Do discourse markers exist? On the treatment of discourse markers in Relevance Theory

2008 ◽  
Vol 40 (8) ◽  
pp. 1411-1434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salvador Pons Bordería
1996 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 325-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Blakemore

This paper aims to re-assess the notion DISCOURSE MARKER as it is applied to a subset of so-called apposition markers. It is argued that the classification of markers of reformulation as discourse markers alongside expressions like but and so is incoherent from a semantic point of view, since this ignores the distinction between PROCEDURAL and CONCEPTUAL meaning. Moreover, this classification is based on an account of discourse which is not only based on an insufficiently general account of context, but which is also difficult to maintain in the light of the use of these expressions in parenthetical nominal appositions. An alternative account is developed in the framework of Sperber & Wilson's Relevance Theory building on recent work on the meaning of parentheticals and sentence adverbials.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 717-722
Author(s):  
Maram S. Alshammary

The current study aims at investigating two discourse markers that are used in Saudi Arabic, “qSdk and yʕny”, against Schourup’s characteristics of discourse markers which are connectivity, optionality, and non-truth conditionality. Additionally, this study investigates the pragmatic uses and procedural meanings of those discourse markers using Blakemore’s procedural meaning and relevance theory as a framework. By examining two discourse markers that received less attention in other studies, the current study builds on previous literature in this field. Regarding methodology, the current study is a corpus-based study in which two corpora containing texts written in Saudi Arabic are used to extract data and evidence. The study concludes that “qSdk and yʕny” behave as discourse markers by being optional, connecting two segments together, and having no influence on the truth condition of the sentence in which they are used. The discourse marker “qSdk” serves three procedural meanings: asking for clarification, correction and making irony whereas “yʕny” serves the procedural meanings of clarification and asking for clarification. Furthermore, the use of these discourse markers makes the sentence more relevant to listeners as they need less cognitive effect to derive the pragmatic meaning of the sentence.


2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-199
Author(s):  
Francisco Alonso Almeida

The present paper seeks to explore the multiple meanings of the conjunction and in Middle English medical recipes. The corpus used contains a total number of 6,300 words, mainly from the Middle English Medical Texts compiled by Taavitsainen, Pahta and Mäkinen (2005). The framework of analysis is Relevance Theory as in Sperber and Wilson (1995). Jucker (1993), Blakemore and Carston (1999), and Carston (2002) have proved that this theory can neatly describe the various functions and meanings of discourse markers, such as and, but and well. As I show in the conclusion, and constructions must be studied in detail so that we may identify their particular meaning, which is mostly context-dependent rather than semantically constrained. By doing so, we will have a better understanding of texts and this will benefit the comprehension of medieval English. Whether the meanings of and occur similarly in other genres is left for a future, contrastive analysis.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 114-134
Author(s):  
Сергій Засєкін

Traditionally, translation is viewed as a reliable shield over linguistic diversity, one of the ways to ensure a target language survival. However, translation is also reported to distort a translated language due to introducing ‘the third code’ (Frawley, 1984) features. These “deforming tendencies” (Berman, 1985) destroy the translated language by erasing its natural pattern and by adding there a bundle of alien features that cause its lexical, syntactical, and stylistic deficiencies. The current study is aimed at detecting those destructive features treated in translation studies as “translation universals” (Chesterman, 2004). To this end, a psycholinguistic analysis was held to establish the use of language which is not the result of intentional, controlled processes and of which translators may not be aware. These subliminal translation-inherent processes can be traced in the use of function words that encode procedural meaning. Relevance Theory (Wilson & Sperber, 1993) explains a conceptual-procedural distinction as a major distinction made between two types of linguistically encoded information. Conceptual information expressed by content words is viewed as encoding concepts whereas words with procedural meaning contribute to the derivation of implicatures, certain ways of processing propositions. Discourse connectives, conjunctions, prepositions, particles, pronouns, modal words constitute that group of function words with procedural meaning. To uncover certain variations in the use of these linguistic units, a parallel English-Ukrainian corpus made up of an 8,000-character excerpt from Franny by J.D. Salinger, its professional translation, and forty novice translators’ target versions, was compiled. The corpus data were processed by Textanz and SPSS computerized tools. The results of the psycholinguistic analysis proved that the Ukrainian versions as contrasted to the original text contained the following S-universals: implicitation expressed through the shortage of discourse markers of global coherence, simplification due to the lack of personal pronouns, decreased mean number of words per sentence, and greater number of sentences; normalization embodied in vernacular network impoverishment due to the decreased amount of pragmatic markers and fillers, explicitation due to higher lexical variety and density rates, and rationalization as a result of abundant marking of discourse relations. Conclusions. Taken together, these findings have significant implications for the understanding of how procedural information processing by novice translators is manifested in translation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-190
Author(s):  
Wha Soo Kim ◽  
Ji Woo Lee ◽  
Mi Ji Kim ◽  
Hu In Lee ◽  
Eun Young Jang

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 440-447
Author(s):  
Setareh Majidi

For the past twenty to thirty years, a good part of the domain of linguistics has been occupied by what has been called discourse analysis. Whereas syntax and semantics are concerned by the sentence and the units from which the sentence is built, discourse analysis claims that interpretation cannot accounted for at the level of the sentence and that a bigger unit, such as discourse should be used to account for language interpretation. We want to show here that discourse is not, in any sense, a well defined object and that, though it is certainly necessary to analyze how a given sequence of sentences is processed and understood, the notion of discourse,  A and related notions such as coherence does not have much to say about it. We rely on epistemological considerations about the necessity of a moderate reductionism and sketch on account of linguistic interpretation which accounts for contextual factors in linguistic interpretation through the notion of utterance (vs. sentence) and a development of Sperber & Wilsons Relevance Theory.


Fachsprache ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 63-78
Author(s):  
Margarete Flöter-Durr ◽  
Thierry Grass

Despite the work of Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson (1989), the concept of relevance has not enjoyed the popularity it deserved among translators as it appears to be more productive in information science and sociology than in translation studies. The theory of relevance provides underpinnings of a unified account of translation proposed by Ernst-August Gutt. However, if the concept of relevance should take into account all parameters of legal translation, the approach should be pragmatic and not cognitive: The aim of a relevant translation is to produce a legal text in the target language which appears relevant to the lawyer in the target legal system, namely a text that can be used in the same way as the original source text. The legal translator works as a facilitator from one legal system into another and relevance is the core of this pragmatic approach which requires translation techniques like adaptation rather than through-translation or calque (in the terminology of Delisle/Lee-Jahnk/Cormier 1999). This contribution tries to show that relevance theory, which was developed in the field of sociology by Alfred Schütz, could also be applied to translation theory with the aim of producing a correct translation in a concrete situation. Some examples extracted from one year of the practice of an expert law translator (German-French) at the Court of Appeal in the Alsace region illustrate our claim and underpin an approach of legal translation and its heuristics that is both pragmatic and reflexive.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document