||The Use of Discourse Markers by Taiwanese Students in ELF and EFL Contexts
||Department of English
本研究也針對六個常用話語標記- I think, so, like, you know, yeah 和 yes –
之使用頻率及功能進行質與量的分析。從使用頻率來看,調查發現:1) 三組學生在 so 和
I think 之使用頻率上無顯著差異; 2) 然而兩組台灣學生相比,英文為共通語學生使用 like, yeah 和 you know 的頻率遠高於英文為外語學生使用頻率,並且 like 和 yeah 的平均使用差異顯著; 3) 與英文母语者相比,英文為外語學生明顯過度使用 yes 並且平均差異顯著。從使用功能來看,1)與英文為共通語者相比,英文外語學生不曾使用 like 的 “間接用語標示”與 “概括標示”功能; 2) 英文外語學生不曾使用you know 之 “求同標示”與 “話輪轉換標示”之功能; 3) 與英文母語者相比,英文共通語學生及英文為外語學生所使用之I think 之“强调標示语”功能和 you know 之“遲疑標示语”功能,為英文母語者所無。最後合併訪談發現, 英文共通語及英文外語之臺灣學生對各話語標記的語用功能認識不全,導致該兩組臺灣學生在面對面溝通時,有避免使用話語標記的情形,並對使用話語標者有所誤解。
This dissertation compared discourse markers used among 19 Taiwanese students in English as a lingua franca (ELF) context, 18 Taiwanese in English as a foreign language (EFL) context, and 7 native English (NS) speakers in a Taiwanese university. Fifty-four different discourse markers were identified from the data of 175 minutes recorded pair conversations. The results showed that discourse markers were an indispensible part of English conversations. The participants in three groups used discourse markers for a variety of pragmatic functions on interpersonal and textual levels. In particular, ELF speakers had the highest frequency of overall markers used across groups, and the mean difference between ELF and EFL speakers was significant.
In addition, the results revealed that group differences affected the distributions of like, yeah, yes and you know, but did not affect the distributions of I think and so. In particular, ELF speakers had the highest frequencies of like, yeah and you know, and the mean differences of like and yeah between ELF and EFL were statistically significant. Conversely, EFL speakers used yes far more often than NS and ELF speakers did, and the mean difference between EFL and NS was statistical significant. These results might be an indication that L2 speakers acquired I think, so and yes first, but you know, yeah, and like at a later stage in the ELF context where ELF speakers were exposed to authentic language from their native speaking peers.
Finally, due to the multifunctionality of discourse markers, students in both ELF and EFL context used you know, I think and so as delaying strategies which were not found in the NS data. This tendency might be an indication that students in both ELF and EFL context needed more time to process information in L2 interactions. Given the important role discourse markers play in interaction, the pedagogical implications were discussed.
||Table of Content
Chinese Abstract ii
English Abstract iii
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xi
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 Context of problem 1
1.2 Rationale of the study 3
1.3 Purpose of the study 5
1.4 Research questions 6
1.5 Significance of the study 7
1.6 Definitions of terms 8
1.7 Outline of the study 9
Chapter 2: Literature Review 10
2.1 What are Discourse Markers? 10
2.1.1 Terminology of Discourse Markers 11
2.1.2 Features of Discourse Markers 12
184.108.40.206 Connectivity 12
220.127.116.11 Grammatical optionality 12
18.104.22.168 Semantic empty 13
22.214.171.124 Other qualities 13
2.1.3 Classification of Discourse Markers 14
2.1.4 Functions of Discourse Markers 15
126.96.36.199 Schiffrin’s five-plane model 16
188.8.131.52 Stenstrom’s interactional signals and discourse markers 18
184.108.40.206 Aijmer’s textual and interpersonal levels 18
220.127.116.11 Functional inventory of discourse markers 19
2.1.5 Corpus-studies: Naturally-occurring Data 20
2.1.6 Conversations Analysis 21
2.2 Discourse Markers in L1 and L2 English 22
2.2.1 Discourse Markers in L1 English. 22
2.2.2 The Development of Discourse Markers in L2 in ESL Context 25
2.2.3 Discourse Markers of L2 Speakers in EFL Context 27
2.2.4 You know, well and I think Used by EFL Learners in China 29
2.3 Pragmatic Acquisition: A sociocultural Perspective 31
2.3.1 Community of Practice: A Joint Enterprise of Social Practice 31
2.3.2 Academic ELF Community in Taiwanese Context 33
2.3.3 Discourse Markers Use by ELF speakers in Academic Context 34
2.3.4 The Need to Explore Discourse Marker Use by Taiwanese Students in
ELF and EFL contexts 35
2.4 Summary 35
Chapter 3: Methodology 37
3.1 The Pilot Study 37
3.2 The Main Study 40
3.2.1 A Multi-categorical Framework 40
18.104.22.168 Interpersonal Level 43
22.214.171.124 Textual Level 44
3.2.2 The Research Design 45
3.2.3. Participants 46
126.96.36.199 Native speakers in ELF community: NS group 46
188.8.131.52 Taiwanese students in ELF community: IA-1 and IA-2 groups 47
184.108.40.206 Taiwanese students in EFL community: AE group 48
3.2.4 Data Collection Techniques 49
220.127.116.11 Questionnaire 49
18.104.22.168 Task-based pair conversations 51
22.214.171.124 Post-task interviews 52
3.2.5 Data Collection Procedures 53
3.2.6 The Spoken Corpus 54
3.2.7 Data Transcription 55
3.3 Data Analysis 57
3.3.1 Identifying Discourse Markers 57
3.3.2 Data Coding 58
3.3.3 The Quantitative Analysis 61
126.96.36.199 Frequency 62
188.8.131.52 Statistical Analysis 62
3.3.4 The Most Common Markers: Six Selected Markers 64
3.4 Summary 65
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion 66
4.1 Comparative Results among NS, IA-2 and AE 66
4.1.1 Overall distribution of discourse markers used 66
4.1.2 Types of discourse markers used by NS, IA-2 and AE 68
4.2 Comparative Results among NS, IA-1 and IA-2 69
4.2.1 Overall distribution of discourse markers used 69
4.2.2 Types of discourse markers used by NS, IA-1 and IA-2 71
4.3 Examples of Types of Discourse Markers Used 73
4.3.1 Interpersonal Level 73
184.108.40.206 Relational markers 73
220.127.116.11 Attitude markers 75
18.104.22.168 Emphatics & Hedges 78
22.214.171.124 Backchannel markers 80
126.96.36.199 Turn-taking markers 82
4.3.2 Textual Level 84
188.8.131.52 Logical connectives 84
184.108.40.206 Frame markers 86
220.127.116.11 Code glosses 87
18.104.22.168 Hesitation and monitoring markers 89
22.214.171.124 Quotative markers 92
4.4 Top 10 markers Used by NS, IA-2 and AE 93
4.5 Summary of Quantitative Results 95
Chapter 5: Functions of Selected Markers 98
5.1 So 98
5.1.1 Positions of So 100
5.1.2 Functions of So 101
126.96.36.199 Interpersonal: initiating a question 103
188.8.131.52 Interpersonal: responsive and taking turn 104
184.108.40.206 Interpersonal: marking implied result 105
220.127.116.11 Interpersonal: expressing opinion 106
18.104.22.168 Textual: marking result of consequence 107
22.214.171.124 Textual: marking the main idea 107
126.96.36.199 Textual: summarizing 108
188.8.131.52 Textual: marking the sequence 109
184.108.40.206 Textual: marking boundary 110
220.127.116.11 Textual: delaying strategy 111
5.1.3 Functional Distribution of So 112
5.2 I Think 114
5.2.1. Positions of I Think 116
5.2.2 Functions of I Think 117
18.104.22.168 Interpersonal: providing an answer 118
22.214.171.124 Interpersonal: taking a turn 119
126.96.36.199 Interpersonal: downtoning 119
188.8.131.52 Interpersonal: expressing opinion 121
184.108.40.206 Interpersonal: drawing a conclusion 121
220.127.116.11 Interpersonal: emphasizing “I am expressing my opinion” 122
18.104.22.168 Interpersonal: expressing contrasting views 123
22.214.171.124 Textual: signaling self-repair 124
126.96.36.199 Textual: delaying strategy 125
5.2.3 Functional Distribution of I Think 126
5.3 Like 128
5.3.1 Position of Like 131
5.3.2 Functions of Like 132
188.8.131.52 Textual: indicating approximation 133
184.108.40.206 Textual: providing examples 134
220.127.116.11 Textual: giving explanations 135
18.104.22.168 Textual: marking lexical focus 137
22.214.171.124 Textual: quotative like 138
126.96.36.199 Textual: delaying strategy 139
5.3.3 Functional Distributional of Like 140
5.4 You know 141
5.4.1 Position of you know in a turn 143
5.4.2 Functions of you know 144
188.8.131.52 Interpersonal: marking shared knowledge 145
184.108.40.206 Interpersonal: appealing for agreement 145
220.127.116.11 Interpersonal: appealing for understanding 146
18.104.22.168 Interpersonal: comprehension securing 147
22.214.171.124 Interpersonal: turn-taking 148
126.96.36.199 Textual: marking self-repair 149
188.8.131.52 Textual: providing explanations 150
184.108.40.206 Textual: delaying strategy 150
5.4.3 Functional Distributional of you know 151
5.5 Yeah and Yes 153
5.5.1 Quantitative Results 155
220.127.116.11 Yeah 155
18.104.22.168 Yes 156
5.5.2 Position of Yeah and Yes 157
5.5.3 Functions of Yeah and Yes 158
22.214.171.124 Interpersonal: showing response and agreement 159
126.96.36.199 Interpersonal: checking understanding 160
188.8.131.52 Interpersonal: turn-taking 161
184.108.40.206 Interpersonal: reassuming the floor 162
220.127.116.11 Textual: self-assurance 163
18.104.22.168 Textual: self-confirmation 164
5.5.4 Functional Distribution of Yeah and Yes 165
22.214.171.124 Yeah 165
126.96.36.199 Yes 167
5.6 Summary 168
5.6.1 So 168
5.6.2 I Think 169
5.6.3 Like 169
5.6.4 You know 170
5.6.5 Yeah and Yes 170
5.6.6 Conclusion 171
Chapter 6: Interview Findings 172
6.1 The role of English in ELF and EFL communities 172
6.2 Discourse marker use in L1 and L2 English 173
6.2.1 Types of discourse markers in L1 and L2 English 175
6.2.2 Acquiring discourse markers 176
6.2.3 Functions of discourse markers in L1 and L2 English 177
6.2.4 Attitudes toward discourse markers used in L1 and L2 English 177
188.8.131.52 Criticism of discourse marker use in L1 English 177
184.108.40.206 Criticism of discourse marker use in L2 English 178
6.3 Summary 179
Chapter 7: Conclusion 181
7.1 Review of Main Findings 181
7.2 Implications 187
7.3 Limitations of the Study 189
7.4 Suggestions for Further Research 190
Appendix A: Invitation Letter 200
Appendix B: Questionnaire 201
Appendix C: Interview Questions 203
Appendix D: Symbols of Transcription 204
Appendix E: Examples of linguistics items disqualified as discourse markers 205
Appendix F: Sample transcript with coding scheme 206
Appendix G: Normalized frequencies of discourse markers per group in the pilot
Appendix H: Exact tokens of discourse markers per group in the main study 208
Appendix I: Normalized frequencies of 18 common markers per group 210
List of Tables
Table 3.1 The overall frequency of discourse markers per group in pilot study 38
Table 3.2 Hyland’s discourse markers classification for academic texts 41
Table 3.3 Classification of discourse markers in the present study 43
Table 3.4 Demographical data of the native speakers in main study 47
Table 3.5 Number of participants in main study 49
Table 3.6 Average word uttered and time spent on conversation per group 55
Table 3.7 Average words per speaker across groups 55
Table 3.8 Overall distribution of discourse markers per group 61
Table 3.9 Summary of the use of different statistical analyses 63
Table 4.1 Means in overall distribution of discourse markers across groups 67
Table 4.2 ANOVA results of the overall DM used among NS, IA-2 and AE 67
Table 4.3 Summary of multiple comparisons: overall distribution of discourse
Table 4.4 Types of markers used by NS, IA-2 and AE per 1,000 words 69
Table 4.5 Means in overall distribution of discourse markers by NS, IA-1 and
Table 4.6 ANOVA results of the overall DM used among NS, IA-1 and IA-2 71
Table 4.7 Types of discourse markers used by NS, IA-1 and IA-2 72
Table 4.8 The top 10 markers used by NS, IA-2 and AE 94
Table 5.1 Mean and standard deviation of so per group 99
Table 5.2 ANOVA results of the overall so used among NS, IA-2 and AE 100
Table 5.3 ANOVA results of the overall so used among NS, IA-1 and IA-2 100
Table 5.4 Normalized frequency and percentage of each position of so 101
Table 5.5 Functional distribution of so 112
Table 5.6 Mean and standard deviation of I think per group 114
Table 5.7 ANOVA results of the means of I think among NS, IA-2 and AE 115
Table 5.8 ANOVA results of the means of I think among NS, IA-1 and IA-2 115
Tabl3 5.9 Normalized frequency of each position of I think 117
Table 5.10 Functional distribution of I think 127
Table 5.11 Mean and standard deviation of like per group 130
Table 5.12 ANOVA results of means of like among NS, IA-2 and AE 130
Table 5.13 Multiple comparisons of mean among NS, IA-2 and AE 131
Table 5.14 ANOVA results of means of like among NS, IA-1 and IA-2 131
Table 5.15 Normalized frequency of each position of like 131
Table 5.16 Functional distribution of like 140
Table 5.17 Mean and standard deviation of you know per group 142
Table 5.18 ANOVA results of means of you know among NS, IA-2 and AE 143
Table 5.19 ANOVA results of means of you know among NS, IA-1 and IA-2 143
Table 5.20 Normalized frequency of each position of you know 144
Table 5.21 Functional distribution of you know 151
Table 5.22 Means and standard deviations of yeah and yes per group 154
Table 5.23 ANOVA results of means of yeah among NS, IA-2 and AE 155
Table 5.24 Multiple comparison of mean of yeah among NS, IA-2 and AE 155
Table 5.25 ANOVA results of means of yeah among NS, IA-1 and IA-2 156
Table 5.26 ANOVA results of means of yes among NS, IA-2and AE 156
Table 5.27 Multiple comparison of means of yes among NS, IA-2 and AE 157
Table 5.28 ANOVA results of means of yes among NS, IA-1 and IA-2 157
Table 5.29 Normalized frequencies of each position of yeah and yes 158
Table 5.30 Functional distribution of Yeah 166
Table 5.31 Functional distribution of yes 167
Table 6.1 Taiwanese students attitude toward discourse marker use in L1 and
Table 7.1 The uses of so, I think, like, you know, yeah and yes in the present
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Distribution of individual markers in pilot study 40
Figure 4.1 Means of overall discourse markers used by NS, IA-2 and AE 67
Figure 4.2 Means of overall discourse markers used by NS, IA-1 and IA-2 71
Figure 4.3 Distributions of individual markers in main study 93
Figure 5.1 Average mean of so per speaker per group 99
Figure 5.2 Average mean of I think per speaker per group 114
Figure 5.3 Average mean of like per speaker per group 130
Figure 5.4 Average mean of you know per speaker per group 142
Figure 5.5 Average mean of yeah and yes per speaker per group 154
Aijmer, K, (1997). I think—an English modal particle. In: Swan, T., Jansen
Westvik, O. (Eds.), Modality in the Germanic Languages. Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin, pp. 1–47.
Aijmer, K., (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aijmer, K. (2009). The pragmatic marker well: A text study. In O.
Dontcheva-Navratilova & R. Povolná (eds), Coherence and cohesion in
spoken and and written discourse, pp.4-29 Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar.
Aijmer, K., & Stenstrom, A., (2005). Approaches to spoken interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1743-1751.
Andersen.G., (1998). The Pragmatic Marker Like from a Relevance-Theoretic Perspective. In A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (eds) Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, pp. 147-70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc (Version 3.2.1) [Computer Software] Waseda
University, Tokyo, Japan. Available from http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/
Baumgarten, N. & House, J. (2010). I think and I don’t know in English as lingua
franca and native English discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1184-1200.
Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.
Bell, D. (2010). Nevertheless, still and yet: Concessive cancellative discourse
markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1912-1927.
Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-116.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegam, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Blakemore, D. (2000). Indicators and procedures: nevertheless and but. Journal of Linguistics, 36. 463-486.
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bolden, G. (2006). Little worlds that matter: Discourse markers ‘so’ and ‘oh’ and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56, 661-688.
Bolden, G. (2009). Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in
English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 974-998.
Boxer, D. (1993). Complains as positive strategies: What the learner needs to know. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 277-299.
Breck, E. (1998). Sound scriber transcription program for Windows. Michigan: The University of Michigan Regents. Retrieved May 27, 2010, from the Micase homepage. Website: http://www.lsa.umich.edu/eli/micase/soundscriber.html
Brinton, J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English. Grammaticalization and Discourse
Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H., & Fox Tree, J. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84. 73-111.
Cogo, A. (2012). English as a lingua franca: concepts, use, and implications. ELT Journal, 66(1), 97-105.
Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2006). Efficiency in ELF Communication: From Pragmatic
Motives to Lexico-grammatical Innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies 5 (2), 117–143.
Crismore, A. Markkanen, R. & Fransworth, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of text writing by American and Finnish university students. Written Communications, 10(1), 39-71.
Crystal, D. (1993). You know “you know”? TESOL Greece Newsletter, 35, July-September, 9-11.
Daily-O’Cain, J. (2000). The Sociolinguistic distribution of attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(1), 60-80.
Dornyei, Z. & Scott, M. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning, 47(1), 173-210.
Drummond, K., & Hopper, R. (1993a). Back channel revisited: Acknowledgement
tokens and Speakership incipiency. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 26(2), 157-177.
Drummond, K., & Hopper, R. (1993). Some use of yeah. Research on Language and
Social interaction, 26(2). 203-212.
Du Bois, John W. (1991). “Transcription design principles for spoken discourse
research”. Pragmatics, 1, 71–106.26(2), 157-177.
Erman, B. (1987). Pragmatic expressions in English: A study of you know, you see
and I mean in face to-face conversation. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis,
Stockholm Studies in English 69. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Erman. B. (2001). Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1337-1359.
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237-259.
Fox Tree, J. & Schrock, J. (1999). Discourse markers in spontaneous speech: Oh what a difference and oh makes, Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 280-95.
Fox Tree, J. & Schrock, J. (2002). Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 727–747.
Fox Tree, J. (2006). Placing like in telling story. Discourse Studies, 8(6), 723-743.
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2).
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952.
Fuller, J. (2003a). Use of the discourse marker like in interview. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7, 365-377.
Fuller, J. (2003b). The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 23-45.
Fung, L., & Cater, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic setting. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410-439.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(1), 37-57.
Gilmore, A. (2004). A comparison of textbook and authentic interactions. ELT Journal, 58(4). 363-374.
Granger, S. (2003). The international corpus of learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 538-546.
Hansen, M. (1997). Alors and Donc in spoken French: A reanalysis. Journal of Pragmatics 28, 153-187.
Hansen, M. (1998). The semantic status of discourse markers. Lingua, 104, 235-260.
Hays, P. (1992). “Discourse markers and L2 acquisition”. In D. Staub and C. Delk (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Twelfth Second Language Research Forum (pp. 24–34). Michigan: Papers in Applied Linguistics –Michigan.
He, A. (2001). On the discourse marker so. In Peters, P., P. Collins and A. Smith (Eds), Language and Computers: New frontiers of corpus research. Papers from the twenty first international conference on English language research on Computerized Corpora Sydney 2000. p. 41-52.
He, A. & Xu, M. (2003). Small words in EFL college students in China. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 35(6), 446-450.
Hellermann, J. & Cole, E. (2008). Practices for Social Interaction in the Language-Leaning Classroom: Disengagements from Dyadic Task Interaction. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 186-215.
Hellermann, J. & Vergum, A. (2007). Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 157-179.
Higgins, C. (2003). “Ownership” of English in the outer circle: An alternative to the
NS-NNS dichotomy. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 615-644.
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225-252.
House, J. (2009). Subjectivity in English as Lingua Franca discourse: the case of you
know. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 171-193.
Hyland, K. (1998). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (1), 3–26.
Jenkins, J. (2011). Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal
of Pragmatics, 43, 925-936.
Jucker, A. (1993). “The discourse marker well: A relevance theoretical account”. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 435–452.
Jucker, A. & Smith, S. (1998). And people just you know like “wow”: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In A. H. Jucker and Y. Ziv (Eds), Discourse Markers, p.171-201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jucker, A. & Ziv, Y. (1998). Discourse Markers: Introduction. In A. H. Jucker and Y. Ziv (Eds), Discourse Markers, p.1-12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kachru, B. (1985). “Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle’ in R. Quirk and H. G. Widdowson (eds.). English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kormos, J. (1999). Monitoring and self-repairing in L2. Language Learning, 49(2), 303-342.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lam, P. (2009a). Discourse Particles in Corpus Data and Textbooks: The case of well. Applied Linguistic: 31/2, 260-280.
Lam, P. (2009b). The effect of text type on the use of so as a discourse particle. Discourse Studies, 11(3), 353-372.
Leki, I. (2001). “A narrow thinking system”: Nonnative-English-speaking students in group projects across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 39-67.
Lenk, U. (1997). “Discourse markers”. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, and C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 1–17). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lenk, U. (1998). Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation. Journal of
Li, M. & Chen, X. (2007). Chinese English majors’ acquisition of the discourse
marker well: An empirical study. Foreign Language Teaching and Research.
39 (1), 21-26.
Liao, S. (2008). Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1-16.
Mauranen, A. (2003). The corpus of English as lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 513-527.
Mauranen, A., Hynninen, N., & Ranta, E. (2010). English as an academic lingua franca: The ELFA project. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 183-190.
Meierkord, C. ( 2000). Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction. An analysis of non-native-/non-native small talk conversations in English ( Linguistik online5, 1/00). Retrieved from http://www.linguistik-online.com/1_00/MEIERKOR.HTM
Miller, J. & Weinert, R. (1995). The function of like in dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 365-393.
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic
communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 573 – 603.
Müller, S. (2004). ‘Well you know that type of person’: Functions of well in the speech of American and German students. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1157-1182.
Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Norrick, N. (2001). Discourse markers in oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 849-878.
Norrick, N. (2009). Interjection as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 866-891.
Ohta, S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development. System, 33, 503-517.
Öthman, Z. (2010). The use of okay, right and yeah in academic lectures by native speaker lecturers: Their ‘anticipated’ and ‘real’ meanings. Discourse Studies, 12(5), 665–681.
Park, I. (2010). Marking an impasse: the use of anyway as a sequence-closing device. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3283-3299.
Polat, B. (2011). Investigating acquisition of discourse markers through a developmental learner corpus. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3745-3756.
Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 367-381.
Redeker, G., (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29, 1139-1172.
Romain, S. & Lange, D. (1991). The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech, 66(3), 227-279.
Sack, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735. ]
Schegloff, E. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: some use of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. (pp.71-93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Shiefflin, B. & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schleef, E. (2008). The “lecture’s ok” revisited: Changing discourse conventions and
the influence of academic division. American Speech, 83(1), 62-84.
Schourup, L. (1985). Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. New
Schourup, L. (1999). Tutorial Overview: Discourse Markers. Lingua, 107, 227-265.
Schourup, L. (2001). Rethinking well. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1025-1060.
Seidlhofer, G. (2007). English as a lingua franca and communities of practice. In” Volk-Birke, S., Lippert, J. (Eds.), Anglistentag 2006 Halle Proceedings.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A. (2000). The functions of I think in political discourse.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 41-62.
Stenstrom, A. (1994). An introduction to spoken interactions. London: Longman.
Stubbe, M. & Holmes, J. (1995). You know, eh and other ‘exasperating expressions’: an analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English. Language and Communication 15(1), 63-88.
Svartvik, J., (1990). The London Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research. Lund Studies in English, 82. Lund: Lund University Press.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tagliamonte, S. (2005). So who? Like how? Just what? Discourse markers in the conversations of Young Canadians. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1896-1915.
Tang, C. (2010). Self-monitoring discourse markers in classroom monologue narratives. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 36(1), 105-131.
Trillo, J. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of pragmatics, 34, 769-784.
Underhill, R. (1988) ‘Like is, Like, Focus’, American Speech, 63(3): 234–46.
Warning, H. (2003). ‘Also’ as a discourse marker: its use in disjunctive and disaffiliative environments. Discourse Studies, 5(3), 415–436.
Wei, L., & Milroy, L. (1995). Conversational code-switching in a Chinese community in Britain: A sequential analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 281-299.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Language, Learning, and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, J. (2000). The token ‘‘yeah’’ in nonnative speaker English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(1), 39–67
Wu, Y., Wang, J. & Cai, Z. (2010). The use of I think by Chinese EFL learners: A study revisited. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 3-23.
Zimmerman, D. (1993). Acknowledgment tokens and speakership incipiency revisited. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(2), 179-194.
Xu, J. (2009). An empirical study of Chinese English learners’ acquisition of the discourse marker you know, FLLTP, 3.