Epistemic Stance in Spoken L2 English: The Effect of Task and Speaker Style

Gablasová, Dana; Březina, Václav; McEnery, Tony; Boyd, Elaine

doi:10.1093/applin/amv055

Cited by 101 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the most pressing issues are (1) a comparison to spoken cross-sectional data (e.g. from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus; Gablasova et al 2015) to determine effects of mode, (2) (6) a comprehensive analysis of the input (textbooks and teacher talk; see also Gilquin 2016) to determine the exact sources of teaching-induced over-and underuse (on which see further ''Implications for EFL Instruction'' section). A separate, but complementary aspect of the present analysis is a qualitative look into non-target-like uses (''error analysis'') to further identify transfer-and hypercorrection-induced occurrences.…”

Section: Directions For Further Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Adversative Pragmatic Markers in Learner Language: A Cross-Sectional Perspective

Werner

2017

Corpus Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The intention of this paper is to extend the empirical perspective on the functional acquisition of lexical pragmatic marking in learner English. While previous analyses have mostly focused on speech, and have considered a relatively homogeneous learner population in terms of proficiency, I shed some light on pragmatic marking in written discourse, and at different learner proficiency levels. To this end, I specifically contrast the usage of adversative pragmatic markers (e.g. actually, but, in fact, on the other hand) by beginning/intermediate learners (as represented in the International Corpus of Crosslinguistic Interlanguage) with the one of advanced learners (as represented by material form the International Corpus of Learner English). By way of a quantitative and qualitative analysis, I test when pragmatic markers first emerge in learner language. Factors considered are type of the first language of the learners as well as the patterns of emergence of individual pragmatic markers as well as variation between individual learner groups. In addition, I use data from the Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays as a further point of reference to determine whether and when native-like usage levels are approximated. The overall findings suggest (1) that different patterns of emergence can be observed for individual pragmatic markers (notably the core item but vs. others); (2) that the first-language background of the learners influences the time and rate of acquisition; and (3) that the development of a diversified system of adversative pragmatic marking represents a challenging feature, which is only mastered by advanced students.

show abstract

Section: Directions For Further Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Adversative Pragmatic Markers in Learner Language: A Cross-Sectional Perspective

Werner

2017

Corpus Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the CTP clause often carries epistemic or pragmatic information, the clause sometimes labeled the dependent finite "complement clause" in these constructions is actually the independent assertion (Diessel, 2013), the main idea (Thompson, 2002). Considering how the propositional content (the message) and epistemic stance interacts in these multi-clause utterances (Gablasova, et al, 2015), and an advantage of the CTP clause label is that it allows the message-carrying clause to be consistently coded as the main clause. Similar, less frequent, constructions that have the same structure (sentential finite clause) with epistemic functions (e.g., it's clear to me that) were also coded as CTP clauses with the proposition labeled as the main clause.…”

Section: Clause Types and Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there are at least two issues to consider when comparing the current results to previous studies: the speech type and the context. Firstly, these speeches were monologues; conversations have more epistemic I thinks (e.g., Gablasova et al, 2015;Zhang & Sabet, 2014). Secondly, this research studied EAP learner data while other research with oral data (e.g., Biber & Gray) used L1…”

Section: (15) Here In the Usa It's Clear To Me That People Don't Like Itmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifting structural complexity: The production of clause types in speeches given by English for academic purposes students

Vercellotti

Packer

2016

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While current research does point out that modality in L2 is used significantly differently from L1 (e.g. House 2002;Kecskes 2007Kecskes , 2015Gablasova et al 2015), Hinkel maintains that "little is known about their uses and pragmatic meanings in languages other than English" (1995: 326). This is despite the fact that, as she argues, "modal verbs of obligation and necessity are found in all languages, in which, for example, the notion of obligation can combine with other culturally bound notions, such as subjectivity, assertion, explicitness, and a degree of imposition" (ibd.…”

Section: Rationale Scope and Objectives Of This Papermentioning

confidence: 96%

“It Would Never Happen in My Country I Must Say”: A Corpus-Pragmatic Study on Asian English Learners’ Preferred Uses of Must and Should

Kecskés

Kirner-Ludwig

2017

Corpus Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to investigate Asian English learners' preferred uses of the modal auxiliaries must and should by using both syntactic, topical and semantic annotation as well as various corpus linguistic tools. Our primary goal is to identify culture-specific motivations in the use of the two modal verbs and to demonstrate how those relate to the use of the two items in language produced by L1 speakers of English. We adhere to Hinkel's study (TESOL Q 29(2):325-343. 1995(TESOL Q 29(2):325-343. , doi: 10.2307 and her findings as a springboard into our analysis. She suggested that differences in the use of modals between Asian English learners (AELs) and English L1 speakers may be culturally founded. We see the essential need to question and deepen the understanding of such implications, arguing that a count of tokens and their correlation with essay topics alone cannot be sufficiently informative. This is why we pursue a more in-depth approach which combines both corpus and pragmatic tools. First of all, we will conduct a contrastive analysis of quantitative data from two different learners' corpora on the one hand, and three available corpora of contemporary English on the other hand. The goal of this analysis is to carve out certain AEL and/or English native speakers' patterns in using must and should in their deontic and epistemic senses. Secondly, we will evaluate the AEL data in regard to whether and how they reflect cultural values different from the ones expressed in native English speech. Our findings show that, whereas ENSs and AELs alike do demonstrate a preference in the less face-threatening modal should over the more direct must in deontic uses, both must and should tend to be used more deliberately and more purposefully by AELs than by ENSs, who seem to apply them much more vaguely and polysemously. With regard to Hinkel's major claim that AELs' use of must and & Istvan Kecskes

show abstract

Epistemic Stance in Spoken L2 English: The Effect of Task and Speaker Style

Cited by 101 publications

References 32 publications

Adversative Pragmatic Markers in Learner Language: A Cross-Sectional Perspective

Adversative Pragmatic Markers in Learner Language: A Cross-Sectional Perspective

Shifting structural complexity: The production of clause types in speeches given by English for academic purposes students

“It Would Never Happen in My Country I Must Say”: A Corpus-Pragmatic Study on Asian English Learners’ Preferred Uses of Must and Should

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About