Learners of a second language are confronted with different challenges. They have to learn new words and grammar rules and how to apply them. To improve their skills they need to be corrected or they must have the possibility to correct themselves by comparing their usage of the foreign language with that of native speakers. However, there are some implicit rules to using a language which are rarely detected by both learners and native speakers. One of these cases is the usage of discourse markers (DM) (Svartvik 1980:171). Swedish linguist Jan Svartvik assumes that such particles’ inadequate applications have more far-reaching consequences during communication than grammatical incorrectness (1980:172).
In this essay I will concentrate on the DM like since it is amongst the most frequently used by native speakers of English (Fox Tree 2006:727, 2007:309; Müller 2005:197). As research has shown, non-native speakers use like less often as a DM than native speakers (Fuller 2003:200; Fung and Carter 2007:435; Hikyoung 2004:121; Müller 2005:230). Thus, I will firstly argue that the infrequent use of like as a DM is one feature by which non-native speakers can be recognized as such. Secondly, I will show that this deficit in pragmatic competence effects their communication with native speakers negatively. I claim that the reasons for the lower rate of like relates to its pragmatic functions and the way in which English is taught.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Functions of Like
3. Differences of the Use of Like by Native and Non-Native Speakers
4. Consequences of the Different Use of Like by Native and Non-Native Speakers
5. Reasons for the Less Frequent Use of Like by Non-Native Speakers
6. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
The paper examines the usage of the discourse marker "like" by non-native speakers of English compared to native speakers, investigating why non-native speakers use it less frequently and the pragmatic consequences of this deficit.
- Pragmatic functions of the discourse marker "like" in spoken English.
- Empirical differences in usage frequency between native and non-native speakers.
- Negative social and communicative consequences of non-native "like" usage or omission.
- Pedagogical factors, including teaching environments and textbook content, that influence learner proficiency.
Excerpt from the Book
Functions of Like
DMs are difficult to translate due to the variety of functions they can assume in spoken language (Fleischmann and Yaguello 2004:143). Often paraphrases are used to translate them. However, these are inadequate substitutes for DMs because paraphrases cannot function in as many ways as DMs can (Reinhardt 1998:339; Svartvik 1980:177).
Many linguists associate five pragmatic functions with like (Fleischmann and Yaguello 2004:131; Fox Tree 2007:299; Fuller 2003:189-190). Like can serve as: (1) a "loose talk marker" (Andersen 1998:149), (2) a "hedge" or "approximator" (Jucker, Smith, and Lüdge 2003:147, 151), (3) an indicator that speakers need time to think (Fung and Carter 2007:435), (4) a focus (Underhill 1988:234), or (5) a "looseness marker" signalling that something different is meant from what is said (Andersen 1998:153).
This broad scope of functions makes it difficult for non-native speakers to translate like into their first language (L1) and understand all of its functions.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the challenges learners face with implicit rules of language and introduces the discourse marker "like" as a key subject of investigation.
2. Functions of Like: Explores the diverse pragmatic roles "like" plays in discourse and explains why it poses translation difficulties for non-native speakers.
3. Differences of the Use of Like by Native and Non-Native Speakers: Reviews studies comparing native and non-native usage, demonstrating that non-native speakers consistently use the marker less frequently.
4. Consequences of the Different Use of Like by Native and Non-Native Speakers: Discusses the communicative implications, ranging from listener annoyance due to overuse to negative impressions caused by omission.
5. Reasons for the Less Frequent Use of Like by Non-Native Speakers: Analyzes educational factors, such as teacher input, textbook limitations, and classroom environment, that prevent the acquisition of pragmatic competence.
6. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings and advocates for changes in teaching methodology to better equip students with necessary conversational skills.
Keywords
Discourse markers, like, non-native speakers, pragmatic competence, language acquisition, sociolinguistics, communication, teaching English as a second language, English textbooks, speech acts, informal language, linguistic performance, conversational skills, pragmatic functions, pedagogy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on the usage of the discourse marker "like" by non-native speakers, exploring the discrepancy in usage frequency compared to native speakers and the implications of this for pragmatic competence.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The primary themes include the diverse pragmatic functions of discourse markers, the comparative usage between native and non-native groups, the social consequences of these differences, and how educational materials fail to teach these implicit rules.
What is the central research question?
The research explores why non-native speakers use the discourse marker "like" less frequently than native speakers and identifies the educational and pedagogical barriers that prevent them from mastering its use.
Which scientific methodology does the author apply?
The author employs a literature review-based methodology, synthesizing findings from various sociolinguistic studies, corpus data, and pedagogical research to support the thesis.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The main body examines the functional complexity of "like," evaluates empirical evidence on usage differences, analyzes the communicative consequences of either overusing or omitting the marker, and identifies specific gaps in current teaching practices.
What key terms best describe this work?
Key terms include discourse markers, pragmatic competence, sociolinguistics, language acquisition, and pedagogical environment.
Why does the author argue that teachers and textbooks are responsible for the observed deficit?
The author argues that teachers often use a formal register that excludes discourse markers and that textbooks typically ignore "like" while only teaching markers like "well," leaving students without appropriate models for pragmatic use.
How does the "principle of least effort" relate to the use of "like"?
The principle suggests that "like" is a functional, efficient tool that allows speakers to save effort by modifying the meaning of an utterance or filling gaps in speech without needing additional sentences.
What does the author suggest to improve the learning process?
The author recommends altering learning conditions to include pragmatic training in the classroom, enabling students to practice these rules in social contexts rather than following a purely formal grammatical track.
- Quote paper
- Kathrin Biegner (Author), 2008, “There's like the Galleria and like all these like really great shoe stores”: Why non-native speakers do not speak this way and what it means for them, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/168701
