Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 11:1 (2020) ► pp.1–23

Discourse markers as indicators of connectedness between expositive illocutionary acts

 | Tokyo University of Science
There has been consistent interest in discourse makers over the past couple of decades, and various proposals have been put forth regarding their functions. The present paper analyzes discourse markers in general as indicators of types of connectedness between expositive illocutionary acts (Austin [1962]1975), which bring about illocutionary effects in discourse. The discourse marker well in particular indicates a gap between the preceding expositive illocutionary act and the present one, signaling the present expositive illocutionary act is of a non-committal type. This gap is analyzed, depending on the types of the preceding and present expositive illocutionary acts, as divergence, hesitancy, a transition from one expositive illocutionary act to another, or a boundary between them.
Keywords: discourse markers, well , expositives, discursive illocutionary acts, J. L. Austin, speech act theory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Discursive illocutionary acts
    • 2.1Expositive illocutionary acts (Austin 1975)
    • 2.2The characterizations of expositive illocutionary act types
  • 3.Discourse markers as indicators of the connectedness between the preceding expositive illocutionary act and the present one
    • 3.1The discourse marker but
    • 3.2The functions of the discourse marker well
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 30 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.17028.ois
References (23)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2013. Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. [1962] 1975. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
[1961] 1979. Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1989. Intonation and its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 2007. Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald and Michel McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 2006. “Discourse Particles and the Symbiosis of Natural Language Processing and Basic Research.” In Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn, ed. by Betty J. Birner, and Gregory Ward, 117–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2006. “‘Minister, we will see how the public judges you.’: Media references in political interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 381: 180–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “‘Here is the difference, here is the passion, here is the chance to be part of a great change’: Strategic context importation in political discourse.” In Context and Contexts: Parts Meet Whole?, ed. by Anita Fetzer, and Etsuko Oishi, 115–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin (ed). 2006. Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1993. “The discourse marker well: A relevance theoretical account.” Journal of Pragmatics 191: 435–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrick, Neal R. 2001. “Discourse markers in oral narrative.” Journal of Pragmatics 331: 849–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Oishi, Etsuko. 2014. “Evidentials in entextualization.” Intercultural Pragmatics 11(3): 437–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Follow-ups as speech acts in mediated political discourse.” In The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and functions of follow-ups, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence N. Berlin, 33–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Illocutionary effects, presupposition, and implicature.” In Pragmatics at its Interfaces, ed. by Stavros Assimakopoulos, 71–88. Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oishi, Etsuko and Anita Fetzer. 2016. “Expositives in discourse after discourse” Journal of Pragmatics 961: 49–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola. 1995. “Pragmatic particles twenty years after.” In Organization in Discourse: Proceedings from the Turku conference, ed. by Brita Wårvik, Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen, and Risto Hiltunen, 95–108. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Debora. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 2001. “Rethinking well .” Journal of Pragmatics 331: 1026–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Adrefiza, Adrefiza
2024. Comparing the Use of Linguistic Hedging Devices (LHDs) in English and Bahasa Indonesia: Gender and Pedagogical Perspectives. Innovare Journal of Education ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Oishi, Etsuko
2021. Speech-Act-Theoretic Explanations of Problems of Pure Indexicals. In Inquiries in Philosophical Pragmatics [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 27], ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo
Oishi, Etsuko
2022. Illocutionary-act-type sensitivity and discursive sequence: An examination of quotation. Intercultural Pragmatics 19:3 ► pp. 381 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.