LP and RP in the development of discourse markers from “what” in Korean

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seongha Rhee
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Markers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Subordinate Clause ◽  
Argument Position ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Original Argument

This paper describes the development of two different DMs that emerged from the interrogative pronoun mwe (literally ‘what’). Both DMs acquired discursive functions as their source structures were used rhetorically (i.e., not to solicit an answer but to elicit attention). The DM mwe shifted from its original argument position to non-argument positions including LP, and then later to RP. On the other hand, the DM mwenyamyen (literally, ‘if (you) ask (me) what (it) is’), which originated from a subordinate clause, now invariably occurs at LP as a DM. From analyses with respect to (inter)subjectification, and exchange and action structures, I argue that even though peripheries are associated with (inter)subjectivity, the hypothesized correlation between LP versus RP and subjectivity versus intersubjectivity (Beeching and Detges 2014a) is not supported. Nor is the hypothesis supported that subjectified linguistic elements will shift their positions leftward in OV languages (Traugott 2010).

scholarly journals Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that)

2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Dehé ◽  
Anne Wichmann
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Main Clause ◽  
The Other ◽  
British English ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Corpus Data ◽  
The One

Sentence-initial pronoun-verb combinations such as I think, I believe are ambiguous between main clause use on the one hand and adverbial or discourse use on the other hand. We approach the topic from a prosodic perspective. Based on corpus data from spoken British English the prosodic patterns of sentence-initial I think and I believe are analysed and related to their interpretation in context. We show that these expressions may function as main clause (MC), comment clause (CC) or discourse markers (DM) and that the speaker’s choice is reflected in the prosody. The key feature is prosodic prominence: MCs are reflected by accent placement on the pronoun, CCs by an accent on the verb, while DMs are unstressed.

scholarly journals SCRUTINIZING ENGLISH DISCOURSE MARKERS IN EFL STUDENTS’ WRITING PRODUCTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Listyaning Sumardiyani ◽  
Dias Andris Susanto
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Writing Class ◽  
Efl Students ◽  
Academic Year

Fraser (1988; 1996; 1999) which are classified EDMs functions as ‘contrastive, ‘elaborative, and ‘inferential. This study designated the use of English discourse markers by University EFL students in writing production. To answer the research question on how do they disclose EDMs in producing writing, the writers employed a qualitative research approach. The object was the documentation of students’ writing result mediated on the writing class. The participants were 38 students of semester III in the academic year 2018/2019. The findings are the contrastive markers are; but 63/instead of 2/whereas 2/however 16/although 2/in the other hand /side 6. The elaborative markers are; and 597/also 105/or 69/for example 27/besides 7/moreover 3/in addition, 24/then 6/likewise 1. The inferential markers are; because 97/so 51/as a result 9/therefore 11/in conclusion 3/then 1. The most functions of discourse markers use by students are; the marker ‘but’ has a meaning ‘on the contrary. The marker ‘and’ has a meaning as ‘in addition’. Students used the marker ‘because’ to indicate ‘for the reason’. The implication of this study is that students need to understand in employing properly English discourse markers to make their writing being cohesive and coherent in texts.

scholarly journals Is formality relevant? Japanese tokens hai, ee and un

Pragmatics ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lidia Tanaka
Keyword(s):  
Real Data ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Communicative Interaction ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Other Hand

The use of particular lexical, semantic and pragmatic elements to determine the degree of formality is well recognised. In Japanese, formality in a communicative interaction is achieved not only by the use of the appropriate speech style but also of backchannels and short responses. Three such short affirmative responses that also have different pragmatic functions in Japanese are hai, ee (also variants e and eh) and un. Hai is considered to be the most polite while ee and un decrease in degree of formality. However, when looking at real data their use is not that clearly defined. While hai is found only in formal settings, ee and un are used just as frequently in those interactions. Hence, formality or politeness alone cannot account for their use. This paper looks at the use of hai, ee and un in formal interviews, and shows that all three tokens are used frequently as answers, backchannels and discourse markers. However, their distribution is determined by the speakers’ roles suggesting that they project a particular stance and have a distinct emotive value. It appears that hai puts the content in the foreground and is therefore mostly used by interviewees while un is hearer-centered and is more frequently used by interviewers as a backchannel. On the other hand, the ee token is used by both interviewers and interviewees but has other very different functions to hai and un. The fact that these tokens originally used as affirmative tokens are now multifunctional suggests that they are going through a process of intersubjectification.

scholarly journals How Well Can Arab EFL Learners Adequately Use Discourse Markers?

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Written Compositions ◽  
The University

Discourse markers are words or phrases used in both speech and writing to signal relationships between discourse segments, including clauses, sentences and even larger portions of texts such as paragraphs. Their proper use in writing effectively contributes to textuality standards, particularly cohesion and coherence. On the other hand, learners’ misuse, underuse or overuse of these markers may negatively impact the quality of the texts that these learners produce. This paper examined the ability of a group of Arab learners of English as a foreign language (ALEFL) from the University of Sharjah to recognize and produce discourse markers in written compositions. Using two elicitation techniques, the researchers collected data for this research from a sample of one hundred Arab learners studying English at the University of Sharjah. A test consisting of four parts was specially designed to evaluate participants’ ability to recognize and produce discourse markers in context. In addition, two hundred compositions written by ALEFL were analyzed to investigate their ability to produce discourse markers. The data analysis revealed that the participants’ ability to recognize and produce discourse markers was relatively low and their ability to recognize the functions of discourse markers in context was below expectations.

Combinations of Contrastive Discourse Markers in English

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Fraser
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Complete Solution ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Written Language ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Road ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Contrastive Discourse Markers ◽  
The Relationship

Discourse Markers are usually discussed as terms which signal the relationship between two contiguous sentences, S1—DM—S2 (“We started late. Yet, somehow, we arrived on time.”) In the present paper, I examine the class of English Contrastive Discourse Markers (CDMs) to determine what pairs of them occur acceptably in a sentence (“The health care system needs more primary care physicians. However, on the other hand, they are the doctors who are paid at the bottom of the scale.”), those which are unacceptable (“We could go to Jamaica for our vacation this year. On the other hand, nevertheless, we could stay home.”), and others for which the jury is out. Several tentative generalizations, including the role of spoken vs. written language are made but the complete solution is far down the road.

scholarly journals Causal Connectors in Albanian Language - Causal Conjunctions

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 24
Author(s):  
Fabiana Velencia ◽  
Alketa Ipeku
Keyword(s):  
Causal Relationship ◽  
Main Clause ◽  
The Other ◽  
Subordinate Clause ◽  
Other Hand

This paper discuses connectors, the connectors will be analyzed within their causal relationship, reasons and motives. The Albanian scholar Floqi determines the known and unknown reasons of the usage of the conjunctions and the position of these casuals, before the main clause or after the main clause. On the other hand, the scholar Mirna analysis the conjunction because as a subordinate conjunction, some of which are in the subordinate clause and in other cases followed by the main clause. The connection between these two cases manifest themselves in a linear way, it is typical of subordinate conjunctions that may even be at the beginning or after the main clause. In addition, the coordination conjunction gives the clause after the main one.

Chopping down the syntax tree

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 15-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Remi van Trijp
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Argument Structure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Special Treatment ◽  
Argument Position ◽  
The Core ◽  
Computational Implementation ◽  
Original Argument ◽  
Unbounded Dependencies ◽  
Non Local

Word order, argument structure and unbounded dependencies are among the most important topics in linguistics because they touch upon the core of the syntax-semantics interface. One question is whether “marked” word order patterns, such as The man I talked to vs. I talked to the man, require special treatment by the grammar or not. Mainstream linguistics answers this question affirmatively: in the marked order, some mechanism is necessary for “extracting” the man from its original argument position, and a special placement rule (e.g. topicalization) is needed for putting the constituent in clause-preceding position. This paper takes an opposing view and argues that such formal complexity is only required for analyses that are based on syntactic trees. A tree is a rigid data structure that only allows information to be shared between local nodes, hence it is inadequate for non-local dependencies and can only allow restricted word order variations. A construction, on the other hand, offers a more powerful representation device that allows word order variations – even unbounded dependencies – to be analyzed as the side-effect of how language users combine the same rules in different ways in order to satisfy their communicative needs. This claim is substantiated through a computational implementation of English argument structure constructions in Fluid Construction Grammar that can handle both comprehension and formulation.

scholarly journals Marcadores del discurso derivados de los verbos de percepción

Revue Romane ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanne Tanghe ◽  
Marlies Jansegers
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Markers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Corpus Study ◽  
Parallel Corpus ◽  
The Past ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Formal Behaviour

Despite the growing interest in discourse markers over the past two decades, few studies are dedicated to the interlinguistic comparison of discourse markers. By means of a corpus-based approach the present study proposes a comparison between the discourse markers derived from verbs of perception in Italian (guarda/guardi, senti/senta) and Spanish (mira/mire, oye/oiga). The results of a comparable corpus study reveals that the discourse markers sharing the original perception modality display a similar formal behaviour (mira/mire ~ guarda/guardi, oye/oiga ~ senti/senta). From the parallel corpus on the other hand it results that the most frequent equivalent of mira/mire is senti/senta, which can be linked to the original semantics of both verbs. These two main observations confirm the relevance of a parallel corpus as a complementary source to a comparable corpus when comparing phenomena in two (or more) languages. This combined corpus approach brings about not only interlinguistic insights but provides at the same time knowledge about the relation and uses of the discourse markers within the languages.

scholarly journals Zum syntaktisch-semantischen Status adverbialer Äußerungsglieder

2018 ◽  
pp. 129-142
Author(s):  
Akio Ogawa
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Markers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Crossing Over ◽  
Prosodic Features ◽  
Grammatical Categories ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Continuous Scale ◽  
Traditional Grammar ◽  
Core Meaning

In this article I attempt to show that grammatical categories such as the adverbs dabei (with it/them) and doch (but, still) in German can be explained as prosodic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic continuum based on their core meaning. Some classifications described and maintained in the traditional grammar of German, especially represented by the „valency grammar“, i.e. classifications as „sentential adverbs“ or „discourse markers“, therefore should be neutralized and newly considered. The grammatical categories in charge should be understood as crossing over the unit of sentence, and in this respect they are not „Satzglieder“ (sentence constituents), but „Äußerungsglieder“ (utterance constituents) as Darski (2010) claims. In the „adverbial“ area prosodic features and syntactic positions closely correspond to each other and on the other hand semantic contents and pragmatic effects do correspond too. The continuous scale of the elements dabei and doch can be seen as an ample example for demonstrating the „iconic“ relation between prosody/syntax and semantics/pragmatics, i.e. between forms and functions.

scholarly journals Two Types of Concession: Evidence From Discourse Markers

SAGE Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 215824402110450
Author(s):  
Marwan Jarrah ◽  
Sharif Alghazo ◽  
Yousef Bader
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Corpus Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Jordanian Arabic ◽  
Naturally Occurring ◽  
Other Hand

This study investigates the use of concessive discourse markers (DMs) in Jordanian Arabic (JA), particularly relying on a corpus analysis of naturally occurring data. It argues that there are mainly two types of concession in JA: extrinsic concession and intrinsic concession. The two types of concession are shown to differ from each other with respect to Kratzer’s compatibility of propositions. Intrinsic concession occurs when a speaker has a manifest intention/meaning that does not cause hearers to question its occurrence. This type is realized when one discourse segment is not compatible (i.e., does not normally happen at the same time) with another discourse segment (e.g., somebody is so rich, but he/she lives in a very poor house). Extrinsic concession, on the other hand, occurs when a speaker has a latent intention/meaning that normally causes hearers to question its occurrence. This type of concession emerges when discourse segments are compatible with each other (i.e., may normally happen at the same time), in which case the made-up concession is enforced by the speaker (e.g., somebody is poor, but he/she lives in a poor house). The study shows that certain discourse markers in JA are preferred over others in each type.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document