Discourse Markers in Different Types of Reporting
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)?
Keywordsdiscourse markers types of reporting corpus linguistics discourse annotation voicing p-model
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).
- Brown, P. & and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 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. 38–45.Google Scholar
- 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 1–4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
- Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Minuit: Paris.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Furkó, P. (2007). The Pragmatic Marker – Discourse Marker Dichotomy Reconsidered - The Case of well and of course. Debrecen: Debrecen University Press.Google Scholar
- Furkó, P. (2010). As Good as it Gets – Scripted Data in Discourse Analysis. Argumentum 6: 113–123.Google Scholar
- Furkó, P. (2013). The functional spectrum of pragmatic markers in political news interviews and celebrity interviews. Topics in Linguistics 11: 13–21.Google Scholar
- 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).
- Furkó, P., Kertész, A. & Abuczki, Á. (forthcoming) Discourse markers in different types of reporting – marginal cases.Google Scholar
- Heine, B. (to appear) Are there two different ways of approaching grammaticalization? In: Hancil, Sylvie (Ed.). Grammaticalization Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Nikula, T. (1996). Pragmatic Force Modifiers. Jyväskylä University Printing House, JyväskyläGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Rescher, N. (1976). Plausible Reasoning. Assen & Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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