SECTION: LANGUAGE AND DISCOUR SE LDMD I 1002 PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE IN THE USE OF DISCOURSE MARKING “AND” BY ROMANIAN EFL LEARNERS Mădălina Georgiana… [601449]

SECTION: LANGUAGE AND DISCOUR SE LDMD I

1002

PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE IN THE USE OF DISCOURSE MARKING “AND” BY
ROMANIAN EFL LEARNERS

Mădălina Georgiana MATEI, Assistant Professor, PhD, ”Transilvania” University of
Brașov

Abstract: The acquisit ion of pragmatic competence is an essential result in the study of
English as a foreign language and the grasp of the accurate functions and roles of English
discourse markers in conversation is a challenge for most Romanian EFL learners. In order
to disco ver the mechanism of acquiring pragmatic competence, several discursive roles and
functions of the English discourse marker “and” used by Romanian students in classroom
interactions are analyzed from pragmatic and functional perspectives. The aim of this
comparative analysis is to see whether Romanian learners of English are aware of the
functional roles that native English speakers ascribe to “and” and whether they use the
marker accordingly. What is also very interesting to discover is whether there are s imilarities
or overlaps between the functions of the English discourse marking “and” and its Romanian
equivalent “ și”.

Keywords: discourse markers, pragmatic competence, conversation, discursive functions, EFL

1. Introduction
This article is based on the research conducted in my doctoral thesis which dealt with the
study of discourse markers in conversation. In this a rticle, the results obtained in the above
mentioned research were applied to classroom interactions and the goal was to see the manner
in which Romanian EFL learners use English discourse markers. In all the recorded
conversations in English (for research methodology and data collection see 2.) it appears that
the use of English discourse markers by Romanian students shows a clear understanding of
their pragmatic meaning and discourse management roles. It is very interesting to see that
even though the resp ondents are not native speakers of English therefore sometimes the level
of English, especially in point of grammatical accuracy, is not very elevated, the discourse
markers are correctly used in both formal and informal conversational contexts.
The expla nation for this interesting phenomenon is provided by Cots (in Müller 2005: 14)
who claims that when a learner becomes successful in a foreign language it means that his/her
linguistic behaviour has become very similar to that of the native speakers. In ot her words, it
is not only grammatical structures and semantics that are actually taken into account and
acquired by learners but also the pragmatic and functional patterns that words have in
conversation/discourse.
Jaworski (in Müller 2005) reunites the a cquisition of pragmatic and functional patterns
of language use under the umbrella term pragmatic competence which is defined as a type of
communication competence that presupposes the speakers’ ability to communicate
appropriately in specific contexts of use.
Müller (Müller 2005: 18) mentions sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic competence
that should be taken into account when analyzing the particular uses of discourse markers.
She explains these three terms in the following:

SECTION: LANGUAGE AND DISCOUR SE LDMD I

1003

“Sociolinguistic knowle dge is necessary for the negotiation of the relationship
between speaker and hearer during a conversation, which can be done through,
for example, the use of well or you know; a range of discourse markers are said to
create coherence in discourse, the know ledge of which is part of discourse
competence; and strategic competence manifests itself when non -native speakers
use discourse markers to express or to introduce the expression of lexical
difficulties (finding the appropriate intended word or phrase) or to appeal to the
hearer’s understanding. ” (Müller 2005: 18)

The fact that Romanian speakers of English as a foreign language have manifested
sociolinguistic and discourse competence in the use of discourse makers is probably due to
the fact that the disc ursive roles and functions of Romanian markers are somewhat similar to
those of the English discourse particles. For instance, the two discourse markers well and you
know that Müller provides as examples in the quotation given above are functionally simila r
(including from the perspective of sociolinguistic implications) to the Romanian discourse
markers păi, functional equivalent of well, and știi, functional and semantic equivalent of you
know .
The use of discourse markers as evidence of strategic competence could be said to
pertain to native speakers as well and not only to foreign language learners. D iscourse
markers, with foreign language learners, could indeed signal the speaker’s struggle to
construct a grammatically and lexically accurate utterance but we might also think that native
speakers could display strategic competence when using several di scourse markers
consecutively to gain more time to construct a turn or to hold the floor for a longer period of
time. These are not instances of discourse competence since they are connected more to the
subjective will of the participants and much less to the objective discursive requirements of
the verbal exchange.

2. Research Methodology
For this research, Romanian students who are learners of English as a foreign language
were recorded during speaking practice exercises within their English classes. The st udents
who participate in the conversations are Foreign Affairs, Accounting and Finance students,
teenagers between 19 and 22 years old, their level of competence in English being Upper –
Intermediate to Advanced. Throughout the article I will use the actual names of the
respondents Gabi, Diana, Alexandru, Victor, Iuliana and Anca, as I have been granted
permission to do so.
The participants were given either a conversation topic or a list of questions; the discussions
were always moderated by the teacher. M ention should be made of the fact that, in order to
increase the reliability of the recorded material, the respondents were not aware of the items
that were to be analyzed in their conversations and the only explanation provided was that the
interest would be ‘the manner in which people interact in conversation’.
In the following sections, several discursive roles and functions of the English discourse
marker and used by Romanian speakers will be analyzed from pragmatic and functional
perspectives in order to see whether the foreign language learners are aware of the functional

SECTION: LANGUAGE AND DISCOUR SE LDMD I

1004
roles that native speakers ascribe to the above mentioned discourse marker and whether they
use the marker accordingly.
Another aim of this research is to discover any functio nal similarities or overlaps that might
exist between the English discourse marker and its Romanian equivalent și.

3. Discursive Roles and Functions
The analysis of discourse markers in conversation requires a pragmatic -functional
perspective. Hence, I sug gest a different classification of the discursive attributions that
discourse markers have in conversation by advocating the pragmatic -functional categories of
discursive roles and discursive functions.
In the category of discursive functions I place all the specific functions of discourse
markers that are situated at the interactional level, namely prefacing answers, the expression of
opinions or evaluations, repairs, politeness, mitigation, face -saving or face -threatening acts,
hesitation (for the defini tion of these terms see Sacks, 199 2; Blakemore, 2006; Mey, 2009.) , etc.
Discursive roles are all the discourse organization procedures that are situated at the textual
level and which concern the speaker’s technical construction of the discourse unit. The
discursive roles that markers can fulfill are: turn -claiming marker, interruption prefacing
marker or it could signal speaker self -selection when no interruption is performed, turn –
construction markers, and so forth.
Therefore, my claim is that the discur sive functions are a set of specific and recurrent
functions of a particular discourse marker, a set of functions that constitutes the discourse
marker’s functional individuality whereas the discursive roles of markers are non-specific and
circumstantial t extual attributions that any discourse marker would be able to fulfill.
This pattern of analysis will be used in the study of the discursive attributions that and could
have in formal conversations between non -native speakers of English namely Romanian EFL
learners.
4. Discourse marking functions and roles of ‘and’ with non -native speakers
If the discourse marking well and you know were not very much used by the EFL
learners, things are different for the discourse marking and, which is among the m ost frequent
markers in all the recorded conversations. And can fulfill various functions which are very
similar to the discursive roles and functions that its Romanian equivalent și fulfills.
One of the discursive roles that and could have is that of turn -claiming marker and
unit insertion marker. In the conversation below Gabi reclaims the turn:

(1) 1. Gabi: em I think that em: both persons have to trust each other (…) It’s only
2. about trust
3. Teacher: yeah, it’s about trust
4. Gabi: and I don’t borrow money to people who I don’t trust [sic]
5. Teacher: that’s a good point

After stating a general point of view about how friends should trust each other in line 1,
Gabi reclaims the floor in line 4 using and as a discourse marker functioning at the textual
level and oriented towards the prefacing of turn -claiming by the same speaker who adds

SECTION: LANGUAGE AND DISCOUR SE LDMD I

1005
another unit to her argumentation process. So it can be safely claimed that and has two
discursive roles namely that of prefacing turn -claiming and of inserting another unit in a
larger argumentative structure . Both roles operate at the textual level and it is very difficult to
determine the most salient one but as it has been me ntioned before, one of the most important
characteristics of discourse markers is their polyfunctionality.
Although and is a marker of continuation, there might be contexts in which its role is
that of prefacing contrast with one or several previous s tatements. An illustration of this
discursive function is the following class discussion:

(2) 1. Teacher: on the other hand, do we lend money to people we don’t trust?
2. Students: no
3. Teacher: not really, so?
4. Diana: and that’s when you get emba rrassed because you lend money to a
5. person you trust and then you see they are not trustwor::=
6. Teacher: =thy=
7. Diana: = thy
8. Teacher: right. And angry because you trusted them, right?
9. Alexandru: and then he’s trying to convince you that it’s no thing but money
(laughter)

In the first part of (2), the idea that we only lend money to people that we trust was
agreed upon by all students. In line 4, Diana presents a scenario that departs from the previous
assumption and actually contradicts it; the implication of Diana’s statement in lines 4 and 5, is
that even though people might seem worthy of our trust, most times they demonstrate the
contrary. In this conversation, the discourse marking and prefaces contrast in such a way as to
give the impressio n that it only provides another argument in favour of the previous idea. It is
possible that even though she has a different point of view on the matter, Diana does not
want to place her contribution in disagreement with previous opinions. Therefore, it i s not the
marker that signals contrast but it is the actual content of her utterance that guides the other
participants towards the right interpretation.
The other participants take the correct inferential path and, in line 8, the teacher adds
another idea in support of Diana’s statement. The discourse marking and is again used to
preface the insertion of an additional argument that coherently continues Diana’s line of
argumentation. Moreover, in line 9, Alexandru continues the discursive support for Diana’ s
direction by providing, again with the help of discourse marking and, a possible outcome of
the situation presented by Diana. Alexandru uses the discourse marking and as a preface for
result.
The discourse marking and fulfilling the discursive function of preface for result is
also illustrated in the following verbal exchange:

(3) 1. Teacher: other opinions
2. Victor: never borrow money
3. Teacher: never bo – Ok, why?
4. Victor: em: because thinking of the current em: society em: the jobs are not
5. very sure

SECTION: LANGUAGE AND DISCOUR SE LDMD I

1006
6. Teacher: right
7. Victor: and you don’t know if you can afford to repay

In (3), Victor structures his argumentation on three parts; first, in line 2, he presents
the postulate, then, in line 4 and 5 he provides a motivation for the postulate and finally, in
line 7 he introduces the result of the situation presented in lines 4, 5 (jobs are uncertain → you
might not afford to pay back the loan). And prefaces the expression of a result but it also
coordinates the parts of the same argu mentative unit which extends over several turns. With
the proposition prefaced by and Victor’s argumentative unit comes full circle because the
result presented in line 7 is also a motivation for the initially expressed postulate in line 2.
The discourse m arker and can also bracket the expression of condition such as in the
following verbal interaction:

(4) 1. Teacher: why is it important to socialize with managers?
2. Iuliana: because communication is the key in every single situation
3. Teacher: yeah, t hat is a good point, communication is the key. And maybe it
4. works better when you are having a beer or a cup of coffee
5. Anca: and you’re relaxed

In line 3, and prefaces the provision of comment which refers to the ‘felicity
condi tions’ of communicating with the manager. In line 5, Anca introduces another condition
for better communication which is bracketed by the discourse marking and. The functional
role of and in line 5 is twofold: it fulfills the discursive functions of prefac ing condition and it
has the discursive role of coordinating two units of a joint response to Iuliana’s comment (line
2) but of the two functional roles that and fulfills in line 5, the most salient is that of condition
prefacing marker.
The fact that and is mainly used for coordination (taking into account its grammatical
status of coordinating conjunction) qualifies this marker for the discursive role of prefacing
the insertion of a new term in an enumeration started by a previous speaker. The following
example is an illustration:

(5) 1. Teacher: in fact, not necessarily distance but decency, right?
2. Iuliana: and a pure balance between work and love.

The topic of (5) is that employees involved in a romantic relationship with a co –
worker, have to ke ep their distance from each other at work. The discourse marking and, in
line 2, is a preface for the insertion of additional items in an enumeration . What is interesting
is that no enumeration was started by the first speaker but Iuliana’s insertion of an other
element of the same category turned it into one. In order to see the logic the enumeration, we
must state that the general departure point of the enumeration would be ‘things that people
who are romantically involved with their co -workers have to pre serve’. The first element was
provided in line 1 (decency) and the second followed in line 2 (balance between work and
love). In this example we are dealing with and functioning at the interactional level because
Iuliana uses this marker to display coopera tion and to construct discourse in a very
collaborative manner.

SECTION: LANGUAGE AND DISCOUR SE LDMD I

1007

5. And vs. și – comparison of discourse marking functions
The two discourse markers are, with but, the most frequently used in both casual and
formal conversations by male and female respondent s and by all age categories without any
exception. They do not ensure the particularity or individuality of the speakers but they are
just means to a textual or interactional goal. In Table 1.4, I draw a comparison between the
discourse marking functions a nd roles that the two markers can fulfill. The functions of the
discourse marking and in the literature were put forward by Svartvik (1980), Norrick (2001),
Blakemore (2002), Müller (2005), and Schiffrin (1987, 2006) and.

Table 1.4
Functions of and in the
literature
Blakemore (2002), Müller (2005),
Norrick (2001), Schiffrin (1987,
2006), Svartvik (1980) Discursive roles and functions
of and with non -native
speakers of English Discursive roles and functions
of the Romanian discourse
marker și
Matei (2012 )
Coordinates idea units Coordinates units
Continues another speaker’s
ideas and transforms talk into a
product of mutual effort Continuation of other speaker’s
ideas (frequent in classroom
talk)
Soliciting a speaker’s
continuation End positioned – summoning
another participant to provide
clarification, answers,
justification, additional
information
Adding reasons to another
speaker’s explanation Prefaces the provision of
comment
Prefaces questions Question prefacing marker Question prefacing mar ker
Turn-claiming marker Turn claiming marker Turn-claiming and turn -keeping
device
Marks a different topic segment
/ topic shift Marker of topic shift
Prefaces the insertion of a new
story into the frame story
Displays an upcoming utterance
as part of a not yet completed
interactional unit Inserting another unit in a larger
argumentative structure Speaker’s return to a previous
topic
In insertion sequences with
adjacency pairs
Prefacing list items Prefaces the insertion of items
into an enumeration
Prefaces condition, contrast and
result
Prefaces reported speech

This table shows that the acquisition of pragmatic competence in the use of and as
discourse marker by the Romanian learners of English is facilitated by the considerable
functional overlap between și and the English marker and. The grammatical status of
conjunction that both markers have in English and Romanian helped the speakers in the
process of attaching pragmatic meanings and using the discourse marking and in correct

SECTION: LANGUAGE AND DISCOUR SE LDMD I

1008
discursive contexts with f unctions and roles which are consistent to the specificity of the
English language.

6. Conclusion
Discourse marking by and is very frequent both with native and with non -native
speakers because it can fulfill a large number of discursive roles and functions and, at the
same time, give the other participants in the conversation the impression that there is
continuity in discourse. Therefore, even in cases in which the discourse marker and expresses
contrast, the appearance of continuation is still given.
And could operate both at the textual and interactional level; the versatile nature of this
marker would thus allow it to contribute to discourse management in a technical way
(claiming of turns, coordination of units, etc) while also helping speakers to disp lay
awareness of their conversational partners and build their contributions in a polite manner.
The fact that there is a high degree of overlap between the functions and roles of și and
of the corresponding English marker and, facilitates an easier process of acquiring pragmatic
competence in the use of and by Romanian EFL learners.
Perhaps the exposure to media in English also contributes to a better grasp of the
discursive functi ons of and at the textual level. Therefore, it would be beneficial, with a view
to understanding of the discursive roles and functions of all discourse markers in
conversation, to include as many listening and speaking activities in the English courses for
EFL learners.

Transcription conventions
? – rising intonation followed by pause
! – animated tone
(.) – pause without falling intonation
– – self interruption with glottal stop
italics – emphatic stress
CAPS – very emphatic stress
Bold – used to highlight the discourse markers that are to be analyzed
: – prolonged final vowel or syllable
text= – no discernible pause between the end of a turn and the beginning of another
=text speaker’s turn
[ – the starting point of speech ove rlap
] – the end point of speech overlap
(text) – author’s comments and specifications adapted from Schiffrin (1987: ix, x)

Bibliography

Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics
of' discourse markers. Camb ridge: CUP.
Blakemore, Diane. 2006. „ Discourse Markers ” in The Handbook of Pragmatics edited by
Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 221 -240. Oxford&Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

SECTION: LANGUAGE AND DISCOUR SE LDMD I

1009
Matei, M ădălina -Georgiana. 2012. A (re)modeled pragmatic -functional patter n of analysis for
the study of discourse markers in conversation : discursive roles and functions of discourse
marking “deci” and “ și” in Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences 63(2012) 250 -262.
Oxford: Elsevier.
Mey, Jacob L., ed. 2009. Concise Encyclope dia of Pragmatics . Second Edition,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Müller, Simone. 2005. Discourse Markers in Native and Non -native English Discourse .
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins B.V.
Norrick, Neal R. 2001, „Discourse markers in oral nar rative”, Journal of Pragmatics 33: 849 –
878.
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation . Oxford: Blackwell.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers . Cambridge: CUP.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 2006. „ Discourse marker research and theory: revisiting and” in
Approaches to discourse particles edited by Kerstin Fischer, 315 -338. Oxford: Elsevier.