Abstract
The present paper is informed by discourse marker research, often considered a testing ground for pragmatic theories. The paper’s primary aim is to illustrate the benefits of the cross-fertilization between IR/DR and DM research and to argue that the analysis of discourse markers can serve as a heuristic tool to reveal differences in the use of indirect and direct reports across a variety of genres and text types in our four sub-corpora: (1) NC=natural conversations, (2) CI=celebrity interviews, (3) MPI=mediatized political interviews, and (4) SD=scripted discourse. The combination of automatic and manual annotation, complemented by the statistical analysis of the results, attempts to answer the following two sets of questions: (1) What patterns can be observed in terms of the frequency and grammatical features (tense, aspect, voice) of reporting verbs? (2) What kind of cross-genre differences can we observe with reference to reporting and the use of DMs in different types of reports (in terms of the frequency and functions of DMs, different report types, host units and p-contexts)?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
