Cover not available

Article published In: Applied Pragmatics
Vol. 1:1 (2019) ► pp.26–45

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

A corpus-based analysis of so in written discourse: A comparison between L1 English speakers and Japanese EFL learners

 | Ritsumeikan University
Published online: 20 May 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.00002.sat
Abstract
This study examines the functional variability of so in essays written by 200 L1 English speakers (ENSs) and 400 Japanese EFL learners (EFLs). Using quantitative and qualitative approaches, this study elucidates discourse marker usage of so in each group, thereby establishing the normative patterns of use among ENSs and the features specific to L2 English writers. The findings suggest that ENSs use so strategically as a preface to stance-taking by carefully selecting and adjusting the information to be established as common ground with the reader. EFLs use so in a manner distinctly different from ENSs, displaying varying degrees of understanding and difficulty in utilising the word’s discoursal properties. The study concludes that it is important for L2 English learners to learn the uses of so not only as a connective marker with resultative meaning but also as a resource for projecting stance and assertion.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Discourse marker functions of so
    • 2.2L2 learners’ use of so
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Distribution of the use of so
    • 4.2Qualitative analysis of discourse marker so in ENS essays
    • 4.3Qualitative analysis of discourse marker so in EFL writing
      • 4.3.1Repeated (redundant) use of so
      • 4.3.2Absence of information serving as a premise
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion and implications
  • Notes
  • References
References (40)
References
Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.4) [computer software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from <[URL]>
Babanoğlu, P. M. (2014). A corpus-based study on the use of pragmatic markers as speech-like features in Turkish EFL learners’ argumentative essays. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1361, 186–193. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1988). “So” as a constraint on relevance. In R. Kempson (Ed.), Mental representation: The interface between language and reality (pp. 183–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolden, G. B. (2006). Little words that matter: Discourse markers “so” and “oh” and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 561, 661–688. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). “So what’s up?’’: Using the discourse marker “so’’ to launch conversational business. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(3), 302–327. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker “so” in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 411, 974–998. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buysse, L. (2007). Discourse marker so in the English of Flemish university students. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures, 51, 79–95.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 441, 1764–1782. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chapetón Castro, C. M. (2009). The use and functions of discourse markers in EFL classroom interaction. Profile, 111, 57–77. Available from: <[URL]>
Ding, R., & Wang, L. (2015). Discourse markers in local and native English teachers’ talk in Hong Kong EFL classroom interaction: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(5), 65–75.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1988). Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 38(1–4), 19–33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 141, 383–395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 311, 931–952. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and non-native use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 281, 410–439. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hays, P. R. (1992). Discourse markers and L2 acquisition. Papers in Applied Linguistics, 71, 24–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hellermann, J., & Vergun, A. (2007). Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 391, 157–179. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
House, J. (2013). Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca: Using discourse markers to express (inter)subjectivity and connectivity. Journal of Pragmatics, 591, 57–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Howe, L. (1991). Topic change in conversation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishikawa, S. (2013). The ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English. In S. Ishikawa (Ed.), Learner corpus studies in Asia and the world 11, 91–118. Kobe: Kobe UniversityGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, A. (2002). So..?: Pragmatic implications of so-prefaced questions in formal police interviews. In J. Cotterill (Ed.), Language in the legal process (pp. 91–110). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lam, P. W. Y. (2009). The effect of text type on the use of so as a discourse particle. Discourse Studies, 111, 353–372. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Toward a functional framework for discourse particles: A comparison of well and so. Text and Talk, 30(6), 657–677. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lim, J. (2016). Discourse marker so: A comparison between English language Learners and English-dominant speakers (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsui, T. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of a Japanese discourse marker dakara (so/in other words): A unitary account. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(7), 867–891. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2), 185–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Redeker, G. (2006). Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse transitions. In K. Fischer (Ed.). Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 339–358). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Romero Trillo, J. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 769–784. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sadler, M. (2006). A blurring of categorization: The Japanese connective de in spontaneous conversation. Discourse Studies, 8(29), 303–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers (Studies in interactional sociolinguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 1071, 227–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1995). Collins COBUILD English dictionary. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dijik, T. (1979). Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 447–456. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vickov, G., & Jakupčević, E. (2017). Discourse markers in non-native EFL teacher talk. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 649–671. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Taguchi, Naoko
2023. Collecting and AnalyzingL2Pragmatics Data. In Current Approaches in Second Language Acquisition Research, ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Fernández, Julieta
2022. Corpus linguistics in L2 pragmatics research. Applied Pragmatics 4:2 ► pp. 178 ff. DOI logo
Collet, Caroline, Stefan Diemer & Marie‐Louise Brunner
2021. Soin video‐mediated communication in the Expanding Circle. World Englishes 40:4 ► pp. 594 ff. DOI logo
Kapranov, Oleksandr
2021. Discourse Markers in Peer Reviews of Academic Essays By Future Teachers of English as a Foreign Language. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 56:1 ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Magliacane, Annarita
2020. Erasmus students in an Irish studyabroad context. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education 5:1 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue