Segnali discorsivi e segnali pragmatici: sensibilità al mutamento e alla variazione sociolinguistica

Functional markers (i.e., a hypernymic term for discourse and pragmatic markers) are of great interest on a sociolinguistic level. An increasing number of recent studies have shown that their sensitivity to macro sociolinguistic variables together with their characteristic polyfunctionality make them particularly interesting objects of analysis of sociolinguistically-informed approaches. The analysis developed in this paper, based on diachronic and synchronic data on the Italian markers dai 'come on' and allora 'then', aims at verifying the hypothesis that pragmatic markers and discourse markers are differently sensitive to sociolinguistic variation and diachronic change. The motivation behind such difference rests on the fact that pragmatic functions are more related to interactional dynamics, while discourse markers are more anchored to the co-text and tend to show higher functional and formal persistence over time. Indeed, pragmatic markers are typically related to the speaker's subjectivity, to social rules and to contemporary cultural patterns, and hence are more ephemeral, while discourse markers appear more stable over time due to their anchoring to a 'grammar of speech'. The paper shows how the two classes of functional markers are differently sensitive (a) to macro-sociolinguistic variables (i.e., diatopic and diaphasic variation) and (b) to diachronic change, and how such differences can be explained through a prototype approach, which seems appropriate to give a good account of the polyfunctionality of functional markers.

Reviewed by: The evolution of pragmatic markers in English: Pathways of change by Laurel J. Brinton Karin Aijmer The evolution of pragmatic markers in English: Pathways of change. By Laurel J. Brinton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Pp 344. ISBN 9781107129054. $110 (Hb). Laurel Brinton’s book The evolution of pragmatic markers in English: Pathways of change is the latest addition to her illustrious monographs on the history of pragmatic markers in English. B’s research deals with the syntactic and semantic developments of pragmatic markers in the history of English within the grammaticalization framework. The new book, keeping up this tradition, begins with an overview chapter, which discusses the state of art in the study of pragmatic markers in historical pragmatics and functions as a stepping-stone to the discussion in the following chapters. Chs. 2–9 contain studies of individual pragmatic markers. The chapters are revised and updated versions of previously published articles as well as new research (Ch. 8). Ch. 10 wraps up the results from the discussion in the case studies. Let us look at the chapters in more detail. The introductory chapter defines pragmatic markers (the term B prefers to ‘discourse marker’) by enumerating their phonological, syntactic, semantic, functional, sociolinguistic, and stylistic characteristics. The pragmatic markers dealt with range from hwæt in Old English (OE) to whatever in present-day American English (PDE). The study is based on present-day and historical corpora, the latter using speech-based sources such as dialogue from drama, trials, parliamentary proceedings, and so forth. The major themes of the introductory chapter relate to the sources of pragmatic markers and their diachronic syntactic and semantic pathways. Semantically, pragmatic markers are assumed to develop procedural meanings from content meanings, change from nonsubjective to more subjective (and intersubjective) meaning, and broaden their scope from a lexical item to the whole proposition. Another issue is how the processes of change undergone by pragmatic markers should be analyzed. Pragmatic markers can be described with reference to Hopper’s (1991) principles of grammaticalization and to the parameters suggested by Lehmann (2002). But in some respects, they ‘do not seem to acquire the prototypical grammatical qualities that we expect in a fully grammaticalized inflection or clitic’ (29) associated with grammaticalization. They are not integrated into the sentence as might be expected, and they have discourse or pragmatic functions. It has therefore been suggested that the process involved in their development should be described as pragmaticalization. B argues, following Elizabeth Closs Traugott, that aspects of discourse pragmatics can be understood within a broad conception of grammar that encompasses discourse functions (35). The remainder of the book is divided into two parts, based on whether the developmental source of the pragmatic marker is a lexical item or a clause. Part I (Chs. 2–4) focuses on pragmatic markers that developed via ‘clear unilinear paths’ from adverbs to pragmatic markers. Ch. 2 is concerned with what B describes as the exclamatory OE hwæt (traditionally regarded as an interjection). The chapter argues that, based on the contexts where it occurs, hwæt should be regarded as a pragmatic marker that is close in function to PDE you know in its function of expressing shared knowledge. It is distinguished from hwæt þa ‘what then’, which expresses foregrounded events in sequential plot development and is similar to PDE so. The exclamatory what is also used in the post-OE period as a marker of surprise (often followed by a question) (65), as an attention-calling marker (what ho) (68), and as a parenthetical before numerals (68). Given this multifunctionality, the derivation of the different functions of hwæt ‘must be taken as, in part, speculative’ (69). However, the developments are consonant with syntactic and semantic changes during grammaticalization. Syntactically, hwæt undergoes decategorialization to a pragmatic marker, and, semantically, the developments coincide with increased subjective and intersubjective meanings. [End Page 976] Ch. 3 argues, on the basis of the historical corpora, that whilom has undergone more complex pathways of change than while. It is shown that whilom was common in OE and Middle English as an adverb meaning ‘at times, sometimes’ but that its frequency drops around...

This book examines the historical development of discourse and pragmatic markers across the Romance languages. These markers serve to indicate the organization of the discourse, the speaker's relationship with the interlocutor, and the speaker's stance with regard to the information expressed. Their relevance is in assisting interpretation, despite the fact that they have little or no propositional content. In this book, distinguished scholars from different theoretical backgrounds analyse the different classes of discourse and pragmatic markers found in Latin and the Romance languages and explore both their diachronic development and their synchronic properties. Following an introduction and overview of the development of these markers, the book is divided into two parts: the first part investigates pragmatic markers developed from verbs, such as Latin quaeso, Romanian ma rog, and Spanish o sea; the second looks at adverbs as discourse markers, such as French deja and Italian gia, Romanian atunci and Portuguese alias. Chapters address a variety of theoretical issues such as the cyclic nature of functional developments, the nature of grammaticalization and pragmaticalization, semantic change, and the emergence of new pragmatic values. The arguments presented also have consequences for any analysis of the interfaces between grammar, discourse, and interaction.

This methodological chapter is a contextualizing and theoretical introduction. It aims at setting the premises for the theoretical and methodological framework adopted in the volume, as it gives an overview of research on the rise of pragmatic markers in Romance and other languages, but at the same time it introduces notions and terminology relevant for the discussion. The developments of functional markers have been studied moving from very different theoretical positions and call into question widely debated notions as grammaticalization and pragmaticalization, as well as subjectification and intersubjectification. Similarly, the terminological choices made by different scholars to refer to functional markers (e.g. discourse markers and/or pragmatic markers) also subsume diverging theoretical approaches, which are described in detail. All these issues are considered and discussed in this chapter.

Discourse and pragmatic markers are functional units, universally present in human language, that deictically relate text fragments, propositions, utterances, and discourse chunks to the context of speech. They manage the interaction of the discourse participants in the speech situation and facilitate successful communication. This group of functional units includes elements as diverse as discourse and pragmatic markers in the broad sense, illocutionary markers, sentence particles, modal particles, and connectives. Romance languages, particularly the spoken varieties, exhibit all those types of elements, even modal particles, which have often been claimed to be absent in Romance. As in other languages, discourse and pragmatic markers mostly develop out of adverbs and adverbials (especially prepositional phrases), but nouns, adjectives, verbal forms, and other (parenthetical) phrases are further possible sources. One case that is peculiar to Romance is the ability to combine lexical material with the common complementizer corresponding to ‘that,’ which leads to more or less grammaticalized items that function as discourse and pragmatic markers. The wealth of data for Romance and Latin offers plenty of opportunities for the study of the diachronic evolution of discourse and pragmatic markers. In this context, the question whether discourse and pragmatic markers represent cases of grammaticalization or pragmaticalization and discoursivization remains a matter of some debate. In particular, the increased interest in linguistic interfaces in formal linguistic grammar theory has led to highly detailed investigations of the Romance left periphery, which has been shown to host all kinds of discourse-related phenomena.

در آفرینش گفتمان نویسنده و گوینده روابط بین واحدهای گفتمان را ایجاد می‌کنند و مخاطب هم برای تفسیر گفتمان این روابط را کشف می‌کند. نظامِ تولید و شناسایی روابط میان گفتمان‌ها با بهره‌گیری از گفتمان‌نماها محقق می‌شود که بر پایة قواعدی فراگفتمان‌مدار به مدیریت این نظام می‌پردازند. ولی مسئلة ترکیب این عناصر موضوع مهمی است و لازم است آثار آن در مدیریت گفتمان بررسی شود. همچنین، ترکیب این عناصر گفتمان‌شناختی به صورت چند‌زبانه بررسی نشده‌است. مقالة حاضر، با روشی توصیفی و کیفی به مطالعة ترکیب گفتمان‌نماها در پیکره‌های انگلیسی، عربی، و فارسی بر اساس نظریۀ گفتمان­ شناختی انسجام­ (Schiffrin, 1987; Schiffrin, 2006) و الگوهای تحلیلی گفتمان‌نما (Fraser, 2006) و نقش‌نما (Brinton, 1996) پرداخته‌است. یافته‌ها نشان‌ داد که از میان گفتمان‌نماهای تفصیلی، تقابلی، استنباطی و توالی، رتبة اول ترکیب و همایی با 96% به گفتمان‌نماهای تفصیلی، رتبة دوم با 62% به گفتمان‌نماهای تقابلی، و رتبه‌های سوم و چهارم با 54% و 15% به گفتمان‌نماهای استنباطی و توالی متعلق است. در ترکیب گفتمان‌نماها، نخستین گفتمان‌نما رابطه‌ای عام را نشان می‌دهد و گفتمان‌نمای دوم به بازنمایی رابطه‌ای ویژه می‌پردازد. واکاوی دقیق نقش منظورشناختی این عناصر فراگفتمانی در این پیکره ­ها منجر به کشف یک منظومة سیال طیف نقشی شش‌وجهی برای گفتمان‌نماها گردید. این فرایند سیال و متغیر در آفرینش و تفسیر گفتمان، تحت تأثیر مثلث منظورشناختی فراتفسیر، فراارتباط، و فراگفتمان به وجود می‌آید. در نتیجة تعامل این سه عنصر، نظام کاربردی‌شدگی پدیدار می‌شود. این فرایند سبب ایجاد استنباطات جدید، پیچیده، و خلاق در نقش گفتمان‌نماها می‌گردد که همیشه هم در حال تغییر و نوآوری است.

Generally speaking, the current paper demonstrates a detailed and critical exploration of Arabic pragmatic markers (PMs) in spoken discourse. Although there seems to be less agreement on the topic of the particular phenomena that the current study is addressing, my study will use the term PM instead of discourse marker (DM). For clarity, it should be identified that a PMs in this study is “most commonly used as a general or umbrella term covering forms with a wide variety of functions both on the interpersonal and textual levels” (Zienkowski, Östman, & Verschueren, 2011, p. 227); therefore, DMs or any other linguistic elements with discourse functions are considered as a subtype of a PM (see Fraser, 2009; Aijmer,2013). Based on the literature review, treating the phenomena as PMs will provide us with a more comprehensive approach towards the study of that particular phenomena in Arabic dialects; such an approach does not only focus on texts, but also incorporates social, cultural, and linguistic aspects of the contexts into our analysis of the phenomena. Briefly, the structure of this paper will be divided into the following sections: a definition of pragmatic markers, theoretical approaches of PMs, PMs in the Arabic literature, variations in Arabic, a variational pragmatic approach and PMs, treatment of PMs in Arabic literature, PMs in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), PMs in Dialectal Arabic, and conclusion.

Several studies have demonstrated that, in situations of language contact, discourse markers, pragmatic markers and modal particles are easily transferable from one language into the other. This contribution tries to examine how does this process take place in bilingual speech, and it discusses data from a corpus of bilingual conversations from Gibraltar. It is argued that switching of discourse and pragmatic markers, as well as modal expressions, is an extremely frequent phenomenon and, more interestingly, that regularities in this process can be found, in the form of regular and recurrent bilingual patterns. These functional elements in fact are shown to behave consistently with each other, allowing to identify class-specific patterns, and with other discourse-relevant entities such as left dislocations and pseudo-clefts.

When a person starts a sentence, which words come out first? According to the grammar books of English, you start a sentence with a subject, e.g. I, she, Sali, my daughter, in order to get sentences such as, e.g. I like cats, Sali likes cats, My daughter likes cats. But that is not what happens in spoken language. Sentences do not always unfold with a subject first. What typically happens is more like: You know, I like cats, So, I like cats, or even So, you know, I think, I like cats. Everyone thinks that it is teenagers who do this, and if not teenagers, people who are uneducated or inarticulate.

This study aimed to investigate the types of pragmatic markers in a drama entitled Ile. The study is based on Fraser’s theories of pragmatic markers and discourse coherence relations. This research employs a descriptive qualitative research method since the presentation of the results of the analysis is in the form of tabulation and description of the data. The present study employs one of those three kinds of triangulation suggested by Miles and Huberman that is expert triangulation. The results of the analysis of the data indicate that from 4,369 words in the drama, 415 linguistic items are identified as pragmatic markers which are distributed into four major types of pragmatic markers: basic markers (159 items), commentary markers (5 items), parallel markers (121 items), and discourse markers (130 items). Coherence relations which are found in drama Ile shows that those pragmatic markers provide the bridge between the propositional parts of the discourse that making it possible for the characters in drama to move quickly and smoothly from one topic to another

This work explores discourse markers (DMs), which assess the reported on the scale of reliability/uncertainty in various subgenres of the social network VKontakte. We analyzed more than 370 statements with DMs in messages and user comments in the official public page of Cherepovets (https://vk.com/cherinfo_ru) and news messages on the personal page of Cherepovets mayor V.E. Germanov (https://vk.com/germanovve). The aim of the work is to highlight the features of DMs' functioning in various subgenres of a social network. The hypothesis of the research is that DMs, as units devoid of denotative meaning, implement various pragmatic functions in Internet communication, e.g., explicate the constitutive features of Internet genres, contribute to a person's self-presentation and written text's discursivization, reduce emotional deficit and switch micro-topics. To identify DMs' functions, a four-stage technique was used: (1) determination and comparison of DMs' frequency in the analyzed subgenres and the Russian National Corpus; (2) based on the frequency, identification of nuclear and peripheral DMs, (3) analysis of DMs' context semantics in comparison with dictionary data. (4) revealing the specifics of DMs' use in different subgenres of the social network. The analysis confirmed the hypothesis. DMs implement pragmatic functions in various subgenres of a social network. The subgenre of the commentary is closest to oral discourse, emotional and subjective. DMs fully explicate these constitutive features of the commentary genre. In the hybrid subgenre of news messages on the personal page of the mayor, which bears the features of a personal blog, DMs are used to make the text dialogic, to interact with the reader, and to have a casual conversational style. In the subgenre of news in the official community of Cherepovets, DMs are used less often, which is due to the journalistic text's striving for objectivity and emotionlessness. However, DMs are used when reporting direct speech and also appear in creolized news, in the section from readers #cherinfo_proposal, and in reposts from other sources. As polyfunctional units, whose main purpose is to build interaction between the addresser and the addressee, DMs are used in contexts in various functions. Firstly, in addition to expressing confidence/uncertainty, they help to eliminate emotional deficit, realizing irony and aggression. Secondly, DMs allow the addresser to control the addressee's attention by including new micro-topics in the reported, focusing on what the communicant sees as important or significant. Finally, DMs also help communicants to add features of a conversational style, emotionality, and dialogization to written speech. We refer to this phenomenon as the discursivization of the text, by which we mean an unconscious or conscious attempt by an author to endow their text with an internal dialogization, to bring the written mode of discourse closer to the oral one.

Researchers typically examine metatextual discourse markers as linguistic tools that promote cohesion and logical coherence. Therefore, their functioning beyond these traditional roles remains insufficiently explored. This article analyses the use of inferential markers следовательно, quindi and therefore across different communicative practices, comparing poetic discourse with ordinary language to trace the expansion of their functional potential. A comparative analysis of these units demonstrates how different types of discourse reorganize logical, pragmatic and semantic relations. In order to address the various and overlapping definitions of discourse and pragmatic markers, this study adopts the concept of pragmatic units, which encompasses deictics, discourse markers, illocutionary verbs and modal verbs. Analyzing these linguistic elements in terms of pragmatic markers enables a thorough investigation into how they perform communicative and metalinguistic functions, express the speaker’s stance, indicate the coordinates of the communicative act, structure discourse and organize interaction. The goal of this study is to identify the functional and pragmatic modifications of metatextual discourse markers in poetic discourse compared to ordinary language. Drawing on a Poetic Corpus of three million words in three languages (Russian, Italian, and English), the research compares these markers with those found in Spoken Language Corpora, such as the Russian National Corpus (Spoken), KiParla (L’italiano parlato e chi parla italiano), and the Corpus of Contemporary American English (Spoken). The results provide deeper insight into the mechanisms of the pragmatic dimension of language, define the pragmatic specificity of contemporary poetry, and demonstrate how metatextual discourse markers expand their functional potential, display multifunctionality, and undergo context-driven resemantization.

This study aims to find out what discourse markers are usually contained in an utterance, then what is the function of using these discourse markers, and also the reasons for using discourse markers that occur in Adele's video interview with Vogue. The data used in this study was obtained from the YouTube video content belonging to the Vogue channel called 73 Questions. As a basis for this research, there are several theories used, namely the theory of Fraser (2009), Dumlao and Wilang (2019), and Schiffrin (1987) in Cambridge (2018). In analyzing the data, the author uses a qualitative method with a case study research design. Based on the results of the analysis obtained by the author, it was found that 373 data were showing the use of discourse markers consisting of 26 different discourse markers. The 26 markers consist of 5 different types of discourse markers which include contrastive discourse markers, elaborative discourse markers, inferential discourse markers, temporal discourse markers, and spoken discourse markers. Furthermore, the dominant types of discourse markers that occur are elaborative discourse markers occur 118 times and spoken discourse markers occur 130 times. As for its function, there are 8 functions, namely, connecting markers, managing information, response markers, the cause, the effect marker, a temporal adverb, a marker of time, a sign of rejection or contrast, as well as a marker that describes the closeness between the topic of the question and the idea. And the reason found for the use of discourse markers is to make the conversation that occurs flow, not stiff, natural, and meaningful between Adele and the interviewer.

Purpose: Linguistics is the scientific study of language; however its meta-implications in Appellate court judgment is yet to be given as much scholarly attention as other legal genres. Most studies on courtroom and particularly court judgement have focused on stylistic analysis, speech act and genre analysis; consequently studies on non-propositional meanings are still lean. Therefore, this study in the bid to further describe language of judges and account for how language is organised to achieve justice, investigated the nature and function pragmatic markers in a select Nigerian Appellate Court Judgement.
 Methodology: Using a Purposive random sampling technique, the study selected a property case judgement titled General Brigadier, A.M Adekunle (Rtd) V. Rockview from the Nigerian Weekly Law Reports (1999-2004). It adopted Fraser’s 1996 Pragmatic Marker Theory and mixed method of analysis –The quantitative was used in analysing the frequencies of the types of pragmatic markers employed by the judge while pragmatic imports of the markers in the ApCJ were discussed qualitatively.
 Findings: These analyses revealed that the selected ApCJ, though linguistic, is also replete with the four variants of pragmatic markers: Basic (44.9% marker), commentary (37.8%) and discourse markers (10.35%) and parallel (3.45%) identified by Fraser’s .The appellate judge used the basic markers particularly (the declarative markers) to build up the fact of the case and signal his opinions about them and the imperative markers were verdict pronounced. Commentary markers with (37.8%) were the second class of pragmatic marker observed in the (ApCJ). It comprised the following : Hearsay (3.45%), evidential (13.8%), contrastive markers (3.45%) assessment markers (13.7%) and emphasis marker (6.9%).The judge used more of evidential markers and assessment to predicate his judicial argumentation, implicitly justify the trial court’s judgement and thereby build logical bases for partly disallowing the appeal .
 Recommendation: The language of ApCJs is laden with pragmatic markers which serve essentially to build up and issues of the case, provide judicial argumentation and ultimately construct the verdicts. Pragmatic makers are greatly exploited by the appellate judge for effective adjudication. Therefore applied linguists and Forensic experts should critically investigate them to ascertain the correctness of the ratio dicidendi and the judge’s obiter dictum -crucial variables for establishing judicial accountability and fairness.

<p>Discourse markers distinguishing authorship in the epistolary discourse by Mykola Kulish<br> have been analyzed in the present paper. The investigation of discourse markers distinguishing<br> authorship in the epistolary discourse is of current interest for the theory of discourse studies in<br> modern linguistics, and it’s rather topical to analyze the discourse markers of the mentioned type<br> in the epistolary discourse by the definite author. It has been found out that discourse markers distinguishing<br> authorship occupy an important place among the discourse markers expressing identity.<br> The function of self-expression has been found out to be the prominent one for the discourse<br> markers under consideration, if choosing between all the functions of the epistolary discourse. The<br> corpus of discourse markers distinguishing authorship in the discourse of epistles by the playwright<br> Mykola Kulish has been selected. The selected discourse markers have been analyzed in order to<br> find out their functions and the peculiarities of their use in the epistles by M. Kulish and to clarify<br> the writer’s idiostyle in his epistolary works. As a result, it has been established that the proportion<br> of discourse markers distinguishing authorship is different in the letters to different addressees; it’s<br> especially high in the letters to M. Kulish’s friends, which is determined by the kind of relations<br> with these people. In his letters to his wife M. Kulish uses fewer discourse markers of the type under<br> consideration, but they often express indirect evidentiality.</p>