The use of actually in a non-native English parliamentary context: a corpus study

References

• Aijmer, Karin. 1986. Why is actually so popular in spoken English? In Gunnel Tottie and Ingegerd Bäcklund (eds.), English in speech and writing: A symposium, 119–29. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.
   Google Scholar
• Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Vol. 10. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Aijmer, Karin. 2015. Analyzing discourse markers in spoken corpora: actually as a case study. In Paul Baker and Tony McEnery (eds), Corpora and discourse studies (Palgrave Advances in Language and Linguistics), 88–109. London: Palgrave Macmillan
   Google Scholar
• Appartaim, Anita B. 2009. Prominence and rhythm of Ghanaian English: A case study ofparliamentary discourse. MPhil thesis. Cape Coast: University of Cape Coast.
   Google Scholar
• Ariel, Mira. 1994. Pragmatic operators: The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bayley, Paul (ed.). 2004. Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Bazzanella, Carla. 1990. Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian. Journal of Pragmatics 14. 629–47. doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90034-B
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biber, Douglass, and Edward Finegan. 1988. Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes 11. 1–34. doi: 10.1080/01638538809544689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bird, Karen. 2005. Gendering parliamentary questions. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 7(3). 353–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2005.00196.x
   Google Scholar
• Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Blakemore, Diane. 1992. Understanding utterance. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Brezina, Vaclav. 2012. Epistemic markers in university advisory sessions: Towards a local grammar of epistemicity. PhD thesis. Auckland: University of Auckland.
   Google Scholar
• Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Bull, Peter, and Pam Wells. 2012. Adversarial discourse in Prime Minister’s questions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31(30). 30–48. doi: 10.1177/0261927X11425034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, Winnie, and Martin Warren. 2000. The Hong Kong corpus of spoken English: language learning through language description. In Lou Burnard and Tony McEnery (eds.), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective, 81–104. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• De Klerk, Vivian. 2005. The use of actually in spoken Xhosa English: A corpus study. World Englishes 24(3), 275–88. doi: 10.1111/j.0883-2919.2005.00410.x
   Google Scholar
• De Klerk, Vivian. 2013. Procedural meanings of well in a corpus of Xhosa English. Southern African Journal of Linguistics & Applied Language Studies 20(1). 25–35.
   Google Scholar
• Erman, Britt. 1992. Pragmatic expressions in English: A study of you know, you see, and I mean in face-to-face conversation. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, Bruce. 1987. Pragmatic formatives. In J. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli Papi (eds.), The pragmatic perspective, 179–94. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, Bruce. 1988. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38(4). 19–33.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, Bruce. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14. 383–98. doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael A.K., and Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, Sandra. 2001. Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse & Society 12(4). 451–72. doi: 10.1177/0957926501012004003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellermann, John, and Andrea Vergun. 2007. Language which is not taught: The discourse maker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 157–79. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ilie, Cornelia. 2001. Unparliamentary language: Insults as cognitive forms of ideological confrontation. In René Dirven, Roslyn M. Frank and Cornelia Ilie (eds.), Language and ideology, Vol. II: descriptive cognitive approaches, 235–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Ilie, Cornelia. 2010. Speech acts and rhetorical practices in parliamentary question time. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 4. 333–42.
   Google Scholar
• Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Liliana (ed.). 2013. Parliamentary discourses across cultures: Interdisciplinary approaches. United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Karlsson, Johanna. 2015. An attempt to get access to a speaker’s mind: The expectation marker actually in spoken conversation. Dissertation. Halmstad: Tekniska Högskolan.
   Google Scholar
• Lenk, Utah. 1998. Marking discourse coherence: Functions of discourse markers in spoken English. TuÈbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Louwerse, Max M., and Heather H. Mitchell. 2003. Toward a taxonomy of a set of discourse markers in dialog: A theoretical and computational linguistic account. Discourse Processes 35(3). 199–239. doi: 10.1207/S15326950DP3503_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morales, Miren. M. 2013. Examining the Usage of “actually” and “in fact” in Philippine English through a corpus-based analysis. Philippine ESL Journal 10. 88–123.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, James. 2012. (Im)politeness in political discourse: the case of Prime Minister’s question time. Experimental and empirical approaches to politeness and impoliteness (LIAR III), 29–31 August 2012, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois.
   Google Scholar
• Ngula, Richmond S. 2015. Epistemic modality in social science research articles written by Ghanaian authors: A corpus-based study of disciplinary and native vs. non-native variations. PhD thesis. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
   Google Scholar
• Oh, Sun-Young. 2000. “Actually” and “in fact” in American English: A data-based analysis. English Language and Linguistics 4(2). 243–68. doi: 10.1017/S1360674300000241
   Google Scholar
• Östman, Jan-Ola. 1995. Pragmatic particles twenty years after. In Brita Wårvik, Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen, and Risto Hiltunen (eds.), Organization in discourse. Proceedings from the Turku conference, 95–110. Turku: University of Turku.
   Google Scholar
• Partington, Alan. 2010. Modern diachronic corpus-assisted discourse studies (MD-CADS) on UK newspapers: an overview of the project. Corpora 5(2). 83–108. doi: 10.3366/cor.2010.0101
   Google Scholar
• Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Redeker, Gisela. 1990. Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 14(3). 367–81. doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90095-U
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, Robert, and Rhodri Walters. 2015. How parliament works. 7th edn. London/New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315730875
   Google Scholar
• Sagoe-Moses, Lolan E., Ernest N.A. Armah, and Kwabena S. Sarfo-Kantankah. 2016. Report on the sixth parliament of the Fourth Republic of Ghana. Ghana: Odekro.
   Google Scholar
• Sarfo-Kantankah, Kwabena S. 2018a. It’s about people: Identifying the focus of parliamentary debates through a corpus driven approach. Corpora 13(3). 393–430. doi: 10.3366/cor.2018.0155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarfo-Kantankah, Kwabena S. 2018b. Corruption is a big issue: A corpus-assisted study of the discursive construction of corruption in Ghanaian parliamentary discourse. Legon Journal of the Humanities 29(1). 226–58. doi: 10.4314/ljh.v29i1.9
   Google Scholar
• Sarfo-Kantankah, Kwabena S. (in press). Native and non-native speaker variation in adverbial and adjectival intensification: A corpus-based study of UK and Ghanaian parliamentary debates. Asemka, a Faculty of Arts Journal. Cape Coast: University of Cape Coast.
   Google Scholar
• Schiffrin, Debora. 1987. Discourse marker. New York: Cambridge University Press
   Google Scholar
• Schourup, Lawrence. 1985. Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York: Garland.
   Google Scholar
• Schourup, Lawrence. 1998. The role of “well” in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
   Google Scholar
• Schourup, Lawrence. 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107(3–4). 227–65. doi: 10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, and Dominique Willems. 2011. Cross-Linguistic data as evidence in the grammaticalization debate: The case of discourse markers. Linguistics 49(2). 333–64. doi: 10.1515/ling.2011.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tadayyon, Maedeh, and Mehrdad Vasheghani Farahani. 2017. Exploring discourse markers used in academic papers: A comparative corpus-based inquiry of Iranian and English native writers. Iranian EFL 13(1). 40–58.
   Google Scholar
• Taglicht, Joseph. 2001. Actually, there’s more to it than meets the eye. English Language and Linguistics 5(1). 1–16. doi: 10.1017/S1360674301000119
   Google Scholar
• Tschentscher, Axel, André Bächtiger, Jürg Steiner, and Marco Steenbergen. 2010. Deliberation in parliaments research objectives and preliminary results of the Bern Center for Interdisciplinary Deliberation Studies (BIDS). Legisprudence 4(1). 13–34. doi: 10.1080/17521467.2010.11424699
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, Teun A. 1979. Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 3. 447–56. doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(79)90019-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, Teun A. 2005. Contextualization in parliamentary discourse: Aznar, Iraq and the pragmatics of lying. Congreso Discurso Oral, Almería 24-26 de Noviembre, de 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Walrod, Michael. 2006. The marker is the message: The influence of discourse markers and particles on textual meaning. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 37(2). 100–19.
   Google Scholar
• Watts, Richard J. 1988. A relevance- theoretic approach to commentary pragmatic markers: The case of actually, really and basically. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38. 235–60.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Shanru. 2011. Investigating discourse markers in pedagogical settings: A literature review. Annual Review of Education, Communication & Language Sciences 8. 95–108.
   Google Scholar
• Zarei, Fatemeh. 2013. Discourse markers in English. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences 4(1). 107–17.
   Google Scholar