Discourse markers in Lithuanian: semantic change and functional diversity

Discourse markers are linguistic items that are frequently used in the course of daily communication.These are not only connecting words that contribute to cohesion of discourse but are also crucial tools for achieving intended communicative purposes in the course of discourse.Studies have been carried out on discourse markers as used in other languages of the world but since every linguistic variety is unique and culture dependent, it is not obvious that these linguistic items are similar in all languages.This paper's goal is to discuss the functions of discourse markers Gichuka speeches.The study is guided by the Relevance Theory by Sperber and Wilson.It utilizes qualitative research technique and was carried out in Chuka, Meru South Sub County, Tharaka-Nithi County, Kenya.The population for this study includes all discourse markers captured in social events conducted in Gichuka.The researcher purposively sampled five real life events conducted in Gichuka.Data was collected using an observation schedule that was used to record the contextual information, and a guiding card was used to record the functions of discourse markers.The transcribed discourse markers are ninety-two.Guided by the principles of relevance the researcher identified and discussed the functions of all the discourse markers identified, taking into account the speakers meaning conveyed by the Gichuka discourse markers from various speech situations.The study established that most Gichuka discourse markers are used either to achieve conversational coherence in speech or to seek the attention of the audience.The study enhances the analysis of Gichuka discourse markers and adds to the existing knowledge on the analysis of discourse markers in various languages.It specifically enriches knowledge on the application of the tenets of the Relevance Theory.The study also contributes to scholarly literature in linguistics; especially in pragmatics.

Textual functions of low confidence adverbs: The case of perhaps

Discourse markers used to be thought of as redundant and useless in discourse, especially in verbal discourse. However, linguists realize that the function of discourse markers is important in displaying communicators’ intentions and construing their stories. And the exploring of discourse markers should be testified across genres according to the necessity of linguistics development. Therefore, this paper aims to explore the function of discourse markers in the TV talk show genre and figure out the meaning potentials of discourse markers in a specific discourse. The functions of discourse markers are divided into two parts: interpersonal function and textual function, according to Briton’s theory, but discourse markers mainly work in textual function. This paper could help us know better about the significance of discourse markers in our language life and also provide an empirical vision to the exploring of linguistics.

This study investigated discourse markers that occurred in the science debate by TJump and Nathan Thompson. This research aimed to determine the types of discourse markers that TJump and Nathan Thompson used and described their functions. The researcher used a descriptive-qualitative approach to answer research questions by using Schiffrin's theory (1987). The data was taken from utterances containing discourse markers from TJump and Nathan Thompson's debate that discusses globe vs. flat Earth. This research reveals that there were six types of discourse markers and 11 discourse markers, which have different functions, such as a marker of information management (oh); a marker of response (well); discourse connectives (and, but, or); markers of cause and result (so, because); markers of temporal adverbs (now, then); markers of information and participation (I know, I mean). The function of those discourse markers are a marker of information management to attract attention, a marker of response to create coherence, discourse connectives to connect more units, to mark contrasting units as option markers, a marker of cause and result as a complement, and subordinate ideas, markers of temporal adverbs are to show the relationship between time, markers of information and participation are as the transition of information state and indicate the speaker's orientation. The next researcher can use another theory to analyze discourse markers, especially discourse markers as fillers. This study focused only on the types and functions of discourse markers; the researcher can connect discourse markers to speech acts and use different theories.

This study aimed to give a full account of discourse marker use in nonnative academic discourse. This study is a qualitative and quantitative investigation of discourse markers used in a corpus of 14 dissertations in applied linguistics from a Saudi university that uncovers the use patterns and DM combinations in abstracts, discussions, and conclusions. The model employed in the analysis was that of Fraser (2006), who classified discourse markers into four categories. The findings reveal a specific hierarchy of discourse use where elaborative discourse markers are the most frequent, followed by temporal discourse markers, contrastive discourse markers, and finally, inferential discourse markers. A notable tendency towards discourse marker clustering is also observed in the corpus.

1 IntroductionSemantic connectives have long been a focus of research in cognitive and language development. Such connectives as so, because, and but encode causal and adversative relations among events and create textual cohesion (Halliday and Hasan, 1976). Recently, however, researchers have been examining other types of relations that need to be encoded in discourse. Deborah Schiffrin (1987), for example, has focused on 'discourse markers (DMs)', a broader category of connective or relational forms than semantic connectives. Discourse markers are linguistic, paralinguistic, or nonverbal elements that signal relations between of talk by virtue of their syntactic and semantic properties and by virtue of their sequential relations as initial or terminal brackets demarcating discourse units (Schiffrin, 1987: 40). During everyday communication, speakers use discourse markers a lot.Since the 1970s interest in DMs has increased with growing interest in the production and comprehension of extended discourse and, more generally, in pragmatic and contextual aspects of utterance interpretation. During the past ten years, the study of DMs has explored in linguistics, with dozens of articles appearing yearly. This broadening of interest brought about increased attention to those elements of linguistic structure that appear to be most directly involved in the relation of separate utterances. Within this new perspective many elements in sentence-based linguistic research have been paid more attention, including many expressions, such as well, and y'know, etc. which had previously been regarded as unworthy of close attention. Research on DMs has expanded continually throughout the 1980s and 1990s because it was found that they have prominent role, not only in pragmatic and discourse analytic research but also in studies of language acquisition and language pedagogy, and in research on sociolinguistic topics. Within the past ten years or so there has been an increasing interest in the theoretical status of DMs, focusing on what they are, what they mean, and what functions they have.The analysis of discourse markers is part of the more general analysis of discourse coherence-how speakers and hearers jointly integrate forms, meaning, and actions to make overall sense out of what is said. (Schiffrin, 1987: 49)Innovation in language affects all areas of society. A case in point is a number of discourse/pragmatic markers in the English language which have gained considerable attention in recent years, from the media, educationalists and linguists alike.1.1 Similar TerminologiesThere are different terminologies including discourse connectives (Blakemore, 1987, 1992), discourse operators (Redeker, 1990, 1991), discourse particles (Schorup, 1985), discourse signaling devices (Polanyi and Scha, 1983), phatic connectives (Bazanella, 1990), pragmatic connectives (van Dijk, 1979; Stubbs, 1983), pragmatic expressions (Erman, 1992), pragmatic formatives (Fraser, 1987), pragmatic markers (Fraser, 1988, 1990; Schiffrin, 1987), pragmatic operators (Ariel, 1994), pragmatic particles (Ostman, 1995), semantic conjuncts (Quirk et al., 1985), sentence connectives (Halliday and Hasan, 1976). (As cited in Fraster, 1999)Despite the quantity of research in this area, however, no consensus has emerged regarding fundamental issues of terminology and classification. The term DM used in this paper is the most popular of all those terms used. Brinton (1996) lists more than twenty such terms. A close second in frequency of occurrence is the term discourse particle (DP) which predominated until the mid 1980s, but in this paper discourse marker is preferable.1.2 Discourse markersMany language learners' primary goal of language learning experiences is 'grammatical' language, which is the accurate usage of syntax, phonology, morphology, and semantics. As Svartik notes, language learners may be corrected for using non-standard morphology but will not be corrected for using a discourse marker in an inappropriate place, even if the lack of that marker taints the learner's talk as somehow deficient (1980, in Muller, 2004; cf. …

Over the last decades the development of conjunctions into discourse markers has been researched by a number of scholars. In Lithuanian, studies on discourse markers are fragmented and lack the application of efficient qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis. The paper focuses on the Lithuanian discourse markers kad ‘that’ and net ‘until, even’ as well as their combinations with other particles and/or conjunctions (such as tai kad; bet kad; kad ir; taip kad; net ir etc.), which have not received an in-depth analysis so far. In Old Lithuanian, both kad and net mainly function as temporal conjunctions, which, over time, developed discourse functions and came to serve as discourse markers. Adopting both a synchronic and diachronic perspective and applying corpus-driven methodology, the present study aims at investigating the semantic functional potential of kad and net as well as their position and structural status in discourse. The data set analyzed includes written and spoken Present-day Lithuanian as well as Old Lithuanian texts (the 16th century). In the earliest Lithuanian texts, kad is most often used in different types of adverbial clauses, including time, purpose and condition; net, in its turn, functions as a conjunction marking time or contrast or as a particle. However, in Present-day Lithuanian, kad and net are multifunctional: kad can be used either as a conjunction or a discourse marker with a clear discourse function—to signal a discourse shift and to preface a response or reaction of the speaker. Net, as a discourse marker, is positionally mobile and primarily marks the speaker’s surprise or functions as a hedging device.

This article considers the functional semantic features of the oral speech discourse markers авось, мол, в принципе, вообще, на самом деле, как ни крути in the dynamic aspect. The choice of the subject matter of the research is conditioned by the absence of studies focusing on the functioning of nonsemantic units which have been regulating the discourse behaviour of the participants of a communication act for several historical periods. The attempt to describe different discourse markers within the scope of one study makes it possible to reveal the general tendencies connected with the change in their functional semantics. The authors use methods of linguistic description and content analysis, methods of comparison and quantitative methods. The comparison carried out is meant to reveal the similarities and differences between the contexts in which such discourse markers are used. The analysis of discourse markers is carried out with reference to the Russian National Corpus. The article quotes dictionary definitions of the discourse markers under consideration, indicates their frequency, the purpose of their use at certain times which helps clarify the functional semantics of each marker. The на самом деле discourse marker is compared to the в самом деле marker in order to establish the similarity between the two. The research carried out proves the fact that there may be shifts in the semantic meaning of discourse markers in oral speech which does not happen instantly but gradually. The authors establish the dominant features of the units under considerations and demonstrate changes in their functioning in the Russian language taking into account the changes in the requirements to communication.

Under the framework of relevance theory, this paper deals with the textual function of discourse markers (DMs). How do DMs make the text coherent? What are the principles behind it? Specifically this paper analyses DMs within the framework of Relevance Theory, including the motivation of DMs and their textual function. DMs function to influence utterance interpretation in a cognitive way in terms of the essentials of Relevance Theory and their employment is likely to provide the hearer with procedural guidelines for searching for optimal relevance, and consequently cast constraints upon his interpretation.

Background. Modern linguistic research is focused on the communicative and pragmatic aspects of studying linguistic units. Scholars interpret a text not merely as a medium for conveying meaning but as a means of influence and a tool for realising the author’s intentions. This approach explains the increased attention of linguists to discourse markers – elements of discourse that, on the one hand, structure it by ensuring coherence and cohesion, and on the other hand, reflect the speaker's true communicative and pragmatic intentions. Methods. The present research employs general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, which were used to divide the literary discourse into constituent parts, to describe each of them, and to examine the analysed context as a whole. The method of discourse analysis was applied to identify the roles of the addressee and the addresser, as well as the circumstances of their interaction within the literary discourse. The method of linguistic description was used to characterise the communicative and pragmatic features of the analysed discourse units. Results. The analysis of discourse markers in the short stories of Hryhir Tiutiunnyk has revealed their significant role in shaping the communicative and pragmatic dimensions of literary texts. Discourse units can introduce evaluative commentary, draw the reader’s attention to the author’s internal or external description of a character, emphasise the character’s role in the compositional structure of the text. Discourse markers serve a significant function in presenting various supplementary descriptions related to the overall content of the texts. Conclusions. Research on Hryhorii Tiutiunnyk’s short prose reveals that discourse markers in the writer’s works are capable of introducing multifaceted additional information within the authorial voice (regarding the characterisation of a character, their actions and behavior, event descriptions, etc.). Significantly less frequent, in comparison to the authorial voice, is the use of discourse units in the speech of characters, particularly in dialogues or the characters’ internal monologues. Special attention should be paid to instances where a character’s internal monologue transforms into extended authorial narration, or vice versa: a discourse marker functions as a cohesive element that enables a smooth transition from the author’s narrative to the character’s internal monologic speech.

It is widely acknowledged that subjective elements emerge in the initial position of an utterance, known as the left periphery, whereas intersubjective elements typically emerge in the final position, referred to as the right periphery. However, this functional asymmetry is not invariably maintained. This study advances the argument that the discourse marker well can serve a dual purpose, simultaneously expressing both a speaker’s subjectivity and intersubjectivity at the outset of an utterance, specifically on the left periphery. Essentially, well indexes the speaker’s subjectivity mediated through intersubjectivity. Additionally, the study explores the intricate relationship between intersubjectivity and the textual function of well as a discourse marker. This study reveals that intersubjective functions can contribute to the development of textual functions.

<em>The aim of this paper is to discuss one specific aspect of classroom interaction and language use in language classroom, namely discourse markers (DMs). This research uses case study method. Using data obtained from two English teachers teaching six EFL classrooms in a high school in Surakarta, this study describes the occurrence and textual functions of DMs used by the teachers. The data analysis reveals that there are 19 types of DMs, either in English, Indonesian, or Javanese language, used by both teachers in their classroom talk. This paper also provides an account of a number of textual functions fulfilled by those DMs which may contribute greatly to the coherent and smooth flow of the discourse organization generated in classroom interaction. The fact that DMs are valuable resources to facilitate the structuring of classroom discourse suggests that there should be an increasing awareness of English teachers about the use of DMs in teacher talk. </em>

This paper explores the functional and social meanings of the formal variants of the expressions I DON‟T KNOW and I DON‟T THINK. The qualitative analysis of the data shows that I DON‟T KNOW and I DON‟T THINK are highly routinized discourse formulae that perform multiple interpersonal and textual functions. The quantification of their phonetic and grammatical variants across function, age and gender reveals that the occurrence of non-localised and localised variants of I DON‟T KNOW and I DON‟T THINK is conditioned by different parameters. Non-localised variants show function-specific patterning: variants of I DON‟T KNOW pattern with broad functional categories; variants of I DON‟T THINK reflect fine-grained functional differences at a micro-level of analysis. Localised variants, by contrast, do not carry a functional load but evince orderly social heterogeneity. The results demonstrate that social variation in discourse extends beyond differential frequencies and strategic uses of discourse markers (DMs) to their formal encoding, and that function plays an important role in accounting for patterns of formal variation in discourse. The paper argues for a fuller integration of qualitative methods in the study of language variation and change in discourse, and calls for the form and function of discourse variables to be studied in greater detail.

Writing is one of the productive skills and it is very important. However, it is a very difficult skill to develop even in the native language. In other words, knowing the grammar rules and vocabulary do not create a perfect writing. Using discourse markers between the sentences to relate them with one another makes it more coherent. Therefore, in this study it was aimed to scrutinize the use of discourse markers (DMs) in the paragraphs of high-scored students and low-scored students. In the final exam paper, students were asked to write a story about one of three pictures they chose. They were expected to narrate a story with 100-120 words as they were intermediate level students (B1). After two instructors evaluated each of the students’ writing exams based on the non-academic criteria with the following sub-criteria: “accuracy of vocabulary, variety of vocabulary, accuracy of grammar, variety of grammar, paragraph structure, quality and relevance of ideas, linking words, punctuation and capitalization, and spelling mistakes”, the writings of students who sent their consents were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively in this current study. 10 papers for each category (low-scored students’ and high-scored students’ paragraphs) were examined. Results showed that high-scored students used more DMs than low scored-students. Furthermore, misuse of DMs and overused DMs, which result in redundancy in the texts, make the writings disorganized and incomprehensible. Finally, there was a positive relationship between advanced uses and writing scores. As an implication of the study, it should be noted that students should be equipped with the semantically and functionally correct use of DMs. Therefore, teachers should attempt to use different methods or ways to teach them in the classroom.

Discourse markers are endowed with a prominent textual function as they ensure discursive coherence and cohesion as well as with an interpersonal function that guide the receptors of the legal spoken or written text towards the correct interpretation of the message. This paper illustrates, by relying on a qualitative analysis of discourse markers in Legal English, several manners of efficiently teaching the pragmatic and functional roles of discourse markers in legal English texts to Law students who study English as a foreign language in general and ESP in particular. The main aim is to develop the students’ ability to detect, define, analyze and use discourse markers in written and spoken legal language.