‘I Assume You Know’

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-102
Author(s):  
Maher Bahloul
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Discourse Marker ◽  
Form And Function ◽  
Pragmatic Function ◽  
Truth Value ◽  
And Function ◽  
Discourse Connectives ◽  
Formal Features

This paper is a pilot study on the form and function of the Arabic discourse marker ‘ṭabʕan’. Discourse markers in language have been the focus of myriad studies under a number of denotations such as discourse operators, discourse connectives, modal markers, cue phrases, amongst several others. While such markers occur in written and spoken forms of language, they are much more abundant in formal and informal conversations. ṭabʕan, for instance, is observed in media Arabic in formal and semi-formal contexts. The paper highlights its formal features, its syntactic distribution, and identifies its core pragmatic function. Although the marker does not change the truth value of utterances or alter them in any significant way, it tends to cluster around the speaker. Thus, it injects some modal features oscillating between assertiveness and evidentiality.

“So what does this show us?”

2003 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 46-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna Rendle-Short
Keyword(s):  
Computer Science ◽  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Overhead Projector ◽  
Prosodic Features ◽  
Discourse Marker ◽  
Close Interaction ◽  
Continuous Stream ◽  
And Function ◽  
Role And Function

Analysis of a series of computer science seminars indicates that use of the discourse marker ‘so’ in monologic talk is not random, rather it plays an important role in orienting the listener to the overall structure of the seminar. Although the institutional nature of seminar talk is such that only one person speaks for an extended turn, detailed analysis of seminars indicates that presenters do not maintain a continuous stream of talk. They talk for a bit, pause, and then talk for a bit more. These bits of talk (or sections) are characterised by a number of features, including discourse markers. The analysis shows how the discourse marker ‘so’ occurs in specific environments, with specific prosodic features, and that its role and function varies according to where it occurs within the seminar. The close interaction between talk (in this case, presenters’ use of ‘so’), and action (in this case, putting slides on the overhead projector), is also made apparent.

Showing structure

Pragmatics ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna Rendle-Short
Keyword(s):  
Computer Science ◽  
Conversation Analysis ◽  
Speech Production ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Underlying Structure ◽  
Discourse Marker ◽  
Analysis Techniques ◽  
And Function ◽  
Role And Function ◽  
The Way

Um and uh are generally considered to be indicative of dysfluency and uncertainty in speech production. However, analysis of the academic seminar indicates that the distribution of um and uh is not random. In specific well-defined environments um is used to indicate the underlying structure of the talk. Although Swerts (1998) has already suggested that fillers such as um and uh could be treated as discourse markers in Dutch, the notion that such tokens are functioning as discourse markers has not been developed in detail. This paper analyses the role played by um in a series of computer science seminars. Using traditional conversation analysis techniques, the paper focuses on the way in which um indicates structure in the academic seminar by maintaining coherence across bits of talk. It thus argues that in specific well-defined environments um functions as a discourse marker. This paper therefore addresses such issues as the role and function of um in seminar talk, the environments in which it occurs, and its use in indicating the structure of the talk to the listening audience.

scholarly journals Deconstructing variation in pragmatic function: A transdisciplinary case study

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 569-599 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Wiltschko ◽  
Derek Denis ◽  
Alexandra D'Arcy
Keyword(s):  
Speech Acts ◽  
Principal Function ◽  
Canadian English ◽  
Form And Function ◽  
Pragmatic Markers ◽  
Speech Communities ◽  
Pragmatic Function ◽  
And Function ◽  
Syntactic Context

AbstractDespite recent advances (e.g. Cheshire 2007; Pichler 2010; Denis 2015), discourse-pragmatic variables continue to challenge variationist theory and methods. An overarching dilemma concerns multifunctionality, raising difficulties for semantic equivalency and the circumscription of the variable context. In this article we present a case study to illustrate that deconstructing a discourse-pragmatic marker into its composite parts reveals clear criteria for disambiguating its principal function and its contextually derived functions. The discussion centres on the pragmatic marker eh in Canadian English. We illustrate that its multifunctionality is derivable from four parts: principal function, syntactic context, prosodic context, and discourse context. Our deconstruction uses a two-pronged methodology, drawing on storyboard elicitation and sociolinguistic interview data, which mutually reinforce our theoretical arguments. Under this transdisciplinary lens, the exponents of form and function become predictable, constrainable, and systematically derivable for probabilistic modelling within and across speech communities. (Confirmationals, multifunctionality, pragmatic markers, eh, speech acts)*

scholarly journals Tourist Notices in the Spotlight of Linguistic Landscape and Translation Studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 681-697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdaléna Bilá ◽  
Ingrida Vaňková
Keyword(s):  
National Parks ◽  
Collective Identity ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Translation Studies ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Linguistic Landscape ◽  
Presentation Of Self ◽  
Lingua Franca ◽  
Form And Function ◽  
And Function

In the 21st century, even local tourist spots are globally accessible and need to be communicated in a globally shared language, a lingua franca (Ben-Rafael & Ben Rafael 2015). The language of most obvious choice among speakers from different linguacultural backgrounds is English. When translating notices in national parks into English, translators should predominantly consider the function of the TT (target text), the target audience (not exclusively L1 speakers of English but, the speakers of a variety of languacultures communicating in English as lingua franca (ELF) and opt for translation solutions that would account for visitors representing a diversity of languacultures. The present paper aims at finding out what modifications in translation of visitors’ rules may be necessary if the target readership is to be considered, and at explicating the translation process through applying a transdisciplinary perspective of ELF studies, linguistic landscape (LL) studies, cross-field studies on conceptualization, translanguaging and translation studies. The study shows that these modifications affect the significance and hierarchy of the four principles operating in LL (presentation-of-self, power-relations, good reasons and collective-identity) and are projected into specific LL-tailored translation solutions (shifts in modality, lexis, style and discourse markers). The modifications are achievable in ELF, which, as a form and function, a de-regionalized and de-culturalized artifact of global village, is capable of catering for a variety of languacultures with their specific societal conventions, practices, and the whole explicit and implicit axio-sphere.

scholarly journals Sentence-initial And and But in academic writing

Pragmatics ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Bell
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Special Functions ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
And Function ◽  
Discourse Connectives ◽  
Style Guides ◽  
Common Function

Prescriptivists have long proscribed sentence-initial And (SIA), and sentence-initial But (SIB). However, SIA and SIB are increasingly used in newspapers and style guides have softened strictures against their use. Moreover, SIA and SIB are amongst the most frequently occurring sentence-initial connectives within their respective semantic groups of additives and contrastives. Given their use despite prohibitions, this paper examines the patterns of occurrence and function of SIA and SIB in academic writing. The data come from 1 million words of academic prose: 11 journals representing science, social science, and humanities. The data confirm the findings of Biber et al. (1999) that while coordinator and is more frequent in academic prose than but, SIA is much less frequent than SIB. The data also reveal a marked difference between low SIA and SIB occurrences in scientific writing and much higher occurrences in social science and humanities. Plus, SIA is the preferred additive connective compared with moreover, furthermore, and in addition, etc., and SIB is the second most preferred contrastive connective after however. SIA and SIB in academic writing function in three very similar ways: (i) to mark off a discourse unit by indicating the last item on a list, (ii) to indicate the development of an argument, and (iii) to indicate a discontinuity or shift with a previous discourse unit. Whereas the most common function of SIA is that of indicating the last item on a list, the most common use of SIB is in the development of arguments. SIA and SIB perform special functions that the alternatives of asyndetic or “zero” coordination, the use of similar discourse markers: moreover, furthermore, in addition, and however, respectively, or intrasentential coordination cannot perform. These special functions are derived from their particular semantic meanings, their role as coordinating conjunctions, and their reduced phonological prominence. These features allow SIA and SIB to preface a wider range of lexico-grammatical units such as interrogatives, stance adverbs and other discourse connectives and to create a tighter form of cohesion. It is these special features of cohesion rather than a move to colloquiality which are held to explain the occurrence of SIA and SIB in academic writing.

Scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) of DNA and RNA

1989 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
pp. 34-35
Author(s):  
Patricia G. Arscott ◽  
Gil Lee ◽  
Victor A. Bloomfield ◽  
D. Fennell Evans
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Structures ◽  
Inorganic Materials ◽  
Resolving Power ◽  
Scanning Tunneling ◽  
Tunneling Microscopy ◽  
Form And Function ◽  
Dna And Rna ◽  
Calf Thymus ◽  
And Function ◽  
The Relationship

STM is one of the most promising techniques available for visualizing the fine details of biomolecular structure. It has been used to map the surface topography of inorganic materials in atomic dimensions, and thus has the resolving power not only to determine the conformation of small molecules but to distinguish site-specific features within a molecule. That level of detail is of critical importance in understanding the relationship between form and function in biological systems. The size, shape, and accessibility of molecular structures can be determined much more accurately by STM than by electron microscopy since no staining, shadowing or labeling with heavy metals is required, and there is no exposure to damaging radiation by electrons. Crystallography and most other physical techniques do not give information about individual molecules.We have obtained striking images of DNA and RNA, using calf thymus DNA and two synthetic polynucleotides, poly(dG-me5dC)·poly(dG-me5dC) and poly(rA)·poly(rU).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document