discourse particles in corpus text

8/8/2019 Discourse particles in Corpus text

1/22

Applied Linguistics: 31/2: 260281 Oxford University Press 2009doi:10.1093/applin/amp026 Advance Access published on 18 June 2009

Discourse Particles in Corpus Data andTextbooks: The Case of Well

PHOENIX W. Y. LAMThe Open University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Discourse particles are ubiquitous in spoken discourse. Yet despite their perva-siveness very few studies attempt to look at their use in the pedagogical setting.Drawing on data from an intercultural corpus of speech and a textbook database,the present study compares the use of discourse particles by expert users ofEnglish in Hong Kong with their descriptions and presentations in textbooksdesigned for learners of English in the same community. Specifically, it investi-gates the similarities and differences in the use of the discourse particle well between the two datasets in terms of its frequency of occurrence, its positionalpreference and its discourse function. Results from the analysis show that thereare vast differences as regards how the particle well is used in real-world exam-ples and how its use is described and presented in teaching materials. This raisesthe question to what extent foreign language learners who have minimal expo-sure to naturally-occurring spoken interactions in English could effectivelymaster the use of discourse particles if they solely rely on these textbooks.

INTRODUCTION

Discourse particles such as okay , so and well are syntactically optional linguisticitems which have no or little propositional value but serve important prag-matic functions. Apart from the term discourse particle (see, for example,Aijmer 2002; Fischer 2006), there is no shortage of contenders which areused in similar and often partly overlapping ways in research, 1 including dis-course marker (see, for example, Schiffrin 1987; Schourup 2001) and prag-matic marker (see, for example, Watts 1988; Brinton 1996). Because of theirimportance as sharing devices and intimacy signals in our everyday talk(Quirk 1955: 179), they are indispensable in spoken discourse. In the pedagog-ical setting, however, discourse particles are often dismissed as a sign of dys-fluency and their use discouraged (Erman 1987). Although in recent years anincreasing number of studies have pointed out that the use of discourse par-ticles contributes to the pragmatic and communicative competence of speakers(Wierzbicka 1991; Mu ller 2005) and hence is an essential aspect of languagethat learners should master, very few have actually looked at the coverage of

discourse particles in teaching materials. Previous studies of discourse particlesrelated to language learning, if any, rest on reporting the misuse by learners, judged by the comparison with native data from outside the learners commu-nity. The pedagogical significance of discourse particles in the foreign languageclassroom is therefore severely understudied (Fung and Carter 2007). As an

a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0

a p pl i j . ox f or d

j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


2/22

attempt to bridge this gap, the present study looks at how the discourse particlewell is used by expert speakers in an intercultural spoken corpus in Hong Kongand how it is described and presented in textbooks designed for learners within

the same community. In particular, the frequency of occurrence, positionalpreference, and discourse functions of the particle in the two data sourceswill be compared both qualitatively and quantitatively to investigate theextent to which textbook data reflects real-world usage.

A typical example of discourse particles, well is one of the most frequentlyoccurring items and probably the most thoroughly researched (Schourup2001; Aijmer 2002). Its high frequencies of occurrence in the two data sourcesenable a meaningful quantitative analysis to be conducted. Its versatility inserving different pragmatic functions in discourse has been well-documentedin previous studies (see, for example, Lakoff 1973; Schiffrin 1987).Consequently, its pragmatic functions may have been better understoodthan others, which in turn allows for a more reliable comparison to be made between its actual use and textbook descriptions.

ROLE OF DISCOURSE PARTICLES IN PEDAGOGY

That language in textbooks often differs from language in use has been well-reported in numerous studies. Areas which have been examined are wide-ranging, with examples such as epistemic modality (Holmes 1988), futuretime expressions (Mindt 1997), dialogues (Carter 1998; Wong 2002) andmulti-word lexical phrases (Koprowski 2005). What seems to be missing,though, is the study of the role of discourse particles in the pedagogical con-text, especially given the enormous attention these items have received overthe years in discourse analysis. As items which occur frequently in speech,discourse particles are characteristic of the spoken language. Their importancein everyday talk can hardly be overstated. Discourse particles facilitate theprocesses of interpretation and social involvement in spoken interaction(Watts 1988). They are essential to the maintenance of conversational coop-eration (Leech and Svartvik 2002). Acting as a discourse lubricant, they ensureinteractions go on smoothly. From a pedagogical perspective, failing to masterthe use of discourse particles may seriously impair the communicative com-petence of learners (Wierzbicka 1991). Without these items in their speech,learners may come across as unnatural, dogmatic and/or incoherent, henceleading to a greater possibility of communicative failure (Fraser 1990; Brinton1996).

Despite their ubiquity in speech and their importance in discourse andpedagogy, discourse particles are largely overlooked in language learning,

with only a few studies exploring their (mis)use by learners of English.Romero Trillo (2002), for example, investigates the development of pragmaticmarkers including listen , well , and you know in the speech of Spanish speakersof English. His study shows that the non-native adults usage of discourseparticles is even more limited than that of native children in terms of both

P. W. Y. LAM 261

a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


3/22

quantity and diversity. Such a shortage of discourse particles in the speechof the non-native speakers, he argues, could make their speech sound bluntand impolite. Similarly, Mu ller (2004, 2005) reports differences in the use of

discourse markers by German EFL speakers and American native speakers ina movie-telling experiment. Non-native data, for instance, exhibit fewer func-tions of well when compared with native data. Her findings point to the pos-sible influence of textbooks in the use of discourse particles by Germanlearners, though only a cursory examination of the items well and so in textbooks based on the ratio of occurrence of the two elements is presented. Theuse of pragmatic markers in Xhosa English, a sub-variety of Black AfricanEnglish, is the focus of de Klerk (2005). Differences found in the use of well by Xhosa speakers of English and native speakers again are linked to theobservation that discourse particles are largely overlooked in the local educa-tional system, though no empirical evidence is given. Recently, Fung andCarter (2007) have investigated the production of discourse markers in peda-gogic settings using data of British native speakers and Hong Kong learnersof English. Similar to the findings presented in Romero Trillo (2002), Fungand Carter (2007) report that native speakers use a wider range of discoursemarkers including actually , right , and well to achieve a broader variety of prag-matic functions such as marking responses and attitudes. This leads to theirconclusion that the misuse of discourse particles can be a communicationobstacle for learners.

While the comparative studies discussed above offer valuable insights intothe differences in the use of discourse particles by native and non-nativespeakers of English, they only hint at some possible pedagogical implications.Specifically, whether and how discourse particles are taught remains an unset-tled issue. Admittedly, the study of the production of discourse particles bylanguage learners could help us identify the potential problems they have inusing these items. Equally important at the same time, however, is the issueof how discourse particles are presented in teaching materials and whetherthese learning resources genuinely mirror naturally-occurring language. Aspointed out in many studies, textbooks play a central role in syllabus designand lesson planning (Olson 1980; Kramsch 1988). For EFL learners who donot always have the opportunities to immerse in an English-speaking environ-ment outside the foreign language classroom, textbooks constitute the breadand butter of their language learning experience. In the context of Hong Kong,the centrality of textbooks can be best summarized by Reynolds (1974: 41)observation: the textbook is taught, not the students. The role of textbooksis therefore of particular importance when it comes to supplying learners withthe right information as regards one of the most common features in spoken

English.Another important issue which is raised by the above review concerns a

popular comparative approach used in previous studies, namely the dichotomy between native and non-native speakers of English. In recent years, however,the very concept of native speakers of a language has been increasingly

262 DISCOURSE PARTICLES IN CORPUS DATA AND TEXTBOOKS

a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


4/22

challenged (Davies 2003, 2004), particularly following the rise of the globalrole of English (Graddol 1997, 2006). The prevalence of intercultural encoun-ters in English has also generated the heated debate on the ownership of the

language. In the field of English language teaching, there have been risingreservations about whether EFL learners should follow native Englishmodels as standards given the possible historical, cultural and contextualdifferences concerned (see, for example, Kachru 1996; Seidlhofer 2002), notto mention the implications of language imperialism and cultural hegemony(Phillipson 1992; Pennycook 1998). In order to compare the actual perfor-mance of competent speakers with teaching materials used in the same com-munity, the present study makes use of data from an intercultural corpusof speech of successful users of English (Prodromou 2003) in the context ofHong Kong. As interlocutors in the corpus are all effective communicators ofEnglish regardless of their first language, they reflect more faithfully the actualusage and thus language needs of the local community than native speakersfrom elsewhere do. As Bhatt (2005: 48, emphasis mine) rightly puts it, stan-dard language has to be treated as endonormatively evolving from within eachcommunity according to its own histories and cultures of usage. Standardscant be imposed exonormatively from outside one community. A comparisonof Hong Kong textbook data with naturally-occurring examples from the samecommunity thus is deemed more suitable as it relevantly and realisticallycontrasts local uses and needs of language with local training and practiceas provided by textbooks. This does not imply, however, that findings fromthe present study are only pertinent to the restricted context of Hong Kong.Rather, the present study contributes to the important discussion of the appro-priate language models for EFL learners and illustrates how a spoken corpus ofintercultural encounters can be exploited to investigate the natural usage ofparticles in an ever-increasing number of intercultural communities aroundthe globe, where the language backgrounds of speakers are becoming moreand more diverse and complex.

DATA AND METHOD

In the present study, data are drawn from two sources, namely the Hong KongCorpus of Spoken English (HKCSE thereafter) and a textbook database. TheHKCSE is an intercultural corpus containing approximately 1 million words ofnaturally-occurring speech (see Cheng et al . 2005, for further details of thecorpus). Compiled between the mid-1990s and the turn of the millennium, thecorpus consists of 311 texts which are primarily intercultural encounters inEnglish between Hong Kong Chinese whose first language is Cantonese and

speakers of languages other than Cantonese, though in a few settings onlyHong Kong Chinese are involved. As the main purpose of building theHKCSE is to investigate the linguistic features of spoken English produced by successful users of English in Hong Kong in a variety of academic, business,social and professional settings, participants in the corpus are all competent

P. W. Y. LAM 263

a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


5/22

speakers of English who regularly and successfully communicate in Englisheither professionally or socially. Through years of formal education and exten-sive interactions with other expert speakers, they have come to represent

a cross-section of the adult population in Hong Kong who obtain a high pro-ficiency in English regardless of their mother tongue. As far as the communi-cative competence in English in the context of Hong Kong is concerned, theyprobably better signify what school students may aspire to become than nativespeakers from an external community.

To provide a description of discourse particles in teaching materials whichis lacking in the literature and to compare particle usage in real English andschool English, a database consisting of English textbooks collected in HongKong was created. Textbooks designed for upper secondary students in HongKong were chosen because teaching materials at that level have a strongfocus on the spoken language. This is largely owing to the popular demandfrom the local market to cater for the preparation of the university-entry publicoral examination which consists of two assessment tasks, namely an individualpresentation and a group discussion with other candidates. Presumably, thesecoursebooks should have a more extensive coverage of oral features suchas discourse particles than textbooks at other levels. Altogether 15 textbookswhich represent a sample of mainstream English coursebooks designed specif-ically for upper-secondary students in Hong Kong were collected andanalysed. 2 Produced by seven publishers from the year 1994 to 2003, thecoursebooks selected are used for the 2-year long upper-secondary study inHong Kong. Two-thirds are specifically designed for the training of oral skillswhile the remaining are general textbooks which cover the four skills of lis-tening, reading, speaking and writing. In the general textbooks, only thespeaking section is examined. To facilitate comparisons with the HKCSE andamong teaching materials, all textbooks in the database contain some teachingpoints or explanations. Drill exercise books which only consist of gap-fillingpractice materials or exam papers are not included.

Previous studies of teaching materials have provided very few guidingprinciples as regards what should be included in a textbook database (Nelson2000), especially when quantitative analysis is conducted. To give a compre-hensive account of well in the textbooks examined, the present study providesa qualitative and quantitative account of the descriptions and actual usage ofthe particle in context in textbooks. Accordingly, the contents of the textbooksare categorized into two parts: the teaching section and the sample section. Theteaching section contains teaching points, explanations and short examplesof language which are suggested to be used in presentations and discussions.These examples are only studied qualitatively to see if textbook descriptions

of well mirror usage in corpus data. The sample section contains model pre-sentations and discussions which are suggested to be exemplary texts forthe local oral examination. These sample texts resemble the basic structuresof naturally-occurring presentations and discussions and thus are analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively just as texts in the HKCSE. This draws


a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


6/22

a direct comparison of the use of well between invented texts in textbooks andnaturally-occurring data in the HKCSE. While the present study is concernedwith the use of well as a discourse particle (D-use), the propositional use of

the word (P-use) will also be briefly discussed to demonstrate how typically theword achieves discourse functions.

FINDINGS

This section examines and compares the use of well in the HKCSE and thetextbook database. In particular, the analysis focuses on three aspects of D-usewell , namely its frequency of occurrence, position and discourse function.Because of the nature of the data, quantitative analyses on these three aspects

are not carried out in the textbook teaching section.

Frequency of occurrence

One of the most striking differences between naturally-occurring data in theHKCSE and sample texts in the textbook database in relation to the discourseuse of well is the rate at which the particle appears in discourse. Table 1 com-pares the use of well in the two datasets under investigation.

A number of observations can be made from Table 1. First, there is a con-

siderable difference in terms of the total number of well in the two sampletext types in textbooks. While the total number of words in textbook discus-sions ( n = 13,032) is only 20% more than that in textbook presentations(n = 10,817), the number of well in discussion texts is twelve times morethan that in presentations ( n = 117 versus n = 9). This indicates that the wordoccurs much more frequently in textbook discussions. In addition, there isa huge discrepancy in the discourse-function ratio of well (D-use/total use as

Table 1: The comparison of well in the textbook sample section and in theHKCSE

Textbookpresentations(N =38)

Textbookdiscussions(N =11)

HKCSE(N = 311)

Total number of words 10,817 13,032 949,972Total number of well 9 117 2,714Number of D-use 1 107 1,913

Number of P-use 8 10 796Unclassified use 0 0 5D-use/total use (%) 11.11 91.45 67.99D-rate (per 10,000 words) 0.92 82.11 19.56

P. W. Y. LAM 265

a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


7/22


8/22

Table 2 illustrates a marked difference between textbook and naturally-occurring presentations in terms of the discourse rate of well . In heavilyscripted business presentations and public speeches in the HKCSE, the

discourse rate of well is at least five times more than that in textbook presenta-tions. The difference is even more apparent if textbook presentations arecompared with lectures in the corpus, which are more spontaneous innature. If these textbook presentations are designed to teach students thefeatures of spoken language in contexts which they are most likely to encoun-ter in future, one may wonder why textbook presentations have such a lowdiscourse rate of well .

Interestingly, the contrast in the discourse rate of well between textbookand naturally-occurring discussions shows exactly opposite results. Table 3

compares the discourse rate of well in some major discussion texts in theHKCSE and in textbook discussions.Table 3 shows that the sample discussions in textbooks have a much higher

discourse rate of well when compared with discussion texts in naturally-occurring speech. The rate in textbooks (82.11 per 10,000 words) is at leasttwice the rates in the HKCSE, which only range from 22.13 to 34.65. Thissuggests that there is an unusually high rate of D-use well in textbook discus-sions when compared with similar texts in corpus data. Again, it remainsdoubtful why the particle well should be used so frequently in these textbook

discussions if they reflect natural usage.

Position

In the discussion of the position of discourse particles, various units of talkhave been considered, including turn, utterance, tone unit, sentence andclause-element (see, for example, Stenstro m 1990; Jucker and Ziv 1998;Schourup 1999). The term utterance is used in this study as it probably better accommodates features such as fillers, incomplete structures and over-

lapping speech which are common in spontaneous spoken discourse thannotions such as sentences and clauses which are more geared towards

Table 3: The comparison of the discourse rate of well in discussions in theHKCSE and in the textbook sample section

Data source Text type Discourse rate of well (per 10,000 words)

HKCSE Business interview 22.13Business meeting 30.33Public TV talk show 34.65

Textbook database Sample discussion 82.11

P. W. Y. LAM 267

a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


9/22

the written language than the spoken language. Following Stenstro m (1994:226), an utterance is defined as anything that a speaker says. Table 4 com-pares the distribution of utterance position of D-use well in the HKCSE and

the textbook sample section.As a discourse particle, well mostly occurs in utterance initial and medialpositions in the HKCSE. Altogether tokens in these two positions constitute96% of the total number of discourse use of well . Specifically, more than halfof the discourse tokens of well (57.9%) are utterance initial, with a slightly lowerproportion of occurrences (38.1%) embedded in discourse. The use of well as adiscourse particle in utterance initial position is illustrated in Example 1: 3

(1)Well youre really busy . . .

(HKCSE, A041)

Example 2 shows an instance of well in medial position serving discoursefunction:

(2). . . so lets talk about our flow well Hong Kong is . . .(HKCSE, B154)

The textbooks examined, on the other hand, show a different positional dis-tribution of the particle. Of the 108 instances of D-use well found in textbookpresentations and discussions, 97 instances occur at the beginning of an utter-ance, making up 89.8% of the total number of pragmatic use. Example 3shows an utterance initial well in a textbook discussion:

(3)Well , look, lets try to summarize whats been said so far . . .(Potter 2003a: 129)

In contrast, only eleven tokens (10.2%) are found medially, making them asmall minority in the textbook database. An utterance medial D-use well is

Table 4: The distribution of utterance position of D-use well in the HKCSE and in the textbook sample section

Position D-use well in HKCSE D-use well in sample textsin textbook database

Initial 1,107 (57.9%) 97 (89.8%)Medial 728 (38.1%) 11 (10.2%)

Final 14 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%)Stand-alone 64 (3.3%) 0 (0.0%)

Total 1,913 (100%) 108 (100%)


a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


10/22

shown in Example 4:

(4)O.K. Whats next? An airport . . . well , theyll be coming by plane, so theyll see thenew airport when they arrive . . .(Sutton and Duncan 1999: 154)

In addition, no instances of D-use well are found in final and stand-alonepositions in textbooks, while a small number can be found in the corpus.Example 5 shows the use of well as a single-word utterance from the HKCSE:

(5)S1: mm Chung Kai does that satisfy youS2: wellS1: probably not entirely I suspect ((laugh))(HKCSE, P122)

As regards the main positions in which D-use well occupies, figures fromTable 4 clearly indicate that there is a much higher proportion of initial D-use well and a much lower proportion of medial D-use well in textbooks whencompared with corpus data. The high percentage of well in initial positionin textbooks seems to suggest that initial D-use well is vastly dominant,which unfortunately is not validated by the corpus findings.

Discourse functionThis section first discusses the discourse functions of well as identified fromthe HKCSE. This is followed by a qualitative analysis of how the discoursefunctions of well are described in the teaching section of the textbooks.Finally, a quantitative comparison of the functional distribution of D-usewell in the HKCSE and the textbook sample section is made.

In conducting a functional analysis of well , the present study follows a bottom-up corpus-linguistic approach. In other words, the functional taxon-omy developed in the analysis is derived from the recurrent patterns observedin the datasets but not from a pre-existing framework or theory. This involvesrounds of modification before a classification scheme is devised to fully capturethe range of functions observed in the data. In total, 1,913 uses of well asa discourse particle are examined in the HKCSE, of which 1,889 instancesare functionally categorized. 24 tokens are functionally unclassified owing toinsufficient contextual information. Six major functions of well are identified,which can be categorized into three different domains: textual, interpersonaland interactional. Instances of well expressing functions in the textual domainare concerned with the structuring and organization of discourse. They largely

correspond to the text-oriented organizational unit (OT) in Linear UnitGrammar (Sinclair and Mauranen 2006). In Hallidays (1985) terms, theyachieve the textual meta-function. Interpersonal functions are related to theexpression of attitudes, emotions, and personal evaluations whereas interac-tional functions facilitate processes such as planning and turn management

P. W. Y. LAM 269

a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


11/22

in the interaction. Tokens of well expressing functions in the interpersonaland interactional domains in the present study realize Hallidays (1985) inter-personal meta-function. They largely correspond to the interactive-oriented

organizational unit (OI) in Linear Unit Grammar (Sinclair and Mauranen2006). Admittedly, the classification of function is not always a straightforwardissue. After all, natural language is not a sharp instrument with absolute orrigid boundaries, but is blurred at the edges (Sinclair and Mauranen 2006: 61).Yet given sufficient linguistic and contextual details, it is usually possible toidentify the key function in a single instance (Holmes 1984). The discoursefunctions of well in the HKCSE are discussed in detail as follows.

Textual function

In the textual functional domain, well serves as a frame (Sinclair and Coulthard1975) and a link. As noted in the Cambridge Grammar of English , these textualuses of well organize and monitor an ongoing discourse (Carter and McCarthy2006: 901). The framing use of well to insert a point of division or transitionfor easy comprehension is one of the most frequently occurring functions inthe corpus data. In these examples, well acts as a boundary marker in discourseto signal transitions in topic and discourse stage. At times, it plays a role similarto punctuation marks in the written language in dividing words into clausesand sentences. In Example 6, the speaker uses well together with a meta-linguistic comment let s talk a little bit about conflict to indicate a topic change:

(6). . . but yet at the same time not violate our group harmony (.) yea it can be done (.)it can be done okay well lets talk a little bit about conflict why is conflict manage-ment so important . . .(HKCSE, B123)

Apart from segmenting texts, well could be used as a link to introduce explana-tions and additional information to the preceding discourse. In their work

Cohesion in English , Halliday and Hasan (1976: 269) briefly describe this useof well as an introducer of an explanatory comment. Similarly, the use of well to continue an opinion or an answer is found in Mu ller (2005). Example 7shows a speaker providing additional information about her supervisor follow-ing an utterance medial well :

(7). . . so I start er to er write a proposal and I talk to my er supervisor er well hesa lecturer . . .(HKCSE, B082)

Interpersonal function

In the interpersonal domain, the responsive use of well is the most dominantamong all the functions identified. This is in accordance with the observation


a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


12/22

made in previous studies that well is commonly known as a marker of response(Lakoff 1973; Schiffrin 1987). As a responsive signal, well is most frequentlyassociated with dispreferred responses such as disagreements and criticisms

(Lam 2006), though it is also found to preface direct answers and follow-upresponses in the HKCSE and other studies (see, for example, Schourup 2001;Aijmer and Simon-Vandenbergen 2003; Mu ller 2005; Lam 2008). Example 8illustrates the typical use of responsive well in a qualified answer. In combina-tion with the phrase in many cases , it indicates that the speakers agreementis only partial:

(8)S1: so the separate rule you are talking about is actually a lower standardS2: well in many cases yes er let me show you an example here . . .

(HKCSE, P102)Another interpersonal function of well is the expression of feelings. In theHKCSE, well is used to convey a range of feelings such as surprise, concessionand dismissal (cf. Carlson 1984; Carter and McCarthy 2006). Schourup (2001:1043) describes this use of well as a mental state interjection, which sharesemotive properties with items such as ouch and wow . As a feeling carrier, well is most commonly found in the HKCSE to convey a sense of resignation.In Example 9, speaker S2 is talking to speaker S1 about her wedding night,which fell within the tournament of the World Cup in 1990. As a football fan,her husband told her that he would spend the whole wedding night watchingthe World Cup matches. Speaker S1 first indicates his surprise at the husbandsdecision with two instances of oh dear . This is followed by a brief pause andrepeated uses of well to show a sense of helplessness and resignation:

(9)S1: ((laugh)) oh dear and he actually watched the world cupS2: he watched it ((laugh))S1: oh dearS2: ((laugh))

S1: a true a true football fan

there but a bad husband reallyS1: mmS2: ((laugh))S1: yeah oh dear (.) well well well but er I take it he er you know its good its

good job the world cup didnt last er very long right it comes around every fouryears so its alright . . .

(HKCSE, C001)

Interactional function

In the interactional domain, well is used for processing purposes and turnmanagement. This is in accordance with corpus findings from the LongmanGrammar of Spoken and Written English , which suggest that discourse markersfacilitate the ongoing interaction (Biber et al . 1999: 140). As a processing

P. W. Y. LAM 271

a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


13/22

device, well allows speakers to signal to the other participants that some inter-nal processing is going on and enables them to gain extra time for their turn.Therefore, it is particularly useful for marking self repair and hesitation (cf.

Carter and McCarthy 2006). In Example 10, the speaker encounters aword recovery problem when she talks about the element to which deriva-tional morphemes are added. Notice her use of the filler um and the particlewell as place-holders while she undergoes some internal contemplation beforeresting on her choice of the expression word stem among other options:

(10). . . but what Im saying is (.) derivational morphemes they usually when they addto um well when they add to a word stem they entail a change of meaning . . .(HKCSE, A028)

Finally, well is used in turn management to signal speakers desire to takecontrol of the conversational floor either by floor-holding or turn-taking.Example 11 shows the attempt by the listener (S2) to take the conversationalfloor from the current speaker (S1) with the use of well when the speakeris in the middle of his talk:

(11)S1: er its between double and three times moreS2: well you know if you check with your

standards (.) we could set the same pay . . .

(HKCSE, B148)

In the teaching section of the textbook database, the focus of the teachingmaterials is often on how to communicate effectively in presentations anddiscussions, as these are the scenarios students have to face in the local oralexamination. Since these textbooks are mainly designed to achieve the goalabove, they are repeatedly filled with examples of speech functions whichare common in presentations and discussions. Example 12, for instance,shows how the speech function disagreeing with a suggestion is claimedto be expressed by the following utterance (Sutton and Duncan 1999: 64):

(12)Well , I dont think thats possible, because . . .(Sutton and Duncan 1999: 64)

In other words, no paragraphs or sections separately discuss the discoursefunctions of well . The various uses of the particle can only be found in exam-ples showing how different speech functions are realized in the textbooks.These examples are all short, detached instances of language with minimalprovision of contextual information such as Example 12. The functional deter-

mination of these examples of well is therefore largely based on the speechfunction suggested by the textbook authors. An analysis of these instancesshows that all speech functions associated with well in the textbook teachingsection could be subsumed under the functional categories identified in theHKCSE.


a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


14/22

In the textual domain, well is found in examples related to the maintenanceof the overall flow of presentations and discussions. This includes initiatinga topic in a presentation, starting and ending a discussion and moving on to

the next point in a discussion. Example 13 illustrates the use of well as aninitiator in a textbook discussion text:

(13)Well , shall I start? I suggest we divide our discussion into three parts . . .(Leetch 2002: 62)

These examples in the textbooks highlight the discourse use of well in topic anddiscourse stage management and largely correspond to the frame functionidentified in the corpus. The use of well as a linking device, however, is notdiscussed in the teaching section of the textbook database.

As regards the interpersonal aspect of well , no instances of D-use well in thetextbook teaching section are found to be associated with affective meaning.The responsive function of well , however, can be readily observed in examplesillustrating how disagreements and qualified agreements should be expressed.In one of the textbooks where well receives a brief mention, it is suggested thatwell is one of the lexical items used to soften disagreement and doubt (Potter2003a: 42). However, it is not obvious how the word is used to achieve thisfunction as no examples are given in the textbook. Other kinds of dispreferredresponses associated with well in the teaching section include agreeing but notin a very enthusiastic way (Esser 1999) and avoiding giving an opinion(Sutton and Duncan 1999: 56). In addition, well is found as part of a textbookexample which serves to illustrate disagreeing strongly with someone (ibid.),reproduced here as Example 14:

(14)Well , I really dont agree at all!(Sutton and Duncan 1999: 56)

As mentioned before, well is frequently associated with dispreferred responses

in the corpus. However, examples like the one above are not found in theHKCSE. In fact, a cursory search reveals that the word combination well I reallydont agree at all is not present in the corpus, nor does it seem to be a commonway to express disagreements in corpora of other varieties of English. Whilecreativity in language should not be discouraged, in this particular context it isperhaps more helpful to exclude rare linguistic expressions, for they may runthe risk of misleading learners by providing examples of language which arehardly used in natural interactions (Holmes 1988; Gilmore 2004; Koprowski2005).

As far as the interactional aspect of well is concerned, the uses of well as aprocessing device and as a turn managing signal are both found in the teachingsection. In one of the textbooks examined, it is suggested that the particleis one of the hesitation words along a wide range of lexical items such aser , in fact and let me see which students could employ when they need time for

P. W. Y. LAM 273

a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


15/22

planning what to say (Potter 2003a: 25). With regard to turn management, well is associated with the speech function interrupting politely (Potter 2003b:39). This corresponds to the turn-taking sub-type identified in the corpus.

Again, examples given in the textbook teaching section are decontextualizedand it remains unclear how the particle assists in politely taking the conver-sational floor, as the preceding utterance is not provided. A case in point isExample 15, which is given in a textbook to illustrate how to interrupt without being rude:

(15)Well , I think the solution is simple. We should . . .(Potter 2003b: 39)

When compared with the textbook teaching section, the sample section gen-erally provides more contextual information as the sample presentationsand discussions have structures resembling naturally-occurring texts of asimilar nature. Consequently, the functions of the particles can be examinedtogether with the linguistic co-texts in the samples. Table 5 compares thefunctional distribution of D-use well in the textbook sample section and theHKCSE.

As discussed in the previous section regarding the frequency of occurrenceof well in the textbooks, only a single instance of D-use well is found in samplepresentations, acting as a frame in the text. For sample discussions, the use ofwell in responses constitutes 74 out of a total of 107 instances. It is thereforethe most dominant discourse function in textbook discussions, making upmore than two-thirds (69.2%) of the total. The framing use of well contributesanother 24.3%. The other four functions merely make up a small proportion(6.5%) of use altogether.

In the HKCSE, the responsive and framing uses of well are most common.Each constitutes roughly one-third of the total use. The remaining proportion(29.6%) is shared between the other four functions, with the processing func-tion being noticeably more dominant (17.7%) than the other three.

Table 5 thus essentially shows that there are major discrepancies concerningthe functional distribution of well in real-world situations and in teachingmaterials. While it is true that the framing and responsive uses are the twokey pragmatic functions found in the corpus, the other four functions also addup to a reasonable proportion in the data. In the textbooks, however, thesefour functions only contribute a very small number of instances. In addition,the responsive function of well appears to be over-emphasized while the framefunction is slightly overlooked in textbooks. When compared with findingsfrom the HKCSE, textbook discussions contain a considerably higher (69.2%

versus 37.5%) proportion of responsive well and a relatively lower proportionof well as a frame (24.3% versus 32.9%). Given the proportions of framingand responsive well in sample discussions and the negligible number of well in sample presentations for textual organization, textbook writers seem topay excessive attention to well in responses while ignoring other important


a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


16/22

T a b l e 5 : T h e

f u n c t i o n a l

d i s t r i

b u t i o n

o f w e l l i n t h e t e x t

b o o k s a m p l e s e c t

i o n a n

d i n t h e H K C S E

S o u r c e o f d a t a

F u n c t i o n

T o t a l

F r a m i n g

L i n k i n g

R e s p o n s i v e

E m o t i v e

P r o c e s s i n g

T u r n m a n a g i n g

S a m p l e p r e s e n t a t i o n t e x t s

C o u n t

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

P e r c e n t a g e w i t h i n

f u n c t i o n

1 0 0 . 0 %

0 . 0 %

0 . 0 %

0 . 0 %

0 . 0 %

0 . 0 %

1 0 0 . 0 %

S a m p l e d i s c u s s i o n t e x t s

C o u n t

2 6

1

7 4

2

3

1

1 0 7


f u n c t i o n

2 4 . 3

%

0 . 9 %

6 9 . 2

%

1 . 9 %

2 . 8 %

0 . 9 %

1 0 0 . 0 %

H K C S E

C o u n t

6 2 1

7 0

7 0 8

7 0

3 3 5

8 5

1 8 8 9


f u n c t i o n

3 2 . 9

%

3 . 7 %

3 7 . 5

%

3 . 7 %

1 7 . 7

%

4 . 5 %

1 0 0 . 0 %

P. W. Y. LAM 275

a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


17/22

discourse functions such as framing which are also highly common in natu-rally-occurring spoken examples.

DISCUSSIONDespite the fact that well is one of the most frequently occurring words inthe spoken language and many of the 15 textbooks collected for the presentstudy claim to focus on oral skills, none of them devotes a separate sectionor paragraph to the description of the particle, not to mention the discussionof discourse particles as a collective group. Given the importance of well toexpress various textual, interpersonal and interactional functions in talkas supported by the corpus findings, such treatments seem to be less thanadequate. The analysis of well in the HKCSE and the textbooks above demon-strates that noticeable differences exist in terms of the frequency of occurrence,position and function of well between textbook data and naturally-occurringspeech. The vast difference in the discourse rates of well between textbookpresentations and discussions gives a strong feeling that the particle is virtuallynonexistent in presentations while ubiquitous in discussions. This, however,is not substantiated by the corpus evidence in the present study. While mostof the instances of well found in the textbook sample section occur in utteranceinitial position, corpus evidence suggests that the particle is also fairly commonin medial position. In addition, the functions of well as described and realizedin textbooks do not seem to be a close match with their functions in corpusdata. While it is understandable that minor pragmatic functions such as thelinking and emotive uses of well are omitted in textbooks, it remains unclearwhy such a dominant function as framing is absent in presentations, a mono-logic text type in which the organization and structuring of discourse areessential. Furthermore, the responsive use of well appears to be over-stressedin sample texts. This largely arises from the observation that expressing dis-agreements appropriately in discussions is considered an important teachinggoal by the textbook writers and that well appears to be almost obligatoryin such examples. Although the responsive use of the particle is also typicalin corpus data, an over-emphasis on this particular function in textbooks couldpossibly lead to an overuse of well in responses by students at the expenseof overlooking other important functions.

Of course, a mismatch between textbook data and corpus data does notnecessarily mean that such teaching materials are pedagogically inappropriate.After all, authenticity is not the only, if ever a primary, criterion for textbook design, not to mention the controversy surrounding the term authentic(for the discussion of authenticity in language teaching and learning, see

Breen 1985; Cook 2001; Widdowson 2003). As admitted by Carter (1998),real English could be more difficult to understand and produce. Therefore,it may not always be pedagogically the most practical and effective, especiallyif materials designed for beginners are concerned. Even if such is the case,a corpus is only a glimpse of a given language variety at a restricted period


a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


18/22

in time (McEnery and Wilson 1996) and there are aspects of language whichmay not be fully unveiled by corpus evidence (Cook 1998). Yet for a crucialpragmatic resource like discourse particles which are almost impossible to miss

in any contemporary spoken corpus, it is hard to justify why textbook writersfail to give a more detailed and accurate description and presentation of howthey are used in real-life situations. Considering the fact that many of thetextbooks examined are specially designed for training English oral skills forintermediate to advanced learners in Hong Kong in particular, such a mis-match seems to be at odds with the aim of the oral examination that thesetextbooks cater for, which is to test the ability of candidates to understandand use spoken English for practical communication as it might be encoun-tered in academic or vocational situations (Hong Kong Examinations andAssessment Authority 2005: 3). One might therefore, quite reasonably,query whether such textbooks are so detached from reality that they haveultimately lost their pedagogical value.

In recent years, it has been increasingly acknowledged that discourse parti-cles are crucial for learners to communicate successfully at the pragmatic levelof interaction. If language learners are denied access to these critical pragmaticdevices in their learning process, they may not be able to fully project theirpersonality in the target language. As a result, although they may well becapable of attaining transactional goals, they could only operate in the targetlanguage with a reduced personality (McCarthy 1998: 112). In other words,learners are deprived of the right to behave and express themselves in thesame way as they do in their mother tongue. The image that they could pres-ent in the second or foreign language is, at most, a partial alter ego. At worst,the dearth of discourse particles in their talk could leave them potentiallydisempowered and at risk of becoming a second-class participant (OKeeffeet al . 2007: 39).

Given that discourse particles are crucial in achieving pragmatic competenceand that the descriptions and examples of discourse particles in the textbooksexamined are far from satisfactory, substantial revisions with the incorporationof naturally-occurring examples are required in order to present a more com-prehensive picture to students concerning how discourse particles are used.In this connection, numerous practical suggestions concerning how languagecorpora can be used to enhance teaching and learning activities have beenmade. In order to make such corpus findings and applications more accessibleto the pedagogical setting, closer ties with the teaching profession can beestablished through educational conferences and collaboration with schools.OKeeffe and Farr (2003) take a step forward and argue for the integrationof corpus linguistics into teacher education courses. Furthermore, corpus lin-

guists have taken an active role as materials writers to introduce corpus evi-dence into coursebooks (see, for example, Carter et al . 2000, for the teachingof discourse particles using authentic examples, and McCarthy et al . 2005a,b,for a corpus-informed syllabus of conversational strategies). At the same time,the availability of many mega-corpora in the public domain means that

P. W. Y. LAM 277

a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


19/22

textbook writers now have at their disposal easy access to a large quantity ofnaturally-occurring texts to confirm or refute their intuitions. Major publish-ing houses even have their own in-house corpora on which teaching materials

can be based. In the cases where sizeable corpora from a specific EFL commu-nity are not available to materials designers, corpus-based dictionaries andgrammars can be consulted (see, for example, Biber et al . 1999; Carterand McCarthy 2006), with the careful supplement and comparison of dataand studies relevant to the local setting. Findings from the present studywhich are generated from a large number of naturally-occurring examplesin a wide range of settings in Hong Kong, for example, provide an empirical basis for the improvement of the descriptions of discourse particles in localtextbooks as well as in grammars and dictionaries of world Englishes. Withthe increasing number of research outputs showing the fruitful results of data-driven learning (DDL) (see, for example, Tribble and Jones 1990; Johns 1991),it is high time to apply the methods of corpus linguistics to language teachingand learning, especially in areas such as discourse particles, where inventeddecontextualized examples could hardly elucidate to students the many dis-course functions of these linguistic items in a variety of contextual situations.In this respect, a corpus-based and data-driven approach to learning discourseparticles with the use of concordancers may be useful (see, for example Zorzi2001, on the learning of Italian discourse markers and Mo llering 2004, on theteaching of German modal particles) and could probably provide the rightresources for learners, especially for intermediate to advanced learners,to explore and research in a more learner-centred way how discourse particlesare actually used.

CONCLUSION

Through the unique examination of the particle well in an intercultural corpusof spoken English in Hong Kong and its descriptions and presentations inlocal textbooks, the present study has provided an example of how languageis taught and how language is actually used in the same community. Findingsfrom the present study have shown that wide discrepancies are found betweenteaching materials and naturally-occurring examples in one of the most fre-quently used discourse particles in the English language. This raises the issueto what extent these textbooks examined reflect natural usage and henceallow learners to be aware of how discourse particles are used. This articleargues that discourse particles are a valuable linguistic resource which learnershave a right to gain access to. Textbooks therefore should at least describeand present them in the ways they are used in naturally-occurring examples

so that students can have a basic understanding of these items. Whether stu-dents want to exploit this resource for productive use or only for receptionpurposes is at their discretion (cf. Fung and Carter 2007), though they should be given the choice all the same, especially for language learners at a moreadvanced stage. When the issue of critical language awareness has become part


a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


20/22

of the agenda for language learning, it is perhaps also appropriate to reviewthe place of discourse particles in language learning.

SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Supplementary material is available at Applied Linguistics online.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to thank the editor of the journal and three anonymous reviewers for their valuablecomments on an earlier version of this article. The bulk of the work described in this article wascarried out at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University and was substantially supported by grantsfrom the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Project No.B-Q714). I am deeply indebted to Prof. Winnie Cheng and Prof. Martin Warren for their generouspermission to let me use the Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English prior to its completion andpublication.

NOTES

1 In the literature, there is a lack ofa universally accepted term which

most people working in the fieldgive consent to. For detailed discus-sions, see Brinton (1996) and Fischer(2006).

2 For the sake of brevity, details of thetextbooks used in this study are givenin the supplementary appendix, which

is available in the online version of thearticle.

3 Notes on transcription:S1/S2: example in the HKCSE withmore than one speaker;. . .: an utterance reported only inpart; : the beginning of overlapping talk;(.): an unfilled pause.

REFERENCESAijmer, K. 2002. English Discourse Particles:

Evidence from a Corpus . John Benjamins.Aijmer, K. and A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen.

2003. The discourse particle well and itsequivalents in Swedish and Dutch, Linguistics41/6: 112361.

Bhatt, R. M. 2005. Expert discourses, localpractices and hybridity: The case of IndianEnglishes in A. S. Canagarajah (ed.):Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and

Practice . Lawrence Erlbaum.Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad,

and E. Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English . Longman.

Breen, M. 1985. Authenticity in the languageclassroom, Applied Linguistics 6: 6070.

Brinton, L. J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English:Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions .Mouton de Gruyter.

Carlson, L. 1984. Well in Dialogue Games: A Discourse Analysis of the Interjection Well inIdealized Conversation . John Benjamins.

Carter, R. 1998. Orders of reality: CANCODE,communication, and culture, ELT Journal 52/1: 4356.

Carter, R., R. Hughes, and M. McCarthy.

2000. Exploring Grammar in Context. Upper-inter-mediate and Advanced . Cambridge UniversityPress.

Carter, R. and M. McCarthy. 2006. CambridgeGrammar of English . Cambridge UniversityPress.

P. W. Y. LAM 279

a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


21/22

Cheng, W., C. Greaves, and M. Warren. 2005.The creation of prosodically transcribed inter-cultural corpus: The Hong Kong Corpus ofSpoken English (prosodic), ICAME Journal

29: 526.Cook, G. 1998. The uses of reality: A reply to

Ronald Carter, ELT Journal 52/1: 5763.Cook, G. 2001. The philosopher pulled the

lower jaw of the hen, Applied Linguistics 22/3:36687.

Davies, A. 2003. The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality . Multilingual Matters.

Davies, A. 2004. The native speaker in appliedlinguistics in A. Davies and C. Elder (eds): TheHandbook of Applied Linguistics . Blackwell.

de Klerk, V. 2005. Procedural meanings of well in a corpus of Xhosa English, Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1183205.

Erman, B. 1987. Pragmatic Expressions in English: A Study of You Know, You See and I Meanin Face-to-face Conversation . Almqvist & Wiksell.

Esser, D. 1999. Teach & Practice: AS-level Oral English for Form 6 . Pilot Publications.

Fischer, K. 2006. Towards an understanding ofthe spectrum of approaches to discourse parti-cles: Introduction to the volume in K. Fischer

(ed.): Approaches to Discourse Particles . Elsevier.Fraser, B. 1990. An approach to discourse

markers, Journal of Pragmatics 14: 38395.Fung, L. and R. Carter. 2007. Discourse mar-

kers and spoken English: Native and learneruse in pedagogic settings, Applied Linguistics28/3: 41039.

Gilmore, A. 2004. A comparison of textbookand authentic interactions, ELT Journal 58/4:36374.

Graddol, D. 1997. The Future of English? British

Council.Graddol, D. 2006. English Next . British Council.Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to

Functional Grammar . Edward Arnold.Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan. 1976.

Cohesion in English . Longman.Holmes, J. 1984. Hedging your bets and

sitting on the fence: Some evidencefor hedges as support structures, Te Reo 27:4762.

Holmes, J. 1988. Doubt and certainty in ESL

textbooks, Applied Linguistics 9/1: 2144.Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment

Authority. 2005. Syllabuses for the Useof English. Advanced Supplementary Level .

Hong Kong Examinations and AssessmentAuthority.

Johns, T. 1991. Should you be persuaded twosamples of data driven learning materials,

English Language Research Journal 4: 116.Jucker, A. H. and Y. Ziv. 1998. Discourse mar-

kets: Introduction in A. H. Jucker and Y. Ziv(eds): Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory .John Benjamins.

Kachru, B. 1996. English as lingua francain H. Goebl, P. Nelde, Z. Zary, and W. Wo lck(eds): Kontaktlinguistik. Contact Linguistics.Linguistique de Contact . Vol. 1. Mouton deGryuter.

Koprowski, M. 2005. Investigating the useful-

ness of lexical phrases in contemporary coursebooks, ELT Journal 59/4: 32232.

Kramsch, C. 1988. The cultural discourse offoreign language textbooks in A. Singerman(ed.): Toward a New Integration of Languageand Culture . Northeast Conference Reports1988. Northeast Conference.

Lakoff, R. 1973. Questionable answers andanswerable questions in B. B. Kachru,R. B. Lees, Y. Malkiel, A. Pietrangeli, andS. Saporta (eds): Issues in Linguistics. Papers inHonor of Henry and Rene Kahane . University ofIllinois Press.

Lam, P. W. Y. 2006. Well but thats the effect of it :The use of well as a discourse particle in talkshows, Sprache und Datenverarbeitung(International Journal for Language DataProcessing) 30/1: 99108.

Lam, P. W. Y. 2008. Discourse Particles in anIntercultural Corpus of English . UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation. The Hong KongPolytechnic University.

Leech, G. and J. Svartvik. 2002. ACommunicative Grammar of English . Longman.

Leetch, P. 2002. Use of English Oral Handbook .Free Press.

McCarthy, M. 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, M., J. McCarten, andH. Sandiford. 2005a. Touchstone. StudentsBook 1. Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, M., J. McCarten, and

H. Sandiford. 2005b. Touchstone. StudentsBook 2. Cambridge University Press.

McEnery, T. and A. Wilson. 1996. CorpusLinguistics. Edinburgh University Press.


a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om


22/22

Mindt, D. 1997. Corpora and the teaching ofEnglish in Germany in A. Wichmann,S. Filgelstone, G. Knowles, and A. McEnery(eds): Teaching and Language Corpora . Longman.

Mo llering, M. 2004. The Acquisition of German Modal Particles. A Corpus-based Approach . PeterLang.

Mu ller, S. 2004. Well you know that type of person :Functions of well in the speech of Americanand German students, Journal of Pragmatics36: 115782.

Mu ller, S. 2005. Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse . John Benjamins.

Nelson, M. 2000. A Corpus-based Study of the Lexisof Business English and Business English Teaching

Materials . Unpublished thesis. University ofManchester.

OKeeffe, A. and F. Farr. 2003. Using languagecorpora in initial teacher education: Pedagogicissues and practical applications, TESOLQuarterly 37/3: 389418.

OKeeffe, A., M. McCarthy, and R. Carter.2007. From Corpus to Classroom. Language Useand Language Teaching . Cambridge UniversityPress.

Olson, D. R. 1980. On the language and

authority of textbooks, Journal of Communication 30: 18696.

Pennycook, A. 1998. English and the Discourses of Colonialism . Routledge.

Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism .Oxford University Press.

Potter, J. 2003a. Steps & Skills Oral 6 . Witman.Potter, J. 2003b. Steps & Skills Oral 7 . Witman.Prodromou, L. 2003. In search of the successful

user of English, Modern English Teacher 12/2:514.

Quirk, R. 1955. Colloquial English and commu-nication in A. J. Ayer, C. Cherry, B. IforEvans, D. B. Fry, J. B. S. Haldene, R. Quirk,G. Vickers, T. B. L. Webster, R. Wittkower, andJ. Z. Young (eds): Studies in Communication .Secker and Warburg.

Reynolds, P. 1974. English Language Teaching and Textbooks in Hong Kong . Educational Studiesand Research Papers No. 3. Department ofEducation Research Unit, The University ofHong Kong.

Romero Trillo, J. 2002. The pragmatic fossiliza-tion of discourse markers in non-native speak-ers of English, Journal of Pragmatics 34:76984.

Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers . CambridgeUniversity Press.

Schourup, L. 1999. Tutorial overview:Discourse markers, Lingua 107: 22765.

Schourup, L. 2001. Rethinking well , Journal of Pragmatics 33: 102560.

Seidlhofer, B. 2002. Basic questionsin K. Knapp and C. Meierkord (eds): LinguaFranca Communication . Peter Lang.

Sinclair, J. and M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford University Press.

Sinclair, J. and A. Mauranen. 2006. Linear Unit Grammar: Integrating Speech and Writing . JohnBenjamins.

Stenstro m, A.-B. 1990. Lexical items peculiarto spoken discourse in J. Svartvik (ed.): TheLondon-Lund Corpus of Spoken English:Description and Research . Lund University Press.

Stenstro m, A.-B. 1994. An Introduction to SpokenInteraction . Longman.

Sutton, M. E. and J. Duncan. 1999. SpeakingPrecisely 1. Precise Publications.

Tribble, C. and W. Jones. 1990. Concordances inthe Classroom: A Resource Book for Teachers.Longman.

Watts, R. J. 1988. A relevance-theoreticapproach to commentary pragmatic markers:The case of actually , really and basically , ActaLinguistica Hungarica 38: 23560.

Widdowson, H. 2003. Defining Issues in EnglishLanguage Teaching . Oxford University Press.

Wierzbicka, A. 1991. Cross-cultural Pragmatics.The Semantics of Human Interaction . Mouton deGruyter.

Wong, J. 2002. Applying conversation analy-sis in applied linguistics: Evaluating dialogue inEnglish as a second language textbooks, IRAL40/1: 3760.

Zorzi, D. 2001. The pedagogic use of spokencorpora: Learning discourse markers inItalian in G. Aston (ed.): Learning withCorpora . Athelstan.

P. W. Y. LAM 281

a

t I s l ami c A z a

d U ni v er s i t y

on

S e p t em

b er

3 ,2

0 1

0


j o ur n

al s . or g

D ownl o

a d e d

f r om

discourse particles in corpus text

Documents