Discourse Marker is a term which is relatively hard to define. A simplified way is to say that it refers to words or phrases which are usually used to structure sequences of a speech or a written text. Examples of Discourse Markers include expressions like actually, you know, well or OK. Discourse Markers are lexemes which could often simply be left out, without changing the semantic function of a sentence, because they usually don’t contribute to the sentence’s truth-condition or the propositional content. However, they often have other important functions. Apart from being used in order to organise and structure a speech, they often indicate some aspects of attitude (Renkema 2004:169) and the relation between different utterances. Discourse Markers appear very frequently in speeches (usually every few seconds); in written texts they are very frequent as well, though usually not as frequent as in verbal speech. Discourse Markers can also give information about social dimensions, group identity and relations between communicating people (Aijmer 2002:14). Although this definition is by far not entirely comprehensive, it should serve for the moment in order to clarify the subject of this paper. This paper is going to explain the term Discourse Markers in some detail and then analyse the use of Discourse Markers by speakers of non native English, namely members of University Parliamentary Debating competitions (a close definition will follow in chapter 2), who are from the countries Germany, the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Turkey and Malaysia. It will be analysed and explored how often Discourse Markers occur in the speeches of different speakers and what exactly the different Discourse Markers are used for.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. What exactly is University Parliamentary Debating?
II.1.General information on debating
II.2. Debating guidelines and the process of a debate
III. What exactly are Discourse Markers?
III.1. A brief outline on the history in the research on Discourse Markers
III.1.1. Markers and cohesion
III.1.2. Markers and discourse
III.1.3. Markers and pragmatics
III.2. Properties of Discourse Markers in general
III.2.1. Connectivity
III.2.2. Non-truth conditionality
III.2.3. Type of meaning encoded by Discourse Markers
III.2.4. Multi-categoriality
III.2.5. Weak clause association and phonological independence
III.2.6. Sentence position
III.2.7. Optionality of Discourse Markers
III.2.8. The scope of Discourse Markers
III.3 The definition of Discourse Markers used in this paper
III.4. The application of the definition on a sample text
IV. A survey on the circumstances of the collection of data for this paper
IV.1. A few notes on the circumstances of the recordings
IV.2 The circumstance of the speeches being performed by non native speakers of English
V. The analysis of the Discourse Markers
V.1. Statistical evaluations of the use of Discourse Markers in UPB
V.1.1 The scope of the collected data for this paper
V.1.2 The frequency of the Discourse Markers
V.2. The analysis of the most frequent Discourse Markers
V.2.1. The Discourse Marker So
V.2.2. The Discourse Marker Well
V.2.3. The Discourse Marker Actually
V.2.4. The Discourse Marker I think, I think that
V.2.5. The Discourse Marker OK
V.2.6. Other frequent Discourse Markers
VI. Summary
Objectives and Research Focus
The primary objective of this paper is to provide a detailed explanation of the term "Discourse Markers" and to analyze how these linguistic units are employed by non-native speakers of English within the context of University Parliamentary Debating (UPD) competitions. The research aims to explore the frequency of use and the functional roles these markers play in the speeches of participants from various linguistic backgrounds, including Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Turkey, and Malaysia.
- Theoretical examination of the definitions, properties, and historical research of Discourse Markers.
- Empirical analysis of recorded debate speeches by non-native English speakers.
- Statistical evaluation of the frequency and usage patterns of common Discourse Markers.
- Investigation into whether the use of these markers differs significantly between non-native and native English speakers.
- Analysis of specific Discourse Markers such as "so", "well", "actually", and "OK" in the context of persuasive argumentation.
Excerpt from the Book
III.2.1. Connectivity
According to a number of authors of research papers on the topic of Discourse Markers, the most prominent feature of Discourse Markers is their ability to relate utterances to other discourse units; especially authors like Halliday and Hasan base much of their theory of cohesion on Discourse Markers and their linking properties (Del Saz 2007:65). Connectivity is one of the properties that is least disputed by writers of research papers on the topic. Although different authors have different approaches and opinions about the linking properties of Discourse Markers in detail (Del Saz 2007:67-8), these will not extensively be discussed in this paper.
1. This house would ban them because we think that they would harm our society
Example 1 shows a very easy case of the linking property of the Discourse Marker because. The two segments that could also exist as independent main clauses are connected by because. The sentence has the structure sequence1, Discourse Marker, sequence 2 or abbreviated S1.DM.S2.
2. So it’s an investment, less freedom during the school time but on the long-term there’s good consequences so it’s worth to have that restriction well yes
The second example has the structure DM.S1.(S2).DM.S3.DM.S4.DM.S5, with the Discourse Markers so, but, so, and well. (S2 is put in brackets because it is not an independent utterance) The receiver of this message does not know what the first so refers to, but because of the Discourse Marker at the very beginning, he’s urged to imply that the sentence is taken from a certain context in a longer discourse. Discourse Markers often signal “a transition in the evolving progress of the conversation” (Longman Grammar 1999:1086). This is often particularly evident in the use of the Discourse Marker so. The lexeme but and the second so link the following sequences, which could also exist independently.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: This chapter defines Discourse Markers as structures that organize speech without contributing to truth-conditions and establishes the research goal of analyzing their usage by non-native English speakers in debating.
II. What exactly is University Parliamentary Debating?: This chapter explains the nature of University Parliamentary Debating as a persuasive game and describes the rules and guidelines governing the debates recorded for this study.
III. What exactly are Discourse Markers?: This section provides a comprehensive theoretical overview, including the history of research, defining properties like connectivity and non-truth conditionality, and establishes the definition used in this study.
IV. A survey on the circumstances of the collection of data for this paper: This chapter details the methodology for data collection, addressing the artificial nature of debate settings and the proficiency levels of the non-native speakers involved.
V. The analysis of the Discourse Markers: This final analytical chapter presents the statistical frequency of various markers and provides an in-depth interpretation of their specific functions within the analyzed debates.
VI. Summary: The summary concludes that while non-native speakers may use fewer markers due to vocabulary limitations, their usage patterns generally align with those of native speakers and are independent of their native languages.
Keywords
Discourse Markers, University Parliamentary Debating, Non-native English, Connectivity, Pragmatics, Speech analysis, Cohesion, Sociolinguistics, Rhetoric, Communication, Non-truth conditionality, Language proficiency.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary subject of this research paper?
The paper focuses on the analysis of "Discourse Markers" as they are used in the speeches of non-native English speakers within University Parliamentary Debating competitions.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
Key themes include the linguistic definition of Discourse Markers, their functional properties (such as connectivity), their usage in persuasive settings, and the potential impact of being a non-native speaker on language performance.
What is the core research question?
The research explores how often Discourse Markers occur in the speeches of different non-native speakers and what specific communicative purposes these markers serve in a competitive debating context.
Which scientific methods are applied in the paper?
The author uses empirical data collection, transcribing recordings of debate competitions, followed by a statistical frequency analysis and qualitative linguistic interpretation of the functions of the identified markers.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body covers the theoretical framework, the properties and definitions of Discourse Markers, the specifics of the debating environment, the data collection process, and a detailed functional analysis of the most frequent markers like "so", "well", and "actually".
Which keywords best characterize this study?
The study is characterized by terms such as Discourse Markers, University Parliamentary Debating, non-native English, connectivity, pragmatics, and speech analysis.
How does the author define Discourse Markers?
The author uses a comparatively general definition, influenced by the Longman Grammar, describing them as optional inserts that signal discourse transitions, provide connectivity between utterances, and facilitate interactive relationships between speakers and hearers.
Are there observed differences in how non-native speakers use these markers compared to native speakers?
The author concludes that while non-native speakers might use fewer markers due to a more limited vocabulary, their usage is largely correct and does not differ significantly from the strategies employed by native speakers.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Uwe Mehlbaum (Autor:in), 2008, Discourse markers in non-native English, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/142384
