Exploring Interlanguage Pragmatics: A Study Case on Discourse Marker by Indonesian Learners of Japanese Participating in an Internship Program

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.

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

This study aims to explore the use of discourse markers (DMs) in complaints by native and non-native speakers of Italian, focusing on how DMs are employed across different proficiency levels. The goal is to understand the role of DMs in mitigating, intensifying, or structuring complaints in Italian language learners at A1-A2 and B1-B2 levels compared to native speakers. The data were collected through written discourse completion tasks (DCTs), which elicited participants’ responses in various complaint scenarios. The quantitative analysis revealed distinct patterns in DM usage among the three groups, with A1-A2 learners displaying a higher frequency but narrower variety of DMs compared to more advanced learners and native speakers. The DMs used by lower-level learners were mainly interactional, serving to seek attention and employ basic politeness strategies. At the B1-B2 level, a broader range of DMs was observed, fulfilling functions such as mitigating or reinforcing the complaint, modulating certainty, and managing the expressive tone of the interaction. Native speakers showed the most structured complaints and utilized a diverse array of DMs to balance the illocutionary force of their complaints. A consistent finding across all groups was the prevalent use of the dyad scusa/scusi ma highlighting its function in introducing criticism and expressing contrasts in complaint scenarios. Esplorare i marcatori del discorso nelle proteste: un’analisi comparativa di parlanti nativi e non nativi italiani Questo studio si propone di esplorare l’uso dei segnali discorsivi (SD) nelle proteste di parlanti nativi e non nativi di italiano, concentrandosi su come vengano impiegati nei diversi livelli di competenza. L’obiettivo è comprendere il ruolo dei SD nell’attenuare, intensificare o strutturare le proteste tra apprendenti di italiano ai livelli A1-A2 e B1-B2 rispetto ai parlanti nativi. I dati sono stati raccolti attraverso DCT scritti, che hanno sollecitato risposte in diversi scenari. L’analisi quantitativa ha rivelato distinti patterns nell’uso dei SD tra i tre gruppi: gli apprendenti A1-A2 mostrano una frequenza maggiore ma una varietà minore rispetto a quelli più avanzati e ai parlanti nativi. I segnali utilizzati dai principianti erano prevalentemente interazionali, volti a richiamare l’attenzione e a impiegare strategie di cortesia molto semplici. Al livello B1-B2 si osserva una gamma più ampia di SD, che servono a mitigare o rinforzare la protesta, modulare la certezza e gestire il tono espressivo dell’interazione. I parlanti nativi presentano atti più strutturati e utilizzano una varietà diversificata di SD per bilanciare la forza illocutiva delle loro proteste. Un risultato comune a tutti i gruppi è l’uso prevalente della diade scusa/scusi ma, che evidenzia la sua funzione nell’introdurre critiche ed esprimere contrasti nei diversi scenari esaminati.

This study addressed the use and perception of Japanese self-reference terms for Japanese native speakers and second language (L2) learners of Japanese. Participants completed a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) and a Felicity Judgment Task (FJT) for quantitative analysis. Individual follow-up interviews were also conducted, which provided additional insight into native speakers’ and learners’ understandings of the uses of self-reference terms in Japanese. The results indicated that overall Japanese native speakers employed different self-reference terms depending on gender (of the speaker and listener), power differences, and situational formality. While some of the findings related to Japanese native speakers’ use and perception of self-reference terms align with previous studies, such as the use of the self-reference term <i>watashi</i> when speaking with higher power listeners (e.g., Ide, 1990b), there were new findings regarding the usage of other self-reference terms including <i>ore</i>, <i>jibun</i>, and <i>uchi</i>. <br>This study also investigated the effect of a pedagogical intervention for L2 learners focused on Japanese self-reference terms. In addition to the DCT and FJT (as pre, post, and delayed post-test) and individual follow-up interviews, L2 learners also participated in a myriad of other classroom intervention activities within a learners-as-researchers framework (e.g., Tanaka, 1997; Ishihara, 2006) about Japanese self-reference terms (e.g., blog entries, interviews with Japanese native speakers). The L2 DCT and FJT results indicated that before the pedagogical intervention, L2 learners relied heavily on <i>watashi </i>while neglecting other self-reference options compared to Japanese native speakers. After the intervention, L2 learners were able to employ a broader range of self-reference terms (e.g., <i>ore</i>, <i>boku, atashi</i>). This indicates that the intervention helped facilitate L2 learners’ pragmatic competence with self-reference terms. The analysis of L2 usage of self-reference terms in blog entries and individual interviews with learners indicated that some learners employed different self-reference terms without resistance, while others displayed a stronger resistance to using new self-reference terms. Some learners overcame this resistance over the course of the semester, while others stayed with <i>watashi</i> until the end of the semester. Collectively, the results indicate development in pragmatic competence and also various developmental trajectories for different learners.<br>

It is a great pleasure to offer this tribute to Professor Leslie M. Beebe and to help celebrate her vital contribution to the field of cross-cultural pragmatics (CCP). There is no denying that Professor Beebe stands as a distinguished scholar in the field. Anyone who wishes to conduct research on second language (L2) pragmatics would not be able to begin without learning of or citing her work. Among her contributions to the field, I would first like to ponder her groundbreaking call for serious attention to L2 pragmatics as early as the mid-1980s, a time when pragmatics was a neglected area in second language acquisition (SLA) research and L2 pedagogy. In a number of scholarly papers and at conferences, she suggested that “the social rules of speaking” are “basics, not frosting on the cake” (Beebe, 1995, p. 4). Professor Beebe is acknowledged among SLA researchers as one of the earliest linguists who was deeply concerned with cross-cultural misunderstandings (which often lead to unfortunate and offensive cultural stereotyping) resulting from a lack of pragmatic competence. Also of great importance to the field was Professor Beebe’s contribution to establishing a solid link between pragmatics and SLA by introducing the concept of pragmatic transfer. In the late 1980s, by showing that L2 learners often refer back to rules of speaking from their first language (L1), she successfully demonstrated cross-linguistic influence at the level of pragmatics (Beebe & Takahashi, 1989a; Beebe & Takahashi, 1989b; Beebe, Takahashi, & Ulis-Weltz, 1990). Motivated by her seminal work, the research focus of L2 pragmatics began shifting from CCP to interlanguage pragmatics (ILP), moving beyond the comparison of L1 and L2 pragmatic conventions towards the understanding of the developmental stages that L2 learners go through. Since that time, pragmatics has rapidly grown into a legitimate area of research in the study of SLA. It is now widely accepted that pragmatics is indispensable in helping researchers to understand how L2 learners acquire and use the target language in a meaningful and appropriate manner. Professor Beebe’s knowledge of and enthusiasm for language-and-culture (Byram & Morgan, 1994) has immensely influenced both my coursework and dissertation study. Thanks to her, I gained an appreciation for the way that cultural and social motivations can provide an important basis for understanding linguistic behavior. This recognition has led me to write my dissertation on cross-cultural conversations. In one of the chapters in my dissertation, I strive to explain cross-cultural differences and the interactional consequences of these differences in accomplishing the speech act of disagreement. In doing so, I focus on specific and observable linguistic behavior, specifically, the use of discourse markers (DMs) by Korean L2 learners and native speakers of American English in everyday, face-to-face conversation. In a preliminary analysis of my data, I found a noticeable cross-cultural difference in the use of the DM but. In fact, it is a widely accepted view that East Asian cultures are oriented toward avoiding nonalignment with others. However, as Beebe and Takahashi (1989b) aptly point out, it is too simplistic and risky to determine cultural constraints on language use in polarizing terms (e.g., positive politeness vs. negative politeness, and direct language vs. indirect language). Warning against a dichotomous approach to cross-cultural communication, the researchers underscore contextual dimensions in

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

This study explores the use of discourse markers (DMs) in metadiscursive activities such as word searches, repairs or metalinguistic evaluations that occur during spontaneous oral production. The analysis is based on a corpus of telephone conversations between advanced learners and native speakers of French and draws on functional as well as on interactional work on DM. In a first step, three selected learner profiles provide insight, by means of sequence analysis, into how individual learners make use of their particular DM inventory for their utterance planning, carrying out repairs and expressing attitudes toward their oral production. In a second step, the study compares native and non-native speaker’s DM inventories in order to detect general tendencies in the learners’ DM use that differ from the native speakers’ use of DMs. The comparison of the profiles shows that, even if there is relatively little agreement among the learners regarding the concrete lexical forms of the DMs, similarities can be discerned regarding the interlinguistic characteristics (e.g. individual preferences and overuse in the form of “lexical teddy bears” such as oui, alors or voilà, underuse of typical French reformulation markers like enfin, and weak routine in the lexicalisation of metadiscursive comments).

This research analyzes the discourse marker (DM) use of native speakers and non-native speakers in two speech contexts, interviews and conversations. The findings indicate that native speakers use oh and well more in the conversation data, a difference which is also found in the non-native speaker data. The native speakers use like and y’know more frequently in the interview data, but the non-native speakers do not show a difference in the use of these markers across contexts. Instead, non-native speaker discourse is characterized by formulaic use of some DMs and an overall lower rate of DM occurrence.

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.

So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech

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.

This study investigated the perceived speaking skills of undergraduate students who were majoring or minoring in Japanese Studies at two universities in Vietnam and Bulgaria. It also examined the factors associated with students’ speaking skills, their motives for studying Japanese, and their needs for communication with native Japanese speakers while proposing a hypothetical model linking these constructs. A total of 108 students participated in the cross-sectional online survey questionnaire, which included questions on personal information, perceived Japanese language skills, motives for studying Japanese, needs for communication with native Japanese speakers, and self-esteem. The data were analyzed using SPSS. The results showed that the respondents perceived their Japanese speaking skills level as lower than the other three skills. Factors such as age, year of enrollment, years studying Japanese, English level, co-living status, study abroad experience, and self-esteem were found to be associated with the perceived speaking skills of the respondents. Family-related factors, such as parents’ education and the family’s study abroad experience, were also found to be associated with perceived speaking skills. The study also validated three constructs of motives for studying Japanese, including being interested in Japan, being interested in communication, and being interested in going to Japan and highlighting the respondents’ needs for communication with native speakers. The proposed model suggests that motives for studying Japanese influence perceived speaking skills and the need for communication with native Japanese speakers. The findings of this study have implications for Japanese language education, particularly in the development of teaching strategies that enhance students’ speaking skills and provide opportunities for communication with native speakers. It also underscores the importance of understanding students’ motives for studying Japanese, as these motivations can influence their language proficiency and the effectiveness of language education programs.

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.

Taking the pitcher to the ‘well’: Native speakers' perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation

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.