Based on the noticing hypothesis, the case study adopts a descriptive approach and looks at the acquisition and use of discourse markers in consideration to factors influencing noticing these linguistic and functional units. Schriffrin, (1986) included a range of markers from textual-oriented markers to perception verbs, deictic, interjections, metatalk, quantifier phrases as well as non-verbal DMs. The discourse markers is proposed to operate on five planes: exchange structure, action structure, ideational structure, participation framework, information state; each marker may manifest itself on more than one plane. Erman (2001) categoried DMs ( which he uses the term “pragmatic markers”) on three domains including the two most common ones found in the literature review the textual/ideational and the interpersonal level, and as metalinguistic monitors.

In consideration of the timeframe and the scale of the project, the DMs for analysis would be selected based on the preliminary interview and the official interview for collecting data. The choice will depend on the use and frequency of participant’s DMs and literature review as well as the issues under discussion. Data from the three interviews will be transcribed and turned to PDF file. The frequency of each word which might function as DM would be counted by the search engine of PDF file. The researcher then would check again and omit the use of the same word but not as a discourse marker (e.g. “well” can be used as a word and as an adverb) the criteria for selection are taken from the body of literature into the common characteristics of discourse marker: non-propositional, can be omitted without making utterances/sentences, ungrammatical/unintelligible, may be text-oriented or denote interpersonal functions, etc (Schiffrin, 1986)

REFERENCES:

Erman, B. (2001). Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of pragmatics, 33(9), 1337-1359. Retrieved from http://www.gloriacappelli.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/youknow.pdf

Schiffrin, D. (1986). Discourse markers. Studies in interactional sociolinguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press

Schmidt, Richard W. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-58. Retrieved from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/SCHMIDT%20The%20role%20of%20consciousness%20in%20second%20language%20learning.pdf

Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/SCHMIDT%20Consciousness,%20learning%20and%20interlanguage%20pragmatics.pd

Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14(2), 103-135. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/docview/200244036?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:primo&accountid=12001