本研究調查以英文為共通語,英文為外語之臺灣研究生以及英文為母語者之話語標記使用進行對比分析。本研究收集44個調查樣本,其中七位英文為母語之研究生,十九位英文為共通語之臺灣學生,以及十八位英文為外語之臺灣學生。自175分鐘的語料分析结果發現話語標記為英文溝通時不可或缺的要件,參與學生總共使用五十四個不同話語標記。與英文母語者相比,英文共通語及英文外語者之總體使用頻率皆無顯著差異,然而兩組臺灣學生的使用頻率卻差異顯著,並且英文為共通語學生之總體使用頻率遠高於英文為外語學生的總體使用頻率。
    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。
    話語標記語為言語交際之特徵,過猶不及或不恰當使用話語標記語,皆可能影響聽說雙方的溝通意圖和判斷。因此 ,本研究考察共通語學生及外學生之話語標記使用,除有助於揭示學生習得話語標記之使用規律與學生語用能力的階段性發展外,更有助於提出新的教學見解。

Abstract:
    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 
Acknowledgements 	i
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
       2.1.2.1 Connectivity	12
       2.1.2.2 Grammatical optionality 	12
       2.1.2.3 Semantic empty 	13
       2.1.2.4 Other qualities 	13
   2.1.3 Classification of Discourse Markers 	14
   2.1.4 Functions of Discourse Markers	15
       2.1.4.1 Schiffrin’s five-plane model 	16
       2.1.4.2 Stenstrom’s interactional signals and discourse markers	18
       2.1.4.3 Aijmer’s textual and interpersonal levels	18
       2.1.4.4 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
     3.2.1.1 Interpersonal Level	43
     3.2.1.2 Textual Level	44
  3.2.2 The Research Design 	45
  3.2.3. Participants	46
     3.2.3.1 Native speakers in ELF community: NS group	46
     3.2.3.2 Taiwanese students in ELF community: IA-1 and IA-2 groups	47
     3.2.3.3 Taiwanese students in EFL community: AE group	48
  3.2.4 Data Collection Techniques	49
     3.2.4.1 Questionnaire 	49
     3.2.4.2 Task-based pair conversations 	51
     3.2.4.3 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
     3.3.3.1 Frequency 	62
     3.3.3.2 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
     4.3.1.1 Relational markers 	73
     4.3.1.2 Attitude markers 	75
     4.3.1.3 Emphatics & Hedges 	78
     4.3.1.4 Backchannel markers 	80
     4.3.1.5 Turn-taking markers 	82
  4.3.2 Textual Level	84
     4.3.2.1 Logical connectives 	84
     4.3.2.2 Frame markers 	86
     4.3.2.3 Code glosses 	87
     4.3.2.4 Hesitation and monitoring markers 	89
     4.3.2.5 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
      5.1.2.1 Interpersonal: initiating a question 	103
      5.1.2.2 Interpersonal: responsive and taking turn	104
      5.1.2.3 Interpersonal: marking implied result	105
      5.1.2.4 Interpersonal: expressing opinion	106
      5.1.2.5 Textual: marking result of consequence 	107
      5.1.2.6 Textual: marking the main idea 	107
      5.1.2.7 Textual: summarizing 	108
      5.1.2.8 Textual: marking the sequence 	109
      5.1.2.9 Textual: marking boundary 	110
      5.1.2.10 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
      5.2.2.1 Interpersonal: providing an answer	118
      5.2.2.2 Interpersonal: taking a turn	119
      5.2.2.3 Interpersonal: downtoning 	119
      5.2.2.4 Interpersonal: expressing opinion	121
      5.2.2.5 Interpersonal: drawing a conclusion 	121
      5.2.2.6 Interpersonal: emphasizing “I am expressing my opinion”	122
      5.2.2.7 Interpersonal: expressing contrasting views	123
      5.2.2.8 Textual: signaling self-repair	124
      5.2.2.9 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
      5.3.2.1 Textual: indicating approximation 	133
      5.3.2.2 Textual: providing examples 	134
      5.3.2.3 Textual: giving explanations 	135
      5.3.2.4 Textual: marking lexical focus	137
      5.3.2.5 Textual: quotative like 	138
      5.3.2.6 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
      5.4.2.1 Interpersonal: marking shared knowledge 	145
      5.4.2.2 Interpersonal: appealing for agreement 	145
      5.4.2.3 Interpersonal: appealing for understanding 	146
      5.4.2.4 Interpersonal: comprehension securing 	147
      5.4.2.5 Interpersonal: turn-taking 	148
      5.4.2.6 Textual: marking self-repair	149
      5.4.2.7 Textual: providing explanations 	150
      5.4.2.8 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
     5.5.1.1 Yeah	155
     5.5.1.2 Yes 	156
  5.5.2 Position of Yeah and Yes 	157
  5.5.3 Functions of Yeah and Yes 	158
     5.5.3.1 Interpersonal: showing response and agreement 	159
     5.5.3.2 Interpersonal: checking understanding 	160
     5.5.3.3 Interpersonal: turn-taking 	161
     5.5.3.4 Interpersonal: reassuming the floor	162
     5.5.3.5 Textual: self-assurance 	163
     5.5.3.6 Textual: self-confirmation 	164
  5.5.4 Functional Distribution of Yeah and Yes 	165
     5.5.4.1 Yeah 	165
     5.5.4.2 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
     6.2.4.1 Criticism of discourse marker use in L1 English 	177
     6.2.4.2 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
References 	191
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
           study	207
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  
        markers	 68
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 
        IA-2	 70
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
        L2 	174
Table 7.1 The uses of so, I think, like, you know, yeah and yes in the present 
        study	184






















                         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

REFERENCES

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  
     Pragmatics, 30,245-257. 

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
      York: Garland.

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.