An Investigation Into Pragmatic Markers In Chinese Efl Learners' Spoken English:a Corpus-Based Approach

In the past twenty years, pragmatic markers have attracted extensive attention of the linguists from home and abroad. Pragmatic markers are words or expressions commonly used to signal the relation of an utterance to its immediate context. They are an important aspect of pragmatic competence and play an indispensable part in spoken discourse. So far, there has not been large-scale study on the use of pragmatic markers by Chinese EFL learners. Therefore, this dissertation constitutes an attempt to explore the use of pragmatic markers in spoken discourse on the part of Chinese EFL (English as a foreign language) learners.Built on the collective strengths of previous theoretical and empirical studies, a tentative theoretical framework of pragmatic markers was specifically proposed for the present research, which classified fourteen pragmatic functions according to three pragmatic structures. Based on the two corpora: the spoken part of British National Corpus (BNC) and Spoken English Corpus of Chinese Learners (SECCL), this study examined and compared the pragmatic marker use between Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers from four aspects: (1) the frequency of the pragmatic markers and the range of the pragmatic functions; (2) the distribution of each individual pragmatic function; (3) the distribution of respective pragmatic structure; and (4) the distribution of the syntax positions where pragmatic markers occur.Corresponding to the four aforementioned aspects, the present research yielded the following important findings:(1) In respect of the total frequency of the pragmatic markers and the overall range of the pragmatic functions, the present research revealed that Chinese EFL learners generally used a narrower range of pragmatic functions and used significantly fewer pragmatic markers than native English speakers. There were 649 occurrences of pragmatic markers in SECCL as compared to 981 occurrences of pragmatic markers in BNC, which showed a statistically significant difference. Native English speakers and Chinese EFL learners were found to use 14 and 10 pragmatic functions respectively.(2) With regard to the distribution of each pragmatic function, Chinese EFL learners displayed a significant underuse of seven pragmatic functions in comparison to native speakers, which were: clarifier, addition marker, delayer, justifier, topic shifter, self-repair signal, and opening marking device, and a significant overuse of the monitoring marker function in comparison to native speakers. Chinese EFL learners have not yet acquired four pragmatic functions: emphasizer, evaluator, closing marking device, and direct speech initiator. Chinese EFL learners used only the function of face-threatening mitigator generally to a degree comparable with native speakers. The function of reformulator was solely used by Chinese learners.(3) As regards the distribution of each pragmatic structure, statistically significant differences were observed across all the pragmatic structures between Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers. The present research revealed that the widest range of pragmatic functions used by native speakers were related to the rhetorical structure, followed by the inferential structure, and the sequential structure. In contrast, the most frequent functions used by Chinese EFL learners were associated with the inferential structure, followed by the rhetorical structure and the sequential structure. Chinese EFL learners were found to display a significant overuse of the pragmatic functions in the inferential structure but a significant underuse of the pragmatic functions in the sequential structure and the rhetorical structure.(4) Concerning the distribution of syntax positions where pragmatic markers occurred, in general, Chinese EFL learners used significantly more pragmatic markers in sentence-initial positions and used significantly fewer pragmatic markers in sentence-medial and sentence-final positions than native English speakers. Both Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers used well and I mean more frequently in sentence-initial positions than in sentence-medial positions. Although Chinese EFL learners tended to use a significantly larger proportion of well and I mean in sentence-initial positions and a significantly smaller proportion of them in sentence-medial positions than native speakers, no significant differences were found in positional distribution between the two groups. Chinese EFL learners used you know only in sentence-initial positions; whereas native speakers used you know in three syntactic positions with a strong preference for sentence-medial positions. Chinese EFL learners tended to use all the occurrences of actually in sentence-initial positions, whereas native English speakers use all the occurrences of actually in sentence-medial positions.On the basis of the present findings, this research proposes that explicit teaching should be adopted in Chinese EFL classroom to raise their awareness of pragmatic markers and increase their exposure to pragmatic markers. Furthermore, the I-I-I-I (Illustration-Interaction-Induction-Internalisation) teaching methodology is proposed to teach the use of the pragmatic markers, especially the pragmatic functions in the rhetorical structure and the sequential structure, which have been significantly underused by Chinese EFL learners. It is expected that the findings of this research will make the teaching and practice of pragmatic markers become an essential part in the Chinese EFL classroom.