Chapter One Introduction
1.1Background of the Study
In English speaking, there are many words or expressions, like “oh, you know,you see, I mean, that is to say, in other words, as I said”, which probably are commonforms of discourse expressions in speech communication, and they are collectivelyreferred as “discourse markers”. They are playing certain semantic and pragmaticfunctions to control interactive verbal communication in various ways in the forms ofconjunctions (and, because, therefore), adverbs (incidentally, actually), interjections(oh, well), phrases or clauses (I mean, you know, as a consequence of). People mightseldom notice this kind of “small words or phrases” which are subconsciously used tofunctionally form the coherent contexts in order to achieve the purpose ofcommunication.
………..
1.2The Purpose and Significance of the Present Study
The study of discourse markers has been conducted numerously and it is still afield which is ambiguous. As Brown and Yule (1983:1) put forward, “the analysis ofdiscourse, is necessarily, the analysis of language in use. As such, it cannot berestricted to the description of linguistic forms independent of the purposes orfunctions which forms are designed to serve in human affairs.” Discourse markersoccur in both written and spoken language. Proficient EFL speakers probably canhandle discourse markers skillfully and smoothly on a subconscious level, whichhelps them to be more fluent in the language speaking. The occurrence of discoursemarkers during human communication is an indisputable fact; nevertheless, so farthey have not been entitled with an acknowledged and unified interpretation of name,definition, classification, and function.Discourse markers have aroused a large number of scholars’ researchenthusiasms in the past years based on different research perspectives. Recently, the study of discourse markers has been conducted from the perspective of syntax,semantics, pragmatics, and cognitive linguistics. Discourse markers play a role invarious ways to regulate the interaction of speech communications, although they donot constitute propositional contents directly and are not restricted by syntacticstructures. The speech meaning will still be understood by decoding of the discoursemarkers, such as topic-shift, information added, and conversional turns in theutterance. Moreover, discourse markers are widely used in various language situationsto achieve different aims such as discourse pause, transition effect, discoursecoherence, and pragmatic function. The proficiency of discourse markers can makethe discourse more coherent so as to make the communication smooth. Therefore, thestudy of discourse markers is significant theoretically and practically.
………..
Chapter Two Literature Review2.1 Chapter OverviewResearch of discourse markers originated in the mid-20th century. In 1953,Randolph Quirk put forward that discourse markers commonly existed in the spokenEnglish. Linguistics has gradually noticed that the discourse markers were arepresentative feature in human languages which can be accompanied by the aid ofcognitive, social, expression and discourse knowledge (Huang, 2001). Discoursemarkers were also recognized as the structures with procedural meaning and withoutprocedural meaning, which demonstrated that they would not influence utterance truthcondition. However, the use of discourse markers could indeed help communicationto be effective in the process of communication. Schiffrin's (1987) Discourse Markersis recognized as staples of the study of discourse markers, which systematicallysummarized the research on discourse markers.In this chapter, discourse markers were mainly introduced from the aspects ofdefinitions, classifications, characteristics, and functions. After the generalintroduction of the basic items, representative studies of discourse markers fromdifferent approaches both abroad and in China were reviewed. Studies of discoursemarkers in western countries were illustrated from three different perspectives:Schiffrin’s Coherence, Fraser’s Pragmatic Approach, and Blackmore’s RelevanceApproach. The last part of this chapter was given to the introduction of publicspeaking, impromptu speeches, and the importance of using discourse markers inimpromptu speeches which were adopted as the present study’s linguistic data.
………..
2.2 Discourse Markers
Discourse markers have been comprehensively studied for the past two decades.However, no unified definition was given to label it due to the different theoretical perspectives. Firstly, the terminology of discourse markers was developed through thebeginning of discourse markers analysis and changed in various ways based on theresearch purposes and perspectives. For instance, discourse markers have beendefined as pragmatic expressions (Erman, 1987), discourse connectives (Blakemore,1987), pragmatic operators (Ariel, 1994), discourse particles (Schourup,1985; Aijmer,2002), semantic conjuncts (Quirk, et al.,1985), sentence connectives (Halliday &Hasan, 1976), semantic connectives (Van Dijk,1979), cue words (Rouchota, 1996),discourse particles (Schourup, 1985), discourse connectives (Blakemore,1987, 1992,2002), conversational routines (Aijmer, 1996), pragmatic formatives (Fraser, 1988),pragmatic connectives (Van Dijk, 1985; Stubbs, 1983), etc. Thus, a large number ofterminologies appeared based on different research backgrounds, and even now thereis no unified terminology and definition have been illustrated. Ostman (1982)regarded pragmatic particles as the ones that are prototypical and peripheral members.
………..
Chapter Three Theoretical Framework ....25
3.1 Chapter Overview ....25
3.2 Coherence-Based Theory .......25
3.3 Discourse Markers and Local Coherence....28
3.4 Discourse Markers and Global Coherence.........29
3.5 Discourse Markers and Contextual Coherence .........30
3.6 Summary ....31
Chapter Four Research Methodology ......33
4.1 Research Design.......33
4.2 Research subjects .....33
4.3 Research Instrument........34
4.4 Research Questions .........35
4.5 Research Procedure.........35
4.6 Summary ....38
Chapter Five Results and Discussions .....39
5.1 Chapter Overview ....39
5.2 Results of Data Analysis ........39
5.3 Discussions .......51
5.4 Summary ....51
Chapter Five Results and Discussions
5.1 Chapter Overview
This chapter presented the results of the data analysis of discourse markers inthe impromptu speech given by the college students. Depending on the researchquestions, the author conducted the present study based on the theoretical frameworkand research methodology. The following sub-sections were the results of dataanalysis, which was pided into three parts based on three questions with discussions. Discourse markers have been studied in the various conversations, but rarelywere explored in the impromptu speeches. After the conduction of discourse markersannotation and analysis, the presence of discourse markers in the impromptu speechesturned out to be a coherence device in forming a context, helping EFL speakers toexpress their ideas, emotions, and opinions logically and making the audiencecoordinate their understanding with the speakers’ through connecting the prior andfollowing information. As Lenk (1998b) said that discourse markers were one kind ofverbal items which influenced and guided the hearers to understand the utterance.Moreover, Aijmer (1996:1-47) also agreed that discourse markers could be referred to“function as cues or guides to the hearer’s interpretation”. In the following part, theresults of the research question were demonstrated one by one.
……….
Conclusion
The previous chapters have already interpreted the present study background,purpose, and significance with three research questions. General review of therelevant literature has been conducted with relevant research methodology. Theconclusions chapter mainly involved five sections. Section 6.2 summarized the mainfindings of the present study with further discussions. Section 6.3 concerned theimplications of using discourse markers in impromptu speeches and other types oforal English. Section 6.4 provided the limitation of the study objectively. Section 6.5summarized the whole situation of the present qualitative and quantitative study. there are ten typical discourse markers which may be most commonlyused in Chinese College Students’ Impromptu Speeches, namely and, but, so, because,when, very, really, if, or, i think, which belongs to the above mentioned top eight typesof discourse markers. It possibly demonstrates that each inpidual discourse markeraccounts a greater proportion comparing with the other discourse markers in the sametype.
…………
References (omitted)