This study aims at describing and comparing the distribution of pragmatic marker (PM) use by English as a Foreign Language (EFL) speakers and English native speakers (NSs). To do this, the effect of increased contact with English, via English-medium instruction (EMI), on the use of textual PMs in learner's oral communication was explored. A functional-pragmatic approach was taken to the analysis of PMs. Textual PMs were examined due to the high frequency of these markers in the EMI setting. Participants ...
This study aims at describing and comparing the distribution of pragmatic marker (PM) use by English as a Foreign Language (EFL) speakers and English native speakers (NSs). To do this, the effect of increased contact with English, via English-medium instruction (EMI), on the use of textual PMs in learner's oral communication was explored. A functional-pragmatic approach was taken to the analysis of PMs. Textual PMs were examined due to the high frequency of these markers in the EMI setting. Participants were second-year (N=23), and third-year (N=18) business undergraduates, and a NS control group (N=10). Data were collected through two oral tasks. Results indicate that the groups used PMs for causal, contrast and sequential functions at similar frequencies, and that the NSs used PMs significantly more often for continuation and elaboration functions and significantly less opening and closing functions compared to the EMI groups. The results suggest that EMI might facilitate the acquisition of some functions of PMs such as the use of causal, contrast, sequential and topic shift/digression markers whereas other PMs, such as elaboration markers, may take longer to acquire. Participation in a variety of contexts and explicit instruction might aid a more balanced use of textual PMs.
+
