Corpus-informed instruction of the pragmatic marker<i>I mean</i>

Caprario, Marcella; Taguchi, Naoko; Reppen, Randi

doi:10.1080/09571736.2022.2088439

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: (B) An Implicature Of Opinion/stance/feelingsupporting

confidence: 62%

“…The interpersonal function of marking a stance, feeling, or opinion has been discussed repeatedly in previous research due to its association with various pragmatic markers; for example, I think, I mean (Brinton, 2008;Caprario et al, 2022). Given the prevalent use of this function found in previous research (Caprario et al, 2022;Sakita, 2013), the use of this function by Thai ESL learners at a high frequency found in this research is comprehensible. It is argued by Sakita (2013) that this function of the pragmatic marker well is used by native English speakers in conversation to indicate a diverse range of stances, revealing the intrinsic nature of this function of the pragmatic marker well in dialogic activities.…”

Section: (B) An Implicature Of Opinion/stance/feelingsupporting

confidence: 62%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Use of English Pragmatic Markers by Learners of English in Interlanguage Communication

Pan

2023

tpls

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examined two interpersonal-centered pragmatic markers, well and you know, used by Thai ESL learners at two levels of English proficiency. It used a quantitative approach to determine the difference in the use of the two pragmatic markers between the two proficiency levels, and it used a qualitative approach to identify each function of the two pragmatic markers. From an examination of the use of the two pragmatic markers by 60 Thai ESL learners, this research found a significant difference of using well between the two proficiency levels, while no significant difference of using you know between the two proficiency levels. This finding indicates a dissimilarity of the use of the English pragmatic markers by Thai ESL learners in interlanguage communication. The analysis of the pragmatic functions used by Thai ESL learners in this research suggested that a more limited range was used compared to previous research. Finally, this research found no significant difference in the use of each function of both pragmatic markers, which can be explained by the rare use of both pragmatic markers and their pragmatic functions by Thai ESL learners. Overall, the findings revealed that Thai ESL learners had a deficiency in the use of the pragmatic markers in interlanguage communication in English, which may lead to a lack of pragmatic competence among Thai ESL learners.

show abstract

Section: (B) An Implicature Of Opinion/stance/feelingsupporting

confidence: 62%