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 Key Themes

This paper aims to define and analyze the use of discourse markers in speeches delivered by non-native English speakers participating in University Parliamentary Debating (UPD) competitions. The study examines the frequency and function of these markers, exploring their role in structuring speech and conveying meaning within the context of formal debate.

• Definition and characteristics of discourse markers.
• Analysis of discourse marker usage in non-native English speech.
• Frequency and distribution of specific discourse markers.
• The functions of discourse markers in UPD speeches.
• Comparison of discourse marker usage across different native language backgrounds.

Chapter Summaries

I. Introduction: This chapter introduces the concept of discourse markers, defining them as words or phrases that structure speech and written text. It highlights their non-truth-conditional nature while emphasizing their importance in organizing discourse, expressing attitude, and conveying social information. The chapter establishes the paper's objective: to analyze discourse marker usage by non-native English speakers in University Parliamentary Debating (UPD) competitions, focusing on speakers from Germany, the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Turkey, and Malaysia.

II. What exactly is University Parliamentary Debating?: This chapter provides background information on University Parliamentary Debating (UPD), explaining its structure and rules. It traces the history of debating, noting its long tradition and its role as a training ground for future politicians, particularly in England. The chapter distinguishes between native and non-native English speakers in UPD competitions, highlighting the dominance of native English speakers in international tournaments and the existence of separate ESL/EFL competitions. The explanation of UPD's rules, including the British Parliamentary Style (BPS), provides context for the analysis of discourse markers within this specific communicative setting.

III. What exactly are Discourse Markers?: This extensive chapter delves into the theoretical understanding of discourse markers. It presents a historical overview of research on discourse markers, exploring their connections to cohesion, discourse structure, and pragmatics. It details the key properties of discourse markers, such as connectivity, non-truth-conditionality, the types of meaning they encode, their multi-categoriality, weak clause association, phonological independence, sentence position, optionality, and scope. The chapter culminates in a specific definition of discourse markers that forms the foundation for the subsequent analysis.

IV. A survey on the circumstances of the collection of data for this paper: This chapter describes the methodology, outlining the context in which the data for the study was collected. It details the circumstances of the recordings of the UPD speeches, specifically focusing on the fact that the speakers are non-native English speakers. This section is crucial in establishing the validity and limitations of the research, highlighting the specific population being studied and the environment in which their speech was produced.

V. The analysis of the Discourse Markers: This chapter presents the core analysis of discourse marker usage in the UPD speeches. It provides statistical evaluations of the data, including an overview of the collected data and a breakdown of the frequency of various discourse markers. A detailed analysis of the most frequent discourse markers (such as "so," "well," "actually," "I think," and "OK") is undertaken, exploring their functions and contexts of use within the debates.

Keywords

Discourse markers, non-native English, University Parliamentary Debating, pragmatics, corpus linguistics, intercultural communication, speech analysis, fluency, English as a Second Language (ESL), English as a Foreign Language (EFL).

Frequently Asked Questions: Analysis of Discourse Markers in University Parliamentary Debating by Non-Native English Speakers

What is the main topic of this research paper?

This paper analyzes the usage of discourse markers by non-native English speakers participating in University Parliamentary Debating (UPD) competitions. It focuses on identifying, quantifying, and interpreting the functions of these markers within the specific context of formal debate.

What are discourse markers?

Discourse markers are words or phrases (e.g., "so," "well," "actually," "I think") that structure speech and written text. They are not truth-conditional, meaning their presence doesn't affect the truth value of a statement, but they play a crucial role in organizing discourse, expressing speaker attitude, and conveying social information.

What is University Parliamentary Debating (UPD)?

UPD is a form of competitive debating, often following the British Parliamentary Style (BPS). The paper provides a detailed explanation of UPD rules and structure, emphasizing its significance as a training ground and its prevalence among both native and non-native English speakers.

What is the scope of the data analysis?

The analysis focuses on speeches delivered by non-native English speakers in UPD competitions. The speakers' native languages include German, Dutch, Czech, Turkish, and Malaysian. The paper describes the methodology of data collection and notes the limitations related to studying non-native English speakers in this specific setting.

Which discourse markers were analyzed in detail?

The study provides a statistical overview of discourse marker frequency and a detailed analysis of the most frequently used markers. This includes "so," "well," "actually," "I think/I think that," and "OK," among others. The analysis explores their functions and contexts of use within the debates.

What are the key findings of the research?

The key findings revolve around the frequency, distribution, and functions of specific discourse markers in the context of UPD speeches by non-native English speakers. The paper compares the usage patterns and examines the role of these markers in structuring arguments, managing turn-taking, and conveying meaning within the formal debate setting. Specific findings on the individual discourse markers are detailed within the analysis chapter.

What are the objectives of this research paper?

The main objectives are to define and analyze discourse marker usage in UPD speeches by non-native English speakers, examining their frequency, function, and role in structuring speech and conveying meaning within the context of formal debate. The study also aims to compare usage across different native language backgrounds.

What is the structure of the research paper?

The paper is structured into six chapters: an introduction, an explanation of UPD, a detailed exploration of discourse markers, a description of the data collection, a core analysis of discourse marker usage, and a summary. Each chapter is summarized within the document.

What are the key themes explored in the research paper?

Key themes include the definition and characteristics of discourse markers, the analysis of their usage in non-native English speech, their frequency and distribution, their functions in UPD speeches, and the comparison of their use across different native language backgrounds.

What are the keywords associated with this research paper?

The keywords include: Discourse markers, non-native English, University Parliamentary Debating, pragmatics, corpus linguistics, intercultural communication, speech analysis, fluency, English as a Second Language (ESL), English as a Foreign Language (EFL).