學術的場合中英文已被視為共通語言(ELF)，因此在接受高等教育時，世界各地的學生常被要求使用英文發表，討論或回覆他人的提問。Halliday及Hasan指出凝結詞是構成寫作文章及口語表達凝結性的要素之一。為了能夠更了解凝結詞在學術寫作的使用情況，許多研究探討不同程度作者如何使用凝結詞，此外亦有研究檢視大學生使用凝結詞的特徵。然而凝結詞在學術口頭報告中使用情況的相關研究仍顯不足。這份研究因而探討凝結詞中的連接詞“ and, but, so 及because＂在三組不同報告者的學術報告中使用的狀況: 語言學家 (The John Swales Conference Corpus，JSCC組)，資深的學者 (成功大學English for Specific Purpose會議，ESP組)，及碩士生(成功大學IMBA課程，IMBA組)。研究結果顯示四者中遞增型連接詞and的使用頻率最高，接著依次為so, but及because。在口說的環境下，遞增型的連接詞and常被用來做論點的延伸及論述焦點轉換時使用，也可當作時間性的連接詞來使用。而so也在講者的報告中被用來當作遞增性連接詞使用，特別是做論點延伸時頻率最高。相較於and和so，but及because受限於字義的關係，使用頻率相對較低。研究結果也顯示，ESP資深學者組使用so的頻率最高，IMBA碩士生組則有過度使用and的傾向。相較於其他二組，JSCC組對於and, so, but和because的應用則呈現較平穩的曲線。相關延伸討論也將在文中論述。本研究期望研究結果可做為高等教育語言教師課程設計及應用的參考，以促進提升學生學術口頭報告表現。

As English is used as a lingua franca (ELF) in academic contexts, students around the world are often requested to present, discuss, and respond to others in English in higher education. As Halliday and Hasan (1976) pointed out, cohesive devices are the essential elements in cohesion of both written and spoken discourses. Previous literature mostly focused on the use of cohesive devices among different levels of writers and the cohesive features in undergraduates’ writing. Not much effort has been put into how cohesive devices are used in academic oral presentations. This study therefore investigates how cohesive devices, specifically, conjunctive devices “and, so, but, and because” were used in academic presentations among three groups of ELF speakers: presentations made by ELF scholars in an English-speaking country (the JSCC group from the John Swales Conference Corpus), by EFL scholars in a non-English country (the ESP group in an international conference in Taiwan) and by international IMBA students (the IMBA group in a Taiwanese university). The results show additive conjunction and was the most frequently employed one among the four, followed by so, but and because. The results also show that under the category of additive conjunctive device, and is used for topic extension and focus shifting primarily in the speaking environment. And is also used as a temporal device. In addition, the causal conjunctive device, so, also serves as an additive for topic extension and focus shifting in speakers’ presentations. Due to the semantic meaning of but and because, they are not applied as frequently as and and so. Compared to the other groups, the IMBA group tended to overuse and. The ESP group used so the most while the JSCC group followed a more even distribution pattern among all connective devices. The results of the study may offer language instructors in tertiary level some ideas about the use of conjunctive devices among novice presenters and provide instructive suggestions for developing teaching activities to assist novice presenters to deliver more cohesive presentations.

Björkman, B. (2011). Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: Ways of achieving communicative effectiveness?. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 950-964.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances: An introduction to pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (2005). And-parentheticals. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(8), 1165-1181.
Blakemore, D., & Carston, R. (2005). The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and. Lingua, 115(4), 569-589.
Bolden, G. B. (2009). Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 974-998.
Bolden, G. B. (2006). Little words that matter: Discourse markers “so” and “oh” and the doing of other‐attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 661-688.
Bolden, G. B. (2010). Articulating the unsaid via and-prefaced formulations of others’ talk. Discourse Studies, 12(1), 5-32.
Bolton, K., Nelson, G., & Hung, J. (2003). A corpus‐based study of connectors in student writing: Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICE‐HK). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(2), 165-182.
Buysse, L. (2012). So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1764-1782.
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2013). A contrastive study of the variation of sentence connectors in academic English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(3), 192-202.
Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2006). Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 59-93.
Dastjerdi, H. V., & Samian, S. H. (2011). Quality of Iranian EFL learners’ argumentative essays: Cohesive devices in focus. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 65-76.
Field, Y., & Oi, Y. L. M. (1992). A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal, 23(1), 15-28.
Fraser, B. (1988). Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 38(1-4), 19-33.
Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 383-398.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers?. Journal of Pagmatics, 31(7), 931-952.
Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied linguistics, 28(3), 410-439.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next (Vol. 62). London: British Council.
Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non‐native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17-27.
Halliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (2001). 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman
Halliday, M. A. (1985). 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold
Hamed, M. (2014). Conjunctions in argumentative writing of Libyan tertiary students. English Language Teaching, 7(3), 108.
Huang, L. S. (2008). Using Guided, Corpus-Aided Discovery to Generate Active Learning. In English teaching forum (Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 20-27). US Department of State.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, J. (2009a). English as a lingua franca: Interpretations and attitudes. World Englishes, 28(2), 200-207.
Jenkins, J. (2009b). (Un)pleasant? (In)correct? (Un)intelligible? ELF speakers’ perceptions of their accents. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings (pp. 10 –36). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Jenkins, J. (2011). Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 926-936.
John Swales Conference Corpus (2009). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://jscc.elicorpora.info/
Johnson, A. (2002). So…?: Pragmatic implications of so-prefaced questions in formal police interviews. In J. Cotterill (Eds), Language in the legal process (pp. 91-110). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. Cited in Gupta, A. 2001. Realism and imagination in the teaching of English. World Englishes, 20(3), 365-381.
Kao, S. M., & Wang, W. C. (2014). Lexical and organizational features in novice and experienced ELF presentations. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(1), 49-79.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). Researching English as a lingua franca in Asia: The Asian Corpus of English (ACE) project. Asian Englishes, 13(1), 4-18.
Ko, H. (2013). Overuse of the discourse filler, “so” in micro-teaching talks by Koreans. Language Research, 49(1), 25-44.
Lenk, U. (1998). Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(2), 245-257.
Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33(4), 623-636.
Mauranen, A. (2003). The corpus of English as a lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 513-527.
Mauranen, A. (2010). Features of English as a lingua franca in academia. Helsinki English Studies, 6, 6-28.
McEnery, T., & Xiao, R. (2011). What corpora can offer in language teaching and learning. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 2, 364-380.
Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-769.
Norrick, N. R. (2001). Discourse markers in oral narrative. Journal of pragmatics, 33(6), 849-878.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J., & Crystal, D. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language (Vol. 397). London: Longman.
Ranta, E. (2009). Syntactic features in spoken ELF – learner language or spoken grammar? In Mauranen & Ranta (eds.), 84-106.
Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2), 185-218.
Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of pragmatics, 14(3), 367-381.
Redeker, G. (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29(6), 1139-1172.
Schiffrin, D. (1986). Functions of and in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 10(1), 41-66.
Schiffrin, D. (1988). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.
Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133-158.
Trillo, J. R. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of pragmatics, 34(6), 769-784.
Tsui, A. B., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?. Journal of second language writing, 9(2), 147-170.
Wang, C. C., & Huang, L. M. (2006). Grammaticalization of connectives in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study. Language and Linguistics, 7(4), 991-1016.
Yang, W., & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by
Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and
Education, 23(1), 31-48.