1887
Volume 161, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates how foreign language learners use discourse markers (such as ) in English speech. These small words that do not contribute much, if anything at all, to the propositional content of a message but modify it in subtle ways, are often considered among the last elements acquired in a foreign language. This contribution reports on close scrutiny of a corpus of English-spoken interviews with Belgian native speakers of Dutch, half of whom are undergraduates majoring in Commercial Sciences and half of whom are majoring in English Linguistics, and sets it off against a comparable native speaker corpus. The investigation shows that the language learners exhibit a clear preference for “operative discourse markers” and neglect or avoid “involvement discourse markers”. It is argued that in learner speech the former take on functions typically fulfilled by the latter to a greater extent than in native speech, and that in some cases the learners revert to a code-switching strategy to cater for their pragmatic needs, bringing markers from Dutch into their English speech. Finally, questions are raised as to the place of such pragmatic devices in foreign language learning.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.161.02buy
2011-01-01
2019-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K.
    (2002) English discourse particles. Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/scl.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10 [Google Scholar]
  2. Amfo, N. A. A.
    (2007) Explaining connections in Akan discourse. Languages in Contrast, 7(2), 185–202. doi:  10.1075/lic.7.2.06amf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.2.06amf [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersen, G.
    (1998) The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretic perspective. In A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers. Descriptions and theory (pp.147–170). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.57.09and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.09and [Google Scholar]
  4. Andersson, L.-G., & Trudgill, P.
    (1990) Bad language. London: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anping, H.
    (2002) On the discourse marker so. In P. Peters, Collins, P. & A. Smith (Eds.), New frontiers of corpus research. Papers from the Twenty First International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora Sydney 2000 (pp.41–52). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R.
    (2005) L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33, 401–415. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2005.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Barron, A.
    (2000) Acquiring ‘different strokes’. A longitudinal study of the development of L2 pragmatic competence. German as a Foreign Language, 2, 1–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bazzanella, C.
    (1990) Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(4), 629–647. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90034‑B
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90034-B [Google Scholar]
  9. Beeching, K.
    (2002) Gender, politeness and pragmatic particles in French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.104
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.104 [Google Scholar]
  10. Buysse, L.
    (2009) So as a marker of elaboration in native and non-native speech. In S. Slembrouck, Taverniers, M. & M. Van Herreweghe (eds.). From will to well. Studies in linguistics offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (pp. 79–91). Gent: Academia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2010a) Discourse marker so in native and non-native spoken English (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gent: Universiteit Gent.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2010b) Discourse markers in the English of Flemish university students. In I. Witzcak-Plisiecka (Ed.), Pragmatic perspectives on language and linguistics. Volume 1: Speech actions in theory and applied studies (pp. 461–484). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fischer, K.
    (Ed.) (2006) Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fox Tree, J. E.
    (2007) Folk notions of um and uh, you know, and like. Text & Talk, 27(3), 297-314. doi:  10.1515/TEXT.2007.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.012 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fox Tree, J. E., & Schrock, J. C.
    (2002) Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 727–747. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00027‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00027-9 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fraser, B.
    (1999) What are discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–952. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00101‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fuller, J. M.
    (2003a) Discourse marker use across speech contexts: A comparison of native and non-native speaker performance. Multilingua, 22, 185–208. doi:  10.1515/mult.2003.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2003.010 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2003b) Use of the discourse marker like in interviews. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(3), 365–377.
  19. Fung, L., & Carter, R.
    (2007) Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410–439. doi:  10.1093/applin/amm030
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm030 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gilquin, G.
    (2008) Hesitation markers among EFL learners: Pragmatic deficiency or difference?In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente (pp. 119-149). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gilquin, G., De Cock, S., & Granger, S.
    (2010) Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gómez Morón, R., Padilla Cruz, M., Fernández Amaya, L., & de la O Hernández López, M.
    (2009) Incorporating pragmatics to foreign/second language teaching. In R. Gómez Morón, M. Padilla Cruz, L. Fernández Amaya & M. de la O Hernández López (Eds.), Pragmatics applied to language teaching and learning (pp. xii-xlii). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. González, M.
    (2004) Pragmatic markers in oral narrative: The case of English and Catalan. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.122
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.122 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hansen, M.-B. M.
    (1998) The function of discourse particles. A study with special reference to spoken Standard French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.53
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.53 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hays, P. R.
    (1992) Discourse markers and L2 acquisition. In D. Staub & Ch. Delk. (Eds.), The proceedings of the Twelfth Second Language Research Forum. April 2-5, 1992. Michigan State University (pp. 24–34). Michigan: Papers in Applied Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hellermann, J., & Vergun, A.
    (2007) Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 157–179. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hlavac, J.
    (2006) Bilingual discourse markers: Evidence from Croatian-English code-switching. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(11), 1870–1900. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  28. House, J.
    (1996) Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language. Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 225–252. doi:  10.1017/S0272263100014893
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014893 [Google Scholar]
  29. Jordà, M. P. S.
    (2005) Pragmatic production of third language learners of English: A focus on request acts modifiers. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2(2), 84–104. doi:  10.1080/14790710508668378
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710508668378 [Google Scholar]
  30. Jucker, A. H., & Smith, S. W.
    (1998) And people just you know like ‘wow’: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers. Descriptions and theory (pp. 171–201). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.57.10juc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.10juc [Google Scholar]
  31. Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S
    (1993) Interlanguage Pragmatics: Introduction. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 3–17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R.
    (2002) Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lam, P. W. Y.
    (2009) Discourse particles in corpus data and textbooks: The case of well. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 260–281. doi:  10.1093/applin/amp026
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp026 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lamb, B. C.
    (2010) The Queen’s English and how to use it. London: Michael O’Mara Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Levey, S.
    (2006) The sociolinguistic distribution of discourse marker like in preadolescent speech. Multilingua, 25(4), 413–441. doi:  10.1515/MULTI.2006.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/MULTI.2006.022 [Google Scholar]
  36. Liao, S.
    (2009) Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1313–1328. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.026
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.026 [Google Scholar]
  37. Llinares-García, A., & Romero-Trillo, J.
    (2008) Discourse markers and the pragmatics of native and non-native teachers in a CLIL corpus. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente (pp. 191–204). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lorenz, G.
    (1999) Learning to cohere: Causal links in native vs. non-native argumentative writing. In W. Bublitz, Lenk, U. & E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it (pp. 55–75). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.63.07lor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.07lor [Google Scholar]
  39. Maschler, Y.
    (1998) Rotsè lishmoa kéta? ‘wanna heir something weird/funny [lit. ‘a segment’]?: The discourse markers segmenting Israeli Hebrew talk-in-interaction. In A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers. Descriptions and theory (pp. 13–59). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.57.04mas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.04mas [Google Scholar]
  40. McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y.
    (2006) Corpus-based language studies. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Miskovic-Lukovic, M.
    (2009) Is there a chance that I might kinda sort of take you out to dinner?: The role of the pragmatic particles kind of and sort of in utterance interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(3), 602–625. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.014 [Google Scholar]
  42. Mukherjee, J.
    (2009) The grammar of conversation in advanced spoken learner English: Learner corpus data and language-pedagogical implications. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and language teaching (pp. 203–230). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/scl.33.17muk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.33.17muk [Google Scholar]
  43. Müller, S.
    (2004) Well you know that type of person: Functions of well in the speech of American and German students. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(6), 1157–1182. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2005) Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.138
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.138 [Google Scholar]
  45. Nikula, T.
    (2002) Teacher talk reflecting pragmatic awareness: A look at EFL and content-based classroom settings. Pragmatics, 12(4), 447–467. doi:  10.1075/prag.12.4.03nik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.12.4.03nik [Google Scholar]
  46. (2005) English as an object and tool of study in classrooms: Interactional effects and pragmatic implications. Linguistics and Education, 16(1), 27–58. doi:  10.1016/j.linged.2005.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2005.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  47. Norrick, N. R.
    (2009) Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 866–891. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  48. O’Donnell, W. R., & Todd, L.
    (1991) Variety in contemporary English (Second edition). London: Harper Collins Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Paquot, M.
    (2010) Academic vocabulary in learner writing. From extraction to analysis. London/New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Pawlak, M.
    (2010) Teaching and learning pragmatic features in the foreign language classroom: Interfaces between research and pedagogy. In I. Witzcak-Plisiecka (Ed.), Pragmatic perspectives on language and linguistics. Volume 1: Speech actions in theory and applied studies (pp. 439–460). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Pons Bordería, S.
    (2006) A functional approach to the study of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 77–99). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Pulcini, V., & Furiassi, C.
    (2004) Spoken interaction and discourse markers in a corpus of learner English. In A. Partington, Morley, J. & L. Haarman (Eds.), Corpora and discourse (pp. 107–123). Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Rayson, P., & Garside, R.
    (2000) Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. In A. Kilgarriff & T. Berber Sardinha (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora. Held in conjunction with the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 7 October 2000, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong (pp. 1–6). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 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]
  55. Romero-Trillo, J.
    (2007) Adaptive management in discourse: The case of involvement discourse markers in Spanish conversations. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 6, 81–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Sankoff, G., Thibault, P., Nagy, N., Blondeau, H., Fonollosa, M.-O., & Gagnon, L.
    (1997) Variation in the use of discourse markers in a language contact situation. Language Variation and Change, 9(2), 191–217. doi:  10.1017/S0954394500001873
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500001873 [Google Scholar]
  57. Schiffrin, D.
    (1987) Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  58. Schourup, L.
    (1999) Discourse markers. Tutorial overview. Lingua, 107, 227–265. doi:  10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)90026‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1 [Google Scholar]
  59. Smith, S. W., & Jucker, A. H.
    (2000) Actually and other markers of an apparent discrepancy between propositional attitudes of conversational partners. In G. Andersen & Th. Fretheim (Eds.), Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude (pp. 207–235). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.79.10smi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.79.10smi [Google Scholar]
  60. Terraschke, A.
    (2007) Use of general extenders by German non-native speakers of English. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(2), 141–160. doi:  10.1515/IRAL.2007.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2007.006 [Google Scholar]
  61. Underhill, R.
    (1988) Like is, like, focus. American Speech, 63(3), 234–246. doi:  10.2307/454820
    https://doi.org/10.2307/454820 [Google Scholar]
  62. Watts, S.
    (2000) Teaching talk: Should students learn ‘real German’?German as a Foreign Language, 1, 64–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Wouk, F.
    (1999) Gender and the use of pragmatic particles in Indonesian. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(2), 194–219. doi:  10.1111/1467‑9481.00072
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00072 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.161.02buy
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
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