Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-109X
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1103
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study examines the functional variability of in essays written by 200 L1 English speakers (ENSs) and 400 Japanese EFL learners (EFLs). Using quantitative and qualitative approaches, this study elucidates discourse marker usage of in each group, thereby establishing the normative patterns of use among ENSs and the features specific to L2 English writers. The findings suggest that ENSs use strategically as a preface to stance-taking by carefully selecting and adjusting the information to be established as common ground with the reader. EFLs use in a manner distinctly different from ENSs, displaying varying degrees of understanding and difficulty in utilising the word’s discoursal properties. The study concludes that it is important for L2 English learners to learn the uses of not only as a connective marker with resultative meaning but also as a resource for projecting stance and assertion.

This work is currently available as a sample.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anthony, L.
    (2014) AntConc (Version 3.4.4) [computer software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from www.laurenceanthony.net/software
  2. Babanoğlu, P. M.
    (2014) A corpus-based study on the use of pragmatic markers as speech-like features in Turkish EFL learners’ argumentative essays. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 186–193. doi:  10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.312
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.312 [Google Scholar]
  3. Blakemore, D.
    (1988) “So” as a constraint on relevance. In R. Kempson (Ed.), Mental representation: The interface between language and reality (pp.183–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bolden, G. B.
    (2006) Little words that matter: Discourse markers “so” and “oh” and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56, 661–688. doi:  10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2006.00314.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00314.x [Google Scholar]
  5. (2008) “So what’s up?’’: Using the discourse marker “so’’ to launch conversational business. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(3), 302–327. doi:  10.1080/08351810802237909
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802237909 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2009) Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker “so” in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 974–998. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Buysse, L.
    (2007) Discourse marker so in the English of Flemish university students. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures, 5, 79–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2012) So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1764–1782. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.012 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chapetón Castro, C. M.
    (2009) The use and functions of discourse markers in EFL classroom interaction. Profile, 11, 57–77. Available from: www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1657-07902009000100005&lng=en&tlng=en
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ding, R. , & Wang, L.
    (2015) Discourse markers in local and native English teachers’ talk in Hong Kong EFL classroom interaction: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(5), 65–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fraser, B.
    (1988) Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 38(1–4), 19–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (1990) An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383–395. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90096‑V
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V [Google Scholar]
  13. (1996) Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167–190. 10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra [Google Scholar]
  14. (1999) What are discourse markers?Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931–952. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00101‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fung, L. , & Carter, R.
    (2007) Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and non-native use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28, 410–439. doi:  10.1093/applin/amm030
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm030 [Google Scholar]
  16. Halliday, M. A. K. , & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hays, P. R.
    (1992) Discourse markers and L2 acquisition. Papers in Applied Linguistics, 7, 24–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 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. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  19. House, J.
    (2013) Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca: Using discourse markers to express (inter)subjectivity and connectivity. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 57–67. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Howe, L.
    (1991) Topic change in conversation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas.
  21. Ishikawa, S.
    (2013) The ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English. In S. Ishikawa (Ed.), Learner corpus studies in Asia and the world1, 91–118. Kobe: Kobe University
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Johnson, A.
    (2002) So..?: Pragmatic implications of so-prefaced questions in formal police interviews. In J. Cotterill (Ed.), Language in the legal process (pp.91–110). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978‑0‑230‑52277‑0_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-52277-0_6 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lam, P. W. Y.
    (2009) The effect of text type on the use of so as a discourse particle. Discourse Studies, 11, 353–372. doi:  10.1177/1461445609102448
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609102448 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2010) Toward a functional framework for discourse particles: A comparison of well and so. Text and Talk, 30(6), 657–677. doi:  10.1515/text.2010.032
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2010.032 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lim, J.
    (2016) Discourse marker so: A comparison between English language Learners and English-dominant speakers (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Toronto, Toronto.
  26. Liu, B.
    (2017) The use of discourse markers but and so by native English speakers and Chinese speakers of English. Pragmatics, 27(4), 479–506. doi:  10.1075/prag.27.4.01liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.27.4.01liu [Google Scholar]
  27. Matsui, T.
    (2002) Semantics and pragmatics of a Japanese discourse marker dakara (so/in other words): A unitary account. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(7), 867–891. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00066‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00066-2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Maynard, S.
    (1993) Discourse modality: Subjectivity, emotion and voice in the Japanese language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.24
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.24 [Google Scholar]
  29. Müller, S.
    (2005) Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.138
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.138 [Google Scholar]
  30. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. , & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Raymond, G.
    (2004) Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2), 185–218. doi:  10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4 [Google Scholar]
  32. Redeker, G.
    (2006) Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse transitions. In K. Fischer (Ed.). Approaches to discourse particles (pp.339–358). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Romero Trillo, J.
    (2002) The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 769–784. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00022‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00022-X [Google Scholar]
  34. Sadler, M.
    (2006) A blurring of categorization: The Japanese connective de in spontaneous conversation. Discourse Studies, 8(29), 303–323. doi:  10.1177/1461445606055425
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606055425 [Google Scholar]
  35. Schiffrin, D.
    (1987) Discourse markers (Studies in interactional sociolinguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  36. Schourup, L.
    (1999) Discourse markers. Lingua, 107, 227–265. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)90026‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sinclair, J.
    (1995) Collins COBUILD English dictionary. London: Harper Collins.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Sperber, D. , & Wilson, D.
    (1986) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. van Dijik, T.
    (1979) Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 447–456. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(79)90019‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(79)90019-5 [Google Scholar]
  40. Vickov, G. , & Jakupčević, E.
    (2017) Discourse markers in non-native EFL teacher talk. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 649–671. doi:  10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.4.5
    https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.4.5 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus-linguistics; discourse marker; L2 English writing; so
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error