Keywords

6.1 Introduction

This Chapter reports on an inquiry into a cohort of Chinese EMI lecturers’ pragmatic language use. This focus is derived from two emerging issues. Firstly, the Chinese language is pragmatically distinct from English and there is scarce research data from the literature concerning its relationship to effective teaching in the ESL/EFL area. Secondly, scholars argue that highly proficient L2 use does not necessarily make for effective teaching, whereas the capability to employ pragmatic strategies does (Ament & Parés, 2017; Björkman, 2011; House, 1996). Transposing this into the EMI context suggests successful teaching and learning could depend on or is determined by, the lecturers’ language proficiency in conjunction with their ability to implement pragmatic strategies (Björkman, 2010). Pedagogically, pragmatic strategies in conjunction with the development of L2 teachers’ and students’ speaking fluency, can facilitate the establishment of interpersonal relationships with students and the construction of coherent discourse (Carrió-Pastor, 2020). Teachers’ pragmatic competence is significant as it supports the use of effective language to communicate with greater clarity, signposts their attitudes and provides structure to their communication (Carrió-Pastor, 2020). Drawing on the data collected in this research, this Chapter looks specifically at the influence of L1 Chinese on pragmatic use in L2 in the Chinese lecturers’ EMI classes.

Western philosophers distinguished the Chinese language as a different language system from Western languages such as German and English (Hegel, 1976; Jullien, 2014). For example, Jullien (2014, p. 155) asserts that in the discourse of the modern Chinese language there is a lack of “empty words” that is, functional words, to link to “full words”. Pragmatic language would be under this category of “empty words”. Similarly, Hegel (1976) in his book the “Science of Logic” made the argument that Chinese discourse lacks grammatical and functional methods, such as prepositions, articles and perhaps conjunctions compared to discourse in English or German, where such features have the advantage of producing an abundance of logical expressions. To rephrase this argument, the advantage of a logical language is demonstrated through its pragmatic strategies, that is, the use of functional words such as prepositions, articles and conjunctions.

Furthering the critique of the Chinese language, Western scholars perceive that logical and grammatical relationships within the Chinese language are predominantly indicated by word order (Zhang, 1985). This has led to the prevalent generalization that the Chinese language is yet to reach a logical stage as have the English and German languages. If these arguments, based on cross-linguistic influence theory, are taken as truisms, it could be construed that the Chinese EMI lecturers in this research would implement relatively fewer functional or pragmatic markers in their teaching through L1 Chinese, than through L2 English. With these propositions in mind, this Chapter focuses on an analysis of the PM use observed in the participant lecturers’ EMI classes and three lecturers’ Chinese Medium Instruction (CMI) classes. The intention was to identify if PMs were used, and if so, were there any patterns of use and what pedagogical functions pragmatic markers (PMs) enabled.

6.2 Research into Bilinguals’ Pragmatic Transfer and Pragmatic Markers

As with the literature examining the different types of L1 influence on L2 use, pragmatic influence from L1, for several decades, has gained prominence in studies of ESL. However, research into how pragmatic strategies are implemented in EMI teaching is a more recent area of study. In general studies of pragmatic strategies implemented in ESL have mostly focused on the correlation between language proficiency and frequency use of PMs. For example, Neary-Sundquist (2014) studied Chinese and Korean ESL students in terms of their English proficiency level and their use of PMs against those of native speakers. This research concluded that those English L2 students operating at an advanced level have a broader repertoire of PM strategies in their ongoing discourse, compared to those with limited English, who had access to a narrower range of PM strategies, overusing those internalized and rarely using others; highly proficient L2 speakers used PMs more frequently and the highest proficiency students used PMs at the same rate as native speakers.

Yet other studies found there was less correlation and identified varying degrees of separation between English L2 competency and frequency of PM use, to the point where there was no correlation at all (Björkman, 2010; House, 1996). Björkman’s (2010) study of spoken English in EMI classes in Swedish higher education, found that despite disfluencies and morphosyntactic non-standard speech, the lecturers were able to implement PMs to assist the students’ understanding. This research suggests that the frequent use of pragmatic strategies, did not depend or correlate with speakers’ proficiency in English as approximations to standard English were used to advantage.

A number of studies focused on comparing the use of pragmatic markers across L1 and L2 (Bu, 1996; Ifantidou, 2017; Kasper, 1992; Liu, 2013; Padilla Cruz, 2013). Negative outcomes for pragmatic transfer were often explained as the result of negative interference from one’s L1. Liu’s (2013) study reported the use of PMs between English L1 and Chinese ESL speakers. The frequency of use and the purpose for implementing the PMs were identified as major differences. It was reported that whilst Chinese ESL speakers used PMs less frequently, they often used the same PMs for different purposes (Liu, 2013). Another study examined the types of PMs being applied by ESL school students in Hong Kong and British English speakers. PMs were implemented successfully across both groups to assist with the structure of their speech and hence their interaction. However, Hong Kong learners substantially implemented referential markers with an accompanying restricted use of the conceptual, cognitive and structural categories whereas native English speakers had a wider repertoire incorporating all four PM types (Fung & Carter, 2007). In support, Vanda’s (2007) research observed the language use of English L2 speakers of Chinese background and identified that this group used a narrower field of PMs compared to English L1 speakers.

Additional research was sourced which investigated the effects of PMs as a tool for improving students’ learning. For example, Meyer et al. (1980) investigated if top-level structure and signalling words in texts, assisted comprehension and information recall for students. Two groups of students received the same reading – one group with PMs included and the other without. The students with the PMs in the text were more successful on comprehension and information recall, compared to the students who had no signalling within their text. Similarly, Bartlett (1978) and McDonald (1978) also researched top-level structure and the use of PMs and concluded that both are crucial variables in learning and memory.

More recently, two studies were identified with reference to the field of EMI, specifically investigating how pragmatic markers were used as pedagogical strategies in EMI classes. Carrió-Pastor (2020, p. 137) studied and analyzed the use of pragmatic strategies in EMI teachers’ subject knowledge presentations. This research found that using mitigation and boosters when explaining content knowledge was critical for teachers to motivate students and transmit the most important information. Comparably, Akbaş and Bal-Gezegin (2022) studied the pragmatic use of ‘okay’ in EMI teaching in Turkey. They explored its use and function by one lecturer, who was found to use this PM with high frequency during content delivery. It was noted that in this context, ‘Okay’ was particularly used to attract students’ attention, achieve interaction, and to provide an alert prior to introducing a key point or announcing important information. These two studies have moved the exploration of PMs in EMI forward, as they approached their observation and analysis of pragmatic strategies from a pedagogical perspective. The findings are insightful for EMI lecturers in terms of improving classroom interaction and structuring the presentation of information effectively. Continuing this more recent approach to the study of PMs in EMI contexts, this research is expected to offer a contribution to the development and understanding of EMI pedagogy. The following section provides a review of the categories of pragmatic strategies and markers which have informed the data analysis in this research.

6.3 Functional Categorization of Pragmatic Markers

As a substitute for pragmatic strategies, pragmatic markers have been assigned to a key research area in ESL and EFL contexts, predominantly as a means to measure pragmatic transfer strategies (Björkman, 2010; Fung & Carter, 2007; Liu, 2016). PMs are “a class of items which operate outside of the structural limits of the clause” (Carter & McCarthy, 2006, p. 208), “the linguistically encoded clues which signal the speaker’s potential communicative intention” (Fraser, 1996, p. 169) and “interpersonal meanings” (Carter & McCarthy, 2006, p. 208). They are “different linguistic items which have specific cohesive functions” (Ament & Parés, 2017, p. 46). If as Fraser (1996, p. 168) suggests, we encode a unit or units of text into the propositional content (or content meaning) and the non-propositional content, then the propositional content (or content meaning) would represent “a state of the world which the speaker wishes to bring to the addressee’s attention” (Fraser, 1996, p. 168). The propositional content is the ‘basic message’ whereas what remains or “everything else” is the non-propositional segments, which are composed of signals, identified as pragmatic markers. From the relationship of PMs to the ‘basic message/intent’ of a unit of text, Fraser (1996) proposed four categories/clusters of PMs. These include (1) a basic marker that reinforces the basic message; (2) a commentary marker signaling a further comment to the basic message; (3) a parallel marker signaling something complementary to the basic message, and (4) a discourse marker that signals the relationship between basic messages (Fraser, 1996). This framework allocates ‘basic messages’ to the center and PMs as supplementary attachments in a prescriptive and broad way, thus making an analysis of PMs quite challenging.

From a functional perspective, Ament and Parés (2017, p. 47) were able to classify PMs into four categories including cognitive, interpersonal, structural and referential. According to this framework, cognitive PMs signal the speaker’s cognitive state. It directs the listener towards consideration of “how to construct their mental representation of the ongoing discourse” (Ament & Parés, 2017, p. 47). Interpersonal PMs signpost the speaker’s sharing affection with, or demonstrating attitude or social response knowledge to the listener. Structural PMs have a metalanguage component indicating “the flow of discourse” to be segmented. Referential PMs signal the relationships between the utterances or between statements of ideas in the discourse (Ament & Parés, 2017, p. 47). The combination of structural and referential PMs, to some degree, align with Fraser’s (1996) discourse markers. Ament and Parés (2017) distinguish a clear boundary between the structural and referential PMs. That is, the structural PMs serve macropropositional text and referential PMs serve microproposition clauses.

Meyer et al. (1980) contribute further to the discourse around the categorization of PMs by proposing the PMs relationship with the ‘text’. At a top-level structure, the PMs do not function to “add new content on a topic, but give emphasis to certain aspects of the semantic content or point[s] out aspects of the structure of the content” (Meyer et al., 1980, p. 77). They further specify that PMs operate in a binary: at the macropropositional level signaling interrelated groups of sentences and paragraphs, or at the micropropositional level indicating the relationship between clauses within sentences. At either ends of this binary, the PMs are beyond the content and topic, and function as ‘glue’ to connect materials into various kinds of relationships. Whilst this framework acknowledges the role of PMs in organizing basic messages and information, it falls short in recognizing the potential for PMs to facilitate the organization of the speaker’s mental processes and to assist in the relationship between the oral information and the listener/reader.

Considering each of the approaches of PM categorizations outlined above, a three-functions categorization of pragmatic markers is now proposed as a framework for analyzing the data collected in this research. Table 6.1 summarizes the three-functions: Cognitive, Interpersonal and Organizational including a breakdown of what each includes and excerpts from the data as examples of each category.

Table 6.1 Functional categorization of pragmatic markers
Full size table

Adapted from Ament and Parés (2017) “Catergorisation of Pragmatic markers” and Myer (1975) “Top-level Structure”.

6.4 Pragmatic Strategies in the Chinese Lecturers’ EMI Classes

The data collected and reported in this Chapter include all 19 participating lecturers’ EMI and three lecturers’ CMI teaching.Footnote 1 Observing lectures in both EMI and CMI enabled moderate comparisons to be drawn. Data reveal that across the three-functions of PMs there was an uneven distribution in the frequency with which each type of PMs was employed by the EMI lecturers. Cognitive and interpersonal PMs were rarely expressed and only by a few individual lecturers. The lack of observable PM use in these two categories may not entirely reflect the influence of L1 (Chinese), but may also mirror these lecturers’ inherent less conversational and more expository lecturing styles. Organizational PMs were observed being extensively implemented, reflecting the lecturers’ emphasis on managing and structuring lecture content in their EMI teaching. Organizational PMs were also observed as being implemented in the classes provided by the three lecturers who also provided CMI teaching. It is sufficient to comment that lecturers employed comparable PMs in both EMI and CMI teaching.

6.4.1 Conceptual Cognitive Markers

The four most frequently espoused cognitive markers were “eh…”, “I mean…”, “I think…” and “yeah…”.

“Eh” appeared as a phenomenon in a number of the lecturers’ instructional language. They inserted this marker at the start and between sentences, phrases and expressions. In observing its context of use, it appeared this marker did not serve the students’ learning but rather the lecturer’s need. In the stimulated recall interviews after their lecture, lecturers were asked about their use of “eh” as a marker, and predominantly the reply was they did not realize they used it frequently. One lecturer recounted: “It [my speech] maybe sounds better with it. My English sounds fluent and not broken”. This use of “eh” as a marker allowed this lecturer time to gather thoughts and vocabulary to continue without an awkward silence. Interestingly this lecturer did not use “eh” during CMI lectures. Another commented: “I don’t even know I said that. I guess it’s a habit?” This participant used “eh” consistently throughout CMI teaching, so this was clearly a speech habit and not a deliberate use of a PM to assist with language flow (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2 Cognitive markers
Full size table

“I mean”, “I think” and “yeah” were used less frequently than “eh”, and by fewer lecturers. The observations of their use were similar to the purpose or lack thereof for “eh”. Whilst some lecturers used these PMs akin to a mantra, others seemed reliant on these PMs as ‘gap fillers’ to gain extra time when processing information. In this way, the cognitive markers appeared to provide psychological comfort or eased nervousness for these lecturers when organizing information in English. Interestingly, no cognitive markers in Chinese (我的意思是，我觉得，对了) were observed in the data from the CMI classes. Thus, it further confirms that the use of these particular markers is not entirely due to L1 influence.

6.4.2 Interpersonal Markers

Interpersonal markers were not regularly observed in the EMI lecturers’ teaching. A few of the lecturers who exhibited fluent and proficient English expressions were those who articulated interpersonal PMs, such as “you see”, “you know” and “Yeah? [with intonation to indicate a yes or no response was needed]”, as recorded in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3 Interpersonal markers
Full size table

An outlier was one Physics lecturer who used “you see” and “you know” so consistently and frequently at the sentence level, it became a hindrance to the flow of ideas and content for students. This appeared to be another example of ‘habitual’ language, rather than a dedicated attempt to engage students. Whereas PMs such as “You see” and “You know” were observed in EMI classes, their equivalents “你看”, “你知道” or “是吧?” and other interpersonal PMs were not observed in CMI classes.

Although planned use of interpersonal PMs can create opportunities to maintain and reinforce positive connections with students either in L1 or L2 (Björkman, 2011), this practice was not observed in the EMI lecturers’ teaching. Data from this research indicate that lecturers of Chinese background, in general, lack interpersonal connection with students whether teaching in L1 or L2.

6.4.3 Organizational Markers – Causation, Collection and Continuity, Description, Comparison and Problem/Solution

The EMI lecturers did employ organizational markers in their teaching albeit a narrow focus on what is possible to assist learning. Causation markers were the most frequently used of all the sub-categories of organizational markers. With the introduction of new content, rather than stipulate ‘remember what I tell you’, the lecturers were observed providing the reason or logic behind the content, accompanied by causation markers, for example, “Because of …”, “…so…”. Conditional markers were also implemented as a component of causation and included examples such as “If…, then…” when the cause-and-effect relationship between elements of the content was not strong.

Description markers were frequently used by the EMI lecturers, including “for example” and “such as”, to provide additional information to a cause and effect relationship. Further, collection and continuity markers were observed to be recurring when the lecturers indicated the steps, order of processes or transitions to signify the movement or compounding structure of the content. Such PMs included time sequencing, numerals, and the parallel word “and”. Observed collection and continuity markers included “Now…”, “… and…” and “The next…”. Noted also were the EMI lecturers’ explanations to assist students with understanding similarities and differences between ideas, concepts and cases. The PMs “but”, “however” and “similarly” were used to flag a positive or negative relationship. Markers of problem-and-solution relationships were only sporadically observed in the EMI lectures’ linguistic repertoires compared to those discussed above. This could arguably relate to the teaching style of most of the observed lecturers who lean towards a topic-based, expository lecturing format. On the rare occasion these PMs were utilized it was in instances when a lecturer centralized a problem and then generated potential directions from which students could think about a solution. For example, “The problem is…”, “The challenge is…”, and “one way to sort this out…” were offered by a few EMI lecturers to assist the students’ with problem solving. A summary of the observed organizational markers utilized by EMI lecturers is presented in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4 EMI lecturers’ use of organizational PMs
Full size table

6.4.4 Pragmatic Markers in EMI and CMI

Two areas of explicit L1/L2 pragmatic transfer were observed when comparing the data from the lecturers’ EMI and CMI classes. Firstly, when using causation (including conditional) markers some lecturers used “because” and “so” within one utterance or sentence. An example listed above in Table 6.4 is “Because friction causes the energy cost, so low friction is desirable”. A similar example was identified with the conditional markers, “if” and “then”, − “If you use the macroscope to check the surface, then you will see it is very rough”. Based on Chinese pragmatic rules, “Because” and “so” often appear as a pair and used within one sentence, as is, “if” and “then”. However, in English discourse, this is not the case. These EMI lecturers followed the Chinese pragmatic rules when using these markers, which signified explicit pragmatic transfer in their PM use.

Secondly, in English, when students are confronting either noticeably similar or contrastingly different relationships between multiple entities, the use of contrast markers will predictably be in play. However, data in this research reveal that some EMI lecturers did not use contrast markers when comparisons could assist with student learning. For example, one lecturer in his International Relationship class compared Trump, Xi and Obama’s leadership styles. His lecture was information delivery in a descriptive format moving between the three, listing a number of points for each, without any contrast markers. The details were presented in linear format where students were not engaged to think beyond the list of leadership characteristics – it was presented as a memorization exercise. In the stimulated recall interview after the lecture, he conceded: “I never thought about we should use the Markers to make things clear. The relationship is so obvious, and students can work it out.” This example of omitting contrast markers is not an isolated case. Another lecturer was observed to use very few markers when analyzing the differences between two products. During his interview and when asked about the use of PMs to aid student understanding, he justified his approach as: “Do you mean the ‘glue’ you use to make your content stick together? You should know that Chinese people sometimes play indirect games. We call it ‘dian dao wei zhi’ which means ‘touch it lightly’ or even pause before touching it and we leave enough room for students to do a bit of the thinking job”. This lecturer’s comment does not only signify his approach to pragmatic transfer through PM use, but demonstrates a case of ‘cultural transfer’.

6.5 Discussion – The Influential Factors to the Chinese Lecturers’ Pragmatic Strategies

Overall, data from this research reveal three key findings in terms of the EMI lecturers’ use of pragmatic strategies. Firstly, the use of cognitive markers related to the EMI lecturers’ capability and proficiency in English as their second/foreign language. Secondly, interpersonal markers were observed infrequently in both EMI and CMI lectures across the group. From the analysis of the data, it is purported that the rare use of interpersonal markers is related to the EMI lecturers’ pedagogical stance, the majority adhering to expository lecturing style, rather than a constructivist approach which would seek engagement and interaction with students. Given the mode of teaching was face-to-face lecturing, it could have been expected that interpersonal markers might have been more consistently employed as the lecturers’ addressed their audience – the students. Thirdly, organizational markers were frequently and successfully implemented to signify relationships of causation, description, collection and continuity. Finally contrast and problem-solution markers were less frequently used.

The characteristics of pragmatic strategies identified in this research, do not substantiate the critique by Western scholars that there is a deficit in Chinese discourse, in terms of logical expressions, due to a lack of functional or empty words – pragmatic markers (Hegel, 1976; Jullien, 2014). This research did not examine the frequency, numerically, of the EMI lecturers’ PMs in use, but it can be safely argued that they used some types of pragmatic strategies more often than the others. The EMI lecturers’ use of pragmatic strategies was much more multifaceted than the linear claim made by early researchers that ESL or EFL speakers used PMs less frequently and were less aware of the multifunctional uses of PMs when compared to English native peers (Vanda, 2007; Yates, 2011). Notwithstanding some individual differences, the trend of PM use and the degree of pragmatic transfer revealed in this group’s EMI teaching can be explained in terms of their pedagogical ideologies and practice, culturally influenced teacher-student relationships, the EMI subject matter, and the lecturers’ language cognition as L2 users.

6.5.1 Pedagogical Influence

As reported in Chaps. 3 and 4, the EMI lecturers’ pedagogical and instructional practices are on the continuum between expository and constructivist teaching, with a weighting across the 19 participants towards expository practice. That is, more lecturers focused on presenting knowledge, delivered via lengthy content directed oration, which resulted in the more frequent use of organizational PMs. Their instruction was observed to be topic-based rather than problem-driven, as a lock-step approach, section by section, was generally observed. Further, the lecturers’ dominant expository teaching style impacted some types of pragmatic markers but not all. They demonstrated their objective to support students’ learning and understanding of content knowledge through cognitive engagement, with less concern for emotional and behavioral engagement. These findings parallel the analysis of pragmatic marker use by the EMI lecturers presented in this Chapter. Less concern for engaging students emotionally explains the limited usage of interpersonal markers; the focus on direct presentation and demonstration by the lecturers explains the rich employment of markers in causation, collection and continuity and description. The use of organizational PMs afforded the students more cognitive support to process information.

6.5.2 Contextual Influence

In Chap. 2, a conceptualization of ‘medium’ (Halliday, 1999; Murray, 1988) was advanced. Accordingly, the Chinese lecturers’ teaching through EMI was implemented in the same physical space as the students, involved visual and aural channels, and the mode of teaching was via an oral lecture-tutoring combination, comprising lecturing, explanation, conversation and discussion. Through this medium, the classes could have been expected to be rich, synchronous interactions. Rubin (1987) argued that applying a synchronous medium in teaching promotes an immediacy of interaction between lecturers and students both physically and psychologically. The role of pragmatic language or pragmatic markers is to tailor this mode and boost opportunities for students’ participation – actions and reactions. This is especially important in EMI teaching when lecturers and students both use English as an additional language (Rubin, 1987). However, in this research the sparse use of interpersonal PMs reveals the lecturers’ intentions towards establishing their position of power and authority with less regard to engaging the students emotionally. In conjunction with the EMI lecturers’ pedagogical position influencing their scarce use of interpersonal PMs, the impact of tenor, which reflects the mainstream contextual situation – the institutional, social and/or cultural context – may have also influenced the Chinese EMI lecturers’ use of certain PMs.

6.5.3 Influence from Subject Matter

Scholars assumed that a synchronous medium of instruction has the potential to lead to more engagement with students but may also be less rigorous in teaching actual content (Chafe, 1985; Rubin, 1987). The first assumption has been disaccorded with the finding as discussed above. The second claim is also disproved by the evidence of this research. The lecturers rigorously constructed and deconstructed the content with the use of organizational markers resulting in their teaching brandishing a ‘bookish’, ‘follow the textbook’ style. The influence of the field, the discipline and subject matter to be taught, could be argued as contributing to this mode. In this research it was particularly so for the STEM lecturers. The characteristics of the ‘hard’ subjects contributed to a more written-like mode of teaching being adopted by the EMI lecturers.

6.5.4 Language Influence

As reported in this research, having English as a second language is an impact factor for the observed use of pragmatic markers by the Chinese lecturers. For those with less confidence and competence, cognitive markers in their lecturing indicated their mental processing was under pressure and they needed more ‘thinking time’ to formulate their expressions. The PMs in this situation functioned as a strategy to disrupt ‘uncomfortable’ silences for the lecturers and possibly students. For others, cognitive markers demonstrated their, often unconscious, habits in their speech which offered no aid to understanding but were rather identified as a distracting feature of the lecturing style. Earlier research claimed that the frequency of PM use was influenced most significantly by the person’s L2 capability (Björkman, 2010, 2011; Flowerdew, 1994; Fung & Carter, 2007; Liu, 2013, 2016; Neary-Sundquist, 2014; Vanda, 2007). However, the findings in this research support another argument. That is, different language proficiency may reduce the frequency of some PM use but tends to increase the rate of others.

6.6 Conclusion

This Chapter has focused on an analysis of the Chinese EMI lecturers’ pragmatic strategies demonstrated in their use of pragmatic markers. The EMI lecturers’ use of cognitive markers is related to their thinking and expressions in English, and/or to ease the stress derived from using English as a second language. The use of interpersonal PMs was rare both in their EMI and CMI lectures, and this reflects their less interactive teaching style and distant teacher-student relationship. The apt and frequent use of some organizational markers demonstrated the EMI lecturers’ expertise and skills in presenting subject knowledge through foregrounding explicit logical relationships between ideas, concepts and formulae.