1887
Volume 30, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study analyzes the L1-acquisition of discourse and its pragmatic functions in American English based on the component of the (CHILDES). The data show that discourse is already present in the speech of 3- and 4-year-old children and that even very young children employ to perform distinct pragmatic functions with specifying uses being dominant until age 8;5. The analysis also shows a notable increase in discourse as children mature, mainly driven by an increase in attention-directing , the dominant function of discourse among children older than 8;5. Conditional inference trees show that the use of discourse by children is affected by a child’s age, the situation type and the frequency of discourse in caregivers’ input. Children younger than 7;10 use discourse only rarely in formal contexts as well as in informal contexts if their caregivers do not use discourse frequently. However, children use discourse substantially more if they are older than 7;10 or, in informal contexts, when their caregivers use discourse frequently. The changes in frequency and the functional shifts in the use of around the ages of 7 to 9 is interpreted to show that peers become more important as linguistic role models when children enter school. The results thus substantiate research which suggests that the pragmatic and social meanings of discourse markers are learned alongside linguistic constraints rather than after the form has been acquired.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.20025.sch
2023-08-17
2024-06-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2002English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ament, Jennifer R. & Julia Barón Parés
    2017 The acquisition of discourse markers in the English-medium instruction context. InCarmen Pérez Vidal, Sonia López-Serrano, Jennifer Ament & Dakota J. Thomas-Wilhelm (eds.), Learning context effects: Study abroad, formal instruction and international immersion classrooms, 43–74. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersen, Gisle
    1997 They like wanna see like how we talk and all that. The use of like as a discourse marker in London teenage speech. InMagnus Ljung (ed.), Corpus-based studies in English, 37–48. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 1998 The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretic perspective. InAndreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), 147–170. 10.1075/pbns.57.09and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.09and [Google Scholar]
  5. 2000 The role of the pragmatic marker like in utterance interpretation. InGisle Andersen & Thorstein Fretheim (eds.), Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude, 17–38. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.79.02and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.79.02and [Google Scholar]
  6. 2001Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.84
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.84 [Google Scholar]
  7. Beeching, Kate
    2016Pragmatic markers in British English: Meaning in social interaction. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139507110
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139507110 [Google Scholar]
  8. Buchstaller, Isabelle
    2001 An alternative view of like: Its grammaticalisation in conversational American English and beyond. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics111. 21–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. CHILDES Project
    CHILDES Project 2000CHILDES data base manuals. North American English Corpora. url: https://childes.talkbank.org/ (accessedDecember 8th, 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, Eve V.
    2010 Adult offer, word-class, and child uptake in early lexical acquisition. First Language30(3–4). 250–269. 10.1177/0142723710370537
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723710370537 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2014 Pragmatics in acquisition. Journal of Child Language41(1). 105–116. 10.1017/S0305000914000117
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000914000117 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen, Jacob
    1960 A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement201. 37–46. 10.1177/001316446002000104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cook-Gumperz, Jenny & Amy Kyratzis
    2015 Child discourse. InDeborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 681–704. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Crible, Ludivine
    2018Discourse markers and (dis)fluency: Forms and functions across languages and registers. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.286
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.286 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer
    2000 The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like. Journal of Sociolinguistics4(1). 60–80. 10.1111/1467‑9481.00103
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00103 [Google Scholar]
  16. Diskin, Chloe
    2017 The use of the discourse-pragmatic marker ‘like’ by native and non-native speakers of English in Ireland. Journal of Pragmatics1201. 144–157. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  17. D’Arcy, Alexandra F.
    2005Like: Syntax and development. Toronto: University of Toronto PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2007Like and language ideology: Disentangling fact from fiction. American Speech82(4). 386–419. 10.1215/00031283‑2007‑025
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2007-025 [Google Scholar]
  19. D’Arcy, Alexandra
    2017Discourse-pragmatic variation in context: Eight hundred years of like. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.187
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.187 [Google Scholar]
  20. Eckert, Penelope
    1999Linguistic variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Foulkes, Paul, Gerald Docherty & Dominic Watt
    1999 Tracking the emergence of sociophonetic variation in 2 to 4 year olds. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics71. 1–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fraser, Bruce
    1990 An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics14(3). 383–398. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90096‑V
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V [Google Scholar]
  23. 1998 Contrastive discourse markers in English. InAndreas Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), 301–326. 10.1075/pbns.57.15fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.15fra [Google Scholar]
  24. 1999 What are discourse markers?Journal of Pragmatics311. 931–952. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00101‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fuller, Janet M.
    2003 Use of the discourse marker like in interviews. Journal of Sociolinguistics7(3). 365–377. 10.1111/1467‑9481.00229
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00229 [Google Scholar]
  26. Furkó, Péter B.
    2019Discourse markers and beyond: Descriptive and critical perspectives on discourse-pragmatic devices across genres and languages. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hothorn, Torsten & Achim Zeileis
    2015 Partykit: A modular toolkit for recursive partytioning in R. Journal of Machine Learning Research161. 3905–3909.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hilpert, Martin
    2014Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hölker, Klaus
    1991 Französisch: Partikelforschung. Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik4(1). 77–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Jucker, Andreas & Yael Ziv
    (eds.) 1998Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.57
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57 [Google Scholar]
  31. Khoshgoftaar, Taghi M. & Edward B. Allen
    2001 Controlling overfitting in classification-tree models of software quality. Empirical Software Engineering61. 59–79. 10.1023/A:1009803004576
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009803004576 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kursa, Miron B. & Witold R. Rudnicki
    2010 Feature selection with the Boruta package. Journal of Statistical Software36(11). 1–13. 10.18637/jss.v036.i11
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i11 [Google Scholar]
  33. Labov, William
    1964 Stages in the acquisition of Standard English. InRoger Shuy (ed.), Social dialects and language learning, 77–103. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1972Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2001Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 2, Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2010Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 3, Cognitive and Cultural Factors. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444327496
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444327496 [Google Scholar]
  37. Levey, Stephen
    2006 The sociolinguistic distribution of discourse marker like in preadolescent speech. Multilingua—Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication25(4). 413–441. 10.1515/MULTI.2006.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/MULTI.2006.022 [Google Scholar]
  38. Light, Richard J.
    1971 Measures of response agreement for qualitative data: Some generalizations and alternatives. Psychological Bulletin761. 365–377. 10.1037/h0031643
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031643 [Google Scholar]
  39. MacWhinney, Brian
    2000The CHILDES project: The database, vol. 2. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Maschler, Yael
    1994 Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society231. 325–366. 10.1017/S0047404500018017
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500018017 [Google Scholar]
  41. Maschler, Yael & Deborah Schiffrin
    2015 Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. InDeborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 189–221. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118584194.ch9
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch9 [Google Scholar]
  42. Matthews, Danielle
    2014Pragmatic development in first language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tilar.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.10 [Google Scholar]
  43. Meehan, Teresa
    1991 It’s like, ʻwhat’s happening in the evolution of like?ʼ: A theory of grammaticalization. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics161. 37–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Miller, Jim
    2009Like and other discourse markers. InPam Peters, Peter Collins & Adam Smith (eds.), Comparative studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and beyond, 317–338. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/veaw.g39.18mil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g39.18mil [Google Scholar]
  45. Miller, Jim & Regina Weinert
    1995 The function of like in dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics23 (4). 365–393. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00044‑F
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00044-F [Google Scholar]
  46. 1998Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198236566.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198236566.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  47. Müller, Simone
    2005Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.138
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.138 [Google Scholar]
  48. Odato, Chris V.
    2010Children’s development of knowledge and beliefs about English like(s). Michigan: University of Michigan PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 2013 The development of children’s use of discourse LIKE in peer interaction. American Speech88(2). 117–143. 10.1215/00031283‑2346825
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2346825 [Google Scholar]
  50. Papafragou, Anna
    2018 Pragmatic development. Language Learning and Development14(3). 167–169. 10.1080/15475441.2018.1455791
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2018.1455791 [Google Scholar]
  51. Partridge, Eric
    1984A Dictionary of slang and unconventional English. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Polat, Brittany
    2011 Investigating acquisition of discourse markers through a developmental learner corpus. Journal of Pragmatics43(15). 3745–3756. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.009 [Google Scholar]
  53. Ranger, Graham
    2018Discourse markers: An enunciative approach. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑70905‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70905-5 [Google Scholar]
  54. Roberts, Julia L.
    2018 Child language variation. InJack K. Chambers & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 263–276. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Roberts, Julia & William Labov
    1995 Learning to talk Philadelphian: Acquisition of short a by preschool children. Language Variation and Change7(1). 101–112. 10.1017/S0954394500000910
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000910 [Google Scholar]
  56. Romaine, Suzanne & Deborah Lange
    1991 The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech66(3). 227–279. 10.2307/455799
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455799 [Google Scholar]
  57. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  58. Schourup, Lawrence C.
    1985Common discourse particles in English conversations “like”, “well”, “y’know”. New York & London: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Schweinberger, Martin
    2013 A sociolinguistics analysis of discourse marker like in Northern Ireland. A look behind the scenes of quantitative reasoning. InMarkus Bieswanger & A. Koll-Stobbe (eds.), New Approaches to the Analysis of Linguistic Variability, 13–39. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 2014The discourse marker LIKE: A corpus-based analysis of selected varieties of English. Hamburg: University of Hamburg PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 2015 A comparative study of the pragmatic marker like in Irish English and in south-eastern varieties of British English. InCarolina P. Amador-Moreno, Kevin McCafferty & Elaine Vaughan (eds.), Pragmatic markers in Irish English, 114–134. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.258.05sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.258.05sch [Google Scholar]
  62. 2020 Speech-unit final like in Irish English. English World Wide41(1). 89–117. 10.1075/eww.00041.sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.00041.sch [Google Scholar]
  63. Siegel, Muffy E. A.
    2002Like: The discourse particle and semantics. Journal of Semantics19(1). 35–71. 10.1093/jos/19.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  64. Tagliamonte, Sali
    2005 So who? like how? just what?: Discourse markers in the conversations of young Canadians. Journal of Pragmatics37(11). 1896–1915. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.017 [Google Scholar]
  65. Tagliamonte, Sali A. & R. H. Baayen
    2012 Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change24(2). 135–178. 10.1017/S0954394512000129
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000129 [Google Scholar]
  66. Tomasello, Michael
    2003Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Boston: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Underhill, Robert
    1988Like is, like, focus. American Speech63(3). 234–246. 10.2307/454820
    https://doi.org/10.2307/454820 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.20025.sch
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.20025.sch
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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