1.Introduction
Discourse markers (DMs) are crucial for effective oral communication, helping both native and non-native speakers structure their speech [1, 2]. Research has shown variations in DM usage among English speakers from different backgrounds, highlighting differences in both functions and frequencies [3, 4]. While most studies focus on DMs in conversations (e.g. [5]), less attention has been given to their role in monologues, where they enhance fluency in spontaneous speech [6]. This study investigates the discourse marker well, known for its multifunctionality in signaling transitions, managing hesitations, and structuring discourse. Despite extensive research on its use in native contexts, less is known about its role in non-native varieties like HKE. To fill this gap, the study examines 170 instances of well used by BrE and HKE speakers across different speech contexts, utilizing Beeching's [7] classification framework. By comparing its use in scripted and unscripted settings, this research provides insights into the functions of well, offering practical implications for teaching English in multilingual environments like Hong Kong.
2.Literature Review
2.1.Definition of Discourse Markers
The definition of DMs has evolved through different frameworks by scholars like [8, 9-11], each emphasizing distinct aspects of DMs in communication. Schiffrin [9] viewed DMs as essential for linking utterances in social interaction, facilitating smooth communication without affecting sentence structure. Schourup [10, 11] focused on DMs’ role in stabilizing conversation, linking utterances to inferential gaps and assumptions. In contrast, Fraser [8] defined DMs as lexical expressions that signal relationships between discourse segments, emphasizing their procedural rather than conceptual function. Collectively, these definitions highlight the multifunctionality of DMs in structuring speech and enhancing coherence.
2.2.Classification of Discourse Markers based on Functions
Chaudron and Richards [12] classified DMs into macro-markers (structuring discourse) and micro-markers (linking sentences), focusing on how they aid comprehension in academic lectures. Morell [13] expanded this by introducing structural and interactive markers, emphasizing DMs’ role in organizing information and engaging students. These frameworks show that DMs are crucial for both structuring discourse and facilitating interaction, particularly in educational settings.
2.3.Empirical Studies Exploring Discourse Marker Usage
Studies by Fuller [14] and Kirk [15] provide critical insights into DM usage across native and non-native speakers. Fuller [14] found that native speakers use DMs like well and oh more frequently and flexibly than non-native speakers, whose DM use is more limited. Kirk [15] focused specifically on well in broadcast discussions, showing its role in managing discourse, turn-taking, and politeness. These studies highlight the varied functions of DMs, emphasizing their importance in maintaining discourse coherence and interaction.
3.Methodology
This study investigates the differences in the use of the DM well by BrE and HKE speakers in both scripted and unscripted speech contexts. The research questions guiding this study are:
1. How does the frequency of well differ between scripted and unscripted speech for both BrE and HKE speakers?
2. What functions of well emerge across these different contexts?
A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The study utilized Beeching's [7] framework to measure the frequency and functions of well in the ICE-GB and ICE-HK corpora. AntConc software was used to extract occurrences of well, followed by standardization to compare usage across four conditions: BrE scripted, BrE unscripted, HKE scripted, and HKE unscripted.
3.1.Selection of Corpus
The spoken materials were selected from the ICE-GB and ICE-HK corpora, specifically focusing on scripted monologues (e.g., broadcast talks and non-broadcast speeches) and unscripted monologues (e.g., meetings and workshops). The study aimed to analyze the differences in how well is used across varying levels of formality and interaction in both BrE and HKE contexts. The following text types, along with their corresponding code numbers are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Overview of the Corpus
Text types | Text codes | Number of texts | Number of words | ICE-GB | Broadcast talks | S2B021-040 | 20 | 43,506 | Non-broadcast speeches | S2B041-050 | 10 | 21,597 | Unscripted Speeches | S2A021-050 | 30 | 66,065 | ICE-HK | Broadcast talks | S2B021-040 | 20 | 51,056 | Non-broadcast speeches | S2B041-050 | 10 | 25,241 | Unscripted Speeches | S2A021-050 | 30 | 81,580 |
Note: Scripted speeches include broadcast talks and non-broadcast speeches
3.2.Data Analysis
The analysis was conducted in two phases. Quantitatively, the frequency of well was measured and compared across the four contexts using standardized frequencies. Only instances where well served as a DM (e.g., interjections, hesitation markers) were included. Qualitatively, A thematic analysis was carried out using Braun and Clarke's [16] method. This combined deductive categorization (based on Beeching’s framework) with inductive identification of new functions. This approach ensured that both established and emerging functions of well were captured. By integrating these methods, the study provides a comprehensive analysis of the pragmatic roles of well across cultural settings, addressing gaps in previous research.
4.Results and Discussion
4.1.Frequency Analysis of Well
Table 2 shows that the DM well in BrE and HKE is more frequently used in unscripted contexts across both varieties. Specifically, the frequency of well is standardized at 8.33 per 10,000 words in unscripted speech for both BrE and HKE, compared to lower frequencies in scripted contexts (BrE: 3.84, HKE: 2.88). This suggests that the spontaneity of unscripted speech fosters a greater use of DMs, highlighting the significance of speech context over regional variety.
Table 2: Occurrences of well within the three Text Types (The standardised data is in brackets.)
Varieties |
Scripted (14,1400 words) |
Unscripted (147,645 words) |
British |
25 (3.84) |
55 (8.33) |
Hong Kong |
22 (2.88) |
68 (8.33) |
Total |
47 |
123 |
Note: Scripted speeches include broadcast talks and non-broadcast speeches
4.2.Functional Analysis of Well
The qualitative analysis categorized well's functions according to Beeching's [7] framework. Table 3 shows that the primary functions identified include transitional (69.1% in BrE unscripted and 76.5% in HKE unscripted) and hesitation (29.1% in BrE unscripted, 38.24% in HKE unscripted). These findings indicate that in unscripted contexts, well serves to manage discourse flow and allows speakers time to organize their thoughts. Notably, HKE speakers utilize well more frequently for hesitation and transition compared to BrE speakers, suggesting cultural and linguistic influences on DM usage.
Table 3: Overview of Functional Analysis
Functions |
ICE-GB unscripted |
ICE-GB scripted |
ICE-HK unscripted |
ICE-HK scripted |
Total |
Transitional |
38 |
21 |
52 |
15 |
126 |
Hesitation |
16 |
5 |
26 |
8 |
55 |
Self-correction |
5 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
13 |
Quotative |
2 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
9 |
Raising an objection |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
11 |
Prefacing a dispreferred response |
4 |
1 |
6 |
2 |
13 |
Multifunction |
13 |
6 |
28 |
9 |
56 |
Total |
81 |
39 |
123 |
40 |
283 |
4.4.Overall Findings
This study confirms that unscripted contexts promote a higher frequency and functional diversity of well usage in both English varieties. While regional differences exist, they are less significant than the impact of speech context. The multifunctionality of well underscores its importance in maintaining discourse coherence, particularly in spontaneous speech.
These findings highlight the importance of teaching DMs to improve communication and pragmatic competence, especially for second language learners. The study also contributes to linguistic theory by showing how well functions pragmatically across different speech contexts, reinforcing its role in discourse coherence.
4.4.1.Multifunction
One key characteristic of DMs is multifunctionality [11], which is essential for understanding the versatility of well in discourse. Although not explicitly highlighted in Beeching's [7] framework, this study reveals that well serves various functions, particularly in different contexts.
In this research, the functions of hesitation, transition, and self-correction account for a significant proportion of well usage, often appearing together or in combination with other functions. Table 4 shows that the combination of "Transitional + Hesitation" is particularly common, especially in Hong Kong contexts, likely due to learners' less fluent discourse in English compared to native speakers [17]. HKE speakers frequently use well to manage transitions and maintain conversational coherence, with combinations such as "Hesitation + Prefacing a dispreferred response" and "Hesitation + Self-correction" also being prevalent. This suggests a distinct approach to discourse management in HKE compared to BrE. Overall, the multifunctionality of well highlights its importance in facilitating effective communication, with specific combinations revealing the nuanced ways speakers navigate discourse.
Table 4: Top 5 Multifunctional Combinations of well
Functions |
ICE-GB unscripted |
ICE-GB scripted |
ICE-HK unscripted |
ICE-HK scripted |
Total |
Transitional+Hesitation |
6 |
2 |
17 |
6 |
31 |
Hesitation+Prefacing a dispreferred response |
2 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
6 |
Hesitation+Self-correction |
4 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
6 |
Transitional+Raising an objection |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
Hesitation+Quotative |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
Total |
12 |
4 |
26 |
9 |
51 |
4.4.3.Contextual Variations
This section discusses how different registers, such as scripted and unscripted monologues, affect the use and frequency of well. The data used in this study comes from monologues categorized into scripted and unscripted speech. In both the ICE-HK and ICE-GB corpora, lectures and broadcasts are common forms of monologue.
The language used in these contexts is carefully structured to convey clear communicative intentions [18]. In scripted contexts, speakers employ DMs like well to manage speech flow and signal transitions. The study finds that well is most frequently used in unscripted speeches across both the UK and Hong Kong, followed by scripted speeches in the UK, with the lowest frequency in scripted speeches in Hong Kong. This aligns with Tonio [19], who found similar results in the ICE Philippines corpus, indicating that the level of formality significantly impacts DM usage. In both regions, the primary functions of well are transition and hesitation. These findings are consistent with Beeching's [7] research, which also shows that coherence is the fundamental function of well.
4.4.4.Regional Variations
This section explores regional differences in the use and function of well across various English varieties. The study compares native English speakers with those from English as a second language regions, such as Hong Kong.
The analysis shows no significant difference in the frequency of well usage between the two contexts. This contrasts with Fung and Carter's [1] findings, which indicated significant differences in DM usage between BrE and HKE, potentially due to varying participant demographics. Studies by Li and Xiao [20] and Öztürk and Durmuşoğlu Köse [5] also highlight significant differences in DM usage between native and non-native speakers.
In terms of function, HKE speakers demonstrate a higher proportion of using well for hesitation and transition compared to their UK counterparts. This suggests that cultural and linguistic factors influence DM usage. The findings imply that while English learners can benefit from incorporating DMs into their language use, the choice of usage should remain flexible, allowing learners to navigate language use effectively in different contexts [21].
5.Conclusion
This study analyzed the DM well in BrE and HKE across scripted and unscripted contexts. The findings indicate that well is used more frequently in unscripted speech, serving key roles in hesitation, transition, and self-correction. Cultural and linguistic factors influence the frequency and functionality of DMs, with HKE speakers using well more for hesitation and transitions compared to BrE speakers.
The implications for language pedagogy are significant, highlighting the importance of teaching DMs to enhance communication and pragmatic competence, especially for second language learners. Additionally, this research contributes to linguistic theory by deepening our understanding of how well operates pragmatically, reinforcing its multifunctionality in maintaining discourse coherence. This study provides a foundation for future research on DMs in multilingual environments, suggesting that further exploration could focus on diverse speech contexts and participant profiles to enhance understanding of DM usage across various language backgrounds.
References
[1]. Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied linguistics, 28(3), 410-439.
[2]. Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. John Benjamins.
[3]. Buysse, L. (2010). Discourse markers in the English of Flemish university students. In I. Witzcak-Plisiecka (Ed.), Pragmatic perspectives on language and linguistics, Vol. 1: Speech actions in theory and applied studies (pp. 461–484). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
[4]. Romero-Trillo, J. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 769–784.
[5]. Öztürk, Y., & Durmuşoğlu Köse, G. (2021). “Well (ER) you know…”: discourse markers in native and non-native spoken English. Corpus Pragmatics, 5(2), 223-242.
[6]. Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.
[7]. Beeching, K. (2016). Well. In Pragmatic Markers in British English: Meaning in Social Interaction(pp. 51–75). Cambridge University Press.
[8]. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952.
[9]. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.
[10]. Schourup, L. C. (1982). Common discourse particles in English conversation. Garland.
[11]. Schourup, L. C. (1999). ‘Tutorial overview: Discourse markers’. Lingua, 107, 227-265.
[12]. Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). The Effect of Discourse Markers on the Comprehension of Lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 113–127.
[13]. Morell, T. (2004). Interactive lecture discourse for university EFL students. English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 325-338.
[14]. Fuller, J. M. (2003). Discourse marker use across speech contexts: A comparison of native and non-native speaker performance. Multilingua, 22, 185-208.
[15]. Kirk, J. M. (2018). The pragmatics of well as a discourse marker in broadcast discussions. In Corpora and Lexis (pp. 140-172). Brill.
[16]. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
[17]. Müller, S. (2004). “Well you know that type of person”: functions of well in the speech of American and German students: Corpus linguistics. Part II. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(6), 1157–1182.
[18]. Moll, T. M. (2000). EFL content lectures: A discourse analysis of an interactive and a non-interactive style. Departamento de Filología inglesa, Universidad de Alicante.
[19]. Tonio, J. (2021). Pragmatic functions of discourse marker ‘well’in selected spoken discourse of Philippine English. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 3(3), 189-201.
[20]. Li, M., & Xiao, Y. (2012). A comparative study on the use of the discourse marker well by Chinese learners of English and native English speakers. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(5), 65-71.
[21]. Tsui, A. B., & Bunton, D. (2000). The discourse and attitudes of English language teachers in Hong Kong. World Englishes, 19(3), 287-303.
Cite this article
Ding,J. (2024). Discourse Marker Well in British and Hong Kong English: A Comparative Analysis of Scripted and Unscripted Speech. Communications in Humanities Research,42,84-89.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Interdisciplinary Humanities and Communication Studies
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).
References
[1]. Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied linguistics, 28(3), 410-439.
[2]. Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. John Benjamins.
[3]. Buysse, L. (2010). Discourse markers in the English of Flemish university students. In I. Witzcak-Plisiecka (Ed.), Pragmatic perspectives on language and linguistics, Vol. 1: Speech actions in theory and applied studies (pp. 461–484). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
[4]. Romero-Trillo, J. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 769–784.
[5]. Öztürk, Y., & Durmuşoğlu Köse, G. (2021). “Well (ER) you know…”: discourse markers in native and non-native spoken English. Corpus Pragmatics, 5(2), 223-242.
[6]. Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.
[7]. Beeching, K. (2016). Well. In Pragmatic Markers in British English: Meaning in Social Interaction(pp. 51–75). Cambridge University Press.
[8]. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952.
[9]. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.
[10]. Schourup, L. C. (1982). Common discourse particles in English conversation. Garland.
[11]. Schourup, L. C. (1999). ‘Tutorial overview: Discourse markers’. Lingua, 107, 227-265.
[12]. Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). The Effect of Discourse Markers on the Comprehension of Lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 113–127.
[13]. Morell, T. (2004). Interactive lecture discourse for university EFL students. English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 325-338.
[14]. Fuller, J. M. (2003). Discourse marker use across speech contexts: A comparison of native and non-native speaker performance. Multilingua, 22, 185-208.
[15]. Kirk, J. M. (2018). The pragmatics of well as a discourse marker in broadcast discussions. In Corpora and Lexis (pp. 140-172). Brill.
[16]. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
[17]. Müller, S. (2004). “Well you know that type of person”: functions of well in the speech of American and German students: Corpus linguistics. Part II. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(6), 1157–1182.
[18]. Moll, T. M. (2000). EFL content lectures: A discourse analysis of an interactive and a non-interactive style. Departamento de Filología inglesa, Universidad de Alicante.
[19]. Tonio, J. (2021). Pragmatic functions of discourse marker ‘well’in selected spoken discourse of Philippine English. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 3(3), 189-201.
[20]. Li, M., & Xiao, Y. (2012). A comparative study on the use of the discourse marker well by Chinese learners of English and native English speakers. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(5), 65-71.
[21]. Tsui, A. B., & Bunton, D. (2000). The discourse and attitudes of English language teachers in Hong Kong. World Englishes, 19(3), 287-303.