к.ф.н. Шингарева М.Ю., магистрант Сатыбалдиева И.П.

Региональный социально-инновационный университет

To the question of discourse marker notion

The notion of discourse marker is problematic in several ways: there is little agreed terminology and even the definition is controversial. However, the italicized items in the following examples would be generally accepted as relatively clear cases of discourse markers:

(1) Train companies offer discount to students. By the way, have you booked your ticket?

(2) I will not join you tonight. I have a lot of housework. Besides, if I get drunk, I won’t be able to go to work tomorrow.

(3) He was really tired. However, the noise did not let him sleep.

(4) That wasn’t much fun. Well, it is over and done with.

Among the terms used to describe such expressions are: discourse markers (Schiffrin [1987]), discourse particles (Schourup [1985]), pragmatic markers (Fraser [1996]), discourse connectives (Blakemore [1987]), cue phrases (Knott and Dale [1994]), etc. The difference in terminology is a reflection of the wide range of linguistic approaches used to study these elements, as well as the multiple functions that these elements seem to fulfill.

Discourse markers are usually short, phonologically reduced, and they are usually part of a separate tone group. However, there are some discourse markers that are completely integrated prosodically as well as syntactically, and semantically:

(5) However, this is an issue under discussion.

(6) This is however an issue under discussion.

The (5) shows that however belongs to a different tone group from the rest of the sentence. On the other hand, (6) shows that discourse markers do not necessarily have to be in a separate tone group. In this case, however is completely integrated into the sentence.

Syntactically, discourse markers proto-typically appear in sentence initial position. They usually appear outside the syntactic structure, or they are attached to it loosely. This is the reason why in writing we commonly find a comma after the discourse marker. They are not subcategorised by any part of the sentence or the sentence itself; hence, they can be omitted. Observing the previous set of examples, in (5), there is a clear example of a sentence initial occurrence of a discourse marker that is attached loosely to the rest of the sentence. This discourse marker can be omitted without making the sentence ungrammatical. However, (6) shows the same discourse marker not appearing in sentence initial position, though it is still not subcategorised and can therefore be omitted without affecting grammaticality; compare with (7):

(7) This is an issue under discussion.

Semantically, most of the uses of discourse markers seem not to affect the truth conditions of an utterance. It is apparent that this is not the case with all markers and all their uses. In the following examples, we find that (8a) is an example of a discourse marker that is not truth-conditional. On the other hand, (9a) illustrates a case of a discourse marker that affects the truth-conditions of the proposition.

(8) a. He was really tired. However, the noise did not let him sleep. b. He was really tired. The noise did not let him sleep.

(9) a. John went to Paris and therefore, Mary went to Rome. b. John went to Paris and Mary went to Rome.

In (8a), however occurs as an example of a discourse marker that does not affect the truth conditions of either the preceding sentence or the sentence it appears in. Most authors believe that (8a) means the same as (8b). Even though most researchers would agree that however, as other discourse markers, does not effect the truth conditions, it is not clear that it is a boolean connective. Note that an example such as He was really tired. However, he was sleepy would be false in all circumstances as the semantic consequences denoted by however are not satisfied in this example. Moreover, the implicature conveyed by however is not always calculable. For instance, observe the pair The stock market went up. However, the stocks for American Airlines rose more than others. If however was removed from the pair, the result would fail to convey the same semantic relation between the two segments; that is, it would not convey a contrast between the two.

On the other hand, in (9a), therefore is used as a discourse marker that can be paraphrased in this example as ‘as a result of this’. In this example, Mary may want to avoid meeting John on holidays; so she decides to go on holidays to a different country in order to avoid seeing him. In (9a), the discourse marker therefore makes a contribution to the truth conditions of the utterance. It expresses a causal connection between the two propositions. (9a) means something different from (9b).

While some discourse markers seem to convey meaning, other markers apparently have a only the function to structure discourse. This is related to the issue of integratedness: integrated items have a connecting or coherence function; on the other hand, unintegrated items have a role in the management of discourse, particularly in conversation. Examples would be the following:

(10) Some ideas were well presented. This however was not the case with yours.

(11) I finished all my work. By the way, did you buy any apples?

The example in (10) shows the discourse marker however integrated inside the syntactic structure of the second sentence. The role of this discourse marker in this sentence would be to connect two pieces of contrasting information. On the other hand, the example in (11) reflects how by the way is used to structure discourse, introducing a new topic or an aside to the main conversation. Unintegrated discourse markers have a role in the management of conversation. Thus, their functions concern domains like speech management, interpersonal management, topic structure, sequential structure of the dialogue, and the turn-taking system.

Those discourse markers that convey meaning appear to be polysemic. For example, but is believed to indicate contrast, and also denial of expectations as in the following two examples:

(12) John likes football; but Mary likes basketball.

(13) John is a lawyer; but he is honest.

In (12), we find a contrast between two people liking two different sports. On the other hand, in (13), we find that but means something different. When we hear that John is a lawyer, we create certain expectations, one of them, that he might be dishonest. By using but before the statement that John is honest, we deny this expectation. Therefore, but would appear to be polysemic: in some cases it would indicate contrast, and in other uses it would indicate denial of expectations.

On the other hand, those discourse markers that do not have meaning have several pragmatic functions. They show pragmatic ambiguity to a certain extent. That is, the pragmatic characteristics of a discourse marker could be applied in different ways depending on the pragmatic context.

Take the example of well that has multiple uses that do not seem to be related:

(14) That wasn’t much fun. Well, that is over and done with.

(15) a. Can you explain what happened? b. Well, it is not easy.

In (14), well is used with the intention to resume the topic or activity carried out up until that point. Well would be used to resume or summarize. On the other hand, in (15) well is used as a filler when the speaker has doubts on how to answer exactly what happened.

The aim of this article was to review several issues related to the study of discourse markers. There is no agreed terminology; this reflects different linguistic approaches.

There are certain prototypical characteristics associated to discourse markers. Phonologically, they are short and reduced. Syntactically, they are not integrated; and they can be omitted without affecting the grammaticality of the sentence. Semantically, discourse markers do not usually affect the truth conditions of the proposition they appear in.

While there is some dispute in regards to discourse markers conveying meaning, we agree that there is some discourse markers that do convey meaning. Other discourse markers might just have a discourse structuring function.

Bibliography:

1. Deborah Schiffrin. Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.

2. Lawrence Schourup. Common discourse particles in English conversation: like, well, y’know Fundamentals. Garland, New York, 1985.

3. Michael Stubbs. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1983.