Comparison of the Use of Discourse Markers in English Speeches between Non-Native and Native Speakers of English

This study revealed the comparison of the use of discourse markers in English speeches between non-native and native speakers of English. The study focused on the types of discourse markers, the similarities and the differences between non-native and native speakers in using discourse markers. This study employed a qualitative research design with the data from the spoken discourse. The findings of the study showed that there were ten sub-categories of discourse markers that are practiced by non-native speakers, namely: assessment marker, manner of a speaking marker, evidential markers, hearsay markers, contrastive discourse markers, elaborative discourse markers, inferential discourse markers, discourse management markers, topic orientation markers, and attention markers. On the contrary, there were nine sub-categories of discourse markers that existed in English speeches, especially delivered by the native speakers such as assessment marker, manner of a speaking marker, evidential markers, hearsay markers, contrastive discourse markers, elaborative discourse markers, inferential discourse markers, topic orientation markers, and attention markers. The total of discourse markers produced by the non-native speakers was 301 utterances while native speakers of English were 269 utterances. Therefore, it is concluded that discourse markers were useful in English speeches either by non-native speakers or native speakers

Verum in Gitksan

This article provides an analysis of verum marking in the Tsimshianic language Gitksan. Original fieldwork data are provided to show that Gitksan verum is very similar in its distribution and discourse effects to English verum, but displays two interesting differences. First, Gitksan verum is not marked by focal stress, but by a dedicated particle (k'ap). Second, Gitksan verum does not require givenness of the core propositional material. I argue that when applied to a proposition p, k'ap is (a) disallowed discourse-initially or in answer to a wh-question; (b) felicitous when responding to a prior assertion or implication of ¬p; and (c) felicitous in other contexts only if there is prior controversy in the discourse about the truth of p. I show that the semantic contribution of the Gitksan verum particle can be captured by a discourse management analysis: verum(p) is licensed only when the speaker believes that some interlocutor is committed to ¬p.

Pragmatic and Conversational Features of Arabic-Speaking Adolescents With Autism Spectrum Disorder: Examining Performance and Caregivers' Perceptions

Purpose This study investigates the features of pragmatic and conversational skills in the language of Arabic-speaking adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by comparing them with typically developing (TD) Arabic-speaking adolescents in Saudi Arabia. It aims to identify the differences in the pragmatic skills of the two groups and the perception of those skills by caregivers, with respect to four main pragmatic areas: discourse management, communicative function, conversational repair, and presupposition abilities. Method Data for this study were collected from 15 Saudi adolescents with ASD and a control group of 15 TD adolescents, matched for gender and language abilities. All the participants were in the normal IQ range. The caregivers of the adolescents with ASD and TD adolescents also participated in this study. Data were collected on the adolescents' performances using the Yale in vivo Pragmatic Protocol. In addition, the Pragmatics Profile of Everyday Communication Skills (PPECS) was used to collect data on the caregivers' perceptions of the adolescents' abilities. The combination of tools in this study allows for a unique comparison between actual performance and caregivers' perceptions. Results As expected, both the adolescents' performances and the caregivers' perceptions reflected an overall deficit in the pragmatic and conversational skills of adolescents with ASD. However, we also identified an inconsistency between the caregivers' estimation of the participant's pragmatic abilities and the actual abilities demonstrated by the adolescents. In particular, TD adolescents performed significantly better than adolescents with ASD in the pragmatic areas of turn-taking, topic maintenance, and topic initiation, but the caregivers did not detect differences between the two groups in these discourse management abilities. Conclusions This study has important implications for both ASD interventions and assessment. It provides a comprehensive assessment approach for measuring pragmatic skills, including both direct (participants' performances) and indirect (caregivers' perceptions) measures. Future research may benefit from adopting the combined approach used in this study to explore pragmatics in ASD. Differences between caregivers' perceptions and the performances of individuals with ASD should be considered, as well as the influence of various factors on their communication.

The Relative Importance of Selected Communication Skills for Positive Peer Relations: American Adolescents’ Opinions

Typically developing, American adolescents in Grade 10 ( n = 38) ranked the relative importance of 14 communication skills in their friends’ communication with them. The skills were considered those associated with figurative language (e.g., appropriate slang use), empathy (e.g., vocal tone comprehension), or discourse management (e.g., appropriate topic selection). Five skills emerged as more important and were primarily considered to be empathy-related communication skills. Four skills, representing a mix of figurative language and discourse management skills, were ranked as lower in importance. The remaining five skills were of intermediate or variable importance and a mix of discourse management and empathy-related communication skills. Results were similar to those of previous investigations with Australian adolescents. Adolescents’ gender did not result in different rankings. Knowing what adolescents opine to be more and less important communication skills for positive peer relationships can help speech-language pathologists decide on intervention objectives to improve adolescents’ peer relationships.

Epistemic Cues to a Target

An epistemic cue is any information that a hearer derives from her own knowledge that then helps her determine the speaker’s intended target. The term “knowledge” here is meant to apply broadly. It covers both explicit (declarative) and implicit (procedural) knowledge; both “knowledge” and “belief”; both long-held and recently acquired knowledge; both general and local knowledge in the collocutors’ common ground; and both nonlinguistic and linguistic knowledge. Nonlinguistic knowledge is basal knowledge about first-order phenomena. Linguistic knowledge, then, is meta-knowledge about the lexicon and syntax of a language and about the principles of discourse management that the collocutors use to represent the first-order phenomena. Linguistic knowledge about discourse management often involves knowledge of Mithun’s newsworthiness principle and of our counterfactual principle. The use of epistemic cues shows extensive parallelism across the speech-external and speech-internal domains. In both domains, epistemic cues can help a hearer find a target within a higher-level conceptual complex, set a boundary around a locative target, and select the target from competing candidates. And largely the same epistemic cues from both nonlinguistic and linguistic knowledge are used in both domains.