Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2015

Part of the book series: Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics ((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.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aijmer, K. (2004). Pragmatic markers in spoken interlanguage. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 3(1), 173–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buysse, L. (2012). ‘So’ as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1764–1782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, J. (1987). Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society, 85(1), 110–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, J. (1990). Modal meaning: The semantic–pragmatic interface. Journal of Semantics, 7(1), 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fordyce, K. (2014). The differential effects of explicit and implicit instruction on EFL learners’ use of epistemic stance. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 6–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, J. M. (2003). The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(1), 23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication, 10(3), 185–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kärkkäinen, E. (2006). Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk, 26(6), 699–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, S. (2009). Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1313–1328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Precht, K. (2003). Stance moods in spoken English: Evidentiality and affect in British and American conversation. TEXT, 23(2), 239–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero-Trillo, J. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 769–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., & Aijmer, K. (2007). The semantic field of modal certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Trinity College London. (2009). Exam information: Graded examinations in spoken English (GESE).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dana Gablasova .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gablasova, D., Brezina, V. (2015). Does Speaker Role Affect the Choice of Epistemic Adverbials in L2 Speech? Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus. In: Romero-Trillo, J. (eds) Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2015. Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17948-3_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics