Advertisement

Discourse Markers in Different Types of Reporting

  • Péter Furkó
  • András Kertész
  • Ágnes Abuczki
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 19)

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)?

Keywords

discourse markers types of reporting corpus linguistics discourse annotation voicing p-model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research contribution of Ágnes Abuczki to the present research subject has been supported by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office of Hungary – NKFIH (research project code: PD121009).

References

  1. Allan, K. (2016). Reports, indirect reports, and illocutionary point. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. L. Piparo (Eds.). The pragmatics of indirect reports. Cham: Springer, 573–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blakemore, D. (2013). Voice and expressivity in free indirect thought representations: imitation and representation. Mind and Language, 28(5), 579–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bordería, S. P. (2008). Introduction to the special issue on Empirical Data and Pragmatic Theory. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1353–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, P. & and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cappelen, H. & Lepore, E. (2007). Language Turned on Itself: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metalinguistic Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Capone, A. (2016). On the (Complicated) Relationship Between Direct and Indirect Reports. In: A. Capone, F. Kiefer & F. L. Piparo (Eds.) Indirect Reports and Pragmatics: Interdisciplinary Studies. Dordrecht: Springer, 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Celle, A. & Huart, R. (2007). Connectives as Discourse Landmarks. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chovanec, J. (2011). Humour in Quasi-Conversations: Constructing Fun in Online Sports Journalism. In: M. Dynel (Ed.). The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 243–264. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crible, L. (2016). Discourse Markers and Disfluencies: Integrating Functional and Formal Annotations. In H. Bunt (Ed.), Proceedings of the LREC 2016 Workshop ISA-12, pp. 3845.Google Scholar
  10. Cummings, L. (2016). Reported speech: A clinical pragmatic perspective. In: Alessandro Capone, Ferenc Kiefer and Franco Lo Piparo (Eds.). Indirect Reports and Pragmatics: Interdisciplinary Studies. Dordrecht: Springer, 3155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L. , Meyer, C., Thompson, S. A., Englebretson, R. & Martey, N. (2000–2005). Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Parts 14. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
  12. Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Minuit: Paris.Google Scholar
  13. Dynel, M. (2011). Stranger than fiction? – A few methodological notes on linguistic research in film discourse. Brno Studies in English 37(1): 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erman, B. (1987). Pragmatic expressions in English: A study of you know, you see and I mean in face-to-face conversation. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholm Studies in English 69. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
  15. Fischer, K. (2006). Towards an Understanding of the Spectrum of Approaches to Discourse Particles: Introduction to the Volume. In: K. Fischer (Ed.). Approaches to Discourse Particles. Oxford/Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1–20.Google Scholar
  16. Frank-Job, B. (2006). A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In: K. Fischer (Ed.). Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 359–374). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  17. Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6: 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Furkó, P. (2007). The Pragmatic MarkerDiscourse Marker Dichotomy Reconsidered - The Case of well and of course. Debrecen: Debrecen University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Furkó, P. (2010). As Good as it Gets – Scripted Data in Discourse Analysis. Argumentum 6: 113–123.Google Scholar
  21. Furkó, P. (2013). The functional spectrum of pragmatic markers in political news interviews and celebrity interviews. Topics in Linguistics 11: 13–21.Google Scholar
  22. Furkó, P. (2017). Manipulative uses of pragmatic markers in political discourse. Palgrave Communications 3. https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201754 (Last accessed: 28 January 2018).
  23. Furkó, P. & Abuczki, Á. (2014). English Discourse Markers in Mediatised Political Interviews. Brno Studies in English 40:(1) pp. 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Furkó, P., Kertész, A. & Abuczki, Á. (forthcoming) Discourse markers in different types of reporting – marginal cases.Google Scholar
  25. Heine, B. (to appear) Are there two different ways of approaching grammaticalization? In: Hancil, Sylvie (Ed.). Grammaticalization Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  26. Holt, E. (2016). Indirect reported speech in interaction. In: A. Capone, F. Kiefer & F. L. Piparo (Eds.). Indirect Reports and Pragmatics: Interdisciplinary Studies. Dordrecht: Springer, 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kertész, A. & Rákosi, Cs. (2012). Data, evidence and plausible argumentation in linguistics. A plausible argumentation model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kertész, A. & Rákosi, Cs. (2014). The p-model of data and evidence in linguistics. In: Kertész, András and Rákosi, Csilla (Eds.). The Evidential Basis of Linguistic Argumentation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 15–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kertész, A. & Rákosi, Cs. (2016). On the Inferential Structure of Indirect Reports. In: A. Capone, F. Kiefer & F. L. Piparo (Eds.). Indirect Reports and Pragmatics: Interdisciplinary Studies. Dordrecht: Springer, 435–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khosravinik, M. (2010). The representation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in British newspapers. Journal of Language and Politics. Vol. 9:1, pp. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lauerbach, G. & Fetzer, A. (2007). ‘Introduction’, in: A. Fetzer & G. Lauerbach (Eds.). Political Discourse in the Media. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyerhoff, M. (1994). Sounds pretty ethnic, eh?: A pragmatic particle in New Zealand English. Language in Society 23: 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nikula, T. (1996). Pragmatic Force Modifiers. Jyväskylä University Printing House, JyväskyläGoogle Scholar
  34. Norrick, N.R. (2001). Discourse markers in oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics 33:849–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Norrick, N.R. (2016). Indirect Reports, Quotation and Narrative. In: A. Capone, F. Kiefer & F. L. Piparo (Eds.). Indirect Reports and Pragmatics: Interdisciplinary Studies. Dordrecht: Springer, 93114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prentice, S. (2010). Using automated semantic tagging in Critical Discourse Analysis: A case study on Scottish independence from a Scottish nationalist perspective. Discourse & Society 21(4) 405–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rayson, P., Archer, D., Piao, S. & McEnery, T. (2004). The UCREL Semantic Analysis System, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Beyond Named Entity Recognition Semantic Labelling for NLP Tasks in Association with the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), pp. 7–12. Available at: http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/12453/1/usas_lrec04ws.pdf
  38. Rescher, N. (1976). Plausible Reasoning. Assen & Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  39. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tannen, D. (2010). Abduction in family interaction: Ventriloquizing as indirectness. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Traugott, E. G. (1995). The Role of the Development of Discourse Markers in a Theory of Grammaticalization. Paper given at the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Manchester; 13–18, August, 1995.Google Scholar
  42. Weigand, E. (2015). The dialogic Principle revisited. Speech acts and mental states. In: A. Capone, F. Kiefer & F. L. Piparo (Eds.). Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. White, P. (2000). Dialogue and inter-subjectivity: reinterpreting the semantics of modality and hedging. In: Coulthard, Malcolm, Janet Cotterill and Francis Rock (Eds.). Dialogue Analysis VII: Working with Dialogue. Selected Papers from the 7th International Association of Dialogue Analysis Conference. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 67–80.Google Scholar
  44. Wieland, N. (2013). Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. In: A. Capone, F. L. Piparo & M. Carapezza (Eds.). Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer, 389–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wieland, N. (2016). Reporting Practices and Reported Entities. In: Alessandro Capone, Ferenc Kiefer and Franco Lo Piparo (Eds.). Indirect Reports and Pragmatics: Interdisciplinary Studies. Dordrecht: Springer, 541–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Péter Furkó
    • 1
  • András Kertész
    • 2
  • Ágnes Abuczki
    • 3
  1. 1.Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary, Institute of English StudiesBudapestHungary
  2. 2.MTA-DE-SZTE Research Group for Theoretical LinguisticsHungarian Academy of Sciences and University of Debrecen, Institute of German StudiesDebrecenHungary
  3. 3.MTA-DE-SZTE Research Group for Theoretical LinguisticsUniversity of Debrecen, Institute of German StudiesDebrecenHungary

Personalised recommendations