The Department of English Language and Literature

Student’s Name: Farah AL-Amouri

ID Number: 8180445
Course: Discourse Analysis
Homework assignment: The Pragmatic Use of Discourse Markers
Professor’s Name: Essa Salem
2019/2020
Introduction:
The label ‘discourse markers’ (Henceforth, DMs) is self-explanatory. The term ‘discourse’
seems to be intended to highlight the role DMs play in discourse- level rather than the sentence.
And the term ‘marker’ emphasizes the fact that their propositional contents must be inferred vis-
à-vis what they indicate or mark rather than what they describe (Blakemore 2002: 1). Despite the
intelligibility of the label, there has been a disagreement among researchers (Fraser 1999, 2009,
Redeker 1991, Schiffrin 1987, Zwicky 1985, among others) over what counts as a discourse
marker, as well as the definition of discourse markers, yet some have posited definitions to
account for the nature and functions of these elements within discourse, and they have given a
list of what counts as discourse markers.

Schiffrin (1987: 31), for example, defines DMs as “sequentially dependent elements that bracket
units of talk” and that paralinguistic features and non-verbal gestures are possible DMs. She
(ibid.) gave a list of discourse markers: oh, well, but, and, or, so, because, now, then, I mean,
y’know, see, look, listen, here, there, why, gosh, boy, this is the point, what I mean is, anyway,
whatever. Fraser (1999) regards discourse markers as a class of lexical expressions that signal
relationship between the interpretation of the segment they introduce, S2, and the prior segment,
S1; and their meaning is context-dependent, both linguistic and conceptual. Redeker (1991), on
the other hand, maintains that a discourse operator is “… a word or phrase … that is uttered with
the primary function of bringing to the listener’s attention a particular kind of linkage of the
upcoming utterance with the immediate discourse context. An utterance in this definition is an
intonationally and structurally bounded, usually clausal unit” (1991: 1168).

Such disagreement and differences among researchers has crystallized in the various labels used
to describe these elements: discourse operators, discourse particles, pragmatic formatives,
discourse connectives, sentence connectives, adverbial connectors, discourse particles, logical
connectives, and pragmatic markers.

DMs have a multiplicity of functions on the textual, interpersonal and cognitive discourse levels.
To begin with the textual level, DMs relate discourse units semantically at both the local and
global levels of discourse, in other words, they create coherence among discourse units, for
instance the DM ‘after all’ in I think it will fly. After all, we built it right relates the latter clause
deictically to the former one. Interpersonally, DMs express solidarity between interlocutors and
show attitudes, feelings, and evaluations towards the illocutionary force of the discourse units,
such as ‘just’ in I am just proud of you. Finally, on the cognitive level, DMs allow speaker to buy
time in order to solve cognitive problems or to reformulate previous utterances such as ‘anyway’
in Anyway, I was wondering if you can lend me your car tonight.

Schiffrin (1987) and Zwicky (1985) set several characteristics of discourse markers:

• Since they do not contribute to the truth conditionality of the propositional content of the
utterance, DMs are syntactically detachable from a sentence. In other words, DMs are optional
units within discourse.

• For the continuation of the conversation and for guiding the addressee towards the intended
interpretation of utterances, DMs have to be commonly used in the initial position of an
utterance. However, few DMs do occur in the sentence medial or final position.

• They have to have a range of independently prosodic contours, i.e. they are both accented and
separated from their surrounding context by pauses, intonation breaks, or a mixture of both.

•To add textual coherence, DMs have to be able to signal relationship between discourse units at
both local (the host discourse unit) and global levels (situational context).

• They have to be able to operate on different planes of discourse. Schiffrin (1987: 24-25)
mentions five planes: participation framework, information state, ideational structure, action
structure, and exchange structure.

Schiffrin’s five-plane model is roughly equivalent to Halliday and Hasan’s distinction between
external and internal relations within texts (Halliday and Hasan 1976): external relations, which
are basically oriented to what happens outside the text rather than within, relate to Schiffrin’s
ideational structure plane; whereas internal relations, oriented to what is being said rather to what
is being done, are expressed somewhat on the other planes that she suggests.

Fraser (1999) approached DMs or pragmatic markers (to use his terminology) from a
grammatical-pragmatic perspective focusing on what DMs are and what their grammatical status
is. He maintains that DMs “do not contribute to the propositional content of the sentence but
signal different types of messages or interpretation of the utterance” (ibid: 938). He further
describes DM as a linguistic expression drawn from the syntactic classes of conjunctions,
adverbials, or propositional phrases that has a core meaning enriched by the context and it
functions to signal relationship between units of discourse (i.e. between the segment they
introduce, S2, and the prior segment, S1) and thereby contributes to discourse coherence.

Blakemore (2002: 5), in her relevance theory, focuses on the cognitive aspect of DMs, and the
DMs’ input to cognitive processes underlying successful communication. She argues that the
linguistic form of a sentence or an utterance potentially gives rise to a number of possible
interpretations. A hearer or a reader should reach the optimum interpretive choice that is relevant
in a given context (Blakemore 1987: 141). Moreover, unlike Fraser above, she (1987) posits that
DMs encode procedural, rather than conceptual, meaning; that a DM does not change the truth-
conditions of a sentence since a true sentence stays true, and a false one stays false with or
without the presence of a DM.

DMs express various functions within textual and interpersonal domains. In the textual domain,
they function as markers of discourse coherence. For example, DM ‘and’ signals relationship
between adjacent discourse segments. Interpersonally, DMs focus on the relationship between
interlocutors, for instance, you know is used when assuming shared knowledge, right and OK to
request confirmation. Also, DMs might be used interpersonally to convey attitude towards
messages. For instance, sort of and I think function as hedging devices that may express
tentativeness towards the illocutionary force of the utterance.

Fraser (2009) distinguishes three functional classes of DMs: (i) Contrastive discourse markers
like, but, although, however, in spite of, on the contrary, yet, regardless, on the other hand…(ii)
Elaborative discourse markers like, and, after all, for instance, further (more), in other words,
likewise, more to the point… (iii) Inferential discourse markers like, so, as a conclusion,
consequently, for this/that reason, then, therefore … Fung (2003) has a class for spoken DMs
such as, see, you know, listen, well, really, I think, OK, oh, right, sure, sort of, absolutely…

It is worth mentioning here that referring to the word’s dictionary meanings or one’s own mental
lexicon to interpret the meaning of a certain DM is not enough; since it happens sometimes that a
word acquires a new communicative value depending on the context it is found in. This novel
contextual meaning, assigned to a word by a speech community, has some connections with its
established dictionary counterpart. Once it gains a general acceptance gradually and overtime,
the novel contextual meaning becomes part of the dictionary meaning category, or the
community’s mental lexicon Warren (1992).

Literature Review:

Using various research methodologies especially corpora and discourse completion tasks
(DCTs), many studies in the past four decades or so have been conducted to analyze the nature
and the discourse-pragmatic functions of DMs. To mention but a few, Fung & Carter (2007),
Müller (2005), Downing (2006), Cutting (2007), Hyland & Milton (1997), Carter & McCarthy
(2006), Aijmer & Simon Vandenbergen (2006), Stenström (2006), Lewis (2006), Amador
Moreno et al. (2006), and Diskin (2017).

English DMs, such as, well, so, I mean, but, y’know, hey, oh etc., have attracted a plethora of
studies from those interested in this phenomenon. Of such an extensive literature Jucker (1993),
as an example, covered some pragmatic uses of DM well: as a marker of insufficiency; as a face-
threat mitigator; as a frame; and as a delay device. He used the Relevance Theory as a
background for the analysis. The author believed that analyzing DM well within a relevance-
theoretical framework provides plausible explanations for a wide range of occurrences.

Schiffrin (1987) analyzed DMs well, y’know, and, because, then, but, I mean, oh, or, and so.
Under the label “discourse connectives”, Blakemore (1987) discussed DMs and, all, you see,
after, moreover, but, so, and furthermore. Watts (1988) discussed instances of actually, really,
and basically from a relevance-theoretical perspective. Fraser (1990) related DMs to pragmatics.
He posited that discourse markers serve three functions: 1) contextual coordinates for utterances;
2) indexing adjacent utterances; and 3) indexing the utterance to prior and/or subsequent
discourse.

With regards to the Arabic Language, there are a good number of studies with substantive
findings that have tackled DMs in more details. Mehawesh and Jaradat (2015), for instance,
examine the non-literal meanings of the expression inshallah ‘God willing’. They listed five of
them that were reached at after analysing a collection of natural utterances the researchers and
their students have jointly collected: inter alia, threatening (e.g. Inshallah you touch the TV,
meaning, I dare you touch the TV); yes/okay (e.g. A: Please bring me a cup of coffee. B:
Inshallah). They also provided a diagnostic test for identifying the non-literal meanings of the
expression inshallah: removing the said expression from the utterance and then checking for
constancy of meaning and function of the original utterance before and after the removal. Their
study concluded that all non-literal meanings of inshallah flout Grician maxim of quality.

Alazzawie (2014) examined the DM yamawwad, a lexical term mostly used in Iraqi
Spoken Arabic, pragmatically using dyadic conversations. He enumerates several meanings the
DM yamawwad may cover within discourse such as, well, please, right, now, OK, so, no way,
never mind, no problem, anyhow and anyway, hey fella. It serves, according to him, many
different functions depending on the social contexts: For example, expressing annoyance, regret,
sadness; warning or reprimanding others; expressing solidarity with others, etc.

Alazzawi (2015) also examines the DM ʕadi in Spoken Iraqi Arabic following a study
conducted by Kanakri and Al-Harahsheh (2013a) who investigated the same DM within
Jordanian Spoken Arabic. The two studies collected the data from a corpus of informal
conversations and interviews with native speakers of both varieties of Arabic. Kanakri and Al-
Harahsheh identified nine functions of ʕadi in Modern Spoken Arabic; whereas Alazzawi listed
thirteen functions including the one complex clustered version of ʕadi which is ee la ʕadi
equivalent to oh, yeah, well in English. After comparing and contrasting both studies’ results for
similarities in the meanings and functions of the DM ʕadi, it is found that ʕadi, in both varieties
of Arabic, performs the following similar functions:

• Offering support and sympathy, consolation, and Encouragement;

• Accepting a proposal;

• Expressing disapproval, reprimand and indignation;

• Being polite and courteous;

• Expressing Mild Criticism and Sarcasm

• Requesting and granting permission;

• Showing indifference and obliviousness; and

• Mitigating FTA.

It should be noted here that given the nature of the collected data (spoken), both studies should
have included the intonation or tone markers to the transcribed data (e.g., capital letters,
exclamation points, and vowel repetitions). Another shortcoming is related to the population of
the study. The two studies should have furnished the reader with some useful background
information about of the population of the study, such as age, gender, and education, since one
can be able to infer from such information whether the DM ʕadi proliferates in spoken or written
speech, or whether or not the DM ʕadi is used more among the educated class compared to the
poorly-educated, and finally whether there is a difference in the use of this DM between males
and females.

Kanakri and Al-Harahsheh (2013b) published another study on the pragmatic functions
and translatability of the DM Ťayib and its cognate Ťabb (lit. okay, fine, and good) in the
Jordanian Spoken Arabic. They arrived at enumerating ten pragmatic functions for this DM
using discourse analysis, conversation analysis, and relevance theory as theoretical backgrounds:
to fill in the gap; to give permission; to request patience; to signal end of discourse; to mark
challenge or confrontation; to mitigate or soften disagreement; to introduce new topic; to show
objection; to stop for evaluation of the situation; and finally to indicate acceptance or agreement.

In a corpus of interviews with poorly educated-Cairene women (30 to 60 years of age),

Marmorstein (2016) investigated the discourse marker yaʕni (lit. ‘‘it means’’) in order to capture
both its cognitive processes and communicative goals. Three classes of yaʕni were distinguished
and labeled in each: stating new information, elaborating on the given information the speaker
assumes to be shared with the hearer, and finally stressing the point by repetition. It has been
shown by the study that yaʕni is not just a randomly used DM within speech, but that it has a
distribution that is highly systematic and functionally motivated. “However”, she added, “yaʕni
cannot be proven to be mandatory in any case, a fact that is manifested in the different
frequencies in which speakers employ yaʕni”.

The widely used DM insh’allah “God’s willing” has received a considerable amount of
analysis among researchers into its pragmatic functions and meaning. Nazzal (2005) analyzed
the pragmatic functions of insha’allh as well as the contexts in which Muslims are inclined to use
this DM with the focus on indirectness as a discourse feature. The findings of his study have
revealed that speakers resort to the use of insha’allah for a host of pragmatic functions. They
range from mitigating one’s commitment for carrying out future actions, failing to honor one’s
commitment and thus avoid the effects and adverse consequences of certain action(s) on others.
Additionally, the use of this DM, according to him, appears to function as a confirmation of
one’s religious, linguistic, and cultural identity.

In the same vein Clift and Helani (2010) investigate, using methods of conversation
analysis (CA) particularly topic-transition sequences, the contexts within which inshallah and its
cognates (such as inshaalla walla as an emphatic form) are used, drawing their data from
Levantine (predominantly Syrian) Arabic talk-in-interaction. The findings revealed that
inshaallah can be used for pragmatic functions, like, marking the expression of hope for a desired
outcome; facilitating the transition from one topic to the next; or bringing the topic to a possible
close.

Using qualitative methods to analyze online conversations, Al Rousan (2015) explored

the pragmatic functions of culture-specific DM maʕ nafsak (lit. with yourself) in the Saudi
Arabic. The participants were 17 undergraduate Saudi males between 18-19 years of age. They
were informed to keep a log for their personal instant messages they post on BBM and
WhatsApp. The study revealed that maʕ nafsak serves 12 different pragmatic functions: refusal,
lack of interest/indifference, annoyance, reprimanding, doubt, unwillingness, distancing oneself
from others, challenging, scolding, disappointment, choice, and preserving personal privacy.
Since the population of his study was all males, Al Rosuan (ibid) recommends studying gender
differences in the use of certain DM in Saudi Spoken Arabic, in addition to investigating the
effect of prosodic features on the interpretation of pragmatic functions of DMs.

Since 2019 much more information on Arabic discourse markers become available. Alsager et al
(2020) studied the use, functions and positions of discourse markers (DMs) in newspaper articles
more specifically the DM but (English) and its equivalent lakin (Arabic) depending on Fraser’s
framework drawing their data from 12 newspapers categorized as: “Arabic language newspapers
published in Saudi Arabia (Alriyadh, Al Jazirah, AlHayat) and Egypt (Al-Ahram, Al-Gomhuria,
Eltahrir) and English language newspapers published in Saudi Arabia (Arab News, Saudi
Gazette, Asharq Al-Awsat) and the USA (Washington Post, The New York Times, USA
TODAY)’’. The findings indicate that DM but is employed frequently by both native and non-
native speakers. Al Rousan and co-workers (2020) highlight The Pragmatic Functions of the
Discourse Marker Bas in Jordanian Spoken Arabic. The sample of their study consist of 93313
words were obtained from natural conversations of native speakers of Jordanian Arabic (males
and females). As well as Al Rousan et al apply Fraser’s (2006) grammatical-pragmatic
framework to analyze the data. The results have now been suggested that this discourse marker
serves certain pragmatic function in Jordanian Spoken Arabic such as: “initiating a topic,
signaling topic change, closing a turn, ending a conversation, indicating speaker’s hesitancy,
mitigating Face Threatening Acts, making a correction, attracting hearer’s attention, expressing
restrictions and conditions”. In addition to that, this research proposes the critical role of Bas as
discourse marker in Jordanian spoken Arabic communication. The main objective of present
study is to investigate the pragmatic functions of the DM ‘ʔax’ in Modern Spoken Arabic. Also it
is hoped that this piece of work will add some value to the literature tackling the concept of DMs
within the context of spoken Arabic.

Data Analysis: Framework

Fraser’s (1990, 2009) Framework

The aim behind Fraser's framework in examining discourse Markers (DMs) is to have a better
understanding of the mechanism conversational participants adopt in their interpretation of a
given discourse marker within a specific context. In his framework, Fraser highlights three main
points: (i) how DMs may characterize one's knowledge of the language; (ii) what the nature of
DMs is; and (iii) how DMs may be interpreted. Fraser is primarily concerned about locating
DMs in terms to other linguistically encoded elements of sentence meaning. For him, each
sentence has a content meaning and a pragmatic one; the former signals the explicit or literal
meaning that the speaker intends to convey to the listener; often referred to as the propositional
content; while the latter signals the speaker's communicative intention. These signals, he labels,
pragmatic markers.

Fraser proposes four types of PMs which are related to four distinct message types:
• Basic pragmatic markers, such as, please, I suggest, I claim, admittedly, etc. signal the force of
the basic message. For example, please signal that the speaker is requesting rather than ordering
in Please sit down. For example, I admit, in I admit that we are lost.

• Commentary pragmatic markers, such as, frankly, amazingly, if I may, etc. signals a comment
on the basic message. For example, frankly in Frankly, I admit that we are lost. The speaker
thinks that John's failure to bring the report was stupid. There are five subtypes: Assessment
markers (e.g. sadly, fortunately), manner-of-speaking markers (e.g. frankly), evidential markers
(e.g. certainly), hearsay markers (e.g. reportedly, allegedly), and none/deference markers (e.g.
sir, you jerk).

• Discourse markers, such as but, and, signal a relation between the discourse segments. Fraser
(2009) differentiates between three classes of this third type: Contrastive discourse markers (e.g.
but, on the contrary), elaborative discourse markers (e.g. and, anyway), and inferential discourse
markers (e.g. so, as a result).

• Discourse structure markers signal an aspect of the organization of the ongoing discourse, here
again three subtypes are distinguished: discourse management markers (e.g. in summary, I add),
topic orientation markers (e.g. returning to my previous topic), and attention markers (e.g. look,
now)

The evidence from this study suggests that, Fraser (1990) views DMs as a class of lexical
expressions, each signals how the speaker goes about conveying the basic message in his/her
speech act in relation to the preceding discourse. DMs, according to Fraser, are not part of, nor
contribute to the propositional content of the message; “they signal a specific message either
about or in addition to the basic message” (Fraser 2009).
References:

•Aijmer, Karin, Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, 2006. Pragmatic Markers in Contrast.

Elsevier, Oxford.

• Alazzawie, Abdulkhaliq, 2014. Yamawwad: A discourse and pragmatic marker in Iraqi

Arabic. World Journal of English Language 4 (2), 30-39.

•Alazzawie, Abdulkhaliq, 2015. ʕadi as a discourse marker in Spoken Iraqi Arabic. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies 5 (7), 1352-1360.

Alsager, H. N., Afzal, N., & Aldawood, A. A. (2020). Discourse Markers in Arabic and English
Newspaper Articles: The Case of the Arabic Lakin and its English equivalent But. Arab World
English Journal, 11(1).

Al Rousan, R., Al Harahsheh, A., & Huwari, F. (2020). The Pragmatic Functions of the
Discourse Marker Bas in Jordanian Spoken Arabic: Evidence from a Corpus. Journal of
Educational and Social Research, 10(1), 130-130.

• Al Rousan, Rafat, 2015. The use of discourse marker “maʕ nafsak” in Saudi Arabic: A
pragmatic perspective. International Journal of Linguistics 7 (3), 33-48.

• Amador Moreno, Carolina, O’Riordan, Stéphanie, Chambers, Angela, 2006. Integrating a

corpus of classroom discourse in language teacher education: The case of discourse markers.
ReCALL 18, 83–104.

• Blakemore, Diane, 2002. Relevance and Linguistics meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics
of Discourse Markers. CUP 99.

• Blakemore, Diane, 1987. Semantics constraints on Relevance. Blackwell, Oxford.

• Carter, Ronald, McCarthy, Michael, 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive

Guide to Spoken and Written Grammar and Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

• Clift, Rebecca, Helani, Fadi, 2010. Inshallah: Religious invocations in Arabic topic transition.
Language in Society 39, 357-382.
• Cutting, Joan, 2007. Vague Language Explored. Palgrave, Basingstoke.

•Diskin, Chloé, 2017. The use of the discourse-pragmatic marker ‘like’ by native and non-native
speakers of English in Ireland. Journal of Pragmatics 120, 144-157.

•Downing, Angela, 2006. The English pragmatic marker surely and its functional counterparts
in Spanish. In: K. Aijmer and A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Pragmatic Markers in
Contrast. Elsevier, Oxford.

• Fraser, Bruce, 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14 (3), 383-398.

•Fraser, Bruc, 1999. ‘What are discourse markers?. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 931-952.

• Fraser, Bruce, 2009. An account of Discourse Marker. International Review of Pragmatics 1, 1-

28.

• Fung, Loretta, 2003. The use and teaching of discourse markers in Hong Kong: Students’
production and teachers’ perspectives. Unpublished PhD thesis, Nottingham University. United
Kingdom.

• Fung, Loretta and Carter, Ronald, 2007. ‘Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and
learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics 28 (3), 410-39.

• Goffman, Erving, 1981. Forms of Talk. Blackwell, Oxford.

• Halliday, Michael, Hasan, Ruqaiya, 1976). Cohesion in English. Longman, London.

• Hyland, Ken, Milton, John, 1997. Hedging in L1 and L2 student writing. Journal of Second
Language Writing 6, 183–206.

• Jucker, Andreas, 1993. The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of
Pragmatics 19, 435-452.

• Kanakri, Mahmoud, Al-Harahsheh, Ahmad, 2013a. The discourse analysis and pragmatics of ?
a:di in Jordanian Spoken Arabic. International Journal of English Linguistics 3 (6), 59-63.
• Kanakri, Mahmoud, Al-Harahsheh, Ahmad, 2013b. The pragmatic functions and the
translatability of “Ťayib” in Jordanian Spoken Arabic. US-China Foreign Language 11 (3), 196-
202.

• Lewis, Diana, 2006. Contrastive analysis of adversative relational markers, using comparable
corpora. In: K. Aijmer and A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Pragmatic Markers in Contrast.
Elsevier, Oxford.

• Marmorstein, Michal, 2016. Getting to the point: The discourse marker yaʕni ( lit. “it means”)
in unplanned discourse in Cairene Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics 96, 60-79.

• Mehawesh, Mohammad Issa, Jaradat, Abdullah Ahmad, 2015. Inshallah: Extensive flouting of
Grice’s maxim of quality. Asian Social Science 11 (4), 319-327.

• Müller, Simone, 2005. Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.

• Nazzal, Ayman, 2005. The pragmatic functions of the recitation of Quar’anic verses by
Muslims in their oral genre: The case of insha’allah, ‘God’s willing’. Pragmatics 15 (2/3), 251-
273.

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

• Stenström, Anna-Brita, 2006. The Spanish discourse markers o sea and pues and their English
correspondences. In: K. Aijmer and A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Pragmatic Markers in
Contrast. Elsevier, Oxford.

• Watts, Richard, 1988. A relevance-theoretic approach to commentary pragmatic markers: The

case of actually, really and basically. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38 (1-4), 235-260.

• Warren, Beatrice Cecilia, 1992. What euphemisms tell us about the interpretation of words.
Studia Lingustica 46, 128–182

• Zwicky, Arnold, 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61, 283-305.