Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Adversative Pragmatic Markers in Learner Language: A Cross-Sectional Perspective

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Corpus Pragmatics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The intention of this paper is to extend the empirical perspective on the functional acquisition of lexical pragmatic marking in learner English. While previous analyses have mostly focused on speech, and have considered a relatively homogeneous learner population in terms of proficiency, I shed some light on pragmatic marking in written discourse, and at different learner proficiency levels. To this end, I specifically contrast the usage of adversative pragmatic markers (e.g. actually, but, in fact, on the other hand) by beginning/intermediate learners (as represented in the International Corpus of Crosslinguistic Interlanguage) with the one of advanced learners (as represented by material form the International Corpus of Learner English). By way of a quantitative and qualitative analysis, I test when pragmatic markers first emerge in learner language. Factors considered are type of the first language of the learners as well as the patterns of emergence of individual pragmatic markers as well as variation between individual learner groups. In addition, I use data from the Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays as a further point of reference to determine whether and when native-like usage levels are approximated. The overall findings suggest (1) that different patterns of emergence can be observed for individual pragmatic markers (notably the core item but vs. others); (2) that the first-language background of the learners influences the time and rate of acquisition; and (3) that the development of a diversified system of adversative pragmatic marking represents a challenging feature, which is only mastered by advanced students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See the extensive lists in Fraser (1998: 301, 1999: 932, 2006b: 190), Blakemore (2006) or Fischer (2014), for instance.

  2. As the paper is concerned with the written mode, statements on similar or different uses in and parallel terminology related to speech (e.g. “utterance-initially”) will only be used when necessary. On a related note, it has been found that the connecting/coherence function of PMs is particularly salient in written discourse (Fischer 2014: 287).

  3. In line with other corpus-based research (see e.g. Granger 2015), the terms “overuse” and “underuse” in the present article are used purely quantitatively (and crucially in a non-evaluative manner), with frequencies in native control data (see “Data and Methodology” section) serving as a baseline. On a related note, the term “learner language” describes the variety of a community of learners arguably striving for a native-speaker “target” (or “norm”) in terms of eventually emulating native frequencies of usage (see Fuchs et al. 2016: 305–306 for discussion). It is acknowledged that there are other conceptualizations of “target” in terms of general learner intelligibility and comprehensibility, as advocated in the “English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)” or “English as an International Language (EIL)” paradigms (see, most notably, Jenkins 2000).

  4. See further Aijmer (2016) for analyses of second-language varieties.

  5. Given the reduced role of fluency on written production, the essential difference between the items tested in these studies and APMs in writing lies in the fact that the former may be viewed as devices for discourse planning (“delay device”; de Klerk 2005: 1191), rather than as a means for structuring discourse.

  6. A related area not treated here is the acquisition of (A)PMs by children; see Peterson and McCabe (1991).

  7. See further Ädel (2006: 205–208) on the pros and cons of using either non-professional or professional native control data.

  8. Unfortunately, no information on exact learner ages is provided in the corpus metadata, and they may vary slightly between the ICCI subcomponents (see Tono and Díez-Bedmar 2014: 168 for a rationale for relying on “institutional status” in terms of school grades rather than learner ages). Based on the beginning of compulsory schooling applicable to the samples, we can safely assume an age range between 10/11 (year 5) and 17/18 (year 11/12), thus approximately mapping the span from the beginning of secondary schooling up to pre-university. An alternative way of conceptualization is according to the CEFR proficiency levels, where ICCI would cover the range from levels (pre-)A1 to B2 (Leńko-Szymańska 2015: 128–130).

  9. An anonymous reviewer rightly pointed to the unequal sizes of the various corpora (and their subsections) used and potential skewing effects this may have on the results. However, at present, due to the lack of corpus material that is truly comparable (which would imply collecting corpus data from a multitude of learner and native populations of different proficiency levels approximately at the same time, ideally all material controlled for length and topics, excluding social factors, etc., notwithstanding more profane issues such as funding for such a project), for the scenario described there is no other way to arrive at conclusions than using an eclectic approach. One established measure to address the imbalance in corpus sizes is to rely on normalized frequencies (see below), with the insights potentially gathered from such an approach arguably outweighing methodological scruples. In the (unlikely?) case that the practical constraints listed above are surmounted, and fully comparable corpora (or at least datasets approximating this idealization) become available at one point, the validity and plausibility of the current findings will have to be re-assessed, of course. In any case, for the present study we have to bear the potential effects of the unequal corpus sizes in mind particularly whenever tests of significance are reported (see “Results” section).

  10. Spelling in examples is preserved as represented in the corpus data.

  11. Recall that but is not included in the counts, as it will receive separate treatment (“APM Emergence” section) due to its particular status (see “Data and Methodology” section).

  12. Another issue is the choice of the native control data (see “Data and Methodology”, “Overall Summary”, and “Directions for Further Study” sections).

References

  • Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aijmer, K. (2014). Pragmatic markers. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus pragmatics: A handbook (pp. 195–218). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aijmer, K. (2015). General extenders in learner language. In N. Groom, M. Charles, & S. John (Eds.), Corpora, grammar and discourse (pp. 211–234). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aijmer, K. (2016). Revisiting actually in different positions in some national varieties of English. In F. A. Almeida, L. Cruz García, & V. M. González Ruiz (Eds.), Corpus-based studies on language varieties (pp. 115–143). Bern: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aijmer, K., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2011). Pragmatic markers. In J. Zienkowski, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Discursive pragmatics (pp. 223–247). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.3). Tokyo: Waseda University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, E. L. (1995). Contrastive and non-contrastive connectives: Metadiscourse functions in argumentation. Written Communication, 12(2), 219–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beeching, K. (2016). Pragmatic markers in British English: Meaning in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore, D. (2000). Indicators and procedures: Nevertheless and but. Journal of Linguistics, 36(3), 463–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore, D. (2006). Discourse markers. In L. R. Horn & G. L. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 221–240). Malden: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, K., Nelson, G., & Hung, J. (2002). A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(2), 165–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bondi, M. (2004). The discourse function of contrastive connectors in academic abstracts. In K. Aijmer & A.-B. Stenström (Eds.), Discourse patterns in spoken and written corpora (pp. 139–156). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brinton, L. (2006). Pathways in the development of pragmatic markers in English. In A. van Kemenade & B. Los (Eds.), The handbook of the history of English (pp. 307–334). Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buysse, L. (2014). ‘So what’s a year in a lifetime so’: Non-prefatory use of so in native and learner English. Text and Talk, 34(1), 23–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buysse, L. (2015). ‘Well it’s not very ideal …’. The pragmatic marker well in learner English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 59–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callies, M. (2009). Information highlighting in advanced learner English: The syntax-pragmatics interface in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carrió Pastor, M. L. (2016). A contrastive study of interactive metadiscourse in academic papers written in English and in Spanish. In F. A. Almeida, L. Cruz García, & V. M. González Ruiz (Eds.), Corpus-based studies on language varieties (pp. 89–114). Bern: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, T. (2011). Cohesion: A discourse perspective. Bern: Lang.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Klerk, V. (2005). Procedural meanings of well in a corpus of Xhosa English. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(8), 1183–1205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defour, T., D’Hondt, U., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2012). Degrees of pragmaticalization: The divergent histories of ‘actually’ and actuellement. In G. Vanderbauwhede, P. Lauwers, & S. Verleyen (Eds.), Pragmatic markers and pragmaticalization: Lessons from false friends (pp. 37–64). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielder, G. E. (2008). Bulgarian adversative connectives: Conjunctions or discourse markers? In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp. 79–97). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, K. (2014). Discourse markers. In K. P. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Pragmatics of discourse (pp. 271–294). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, C. E. (2000). The treatment of contrasts in interaction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, and contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 283–312). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Forker, D. (2016). Toward a typology for additive markers. Lingua, 180, 69–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6, 167–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. (1998). Contrastive discourse markers in English. In A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory (pp. 301–326). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. (2006a). On the universality of discourse markers. In K. Aijmer & A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Pragmatic markers in contrast (pp. 73–92). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. (2006b). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 189–204). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. (2011). The sequencing of contrastive discourse markers in English. Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture, 1, 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. (2015). The combining of discourse markers: A beginning. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 48–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, R., Götz, S., & Werner, V. (2016). The present perfect in learner Englishes: A corpus-based case study on L1 German intermediate and advanced speech and writing. In V. Werner, E. Seoane, & C. Suárez-Gómez (Eds.), Re-assessing the present perfect (pp. 297–337). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Boyd, E. (2015). Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics. doi:10.1093/applin/amv055.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giacalone Ramat, A., & Mauri, C. (2012). Gradualness and pace in grammaticalization: The case of adversative connectives. Folia Linguistica, 46(2), 483–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilquin, G. (2016). Discourse markers in L2 English: From classroom to naturalistic input. In O. Timofeeva, A.-C. Gardner, A. Honkapohja, & S. Chevalier (Eds.), New approaches to English linguistics: Building bridges (pp. 213–249). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Granger, S. (1996). From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In K. Aijmer, B. Altenberg, & M. Johansson (Eds.), Languages in contrast: Text-based cross-linguistic studies (pp. 37–51). Lund: Lund University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granger, S. (2015). Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1(1), 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (2009). The International Corpus of Learner English: Version 2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenbaum, S. (Ed.). (1996). Comparing English worldwide: The international corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2003). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kong, D. (1993). Textsyntax: Untersuchungen zur Satzverknüpfung und Satzanknüpfung in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache [Textual syntax: Studies on connecting and linking sentences in present-day German]. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, E. (2000). Adversative connectors on distinct levels of discourse: A re-examination of Eve Sweetser’s three-level approach. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, and contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 235–256). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. (2013). Korean ESL learners’ use of connectors in English academic writing. English Language Teaching, 25(2), 81–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leńko-Szymańska, A. (2015). The English Vocabulary Profile as a benchmark for assigning levels to learner corpus data. In M. Callies & S. Götz (Eds.), Learner corpora in language testing and assessment (pp. 115–140). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. M. (2006a). Contrastive analysis of adversative relational markers, using comparable corpora. In K. Aijmer & A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Pragmatic markers in contrast (pp. 139–153). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. M. (2006b). Discourse markers in English: A discourse-pragmatic view. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 43–59). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. M. (2011). A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in English. Linguistics, 49(2), 415–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClure, E. (1994). Crosslinguistic influences on the acquisition of discourse level constraints on the comprehension and use of adversative conjunctions. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 5, 191–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortier, L., & Degand, L. (2009). Adversative discourse markers in contrast: The need for a combined corpus approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 338–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neary-Sundquist, C. (2013). The development of cohesion in a learner corpus. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neff-van Aertselaer, J. (2015). Learner corpora and discourse. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 255–279). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Neff-van Aertselaer, J., & Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). Argumentation patterns in different languages: An analysis of metadiscourse markers in English and Spanish texts. In M. Pütz & J. Neff-van Aertselaer (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics: Interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 87–102). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, S.-Y. (2000). Actually and in fact in American English: A data-based analysis. English Language and Linguistics, 4(2), 243–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, Y.-Y. (1998). A discourse analysis of contrastive connectives in English, Korean, and Japanese conversation: With special reference to the context of dispreferred responses. In A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory (pp. 277–300). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1991). On the threshold of the storyrealm: Semantic versus pragmatic use of connectives in narratives. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 37(3), 445–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 367–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107, 227–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwenter, S. A. (2000). Viewpoints and polysemy: Linking adversative and causal meanings of discourse markers. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, and contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 257–281). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., & Willems, D. (2011). Crosslinguistic data as evidence in the grammaticalization debate: The case of discourse markers. Linguistics, 49(2), 333–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sönning, L. (2016). The dot plot: A graphical tool for data analysis and presentation. In H. Christ, D. Klenovšak, L. Sönning, & V. Werner (Eds.), A blend of MaLT: Selected contributions from the 2015 methods and linguistic theories symposium (pp. 101–129). Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taglicht, J. (2001). Actually, there’s more to it than meets the eye. English Language and Linguistics, 5(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi, S. (2010). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 391–421). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tono, Y. (2012). International corpus of crosslinguistic interlanguage: Project overview and a case study on the acquisition of new verb co-occurrence patterns. In Y. Tono, Y. Kawaguchi, & M. Minegishi (Eds.), Developmental and crosslinguistic perspectives in learner corpus research (pp. 27–46). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tono, Y., & Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (2014). Focus on learner writing at the beginning and intermediate stages: The ICCI corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(2), 163–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, C. (2005). Contrast and information structure: A focus-based analysis of but. Linguistics, 43(1), 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicente, L. (2010). On the syntax of adversative coordination. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 28(2), 381–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vyatkina, N., & Cunningham, D. J. (2015). Learner corpora and pragmatics. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 281–305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, L. (2010). Pragmatic challenges for second language learners. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 287–308). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers, Ole Schützler, and the audience at the 2016 ESSE seminar “Pragmatic strategies in non-native Englishes” for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. Participation at the seminar was made possible through a travel grant from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valentin Werner.

Appendix

Appendix

 

ICCI-AUT

ICLE-GER

ICCI-POL

ICLE-POL

ICCI-SPA

ICLE-SPA

ICCI-CHN

ICLE-CHN

LOCNESS-GB-A

LOCNESS-GB-U

LOCNESS-US-U

ICE-US-ACAD

ICE-GB-ACAD

Actually

34

73

3

43

0

21

11

171

14

34

43

18

17

Albeit

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

5

1

By contrast

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

16

0

1

0

1

0

Contrariwise

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Conversely

0

1

0

3

0

0

0

7

0

0

1

2

2

Despite

0

16

5

32

3

20

0

42

18

38

9

9

13

However

25

228

8

443

8

137

46

1255

146

251

199

97

99

In actual fact

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

In contrast

1

10

0

7

0

7

1

22

0

3

4

5

0

In fact

5

59

4

97

2

55

7

207

14

43

38

21

0

In spite of

0

8

2

18

0

31

2

12

0

3

0

6

0

Nevertheless

1

67

0

53

1

37

3

57

1

6

3

7

6

On the contrary

0

15

0

24

0

20

0

30

2

3

2

0

0

On the other hand

14

59

3

92

1

88

10

234

2

25

24

9

0

Quite the contrary

0

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

To the contrary

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

Whereas

0

39

0

33

1

20

0

21

5

33

7

9

13

While

0

0

0

1

1

2

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

Yet

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

Total

81

579

25

851

17

438

80

2074

202

444

335

190

151

But

843

6102

362

3878

311

6200

800

2680

3986

3258

619

228

326

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Werner, V. Adversative Pragmatic Markers in Learner Language: A Cross-Sectional Perspective. Corpus Pragmatics 1, 135–158 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0008-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0008-9

Keywords

Navigation