DISCOURSE MARKERS IN VOGUE’S 73 QUESTIONS WITH ADELE

Discourse markers have pragmatic functions like promoting discourse fluency, expressing attitudes, constructing and managing coherence (Fraser, 1996; Halliday & Hasan, 1976). Most previous research focused on the use of specific discourse markers (Diskin, 2017; Gaines, 2011; Hasselgreen, 2004) or made a comparison between the non-native speakers and native speakers (Ament et al., 2018; Buysse, 2017; Liu, 2016; Wang & Wang, 2008) while the studies of the use of discourse markers from a developmental perspective are few. Therefore, this study aims to study discourse markers in L2 writings by describing and comparing the use of discourse markers used by the same group of Chinese EFL learners at varying proficiency levels. The participants in the current study are 30 English majors from the same grade. All of them are invited to write about the two same topics when they are sophomores and seniors. All of them have passed TEM-4 when they are sophomores. This study collects and analyzes data from their L2 writings. The researcher identifies and tags each discourse marker used in the L2 writings according to the function it has the context. After coding, the distribution, rate, and variety of discourse markers are calculated. The effect of varying language proficiency levels on the use of discourse markers is explored. Results indicate the continuation markers are used the most, followed by causal markers, contrast markers, sequencing markers, elaboration markers, opening and closing markers, summary or concluding markers, and topic shift or digression markers. The overall patterns of discourse markers’ distribution and rate in the two periods are similar while the total variety presents a difference that the seniors use more various discourse markers than the sophomores. The results suggest that language proficiency level is associated with discourse markers use. Participants of high proficiency use more various discourse markers. Therefore, the present study can contribute to our understanding of discourse markers through an in-depth analysis of L2 writing, improve EFL learners’ L2 writings quality and bring some important pedagogical implications for L2 writing assessment.

The article selects the online Chinese teachers volunteers’ comprehensive class video as the research object, through literature research, classroom observation, recording writing, corpus analysis and comparison of different teachers in class to discuss the category of class discourse markers, and found the problems when teachers use discourse markers in the online classroom, put forward the corresponding teaching advice and specification requirements. This paper takes the discourse markers of Chinese teachers in online teaching classrooms as the research object, and comprehensively analyzes the use of Chinese and English discourse markers by teachers in the classroom. The full text has four chapters: chapter 1 explains the reasons, research significance and literature review; chapter 2 defines and classifies the discourse markers in classroom language; chapter 3 addresses the problems of Chinese teachers in classroom discourse markers, and finally, chapter 4 summarizes the full text. The main conclusions of the whole article are: (1) the two Chinese teacher volunteers have the problems of single discourse marker style and redundant discourse marker in the use of discourse markers in the classroom. (2) Teachers should give due attention to discourse markers in the preparation before class and in the process of classroom teaching, and strengthen the self-monitoring awareness of the use of discourse markers in teaching.

This study is focused on the use of discourse markers in Donald Trmpu’s rally victory speech. The purposes of this study are to find out the types of discourse markers used during the speech and the functions by using Fraser’s theory (2009) to examine the types of discourse markers and Schiffrin’s theory (1987) to analyze their functions. In this study, the data used are words and phrases from the utterances uttered by Donald Trimp which included to discourse markers. Therefore, the researcher used qualitative research method to analyze this topic. The reearcher also used data analysis technique from Miles, Huberman, and Saldana (2014). In conclusion, the researcher found all types of discourse markers used by Donald Trump on his rally victory speech. There are 227 data included in the discourse markers. Among them are 54 contrastive discourse marker, 148 elaborative discourse markers, 20 inferential discourse markers, and 5 temporal discourse markers. Elaborative Discourse Markers are dominant used by Donald Trump. Based on the functions, the writer found that from 5 functions of discourse markers. There are Marker of Response, Marker of Connectives, Marker of Cause and Effect, and Marker of Information and Partiipation.

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

Considering the important roles of discourse markers in writing academic purposes, the researchers evaluate the use of discourse markers in English Education Journal articles. This research aims to find out the types of discourse markers precisely contrastive, elaborative and inferential discourse markers, and the errors in using those expressions. This research uses a qualitative research design with the data from written language especially the journal articles published by English Education Journal (EEJ). Thus, specifically this research employs content analysis. There were twenty journal articles analyzed. They represented their volume especially there are four volumes in 2020. The findings of this research demonstrated that all of the research data applied those types of discourse markers. The type of elaborative discourse markers were the first type used by the writers. It is the frequently used by the writers in the journal articles. In this case, it used in 890 times. The expression frequently used is and. Meanwhile, the errors in using discourse markers in the journal articles occurred in 17 times. Here, the wrong relation category as the commonly applied in 7 times. These findings inform us to improve our awareness in applying those expressions. Thus, it can be concluded that the discourse markers is required in creating journal articles. Therefore, the writers have to concern regarding to the categories of errors in using discourse markers for avoiding inappropriateness.

Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US

This study investigates the use of discourse markers by Spanish learners of English. It is intended as an initial contribution to the study of how discourse markers are used by foreign language learners. We conduct two pilot studies involving the use of English discourse markers by native speakers of Spanish. We first study if these speakers use English discourse markers at all in their writings and if they use some markers and not others. We then compare the use they make of discourse markers in Spanish and in English. This study shows that native speakers of Spanish use discourse markers extensively and in appropriate ways both in Spanish and in English. We also observe some differences between the writings in English and Spanish with respect to the number of markers employed as well as the variety of markers used. With these initial results, we intend to better define future research questions and directions.

The purpose of this study is to investigate how Korean middle school students’ competence of English discourse markers is related with their English reading comprehension. The relationship was further explored in relation to students’ reading proficiency. A total of 132 middle school students participated in this study. Their discourse marker competence was measured by both comprehension and use of five types of discourse markers (listing, sequence, cause & effect, comparison, and contrast). They also took an English reading comprehension test, based on which they were divided into advanced-reader group or low-reader group. The results revealed that the learners’ scores on both types of discourse marker tests have high correlations with their reading comprehension scores. The relationship was stronger for the discourse marker use test than the discourse marker comprehension test, and in the low-reader group than the advanced-reader group. The detailed comparison of the two groups further revealed both similarities and differences in discourse marker comprehension and use. While the advanced-reader group outperformed the low-reader group in every type of discourse markers, both groups showed difficulty in comprehending and using listing and contrast types of discourse markers.

Discourse markers have been studied extensively in linguistics and communication studies. Its use is very helpful in understanding the message conveyed, both in formal and informal situations. This study examines the discourse markers used by non-native speakers in Good Morning America Talk Show. Unveil the types and their functions, this study uses a qualitative descriptive method in identifying the use of discourse markers. The data were taken from conversations of non-native speakers using Biber et al (1999) theory to determine the types and functions of discourse markers. The results of this study showed that there are ten types of discourse markers interjection, greetings and farewells, linking adverbials, stance adverbials, vocatives, response elicitors, response forms, hesitators, various polite speech-act formulas and expletives. Those markers have variations functions as marker of information management, marker of response, marker of connectives, marker of cause and effect, marker of temporal adverb and marker of information participation. This study has shown that the use of discourse markers varies across languages and cultures. Moreover, the use of discourse markers can also vary depending on the context of the communication.

Discourse markers establish relationships between topics in discourse and serve a range of pragmatic functions, such as mitigating dispreferred actions and maintaining the continuity of spoken interaction. This study examines the use of diverse discourse markers (e.g. but, and, actually, you know, well, yeah, okay) in second language (L2) task-based pragmatic performance with the following research questions: What are distinct pragmatic functions of discourse markers in task-based pragmatic performance? How does the use of discourse markers differ at pragmatic performance levels and task types? The data came from 102 L2 English test-takers’ pragmatic performances on monologic and interactive role-play pragmatic assessment tasks, scored by trained raters using analytical rating criteria. Sequential mixed methods were employed to answer the research questions. First, the sequential positions and pragmatic functions of discourse markers in task-based performances were analysed using conversation analysis, which formed the basis of a coding scheme and coder training. Second, the coded data were analysed using the CLAN program for quantitative analyses to answer the second research question. The findings revealed that the frequencies and quantitative power of the discourse markers in predicting the pragmatic performance levels were distinct across the task types that differed in terms of pragmatic demands and interactivity. For example, the use of discourse markers which function as transitioners of actions and acknowledgement tokens was more distinguishable for more interactive tasks with less formal pragmatic functions. The findings confirm that the pattern of discourse markers was associated with the pragmatic functions and interactional demands required in the tasks. Implications of the findings in understanding the role of discourse markers in task-based pragmatic teaching and assessment are discussed.

Young language learners’ (YLLs) use of discourse markers (DMs) has been largely neglected in studies of ESL learners, despite the importance of DMs for coherent speech and conversation management. The present study aims to fill this gap by investigating the use of DMs by YLLs of English in Croatia. The performances of sixteen YLLs aged 10–11 in picture-based narrative tasks were analysed focusing on DM use in context. The results demonstrated that the YLLs use DMs to structure their narrative, although they employ a very limited range of DMs, ignoring some common ones. No significant correlation was found between the YLLs’ proficiency, attitudes towards English, and exposure to English and their DM use. The qualitative analysis showed that the YLLs use DMs correctly and strategically, which points to their awareness of the pragmatic characteristics of DMs and the developmental potential for the acquisition of a wider range of these units.

Discourse markers typically appear in daily life conversations, and the use of discourse markers of men and women is different depending on language use. The purpose of this study was to investigate functions of the discourse marker “Ah”, which appeared in the sitcom IPartment. The data were analyzed using the perspectives of gender and language use. The findings indicated that the discourse marker “Ah” appeared in the sitcom had various functions. The indicator "Ah" emphasized the sentences at the initial position, led to correction on wrong or unexpectedly sent messages, smoothened the sentences, stressed the whole sentences, provided examples, attracted the audiences, responded to situations, and showed responses. In addition, both men and women most frequently used “Ah” as emphasizing the sentences at the initial position. There was a total of 203 occurrences of “Ah” discourse markers used by male characters and a total of 89 occurrences of “Ah” discourse markers used by female characters. The findings indicated that the male characters used “Ah” more frequently than the female characters did.

This study investigates and compares the use of discourse markers (DMs) by native speakers and learners of English based on a corpus of adolescent intercultural exchange students. Thestudy employs a discourse analytical approach, in whichFung and Carter’s (2007)multi-category framework is appliedwith a view to examiningDMs used bya group of Taiwanese and British adolescentsin an intercultural setting.The analytical frameworkcontains four main functional categories: Interpersonal, referential, structural and cognitive DMs. Each DM was analysed qualitatively and quantitatively in order to identifythe functions it serves in its original contextandtofurther reveal the different uses of DMs between Taiwanese and British participants. The findings demonstrate that the DMs used by both groups of participants serve the fourcentral functions,andin particularTaiwanese participants display a significant use of interpersonal (e.g., yeah, oh) and structural DMs (e.g., so, okay), while British participants have a significantly higher usage of referential (e.g., coz/because, and) and cognitive DMs (e.g., like, well). The results of this study have direct pedagogical implications that can enhance the teaching of English as a Foreign Language (EFL)to better prepare learners for real life communication scenarios.

Discourse markers help people navigate conversations. We tested how the use of five discourse markers – so, but, oh, I think , and like – was influenced by communication medium (text, phone, videoconferencing) and conversation type (task-related conversation or small talk). Additionally, we tested whether these discourse markers influenced the amount of words contributed throughout the conversation and how interlocutors felt about their conversations. These discourse markers were used more while working on a task compared to casual chat during a phone conversation, but less while working on a task compared to casual chat during instant messaging and videoconferencing conversations. We observed no relationships between discourse marker use and the amount participants contributed to their conversations, nor did we observe relationships between discourse marker use and conversational appraisals in the phone or videoconferencing conversations. We observed a trending relationship in instant messaging conversations where the more discourse markers used, the more communicators enjoyed their conversations. The work presented here expands understanding of discourse markers by documenting variation by setting and task type. The findings support the argument that discourse markers are used to negotiate conversations.

The newest research has proved the importance of discourse for second language learning and teaching at more advanced levels. TED-MDB multilingual discourse-annotated corpus, created within the framework of TextLink, COST action IS1312, appears to be a handy tool for illuminating qualitative differences between the first and the second language discourse marker use. The current research focuses on the pragmatic use of English discourse marker and with its Lithuanian counterpart ir paying attention to the cases when the connectives and/ir perform different functions, e. g., discourse structuring, etc. It was established by the research that the use and translation of the connectives vary. They may be translated by the discourse markers provided by dictionaries, or might be transferred into a different discourse marker or are simply omitted. The research leads to a conclusion that language learners and teachers may use the corpus resources for raising linguistic awareness about the pragmatic use of discourse markers.