Keywords
proficiency level
pragmatic competence
second language development
oral speech production
How to Cite
Number of views: 649
Number of downloads: 461
Abstract
This study investigates the use of pragmatic markers (PMs) by learners of English at varying proficiency levels. The study analyzes data from a university-level oral proficiency exam that categorized Chinese and Korean English-as-a-second-language (ESL) speakers into four proficiency levels and compares data with those of native speakers taking the same test. Findings indicate that PM use generally rises with proficiency level. The rates of PM use showed a dramatic increase between the highest and second-highest proficiency group. The highest proficiency ESL group used PMs at the same rate as native speakers. The study also found that the variety of different PMs used goes up steadily with proficiency level. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for understanding how second language learners’ use of PMs develops.References
Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding pragmatic markers: a variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning,49, 677-713.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(s1), 68-86.
Bell, D. M. (2010). Nevertheless, still and yet: Concessive cancellative discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1912-1927.
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blakemore, D. (2008). Discourse markers. In R. L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 221-240). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Buysse, L. (2009). So as a marker of elaboration in native and non-native speech. In S. Slembrouck, M. Taverniers, & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), From will to well: Studies in linguistics offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (pp. 79-91). Gent: Academia.
Buysse, L. (2012). So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1764-1782.
Callies, M. (2009). Information highlighting in advanced learner English: The syntax-pragmatics interface in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chodorowska-Pilch, M. (2008). Verás in Peninsular Spanish as a grammaticalized discourse marker invoking positive and negative politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1357-1372.
Daller, H., Van Hout, R., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24, 197-222.
Dittmar, N., & Terborg, H. (1991). Modality and second language learning. A challenge for linguistics. In T. Huebner & C. Ferguson (Eds), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theories (pp. 347-384). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Durán, M. E., & Unamuno, V. (2001). The discourse marker a ver (Catalan, a veure) in teacher-student interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 193-208.
Feng, G. (2008). Pragmatic markers in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1687-1718.
Fillmore, C. (2000). On fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 43-61). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Foster, P., & P. Tavakoli (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59, 866-896.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952.
Fuller, J. (2003). The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 23-45.
Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28, 410-439.
Gan, Z. (2012). Complexity measures, task type, and analytic evaluations of speaking proficiency in a school-based assessment context. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(2), 133-151.
Ginther, A., Dimova, S., & Yang, R. (2010). Conceptual and empirical relationships
between temporal measures of fluency and oral English proficiency
with implications for automated scoring. Language Testing, 27, 379-399.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hasselgreen, A. (2004). Testing the spoken English of young Norwegians: A study
of test validity and the role of "smallwords" in contributing to pupils' fluency.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hays, P. R. (1992). Discourse markers and L2 acquisition. Papers in Applied Linguistics-Michigan, 7, 24-34.
Hellermann, J., & Vergun, A. (2007). Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 157-179.
House, J. (2013). Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca: Using discourse markers to express (inter) subjectivity and connectivity. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 57-67.
Ishida, M. (2013). Second Language Pragmatic Development. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lenk, U. (1997). Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, & E. Ventola (Eds.), Selected papers from the international workshop on coherence, Augsburg (pp 1- 17). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lenk, U. (1998). Marking discourse coherence: Functions of discourse markers in spoken English. Tübingen: Narr.
Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 190-208.
Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 85-104.
Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 241-259.
Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Neary-Sundquist, C. (2013). Task type effects on pragmatic marker use by learners at varying proficiency levels. L2 Journal, 5, 1-21.
O’Loughlin, K. (1995). Lexical density in candidate output on direct and semi-direct versions of an oral proficiency test. Language Testing, 12(2), 217-237.
Overstreet, M., & Yule, G. (1997). Fostering pragmatic awareness. Applied Language Learning, 10(1), 1-14.
Romero-Trillo, J. (1997). Pragmatic mechanisms to obtain the addressee's attention in English and Spanish conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 205-221.
Romero-Trillo, J. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non- native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 769-784.
Romero-Trillo, J. (2012). Pragmatic markers. The encyclopedia of applied linguistics.
Sasamoto, R. (2008). Japanese discourse connectives dakara and sorede: A reassessment of procedural meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 127-154.
Scarcella, R. C. (1983). Developmental trends in the acquisition of conversational competence by adult second language learners. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 175-183). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107(3-4), 227-265.
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17, 84-119.
Wang, Y., & Tsai, P. (2007). Textual and contextual contrast connection: A study of Chinese contrastive markers across different text types. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1775-1815.
Waring, H. Z. (2003). ‘Also’ as a discourse marker: Its use in disjunctive and disaffiliative environments. Discourse Studies, 5, 415-436.
Yu, G. (2010). Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied linguistics, 31, 236-259.
Zareva, A., Schwanenflugel, P., & Nikolova, Y. (2005). Relationship between lexical competence and language proficiency: Variable sensitivity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 567-595.
License
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.