Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 22:2 (1999) ► pp.119–133

The use of ‘well’ in spoken interaction

An example of what language teachers and learners can get from analysing spoken discourse

 | Universitat Jaume I
 | Universitat Jaume I
In this study the use of "well" as a discourse marker is analysed in sixteen episodes of a television series and in two English language textbooks to illustrate what communicative language teaching can get from work on discourse analysis. Results of the analysis show that the meaning of well as a mainly interactive device signalling acceptance due to modification is present both in television series and in textbooks. However, the analysis also shows an absence of inductive and language awareness approaches to focus learners’ attention on the interactive features of “well” as a discourse marker. Further research is needed in different languages to understand the meaning and use of discourse markers and the implications of these analyses for language teaching.
Published online: 1 January 1999
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.22.2.08alc
References (52)
Alcón, E. (1997) Desarrollo de la competencia discursiva oral desde una perspec-tiva metodológica de autoaprendizaje. Didáctica de la lengua y la literatura para una sociedad plurilingüe del siglo XXI. Barcelona, Publicacions de la Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Alcón, E. and E. Usó (1998) Spoken discourse and second language learning. In E. Alcón and V. Codina (eds) Current trends in English language methodology. Castelló, Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Alcón, E. and D. Tricker (1998) Teaching discourse competence in the classroom: An example based on the discourse marker well in ELT materials. Paper presented at the XXII AEDEAN Conference, LLeida.
Anderson, J. (1980) Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco, Freeman.Google Scholar
(1983) The architecture of cognition. Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Batstone, R. (1996) Grammar. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C.J. (ed.) (1984) General English syllabus design. Oxford, Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and M. McCarthy (1995) Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics 161: 141–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cobuild (1987) Collins Cobuild English language dictionary. London, Collins.Google Scholar
Cohen, J.A. (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 201: 37–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cortés-Rodriguez, L. (1991) Sobre conectores, expletivos y muletillas en el es-panol hablado. Cuadernos de Lingüistica 101. Málaga, Editorial Librería Agora.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1990) Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gregori, C. (1996) “Bueno, hasta luego”: El uso de bueno en conversaciones. Miscelanea 171: 157–170.Google Scholar
Crowdy, S. (1993) Spoken corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing 81: 259–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974) Frame analysis. New York, Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Hölker, K. (1991) Französisch: Partikelforschung. Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, vol. V, 1. Tübingen, Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Hopkins, A. and J. Potter (1995) Look ahead intermediate. Harlow (Essex), Longman.Google Scholar
Howatt, A.P.R. (1984) A history of English language teaching. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
James, A.R. (1983) “Well” in reporting clauses: Meaning and form of a “lexical filler”. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 81: 33–40.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (1983) Syllabus design: Possible future trends. In K. Johnson and D. Porter (eds) Perspectives in communicative language teaching. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. and D. Porter (eds) (1983) Perspectives in communicative language teaching. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, A.H. (1993) The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 191: 435–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G. (1996) Introduction: Interlanguage pragmatics in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 181: 145–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kelly, L.G. (1969) 25 Centuries of Language Teaching. New York, Newbury House Publishers.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1973) Questionable answers and answerable questions. In B.B. Kachru, R.B. Lees, Y. Malkiel, A. Pietrangeli and S. Saporta (eds) Issues in linguistics. Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana (IL), University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. and J. Svartvik (1994) A communicative grammar of English. London, Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M. (1991) Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. and R. Carter (1994) Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. London, Longman.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1987) Theories of second language learning. London, Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B., T. Rossman and B. McLeod (1983) Second language learning and information processing perspective. Language Learning 331: 135–158.Google Scholar
Mumby, J. (1978) Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Owen, M. (1981) Conversational units and the use of “well”. In P. Werth (ed.) Conversation and discourse. London, Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred and dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of social action. Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R. and S. Greenbaum (1973) A University grammar of English. London, Longman.Google Scholar
Richards, J. and T. Rodgers (1986) Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sack, H., E. A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 501: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, A. (1993) Hacia un método integral en la enseñanza de idiomas. Madrid, SGEL.Google Scholar
(1997) Los métodos en la enseñanza de idiomas. Madrid, SGEL.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse markers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W. and R.M. Shiffrin (1977) Controlled and automatic processing: Detection, search, and attention. Psychology Review 841: 1–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 111: 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993a) Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 131: 206–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993b) Consciousness in second language learning: Introduction. Paper presented at AILA 10th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Amsterdam.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1986) Relevance, communication and cognition. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Svartvik, J. (1980) “Well” in conversation. In S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (eds) Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk. London, Longman.Google Scholar
Warren, M. (1987) Communicative activities or discourse activities. In M. Coul-thard (ed.) Discussing discourse. Birmingham, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Watts, R.J. (1989) Taking the pitcher to the “well”. Native speakers’ perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 131: 203–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H.G. (1978) Teaching language as communication. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1983) Learning purpose and language use. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willis, J. and D. Willis (1989) Collins cobuild English course 3. London, Collins.Google Scholar