Discourse Markers

Discourse marker frequency is significantly and positively correlated with delivery speed, and negatively with pause duration.* DMs reflect and support cognitive processes of production and comprehension. DMs segment spoken discourse much like punctuation marks and paragraph breaks segment written texts.

El presente estudio aborda los valores no temporales de la secuencia interrogativa desde cuándo en enunciados de marcada expresividad. Según la lingüística cognitiva, tales casos pueden considerarse como empleos pragmaticalizados que manifiestan la subjetividad del hablante. En tal sentido, desde cuándo se comporta como un marcador discursivo de discordancia. Se describen los usos de esta forma mediante el análisis de un corpus de enunciados efectivos. Tal estudio nos permite proponer una primera tipología de los usos de este marcador.
Palabras clave: pragmaticalización, subjetivización, marcador discursivo, discordancia.

This paper deals with the non-temporal values of the interrogative form desde cuándo (≈ 'since when') in expressive utterances. According to the theoretical framework of Cognitive Linguistics, these cases can be characterized as pragmaticalized i.e. showing the speaker's subjectivity. In this way, desde cuándo becomes a discourse marker suggesting some kind of discordance. We describe the uses of this linguistic form by analyzing a corpus of utterances. Such study allows us to propose a first typology of the uses of this marker.

Ce travail aborde les emplois non temporels de la séquence interrogative depuis quand dans des énoncés du type « Depuis quand le requin est un mammifère ?!?!?! », emplois expressifs fréquents en contextes dialogiques. Sans étude particulière dans la littérature, de tels cas peuvent être caractérisés, dans le cadre d'une approche cognitive, comme étant pragmaticalisés (Dostie 2004) i.e. laissant transparaître la subjectivité du locuteur (Traugott 2010). Depuis quand devient ainsi un marqueur discursif (Traugott, Dasher 2004, Dostie, Pusch 2007) autant dans des structures phrastiques (« Depuis quand l'opinion personnelle d'un obscur politicien est-elle vérité ? ») que comme mot-phrase (« Le verbe peinturer existe ? Depuis quand ? »). Sur la base d'une grammaire émergeant du discours (Hopper 1987), nous décrivons l'emploi de cette formule à partir de l'analyse d'un corpus d'énoncés relevés sur des sites internet recueillant l'opinion des internautes. Dans ces emplois, nettement subjectifs, depuis quand joue le rôle d'un marqueur de discordance, cette notion se prêtant, en discours, à des modulations contextuelles. Ce sont ces variations qui nous permettront de proposer une première typologie des emplois subjectivisés de depuis quand en tant que marqueur de discordance : (i) manifestation de l'étonnement (« Depuis quand doit-on prouver son innocence ? »), (ii) expression de la désapprobation (« Depuis quand faut-il manifester sa liberté d'expression en critiquant ceux qui vous ont soutenu et promu ? »), (iii) mise en scène de l'incongru (« Depuis quand les morts consomment-ils de l'eau ? »). Notre analyse prend en compte, également, des aspects caractéristiques de tels emplois à savoir les questions rhétoriques et l'ironie. Une attention particulière est accordée à des emplois tels que « Depuis quand un procureur s'appelle lui-même comme témoin ? », analysés en termes constructionnels comme suggérant un anti-modèle c'est-à-dire une discordance par rapport aux représentations doxiques. Nos réflexions intègrent aussi une observation des phénomènes de ponctuation expressive (« Et depuis quand on ne peut pas porter du noir en été ?! »), considérés comme traces de changement prosodique et, partant, indices de pragmaticalisation.

This paper deals with the non-temporal values of the interrogative form depuis quand (≈ 'since when') in expressive utterances such as « Depuis quand le requin est un mammifère ?!?!?! », usually employed in dialogic contexts. According to the theoretical framework of Cognitive Linguistics, these cases, which have never been described in the literature, can be characterized as pragmaticalized (Dostie 2004) i.e. showing the speaker's subjectivity (Traugott 2010). In this way, depuis quand becomes a discourse marker (Traugott, Dasher 2004, Dostie, Pusch 2007) in interrogative sentences of various degrees of complexity: « Depuis quand l'opinion personnelle d'un obscur politicien est-elle vérité ? », « Le verbe peinturer existe ? Depuis quand ? ». On the basis of an emergent grammar (Hopper 1987), we describe the uses of this linguistic form by analyzing a corpus of utterances taken from the web (discussion forums). In these subjective uses, depuis quand plays the role of a discourse marker suggesting some kind of discordance. This notion is open to a range of different contextual modulations that allow us to propose a first typology of the expressive uses of depuis quand in terms of discordance: (i) surprise (« Depuis quand doit-on , prouver son innocence? »); (ii) disapproval (« Depuis quand faut-il manifester sa liberté d'expression en critiquant ceux qui vous ont soutenu et promu? »); (iii) perplexity when something is judged to be incongruous (« Depuis quand les morts consomment-ils de l'eau ? »). In addition, our study takes into account various aspects of these uses, namely rhetorical questions and irony. Specific attention is paid to utterances such as « Depuis quand un procureur s'appelle lui-même comme témoin? », described according to a constructional approach. These constructions suggest an 'anti-model', in other words, discordance in comparison to the background knowledge and shared beliefs. Our work also underlines the importance of expressive punctuation (« Et depuis quand on ne peut pas porter du noir en été ?! ») considered here as the visible trace of a prosodic change resulting from the process of pragmaticalization.

This paper explores both the polysemy and the development of the adverb ape- nas ‘barely hardly’ into a discourse marker of temporal proximity ‘just/recently’. In contrast to well-known expected tendencies in grammaticalization, apenas runs against the cannon. The subjective adverb apenas, that designates events carried out “with effort/difficulty”, changed into an objective connector signal- ing immediacy among events or proximity to the time of speech. The polysemy of apenas is accounted for both synchronically and diachronically, as the inter- action between the force-dynamics configuration of the marker (Talmy, 1985, 1988) and the aspectual configuration of the verb. It is proposed that aspect de- termines the degree of subjectivity of the event where telicity triggers objective representations and these, in turn, led the way for the emergence of a discourse marker of temporal proximity.
Keywords: discourse marker, subjectivity, temporal proximity, adverbs, cognitive grammar, force dynamics

This paper focuses on the use of three discourse markers – namely list buoys, PALM-UP and SAME – across genres in French Belgian Sign Language. Our sample contains argumentative, explanatory, metalinguistic and narrative dialogues produced by six signers. We present a functional description of the three discourse markers and their distribution across genres. PALM-UP and SAME are highly polyfunctional, whereas list buoys express fewer functions in the dataset. In our sample, there are few differences in frequency of use of the three discourse markers and their functions across genres.

Discourse markers are one-, two-or multi-words used in natural conversations as well as in written language. The varieties of discourse markers range from response tokens to vague language expressions, speech organizers, face-saving and politeness devices. Discourse markers are used extensively by native speakers and expert users of English. For this reason, learning materials should address these speech parts, in order to cater for second language (L2) learners' communication needs. In light of the above, this paper is aimed at exploring whether dictionaries provide for discourse markers and, if so, to what extent. This analysis will bring to the fore the fact that some discourse markers are not provided for; whereas others are only partly explained. Furthermore, when listed, many discourse markers focus on their textual functions, rather than communicative purposes. This article will finally call for an adjustment of dictionary entries to the communicative aspects and purposes of natural conversation.

Previous studies have found discourse markers to be represented with only low frequencies in Early Modern English trial proceedings, especially when compared to other dialogic and fictional text types from the same period. Nevertheless, they comprise certain classes of markers, such as contrastive markers, which operate on different levels of discourse. This study aims to provide further insights into the use of the coordinator but in a sociopragmatically annotated corpus of trial proceedings from the period 1560 to 1760. Drawing on contextual information, the analysis will assess the distribution of but throughout the Early Modern English period and address certain peaks in its use. In addition, the sociopragmatic information included in the corpus will be consulted to discover which trial participants used the form repeatedly in their speech and with which functions. Overall, this study will therefore offer an innovative sociopragmatic profile of but as a contrastive marker in Early Modern English trials.

ABSTRACT

ESCLANDA, MARIA CARMELA RACHEL G. DISCOURSE MARKERS IN PHILIPPINE DRUG TRIAL PROCEEDINGS. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Sacred Heart College, Lucena City, May 2019 (Jhonathan S. Cadavido, Ph.D., Thesis Adviser).

This study was aimed at determining the discourse markers in Philippine drug trial proceedings. The study considered the discourse markers found in Philippine Drug Trials; its functions; and its structure.
This study employed discourse analysis method using qualitative and quantitative approach focusing on discourse markers in drug trial proceedings. The quantitative approach was used to show the number of occurrences of discourse markers in drug trial proceedings. Thus, it used Fung and Carter’s (2007) Core Functional Paradigm to identify the function of discourse markers and Knott’s Five Syntactic Category to identify the structure of discourse markers.
As a result of the study, the discourse markers in the spoken text in the Philippine drug trial proceedings were classified into interpersonal, referential, structure and cognitive is based on Fung and Carter’s Core Functional Paradigm. Based on the Knott’s (1966) Five syntactic category, discourse markers in the spoken text of Philippine drug trial proceedings were analyzed as to coordinators, subordinators, conjunctive adverbs, prepositional adverbs, phrases which take sentential complements.
Based on the findings and conclusion, the following recommendations were formulated referential category obtained the highest frequency. This was because expressions were noteworthy in legal discourse. Omitting can result to alteration of meaning. Referential category is followed by structural while referential category and cognitive category does not exist.
Moreover, it is recommended that Law teachers may use the concept of discourse markers in analyzing the ways on how the learners present their ideas logically and critically as indicated by the discourse markers use. They also analyzed the speaking skills of the learners in the context of Philippine English by focusing on how the learners show responses, continue conversations, open and close topics, mark shared knowledge, summarize topics, provide corrections and elaborations, show topic shifts, and other ways on presenting their views. Also, Language researchers may work on a comparative study on the analysis of structures and functions of discourse markers using other Philippine drug trial proceedings. They may also conduct a study on the socio-linguistic features of the Philippine drug trial proceedings.
Keywords:      discourse markers, functions, coordinators, subordinators, conjunctive
adverbs, prepositional phrases, phrases which take sentential complements

A jelen kutatás diskurzusjelölők és kötőelemek gyakoriságát vizsgálja négy ma-gyar európai parlamenti diskurzusban (eredeti magyar felszólalások, eredeti ma-gyar felszólalások normalizált írott változata, magyarra tolmácsolt felszólalások, magyarra fordított felszólalások). Ez lehetővé teszi annak a vizsgálatát, hogy a kérdéses elemek gyakorisága eltér-e az írásbeli-szóbeli és a mediált-nem me-diált diskurzuskontinuum mentén, jellemezve ezen diskurzusok tulajdonságait. A korpuszalapú tolmácsoláskutatás egyre inkább az adott diskurzus tulajdonsá-gainak, mint inkább a mediáltság tényének a fényében magyarázza a tolmácsolt diskurzus diskurzusjelölő-és kötőelem-használatát, számos különbséget mu-tatva ki a fordított és tolmácsolt szövegek között ezen elemek vonatkozásában, eltérő nyelvhasználati tendenciákra utalva. A jelen elemzések eredményeinek fényében a tolmácsolt magyar diskurzus szignifikánsan különbözik a vizsgált elemek gyakoriságát tekintve a fordított diskurzustól, általánosságban azonban a diskurzusok jobban hasonlítanak egymásra a mediált-nem mediált, mint az írásbeli-szóbeli jelleg mentén. Kulcsszavak: korpuszalapú fordítástudomány, intermodális korpusz, tolmácsolt diskurzus, diskurzusjelölők, kötőelemek 1. Bevezetés A diskurzusjelölők és kötőelemek hagyományosan fontos szerepet játszanak a fordított diskurzus kutatásában. Ezek az elemek alkotják számos, a fordított diskurzus sajátos nyelvi mintázatairól megfogalmazott elképzelés alapját, mi-vel általánosan elfogadott tény, hogy a fordított szövegek a diskurzus szintjén különböznek a nem fordított szövegektől-és nem például lexikai szinten.

Spanish Sign Language (Lengua de Signos Española, LSE) uses discourse markers, among other mechanisms, to achieve relevant discourses. Some of the markers we have identified in our corpus have an equivalent in spoken Spanish whilst others do not. In sign languages, discourse is contained in space and within that space it is possible to make the discourse structure visually evident. One of the mechanisms to achieve this in LSE is the use of manual and non-manual discourse markers. Due to their iconicity some discourse markers show the boundaries of utterances or the
limits of the entire discourse. The procedural meaning of the discourse markers can be seen in the perceptible shape of the sign. Previous research on Spanish discourse markers and the study of space in sign languages has provided a proper framework to examine these particles in LSE. The authenticity of these discourse markers has been confirmed by checking them against the grammatical properties and the definitions supplied by spoken Spanish.

La Lengua de Signos Española (LSE) se sirve de marcadores del discurso manuales y no manuales, entre otros mecanismos, para realizar discursos signados relevantes o pertinentes. Algunos de los marcadores extraídos en nuestro corpus tienen equivalencia en el español oral y otros no. A través de una serie de ejemplos prácticos propondremos diferentes interpretaciones para estas unidades en función del contexto en el que aparezcan. El objetivo principal de la conferencia es llamar la atención sobre la importancia de estas unidades con el fin de contribuir a la inclusión, en la formación de intérpretes de lengua de signos, de aspectos relacionados con el análisis del discurso.

En este trabajo nos ocupamos de un tipo particular de elementos de la lengua de signos: las boyas lingüísticas. Y, específicamente, de las características formales, semánticas y pragmáticas que tales elementos presentan en la lengua de signos española (LSE). Asimismo, del modo en que la Teoría de los Espacios Mentales (Fauconnier, 1985) responde a los procesos mentales que dan lugar a su confi-guración como unidades lingüísticas de especial relevancia en las lenguas visuales.Tal y como hiciera Liddell (2003), conjugamos las aportaciones de la Teoría de los Espacios Mentales con las propuestas de la Teoría de Integración Conceptual a fin de analizar los espacios de entrada necesarios para la construcción del espacio de mezcla o amalgama en el que la boya lingüística ad-quiere sentido. Por último, nos centramos en algunas de las variedades de las boyas lista en la LSE, así como en ciertas interacciones que éstas establecen en el discurso con el signo configurado por la otra mano.