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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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).
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).
See further Aijmer (2016) for analyses of second-language varieties.
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.
A related area not treated here is the acquisition of (A)PMs by children; see Peterson and McCabe (1991).
See further Ädel (2006: 205–208) on the pros and cons of using either non-professional or professional native control data.
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).
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).
Spelling in examples is preserved as represented in the corpus data.
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).
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.
Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Aijmer, K. (2014). Pragmatic markers. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus pragmatics: A handbook (pp. 195–218). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.3). Tokyo: Waseda University.
Barton, E. L. (1995). Contrastive and non-contrastive connectives: Metadiscourse functions in argumentation. Written Communication, 12(2), 219–239.
Beeching, K. (2016). Pragmatic markers in British English: Meaning in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blakemore, D. (2000). Indicators and procedures: Nevertheless and but. Journal of Linguistics, 36(3), 463–486.
Blakemore, D. (2006). Discourse markers. In L. R. Horn & G. L. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 221–240). Malden: Blackwell.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Buysse, L. (2015). ‘Well it’s not very ideal …’. The pragmatic marker well in learner English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 59–89.
Callies, M. (2009). Information highlighting in advanced learner English: The syntax-pragmatics interface in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
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.
Christiansen, T. (2011). Cohesion: A discourse perspective. Bern: Lang.
de Klerk, V. (2005). Procedural meanings of well in a corpus of Xhosa English. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(8), 1183–1205.
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.
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.
Fischer, K. (2014). Discourse markers. In K. P. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Pragmatics of discourse (pp. 271–294). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
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.
Forker, D. (2016). Toward a typology for additive markers. Lingua, 180, 69–100.
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6, 167–190.
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.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931–952.
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.
Fraser, B. (2006b). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 189–204). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fraser, B. (2011). The sequencing of contrastive discourse markers in English. Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture, 1, 29–35.
Fraser, B. (2015). The combining of discourse markers: A beginning. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 48–53.
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.
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.
Giacalone Ramat, A., & Mauri, C. (2012). Gradualness and pace in grammaticalization: The case of adversative connectives. Folia Linguistica, 46(2), 483–512.
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.
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.
Granger, S. (2015). Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1(1), 7–24.
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (2009). The International Corpus of Learner English: Version 2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
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.
Greenbaum, S. (Ed.). (1996). Comparing English worldwide: The international corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2003). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81–104.
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.
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.
Lee, K. (2013). Korean ESL learners’ use of connectors in English academic writing. English Language Teaching, 25(2), 81–103.
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.
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.
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.
Lewis, D. M. (2011). A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in English. Linguistics, 49(2), 415–443.
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.
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.
Neary-Sundquist, C. (2013). The development of cohesion in a learner corpus. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 109–130.
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.
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.
Oh, S.-Y. (2000). Actually and in fact in American English: A data-based analysis. English Language and Linguistics, 4(2), 243–268.
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.
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.
Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 367–381.
Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107, 227–265.
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.
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.
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.
Taglicht, J. (2001). Actually, there’s more to it than meets the eye. English Language and Linguistics, 5(1), 1–16.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50.
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.
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.
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.
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Umbach, C. (2005). Contrast and information structure: A focus-based analysis of but. Linguistics, 43(1), 207–232.
Vicente, L. (2010). On the syntax of adversative coordination. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 28(2), 381–415.
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.
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.
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
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0008-9