Download pdf
Discourse Marker Well in British and Hong Kong English: A Comparative Analysis of Scripted and Unscripted Speech
- 1 University College London
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
This study offers a comparative analysis of the discourse marker well in both British English (BrE) and Hong Kong English (HKE), focusing on its usage in scripted and unscripted speech contexts. Using Beeching's classification framework, 170 instances of well were analyzed to investigate its pragmatic functions, such as signaling hesitation, managing transitions, and structuring discourse. The analysis reveals that well is used more frequently in unscripted speech in both varieties, although BrE speakers tend to use it more for topic transitions, while HKE speakers employ it more frequently to express hesitation. These findings suggest that while well serves universal pragmatic functions, its use is influenced by cultural and linguistic factors in different English varieties. The study also highlights the significance of discourse markers like well in maintaining coherence in conversation, with important implications for teaching English as a second language, especially in multilingual and diverse regions such as Hong Kong.
Keywords
Discourse markers, British English, Hong Kong English, Pragmatic functions.
[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).