Cover not available

Article In: Applied Pragmatics: Online-First Articles

The relationship between use of discourse markers and L2 spoken ability across proficiency levels

ORCiD logo with link | Alfaisal University
ORCiD logo with link | University of Reading
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This study advances our understanding of the extent to which discoursal features of second language (L2) spoken performance contribute to the assessment of L2 ability. The research reported here aimed at investigating L2 learners’ use of Discourse Markers (DMs) across different proficiency levels. To explore the extent to which test results explain the relationship between L2 ability and use of DMs, data was collected from 71 EFL learners, whose proficiency was assessed through an Oxford Placement Test and raters’ judgements of their task performance. Learners’ speech performances were recorded, transcribed and assessed by experienced raters for their overall L2 ability and discourse structure (task richness and task cohesion). The dataset was then analysed for DM sophistication, diversity and frequency. The results demonstrated positive correlations between the OPT scores and diversity of 1- and 2-word DMs. The subjective ratings were associated with lexical sophistication, positively with low frequency DMs and negatively with high frequency DMs. Discourse structure ratings were also positively related to the diversity of 1-word DMs. While quality of use of DMs (sophistication and diversity) was linked to L2 ability in both types of assessment, no relationships were observed between quantity of use of DMs and L2 ability.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Review of the literature
    • 2.1Classification of DMs
    • 2.2Discourse markers and L2 oral ability
    • 2.3Examining discourse markers
  • 3.Assessing L2 ability
  • 4.Research gap
  • 5.Methodology
    • 5.1Study design
    • 5.2Participants
    • 5.3Instruments
      • 5.3.1Oxford Placement Test
      • 5.3.2Speaking tasks
      • 5.3.3Rating scales and raters
    • 5.4Data collection procedures
    • 5.5Data transcription and coding
      • 5.5.1Stage 1: Choice of discourse markers
      • 5.5.2Stage 2: Coding of data
    • 5.6Data analysis
      • 5.6.1Grouping of DMs
      • 5.6.2Statistical analysis
  • 6.Analyses & results
    • 6.1Statistical analyses and results
    • 6.2Pearson’s r: Relationship between L2 ability assessed by OPT and DM use
    • 6.3Spearman rho: Relationship between L2 ability assessed by expert raters and DM use
  • 7.Discussion
    • 7.1The relationship between DM use and LP assessed by an objectively scored multiple-choice test of L2 ability
    • 7.2The relationship between DM use and LP assessed by subjective ratings of L2 ability
  • 8.Conclusion
  • References
References (82)
References
(2003). The discourse particle well and its equivalents in Swedish and Dutch. Linguistics, 41(6), 1123–1161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford placement test. University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Archakis, A. (2001). On discourse markers: Evidence from modern Greek. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(8), 1235–1261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Awwad, A., & Tavakoli, P. (2019). Task complexity, language proficiency and working memory: Interaction effects on second language speech performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 60(2), 169–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: Assuring that what we count counts. Language Testing, 17(1), 1–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bax, S. (2012). Text inspector [Online text analysis tool]. [URL]
Bax, S., Nakatsuhara, F., & Waller, D. (2019). Researching L2 writers’ use of metadiscourse markers at intermediate and advanced levels. System, 831, 79–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
BNC Consortium (2007). The British national corpus. University of Oxford.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2012). Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 88–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions (Topics in English Linguistics). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, A., Iwashita, N., & McNamara, T. (2005). An examination of rater orientations and test-taker performance on English for Academic Purposes speaking tasks (Monograph Series MS-29]. Educational Testing Service. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carter, R. A., & M. J. McCarthy. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide to spoken and written grammar and usage. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Celcé-Murcia, M. (2008). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. Alcon Soler & M. P. Safont Jorda (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 41–57). Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Celcé-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Council of Europe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T. L., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). The role of lexical cohesive devices in triggering negotiations for meaning. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 55–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daller, H., Van Hout, R., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 197–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Declerck, M., & Kormos, J. (2012). The effect of dual task demands and proficiency on second language speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 782–796. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fordyce, K. (2009). A comparative study of learner corpora of spoken and written discursive language: Focusing on the use of epistemic forms by Japanese EFL learners. Hiroshima Studies in Language and Language Education, 121, 135–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866–896. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 383–398. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–952. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical language testing. Hodder Education. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410–439. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Boyd, E. (2017). Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics, 38(5), 613–637. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garcia-Ponce, E., & Tavakoli, P. (2022). Effects of task type and language proficiency on dialogic performance and task engagement. System, 1051, 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. (2008). Hesitation markers among EFL learners: Pragmatic deficiency or difference? In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Corpus and pragmatics. A mutualistic entente (pp. 119–149). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Green, A. (2014). The Test of English for Academic Purposes (TEAP) impact study: Report 1 — Preliminary questionnaires to Japanese high school students and teachers. Eiken Foundation of Japan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasselgreen, A. (2004). Testing the spoken English of young Norwegians: A study of test validity and the role of “smallwords” in contributing to pupils’ fluency. Cambridge University Press.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
Isaacs, T., Trofimovich, P., Yu, G., & Chereau, B. (2015). Examining the linguistic aspects of speech that most efficiently discriminate between upper levels of the revised IELTS Pronunciation scale (IELTS Research Report Series, No. 4). British Council, Cambridge English Language Assessment, and IDP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 24–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iwashita, N., May, L., & Moore, P. (2017). Features of discourse and lexical richness at different performance levels in the APTIS speaking test. ARAGs Research Reports Online, 21, 1–93.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iwashita, N., & Vasquez, C. (2015). Examination of discourse competence at different proficiency levels in IELTS Speaking Part 2. IELTS Research Reports Online Series, 51, 1–44.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jo, C. W. (2021). Exploring general versus academic English proficiency as predictors of adolescent EFL essay writing. Written Communication, 381, 208–246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 757–786. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lahuerta, A. C. (2018). Study of accuracy and grammatical complexity in EFL writing. International Journal of English Studies, 18(1), 71–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Little, D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 645–655. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maragianni, E. (2023). The role of discourse features in L2 oral ability [Unpublished PhD dissertation]. University of Reading.
Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 299–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2007). Vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24(4), 459–488. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morrow, K. (1981). Principles of communicative methodology. In K. Johnson & K. Morrow (Eds.), Communication in the classroom (pp. 59–66). Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 138). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neary-Sundquist, C. A. (2008). The role of task type and proficiency level in second language speech production [Unpublished PhD dissertation]. Purdue University.
(2013). The use of hedges in the speech of ESL learners. Elia, 1(13), 149–174.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neary-Sundquist, C. (2014). The use of pragmatic markers across proficiency levels in second language speech. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 637–663. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palacio, M. A., & Gustilo, L. (2016). A pragmatic analysis of discourse particles in Filipino computer mediated communication. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 16(3), 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, S. (2013). Lexical analysis of Korean university students’ narrative and argumentative essays. English Teaching, 68(3), 131–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, S., & Oh, S. (2018). Korean EFL learners’ metadiscourse use as an index of L2 writing proficiency. SNU Journal of Education Research, 27(2), 65–89.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Boers, F. (2018). Pedagogical approaches to the teaching and learning of formulaic language. In A. Siyanova-Chanturia & A. Pellicer-Sánchez (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 153–173). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polat, B. (2011). Investigating acquisition of discourse markers through a developmental learner corpus. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(15), 3745–3756. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Redeker, G. (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 291, 1139–1172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2017). Using listener judgments to investigate linguistic influences on L2 comprehensibility and accentedness: A validation and generalization study. Applied Linguistics, 38(4), 439–462. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1986). Functions of and in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 10(1), 41–66. 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
Shimada, K. (2014). Contrastive interlanguage analysis of discourse markers used by nonnative and native English speakers. JALT Journal, 36(1), 47–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Martinez, R. (2015). The idiom principle revisited. Applied Linguistics, 36(5), 549–569. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, assessment. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Susilowati, E. (2023). Discourse markers used in EFL teacher talk: A pragmatic perspective. Journalistics: Journal of English Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 37–47.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P. (2018). L2 development in an intensive Study Abroad EAP context. System, 72(1), 62–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Cooke, S. (2024). Comprehensibility in language assessment: A broader perspective (British Council Monographs on Modern Language Testing). Equinox Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Uchihara, T. (2020). To what extent are multiword sequences associated with oral fluency? Language Learning, 70(2), 506–547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vickov, G., & Jakupcevic, 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
Wei, M. (2009). A comparative study of the oral proficiency of Chinese learners of English: A discourse marker perspective [Unpublished PhD dissertation]. Oklahoma State University.
(2011). A comparative study of the oral proficiency of Chinese learners of English across task functions: A discourse marker perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 674–691. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wistner, B., Sakai, H., & Abe, M. (2009). An analysis of the Oxford placement test and the Michigan English Placement test as L2 proficiency tests. Bulletin of the Faculty of Letters, Hosei University, 581, 33–44.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence and classroom applications. Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zahedi, K., & Shamsaee, S. (2012). Viability of construct validity of the speaking modules of international language examinations (IELTS vs. TOEFL iBT): Evidence from Iranian test-takers. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 241, 263–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue