Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background of the Present Study

In verbal interaction, DMs serve as a linguistic choice by the utterer to guide andconstrain the proper interpretation for the hearer. They are often employed to deliverinformation that content words fail to convey and to make the discourse more coherent andvivid. Researches and achievements on this linguistic phenomenon are in profusion andtheir influence on linguistics is unprecedented. Among all DMs, well has probably receivedmost of the attention and has been thoroughly studied.There are a number of scholars who have studied the pragmatic functions. Forinstances，Svartvik (1980) regards that DM well can function as a qualifier as well as aframe. Owen (1981) studies DM well in the question/answer pairs to mitigateface-threatening acts. Schiffrin (1987) believes that DM well can be used to achievecoherence in sentence pairs. Jucker (1992) deems DM well as a marker of insufficiency, aface-threat mitigator, a frame and a delay device. Norrick (2001) researches DM well inoral narratives. Apart from the functions as a face-threat mitigator, a delay device and aninsufficiency marker, Ran (1995, 2003) claims that DM well can also serve as a repairmarker.

………..

1.2 Significance of the Present Study

Among those researches home and abroad, well, one of the most complex DMs, hasreceived considerable concern and been thoroughly studied from different aspects.Scholars mainly conduct those researches on DM well from the perspectives of discoursecoherence theory and relevance theory, and focus on studies of its properties, the pragmaticfunctions and effects. However，few studies of DM wdl have been carried outcomprehensively with linguistic, social and cognitive factors taken into consideration.Besides, DM well, one of the essential evaluation indicators，is paid little attention inChinese EFL teaching. The deficiency of DM well easily causes misunderstandings andmakes the communication disjointed and cleft. And Chinese students have little awarenesson the application of DMs. Therefore, the present study explores the realization of thepragmatic functions of DM well under the Adaptation Theory, the contrastive differencesbetween native English speakers and Chinese EFL learners in the application of DM well,the possible explanations for these differences and the pedagogic implications for L2teaching and learning in China.

……..

Chapter 2 Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

2.1 Definition and Characteristics of Discourse Markers

The term discourse markers (DMs) is first proposed by Schiffrin (1987)，and definedas "sequentially-dependent units of discourse,,. Her definition is widely acknowledged,based on which the later scholars interpret DMs similarly.Blakemore (1987: 105) deems DMs as “expressions that constrain the interpretationof the utterances that contain them by virtue of the inferential connections that theyexpress".Watts (1988) proposes that “discourse markers are words by means of whichinterlocutors attempt to guide the processes of interpretation and social involvement inverbal interaction, and act as important hints to the addressee as regards what has been oris about to be said，，.Lenk (1998: 52) defines DMs as “short lexical items，used with a pragmatic meaningon a metalingual level of discourse in order to signal for the hearer how the speaker intendsthe present contribution to be related to preceding and/or following parts of the discourse.”And Holker (1991: 78-79; cited from Jucker, 1993) generalizes four features for DMs:(1) they do not affect the truth conditions of an utterance; (2) they do not add anything tothe prepositional content of an utterance; (3) they are related to the speech situation andnot to the situation talked about; and (4) they have an emotive, expressive function ratherthan a referential, denotative，or cognitive function.

………..

2.2 Previous Studies on Discourse Markers

According to Verschueren (1999), language use is a process of constant linguisticchoice. DMs are a very important linguistic means to help the language users to achievethe desired communicative effect, tentatively or successfully. Quite a few of scholars havestudied DM well from different perspectives and have various opinions about its name,definition, scope and functions. So far, no unitary definition of DM is developed, but moreand more scholars tend to regard it as a quite common discourse phenomenon in spokenlanguage or in verbal communication and their functions in discourse are mainly pragmaticand dynamic (He & Ran, 1999).Quirk (1953; cited from Svartvik, 1980: 167) may be the first scholar who paysattention to DM. He notices a few features of DMs; 1) it is a language element that belongsto neither grammar nor syntax; 2) it is a phenomenon in spoken language; 3) it has nopractical meaning. In 1970s，with the development of pragmatics, pragmatic researches on DMs begin toemerge. DMs do not carry semantic meaning, yet they have essential pragmatic functions. Labov & Fanshel (1977: 156) explicitly uses the term 'discourse marker，when explainingone usage of well. Levinson (1987; 87-88) claims, "... there are many words and phrasesin English, and no doubt most languages, that indicate the relationship between anutterance and the prior discourse... What they seem to do is indicate，often in very complexways, just how the utterance that contains them is a response to, or a continuation of, someportion of the prior discourse.” The words and phrases mentioned here are actually DMs，though he does not use the term to define them.

……..

Chapter 3 Methodology....... 29

3.1 Research Questions....... 29

3.2 Selection of Data....... 30

3.3 Statistical Tools for Data Identification and Data Process....... 32

3.4 Data Collection .......33

3.5 Reliability Tests for the Classification....... 36

3.6 Data Processing....... 36

3.7 Chapter Summary .......37

Chapter 4 Results and Discussion....... 38

4.1 Comparative Study of the General Frequency.......38

4.2  Discourse Marker well in the Two Databases....... 40

4.3 Discourse Marker well in the Utterance....... 45

4.4 Discourse Marker well in the Utterance .......47

4.5 Possible Explanations of the Contrastive Differences .......50

4.6 Pedagogical Implications....... 54

4.7 Chapter Summary 56Chapter 5 Conclusion....... 57

5.1 Major Findings of the Present Study....... 57

5.2 Limitations of the Present Study.......   59

5.3 Suggestions for Further Studies .......59

Chapter 4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Comparative Study of the General Frequency of Discourse Markerwell in the Two Databases

Biber et al. (2000) put that when the corpora are of different size, it is necessary toconvert raw frequencies into standardized frequencies (per 10,000 words) so as to make thedata extracted from the corpora comparable. Therefore，standardized frequencies werecalculated on the basis of per 10,000 words (Min & Yan，2012: 68). In this way, the generalstandard frequencies of DM well in the two corpora are respectively 44 times and 12 times. Plenty of evidence shows that LI learners begin to have a good mastery of DMs inconversation before the age of five or six, and they are likely to be sensitive tosociolinguistic variations of these markers (Sprott, 1992; Kyratzis & Ervin-Tripp，1993;Anderson et al., 1999; cited from Min & Yan, 2012).However, in the study of He & Xu (2003), it is pointed out that DMs, like well, aredifficult to be acquired for almost all L2 learners.

………

Conclusion

Firstly, the present thesis explores the realization of pragmatic functions of DM wellunder the Adaptation theory, its syntactic positions and contextual collocations as linguisticstrategies and finds out that the application of DM well can facilitate the informationdelivery cognitively, socially and mentally on the part of the utterer and guide theinterpretation of the discourse on the part of the hearer in a way that makes thecommunication precede naturally and smoothly. Being used in the initial position is themost prominent feature of DM well and its syntactic positions are closely related to itspragmatic functions. And its contextual collocations are extension of its pragmaticfunctions in further determining the direction of the conversation.

…………

Reference (omitted)