Discourse markers in non-native English

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

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.