The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 19 , No. 3
[Paper List] [Goto Volume List]

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 371-406
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Sep 2019
Received 05 Aug 2019 Revised 10 Sep 2019 Accepted 19 Sep 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.19.3.201909.371

Functional Spectrum of a Discourse Marker so in Korean EFL Teacher Talk
Jongmi Lee
Graduate Student, Department of English Language Seoul National University 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, Korea (jongmi46@snu.ac.kr)

Abstract

This study aims to explore diverse functions of a discourse marker so used by Korean teachers of English as a foreign language. In pursuing the purpose, it describes the recurring patterns of the ways the so is employed in teacher-led classroom discourse. For the data collection, naturally-occurring English classes taught by six Korean teachers of English were audio- and video-recorded. The recorded data were transcribed verbatim and meticulously analyzed within the framework of Conversation Analysis. The results yield four different types of functions that the discourse marker so performs: 1) showing response, 2) consequence, 3) topic-shift, and 4) elaboration. The multiple realizations imply that the Korean teachers of English use the discourse marker so with a wide range of functional spectrum. Based on the present results, further discussion will be provided.

Keywords: discourse marker so, Korean teachers of English, classroom discourse, conversation analysis, functional spectrum
References
1. Adolphs, S. and R. Carter. 2013. Spoken Corpus Linguistics from Monomodal to Multimodal. Taylor & Francis Group New York and London: Routledge.
2. Ahn, S, J. 2015. So as a multifunctional discourse marker used by Korean speakers in English conversation. The Journal of Linguistic Science 75a, 169-188.
3. Aijmer, K. 1996. Conversation Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. New York: Longman.
4. Aijmer, K. 2002. English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam/Philadeliphia: John Benjamins.
5. Aijmer, K. 2013. Understanding Pragmatic Markers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
6. Anthony, L. 2014. AntConC (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Retrieved from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/
7. Becher, V. 2010. Differences in the use of deictic expressions in English and German texts. Linguistics 48(6), 1309-1342.
8. Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
9. Blakemore, D. 1988. So as a constraint on relevance. In R. M. Kempson, ed., Mental Representation: The Interface between Language and Reality, 183-195. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Bolden, G. 2009. Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 974-998.
11. Brinton, L. J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin /New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
12. Buysse, L. 2012. So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics 44, 1764-1782.
13. De Fina, A. 1997. An analysis of Spanish bien as a marker of a classroom management in teacher-student interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 28, 337-354.
14. Fischer, K. 2006. Frames, constructions, and invariant meaning: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. In K. Fischer, ed., Approaches to Discourse Particles, 427-447. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
15. Fraser, B. 1988. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38(1-4), 19-33.
16. Fraser, B. 1990. An approach to discourse marker. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 383-395.
17. Fraser, B. 1999. What are discourse markers?. Journal of Pragmatics 31(7), 931-952.
18. Fuller, J. M. 2003a. Discourse marker use across speech contexts: A comparison of native and non-native speaker performance. Multilingua 22, 185-208.
19. Fuller, J. M. 2003b. The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics 31(7), 931-952.
20. Fung, L. 2011. Discourse markers in the ESL classroom: A survey of teachers’ attitudes. Asian EFL Journal 13(2), 199-224.
21. Fung, L. and R. Carter. 2007. Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics 28(3), 410-439.
22. González, M. 2004. Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narrative: The Case of English and Catalan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
23. Gumperz, J. J. 1977. The sociolinguistic significance of conversational code-switching. RELC Journal 8(2), 1-34.
24. Guthrie, A, M. 1997. On the systematic deployment of okay and mmhmm in academic advising sessions. Pragmatics 7(3), 397-415.
25. Halliday, M. A. K. and C. M. I. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routeldge.
26. Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
27. Heldner, M. and J. Edlun. 2010. Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations. Journal of Phonetics 38(4), 555-568.
28. Hellermann, J. 2003. The interactive work of prosody in the IRF Exchange: Teacher repetition in feedback moves. Language in Society 32(1), 79-104.
29. Hellermann, J. and A. Vergun. 2007. Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics 39(1), 157-179.
30. House, J. 2013. Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca: Using discourse markers to express (inter)subjectivity and connectivity. Journal of Pragmatics 59, 57-67.
31. Huang, Y. 2014. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
32. Hutchby, I. and R. Wooffitt. 1998. Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
33. Jefferson, G. 1981. On the articulation of topic in conversation: Research report to the social science research council. [online] available from http://www.liso.ucsb.Edu/Jefferson/topic_report.pdf
34. Johnson, A. 2002. So… ?: Pragmatic implications of so-prefaced questions in formal police interview. In J. Cotterill, ed., Language in the Legal Process, 91-110. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
35. Jucker, A. H. and Y. Ziv. 1998. Discourse markers: Introduction. In A. H. Jucker and Y. Ziv, eds., Discourse Markers: Description and Theory, 1-12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
36. Kasper, G. 2009. Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the skull or in public view? International Review of Applied Linguistics 47, 11–36.
37. Kim, D. R. 2012. Position and function of pre-repair-initiator so in Korean EFL learners’ conversation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 12(1), 1-18.
38. Ko, H. S. 2013. Overuse of the discourse filler, “so” in micro-teaching talks by Koreans. Language Research 49(1), 25-44.
39. Lam. P. 2009. The effect of text type on the use of so as a discourse particle. Discourse Studies 11, 353-372.
40. Lam, W. and J. Wong. 1996. Hong Kong Student Corpus. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education.
41. Liao, S. 2009. Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. Journal of Pragmatics 41(7), 1313-1328.
42. Liu, B. 2013. Effect of first language on the use of English discourse markers by L1 Chinese speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 45(1), 149-172.
43. Markee, N. and M. S. Seo. 2009. Learning talk analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 47, 37–64.
44. Maschler, Y. and D. Schiffrin. 2015. Discourse markers: language, meaning, and context. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton and D. Shiffrin, eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd, 189-221.Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
45. Mehan, H. 1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university Press.
46. Mori, J. and J. Zuengler. 2008. Conversation analysis and talk-in-interaction in the classroom. In M. Martin-Jones, A. M. de Mejia and N. H. Hornberger, eds., Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd edition, vol. 3: Discourse and Education, 15-26. Springer Science + Business Media LLC.
47. Mortier, L. and L. Degand. 2009. Adversative discourse markers in contrast. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3), 339-366.
48. Müller, S. 2004. Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins.
49. Nassaji, H. and G. Wells. 2000. What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’? An investigation of teacher student interaction. Applied Linguistics 21(3), 376-406.
50. Nunan, D. 1987. Does instruction make a difference? Revisited. Tesol Quarterly 21(2), 372-377.
51. Nunan, D. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology. London: Prentice Hall International.
52. Oh, B. N. 2014. Multifunctional Uses of the Discourse Marker so by Korean EFL Adult Learners. Master’s thesis. International Graduate School of English. Seoul, Korea.
53. Östman, J. O. 1982. The symbiotic relationship between pragmatic particles and impromptu speech. In N. E. Enkvist, ed., Impromptu Speech: A Symposium, 147-177. Abo: The Research Institute of the Abo Akademi Foundation.
54. Othman, Z. 2010. The use of okay, right and yeah in academic lectures by native speaker lecturers: Their ‘anticipated’ and ‘real’ meanings. Discourse Studies 12(5), 665-681.
55. Platon, E. 2017. The role of the paraphrasing competence in elaborating reception exercises. Studia UBB Philologia LⅦ 2, 13-26.
56. Psathas, G. 1995. Conversational Analysis. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
57. Rendel-Short, J. 2003. “So what does this show us?”: Analysis of the discourse marker ‘so’ in seminar talk. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 26, 46-62.
58. Rongrong, D. and W. Lixun. 2015. Discourse markers in local and native English teachers’ talk in Hong Kong EFL classroom interaction: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Language and Linguistics 2(5), 65-75.
59. Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4), 696-735.
60. Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61. Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge.
62. Schiffrin, D. 2006. Discourse marker research and theory: Revisiting and. In K. Fischer, ed., Approaches to Discourse Particles, 427-447. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
63. Seedhouse, P. 2004. The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
64. Sinclair, J. M. and M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
65. Stygall, G. 2001. A different class of witnesses: Experts in the courtroom. Discourse Studies 3(3), 327-349.
66. ten Have, P. 2007. Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide, Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
67. Turner, K. 1999. Functional Variation of Okay/Alright Usage in Spoken Discourse. MA Special Project. UNSW. Sydney.
68. Waring, H. J. 2008. Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal 92(4), 577-594.
69. Wong, J. and H. J. Waring. 2010. Conversation Analysis and Second Language Pedagogy. Routledge. Taylor and Francis Group. New York and London.