Article |
| Asia Pacific Journal of Corpus Research Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 27-39 |
| Abbreviation: APJCR |
| e-ISSN: 2733-8096 |
| Publication date: 31 December 2020 |
| Received: 29 October 2020 / Received in Revised Form: 8 December 2020 / Accepted: 19 December 2020 |
| DOI: https://doi.org/10.22925/apjcr.2020.1.2.27
|
Non-Discourse Marker Uses of So in EFL Writings: Functional Variability among Asian Learners |
| Shie Sato (Ritsumeikan University) |
| Copyright 2020 APJCR
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
Abstract |
| This paper examines the frequency and distribution of the so-called “non-discourse marker functions” of so in essay writings produced by 200 L1 English speakers and 1,300 EFL learners in China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Based on the data drawn from the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English, this study compares EFL learners and L1 English speakers’ uses of so, identifying four grammatical uses, as (1) an adverb, (2) part of a fixed phrase, (3) a pro-form, and (4) a conjunction phrase specifying purpose. This study aims to show the wide variability among EFL learners with different L1s, identifying the tendency of usage both common among and specific to the sub-groups of EFL learners. The findings suggest that the learners demonstrate patterns distinctively different from those of L1 English speakers, indicating an underuse of so as a marker expressing “purpose” and an overuse as part of fixed phrases. Compared to L1 English speakers, the learners also tend to overuse so in the discourse marker functions, regardless of their L1s. The study proposes pedagogical implications focusing on discourse flow and diachronic aspects of so in order to understand its multifunctionality, although the latter is primarily suggested for advanced learners. |
Keywords |
| So, L2 Writing, EFL Learner, Corpus Linguistics, Non-discourse Marker |
References |
| Babanoğlu, M. P. (2014). A corpus-based study on the use of pragmatic markers as speech-like features in Turkish EFL learners’ argumentative essays. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 186-193.
Baker, P. S. (2012). Introduction to Old English. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex: Pearson Education. Blakemore, D. (1988). ‘So’ as a constraint on relevance. In Kempson, R. (Ed.), Mental Representations: The Interface Between Language and Reality (pp. 183-195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bolden, G. B. (2009). Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 974-998. Buysse, L. (2007). Discourse marker ‘so’ in the English of Flemish university students. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures, 5, 79-95. Buysse, L. (2012). ‘So’ as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1764-1782. Curme, G. O. (1931). Syntax. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath & Company. Ding, R., & Wang, L. (2015). Discourse markers in local and native English teachers’ talk in Hong Kong EFL classroom interaction: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(5), 65-75. Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167-190. Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28, 410-439. Hellermann, J., & Vergun, A. (2007). Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 157-179. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ishikawa, S. (2013). The ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English. Learner Corpus Studies in Asia and the World, 1, 91-118. Johnson, A. (2002). So…?: Pragmatic implications of so-prefaced questions in formal police interviews. In Cotterill, J. (Ed.), Language in the Legal Process (pp. 91-110). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Lam, P. W. Y. (2009). The effect of text type on the use of so as a discourse particle. Discourse Studies, 11, 353-372. Lam, P. W. Y. (2010). Toward a functional framework for discourse particles: A comparison of well and so. Text & Talk, 30(6), 657-677. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Celce-Murcia, M. (2016). The Grammar Book: Form, Meaning, and Use for English Language Teachers. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Liu, B. (2017). The use of discourse markers but and so by native English speakers and Chinese speakers of English. Pragmatics, 27(4), 479-506. Mitchell, B., & Robinson, F. C. (2011). A Guide to Old English. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Müller, S. (2005). Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Quirk, R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Sato, S. (2019). A corpus-based analysis of so in written discourse: A comparison between L1 English speakers and Japanese EFL learners. Applied Pragmatics, 1(1), 26-45. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schourup, L. C. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107, 227-265. van Dijk, T. A. (1979). Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 447-456. Vickov, G., & Jakupčević, E. (2017). Discourse markers in non-native EFL teacher talk. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 649-671. |
The Author’s Address |
| First and Corresponding Author Shie Sato Professor Ritsumeikan University 56-1 Toji-in Kitamachi Kita-ku, Kyoto-shi, Kyoto JAPAN E-mail: shie@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp |
