Advertisement

It’s Small Words that Make a Big Difference

  • Aneta Kot
Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

Even a cursory look at any tapescript of a native speaker’s spontaneous conversation clearly shows that spoken discourse is abundant with hedges. Traditionally, conversational hedges have been, if not omitted, little emphasized in grammar reference books or ELT textbooks. However, these small words (Hasselgreen 2002) play a key role in spoken interaction. They add texture to the spoken language and make the learner sound not only more polite but also more fluent and native-like. The purpose of this study is to investigate EFL students’ attitude to the use of hedging expressions in spoken discourse as well as their awareness of the meanings and functions of these mitigating devices. The hedging devices under study are items most frequently found in native-speaker speech (‘I mean’, ‘sort of/kind of’, ‘just’,‘like’, ‘I think’, ‘I guess’, ‘I don’t know’, ‘you know’, ‘or something/or something like that’), according to Michigan Corpus of American Spoken English (MICASE) and Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English (CANCODE) corpora findings. The subjects were 19 advanced students of English. A questionnaire, which consisted of three sections, was administered to elicit the students’ responses. The results indicate that foreign language students, despite their high level of language proficiency, are not conscious of the interpersonal functions that hedging devices fulfill, which might be due to the fact that this aspect of pragmatic competence is neglected both by language teachers and textbook writers. The paper, therefore, discusses some possible pedagogical implications involved in preparing learners to become more interactionally competent speakers.

Keywords

Foreign Language Native Speaker Direct Speech Pragmatic Function Small Word 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aijmer, K. 2002. English discourse particles. Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, G. 1998. The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretic perspective. In Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, eds. A. H. Jucker and Y. Ziv, 147–170. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, L. and P. Trudgill. 1990. Bad language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence. Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Pragmatics in language teaching, eds. K. R. Rose and G. Kasper, 13–32. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carter, R. 1998. Orders of reality: CANCODE, communication, and CULTURE. ELT Journal 52: 43–56.Google Scholar
  7. Carter, R. and M. McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Spoken and written English grammar and usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carter, R. and M. McCarthy. 1997. Exploring spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. De Cock, S., S. Granger, G. Leech and T. McEnery. 1998. An automated approach to the phrasicon of EFL learners. In Learner English on computer, ed. S. Granger, 67–79. London: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  10. de Klerk, V. 2005. Procedural meanings of well in a corpus of Xhosa English. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1183–1205.Google Scholar
  11. Fraser, B. 2010. Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In New approaches to hedging, eds. G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch and S. Schneider, 15–34. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  12. Hasselgreen, A. 2002. Learner corpora and language testing: Small words as markers of learner fluency. In Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, eds. S. Granger, J. Hung and S. Petch-Tyson, 3–33. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. House, J. and G. Kasper. 1981. Politeness markers in English and German. In Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech, ed. F. Coulmas, 21–35. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  14. Jucker, A. H., S. W. Smith and T. Lüdge. 2003. Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1737–1769.Google Scholar
  15. Jucker, A. H. and Y. Ziv. 1998. Discourse markers: An introduction. In Discourse markers: Description and theory, eds. A. H. Jucker. and Y. Ziv, 1–12. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  16. Kasper, G. 1981. Pragmatische Aspekte in der Interimsprache. Tuebingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  17. Kasper, G. and S. Blum-Kulka. 1993. Interlanguage pragmatics: An introduction. In Interlanguage pragmatics, eds. G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka, 3–17. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Low, G. 1996. Intensifiers and hedges in questionnaire items and the lexical invisibility hypothesis. Applied Linguistics 17: 1–37.Google Scholar
  19. Markkanen, R. and H. Schröder. 1997. Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, eds. R. Markkanen and H. Schröder, 3–20. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. McCarthy, M. and R. Carter. 1994. Language as discourse. Perspectives for language teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  21. Metsä-Ketelä, M. 2006. Words are more of less superfluous: The case of more or less in Academic Lingua Franca English. Nordic Journal of English Studies 2: 117–143.Google Scholar
  22. MICASE Corpus. (www.hti.umich.edu/m/micase).
  23. Moreno, A. E. I. 2001. Native speaker – non-native Speaker interaction: The use of discourse markers. ELIA 2. (http://institucional.us.es/revistas/elia/2/10.%20angela.pdf). Accessed 2 February 2011.
  24. Nikula, T. 1997. Interlanguage view on hedging. In Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, eds. R. Markkanen and H. Schröder, 188–207. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Nugroho, A. 2002. The contradiction of certainty and uncertainty in hedging and its implications to language teaching. k@ta 4. (http://puslit.petra.ac.id/files/published/journals/ING/ING020401/ING02040103.pdf). Accessed 10 February 2011.
  26. O’Donnell, W.R. and L. Todd. 1991. Variety in contemporary English. London: Harper Collins Academic.Google Scholar
  27. Overstreet, M., J. Tran and S. Zietze. 2006. Increasing pragmatic awareness: Die Vagheit der Sprache und so. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 39: 24–29.Google Scholar
  28. Overstreet, M. and G. Yule. 1999. Fostering L2 pragmatic awareness. Applied Language Learning 10: 1–14.Google Scholar
  29. Östman, J-A.1981. ‘You know’: A discourse-functional approach. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  30. Pappas, J. S. 1989. Qualifiers in patient-physician discourse: An analysis of interviews from radio call-in programs. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 5: 94–111.Google Scholar
  31. Prince, E. F., J. Fråder and C. Bosk. 1982. On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In Linguistics and the professions, ed. R. J. di Pietro, 83–97. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  32. Quaglio P. 2009. Television dialogue: The sitcom ‘Friends’ vs. natural conversation. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  33. Romero-Trillo, J. 2002. The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non- native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 769–784.Google Scholar
  34. Sankoff, G., P. Thibault, N. Nagy, H. Blondeau, M. Fonollosa and L. Gagnon. 1997. Variation and the use of discourse markers in a language contact situation. Language Variation and Change 9: 191–218.Google Scholar
  35. Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Schourup, L. C. 1985. Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  37. Stenström, A. 2006. The Spanish discourse markers o sea and pues and their English correspondences. In Pragmatic markers in contrast, eds. K. Aijmer and A-M. Simon-Vandenbergen, 155–172. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  38. Stubbe M. and J. Holmes. 1995. You know, eh and other exasperating expressions: an analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English. Language and Communication 16: 63–88.Google Scholar
  39. Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4: 91–112.Google Scholar
  40. Wang, A. 2005. When precision meets vagueness: A corpus-assisted approach to vagueness in Taiwanese and British courtrooms. Paper presented at the 7th Biennial Conference on Forensic Linguistics/Language and Law. Cardiff University, UK.Google Scholar
  41. Wichmann A. and C. Chanet. 2009. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française 29: 23–24. (http://clf.unige.ch/display.php?idFichier=416). Accessed 7 February 2011.
  42. Wierzbicka A. 2003. Cross-cultural pragmatics. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Foreign LanguagesCzestochowaPoland

Personalised recommendations