Cover not available

Article published In: Functions of Language
Vol. 30:3 (2023) ► pp.255–286

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

On the L1-acquisition of the pragmatics of discourse like

ORCiD logo with link | University of Queensland
Published online: 17 August 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.20025.sch
Abstract
This study analyzes the L1-acquisition of discourse like and its pragmatic functions in American English based on the Home-School Study of Language and Literacy Development component of the Child Language Data Exchange System (CHILDES). The data show that discourse like is already present in the speech of 3- and 4-year-old children and that even very young children employ like to perform distinct pragmatic functions with specifying uses being dominant until age 8;5. The analysis also shows a notable increase in discourse like as children mature, mainly driven by an increase in attention-directing like, the dominant function of discourse like among children older than 8;5. Conditional inference trees show that the use of discourse like by children is affected by a child’s age, the situation type and the frequency of discourse like in caregivers’ input. Children younger than 7;10 use discourse like only rarely in formal contexts as well as in informal contexts if their caregivers do not use discourse like frequently. However, children use discourse like substantially more if they are older than 7;10 or, in informal contexts, when their caregivers use discourse like frequently. The changes in frequency and the functional shifts in the use of like around the ages of 7 to 9 is interpreted to show that peers become more important as linguistic role models when children enter school. The results thus substantiate research which suggests that the pragmatic and social meanings of discourse markers are learned alongside linguistic constraints rather than after the form has been acquired.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Discourse markers and discourse like
    • 2.1Functions of like
    • 2.2On the acquisition of like
  • 3.Data and methodology
    • 3.1Description of the corpus data
    • 3.2Data processing and motivation of variables
    • 3.3Statistical analysis
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion and outlook
  • Notes
  • References
References (67)
References
Ament, Jennifer R. & Julia Barón Parés. 2017. The acquisition of discourse markers in the English-medium instruction context. In Carmen Pérez Vidal, Sonia López-Serrano, Jennifer Ament & Dakota J. Thomas-Wilhelm (eds.), Learning context effects: Study abroad, formal instruction and international immersion classrooms, 43–74. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andersen, Gisle. 1997. They like wanna see like how we talk and all that. The use of like as a discourse marker in London teenage speech. In Magnus Ljung (ed.), Corpus-based studies in English, 37–48. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretic perspective. In Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), 147–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. The role of the pragmatic marker like in utterance interpretation. In Gisle Andersen & Thorstein Fretheim (eds.), Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude, 17–38. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate. 2016. Pragmatic markers in British English: Meaning in social interaction. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2001. An alternative view of like: Its grammaticalisation in conversational American English and beyond. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics 111. 21–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
CHILDES Project. 2000. CHILDES data base manuals. North American English Corpora. url: [URL] (accessed December 8th, 2019).
Clark, Eve V. 2010. Adult offer, word-class, and child uptake in early lexical acquisition. First Language 30(3–4). 250–269. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. Pragmatics in acquisition. Journal of Child Language 41(1). 105–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 201. 37–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook-Gumperz, Jenny & Amy Kyratzis. 2015. Child discourse. In Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 681–704. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer. 2000. The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(1). 60–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diskin, Chloe. 2017. The use of the discourse-pragmatic marker ‘like’ by native and non-native speakers of English in Ireland. Journal of Pragmatics 1201. 144–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra F. 2005. Like: Syntax and development. Toronto: University of Toronto PhD thesis.
2007. Like and language ideology: Disentangling fact from fiction. American Speech 82(4). 386–419. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 1999. Linguistic variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foulkes, Paul, Gerald Docherty & Dominic Watt. 1999. Tracking the emergence of sociophonetic variation in 2 to 4 year olds. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 71. 1–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14(3). 383–398. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. Contrastive discourse markers in English. In Andreas Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), 301–326. 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
Fuller, Janet M. 2003. Use of the discourse marker like in interviews. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(3). 365–377. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Furkó, Péter B. 2019. Discourse markers and beyond: Descriptive and critical perspectives on discourse-pragmatic devices across genres and languages. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten & Achim Zeileis. 2015. Partykit: A modular toolkit for recursive partytioning in R. Journal of Machine Learning Research 161. 3905–3909.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hölker, Klaus. 1991. Französisch: Partikelforschung. Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik 4(1). 77–88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas & Yael Ziv (eds.). 1998. Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khoshgoftaar, Taghi M. & Edward B. Allen. 2001. Controlling overfitting in classification-tree models of software quality. Empirical Software Engineering 61. 59–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kursa, Miron B. & Witold R. Rudnicki. 2010. Feature selection with the Boruta package. Journal of Statistical Software 36(11). 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1964. Stages in the acquisition of Standard English. In Roger Shuy (ed.), Social dialects and language learning, 77–103. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1972. Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 2, Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 3, Cognitive and Cultural Factors. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levey, Stephen. 2006. The sociolinguistic distribution of discourse marker like in preadolescent speech. Multilingua—Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 25(4). 413–441. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Light, Richard J. 1971. Measures of response agreement for qualitative data: Some generalizations and alternatives. Psychological Bulletin 761. 365–377. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. The CHILDES project: The database, vol. 2. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael. 1994. Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society 231. 325–366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael & Deborah Schiffrin. 2015. Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 189–221. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meehan, Teresa. 1991. It’s like, ʻwhat’s happening in the evolution of like?ʼ: A theory of grammaticalization. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 161. 37–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Jim. 2009. Like and other discourse markers. In Pam Peters, Peter Collins & Adam Smith (eds.), Comparative studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and beyond, 317–338. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Jim & Regina Weinert. 1995. The function of like in dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 23 (4). 365–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Odato, Chris V. 2010. Children’s development of knowledge and beliefs about English like(s). Michigan: University of Michigan PhD thesis.
2013. The development of children’s use of discourse LIKE in peer interaction. American Speech 88(2). 117–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna. 2018. Pragmatic development. Language Learning and Development 14(3). 167–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partridge, Eric. 1984. A Dictionary of slang and unconventional English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polat, Brittany. 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
Ranger, Graham. 2018. Discourse markers: An enunciative approach. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Julia L. 2018. Child language variation. In Jack K. Chambers & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 263–276. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Julia & William Labov. 1995. Learning to talk Philadelphian: Acquisition of short a by preschool children. Language Variation and Change 7(1). 101–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne & Deborah Lange. 1991. The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech 66(3). 227–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence C. 1985. Common discourse particles in English conversations “like”, “well”, “y’know”. New York & London: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schweinberger, Martin. 2013. A sociolinguistics analysis of discourse marker like in Northern Ireland. A look behind the scenes of quantitative reasoning. In Markus Bieswanger & A. Koll-Stobbe (eds.), New Approaches to the Analysis of Linguistic Variability, 13–39. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. The discourse marker LIKE: A corpus-based analysis of selected varieties of English. Hamburg: University of Hamburg PhD thesis.
. 2015. A comparative study of the pragmatic marker like in Irish English and in south-eastern varieties of British English. In Carolina P. Amador-Moreno, Kevin McCafferty & Elaine Vaughan (eds.), Pragmatic markers in Irish English, 114–134. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Speech-unit final like in Irish English. English World Wide 41(1). 89–117. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siegel, Muffy E. A. 2002. Like: The discourse particle and semantics. Journal of Semantics 19(1). 35–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2005. So who? like how? just what?: Discourse markers in the conversations of young Canadians. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11). 1896–1915. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & R. H. Baayen. 2012. Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2). 135–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Underhill, Robert. 1988. Like is, like, focus. American Speech 63(3). 234–246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue