Cover not available
Part of
Learner Corpora and Language Teaching
Edited by Sandra Götz and Joybrato Mukherjee
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 92] 2019
► pp. 219–242

The use of smallwords in the speech of German learners of English

A corpus-based study of the factors of instruction and natural exposure

 | University of Freiburg
Based on data from the German component of LINDSEI and two native speaker corpora, this study investigates the consequences of language learning in an instructional setting versus additional natural exposure for the use of 18 fluency-enhancing smallwords. It thus complements previous studies of selected discourse markers in German learner English and offers a more in-depth analysis of individual differences in advanced learners’ speech in terms of frequency and appropriateness of use. Adding to earlier research, which has found that exposure to natural input is clearly beneficial to a more native-like use of discourse markers, the results of the present study also suggest that smallwords are teachable and that teaching in this area needs to be made more efficient.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous research on the use of smallwords in learner language
  • 3.Corpus data and methods
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Categories of smallwords
    • 4.2Individual variation in the use of selected smallwords
    • 4.3Functional use of selected smallwords
  • 5.Conclusions and implications for language teaching
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 May 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.92.11ros
References (39)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2004. Pragmatic markers in spoken interlanguage. In Worlds of Words. A Tribute to Arne Zettersten, Cay Dollerup (ed.). Special issue of Nordic Journal of English Studies 3(1): 173–190.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Kathleen & Savage, Lance. 1994. New Ways in Teaching Speaking. Alexandria VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1) <[URL]> (17 December 2017). DOI logo
Brand, Christiane & Kämmerer, Susanne. 2006. The Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage (LINDSEI): Compiling the German component. In Corpus Technology and Language Pedagogy: New Resources, New Tools, New Method, Sabine Braun, Kurt Kohn & Joybrato Mukherjee (eds), 127–140. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English. Grammaticalization and Discourse Funcions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Gillian & Yule, George. 1983. Teaching the Spoken Language. An Approach Based on the Analysis of Conversational English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Buysse, Lieven. 2017. The pragmatic marker you know in learner Englishes. Journal of Pragmatics 121: 40–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2007. Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(2): 155–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cock, Sylvie. 2004. Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literature (BELL) 2: 225–246.Google Scholar
Diao-Klaeger, Sabine & Thörle, Britta. 2013. Diskursmarker in L2. In Sprachwissenschaft – Fremdsprachendidaktik: Neue Impulse, Christoph Bürgel & Dirk Siepmann (eds), 145–160. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Hohengehren.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2008. Hesitation markers among EFL learners: Pragmatic deficiency or difference? In Corpus and Pragmatics. A Mutualistic Entente, Jesús Romero Trillo (ed.), 119–149. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2016. Discourse markers in L2 English. From classroom to naturalistic input. In New Approaches in English Linguistics: Building Bridges [Studies in Language Companion Series 177], Olga Timofeeva, Anne-Christine Gardner, Alpo Honkapohja & Sarah Chevalier (eds), 213–249. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, De Cock, Sylvie & Granger, Sylviane. 2010. Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage, handbook + CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Granger, Sylviane. 2015. Learner language. In The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics, Douglas Biber & Randi Reppen (eds), 418–435. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Götz, Sandra. 2013. Fluency in Native and Nonnative English Speech [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 53]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Götz, Sandra & Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2018. Investigating the effect of the study abroad variable on learner language: A pseudo-longitudinal study on spoken German learner English. In Learner Corpus Research: New Perspectives and Applications, Vaclav Brezina & Lynne Flowerdew (eds), 47–65. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Goh, Anne & Burns, Christine. 2012. Teaching Speaking: A Holistic Approach. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane. 2015. Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research. 1(1): 7–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney (ed.). 1996. Comparing English Worldwide. The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hasselgren, Angela. 2002. Learner corpora and language testing: Smallwords as markers of learner fluency. In Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching [Language Learning & Language Teaching 6], Sylviane Granger, Joseph Hung & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (eds), 143–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hellermann, John & Vergun, Andrea. 2007. Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics 39(1): 157–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1990. Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication 10(3): 185–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas, Müller, Simone & Smith, Sara. 2005. Giessen – Long Beach Chaplin Corpus. <[URL]> (19 January 2018).
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Brockhoff, Per B. & Christensen, Rune H. B. 2017. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(13). <[URL]> (17 December 2017). DOI logo
Lightbown, Patsy M. & Spada, Nina. 2006. How Languages Are Learned. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Müller, Simone. 2005. Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 138]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2009. The grammar of conversation in advanced spoken learner English: Learner corpus data and language-pedagogical implications. In Corpora and Language Teaching [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 33], Karin Aijmer (ed.), 203–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakatani, Yasuo. 2010. The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy use. The Modern Language Journal 89(1): 76–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <[URL]> (5 January 2018).
Rogge, Michael. 2012. Sagen können, was man zu sagen hat: Mündliche Kompetenz mit Sprechaufgaben fördern. Der fremdsprachliche Unterricht English 116: 2–6.Google Scholar
Romero Trillo, Jesús. 2002. The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 34(6): 769–784. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Anna. 2014. Grammatical Variation and Change in Jersey English [Varieties of English around the World G48]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rühlemann, Christoph. 2008. A register approach to teaching conversation: Farewell to Standard English? Applied Linguistics 29(4): 672–693. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, Thibault, Pierrette, Nagy, Naomi, Blondeau, Hélène, Fonollosa, Marie-Odile & Gagnon, Lucie. 1997. Variation in the use of discourse markers in a language contact situation. Language Variation and Change 9(2): 191–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Mike. 2008. WordSmith Tools, Version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Speight, Stephen. 1986. Basic Conversation. Strategies, Situations, Dialogues. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Svartvik, Jan. 1980. Well in conversation. In Studies in English Linguistics for Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (eds), 167–177. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Fernández, Julieta
2022. Corpus linguistics in L2 pragmatics research. Applied Pragmatics 4:2 ► pp. 178 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2024. English Prosody in First and Second Language Speakers [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 120], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.