheless, there was a marginally significant difference between the two
groups (t=-2.016, p<.055). The two groups also differed marginally in
their use of the CDM in contrast (t=-1.982, p<.59). The two groups
differed significantly in their use of the CDMs despite this/that (t=-3.397,
p<.O1), on the contrary (t=-3553, p<.01), instead (t=-3.760, p<.01), and on
the other hand (t=-2720, p<.01).
In order to see if the two groups differ significantly in terms of their
overall performance on the English CDMs judgment test, a t test procedure
was carried out. The independent-samples test indicated that the English
proficient group had a mean of 64.14, the English less proficient group
had a mean of 50.16, and the means of the two groups differed significantly
(t=-5.197, p<.01). The English proficient group performed better than
their English less proficient counterparts.
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
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
40
4040
40
the
computerized English proficiency test to relate the subjects' English
proficiency level to their acquisition rate of certain English CDMs. The
overall findings in this section suggest that it is language proficiency which
is responsible for the acquisition of the English CDMs. Both native
speakers of English and Arabic-English proficient group performed better
on the English CDMs judgment test which supports the claim that higher
level of proficiency in English lead to better and correct use of CDMs.
Conclusion & Implications
The primary concern of this study was to investigate the Arabic-English
speakers' acquisition rate of certain English CDMs but, however, nevertheless,
despite that/this, in contrast, on the contrary, on the other hand, and instead.
Furthermore, the study attempted to examine the relationship between
their scores on the CDMs judgment test and their language experience and
level of proficiency in English. The analysis of the results showed that the
performance of the Arabic-English speakers, who hold bachelor degrees in
English and/or translations, was far from being native-like. Overall, this
suggests that Arabic-English speakers didn't acquire the necessary
knowledge of the core meanings of the English CDMs, the restrictions they
impose on their occurrences between S2 and S1, and the possible
occurrences in English. With regard to language experience and level of
proficiency in English, there wasn't any effect of language experience on
the Arabic-English speakers' scores on the English CDMs judgment test. It
was the level of proficiency in English that affected the Arabic subjects'
performance on the test. The Arabic-English speakers who were proficient
in English performed much better on the English CDMs judgment test
than their counterparts who were less proficient in English.
Finally, the study has some important implications for research and
language teaching. To complete our understanding of the acquisition of
DMs by Arab learners of English, the following topics await further
research.
1. The acquisition of DMs by Arab learners of English as a foreign
language is still an area of research that awaits the invasion of
researchers. DMs are usually taught as part of the English grammar in
classrooms, with the focus being more on their grammatical occurrence
on the sentence level. The majority of students who complete their
English programs lack an accurate understanding of the polysemic
nature of these DMs and how they are used in English. Research is
needed to investigate the Arab learners' acquisition of these English
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
41
4141
41
the
DMs, and how to teach them effectively.
2. The current study examined a single category of DMs in English,
namely CDMs. It also focused on certain CDMs. Some researchers
(e.g., Fraser, 1993, 1997, 1999, 2005, 2008) classified DMs in English
into different categories, with each category having certain function such
as CDMs, the focus of this study, inferential DMs (e.g., therefore, hence,
accordingly, etc), elaborative DMs (e.g., above all, in addition, that is, etc),
parallel DMs (e.g., and, otherwise, or, too, etc.), and reformulation DMs
(e.g., namely, virtually, in other words, etc.). There is a need to investigate
the acquisition of these DMs by Arab learners of English.
3. There is a need to investigate the full range of DMs and their functions,
including CDMs, available to Arab learners of English at different
proficiency levels. The current study focused only on the judgments of
Arabic-English speakers for the acceptability of certain CDMs in certain
sequences. Previous research (e.g., Ying, 2007; Martinez, 2004) reported
limited range of DMs uses in their subjects' essays. Further research is
needed to investigate the available range of DMs and their function in
the writing and speech of Arab learners of English, especially those who
are majoring in English.
4. Warsi (2000) called for research to investigate the effect of the learner's'
first language on the acquisition of DMs. As the findings of this study
showed, Arabic-English speakers obtained scores close to those of
English native speakers on the instances in which but was used.
According to Alhuqbani (forthcoming), the English but and its equivalent
in Standard Arabic lakin share almost the same discourse functions:
denial of expectation, cancellation, correction, and contrast. This may
account for the closeness of the Arabic-English speakers' scores to the
scores of the native English speakers on the English CDMs judgment
test. This necessitates more research to investigate whether the
similarities or differences between Arabic and English in terms of DMs
facilitate or hinder the acquisition of DMs by Arab learners of English.
Regarding language teaching, language instructors need to be aware of
the current research findings in DMs and apply the findings to their
teaching of DMs. It's obvious that teachers focus on a single semantic
meaning of a DM in the classroom. For example, when teaching but,
teachers tend to give the meaning in Arabic lakin without exploring the
other meanings of but in English, and hence depriving their students of
understanding the other meanings of but. Teachers may be excused for
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
42
4242
42
the
this because many of English textbooks overlook DMs as significant
elements in the understanding of English texts. It is highly recommended
that students majoring in English teaching or linguistics be given a course
on DMs. This course should help those would-be-teachers and translators
understand the current theoretical approaches used to account for DMs in
English, and how to apply them in their English teaching and/or
translation career.
L References
Alhuqbani, M. (forthcoming). The English but and its equivalent in Standard Arabic:
Universality vs.
locality. The Research Center- College of Languages and Translation, King Saud
University.
Bell, D. (1998). Cancellative discourse markers: a core/periphery approach.
Pragmatics. 8.4: 515-41).
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Blackwell.
Blakemore, Diane. (1989). Denial and contrast: A relevance theoretic analysis of
but. Linguistics and Philosophy 12:15-37.
Blackmore, D (1992). Understanding utterances. Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (2000). Indicators and procedures: nevertheless and but. Journal of
Linguistics 36:463-486
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and
Pragmatics of Discourse
Markers. Cambridge studies in Linguistics 99. Cambridge University Press.
Blakemore, D. (2003). Re-visiting procedural meaning: 'but', 'however' &
'nevertheless'." Retrieved December 20, 2008, from http://people.bu.edu/bfraser
Bazzanelle, Carla (2008). Discourse markers in Italian: Towards a "compositional"
meaning. In K. Fischer
(Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Markers: Studies in Pragmatics Series (pp. 449-465).
Oxford: Elsevier Press.
Borderia, Salvador, P. (2008) A functional approach to the study of discourse
markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.),
Approaches to Discourse Markers: Studies in Pragmatics Series (pp. 77-99). Oxford:
Elsevier Press.
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
43
4343
43
the
Demirci, M. & B. Kleiner. (1997). Discourse markers in second language research.
Journal of Intensive English Studies,11, 131-142.
Fisher, Kerstin. (Ed.). (2008). Approaches to discourse particles. Oxford: Elsevier.
Halliday, M. A., & Hassen, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Fraser, B. (1988). Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica,
38,19-22
Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14,
383- 395
Fraser, B. (1993). Discourse markers across languages. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 396 548).
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6, 2, 167-190
Fraser, B. (1997). Contrastive discourse markers in English. Retrieved December
20, 2008, from http:// people.bu.edu/bfraser
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952
Fraser, B. (2005). On the Universality of discourse markers. Retrieved December
20, 2008, from http:// people.bu.edu/bfraser
Fraser, B. (2008). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.),
Approaches to Discourse
Markers: Studies in Pragmatics Series (pp. 189-204). Oxford: Elsevier Press.
Fraser, B & M. Malamud-Makowski. (1996). English and Spanish contrastive
discourse markers. Language Sciences 8 (3-4): 863-881
Grice, P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. I. (Eds.), Syntax
and semantics, (42-58).
New York: Academic Press.
Hays, Paul R. (1992). Discourse markers and L2 acquisition. Papers in Applied
Linguistics-Michigan 7, 24–34.
Hellermann, J, & Vergun, A. (2007). Language which is not taught: The discourse
marker use of beginning
adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 157-179.
Hussein, M. (2008a). The discourse markers 'but' in English and Standard Arabic:
One procedure and different implementation. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from
http:// www. students. ncl. ac. uk/miri. Hussein /publication.html
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
44
4444
44
the
Hussein, M. (2008b). Two accounts of discourse markers in English. Retrieved
February 20,2009, from
http://www.students.ncl.ac.uk/ miri.hussein/publication.html
Iten, C. (2005). Linguistics meaning, truth conditions, and relevance. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Jalilifar, Alireza. (2008). Discourse markers in composition writings: The case of
Iranian learners of English as a foreign language. English Language Teaching, 1,
114-121.
Knott, A. (2000). Algorithmic framework for specifying the semantic of discourse
relations. Computational Intelligence, 16, (4): 1-10.
Knot, A., & Robert Dale. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of
coherence relations.
Discourse Processes, 18, 35-62.
Knott, A., Sanders, T. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their
linguistic markers: An exploration in two languages, Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 135-
175.
Malamud-Makowski, Monica Patricia (1997). Discourse markers in Spanish.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University., Boston.
Martínez, Ana Cristina. (2004). Discourse markers in the expository writing of
Spanish university students. IBERICA, 8, 63-80.
Müller, Simone. (2004). ‘Well you know that type of person’: functions of well in
the speech of American and German students. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 1157–1182.
Trillo, Jesu´s R. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-
native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 769–784.
Redeker, G. 1991. Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistic 29:1139-
1172.
Quirck, R., et al. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language.
Longman.
Sander, T., & Noordem , L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their
linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 15, 37-60.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (2008). Discourse Markers research and theory: Revisiting and. In K.
Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Markers: Studies in Pragmatics Series (pp. 315-
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
45
4545
45
the
339). Oxford: Elsevier Press.
Schorrup, , L., C. (1985). Common discourse particles in English conversation. New
York: Garland.
Warsi, Jilani. (2000). The acquisition of English contrastive discourse markers by
advanced Russian ESL students. RetrievedJanuary 1, 2009, from
http://www. jilaniwarsi. tripod.com/ contrastivediscourse.
pdf
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90:5-25.
Ying, Shen (2007). An Analysis of Discourse Markers Used by Non-native English
Learners: Its Implication for Teaching English as a Foreign Language. Retrieved
January 1, 2009, from
http: //www. kuis.ac. jp/icci/publications/kiyo/pdfs/19/19_03.pdf
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
46
4646
46
the
L Appendix
CDMs Judgment Test
Name (Optional) ______________ Age _____ 20-30 _____ 30-40 _____ 40 +
Level _____________ Nationality __________ First language ____________
Year of Graduation: _______ My job is:__a translator ____ an English teacher
___Other
Read each of the following sequences of sentences carefully. Under each
sequence in the space between the sentences, are listed three connectives.
For each connective, determine if you think it would be acceptable as a link
between the two sentences. That is, does it sound right to you? If you are
sure it can occur linking the two sentences, put a “+” in the space before
the connective. If you are sure it cannot occur linking the two sentences,
put a “-” before the connective. If you are unsure, put a “?”. Keep in mind
that sometimes all three connectives may link the two sentences, and
sometimes all three connectives may not link the two sentences, and
sometimes some of them may link the two sentences and some of them may
not.
Example:
Americans like to eat out. _____ the Chinese like to eat in.
_+_ But
_+_ However,
_-_On the contrary,
You would place a “+” before the “But” and “However” but a “-” before the “On
the contrary”.
1. Mary wasn’t in love with John. _______ she married him.
___ On the other hand,
___ On the contrary,
___ Despite that
2. I can explain it orally. _______ if you insist, I will put it in writing.
___ Nevertheless,
___ Despite that,
___ However,
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
47
4747
47
the
3. I hoped he would go early. __________ he stayed till midnight.
___ On the other hand,
___ On the contrary,
___ In contrast,
4. John doesn’t look very happy. _______ Mary seems all right, though.
___ But
___ However,
___ Nevertheless,
5. You can phone the doctor if you like. _______ I doubt whether you will get
him to come out on a Saturday night.
___But
___ However,
___ On the other hand,
6. He is poor. ________ he is satisfied with his situation.
___ Nevertheless,
___ Despite that,
___ Instead,
7. We don’t have to go to the party. _______I will go.
___ Instead,
___ However,
___ Nevertheless,
8. We left late. _______ we arrived home on time.
___ But
___ However,
___ Instead,
9. John is very friendly. _______ his brother, Bob, is very rude.
___ On the other hand,
___ Despite that,
___ In contrast,
10. Harry didn’t go to the county fair. _______ he stayed home and did his
homework.
___ But
___ Instead,
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
48
4848
48
the
___ Nevertheless,
11. John felt sick. _______ he still went to school.
___ In contrast,
___ Nevertheless,
___ Despite that,
12. He’s good looking. _______ that isn’t going to get him a job in this market.
___ On the other hand,
___ But
___ In contrast,
13. John runs marathons. _______ Jim sits home and sleeps.
___ But
___ Instead,
___ In contrast,
14. Harry is no gentleman. _______ he is a rude bore.
___ Nevertheless,
___ Despite that,
___ On the contrary,
15. It may rain today. _______ it may not.
___ Nevertheless,
___ Despite that,
___ On the other hand,
16. John was late in leaving home. _______ he arrived on time.
___ But
___ However,
___ Despite this,
17. The Democrat’s mascot is a donkey. _______ the Republican’s is an elephant.
___ But
___ However,
___ In contrast,
18. The shipment of candy has arrived. _______ I don’t want you to touch it.
___ But
___ However,
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
49
4949
49
the
___ On the contrary,
19. Don’t smoke tobacco. _______ chew this stuff.
___ On the other hand,
___ On the contrary,
___ Instead,
20. Keep the faith. _______ don’t be stupid about it.
___ But,
___ Instead,
___ On the other hand,
21. I know that sue wasn’t here today. _______ when will she be able to come?
___ But
___ However,
___ On the other hand,
22. Don’t sit down. _______ I want you to take a walk with me.
___ But
___ Instead,
___ On the contrary,
23. John was late in leaving for the party. _______ he arrived on time.
___ Nevertheless,
___ Despite this,
___ But
24. Don’t stop. _______ keep going until you see the red house.
___ On the other hand,
___ On the contrary,
___ However,
25. Take a letter. _______ I don’t want you to send it right away.
___ On the other hand,
___ On the contrary,
___ But
26. I didn’t have enough money. _______ I took a vacation and went to Italy for
two weeks.
___ On the other hand,
Mohammed N. Alhuqbani
The Acquisition of English
50
5050
50
the
___ On the contrary,
___ Nevertheless,
27. I have been trying to explain it to you. _______ you are not listening to me.
___ But
___ Instead,
___ Nevertheless,
28. Don’t call your girlfriend. _______ call your mother. She will give you good
advice.
___ Instead,
___ On the other hand,
___ However,
29. John can’t see very well. _______ he can hear perfectly.
___ Instead,
___ However,
___ In contrast,
30. He didn’t go to his father’s funeral. _______ he wasn’t sorry at all.
___ Instead,
___ However,
___ Despite this,
Volume: 2 Issue: 4 August 2009
51
5151
51
the
…þ@lŠÈÛa@òíŒîÜØã⁄a@òÌÜÛa@ïq†znß@lbn×a@paë
@òã‰bÔ½a@@
−
, :
but, however, nevertheless, despite that/this, in contrast, instead, on the
contrary, on the other hand
,
,
