Keywords
pragmatic marker
conjunction
cohesion
proficiency level
How to Cite
Number of views: 411
Number of downloads: 354
Abstract
This study examines the use of cohesive devices (pragmatic markers and conjunctions) in a 24,000-word corpus of transcribed oral data from 47 learners and native speakers of English. Both of these cohesive devices increase with proficiency level, but not in the same way. Conjunction use seems to increase steadily, and only the differences between the highest and lowest proficiency levels were found to be statistically significant. Pragmatic marker use, however, remains fairly stable across the three lowest proficiency levels and rises drastically for the two highest proficiency levels, and the two higher proficiency levels are significantly different from the two lower levels in their use of pragmatic markers. The results are compared to native speaker rates of cohesive device use for the same tasks and under the same conditions.References
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Bolton, K., Nelson, G., & Hung, J. (2003). A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing: Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong ICE-HK. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(2), 165-182.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Spoken and written English. Grammar and usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cobb, T. (2003). Analyzing late interlanguage with learner corpora: Quebec replications of three European studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3), 393-424.
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T. L., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). The role of lexical cohesive devices in triggering negotiations for meaning. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 55-80.
Enkvist, N. E. (1978). Coherence, pseudo-coherence, and non-coherence. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED275188)
Davies, Mark. (2008-) The corpus of contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6, 167-90.
Fuller, J. (2003). The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(1), 23-45. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00065-6
Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410-439. doi:10.1093/applin/amm030
Granger, S. (2009). The contribution of learner corpora to second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and language teaching (pp. 13-32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17-27.
Green, C. F., Christopher, E. R., & Mei, J. L. K. (2000). The incidence and effects on coherence of marked themes in interlanguage texts: A corpus-based enquiry. English for Specific Purposes, 19(2), 99-113.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.
Hasselgreen, A. (2005). 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.
Hellermann, J., & Vergun, A. (2007). Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 157-179. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.008
Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Language Learning, 12(2), 111-132.
Knott, A. and Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 18, 35-62.
Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33(4), 623-636.
Murray, J. D. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity.
Memory & Cognition, 25 (2), 227-236.
Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nesi, H., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Lexical bundles and discourse signalling in academic lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(3), 283-304.
Ozono, S., & Ito, H. (2003). Logical connectives as catalysts for interactive L2 reading. System, 31(2), 283-297.
Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 367-381.
Redeker, G. (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics 29, 1139-1172.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Siepmann, D. (2005). Discourse markers across languages: A contrastive study of second-level discourse markers in native and non-native text with implications for general and pedagogic lexicography. Abingdon: Routledge.
Shohamy, E. (1994). The validity of direct versus semi-direct oral tests. Language Testing, 11(2), 99-123.
Swender, E. (1999). ACTFL oral proficiency interview tester training manual.
Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Tanskanen, S. K. (2006). Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yeung, L. (2009). Use and misuse of “besides”: A corpus study comparing native speakers’ and learners’ English. System, 37(2), 330-342. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.11.007
Zhang, M. (2000). Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31(1), 61-95.
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.