Cover not available
Part of
Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New perspectives
Edited by Chiara Fedriani and Andrea Sansó
[Studies in Language Companion Series 186] 2017
► pp. 99–124

Chapter 3
Towards an operational category of discourse markers

A definition and its model

 | Université catholique de Louvain
The field of discourse markers (DMs) studies suffers from lack of consensus on the limits and definition of the category. There seems to be a crucial need for onomasiological studies that account for every kind of DM in cross-linguistic data. This study presents a proposal for an operational, corpus-based definition of DMs that addresses several theoretical and methodological shortcomings in the field. I claim that any categorical definition is only useful insofar as it is endorsed by an empirical model of identification and annotation. Such a model will be described and illustrated by relevant authentic examples from a pilot study on a comparable corpus of French and English interviews.
Keywords: discourse markers, linguistic categorization, corpus-based pragmatics, annotation protocol, bilingual corpus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Definitions in contest
    • 2.1Terminology
    • 2.2Partial and overlapping definitions
      • 2.2.1Discourse markers and pragmatic markers
      • 2.2.2Discourse markers and modal particles
      • 2.2.3Discourse markers and subcategories
    • 2.3Interim discussion
  • 3.Bridging the gap: A corpus-based definition of DMs
    • 3.1Methodology for an extensive-intensive definition
    • 3.2Defining DMs with syntax and functions
    • 3.3Inclusions and exclusions from the category
  • 4.From theory to practice…
    • 4.1Methodology for a crosslinguistic annotation model
    • 4.2The model
    • 4.3Mapping the definition onto its annotation model
  • 5.… and back again: Retrieving membership from annotations
    • 5.1Relational and non-relational types
    • 5.2Dual position
    • 5.3Polysemous DMs
    • 5.4Hedges: DMs or MPs?
  • 6.Discussion: Reliability and exhaustivity of the definition
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 13 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.186.04cri
References (55)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1984. “Sort of” and “kind of” in English conversation. Studia Linguistica 38: 118–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2006. Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. 2011. Pragmatic markers. In Discursive Pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics 8], Jan Zienkowski, Jan-Ola Ostman & Jef Verschueren (eds), 223–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicolas. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects. Kluwer: Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicolas & Lascarides, Alex. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolly, Catherine. 2014. Gradience and gradulaness of parentheticals. Drawing a line in the sand between phraseology and grammaticalization. Yearbook of Phraseology 5: 25–56.Google Scholar
Bolly, Catherine & Crible, Ludivine. 2015. From context to functions and back again: Disambiguating pragmatic uses of discourse markers. Paper presented at the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) Conference, July 26–31st, Antwerp, Belgium.
Bolly, Catherine & Degand, Liesbeth. 2013. Have you seen what I mean? From verbal constructions to discourse structuring markers. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14(2): 210–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolly, Catherine, Gabarró-López, Silvia & Meurant, Laurence. 2015. Mapping the pragmatic functions of interactive gestures and discourse markers. Paper presented at the International Research Workshop CLARe, December 7–9 2015, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Brinton, Laurel. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English. Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine. 2014. Identifying and describing discourse markers in spoken corpora. Annotation protocol v.8. Technical report, Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
. 2017. Discourse Markers and (Dis)fluency across Registers: A Contrastive Usage-Based Study in English and French. PhD thesis, Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
Crible, Ludivine, Degand, Liesbeth & Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2017. The clustering of discourse markers and filled pauses: A corpus-based French-English study of (dis)fluency. Languages in Contrast 17(1): 69–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine & Zufferey, Sandrine. 2015. Using a unified taxonomy to annotate discourse markers in speech and writing. In Proceedings of the 11th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation, April 14, London, UK.Google Scholar
Cuenca, Maria Josep. 2013. The fuzzy boundaries between discourse marking and modal marking. In Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 234], Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds), 191–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline. 2015. Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16 (1): 59–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2011. Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers. Linguistics 49: 287–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Approaches to Discourse Particles [Studies in Pragmatics 1], Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 403–425. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. 2013. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49: 365–390.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2006. Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: Introduction to the volume. In Approaches to Discourse Particles [Studies in Pragmatics 1], Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 1–20. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2): 167–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furkó, Péter. 2005. The Pragmatic Marker – Discourse Marker Dichotomy Reconsidered. The Case of “well” and “of course”. PhD dissertation, University of Debrecen.Google Scholar
Gabarró-López, Sílvia. Forthcoming. Marqueurs du discours en langue des signes de Belgique francophone (LSFB) et langue des signes catalane (LSC) : Les “balises-listes” et les “palm-ups”. In Marcadores del discurso y lingüística contrastiva en las lenguas románicas, Oscar Loureda, Guillermo Álvarez Sellán & Martha Rudka (eds). Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert.
Glynn, Dylan. 2010. Testing the hypothesis. Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven Approaches [Cognitive Linguistic Research 46], Dylan Glynn & Kerstin Fischer (eds), 239–269. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González, Montserrat. 2005. Pragmatic markers and discourse coherence relations in English and Catalan oral narrative. Discourse Studies 7(1): 53–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Mark A. K. & Hasan, Ruqyiah. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1997. “Alors” and “donc” in spoken French: A reanalysis. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 153–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French “toujours”). In Approaches to Discourse Particles [Studies in Pragmatics 1], Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 21–41. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hosman, Lawrence A. & Siltanen, Susan A. 2011. Hedges, tag questions, message processing, and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 30(3): 341–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, Katarzyna. 2003. On translating “what is said”: Tertium comparationis in contrastive semantics and pragmatics. In Meaning through Language Contrast [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 100], Katarzyna Jaszczolt & Kathleen Turner (eds), 441–462. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohn, Kurt. 2012. Pedagogic corpora for content and language integrated learning. Insights from the BACKBONE Project. The Eurocall Review 20(2).Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana. 2006. Discourse markers in English: A discourse-pragmatic view. In Approaches to Discourse Particles [Studies in Pragmatics 1], Kerstin Fischer (ed), 43–59. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan. 2001. Inner and outer syntax of constructions: The case of the “x och x” construction in Swedish. Paper presented at 7th International Pragmatics Association Conference, July 9–14, Budapest, Hungary.
Liu, Kris & Fox Tree, Jean E. 2012. Hedges enhance memory but inhibit retelling. Psychon Bull Rev 19: 892–898. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Marcu, Daniel. 1998. A surface-based approach to identifying discourse markers and elementary textual units in unrestricted texts. In Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers. Proceedings of the workshop, COLING-ACL ‘98, August 15th, Montreal, Canada, Manfred Stede, Leo Warner & Eduard Hovy (eds), 1–7. New Brunswick NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Palmer, Franck. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Petukhova, Vohla & Bunt, Harry. 2009. Towards a multidimensional semantics of discourse markers in spoken dialogue. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Semantics, 157–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pitler, Emily & Nenkova, Ani. 2009. Using syntax to disambiguate explicit discourse connectives in text. In Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP Conference Short Papers, 13–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prasad, Rashmi, Dinesh, Nikhil, Lee, Alan, Miltsakaki, Eleni, Robaldo, Livio, Joshi, Aravind & Webber, Bonnie. 2008. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08), May, Marrakech, Morocco.Google Scholar
Redeker, Gisela. 1990. Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 14(3): 367–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouchota, Villy. 1996. Discourse connectives: What do they link? UCL Working papers in Linguistics 8: 1–15.Google Scholar
Santorini, Beatrice. 1990. Part-of-speech tagging guidelines for the Penn Treebank Project, 3rd revision, 2nd printing. Technical Report, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Thomas & Wörner, Kai. 2012. EXMARaLDA. In Handbook on Corpus Phonology, Jacques Durand, Gut Ulrike & Gjert Kristoffersen (eds), 402–419. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107: 227–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert & Degand, Liesbeth. 2010. Coding coherence relations: Reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6(2): 241–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stede, Manfred. 2014. Resolving connective ambiguity: A prerequisite for discourse parsing. In The Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 254], Helmut Gruber & Gisela Redeker (eds), 121–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester, UK.
Valdmets, Anika. 2013. Modal particles, discourse markers, and adverbs with lt-suffix in Estonian. In Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 234], Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds), 107–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Diane. 1993. Les ponctuants de la langue et autres mots du discours. Québec: Nuit Blanche Editeur.Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard & Detges, Ulrich. 2007. Different functions, different histories. Modal particles and discourse markers from a diachronic point of view. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 61–80.Google Scholar
Cited by (18)

Cited by 18 other publications

Galiano, Liviana
2024. Pragmatic markers in English and Italian film dialogue. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 34:4 ► pp. 501 ff. DOI logo
Ivanytska, Natalia B. & Nina L. Ivanytska
2024. PRAGMATICS OF ENGLISH AND UKRAINIAN PARENTHETICAL WORDS IN COLUMNIST GENRE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY. Alfred Nobel University Journal of Philology 2:28 ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo
Shan, Yi
2023. A Domain-Function Analysis of ni zhidao (你知道, “You Know”) in Chinese Simultaneous Speech. Sage Open 13:4 DOI logo
Jeppesen Kragh, Kirsten
2022. Voilà , membre du paradigme des marqueurs discursifs. Langages N° 227:3 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Jones, Rebekah, Emily R Zane & Ruth B Grossman
2022. Like, it's important: The frequency and use of the discourse marker like in older autistic children. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments 7 DOI logo
Kazemian, Reza & Mohammad Amouzadeh
2022. Aspects ofvæ(‘and’) as a discourse marker in Persian. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 32:4 ► pp. 588 ff. DOI logo
Van Olmen, Daniël & Vittorio Tantucci
2022. Getting attention in different languages: A usage-based approach to parenthetical look in Chinese, Dutch, English, and Italian. Intercultural Pragmatics 19:2 ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
van der Wouden, Ton & Ad Foolen
2021. Dutch pragmatic markers in the left periphery. In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325], ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Van Olmen, Daniël
2021. Second person parentheticals of unintentional visual perception in British English. In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325], ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Akihiro, Hisae
2020. L’emploi discursif de après , étude contrastive avec ato en japonais. Extension contextuelle et pragmaticalisation. Langages N° 220:4 ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Furkó, Péter B.
2019. Exploring the Fuzzy Boundaries of Discourse Markers Through Manual and Automatic Annotation. In Fuzzy Boundaries in Discourse Studies, ► pp. 215 ff. DOI logo
Furkó, Péter B.
2020. Preliminary Issues: Category Membership, Methodology, Alternative Perspectives on Discourse Markers. In Discourse Markers and Beyond, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gabarró-López, Sílvia
2019. Describing buoys from the perspective of discourse markers. Sign Language & Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 210 ff. DOI logo
Furkó, Péter
2018. The Boundaries of Discourse Markers – Drawing Lines through Manual and Automatic Annotation. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica 10:2 ► pp. 155 ff. DOI logo
Crible, Ludivine
2017. Discourse markers and (dis)fluency in English and French. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 242 ff. DOI logo
Crible, Ludivine, Liesbeth Degand & Gaëtanelle Gilquin
2017. The clustering of discourse markers and filled pauses. Languages in Contrast 17:1 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Dobrovoljc, Kaja
2017. Multi-word discourse markers and their corpus-driven identification. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22:4 ► pp. 551 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2018. Discourse Markers and (Dis)fluency [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 286], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 december 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.