1887
Discourse Markers in Second Language Acquisition / Les marqueurs discursifs dans l’acquisition d’une langue étrangère
  • ISSN 1879-7865
  • E-ISSN: 1879-7873
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In this study, we analyze the kind of actions L1 and L2 speakers of Italian perform by prefacing their responsive turns with the discourse marker As a baseline, the article begins with an analysis of how native speakers of Italian use . We then carry out quantitative and qualitative analyses of the use of in a number of L2 learners at different proficiency levels from three data sets of different types of interactions between students and native speakers of Italian. In the qualitative analysis, we adopt a conversation analytic perspective. The results suggest that both native speakers and L2 speakers, from intermediate to advanced level, perform a variety of social actions by -prefacing their responsive turns.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lia.7.1.04pau
2016-08-12
2019-12-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K. & Simon-Vandenbergen, A-M
    (2003) The discourse particle well and its equivalents in Swedish and Dutch. Linguistics41, 1123–1161. doi: 10.1515/ling.2003.036
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2003.036 [Google Scholar]
  2. Andorno C
    (2007) Apprendere il lessico: elaborazione di segnali discorsivi (sì, no, così). In M. Chini , P. Desideri , M.E. Favilla & G. Pallotti (eds.), Imparare una lingua: recenti sviluppi teorici e proposte applicative. Atti del VI Congresso di Studi AitLA (95–122). Perugia: Guerra.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Atkinson, J.M. & Heritage, J
    (eds.) (1984) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bardel, C
    (2004) La pragmatica in italiano L2: l’uso dei segnali discorsivi. In F. Albano Leoni , F. Cutugno , M. Pettorino & R. Savy (eds.), Atti del convegno nazionale Il parlato italiano. Napoli, 13–15 febbraio, 2003. Napoli: M. D’Auria Aditore. CD–ROM.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bardel, C. , Gudmundson, A. & Lindqvist, C
    (2012) Aspects of lexical sophistication in advanced learner’s oral production: vocabulary acquisition and use in L2 French and Italian. Studies in Second Language Acquisition34, 269–290. doi: 10.1017/S0272263112000058
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000058 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bazzanella, C
    (1994) Le facce del parlare. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2005) Linguistica e pragmatica del linguaggio. Bari: Laterza.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2006) Discourse Markers in Italian: Towards a “Compositional Meaning”. In K. Fisher (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (449–464). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Deppermann, A
    (2013) Turn-design at turn-beginnings: Multimodal resources to deal with tasks of turn-construction in German. Journal of Pragmatics46, 91–121. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ferraris, S
    (2004) Come usano “ma” gli apprendenti di italiano L1 e L2?In G. Bernini , G. Ferrari & M. Pavesi (eds.), Atti del 3° congresso di studi dell’Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata. Perugia, 21–22 febbraio 2002 (73–91). Perugia: Guerra Edizioni.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Forsberg Lundell, F. , Bartning, I. , Engel, H. , Gudmundson, A. , Hancock, V. & Lindqvist, C
    (2014) Beyond advanced stages in high-level spoken L2 French. Journal of French Language Studies24, 255–280. doi: 10.1017/S0959269513000057
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269513000057 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gardner, R
    (2001) When listener talk. Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.92
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.92 [Google Scholar]
  13. ten Have, P
    (2007) Doing conversation analysis. A practical guide. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781849208895
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208895 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hayashi, M
    (2009) Marking a ‘noticing of departure’ in talk: Eh-prefaced turns in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics41, 2100–2129. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.008 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hellermann, J. & Pekarek-Doehler, S
    (2010) On the contingent nature of language-learning tasks. Classroom Discourse1, 25–40. doi: 10.1080/19463011003750657
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19463011003750657 [Google Scholar]
  16. Heritage, J
    (1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action (299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (1998) Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society27, 291–334. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500019990
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019990 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2002) Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying and agreement/disagreement. In C. Ford , B. Fox & S. Thompson (eds.), The language of turn and sequence (196–224). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2013) Turn-initial position and some of its occupants. Journal of Pragmatics57, 331–337. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.025
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.025 [Google Scholar]
  20. Heritage, J. & Clayman, S
    (2010) Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Heritage, J. & Raymond, G
    (2005) The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly68, 15–38. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2012) Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In J.-P. De Ruiter (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (179–192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013 [Google Scholar]
  23. Jafrancesco, E
    (2015) L’acquisizione dei segnali discorsivi in italiano L2. Italiano LinguaDue1, 1–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2010) I segnali discorsivi in italiano L2. Dati dell’acquisizione e implicazioni glottodidattiche. In I. Di Passio & D. Paolini (eds.), Processi di apprendimento in un mondo che cambia (79–120). Milano-Firenze: Mondadori Education-Le Monnier.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Jefferson, G
    (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G.H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  26. Kasper, G. & Prior, M.T
    (2015) Analyzing storytelling in TESOL interview research. TESOL Quarterly49, 226–255. doi: 10.1002/tesq.169
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.169 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kasper, G. & Wagner, J
    (2011) A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (117–142). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kim, H.R.S. & Kuroshima, S
    (2013) Turn beginnings in interaction: An introduction. Journal of Pragmatics57, 267–273. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.026
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.026 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lindström, J
    (2006) Grammar in the service of interaction: Exploring turn organization in Swedish. Research on Language and Social Interaction39, 81–117. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3901_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3901_4 [Google Scholar]
  30. Manili, P
    (2001) Funzioni e uso dei segnali discorsivi nell’italiano L2. L’Italia dialettale62, 137–205.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Markee, N. & Kunitz, S
    (2015) CA-for-SLA studies of classroom interaction: Quo vadis?In N. Markee (ed.), Handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (425–439). Boston, MA: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Markee, N. & Kasper, G
    (2004) Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal88, 491–500. doi: 10.1111/j.0026–7902.2004.t01‑14‑.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026–7902.2004.t01-14-.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Mondada, L. & Pekarek Doehler, S
    (2004) Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal88, 501–18. doi: 10.1111/j.0026–7902.2004.t01‑15‑.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026–7902.2004.t01-15-.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Pauletto, F. , Greco, A. & Bardel, C
    . (in progress). Oh! You really sound Italian to me. Native speakers’ judgments of advanced L2 learners oral production.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Poggi, I
    (1981) Le interiezioni. Studio del linguaggio e analisi della mente. Torino: Boringhieri.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2009) The language of interjections. In A. Esposito , A. Hussain , M. Marinaro & M. Martone (eds.), Multimodal signals: Cognitive and algorithmic issues (170–186). Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑00525‑1_17
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00525-1_17 [Google Scholar]
  37. Pomerantz, A
    (1984a) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (1984b) Pursuing a response. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (152–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Raymond, G
    (2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review68, 939–967. doi: 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2010) Grammar and social relations: Alternative forms of Yes/No type initiating actions in health visitor interaction. In A.F. Freed & S. Ehrlich (eds.), “Why Do You Ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse (87–107). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sacks, H
    (1984) Notes on methodology. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (21–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (1987) On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J.R.E. Lee (eds.), Talk and social organisation (54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sacks, A
    (1992) Lectures on conversation. Cambridge: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Schegloff, E.A
    (1987) Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn taking organization. In G. Button & J.R.E. Lee (eds.), Talk and social organization (70–85). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (1997) Third turn repair. In G.R. Guy , C. Feagin , D. Schiffrin & J. Baugh (eds.), Towards a social science of language: papers in honor of William Labov. Volume 2: Social interaction and discourse structures (31–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.128.05sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.128.05sch [Google Scholar]
  46. (2007) Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  47. Schegloff, E.A. & Lerner, G.H
    (2009) Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction42, 91–115. doi: 10.1080/08351810902864511
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810902864511 [Google Scholar]
  48. Schegloff, E.A. & Sacks, H
    (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica4, 289–327.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Schegloff, E.A. , Jefferson, G. , & Sacks, H
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53, 361– 382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  50. Seedhouse, P
    (2005) “Task” as research construct. Language Learning55(3), 533–570. doi: 10.1111/j.0023–8333.2005.00314.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023–8333.2005.00314.x [Google Scholar]
  51. Sidnell, J
    (2010) Conversation analysis. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M
    (1975) Toward an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Stivers, T
    (2010) An overview of the question–response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics42, 2772–2781. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  54. Stokoe, E
    (2011) Simulated interaction and communication skills training: The ‘Conversation analytic role-play method’. In C. Antaki (ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Changing institutional practices (119–139). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230316874_7
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230316874_7 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lia.7.1.04pau
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month

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