Additive Discourse Markers in English Journal Articles Written by Kurdish and English Native Speakers: A Corpus-Based Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hakeem Hasan Suleiman ◽  
Keivan Seyyedi
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
English Journal

scholarly journals The use of discourse markers but and so by native English speakers and Chinese speakers of English

Pragmatics ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Binmei Liu
Keyword(s):  
Mandarin Chinese ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Communicative Competence ◽  
Oral Proficiency ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Native English Speakers ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Oral Discourse ◽  
Chinese Speakers ◽  
Native Speakers Of English

Abstract Previous studies have found that but and so occur frequently in native and non-native English speakers’ speech and that they are easy to acquire by non-native English speakers. The current study compared ideational and pragmatic functions of but and so by native and non-native speakers of English. Data for the study were gathered using individual sociolinguistic interviews with five native English speakers and ten L1 Chinese speakers. The results suggest that even though the Chinese speakers of English acquired the ideational functions of but and so as well as the native English speakers, they underused the pragmatic functions of them. The findings indicate that there is still a gap between native and non-native English speakers in communicative competence in the use of but and so. The present study also suggests that speakers’ L1 (Mandarin Chinese) and overall oral proficiency in oral discourse affect their use of but and so.

The Business of Pragmatics. The Case of Discourse Markers in The Speech of Students of Business English and English Linguistics

2011 ◽  
Vol 161 ◽  
pp. 10-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lieven Buysse
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
Foreign Language Learning ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Business English ◽  
Foreign Language Learners ◽  
Native Speech

Abstract This paper investigates how foreign language learners use discourse markers (such as so, well, you know, I mean) 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.

scholarly journals Comparison of the Use of Discourse Markers in English Speeches between Non-Native and Native Speakers of English

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-207
Author(s):  
Eva Yulita ◽  
Dwi Rukmini ◽  
Widhiyanto Widhiyanto
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Design ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Spoken Discourse ◽  
Qualitative Research Design ◽  
Contrastive Discourse Markers ◽  
Native Speakers Of English ◽  
Discourse Management

This study revealed the comparison of the use of discourse markers in English speeches between non-native and native speakers of English. The study focused on the types of discourse markers, the similarities and the differences between non-native and native speakers in using discourse markers. This study employed a qualitative research design with the data from the spoken discourse. The findings of the study showed that there were ten sub-categories of discourse markers that are practiced by non-native speakers, namely: assessment marker, manner of a speaking marker, evidential markers, hearsay markers, contrastive discourse markers, elaborative discourse markers, inferential discourse markers, discourse management markers, topic orientation markers, and attention markers. On the contrary, there were nine sub-categories of discourse markers that existed in English speeches, especially delivered by the native speakers such as assessment marker, manner of a speaking marker, evidential markers, hearsay markers, contrastive discourse markers, elaborative discourse markers, inferential discourse markers, topic orientation markers, and attention markers. The total of discourse markers produced by the non-native speakers was 301 utterances while native speakers of English were 269 utterances. Therefore, it is concluded that discourse markers were useful in English speeches either by non-native speakers or native speakers

The use of discourse markers in L2 Italian

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna De Marco
Keyword(s):  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Functional Approach ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Acoustic Features ◽  
Structural Context ◽  
Acoustic Profile ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Different Levels

This exploratory study intends to investigate the use of discourse markers (DM) in Italian L2 by learners with different L1s and different levels of competence (three at A2/B1 level and two at B2/C1 level). The analysis aims to describe the functions, the distribution, and some acoustic features of three DMs (però ‘but’, allora ‘then’, quindi ‘therefore’) in semi-spontaneous conversations between the learners and two native speakers. The purpose is to determine the possible uses and the relationship between the forms and functions of the DMs in native and non-native speakers distinguishing three main macro-functions (interactional, cognitive and metadiscursive) activated by speakers on the basis of the characteristics of the cotext (acoustic profiles), the context and the communicative situation. Such an analysis suggests a possible sequence in the emergence of DMs in the speech of L2 learners with different levels of competence in the target language. This exploratory study adopts a functional approach (Bazzanella 1995a, b; 2006; Fisher 2006). The outcomes of the analysis show that learners use a variety of DM forms and functions, and that some functions only emerge in more proficient speakers. The structural context and, to a lesser degree, the acoustic profile prove to be reliable indicators of the spectrum of functions performed by DMs in verbal interaction.

scholarly journals Confirming or asserting?

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-43
Author(s):  
Cecilia Andorno ◽  
Fabiana Rosi
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Negative Polarity ◽  
Pragmatic Competence ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
L2 Learners

Yes and no allow an easy management of talk-in-interaction and, unlike other classes of discourse markers, occur from early stages of L2 acquisition onwards (Perdue 1993; Bernini 1996, 2000; Andorno 2008a for L2 Italian). However, problems in their use can arise in replies to negative utterances such as “Didn’t you hear the news?”, “You didn’t read the news, did you?”, as in this case speakers have to choose one of the two conflicting values possibly encoded by the particles — either asserting a positive/negative polarity for the proposition at issue or confirming/reversing the negative polarity conveyed by the previous speaker. Since Pope (1973), a distinction has been drawn between languages with polarity-oriented particles, such as English yes/no, and languages with agreement-oriented particles, such as Japanese hai/iie. The study compares the use of Italian sì/no and other routines such as echo-constructions in native speakers and L2 learners with either a polarity-oriented or an agreement-oriented L1. Results show that cross-linguistic influence can affect the use of sì/no in L2, as pointed for other domains of pragmatic competence (Gass & Selinker 1992; Kasper 1992; Jarvis & Pavlenko 2008). Results further show that, even when learners lack pragmalinguistic competence in the use of particles, they treat replies of confirmation or rejection differently, thus revealing sociopragmatic sensitivity similar to that of native speakers in recognising the markedness of disagreement replies.

Discourse Markers in the Academic Writing of Arab Students of English: A Corpus-based Approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 569
Author(s):  
Abeer Q. Taweel
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Corpus Linguistics ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Detailed Account ◽  
General Tendency ◽  
L1 Influence ◽  
Arab Students ◽  
Shed Light

This study aims to shed light on the discourse markers used in the academic writing of Arab students of English as a second language within the framework of corpus linguistics. By so doing, an attempt will be made to examine the use of the discourse marker expressing attitude, sequence, cause and result, addition, and comparing and contrasting. For comparison purposes, similar-sized authentic corpus will be used to examine the learners’ use, overuse, and underuse of the target markers. Moreover, the study will provide a detailed account of the possible reasons contributing to the disparity between the two corpora in terms of the use of the target markers. Results show that learners use more discourse markers than native speakers. While this is a general tendency, it still remains feasible to attribute the disparity between the two corpora to learners L1 influence where some of the overused markers spring out naturally and smoothly as they have rhetorical functions in learners’ native tongue.

ON SOME VARIATION IN THE USE OF DISCOURSE MARKERS BY CZECH AND GERMAN STUDENTS OF ENGLISH

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
Renata Povolná
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Cultural Variation ◽  
Discourse Communities ◽  
Academic English ◽  
Academic Texts ◽  
Coherence Relations ◽  
Contrastive Discourse Markers ◽  
Native Speakers Of English ◽  
Novice Writers

Since recent studies on academic English have shown considerable cross-cultural variation in texts written by non-native speakers (Clyne 1987, Ventola & Mauranen 1991, Čmejrková & Daneš 1997, Duszak 1997, Chamonikolasová 2005, Stašková 2005, Mur- Dueňas 2008, Wagner 2011, Dontcheva-Navratilova 2012, Povolná 2012), the paper investigates a corpus of diploma theses written by Czech and German students of English with the aim of fi nding out how novice non-native writers from different discourse communities (Swales 2004) use causal and contrastive discourse markers (DMs) associated with hypotactic and paratactic relations in order to build coherence relations (Taboada 2006) in academic texts. In addition, the author attempts to fi nd out whether there is any variation in the preferences of novice writers depending on the different fi elds of study, i.e. diploma theses written in the areas of linguistics and methodology, and whether the use of selected DMs by Czech and German students differs from the writing habits of native speakers of English.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document