Cite this article as: Ezejideaku, P. A. (2026). Discourse markers and communicative competence among adolescent ESL speakers in Nigeria. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 2(2), 288-296. https://doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2026.v02i02.026
By
Department of English,
Federal College of
Education (Special), Oyo.
ezejideaku.princess2700@fcesoyo.edu.ng
Abstract
This paper examines the
forms, functions and communicative perceptions of discourse markers (DMs) and
its communicative effects on English as a Second Language (ESL) among
adolescent speakers in Nigeria using Ajayi Crowther University as a case study.
Though earlier studies have been more concerned with the shapes and roles of
discourse markers, this study analyzes how DMs can influence communicative
competence and intelligibility. The study conceptualizes discourse markers as
procedural tools that facilitate inferential processing based on the Relevance
Theory, especially the study of Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson as adapted by
Diane Blakemore. Using a mixed-methods descriptive research design, data were
gathered by participant observation, formal interviews, and questionnaires that
were given to 18 ESL teenage speakers (gender and region balanced). Results
indicate that most common discourse markers used are and (21%), then (18.4%),
like (13.2%), ok (10.5%) and well (7.9%). The rates of usage showed that female
participants were much higher (76.3) than males (23.7). Patterns of frequency
were also determined by ethnic background with the participants of Eastern
Nigeria showing the highest usage. Most participants understood discourse
markers either as informal or even potentially detrimental to formal speech,
and more than half of them admitted that too much use can be a contributing
factor to communication failure. The conclusion of the study is that discourse
markers are cognitive and interactional facilitators that can have negative
outcomes on perceived competence in overuse. The results contribute to the
current literature by predicting the effects of discourse markers on the
intelligibility and communicative perception in ESL situations.
Keywords: Discourse markers, ESL, Relevance Theory, communicative
competence, intelligibility.
1.0 Introduction
Discourse markers (DMs) are those elements of language that
organize, control and frame discourse both spoken and written. Examples of
these are and, then, well, like, you know, and I
think. Discourse markers are syntactically independent, semantically
light, but have major functions in discourse coherence and interactional
negotiation. Deborah Schiffrin (1987) explains that discourse markers are
sequentially contingent units that frame talk units. In the same way, Bruce
Fraser (1990) refers to them as discourse glue, which indicates links between
utterances.
Although much research
has been conducted in the native English setting, less research has been done
regarding discourse markers among the adolescent ESL speakers in Nigeria. Since
Nigeria is an ESL setting, children, youths, and young adults learn English as
a second language, which tends to be in a multilingual environment. Having such
a frequent rate of discourse markers in native and proficient input, ESL
speakers should become conscious and competently functional in their
application.
This paper thus explores
the shapes, occurrence, roles, understanding and communicative impacts of
discourse markers among ESL adolescents in Ajayi Crowther University.
1.1 Background to the
Study
Discourse markers are
linguistic expressions that help speakers organize, manage, and interpret
discourse. They include words and phrases such as and, then, well, like, you
know, I think, and so. Although these expressions often contribute little to
the propositional meaning of an utterance, they perform important pragmatic and
interactional functions in communication. According to Schiffrin (1987),
discourse markers are sequentially dependent elements that bracket units of
talk and contribute to discourse coherence. Similarly, Fraser (1990) describes
them as “discourse glue” because they help establish relationships between
utterances.
The study of discourse
markers has attracted considerable attention in linguistics, pragmatics, and
discourse analysis. Researchers have examined their forms, functions, and
communicative roles in both spoken and written discourse. Previous studies have
shown that discourse markers facilitate conversational flow, signal speaker
intentions, indicate attitudes, and assist listeners in interpreting meaning.
However, much of the existing literature has focused on native speakers of
English and on the functional classification of discourse markers.
In Nigeria, where
English functions as a second language, discourse markers form an important
part of everyday communication among adolescents and young adults. Since
English is acquired after the first language, the use of discourse markers by
Nigerian ESL speakers may be influenced by linguistic, cultural, and social
factors. Understanding how these markers are used and perceived is therefore
important for evaluating communicative competence and intelligibility among
adolescent ESL speakers.
1.2 Statement of the
Problem
Despite the growing body
of literature on discourse markers, most studies have concentrated on
identifying their forms and communicative functions. Relatively little
attention has been given to the effects of discourse markers on communicative
competence and intelligibility among adolescent ESL speakers, particularly in
the Nigerian context. Because discourse markers occur frequently in everyday
speech and often carry little semantic content, they are sometimes regarded as
mere fillers or signs of poor language proficiency.
However, discourse
markers play important roles in structuring discourse and facilitating
interaction. Excessive use of these markers may affect listeners’ perceptions
of speakers, while inappropriate use may create misunderstanding or interfere
with effective communication. There is therefore a need to investigate the
forms, functions, perceptions, and communicative effects of discourse markers
among adolescent ESL speakers. This study addresses this gap by examining
discourse marker usage among students of Ajayi Crowther University and
evaluating its implications for communicative competence and intelligibility.
1.3 Aim and Objectives
of the Study
The aim of this study is
to investigate the use of discourse markers among adolescent ESL speakers and
examine their effects on communicative competence and intelligibility.
The specific objectives
are to:
1. Identify the discourse markers commonly used by adolescent ESL
speakers at Ajayi Crowther University.
2. Determine the frequency of discourse marker usage among adolescent
ESL speakers.
3. Examine the functions of discourse markers in adolescent ESL
interactions.
4. Investigate adolescent ESL speakers’ perceptions of discourse
markers.
5. Determine the extent to which discourse marker usage affects
communicative competence and intelligibility.
1.4 Research Questions
1. The following research questions guided the study:
2. What discourse markers are commonly used by adolescent ESL
speakers?
3. How frequently are this discourse markers used?
4. What functions do this discourse markers perform?
5. How are discourse markers perceived by adolescent ESL speakers?
6. To what extent does discourse marker usage affect communication
and intelligibility?
2.0 Literature Review
Discourse markers have
been studied across multiple theoretical traditions. Bruce Fraser (1999) classifies them into conjunctions, adverbs,
and prepositional phrases between sentences or clauses. Deborah Schiffrin
(1987) presents a model concerning the use of coherence which includes four
planes: exchange structure, action structure, ideational structure and
structure of participation.
Under pragmatic
approaches, Diane Blakemore (1992) asserts that procedural meaning is encoded
in discourse markers and it does not add conceptual meaning but limits
inference. Bruce Fraser (1990) focuses on their use in indicating speaker
intention.
Systemic Functional
Grammar (SFG), which was developed by M. A. K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan
(1976), views discourse markers within broader textual and interpersonal
metafunctions.
There has also been
cross-linguistic research. The universality but contextual variability of
discourse markers is indicated as witnessed in Italian (Bazzanella), Japanese
(Takahara), Finnish (Hakulinen), Hebrew (Maschler) and Korean (Park).
Nonetheless, comparative research has not examined much about the adolescent
ESL speakers in Nigeria, especially with regard to intelligibility and
communicative competence.
3.0 Methodology
This study adopted a
mixed-methods descriptive research design, combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches to investigate the use of discourse markers among
adolescent ESL speakers. The study was conducted at Ajayi Crowther University,
Oyo State, Nigeria. A total of eighteen adolescent ESL speakers comprising nine
males and nine females were purposively selected to ensure representation from
the Eastern, Western, and Northern regions of Nigeria. Data were collected
through participant observation, formal interviews, dialogue tasks,
questionnaires, and audio recordings of participants’ responses. The interviews
consisted of five open-ended questions designed to elicit spontaneous speech
and encourage the natural occurrence of discourse markers. Questionnaire items
focused on participants’ language background, perceptions of discourse markers,
and their perceived effects on communication. Data obtained from the
questionnaires were analyzed using simple percentages, while qualitative data
from interviews and observations were subjected to descriptive discourse
analysis. The combination of these methods provided both numerical and
contextual evidence for examining the forms, functions, perceptions, and
communicative effects of discourse markers among adolescent ESL speakers.
4.0 Theoretical
Framework
Relevance Theory was selected as the theoretical framework for
this study because discourse markers have been widely described as procedural
devices that guide interpretation and reduce processing effort during
communication (Blakemore, 1992; Fraser, 1999). Since the present study seeks to
investigate not only the forms and functions of discourse markers but also
their effects on communicative competence and intelligibility among adolescent
ESL speakers, Relevance Theory provides an appropriate explanatory framework.
The theory explains how hearers process linguistic input and how discourse
markers facilitate the inferential interpretation of utterances (Sperber &
Wilson, 1986).
According to the theory,
communication is purposeful, nominal and deductive. Individuals process
information in such a way as to achieve optimal relevance, achieving cognitive
effects with the minimum processing energy.
In this context,
discourse markers are considered to be procedural cues that help in controlling
the directions in which the interpretation should be made. They do not include
propositional meaning but lead hearers to desired contextual assumptions. This
view comes in handy especially when examining the way such markers like I
don't know or you know are actually cognitive
lubricants but not means to convey that one is ignorant.
5.0 Data Presentation
and Analysis
Below is a table showing
the data extracts from participant observation, formal interviews, and dialogue
tasks.
Table 1: Forms of
Discourse Markers and Frequency of Occurrence
|
Discourse
Marker |
Percentage |
|
and |
21% |
|
then |
18.4% |
|
finally |
2.6% |
|
yea |
2.6% |
|
ok |
10.5% |
|
like |
13.2% |
|
well |
7.9% |
|
I think |
5.3% |
|
you know |
2.6% |
|
I don’t know |
2.6% |
|
so |
2.6% |
|
I guess |
2.6% |
|
as in |
2.6% |
|
you understand |
2.6% |
The above shows that the
most frequently used discourse markers by adolescents in Ajayi Crowther
University are and, then, okay, like, well, and I
think.
Table 2: Discourse Markers Usage by Gender
|
Gender |
Percentage of Usage |
|
Female |
76.3% |
|
Male |
23.7% |
As represented above, it was also discovered that females use more
discourse markers than males, the percentage of females that use discourse
markers to males is 76.3% (females) to 23.7% (males) where three of the males
interviewed did not use discourse markers at all. The males were discovered to
use more fillers than discourse markers.
Table 3: Regional Distribution of Discourse Marker Usage
|
Region |
Female (%) |
Male (%) |
Total (%) |
|
East |
37.9 |
44.4 |
82.3 |
|
West |
37.9 |
22.2 |
60.1 |
|
North |
24.1 |
33.3 |
57.4 |
In addition, it was discovered that ethnic background also plays a
big role in the use of discourse markers. Regional distribution participants
from Eastern Nigeria showed the highest percentage of usage at (82.3%),
followed by Western at (60.1%) and Northern at (57.4%).
Some of the reasons for
using discourse markers as stated by adolescents in Ajayi Crowther University
include;
1. To introduce an example e.g. as in. In the course
of the researcher’s observation, however, it was discovered that the discourse
marker as in was used more as a lubricant and a connective
than as a marker to introduce an example. This means that at the competence
level, speakers are aware of the context in which this marker is used, but at
the performance level it is otherwise.
2. To communicate better with friends, especially ones with a fore
knowledge of what is being said. E.g. you know, you understand.
3. To make emphasis e.g. finally, like.
4. Because it helps for “easy understanding, and for communication
flow and fun” e.g. as in, you know.
5. To express one’s self better e.g. as in, and, then.
6. Peer influence “you find yourself using them when people around
you use them.”
7. Because it is simple to use and does not require formal learning.
8. For informal communication.
“people use discourse
markers most times to indicate their attitude to what they are saying”6 of the
18 participants who filled out the questionnaires stated that discourse markers
are used for better understanding, 5 stated that they are used to lay emphasis,
4 stated that they are used in communicating with friends, 2 stated that they
are used out of peer influence and 2 stated that they are used for informal
discussion. Most of the participants gave more than one function of discourse
markers.
Furthermore, it was
discovered that L2 adolescents use discourse markers in the same context. For
instance, discourse markers such as you know and you
understand are used in conversation with friends with a fore-knowledge
of what is being said. And discourse markers such as finally and like are
used to lay emphasis.
The context in which
these discourse markers are used, differ from that of the native English,
especially as in which is used to introduce an example in the
native English, but is used as a lubricant or connective amongst L2 adolescent
speakers.
This research also
sought to investigate how discourse markers are perceived. This was achieved
through observation and use of questionnaires. Of the 18 participants chosen to
fill the questionnaires, 6 of them stated that it was wrong to use discourse markers.
One of the participants stated in the questionnaire that she does not use
discourse markers. But after she was interviewed it was discovered that she
uses discourse markers to a considerable extent. This would mean that this
participant does not want to be associated with the use of discourse markers,
probably because she perceives it as negative at the competence level but it
still appears at her performance level. This could also be the case with many
adolescent speakers.
During the researcher’s
observation, the researcher also discovered other ways in which discourse
markers are perceived. For instance, in a lecture room, where the students were
supposed to present an assignment to the class, one of the students during her
presentation kept on using the discourse markers and so which
made the lecturer impatient. Rebuffing her, the lecturer asked her if it was
impossible for her to make a complete statement “without sounding like a broken
record.” Another instance is one gotten from participant observation, where the
researcher started a discussion on discourse markers with a group of
adolescents. One of the participants recounted a program she attended and one
of the speakers called upon to speak kept on using discourse markers, and the
people who sat around were saying things like “I don’t think this man finished
in school” "this man lacks self esteem” etc she (the participant) said she
also had a negative feeling about the man being unable to make a complete
statement without using a discourse marker.
Another objective of
this research is to investigate if the use of discourse markers leads to
communication breakdown. The questionnaires handed out to participants had a
section that asked what participants thought about the effects of discourse
marker use on understanding in communication, with the answer options being
yes, no or to an extent. Of the 18 participants who filled the questionnaires,
22.2% said that discourse markers lead to communication breakdown, 33.3% said
to an extent, and the remaining 44.5% said discourse markers do not lead to
communication breakdown. When the percentages of adolescents who said yes and
to an extent is summed up, we have a total of 55.5% adolescents who think that
discourse markers lead to communication breakdown.
The researcher further
observed while interviewing a participant that discourse markers indeed could
pose a problem in a proper communication process. For instance, while the
researcher was interviewing participant 4, the participant kept on using the discourse
marker I don’t know in answering the questions e.g. when the
participant was asked, “where do you prefer to live, in Nigeria or outside the
country?” She replied “outside the country because, I don’t know, I
don’t know, education wise, development wise, they are better.” When
asked what the importance of Education is she replied “I don’t know, I don’t
know…knowledge …well I think knowledge is the main reason for Education.”
One of the onlookers said after the interview was over, “I don’t know means
you do not have an answer, why do you keep saying I don’t know and
giving an answer?” The participant replied that using the discourse marker
helps her to “feel more relaxed when she is answering questions.” This means
her intended use is as a lubricant but the onlooker understands this
differently.
All the above are an
analysis of the data gathered through participant observation, questionnaires
and interviews towards completing the research work that sought to investigate
the forms of discourse markers used by adolescent ESL speakers, the functions
of these markers, how these markers are perceived and if the use of these
markers leads to communication breakdown.
6. Discussion of
Findings
Results indicate that discourse markers are an integral feature of
adolescent ESL speech, supporting previous studies which argue that discourse
markers serve important organizational and interpersonal functions in discourse
(Schiffrin, 1987; Fraser, 1999). Nevertheless, too much frequency can affect
the perceived competence in a negative way. From a relevance-theoretic
perspective, markers such as I don’t know increase speaker
comfort (reducing cognitive load) but can also raise the processing load of the
hearer when misinterpreted in the literal sense.
The sociolinguistic
influences are indicated by gender and regional differences. The higher usage
among females aligns with sociolinguistic research suggesting that women tend
to employ more interactional and relationship-oriented linguistic strategies than
men (Holmes, 1995; Tannen, 1990).
Although discourse
markers had no significant impact on actual breakdown in understanding, they
affected perceptions of intelligence, confidence, and educational background.
7.0 Conclusion
This paper reveals that
discourse markers in conversation among Nigerian adolescent ESL speakers are
not just empty fillers, as they are cognitive and interactional devices.
Nevertheless, their excessive use affects the competence perceptions and can
sometimes cause inferential misalignment.
The study makes its
contribution to the discourse markers research by shifting the focus from form
and functionality to communicative impact and intelligibility in ESL
situations. Future research should, therefore, incorporate larger samples and
acoustic analysis to examine prosodic characteristics of discourse markers in
the Nigerian English.
References
Blakemore, D.
(1992). Understanding utterances. Blackwell.
Creswell, J. W., &
Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Fischer, K. (2005). Approaches to discourse particles.
Elsevier.
Fraser, B. (1990). An
approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3),
383–395.
Fraser, B. (1999). What
are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–952.
Halliday, M. A. K.,
& Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women,
men and politeness. Longman.
Patton, M. Q.
(2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.).
Sage.
Redeker, G. (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse
structure. Linguistics, 29(6), 1139–1172.
Schiffrin, D.
(1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D., &
Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Harvard
University Press.
Schourup, L. (1985). Common discourse particles in English
conversation. Garland.
0 Comments