Discourse Markers in Oral Interaction by
Third-year ULIS Mainstream English Majors

Lê Thị Thu Huyền

Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ
Luận văn Thạc sĩ ngành: Ngôn ngữ học Anh; Mã số: 60 22 15
Người hướng dẫn: PGS. TS. Lê Hùng Tiến
Năm bảo vệ: 2012

Abstract: Never before has the term “pragmatic competence” been mentioned so
frequently in studies on second language learning and foreign language teaching. One
aspect of pragmatic competence is the use of discourse markers (DMs) in oral
communication. Despite being small words such as well, you know, I mean, like, DMs
are frequently utilized by native speakers and regarded as useful devices to facilitate
communication. This paper investigates the use of DMs by third-year ULIS English
majors in their interaction with the natives. Findings reveal that the majority of
Vietnamese participants have not paid adequate attention to using DMs in spoken
discourse. This leads to an urge in uncovering justifications for the students‟ low
frequency of DMs from both the teachers‟ and students‟ perspectives. The paper also
proposes suggestions on the teaching and learning of DMs.

Keywords: Tiếng Anh; Giao tiếp; Kỹ năng nói; Diễn ngôn

Content
I. INTRODUCTION
I.1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND RATIONALE
In an increasingly globalized era, teaching and learning English language, especially
in terms of communicative oral skill has become a matter of concern to many linguists and
educators. Littlewood (1981) regards one‟s ability to “use real and appropriate language to
communicate and interact with others” as “the primary goal of most foreign language

learning”. Communicative ability, however, must address not only grammar and vocabulary
but also the knowledge beyond linguistic forms.
One of the aspects regarding knowledge beyond linguistic forms is the use of
discourse markers (hereafter DMs) in oral communication, which can help to make the
speaker sound like a native. The lack of linguistic devices such as DMs may account for the
fact that in social interactions in English, some ESL/EFL learners may unintentionally come
across as “abrupt or brusque” (Lee, n.d.). In other words, the omission of DMs might make
the speakers appear impolite or the speech might appear somehow deficient. Consider two
versions of a conversation:
Version 1:
A: Could I borrow your
car?
Version 2:
A: Could I borrow your
car?

2
B1: No, I think I need it
tonight.
B2: Well, I think I need it
tonight.
In responding to the request, thanks to the presence of the DM well, Speakers B2
sounds more polite and less abrupt. The message therefore reaches Speaker A in a less
extreme way.
Understandably, abruptness may happen most commonly in direct interactions in
which no time is given for the interlocutors to think (Östman, 1982 and Croucher, 2004: 41).
The use of DMs such as well, you know, right, okay, I mean, etc. can help fill the pauses while
lending the speaker some time to think. It is generally agreed that DMs contribute to the
pragmatic meaning of utterances, thereby playing an important role in the pragmatic
competence of the speaker. Defined as “an aspect of communicative competence [which]

refers to the ability to communicate appropriately in particular contexts of use” (Jaworski,
1998: 249, cited in Müller, 2005: 18), pragmatic competence is acknowledged as part of what
a student should learn about a language. DMs are much related to this kind of competence
since they “constitute an intrinsic part of one‟s communicative competence” (Wei, 1996: 2).
In Vietnamese language teaching and learning context, many learners of English, even
English-major ones, find it difficult to communicate with foreigners as they lack the strategies
to employ in conversations.
All the aforementioned grounds have genuinely inspired the researcher to conduct a
study entitled “Discourse markers in spoken interaction with native speakers: Third-year
ULIS mainstream English majors‟ use and perceptions – Teachers‟ perspectives”. It is
hoped that the research would contribute to the teaching and learning of DMs in classroom
context, thereby enhancing the students‟ performance in learning foreign languages.

I.2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
First and foremost, the current interlanguage pragmatic research is conducted with the
aims to identify the most frequently-used DMs produced by the students in their interaction
with native speakers and then to some extent, to identify the functions of those markers.
Based on the findings, the students‟ and teachers‟ attitudes towards the use of DMs are
scrutinized, paving the way for the pedagogical implications on the teaching of DMs in
classroom. Finally, some suggested exercises and activities for practicing DMs in English are
proposed for those who want to make their conversations authentic and native-like. It is also
hoped that the paper can raise the awareness of utilizing effective DMs in communication.
In short, the study has been carried out to address the four research questions as
follows:
1. What are the most common DMs used by third-year ULIS mainstream English
majors in their spoken interaction with native speakers?
2. What specific functions do DMs perform in their spoken discourse?
3. What are the students‟ perceptions towards the use of DMs in speaking?
4. What are the teachers‟ perspectives towards the teaching of DMs to the students
in classroom setting?

I.3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
There are a great variety of DMs which are classified in a number of ways by various
researchers. However, the present study would like to focus on four DMs including well, you
know, I mean, and like since they are among the items that are mostly frequently used and
universally identified in speech as DMs (Lee & Hsieh, 2004: 179-180). The researcher aims at

3
investigating the use of those markers by Vietnamese learners of English to see whether those
speakers can create native-like speeches.
Notably, DMs are researched in conversations between Vietnamese EFL learners and
native speakers of English. It is the researcher‟s endeavor to explore the issue in the speech of
third-year ULIS mainstream students majoring in English. Despite not being investigated, the
NSs are present in those interactions to help obtain as much information from the students as
possible, with the intention of enhancing the latter‟s participation in the talks. The students‟
nonverbal communications are also beyond the scope of the study.
I.4. CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY
Theoretically, this study will cast light on a research area which not many Vietnamese
researchers have ever addressed – the use of DMs by EFL/ ESL learners in interactions.
Practically, as one of the initial studies in the area in the context of Vietnam, the current
research could be useful for students, teachers, educational managers as well as researchers
who are interested in the topic.
Specifically, since the study investigates ULIS students‟ deployment of DMs in their
interactions with foreigners, its findings will help these students as well as other English-
major students improve their performance in oral communication. Meanwhile, teachers, after
going through this research, will be more aware of their students‟ communicative
performance, and thus will be able to help them gradually develop their pragmatic
competence. As for educational administrators, the paper would provide them with a close
and comprehensive view into the current situation, which may then reveal some pedagogical
suggestions. Finally, researchers who share the same interest will find helpful information
from this research to conduct further studies into this relatively new and so far ill-explored

issue in the EFL context of Vietnam.
II. DEVELOPMENT
II.1. LITERATURE REVIEW
II.1.1. Terminology of discourse markers (DMs)
During the last few decades, numerous studies have dealt with DMs under a number of
names including “discourse signaling devices” (Polanyi and Scha, 1983, cited in Yang, 2011),
“discourse particles” (Schourup, 1985), “pragmatic particles” (Östman, 1995), “discourse
markers” (Schiffrin, 1987; Stenström, 1994; Jucker & Ziv, 1998; Carter and McCarthy, 2006),
inter alia. In this paper, the researcher adopts the term “discourse markers” since it is deemed
as a broad covering term (Lewis, 2006; Jucker and Ziv, 1998) and “more popular and
theoretically neutral” (Huang, 2011).
Despite their different labels due to different theories and approaches, DMs are quite
numerous and very easy to be spot out in spoken discourse. Typical DMs are linguistic items
or expressions which belong to distinct word classes “as varied as conjunctions (e.g. and, but,
or), interjections (oh), adverbs (now, then), and lexicalized phrases (y’know, I mean)”
(Schiffrin, Tannen, and Hamilton 2001: 57). DMs help to make interactions coherent by
bringing together the different aspects of discourse in a meaningful way.
II.1.2. Characteristics of DMs
Although there is no clear consensus about the definition of DMs and the question as
to which words and phrases should be treated as DMs, the following characteristics are
generally agreed upon by most researchers:
Characteristics of
DMs
Explanation

4
Connectivity
DMs connect the messages in ongoing
interactions
Optionality

DMs are optional, both syntactically and
semantically.
Flexibility of
position
DMs may appear at the initial, medial or
final position of an utterance.
Multigrammaticality
DMs come from different grammatical
classes and they cannot be grouped under
any single grammatical category.
Prosodical
independence
A DM “has to have a range of prosodic
contours, e.g. tonic stress and followed by a
pause, phonological reduction”. Schiffrin
(1987: 328)
Among those listed characteristics, it should be noted that a combination of above-
mentioned attributes needs to be taken into consideration to identify an item as a DM.
II.1.3. Selection of DMs in the present study
For this research, four DMs to be investigated include well, you know, I mean, and
like. These four items were selected as they appear frequently in native corpora. These DMs
are among the most salient features of spontaneous talk and they are reported to have the
highest frequency of occurrences in native discourses (Trillo, 2002; Fox Tree and Schrock,
1999, cited in Lee and Hsieh, 2004: 180; Stenström, 1994).
II.1.4. Main functions of four selected DMs
While you know, I mean and well have a number of individual functions which are
analyzed as working at the textual and at the interactional level, like only functions at the
textual level (Müller, 2005: 242; Huang, 2011). Textual functions organize the content of
what is said or mark (parts of) utterances as specific types of utterances, while interactional
functions address the hearer directly or organize the sequence of turns between the

participants. A summary of the selected DMs together with their main functions is found in
Appendix 1.
II.2. THE STUDY METHOD
II.2.1. Participants
II.2.1.1. Third-year ULIS mainstream English majors
The main subjects of the study include third-year mainstream students at the Faculty
of English Language Teacher Education (FELTE) – ULIS – VNU, coming from 23 classes
formed in the academic year 2009 – 2010. According to the course outline of Division III, by
the end of their third year at university, the students‟ English proficiency is expected to be at
an Upper-intermediate level, which is equivalent to level C1 of the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). At this expected level, the use of DMs is
projected to be seen in the students‟ spoken discourse (Perez and Macia, 2002, cited in Eslami
and Eslami-Rasekh, 2007: 27).
The number of third-year ULIS mainstream English majors in the 2011-2012
academic year in total is about 534, among whom 54 random students, were chosen as
respondents for this paper. Among this group of 54 learners, there were 50 females and 4
males. Due to the unequal distribution of the group in terms of gender, this factor was not
taken into consideration in the study. The learners‟ ages ranged from 21 to 22, and most of
them have been learning English for at least 10 years.

5
Although the number of selected students accounted for only around 10.1% of the
target population, they were meticulously selected based on two sampling principles to ensure
the representativeness and validity of the results obtained. First, stratified random sampling
was adopted to ensure that each specific group of students in three different majors are
equally chosen. Second, the principle of systematic random sampling was to give “a good
spread across the population” (De Vaus, 2002). In all 23 classes, the researcher decided to
choose the student‟s ordinal number of 2 as the first in line and an interval of 5 between
student numbers. In other words, the chosen student numbers according to their class list
included the 2

nd
, 7
th
, 12
th
, etc.
To increase the participants‟ willingness and eagerness in the participation, they were
told that they would have chance to talk to a native speaker and they would be sent some
resources to improve their speaking performance later via email. Such small yet positive
encouragements somehow boosted the number of students participating, which can be seen in
the following table.
Majors
Classes
Population
Number of
participants
English
language teacher
education
09E2
–09E14
353
36
Double majors –
721 program
09E15
– 9E22
152
15
Translation and

interpretation
09E23
–09E24
29
3
TOTAL
534
54
In order to collect data from this main group, the researcher needed help from two
native speakers of English whose role was to interact and elicit as much talk from the student
group as possible. Particularly, two natives in this study are American; one male and one
female who are at the age of 21 and 22 respectively. Each participant was to interact directly
with one native speaker on the topic “Free time and part-time jobs”. During the interaction,
the native speakers are expected to make questions (see Appendix 2) to obtain as much
information from the students as possible, with the intention of enhancing the latter‟s
participation. The interaction involves speech acts like describing, explaining, clarifying,
showing agreement and disagreement. It is from these speech acts that a natural use of DMs is
predicted (Huang, 2011: 69).
II.2.1.2. Teachers of English Speaking Skill
Thirteen teachers of Speaking participating in the study are those who are directly
teaching English speaking skill to third-year ULIS mainstream students at the Faculty. It is
therefore worth noting that those teachers clearly understand the state of the issue, particularly
their students‟ performance in speaking activities and thus can propose some
recommendations for the students to better their speeches. The researcher collected data from
this group of participants through questionnaires and interviews, the descriptions of which are
going to be elaborated in the upcoming section.
II.2.2. Data collection instruments and procedures
Both the quantitative and qualitative methods were utilized in this study since different
kinds of information about an issue are most comprehensively and economically gathered via
this combination. Accordingly, it employed three instruments to collect data, including the


6
NNSs – NSs direct interaction corpus, questionnaires, and interviews. The phases in the data
collection procedures also follow the order of the instruments presented here.
II.2.2.1. The student corpus
The student corpus is based on a 325-minute audio-recording of 54 extended
conversations. This instrument is to find answers to the first and second research questions. In
order to have 54 conversations for the corpus, 54 third-year ULIS mainstream English majors
interacted in English with either of the two native speakers. Each of the conversations lasted
from five to seven minutes.
After the data (i.e. 54 speeches) were gathered, a good amount of time was spent on
dealing with the data collected from the student corpus to identify the most frequently-used
DMs and their functions. To support the analysis process, transcription conventions are used
when examples are cited in the study.
II.2.2.2. Questionnaires
To dig deep into the issue on the part of the students and the teachers, questionnaire
was taken as one of the data collection instruments to respond to research questions 3 and 4.
There were two sets of questionnaires. One was designed for all third-year ULIS mainstream
students who took part in the interaction with native speakers of English (see Appendix 4A).
Another set was carried out among the teachers of Speaking Skill in Division III - FELTE
(see Appendix 4B).
II.2.2.3. Interviews
There was an interview schedule for the teachers (see Appendix 4C). Three semi-
structured interviews were conducted with three teachers of Speaking in Division III, FELTE.
Each lasted for an average of fifteen minutes. With the approval of the participants, all of the
talks were recorded for later careful listening.
II.3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
II.3.1. The most common DMs used by third-year ULIS mainstream English majors in
interaction with NSs of English
The investigated DMs (well, you know, I mean, and like) were found in the students‟

discourse; yet, each DM was recorded with different frequency level.
The most common DM is well with 10 times of occurrences – the highest recorded.
The other three items you know, I mean and like were found to appear 4, 3 and 2 times
respectively in the student group‟s spoken production. Particularly special was the case in
which one student excessively used well in his speech. Accordingly, with 20 times of
occurrences of the four DMs in the whole recording of 54 students, it can be concluded that
DMs were not so commonly and favorably used by third-year ULIS mainstream English
majors throughout their speaking turns.
The fact that DMs were not much incorporated in the students‟ oral discourse
coincides with a number of studies among ESL/ EFL learners done by previous scholars
including Fung (2003) and Moreno (2001). Specifically, in her research on the use of DMs by
non-native learners of English in Hong Kong, Fung (2003) concludes that her participants
(aged 17-19) “seldom incorporated DMs” in their speech. Another study that shared the status
of DM use among EFL/ ESL learners is that by Moreno (2001). In an attempt to explore the
utilization of DMs by Spanish students of English in their interaction with native speakers,
Moreno‟s (2001) analysis showed that well and other DMs such as you know, I mean, right,
okay, really, etc. are “hardly used” in the students‟ discourse (Moreno, 2001: 139).
II.3.2. Specific discourse functions of DMs in spoken discourse

7
 Well
In the 325-minute student corpus, the DM well was reported to show 10 times of
occurrences. The marker well in the corpus tends to occur at the beginning of a turn.
Interestingly, this pattern matches Huang‟s (2001) study in which a large proportion of the
instances of well are found in the turn-initial position in the dialogic genres.
Well as a DM functions at both a textual and interactional level, like what has been
concluded in Müller‟s (2005) work. At the textual level, one well acts as a delay device used
when the speaker has difficulties expressing him/herself and is searching for the right phrase
(Excerpt 10, see Appendix 5). At the interactional level, two wells function as a face-threat
mitigator when the speaker responds to an argumentative question (Excerpts 2 & 7).

Particularly special was one case in which the excessive use of well by a particular
student raised the question of appropriateness. Well appeared 7 times in this student‟s speech,
which is quoted in Excerpts 4 and 5. In these excerpts, Student 20a seemed to overuse the DM
well. Well in this student‟s first four turns, together with very short replies may make the
hearer interpret that this speaker does not want to participate in the talk. Besides, the fourth
well in his speech was unnatural in the way that it did not match any functions previously
found. All in all, such overuse and misuse of DMs may create a misleading impression on the
hearers.
 You know
The present study shows a total of four you knows which fulfilled the criterion as a
DM. In terms of positions, 3 out of 4 of you knows in the student data occur in turn medial, 1
in turn initial position and no records of you know in turn final. Sharing the same pattern,
results in Huang‟s (2011) study shows that the most common position of you know is turn-
medial in both the NNSs‟ and NSs‟ speech.
The DM you know itself conveys many a function and some of its typical functions
can be drawn in the student corpus. Whether being present in turn initial or medial position,
you know fulfills a number of textual and interactional functions in the student corpus. At the
textual level, it marks the speaker’s search for lexical expressions and/ or the content of
what the speaker is going to say next (Excerpt 6). At the interactional level, you know is
utilized to claim shared knowledge between the speaker and hearer (Excerpts 1 & 8). This
agrees with Jucker and Smith‟s (1998) category of you know as an addressee-centered
presentation marker.
 I mean
The DM I mean is used to modify the speaker‟s own ideas and intentions (Schiffrin,
1987: 267) and is often seen in turn-medial positions (Fuller, 2003: 30). I mean was used by
the students in this research at both textual and interactional levels. Specifically, this marker
was textually used to modify previously-spoken lexical items (Excerpts 3 & 9).
Interactionally, as in Carter and McCarthy‟s (2006: 108) as well as in Huang‟s (2011:221)
findings, I mean co-existing with pauses is found to act as a hesitation marker which lends
the speaker some time to think before speaking (Excerpts 3 & 9). In other words, I mean is

also used as a delaying device (Huang, 2011: 180). That is why the acquisition of the use of
this DM is considered to be helpful for learners of English.
 Like
Similar to other DMs, the DM like may occur variably in the utterance and is
syntactically optional. In the students‟ speech, like as a DM appears twice in turn medial
position; more specifically, it is found to co-occur with hesitation markers and pauses to
mark a search for appropriate expressions (Excerpt 6). Besides, like also serves the
purpose of marking an approximate number or quantity (Excerpt 9). It can be seen that

8
the two recorded functions of the DM like are at the textual level only. Like the DMs well and
you know, like can also be used when the speaker is thinking about what to say next. Most
researchers including Schourup (1985), Müller (2005) and Huang (2011) agree upon those
familiar functions of the DM like.
A brief summary and overall comments on the students‟ speaking performance
Overall, the study yields a total number of 19 times of occurrences of the four DMs
well (10 times), you know (4 times), I mean (3 times), like (2 times) in the student corpus
made up of 54 conversations. The small number of occurrences is also the result in most
previous studies such as in Moreno‟s (2001) work. In her study, well and other DMs such as
you know, I mean, right, okay, really, etc. are hardly used in the Spanish students of English‟s
discourse (Moreno, 2011: 139).
The absence of DMs in spoken discourse makes the students‟ speech scarcely fluent
and natural (Moreno, 2001: 139). The utterance without DMs, as in Excerpt 11, is similar to a
piece of writing. It is difficult to tell what has gone wrong in this extract; yet, it is clear that
incorporating DMs would make the utterances more natural and native-like. This conclusion
has been drawn by many researchers including Moreno (2001: 139), Liao (2008: 1313) and
Huang (2011: 317). Huang (2011: 317-318) believes that an appropriate use of DMs in the
spoken mode can facilitate the understanding of propositional meaning and interactional
interpretations.
In most cases, the students used a lot of ah, um, er and some long pauses when they

could not think of what to say next, as illustrated in Extracts 12 and 13. In these excerpts, the
two students used too much er and ah as delay devices. This result was also reported in Liao‟s
(2008) study in which frequent occurrences of um could be found among six male and six
female Chinese L1 graduate students in a study-abroad context. Meanwhile, the NSs tend to
use well and other DMs frequently in their spoken data as a way of maintaining the floor
while thinking of what to say next (Liao, 2008: 1321). Bearing in mind the communicative
functions of the DMs, it can be said that NNSs, particularly third-year ULIS mainstream
English majors don‟t seem to utilize DMs in their speaking turns.
II.3.3. Justifications for the low frequency of DMs in the students’ spoken discourse
Realizing the fact that DMs are not commonly used in the students‟ speech, the
researcher felt a great need to further conduct in-depth questionnaires and interviews among
teachers and students with a view to identifying the roots of the problem. Among 54 students
who were expected to complete the questionnaires, 45 of them returned their answers to the
researcher, which accounted for around 83.33%. Concerning the teachers, 13 out of 15
questionnaires were sent back to the researcher, leading to a response rate of 86.67%.
Most of the students and teachers acknowledged the importance of DMs in oral
communication. Particularly, 80% of the students and 92.31% of the teachers regard DMs as
“important” and “quite important” elements in oral discourse. However, owing to some
reasons, DMs were rarely used or were not used at all in the students‟ spoken discourse. There
were both subjective and objective reasons accounting for the low occurrences of DMs in the
students‟ speaking turns:
 Students are not clear about the exact use of DMs.
 Students are familiar with speaking in written form.
 Students used to regard DMs as redundant words.
 Students lack the chance to interact with natives.
These aforementioned points raise the question as to whether DMs, their use,
functions and prosodic features are explicitly taught to students in class. After closely
studying the listening and speaking syllabi for ULIS English majors, the researcher could not

9

find any teaching points related to oral DMs presented. This fact is also reflected in the
questionnaire and interview results as the teachers reported that DMs are rarely presented as a
separate teaching point in both of their oral materials and listening ones.
As being common items in the everyday spoken discourse of NSs, DMs are assumed
to have special attention in language classrooms. However, DMs are “seldom part of the
curriculum in the classroom” in spite of the important role they play in spoken discourse
(Liao, 2008: 16). As de Klerk (2005: 275, cited in Liao, 2008: 16) observes, the reason might
be owing to “their [DMs‟] lack of clear semantic denotation and syntactic role, which makes
formal or explicit commentary on their use fairly difficult”. Due to the fact that DMs are not
explicitly taught in class and NNSs can speak grammatically without the use of DMs, DMs
are “usually invisible” for EFL/ ESL speakers who learn the language in a formal classroom
setting (Liao, 2008: 16).
II.4. SOME PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
II.4.1. Implications for learners of English
Most papers on DMs have confirmed the same conclusion: NNSs display fewer DMs
in their oral interaction than NSs do. In fact, the question as to whether NNSs should speak
English like NSs is still under debate (Huang, 2011: 343). On the one hand, learners may not
need to speak like NSs and they can keep their own cultural identity if they like, as long as
their language does not impede comprehension or causes any misunderstandings. Meanwhile,
it is undoubtedly beneficial for NNSs to raise their awareness of the use of DMs in certain
contexts (Huang, 2011: 343). Learners should take NSs‟ usages as a target norm in order to
improve their speaking performance and prevent misinterpretation in communication with
NSs.
The recommendation above also corresponds with the fact that 40 out of 45 students,
or 88.89% of the respondents would want to acquire the use of DMs and employ them in
spoken discourse. There are, in fact, several ways to acquire the use of DMs:
 Practice speaking English with NSs
 Watch movies in English to see how DMs are used
 Study listening texts in which DMs are found to see how NSs use DMs
 Listen to talk shows by NSs of English

In any suggestions taken, close attention should be paid to the prosodic features of the
DMs in oral interaction. As mentioned earlier, DMs are generally found to occur with pauses,
phonological reductions and separate tone units which are distinguished from other linguistic
items in the discourse units.
II.4.2. Implications for teachers of English and syllabus designers
In Vietnam, the fact that DMs as a communicative strategy are rarely found in speech
and have yet been explicitly presented in speaking syllabi has highlighted a serious need for
the teaching of DMs in classroom. In fact, it can be inferred from the description of NNS
participants in most research that only at a pre-intermediate level upwards are DMs expected
to be detected in learners‟ spoken discourse (e.g. Fung, 2003; Liao, 2008; Huang, 2011). It is
generally agreed that only when the students can produce adequately clear utterances should
they be taught the use of oral DMs.
With regards to syllabus designers and materials developer, the teaching of DMs
should be incorporated in the syllabus as well as the materials at appropriate levels. Spoken
English, particularly oral DMs should receive special attention in the English language
teaching and learning context of Vietnam. There is a need to increase the level of authenticity
and interactiveness in spoken dialogues (Fung, 2011: 226). Classroom materials highly

10
displaying oral DMs include native speakers‟ corpora, movies, talk shows, all of which add to
developing naturalness in both oral and listening skills among learners.
III. CONCLUSION
III.1. Major findings of the study
Generally speaking, this research has revealed some major findings as follows:
The paper firstly addressed the most frequent DMs employed by third-year ULIS
students. The most common item was the DM well with 10 times of occurrences, including
the case in which a male student used well 7 times. You know and I mean ranked second and
third among the four with 4 and 3 occurrences respectively. Like as a DM appeared to be the
least commonly-used marker with 2 times appearing in the student corpus. Notably, these four
markers under investigation were used 19 times in total by 9 out of 54 third-year English

majors. It can be concluded that most students in the study did not adequately display the use
of DMs in their spoken discourse.
The functions of the four DMs used by the Vietnamese participants were not as varied
as those by native speakers found in the literature. DMs in the student data mostly occurred
with pauses and fillers as a way of “buying” the time when thinking of what to say next.
Added to that, the student corpus reveals that the Vietnamese NNS users of DMs are not
necessarily fluent speakers, but their use of DMs makes the utterance sound more natural and
native-like, whereas the speech of non-users of DMs sounds like formal written English or
appears to be less coherent due to the use of a lot of ah, um, er alone. This results in clear-cut
distinctions between the NSs‟ speech and NNSs‟.
In an endeavor to uncover the reasons for such limited employment of DMs in the
students‟ oral discourse, the study suggests that most of the students are not fully aware of the
usefulness and functions of DMs in speaking. Particularly, 55.56% of the students are not
clear about the use of DMs while 37.78% of them used to regard DMs as redundant and
unnecessary words in speech.
Perceiving the important role of DMs in oral communication, most teachers and
students stress the necessity of acquiring a clear understanding of these small yet effective
items. The paper also proposes two explicit DM teaching frameworks and several suggested
activities for teaching DMs to students in classroom settings (see Appendix 7).
III.2. Concluding remarks
This paper is a serious attempt to study the use of DMs, a prominent feature of spoken
English with the hope to contribute to the investigation of NNS/ learner language.
The student corpus reveals that third-year ULIS mainstream students have not yet
displayed a sensible use of DMs in oral communication. This fact raises several issues
regarding the pragmatic competence of the students as well as their own use of
communicative strategies. The major significance of pragmatic competence has constantly
been highlighted by many researchers since it may ultimately decide whether a speaker has a
successful communicative interaction. Successful communication in language learning must
not only mean correct linguistic forms but also acknowledge language as a reflection of the
socio-cultural norms of the L2 community (Vitale, 2009). As already mentioned, DMs are

much related to the pragmatic competence, the acquisition of which is directly determined by
such factors as: input, instruction, and exposure to the authentic language in real
communications (Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnvei, 1998). The shortcomings in each of these
factors partly account for the Vietnamese participants‟ infrequent display of oral DMs in their
speech. The first possible reason is inadequate input which can be found in academic
materials such as textbooks. The researcher‟s quick look-up of several school textbooks
discloses that DMs are not presented much in conversations while the spoken language is
quite formal. As a matter of fact, most students became acquainted to speaking in written

11
form and do not utilize effective communicative strategies in conversations. Another form of
input is that by the instructor. Most teachers in the study claimed that they did not explicitly
teach their students the use of DMs since this component was not included in the syllabus.
Besides, the students‟ lack of chance to frequently communicate with native speakers may
explain for their rare DM deployment. As such, the pragmatic component of language
learning, particularly the acquisition of DMs, is neglected. Considering the three
abovementioned factors, it is necessary to raise the students‟ awareness of the importance and
functions of DMs in oral discourse. Additionally, adaptation and changes to the curriculum
design of school textbooks also need to be reformulated.
From the findings obtained, keeping in mind the expected level of third-year ULIS
mainstream English majors, one might question the students‟ real speaking ability,
particularly their communicative competence. However, it needs further research before
coming to the conclusion of this issue. Such low frequency of DMs has inspired the
researcher to propose a number of implications for pedagogy presented in the previous
chapter, which hopefully are found beneficial to both teachers and learners.
III.3. Suggestions for further research
Notwithstanding the researcher‟s sustained efforts, certain limitations remain in the
study as a result of time constraints and some unpredictable problems. The shortcomings of
the present paper serve as the bases for some suggestions for other researchers sharing the
same interest in the field.

Firstly, future research may expand the scope of the study by considering the use of
DMs in its broader sense, i.e. DMs in different categories such as referential and structural
DMs or interpersonal and cognitive DMs.
In addition, further research could dig deep into the issue by comparing and
contrasting the pattern of DM use between the NNSs and NSs. To reduce the hard work of
finding comparable corpus of the natives, researchers in the field may collect the data for the
corpus themselves by involving both NNSs and NSs participating in an interaction or
completing the same tasks.
Lastly, future researchers may make more careful choice of the participants by
narrowing down the possible interlocutors using stricter set of criteria such as level of
proficiency, average mark of Speaking skill, etc. By doing so, only competent learners of
English are qualified to take part in the interactions, thereby raising greater chances of oral
DMs to be found. If possible, the whole recordings of the participants should be transcribed in
order to measure the frequency rate of each marker. All these would contribute to better
comparison of the use of each marker between the NNSs and NSs.
Despite the aforementioned shortcomings, valid and reliable data could be yielded and
drawn from the study thanks to the researcher‟s serious concerns about the matter and the
employment of effective research methods. Nonetheless, those limitations should always be
considered when future studies are to be undertaken.

REFERENCES
IN ENGLISH
Akande, A. T. (2008). The Verb in Standard Nigerian English and Nigerian Pidgin English:
A Sociolinguistic Approach. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Leeds. Leeds, UK.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dörnvei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic
violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(2), 233-262.

12
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (3
rd
edn.) (2008). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Carter, R. A. & McCarthy, M. J. (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive
Guide to Spoken and Written Grammar Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
CEFR (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved November 10, 2011, from
/>uages
Chaudron, C. & Richards, J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension
of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 113-127
Chen, W.S. (n.d.). Pragmatic Discourse Markers: A Comparison between Natives and Non-
natives and Textbook Evaluation.
Croucher, S. M. (2004). Like, You Know, What I‟m Saying: A Study of Discourse Marker
Frequency in Extemporaneous and Impromptu Speaking. National Forensic Journal,
22(2-3), 38-47.
De Vaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in Social Research Fifth Edition. Australia: Routledge.
Dornyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaire in second language research. United States of America:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Eslami, Z. R. & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2007). Discourse Markers in Academic Lectures. Asian
EFL Journal, 9(1), 22-38.
Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383-395.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952.
Freeman, D.L. & Long, M.H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition
research. New York: Longman.
Fuller, J. M. (2003). The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of
Pragmatics, 35, 23-45.
Fung, L. & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use
in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics 28/3: 410-439.

Fung, L. P. (2003). The use and teaching of discourse markers in Hong Kong – Students’
production and teachers’ perspectives. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of
Nottingham. Nottingham, UK.
Fung, L. P. (2011). Discourse Markers in the ESL Classroom: A Survey of Teachers‟
Attitudes. Asian EFL Journal, 13(2), 199-248.
Geshelin, H. (2004). Don't Shy Away from Public Speaking Class. Career World, 32 (4), 4.
Gillham B. (2005). Research interviewing – the range of techniques. Poland: Open University
Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward
Arnold.
Hancock, B. (1998). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Nottingham: Trent Focus
He, A. W. & Lindsey, B. (1998). ““You know” as an information status enhancing device:
Arguments from grammar and interaction”. Functions of Language, 5, 133–155.
Holmes, J. (1986). Functions of you know in women‟s and men‟s speech. Language in
Society, 15(1), 1-22.
Huang, L-F. (2011). Discourse markers in spoken English: A corpus study of native speakers
and Chinese non-native speakers. Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of English.
School of English, Drama and American & Canadian Studies. College of Arts and
Law. The University of Birmingham. Birmingham, UK.

13
Jabeen, F., Rai, M. A. & Arif, S. (2011). A corpus based study of discourse markers in British
and Pakistani speech. International Journal of Language Studies 5(4), 69-86.
Jones, C. (2011). Spoken discourse markers and English language teaching: practices and
pedagogies. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Nottingham. Nottingham, UK.
Jucker, A. H. & Ziv, Y. (1998). Discourse Markers: Description and Theory.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 171-202.
Jucker, A. H. (1993). The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of
Pragmatics, 19, 435-452.
Jucker, A. H.; & Smith, S. W. (1998). And people just you know like 'wow': Discourse

markers as negotiating strategies. In Jucker, A. H. & Ziv, Y. (Eds.), Discourse
markers: Descriptions and theory (pp. 171–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jung, E. H. (2003). The role of discourse signaling cues in second language listening
comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 562-576.
Lee, B. C. & Hsieh, C-J. (2004). Discourse marker teaching in college conversation
classrooms: Focus on well, you know, I mean. Retrieved December 10, 2011, from
/>g%20in%20College%20Conversation%20Classrooms.pdf
Lee, K. (n.d.). Discourse markers Well and Oh. Retrieved December 10, 2011, from

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, D. M. (2006). Discourse markers in English: a discourse-pragmatic view, in. Fischer,
K. (ed.) Approaches to Discourse Particles, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Liao, S. (2008). Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in
the US. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1313-1328.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. J. (1998). Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McCarthy, M., McCarten, J. & Sandiford, H. (2006). Touchstone 1. Student’s Book.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moreno, Á. E. I. (2001). Native speaker – non-native speaker interaction: The use of
discourse markers. ELIA, 2, 129–142.
Müller, S. (2005). Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Nguyễn Thị Hồng Nga (2006). Discourse markers in the dialogues of the Vietnamese new set
of English textbooks for lower secondary school students. Unpublished M.A. thesis.
Faculty of Post-graduate studies. ULIS - VNU. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Östman, J. O. (1995). Pragmatic particles twenty years after. Proceedings from the Turku
conference, ed. by B. Wårvik et. al. Anglicana Turkuensia 14, 95-108.
Redeker, G. 1991. Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics 29: 1139-1172

Rudder, M.E. (1999). Eliciting Student-Talk. English Teaching Forum, 37(2), 24-25.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (2001). Discourse markers: Language, meaning and context. In Schiffrin, D.,
Tannen, D. & Hamilton, H. (Eds.). The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 5474).
Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. & Hamilton, H. (2001). The handbook of discourse analysis.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Schourop, L. (1985). Common discourse particles in English conversation: Like, Well,
Y’know. New York: Garland.
Stenström, A-B (1994). An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman.

14
Trillo, J.R. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of
English. Journal of pragmatics, 34(6), 769 -784.
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching. Practice and Theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Verma, G.K. & Mallick, K. (1999). Researching education: Perspective and Techniques.
London: Palmer Press.
Vitale, S. J. (2009). Towards pragmatic competence in communicative teaching: the question
of experience vs. Instruction in the l2 classroom. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Department
of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and
Mechanical College. Louisiana, USA.
Wang, L F. & Zhu, W H. (2005). A corpus-based study of the use of discourse
markers in Chinese EFL learners‟ spoken English. Foreign Language Research, 3,
40-44, 48.
Wei, M. (1996). A comparative study of the oral proficiency of Chinese learners of English: a
discourse marker perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis. Faculty of the Graduate
College of the Oklahoma State University. Oklahoma, USA.
Wichmann, A. & Chanet, C. (2009). Discourse markers: A challenge for linguists and
teachers. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française 29, 23-40.

Yang, S. (2011). Investigating Discourse Markers in Pedagogical Settings: A Literature
Review. Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, 8, 95 –
108.

IN VIETNAMESE
Diệp Quang Ban (1998). Văn bản và liên kết trong tiếng Việt. NXB Giáo dục, Hà Nội.
Ngô Hữu Hoàng (2001). Mấy vấn đề về quán ngữ trên cứ liệu tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt.
Kỷ yếu ngữ học trẻ, Hội ngôn ngữ học Việt Nam, 240-245.
Ngô Hữu Hoàng (2002). Vai trò của quán ngữ trong việc kiến tạo phát ngôn. Luận án
Tiến sĩ, ĐHKH-SHNV, ĐHQG Hà Nội.
Ngô Hữu Hoàng (2010). Hiểu và dịch tiểu từ Well của tiếng Anh như một dấu hiệu diễn ngôn:
Một nghiên cứu dịch thuật trên cơ sở ngữ dụng học. Tạp chí Khoa học ĐHQGHN,
Ngoại ngữ, 27, 17-21.
Nguyễn Thị Việt Thanh (1999). Hệ thống liên kết lời nói tiếng Việt. NXB Giáo dục, Thành
phố Hồ Chí Minh.
Trần Ngọc Thêm (2009). Hệ thống liên kết văn bản tiếng Việt. NXB Giáo dục Việt Nam.




Appendix 1:
SUMMARY OF MAIN FUNCTIONS OF SELECTED DMS
DMs
Textual Level
Interactional Level
well
 (as a delay device)
searching for the right
phrase
 rephrasing/correcting

 acting as a face-
threat mitigator
 marking
continuation in
speech

15
you
know

 marking reported speech
 prefacing important
information
 signaling a search for
lexical words or content
information
 indicating clarifications
and explanations
 signaling
exemplifications
 marking approximations
 marking shared or
general knowledge
 appealing for
acceptance
 appealing for
patience,
understanding and
sympathy
 softening the force

of utterance
 acting as a question
I
mean

 marking a self-repair
 elaborating, clarifying,
modifying or expanding
what has been said
 orientating the
speaker‟s talk
 acting as a
mitigator
like

 searching for the
appropriate expression
 marking an approximate
number or quantity
 introducing an example

(Adapted from Müller, 2005: 246 and Huang, 2011)

16
Appendix 2:
TOPIC AND QUESTIONS FOR
THE STUDENT – NATIVE SPEAKER INTERACTION
FREE TIME AND PART-TIME JOBS
The native speakers are expected to pose questions related to the topic “Free time and part-
time jobs” to the students. This list of possible questions is for the native speakers‟ reference

only. There is no need to strictly follow all the questions here. Some questions may be left out
while additional questions may be included if necessary.
1. How many hours do you study at school?
2. Do you have a lot of home assignments?
3. Do you have much free time?
4. How do you spend your free time?
5. Some students spend their free time doing a part-time job. Do you have a part-time job
too?
a. Yes.
 What kind of part-time job are you doing?
 Could you share one memorable experience you had in your part-time job?
b. No.
 Did you ever have a part-time job? If yes, then why did you quit it?
 Why don‟t you do a part-time job?
6. At what age should a student start doing a part-time job?
7. What kind of part-time jobs are suitable for university students?
8. What are the advantages of doing a part-time job?
9. Some people say that a part-time job will do you more harm than good. Do you agree
or disagree?
10. How should a student balance his part-time job and schoolwork?


Appendix 3:
TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS
Transcription
conventions
Codes
Explanations
Punctuation
.

A full stop indicates a
completed intonation unit.
,
A comma indicates a
continuing intonation unit.
?
A question mark indicates a
question.
Pause
…
Indicates a pause between or
within an utterance.
Interrupted
utterance
+
Means the speaker is
interrupted and does not
complete his/ her thought/
utterance.
E.g.: A: I think I would like+
B: Right.
A: +to teach.
Overlapping
[ ]
When both speakers are

17
speech
speaking at the same time, the
words that occur at the same

time are surrounded by brackets
[ ].
E.g.: C: Can I have that
[one]?
D: [Uh huh].
(Adapted from Müller, 2005: 281)


Appendix 4A:
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS
Discourse markers in spoken interaction
My name is Le Thi Thu Huyen from ULIS - VNU. For my M.A. thesis, I am
conducting a research on “Discourse markers in spoken interaction with native speakers:
Third-year ULIS mainstream English majors‟ use and attitudes – Teachers‟ perspectives”.
I hope to receive your cooperation in completing this questionnaire as only this will
guarantee the success of my research. All the information you give will be treated with the
STRICTEST confidence. Thank you very much in advance.
Before you continue with the questionnaire, you are expected to read through the
following to find out what are meant by oral discourse markers.
Discourse markers (DMs) are words or phrases which function to organize and
monitor the progress of a piece of written or spoken language. Conjunctions like firstly,
secondly, and, or, so, therefore are familiar with us in written language. In spoken form, the
most common ones include well, I mean, okay, well, so, actually, right, you know, like,
anyway, and, „cos, etc. Many researchers including Moreno (2001), Liao (2008) and Huang
(2011) have suggested that using DMs in oral communication would make the speech more
natural and native-like.
The present questionnaire is referring to DMs in spoken language.
Example 1:
Well, I believe that a better solution is needed here… like… stricter punishments for
those who break the laws, like doing community service or paying very high fines.

Example 2:
A: So you are allergic to animals?
B: Yes, well, but it doesn’t mean that I don’t like cats, you know.
Now complete the questionnaire.
1. How long have you been learning English?
……………………………………………………
2. How often do you practice speaking English besides class time?
a. Frequently b. Occasionally c. Seldom d. Hardly ever
3. How do you evaluate the overall importance of the use of DMs in speaking?
a. Very important b. Important
c. Quite important d. Not important at all
4. To what extent are DMs displayed in your speech?
a. Frequently b. Occasionally c. Rarely d. Not at all
If your response to Question 4 is c or d, please continue with Question 5. Otherwise, skip
Questions 5 and 6, then go to Question 7.
5. What might be the reasons for your infrequent display of oral DMs in speech?
You can choose MORE THAN ONE option.
a. I‟m not clear about the exact use of DMs.

18
b. I‟m familiar with speaking in written form.
c. I used to regard DMs as redundant words.
d. I lack the chance to interact with native speakers of English.
e. Others (Please specify):
………………………………………………………………
6. Do you want to acquire the use of DMs and employ them in your speech?
a. Yes, definitely! b. No. I won‟t change. c. Not sure.
7. What should you do to acquire the use of oral DMs?
You can choose MORE THAN ONE option.
a. Practice speaking English with native speakers of English

b. Watch movies in English to see how DMs are used
c. Study listening texts in which DMs are frequently found to see how native speakers
use DMs
d. Others (Please specify):
………………………………………………………………
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION
Appendix 4B:
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS
Discourse markers in spoken interaction
My name is Le Thi Thu Huyen from ULIS - VNU. For my M.A. thesis, I am
conducting a research on “Discourse markers in spoken interaction with native speakers:
Third-year ULIS mainstream English majors‟ use and attitudes – Teachers‟ perspectives”.
I hope to receive your cooperation in completing this questionnaire as only this will
guarantee the success of my research. All the information you give will be treated with the
STRICTEST confidence. Thank you very much in advance.

Before you continue with the questionnaire, you are expected to read through the
following to find out what are meant by discourse markers.
Discourse markers (DMs) are words or phrases which function to organize and
monitor the progress of a piece of written or spoken language. Conjunctions like firstly,
secondly, and, or, so, therefore are familiar with us in written language. In spoken form, the
most common ones include well, I mean, okay, well, so, actually, right, you know, like,
anyway, and, „cos, etc. Many researchers including Moreno (2001), Liao (2008) and Huang
(2011) have suggested that using DMs in oral communication would make the speech more
natural and native-like.
The present questionnaire is referring to DMs in spoken language.
Example 1:
Well, I believe that a better solution is needed here… like… stricter punishments for
those who break the laws, like doing community service or paying very high fines.
Example 2:

A: So you are allergic to animals?
B: Yes, well, but it doesn’t mean that I don’t like cats, you know.
Now complete the questionnaire.

PART 1: THE USE OF DMs IN ORAL COMMUNICATION
1. How long have you been teaching English?
……………………………………………………
2. How do you evaluate the overall importance of the use of DMs in speaking?
a. Very important b. Important

19
c. Quite important d. Not important at all
PART 2: REPRESENTATION OF DMs IN YOUR CLASSROOM
3. To what extent have DMs been explicitly taught in your classroom?
a. DMs have frequently been presented.
b. DMs have sometimes been presented.
c. DMs have rarely been presented.
d. DMs have never been presented.
4. To what extent do most of your students display the use of DMs in their speaking?
a. Frequently b. Occasionally c. Rarely d. Not at all
If your response to Question 4 is c or d, please continue with Question 5. Otherwise, skip
Question 5 and go to Question 6.
5. What might be the reasons for your students’ infrequent display of oral DMs in their
speech?
You can choose MORE THAN ONE option.
a. Students are not clear about the exact use of DMs.
b. Students are familiar with speaking in written form.
c. Students regard DMs as redundant words.
d. Students lack the chance to interact with native speakers of English.
e. Others (Please specify):

………………………………………………………………
PART 3: THE TEACHING OF DMs IN CLASSROOM
6. At which level should DMs be introduced in spoken texts in school textbooks?
a. At junior secondary level
b. At upper secondary level
c. Other level (Please specify): ……………………………
7. At which level should oral DMs be explicitly taught to students?
a. At an elementary level
b. At a pre-intermediate level
c. At an intermediate level
d. At an upper-intermediate level
e. Other (Please specify): ………………………………………
8. What should students do to acquire the use of oral DMs?
You can choose MORE THAN ONE option.
e. Practice speaking English with native speakers of English
f. Watch movies in English to see how DMs are used
g. Study listening texts in which DMs are frequently found to see how native speakers
use DMs
h. Others (Please specify):
………………………………………………………………
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION

Appendix 4C:
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR TEACHERS
PART 1: STUDENTS’ USE OF ORAL DMs
1. As a teacher of Speaking skill in Division III, can you give me some comments on
your students‟ speaking ability? Are they all at the expected level of Upper-
intermediate?
2. Specifically, regarding DMs, do most of your students display the use of discourse
markers in their spoken language?


20
3. What can be the possible reasons for that?
PART 2: THE TEACHING OF DMs IN CLASSROOM SETTING
4. Are DMs taught explicitly in the classroom setting?
5. Are DMs represented as a component in the speaking/ listening syllabus?
6. Do you think that DMs should be explicitly taught in classroom?
7. Could you suggest some ways for the students to acquire the use of DMs?


Appendix 5:
EXCERPTS IN THE STUDENT DATA
54 students participating in the study were referred to by numerical order in in-text
excerpts, for example, S 1a, S 1b, S 2a, S2b, S 3a, S 3b, etc. To be more specific, the students
under the labels S 1a, S 2a, S 3a, etc. are those who interacted with native speaker 1 (NS 1).
Similarly, the code names S 1b, S 2b, S 3b, etc. indicate the interlocutors who spoke with
native speaker 2 (NS 2).

PART 1: EXCERPTS WITH THE USE OF DMs
Excerpt 1:
NS 1: Do you have a lot of home assignments?
S 3a: You know, as I said, I‟m in my third year so … er… most subjects we have
projects to do. I will say that there are lots of home assignments in my study.
Excerpt 2:
NS 1: Well, I myself think that students… like… I mean high school students can
take a part-time job. I mean it‟s not necessary that one has to wait until he
enters university to do so.
S 12a: Well, I don‟t quite agree with you. You know… um… for a high school
student, he has to study well and hard enough to pass the … er… university
entrance ex… exam. If he has a part-time job, he wouldn‟t have time for

studying.
Excerpt 3:
NS 1: You said a student should balance his part-time job and schoolwork?
S 13a: Yes.
NS 1: Then how? Can you be more specific?
S 13a: Okay. Students should make clear… I mean, separate his time for job and for
study. Make a timetable.
Excerpt 4:
NS 1: Do you have a lot of home assignments, Nam?
S 20a: Well, y…yesss. Quite a lot.
NS 1: Does it mean you don‟t have much free time?
S 20a: Well, some free time. Not much, I must say.
NS 1: So when you have free time, how do you spend it?
S 20a: Well, I go swimming. It‟s my favorite. Or… well, I chat with my friends
online.
Excerpt 5:
NS 1: So in your opinion, at what age should a student start doing a part-time job?

21
S 20a: Well, I believe that at least as a university student, a student should find a part-
time job. Well, a secondary or high school student must study hard to pass
exams and you don‟t have much free time. Well, at university, you will have
less time at school and more spare time… so I think you can find a part-time
job when you are a student at university.
Excerpt 6:
NS 1: So did you have any unforgettable experiences in your part-time job?
S 25a: Yes, a lot.
NS 1: Can you share one with me?
S 25a: Sure. … er… It was when I was at my tutee‟s house to teach him English. He
was in grade 4. It was 6 p.m. and I was very hungry. So my stomach… er…

you know… er… it makes some sound, very big sound. I was very … like…
er… very emb… embarrassing.
Excerpt 7:
NS 2: Some people say that a part-time job has more disadvantages than advantages.
Do you agree or disagree? What are your opinions?
S 1b: Um… Well… er… it‟s hard to say whether I agree or disagree. Everything has
two sides and a part-time job is not an exception. (…)
Excerpt 8:
NS 2: So you don‟t do a part-time job? Why not?
S 9b: Actually I had one. But the thing is… you know… I have quite much work to
do at school so +
NS 2: Yeah
S 9b: + I can‟t continue the job. You know… I have a 2-year-old sister and my
mother asks me to play with her in my free time so that she can have time to do
her work.
Excerpt 9:
NS 2: Could you share one memorable experience you had in this job?
S 15b: Yes. At the end of my first working month, I …er… received the money… I
mean… the salary. I was very happy because only me got the extra… I
mean… bonus.
NS 1: How did you feel at the time?
S 15b: Happy. I was very happy.
NS 1: Because of the big bonus?
S 15b: Not very big. It was about… like… um… 50,000 VND or 100,000 VND. It
was two years ago so I don’t remember exactly.
Excerpt 10:
NS 1: How do you spend your free time?
S 22a: In my free time… well… it‟s difficult to tell exactly because I‟m quite busy,
but if I have some free time, normally I choose to hang out with my dear
friend. I and her often go shopping or eating somewhere in the Old Quarters.



PART 2: SOME EXCERPTS WITHOUT THE USE OF DMs
Excerpt 11:
NS 1: What are the advantages of doing a part-time job?
S 22a: Having a part-time job makes students more active. It also helps students earn
some money to pay for their personal needs without having to ask their parents
for money.

22
Excerpt 12:
NS 1: How do you spend your free time?
S 27a: Um… I often listen to music. Er… sometimes I go out with my friends or…
or… I go somewhere.
Excerpt 13:
NS 2: What kind of part-time jobs are suitable for university students?
S 15b: I think students can do jobs of a teacher, ah no, er… a tutor, a server…
NS 2: You mean a waiter [and waitress?
S 15b: [Yes yes. A waiter. Sorry. Er… or looking after babies.
NS 2: Baby-sitter. Uh huh.
S 15b: Ah, also a shopkeeper.
NS 2: You mean a salesclerk?
S 15b: Er… Someone selling clothes for a shop.
NS 2: Okay. That‟s a salesclerk or shop assistant. Not a shopkeeper.


Appendix 6:
TRANSCRIPTION OF THE INTERVIEW
There were three interviews in total with the teachers. Basically, each interviewee was
asked the same set of questions given in Appendix 2 and other related ones to better approach

the issue. One interview is transcribed here in detail. However, it is notable that many
significant quotes from other respondents could be found in Chapter 3: Results and
Discussion.
Some abbreviations and symbols:
 I = Interviewer
 TA = Teacher A
 DMs = discourse markers
 […] = cut-out extracts due to its irrelevance to the main content.
INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER A (TA)
[Greeting and introduction]
I: As far as I know, in their third-year at ULIS, your students are expected to be at an
Upper-intermediate level. So, regarding Speaking, do you think that they have
achieved this level?
TA: Not really. Speaking has always been my students‟ most frightening activity compared
to others. If I have to comment on my students‟ real speaking ability, I‟ll say they are
at kind of Intermediate or lower.
I: Can you be more specific?
TA: Well, their speech lacks coherence. They use a lot of er, ah, um when they speak. And
as I answered in the questionnaire, they rarely used DMs although the DMs are
regarded as communicative strategies that they should use they speak. And only some,
very few, competent students of mine use DMs very effectively and naturally. I don‟t
see this in most of my students.
I: So concerning this fact, what are the underlying reasons, in your opinion?
TA: OK. The biggest reason I can see is that many of my students have the habit of writing
down before they speak. Why? Simply because they believe that if they can speak like
what they normally write, it‟ll be better and they will get better marks.
I: You mean they don‟t actually speak? They speak from their memory?
TA: Exactly.

23

I: But what about the case when they have to speak immediately, I mean, they have no
time for writing down?
TA: It‟s the same. As I said, they think that they SHOULD speak as in writing. They think
that they should try to speak in complex sentences. This makes it very difficult to
construct ideas and sentences at the same time. And then, when they don‟t know how
to express their ideas, they just let the time go by by fillers like ah and um. This makes
their speech a bit distracting and not native-like. Besides, most of them forget the use
of linking devices or markers to make their speaking sound smoother, you know…
I: I see. One more point, from the data collected from the student questionnaires, it was
found that 40 out of 45 students believe that the reason is partly due to their lack of
opportunities to talk to native speakers. Do you yourself perceive this as a reason?
TA: Maybe. But the thing is that we can learn from many sources. They can learn how
native speakers react and speak in many available talk shows and TV programs on the
Internet. I mean this is not the most important reason in my opinion.
I: So what do you think is the most important reason?
TA: It‟s the students‟ awareness. They are not quite aware of the usefulness of DMs in oral
communication.
I: Thank you very much for raising this interesting point. Because it is similar to what
I‟ve found in the student questionnaire. Before they did the questionnaire, 17 out of 45
students thought of DMs as redundant words.
TA: Right. Not a small number. That‟s why I think the students should raise their
awareness of DMs.
I: Now, the point you‟ve made is somehow related to one question I want to ask you.
I‟m wondering whether DMs are taught explicitly in your class? And previous school
years as well?
TA: To tell the truth, most of the time in a speaking lesson is devoted to teaching the
students useful vocabulary and discussing topics among students. So there‟s no time
for the explicit teaching of DMs. Somehow I just tell them to use DMs like you know,
I mean to buy the time when they cannot think of what to say next. There‟s no official
lesson on that.

I: So you mean that DMs are not represented in the syllabus as a teaching point?
TA: Right.
I: Do you think that we should?
TA: Definitely. As I said, only some students use DMs naturally. The rest do not. They
should be taught the functions of DMs so that they can apply them effectively in their
talks. But the teaching of DMs should be in specific contexts.
I: Thank you very much for your useful suggestion. Regarding the non-native learners,
could you recommend some ways for them to acquire the use of DMs?
TA: To be brief, I‟ll say: they can learn from talk shows and TV programs with native
speakers speaking in English. But in general, I think the best way for students to
acquire DMs can be found in their own listening texts. You know, the teaching and
learning of listening skill always goes with that of speaking. Er… I mean, they can use
the listening scripts to see the functions as well as the uses of the markers. Because
they cannot always practice speaking with natives, right?
[ending]

Appendix 7:
SUGGESTED DMS TEACHING RESOURCES
1. Two explicit DM teaching frameworks

24
There are basically two explicit teaching frameworks which can be used to teach
spoken DMs namely Present – Practice – Produce (PPP) and Illustration – Interaction –
Induction (III). The table below (adapted from Jones (2011)) summarizes the main steps in
conducting a sample PPP and III lesson.
PPP framework
III framework
Presentation
1. Students discuss in pairs/as
a group the kind of things

they like doing at the
weekend.
2. Students are given a task –
talk to partner and find out
three things partner did last
weekend – time limit of two
/three minutes.
3. Class feedback.
4. Students listen to tape of
two native speakers
completing the same task.
5. Students listen and write
down what they
notice is different about the
language in this conversation
compared to theirs.
6. (If needed) –Students listen
again and note down any
specific phrases they noticed
were used in this conversation
which they did not use.
7. Students are given
tapescript with the DMs in the
dialogue blanked out. They
discuss what they think is
missing from each space.
They then listen and check.
8. Students are then asked to
group the DMs according to
their function as follows:

a) Starting the conversation.
b) Showing you want to finish
the conversation.
c) Showing you wish to
slightly change what you have
just said.
d) Showing you are listening.
9. Class discussion and
agreement.

Practice tasks
(Practice/Production)
Illustration
1. Students discuss in pairs/as
a group the kind of things they
like doing at the weekend.
2. Students are given a task –
talk to partner and find out
three things partner did last
weekend – time limit of two
/three minutes.
3. Class feedback.
4. Students listen to tape of
two native speakers
completing the same task.
5. Students listen and write
down what they notice is
different about the language in
this conversation compared to
theirs.

6. If needed, students listen
again and note down any
specific phrases they noticed
were used in this conversation
which they did not use.
7. Students are given
tapescript with the
DMs in the dialogue blanked
out. They discuss what they
think is missing from each
space. They then listen and
check.
8. Students are then asked to
group the DMs according to
their function as follows:
a) Starting the conversation.
b) Showing you want to finish
the conversation.
c) Showing you wish to
slightly change what you have
just said.
d) Showing you are listening.
9. Class discussion and
agreement.


Noticing tasks

25
10. Students are asked to

write a mini
conversation together using as
many of the
DMs featured as possible.
Pairs read out their
conversations to the group
(pre-communicative practice).
Group correction and drilling
of errors with target DMs.
11. Students asked to have
their original conversation
about plans for the weekend
again with a different partner.
This time they are given the
DMs featured on cards and
must try to use them as much
as possible in the
conversation (contextualized
practice).
12. Feedback: students
perform dialogues in front of
the class and teacher corrects
/gives feedback.
(Induction/Interaction)
10. Students are given a new
version of the
tapescript with DMs in
wrong/unlikely places.
Students discuss and „correct‟
the tapescript.

11. Students are asked to
translate a section of the
conversation into L1, and then
back translate into English.
They then discuss and analyze
any differences between their
translation and the original
tapescript.
12. Class discussion
13. Students discuss (in pairs
and as a class) whether the
DMs featured are easy to
translate into L1 or not.
Sample lesson procedures in PPP and III frameworks in Jones‟s (2011: 74) study
Each of the two above-mentioned teaching frameworks has its own advantages in
presenting oral DMs to learners. Some teachers and students are in favor of practice within
the classroom setting as in a PPP lesson. Meanwhile, others claim that immediate production
of DMs may not be necessary in the classroom; instead, DMs should be displayed in a more
natural context in the future (Huang, 2011: 345). This viewpoint was supported by Jones
(2011) who clearly indicates that an III framework aims to foster the skill of noticing and
would be “more successful over a longer time period because learners would have more time
to notice the target features within the input they receive” (Jones, 2011: 221).
Apart from the methodologies (i.e. the teaching frameworks), teachers should take into
consideration the target DMs to be taught to their students. The selection of the target DMs to
be presented in class much depends on the learners‟ age, proficiency level and the needs and
objectives of the language programmes (Huang, 2011: 345).

2. Some suggested activities for teaching oral DMs to students
Activity 1: Please read the following extracts from real language data to determine what are
meant by discourse markers.

Extract 1: (This is a small talk between friends about Christmas.)
Judith: And it’s like it means a lot to me you know. But I think Christmas is
brilliant a family thing.
Peter: You know when they are all together and it„s…
Judith: We get together. I mean like if it snows it„s even better ‗cos I just look out
the window and let the world go by…