Discourse Markers in Second Language French 9781032347660, 9781032347677, 9781003323754

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Information
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
Tables
Figures
Acknowledgments
1 Introduction
1.1 Discourse Markers in French Society
1.2 Discourse Markers and the L2 Classroom
1.3 Learner Challenges in Acquiring Discourse Markers
1.4 Motivations for Studying L2 Discourse Marker Development
1.5 Organization of the Book
Note
References
2 What Are Discourse Markers?
2.1 Terminological Debates
2.2 Key Characteristics of Discourse Markers
2.2.1 Non-Propositionality, Syntactic Detachment, Optionality
2.2.2 Additional Common Features
2.2.3 Meaning and Function
2.3 What (For Practical Purposes) Counts as a Discourse Marker?
2.4 Discourse Markers and Position
2.5 Discourse Marker Combinations
2.6 Defining Discourse Markers for This Study
Notes
References
3 Functions of Common French Discourse Markers
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Alors
3.3 Ben
3.4 Bon
3.5 Donc
3.6 En Effet
3.7 En Fait
3.8 Enfin
3.9 Hein
3.10 Mais
3.11 Oui
3.12 Parce Que
3.13 Puis
3.14 Quoi
3.15 Tu Sais
3.16 Voilà
Notes
References
4 What Do We Already Know About L2 Discourse Marker Use?
4.1 Five Conclusions Drawn From L2 Discourse Marker Research to Date
4.2 Can L1 Transfer Explain Learner Discourse Marker Production?
4.3 What Sociolinguistic Variables Affect Discourse Marker Use in the L2?
4.4 What Is the Effect of Study Abroad?
4.5 (How) Do Learners Process Discourse Markers That They Hear?
4.6 Can Discourse Markers Be Taught?
4.7 Refocusing On L2 French Discourse Markers
4.8 Conclusion
References
5 Methodological Questions in L2 Discourse Marker Research
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Contrastive Or Interlanguage Analysis?
5.3 Form to Function Or Function to Form?
5.4 The Effects of Tasks and Instruments
5.5 The Current Study
5.5.1 Participants
5.5.2 Proficiency Measures
5.5.3 Instruments
5.5.4 Procedure
5.5.5 Transcription
5.5.6 Coding
5.5.7 Coding Reliability
5.6 Conclusion
Notes
References
6 How Do Native Speakers Use Discourse Markers?
6.1 Introduction
6.2 What Is the Inventory of Discourse Markers Used By the Native Speakers of French in This Study?
6.3 What Is the Functional Distribution of Discourse Markers for Native Speakers in This Corpus?
6.3.1 Contrast
6.3.2 Reported Speech
6.3.3 Affirmation
6.3.4 Conclusion
6.3.5 Recapitulation
6.3.6 Reformulation
6.3.7 Topic Management
6.3.8 Turn Management
6.3.9 Hesitation
6.3.10 Information Management
6.3.11 Interlocutor Engagement
6.3.12 Emphasis
6.3.13 Interrogation
6.4 Syntactic Considerations
6.5 Sociolinguistic Considerations
6.6 Conclusion
Note
References
7 How Do Learners of French Use Discourse Markers?
7.1 Introduction
7.2 What Is the Inventory of Discourse Markers Used By Learners of French?
7.2.1 Most Frequently Produced Discourse Markers
7.2.2 Discourse Marker Production By Task
7.2.3 Other Unique Features of the Learner Discourse Marker Inventory
7.3 What Is the Distribution of DM to Function and How Does the Inventory of DMs and Their Functions Change Over Time?
7.3.1 Topic Management
7.3.2 Drawing Conclusions
7.3.3 Reformulation
7.3.4 Turn Management
7.3.5 Information Management
7.3.6 Hesitation
7.3.7 Contrast
7.3.8 Affirmation
7.3.9 Recapitulation
7.3.10 Interlocutor Engagement
7.3.11 Emphasis
7.3.12 Reported Speech
7.3.13 Interrogation
7.4 Syntactic Considerations
7.5 Sociolinguistic Considerations
7.6 Conclusion
Notes
References
8 New Insights and Next Steps in L2 Discourse Marker Research
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Primary Findings of This Study
8.2.1 Learners Produce Fewer Discourse Markers Than Do Native Speakers
8.2.2 Learners’ Discourse Marker Frequency and Variety Increase With Proficiency
8.2.3 Learners Overgeneralize Some Discourse Markers and Undergeneralize Others
8.2.4 Learners Express Varied and Changing Functions as Proficiency Increases
8.2.5 Syntactic Features of Learner Discourse Marker Use
8.3 Other Contributing Factors to L2 Discourse Marker Acquisition
8.3.1 Transfer Effects
8.3.2 Study Abroad
8.3.3 Gender and Regional Differences
8.4 What Can L2 Acquisition Tell Us About the Nature of Discourse Markers?
8.5 Methodological and Pedagogical Implications
8.5.1 Benefits of the Function-To-Form Approach
8.5.2 Task Effects
8.5.3 Pedagogical Implications
Notes
References
9 Conclusion
9.1 Concluding Remarks
9.2 Future Directions
References
Appendices
Appendix A – Participant Profiles
Appendix B – Native Speaker Discourse Marker Inventory
Appendix C – Learner Discourse Marker Inventory
Note
Reference
Index

Citation preview

Discourse Markers in Second Language French

This book provides an in-​depth look at pragmatic development by second language learners of French through their production of French discourse markers. It showcases a holistic production-​focused approach designed to provide a broad picture of learner discourse marker use in French. The book begins with an comprehensive description of the major theoretical frameworks in discourse marker research. It provides a detailed analysis of prior second language research on discourse markers in several languages and the dominant avenues of inquiry. Additionally, this book engages in a discussion of methodology that can serve as a guide for future researchers on the topic. The data presented in this book provide a broad picture of both native speaker and learner production of discourse markers with implications for theoretical and formal understandings of pragmatic meaning. This book will be of particular interest to scholars in pragmatics for both second language acquisition and formal or theoretical perspectives. Alisha Reaves is an Assistant Professor of French and Linguistics at Towson University. Her research focuses on the second language acquisition of French. Additional research areas include language and education policy and lexical variation and meaning in French.

Routledge Research on New Waves in Pragmatics

Fresh Perspectives on Major Issues in Pragmatics Edited by Monika Kirner-Ludwig Discourse Markers in Second Language French Alisha Reaves For more information about this series, please visit: https://www. routledge.com/Routledge-Research-on-New-Waves-in-Pragmatics/ book-series/RRNWP

Discourse Markers in Second Language French Alisha Reaves

First published 2023 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Alisha Reaves The right of Alisha Reaves to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​34766-​0 (hbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​34767-​7 (pbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​003-​32375-​4 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/​9781003323754 Typeset in Sabon by Newgen Publishing UK

Contents

List of Tables List of Figures Acknowledgments 1 Introduction

1.1 Discourse Markers in French Society  1 1.2 Discourse Markers and the L2 Classroom  2 1.3 Learner Challenges in Acquiring Discourse Markers  3 1.4 Motivations for Studying L2 Discourse Marker Development  4 1.5 Organization of the Book  6

viii ix x 1

2 What Are Discourse Markers?

10

3 Functions of Common French Discourse Markers

30

2.1 Terminological Debates  10 2.2 Key Characteristics of Discourse Markers  11 2.3 What (for Practical Purposes) Counts as a Discourse Marker?  21 2.4 Discourse Markers and Position  23 2.5 Discourse Marker Combinations  25 2.6 Defining Discourse Markers for This Study  26

3.1 Introduction  30 3.2 Alors  30 3.3 Ben  31 3.4 Bon  32 3.5 Donc  32 3.6 En effet  35 3.7 En fait  35 3.8 Enfin  36 3.9 Hein  37 3.10 Mais  38

vi Contents 3.11 Oui  39 3.12 Parce que  39 3.13 Puis  39 3.14 Quoi  40 3.15 Tu sais  40 3.16 Voilà  41

4 What Do We Already Know about L2 Discourse Marker Use?

45

5 Methodological Questions in L2 Discourse Marker Research

62

6 How Do Native Speakers Use Discourse Markers?

83

4.1 Five Conclusions Drawn from L2 Discourse Marker Research to Date  45 4.2 Can L1 Transfer Explain Learner Discourse Marker Production?  49 4.3 What Sociolinguistic Variables Affect Discourse Marker Use in the L2?  51 4.4 What Is the Effect of Study Abroad?  51 4.5 (How) Do Learners Process Discourse Markers That They Hear?  52 4.6 Can Discourse Markers Be Taught?  53 4.7 Refocusing on L2 French Discourse Markers  54 4.8 Conclusion  55

5.1 Introduction  62 5.2 Contrastive or Interlanguage Analysis?  62 5.3 Form to Function or Function to Form?  64 5.4 The Effects of Tasks and Instruments  66 5.5 The Current Study  67 5.6 Conclusion  78

6.1 Introduction  83 6.2 What Is the Inventory of Discourse Markers Used by the Native Speakers of French in This Study?  83 6.3 What Is the Functional Distribution of Discourse Markers for Native Speakers in This Corpus?  86 6.4 Syntactic Considerations  96 6.5 Sociolinguistic Considerations  99 6.6 Conclusion  100

7 How Do Learners of French Use Discourse Markers? 7.1 Introduction  101 7.2 What Is the Inventory of Discourse Markers Used by Learners of French?  101

101

Contents  vii 7.3 What Is the Distribution of DM to Function and How Does the Inventory of DMs and Their Functions Change Over Time?  111 7.4 Syntactic Considerations  125 7.5 Sociolinguistic Considerations  127 7.6 Conclusion  128

8 New Insights and Next Steps in L2 Discourse Marker Research

130

9 Conclusion

150

Appendices

154

Index

163

8.1 Introduction  130 8.2 Primary Findings of This Study  130 8.3 Other Contributing Factors to L2 Discourse Marker Acquisition  139 8.4 What Can L2 Acquisition Tell Us about the Nature of Discourse Markers?  141 8.5 Methodological and Pedagogical Implications  144

9.1 Concluding Remarks  150 9.2 Future Directions  152

Appendix A –​Participant Profiles  155 Appendix B –​Native Speaker Discourse Marker Inventory  159 Appendix C –​Learner Discourse Marker Inventory  161

Tables

5.1 Final proficiency groups based on 2-​way k-​means cluster analysis 6.1 Discourse marker production by task 6.2 Most frequently occurring discourse markers 6.3 Inventory of functions expressed 6.4 Distribution of discourse markers by function 6.5 Discourse marker production by gender 6.6 Discourse marker production by region 7.1 Discourse marker production by proficiency group 7.2 Most frequently produced discourse markers by proficiency 7.3 Discourse markers per 100 words by proficiency group 7.4 Discourse markers derived from verbs by proficiency group 7.5 English discourse markers produced by proficiency group 7.6 Inventory of functions expressed by proficiency 7.7 Count and rate of discourse markers by position 8.1 Comparison of most frequently expressed functions

71 85 85 86 97 99 100 102 104 105 109 110 112 127 136

Figures

.1 Unique discourse markers produced 6 7.1 Number of unique discourse markers produced by proficiency group 7.2 Total number of discourse markers produced in a cluster by proficiency 8.1 DM production by time spent abroad

84 103 127 141

newgenprepdf

Acknowledgments

Several people merit recognition for supporting me through the process of preparing this book. Thank you to my parents and my sisters for their unending support and encouragement. I owe an incredible debt of gratitude to my friends and former classmates, without whose help I would not have finished. Thank you to Jamie Root for reading through and providing feedback on all stages of this manuscript. Thank you to Ryan Lidster and Danielle Daidone for the late nights talking through theory and structure while I worked through my analyses. And un grand merci to Rashana Lydner, my summer research assistant for this project. I also owe a great deal to the fifty participants in the United States and France who completed my study. Without them, there would be no research. This project was supported with funding from the Department of French & Italian at Indiana University in Bloomington, the Société des Professeurs Français et Francophones d’Amérique (SPFFA), and the College of Liberal Arts at Towson University.

1 Introduction

The objective of this book is to examine the production and development of the use of discourse markers in the speech of adult second (foreign) language learners of French. The study of discourse markers falls within the domain of pragmatics and discourse analysis, which can be overlooked in second language (L2) acquisition research. Discourse markers, however, are an important feature of language used to structure and maintain discourse coherence. Schiffrin (1987) notes that this role is achieved primarily through deixis. However, in her overview of L2 pragmatics, Slabakova (2013) underscores that research in L2 pragmatics has been dominated by the study of speech acts, conversational implicature and conversational management, while deixis has largely been neglected. But even in her review of types of deixis which warrant further research, ­discourse markers are not even mentioned.

1.1  Discourse Markers in French Society The neglect of discourse markers in L2 acquisition research perhaps reflects their status and valuation in society. In writing, les connecteurs logiques (logical connectors)1 such as afin que (so that), cependant (however), and en conclusion (in conclusion) are considered essential to clear communication in both native French and in the language classroom. A quick Google search turns up dozens (if not hundreds) of websites dedicated to these logical connectors (for both native speakers and learners) and their appropriate use to ensure text cohesion and facilitate the reader’s comprehension. However, in spoken language, many common discourse markers are highly stigmatized, to the point that they are referred to as les tics de langage (language tics) and are strongly discouraged in some circles. In fact, in the “Langue Française” section of Le Figaro online, no fewer than half a dozen articles can be found (since 2016) with disparaging titles such as: « Grave », un tic de langage à bannir (“Grave,” a language tic to banish) (Develey, 2018a), « Du coup », « Aller sur »…ces tics de langage à utiliser modérément (“Du coup,” “aller sur” … those language tics to use with moderation) (Le Figaro, 2016), Cinq tics de langage qu’on entend trop (Five language tics that we hear too DOI: 10.4324/9781003323754-1

2 Introduction often) (Le Figaro, 2018), « Bref », un tic de langage à faire disparaître (“Bref,” a language tic to make disappear) (Develey, 2018b). Not every word covered in these journalistic articles fits the linguistic definition of a discourse marker, but many of them do, highlighting their frequency and saliency in French society. In a video produced for France Info, French linguist Julie Neveux suggests that in France, les tics de langage are judged more harshly than in other francophone countries, perhaps because of the “mythologie esthétisante du français comme langue pure” (estheticizing mythology of French as a pure language) (France Info, 2020). Whatever the reason, the use of the most common discourse markers in spoken language is often discouraged, and thus this stigmatization is passed onto the language classroom where they are almost never taught.

1.2  Discourse Markers and the L2 Classroom Very little research has considered the importance of teaching discourse markers in the second or foreign language classroom. Delahaie (2011) reflects on the potential importance of teaching discourse markers in the classroom for ERASMUS students through a close examination of the role and functions of en fait. Similarly, Lorrillard (2018) considers the teaching of discourse markers in the foreign language classroom to native Japanese learners, also focusing closely on the utility of en fait. Both argue in favor of teaching discourse markers, but the gap between their publication highlights how little traction the concept has gotten. In 2012, a collaboration between professors at the University of Hanoï and professors in France yielded the Inventaire raisonné des marqueurs discursifs du français (Paillard & Ngan, 2012). The volume provides a detailed description of several French discourse markers and practical and detailed pedagogical guidance for French as a second language teachers. However, few copies were printed and nearly all were distributed only in Vietnam and neighboring countries. Mullan’s (2017) article is one of the few available proposing direct pedagogical interventions for university foreign language teachers in anglophone countries. A handful of studies have also empirically tested teaching discourse markers in the classroom (Hernández, 2008, 2011, 2012). Nevertheless, how best to teach discourse markers in the French as a foreign language classroom still requires more empirical investigation. With this dim picture of the status of discourse markers in the French as a foreign language classroom, there is little surprise that research into their use by learners has largely concluded that classroom learners cannot and do not employ them, either at all, or in a target-​like manner (Kerr-​ Barnes, 1998; Pellet, 2005). However, research that has been conducted into the acquisition of discourse markers in L2 French leaves many questions unanswered as discourse markers are not completely absent from learner speech. In particular, the relationship between a learner’s

Introduction  3 pragmatic competence and grammatical competence with respect to discourse markers is unclear. Or in other terms, the level of communicative competence required to acquire discourse markers is uncertain.

1.3  Learner Challenges in Acquiring Discourse Markers It is generally agreed that grammatical competence develops separately from pragmatic competence (Bardovi-​Harlig & Hartford, 1990, 1993) and that even at high levels of proficiency, weaknesses in pragmatic competence can remain (Bardovi-​Harlig, 1999). Naturalistic learners are thought to acquire pragmatic competence first in early stages of acquisition, through formulas and fixed expressions, with grammatical competency developing later. On the other hand, classroom learners may follow an opposite pattern because of the emphasis in the foreign language classroom on grammar and general inattention to pragmatics (Ellis, 2012). But this dichotomy between grammatical competence and pragmatic competence is sometimes treated as a unit and referred to as communicative competence. Canale and Swain (1980) define communicative competence as “composed minimally of grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, and communication strategies, or what we will refer to as strategic competence” (p. 27). Swain (1985) further specifies that communicative competence is made up of grammatical competence, discourse competence, and sociolinguistic competence. Grammatical competence is operationalized as rules of morphology and syntax, sociolinguistic competence is considered “the ability to produce and recognize socially appropriate language within a given sociocultural context” (p. 242), and discourse competence is defined as “the ability to produce and recognize coherent and cohesive text” (p. 238). With this breakdown, the acquisition of discourse markers seems most related to the development of both sociolinguistic competence and discourse competence, the importance of grammatical competence being less clear. Pellet (2005) suggests that a certain threshold of communicative competence is required (thus grammatical competence/​proficiency alone is insufficient) for discourse markers to be produced, however, she does not operationalize communicative competence in a manner that is measurable and replicable. Thus, there is a challenge in how best to measure a learner’s “readiness” for discourse marker acquisition. If a high threshold for communicative competence is necessary, how proficient do learners actually need to be in order to start producing discourse markers in their L2? And how does their production change as their communicative competence advances? Besides challenges inherent to the learner and the societal context in acquiring discourse markers, the nature of discourse markers themselves poses difficulty in their acquisition. Discourse markers are multifunctional. Most discourse markers can encode several functions, which are often context-​ dependent. Additionally, as discourse markers are

4 Introduction drawn from a variety of grammatical categories, many (most) have both discursive and non-​discursive functions. As an example, bon as a discourse marker can play a role in turn maintenance or topic management, or can serve as a hesitation marker. It is also an adjective, one that is taught very early on in the classroom and employed very frequently. The multifunctionality of discourse markers poses two problems for learners. First, following Andersen’s (1984) one-​to-​one principle, learners seek direct (and unique) form-​to-​function relationships when acquiring new forms. Thus, with bon introduced early as an adjective, even if exposed to the discursive functions in the classroom, the learner might miss them entirely, presuming they understand the word based on its non-​discursive function. Second, the context-​dependent meaning variation of discourse markers makes them a particular challenge to translate. In some contexts, bon can be translated as English well, but not all of the time, and its other uses do not correlate perfectly with English discourse markers (Kerr-​ Barnes, 1995). Thus, if a learner does manage to notice that bon is not being used as an adjective, its exact role in the discourse may still remain out of reach. The challenge of translating discourse markers hints at the greater difficulty posed by how their individual meaning is determined. As stated earlier, discourse markers function based on deixis. In other words, they cannot be understood without context. But unlike personal deixis (e.g., pronouns such as I and me), spatial deixis (e.g., adverbs such as here and there), or temporal deixis (e.g., adverbs such as now and soon), discourse markers typically do not point to anything concrete in the discourse, but rather suggest inferences that the hearer must make about the speaker’s intentions. Blakemore (1987, 2003) describes discourse markers as having a narrowing effect, constraining the contextual effects that the hearer can infer from an utterance. Thus, from the perspective of relevance theory, all discourse markers serve as instructions from the speaker to the hearer on how to interpret the context of the utterance. The underlying presumption is that the utterance is relevant, and the discourse markers help to direct the hearer’s attention to the context that will allow them to determine this relevance. This complex relationship between the speaker and the hearer presumes a shared understanding of the context, but also the ways in which certain discourse markers can be employed within a particular context. Thus, learners must acquire the implicit meanings of discourse markers themselves, but also an understanding of the varied contexts in which they can occur.

1.4  Motivations for Studying L2 Discourse Marker Development Despite the challenges inherent in discourse markers, and the lack of classroom instruction, learners still manage to acquire them to some degree.

Introduction  5 Research into the acquisition of discourse markers in French, however, has been both varied and limited. Few studies have attempted to systematically examine learner discourse marker use, and each has taken a drastically different approach. The studies by Kerr-​Barnes (1998) and Pellet (2005) perhaps most closely resemble this study in that their subjects are American university students. In the Franco-​Canadian context, Rehner (2002) and Sankoff et al. (1997) both consider French–​English bilinguals who had been in French immersion programs since reaching school age. Deng (2016, 2017, 2018) studied L1 Mandarin speakers living and working in France, thus in a second rather than foreign language environment. A significant subset of research into L2 French discourse markers has examined their use by L1 Swedes at varying proficiency levels. But these studies either focused on a single discourse marker (Hancock, 2004), or a subset of (temporal) adverbs that can function as discourse markers but are not among those most frequently employed (Hancock, 2012; Hancock & Sanell, 2009, 2010). Studies by Thorle (2016) and Guillot (2012) focus on interactional strategies that may involve discourse markers and mais in turn-​initial position, respectively. With this variety, it is difficult to envision how classroom learners specifically might acquire discourse markers in their L2. Results from these studies generally tell us that learners do not seem to approach native speaker use in either frequency or function. But one feature noticeably left out is variety. All of these studies in French focus on either a single discourse marker (Guillot, 2012; Hancock, 2004; Pellet, 2005) or a small subset of discourse markers, rather than exploring the full range of discourse markers that learners might be able to produce. Without a complete picture of the inventory of discourse markers available to learners at different proficiency levels, it is difficult to explain the “limitations” that are found in learner production, where they generally underproduce discourse markers as compared to native speakers, but also overproduce some discourse markers while underproducing others. This is particularly evident when compared to studies such as the one on L2 Italian by Borreguero Zuloaga, Pernas Izquierdo, and Gallani (2017), who did not limit themselves to any particular discourse markers but considered how they interacted overall across proficiencies. With this approach, they were able to observe how patterns of use and function shift between different discourse markers as proficiency progresses. This study takes a similar approach to Borreguero Zuloaga et al. (2017) in that the focus is not limited to any particular discourse marker in French. In addition, the analysis is not limited to only known French discourse markers but allows for the possibility that learners may be novel in their attempts to employ lexical items as discourse markers. Any lexical item that could reasonably meet the criteria of a discourse marker was included. This includes English discourse markers and other lexical items that may not appear in native speaker production.

6 Introduction

1.5  Organization of the Book This book is organized into nine chapters. Chapter 2 explores the varied theoretical frameworks that have attempted to describe and account for discourse markers in both French and English. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the functions of several common and frequent French discourse markers from both a theoretical and empirical perspective. In Chapter 4, a broad range of empirical research on L2 discourse markers is reviewed to establish the current state of knowledge. The studies described in this section concern not only L2 French, but also L2 English, L2 Italian, and a few studies on L2 Spanish and L2 German. As the methodologies employed in L2 discourse marker research is diverse, Chapter 5 takes a deeper look at the implications of certain methodological choices to provide a foundation for those made in the present study and then outlines the methodology employed in the present study. Sufficient detail is provided about the participants, instruments, and coding and transcription practices to hopefully be of use to future researchers who may wish to examine L2 discourse marker acquisition in a similar fashion. Results from the native speakers and the learners are described in Chapters 6 and 7 respectively. And finally, Chapter 8 takes an in-​depth look at the new insights gained from this study in terms of L2 acquisition, an understanding of the nature of discourse markers, and pedagogical implications. Chapter 9 concludes with a summary of the main findings from this study and considerations for future research.

Note 1 The expression “connecteurs logiques” here refers to its use in writing pedagogy and not in any particular tradition in the study of linguistics.

References Andersen, R. W. (1984). The one to one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning, 34(4), 77–​95. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1467-​1770.1984. tb00​353.x Bardovi-​ Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49(4), 677–​713. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​0023-​8333.00105 Bardovi-​Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1990). Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning, 40(4), 467–​501. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1467-​1770.1990. tb00​603.x Bardovi-​Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279–​304. Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Blackwell.

Introduction  7 Blakemore, D. (2003). Discourse and relevance theory. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (1st ed., pp. 100–​ 118). Blackwell. Borreguero Zuloaga, M., Pernas Izquierdo, P., & Gillani, E. (2017). Metadiscursive functions and discourse markers in L2 Italian. In A. P. Loureiro, C. Carapinha, & C. Plag (Eds.), Marcadores discursivos e(m) tradução (pp. 15–​ 57). Universidade de Coimbra Press. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–​47. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​app​lin/​I.1.1 Delahaie, J. (2011). Les marqueurs discursifs, un objet d’enseignement pertinent pour les étudiants erasmus? Éla: Études de Linguistique Appliquée, 2(162), 153–​163. Deng, D. (2016). Oui, voilà: analyse des deux marqueurs discursifs utilisés par les locuteurs du francais d’origine chinoise en France. Cahiers, 20(1), 45–​69. Deng, D. (2017). Oui and Voilà: Analysis of two discourse markers used by Chinese-​L1 speakers of French in France. Language, Discourse & Society, 5(1), 93–​104. Deng, D. (2018). « Comme c’est un peu langage des jeunes quoi »: analyse du marqueur discursif quoi dans le discours des Chinois résidant en France. SHS Web of Conferences, 46, 13001. https://​doi.org/​10.1051/​shsc​onf/​2018​ 4613​001 Develey, A. (2018a, June 8). « Grave », un tic de langage à bannir. Le Figaro. www.lefig​aro.fr/​lan​gue-​franca​ise/​expr​essi​ons-​fra​ncai​ses/​2018/​06/​08/​37003-​ 2018​0608​ARTF​IG00​007-​grave-​un-​tic-​de-​lang​age-​a-​ban​nir.php Develey, A. (2018b, June 26). « Bref », un tic de langage à faire disparaître. Le Figaro. www.lefig​aro.fr/​lan​gue-​franca​ise/​expr​essi​ons-​fra​ncai​ses/​2018/​06/​ 26/​37003-​2018​0626​ARTF​IG00​024-​bref-​un-​tic-​de-​lang​age-​a-​faire-​disp​arai​ tre.php Ellis, R. (2012). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Le Figaro (2016, August 6). « Du coup », « Aller sur » … ces tics de langage à utiliser modérément. Le Figaro. www.lefig​aro.fr/​lan​gue-​franca​ise/​expr​essi​ ons-​fra​ncai​ses/​2016/​08/​04/​37003-​2016​0804​ARTF​IG00​071-​du-​coup-​aller-​ sur-​ces-​erre​urs-​de-​lang​age-​a-​evi​ter.php Le Figaro (2018, October 29). Cinq tics de langage qu’on entend trop. Le Figaro. www.lefig​aro.fr/​lan​gue-​franca​ise/​expr​essi​ons-​fra​ncai​ses/​2018/​10/​29/​37003-​ 2018​1029​ARTF​IG00​020-​cinq-​tics-​de-​lang​age-​qu-​on-​ent​end-​trop.php France Info (2020). En vrai, du coup, en mode…Mais d’où viennent nos tics de langage? France Info. www.franc​etvi​nfo.fr/​sante/​enf​ant-​ado/​video-​en-​vrai-​du-​ coup-​en-​mode-​mais-​d-​ou-​vienn​ent-​nos-​tics-​de-​lang​age_​3806​061.html Guillot, M.-​N. (2012). Issues of L2 pragmatic discrimination from an interactional perspective: The case of turn-​initial mais in L2 French. Interaction et interculturalite: variété des corpus et des approches (pp. 223–​ 253). Peter Lang. Hancock, V. (2004). L’emploi de donc chez des apprenants avancés: intonosyntaxe et fonctionnements. In B. Ermin (Ed.), Second language acquisition and usage, Stockholm studies in modern philology (pp. 99–​ 121). Almvist & Wiksell International.

8 Introduction Hancock, V. (2012). Pragmatic use of temporal adverbs in L1 and L2 French. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 3(1), 29–​51. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​ lia.3.1.03han Hancock, V., & Sanell, A. (2009). The acquisition of four adverbs in a learner corpus of L2 French. Discours, 5, 2–​28. Hancock, V., & Sanell, A. (2010). Pragmaticalisation des adverbes temporels dans le français parlé L1 et L2. EUROSLA Yearbook, 10(2010), 62–​91. https://​doi. org/​10.1075/​euro​sla.10.06han Hernández, T. A. (2008). The effect of explicit instruction and input flood on students ’ use of Spanish discourse markers on a simulated oral proficiency interview. Hispania, 91(3), 665–​675. Hernández, T. A. (2011). Re-​examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 159–​182. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13621​6881​0388​694 Hernández, T. A. (2012). Impact of instruction on the use of L2 discourse markers. Journal of Second Language Teaching & Research, 2(1), 3–​31. http://​pops. uclan.ac.uk/​i ndex.php/​ jsltr/​ a rti​cle/​v iew/​8 0%5Cnh ​ttp:// ​pops.uclan.ac.uk/​ index.php/​jsltr/​arti​cle/​downl​oad/​80/​28%5Cnh​ttp://​pops.uclan.ac.uk/​index. php/​jsltr/​arti​cle/​view/​80/​28 Kerr-​Barnes, B. (1995). Discourse particles in French conversation: (eh) ben, bon, and enfin. French Review, 68(5), 813–​829. Kerr-​Barnes, B. (1998). The acquisition of connectors in French L2 narrative discourse. Journal of French Language Studies, 8(2), 189–​208. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1017/​S09592​6950​0004​142 Lorrillard, O. (2018). Les « tics de langage » ont-​ils leur place dans l’enseignement du français oral? Hiroshima University Graduate School Literature Research Papers, 78, 57–​73. Mullan, K. (2017). Et pis, bon, ben alors, voilà, quoi! Teaching those pesky discourse markers. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 11(3), 271–​282. Paillard, D., & Ngan, V. T. (2012). Inventaire raisonné des marqueurs discursifs du français: Description, Comparaison, Didactique. Éditions de l’Université nationale de Hanoï. Pellet, S. H. (2005). The development of competence in French interlanguage pragmatics: The case of the discourse marker ‘donc.’ ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 303. https://​sea​rch.proqu​est.com/​docv​iew/​304979​491?accoun​ tid=​10673%0Ah​ttp://​open​url.ac.uk/​redir​ect/​ath​ens:edu/​?url_​ver=​Z39.88-​ 2004&rft_​v al_​f mt=​i nfo:ofi/​f mt:kev:mtx:disse​r tat​i on&genre=​d isser​t ati​ ons+​% 26+​t he​s es&sid=​P roQ:ProQu​e st+​D isser​t ati​o ns+​% 26+​T he​s es+​G lo​ bal&at Rehner, K. A. (2002). The development of aspects of linguistic and discourse competence by advanced second language learners of French. PhD disseration, University of Toronto. Sankoff, G., Thibault, P., Nagy, N., Blondeau, H., Fonollosa, M. O., & Gagnon, L. (1997). Variation in the use of discourse markers in a language contact situation. Language Variation and Change, 9(2), 191–​217. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1017/​S09543​9450​0001​873 Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.

Introduction  9 Slabakova, R. (2013). Discourse and pragmatics. In J. Herschensohn & M. Young-​Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (1st ed., pp. 482–​504). Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In R. Scarcella & M. Long (Eds.), Issues in Second Language Research (1st ed., pp. 235–​253). Newbury House Publishers. Thörle, B. (2016). Turn openings in L2 French. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 7(1), 117–​144. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​lia.7.1.05tho

2 What Are Discourse Markers?

2.1  Terminological Debates The challenge of defining discourse markers is enhanced by the terminological debate that has plagued this subfield of linguistics (as with many others) since they first came under study. The label “discourse marker” is the most common designation for lexical items also referred to as pragmatic markers (e.g., Brinton, 1996, Buysse, 2015; Fraser, 1996), pragmatic particles (e.g., Beeching, 2002, 2004), discourse operators (e.g., Redeker, 1991), discourse particles (e.g., Kerr-​Barnes, 1995), and discourse connectives (Blakemore, 1987). The terminological divide is similar in French with les marqueurs discursifs being the most frequent, but les connecteurs pragmatiques (Roulet et al., 1985) and les ponctuants de la langue or les particules discursives (Vincent, 1993) also occasionally employed. All of these variations in nomenclature reflect subtle differences in theoretical interpretations, which speak to the very essence of a discourse marker. In French and in English, the terms “pragmatic particles” and “discourse particles/​les particules discursives” both underscore the difficulty in nailing down exactly what kind of words are under consideration. Words in this class are drawn from a variety of grammatical categories (e.g., adverbs, adjectives, verbs, interjections) and their only relationship to each other is the way in which they may potentially interact with discourse. Those frameworks that refer to these lexical items as “discourse connectors” underscore their role as linking utterances within the discourse or linking an utterance to the larger discourse. Redeker (1991) finds “discourse marker” to be “pragmatically biased” (p. 1168) and “discourse operator” more appropriate due to the fact that most of the lexical items concerned serve to link propositions, thus aligning her definition with the “discourse connector” understanding. Vincent’s (1993) distinction between les ponctuants or “punctors” and other particules discursives underscores her interpretation of their meaning, with les ponctuants serving as a sort of oral punctuation that is “vides de sens et d’expression” (p. 60) or void of meaning and expression, whereas by implication other particules discursives do carry some meaning. There is DOI: 10.4324/9781003323754-2

What Are Discourse Markers?  11 also the distinction between “discourse” and “pragmatic” whether it be “markers,” “particles,” or “connectors” that are concerned. With this distinction, as with others, there is a question of scope and function of the lexical class,1 with the use of “pragmatic” being broader and more inclusive, and “discourse” limiting the members of the class. As it is the most commonly used (and most general) term, in this study they will, from this point forward, be referred to as discourse markers. This use of the term discourse markers also supports the range of lexical items included in this study.

2.2  Key Characteristics of Discourse Markers 2.2.1  Non-​propositionality, Syntactic Detachment, Optionality Three interrelated characteristics of discourse markers are that they are analyzed as being syntactically detached from the utterance to which they apply, they do not contribute to the propositional content of said utterance (Fraser, 1993), and they are optional. To understand this characteristic, consider the following example from a speaker in the present study: (1)

Et après j’ai intégré une grande école…euh à Lyon. Je suis donc allée à Lyon et… And afterwards, I got into a university…in Lyon. I went DM to Lyon and…

What is the propositional content of these two sentences? In the first sentence, it is that the speaker was accepted into a university in Lyon. In the second sentence, it is that they went to Lyon. Without the discourse marker donc, these two propositions are unchanged. The speaker was still accepted into university in Lyon and they still went to Lyon. However, there is a causal connection between the two sentences, an inference that the hearer must make. Immediately after stating that they were accepted in university in Lyon, why would the speaker then state that they went to Lyon, if not to draw a connection between the two actions. They went to Lyon because they were accepted into a university. It is possible to infer this from the two juxtaposed propositions alone, without the use of donc. A hearer can make the necessary connection between the two sentences, although it may be more difficult and require an additional millisecond of processing. Additionally, the two sentences are still grammatical without donc, it does not contribute to the underlying syntactic structure of the utterances. Thus, what exactly does donc contribute? Based on an analysis of argumentation, Moeschler (2018) predicts that discourse connectives make argumentation more efficient through the “minimization of processing costs and the maximization of relevance” (p. 147). The inclusion of donc allows the hearer to make the

12  What Are Discourse Markers? connection more quickly between the two utterances by strengthening the relationship between the two propositions. Consider another constructed example with the (contrastive) discourse marker mais. (2)

Paul est beau, mais il est intelligent. He is beautiful, DM he is intelligent.

The propositional content of this utterance can be divided into two parts: (1) Paul is beautiful and (2) Paul is intelligent. The inclusion of mais does not change the interpretation of either of these two facts. However, without mais, the task of the hearer to infer the speaker’s intent is much more difficult. Depending on the greater discourse context, the implication could be additive (e.g., the man is beautiful and intelligent) or contrastive (e.g., he is beautiful and intelligent, but this intelligence is a surprise). The choice between the two, without the use of a discourse marker, requires the hearer to rely on other clues to infer the speaker’s intent. To reiterate, the use of mais is not essential to arrive at the speaker’s intent, but significantly increases the ease with which the hearer can ascertain this intent. Moeschler’s second prediction with regard to discourse connectives is that “argumentation with connections are stronger because connectives introduce new focal information, which has more contextual implications than non-​focal information” (p. 148). Without the use of mais, the hearer must search for meaning in context or use prosodic cues to infer that the speaker meant to highlight how unusual it is to have both the qualities of beauty and intelligence associated together. The use of mais streamlines this interpretation. However more difficult the implication may be to infer from these examples, the propositional content in both cases remains unchanged by the presence or absence of the discourse marker. Syntactic detachment is illustrated by the way in which the utterances in both examples are completely grammatical without the discourse marker. It is in this way that they are syntactically detached, non-​propositional, and optional. This, on the other hand, does not mean that they are not integral to efficient communication. Besides reducing the processing cost for the hearer, discourse markers are optional in other ways as well. Some discourse markers allow a speaker space for online planning or contribute to discourse self-​ monitoring. Consider examples (3) and (4) from the present study. (3)

Ah oui mais…à part ça ‘fin il faudrait que…payer comme ça. Ah DM besides that DM you have to pay like that.

(4)

En plus…ouais peut-​être c’est une bonne solution. Also…DM maybe it’s a good solution.

What Are Discourse Markers?  13 In example (3), the discourse marker ‘fin occurs in a pause where the speaker is reformulating their intended discourse, while in example (4) ouais marks a pause and then allows the speaker to signal that they are confident in what they are about to say. In neither case is the discourse marker necessary for the propositional content of the utterance. Both are also unchanged grammatically by their absence; thus, the discourse marker is not essential to the syntactic structure of the utterance. Again, although for different reasons than donc and mais, the discourse markers are optional, non-​propositional, and syntactically detached. 2.2.2  Additional Common Features Other commonly identified (and relatively non-​controversial) features of discourse markers are that they are drawn from a variety of grammatical classes. They can include adverbs (e.g., well for English, alors for French), adjectives (e.g., bon for French), verbs/​clauses (e.g., y’know for English, écoute/​écoutez for French) and interjections (e.g., yeah for English, hein for French) among others. Discourse markers are often phonologically reduced as compared to their non-​ discursive counterparts (e.g., bien versus ben in French) and form a separate tone group from the utterance to which they apply. Researchers have also identified several sociolinguistic characteristics associated with discourse markers. They are highly frequent and representative of informal oral discourse rather than formal or written discourse. And there is evidence that they are more characteristic of women’s speech than men’s (Brinton, 1996). Finally, they are often highly stigmatized, viewed as language tics to eliminate from speech rather than lexical items essential to communication (Develey, 2018a, 2018b). 2.2.3  Meaning and Function There are several different analyses that account for the source of meaning of discourse markers. Is their meaning semantic or pragmatic? In other words, do discourses markers retain a core semantic meaning, presumably derived from their non-​discursive function, or are they semantically bleached? What is the nature of this meaning? Is it conceptual or procedural? And if it is procedural, is this procedural meaning semantic or pragmatic (context-​dependent)? The presence or absence of a conceptual core is closely linked to how the function of a particular discourse marker is determined. Fraser (1999) argues in favor of a conceptual core, stating that it is the interaction of the core semantics of a discourse marker with its slot in the discourse that creates its pragmatic function. Schiffrin (1987) and Moine (2005) also both support discourse markers maintaining a semantic core. Similar to Fraser, Schiffrin posits that discourse markers interact with slots or planes of discourse in order to generate their pragmatic function.

14  What Are Discourse Markers? On the other side of the discussion are those who posit that discourse markers undergo semantic bleaching or a loss of their lexical meaning. An analysis by Roulet et al. (1985) includes a “loss of lexical meaning” as a key characteristic of discourse markers. For Vincent (1993), whether or not les particules discursives retain a semantic core depends on their subcategorization. Those that she considers interaction or structure markers “s’éloignent de leur role grammatical et de leur contenu sémantique” (p. 44) or move away from their grammatical role and semantic content, but still retain some relic of their core semantics, while punctors are considered devoid of meaning. Other scholars have also similarly split the difference, arguing for the semantic bleaching of some or most discourse markers, while acknowledging that certain lexical items such as alors might retain some of their core meaning even when functioning as a discourse marker (Sankoff et al., 1997). In research on Italian discourse markers, Bazzanella (1995) describes them as being “partially stripped” of their core meaning. Positing that discourse markers lack a conceptual core, or a core semantic meaning, is problematic as it leaves very little content to distinguish between the range of discourse markers that have been studied. Without a core semantic meaning, it would be entirely up to the discourse context to determine the function of a particular discourse marker, which suggests that they should be equally interchangeable. However, this is not the case in English or in French, as Pellet (2009) demonstrated that while some functions of donc and alors overlap, not all of them do. Without allowing for the possibility that lexical items functioning as discourse markers retain at least part of their core semantics, there is nothing to substantively distinguish between them. Even if one concedes that discourse markers must retain a core meaning that is not only contextually (pragmatically) dependent, the nature of that meaning still must be determined. All linguistic constructions are expected to encode concepts and procedures for manipulating those concepts (Wilson & Sperber, 1993). Blakemore (1987) introduced the idea of procedural meaning to specifically describe the nature of discourse markers. By procedural meaning, she argues that discourse markers do not encode a conceptual representation or a particular concept, but rather “guide the comprehension process so that the hearer ends up with a conceptual representation” (Blakemore, 2002, p. 91). She provides the following example: (5)

Ben can open Tom’s safe. After all, he knows the combination.

(6a) Ben knows the combination of Tom’s safe. (6b) If Ben knows the combination of Tom’s safe, then he can open Tom’s safe. (6c) Ben can open Tom’s safe. (Blakemore, 2002, pp. 89–​90)

What Are Discourse Markers?  15 According to Blakemore, afterall, guides the hearer through the process of examples (6a–​c) in order to arrive at the conceptual representation intended by (5). The marker afterall plays no direct role in that conceptual representation but is only an indicator of it. Fraser (2006) rejects the relevance-​ theoretic (and specifically Blakemore’s) assertion that discourse markers/​ discourse connectives cannot encode both a procedural and a conceptual meaning at the same time. He presents several arguments in support of this rejection. First, Fraser provides several examples in which he claims that the inherent meaning of the discourse marker itself can be negated or denied. (7a) The water won’t boil. Thus, we can’t make tea. (7b) That’s not true. It isn’t necessary for the water to boil to make tea. (8a) Mary resigned because her boss insulted her. (8b) Not true. The boss’s insult was not the reason for her resignation. (Fraser, 2006, p. 26) In Fraser’s account, the inherent meaning of the discourse marker thus in (7a) can be explicitly denied as in (7b). And similarly, the inherent meaning of the discourse marker because in (8a) can be explicitly negated as in (8b). In this perspective, to be able to deny or negate the inherent meaning, it must exist in the first place. His second argument against a conceptual/​ procedural distinction pertains to Wilson and Sperber’s assertion that it is impossible (or very difficult) to articulate the meaning of discourse connectives, stating simply that while it may be true, it is irrelevant to whether or not they have a conceptual meaning. Fraser instead argues in favor of multiple conceptual meanings for a single discourse marker and only a single procedural meaning as in example (9a–​b) with so. (9a) Jack was forced to work overtime. So he quit his job. [consequential] (9b) He likes sweets, so he has to like chocolates. [logical-​inferential] (9c) The movie was over so we didn’t bother hurrying. [contextual-​inferential] (9d) She shut the door so that cat couldn’t get out. [purposeful] (Fraser, 2006, p. 27) In Fraser’s account, all of these meanings associated with so are conceptual. And they share a procedural meaning that simply implies that the “second segment follows from the first” (Fraser, 2006, p. 27). Closely related to the debate over whether discourse markers encode a procedural or conceptual meaning is the framing of their practical (pragmatic) function in discourse. Prior research has varyingly described discourse markers as serving to bracket discourse (Schiffrin, 1987), link utterances (Redeker, 1991), relate two messages (Blakemore, 1987;

16  What Are Discourse Markers? Fraser, 1990; Schourup, 1999), comment on language (Beeching, 2002), or connect elements in the discourse (Bazzanella, 1995; Mosegaard Hansen, 1997). The variety in these descriptions also reflects the variety in their understanding of the key characteristics and functions of the discourse markers themselves. Schiffrin (1987) defines discourse markers as “sequentially dependent elements which brackets units of talk” (p. 31). Her choice in defining discourse markers as related to “units of talk” (which include sentences, propositions, tone units, and speech acts) is purposeful in that it reflects her assertion that language is always communicative and that defining discourse markers in terms of either the sentences, the propositions, the tone units, or the speech acts that they modify alone would exclude too many occurrences of discourse markers and erroneously limit their scope. Because Schiffrin’s definition relies on “units of talk” rather than sentences, propositions, tone units, or speech acts, the “sequential dependence” feature further emphasizes that discourse markers operate on the discourse level rather than on the lexical or sentential level. In other words, it is insufficient to interpret a discourse marker in terms of only the utterance that follows it. One must consider both the preceding and the following utterances to properly contextualize discourse marker function. She finds evidence for this in the observation that temporal adverbs such as now can be used in contexts that contradict its semantics as linking the reference of the proposition with the time at which it is uttered. The marker now in example (10) can in fact be used when the reference time is prior to the time of the utterance. The function of now cannot be dependent on the time of the proposition and thus must be dependent on the structure of the greater discourse in which it is found. Similarly, she notes that conjunctions such as and or but typically can only link two constituents of the same class (e.g., noun and noun, verb and verb, two declarative sentences). However, when functioning as a discourse marker, she finds that and can link a declarative and an interrogative sentence. In example (11), and is making a larger connection between Zelda and Debby’s dislike, with Zelda’s following inquiry as to another person’s opinion. However, Mosegaard Hansen is critical of Schiffrin’s use of “bracketing” as she argues that, at least for French, it excludes the possibility of clause internal markers, as highlighted in example (12). (10) Use of now as a discourse marker Now these boys were Irish. They lived different. (Schiffrin, 1987, p. 38) (11) Use of and to link a declarative and interrogative sentence Debby:  I don’t like that.2 Zelda:  I don’t like that. And, is he accepting it? (Schiffrin, 1987, p. 38)

What Are Discourse Markers?  17 (12) Example of clause-​internal donc …moi j’étais sur la plage avec le reste des gosses j’avais donc euh vingt-​et-​un gosses que je devais surveiller… …me I was on the beach with the rest of the children I had DM uh 21 children that I had to watch… (Mosegaard Hansen, 1997, p. 160) Beeching states that discourse markers “serve to comment on language” (p. 53). This presents a wider scope than those who see them simply as a means of relating or linking two utterances. In suggesting that discourse markers “comment” on language, Beeching gives them a more meaningful role than that of a simple connector. She notes that they have an “emotional, expressive and possibly face-​saving function rather than a denotative or cognitive one” (p. 53). In this analysis, discourse markers are not simply structuring devices, but can indicate the emotional force of an utterance. Fraser (1990, 1993, 1999, 2015) more greatly limits the scope of discourse markers. In one of his more recent accounts (2015), he states that they serve to “signal a semantic relationship between two sentences (p. 48).” This presents a shift from even his initial definition (1990) in which he describes them as relating two messages. In relating two messages, discourse markers could be seen as performing a variety of functions. Signaling a semantic relationship between two sentences narrows their scope to that of a connector, with a focus on the syntax-​semantic interface. With this focus, Fraser explicitly excludes discourse markers that reflect upon the speaker–​hearer relationship. Fraser’s assessment of discourse marker function will be further elaborated on later in this section. Frameworks for describing the various functions of discourse markers vary as much as descriptions of their relationship to the surrounding discourse. Schiffrin’s model is complex. She establishes five planes of talk on which discourse markers may operate: exchange structures, action structures, idea structures, participation frameworks, and information states. Exchange structures are dialogic and refer mostly to turn-​taking, but outside of discourse marker use can also include question and answer and greetings. Action structures can either be monologic or dialogic and refer to speech acts. The ideational plane is dialogic and refers to the cohesive relations, topic relations, and functional relations of discourse. This includes the management of topics and subtopics. Both participation framework and information states deal with the speaker–​hearer relationship. Participation framework is focused on the social interactions between the speaker and the hear, or the ways in which they can relate to each other, while information states focuses on the “organization and management of knowledge and meta-​knowledge” (p. 28). According to Schiffrin, all discourse markers are used in multiple planes and have primary and secondary planes of use. One example is that of well, which operates in the participation framework as “a

18  What Are Discourse Markers? response marker which anchors its user in an interaction when an upcoming contribution is not fully consonant with prior coherence options” (pp. 102–​103). Example (13) underscores this where Sally responds to a yes/​no question with an utterance beginning with well. Sally’s response does not fit perfectly with the question she was asked, thus the marker well is used to indicate the insufficient assumptions of the original question and prefacing the longer more complicated response. Schiffrin argues that the communicative force of discourse markers is due to the discourse slot in which they are used, which is affected by the plane of talk and linguistic properties of the marker. And it is the discourse slot, responsible for the interpretation of the marker, that has an unchanging core meaning. (13) Zelda:  Are you from Philadelphia? Sally:  Well I grew up uh out in the suburbs. And then I lived for  about seven years in Upstate New York. And then I came back here t’go to college. (Schiffrin, 1987, p. 106) Redeker (1991) critiques Schiffrin, arguing that her model is vague and inconsistent in its treatment of discourse markers. She claims that Schiffrin’s approach is too minimalist, and that if her planes of talk are extended slightly, they lose their ability to distinguish between different markers. In her view, Schiffrin ignores the functions of certain markers that would make them active in additional planes, resulting in multiple markers overlapping in their planes of talk, and thus no longer being able to be distinguished by them. Redeker collapses Schiffrin’s five planes into three –​ideational structure, rhetorical structure, and sequential structure –​which she considers roughly equivalent to the ideational, action, and exchange structures respectively. Schiffrin’s information structure and participation framework differ from the other three planes of talk in that they involve utterances rather than relational concepts, which is why Redeker does not include them. This, she argues, partially makes up for the holes in Schiffrin’s model that are not otherwise filled by uses not represented in Schiffrin’s data. Another key difference is that Redeker claims that discourse always occurs in all three planes of talk at once, with one more dominant plane of talk resulting in the selection of the discourse marker; while in Schiffrin’s model, a discourse marker may select a plane of talk depending on availability (as not all markers operate on all five planes of talk). Redeker’s perspective in collapsing the planes of talk from five to three and allowing for the possibility of discourse existing within multiple planes of talk at the same time may perhaps better reflect the reality of discourse marker use. For example, an utterance-​initial discourse marker may serve both to seize the floor and introduce a new topic. Under both analyses, these two functions would operate on two different planes of

What Are Discourse Markers?  19 talk (exchange and ideational for Schiffrin, and ideational and sequential for Redeker). However, under Schiffrin’s analysis, one of these two planes would need to dominate, whereas Redeker allows for them both to coexist. Crible’s (2018) taxonomy of discourse marker function clearly draws from Schiffrin and Redeker, although she settles on four domains: ideational, rhetorical, sequential, and interpersonal. The ideational domain includes “relations between real-​world events” such as consequence and contrast. The rhetorical domain describes “relations between epistemic and speech-​ act events and metadiscursive functions” such as conclusion, reformulation, and emphasis. The sequential domain encompasses the structure of segments of discourse, such as topic shifts, and finally the interpersonal domain involves the management of the speaker–​ hearer relationship and includes agreeing, disagreeing, and monitoring (pp. 64–​65). Competing models of discourse marker function do not rely on building frameworks and identifying a taxonomy of functions. Instead, the function of discourse markers is expressly linked to interaction of the core semantic meaning with the surround discourse. Accepting that discourse markers have a conceptual semantic core, it is the interaction of this core with the discourse slot that produces a desired interpretation of the utterance (Fraser, 1990, 1993, 2015). Consider the following examples with so from Fraser (1999). (14) So discourse marker examples a. Susan is married. So, she is no longer available, I guess. b. John was tired. So, he left early. c. Attorney:  And how long were you part of the crew? Witness:  Five years. Attorney: So, you were employed by G for roughly five years, right? d. Teenage son:  The Celtics have a game today. Father: So? e. Son:  My clothes are still wet. Mother:  So put the drier on for 30 minutes more. (Fraser, 1999, p. 945) In this framework, in examples (14a–​e), so shares the same common conceptual core meaning in that it “signals that the following segment is to be interpreted as a conclusion which follows from the prior discourse” (p. 945). There are no planes of talk. Rather, the context determines the individual interpretations of the same conceptual core. Relevance theory also does not categorize discourse markers according to a particular functional framework. Instead, the foundational operating premise is that “any act of communication comes from the communicator’s guarantee of relevance, and as long as the hearer has

20  What Are Discourse Markers? confidence in this guarantee, she will go ahead and recover the interpretation that is consistent with it” (Blakemore, 1987, p. 63). The focus is thus the relationship between propositions rather than linguistic units. Discourse markers, in this relationship, ensure that the hearer makes the correct inference with the least processing costs. This reduction in processing cost is accomplished because discourse markers encode procedural meaning, providing a streamlined path for the hearer to the intended interpretation. Taking Fraser’s examples again (14a–​e), all of the instances of the discourse marker so share the procedural meaning of indicating to the hearer that the following discourse is a conclusion of the preceding utterance. The hearer is directed to draw a conclusion, quite clearly a procedure rather than a concept. Whether the core meaning of discourse markers is described as procedural or conceptual, in either framework, the resulting pragmatic function is context-​dependent. This leads to both greater flexibility and ambiguity than in the more structured functional frameworks proposed by Schiffrin, Redeker, and Crible. Simplified frameworks of discourse marker function divide them into two or three categories. In two category frameworks, discourse markers are either textual or interpersonal (Brinton, 1996), sometimes described as metadiscursive or interactional (Bazzanella, 1995). In French, Vincent (1993) proposed a tripartite functional distinction: interaction markers, structuration markers and punctors. Interaction markers maintain cohesion in the speaker–​hearer relationship, structuration markers maintain the coherence of the discourse itself and punctors serve as oral punctuation to mark the prosodic phrase. Many of the simplified frameworks mentioned do not attempt to address, or rather take for granted, that discourse markers are polysemous. Different analyses have reached conflicting conclusions for various discourse markers. Buysse (2012) argues for a polysemic interpretation of so, meaning that “the functions are all related as extensions from a prototype” (p. 1765). Evidence for this perspective is based on an extensive analysis of so in both native and learner speech, identifying patterns and relations between the different functions express. On the other hand, Iten’s (2005) analysis of but concludes that a polysemous interpretation is unnecessary as its encoded procedural meaning can account for all of its functions, which then manifest differently based on the context. In a different analysis of but, Sweetser (1990) also opposes interpretation of discourse connectives as polysemous, but rather argues that they are pragmatically ambiguous. Thus, similar to Iten, the context determines what interpretation is realized. The question of monosemy versus polysemy (versus pragmatic ambiguity or another label) may depend on the individual discourse marker, given that they are drawn from different grammatical classes and do not perform the same functions. Defining them in these terms may simply not be possible.

What Are Discourse Markers?  21

2.3  What (for Practical Purposes) Counts as a Discourse Marker? The theoretical debates regarding semantic core, non-​propositionality, and procedural or conceptual meaning resulted in variation in what lexical items do and do not count as discourse markers. In particular, the inclusion of filled pauses or fillers (e.g., uh and um in English, euh in French), the conjunctions because, since, and although, the verbal expressions, y’know and I mean, and adverbs such as moreover and furthermore has varied. Filled pauses or fillers are not explicitly included or excluded in Schiffrin’s and Redeker’s accounts of discourse markers. However, Moine (2005) extends Schiffrin’s framework to include what he identifies as non-​ lexical markers. Sankoff et al. (1997), however, note that a criterion of discourse markers is that they are articulated with a fluency of speech production, thus excluding hesitation markers such as uh in English or euh in French. This doesn’t however account for the inclusion of other lexical items that could perform the same function such as enfin/​’fin or ben in French. The inclusion or exclusion of hesitation markers on the basis of their lexical status is further complicated by an analysis by Clark and Fox Tree (2002) that finds justification in considering uh and um as words, rather than non-​lexical markers of disfluency because they (1) “contrast in basic meaning,” (2) “are used to implicate other things,” and (3) “are conventional and under the speaker’s control” (p. 90). However, their status as words or not is less important to their inclusion as discourse markers than is how well they meet other criteria. Fillers such as uh and um indicate minor and major delays (respectively) on the part of the speaker and in an acquisition context; they are often ported from the first language to the second (Clark & Fox Tree, 2002). However, prior research on fluency and disfluency has typically separated discourse markers from other forms of filled pauses (Crible, 2018). But do these fillers meet the general criteria to be counted as discourse markers? They are syntactically detached and do not contribute propositional content to the utterance. Do these fillers encode conceptual or procedural meaning? For many discourse markers, their pragmatic meaning can be traced back through their development from their original grammatical form. Are these forms multifunctional? Their primary purpose is to signal a delay, with various implications that support the particular delay. But it is not clear if these implications can be separated from signaling the delay itself. Additionally, most definitions indicate that discourse markers form a separate tone group from the utterance upon which they act. However, Clark and Fox Tree (2002) note that uh and um often cliticize onto other words in the utterance, thus becoming a part of the prosodic word and the tone group. And even though they consider them to be “words,” Clark and Fox Tree themselves do not refer to them as discourse markers, but rather “fillers” in homage to their common

22  What Are Discourse Markers? nomenclature as filled pauses. These kinds of fillers and filled pauses may interact with discourse markers, as is the focus of Crible (2018), but are beyond the scope of this study, which focuses on the L2 acquisition of discourse markers. Fraser (1990, 1993) explicitly excludes the conjunctions because, since, and although from his categorization of discourse markers because he claims they do not meet his criteria of principally “relating” two messages. With his grammatical-​ pragmatic perspective, he sees their primary function as one of subordination, and in his analysis, discourse markers must be able to introduce a separate sentence. However, Fraser (1999) later reassesses this analysis and concludes that they do in fact serve the primary function of relating two messages, which is a core feature of his definition. Similar to his consideration of these conjunctions, Fraser (1990, 1993, 1999) excludes verbal expressions such as y’know and I mean because their function involves the speaker–​hearer relationship rather than relating two messages in the discourse. Again, he limits what he considers a discourse marker by his understanding of their only function: to relate two messages. Thus, the interactional functions considered by Schiffrin, Redeker, and others are relegated to different category of particles that he does not analyze in his discourse marker research. Finally, based on his conditions of utterance-​ initial position, and relating two messages, Fraser includes the words in example (15) in his categorization of discourse markers. Fraser (1999) and Blakemore (1987) also includes words such as in contrast and moreover as discourse markers, as illustrated in example (16). While some of these discourse markers are included in Schiffrin’s and Redeker’s accounts (so, and, but), the others are not (furthermore, in contrast, moreover, after all). Both Fraser and Blakemore rely on constructed examples rather than evidence from natural unplanned speech. This contrasts with Schiffrin, whose examples were drawn directly from interviews and with Crible, who relied on the British submissions to the International Corpus of English. An examination of Crible’s inventory is particularly pertinent as none of the four (furthermore, in contrast, moreover, after all) appear at all in her results as discourse markers after analyzing a one-​million-​word corpus of written and spoken English. The lack of these four proposed discourse markers in her data highlight the importance of reliance on actual speech rather than constructed scenarios if we want an authentic representation and understanding of discourse marker use. (15) Discourse markers according to Fraser a. A: I like him. B: So, you think you’ll ask him out then. b. John can’t go. And Mary can’t go either. c. Will you go? Furthermore, will you represent the class there? d. Sue left very late. But she arrived on time. e. I think it will fly. After all, we built it right. (Fraser, 1999, p. 931)

What Are Discourse Markers?  23 (16) In contrast and moreover as discourse markers a. Jim is ready for the exam. In contrast, Jack is quite unprepared. b. He is poor. Moreover, he is uneducated. (Fraser, 1999, p. 941) c. He is an Englishman; he is, moreover, brave. (Blakemore, 1987, p. 91)

2.4  Discourse Markers and Position Much of the theoretical debate surrounding discourse markers has focused on the determining their semantic and pragmatic functions. Less often considered are their syntactic features, such as their position in the discourse relative to the utterance they modify and their ability to combine or co-​occur. In general, discourse markers are expected in a position that is initial to the utterance that it modifies (Schiffrin, 1987), the argument being that this position allows for them to connect the upcoming utterance with the prior discourse (Blakemore, 1987). It is possible for them to occur utterance medially or finally, but these positions are considered less common and often not explored in any detail (e.g., Fraser, 1990; Redeker, 1991). In contrast, Beeching (2002) claims that they “may occur in utterance-​terminal or utterance-​medial positions but not typically in utterance-​initial positions” (p. 53). This drastic difference could be explained in a few ways. In strings of utterances, it may be difficult to distinguish between utterance-​initial and utterance-​final position outside of turn boundaries. Additionally, Beeching’s research on Quebec French may highlight typological differences as compared to other theoretical frameworks focused on English discourse markers. This is supported by the fact that in Italian, discourse marker position is more varied and a preferred position is not often indicated (Bazzanella, 1995). The variability in discourse marker position is still unclear however, as Crible’s (2018) analysis notes that in both Hexagonal French and British English, discourse markers appear primarily in initial position, with medial and final discourse markers occurring less frequently. In Crible’s analysis, clause-​final discourse markers are three times more frequent in French than in English. However, she also distinguishes between a macro position (at the utterance level) and a micro position (at the clause level). Prior definitions have lacked this distinction and studies alternate between their use of the term “utterance” (e.g., Schiffrin, Fraser, Redeker, Schourup) “clause” (e.g., Mosegaard Hansen), or “sentence (e.g., Brinton) without clearly defining what they are referring to. The distinction is important because as Crible notes, a discourse marker may be initial in the micro-​syntactic sense –​that is clause-​initial –​but “initiality does not systematically imply that the DM occurs at the onset of a whole utterance” (Crible, 2018, p. 91). She allows for this nuance with a five-​ tiered positional distinction at the macro-​syntactic level. This distinction allows her to differentiate between those discourse markers that occur

24  What Are Discourse Markers? within the predicate and its complements and those that are external to it. It is the internal position that is subdivided into three sub-​positions: left-​ integrated, middle, and right-​integrated. With this system, everything to the left of the middle field is considered “initial” and everything to the right of the middle field is considered “final.” But there is room for nuance when the discourse marker is not fully utterance-​initial and only clause-​initial. Thus, both English and French make use of the initial position (pre-​field and left-​integrated) and the medial position (middle field) at similar rates. However, she observed higher rates of post-​field final position discourse markers in French than in English. (17) Crible’s five-​tiered positioning system for macro-​syntactic structure but I mean

if it’s empty

I’ll just you know buy

pre-​field

left-​integrated

middle field

fruit and and so like on sweets right-​ post-​ integrated field (Crible, 2018, p. 67)

The utility of a more nuanced approach to identifying discourse marker position is clear, as Crible’s research has highlighted differences between English and French. But in identifying position as a key defining feature of discourse markers, it seems counterproductive to allow for these varied positions and still then collapse the majority as being in “initial position” because they are still clause-​initial though not utterance-​initial. A clear definition ought to settle whether, in the case of discourse markers, the important syntactic unit is the clause or the utterance. If it is the utterance, then it would seem prudent to consider those “integrated” positions as internal rather than initial. If the key syntactic unit is the clause, then it becomes difficult to distinguish between those discourse markers that occur pre-​clausally, but not in the same conditions. In fact, Crible’s five-​tiered position system requires that you consider the utterance as the key syntactic unit rather than the clause, otherwise it serves little purpose. Renaming those integrated positions as “initial or final” (left or right) serves mostly to reconcile with prior less precise descriptions of discourse marker position. Additionally, focusing on the macro-​syntactic position provides more information for differentiating discourse markers with respect to their function. Crible provides an example of because that is both utterance-​internal and clause-​initial, which would be labelled as “initial” in most definitions. But in simply identifying this discourse marker as “initial,” the nuance in differentiating this use of because from one where it may occur in utterance-​initial position is lost, as both would be labeled as in “initial position” in most simplified analyses. (18) it’s good for us because it puts us into a marketplace (Backbone corpus, en011) (Crible, 2018, p. 68)

What Are Discourse Markers?  25

2.5  Discourse Marker Combinations The tendency of discourse markers to combine and appear in clusters (Crible, 2018; Mosegaard Hansen, 1998b), also called combinations (Fraser, 2013, 2015) and co-​ occurrences (Cuenca & Crible, 2019; Cuenca & Marín, 2009), has also been relatively neglected. Frameworks to account for these combinations are relatively new and attempt to describe whether the combining of discourse markers also leads to a single combined function, or an accumulation of functions. Cuenca and Marin (2009) developed a framework that separated discourse marker co-​occurrences into three types: juxtaposition, addition, and composition. Discourse markers that are juxtaposed do not combine their meaning in relation to the utterance, as in example (19). Those that fall under addition maintain separate but complementary functions, as in example (20). And finally, discourse marker co-​ occurrences identified as compositional fully combine to function as a unit, as in example (21). (19) DM co-​occurrence with juxtaposition really does have to be uhm two twenty //​mm //​well (0.030) two thirty maybe you know //​mm (0.050) well if he’s gone against the agent’s advice already (0.020) and slapped another fifty (Cuenca & Crible, 2019, p. 177)3 (20) DM co-​occurrence with addition I like it like that //​oh God you just don’t (0.050) first of all you don’t score so much (0.030) and secondly you only get rid of two letters (Cuenca & Crible, 2019, p. 178) (21) DM co-​occurrence with composition imagine you’re in a pub and I’ve said to you what’s he like (1.900) and then just describe them (0.200) he’s this and this //​I think people aren’t used to describing people’s personalities //​no no no it wa-​but anyway all I’m saying is it’s been a very interesting way of meeting people (Cuenca & Crible, 2019, p. 179) In Cuenca and Crible’s (2019) study, the juxtaposition and combination categories are refined. They describe juxtaposition as when two discourse markers apply to two different scopes of the same utterance. Contrastively, a combined co-​ occurrence exists when both discourse markers have the same scope. This second category is also subdivided into those co-​occurrences that indicate addition, meaning that the two discourse markers have a compatible meaning and one reinforces the other. The second sub-​category of combinations are those of composition, in which the discourse markers combine to share one meaning.

26  What Are Discourse Markers? An alternative approach to English discourse marker combinations separates them into classes with different discourse markers having primary or secondary status within their class (Fraser, 2013, 2015). In this analysis, the primary subclass accounts for those discourse markers with multiple possible meanings, while the secondary subclass is reserved for those with a specific (i.e., limited) relationship to the clause to which they relate. Fraser provides conditions for discourse marker combinations, including that each discourse marker in a combination must be able to occur alone in the same context as it does in a combination. And the meanings of the combined discourse markers must be compatible. Example (22) illustrates possible acceptable combinations. (22) Combinations of contrastive and implicative discourse markers a. I feel terrible for Mrs. Scott’s family. But, however, I suffered great loss as well. b. Mary is short, but, in contrast, John is tall. (Fraser, 2015, p. 330) c. John didn’t take the bus. However, as a result, he arrived late. . He couldn’t find a pen. So, instead, he used a pencil. d (Fraser, 2015, p. 49) The research on discourse marker combinations in French is even more limited than in English. Mosegaard Hansen (1998a) describes discourse marker clusters as having either a summative (i.e., retaining their separate meaning) or combinative meaning (i.e., the cluster has a new holistic meaning combined from the two discourse markers). She suggests ah bon as a prime example of a summative discourse marker cluster, with ah indicating surprise and bon indicating acceptance. Crible (2018) found that clusters in English and French made up 20% of her entire inventory of discourse markers. They were more frequent in French (24%) than in English (16%). In neither language were there many repeated/​ common patterns of clusters, with only two combinations occurring at least ten times in the English corpus and only five combinations in French occurring at least ten times. Many of these clusters include et/​and, which is attributed to its underspecification in both languages. Crible also noted that clusters were 57% more likely to occur in French than in English and were less frequent in formal registers.

2.6  Defining Discourse Markers for This Study Acknowledging the still unanswered theoretical questions surrounding them, discourse markers in this study are defined as follows: lexical items that are optional and do not contribute to the propositional meaning of the utterance to which they are linked, that are

What Are Discourse Markers?  27 syntactically detached from the utterance and serve to connect two utterances or an utterance to the larger discourse. Fillers and filled pauses, as in Moine’s (2005) work, are excluded from this definition. However, given the nature of L2 interlanguage production, identification and analysis of discourse markers is not limited to those traditionally identified in French (e.g., alors, donc, bon, bien/​ben, voilà, mais, puis, and et, among others). Space is left open for learners to make use of whatever lexical tools available to them in the role of a discourse marker while attempting to communicate in their L2. Position and pragmatic function are observed as they occur, and are not limited based on prior theoretical assumptions. Possible functions expected, however, include (though not exclusively) those that relate to the semantic relationship between elements of the discourse (e.g., linking ideas, drawing conclusions, argumentation), interlocutor interaction (e.g., turn taking, soliciting an interlocutor’s reaction), and textual functions related to the overall organization of the discourse (e.g., online planning, hesitation, reformulation). In the final chapter of this book, these features of discourse markers and the theoretical debates surrounding them will be examined again, taking into consideration the insight that can be gleaned from their status in L2 acquisition. The next chapter lays a framework for the expected pragmatic functions of common French discourse markers both from a theoretical and empirical perspective.

Notes 1 If they can be considered a lexical class as Fraser (1990, 1993, 1999, 2009) describes them. 2 The box reflects brackets used in Schiffrin’s notation for overlapping speech. 3 I am using examples from Cuenca and Crible rather than Cuenca and Marín, because the latter are in Catalan/​Spanish which I do not speak and thus cannot personally attest to their correspondence to the framework as described in the study.

References Bazzanella, C. (1995). I segnali discorsivi. In L. Renzi, G. Salvi, & A. Cardinaletti (Eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione1 (pp. 225–​ 257). Il Mulino. Beeching, K. (2002). Gender, politeness and pragmatic particles in French. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Beeching, K. (2004). Pragmatic particles -​Polite but powerless? Tone-​group terminal hein and quoi in contemporary spoken French. Multilingua, 23(1–​2), 61–​84. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​mult.2004.008 Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Blackwell. Blakemore, D. (2002). Procedural meaning. In D. Blakemore (Ed.), Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers (pp. 89–​148). Cambridge University Press.

28  What Are Discourse Markers? Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Mouton de Gruyter. Buysse, L. (2012). So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1764–​1782. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.pra​gma.2012.08.012 Buysse, L. (2015). “Well it’s not very ideal …”: The pragmatic marker well in learner English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 59–​ 89. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1515/​ip-​2015-​0003 Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–​111. Crible, L. (2018). Discourse markers and (dis)fluency. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Cuenca, M. J., & Crible, L. (2019). Co-​ occurrence of discourse markers in English: From juxtaposition to composition. Journal of Pragmatics, 140, 171–​ 184. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2018.12.001 Cuenca, M. J., & Marín, M. J. (2009). Co-​occurrence of discourse markers in Catalan and Spanish oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 899–​914. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2008.08.010 Develey, A. (2018a, June 8). “Grave,” un tic de langage à bannir. Le Figaro. www.lefig​aro.fr/​lan​gue-​franca​ise/​expr​essi​ons-​fra​ncai​ses/​2018/​06/​08/​37003-​ 2018​0608​ARTF​IG00​007-​grave-​un-​tic-​de-​lang​age-​a-​ban​nir.php Develey, A. (2018b, June 26). “Bref,” un tic de langage à faire disparaître. Le Figaro. www.lefig​aro.fr/​lan​gue-​franca​ise/​expr​essi​ons-​fra​ncai​ses/​2018/​06/​ 26/​37003-​2018​0626​ARTF​IG00​024-​bref-​un-​tic-​de-​lang​age-​a-​faire-​disp​arai​ tre.php Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 383–​398. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​0378-​2166(90)90096-​V Fraser, B. (1993). Discourse markers across language. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 4, 1–​18. Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167–​190. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1017/​CBO97​8113​9057​493.011 Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–​952. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​s0378-​2166(98)00101-​5 Fraser, B. (2006). On the conceptual–​procedural distinction. Style, 40, 24–​33. Fraser, B. (2009). Topic orientation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 892–​ 898. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2008.08.006 Fraser, B. (2013). Combinations of contrastive discourse markers in English. International Review of Pragmatics, 5, 318–​340. Fraser, B. (2015). The combining of discourse markers –​a beginning. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 48–​53. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2015.06.007 Iten, C. (2005). Linguistic meaning, truth conditions and relevance: The case of concessives. Palgrave Macmillan. Kerr-​Barnes, B. (1995). Discourse particles in French conversation: (eh) ben, bon, and enfin. French Review, 68(5), 813–​829. Moeschler, J. (2018). What is the contribution of connectives to discourse meaning? The with or without issue (wwi). In S. Oswald, T. Herman, & J. Jacquin (Eds.), Argumentation and language: Linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations (pp. 131–​149). Springer. Moine, A. (2005). The role of discourse markers in the structure of discourse: A study of the use of the word “Alors” in the French language. The Edwin Melling Press.

What Are Discourse Markers?  29 Mosegaard Hansen, M.-​B. (1998a). Bon and ben. In M.-​B. Mosegaard Hansen (Ed.), Function of discourse particles (pp. 221–​ 259). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Mosegaard Hansen, M.-​B. (1998b). Donc and alors. In The function of discourse particles: A study with special reference to spoken standard French (pp. 321–​ 355). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Mosegaard Hansen, M. B. (1997). Alors and donc in spoken French: A reanalysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(2), 153–​187. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ s0378-​2166(96)00086-​0 Pellet, S. (2009). The pragmatics of the French discourse markers donc and alors. In R. P. Leow, H. Campos, & D. Lardiere (Eds.), Little words: Their history, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and acquisition (pp. 159–​170). Georgetown Uniuversity Press. Redeker, G. (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29(6), 1139–​1172. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ling.1991.29.6.1139 Roulet, E., Auchlin, A., Moeschler, J., Rubattel, C., & Schelling, M. (1985). L’articulation du discours en français contemporain. Peter Lang. Sankoff, G., Thibault, P., Nagy, N., Blondeau, H., Fonollosa, M. O., & Gagnon, L. (1997). Variation in the use of discourse markers in a language contact situation. Language Variation and Change, 9(2), 191–​217. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1017/​S09543​9450​0001​873 Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107, 227–​265. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1002/​978111​8791​844.ch24 Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press. Vincent, D. (1993). Les ponctuants de la langue et autres mots du discours. Nuit blanche. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90, 1–​25.

3 Functions of Common French Discourse Markers

3.1 Introduction A study of L2 French discourse marker use cannot be undertaken without a firm understanding of what discourse markers look like in native (hexagonal1) French. This chapter includes recent analyses of sixteen frequently studied French discourse markers are included.2 These sixteen discourse markers have been studied extensively from an empirical perspective, contributing to existing theoretical analyses, leading to a clear picture of how they operate in native discourse. While the analysis of learner production takes a functional approach, discourse markers are reviewed here one by one in order to highlight the variation in the roles that each one can perform. It is also from these previously observed functions that the functional categories that are the basis for the analysis of the L2 data are formed.

3.2 Alors The discourse marker alors has been documented as marking topic shift (Degand & Fagard, 2011; Mosegaard Hansen, 1997, 2009) as in example (1). Pellet identifies this as the primary if not only function of alors, especially when found in turn initial position. Additionally, alors can sometimes mark conclusion or consequence (Degand & Fagard, 2011; Mosegaard Hansen, 1997; Moine, 2005) and can also be used for turn management when in initial position as shown in example (2). Mosegaard Hansen also observed alors as bracketing metadiscourse, to foreground or to mark a change in addressee.3 (1)

the use of alors for topic shift et puis après elle m’a plus lâché (rire) /​et euh /​elle a grandi et puis elle commence un /​elle commence un petit peu à parler //​ alors elle dit euh //​elle dit doudou pour tout ce qu’elle aime comme chose /​et elle dit maman pour tout ce qu’elle aime comme /​ personne

DOI: 10.4324/9781003323754-3

Common French Discourse Markers  31 and then she stayed stuck to me (laughter) /​and er /​she grew up and then she starts a/​she starts to talk a little //​alors she says er /​ she says “doudou” for all things she likes /​and she says “maman” for all the persons she /​likes (Degand & Fagard, 2011, p. 36) (2)

the use of alors for turn management L1 oui ça m’embête (rire) -​| L2 alors quelles photos est-​ce que je dois agrandir maintenant (silence)… L1 yes that annoys me (laughter) -​| L2 alors which photos shall I enlarge now (silence)… (Degand & Fagard, 2011, p. 36)

(3)

the use of alors to bracket metadiscourse A. ben elle écrit elle était journaliste elle le fait dans l’actualité B. oui A. hein B. non mais A. vous avez l’air de lui reprocher B. mais moi je reproche rien A. vous voulez qu’elle fasse une biographie de Barre préventive ? B. bon alors on peut parler on peut parler du contenu (MP :4) A. B. A. B. A. B. A. B.

DM she writes she was a journalist she is currently one yes DM no DM you seem to have something against her DM me I don’t have anything against (her) do you want her to do a preventive biography of Barre DM DM one could talk about one could talk about the content (Mosegaard Hansen, 1997, p. 176)

3.3 Ben Ben as a discourse marker is thought to be a phonological reduction of bien and can be dialogic or monologic. In its dialogic use, it can serve to signal a lack of coherence in the discourse. It also introduces a turn that will demonstrate a lack of approval of the preceding utterance. In its monologic use, it can signal that there is something unexpected about the preceding utterance (Kerr-​Barnes, 1995). In example (4), the ben serves to mark a hesitation or reformulation. The discourse marker ben like English well signals contextual

32  Common French Discourse Markers discontinuity in Kerr-​Barnes’ analysis and is a marker of the irrelevance of the prior discourse according to Mosegaard Hansen. (4)

the use of ben Ils sont, ben, ils sont vachement plus… They are, DM, they are really more… (Speaking about student fees for an organization) (Kerr-​Barnes, 1995, p. 814)

3.4 Bon The primary function of the discourse marker bon is that of a hesitation marker or marking the endpoint of a speaker’s utterance (Beeching, 2009; Kerr-​Barnes, 1995). This end point could be the end of a turn, or the end of a theme/​discussion or subject. Bon can also serve as a topic opener. When combined with alors, as in alors bon, it is employed to seize the floor. Mosegaard Hansen (1995a) also noted that bon can be employed to give or ask for acceptance of a previous utterance. (5)

the use of bon Oui, mais ça devrait pas, bon, ça devrait, OK, ça touche euh, ça touche euh, ça touche les étudiants étrangers d’abord, mais ça devrait toucher toute la communauté américaine sur le campus aussi. Yes, but that shouldn’t, DM, that shouldn’t, OK, that touches um, that touches um, that touches the foreign students first, but that should affect the entire American community on the campus as well. (Speaking about youth who are supporters of Jacques Chirac.) (Kerr-​Barnes, 1995, p. 814)

3.5 Donc There are numerous competing interpretations of the functions of donc, as the most common discourse marker in French and likely the most studied discourse marker. Mosegaard Hansen (1997) asserted three functions for donc, only two of which she considered discursive. She sees donc as (1) marking conclusion or result including requests for confirmation or questions (2) as a marker of repetition including reformulation, paraphrasing or summary, and finally (3) as a modal particle. Mosegaard Hansen argues that donc is not in fact polysemous, but rather, all of the attested functions can be attributed to its base semantics, which include marking conclusion and repetition. These two functions are collapsed into one semantic core by arguing that in both cases, donc is used by the speaker when the information in the utterance to which donc is associated is obvious or evident to the hearer.

Common French Discourse Markers  33 Bolly and Degand (2009) identified five core functions of donc in a corpus of native Belgian French speakers.4 Donc can indicate a causal relationship between two utterances as in example (6). Additionally, donc can be used to signal repetition. In example (7), donc performs a recapitulative repetition function, introducing a summary of the speaker’s main point. In contrast, in example (8), donc introduces an elaboration or clarification of the speaker’s point after a misunderstanding. Thus, in both situations, donc introduces repetition, but the motivation for the repetition is different in each case. The fourth function that Bolly and Degand identified is interactional rather than textual. In example (9), donc marks the end of the speaker’s turn and provides their interlocutor with an opportunity to seize the floor. The fifth and final function of donc that they identify is once again textual and involves topic changes. In this case (­example 10), donc is used to signal the return to the primary topic of conversation from a digression. (6)

the use of donc for consequence/​conclusion E15 en fait deux voitures se sont rentrées dedans et euh ils étaient inconscients donc euh nous on ne savait plus passer on était bloqué par les voitures derrière par devant il y avait l’accident on ne savait plus avancer E16 in fact two cars hit each other and uh they were not aware DM uh us, we didn’t know anymore how to get by we were blocked in by cars in front and behind there was an accident we didn’t know how to move forward (Bolly & Degand, 2009, p. 8)

(7)

the use of donc for repetition/​recapitulation L1 nécessairement les bourgeois ça (rire) ou les aristocrates mais ça ça me semble tout-​à-​fait évident oui et je dis ça parce que nous en avons dans le parti mais ça ça me semble assez évident |-​ c’est oui -​ | une question de milieu: social favorisé /​et aussi peut-​être unilingue je veux dire c’est pas chez un immigré forcément et c’est pas-​du-​tout un reproche que vous allez trouver euh normalement en tout cas de la deuxième génération c’est-​ à-​ dire qui sont en contact avec une autre langue comme je l’ai été moi-​même d’ailleurs avec le néerlandais /​ça ça me semble donc un milieu pur euh linguistiquement et et favorisé L1 necessarily the bourgeois it (laughing) or the aristocracy but it it seems to me completely evident yes and I say that because we have some in the party but it it seems to me pretty evident |-​it is yes-​| a question of environment: social privileged and also maybe monolingual I mean it’s not with an immigrant necessarily and it’s not at all a reproach that you’re

34  Common French Discourse Markers going to find uh normally in any case in the second generation that is to say who are in contact with another language like I was before with Dutch /​it it seems to me DM a pure environment uh linguistically and and privileged (Bolly & Degand, 2009, p. 9) (8)

the use of donc for reformulation/​explanation7 L3 oui mais c’est pas ça moi -​ | ce que je veux faire c’est de façon un peu plus informelle je veux dire j’ai pas le courage de m’informer plus /​fin pas le courage /​ça m’intéresse pas comme ça a priori je devrais faire un petit effort histoire de /​ de tirer mes petites ficelles et puis une fois qu’elles seront tirées ça viendra tout seul mais euh (soupire). L2 c’est le problème de beaucoup de /​de jeunes maintenant /​i s’intéressent plus beaucoup à la politique justement /​c’est dommage. L3 mais non mais donc tu peux avoir un /​je veux /​je veux dire i faut quand-​même être vraiment [on frappe à la porte] bien mal foutu dans sa tête pour pas s’y intéresser du tout hein. L3 yes but it’s not that -​| what I want to do is a bit more informal I mean I don’t have the courage to inform myself more /​DM not the courage /​it doesn’t interest me like that in theory in should make a small effort to /​to pull my own strings et then once they’re pulled, it will come by itself but um (sigh). L2 that’s the problem with a lot of /​of young people now /​ they aren’t very interested anymore in politics really /​it’s too bad. L3 but no, but so you can have a /​I want /​I mean one must be really [someone knocks at the door] messed up in the head to not be interested at all DM. (Bolly & Degand, 2009, p. 9)

(9)

the use of donc for turn management L3 moi -​|je trouve que /​enfin même même avant de commencer j’allais déjà vous demander comment vous vous appeliez quoi /​ même avant de commencer |-​l ’expérience donc euh. L3 I find that /​well even even before starting I was already going to ask you your name /​even before starting |-​the experiment DM um. (Bolly & Degand, 2009, p. 9)

(10) the use of donc for topic shift E2 et euh le convoyeur c’était une dame et elle était enceinte et euh elle avait vraiment le poigné (sic) complètement cassé l’os qui elle avait vraiment l’os qui ressortait quoi et donc mon

Common French Discourse Markers  35 père comme elle est enceinte et bon c’est encore plus plus dangereux donc mon père l’a pris l’a mis sur le côté E2 and um the escort was a lady and she was pregnant and um she really broke her wrist completely the bone her bone was really sticking out DM and so my father since she was pregnant and well it’s even more more dangerous so my father took her and put her to the side (Bolly & Degand, 2009, p. 10) Bolly and Degand and Mosegaard Hansen align in their description of the conclusion and repetition functions of donc. However, they differ with regards to repetition. Evidence for the other functions they identify are found in comparing donc to English so (Schiffrin, 1987) and the use of donc for topic management in Quebec French (Vincent, 1993). In contrast to these assessments however, Pellet (2009) rejects the conclusion/​consequence function of donc entirely arguing that it is in fact grammaticalized in donc’s role as a coordinating conjunction. Pellet argues that this function of donc contributes too much to the proposition to be considered optional and she sees the primary function of donc as “asserting the validity of the speaker’s viewpoint” (p. 160) and identifies it primarily as a monologic marker.8

3.6  En effet En effet is a marker of confirmation (Engel et al., 2010; Forsgren, 2009). It is also worth noting that it can exist as an independent utterance itself, in contrast to en fait. In particular, it plays a continuative role rather than serving as an opening. Functions of en effet, however, are still somewhat unclear as prior research has analyzed both written and oral uses, often in more formal texts. Engel, Forsgren, and Sullet-​Nylander in fact only had one instance of en effet used in an informal context. (11) the use of en effet to indicate continuation Jean dit qu’il aime Marie; en effet, il l’invite tous les soirs Jean says that he likes Marie; in fact he invites her out every evening. (Engel et al., 2010, p. 4)

3.7  En fait The discourse marker en fait is analyzed by Vandenbergen and Willems (2011) as adversative, contrasting what is real with what is false. It introduces opposition to a preceding counterfactual utterance. Example (12) highlights that en fait provides a direct contrast to the proceeding

36  Common French Discourse Markers utterance. The two clauses in fact are in contrast without en fait, but the use of the en fait signals to the hearer that the following utterance will present a contrast and simultaneously reinforces it. (12) the use of en fait for a counterfactual utterance C’était une chimère de croire que les agitations révolutionnaires de la bourgeoisie donneraient au prolétariat l’occasion d’un coup de force heureux. En fait, cette tactique n’a jamais abouti. It’s a pipe dream to believe that revolutionary restlessness of the bourgeoisie would give the working class the occasion for a happy takeover. In fact, this tactic never succeeded. (Simon Vandenbergen & Willems, 2011, p. 347)

3.8 Enfin Enfin often marks a speaker’s intent to provide correction in restricting the scope of an utterance or correct their interlocutor’s overly strong assertion of the speaker’s views (Beeching, 2002). It can also introduce a hedging statement. Considering enfin more closely, Donaire (2013) notes that there are actually three semantically distinct enfin, which correspond to different pragmatic functions and can be interchanged with different discourse markers. According to Donaire, enfin1 can be interchanged with finalement (finally) and presents a primarily sequential/​consequential link between two utterances. Donaire describes enfin2 as being interchangeable with bon (well). And finally, enfin3 is more akin to voyons (let’s see), showing a negative reaction to a previous utterance by an interlocutor concerning shared knowledge, and it is not interchangeable with bon or finalement. Generally, enfin can occur in any position (initial, medial, or final) but there are limitations depending on its semantic properties, with enfin1 being the freest syntactically and enfin3 being the most restricted to initial position only. The discourse marker enfin is primarily monologic, but enfin1 is also employed in dialogic contexts. Bertrand and Chanet (2005) note that enfin typically appears in three forms: fully pronounced, truncated (‘fin), and in clusters (e.g., enfin bon). And the enfin found in clusters can also be fully pronounced or truncated, although it is usually truncated. Their data demonstrates that there are distinct functions for enfin in its full form versus the truncated form. The corrective/​reformulative function, as noted also by Beeching, correlates strongly with the truncated form. It can appear in the full form for this function, but their data indicates that the truncated form is preferred. On the other hand, when performing a metadiscursive function or functioning as a connector, enfin is always in its full form and never truncated. Thus, their analysis suggests that the truncated ‘fin and the full enfin could almost be treated as separate discourse markers due to their diverging functions.9

Common French Discourse Markers  37 (13) enfin1 according to Donaire Une longue conversation s’ensuivit, de plus en plus émouvante et tendre, dans ce bar d’abord, puis au restaurant, puis dans un autre bar, dans la chambre d’hôtel enfin. (M. Houellebecq, La possibilité d’une île, 2008, p. 213) A long conversation followed, more and more emotional and tender, first in the bar, then in the restaurant, then in another bar, then in the hotel room finally. (Donaire, 2013, p. 107) (14) enfin2 according to Donaire • Il est parti… • Il revient à quelle heure? • Il ne revient pas…Enfin, pas ici. (K. Pancol, Les yeux jaunes des crocodiles, 2006, p. 29)

• He left… • What time is he coming back? • He’s not coming back…DM, not here.

(Donaire, 2013, p. 113)

(15) enfin3 according to Donaire • Vous êtes très aimable de m’emmener avec vous. Je voulais vous remercier. • Enfin! Annie, vous n’alliez pas passer la veille de Noël toute seule dans votre chambre quand les gens réveillonnent! (K. Pancol, Les écureuils de Central Park sont tristes le lundi, 2010, p. 226)

• You are very kind to bring me with you. I want to think you. • DM! Annie, you weren’t going to spend Chrismas Eve alone in your room when people are celebrating! (Donaire, 2013, p. 117)

3.9 Hein Hein functions as tag question and typically occurs in utterance-​final position. It can provide a hedging effect or serve an interactive role with the intent to provoke a reaction from an interlocutor (Beeching, 2002). (16) the use of hein as a tag question Il fait beau hein? Nice day, isn’t it?

(Beeching, 2004, p. 71)

38  Common French Discourse Markers

3.10 Mais Functions of mais as a discourse marker include introducing a return to a previous theme, linking a series of events in narration without opposition and as a closing at the end of an utterance (Hancock, 2000). Mais can also play a role in turn management, including initiating a turn and holding the floor, or as a hesitation marker and ending a turn. Sometimes mais is also used for reformulation. Anscombre and Ducrot (1977) argue that there are in fact two mais in French: one that follows a negation, refuting the premise denied by the first utterance, and a second in which mais precedes a clause that introduces a perceived contradiction to the first utterance. The first mais could be substituted with au contraire (on the contrary), while the second mais can be substituted with cependent/​ néanmoins (however).10 (17) the use of mais for reformulation I: mhm mhm. d’accord. /​est-​ ce que vous avez étudié à l’étranger euh … E: non +​non I: pas du tout ? c’est la première fois ? E: c’est la première fois . je dirai que je suis déjà je suis déj # j’ai déjà fait des des séjours de de plus ou moins longue durée à l’étranger . je suis déjà allée au Danemark euh (I:mhm) un deux mois un mois en Russie mai:s euh un aussi long séjour non c’est la première fois. I: E: I: E:

mm ok. /​Have you studied abroad…? no no not at all? It’s the first time? It’s the first time. I would say that I am already I am alrea.I have already done long trips abroad. I’ve been to Denmark… two months one month in Russia but um a trip as long as this it’s the first time. (Hancock, 2000, p. 39)

(18) the use of mais with negation Il n’est pas français, mais il parle très bien français. He isn’t French, but he speaks French very well. (Anscombre & Ducrot, 1977, p. 34) (19) the use of mais to introduce a contradiction Il est républicain, mais honnête. He’s a republican, but honest. (Anscombre & Ducrot, 1977, p. 36)11

Common French Discourse Markers  39

3.11 Oui Oui typically functions as an agreement marker in response to a direct question or asserting acceptance of a prior statement. Deng (2016), however, argues that oui functions as a discourse marker when used at the end of an utterance as a means of marking the end of the proposition, and thus the turn, as in example (20). (20) the use of oui to end a turn/​topic …tu fais le soir français y a rien y a rien y a rien soit le restaurant soit le bar c’est tout oui you do the French evening there’s nothing there’s nothing there’s nothing neither a restaurant nor a bar that’s all yeah (Deng, 2016, p. 50)

3.12  Parce que Parce que as a discourse marker can link clauses without subordinating them. It can contribute to the organization of discourse at a level larger than the sentence and also introduce an afterthought or another point of view (Hancock, 2000). In example (21), parce que clearly does not indicate a direct causal relationship, but rather provides a justification for events taking place outside of the discourse. In this study, the use of parce que as an afterthought was coded under reformulations.12 (21) the use of parce que for linking clauses Paul est là, parce que sa voiture est devant la porte. Paul is here, because his car is in front of the door. (Hancock, 2000, p. 79)

3.13 Puis The discourse marker puis functions to connect multiple constitutions of a single utterance, whether they are produced by the same or different speakers (Mosegaard Hansen, 1995b). The utterance introduced by puis can support or contrast with a previous utterance. It can also define a hierarchy by ordering items in a list or equating two items in terms of relevance. Puis is limited, however, in that it can coordinate only two utterances, as in example (22). (22) the use of puis for connecting two utterances A: …ce serait un peu le genre (h) tu te rappelles quand on a été prendre le livre, Isabelle B: quel livre

40  Common French Discourse Markers A: euh:: on est rentrées à la fac et puis y avait une: y avait des livres sur les étagères B: oui A: it would be a bit like (h) you remember when we went to take the book, Isabelle B: what book A: uh:: we had gone back to the university and then there was a: there were books on the shelves B: yes (Mosegaard Hansen, 1995b, p. 42)

3.14 Quoi Utterance-​final quoi tends to follow a reformulation or summary (Beeching, 2004) and is generally documented as carrying very little independent semantic content (Beeching, 2002). (23) the use of quoi for hesitation …ménager des moments où on peut se se détendre un peu et faire autre chose, ne pas avoir que des contraintes dans dans sa vie, quoi, hein? …arranging moments when one can re relax a little and do something else, not always just having constraints in one’s life, as it were,13 you know? (Beeching, 2004, p. 73)

3.15  Tu sais When employed as a discourse marker, verbal forms such as tu sais take on adverbial qualities (Andersen, 2007). In doing so, they transmit the relational attitude of the speaker in order to encourage the participation of the interlocutor in the conversation. Tu sais is often employed in utterance-​initial position to introduce reported speech or present a new theme, digression, or new information, as in example (24). (24) the use of tu sais for reported speech …euh: il venait à la maison tout ça un jour ma mère je me lève le matin elle me dit tu sais –​je veux pas que tout te maries avec Jeannot… (Vieilles dames 28, 5) …uh: he came to the house all that one day my mother I got up in the morning she says to me y’know –​I don’t want you to marry Jeannot… (Andersen, 2007, p. 20)

Common French Discourse Markers  41

3.16 Voilà Analyses of voilà identify both discursive and non-​discursive functions. Voilà as a discourse marker is employed to indicate that a conclusion drawn from the discourse is expected or predictable (Delahaie, 2013). This use of voilà is often combined with donc, as in example (25). Haileselassie (2015), however, describes voilà as an orientation marker that “direct recipient’s attention to a specific part of their utterances” (p. 228). Thus, voilà can indicate to an interlocutor that the most recent utterance was the final contribution on the subject at hand. Or in turn-​ initial position, it can indicate a connection to an often immediately preceding utterance. (25) the use of voilà to highlight an expected/​predictable conclusion …alors on va regarder ce qu’on peut ce que je peux regarder parce que en fait si vous voulez le samedi pendant les vacances les euh tours-​opérateurs ferment plus tôt (nom) ferme à seize heures trente et (nom) ferme à dix-​sept heures et euh voilà …so we’re going to see what we can what I can look at because in fact if you want Saturday during vacation the uh tour operators close earlier (name) closes at 4:30pm and (name) closes at 5pm and uh DM (Delahaie, 2013, p. 210)

Notes 1 Discourse markers, as with other lexical items, vary by language variety. This study concentrates on those discourse markers found in hexagonal French as it is the dominant variety taught in language programs in the United States and where most American university students’ study abroad. 2 For a more in-​depth formal analysis of these and other discourse operators and discourse markers, see Anscombre, Donaire, and Haillet (2013; 2018) or Paillard and Ngan (2012). 3 For a more in-​depth analysis of alors, see Bouacha (1981), Gerecht (1987), Hansen (1998, 2009), and Jayez (1988). 4 While not within the “hexagon,” the proximity of Belgium to France, which share a border, minimizes the potential lexical variation between the two varieties. Belgian French does not differ as much from France as Quebec French does, for example. 5 Bolly and Degand do not explain their speaker labeling system in their article. Examples are drawn from two different corpora and perhaps reflect the labeling system there within. 6 The original article is written entirely in French. The translations of the examples are my own. 7 Bolly and Degand consider “reformulation/​explanation” to be a sub-​category of repetition but separate from recapitulation.

42  Common French Discourse Markers 8 For additional analyses of donc, see Hansen (1998, 2009), Vlemings (2003), and Zénonebre (1981). 9 For an additional analysis of enfin, see Franckel (1987). 10 For a deeper analysis of mais, see Anscombre and Ducrot (1977) and Bruxelles et al. (1980). 11 Originally from Lakoff 1971. 12 For a more in-​depth analysis of parce que, see Degand & Fagard (2012), Groupe Lambda-​I (1975), Jivanyan & Samo (2017), Moeschler (1987, 2011), and Zufferey (2012). 13 This translation comes from Beeching.

References Andersen, H. L. (2007). Marqueurs discursifs propositionnels. Langue Française, 154, 13–​28. Anscombre, J., & Ducrot, O. (1977). Deux Mais en français? Lingua, 43, 23–​40. Anscombre, J.-​C., Donaire, M. L., & Haillet, P. P. (2013). Opérateurs discursifs du français: Eléments de description sémantique et pragmatique. Peter Lang. Anscombre, J. C., Donaire, M. L., & Haillet, P. P. (2018). Opérateurs discursifs du français, 2: Eléments de description sémantique et pragmatique. Peter Lang. Beeching, K. (2002). Gender, politeness and pragmatic particles in French. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Beeching, K. (2004). Pragmatic particles –​Polite but powerless? Tone-​group terminal hein and quoi in contemporary spoken French. Multilingua, 23(1–​2), 61–​84. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​mult.2004.008 Beeching, K. (2009). Sociolinguistic factors and the pragmaticalization of bon in contemporary spoken French. In K. Beeching, N. Armstrong, & F. Gadet (Eds.), Sociolinguistic variation in contemporary French (pp. 215–​229). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bolly, C., & Degand, L. (2009). Quelle(s) fonction(s) pour donc en français oral? . Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 32(1), 1–​32. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​li.32.1.01bol Bouacha, A. A. (1981). “Alors” dans le discours pédagogique épiphénomène: ou trace d’opérations discursives? Langue Française, 50, 39–​52. Bruxelles, S., Ducrot, O., Fouquier, É., Gouazé, J., Nunes, G., & Rémis, A. (1980). Mais occupe-​toi d’Amélie. In O. Ducrot (Ed.), Les mots du discours (pp. 93–​130). Les Éditions de Minuit. Chanet, C., & Bertrand, R. (2005). Fonctions pragmatiques et prosodie de “enfin” en français spontané. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique, 17, 41–​68. Degand, L., & Fagard, B. (2011). Alors between discourse and grammar. Functions of Language, 18(1), 29–​56. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​fol.18.1.02deg Degand, L., & Fagard, B. (2012). Competing connectives in the causal domain: French car and parce que. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2), 154–​168. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2011.12.009 Delahaie, J. (2013). Entité lexicale: voilà. In J. Anscombre, M. Donaire, & P. Haillet (Eds.), Opérateurs discursifs du français: Eléments de description sémantique et pragmatique (pp. 203–​222). Peter Lang. Deng, D. (2016). Oui, voilà: analyse des deux marqueurs discursifs utilisés par les locuteurs du francais d’origine chinoise en France. Cahiers, 20(1), 45–​69.

Common French Discourse Markers  43 Donaire, M. (2013). Entité lexicale: enfin. In J. Anscombre, M. Donaire, & P. Haillet (Eds.), Opérateurs discursifs du français: Eléments de description sémantique et pragmatique (pp. 105–​122). Peter Lang. Engel, H., Forsgren, M., & Sullet-​ Nylander, F. (2010). De l’emploi des connecteurs en effet, effectivement, en fait, de fait, dans différentes situations de discours: observations structurales, discursives et interactionnelles. Forsgren, M. (2009). Les connecteurs de fait, en fait, en effet, effectivement: observations empiriques effectuées dans des contextes discursifs variés. Syntaxe et Sémantique, 10(1), 51. https://​doi.org/​10.3917/​ss.010.0051 Franckel, J.-​J. (1987). Fin en perspective: finalement, enfin, à la fin. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 8, 43–​68. Gerecht, M.-​J. (1987). Alors: opérateur temporel, connecteur argumentatif et marqueur de discours. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 8, 69–​79. Groupe Lambda-​I (1975). Car, parce que, puisque. Revue Romane, 10, 248–​280. Haileselassie, A. (2015). Voilà, An orientation shift marker in modern French discourse: A conversation analytic perspective. University of Illinois at Urbana-​Champaign. Hancock, V. (2000). Quelques connecteurs et modalisateurs dans le français parlé d’apprenants avancés: étude comparative entre suédophones et locuteurs natifs. Jayez, J. (1988). Alors: description et paramètres. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 9, 133–​175. Jivanyan, H., & Samo, G. (2017). Parce que in the Syntax-​Semantics-​Pragmatics Interface. Generative Grammar in Geneva, 10, 77–​99. Kerr-​Barnes, B. (1995). Discourse particles in French conversation: (eh) ben, bon, and enfin. French Review, 68(5), 813–​829. Lakoff, R. (1971). If's, and's, and but's about conjunction. In C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics (pp. 115–​149). Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Moeschler, J. (1987). Trois emploies de parce que en conversation. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 8, 97–​110. Moeschler, J. (2011). Causal, inferential and temporal connectives: Why parce que is the only causal connective in french. In S. Hancil (Ed.), Marqueurs discursifs et subjectivité (pp. 97–​ 114). Presses Universitaires de Rouen et du Havre. Moine, A. (2005). The role of discourse markers in the structure of discourse: A study of the use of the word “Alors” in the French language. The Edwin Melling Press. Mosegaard Hansen, M.-​ B. (1995a). Marqueurs métadiscursifs en français parlé: l’exemple de bon et de ben. Français Moderne, 63(1), 20–​41. Mosegaard Hansen, M. B. (1995b). Puis in spoken French: From time adjunct to additive conjunct? Journal of French Language Studies, 5(1), 31–​56. https://​ doi.org/​10.1017/​S09592​6950​0002​490 Mosegaard Hansen, M. B. (1997). Alors and donc in spoken French: A reanalysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(2), 153–​187. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ s0378-​2166(96)00086-​0 Mosegaard Hansen, M. B. (1998). Donc and alors. In The Function of Discourse Particles: A study with special reference to spoken standard French (pp. 321–​ 355). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

44  Common French Discourse Markers Mosegaard Hansen, M. B. (2009). The Pragmatics of the French Discourse Markers donc and alors. In R. P. Leow, H. Campos, & D. Lardiere (Eds.), Little Words: Their History, Phonology, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, and Acquisition (pp. 159–​170). Georgetown University Press. Paillard, D., & Ngan, V. T. (2012). Inventaire raisonné des marqueurs discursifs du français. Description. Comparaison. Didactique. Éditions de l’Université nationale de Hanoï. Pellet, S. (2009). The pragmatics of the French discourse markers donc and alors. In R. P. Leow, H. Campos, & D. Lardiere (Eds.), Little Words: Their History, Phonology, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, and Acquisition (pp. 159–​170). Georgetown University Press. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. Simon Vandenbergen, A. M., & Willems, D. (2011). Crosslinguistic data as evidence in the grammaticalization debate: The case of discourse markers. Linguistics, 49(2), 333–​364. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​LING.2011.010 Vincent, D. (1993). Les ponctuants de la langue et autres mots du discours. Nuit blanche. Vlemings, J. (2003). The discourse use of French donc in imperative sentences. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(7), 1095–​1112. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ S0378-​2166(03)00024-​9 Zénone, A. (1981). Marqueurs de consécution: le cas de DONC. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 2, 113–​139. Zufferey, S. (2012). “Car, parce que, puisque” revisited: Three empirical studies on French causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2), 138–​153. https://​ doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2011.09.018

4 What Do We Already Know about L2 Discourse Marker Use?

4.1  Five Conclusions Drawn from L2 Discourse Marker Research to Date While the study of discourse markers has been robust in French and English since at least the 1980s, L2 research has only begun to take a greater interest in the phenomenon in the last two decades or so. In that time, there has been exponential growth in the number of studies that have contributed to current knowledge on L2 pragmatics and specifically L2 learner discourse marker use. From this body of research, there are five main conclusions that can be drawn with varying degrees of certainty. Firstly, it is relatively clear that learners produce fewer discourse markers in their speech than do native speakers, regardless of proficiency. This is true for a wide variety of L1–​L2 combinations. Müller (2004, 2005) demonstrated this with L1 German learners of English, while Zhao (2013) came to the same conclusion for L1 Chinese learners of English as well. Bardel (2003) found that L1 Swedish learners of L2 Italian used fewer discourse markers than did native speakers, and almost none at all at lower levels of proficiency. Considering only two discourse markers in German, und zwar and also, Weinert (1998) found that L1 English learners produced fewer discourse markers than did German native speakers, regardless of proficiency level. And Özer and Okan (2018) found that even EFL teachers (L1 Turkish) did not produce discourse markers with a frequency that resembled native-​speaking EFL teachers. Finally, for L2 French, Hancock (2004) found that L1 Swedish speakers with advanced proficiency in French, used donc much less frequently than did native speakers, even though donc has been documented to be the most frequent discourse marker in French and thus would have been readily available in the input for learners in an immersion environment. From these studies, it is clear that there is something missing in the acquisitional (instructional) process that is holding back learners’ acquisition of discourse markers. While these studies differed greatly in their methodology, their choice of discourse markers and their sample size, all were able to reach this same conclusion: L2 learners do not employ discourse markers with the DOI: 10.4324/9781003323754-4

46  What Do We Already Know? same frequency, in absolute or relative terms, as do native speakers. The reasons for this difference are harder to account for. The second conclusion to be drawn from past research is that learners use of discourse markers increases with proficiency. While learners do not use as many discourse markers as do native speaker, there is a documented change over time in their discourse marker use. This nuance is more important from an acquisitional perspective than simply identifying the gaps in learner competence. If research has demonstrated that changes occur as learners become more proficient, then there is the potential for intervention in the classroom or otherwise to further increase learner production. In a longitudinal study, Sawyer (1992) found that L2 Japanese learners increased their use of the discourse particle ne as their proficiency increased. Wei (2011) found that L1 Chinese learners assessed at an advanced level of L2 English used discourse markers with greater frequency than did those learners assessed at the intermediate level, although there was little difference between the two groups in terms of the variety of discourse markers. Fernandez, Gates, and Lu (2014) found significant differences in discourse marker frequency between L1 English learners of Spanish at two different proficiency levels. Cekovic (2014) and Nigoevic and Sucic (2012) both found that L2 learners of Italian at higher levels of proficiency (as rated on the CEFR scale) produced more discourse markers than those at lower levels of proficiency. In a study of French English bilinguals in Montreal, Sankoff et al. (1997) found that advanced bilinguals produced discourse markers at a frequency that mirrors native speakers, while lower proficiency learners’ speech lacked many discourse markers. Kerr-​Barnes (1998) demonstrated that advanced students in immersion or study abroad contexts produced more discourse markers than did learners in traditional classroom contexts. The results of these studies are promising and provide a clear path that indicates that discourse markers can be integrated into a learner’s vocabulary (leaving aside for a moment the question of pragmatic function). With greater linguistic competence acquired either in the classroom or through a study abroad or immersion experience, L2 learners can learn to incorporate discourse markers into their speech. However, the challenge of generalizing the results of these studies is the difficulty of replicating the varied methods used to operationalize proficiency. Some studies relied on ratings based on the Common European Framework for Languages (e.g., Mascherpa, 2016; Nigoević & Sučić, 2012), while others relied upon institutional level and/​or learning context (e.g., Kerr-​Barnes, 1998), among other varied proficiency measures. And then there is the question of whether patterns of acquisition from learners who live and work in a bilingual local (e.g., Montreal) can be generalized to classroom learners in the United States or Europe where the language is taught as a foreign language and not a second language. Finally, some of these studies relied on very small sample sizes, sometimes only one or two subjects at each proficiency level (e.g., Andorno, 2006). It is impossible to generalize the

What Do We Already Know?  47 frequencies and patterns observed from such a small sample to learners at that proficiency level as a whole, when their discourse marker production could easily represent that particular learner’s idiolect, which may fall outside of the norm when compared to others with similar grammatical or communicative competence. In addition to overall frequency of discourse marker use increasing with proficiency, some studies have found that the variety of discourse markers used or the functions expressed through a discourse marker also becomes more varied at higher proficiency levels. Fernandez, Gates, and Lu (2014) found that in addition to increasing the frequency of use of the two Spanish discourse markers pues and bueno, more advanced learners were able to express a wider variety of functions with them. Andorno (2006) obtained similar results for the four Italian discourse markers invece, ma, anche, and però. Learners of L2 Italian in Cekovic (2014) also demonstrated increasing discourse marker variety and range of functions across four different proficiency levels for L1 Serbian speakers. And Mascherpa (2016) was able to trace a progression of expanded functional development as proficiency increased. Corino (2016) and Ferraris (2001, 2002) also observed potential developmental patterns with regard to function in learners of L2 Italian. As with the studies showing increased discourse marker production at higher proficiency levels, these studies demonstrating increased discourse marker variety and expanded ranges of functions expressed provide valuable insights into the progress learners make as they develop their L2 competencies. In particular, these studies highlight that this progress is not language specific, with different combinations of L1–​L2 pairs. Despite this, there is still only so much that can be generalized given the variety of proficiency measures employed and the sometimes-​small samples sizes. The third and fourth conclusions from prior research cannot be disentangled from each other. Learners seem to overuse some discourse markers while underusing others relative to native speaker production levels. These conclusions might at first seem to contradict the assertion that learners produce fewer discourse markers than do native speakers overall. In certain cases, for certain discourse markers, they might actually use more of them. But this overuse of some discourse markers is then negated by the relative underuse of others. In the studies that have observed these tendencies, there is not a clearly discernable pattern, at least in terms of the discourse marker being over or underused. For example, in L2 English, both Aijmer (2011) and Buysse (2015) found that learners (L1 Swedish and German respectively) overused well as compared to the native speakers in their studies. However, Polat (2011) found that their learners (L1 Turkish) in fact underused well compared to native speakers. Perhaps there is a role of the L1 as the only speakers in Buysse’s study that did not overproduce well were also native speakers of Mandarin Chinese. But none of these studies meet the necessary criteria to demonstrate true L1 transfer effects.

48  What Do We Already Know? Other studies of learners of L2 English also found patterns of overuse and underuse. Anping (2000) found that L1 Mandarin learners of English overused so, as did Buysse (2012) for L1 Flemish learners. Fung and Carter (2007) found that L1 Mandarin learners of English also overused but, because, and I think. Fuller (2003) found that a group of European learners of English overused y’know and underused like, which is surprising given how frequent it is in American English as a discourse marker, the target variety that they were learning at the time. Liu (2013) studied the acquisition of eighteen different English discourse markers by L1 Mandarin speakers and found that they overproduced I think, yeah/​yes, and ah, while underproducing just, sort of/​kind of, but, well, and then. In French, few studies have highlighted the overproduction or underproduction of specific discourse markers except for Deng (2016, 2018). In the 2016 study, she found that her L1 Mandarin speakers overproduced oui and underproduced voilà; a distinction she attributed to the extent of the speakers’ interaction with native French speakers. In the 2018 study, a similar group of learners underproduced quoi relative to the native speakers. Finally, in L2 Italian, Borreguero Zuloaga (2017) examined learner production of twenty-​two different discourse markers and found that some were overused, and others underused relative to native speaker production. Borreguero Zuloaga hypothesized that there are different paths of development for different discourse markers based on their semantic transparency (i.e., those discourse markers whose pragmatic function is also semantically transparent are more frequent in the production of lower proficiency learners) and that L1 transfer effects, or more specifically code-​switching for discourse marker use, seem to be minimal. What is clear from these studies is that learner discourse marker production is not as cut and dry as simply not using as many as native speakers. Learners develop their own judgements and intuitions about when to use which discourse markers that differ noticeably from the native speakers. And it is still unclear what other contributing factors might affect these patterns of production. Are learners translating those discourse markers that they overuse directly from their L1? What role does semantic transparency play in learner production? What makes a discourse marker more semantically transparent if it does not map directly onto an L1 discourse marker? Additionally, for some of these studies it is possible to generalize because of the range of L1 populations that have been studied (in the case of L2 English for example). But in other cases, particularly in L2 French, there is much less information about how different L1 populations treat French discourse markers and what factors may influence their over-​or underproduction. The final conclusion we can draw regarding L2 learner discourse marker use is that they employ them with functions that differ from native speaker patterns of use. This conclusion is challenging in that the nature of discourse markers permits for a single one to encode several functions depending on the speaker and the context. Additionally, as in

What Do We Already Know?  49 L1 research on discourse markers, L2 researchers have also not agreed upon a functional framework for describing how discourse markers are used. In most cases, each study theorizes its own functional framework, making direct comparisons between them difficult. This is compounded by the variation in the discourse markers and the functions under study. De Cristofaro and Badan (2019) found that learners of L2 Italian often produced discourse markers with non-​native like functions, concluding that they had overgeneralized the semantic properties of certain DMs. Borreguero Zuloaga, Pernas Izquierdo, and Gallani (2017) found that L1 Spanish learners of L2 Italian underproduced discourse markers performing metadiscursive functions while overproduced those performing other functions. And both Buysse (2011) and House (2013) (2013) found that learners had varying preferences for different functions that differed from native speakers for the same discourse markers. These results regarding functions in combination with the observations of overuse and underuse of certain discourse markers suggests that learners, particularly at lower proficiency levels, may overgeneralize the functions of the small subset of discourse markers that they have in their L2 lexicon. One would expect the distribution of functions to expand as learners’ proficiency increased, but it is still unclear as to how much change can/​may occur.

4.2  Can L1 Transfer Explain Learner Discourse Marker Production? In attempting to explain learners’ patterns of use of discourse markers, it seems logical that the first language may influence L2 production. Zufferey (2015) highlights that it is generally accepted that cognitive skills involved in pragmatic enrichment are likely universal. Consequently, adult L2 learners already have a system of pragmatic competences and contextual understandings to deploy when learning their L2. The question is how this L1 system may affect this acquisition. Several of the studies already mentioned have suggested L1 transfer as a possible explanation for learners’ overgeneralization or undergeneralization of specific discourse markers and/​or functions. This is especially the case with studies whose participants were L1 speakers of Mandarin (e.g., Deng, 2016, 2018; Liao, 2009; Liu, 2013). However, the first challenge lies in defining what is meant by L1 transfer. For example, Borreguero Zuloaga (2017, p. 199) (as well as Ceković, 2014; Kerr-​Barnes, 1998) seems to sometimes equate L1 transfer with code-​switching, or using L1 discourse markers in L2 discourse. However, she also refers to cases of learners using etymologically related forms in typologically similar languages (e.g., d’accordo in Italian vs. d’accord in French) as L1 transfer. In this case, the learners would have erroneously extended the semantics of their L1 form (French) to the L2 form (Italian) (Borreguero Zuloaga, 2017, p. 190) based solely on either the orthographic form

50  What Do We Already Know? or the phonological similarity. With this example, overproduction of d’accordo is attributed to L1 transfer from French. Zufferey et al. (2015) find evidence of L1 transfer in L1 French and Dutch learners of L2 English in an off-​line processing task. However, these transfer effects were reduced in an on-​line task and pose questions related to the nature of learners explicit versus implicit knowledge. Liu (2013) hypothesizes that L1 transfer explains the use of I think and yeah/​yes by L1 Chinese learners of English. This is based on overlapping semantics between I think in English and wo juede, and dui and yeah/​yes. Unlike the case of d’accordo, transfer in this case would not be based on the written or phonological form, which does not overlap at all between English and Chinese, but rather the overlapping semantics. Again, learners make an assumption about a discourse marker’s semantics and mistakenly extend it to other situations in which they would use their L1 equivalent. This kind of transfer however requires that the learners first learn at least some of the semantic and pragmatic properties of the L2 discourse marker, contrary to the d’accordo case where no understanding of the L2 semantics or pragmatics would be necessary for transfer to occur. In the case of French and English, studies that have suggested L1 transfer effects operated under a similar assumption as Liu (2013). Learners at some point learn the translation equivalent of a discourse marker in the L2 (see Guillot, 2012 for mais and but; Pellet, 2005 for donc and so; Sankoff et al., 1997 for comme and like) and thus extend the semantics and pragmatics of the L1 translation equivalent to their new L2 discourse marker. The difficulty in hypothesizing L1 transfer effects is in demonstrating that the same learner behavior could not be explained by other means. In order to do this, Ellis (2012) insists that at least two of the following three criteria must be met in order to confirm L1 transfer effects: (a) (b) (c)

intra-​group homogeneity inter-​group heterogeneity identification of similarities between L1 and interlanguage performance

Studies on discourse markers that have considered L1 transfer largely do not meet these criteria. First, often the similarities between the L1 and the interlanguage performance are limited to the existence of a presumed semantic equivalent (e.g., Deng, 2016, 2018; Liao, 2009; Liu, 2013, 2016). Second, the challenge of having both intra-​group homogeneity, a homogenous group of L1 speakers (same language variety, similar sociolinguistic features, etc.) and inter-​ group heterogeneity, a second homogenous group with a different L1 than the first group is not met by any of these studies. Most consider learners from a single L1 group. Without parallel data from learners with a different L1, transfer cannot be distinguished from acquisitional stages that all learners may

What Do We Already Know?  51 go through. Finally, fewer still are the studies that compare learners’ discourse marker use in both their L1 and their L2 (see Rehner, 2002 for an example of such a study). Thus, while it is possible that transfer plays a role in learner L2 discourse marker production, it cannot yet be disentangled from other features of acquisition and the natural development of L2 pragmatic competence.

4.3  What Sociolinguistic Variables Affect Discourse Marker Use in the L2? As L1 transfer effects alone cannot reliably explain learner discourse marker production, it is natural that some studies have interrogated the effects of sociolinguistic variables. Magliacane and Howard (2019) investigated the frequency of the English discourse marker like in two different social groups of L1 Italian speakers: university students and au pairs, all rated at the same proficiency level (B2) according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). After several months, the university students displayed greater variety in the functions they expressed with like than did the au pairs. Magliacane and Howard attributed this difference to the interactional context. Presumably, university students taking different classes interacting with many peers their age would have more opportunity to learn the pragmatic functions of like than would au pairs whose social interactions revolve around young children, who themselves may still be developing pragmatically. In contrast to Magliacane and Howard however, Park (2012) found no significant difference between L1 Mandarin migrant workers and university students in the production of the Korean discourse marker mwe. A direct comparison is difficult to make however as while university students may be comparable to each other in terms of the social interaction, migrant works and au pairs may not have parallel social experiences in the target culture. Thus, this is one area in which further study is needed to better understand how discourse markers may be used by those with different social status in the L2 host environment.

4.4  What Is the Effect of Study Abroad? The role of study abroad in increasing learner discourse marker production is a theme that appears frequently because of the prevailing assumption in the literature that learners require significant exposure to the target language in the target culture in order to acquire them. A few studies have sought to determine how much of an effect studying abroad can have, with conflicting results. Kizu, Pizziconi and Gyogi (2019) attempted to explicitly measure the effects of study abroad on the use of ne in L2 Japanese. Their results did not indicate a significant effect. Those students who had never used ne before studying abroad, did overtime increase their use of the particle to be roughly equivalent to their peers

52  What Do We Already Know? who had already incorporated ne into their vocabulary prior to visiting Japan. The group that had been using ne before studying abroad, did not change significantly and seemed to plateau in their use of the particle. These results contradicted those of Sawyer (1992) who found an increase in the use of ne after study abroad. Also in Japanese, Yoshimi (1999) determined that socialization during the study abroad period played a large role in learner use of ne. Research on learners of other L2s have also found effects of study abroad. De Cristofaro and Badan (2019) found that learners of L2 Italian increased the range of functions that they expressed with discourse markers after a study abroad experience, though there was no overall effect on discourse marker frequency. In addition, these learners also overgeneralized the possible functions of discourse markers to those not typically expressed by native speakers. Similarly, in a study on L2 French, Guillot (2012) found that learners increased the range of functions expressed with mais after study abroad, leading to overgeneralization of the turn-​taking function. And in contrast to these studies, Pellet (2005) found no significant effect of study abroad on learner discourse marker production. Thus, as with the effect of social context, it would seem that the level of interaction that the learners’ experience with native speakers is more important than the fact of having studied abroad. This is not a surprising result as most language teachers can attest that their students can study abroad and simultaneously completely avoid use of the target language.

4.5  (How) Do Learners Process Discourse Markers That They Hear? While studies examining learner discourse marker production has become more common, there are still few studies on how learners use discourse markers in the input to better understand L2 speech. Chaudron and Richards (1986) investigated whether the presence of discourse markers in a classroom lecture made it easier for ESL students to understand. Four different versions of a history lecture were played for 71 pre-​ matriculation ESL students and 81 university students with English as a second language. They were given a multiple choice, true/​false, and cloze test after the lecture to measure their comprehension. The results of the tests indicated that metacommentary significantly increased the learner comprehension of the lectures; regular discourse markers, however, did not seem to help. Flowerdew and Tauroza (1995) investigated the ability of L1 Cantonese-​speaking engineering students to comprehend lectures with and without discourse markers. A control group listened to a full lecture, while an experimental group listened to the same lecture with the discourse markers removed. They completed three assessments to measure their comprehension: a self-​assessment, written partial recall summaries, and a true/​false test. Results indicated that those participants who did not

What Do We Already Know?  53 hear discourse markers comprehended less. Thus, they concluded that discourse markers are needed to maintain the logical flow of a text, even for learners. From these two studies, it is unclear how much learners attend to discourse markers when listening to the L2. Drastically different study designs and subject populations make them difficult to compare. What is clear, is that more research is needed on learner comprehension.

4.6  Can Discourse Markers Be Taught? The other side of the coin to whether there is an effect of study abroad on learner discourse marker production is whether or not they can be taught in the classroom. The prevailing assumption has been that discourse markers can only be acquired in an input-​rich immersion-​style environment, particularly as they are more frequent in informal speech. Hellermann and Vergun (2007) observed that learners of L2 English primarily acquired discourse markers outside the classroom setting and thus concluded that interaction outside of the classroom was more important for their acquisition. However, this study simply observed the input available to learners in a typical classroom environment and did not explicitly test the effects of instruction of discourse markers. Studies conducted since Hellermann and Vergun’s study (and one before) have taken a proactive approach to formally test the effects of explicit and implicit instruction of discourse markers, that is, intentionally including discourse markers in teaching materials and not just as a factor of input from teacher talk. Yoshimi (2001) studied the effects of instruction on several interactional discourse markers in Japanese. Learners in a third-​year Japanese class were given a worksheet that explicitly explained the different discourse markers. There was also a separate control group that did not receive the formal instruction. Results from a post-​test administered after the lesson showed that learners discourse marker production did improve in the experimental group. In two separate studies, Ament, Pérez Vidal, and Barón Parés (2018, 2020) investigated the effect of English medium instruction on learner discourse marker production, comparing learners in full immersion and semi-​immersion contexts. These students were not in a study abroad context, but rather an English immersion program within their home university. The results of these two studies showed that English-​medium instruction can facilitate the acquisition of certain types of discourse markers, but not all. De la Fuente (2009) compared explicit versus implicit instruction for several discourse markers in Spanish and found that those learners who received explicit instruction showed more immediate comprehension of new discourse markers and were able to translate them more easily in a fill in the blank task. Also for L2 Spanish, Hernandez (2008, 2011, 2012) investigated the effects of explicit versus implicit instruction in

54  What Do We Already Know? the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Learners were exposed to a wide range of discourse markers in each of the three studies and in all cases, learners in the explicit instruction group produced more discourse markers than did the learners in the implicit instruction (input-​ enhanced) group. These few studies on instruction provide support for the presumption that extensive exposure to discourse markers in the input can increase learner use of them. The two studies by Ament et al. highlight the effect of immersion learning settings in providing learners with enhanced input for discourse markers. And similarly, the learners in De la Fuente’s and Hernandez’s studies who received enhanced input did also increase their discourse marker use. More exposure to discourse markers can lead to more discourse markers in speech. But crucially, De la Fuente, Hernandez, and Yoshimi all demonstrate that learners who are explicitly instructed in discourse markers and their use are better able to make use of them than those learners who must discern meaning for themselves from the enhanced input. The obvious conclusion is that input is necessary for discourse marker acquisition, but insufficient, as with many other aspects of L2 acquisition.

4.7  Refocusing on L2 French Discourse Markers L2 discourse marker research in French has provided insights not highlighted by the research into other second languages. One reason for this is that some of the larger studies on discourse marker use in L2 French have been conducted in francophone Canada in a largely bilingual context rather than an exclusively foreign language context. In general, the L1 populations for studies on L2 French have been more homogenous, either L1 English or L1 Swedish. Thus, some of the studies have compared their learners’ discourse marker use in French and in English. These studies show that learners seem to produce fewer discourse markers in their second language, French, than they do in their first language, English (Sankoff et al., 1997). As with the studies researching other L2s, studies on L2 French have generally found that lower proficiency correlates with lower production of discourse markers (Kerr-​Barnes, 1998; Pellet, 2005; Sankoff et al., 1997). Additionally, those with more exposure to naturalistic language seem to produce more discourse markers (Kerr-​Barnes, 1998; Rehner, 2002), although one study did find that there seemed to be no effect of study abroad on discourse marker production (Pellet, 2005). There are also indications that early instruction can influence the production of discourse markers (Sankoff et al., 1997) and that their development may follow a similar pattern to that of L1 acquisition (Kerr-​ Barnes, 1998). Those studies conducted with L1 English speakers found interactions with the L1 and discourse marker production while speaking French. First, English discourse markers appeared in the speech of the learners, and in

What Do We Already Know?  55 fact, those with greater proficiency and/​or greater communicative competence (Pellet, 2005) used more English discourse markers (Kerr-​Barnes, 1998; Pellet, 2005; Rehner, 2002). Pellet and Rehner also observed that the presence of easily translatable English equivalents affected discourse marker production in L2 French for their participants. Another observation from existing research on French discourse markers relates to their syntactic properties. A description of this aspect of use was noticeably absent from studies on L2 English in particular. Generally, learners seem to favor the initial position for discourse markers, while medial positions are rarer (Hancock, 2012; Pellet, 2005). However, the positions employed do seem to change with increasing proficiency (Hancock, 2012).

4.8 Conclusion Despite the range of research that exists on the L2 acquisition of discourse markers, little is known about how they develop as learners progress in their L2 proficiency. Many of the studies, especially in L2 English, took a contrastive analysis approach to the acquisition of discourse markers (e.g., Buysse, 2012, 2015; House, 2013; Liao, 2009; Wong, 2000). Participants in these and other similar studies were treated as a homogenous group with similar proficiency, which was often not measured or described sufficiently. This approach was common when the learners were graduate students or teachers (e.g., House, 2013; Liu, 2017; Özer & Okan, 2018). The reader is meant to assume by their status that the participants are at an advanced level of proficiency. But without a point of reference, the comparison to native speaker production is difficult to assess. Development or features of near-​native speech cannot be assessed without a clear proficiency measure. Particularly in French, development has not been investigated in a systematic fashion. The few studies claiming to look at development define proficiency based on learning environment. Thus, learners in an immersion environment are considered to have higher proficiency than those in a traditional foreign language classroom. And learners in an L2 environment are considered more proficient than those in a foreign language environment. Even then, learning environment and proficiency is confounded in that the participants experienced different learning environments for different lengths of time at different periods in their educational experience (Sankoff et al., 1997), or sometimes learning environment substitutes for proficiency (Kerr-​Barnes, 1998). When institutional level is used, it is not clear that those students in advanced classes are truly at an advanced level of proficiency (Pellet, 2005), as entrance to these courses is not based upon language proficiency, but rather prior courses taken at the institution. Additionally, standards for beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels can vary greatly from one institution to another. There are no longitudinal studies in French and no

56  What Do We Already Know? cross-​sectional studies that clearly divide learners by demonstrated proficiency level (rather than inferred based on educational experience). To develop a clearer picture of development, learners must be grouped and studied in terms of their proficiency level measured by an objective tool. Defaulting to institutional levels or other proxies (such as time spent in the target-​language environment) is insufficient as these levels do not directly correlate with proficiency. Results can also only be generalized so far due to the sometimes incredibly small sample size. Bardel (2003) analyzed only two learners and compared them with one native speaker. Borreguero Zuloaga et al. (2017) looked at a group of twelve learners divided into three proficiency levels, thus only four learners per level (see also Borreguero Zuloaga, 2017). De Cristofaro and Badan (2019) studied only eight learners and De Marco (2016) only studied five learners. While these studies can provide insight into development, the small sample size necessitates further study with more participants to confirm their conclusions. Additionally, in order to better understand the relationship of form to function, studying a handful of discourse markers in isolation is insufficient. Results from these studies have demonstrated that the discourse markers that learners employ to express a function change as they increase in proficiency. Thus, the functions exist in low-​level learner speech even if the expected discourse markers do not. For adult learners, this is even more important because they have their full cognitive abilities and will be trying to make use of them from the earliest moment possible. Only searching for those discourse markers that are considered the most frequent provides an incomplete picture of the learner inventory of discourse markers while they are progressing through stages of interlanguage. It is even more important if Zufferey’s (2010) prediction regarding the order of acquisition of discourse markers in the first language can be applied to second language learning. Adopting Sweetser’s (1990) tripartite distinction between discourse marker meaning, Zufferey proposes that those discourse markers that function in the content domain would be acquired first due to the lowest processing cost. This would be followed by those that function in the speech act domain. And finally discourse markers functioning in the epistemic domain would be the most difficult to acquire. It remains to be seen whether this applies to second language learners given that they would have already acquired all three domains in their L1. Given the prior existing research on discourse markers and the limitations, the primary research question for this study is as follows: How do discourse markers develop in the speech of learners of French as a foreign language? This question can be further subdivided into three sub-​questions. (a) What is the inventory of discourse markers used? (b) What is the distribution of discourse markers to function?

What Do We Already Know?  57 (c)

How does the inventory and function change over time (with increasing proficiency)?

These research questions are designed to elaborate on and find support for many of the conclusions described in this chapter. Based on this prior research, it is hypothesized (and expected) that learners will underproduce some discourse markers and overproduce others relative to the native speakers in the study. Some change as learner proficiency increases is also expected, but the exact nature of this change remains to be observed. The quantity and frequency of discourse markers in learner production will likely increase, but how this correlates with functions expressed at different proficiency levels is unclear. Additionally, a goal of this study is to develop a broader portrait of the full range of discourse markers that learners may employ, rather than solely those that are considered the most frequent in French. Learners in this study were adults with full cognitive capabilities and thus were expected to attempt to structure their discourse with whatever tools they had at their disposal, whether or not they conform to target-​like production.

References 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. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​ijcl.16.2.04aij Ament, J., Páres, J. B., & Pérez-​Vidal, C. (2020). A study on the functional uses of textual pragmatic markers by native speakers and English-​medium instruction learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 41–​53. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​ gma.2019.09.009 Ament, J., Vidal, C. P., & Parés, J. B. (2018). The effects of english-​medium instruction on the use of textual and interpersonal pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 28(4), 517–​545. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​prag.17042.ame Andorno, C. (2006). Connettivi in italiano L2 fra struttura dell’enunciato e struttura dell’interazione. In G. Bernini, L. Spreafico, & A. Valentini (Eds.), Competenze lessicalie e discorsive nell’acquisizione di lingue seconde (pp. 481–​510). Guerra Edizioni. Anping, H. (2000). On the discourse marker “so.” In P. Peters, P. Collins, & A. Smith (Eds.), Papers from the Twenty First International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora. Rodopi. Bardel, C. (2003). I segnali discorsivi nell’acquisizione dell’italiano l2. In C. Crocco & R. Savy (Eds.). API –​Archivio di Parlato Italiano (final DVD of the API Project). CIRASS -​Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II.” Borreguero Zuloaga, M. (2017). Topic-​shift discourse markers in L2 Italian. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 8(2), 173–​203. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1075/​lia.15045.bor Buysse, L. (2011). The business of pragmatics: The case of discourse markers in the speech of students of Business English and English linguistics. ITL –​ International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 161, 10–​30. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1075/​itl.161.02buy

58  What Do We Already Know? Buysse, L. (2012). So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1764–​1782. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.pra​gma.2012.08.012 Buysse, L. (2015). “Well it’s not very ideal …” The pragmatic marker well in learner English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 59–​89. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1515/​ip-​2015-​0003 Ceković, N. (2014). I segnali discorsivi nell ’interlingua degli studenti universitari di italiano L2. Italica Belgradensia, 2014(2), 93–​110. https://​doi.org/​10.18485/​ ita​lbg.2014.2.5 Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 113–​127. Corino, E. (2016). Learners and reformulative discourse markers. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 7(1), 44–​66. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​lia.7.1.02cor De Cristofaro, E., & Badan, L. (2019). The acquisition of Italian discourse markers as a function of studying abroad. Corpus Pragmatics, 0123456789. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s41​701-​019-​00069-​6 De la Fuente, M. J. (2009). The role of pedagogical tasks and focus on form in acquisition of discourse markers by advanced language learners. In R. P. Leow, H. Campos, & D. Lardiere (Eds.), Little words: Their history, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and acquisition (pp. 211–​221). Georgetown University Press. De Marco, A. (2016). The use of discourse markers in L2 Italian. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 7(1), 67–​88. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​ lia.7.1.03dem Deng, D. (2016). Oui, voilà: analyse des deux marqueurs discursifs utilisés par les locuteurs du francais d’origine chinoise en France. Cahiers, 20(1), 45–​69. Deng, D. (2018). « Comme c’est un peu langage des jeunes quoi »: analyse du marqueur discursif quoi dans le discours des Chinois résidant en France. SHS Web of Conferences, 46, 13001. https://​doi.org/​10.1051/​shsc​onf/​2018​ 4613​001 Ellis, R. (2012). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Fernández, J., Gates Tapia, A., & Lu, X. (2014). Oral proficiency and pragmatic marker use in L2 spoken Spanish: The case of pues and bueno. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 150–​164. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2014.09.005 Ferraris, S. (2001). I connettivi causali nelle varietá di apprendimento di italiano L1 e L2. Studi Italiani Di Linguistica Teorica Ed Applicata, 30, 337–​370. Ferraris, S. (2002). Come usano ma gli apprendenti di italiano L1 e L2? In G. Bernini, G. Ferrari, & M. Pavesi (Eds.), Atti del 3 congresso di studi dell’Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata (pp. 73–​ 91). Guerra Edizioni. Flowerdew, J., & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 435–​458. Fuller, J. M. (2003). Discourse marker use across speech contexts: A comparison of native and non-​native speaker performance. Multilingua, 22(2), 185–​208. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​mult.2003.010 Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken english: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410–​439. https://​ doi.org/​10.1093/​app​lin/​amm​030

What Do We Already Know?  59 Guillot, M.-​N. (2012). Issues of L2 pragmatic discrimination from an interactional perspective: The case of turn-​initial mais in L2 French. In N. Auger, C. Béal, & F. Demougin (Eds.), Interaction et interculturalite: Variété des corpus et des approches (pp. 223–​253). Peter Lang Hancock, V. (2004). L’emploi de donc chez des apprenants avancés: intonosyntaxe et fonctionnements. In B. Ermin (Ed.), Second language acquisition and usage, Stockholm studies in modern philology (pp. 99–​ 121). Almvist & Wiksell International. Hancock, V. (2012). Pragmatic use of temporal adverbs in L1 and L2 French. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 3(1), 29–​51. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​ lia.3.1.03han Hellermann, J., & Vergun, A. (2007). Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 157–​179. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2006.04.008 Hernández, T. A. (2008). The effect of explicit instruction and input flood on students’ use of Spanish discourse markers on a simulated oral proficiency. Hispania, 91(3), 665–​675. Hernández, T. A. (2011). Re-​examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 159–​182. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13621​6881​0388​694 Hernández, T. A. (2012). Impact of instruction on the use of L2 discourse markers. Journal of Second Language Teaching & Research, 2(1), 3–​31. http://​pops. uclan.ac.uk/​i ndex.php/​ jsltr/​ a rti​cle/​v iew/​8 0%5Cnh ​ttp:// ​pops.uclan.ac.uk/​ index.php/​jsltr/​arti​cle/​downl​oad/​80/​28%5Cnh​ttp://​pops.uclan.ac.uk/​index. php/​jsltr/​arti​cle/​view/​80/​28 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. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2013.03.001 Kerr-​Barnes, B. (1998). The acquisition of connectors in French L2 narrative discourse. Journal of French Language Studies, 8(2), 189–​208. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1017/​S09592​6950​0004​142 Kizu, M., Pizziconi, B., & Gyogi, E. (2019). The particle ne in the development of interactional positioning in L2 Japanese. East Asian Pragmatics, 4(1), 113–​ 143. https://​doi.org/​10.1558/​eap.38217 Liao, S. (2009). Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1313–​1328. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2008.09.026 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. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2012.11.002 Liu, B. (2016). Effect of L2 exposure: From a perspective of discourse markers. Applied Linguistics Review, 7(1), 73–​98. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​appli​ rev-​2016-​0004 Liu, B. (2017). contrastive study of discourse markers used by native and Chinese L2 English speakers across speech context. East Asian Pragmatics, 2(1), 101–​ 126. https://​doi.org/​10.1558/​eap.33278 Magliacane, A., & Howard, M. (2019). The role of learner status in the acquisition of pragmatic markers during study abroad: The use of “like” in L2 English. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 72–​86. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​ gma.2019.01.026

60  What Do We Already Know? Mascherpa, E. (2016). I segnali discorsivi allora, quindi, pero, ma in apprendenti di italiano L2. Cuadernos de Filologia Italiana, 23, 119–​140. Müller, S. (2004). “Well you know that type of person”: Functions of well in the speech of American and German students. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(6), 1157–​1182. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2004.01.008 Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-​native English discourse. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Nigoević, M., & Sučić, P. (2012). Competenza pragmatica in italiano L2: l’uso dei segnali discorsivi da parte degli apprendenti croati. Italiano LinguaDue, 3(2), 94–​94. https://​doi.org/​10.13130/​2037-​3597/​1917 Özer, H. Z., & Okan, Z. (2018). Discourse markers in EFL classrooms: A corpus-​ drive research. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(1), 50–​66. Park, H. (2012). Discourse marker mwe in the interlanguage of Chinese learners of Korean. Linguistic Research, 29(1), 235–​260. https://​doi.org/​10.17250/​khi​ sli.29.1.201​204.011 Pellet, S. H. (2005). The development of competence in French interlanguage pragmatics: The case of the discourse marker “donc.” ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 303. https://​sea​rch.proqu​est.com/​docv​iew/​304979​491?accoun​ tid=​10673%0Ah​ttp://​open​url.ac.uk/​redir​ect/​ath​ens:edu/​?url_​ver=​Z39.88-​ 2004&rft_​val_​fmt=​info:ofi/​fmt:kev:mtx:disse​rtat​ion&genre=​disser​tati​ons+​ %26+​the​ses&sid=​ProQ:ProQu​est+​Disser​tati​ons+​%26+​The​ses+​Glo​bal&at Polat, B. (2011). Investigating acquisition of discourse markers through a developmental learner corpus. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(15), 3745–​3756. https://​ doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2011.09.009 Rehner, K. A. (2002). The development of aspects of linguistic and discourse competence by advanced second language learners of French. PhD disseration, University of Toronto. Sankoff, G., Thibault, P., Nagy, N., Blondeau, H., Fonollosa, M. O., & Gagnon, L. (1997). Variation in the use of discourse markers in a language contact situation. Language Variation and Change, 9(2), 191–​217. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1017/​S09543​9450​0001​873 Sawyer, M. (1992). The Development of pragmatics in Japanese as a second language: The sentence-​final particle ne. In K. Gabriele, Pragmatics of Japanese as native and target language (pp. 81–​111). University of Hawai’i Press. Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press. Wei, M. (2011). Investigating the oral proficiency of English learners in China: A comparative study of the use of pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3455–​3472. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2011.07.014 Weinert, R. (1998). Discourse organisation in the spoken language of L2 learners of German. Linguistische Berichte, 176, 459–​488. Wong, J. (2000). Research on language & social interaction: The Token “Yeah” in nonnative speaker English conversation. Communication, 1813(785045689). https://​doi.org/​10.1207/​S15327​973R​LSI3​301 Yoshimi, D. R. (1999). L1 language socialization as a variable in the use of ne by L2 learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(11), 1513–​1525. https://​ doi.org/​10.1016/​s0378-​2166(98)00111-​8 Yoshimi, D. R. (2001). Explicit instruction and JFL learners’ use of interactional discourse markers. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 223–​245). Cambridge University Press.

What Do We Already Know?  61 Zhao, H. (2013). A Study on the Pragmatic Fossilization of Discourse Markers among Chinese English Learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(4), 707–​714. Zufferey, S. (2010). Lexical pragmatics and theory of mind. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Zufferey, S. (2015). Acquiring pragmatics: Social and cognitive perspectives. Routledge. Zufferey, S., Mak, W., Degand, L., & Sanders, T. (2015). Advanced learners’ comprehension of discourse connectives: The role of L1 transfer across on-​line and off-​line tasks. Second Language Research, 31(3), 389–​411. https://​doi. org/​10.1177/​02676​5831​5573​349 Zuloaga, M. B., Izquierdo, P. P., & Gillani, E. (2017). Metadiscursive functions and discourse markers in L2 Italian. In A. P. Loureiro, C. Carapinha, & C. Plag (Eds.), Marcadores discursivos e(m) tradução (pp. 15–​57). Universidade de Coimbra Press.

5 Methodological Questions in L2 Discourse Marker Research

5.1 Introduction If the goal of L2 discourse marker research is to understand how learners acquire discourse markers over the course of their language acquisition process, then certain methodological decisions can greatly affect a researcher’s ability to answer questions regarding acquisition. The initial choice of analytical framework will direct the interpretation of the data collected and can potentially lead to erroneous conclusions regarding acquisition and development.

5.2  Contrastive or Interlanguage Analysis? The contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH), which has a long tradition in L2 acquisition research (Lado, 1957), argues that by understanding the differences between the L1 and the L2, we can predict the errors that learners will make, presuming that all errors must be the result of L1 influence or transfer. This perspective often leads to an error analysis in which learners’ productions are examined solely for the way in which they differ from the target language, in order to determine corrective measures. An interlanguage analysis (Selinker, 1972), on the other hand, seeks to understand the underlying processes that explain the linguistic output displayed by L2 learners. Investigating L2 acquisition through the lens of an interlanguage analysis necessitates the consideration of other causes for learner production including but not limited to L1 transfer. Learner linguistic behavior can also be explained by the instruction they have received, easily identifiable language learning strategies, communication strategies, and overgeneralization of target-​language features. While not strictly following the contrastive analysis hypothesis, many studies investigating L2 discourse marker production default into a pattern of contrastive analysis (e.g., Aijmer, 2011; Liu, 2017; Müller, 2004). Often in this approach, a seemingly homogenous group of learners is compared directly to a group of native speakers. The results of these studies often demonstrate that the learners, identified as advanced or “near-​native” still somehow produce fewer discourse markers than DOI: 10.4324/9781003323754-5

Methodological Questions  63 the native speakers (e.g., Özer & Okan, 2018). They also may overproduce certain discourse markers (e.g., Anping, 2000), or underproduce specific discourse markers (e.g., Fuller, 2003a). These underproductions and overproductions are then attributed to likely transfer from the L1, but often without an extensive comparison of learner discourse marker production in both their L1 and their L2 to make the comparison (e.g., Liu, 2013). In prematurely attributing learner production to transfer, researchers might miss alternative and sometimes simpler explanations. As will be highlighted in Chapter 8, Deng (2016) attributes production data from L1 Chinese speakers in her study to L1 transfer, when similar patterns are found in the L1 English speakers in the current the study. This would suggest that transfer may not in fact be responsible for the pattern of use, and the accessibility of the discourse marker itself may play a larger role in how L2 learners employ it. Overreliance on contrastive analysis places limitations on researchers’ ability to describe the acquisition process as a whole. An exclusive focus on advanced or “near-​native” learners does not shed light on the steps required to achieve a particular level of pragma-​linguistic competence, nor can it explain the level of grammatical competence required to acquire target-​like pragmatic skills. Research with a contrastive approach to L2 acquisition simply cannot sufficiently answer questions regarding development of the L2 system. On the other hand, studies that have taken a more interlanguage analysis approach have been able to shed light on development changes that occur as learners’ proficiency increases. Studies that have incorporated learner populations at different proficiency levels (e.g., Borreguero Zuloaga, 2017; Fung & Carter, 2007), comparing them to each other rather than only to a native speaker group or idealistic L1 target form have found that learners’ overall production of discourse markers seems to increase with increasing proficiency. Other studies have found that the range of functions that learners are able to express also increases with increasing proficiency (e.g., Corino, 2016; De Marco, 2016; Zhao, 2013). When viewed from this perspective, learner overproduction and underproduction of certain discourse markers begins to form a pattern of development with potential to progress, rather than existing as a state of incomplete acquisition or fossilization. Past interlanguage analyses of cross-​sectionally designed studies is not without its challenges, however. For both contrastive and interlanguage analyses alike, accurately representing learner proficiency can significantly affect how and whether developmental patterns are observed and can be replicated in other L2 learner populations. The challenge of proficiency in contrastive analysis is that the grammatical and/​or communicative competency of the learners under study should be clearly identified and not assumed. Often studies equated a learner’s status as a teacher or a graduate student (e.g., House, 2013; Liu, 2017; Özer & Okan, 2018) with being advanced or having “near-​native” proficiency without

64  Methodological Questions describing exactly what this means. Tremblay (2011) argues for the need for “more robust proficiency standards” in SLA research and provides a review of (then) recent L2 studies demonstrating how those standards are still lacking. In justifying this need, she notes that inaccurate proficiency measures may lead to missed acquisitional and developmental effects, and makes it more difficult to compare and replicate studies. Thus, accurately representing learner proficiency is not just a problem of the studies mentioned that take a contrastive analysis approach, but also of those studies with a cross-​sectional research design for the purposes of an interlanguage analysis. In these studies, various proxies are used in place of a precise proficiency measure, including the length of education experience (Sankoff et al., 1997), the learning environment, such as the type of classroom (Kerr-​Barnes, 1998), or the institutional level at a university (Pellet, 2005). The obvious problem with these proxies is that they are impossible to compare to one another. An advanced learner in one study may exhibit linguistic behavior that is more similar to an intermediate learner of another study, but there is no way to know after the fact. Additionally, within these contexts, and particularly with university institutional level, the researcher themselves cannot guarantee that learners within a given level make up a homogenous group as access to university level courses is rarely restricted by proficiency but is more often based upon prior coursework at the same or other institutions. Therefore it is clear that, regardless of the theoretical approach, contrastive analysis, or interlanguage analysis, a clear, precise, and easily replicable measure of proficiency is desirable to both ensure accuracy of results and data interpretation, and the generalizability of the resulting data.

5.3  Form to Function or Function to Form? The second choice in investigating L2 discourse marker acquisition is between a form-​to-​function or a function-​to-​form approach. As highlighted by the word-​by-​word description of several common French discourse markers in Chapter 3, research in L1 discourse marker use often chooses one or a few discourse markers to analyze and describe their semantic and pragmatic properties in detail. Naturally, this method extended to L2 research when discourse markers began to pick up momentum as a novel research area in L2 acquisition. Many studies singled out only one or two discourse markers to consider in an L2 context. For example, Aijmer (2011) concentrates only on the English discourse marker well, as do Buysse (2015) and Müller (2004). Buysse (2012) focuses entirely on so, while Wong (2000) investigates yeah. In French, Hancock (2004) and Pellet (2005) study only donc, while in Italian Corino (2016) examines only cioè. Several other studies choose two or three discourse markers to concentrate on, while fewer examine more than three at a time (e.g., Andorno, 2006; De Marco, 2016; House, 2013).

Methodological Questions  65 While there are certainly practical reasons for focusing on a subset of discourse markers, such as ease of identification and constraining the amount of data that one has to examine, there are inherent limitations, particularly in an investigation of acquisition. Studying only L2 learners’ production of a single discourse marker can only tell us about the acquisition of that discourse marker alone, and even then, cannot explain all of the observed phenomena. Though they are drawn from a variety of lexical categories, discourse markers form a category and function together as a system with sometimes overlapping but often specialized functions. L2 learners are tasked with working out the details of this system and understanding the role of each discourse marker within it. Thus, the underproduction of one particular discourse marker may be directly related to the overproduction or overgeneralization of another discourse marker whose functional space overlaps with it. Pellet (2005)’s study on the use of donc in L2 French underscores this possibility. In a few instances, she notes that some learners with good communicative competence do not produce donc, but instead rely on alors as their primary discourse marker. However, her assessment of uses of alternative discourse markers is evaluated in terms of failure to use donc, where it would have been more appropriate or expected from a native speaker. Rather than examining the alternation between donc and alors presented in her learner data, Pellet focuses solely on the underuse of donc. The interaction between the two (and other discourse markers) could potentially highlight developmental features that are not addressed in her study. This interaction is in fact present in the analysis of the learner data to be discussed in Chapter 9. Focusing on a single or only a few discourse markers will certainly cause interactions between them and increasing proficiency to be missed. An alternative to focusing on individual discourse marker forms and identifying their associated functions is to focus on pragmatic functions that learners can express and identifying the forms (discourse markers or otherwise) that they may employ to realize those functions. Han et al. (2020) studied turn maintenance and topic shift in sixteen bilingual nurses in Montreal. Their results identified a difference in the discourse markers used in the nurses’ L1 versus their L2 based on function. In their L2, the nurses used fewer discourse markers to mark topic shift and more discourse markers to manage turns of talk. They hypothesized that this difference could be the result of lexico-​grammatical competency linked to proficiency, with discourse markers for certain functions more accessible to those nurses with a lower proficiency in their L2. In a study similarly focused on turn openings, Thorle (2016) investigated the development of interaction competence in L1 German university students learning French. By focusing on turn openings, rather than on discourse markers, Thorle was able to identify other tools that the L2 learners employed to manage turn-​taking in a phone conversation, including pauses and prosodic cues.

66  Methodological Questions Borreguero Zuloaga, Pernas Izquierdo and Gallani (2017) adopted what they called an onomasiological, or function-​ to-​ form approach to the investigation of acquisition of discourse markers in L2 Italian. They focused on three broad functional categories (interactional, metadiscursive, and cognitive) to identify how learners manage particular discourse functions rather than on particular discourse markers. Concentrating on the metadiscursive functions, their results showed that learners rarely used discourse markers to open an interaction or for reformulation and instead relied on prosodic cues. Overall, they found an underrepresentation of discourse markers for metadiscursive functions when compared to native speakers, but an overrepresentation of discourse markers for non-​paraphrastic reformulation and picking up a new topic. By focusing on a wider range of discourse markers and functions, developmental interactions at different levels of proficiency become easier to identify and eventually explain beyond positing L1 transfer effects.

5.4  The Effects of Tasks and Instruments The third and final methodological choice that this chapter will consider is the choice of study instruments and tasks. There is opportunity for tasks effects in any study design, but there are certain potential pitfalls that should be considered when investigating the acquisition of discourse markers in the L2. Prior research on L2 discourse marker use has used various instruments and task types, including unstructured interviews (Aijmer, 2011; Buysse, 2011, 2012, 2015; Fuller, 2003a; Liao, 2009; Liu, 2013; Pauletto & Bardel, 2016; Sankoff et al., 1997), semi-​structured interviews (Hancock, 2004, 2012; Hancock & Sanell, 2009, 2010), and structured interviews (Sawyer, 1992; Tateyama, 2001), as well as translation tasks (De la Fuente, 2009), conversation in dyads (De Marco, 2016; Fuller, 2003a; Pellet, 2005), oral Discourse Completion Tasks (Fernández et al., 2014; Narita, 2012), and debates (Flores-​Ferrán & Lovejoy, 2015) among others. The choice of task or discourse context may influence frequency of certain discourse markers and/​or discourse functions. Fuller (2003a) found that for both native speakers and non-​native speakers, the discourse markers oh and well were more frequent in conversations than in the interviews. In contrast, native speakers produced the discourse markers like and y’know more frequently in the interview task. However, with the same markers there was no difference in frequency between tasks for the non-​native speakers. In a study that employed both a discussion task and an interview task, Liao (2009) found that learners produced more tokens of the discourse markers ok and right in the interview than in the discussion. While Liu (2017) found that non-​native speakers produced fewer discourse markers in an interview context than in a conversation. This contrasted with native speaker production in that study, where discourse marker production was higher in the interview context than in the conversation context.

Methodological Questions  67 Neary-​Sundquist (2013) compared discourse marker production across four task types and found significant variation between the four tasks and also differences between proficiency groups with respect to tasks. Task effects seem to be linked to specific discourse markers, which implies an influence of social context and function in the frequency distributions that have been observed. In choosing a discourse marker to study, choosing a task that does not reflect the dominant social context in which the particular discourse marker is typically employed could lead to the observed patterns of over-​and undergeneralization that has been reported across L2s. As with choosing discourse markers to study, including at least two tasks that differ in their social context increases the opportunity for learners to produce more varied discourse markers with different functions. Because specific discourse markers cannot be coerced in the same way that verbal morphology can, for example, the best possible solution is to provide ample opportunities for learners to showcase their individual variation in discourse marker use.

5.5  The Current Study As described in this chapter, there are numerous factors to consider when it comes to study design for investigating discourse markers. The methodological choices for this study were made to: (1) create an easily replicable process that could be added to in the future by myself or other researchers; (2) focus on the interlanguage production of instructed L2 learners of French; (3) elicit a variety of discourse markers in several discourse contexts; and (4) elicit a variety of functions of discourse markers in several discourse contexts. The next section provides a description of the native speaker and learner participants. This is followed by a detailed description of the proficiency measures employed and the instruments used to render the procedure easily replicable. The final section describes the coding procedures that resulted in the data presented in Chapters 6 and 7. 5.5.1 Participants Twelve native speakers and thirty-​eight learners participated in this study, a total of fifty participants. The focus of the study is on learner production and development in the use of discourse markers in L2 French; however, native speakers were included to serve as a baseline for contemporary discourse marker use. The following sections detail the recruitment procedures and provide an overview of extra-​linguistic factors for both groups of participants. Summary tables can be found in Appendix A with descriptions of all participants. Native speakers were recruited through personal acquaintance in France in the cities of Paris, Saint-​Brieuc, and Nantes. They ranged in age

68  Methodological Questions from twenty-five to thirty-​two. Ten native speakers were born in mainland France. Participant NS04 was born in French Polynesia to French and Tahitian parents, whereas participant NS11 was born in the United Kingdom to French and British parents. Both indicated that French was the primary language spoken in the home from birth. Participant NS07 was born in Paris but then spent her preschool years in Algeria with extended family before returning to Paris to start school at the age of five. French was her dominant language while in France and Algerian Arabic was spoken extensively while in Algeria. Nearly all of the native speakers were highly educated with advanced degrees in a variety of fields. Five were pursuing doctoral degrees. Participant NS11 indicated that he was currently unemployed but had studied informatics at university. Participant NS06 participated in the study while in France but currently resides in the United States. All of the native French speakers spoke and/​or had studied at least English and one other foreign language. Because this study was conducted primarily within the United States in an English-​dominant space, the primary group of learners recruited were those with English as a first language. However, given that the United States is linguistically diverse, and that the American university system welcomes thousands of international students, participants with a first language other than English were not excluded from participation. This subset of participants, even with other first languages, was learning French in an anglophone environment, in that textbook explanations and classroom instruction, when not in the target language, were in English. Of the thirty-​eight learners, thirty-​one indicated English as their first language, with one specifying British English. The rest were native speakers of American English. The participants ranged in age from eighteen to fifty-​two and were mostly from the Midwestern United States. A few participants grew up on the East coast and one participant was from California. All of the participants began studying French in high school and continued through university. Eight participants had never set foot in a francophone country. Another eight participants had spent at least one full year in a francophone country. The remaining fifteen participants spent between a week and one year in a francophone country. Fifteen of the participants stated that they had studied no other foreign language besides French, while the remaining sixteen had studied and/​or spoke additional foreign languages. Participant AL24 is married to a French citizen and currently resides in France working as an import-​ export assistant. The rest of the participants live permanently in the United States or another English-​speaking country. Ten of the participants were pursuing graduate studies in a French language, literature, or linguistics program and were either teaching or co-​teaching introductory French language classes. Participant AL25 was a high school French teacher at the time of the data collection. All remaining participants were

Methodological Questions  69 undergraduate students who were at the time enrolled in coursework in French language or literature. Seven participants indicated that a language other than English was their mother tongue. All of these participants spoke multiple languages including English and French. Two of the OL participants had never visited a francophone country, while two had spent more than a year studying and/​or working in a francophone country. Participants OL05 and OL07 are special cases as they are from Rwanda and Senegal respectively. Both indicated French as a second language but were in a francophone environment from an early age. Participant OL05 was educated primarily in English but has relatives with permanent resident status or citizenship in France. He did not indicate extensive use of French in the classroom prior to his university education and completed his secondary education in the United States. Participant OL07 is from Senegal and was exposed to French from the age of two. Both of these participants indicated that although they have had significant exposure to French, they communicate primarily with their families in their mother tongues (Wolof and Kinyarwanda), and conduct their academic and professional lives in English.1 5.5.2  Proficiency Measures The cloze test was taken from Tremblay’s (2011) article and administered in the same manner as described in it. Participants were given the cloze test printed on a sheet of paper in a quiet room. They were told to fill in each blank with only one word. No time limit was imposed,2 participants took as long as they needed to complete the cloze test, and no outside materials were allowed (such as a dictionary), nor were they permitted to ask questions about the meaning of words in the text. The cloze test consisted of a 314-​word passage that was an excerpt from a newspaper article reporting generally on climate policies. The 45 missing words vary between content words (n=​23) and function words (n=​22) and represent approximately one-​seventh of the total word count of the text. The cloze tests were scored based on the answer key provided in Tremblay’s (2011) article. Any word provided as a response but not indicated on the answer key was marked as incorrect. Although in Tremblay’s description, she notes that flexibility is possible, particularly in the case of content words, given context, and interpretation, the cloze test was assessed strictly adhering to the possible answers provided by Tremblay rather than allowing for alternatives. Tremblay piloted the cloze test with native speakers and thus already included a variety of possible answers for content words that would be acceptable. Answers provided that deviated from this set of possible answers were not accepted, as the researcher was not a native speaker of French and could not provide a native-​like judgment as to the acceptability of participant responses. Any errors in spelling and accents that altered the meaning of the word

70  Methodological Questions written in the blank were also considered incorrect as the participant’s intent could not be clear. Participants received a score out of 45 (for the 45 total blanks in the cloze test) and these scores were then converted to percentages. The second proficiency measure was an unstructured interview in the style of an oral proficiency interview. While the structure of the interview was influenced by the researcher’s training as a Certified ACTLF OPI Tester for French, these interviews do not constitute an official or unofficial ACTFL OPI. Learner participants were rated after their interview according to the following scale: High Beginner (HB)  Low Intermediate (LI)  Mid Intermediate (MI)  High Intermediate (HI)  Low Advanced (LA)  Mid Advanced (MA)  High Advanced (HA) Learners rated at the beginner level struggled to produce complete sentences and primarily spoke using formulaic language on topics of extreme familiarity. Learners rated at the intermediate level could maintain sentence-​level discourse (including strings of sentences), primarily in the present tense, and could discuss a range of topics regarding themselves and things immediately relevant to their daily lives. Learners in the advanced range could express themselves using paragraph-​level discourse, demonstrated comfort and/​or mastery of the present, past and future, and could discuss topics beyond their immediate sphere of influence. The content of the unstructured interview varied greatly. Each interview began with the statement “tell me about yourself.” Participants discussed family, work, study, hobbies, and any other interests. At the advanced level, these often developed into discussions of politics, current affairs, and societal issues. The results from the two proficiency measures did not correlate exactly with each other, as certain learners ended up categorized under a different proficiency level in the two measures. There are a few possible reasons for this result. The cloze test is a more straightforward measure of grammatical accuracy and lexical knowledge, while the oral proficiency interview does not explicitly test grammar or specific lexical items. The oral proficiency interview is more open-​ended; thus, learners have more opportunity to discuss topics with which they are more familiar and may have more vocabulary to describe. A lack of familiarity with the subject discussed in the cloze test (climate change and the environment) and any genre-​specific vocabulary may limit a learner’s ability to complete the task. Thus, while the cloze test is designed to be fairly genre neutral as it was chosen from a general article in a mainstream French newspaper, lower-​level learners in particular may not have encountered all of the vocabulary necessary to fully comprehend the article. A k-​means cluster analysis was conducted using SPSS separately for each proficiency measure and then a third time with both proficiency

Methodological Questions  71 Table 5.1 Final proficiency groups based on 2-​way k-​means cluster analysis #

Low

Mid

High

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

AL07 OL04 OL06 AL08 AL09 OL03 AL16 AL19 AL13 AL18 AL06 AL05 AL20 AL10

AL23 AL27 AL17 AL22 AL26 AL30 AL31 OL05 AL28

AL14 AL11 AL12 AL21 AL24 AL02 OL07 AL04 AL25 AL01 AL03 OL02 AL15 OL01 AL29

measures for a two-​dimensional analysis. The grouping by the k-​means cluster analysis did not correlate 100% when the two measures are compared side-​by-​side. However, the two-​dimensional analysis resulted in a grouping that matched the results from the cloze test.3 Going forward, this division of proficiency is used. 5.5.3 Instruments The film La vieille dame et les pigeons (Chomet, 1997) is animated and for the most part silent. An epilogue and prologue with dialogue in English were excluded from the film viewing. They were not integral to understanding the plot of the short film. The short film is set in Paris in the 1950s or 1960s and follows a starving gendarme (a policeman) who observes an elderly woman feeding rich pastries to the pigeons in a park. After a hunger-​induced nightmare about being fed a pork roast by the elderly woman and then being eaten alive by anthropomorphized pigeons, the gendarme concocts a plan to trick the woman into feeding him. He follows her home from the park and notes her address. He then takes home a pigeon that he has knocked unconscious and plucks its feathers to create a costume of a man-​pigeon resembling those from his nightmare. The gendarme then proceeds to the home of the elderly woman where she invites him in to eat. For several months the elderly woman feeds this man-​pigeon elaborate meals until he has gained a significant amount of weight and is no longer starving. On Christmas Eve, the gendarme once again goes to dine at the elderly woman’s home, where halfway through the meal the tables turn. The elderly woman turns on him and tries to slaughter him with a large pair of scissors to feed to a cat-​woman (the building concierge with a similar idea for taking advantage of the elderly

72  Methodological Questions woman as the gendarme). A comedic chase scene ensues, the gendarme climbs on an armoire and in an attempt to demonstrate to the woman that he is a man and not a pigeon, he breaks the glass and falls out of the window. For a brief moment we see him almost fly until he suddenly crashes to the ground. His head protected from the impact by his pigeon mask, the gendarme stands up and walks away. The film contains sufficient action to facilitate the narrative retell and the style allows for varied interpretations from comedic, to horror, to political satire or critique. Whether the participant liked or hated the film, it sparked a reaction that prompted them to speak. Participants viewed the film only once, and in fact only one participant viewed the entire film. The second participant in the pair was only permitted to view the first ten minutes and then the rest was recounted to them by their partner during the narrative retell task. To capitalize on the immediate reaction to the film, participants completed a discussion task with questions about the film designed to elicit opinions that they would have to defend and explain. The first question asks the participants their general reaction and the remaining questions are more specific to the film, its plot, the medium, and its place in the world of cinema in general. The participants were given the opportunity to elaborate on their experience viewing the film to ensure that they had something to talk about. After viewing a film, particularly one to which you may have had a strong reaction, it is reasonable to discuss it with a friend. The film discussion questions are listed here in French and then translated into English. Participants only received the questions in French. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Qu’est-​ce que vous avez pensé de ce court film? Pourquoi est-​ce qu’on le trouverait amusant? Qu’est-​ce que vous auriez changé de ce film, et pourquoi? Pourquoi pensez-​vous qu’on produit les films muets aujourd’hui? Pourquoi pensez-​vous que les films animés sont populaires avec les adultes?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What did you think of this short film? Why do you think people would find it funny? What would you change about this film and why? Why do you think that silent films are produced today? Why do you think animated films are popular with adults?

The final task was a series of role-​ play scenarios. This task had no direct connection to the film, narrative retell, or discussion questions. However, the inclusion of role-​play scenarios provides a wider range of contexts in which participants could potentially use discourse markers. Participants chose three to four scenarios at random from a bag. More talkative participants completed only three scenarios, while less talkative

Methodological Questions  73 participants were instructed to choose a fourth scenario to increase the amount of conversation recorded. The scenarios were gleaned from a variety of sources, including modifications of practice ACTFL OPI role-​ play scenarios, studies by Félix-​Brasdefer (2004, 2007), and Liddicoat and Crozet (2001) as well as scenarios constructed specifically for this study. This section of the study took ten to twenty minutes depending on how engaged and enthusiastic the participants were. The role-​plays were completed in pairs with the same partner as the narrative retell and film discussion. Participants chose a scenario at random from a bag and read it aloud to their partner. Occasionally, the partner asked to read the scenario again themselves. If there was confusion, the researcher explained the context of the scenario, and then it was up to the participants to decide who played what role, and when the scenario started and ended. The scenarios were piloted with a different set of fourth semester students in the months prior to the first data collection to make sure that students at that level would be able to engage with them and produce enough language to be analyzed.4 The scenarios are listed first in French with English translations following, excluding the three practice ACTFL scenarios, as they are proprietary. 1.

On est lundi matin et vous venez d’arriver à votre premier cours du jour. Votre camarade de classe s’assoit à côté de vous et vous vous parlez du week-​end. Commencez avec la question « Tu as passé un bon week-​end? » (Liddicoat & Crozet, 2001) It’s Monday morning and you have just arrived at your first class of the day. Your classmate sits down next to you and you begin to talk about the weekend. Start with the question “Did you have a good weekend?”

2.

Un camarade de classe, qui est souvent absent, vous demande d’emprunter vos notes parce qu’il y aura un examen important très bientôt. Vous voulez être gentil, mais vous avez besoin d’étudier aussi. (Félix-​Brasdefer, 2004, 2007) A classmate, who is often absent, asks to borrow your notes because there will be a test very soon. You want to be nice but you need to study too.

3.

Vous retrouvez votre ami(e) pour déjeuner après les cours et vous remarquez qu’il/​ elle ne semble pas être très content(e). Votre ami(e) vous dit qu’il/​elle vient de passer un examen très difficile en français et il/​elle ne pense pas qu’il/​elle y a réussi. You meet your friend for lunch after class and you notice that he/​ she doesn’t seem to be that happy. Your friend tells you that he/​she just took a difficult French test and they don’t think that they did very well.

74  Methodological Questions 4.

C’est la fin du semestre et vous étudiez à la bibliothèque avec votre ami. Discutez de vos projets et de vos cours pour le prochain semestre. It’s the end of the semester and you’re studying at the library with your friend. Discuss your plans and your classes for the next semester.

5.

C’est samedi soir et votre colocataire veut sortir. Mais, lundi vous avez un examen difficile dans un cours très important. It’s Saturday night and your roommate wants to go out. But Monday you have a difficult test in an important class.

5.5.4 Procedure Learners completed two proficiency measures, three tasks, and a background questionnaire. The native speakers completed the same three tasks and the background questionnaire as the learners as well as one of the proficiency measures, although it was not used for this purpose with the native speakers. Participants completed the study in pairs with a partner of their choosing. Both partners arrived at a predetermined time to the study location to read and sign a consent form. To begin the study, one partner would complete the background questionnaire followed by the cloze test while the other partner was participating in the unstructured interview. Next, the partners together would begin watching the animated short film La Vieille Dame et Les Pigeons by Sylvain Chomet. Halfway through the film viewing one participant was interrupted, usually the partner who had completed the unstructured interview first, and instructed to leave the room to provide their narrative retell of the first half of the film. They did not get to see the ending for themselves. When the short film finished, the partner who had viewed the entire film had to provide their narrative retell to their partner to tell them how the film ended. This step lasted anywhere from three to five minutes. This was followed up with a discussion of the film facilitated by questions provided by the researcher, which lasted anywhere from five to twenty minutes. After the film discussion questions were exhausted, participants moved on to the role-​play scenarios. When the role-​play scenarios were complete, the partners completed the remaining tasks they had not completed. The partner who had not yet completed the background questionnaire and the cloze test did so, while the other partner participated in their unstructured interview. The entire study lasted approximately ninety minutes, sometimes running longer for particularly loquacious participants. 5.5.5 Transcription Participant recordings were transcribed in three ways. All advanced-​level speakers and native speakers were electronically transcribed using the website

Methodological Questions  75 HappyScribe.co. The transcriptions were reviewed and verified for accuracy and detail. Most of the recordings of the learners were transcribed manually using the ELAN software (Brugman & Russel, 2004). And finally, ten of the learners were transcribed by an advanced-​level undergraduate student. These transcripts were reviewed and verified for accuracy and detail by a colleague and linguist who is a lecturer of French at a major private university in the United States. Finally, the researcher reviewed all the transcriptions one more time for consistency prior to beginning coding. All speech was transcribed, as were non-​speech sounds such as laughter and filled pauses like um and uh. Pauses were indicated using ellipses. Questions of any type (including those indicated with intonation) were finished with a question mark. For all participants, but particularly for learners, syntax and lexicon were transcribed as heard and were not corrected to reflect “accurate” target language use. For example, if a participant did not conjugate a verb, or “incorrectly” conjugated a verb, it was left in the form in which it was produced. However, participants were given the benefit of a doubt and phonetically ambiguous items (such as the past participle versus the infinitive of regular “-​ er” verbs –​“aller” /​ale/​versus “allé” /​ale/​) were transcribed to reflect target-​ like use. 5.5.6 Coding Discourse markers were identified in the transcript following the definition I provided at the end of Chapter 2. Filled pauses such as uh, euh, and um were excluded entirely.5 Lexical items in English were included when they were performing the function of a discourse marker and not serving as a substitute for a gap in target-​language vocabulary. This most often included direct translations of discourse markers or those English discourse markers identified by Schiffrin (1987). English lexical items were also counted as discourse markers when they were not performing their primary grammatical function as with the French discourse markers, as in example (1). Note again that all learner examples, including grammatical errors, are presented as originally produced. Pauses and backchannels were transcribed, but backchannels were not counted as discourse markers. Pauses or hesitations were only counted when punctuated with a lexical marker; a filled pause with um or uh was not counted as a discourse marker. (1)

AL08, interview, English discourse marker so Ces cours um…last pour uh…huit semaines. So…alors…Et um… j’ai aussi une cours de français. These classes last for 8 weeks. DM…DM…And um…I also have a French class.

Discourse markers were labeled by participant and task, each being assigned a reference number in the document in which it was found. They

76  Methodological Questions were then coded for their position in relation to the proposition (initial, medial, final, or standalone) and for whether or not they occurred alone or in a cluster. A cluster was operationalized as two or more discourse markers employed together (not separated by a pause) to perform the same or a related discourse function, such as in example (2). Discourse markers were not considered to be in a cluster if they simply followed each other and had a significant pause in between them. An example of this would be one marker used to close a topic followed by a pause with another marker then used to end the participant’s turn. (2)

NS01, interview, two DM cluster …elle a fait une formation pour être éducatrice aux jeunes enfants à Paris. Et donc là elle travaille, elle travaille dans le milieu euh… …She did a training to be a teacher for young children in Paris. DM DM there she works, she works in the domain uh…

Discourse markers were also coded for the function or role they play in the discourse. Refer to Chapter 3 for identified functions of common French discourse markers. Non-​discursive functions were excluded and not recorded. Discursive functions were included and will be examined in detail in the analysis. Certain discourse markers have almost exclusively discursive functions with no other alternative such as donc, en fait, en effet, and hein. Others such as bon, tu sais, écoute, alors, maintenant, and après have discursive functions that are very distinct from their base semantics and grammatical category. And then there are those such as et, parce que,6 mais, and oui whose discursive function is more subtle and harder to separate from its grammatical function, and the two can sometimes overlap. When the scope of the connector seemed to be larger than that of the sentence, proposition, or utterance, and rather that of the entire discourse, a primarily discourse function can be identified. The temporal adverbs après, maintenant, and puis/​pis were only counted when not used to mark time. With the conjunctions parce que, mais, and et, instances where the item was only employed in its primary grammatical function were not counted. Schiffrin in fact seems to consider all uses of these three conjunctions as discourse markers and that their core meaning inherently has both a grammatical and a pragmatic effect. However, a line was drawn between those functioning strictly according to their traditional semantic and grammatical category, and those whose use implies an additional interpretation (though still not a part of the proposition), which gives context to the following and/​ or preceding utterance. In example (3), Participant AL06 describes why she prefers comedies to other film genres. In this instance, the utterance that follows parce que does not explain directly why AL06 finds parodies to be more entertaining, but rather provides justification (Moeschler, 2014, p. 249)

Methodological Questions  77 for her judgment as someone who is knowledgeable about cinema. She came to the decision of her favorite genre based on her experience. There is not a direct cause and effect relationship between the two utterances. Parodies are not fun for the learner because she watches a lot of films, but rather the fact that she watches a lot of films provides supplementary information as to how she concluded that she enjoys parodies more than other genres. The distinction was similar for et when it was counted as a discourse marker. Et was not counted when it was used as a coordinating conjunction to join individual noun phrases such as in a list. However, when et was used to connect entire sentences and streams of discourse, it was counted as a discourse marker. (3)

AL06, interview, use of parce que as a discourse marker le le parodie est plus amusant pour moi. Parce que je regarde beaucoup de films, mais le blague de le film est très…uh…très complexe, très intéressant et très amusant… Parodies are more fun for me. Because I watch a lot of films, but the jokes in the film are very complex, very interesting and very funny…

5.5.7  Coding Reliability Two years after the initial analysis, a second rater was contracted to review the data so that the reliability of the coding practices could be evaluated. The second rater was a PhD candidate in French linguistics at a major university in the United States, and a French instructor at the same university. The rater received approximately ten hours of training with regard to discourse markers, discourse marker use in second language, study-​specific coding practices, functional categories, and the key differences between learners and native speakers in discourse marker use. The second rater coded 5% of the data, which amounted to 50% of the narrations. Interrater agreement was then separately calculated for the total number of discourse markers identified in the form of percent agreement. Reliability was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa in SPSS. Interrater agreement for discourse marker identification was 72% with a Cohen’s Kappa value of 0.681 which implies a moderate level of agreement. While these values are not as high as would be expected, several confounding factors may explain them. First, the original researcher and the developer of the coding practices and criteria had significantly more experience with both the corpus and discourse marker research and identification than did the second rater. While the original coding occurred over a period of three years, the second rater had only four months to get up to speed and code a subset of the corpus. Secondly, data was originally coded manually in pdfs of the transcripts and using MS Excel. The second rater was able to directly code the corpus using the Dedoose software.

78  Methodological Questions From this program, the newly recoded data was exported to be manually aligned with the original coding. It is quite possible that errors in this alignment led to some mismatches, thus decreasing the agreement rating. Finally, as the original researcher/​interviewer, and the interlocutor in half of the narrations, the researcher had more in-​depth knowledge of context and speaker intent than did the second rater who had to rely on the recordings and transcripts only. In future work, a second rater should be engaged from the beginning of the coding process so they can work at the same time as the first rater, and any issues in interrater agreement can be resolved prior to analysis. It is very likely, given the nature of pragmatic meaning, that any post-​hoc assessment of reliability would be weaker than one incorporated from the beginning of the study.

5.6 Conclusion This chapter highlighted three methodological decisions that could potentially significantly affect the data and results of a study on discourse marker production in the L2. Studies focused on development and acquisitional sequences should opt for an interlanguage analysis rather than a contrastive approach and take care to precisely measure learner proficiency so as to not obscure developmental patterns. Pursuing a function-​to-​form approach, leaving undetermined the discourse markers to be studied, makes room for an investigation of the interaction between discourse markers at different proficiency levels as well as other pragmatic cues that learners may take advantage of. And finally, task type and social context can potentially affect the frequency and functions of individual discourse markers for both learners and native speakers. This chapter described study procedures in detail with the hope that they can be replicated for future work. Chapters 6 and 7 lay out the results for both the native speakers and the learners.

Notes 1 Participants OL05 and OL07 are categorized as learners for two reasons. First, they acquired French in a formal academic setting. It was not the language of the home. Second, they were still students of French at university. They were enrolled in upper-​level classes but were still students of French. There is no evidence to suggest they had reached a higher level of proficiency and had attrited. Participant OL05’s extensive secondary education in an English language environment suggests that English is actually their dominant L2, not French. Similarly, for participant OL07, there were numerous instances of English influence in their French speaking. 2 Tremblay did not impose a time limit but notes that her participants took between fifteen and thirty-​five minutes to complete the cloze test. 3 A two-​dimensional k-​means cluster analysis will be dominated by the factor with the most variance to create clusters because creating clusters that minimize variance has a larger effect on total variance reduction. The greater

Methodological Questions  79 variation in the cloze test results provides better statistical benefit for the division of groups. 4 The piloting of the role play scenarios was not IRB-​approved and thus no data was collected from that group of students. 5 While some researchers (Clark & Fox Tree, 2002) have categorized uh and um as words, most research on discourse markers continues to refer to them as filled pauses and they are considered separate from other traditionally accepted discourse markers. 6 See example (3)

References 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. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​ijcl.16.2.04aij Andorno, C. (2006). Connettivi in italiano L2 fra struttura dell’enunciato e struttura dell’interazione. In G. Bernini, L. Spreafico, & A. Valentini (Eds.), Competenze lessicalie e discorsive nell’acquisizione di lingue seconde (pp. 481–​510). Guerra Edizioni. Anping, H. (2000). On the discourse marker “so.” In P. Peters, P. Collins, & A. Smith (Eds.), Papers from the Twenty First International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora. Rodopi. Borreguero Zuloaga, M. (2017). Topic-​shift discourse markers in L2 Italian. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 8(2), 173–​203. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1075/​lia.15045.bor Brugman, H., & Russel, A. (2004). Annotating multimeda/​ multi-​ modal resources with ELAN. Proceedings of LREC 2004, Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. https://​tla.mpi.nl/​tools/​ tla-​tools/​elan/​ Buysse, L. (2011). The business of pragmatics: the case of discourse markers in the speech of students of Business English and English linguistics. ITL –​ International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 161, 10–​30. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1075/​itl.161.02buy Buysse, L. (2012). So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1764–​1782. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.pra​gma.2012.08.012 Buysse, L. (2015). “Well it’s not very ideal …” The pragmatic marker well in learner English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 59–​89. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1515/​ip-​2015-​0003 Chomet, S. (1997). La vieille dame et les pigeons. Les Armateurs. www.yout​ube. com/​watch?v=​MqhV​cRrr​auY&t=​15s Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–​111. Corino, E. (2016). Learners and reformulative discourse markers. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 7(1), 44–​66. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​lia.7.1.02cor De la Fuente, M. J. (2009). The role of pedagogical tasks and focus on form in acquisition of discourse markers by advanced language learners. In R. P. Leow, H. Campos, & D. Lardiere (Eds.), Little words: Their history, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and acquisition (pp. 211–​221). Georgetown University Press.

80  Methodological Questions De Marco, A. (2016). The use of discourse markers in L2 Italian. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 7(1), 67–​88. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​ lia.7.1.03dem Deng, D. (2016). Oui, voilà: analyse des deux marqueurs discursifs utilisés par les locuteurs du francais d’origine chinoise en France. Cahiers, 20(1), 45–​69. Félix-​Brasdefer, J. C. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54(4), 587–​ 653. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1467-​9922.2004.00281.x Félix-​Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-​sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 253–​286. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​IP.2007.013 Fernández, J., Gates Tapia, A., & Lu, X. (2014). Oral proficiency and pragmatic marker use in L2 spoken Spanish: The case of pues and bueno. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 150–​164. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2014.09.005 Flores-​Ferrán, N., & Lovejoy, K. (2015). An examination of mitigating devices in the argument interactions of L2 Spanish learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 67–​86. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2014.11.005 Fuller, J. M. (2003a). Discourse marker use across speech contexts: A comparison of native and non-​native speaker performance. Multilingua, 22(2), 185–​208. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​mult.2003.010 Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken english: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410–​439. https://​ doi.org/​10.1093/​app​lin/​amm​030 Han, Y., Segalowitz, N., Khalil, L., Kehayia, E., Turner, C., & Gatbonton, E. (2020). Do nurses use discourse markers differently when using their second language as opposed to their first while interviewing patients? Canadian Modern Language Review, 76(2), 91–​113. https://​doi.org/​10.3138/​ CMLR-​2018-​0268 Hancock, V. (2004). L’emploi de donc chez des apprenants avancés: intonosyntaxe et fonctionnements. In B. Ermin (Ed.), Second language acquisition and usage, Stockholm studies in modern philology (pp. 99–​ 121). Almvist & Wiksell International. Hancock, V. (2012). Pragmatic use of temporal adverbs in L1 and L2 French. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 3(1), 29–​51. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​ lia.3.1.03han Hancock, V., & Sanell, A. (2009). The acquisition of four adverbs in a learner corpus of L2 French. Discours, 5, 2–​28. Hancock, V., & Sanell, A. (2010). Pragmaticalisation des adverbes temporels dans le français parlé L1 et L2. EUROSLA Yearbook, 10(2010), 62–​91. https://​doi. org/​10.1075/​euro​sla.10.06han 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. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​ gma.2013.03.001 Kerr-​Barnes, B. (1998). The acquisition of connectors in French L2 narrative discourse. Journal of French Language Studies, 8(2), 189–​208. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1017/​S09592​6950​0004​142 Lado, R. (1957). Sentence Structure. College Composition and Communication, 8(1), 12–​16.

Methodological Questions  81 Liao, S. (2009). Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1313–​1328. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2008.09.026 Liddicoat, A. J., & Crozet, C. (2001). Acquiring French interactional norms through instruction. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 125–​144). Cambridge University Press. 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. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2012.11.002 Liu, B. (2017). Contrastive study of discourse markers used by native and Chinese L2 English speakers across speech context. East Asian Pragmatics, 2(1), 101–​ 126. https://​doi.org/​10.1558/​eap.33278 Moeschler, J. (2014). Causality and non-​iconic order. In G. Gobber & A. Rocci (Eds.), Language, reason and education (pp. 243–​258). Peter Lang. Müller, S. (2004). “Well you know that type of person”: Functions of well in the speech of American and German students. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(6), 1157–​1182. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2004.01.008 Narita, R. (2012). The effects of pragmatic consciousness-​raising activity on the development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential markers for learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(1), 1–​29. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2011.09.016 Neary-​ Sundquist, C. (2013). Task type effects on pragmatic marker use by learners at varying proficiency levels. L2 Journal, 5(2). https://​doi.org/​10.5070/​ l25212​104 Özer, H. Z., & Okan, Z. (2018). Discourse markers in EFL classrooms: A corpus-​ drive research. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(1), 50–​66. Pauletto, F., & Bardel, C. (2016). Pointing backward and forward. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 7(1), 89–​116. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​ lia.7.1.04pau Pellet, S. H. (2005). The development of competence in French interlanguage pragmatics: The case of the discourse marker ‘donc.’ ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 303. https://​sea​rch.proqu​est.com/​docv​iew/​304979​491?accoun​ tid=​10673%0Ah​ttp://​open​url.ac.uk/​redir​ect/​ath​ens:edu/​?url_​ver=​Z39.88-​ 2004&rft_​val_​fmt=​info:ofi/​fmt:kev:mtx:disse​rtat​ion&genre=​disser​tati​ons+​ %26+​the​ses&sid=​ProQ:ProQu​est+​Disser​tati​ons+​%26+​The​ses+​Glo​bal&at Sankoff, G., Thibault, P., Nagy, N., Blondeau, H., Fonollosa, M. O., & Gagnon, L. (1997). Variation in the use of discourse markers in a language contact situation. Language Variation and Change, 9(2), 191–​217. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1017/​S09543​9450​0001​873 Sawyer, M. (1992). The Development of pragmatics in Japanese as a second language: The sentence-​ final particle ne. In K. Gabriele (Ed.), Pragmatics of Japanese as native and target language (pp. 81–​ 111). University of Hawai’i Press. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(3), 209–​232. Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 200–​222). Cambridge University Press.

82  Methodological Questions Thörle, B. (2016). Turn openings in L2 French. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 7(1), 117–​144. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​lia.7.1.05tho Tremblay, A. (2011). Proficiency assessment standards in second language acquisition research: “Clozing” the gap. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(3), 339–​372. https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​S02722​6311​1000​015 Wong, J. (2000). Research on language & social interaction: The Token “Yeah” in nonnative speaker English conversation. Communication, 1813(785045689). https://​doi.org/​10.1207/​S15327​973R​LSI3​301 Zhao, H. (2013). A study on the pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers among Chinese English learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(4), 707–​714. Zuloaga, M. B., Izquierdo, P. P., & Gillani, E. (2017). Metadiscursive functions and discourse markers in L2 Italian. In A. P. Loureiro, C. Carapinha, & C. Plag (Eds.), Marcadores discursivos e(m) tradução (pp. 15–​57). Universidade de Coimbra Press.

6 How Do Native Speakers Use Discourse Markers?

6.1 Introduction Discourse marker use by native speakers of French has been extensively studied since at least the 1980s. As reviewed in Chapter 2, several theoretical proposals have been put forth to describe the role and function of discourse markers in different varieties of French (see for example Ducrot, 1980 for France; and Vincent, 1993 for Quebec). The results from the native speaker participants of this study further contribute to the understanding of discourse marker use and meaning and provide a framework through which L2 learner use of discourse markers can be examined.

6.2  What Is the Inventory of Discourse Markers Used by the Native Speakers of French in This Study? The twelve native speaker participants in this study produced a total of 51,688 words of which 3,610 were discourse markers. Of the 3,610 total tokens produced, there were 52 unique discourse markers. The discourse markers alors, donc, bon, and en fait were among the most frequently produced and employed by all twelve native speaker participants. While the multilingual participants did occasionally codeswitch during the tasks, they only produced discourse markers in French, with the exception of ok, which has become integrated into numerous languages outside of English and could arguably not be considered an English word, depending on the context. A table of the full inventory of discourse markers produced by the native speakers can be found in Appendix B. Although the native speakers as a group produced 52 unique discourse markers, there was considerable individual variation, with some speakers relying on as few as 18 unique discourse markers, and others using as many as 31 unique discourse markers. The range of unique discourse markers employed varied from speaker to speaker, as illustrated in Figure 6.1, but four of the twelve native speakers produced between 18 and 20 unique discourse markers, and another four produced between 26 and 28 unique discourse markers. DOI: 10.4324/9781003323754-6

84  Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers

Figure 6.1 Unique discourse markers produced.

Native speakers demonstrated sensitivity to the task type in their discourse marker use. They produced a majority of the discourse markers during the unstructured interview (~50%), followed by the role-​ play scenarios (23%), the film discussion (18%), and finally the narrative film retell (~9%). The absolute values of discourse markers produced correlates with the total number of words produced in each task. This can be largely attributed to task length as the unstructured interviews lasted up to thirty minutes, while the narrative film retell was sometimes as short as three to four minutes. Considering discourse marker production per 100 words produced, however, produces a different pattern. From this perspective, the role-​play scenarios were the ripest for discourse marker use at 8.95 discourse markers per 100 words, followed by the film discussion at 7.8 DMs per 100 words, the unstructured interview at 6.55 DMs per 100 words and finally the narrative film retell at 4.99 DMs per 100 words. Numerous social and pragmatic factors likely contributed to this distribution of discourse markers. Both the role-​play scenarios and the film discussion were dialogic tasks that required the native speakers to interact with their chosen partner, often a spouse or a close friend. As discourse markers have been documented to be more frequent in informal speech, it is unsurprising that tasks that most closely replicated those situations would result in greater use of discourse markers. The unstructured interview was also a dialogic task, but with the researcher/interviewer who was a stranger to most of the native speakers prior to this interaction (as well as a non-​native speaker of French), thus it is possible that they would be more reserved in their speech. Finally, the narrative film retell is the most

Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers  85 Table 6.1 Discourse marker production by task Task

Total DMs

%Total DM Count

Total Words

DMs per 100 words

Role play scenarios Film Discussion Interview Narrative retell Total

839 652 1,796 323 3,610

23.24 18.06 49.75 8.95

9,377 8,359 27,480 6,472 51,688

8.95 7.80 6.55 4.99 6.98

Table 6.2 Most frequently occurring discourse markers #

Discourse marker

Total

% total DMs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Donc Mais Ben Et oui/​ouais ‘fin en fait Voilà Alors Bon pis/​puis du coup Après parce que Non Hein Sinon Là Quoi Total

524 470 381 347 286 243 190 188 139 122 100 69 66 58 56 48 45 41 40 3413

15.35 13.77 11.16 10.17 8.38 7.12 5.57 5.51 4.07 3.57 2.93 2.02 1.93 1.70 1.64 1.41 1.32 1.20 1.17

Note: Most frequent refers to those discourse markers that make up at least 1% of total discourse markers produced. The percentage is relative to the other most frequent DMs, not the total produced.

“experimental” of the four tasks as well as almost monologic in nature, and perhaps then the least likely to replicate a naturalistic speech event. Although native speakers produced fifty-​two unique discourse markers overall, only nineteen of them represent each at least 1% of the corpus. The three most frequently produced discourse markers were ben, donc, and mais, each representing at least 10% of the total production, with donc being the most frequent, mirroring results in prior research that claim it as the most commonly used discourse marker in hexagonal French (Mosegaard Hansen, 1998). The discourse marker alors, often studied in parallel with donc because of perceived overlapping functions,

86  Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers actually trailed in its usage, representing only 3.8% of the total discourse markers produced. Overall, the nineteen most frequent discourse markers made up more than 94% of the total discourse marker production for this group of native speakers.

6.3  What Is the Functional Distribution of Discourse Markers for Native Speakers in This Corpus? Researchers have developed varying frameworks to describe the function and role of discourse markers in speech. Native speaker discourse marker productions were coded according to thirteen functional categories. The distribution of functions is represented in Table 6.3. The exact function of a small number of the discourse markers could not be identified. Native speakers primarily used discourse markers to manage the topic of discussion. Just over 40% of the discourse markers produced were employed in this manner. The remaining functions were all much less frequent than topic management with the next most frequent being to indicate a conclusion or a result at a rate of about 12% of the total production and reformulations, which made up about 11% of the total discourse marker production. The native speaker participants used discourse markers to express all of the other functions less than 10% of the time each. The most infrequent functions were discourse markers that introduced reported speech, and those used for recapitulation. 6.3.1 Contrast Native speakers made use of several discourse markers to encode contrast, specifically en fait and mais. The most common use of en fait in Table 6.3 Inventory of functions expressed Functional category

Total

% total

topic management conclusion/​result reformulation/​clarification contrast turn management information management hesitation emphasis affirmation interlocutor engagement interrogation unclear recapitulation reported speech TOTAL

1450 449 401 257 240 199 180 178 100 55 48 19 19 15 3610

40.17 12.44 11.11 7.12 6.65 5.51 4.99 4.93 2.77 1.52 1.33 0.53 0.53 0.42

Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers  87 this corpus was to indicate when something a speaker has said was contrary to what was expected, as in example (1). En fait can also be used to indicate the surprise or unexpectedness of a following action –​in example (2), the shelf being knocked over by the main character of the story climbing it. Sometimes a participant employed a discourse marker to indirectly contrast something they stated either implicitly or explicitly. For example, in a discussion of French and American politics shortly after the two countries’ elections in 2017, participant NS04 makes an informal comparison of Emmanuel Macron and Donald Trump. The use of mais here does not directly contrast them by suggesting that Macron is very diplomatic, and Trump is not, but rather indirectly contrasts the two by suggesting that Trump cannot be counted on (perhaps despite Macron’s diplomacy). Other discourse markers that the native speakers employed to mark a contrast included actuellement, du coup, non, and en effet. In example (3), the negative particle non was also used as a discourse marker to indicate contrast. In these cases, it was not as a response to a “yes/​no” question, but rather as an indicator of disagreement with the previous utterance. In this example, participant NS12 is negating their own previous utterance in which they suggest that they do practice exercises to prepare for an exam. But immediately after suggesting it, they realize that it is too late as the exam is imminent (in the role-​play scenario). Thus, the non signals outwardly to participant NS11 that the previous utterance is invalid. (1)

NS08, narration, use of en fait for contrary to expectation Et c’est à ce moment-​là en fait ça renverse ‘fin le renversant en montant sur les la la la l’étagère. And it is at this moment then DM that it knocks over DM knocking over while climbing on the the the the the shelf.

(2)

NS04, interview, use of mais for contrast Je pense que Emmanuel Macron c’est quelqu’un de très diplomate. Donc euh peut-​être qu’il va réussir à faire quelque chose. Mais euh il faut pas compter sur Trump… I think that Emmanuel Macron is someone very diplomatic. DM um maybe he will be successful at doing something. DM um one mustn’t count on Trump…

(3)

NS12, role play, use of non for disagreement Moi je n’ai pas tout… et euh on… c’est vraiment… on fait des entraînements… ‘fin non c’est un peu tard de dire ça mais… Me, I didn’t…and um…we… .it’s really…we do exercises… .DM DM. It’s a bit late to say that DM…

88  Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers 6.3.2  Reported Speech Three discourse markers were used to mark reported speech: ben, bon, and tiens. Often, a speaker would make use of a discourse marker in this situation when self-​quoting, providing examples of things they may have said to themselves or would say to themselves in a given situation. In example (4) both ben and tiens are used to introduce an open reflection where the speaker quotes themselves. It punctuates a change where previously participant NS11 had been describing their past experiences, and then suddenly shifts to the present with this reported speech. This was the most frequent use for discourse markers employed in this functional category. They were rarely employed to report the speech of another. (4)

NS11, interview, use of ben and tiens for reported speech Et je me suis dit ben tiens pourquoi pas moi? And I said to myself, DM DM why not me?

6.3.3 Affirmation Any discourse marker that seemed to indicate the speaker’s agreement with a prior statement was coded as marking affirmation. In example (5), participants NS02 and NS03 are responding to the question regarding why silent films are still produced today. They discuss the effects that silent films have on their audiences and participant NS02 demonstrates tacit agreement with the idea suggested by participant NS11 while they are still speaking. Acknowledgment of a prior statement without overtly expressing agreement or affirmation is another function within this category, as shown in example (6). In this case, participant NS04 interrupts participant NS05’s narration with a comment on the scene. Participant NS05 briefly acknowledges participant NS04’s contribution with en effet and then continues to finish their description of what happened in the short film. The most frequent discourse marker for this function was oui/​ouais, which could be interpreted as a kind of back channel. However, in this case it is analyzed as a discourse marker because of the other discourse markers that can also express this function in this context. For example, voilà can also perform this function, and to a lesser extent bon and d’accord, as well as en effet, as highlighted in example (6). (5)

NS02/​03, film discussion, use of voilà for agreement NS03: donc y a pas d’interprétation y a pas de DM there isn’t a performance, there isn’t… NS02: voilà c’est ça DM that’s it

Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers  89 NS03: (6)

mise en scène (theatrical) direction.

NS04/​05, NS05 narration, use of en effet for acknowledgement NS05: Et euh…il se retrouve dans le vide en fait And he finds himself in the void DM NS04: un vrai pigeon a real pigeon NS05: en effet…et intense suspension DM…and suspended in the air

6.3.4 Conclusion Discourse markers can be used to indicate that the following utterance is a conclusion that the speaker is drawing from the context, as in example (7), a result of the previous context or situation, as in example (8), or a consequence of the previous context or action, as in example (9). The native speakers most frequently used donc to express these functions, followed by du coup and alors. The use of donc, however, far outpaced the second two. While donc and alors are often thought as sharing functional space (e.g. Degand & Fagard, 2011), alors is used less frequently in this corpus and never to express a consequence, only to draw conclusions or indicate the result of an action. In fact, native speakers use finalement just as frequently as they do alors for these functions. Et is very robust in this category with 66 tokens, but all but one occurrences are in a cluster with another discourse marker, usually donc. (7)

NS09, role play, use of du coup for conclusion Mais….c’est vrai que les photocopies du coup ce serait un bon compromis. DM it’s true that the photocopies DM that would be a good compromise.

(8)

NS07, interview, use of donc for result Et après j’ai intégré une grande école… euh…à Lyon. Je suis donc allée à Lyon et… And afterwards I got into a “grande école” in Lyon. I went DM to Lyon and…

(9)

NS01, interview, use of donc for consequence ben anglais et euh espagnol… euh j’ai jamais pratiqué vraiment. Donc euh… j’ai tout oublié. DM English and Spanish…um. I never practiced really. DM um I forgot everything.

90  Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers 6.3.5 Recapitulation Recapitulation describes a situation in which an utterance was a recap of a prior statement as in example (10), provided a summary of what was just stated/​discussed as in example (11), or a simple repetition of an immediately preceding statement as in example (12). In example (11), NS02 had just finished explaining their language abilities in Polish, and to sum up, they conclude with a statement outlining their assessment of their overall ability in the language. Native speakers did not often mark a recapitulation with a discourse marker, but when they did, the marker of choice was overwhelmingly donc. (10) NS06, discussion, use of donc for recapitulation donc je disais qu’on voyait des scènes de la vie quotidienne DM I was saying that we were seeing scenes of daily life… (11) NS02, interview, use of mais for summary Mais euh je peux comprendre quelques petites choses. But um I can understand a few small things. (12) NS11, interview, use of donc for a repetition Et là-​bas j’ai rencontré une amie avec qui on a eu l’idée de monter uh monter un bar un café un café culturel café concert eum… Donc on a eu l’idée. And there I met a friend with whom we had the idea to open uh to open up a bar, a café, a cultural café, a concert space, um…DM we had the idea. 6.3.6 Reformulation It is natural in unplanned speech for speakers to stop and restart and change what they were saying mid-​ sentence. These “reformulations” were often marked by a few different discourse markers, but most frequently the marker ’fin, as in example (13). The DMs ben, donc, enfin, and bon were also used for this purpose. The reformulation category also encompasses those attempts by speakers to clarify or explain previous utterances as shown in example (14). This differs from the recapitulation in the motivation. Recapitulations are meant as summations or paraphrases to ensure both speakers are on the same page. Reformulations serve to clarify the discourse, either because the speaker’s initial utterance was unclearly articulated and their interlocutor did not (or could not) follow them, or the speaker decides themselves that there is a better way of communicating the message they are attempting to get across. Of the three sub-​functions, mid-​clause reformulations were the most frequent with 374 total occurrences. Discourse markers were employed significantly more infrequently in association with a clarification or explanation.

Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers  91 (13) NS12, role play, use of ‘fin for reformulation ah oui mais…à part ça ‘fin il faudrait que… payer comme ça ah DM DM besides that DM you have to pay like that (14) NS01, role play, use of parce que for clarification/​explanation Est-​ce que tu pourrais me passer tes notes du coup parce que Moi j’étais pas là Could you lend me your notes DM/​since I wasn’t there? 6.3.7  Topic Management Managing the topic of discussion is an important function of discourse markers in this corpus. This functional category includes: starting a new topic of discussion, as in example (15), which is participant NS06’s first statement during the narration task; ending a topic of discussion, such as in example (16), where participant NS08 is indicating that they have finished presenting their family to the interviewer and have nothing more to say about them;1 shifting the topic in a new (yet related) direction, as in example (17), where NS02 tries to distract NS03 from their displeasure over wrecking their car without having first asked permission to use it during one of the role-​play scenarios; introducing digressions and asides from the main topic, as illustrated in example (18); resuming a topic after a digression, as in example (19); and indicating that the following utterance continues a previous topic, as illustrated in example (20). A few discourse markers were also used to link related utterances together or to sequence them, as in example (21), and to point out something in the previous utterance with a direct impact on the upcoming utterance, as in example (22). The most robustly and diversly employed discourse marker in this category was mais with 345 tokens, which speakers used to encode eight of the different subfunctions. Native speakers most frequently used mais to either indicate a shift in the topic of discussion or to continue or resume the main topic of discussion. The next most frequent discourse marker used to express these functions was et, but as in other cases, it occurred almost always in a cluster with another discourse marker. Donc was the next most frequent and was primarily used to continue a topic of discussion or resume a previously abandoned topic of discussion. Voilà marked the end of a topic and was rarely employed for any other function. This discourse marker indicated that the speaker had finished their line of thought. In general, this functional category represented the widest variety of discourse markers, 26 unique markers in total, and underscores the individual variability that is possible for expressing the same group of related functions. (15) NS06, narration, use of alors for new topic alors euh l’action semble se passer à Paris et euh on voit un gendarme…

92  Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers DM uh the action seems to take place in Paris and uh we see a police officer… (16) NS08, interview, use of voilà for topic closer Ma sœur est réceptionniste dans un hôtel. elle fait aussi du théâtre. Euh…voilà My sister is a receptionist in a hotel. She also does theater. Um…DM. (17) NS02, role play, use of mais for topic shift Je sais mais… mais je sais que tu m’aimes bien aussi. Tu me pardonneras? I know DM…DM I know that you love me a lot. Will you forgive me? (18) NS03, interview, use of bon for a digression J’ai fait une semaine en Italie aussi, où j’ai vécu pareil dans une famille d’ accueil italienne. mais bon je parlais pas la langue I spent a week in Italy also, where I lived with an Italian host family. DM DM I didn’t speak the language. (19) NS10, narration, use of donc for a resumption et on dirait qu’ il a un problème avec le pigeon qu’il a un peu peur des pigeons. et um… et donc il voit cette dame qui nourrit les pigeons… And one could say that he has a problem with the pigeon that he is a little scared of pigeons. And um…and DM he sees this lady who feeds the pigeons… (20) NS01, interview, use of ouais for continuation parce que j’ai toujours détesté Paris. Ah ouais. Je me voyais pas je me suis jamais vraiment vu y vivre. Because I always hated Paris. Ah DM. I never really saw myself living there. (21) NS05, interview, use of puis for sequencing or linking utterances donc ça a commencé comme ça. ça m’a plu et puis ben après j’ai enchaîné sur d’autres courses… DM that started like that. I liked it and DM DM after I did a series of other races… (22) NS11, narration, use of là for pointing out something in a previous utterance Donc là il est toujours toujours aussi maigre. DM DM he is still still very thin.

Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers  93 6.3.8  Turn Management Native speakers made use of a more limited inventory of discourse markers to manage turn-​taking. They frequently used a discourse marker to open their turn. Very few were used when trying to hold the floor or end a turn. There are also clear distinctions between those discourse markers used to open turns versus close them. The discourse marker ben was employed robustly to open a turn but was never used to close a turn, as was alors, although to a lesser extent than ben. Voilà was only used to express the end of a speaker’s turn and in only five instances. A version of oui/​ouais was used often in turn management, usually to open a turn, but also to close a turn in some cases. One possible explanation for the low use of discourse markers to end a turn is the frequent overlap with the end of a topic of discussion, thus the function could have become subsumed under the other functional category. However, assuming this overlap does not greatly increase the number of discourse markers used to close a turn, drawing attention to the relative infrequency of clause-​ final discourse markers in general. (23) NS06, narration, use of alors at turn opening Alors euh l’action semble se passer à Paris. DM uh the action seems to take place in Paris. (24) NS06, interview, use of voilà at turn closing Après je suis retourné faire mes études en France pour terminer les études ouais, voilà. After I returned to study in France, to finish my studies DM, DM. 6.3.9 Hesitation Discourse markers used as pause fillers while a speaker gathered their thoughts or hesitated over utterances (­example 25), or used to reassure a speaker of their immediately preceding statement before continuing (­example 26) were categorized as expressing the function of hesitation. Several discourse markers can mark hesitation, along with non-​lexical utterances, but ben was the most frequently employed in this corpus when speakers were “thinking” and oui/​ouais was the most frequent for self-​confirmations or reassurances. (25) NS08, interview, use of ben for hesitation C’est assez marrant puisque ça ouvre forcément l’esprit sur euh. bon ben des autres cultures. It’s pretty funny because it must open the mind to…DM DM other cultures.

94  Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers (26) NS07, discussion, use of ouais for self-​confirmation En plus…ouais peut-​être c’est une bonne solution. Also…DM maybe it’s a good solution. 6.3.10  Information Management When a speaker made use of a discourse marker to indicate that they were supplementing the ongoing discussion with additional relevant information, without moving the discussion forward or changing its direction, they were labeled as performing the function of information management. Information management markers distinguish themselves from topic management markers that aid in moving the conversation along, whereas information management markers introduce relevant background information. The most frequent discourse markers employed for this function were parce que, mais, et, donc, puisque, and en fait. These markers could be used to simply provide new or additional information relevant to discussion. They could introduce an elaboration on the topic or provide an example that illustrates the topic under discussion. In example (27), participant NS06 provides additional reflection on the film during the discussion, and reflects upon the intentions of the director and the themes included in the short film. Participant NS06 notes that several themes, such as poverty, obesity, and hunger, are addressed. And to back this up, they mention that there are shocking scenes in the film, using et as a discourse marker to link it to his discussion of the complex themes. (27) NS06, discussion, use of et for additional information c’est-​à-​dire que…il exagère la pauvreté, il exagère euh la faim il exagère l’obésité… tout. Et euh il y a les scènes aussi uh…assez uh… surprenantes. That is… he exaggerates poverty, he exaggerates hunger, he exaggerates obesity… everything. DM there are also scenes that are pretty shocking. 6.3.11  Interlocutor Engagement Discourse markers derived from verbs were used exclusively to directly engage with one’s interlocutor. In this functional category, the speaker not only punctuates their utterance with a discourse marker, but also directly addresses their interlocutor seeking a (usually) non-​verbal response. A speaker could seek solidarity with their interlocutor, asking them to actively “buy-​in” or indicate agreement with a prior or upcoming utterance, as in example (28). They could attempt to solicit understanding or empathy from their interlocutor, hoping that they indicate that they are following along with the speaker’s line of thought, as in example

Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers  95 (29). And finally, they could simply be checking in with their interlocutor to make sure that they are still paying attention, as in example (30). The expected response from the interlocutor was usually some form of backchannel or physical response, such as a nod. These discourse markers were relatively rare in the entire corpus with only fifty-​five occurrences. The two most frequent were écoute/​écoutez and tu sais. (28) NS01, role play, use of tu sais for seeking solidarity Est-​ce que tu pourrais me passer tes notes? Du coup parce que moi j’étais pas là…je me suis pas reveillé. Et euh tu sais y a l’exam la semaine prochaine là. Could you pass me your notes? DM DM me I wasn’t there…I didn’t wake up. And um DM there’s the test next week. (29) NS02, role play, use of écoute for checking understanding Mais oui oui oui je sais. Écoute, écoute je te jure que c’était hyper urgent, je devais faire une course très rapide. DM DM DM DM I know. DM DM I swear to you that it was very urgent. I had to run a quick errand. (30) NS11, role play, use of tu vois for interlocutor check-​in après le truc c’ est que la semaine après c’est moi qui l’a fait tu vois, ça n’a pas été nettoyé. DM the thing is that the week after it was me that did it DM, it wasn’t cleaned. 6.3.12 Emphasis Native speakers employed nineteen different discourse markers to add emphasis to their utterances, the most frequent of which being ben (n=​62) and quoi (n=​39). Déjà and voilà followed these in relative frequency. The remaining discourse markers identified performing this function were used infrequently and often only by one speaker. In example (31), the discourse marker quoi reinforces the speaker’s assertion about the people they are discussing having an open mind like them, while in example (32), the discourse marker ben is actually reinforcing another discourse marker that follows it, used to acknowledge a previous utterance by the speaker’s interlocutor. (31) NS05, interview, use of quoi for emphasis et un esprit ouvert aussi un peu comme nous quoi And an open mind also a little like us DM (32) NS12, interview, use of ben for emphasis ben voilà.,c’est vrai que… DM DM it’s true that…

96  Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers 6.3.13 Interrogation Native speakers used hein as a tag question forty-​six times. There were also unique cases of non and bon being used for this function. (33) NS03, role play, use of hein as a tag question Moi je fais ce que t’aimes pas faire. je te je te rends un service finalement hein. Me, I do what you don’t like to do. I’m doing, I’m doing you a favor really DM. The examples in this chapter demonstrate the range of functions expressed and the different discourse markers used to express them. Even though several discourse markers could express a wide range of functions, the native speakers in this study did exhibit tendencies for certain discourse markers in specific contexts over others. Some discourse markers, such as quoi and hein, are highly specialized, primarily employed for a single function. On the other hand, while there are tendencies for donc and mais, they are still robustly employed to express a variety of functions. Table 6.4 summarizes these relative frequencies for the nineteen most frequent discourse markers in the corpus.

6.4  Syntactic Considerations Most criteria describing discourse markers indicate that they are typically deployed in initial position relative to the clause or utterance that they are acting upon. In this study, 77% of the discourse markers that the native speakers produced occurred in initial position. Discourse markers were coded as appearing in initial position if they were located at the beginning of a new clause (prior to the subject and main verb), such as in example (34), or if the preceded a secondary verb phrase in a complex sentence, such as in example (35). Approximately 10.5% of discourse markers appeared in medial position, as illustrated in example (36). A discourse marker was considered to be in medial position if it appeared to interrupt the verb phrase such as intervening between a subject and its verb, or a verb and its complement. Approximately 11% of the discourse markers occurred in final position, as in example (37), and they were those discourse markers that followed a complete verb phrase but clearly referenced the content of the preceding verb phrase and not the following. Most often, discourse markers in final position occurred at the end of a turn. A small percentage of discourse markers did not appear as a connected to any verb phrase at all, but rather stood alone as a response to a statement made by the other participant. This was often the case with voilà, marking agreement or acknowledgement in a conversation. Example (38) comes from the very end of participant NS09’s narration. In this case, participant NS10 acknowledges the last part of

newgenrtpdf

Table 6.4 Distribution of discourse markers by function Functional category Emphasis Affir- Interlocutor Interro- Recapitu- Reported mation engagement gation lation speech

78 56 107 57 164 25 3 245 7 —​ 38 335 14 50 —​ 88 1 40 121

—​ 4 62 1 1 —​ —​ 2 —​ 1 2 13 1 —​ —​ —​ 39 —​ 19

20 —​ 3 5 270 37 —​ 66 —​ —​ —​ 8 1 2 —​ 2 —​ 1 13

9 —​ 52 19 33 3 6 —​ 227 —​ —​ 14 4 —​ 3 1 —​ —​ 4

2 1 —​ 3 —​ 2 170 6 —​ —​ —​ 44 25 —​ —​ —​ —​ 2 —​

21 —​ 78 11 5 —​ —​ 3 —​ —​ —​ 5 8 103 —​ —​ —​ —​ 5

2 4 2 4 17 2 10 20 —​ —​ —​ 46 —​ —​ 55 9 —​ 2 —​

2 1 66 12 15 —​ —​ 2 8 —​ 1 2 1 63 —​ —​ —​ —​ 6

—​ —​ —​ 4 —​ —​ —​ 1 —​ —​ —​ —​ 1 70 —​ —​ —​ —​ 18

—​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ 1 —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​

—​ —​ —​ 1 —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ 46 —​ —​ 1 —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​

2 —​ —​ —​ 9 —​ —​ 2 1 —​ —​ 3 —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ 1

—​ —​ 9 5 —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​

Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers  97

alors après ben bon donc du coup en fait et ‘fin hein là mais non oui/​ouais parce que pis/​puis quoi sinon voilà

Topic Conclusion/​ Reformulation/​ Contrast Turn Information Hesitation manage- result clarification manage- management ment ment

98  Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers the narration with d’accord and participant NS09 signals that they are completely finished with voilà. (34) NS04, narration, donc in initial position Donc y a plein de pigeons, ils sont énormes. DM there are a lot of pigeons they are enormous. (35) NS07, narration, en fait in initial position y a des…des gendarmes qui approchent mais en fait on voit que c’est pas des gendarmes, There are…police officers approaching, but DM we see that they aren’t police officers, (36) NS06, narration, donc in medial position Je suis donc allée à Lyon et… I went DM to Lyon and… (37) NS05, narration, en fait in final position Et arrive euh…arrive ce 24 décembre en fait And um… December 24 arrives DM. (38) NS09, narration, voilà independent from the clause NS09: En tout cas, il rentre chez luilentement. Voilà. In any case, he returns home slowly. DM. NS10: ah d’accord. Ok. Ah ok. Ok. NS09: voilà. DM. NS10: D’accord. Ok. Another syntactic feature of discourse markers is their ability to be deployed in clusters or combinations for different or shared functions. In this corpus, 41% of the discourse markers that the native speakers produced occurred in clusters. A cluster is defined as two or more discourse markers occurring in succession and not separated by a pause, filled pause (such as euh or um), or other utterances. When two or more discourse markers occur together, they can carry the same function, or each serve its own distinct purpose. Many of the clusters in this corpus are a combination of et and another discourse marker, such as donc or alors. In this case, as in example (39), et does not carry meaning on its own, but rather reinforces the meaning of the primary discourse marker. Other clusters often represent a sequence of functions such as opening a turn, starting a new line of discussion, and hesitating or reformulating speech. In example (40), each discourse marker is functioning independently. This is largely presumed based on their individual use in other

Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers  99 contexts where they do not appear in a cluster. Unlike et, other discourse markers in clusters appear to carry more meaning. (39) NS03, narration, two DM cluster with et donc Et donc on suit le gendarme qui…qui est bossu, DM DM we follow the police officer who…who has a hunchback, (40) NS03, discussion, three DM cluster with d’accord, bon, and ben D’accord bon ben qu’ est-​ce que t’as pensé du film? DM DM DM what did you think of the film?

6.5  Sociolinguistic Considerations Several factors have the potential to influence the variation in the number of discourse markers produced by each participant including age, gender, education, occupation, influence from other languages spoken, and regional variety. All of the native speakers in this corpus were between the ages of twenty-​five and thirty-​two, thus age is unlikely a contributing factor to individual variation. These speakers were all also highly educated and in white collar professions. Similarly, all had had exposure to English as well as other foreign languages through primary and secondary education. Thus, the sociolinguistic factors with the greatest potential to showcase individual variation are gender and regional variety. For reference, profiles of all of the participants that summarize these sociolinguistic variables are included in Appendix A. The twelve native speaker participants are almost evenly split with five male and seven female participants. Additionally, six of the speakers were from Paris and five were from western France near Nantes. One native speaker participant grew up in western France but at the time was residing in the United States. This speaker is excluded from the regional variation analysis. On average and overall, female participants produced more discourse markers than did the male participants. Male participants produced 6.4 discourse markers per 100 words while female participants produced 7.29 discourse markers per 100 words. With the exception of one, all female participants produced more than 200 discourse markers total across all four tasks. On the other hand, two of the male participants produced fewer than 150 discourse markers in total. Table 6.5 Discourse marker production by gender Male participants (n=​5)

Female participants (n=​7)

Total DMs

Average DMs

Total Words

DM/​100 Words

Total DMs

Average DMs

Total Words

DM/​100 Words

1170

234

18,259

6.40

2440

348.5

33,429

7.29

100  Native Speakers’ Use of Discourse Markers Table 6.6 Discourse marker production by region Paris region (n=​6)

Western France (n=​5)

Total DMs

Average DMs

Total words

DM/​100 words

Total DMs

Average DMs

Total words

DM/​100 words

2275

379

29,588

7.68

1089

217.8

18,727

5.81

An examination of the variation by region also highlights a stark difference between the two groups. Parisian participants produced 7.68 discourse markers per 100 words while those from western France only produced 5.841 discourse markers per 100 words.

6.6 Conclusion Native speakers in this corpus produced a range of discourse markers to perform a wide variety of functions. This data confirms the status of donc as the most common discourse marker in hexagonal French and provides support for the assertion that women use discourse markers more frequently than men. Additionally, native speakers demonstrate a sensitivity to task type in their use of discourse markers, suggesting that the use of discourse markers may lend themselves more to certain speech events than others. Even with these trends, there is still considerable individual variation in native speaker discourse marker use. The following chapter reviews the results from the learners.

Note 1 This description of participant NS08’s sister was the last in a long description of their family members and what they do. After this point particpant NS08 had to be prompted by the interviewer to speak more.

References Degand, L., & Fagard, B. (2011). Alors between discourse and grammar . Functions of Language, 18(1), 29–​56. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​fol.18.1.02deg Ducrot, O. (1980). Les mots du discours. Les Éditions de minuit. Mosegaard Hansen, M.-​B. (1998). Donc and alors. In M.-​B. Mosegaard Hansen (Ed.), The function of discourse particles: A study with special reference to spoken standard French (pp. 321–​355). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Vincent, D. (1993). Les ponctuants de la langue et autres mots du discours. Nuit blanche.

7 How Do Learners of French Use Discourse Markers?

7.1 Introduction This chapter responds to the central research question: “how do discourse markers develop in the speech of learners of French as a foreign language?” or, as rephrased in the title, “how do learners of French use discourse markers?” Answering this question requires consideration of three sub-​research questions: What is the inventory of discourse markers used by learners of French? What is the distribution of discourse marker to function? How does the inventory of discourse markers and their functions change over time with respect to increasing proficiency in the L2? Each question will be answered in turn.

7.2  What Is the Inventory of Discourse Markers Used by Learners of French? The inventory of discourse markers is at least partially correlated with the total number of words that the learners produced. The thirty-​eight learners in this study produced a total of 122,008 words, with the most words produced during the unstructured interview (n=​66,262) followed by the role-​play scenarios (n=​21,513), the film discussion (n=​19,290), and finally the film narrative retell (n=​14,579). Unsurprisingly, the total number of words produced increased with the proficiency of the learner. Of the 122,008 words that the learners produced, 5,527 were discourse markers, or approximately 4.5%. To determine if the difference in production of discourse markers between the three proficiency groups was significant, I ran a one-​way MANOVA using IBM SPSS. Results demonstrated that the difference in total discourse marker production was significant between the low-​and mid-​proficiency groups (p =​.013) and between the low-​and high-​proficiency groups (p =​.000). However, the difference in production between the mid-​and high-​ proficiency groups was not significant (p =​0.876). As expected, total production of discourse markers increased as learner proficiency increased. The low-​proficiency group produced a total of 875 discourse markers. Learners in the mid-​proficiency group produced 1,341 DOI: 10.4324/9781003323754-7

102  Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers Table 7.1 Discourse marker production by proficiency group Group

Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Low Mid High All

62.5 149 220.7 145.4

22 68 45

233 260 318

discourse markers and learners in the high-​proficiency group produced 3,311 discourse markers. Despite this clear difference between the proficiency groups, the idiosyncratic nature of discourse marker use is still evident when examining the per-​person production. On average, learners in the low-​proficiency group produced 62.5 discourse markers, but with a range of 22 to 233. A similar pattern is observed in the mid-​proficiency group, with an average of 149 discourse markers but a range of 68 to 260, and an average of 220 discourse markers per person for learners in the high-​proficiency group, with a range of 45 to 318. As an absolute measure of discourse marker production, there is a clear increase with regard to proficiency. However, given that total word production for learners in the three proficiency groups was also very different, it begs the question as to whether the increase in discourse marker production correlates with the increase in total words produced. And in fact, it does. The learners in the low-​proficiency group produced 2.79 discourse markers per 100 words. Learners in the mid-​proficiency group produced 4.77 discourse markers per 100 words and finally learners in the high-​proficiency group produced 5.29 discourse markers per 100 words. As just noted, the difference in total discourse marker production between learners in the mid-​proficiency and high-​proficiency groups was not statistically significant. A table of the full inventory of the discourse markers for all three proficiency groups can be found in Appendix C along with their individual frequencies in the corpus. The 5,527 total discourse markers that the learners produced are comprised of 63 unique discourse markers. However, as would be expected, not all 63 discourse markers were produced by each proficiency group. As with total words and total discourse markers produced despite individual variation, there is a clear trend of increasing discourse marker variety as proficiency in French increases. An individual learner in this corpus produced as few as five unique discourse markers (AL18) and as many as twenty-​four unique discourse markers (AL24). And given the idiosyncratic nature of discourse markers, there is even more variety represented when looking at proficiency groups rather than individuals, as no two speakers had the same inventory. Learners in the low-​proficiency group produced a range of five to fourteen unique discourse markers with an average of seven. Showing a slight increase, learners in the mid-​ proficiency group produced a range of seven to sixteen unique discourse

Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers  103

Figure 7.1 Number of unique discourse markers produced by proficiency group.

markers with an average of ten. And learners in the high-​proficiency group showed the greatest gains with a range of thirteen to twenty-​two unique discourse markers, with an average of sixteen. There were also three outliers in this group whose total number of unique discourse markers either greatly exceed the group range (OL02 and AL24) or was much less than the group range (AL21). These results are summarized in Figure 7.1, but they highlight both the overall trend in increasing variety with increasing proficiency while still underscoring the idiosyncratic nature of discourse marker use in the wide range. In general, these results align with prior research (De Marco, 2016) that has demonstrated that discourse marker variety increases with increasing proficiency. In total, learners in the low-​ proficiency group produced twenty-​ five unique discourse markers; learners in the mid-​proficiency group produced thirty-​five unique discourse markers and learners in the high-​proficiency group produced forty-​eight unique discourse markers. When analyzed via a one-​way MANOVA, I found that there was no statistically significant difference between any of the three proficiency groups for the variety of discourse markers produced. 7.2.1  Most Frequently Produced Discourse Markers Of the 63 unique discourse markers that the thirty-​ eight learners produced, just 12 account for 91% of the 5,527 total discourse markers produced. These include discourse markers previously documented in non-​native speech such as alors, bon, and donc (Hancock, 2004; Pellet, 2005) as well as others typical of native speech including ’fin, ben, and

104  Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers Table 7.2 Most frequently produced discourse markers by proficiency #

Discourse marker

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

donc mais ouais/​oui Et ‘fin alors Ben Bon en fait parce que voilà pis/​puis Total

Low 199 196 191 58 —​ 113 —​ 2 5 24 —​ 2 790

Mid

High

Total

% total

285 289 335 169 6 38 2 24 30 51 16 19 1264

808 585 320 311 241 73 204 124 113 62 89 55 2988

1292 1070 846 538 247 224 206 150 148 137 105 76 5039

25.64 21.23 16.79 10.68 4.90 4.45 4.09 2.98 2.94 2.72 2.08 1.51

Note: “Most frequent” refers to those discourse markers that made up at least 1% of the corpus. The % total is relative to the 11 other most frequently produced DMs.

voilà (Haileselassie, 2015; Kerr-​Barnes, 1995). Looking closely at the most frequently produced discourse markers, some patterns emerge. There are three that the low-​level speakers do not use at all (‘fin, ben, voilà), and mid-​level participants barely produce, but then are robust in the high-​proficiency group. Contrastively, certain markers are robustly represented in the low-​proficiency group such as alors, donc, mais, and ouais/​oui. This robust use increases with proficiency with the exception of alors, which decreases for the mid-​proficiency group and then has a slight rebound with the high-​proficiency group. Low-​proficiency participants seem to be very aware of (and able to produce) some discourse markers, and completely unaware of others. 7.2.2  Discourse Marker Production by Task Surprisingly, there is only a negligible difference in discourse marker production based on task type. An analysis of the total discourse marker production by task shows that learners produced the most discourse markers during the unstructured interview at a rate of 4.63 discourse markers per 100 words and the least during the film discussion at a rate of 4.24 discourse markers per 100 words. The rates per 100 words for the narrative film retell and the role-​play scenarios were similar at 4.38 and 4.59 respectively. In fact, the difference between the four tasks does not appear to be that great, even when broken down by proficiency group. Although the token count was too small to conduct a statistical analysis per task, examining the rates per 100 words for each group highlights the general lack of task effect on discourse marker production. Despite varying lengths in interview time, extensiveness of the role-​plays, or the

Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers  105 Table 7.3 Discourse markers per 100 words by proficiency group Task

Low

Mid

High

Total

Role plays Narrative Retell Discussion Interview

2.76 2.21 2.69 2.95

5.17 4.83 4.75 4.60

5.54 5.23 4.54 5.49

4.59 4.38 4.24 4.63

length of the narration, the production of discourse markers was steady across tasks. This is even more notable when compared to the results from the native speakers, who did show a task effect in the rate of discourse markers per 100 words produced. Despite the apparent lack of a task effect on discourse marker production, there is still a clear effect of proficiency, even when broken down by task. To illustrate the difference between the three groups, full transcripts of a representative narration for each proficiency level are included in examples (1), (2), and (3). In example (1), participant AL07 produces 2.19 discourse markers per 100 words, just below the average for the low-​proficiency group of 2.21 discourse markers per 100 words. Participant AL31 in example (2) produced 3.99 discourse markers per 100 words compared to the average of 4.83 discourse markers per 100 words for the mid-​proficiency group. The average for this group is higher because of a few participants whose discourse marker production per 100 words resembled the high-​proficiency group. Example (3) from participant AL03 represents a rate of 4.9 discourse markers per 100 words, just below the average of 5.23 discourse markers per 100 words for the high-​ proficiency group. These three transcripts highlight the increasing level of detail in the story, complexity in the language use, and the frequency and quantity of discourse markers produced. (1)

AL07 (low), narrative retell AL07:  Ok. alors. il a déjeuné avec le vieille dame tous les jours après le premiere jour. et um… il a grossir. et les um… .pas… um… .quel est le mot pour bird? AL08:  uh les pigeons AL07:  oui. Ok. Les pigeons uh…surrounder, uh je ne sais pas… um… .uh… a le um.fenêtre et regardent le grossi ma.uh. homme et après tous les jours il a grossir plus et um…uh le dame a.um…montre les albums les albums de photos de cette uh pigeon, et plus de photos de cette pigeon. Et après…um il a regarde les photos sur le…um… . Wall… quel est le mot pour wall? AL08:  um… .la mur? la mur.mur…more.mur mur AL07:  le mur. et les photos sur le mur et um… .elle a les chats. et les chats est plus grossiaussi

106  Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers

(2)

AL08:  (mur) AL07:  uh… .um… .alors elle a faire les pigeons grossir pour ses chats…pour manger. Et c’est une plot twist. (laughter) et il um mette une costume de pigeon tous les jours. alors elle a pense il.pensé il est un pigeon et elle essaye …um… AL08:  (oui) AL07:  couper avec les ciseaux le homme. p…pour AL08:  oh…pour les chats? AL07:  oui. pour les chats. pour les grossi chats. et c’est tres bizarre. Oui. AL31 (mid), narrative retell AL31:  Oui d’accord. Uh après tu as quitté le salle l’homme a créé une petite uh casque…uh.d’une uh…oiseau les oiseaux dans le film oui. oui. uh et uh AL30:  Oui AL31:  Il a commencé à visiter the le le vieille uh femme. qui uh.donne la nourriture aux oiseaux uh…et. il a uh porté le le casque quand il…il uh AL30:  Oui AL31:  la visite il a visité… .uh et puis uh il continue de visite de visiter le femme. Et elle elle lui uh donne…elle lui a. donné. beaucoup de nourriture. Et il a continué à visiter à visiter et uh…il a… gross-​grossir grossit beaucoup. Et uh donc il a grossi, il a grossi. et il a commencé à danser…uh uh dans uh sa.son apartment et uh… il a uh il aime beaucoup la nourriture. et uh l’alcool aussi. Et uh puis il a visité uh le femme chaque jour uh jusque la veille de Noel (unintelligible). Uh et uh…la elle lui donner beaucoup de nourriture et puis uh il veut plus parce qu’il a il a a mangé tout. il a boire il a bu tout aussi. Donc il uh.il va il oh.il est.allé uh dans le.cuisine. et pour chercher de nourriture de alcool. Et dans le cuisine il a il a il a vu la femme dans un autre salle uh.elle a.un autre femme qui est le. AL30:  Oui AL31:  le… .le femme qui…ranger femme qui ranger. Uh et…elle… elle porte un cos un. un costume de un chatte um et il…il reconnait…il a reconnu.que. elle va. uh tuer le…le femme le l’autre femme uh…parce qu’elle est très gros comme…comme lui et uh avec ca il uh.fait un petit uh bruit et elle.elle a uh. recon-​elle a reconnu le bruit. et elle…elle lui uh elle le chasse avec uh les grandes uh ciseaux et uh… il y a un grand uh AL30:  Oui AL31:  une grande chasse…uh autour de…de l’apart-​du appartement uh de le de l’appartement et uh dans le fin il a monté une uh armoire et il a tombé uh de le fenêtre. il est tombé de le fenêtre uh dans le sol et il a AL30:  Oui

Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers  107 (3)

AL31:  il a…uh. parti il…il est parti.dans le fin sans…sans mourir AL03 (high), narrative retell AL03:  Alors je pense que…uh…t’es partie um…donc uh…quand le l’homme est de.est déguisé avec le casque.une sorte de casque de pigeon? AL04:  Oui AL04:  Il est invi-​…il est…donc il est arrivé chez la femme. donc la femme l’invite à… .à entrer. Et…alors après…donc il s’assoit um…à table et la femme propose du thé. Il rejette le thé. Il uh…il uh…il uh…il débarrasse la table. Il met tout ça par terre. Puis après la femme revient avec uh…je sais pas.un rôti de porc. Et l’homme toujours avec le le casque de pigeon, il commence à manger le…le rôti. Et il mange tout. Et pendant ce…pendant qu’il mange, la vieille dame montre un album de photos de de pigeons. Uh…après je pense qu’il rentre chez lui. Et il passe par le l’escalier. Il voit une femme de ménage… une femme de ménage assez moche on va dire. um… Et il rentre chez lui. Le lendemain, et on voit que c’est le lendemain parce qu’on voit le calendrier avec le prochain jour, il il il revient le lendemain chez la femme…uh et elle lui offre à manger. Il en mange. Um. Et on voit qu’il…qu’il revient uh…j’imagine tous les jours pour uh… pour manger toujours avec le casque de pigeon je pense. um… Et on voit petit à petit qu’il grossit AL04:  C’est une bonne chose. AL03:  Um…voilà. Et… .oui. Et après…uh…je pense que c’est. après c’est la veille de Noël. le 24 décembre. Uh il est invit-​…il est invité ou il va chez la dame…la vieille dame Et…uh je pense qu’il a mangé… ah on voit qu’il a…bu pas mal de de de vin…et uh… Qu’est-​ce qui.qu’est-​ce qui se passe? après il va dans la cuisine. Uh…et il voit un peu…il voit des bouteilles de whisky. Il prend un peu de whisky Et il tombe par terre. Et après il se lève et… Uh…j’ai l’impression qu’il…qu’il hallucine parce que…uh… il regarde, donc je pense qu’il y a une porte fermée, il regarde uh par la fenêtre de la porte, la petite vitrine, et il voit…(sigh) la vieille dame avec la femme de ménage et la femme de ménage ressemble à un chat. Et la vieille dame prend les…um…les pruneaux je pense et…elle taille les pruneaux um… Et donc…uh…après…je pense que donc la dame essaye de…je sais pas de…de prendre l’homme pour uh…je sais pas…pour le couper avec les pruneaux… Alors uh.il y a une scène où la dame… AL04:  C’était la vieille dame ou la…

108  Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers AL03:  La vieille dame toujours la vieille dame qui uh…qui court après l’homme. Et il monte sur la table. Et puis plus tard… uh bon y a pas mal de choses, mais après um…uh…y a aussi.bon…um…uh…il grimpe sur uh…une sorte de placard pour essayer de de de de d’échapper à l…la dame. Uh…mais tranquille, donc c’est assez haut le haut du placard, et tranquille la dame met une sorte de petite échelle pour, pour essayer de de de de de…d’arriver à à…prendre l’homme. Uh et l’homme enlève son…uh…sa chaussure et sa chaussette pour montrer à la dame qu’il est vraiment, que c’est vraiment une personne un être humain. Et…uh…mais ça marche pas. Donc elle uh.elle se rapproche avec les pruneaux…et…en ce moment-​là il tombe, parce que le placard est situé à côté d’une fenêtre. Et il tombe par la fenêtre. Il brise la glace, la vitrine et tout ça. Et il tombe je ne sais pas plusieurs uh plusieurs uh étages. Et il tombe par terre. Mais y a de la neige par terre, donc il n’est pas mort. Uh c’est un peu marrant parce que la moitié de son casque de pigeon est complètement écrasée. Tout tout plat. Il se lève et il…commence à marcher. 7.2.3  Other Unique Features of the Learner Discourse Marker Inventory Discourse markers derived from verbs in learner speech are important because they may be less salient to the learner in the input. Few studies have looked at their production by learners even though they are considered a staple in native French discourse (Andersen, 2007). Discourse markers derived from verbs accounted for 1.6% of the total corpus of native speaker discourse marker production. They are not the most frequent in the native speaker data but are still produced at an average rate of 4.92 per person. The learners in this study produced only forty-​ four total verbal discourse markers, representing approximately 0.8% of the total production. Only two occurrences are produced at the low-​proficiency level. Both are tu sais by two different speakers. Learners in the mid-​proficiency group do not produce very many more, with only five occurrences spread across three discourse markers, produced by three participants. Unsurprisingly, given the assumed difficulty, the high-​ proficiency group produces the majority of the verbal discourse markers with thirty-​seven occurrences with nine different discourse markers by nine different participants. But even within the high-​proficiency group, one participant is responsible for thirteen of the occurrences with ten of them being tu sais, which is in fact the most frequently produced discourse marker derived from a verb in this study for both learners and native speakers. One could speculate that there is some link to the English you know that high-​level speakers become aware of, but it is not possible to confirm this from my data, especially considering that tu sais was also

Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers  109 Table 7.4 Discourse markers derived from verbs by proficiency group Discourse marker

tu sais on dirait on va dire tu sais quoi comme tu veux dire dis-​donc Dite Écoute je vais dire on veut dire si tu veux Voyons Total

Low

Mid

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

2 -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​ 2

7.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.55

-​-​-​ 3 -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​ 1 1 -​-​-​ -​-​-​ 5

0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 11.36

26 -​-​-​ 3 2 1 1 1 1 -​-​-​ -​-​-​ 1 1 37

92.86 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 100 100 84.09

28 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44

63.64 6.82 6.82 4.55 2.27 2.27 2.27 2.27 2.27 2.27 2.27 2.27

the most frequent discourse marker derived from a verb produced by the native speakers as well. The average production among all of the learners is just over one discourse marker per person. And while the total production does not vary greatly from the native speakers (n=​59 for native speakers vs. n=​44 for learners), as a function of production per person, the learners were far less likely to employ them.1 Most of the discourse markers derived from verbs produced are a one-​off by one speaker in one particular context. Less than half of the learners even produced one discourse marker of this type. The learner discourse marker inventory was also noticeably marked (for some speakers more than others), by the use of English discourse markers in what was almost entirely French discourse. This particular feature of L2 learner discourse marker production is almost entirely ignored in prior research. But ignoring the use of English discourse markers, when considering the developmental perspective, likely ignores a significant feature of the development of the learner’s pragmatic knowledge in their second language. The only prior studies (Rehner, 2002; Sankoff et al., 1997) to have seriously considered English discourse markers did so while studying bilingual communities in francophone Canada, which presents a markedly different learning and overall linguistic environment than that experienced by L2 learners in the United States. English discourse markers are even more represented in the learner production than are the discourse markers derived from verbs at 2.5% of the total discourse marker production. When broken down by proficiency level, however, their importance in development becomes clearer. Six percent of the discourse markers produced by learners in the low-​ proficiency group were English discourse markers, much higher than the

110  Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers rate for all of the participants together. At the mid-​proficiency level, they are used much less frequently and only represent 0.5% of the total discourse marker production. For learners in the high-​proficiency group, English discourse markers represented 1.4% of their total production. Despite the lack of a clear development path as seen with overall discourse marker production and discourse marker variety, there is a clear line drawn between learners in the low-​proficiency group, who use English discourse markers at a high rate, and learners in the mid-​ and high-​proficiency groups, who use English discourse markers much less frequently. And while their rate of use becomes less frequent, they do not disappear from learner production, even in the high-​proficiency group. This is a testament to both the importance of discourse markers in speech, but also the difficulty in acquiring them. Ten different English discourse markers are attested in the learner data in this study. These include the expected like, well, yeah, I mean, so, but, and ok, but also markers that can be attributed to individual learners such as oh man, wait, and or. Among the common English discourse markers, it is noticeable that so is used fairly infrequently and disappears from use at the highest levels. It is worth considering that this could be related to the high use of donc and alors at all levels, which can both be translated as so in English. They are both highly salient and some lower-​ level speakers regularly use them. If they are easier to acquire because of their similarity to English so, this could account for its low use even at the lowest levels of proficiency. This contrasts with other common markers such as well and like for which there are not clear equivalents in French. The discourse marker well is only produced nine times but like appears forty-​one times, representing nearly a third of all of the English discourse markers. There is some use of comme by lower-​level learners as a substitute for English like, but it Table 7.5 English discourse markers produced by proficiency group Discourse marker

Low

Mid

N

%

Ok Like Yeah Well So Wait oh man But I mean Or Total

13 13 7 4 6 5 3 2 -​-​-​ -​-​-​ 53

27.08 31.71 35 44.44 75.00 100 100 100 0 0 38.13

N 1 -​-​-​ 2 1 2 -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​ 1 7

High

Total

%

n

%

n

%

2.08 0 10 11.11 25 0 0 0 0 100 5.04

34 28 11 4 -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​ -​-​-​  2 -​-​-​ 79

70.83 68.29 55 44.44 0 0 0 0 100 0 56.83

48 41 20 9 8 5 3 2 2 1 139

34.53 29.5 14.39 6.47 5.76 3.60 2.16 1.44 1.44 0.72

Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers  111 would seem that higher-​level learners recognize on some level that it is not equivalent. And yet they still continue to use like relatively frequently. It begs the question as to whether there is a French equivalent that can encompass all of the different functions of the English like. Overall, lower-​ proficiency learners use a greater variety of English discourse markers than do the mid-​proficiency or high-​proficiency learners. This suggests a trend towards their elimination as they acquire more target-​like discourse markers in their lexicon.

7.3  What Is the Distribution of DM to Function and How Does the Inventory of DMs and Their Functions Change Over Time? Equally as important as how many and which discourse markers learners use as their proficiency in French increases is the question of how they are using them. As predicted, the variety of functions that learners expressed using discourse markers varied by proficiency level as did which discourse markers they chose to express those functions. Learners in the low-​ proficiency group, for example, used discourse markers regularly to manage the topic of discussion, signal turn-​taking, reformulate their utterance, or indicate a conclusion to be drawn or the result of a situation described by an utterance. However, they rarely invoked a discourse marker to emphasize their utterance, to introduce reported speech or to directly invite the engagement of their interlocutor. These patterns of use of discourse marker to function were not static however and the functions expressed shifted with a particular discourse marker and/​or new discourse markers were employed to represent different functions as proficiency increased. In comparing the production of the three proficiency groups across thirteen functional categories, there is a clear progression as proficiency increases. However, the results of a one-​way MANOVA indicate that the difference between the three proficiency groups, in terms of the variety of functions expressed, is not statistically significant. Almost all of the functions were represented, at least minimally, by all three proficiency groups. At this point, it is useful to drill down on each functional category to gain a clear picture of how learners at each level are actually using different discourse markers. For a small quantity of the discourse markers produced, the intent of the speaker with regard to function was difficult to deduce, and thus these discourse markers were labeled as “unclear” with their frequency represented in Table 7.6. There were not any trends as to the type of discourse marker whose function was impossible to ascertain after the fact. 7.3.1  Topic Management The most robust functional category is topic management. This group encompasses functions such as: starting a new topic, as in example (1);

112  Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers Table 7.6 Inventory of functions expressed by proficiency Functional Category

Low

Mid

High

Total

% total

topic management conclusion/​result reformulation/​clarification turn management information management hesitation/​uncertainty contrast affirmation recapitulation/​summation/​repetition unclear motivation interlocutor engagement emphasis reported speech/​quotative interrogation TOTAL

304 182 75 159 96 34 6 8 6 2 2 0 1 0 875

623 221 139 109 125 43 30 12 18 10 3 2 4 2 1341

1320 497 468 284 275 109 100 85 34 33 33 30 23 12 3311

2247 900 682 552 496 186 136 104 58 53 38 32 28 14 5527

40.65 16.28 12.34 9.99 8.97 3.37 2.46 1.88 1.05 0.96 0.69 0.58 0.51 0.25

ending a topic of discussion, as in example (2); shifting topics within a discussion, as in example (3); introducing a digression or a side comment as in example (4); indicating a return to the main topic of discussion (resumption), as in example (5); indicating a continuation of the same topic of discussion as the previous utterance, often after a pause or hesitation (and often in narration), as in example (6); and finally, linking or sequencing topics or themes, as in example (7). The topic management functional category accounts for 40.6% of the total discourse marker production by these participants. (Looking only at the most frequently produced discourse markers, it is 38%.) For the low-​proficiency participants, this functional category represents 34.7% of their total production. It represents 46.4% of the total production for the mid-​proficiency group and 39.8% of the total production for the high-​proficiency group. Several observations can be made when looking at the functions expressed within this functional category by the different proficiency levels. One notable observation is that the low-​proficiency group rarely uses a discourse marker to start a topic. Similarly, they rarely introduce digressions or asides with a discourse marker either. In the latter case, they may be making fewer digressions than the other two groups, but that would have to be examined separately. The most prevalent topic in this group is “topic shift,” with 709 individual tokens of the most frequently produced discourse markers. Looking closely at this function we see that all three groups use the discourse marker mais the most often for this task. The low-​proficiency group produces seventy-​ six tokens and this number more than doubles with the high-​proficiency group. In fact, no other discourse marker employed in this function comes close to the frequency of mais. And while the high-​proficiency

Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers  113 group has a wide range of discourse markers available to them for this function, the number of markers used by the low-​proficiency group is not insignificant. They do demonstrate some variation and do not rely solely on mais. The discourse marker ben does not appear until a high level of proficiency and is used for a variety of functions, but especially for starting a topic. There is also more frequent use of alors for this function as well. In ending a topic, mais, oui/​ouais and “donc” are used at approximately the same rate. (1)

OL06, narration, use of donc to start a new topic oui. uh donc le film, il s’agit d’histoire d’un vieil homme… DM, uh DM the film, it’s about the story of an old man…

(2)

AL17, role play, use of donc to end a topic Parce que c’est mon premier jour, je ne sais pas quoi faire, donc je vais…je serai un peu méchante, mais d’accord, d’accord. Donc. Because it’s my first day, I don’t know what to do, DM I’m going, I’ll be a little bit mean, DM ok, ok. DM.

(3)

AL12, interview, use of après to shift topics La prochaine sœur, XX, elle étudie uh les animaux. um elle… Et puis après mon frère et ma sœur cadette, ils travaillent à Cleveland. ‘The next sister, XX, she studies animals. Um she…And DM DM my brother and my younger sister, they work in Cleveland.

(4)

AL28, discussion, use of en fait for a digression moi je… ça me fait penser à… l’idée de charité. Et qu’on peut pas donner l’argent, et en fait on suit un cours sur l’argent. Et comment on peut pas donner l’argent à quelqu’un. Y a toujours quelque chose derrière. Me, I…that makes me think about…the idea of charity. And that we can’t give money, DM DM we’re taking a class on money. And how we can’t just give money to someone. There is always a motive behind it.’

(5)

AL06 (low), narration, use of mais for a resumption il crée…il a pris les… je ne sais pas le…mais comme uh le peau de le oiseau He creates, he takes the…I don’t know the… DM like uh the skin of the bird…

(6)

AL20 (low), narration, use of donc for a continuation ils étaient très grands, et ils a commencé de manger le monsieur donc elle… après ça il a levé

114  Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers They were very big, and they started to eat the man DM she…after that he got up. (7)

AL26, discussion, use of puis for sequencing or linking il est allé chaque jour pour manger et puis c’était lui qui qui…va être mangé He went every day to eat DM DM it’s him who is going to be eaten

7.3.2  Drawing Conclusions Low-​proficiency and mid-​proficiency learners used discourse markers to mark conclusions, results, or consequences at approximately the same rate. High-​proficiency learners do so more than twice as much as the two other groups, however. This alone is not surprising, as it is well established that discourse marker use increases with proficiency (Fernández et al., 2014; Pauletto & Bardel, 2016; Wei, 2011). But one interesting feature is how the choice of discourse marker employed for this function changes with increasing proficiency. The low-​proficiency group employed alors frequently to mark conclusions, consequences, and results, with fifty-​nine occurrences. In contrast, the mid-​proficiency group and the high-​ proficiency group only used alors thirteen and seventeen times, respectively. Alternately, the high-​proficiency group relied heavily on donc for these functions. The mid-​proficiency group is stuck in the middle with a decreased reliance on alors but only a slight increase in the use of donc when compared to the low-​proficiency group. Overall, for this functional category, donc is the discourse marker of choice. (8)

AL06 (low), narration, use of alors for a result …le le vieille femme uh uh dit c’est aller plus proche, alors il aller… …the old woman said to come closer, DM he went…

(9)

AL17 (mid), narration, use of donc for conclusion Donc il voulait de la nourriture parce qu’il est très mince et il avait beaucoup de faim. DM he wanted food because he was very thin and was very hungry.

(10) AL24 (high), interview, use of du coup for a result Elle a dit que c’était une bonne idée de venir que c’était sympa comme programme. Elle était assistante d’anglais. Et du coup j’ai postulé. She said that it was a good idea to come, that it was a good program. She was an English teaching assistant. DM DM I applied.

Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers  115 7.3.3 Reformulation Learners often used discourse markers when reformulating, as in example (11), clarifying, as in example (12), or explaining a previous utterance, as in example (13). This would sometimes occur mid-​sentence. Overall, in this entire functional category, ‘fin was the most frequently employed with 190 occurrences. The discourse markers donc and mais were the next most frequently used with 113 and 80 occurrences respectively. As with other functional categories, both the total number of discourse markers and the variety of discourse markers employed increases with proficiency quite dramatically. Notably, the most prevalent discourse marker in this category ‘fin is not used by low-​proficiency speakers at all. Out of the most frequent discourse markers in the corpus, mais and oui seem to be the preferences for the learners in the low-​proficiency group. Additionally, for this function in particular, there was a higher use of English discourse markers such as like, yeah, and well (among others) by the anglophone learners, with 15 total occurrences. Examples (14) and (15) illustrate this use. This function is an example of a situation in which low-​proficiency learners might feel a discourse marker is necessary, but do not yet have the target-​language vocabulary to employ them, so instead resort to their native language instinctively. This dataset, however, did not provide any examples of discourse markers in any other languages from the learners who did not have English as a first language. With the English discourse markers, their overall production of DMs for this function increases, although not to the level of the mid-​proficiency group. Given that they were in a French-​only environment while participating in the study, it is likely that they did actively try to stay in French and avoid the use of English, thus limiting how many English DMs would appear. It seems relatively clear, however, that for this function English discourse markers cannot be entirely inhibited. (11) AL29 (mid), discussion, use of ‘fin for reformulation Ben, pour moi ça me fait penser un peu de… à mon enfance. uh les jours quand j’étais jeune, et…‘fin… des dessins animés. DM, for me, that makes me think a little bit of…of my childhood. Uh the days when I was young, and…DM…of cartoons. (12) OL07 (high), interview, use of bon for clarification je suis la seule membre de ma famille aux Etats-​Unis. Bon j’ai des j’ai des cousins et des cousines… I’m the only member of my family in the United States. DM I have I have cousins…

116  Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers (13) OL06 (low), discussion, use of parce que for explanation À cause de ça, on ne peut pas prendre uh les temps pour avoir les pensées plus…deep*… plus profondes. et um les films muets um… parce que on doit être silence um quand mm quand…voit ce film… Because of that, we can’t take the time to have deeper, deeper thoughts. And um silent films um… DM we have to be silent um when um when…see this film… (15) OL07 (high), interview, use of like for reformulation J’ai juste…pris l’opportunité là pour venir… aux États-​Unis… je.like…mon…mon père… voulait que je considère des écoles quelques écoles en France. I just took the opportunity to come…to the United States…I.DM… my my father…wanted me to consider schools, a few schools in France. (16) AL20 (low), discussion, use of like for reformulation Cette partie était très bizarre mais aussi amusant un peu parce que c’est oh wow like, je ne…je ne uh expect-​je ne accept-​je ne sais pas le mot pour ça mais ce n’est pas comm-​que je pense que c’est um passerait donc. This part was very bizarre but also a little bit funny because it’s it’s oh wow DM, I didn’t…I didn’t…I don’t know the word for that DM it isn’t lik-​that I think it would happen DM. 7.3.4  Turn Management A frequent use of discourse markers is to indicate a change in speaker turn (Bolly & Degand, 2009; Degand & Fagard, 2011; Hancock, 2000; Kerr-​ Barnes, 1995). A speaker may employ a discourse marker when taking the floor, as in example (17), or to signal the end of their turn, as in example (18). I also found a few examples of the participants using discourse markers to hold the floor, as in example (19), or to pass the turn to their interlocutor, as in example (20). The use of discourse markers for turn-​ taking is important because it is the one functional category where the low-​proficiency group’s production exceeded that of the mid-​proficiency group. Turn marking represented 12.34% of the low-​proficiency group’s discourse marker use, while it was only 10.74% of the mid-​proficiency group’s discourse marker production. Drilling down, there is also a difference between the learners in the low-​proficiency group and the learners in the two higher groups in terms of with which subfunction they preferred to use discourse markers. The learners in the low-​proficiency group employed more discourse markers to end their turn versus starting their turn, whereas the mid-​and high-​proficiency groups used more discourse markers to open their turn rather than to close their turn. It could be that the high-​proficiency learners were more confident in their ability to seize

Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers  117 the floor and did so more actively than did the low-​proficiency group. It is notable that the low-​proficiency group signaled the end of their turn (and often the end of their thought) more frequently than did the other two groups. This could imply a different perception of what the turn-​ taking rules are in French. Prior research has stated that native French speakers often “interrupt” or overlap more in conversation than do native anglophones, and this difference in conversational norms can often lead to miscommunication in intercultural situations (Liddicoat & Crozet, 2001). By signaling very clearly the end of their turn, the low-​proficiency group may still be conforming to English-​language conversational norms for turn-​taking and allowing space for their interlocutor to begin their turn. The discourse marker oui or ouais was very frequently produced by all three groups for opening and closing their turn. For turn opening or seizing the floor, alors was the next most frequent but used minimally for ending a turn. As with other functional categories, there are some discourse markers employed by the high-​proficiency group that do not appear at all in the low-​proficiency group’s speech. One clear example of this is ben, which is very frequently employed by the high-​proficiency group as a turn opener but not at all by the low-​proficiency group and only twice by the mid-​proficiency group. (17) AL23/​AL22, role play, use of alors for opening a turn AL22:  alors um… DM um. AL23:  alors moi, je peux être le colo-​colocataire si tu veux DM me, I can be the room-​roommate if you want. (18) AL18 (low), interview, use of oui to end a turn Oui, des anciens jeux et tous les nouveaux aussi avec les très bien graphiques et les choses comme ça. Oui. Yes old games and all the new ones also with the really good graphics and things like that, DM. (19) AL27/​OL07, discussion, use of oui to hold the floor AL27:  Par exemple Amélie, le plus connu film français du monde et à mon avis c’est bizarre. For example Amélie, the most famous French film in the world, and in my opinion it’s weird. OL07:  Je n’aime pas Amélie. I don’t like Amélie. AL27:  oui…et le tout le monde le kiffe. DM…and everyone loves it. (20) AL27, discussion, use of mais et to pass their turn Mais et toi…tu peux commenter. DM DM you, you can say something.

118  Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers 7.3.5  Information Management Discourse markers performing the subfunctions included in the category of “information management” significantly differed enough from the “topic management” category to warrant separate consideration. This category includes discourse markers that are used within a topic of discussion whereas the topic management category covers changes in the topic of discussion. Functions subsumed under this category include those discourse markers that either introduced new information, as in example (21) or supplied additional information relevant to making sense of a speaker’s prior utterance, as in example (22). This functional category also included discourse markers that preceded examples provided by the speaker, as in example (23), and those that preceded some sort of an elaboration on prior utterance, as in example (24). This last category differs from “explanations” (a sub-​category of “reformulations”) in that “explanations” seek to justify or clarify an utterance that might have caused a miscommunication, whereas an elaboration provides supplemental information that may or may not be necessary. As with prior functional categories, there is a gradual increase in overall production by proficiency level as well as an expansion of discourse marker variety. For elaborations, learners in all three groups relied heavily on the discourse markers donc, mais, and parce que. In the introduction of new information there is a preference by all three groups for en fait, with a gradual increase in its use. How learners introduced examples is notable in its own way. Looking at the most frequently produced discourse markers in the corpus, only the high-​proficiency group uses any for this function and in very small numbers. However, if the full inventory available to these participants is considered, the number increases for all groups with a prevalence of like in English and its literal translation in the French comme. The high-​proficiency group used like twelve times and comme nine times. The mid-​ proficiency group employed comme five times and like not at all. The low-​proficiency group used like four times and comme seven times. The high-​proficiency group also produced the discourse marker genre on two occasions. Other researchers have commented extensively on the use of like and comme as discourse markers in native and non-​native speech (Sankoff et al., 1997), finding more frequent use of comme in the manner of like by learners and non-​ native speakers of French. This result is also borne out in these results. (21) AL11/​AL12, role play, use of en fait to introduce new information AL12:  Ok donc Madame comment est-​ce que vous avez payé le sac? DM DM Ma’am how did you pay for the bag? AL11:  En fait j’ai payé avec ma carte de crédit. DM I paid with my credit card.

Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers  119 (22) AL03, interview, use of mais aussi to add additional information je préférerais avoir cinquante pourcent hommes cinquante pourcent femmes… pour avoir uh…des… la perspective des deux…des des des deux genres um mais aussi d’avoir assez de perspectives d’autres étudiants minoritaires I would prefer to have fifty percent men fifty percent women…to have uh the perspective of the two…the the the two genders…um DM to have enough of the perspective of other minority students. (23) AL24, discussion, use of parce que to provide an example alors… les films muets. Ça c’est intéressant parce qu’y a eu « The Artist » qui était, il avait un succès énorme. DM…silent films. That’s interesting DM there was The Artist that was, that had enormous success. (24) AL20, interview, use of donc to elaborate …l’école maternelle qui um a enseigné l’art, donc um nous avons fait beaucoup de choses avec les artistes célèbres, donc um nous avons peint les images comme les artistes célèbres. …preschool that taught art, DM we did a lot of things with famous artists, DM we painted pictures like the famous artists. 7.3.6 Hesitation Learners often used discourse markers to mark pauses or hesitations in speech. There were a total of 171 occurrences with ten different discourse markers. The learners in the low-​proficiency group primarily used a discourse marker as a hesitation when they were reassuring themselves of what they wanted to say, as a sort of a self-​confirmation. This was primarily accomplished with oui or ouais. The mid-​and high-​proficiency groups performed the same function but with a wider variety of discourse markers (including ‘fin, et, ben, alors, and bon) to fill in pauses and other kinds of hesitations, not just to reassure themselves. Example (26) illustrates this function with ‘fin. (25) AL13 (low), narration, use of oui for hesitation et…l’homme est devenu alcoholique* avec …uh…oui avec alcohol* And…the man became drunk with…uh DM with alcohol (26) AL15 (high), role play, use of ‘fin for self-​confirmation Mais à un moment y avait un chat qui a traversé la rue uh qui était tout mignon. Et tout adorable et uh…j’ai dû ‘fin… l’éviter.

120  Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers But all of a sudden there was a cat that crossed the street uh, that was really cute. And really adorable and uh…I had to DM… avoid it. 7.3.7 Contrast Learners used a variety of discourse markers to encode “contrast.” Included in the functional category of “contrast” are the subfunctions of marking an utterance (preceding or following) as contrary to the interlocutor’s expectation, often with en fait, such as in example (27), or negotiating with their interlocutor, as in example (28), and finally, a direct contrast or contradiction to what their interlocutor had just said, as in example (29). Learners in the low-​proficiency group rarely employed a discourse marker to express the contrast function, representing only 4.55% of the discourse markers indicating contrast. Learners in the mid-​ proficiency group were responsible for 22.73% of the discourse markers in this functional category and ultimately learners in the high-​proficiency group produced the majority (72.73%) of the discourse markers used to mark a contrast. The relatively low rate of discourse marker use at the low-​proficiency level is a bit surprising since one of the most commonly used markers for this function is mais, which one could expect would be available to learners earlier due to its simple translation as but. As a reminder (see Table 7.2 –​most frequently produced DMs), the discourse marker mais represents over 19% of the entire corpus of discourse markers produced by the learners. And while it is the second most produced discourse marker for low-​proficiency speakers, they did not employ it very often for this particular function. The trajectory of the use of the discourse marker en fait for marking contrast also merits discussion. Almost all of the occurrences of en fait to mark contrast (83%) were produced by the learners in the high-​ proficiency group. Learners in the mid-​proficiency group employ it minimally. This marked difference between the groups speaks to the (lack of) accessibility of the pragmatic functions of en fait to low-​and mid-​ proficiency learners. The use of en fait does not surpass that of mais overall, however, as they are both used roughly the same amount for this function. (27) AL11 (high), narration, use of en fait for contrary to expectation Et donc il essaye de d’enlever son* chaussure pou rlui montrer que il est en fait un homme un être humain et pas un oiseau And DM he tries to to remove his shoe to show her that he is DM a man, a human being and not a bird. (28) AL30/​31 (mid), role play, use of mais for negotiation AL31:  Je dois être responsable I have to be responsible.

Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers  121 AL30:  Oui mais c’est une responsabilité pour dimanche. Uh pas pour aujourd’hui. DM DM it’s a responsibility for Sunday, uh not for today. AL31:  Oui mais, je… reconnais ça, mais je dois dormir. DM DM, I recognize that, but I need to sleep. AL30:  Oui oui. Je comprends. Mais uh… DM DM. I understand. DM uh… (29) AL05/​06 (low), role play, use of mais for contrast AL06:  Mais je…j’ai uh j’ai besoin de notes pour uh réussir l’examen But I…I need uh I need notes to uh to well on the test. AL05:2 D’accord mais, si uh tu as allé à la classe…tu as tu as les notes pour toi Ok DM, if you had gone to class, you would have, you would have your own notes. 7.3.8 Affirmation Low-​proficiency learners largely do not express the function of “affirmation,” which includes cases in which a speaker employs a discourse marker to indicate their agreement with an utterance, as in example (30), or the simple acknowledgement of the previous utterance made by their interlocutor, as in example (31). The most frequently used discourse markers for this function were oui/​ouais and voilà, with voilà being the most robustly employed. Even though it was the most frequently used for this function, it was primarily employed by high-​proficiency learners for this function, not at all by the low-​proficiency group and only four times by the mid-​proficiency group. The learners in the low-​and mid-​proficiency groups primarily employed oui and donc for this discourse function. (30) AL03/​04 (high), discussion, use of voilà for agreement AL04:  …toi tu aimes les Simpsons …you, you like the Simpsons. AL03:  Mais voilà, et donc uh…on est… DM DM and DM uh…we are… (31) AL21/​OL05, narration, use of voilà for acknowledgement AL21:  Comme les oiseaux de début du film? Like the birds at the beginning of the film? OL05:  Oui comme les… oui voilà. Et puis il tombe uh… Yes like the…yes DM. DM DM he falls uh… 7.3.9 Recapitulation None of the learners employed discourse markers for recapitulation in a robust manner. The low-​ proficiency group only produced five

122  Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers occurrences. The mid-​proficiency group more than tripled this with sixteen occurrences. And then the high-​proficiency group nearly doubled that number to twenty-​nine occurrences. Also, for this functional category, donc was the most prevalent. The two lower-​proficiency groups did not employ enough discourse markers for this function to distinguish a preference for a particular discourse marker. (32) AL20 (low), role-​play, use of donc for recapitulation j’ai besoin de de um de suivre le cours le présentation um business* présentations. Donc… j’ai besoin de suivre ça, et aussi accounting* I need to to um to take the class presentation um business presentations. DM I have to take that and also accounting… 7.3.10  Interlocutor Engagement The functional category “interlocutor management” differs from all of the others in that none of the most frequently used discourse markers are represented. In fact, this category consists primarily of discourse markers derived from verbs and includes situations in which the speaker is actively addressing their interlocutor to make sure they are following the argument, as in example (33), to invoke a shared understanding, as in example (34), to solicit agreement with a preceding utterance, as in example (35), or to seek solidarity in the idea expressed in a preceding or following utterance, as in example (36). There was low production of discourse markers for this functional category with only thirty-​eight occurrences for all of the learners. The learners in the low-​proficiency group produced two tokens and the mid-​ proficiency group produced three tokens.3 The high-​proficiency group produced thirty-​three tokens overall with nearly the full range of discourse markers derived from verbs that appears in this corpus. The most frequently employed discourse marker for this function was tu sais, which one can posit can more easily be transferred from the English you know. The other discourse markers derived from verbs involve the imperative mood, and conditional or hypothetical tenses, as well as compound verb tenses, which likely pose a problem for lower-​proficiency speakers on a morpho-​syntactic level. The only non-​verbal discourse marker that appears in this group is quoi, which also may be more difficult for learners because it does not have a direct correlation or translation in English. (33) AL02, narration, use of tu sais to check in with the interlocutor comme si elle avait vraiment faim. tu sais elle a léché la bouche avec mes de le miam miam…de cette façon là…à dire miam miam. as if she was really hungry. DM she licked her mouth with…yum yum…to say yum yum in this way.

Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers  123 (34) AL29, interview, use of quoi for shared understanding Je suis un homme, si c’est pas évident quoi. I’m a man, if it wasn’t obvious DM. (35) AL24, interview, use of on va dire to solicit agreement Oh ils font un peu la même chose ici avec d’autres sujets on va dire. Oh they do a bit of the same thing here, with other subjects DM. (36) OL02, discussion, use of tu sais to seek solidarity Je sais pas. C’est c’est dur de dire ce que bon. tu sais c’est dur parce que j’adore les chats mais là… cette histoire… I don’t know. It’s it’s hard to say what…DM…DM it’s hard because I love cats but this…this story… 7.3.11 Emphasis Learners used very few discourse markers to emphasize or intensify their utterance. The low-​proficiency group did not use any and the mid-​ proficiency group only produced one token. The high-​proficiency group produced twenty-​nine overall tokens for this function, with twenty-​three of them being ben. This was often before an affirmative or negative response to a question as in (37). The second most frequently used discourse marker for this function was déjà whose discursive use is difficult to identify and also rare even among native speakers (Hancock, 2012). Example (38) occurs at the end of participant OL01’s narration as a sort of “summation” of what they thought about the short film. (37) AL01/​AL02, role play, use of ben for emphasis AL02:  Mais tu en as mangé eh? But you ate some if it eh? AL01:  Ben oui mais… DM yeah but… (38) OL01, narration, use of déjà for emphasis C’est déjà une histoire. It’s DM a story. 7.3.12  Reported Speech Learners rarely used discourse markers to mark any sort of reported speech. This category includes instances when a participant was quoting themselves (hypothetically or factually), as in example (39), or quoting another speaker (hypothetically or factually), as in example (40). There were very few occurrences of discourse markers framing these parentheticals and when they occurred, ben was the discourse marker of choice. Low-​proficiency learners did not use this function at all, while

124  Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers mid-​proficiency learners used it minimally (n=​3). The high-​proficiency group employed discourse markers to indicate reported speech a total of only seventeen times. The incredibly low use of discourse markers in this function could be attributed to the discourse markers themselves; the most frequently used (ben) is one that low-​proficiency learners did not produce at all in the entire corpus, and of which mid-​proficiency speakers only produced two occurrences. Another possibility is the complex nature of reported speech in discourse. It requires a level of abstraction that lower-​proficiency learners may not yet be able to achieve with their current level of grammatical competence. Thus, if learners are not yet able to produce reported speech of any kind in their L2, the use of a discourse marker and other pragmatic features of reported speech are probably still unavailable to them. (39) AL24 (high), interview, use of ben for self-​quoting Et à chaque fois que je…j’avais pas d’heures à faire,j’ai dit ben on va partir un peu en vacances And each time that I had hours to use, I said DM let’s go on vacation. (40) OL01 (high),interview, use of ben for quoting another speaker On m’a dit ah ben y a quelqu’un d’autre qui vient de Moldavie. They told me ah DM there’s someone else who’s from Moldova. 7.3.13 Interrogation The use of a discourse marker for interrogation was very rare and only appeared at the highest proficiency level. This was most often in the form of hein as a tag question at the end of a declarative statement in which the speaker was often seeking their interlocutor’s agreement or acknowledgement. This particular discourse marker may not be salient to lower-​proficiency learners and is likely underrepresented in classroom input. Thus, it is unsurprising that only the learners in the high-​ proficiency group used both this discourse marker and its associated function. (41) AL24, role play, use of hein as a tag question Je vous ai donné le ticket hein, je peux avoir mon four? I gave you the receipt DM, can I have my oven? From this overview of the thirteen functional categories, it is abundantly clear that learners employ discourse markers for a variety of functions, with clear differences delimited by proficiency level. While most functions are present at all proficiency levels, the lower-​proficiency learners are clearly more restricted in terms of the variety of functions they choose to regularly express with a discourse marker and in terms of which discourse

Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers  125 markers they subsequently choose to express those functions with. These preferences change and expand as the learners’ proficiency increases so that the functional distribution of discourse markers of learners in the high-​proficiency learners differs greatly from the low-​proficiency learners. The most important of these distinctions will be explored in the next chapter.

7.4  Syntactic Considerations While seemingly not essential to the description of the inventory of discourse markers that learners use and the development of their functions, certain syntactic considerations must be examined to develop a full picture of learner discourse marker use: the position of the discourse marker relative to the clause, and the use of two or more discourse markers together in a cluster or a combination. The position of a discourse marker with respect to the clause or utterance is a defining characteristic of discourse markers, but this feature has not been examined closely in any of the studies focused on L2 production. Given the lack of research in this area, it is essential that it be considered in this study, which purports to describe the development of the use of discourse markers in general. Despite the lack of prior research, there are several predictions that can reasonably made about their expected use in learner speech. Discourse markers are typically described as occurring primarily in initial position, especially in English. However, research has shown that medial and final position are also possible and may be more frequent in French. Thus, learners would be expected to primarily make use of the initial position, but as proficiency increases, and their exposure to French input increases, there is the potential for greater use of final position as a seat for various discourse markers. Similarly for discourse marker clusters or combinations, one would expect their use to increase with proficiency as overall discourse marker use increases with proficiency. Discourse marker clusters are a group of at least two sequential discourse markers, not separated by a pause, that can either perform the same function or two separate but related functions. In this study, a cluster often consisted simply of the combination of et and another discourse marker, often donc, as in example (42). In these cases, et does not carry much inherent meaning on its own, but rather supplements the function of the primary discourse marker. In other cases, discourse markers in a cluster may be performing multiple separate functions, as in example (43). (42) AL03, interview, use of et donc in a cluster uh et donc uh, pendant que j’étais en France, uh j’ai uh, cherché uh, j’ai recruté… Uh DM DM while I was in France, I uh looked for uh I recruited…

126  Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers (43) OL01, interview, use of et pis sinon voilà in a cluster Et pis sinon voilà c’est plutôt ma vie pour l’instant. DM DM DM DM, that is more or less my life for the moment. There is an emerging pattern in the use of discourse marker clusters that at least partially correlates with proficiency. For learners in the low-​ proficiency group, approximately 12% of the total discourse markers produced occurred in a cluster. Learners in the mid-​proficiency group produced discourse markers in a cluster approximately 29% of the time. And finally for learners in the high-​proficiency group, 30% of the discourse markers that they produced occurred in a cluster. The mid-​and high-​proficiency groups are quite similar with regard to their rates of use of discourse marker clusters despite large differences in their absolute values. The mid-​proficiency group produced a total of 391 discourse markers in a cluster while the high-​proficiency group produced 1,020 discourse markers in a cluster. Thus, even as total discourse marker production increases, there is a plateau effect at the mid-​and high-​proficiency levels where the learners to do not significantly increase their rate of discourse marker clusters with increasing proficiency. Looking more closely at production within a proficiency group however, differences between learners in the mid-​ proficiency group and learners in the high-​proficiency group become clearer. While they both display a similar range of discourse markers in a cluster per participant (11–​124 in the mid-​proficiency group and 8–​129 in the high-​ proficiency group), the average number of discourse markers produced in a cluster per participant is 43 for the mid-​proficiency group and 68 for the high-​proficiency group. Thus, there are more learners in the high-​proficiency group that produced larger quantities of discourse markers in a cluster than there are in the mid-​proficiency group. In other words, more of the higher-​proficiency learners are using clusters than in the mid-​proficiency group, highlighting still a potential effect of proficiency on their use. In choosing to deploy a discourse marker, learners in this study generally relied on the clause-​initial position at a rate of approximately 78%. Clause-​final discourse markers were the second most frequent, occurring in that position approximately 12.5% of the time. The remaining 6.5% of the discourse markers identified in this corpus were found in clause-​ medial position. There was also a small quantity of discourse markers labeled as clause independent, often because they occurred at the end of a conversation. These are distinguished from clause-​final discourse markers because they were separated from the previous clause by significant pauses, hesitations, or interruptions for an interlocutor. Across the three proficiency levels, the rate of clause-​initial discourse markers is relatively stable. However, the clause-​medial rate increased for the high-​proficiency speakers. And learners in the low-​proficiency group produced discourse markers in the clause-​final position at a higher

Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers  127

Figure 7.2 Total number of discourse markers produced in a cluster by proficiency. Table 7.7 Count and rate of discourse markers by position Position

Initial Medial Final Independent Total

Low

Mid

High

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

652 45 152 26 875

74.51 5.14 17.37 2.97

1071 72 178 20 1341

79.86 5.36 13.27 1.49

2601 247 362 101 3311

78.55 7.45 10.93 3.05

4324 364 692 147 5527

78.23 6.58 12.52 2.66

rate than did learners in the high-​proficiency group. There is actually a steady decrease in the use of clause-​final discourse markers from the low-​proficiency group to the high-​proficiency group. Clause independent discourse markers are used at a roughly equal rate by all of the proficiency groups, even though the mid-​proficiency group does employ them noticeably less frequently.

7.5  Sociolinguistic Considerations Prior research has implied an interaction of gender with discourse marker production. In this study, of the thirty-​eight participants, twelve self-​ identified as male and twenty-​six self-​identified as female. This gender distribution reflects the often-​unequal gender breakdown of French as a

128  Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers foreign language classroom in the United States, with more female students than male. In an unpublished study from 2014, I identified rates of male to female enrollments in French classes at one of the institutions where participants for the current study were recruited, and they resemble the rates of participation in the current study (65/​35 female to male in 2014; 68/​32 female to male in this study). On average, female participants (158 DMs/​person) in this study produced 41% more discourse markers than did the male participants (112 DMs/​person). As a factor of discourse markers per 100 words, however, the difference appears to be less significant. Male participants produced 4.16 discourse markers per 100 words, while female participants produced 4.66 discourse markers per 100 words.

7.6 Conclusion Numerous factors contribute to the development of the use of discourse markers in the speech of a second language learner. Results from this study support prior research, demonstrating that frequency and variety of discourse markers increase with increasing proficiency as does range of functions expressed. Interactions between these variables, as well as others, including the use of English discourse markers, use of clusters, and discourse marker position also provide a clearer picture of how learners adapt their use of discourse markers as their proficiency in French increases. In the next chapter, these interactions will be investigated in greater detail.

Notes 1 Recall that the average production for native speakers was nearly five per person, while it is just over one per person for the learners. 2 This example from a participant in the low-​proficiency group contains several interlanguage forms including the use of the wrong auxiliary verb for the past tense, and the lack of the past conditional and the pluperfect tenses for a hypothetical statement. The correct construction in standard French would be “Si tu étais allé en cours, tu aurais eu des notes.” 3 In the mid-​proficiency group, all three tokens were produced by the same speaker. The two tokens in the low-​proficiency group were from two different speakers.

References Andersen, H. L. (2007). Marqueurs discursifs propositionnels. Langue Française, 154, 13–​28. Bolly, C., & Degand, L. (2009). Quelle(s) fonction(s) pour donc en français oral? Lingvisticæ Investigationes: International Journal of Linguistics and Language, 32(1), 1–​32. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​li.32.1.01bol

Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers  129 De Marco, A. (2016). The use of discourse markers in L2 Italian. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 7(1), 67–​88. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​ lia.7.1.03dem Degand, L., & Fagard, B. (2011). Alors between discourse and grammar . Functions of Language, 18(1), 29–​56. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​fol.18.1.02deg Fernández, J., Gates Tapia, A., & Lu, X. (2014). Oral proficiency and pragmatic marker use in L2 spoken Spanish: The case of pues and bueno. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 150–​164. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2014.09.005 Haileselassie, A. (2015). Voilà, An orientation shift marker in modern French discourse: A conversation analytic perspective. PhD disseration, University of Illinois at Urbana-​Champaign. Hancock, V. (2000). Quelques connecteurs et modalisateurs dans le français parlé d’apprenants avancés: étude comparative entre suédophones et locuteurs natifs. Doctoral disseration, University of Stockholm. Hancock, V. (2004). L’emploi de donc chez des apprenants avancés: intonosyntaxe et fonctionnements. In B. Ermin (Ed.), Second language acquisition and usage, Stockholm studies in modern philology (pp. 99–​ 121). Almvist & Wiksell International. Hancock, V. (2012). Pragmatic use of temporal adverbs in L1 and L2 French. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 3(1), 29–​51. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​ lia.3.1.03han Kerr-​Barnes, B. (1995). Discourse particles in French conversation: (eh) ben, bon, and enfin. French Review, 68(5), 813–​829. Liddicoat, A. J., & Crozet, C. (2001). Acquiring French interactional norms through instruction. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 125–​144). Cambridge University Press. Pauletto, F., & Bardel, C. (2016). Pointing backward and forward. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 7(1), 89–​116. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​ lia.7.1.04pau Pellet, S. H. (2005). The development of competence in French interlanguage pragmatics: The case of the discourse marker ‘donc.’ ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 303. https://​sea​rch.proqu​est.com/​docv​iew/​304979​491?accoun​ tid=​10673%0Ah​ttp://​open​url.ac.uk/​redir​ect/​ath​ens:edu/​?url_​ver=​Z39.88-​ 2004&rft_​val_​fmt=​info:ofi/​fmt:kev:mtx:disse​rtat​ion&genre=​disser​tati​ons+​ %26+​the​ses&sid=​ProQ:ProQu​est+​Disser​tati​ons+​%26+​The​ses+​Glo​bal&at Rehner, K. A. (2002). The development of aspects of linguistic and discourse competence by advanced second language learners of French. Doctoral thesis, University of Toronto. Sankoff, G., Thibault, P., Nagy, N., Blondeau, H., Fonollosa, M. O., & Gagnon, L. (1997). Variation in the use of discourse markers in a language contact situation. Language Variation and Change, 9(2), 191–​217. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1017/​S09543​9450​0001​873 Wei, M. (2011). Investigating the oral proficiency of English learners in China: A comparative study of the use of pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3455–​3472. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2011.07.014

8 New Insights and Next Steps in L2 Discourse Marker Research

8.1 Introduction This study began with several expectations based on two decades of a growing body of research into second language learner production of discourse markers. These expectations had been demonstrated to varying degrees for mostly L2 English and L2 Italian, with limited examples in L2 French. They included the conclusion that learners would produce fewer discourse markers overall than do native speakers; that the frequency and variety of discourse markers that learners produced would increase with their proficiency; that learners undergeneralize certain discourse markers while overgeneralizing others; and that those learners employ discourse markers with varied functions that differed from native speakers or target language norms. The results of this study reaffirm many of these expectations but also add nuance to them through the examination of a larger group of participants than was often the case for developmentally focused studies, and through its focus on L2 French specifically.

8.2  Primary Findings of This Study 8.2.1  Learners Produce Fewer Discourse Markers Than Do Native Speakers As a matter of raw quantities, learners in this study did produce fewer discourse markers per person on average (n=​145) than did the native speakers (n=​300). When normalized for the total words produced, the outcome is similar. Learners produced on average 4.53 discourse markers per 100 words while native speakers produced 6.98 discourse markers per 100 words on average. It would be wrong to conclude, however, that learners overall are incapable of acquiring discourse markers in their L2. Despite the relatively low averages, there were significant individual differences among both the learners and the native speakers that highlight the variability of discourse marker use. Half of the learners across all groups (n=​17) produced at least as many discourse markers per 100 words as the least productive native speaker (more than 4.57 discourse DOI: 10.4324/9781003323754-8

New Insights and Next Steps  131 markers per 100 words). Three learners were right at or above the native speaker average discourse marker per 100 words rate (ANNS29 at 7.52, ANNS30 at 7.28, and ANNS04 at 6.92). Clearly it is possible for learners to produce as many if not more discourse markers than native speakers. What is unclear, is how best to facilitate this acquisitional process so that learners can integrate these forms into their lexicon at higher rates. 8.2.2  Learners’ Discourse Marker Frequency and Variety Increase with Proficiency Learners in this study displayed incredible variety in the range of discourse markers. As a group they produced sixty-​three unique tokens with a total of twenty-​five unique tokens employed by the learners in the low-​proficiency group, thirty-​five by learners in the mid-​proficiency group, and forty-​eight by learners in the high-​proficiency group. In other terms, low proficiency learners produced on average about eight unique discourse markers, mid proficiency learners produced on average about ten unique discourse markers and high proficiency learners produced on average about seventeen unique discourse markers. The majority of functions expressed relied on the twelve most common discourse markers in the corpus, however. In general, low-​proficiency learners rely on a core group of five discourse markers to express most functions. Learners in the mid-​proficiency group relied on a core group of six discourse markers to express most functions. And finally, learners in the high-​proficiency group relied on a core group of eleven discourse markers to express most functions. Thus, framed from the perspective of group totals or group averages, there is a clear upward trajectory with respect to the variety of discourse markers that learners produce as their proficiency increases. The same can be said for overall frequency of use, for which the difference in the frequency of use between the low and high groups and the low and mid groups was statistically significant. Learners do steadily acquire and produce more discourse markers as they gain proficiency. 8.2.3  Learners Overgeneralize Some Discourse Markers and Undergeneralize Others As found in earlier research, learners were found to favor, or overgeneralize certain discourse markers. However, what was previously less documented was how this overgeneralization and undergeneralization changes with increasing proficiency. In this study, for the low-​proficiency group, the most frequent discourse markers were donc, mais, oui/​ouais, and alors. While this group did not at all produce the discourse markers ‘fin, ben, and voilà. Out of the twelve most frequent discourse markers in the learner data, the low-​proficiency learners only produced half of them with regularity. This begins to change with the mid-​proficiency group whose most frequent discourse markers in order were oui/​ouais, mais,

132  New Insights and Next Steps donc, and et. In this group, the discourse markers ben and ‘fin were still heavily underrepresented. A significant change is evident with the high-​ proficiency group whose most produced discourse markers are donc, mais, oui/​ouais, et, ‘fin, and ben. And for this group alors is one of the least produced discourse markers. Thus, a clear change is evident from alors being overrepresented and ‘fin and ben underrepresented at lower-​ proficiency levels. The overrepresentation of alors and its subsequent reduction in frequency at the high-​proficiency level directly correlates to the increase in frequency of the use of donc. For both native speakers and learners, donc was the most frequent discourse marker overall. However, prior L2 research (Pellet, 2005) has highlighted learners’ non-​target-​like use of donc, attributing it to difficulty in distinguishing its functions from those of alors. However, results from this study suggest that learners do in fact acquire the ability to distinguish between alors and donc, even though it may not be completely sorted out by higher-​proficiency levels. At some point in their development, learners realize that donc should be performing many of the functions that they had been attributing to alors initially. This change is only noticeable when comparing the low-​ proficiency group to the high-​proficiency group, as the mid-​and high-​ proficiency groups do not differ significantly in their discourse marker distribution. This highlights the importance of studying low-​ level learners: in this case, learners recruited from early fourth semester university courses, as compared to fifth and sixth semester students in Pellet’s study. If looking only at the mid-​and high-​proficiency groups, there is no evident difference in the treatment of donc and alors, as the catalytic point in their acquisition of these two markers has already passed. Learners at the mid-​proficiency level in this study and those in Pellet’s were already well along in their path of development for these two discourse markers, and without examining the production of learners with lower proficiency, a key developmental stage would be missed. A primary function of donc is to indicate that the following utterance is a conclusion drawn by the speaker, or the result of an action described in the prior utterance. For this function, learners in the low-​and mid-​ proficiency groups employed donc at roughly similar rates with only a slight increase at the mid-​proficiency level. The high-​proficiency group, however, more than doubles its use of donc for this function. Comparing this with alors, it becomes clear that learners in the low-​proficiency group are much more inclined than learners in the mid-​or high-​proficiency groups to use alors to indicate a conclusion, consequence, or result. The only function for which the use of alors increases with proficiency is for topic management, which still pales in comparison to the frequency of donc for the same function. Thus, initially at lower levels of proficiency, learners more equally distribute their expression of certain functions between alors and donc, and eventually transition to a pattern of usage that favors donc over alors in every context.

New Insights and Next Steps  133 This pattern of use superficially parallels the production of native speakers, who favor donc over alors as well. Donc makes up 14.52% of the total production for the native speakers whereas alors only represents 3.85% of their total discourse marker production. For learners, donc makes up 23.38% of their total discourse marker production while alors only accounts for 4.05% of the total production. Learners’ overreliance and presumably overgeneralization of donc can be accounted for by the fact that the learners have a smaller range of core discourse markers (n=​ 12) than do the native speakers (n=​19). Thus, the learners are employing donc in contexts where the native speakers would use another discourse marker, but not necessarily alors. A chi-​square test confirms this assumption. Results of the test revealed that native speakers and learners differed significantly in terms of the distribution of alors and donc compared to all other discourse markers produced (χ²(6) =​110.0, p < 0.001). In order to investigate specifically which group differed and how, the three learner proficiency groups were entered individually against the native speaker group in a separate chi-​ square test, which confirmed significant differences (χ²(12) =​428.8, p < 0.001). Standardized residuals indicated that, in particular, the low-​ proficiency group produced far more instances of alors relative to their total discourse marker usage (SDR =​12.1), thus highlighting their overgeneralization of alors at early stages of development. Native speakers produced a larger variety of discourse markers other than donc and alors relative to all other groups (SDR =​5.5), and in particular, they relied less on donc relative to their total discourse marker use (SDR =​-​9.4). The high-​proficiency group was the most reliant on donc relative to their total discourse marker use (SDR =​10.4). Thus, with increasing proficiency, learners figure out that they should be using donc in place of alors for many functions. And then they begin to overgeneralize the use of donc due to diminished variety of other discourse markers in their lexicon as compared to native speakers. The correlated relationship of oui/​ouais to voilà in some ways parallel that of donc and alors in learner production. At the low-​proficiency level, oui/​ouais makes up about 22% of their total production while voilà is not used at all. For learners in the mid-​proficiency group, oui/​ouais makes up nearly 25% of their total production, while voilà represents only just over 1% of their total production. There is then a drastic shift for learners at the high-​proficiency level who employ oui/​ouais just under 10% of the time, while the use of voilà has increased to represent nearly 3% of their total discourse marker production. While voilà is still used at relatively low rates compared to other discourse markers such as donc, there seems to be an effect of learners acquiring its discursive properties that at least partially contributes to the decrease in frequency of oui/​ouais. The functions of oui/​ouais and voilà partially overlap. In this study, learners used both discourse markers to signal “affirmation,” with different frequencies. In addition, both can be used to close a topic, and

134  New Insights and Next Steps the data from this study show that this function also decreases for oui/​ ouais as proficiency increases, and voilà becomes more frequently used in its place. Deng (2016) compared the production of oui and voilà by L1 Chinese non-​native speakers of French residing in France. In her study, the L1 Chinese speakers also more frequently produced oui as compared to voilà and L1 target-​like expectations. She hypothesized that this could be due to transfer effects from Chinese. However, the results from this study suggest that something else could be at play, since L1 English learners exhibit similar patterns of use for these two discourse markers. Borreguero Zuloaga (2017) notes that monosyllabic discourse markers tend to be some of the first to emerge. Thus, it is likely, that oui is simply more accessible to lower-​proficiency learners than is voilà. In addition, in formal classroom instruction, the non-​discursive functions of voilà as a demonstrative adjective (e.g., voilà le livre –​“here is the book”) and as a temporal expression (e.g., voilà trois jours que je ne fais pas mes devoirs –​ “it’s been three days since I’ve done my homework”) are introduced very early. Learners may find it challenging to make the semantic extension to allow the discursive functions of voilà, given the one-​to-​one principle of interlanguage construction (Andersen, 1984). It is likely that more exposure to voilà as a discourse marker in the input (for example in interaction with native speakers) leads to the necessary semantic shift. This is in fact what Deng observed in her data, where non-​native speakers who interacted more regularly with native speakers did decrease their use of oui in favor of voilà. These observations regarding the overgeneralization of oui and the undergeneralization of voilà support the existence of a developmental path for these discourse markers and their associated functions, in which lower-​proficiency speakers would first employ oui excessively and begin to incorporate voilà more and more as their proficiency and exposure to target-​like usage increases. Learner behavior with regard to turn management can shed additional light on the over-​and undergeneralization of the discourse markers alors, oui/​ouais, and ben. In addition to alternating with donc for introducing conclusions and results, alors is in competition with oui/​ouais and ben for turn openings. Learners in the low-​proficiency group do not produce ben at all. Alors represents 27% of the turn openings that the low-​proficiency learners marked with a discourse marker while oui/​ouais accounts for 37% of the turn openings. Thorle (2016) identified oui as a frequent discourse marker in her data for learners in telephonic conversations. And as with marking affirmation, it is likely highly accessible to learners because of its monosyllabic form in addition to its overall frequency in the language, and generally commonly known translation equivalent. Thorle also found that alors was used more frequently by intermediate level (B2/​ C1 on the CEFR scale) learners to open their turns. In this study, learners in the mid-​proficiency group start to show a decrease in the use of alors for turn openings, for which they represent approximately 11% of the cases, while the use of oui/​ouais represents 61% of the cases. However,

New Insights and Next Steps  135 ben begins to emerge in this group, accounting for 3% of the discourse marker turn openings. Once learners reach higher levels of proficiency, turn opening alors reduces even further, representing only about 6.5% of the turn openings that the high-​proficiency group marked with a discourse marker. In contrast, the use of ben for this function increased to 28% and oui/​ouais once again decreased to 25%. As with the contrast with donc, they begin to recognize by the mid-​proficiency level that alors is not the appropriate discourse marker for this function. However, in contrast with donc, ben is not as accessible to learners at this proficiency level. It is also not as frequent as donc overall, although it was the third most frequent discourse marker produced by the native speakers in this corpus. The correlation between alors, oui, and ben for the turn opening function becomes even more evident as compared to donc for the same function. While donc was employed by all three proficiency levels for turn openings, its rate of use was relatively unchanged as proficiency increased. At both the low-​and mid-​proficiency levels, donc is employed for turn openings about 10% of the time, while at the high-​proficiency level this decreases to just under 8% of the time. This provides further evidence for learners discerning even more specialized functions of alors, as they increasingly reject it for the turn opening function in favor of competitors as their proficiency increases. The cases of alors and donc, oui and voilà, and alors, oui, and ben highlight how interactions between discourse markers with overlapping functions are key to understanding patterns of over-​and undergeneralization in L2 learner discourse marker use. Markers that are overused, particularly at low-​proficiency levels, seem to be the result of the accessibility of the discourse marker to the learner as compared to other competing forms. As learners expand their discourse marker inventory, they are able to better distinguish their differing functions. These examples also highlight the importance of considering multiple discourse markers and/​or taking the function-​to-​form approach so as to observe the interactions between different discourse markers as they are acquired. 8.2.4  Learners Express Varied and Changing Functions as Proficiency Increases In addition to the variations observed in the expression of specific functions discussed in the preceding sections, learners in this study increased the range of functions that they expressed as their proficiency increased. This result is in line with previous studies that showed a gradual increase in frequency and function as learners developed in their L2 (Corino, 2016; De Cristofaro & Badan, 2021; Ferraris, 2001, 2002; Zuloaga et al., 2017). While most functions were present at all three proficiency levels, and differences between the three groups with regard to the variety of functions expressed were not statistically significant (see Chapter 7), learners still demonstrated a progression in terms of which

136  New Insights and Next Steps functions were frequently expressed using a discourse marker. At the low-​ proficiency level, these functions were topic management, conclusion/​ result, reformulation/​clarification, turn management, information management, and hesitation. For the mid-​proficiency learners, the most frequently expressed functions were topic management, conclusion/​result, reformulation/​clarification, information management, turn management, hesitation, and contrast. And finally, learners in the high-​ proficiency group employed discourse markers frequently to express functions in the topic management, conclusion/​ result, reformulation/​ clarification, turn management, information management, hesitation, and contrast categories. The core group of functions expressed increased from six main functions to seven at the mid-​and high-​proficiency levels. Thus, variation in functions is present, but to a lesser scale than with the discourse markers employed for those purposes. When compared to native speakers, few overall differences are apparent. Table 8.1 compares the ranking of the functions most frequently expressed with a discourse marker for native speakers and all learners regardless of proficiency level. Learners and native speakers are largely similar in terms of relative frequencies of most functional categories. In fact, the three most frequent functions expressed with a discourse marker are the same for both groups. This contrasts with research that found that learners express different functions with discourse markers than do native speakers. The biggest differences observed in terms of frequency of functional categories are for contrast, emphasis, and recapitulation. Contrast represented more than 7% of the functions that native speakers marked with a discourse marker, while for learners it was just under 2.5%. Similarly, native speakers frequently emphasized

Table 8.1 Comparison of most frequently expressed functions Native Speakers

% Total Learners Production

1 topic management 40.17 2 conclusion/​result 12.44 3 reformulation/​ 11.11 clarification 4 Contrast 7.12 5 turn management 6.65 6 information management 5.51 7 hesitation 4.99 8 emphasis 4.93 9 affirmation 2.77 10 interlocutor engagement 1.52 11 interrogation 1.33 12 recapitulation 0.53 13 reported speech 0.42

% Total Production

topic management 40.65 conclusion/​result 16.28 reformulation/​clarification 12.34 turn management information management hesitation contrast affirmation recapitulation interlocutor engagement emphasis reported speech interrogation

9.99 8.97 3.37 2.46 1.88 1.05 0.69 0.58 0.51 0.25

New Insights and Next Steps  137 their utterances with a discourse marker at a rate of nearly 5% while the learners did so rarely, less than 1% of the time. And in the other direction, recapitulations represented 1% of learners’ discourse marker production, while it only represented 0.5% of the discourse markers that native speakers produced. Native speakers and learners seem to share in priorities as to which primary functions need to be expressed with a discourse marker, such as topic management. Metadiscursive discourse markers ranked heavily for both groups, followed by conclusion and reformulation. Thus, while there are some clear differences between the native speakers and the learners, the functions expressed highlight the importance of remembering that adult second language learners already have fully developed pragmatic systems that will compel them to employ discourse markers in their speech. 8.2.5  Syntactic Features of Learner Discourse Marker Use Prior research in learner discourse marker use concentrates almost entirely on the variables of frequency, variety, and function when attempting to describe learner acquisition and development in this domain. Other key traits of discourse markers, such as their syntactic properties and their ability to combine are largely ignored by L2 research. It is taken for granted, that discourse markers occur primarily in initial position. And while this is generally true, results from this study demonstrate that there is a steady increase in clause-​medial discourse markers and a steady decrease in the use of clause-​final discourse markers as proficiency increases. There is also an obvious trend of increasing use of discourse markers in clusters or combinations as proficiency increases. Cross-​linguistic comparisons of the syntactic properties of discourse markers are limited. Most empirical studies take for granted descriptions by Schiffrin (1987) and others when stating that discourse markers are typically found clause-​initially. Other positions are not often given much attention. Beeching (2002) proposed that clause-​medial and clause-​final discourse markers might be more frequent in French as compared to English. However, only recently did Crible (2018) propose a comprehensive contrastive analysis of discourse marker position. While Crible’s findings show that for both Hexagonal French and British English, initial position still dominates, clause-​final position is three times more common in French than in English. With the potential for conflicting information in the French input, how L1 anglophone learners of French treat discourse markers syntactically merits further study. Learners in the low-​proficiency group produced discourse markers in clause-​medial position at a rate of about 5%. This remains relatively stable for learners in the mid-​proficiency group and increases minorly to roughly 7.5% for learners in the high-​proficiency group. This contrasts with native speakers, who make use of the clause-​medial position in approximately 10% of cases. These results differ from Crible, who found

138  New Insights and Next Steps that native French speakers only produced a discourse marker clause-​ medially in 4.86% of cases. However, differences in the type of discourse analyzed could be a possible explanation, as Crible’s data included speech from both formal and informal contexts. Most of the discourse markers that learners produced clause medially were reformulations (67%), more than for native speakers (51%). Both learners and native speakers also introduced a discourse marker for hesitation in this position (14% and 17.5% of the time respectively). The greatest difference between learners and native speakers is for expressing contrast. Native speakers expressed this function clause-​medially with a discourse marker just over 9% of the time, while for learners it was just under 2%. Thus, learners associate a more limited range of functions with this position, mostly for online planning, while native speakers are more versatile in the functions that can be expressed by discourse markers clause-​medially. Clause-​ final discourse markers present a different picture of the relationship between syntax and function for L2 learners. The rate of clause-​final discourses markers steadily decreases from 17% for the low-​ proficiency group to just under 11% with the high-​proficiency group. Learners in the high-​ proficiency group produce clause-​ final discourse markers at a rate similar to that of the native speakers in this study. These native speakers, however, differ from those in Crible’s study, in which she found that 16.24% of discourse markers were produced clause-​finally. The high rate of clause-​final discourse markers in the low-​proficiency group is largely attributed to their use of discourse markers for turn and topic management, particularly to end a turn or close a topic. These subfunctions were more common for learners in the low-​ proficiency group overall. Han et al. (2020) suggest that turn management discourse markers may be used as a crutch when lexico-​grammatical competency is lacking. Thus, the low-​proficiency learners rely on turn and topic final discourse markers more as a means of managing the conversation when they lack additional linguistic tools to do so. With increasing proficiency, the structure of learner discourse changes, and their need to distinctively mark the end of their turn with a discourse marker decreases. With regard to discourse marker clusters, co-​occurrences, or combinations, while acknowledged in earlier research (Mosegaard Hansen, 1998), only recently have researchers begun to consider theoretical frameworks to explain their behavior (Cuenca & Crible, 2019; Cuenca & Marín, 2009; Fraser, 2013, 2015). Thus naturally, prior L2 accounts of discourse marker use have lacked any substantive description of this phenomenon. Learners in this study do produce discourse marker clusters, and they do so with increasing proficiency as with other features of their discourse marker development. Most early produced clusters consisted of et with another discourse marker such as donc or pis/​puis. This eventually evolved however to include combinations of two to three “full fledged” discourse markers,

New Insights and Next Steps  139 such as the combination of donc and voilà. This development mirrors Crible’s results in which et alors, et donc, quoi mais, mais alors, and et puis alors were the five most frequent clusters in French. Learners in this study increased their use of clusters from the low-​to mid-​proficiency levels at which point they begin to plateau. Native speakers, on the other hand, employ discourse markers in a cluster much more frequently (41.6% compared to 30.8% for learners in the high-​proficiency group). This plateauing from the mid-​to high-​proficiency groups in cluster use suggests a limitation, though it is unclear if it is syntactic, pragmatic, or at the interface of the two. Learners mostly rely on the combination of et +​DM or other simple clusters where meaning is reduced to that of the second, stronger discourse marker, rather than combining two discourse markers with equally strong functions. Typological differences between French and English may also inhibit learner use of clusters as Crible writes that they are 57% more common in French than in English. Clearly, discourse marker clusters require further study in both L1 and L2 French and English. This study, however, provides a starting point for research into this aspect of L2 learners’ discourse marker use.

8.3  Other Contributing Factors to L2 Discourse Marker Acquisition As described in Chapter 4, prior research has explored several different potential influences to explain patterns of use observed by learners in their L2 production. Transfer from the first language is often given as an explanation for divergence from native speaker patterns. Other studies have similarly explored the effects of study abroad and/​or immersion contexts in promoting the acquisition of discourse markers. The results from this study put those conclusions into question and highlight the need for further targeted research in those domains. Additionally, sociolinguistic features of learner discourse marker use have been largely ignored. This study contributes minimally by examining potential regional and gender effects for both native speakers and learners. 8.3.1  Transfer Effects Transfer from the L1 has frequently been hypothesized as an explanation for L2 learner discourse marker use, particularly for overgeneralizations of specific discourse markers. However, as discussed in Chapter 4, cases of potential transfer for etymologically related discourse markers, potential translation equivalents, and the presence of L1 discourse markers in L2 discourse should be examined separately. It is reasonable to assume transfer in the case of etymologically related discourse markers such as d’accord in French and d’accordo in Italian, where the orthographic and phonological similarities might lead a learner to also assume that their semantic properties overlap. On the other hand, the analyses in Section

140  New Insights and Next Steps 8.4 for alors and donc, oui and voilà, and alors, oui, and ben show this is more difficult to demonstrate for those discourse markers that are translation equivalents without the orthographic and phonological similarities. At least in this study, clear cases of semantic extension resulting from L1 transfer cannot be demonstrated for most discourse markers. The exception to this may be the use of comme for like. Sankoff et al.(1997) reported that English–​ French bilinguals were more likely to produce comme as a translation of like. In this study, it was not one of the most frequent discourse markers, with only twenty-​six total tokens representing less than 0.5% of the total discourse marker production. In fact, like in English was more frequent than comme, with forty-​one individual tokens. The prevalence of like and its translation equivalent, comme, speaks to the frequency of this discourse marker in particularly young American English speech. Cases of codeswitching or using L1 English discourse markers in L2 French discourse do merit closer examination as they were present not only at lower levels of proficiency, but also in the speech of the learners in the high-​proficiency group. Four English discourse markers (like, well, yeah, and ok) were produced by learners in the high-​proficiency group with relative regularity. The inability of even advanced learners of French to suppress their L1 discourse markers speaks to the strength of the need to punctuate discourse with something. It also highlights the functions for which learners have not yet acquired an adequate equivalent in their L2. A closer analysis of the continued use of L1 discourse markers by advanced learners might provide greater insight into how they differ from native speakers than observing the ways in which their L2 discourse markers differ from L2 target norms. 8.3.2  Study Abroad Several studies have argued that learners require extensive experience in the target culture (i.e., study abroad or immersion) in order to effectively acquire discourse markers (Hellermann & Vergun, 2007; Kerr-​ Barnes, 1998; Sankoff et al., 1997). However, studies that have explicitly examined this factor have largely concluded that study abroad alone is insufficient, and that actual interaction with speakers of the target language is more important. The results of this study support superficially that more experience in the target culture is correlated with greater production of discourse markers when compared by proficiency groups. However, there was not a clear correlation based on time spent studying abroad. More time in country did not lead to significantly greater discourse marker production, as shown in Figure 8.1. After eighteen months abroad, there is little variation in the total number of discourse markers produced at all. What is certain is that while exposure is necessary, it is not sufficient. And more time in country does not guarantee increased use of discourse markers.

New Insights and Next Steps  141

DM production by time spent abroad Number of DMs Produced

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

48

Average # months spent abroad

Figure 8.1 DM production by time spent abroad.

8.3.3  Gender and Regional Differences In both the results from the native speakers and the learners, Brinton’s (1996) assertion of a gender imbalance in the use of discourse markers is supported. Female participants in this study all produced more discourse markers than did male participants both as an average of their total discourse marker production and as a rate per 100 words produced. However, the difference between male and female native speakers is greater than the difference between male and female learners. This is partially due to an uneven male/​female distribution in the learner population (female students were overrepresented). The implications of this are unclear, especially if we consider current changes in societal perceptions of gender. Would these uneven rates of production hold for learners (and native speakers) who identify as transgender or non-​binary? This question warrants future investigation. With regard to native speakers only, there was also a clear distinction in discourse marker production between the Parisian-​based speakers and those from western France. This also needs to be expanded and investigated further to better understand the potential diatopic variation in terms of discourse marker frequency.

8.4  What Can L2 Acquisition Tell Us about the Nature of Discourse Markers? Adult L2 learners are adult language users. And while there may be parallels between adult second language acquisition and child language acquisition (Zufferey, 2015), adult L2 learners are still operating from a

142  New Insights and Next Steps place of a fully functional language system. This is also true for their pragmatic competence. While they have to acquire target-​language norms for discourse markers in French, L2 learners already have a structure in place for the use of discourse markers. How this structure is then applied to their L2 learning can inform our understanding of the nature of discourse markers. What can L2 acquisition tell us about the nature of meaning of discourse markers, the role of context in meaning variation, and the importance of discourse markers to discourse coherence? Much of the focus of theoretical approaches to discourse markers has been on the presence and nature of a semantic core. Relevance theoretic approaches initially asserted that discourse markers do in fact maintain a semantic core, but that the meaning that is encoded is procedural and not conceptual in nature. Recent accounts have argued that discourse markers can encode both conceptual and procedural meaning (Fraser, 2006; Moeschler, 2016). More specifically, Fraser demonstrates several conceptual meanings for the discourse marker so in examples (1a–​d), for which there is only one shared procedural meaning, that the meaning of the second segment must follow from the first. (1a) Jack was forced to work overtime. So he quit his job. [consequential] (1b) He likes sweets, so he has to like chocolates. [logical-​inferential] (1c) The movie was over so we didn’t bother hurrying. [contextual-​inferential] (1d) She shut the door so the cat couldn’t get out. [purposeful] (Fraser, 2006, p. 27) Thus, the shared procedural meaning of so guides the hearer to one of the possible conceptual meanings that form the discourse marker’s semantic core. Moeschler (2016) argues that discourse connectives with multiple conceptual interpretations can be described as having weak semantics, which explains their varied uses and pragmatic functions. Discourse connectives with strong semantics have fewer uses, and thus fewer pragmatic functions. As the most frequent discourse marker in French, it would fit that donc can be categorized among those discourse markers with weak semantics and many conceptual meanings. In the present study, donc was the most frequent discourse marker by far, but more importantly for a consideration of its meaning, native speakers employed it robustly1 for five of the thirteen functional categories that were identified. Similarly, native speakers in this study also produced mais, already identified as being strongly procedural and weakly conceptual (Moeschler, 2016, p. 129), robustly for five of the thirteen identified functional categories. But do learner productions support a weak conceptual meaning for discourse markers like donc and mais, and perhaps a strong conceptual meaning for others? The answer may lie partially in learner overgeneralization of both donc and mais. The interlanguage hypothesis tells us

New Insights and Next Steps  143 that learners’ production may represent an overgeneralization of certain lexical items acquired in the L2. But it does not explain why this is so. The overgeneralization of donc was partially addressed in Section 8.4 as a function of the more limited inventory of discourse markers that learners have available to them. Learners exchange their use of alors for donc at higher levels of proficiency as they become more aware of the semantics of both forms. However, learner discourse marker inventory is still more limited than native speakers at higher levels, and thus they use donc to fill in the gaps for the functions they cannot accomplish with the other discourse markers available to them. This begs the question, why do learners make the switch from alors to donc? The answer lies in the semantics of both markers. Donc, like mais, is weakly conceptual and thus has several possible pragmatic functions. Alors, in contrast, is much less frequent in the native speaker data. In fact, it is only produced robustly for three of the thirteen identified functional categories. Thus, there is an argument to be made for alors having stronger conceptual meanings than does donc, leading to fewer possible pragmatic functions. Learners initially overgeneralize alors because of its frequency in the input or its similarity to so in English as a translation equivalent, both possible explanations according to the interlanguage hypothesis. But as the semantics of alors become more evident, learners latch on to a discourse marker that is seemingly more flexible semantically. The strength of conceptual meaning encoded by discourse markers may be perceptible to second language learners. If a conceptually weak form is acquired, it is likely to be overgeneralized. A conceptually strong form, on the other hand, is less likely to be overgeneralized and also likely acquired later (at higher levels of proficiency) as the exact nature of the meaning might be more difficult for learners to process. This of course would be in the absence of other factors that might facilitate their acquisition, such as orthographic similarity to their L1 or the perceived status as a translation equivalent in an educational context, as is the case with alors. Accepting that discourse markers can have seemingly multiple conceptual interpretations, does this mean that they are polysemous? Aijmer and Simon-​Vandembergen (2003) suggest that the existence of multiple translation equivalents is an indicator of the polysemic nature of a discourse marker. The difficulty in verifying this claim with the data in the present study is that all participants only completed the tasks in one language: French. The second language learners were not asked to complete the tasks in their L1 and also did not complete a translation task that might provide insight as to their presumptions regarding translation equivalents. If discourse markers are polysemous, then the functions that they encode are assumed to stem from separate but related senses. Monosemy, on the other hand, necessitates that the realized functions of discourse

144  New Insights and Next Steps markers are determined primarily by the context within which they are used. Buysse (2012) argues in favor of polysemy for the discourse marker so based on an interrelated inventory of functions observed in both native and learner discourse. Similarly for French déjà and Italian gia, Mosegaard Hansen and Strudsholm (2008) create a semantic map of the connected functions, to argue in favor of a polysemy hypothesis. In this view, the related meanings do not stem from a single prototype but build off of each other and are interconnected in a manner more similar to a diverse family tree. Can similar mappings be found for French discourse markers in this study? The most likely candidate for polysemy is donc, as the most frequently employed discourse marker in French. In this study, five different functions are identified for donc.2 Native speakers employed donc for drawing conclusions, information management, reformulations, topic management, and hesitations. A single core prototypical function is difficult to identify. But it is evident that all of the primary functions of donc are textual and not interactional or interpersonal except for its use in hesitations. In the learner data, donc is employed for six different functions including drawing conclusions, information management, recapitulation, reformulation, topic management, turn management, and hesitation. The textual functions of donc clearly dominate as well, with minimal use for interactional functions (turn management). It is difficult to determine whether the functions of donc are interrelated without a diachronic study of their development to see when they begin to appear and what they develop out of. But the clear interrelatedness of their functions, all falling in the textual domain, suggest that polysemy is a better explanation of its meaning. For highly frequent discourse markers such as donc and mais, it is unlikely that context alone is enough to distinguish one sense from another. If the role of a discourse marker is to reduce the processing cost, the hearer cannot rely solely on context to ascertain the meaning of both the discourse marker and the utterances it is relating. It is simpler and more efficient if a hearer can expect a discourse marker to contribute a clear meaning that is suitable to the context in which it is employed.

8.5  Methodological and Pedagogical Implications The first half of Chapter 5 was dedicated to an examination of the methodological choices that may influence how questions about learner discourse marker use are answered. This study highlighted two key choices that have clearly demonstrated the importance of choosing instruments, procedures, and a theoretical approach that best allow participants to express their competence as fully as possible. Additionally, this study has highlighted the clear need for pedagogical interventions that are currently lacking in most L2 classrooms to address not only pragmatic competence, but discourse markers specifically.

New Insights and Next Steps  145 8.5.1  Benefits of the Function-​to-​Form Approach The function-​to-​form approach taken in this study has provided a nuanced perspective of learner discourse marker production that is not as easily observed when taking the opposite approach. Focusing on a limited set of discourse markers makes it more difficult to explain patterns of over-​ and undergeneralization when interactions between discourse markers with overlapping functions are not available for observation. Without studying these interactions, learner interlanguage production can be erroneously attributed to L1 transfer, when other possibilities may better explain their use. Assumptions made about L2 discourse marker acquisition made based on a study of only a handful of discourse markers may not hold if a larger number of discourse markers are examined based on how they interact with overlapping functional properties. These results combined with Borreguro Zuloaga et al.’s (2017) findings contribute to the projection of a developmental path for discourse marker acquisition. Learners with different L1s (English and Spanish) learning different L2s (French and Italian) demonstrate similar patterns in the early emergence of discourse markers for topic management (metadiscursive) functions. This also reinforces the assertion that the most phonologically simple discourse markers appear first (those that are monosyllabic). 8.5.2  Task Effects The choice of task and study instruments can affect discourse marker production in subtle ways and must be examined from the right angle to determine its effects. In this study, learners demonstrated very little variation in the frequency of discourse markers produced per task. The rate of discourse markers per 100 words ranged from 4.24 in the film discussion on the lowest end to 4.63 in the unstructured interview on the high end. This would suggest that learner discourse marker production is independent of task effects and contrasts strongly with native speaker productions for discourse marker frequency per task. The rate of discourse markers per 100 words when broken down by task for native speakers ranged from 4.99 in the narrative retell to 8.95 in the role-​play scenarios. Clearly, something about the nature of these tasks affected native speakers’ need to include discourse markers in their speech. Task effects are not simply limited to overall frequency of discourse markers produced, however. Studies that have found task effects noted that they affected specific discourse markers, and not necessarily production as a whole (Liao, 2009; Liu, 2017; Neary-​Sundquist, 2013). In the discussion, interview, and role-​play tasks, the same three discourse markers were the most frequent in learner production: mais, oui, and donc. However, there was some variation, as mais was most frequent in the discussion and role-​ play scenarios while donc was the most frequent in the interview. The case is similar for the narrative retell, but donc was the most frequent,

146  New Insights and Next Steps followed by et and mais. In general, the learners seemed to rely on the same three to four discourse markers regardless of the task, accounting for slight variations between tasks. Contrastively, native speakers also exhibited more variation by task for individual discourse markers as well as overall frequency of discourse marker use. For all four tasks, donc remained one of the top three discourse markers employed, which is unsurprising as it is the most common discourse marker in French. That however is where the similarities end. For the film discussion, the top three discourse markers that native speakers employed were mais, ben, and donc. In the unstructured interview, the top discourse markers were donc, et, and mais. During the narrative retell, the top three discourse markers were donc, et, and en fait. And finally in the role-​play scenarios, native speakers most used mais, ben, and donc. The difference in discourse marker variety by task for the native speakers is immediately apparent. While ben, was frequently employed in the film discussion and role-​play scenarios, it was far less frequent in the narrative retell (ben was the fourth most frequent discourse marker in the interview). En fait ranked third in the narrative retell, but was eighth in the film discussion, seventh in the interview and eleventh in the role-​play scenarios. And while mais ranked in the top three most frequent for the interviews, role-​play scenarios, and film discussion, in the narrative retell, it was the ninth most frequent discourse marker. These patterns from native speakers suggest something about the relationships between the tasks and the discourse contexts that they create, which are better aligned with the functions of certain discourse markers. The difference in task effects between native speakers and learners demonstrate first that the choice of task is important. Native speakers are sensitive to subtle differences in context and make nuanced decisions in their choice of discourse markers. Learners on the other hand mostly rely on those they are more comfortable with, however the potential to differentiate more based on task exists. 8.5.3  Pedagogical Implications The demonstrated progression and potential path of acquisition for L2 discourse markers leaves open the discussion for the role of instruction. Several studies have already documented the effectiveness of explicit classroom instruction (Hernández, 2008, 2011, 2012) on increasing learner production of discourse markers. The effects of implicit instruction are also potential contributors to observed patterns of production with regard to alors and donc. Low-​proficiency learners in this study were primarily university students enrolled in third and fourth semester classes. Both universities from which students were recruited used the same intermediate level French textbook, Réseau: Communication, Intégration, Intersections (2nd ed.). A brief examination of the listening exercises in

New Insights and Next Steps  147 the textbook shows that alors is used only eleven times and donc is even more infrequent, with only one occurrence. Thus, presuming that all of the exercises are used in the course of a semester (which is unlikely) in the second year of the language sequence, students would have had significantly more exposure (although still incredibly little) to alors from their textbook than to donc. Acknowledging that there is a lack of data on instructor classroom input with regard to discourse marker use, classroom materials present a clear bias at lower levels in favor of one discourse marker over another. Optimistically though, the possibility that even minimal exposure in classroom materials to discourse markers can affect their frequency underlines their learnability. Discourse markers can be explicitly taught in the classroom, and learners may be able to acquire meaning implicitly from classroom materials as well even without a lesson intended to target the forms. What’s more, discourse markers “should” be taught as an essential feature of pragmatic competence in both the L1 and the L2. Given their teachability, introducing discourse markers as a regular part of the curriculum could help earlier expansion of the variety of markers available to learners at lower-​proficiency levels, leading to greater discourse marker use when they reach advanced levels of proficiency. Researchers such as Delahaie (2009, 2011a, 2011b) and others have already provided a path forward in their instruction.

Notes 1 In this case, “robustly” refers to those functions for which a discourse marker was used more than 10 times. 2 This only considers those functions of donc with more than ten tokens.

References Aijmer, K., & Simon-​Vandembergen, A. M. (2003). The discourse particle well and its equivalents in Swedish and Dutch. Linguistics, 41(6), 1123–​1161. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ling.2003.036 Andersen, R. W. (1984). The one to one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning, 34(4), 77–​95. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1467-​1770.1984. tb00​353.x Beeching, K. (2002). Gender, politeness and pragmatic particles in French. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Borreguero Zuloaga, M. (2017). Topic-​shift discourse markers in L2 Italian. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 8(2), 173–​203. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1075/​lia.15045.bor Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Mouton de Gruyter. Buysse, L. (2012). So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1764–​1782. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.pra​gma.2012.08.012

148  New Insights and Next Steps Corino, E. (2016). Learners and reformulative discourse markers. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 7(1), 44–​66. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​lia.7.1.02cor Crible, L. (2018). Discourse markers and (dis)fluency. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Cuenca, M. J., & Crible, L. (2019). Co-​ occurrence of discourse markers in English: From juxtaposition to composition. Journal of Pragmatics, 140, 171–​ 184. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2018.12.001 Cuenca, M. J., & Marín, M. J. (2009). Co-​occurrence of discourse markers in Catalan and Spanish oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 899–​914. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2008.08.010 Dalili, M. V., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2013). A contrastive corpus-​based analysis of the frequency of discourse markers in NE and NNE media discourse: Implications for a “universal discourse competence.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 9(1), 39–​69. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​cllt-​2013-​0010 De Cristofaro, E., & Badan, L. (2021). The acquisition of Italian discourse markers as a function of studying abroad. Corpus Pragmatics, 5(0123456789), 95–​120. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s41​701-​019-​00069-​6 Delahaie, J. (2009). Oui, voilà ou d’accord? Enseigner les marqueurs d’accord en classe de FLE. Synergies Pays Scandinaves, 4, 17–​34. Delahaie, J. (2011a). Les marqueurs discursifs, un objet d’enseignement pertinent pour les étudiants erasmus? Éla: Études de Linguistique Appliquée, 2(162), 153–​163. Delahaie, J. (2011b). Sociopragmatic competence in FFL language teaching: Discourse markers as contextualisation cues. Meaning and Context, Bristol, April 2011. Deng, D. (2016). Oui, voilà: analyse des deux marqueurs discursifs utilisés par les locuteurs du francais d’origine chinoise en France. Cahiers, 20(1), 45–​69. Ferraris, S. (2001). I connettivi causali nelle varietá di apprendimento di italiano L1 e L2. Studi Italiani Di Linguistica Teorica Ed Applicata, 30, 337–​370. Ferraris, S. (2002). Come usano ma gli apprendenti di italiano L1 e L2? In G. Bernini, G. Ferrari, & M. Pavesi (Eds.), Atti del 3 congresso di studi dell’Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata (pp. 73–​91). Guerra Edizioni. Fraser, B. (2006). On the conceptual–​procedural distinction. Style, 40, 24–​33. Fraser, B. (2013). Combinations of contrastive discourse markers in English. International Review of Pragmatics, 5(2), 318–​340. https://​doi.org/​10.1163/​ 18773​109-​13050​209 Fraser, B. (2015). The combining of discourse markers –​a beginning. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 48–​53. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2015.06.007 Han, Y., Segalowitz, N., Khalil, L., Kehayia, E., Turner, C., & Gatbonton, E. (2020). Do nurses use discourse markers differently when using their second language as opposed to their first while interviewing patients? Canadian Modern Language Review, 76(2), 91–​113. https://​doi.org/​10.3138/​CMLR-​2018-​0268 Hellermann, J., & Vergun, A. (2007). Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 157–​179. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2006.04.008 Hernández, T. A. (2008). The effect of explicit instruction and input flood on students’ use of Spanish discourse markers on a simulated oral proficiency interview. Hispania, 91(3), 665–​675. Hernández, T. A. (2011). Re-​examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 159–​182. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13621​6881​0388​694

New Insights and Next Steps  149 Hernández, T. A. (2012). Impact of instruction on the use of L2 discourse markers. Journal of Second Language Teaching & Research, 2(1), 3–​31. http://​pops. uclan.ac.uk/​i ndex.php/​ jsltr/​ a rti​cle/​v iew/​8 0%5Cnh ​ttp:// ​pops.uclan.ac.uk/​ index.php/​jsltr/​arti​cle/​downl​oad/​80/​28%5Cnh​ttp://​pops.uclan.ac.uk/​index. php/​jsltr/​arti​cle/​view/​80/​28 Kerr-​Barnes, B. (1998). The acquisition of connectors in French L2 narrative discourse. Journal of French Language Studies, 8(2), 189–​208. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1017/​S09592​6950​0004​142 Liao, S. (2009). Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1313–​1328. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1016/​j.pra​gma.2008.09.026 Liu, B. (2017). contrastive study of discourse markers used by native and Chinese L2 English speakers across speech context. East Asian Pragmatics, 2(1), 101–​ 126. https://​doi.org/​10.1558/​eap.33278 Moeschler, J. (2016). Where is procedural meaning located? Evidence from discourse connectives and tenses. Lingua, 175–​176, 122–​138. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1016/​j.lin​gua.2015.11.006 Mosegaard Hansen, M.-​ B. (1998). Discourse markers. In The Function of Discourse Particles (pp. 65–​90). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Mosegaard Hansen, M. B., & Strudsholm, E. (2008). The semantics of particles: Advantages of a contrastive and panchronic approach: A study of the polysemy of French déjà and Italian già. Linguistics, 46(3), 471–​505. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​LING.2008.016 Neary-​ Sundquist, C. (2013). Task type effects on pragmatic marker use by learners at varying proficiency levels. L2 Journal, 5(2). https://​doi.org/​10.5070/​ l25212​104 Pellet, S. H. (2005). The development of competence in French interlanguage pragmatics: The case of the discourse marker “donc.” ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 303. https://​sea​rch.proqu​est.com/​docv​iew/​304979​491?accoun​ tid=​10673%0Ah​ttp://​open​url.ac.uk/​redir​ect/​ath​ens:edu/​?url_​ver=​Z39.88-​ 2004&rft_​val_​fmt=​info:ofi/​fmt:kev:mtx:disse​rtat​ion&genre=​disser​tati​ons+​ %26+​the​ses&sid=​ProQ:ProQu​est+​Disser​tati​ons+​%26+​The​ses+​Glo​bal&at Sankoff, G., Thibault, P., Nagy, N., Blondeau, H., Fonollosa, M. O., & Gagnon, L. (1997). Variation in the use of discourse markers in a language contact situation. Language Variation and Change, 9(2), 191–​217. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1017/​S09543​9450​0001​873 Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. Thörle, B. (2016). Turn openings in L2 French. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 7(1), 117–​144. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​lia.7.1.05tho Zufferey, S. (2015). Acquiring pragmatics: Social and cognitive perspectives. Routledge. Zuloaga, M. B., Izquierdo, P. P., & Gillani, E. (2017). Metadiscursive functions and discourse markers in L2 Italian. In A. P. Loureiro, C. Carapinha, & C. Plag (Eds.), Marcadores discursivos e(m) tradução (pp. 15–​57). Universidade de Coimbra Press.

9 Conclusion

9.1  Concluding Remarks The objective of this book was to provide a detailed description of how adult second language learners of French produce and use discourse markers at different levels of proficiency. The ultimate goal (hope) is that a greater understanding of how classroom-​instructed learners use discourse markers can at least partially contribute to the creation of (better) pedagogical interventions and a more systematic inclusion of discourse markers, among other areas of L2 pragmatics, in the standard foreign language curriculum. This study necessarily began with a deep discussion of the nature of discourse markers in Chapter 2. Numerous theories and perspectives have approached discourse markers from different angles. Schiffrin (1987) operated from a sociolinguistic framework and categorized discourse markers based upon the planes of talk on which they function. Fraser (1990, 1993, 1996) focused on their role in connecting two utterances, or more specifically two sentences. Relevance theoretic approaches (Blakemore, 1987, 2003) argue for an analysis of discourse markers as lexical items that guide the hearer to the correct inference of a speaker’s intent, transmitted by its procedural meaning. The questions of the type of meaning, procedural or conceptual, and whether or not this meaning is semantic or pragmatic, are fundamental to a basic understanding of the nature of discourse markers. While these questions were not the focus of this study, and generally beyond its scope, learner L2 acquisition patterns seem to provide support for the dual existence of conceptual and procedural meaning in strong and weak forms depending on the discourse marker, as well as the importance of context in narrowing the interpretation of the intended meaning. Chapters 3 and 4 laid the foundation for the study of native speaker and learner discourse marker production respectively. In Chapter 3, detailed descriptions for several common and frequent French discourse markers highlighted the multifunctionality of this class of lexical items as well as the diverse empirical and theoretical work that has been conducted on individual discourse markers. The findings explored in Chapter 4 outlined the DOI: 10.4324/9781003323754-9

Conclusion  151 state of knowledge currently understood in L2 discourse marker acquisition. Of particular importance were the findings that learners produce fewer discourse markers overall than do native speakers; that learners under-​and overproduce certain individual discourse markers; and that there is preliminary evidence to show that learners’ discourse marker production can change in either frequency, variety, or function with increasing proficiency in the L2. What was missing from these studies was a comprehensive analysis of learner discourse marker production in French, rather than a focus on a handful of “popular” discourse markers such as donc and mais, as well as clearly controlled mechanism for comparing learners of different proficiency levels. The focus of Chapter 5 was methodological choices in L2 discourse marker research. Chapter 5 considered three main study design questions: the choice between contrastive analysis and an interlanguage analysis, a form-​to-​function approach versus a function-​to-​form approach, and the potential effects of tasks and study instruments. This chapter argued in favor of an interlanguage approach if an understanding of L2 acquisition is truly the goal. Contrastive analysis, particularly of only higher-​proficiency learners, can tell us little about acquisition beyond the state of ultimate attainment. And that is only possible if learner proficiency is clearly defined, measured, and controlled for. Additionally, this chapter suggested that a function-​ to-​ form approach can provide greater detail in how learners manage pragmatic functions overall, with or without discourse markers, potentially illuminating gaps that have existed when the focus was on a particular discourse marker. Finally, the potential for task effects, while unclear for learners, is evident for native speakers, as demonstrated by the results of this study. Researchers should think carefully about the instruments chosen and the potential influence it may have on learner productions. The end of the chapter contained a detailed description of study procedures, participant profiles and study instruments with the hopes that future research might replicate this approach. Chapters 6 and 7 described the discourse marker production of native speakers and learners respectively. Nineteen discourse markers were found to represent more than 90% of the total discourse markers that the native speakers produced. The most frequent discourse marker was donc, as was expected. Most discourse markers were employed for a variety of functions with the exception of markers like hein and quoi that exhibited very limited scope. Sociolinguistic factors were also identified that have the potential to affect discourse marker production. Speakers from western France, on average and per 100 words, produced fewer discourse markers than did speakers from Paris. Similarly, female speakers produced more discourse markers than did male speakers. These results are preliminary as they are only representative of twelve native speakers, and thus cannot be generalized. Nevertheless, they provide a

152 Conclusion clear indication that a sociolinguistic account of discourse marker use in French is warranted. Learners demonstrated some of the expected patterns based on prior research. They produced fewer discourse markers overall and on average than did the native speakers. Some discourse markers were overgeneralized while others were undergeneralized. But from this approach, it is possible to begin to see an explanation for these patterns of use. The group of learners in this study operated with a smaller overall core group of discourse markers. Only twelve discourse markers represented more than 95% of their total discourse marker production, as compared to the native speakers for whom this figure was nineteen discourse markers. As they are generally operating with a smaller discourse marker inventory, learners tend to overgeneralize and further extend the meaning of those discourse markers which already seem highly multifunctional in the input, namely donc. Chapter 8 considered the results from this study in the greater context of L2 discourse marker research and also potential implications for an understanding of the nature of discourse markers. This study found that learners’ overgeneralization of donc correlated directly with their smaller overall inventory of core discourse markers, and also with their reduced use of alors. Prior research had presumed that learners would confuse the two as they are both often translated as so in English. However, this study demonstrated that learners quickly learn that alors has a more limited scope than donc and make the transition to using donc more frequently at intermediate levels of proficiency. This transition from alors to donc also provides evidence for a strong/​weak conceptual meaning distinction. As donc has a weak conceptual meaning, it is permissible for a greater range of functions and thus more easily generalizable in an L2 context. On the other hand, alors is likely stronger conceptually than donc, leading to fewer contexts in which it can be used, and providing learners with an opportunity to refine their assumptions regarding discourse marker use that were formed at early levels of proficiency.

9.2  Future Directions There remain several avenues of investigation left to be explored when it comes to learner discourse marker production. Almost completely unstudied are the acquisition of syntactic features of discourse markers, including the position relative to the clause and their use in clusters or combinations. This study reported initial patterns of use, but these need to be examined independently in more depth. Additionally, this study, and most studies on discourse markers, do not address the role of prosody in distinguishing their functions, or in enhancing or reducing their saliency to a second language learner. Finally, a few studies have demonstrated that discourse markers can be taught, but more pedagogically focused

Conclusion  153 research is necessary to determine a more efficient method for incorporating discourse markers into the second language curriculum.

References Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Blackwell. Blakemore, D. (2003). Discourse and relevance theory. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (1st ed., pp. 100–​ 118). Blackwell. Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 383–​398. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​0378-​2166(90)90096-​V Fraser, B. (1993). Discourse markers across language. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 4, 1–​18. Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167–​190. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1017/​CBO97​8113​9057​493.011 Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.

Appendices

newgenrtpdf

Appendix A –​Participant Profiles Table A-​1 Participant profiles –​native speakers (NS) Participant

Age Sex Birth city

Current city

Occupation

L2s

NS01 NS02 NS03 NS04

28 28 26 26

M F F F

Nantes Nantes Nantes Nantes

Computer engineer Law student Law student Law student

English; Spanish English; Italian English; Spanish; Italian English; Spanish; Japanese; Tahitian

NS05 NS06 NS07 NS08 NS09 NS10 NS11 NS12

30 30 28 31 29 25 32 25

M M F M F F M F

Nantes Bloomington, IN Paris Paris Paris Paris Paris Paris

Lawyer Graduate student Geography/​history teacher Press attaché Geography/​history teacher Graduate student n/​a Media and communications

English; Spanish; Japanese Reunion Creole; English; Swedish; German Algerian Arabic; English; German English; Spanish; Persian; Italian English; German English; Italian; German; Martinique Creole English; German English; German

Saint-​Brieuc Saint-​Saulnes Nantes Papeete, French Polynesia Lorient Cholet Paris Bordeaux Paris Lille Taplow, UK Nogent-​sur-​Marne

Appendices  155

newgenrtpdf

Participant

Sex

Age

L1

Other Non-​native languages

Time Studying French (years)

Time in spent in a French-​speaking country (months)

French Teacher (Y/​N)

AL01 AL02

F F

28 36

German Spanish

16 25

4 56

Y Y

AL03 AL04

M F

36 31

English English/​ Ukrainian English English

22 17

55 61.5

Y Y

AL05 AL06 AL07 AL08 AL09 AL10 AL11

F F F F F M F

18 18 18 18 19 22 34

English English English English English English English

6 4 5 6 5 5 20

0 0 0 0 2.5 0 5.5

N N N N N N Y

AL12 AL13 AL14 AL15 AL16 AL17 AL18 AL19 AL20 AL21

F F F F F F M F F M

31 21 28 26 18 19 19 18 19 21

English English English English English English English English English British English

Spanish; German German; Romanian; Spanish n/​a n/​a n/​a n/​a n/​a Hebrew Spanish; Haitian Creole; Latin n/​a n/​a German; Spanish; ASL Italian Tamil n/​a n/​a n/​a n/​a Irish

9 9 15 12 8 8 5 13 7 9

8 1 5.5 26 0 1 0 24 .75 1

Y N Y N N N N N N N

156 Appendices

Table A-​2 Participant profiles –​anglophone learners (AL)

AL22 AL23 AL24 AL25 AL26 AL27 AL28 AL29 AL30 AL31

M M F F F F M M M M

19 21 31 52 20 21 23 23 19 20

English English English English English English English English English English

Italian Korean Italian Spanish; Arabic n/​a n/​a Italian; Spanish n/​a Spanish n/​a

6 7 11 14 6 2 9 9 3 8

0 5.5 96+​ 24 9 4 12 9 0.25 4.25

N N N Y N N Y Y N N

Appendices  157

newgenrtpdf

158 Appendices

Table A-​3 Participant profiles –​other learners (OL) Participant

Sex

Age

L1

Other L2s

Years studying French (years)

Time spent in French-​ speaking country (months)

French teacher (Y/​N)

OL01 OL02

F F

33 29

Moldovan Romanian Moldovan Romanian

22 22

63 37

Y Y

OL03 OL04 OL05 OL06 OL07

M F M F F

18 18 22 20 22

Telugu Spanish Kinyarwanda Mandarin Chinese Wolof

English; Russian English; Russian; Portuguese English; Hindi English English; Luganda English; Korean; English; Arabic

6 4 ? 7 20

0 0 1.5 0.5 208

N N N N N

Appendices  159

Appendix B –​Native Speaker Discourse Marker Inventory Table B Total inventory of discourse markers produced #

Discourse marker

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

donc mais ben et oui/​ouais ‘fin1 en fait voilà alors bon puis/​pis du coup après parce que non hein sinon là quoi Déjà Enfin Finalement tu sais écoute/​écoutez Puisque en tout cas Disowns Attends Genre à la rigueur c’est à dire d’accord en effet mais aussi Bien Franchement Ok tu vois Actuellement Bref Tiens Arête au final Boh

Total DMs 524 470 381 347 286 243 190 188 139 122 100 69 66 58 56 48 45 41 40 25 22 21 18 17 16 9 8 7 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1

% of Total DMs 14.52 13.02 10.55 9.61 7.92 6.73 5.26 5.21 3.85 3.38 2.77 1.91 1.83 1.61 1.55 1.33 1.25 1.14 1.11 0.69 0.61 0.58 0.50 0.47 0.44 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 (continued)

160 Appendices Table B (Cont.) #

Discourse marker

Total DMs

% of Total DMs

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Effectivement en bref Encore je vais dire Justement Maintenant Mettons on va dire TOTAL

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3610

0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03

Appendices  161

Appendix C –​Learner Discourse Marker Inventory Table C Inventory of discourse markers by proficiency group #

Discourse marker

Low

Mid

High

Total

% of total

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

donc mais oui/​ouais Et ‘fin alors ben bon en fait parce que voilà pis/​puis ok like non enfin du coup tu sais comme quoi après mais aussi yeah puisque d’accord sinon hein well déjà so bref et tout cela et aussi wait comme ça en fin de compte oh man on dirait on va dire but en effet genre

199 196 191 58 —​ 113 —​ 2 5 24 —​ 2 13 13 5 —​ —​ 2 11 —​ —​ 5 7 —​ 1 —​ —​ 4 —​ 6 —​ —​ 5 5 2 —​

285 289 335 169 6 38 2 24 30 51 16 19 1 —​ 1 8 20 —​ 5 4 —​ 8 2 —​ 5 —​ 1 1 —​ 2 —​ 7 1 —​ 1 —​

808 585 320 311 241 73 204 124 113 62 89 55 34 28 33 29 12 26 10 19 20 7 11 18 8 13 10 4 8 —​ 7 —​ —​ —​ 1 4

1292 1070 846 538 247 224 206 150 148 137 105 76 48 41 39 37 32 28 26 23 20 20 20 18 14 13 11 9 8 8 7 7 6 5 4 4

23.38 19.36 15.31 9.73 4.47 4.05 3.73 2.71 2.68 2.48 1.90 1.38 0.87 0.74 0.71 0.67 0.58 0.51 0.47 0.42 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.33 0.25 0.24 0.20 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.07

3 —​ —​ 2 —​ —​

—​ 3 —​ —​ —​ —​

—​ —​ 3 —​ 2 2

3 3 3 2 2 2

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04

37 38 39 40 41 42

(continued)

162 Appendices Table C  (Cont.) #

Discourse marker

43 44 45 46 47 48 49

I mean là ou quoi tu sais quoi actuellement c’est ça comme tu veux dire dis-​donc dite écoute franchement je vais dire maintenant on veut dire or ou quand même si tu veux tout cela voyons vraiment TOTAL

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

Low

Mid

High

Total

% of total

—​ —​ —​ —​ —​ 1 —​

—​ —​ —​ —​ 1 —​ —​

2 2 2 2 —​ —​ 1

2 2 2 2 1 1 1

0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02

—​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ —​ 875

—​ —​ —​ —​ 1 —​ 1 1 1 —​ —​ 1 —​ 1 1,341

1 1 1 1 —​ 1 -​ —​ —​ 1 1 —​ 1 —​ 3,311

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5,527

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

Note 1 Following Bertrand and Chanet (2005), whose results demonstrated that ‘fin and enfin perform separate functions in the discourse, they are being considered separately in my data rather than together as a single discourse marker.

Reference Chanet, C., & Bertrand, R. (2005). Fonctions pragmatiques et prosodie de enfin en français spontané. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique, 17, 41–​68.

Index

Note: Page numbers in bold indicate tables; those in italics indicate figures. Words in italics indicate discourse markers. Endnotes are indicated by the page number followed by “n” and the note number e.g., 51n20 refers to note 51 on page 20. actuellement 87 affirmation: learners 112, 121, 133, 134, 136; native speakers 86, 88–​89, 97, 136 after all 14–​15, 22 age factors 99 ah 48 ah bon 26 Aijmer, K. 47, 64, 143 alors: form-​to-​function versus function-​to-​form approach 65; functions 30–​31, 76; learners’ use of 103, 104, 104, 110, 113–​114, 117, 119, 131–​135, 143–​144; native speakers’ use of 83, 85, 85–​86, 89, 91–​93, 97, 133; semantic meaning 14; teaching 146, 147; transfer effects 140 alors bon 32 although 22 Ament, J. 53, 54 and 16, 22, 26 Andersen, H. L. 40 Andersen, R. W. 4 Andorno, C. 47 Anping, H. 48 Anscombre, J. 38 après 76, 85, 97, 113 Badan, L. 49, 52, 56 Bardel, C. 4 Bazzanella, C. 14 because 15, 22, 24, 48 Beeching, K. 17, 23, 36, 37, 40, 137 ben: functions 21, 31–​32; learners’ use of 103, 104, 104, 113, 117, 119,

123–​124, 131–​135; native speakers’ use of 85, 85, 88, 90, 93, 95, 97, 146; phonological reduction 13; transfer effects 140 Bertrand, R. 36, 162n1 Blakemore, D. 4, 14–​15, 22, 23 Bolly, C. 33–​35 bon: combinations of discourse markers 26, 32, 36; functions 4, 32, 76; learners’ use of 103, 104, 115, 119; native speakers’ use of 83, 85, 88, 90, 92, 96, 97 Borreguero Zuloaga , M. 5, 48, 49, 56, 66, 134, 145 Brinton, L. 141 but 16, 20, 22, 48, 110, 110 Buysse, L. 20, 47–​49, 64, 144 Canale, M. 3 Ceković, 46, 47 Chanet, C. 36, 162n1 Chaudron, C. 52 Clark, H. H. 21 cloze tests see proficiency clusters see combinations of discourse markers combinations of discourse markers 25–​26, 76; addition 25, 26; composition 25, 26; future research 152; juxtaposition 25; learners 125–​126, 127, 138–​139; native speakers 98–​99; summative 26; see also specific discourse markers comme 118, 140 comme tu veux dire 109 communicative competence 3, 55

164 Index conceptual core see semantic core conclusion: learners 111, 112, 114, 132, 136, 136, 137; native speakers 86, 89, 97, 136, 137 conjunctions 22 connecteurs logiques (logical connectors) 1 constructed examples 22–​23 contrast: learners 112, 120–​121, 136, 136, 138; native speakers 86–​87, 86, 97, 136, 136, 138 contrastive analysis 55, 137; versus interlanguage analysis 62–​64, 151 co-​occurrences see combinations of discourse markers Corino, E. 47, 64 Crible, L. 19–​25, 137–​139 Crozet, C. 73 Cuenca, M. J. 25 d’accord 49–​50, 88, 98, 139 d’accord bon ben 99 De Cristofaro, E. 49, 52, 56 De la Fuente, M. J. 53, 54 De Marco, A. 56 Degand, L. 30–​31, 33–​35 deixis 1, 4 déjà 95, 123, 144 Delahaie, J. 2, 41, 147 Deng, D. 5, 39, 48, 63, 134 discourse competence 3 dis-​donc 109 dite 109 Donaire, M. 36, 37 donc 32–​35: clause internal marker 17; form-​to-​function versus function-​to-​form approach 64, 65; 76, 152; learners’ use of 45, 65, 103, 104, 104, 110, 113–​115, 118–​119, 122, 131–​135, 138–​139, 142–​145, 152; native speakers’ use of 83, 85, 85, 89–​92, 94, 96, 97, 98, 100, 133, 142, 144, 146; non-​propositionality, syntactic detachment, and optionality 11–​12, 13; polysemy 144; semantic meaning 14, 142; teaching 146, 147; transfer effects 140 du coup 85, 87, 89, 97, 114 Ducrot, O. 38 écoute/​écoutez 76, 95, 109 Ellis, R. 50 emphasis: learners 111, 112, 123, 136, 137; native speakers 86, 95, 97, 136–​137, 136

en effet 35, 76, 87–​89 en fait: functions 35–​36, 76; learners’ use of 104, 113, 118, 120; native speakers’ use of 83, 85, 86–​87, 94, 97, 98, 146 enfin 21, 36–​37, 90, 162n1 enfin bon 36 Engel, H. 35 English discourse markers, use by French learners 109–​111, 110, 115, 116, 118 et: combinations of discourse markers 26; functions 76, 77; learners’ use of 104, 119, 132, 138, 146; native speakers’ use of 85, 89, 91, 94, 97, 146 et alors 98, 139 et donc 89, 98, 99, 125, 138, 139 et pis sinon voilà 126 et puis alors 139 euh 21 Fagard, B. 30–​31 Félix-​Brasdefer, J. c. 73 Fernández, J. 46, 47 Ferraris, S. 47 fillers see hesitation filled pauses see hesitation film discussion 72, 74, 145–​146; learners 101, 104, 105; native speakers 84, 85 ‘fin: functions 21, 162n1; learners’ use of 103–​104, 104, 115, 119–​120, 131–​132; native speakers’ use of 85, 90, 91, 97; non-​propositionality, syntactic detachment, and optionality 12–​13 finalement 89 Flowerdew, J. 52 foreign study see study abroad form-​to-​function approach 64–​65 Forsgren, M. 35 Fox Tree, J. E. 21 Fraser, B. 13, 15, 17, 19–​20, 22–​23, 26, 27n1, 142, 150 Fuller, J. M. 48, 66 functional domains: content 56; epistemic 56; ideational 19; interpersonal 19; rhetorical 19; sequential 19; speech act 56 function-​to-​form approach 64–​66, 151; benefits 145 furthermore 22 Gallani, E. 5 Gates Tapia, A. 46, 47

Index  165 gender variation 13, 141; learners 127–​128; native speakers 99, 99, 100 genre 118 Gillani, E. 49, 66 grammatical competence 3 Guillot, M.-​N. 5, 52 Gyogi, E. 51 Haileselassie, A. 41 Han, Y. 65, 138 Hancock, V. 5, 38, 39, 45, 64 hein: functions 37, 76; learners’ use of 124; native speakers’ use of 85, 96, 97 Hellermann, J. 53 Hernández, T. A. 53–​54 hesitation 21–​22, 27, 75; learners 112, 119–​120, 136, 136, 138; native speakers 86, 93–​94, 97, 136, 138 House, J. 49 Howard, M. 51 I mean 22, 110, 110 I think 48, 50 in contrast 22, 23 information management: learners 112, 118–​119, 136, 136; native speakers 86, 94, 97, 136 interlanguage analysis 62, 63–​64, 142–​143, 151 interlocutor engagement: learners 111, 112, 122–​123, 136; native speakers 86, 94–​95, 97, 136 interrogation: learners 112, 124, 136; native speakers 86, 96, 97, 136 Iten, C. 20 je vais dire 109 just 48 Kerr-​Barnes, B. 5, 31, 32, 46 kind of 48 Kizu, M. 51 là 85, 92, 97 language tics 1–​2, 13 lexical class 11 Liao, S. 66 Liddicoat, A. J. 73 like: comme as translation of 110–​111, 118, 140; French learners’ use of 48, 110–​111, 110, 115, 116, 118; task effects 66; sociolinguistic variables 51; Liu, B. 48, 50, 66

Lorrillard, O. 2 Lu, X. 46, 47 Magliacane, A. 51 maintenant 76 mais: functions 38, 76; learners’ use of 104, 104, 112–​113, 115, 131–​132, 142, 145–​146; native speakers’ use of 85, 85–​87, 90–​92, 94, 96, 97, 142, 146; non-​propositionality, syntactic detachment, and optionality 12, 13; polysemy 144; study abroad, effects of 52 mais alors 139 mais aussi 119, 120–​121 mais et 117, 118 Marín, M. J. 25 Mascherpa, E. 47 meaning of discourse markers: conceptual 13, 14–​15, 19, 20, 142, 150; pragmatic 13, 20, 142, 143; procedural 13–​15, 20, 142, 150; semantic 13, 14, 19, 142, 143 Moeschler, J. 11, 12, 142 Moine, A. 13, 21, 27 monosemy 20, 32, 143–​144 monosyllabic discourse markers see types of discourse markers moreover 22, 23 Mosegaard Hansen, M.-​B. 16–​17, 26, 30–​32, 35, 39–​40, 144 Mullan, K. 2 Müller, S. 45, 64 narrative film retell 72, 74, 145–​146; learners 101, 104, 105; native speakers 84–​85, 85 Neary-​Sundquist, C. 67 Neveux, J. 2 Ngan, V. T. 2 Nigoević, M. 46 non 85, 87, 96, 97 non-​propositionality 11–​12 now 16 oh 66 oh man 110, 110 ok 66, 83, 110, 110, 140 Okan, Z. 45 on dirait 109 on va dire 109, 123 on veut dire 109 or 110, 110 oral proficiency interviews 70–​71, 74, 145–​146; learners 101, 104, 105; native speakers 84, 85

166 Index oui/​ouais: functions 39, 76; learners’ use of 48, 104, 104, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 131–​135, 145; native speakers’ use of 85, 88, 92–​94, 97; non-​propositionality, syntactic detachment, and optionality 12–​13; transfer effects 140 overseas study see study abroad overuse of discourse markers 47–​48, 49, 131–​135, 139, 142–​143, 145 Özer, H. Z. 45 Paillard, D. 2 parce que: functions 39, 76; learners’ use of 76–​77, 104, 116, 118, 119; native speakers’ use of 85, 91, 94, 97 Parés, J. B. 53 Park, H. 51 pedagogy see teaching discourse markers Pellet, S. H. 3, 5, 14, 30, 35, 52, 55, 64, 65, 132 Pernas Izquierdo, P. 5, 49, 66 pis/​puis: functions 39–​40, 76; learners’ use of 104, 114, 138; native speakers’ use of 85, 92, 97 Pizziconi, B. 51 planes of talk: action 17, 18; exchange 17, 18, 19; ideational 17, 18, 19; information 17, 18; participation 17–​18; rhetorical 18; sequential 18, 19 Polat, B. 47 polysemy 20, 143, 144 position of discourse markers 23–​24, 55; learners 125–​126, 127, 137–​138; native speakers 96–​98 pragmatic competence 3 pragmatic meaning see meaning of discourse markers procedural meaning see meaning of discourse markers processing of discourse markers 11, 20, 52–​53, 56 proficiency 3, 46–​47, 49, 54, 55–​56, 63–​64, 65; cloze tests 69–​71, 74; inventory of discourse markers by 161–​162; learner discourse marker production by 101–​105, 131–​140; measuring 69–​71 prosody 152 puis see pis/​puis puisque 94

quoi: functions 40; learners’ use of 48, 122, 123; native speakers’ use of 85, 95, 96, 97 quoi mais 139 recapitulation: learners 112, 121–​122, 136, 137; native speakers 86, 90, 97, 136, 137 Redeker, G. 10, 18–​19, 20, 21, 22 reformulation: learners 111, 112, 115–​116, 136–​138, 136; native speakers 86, 90–​91, 97, 136, 137–​138 regional variation 99, 100, 100, 141 Rehner, K. A. 5, 55 relevance theory 4, 15, 19–​20, 142, 150 reported speech: learners 111, 112, 123–​124, 136; native speakers 86, 88, 97, 136 Richards, J. 52 right 66 role-​plays 72–​73, 74, 145–​146; learners 101, 104, 105; native speakers 84, 85 Roulet, E. 14 Sanell, A. 5 Sankoff, G. 5, 21, 46, 140 Sawyer, M. 46, 52 Schiffrin, D. 1, 13, 16–​19, 20–​22, 75–​76, 137, 150 semantic bleaching 13, 14 semantic core 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 32, 142 semantic meaning see meaning of discourse markers semantic transparency 48 si tu veux 109 Simon-​Vandenbergen, A. M. 35–​36, 143 since 22 sinon 85, 97 Slabakova, R. 1 so 22, 75; alors and donc translated as 143, 152; donc comparison 35; conceptual meanings 15, 19, 142; form-​to-​function versus function-​to-​ form approach 64; French learners’ use of 48, 110, 110; polysemy 20, 144 sociolinguistic competence 3 sociolinguistic variables: learners 127–​128; native speakers 99–​100, 99

Index  167 sort of 48 Sperber, D. 15 Strudsholm, E. 144 study abroad, effect of 51–​52, 140, 141 Sučić, P. 46 Sullet-​Nylander, F. 35 Swain, M. 3 Sweetser, E. 20, 56 syntactic detachment see syntactic properties syntactic position see position of discourse markers syntactic properties: detachment 11, 12, 13; future research 152; learners 55, 125–​127, 127, 127, 137–​139; native speakers 96–​99; see also position of discourse markers task effects 66–​67, 145–​146, 151 Tauroza, S. 52 teaching discourse markers 53–​54; future research 152–​153; research implications 146–​147 then 48 Thörle, B. 5, 65, 134 thus 15 tics see language tics tiens 88 topic management 145; learners 111–​114, 112, 132, 136–​138, 136; native speakers 86, 91–​92, 97, 136, 137 transfer effects 49–​51, 63, 139–​140 Tremblay, A. 64, 69, 78n2 tu sais: functions 40, 76; learners’ use of 108–​109, 109, 122, 123; native speakers’ use of 95 tu sais quoi 109 tu vois 95 turn management: learners 111, 112, 116–​117, 133–​135, 136, 136, 138; native speakers 86, 93, 97, 136 types of discourse markers: interactional 20; interpersonal 20; metadiscursive 19, 20, 49, 66,

137, 36, 145; monosyllabic 145; structuration 20; textual 20 uh/​um 21, 75, 79n5 underuse of discourse markers 47–​48, 49, 131–​135, 145 unstructured interviews 70–​71, 74, 145–​146; learners 101, 104, 105; native speakers 84, 85 variety of discourse markers 46–​47; learners 102–​103, 111, 119, 131; native speakers 92, 96, 133 variety of functions 47, 51; learners 111, 113, 115, 118, 124, 136 Vergun, A. 53 Vidal, C. P. 53 Vincent, D. 10, 14, 20 voilà: functions 41; learners’ use of 48, 104, 104, 121, 131, 133–​135, 139; native speakers’ use of 85, 88, 91–​93, 95–​96, 97, 98; transfer effects 140 voyons 109 wait 110, 110 Wei, M. 46 Weinert, R. 45 well 17–​18, 31, 140; form-​to-​function versus function-​to-​form approach 64; French learners’ use of 47, 48, 110, 110, 115; task effects 66 Willems, D. 35–​36 Wilson, D. 15 y’know/​you know 22, 48, 66, 108 yeah/​yes 140; form-​to-​function versus function-​to-​form approach 64; French learners’ use of 48, 110, 110, 115; transfer effects 50 Yoshimi, D. R. 52, 53, 54 you know see y’know/​you know Zhao, H. 45 Zufferey, S. 49, 50, 56