Advertisement

Does Speaker Role Affect the Choice of Epistemic Adverbials in L2 Speech? Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus

Chapter
Part of the Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics book series (YCLP, volume 3)

Abstract

This study investigates stance-taking strategies in a context of an examination of spoken English. The focus of the research is on the interaction between the candidates (advanced L2 speakers) and the examiners (L1 speakers of English). In particular, the study explores the use of epistemic adverbial markers such as ‘maybe’, ‘certainly’ and ‘surely’. These markers are used not only to express speakers’ position (certainty or uncertainty) towards a statement, but also to express speakers’ position towards other interlocutors (e.g. to manage interpersonal relationships or to downplay strong assertions). The study is based on the advanced subsection of the Trinity Lancaster Corpus of spoken L2 production which currently contains approximately 0.45M words based on four speaking tasks: one mostly monologic task and three highly interactive tasks. The study compares the expression of epistemic stance by both the candidates and examiners and explains the differences between speakers’ performance in terms of different speaker roles assumed by the candidates and examiners in three dialogic tasks. The study stresses the importance of looking at the contextual factors of speakers’ pragmatic choices and demonstrates that when studying L2 spoken production it is important to go beyond characterising the speakers as ‘native’ or ‘non-native’ speakers of a language. Whereas the fact of being a ‘native user’ or a ‘non-native user’ can indeed be part of the speaker role and speaker identity, other equally important factors arising from the context of the exchange may play a role in speakers’ stance-taking choices.

Keywords

Epistemic stance L2 pragmatics L2 spoken production Speaker roles Learner corpus 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research presented in this chapter was supported by the ESRC Centre for Corpus Approaches to Social Science, ESRC grant reference ES/K002155/1.

References

  1. Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aijmer, K. (2004). Pragmatic markers in spoken interlanguage. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 3(1), 173–190.Google Scholar
  3. Aijmer, K. (2011). Well I’m not sure I think… The use of well by non-native speakers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(2), 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Salsbury, T. (2004). The organization of turns in the disagreements of L2 learners: A longitudinal perspective. In D. Boxer & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 199–227). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  5. Baumgarten, N., & House, J. (2007). Speaker stances in native and non-native English conversation. In J. D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive multilingualism (pp. 195–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumgarten, N., & House, J. (2010). ‘I think’ and ‘I don’t know’ in English as lingua franca and native English discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(5), 1184–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  8. Brezina, V. (2012). Epistemic markers in university advisory sessions: Towards a local grammar of epistemicity. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  9. Brezina, V., & Meyerhoff, M. (2014). Significant or random?: A critical review of sociolinguistic generalisations based on large corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Buysse, L. (2012). ‘So’ as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1764–1782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Callies, M. (2013). Advancing the research agenda of interlanguage pragmatics: The role of learner corpora. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics 2013 (pp. 9–36). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coates, J. (1987). Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society, 85(1), 110–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coates, J. (1990). Modal meaning: The semantic–pragmatic interface. Journal of Semantics, 7(1), 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fordyce, K. (2009). A comparative study of learner corpora of spoken and written discursive language: Focusing on the use of epistemic forms by Japanese EFL learners. Hiroshima Studies in Language and Language Education, 12, 135–150.Google Scholar
  16. Fordyce, K. (2014). The differential effects of explicit and implicit instruction on EFL learners’ use of epistemic stance. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuller, J. M. (2003). The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(1), 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication, 10(3), 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hunston, S. (2007). Using a corpus to investigate stance quantitatively and qualitatively. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 27–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kärkkäinen, E. (2006). Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk, 26(6), 699–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liao, S. (2009). Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1313–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McEnery, T., & Kifle, N. A. (2002). Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language writers. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 182–195). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  28. Mortensen, J. (2012). Subjectivity and intersubjectivity as aspects of epistemic stance marking. In N. Baumgarten, I. D. Bois, & J. House (Eds.), Subjectivity in language and in discourse (pp. 229–246). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  29. Mukherjee, J. (2009). The grammar of conversation in advanced spoken learner English. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and language teaching (pp. 203–230). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Precht, K. (2003). Stance moods in spoken English: Evidentiality and affect in British and American conversation. TEXT, 23(2), 239–258.Google Scholar
  32. Romero-Trillo, J. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rühlemann, C. (2011). Corpus-based pragmatics II: Quantitative studies. In W. Bublitz & N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Foundations of pragmatics (pp. 629–656). Berlin: Mouton DeGruyter.Google Scholar
  34. Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., & Aijmer, K. (2007). The semantic field of modal certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Trinity College London. (2009). Exam information: Graded examinations in spoken English (GESE).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ESRC Centre for Corpus Approaches to Social ScienceLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations