Reviewer:

Book Title:
Book Author:
Publisher:
Linguistic Field(s):

Magdalena Nigoevic
South Slavic Discourse Particles
Mirjana N. Dedai / Mirjana Mikovi-Lukovi
John Benjamins
Discourse Analysis
Pragmatics
Semantics
Language Family(ies): Slavic Subgroup
Book Announcement: 22.1413

Magdalena Nigoevi, Department of Italian Language and Literature, University of Split, Croatia
SUMMARY
This volume is a collection of papers on discourse particles in South Slavic languages. It contains
a preface, seven chapters (an introduction and six papers), followed by a note on the contributors
and an index. In the introductory chapter, the editors outline the concept of the book, exposing
crucial issues for better understanding of individual studies in this volume. Each of the six
chapters is allotted to one of the South Slavic languages Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian,
Bosnian, Croatian and Slovenian and each paper presents the results of the research on
discourse particle(s) of the respective language. Papers are primarily descriptive in nature,
synchronically orientated and based on the authoritative data. The predominant research method
used to analyze data is the relevance-theoretic framework, along some contributors also
employed the argumentative theory and coherence based approach. The volume provides an
innovative contribution to the study of discourse particles in (South) Slavic languages.

Chapter 1: Mirjana Mikovi-Lukovi and Mirjana N. Dedai: South Slavic discourse particles:
Introduction (pp. 1-22)
In a comprehensive and well-balanced introduction, the editors explain the focal points of this
volume. The issues discourse particles and South Slavic languages are given a special
treatment in order to explain the title selection.
In a brief discussion about previous research on the term construction of discourse/pragmatic
particles/markers, the editors present arguments for the selection of the term discourse particles.
Regarding the discourse/pragmatic distinction, they opt to use the modifier discourse simply
because they believe they do not run the risk of evoking unintended connotations (Andersen
and Fretheim 2000:3). As for the terminological dilemma concerning marker/particle, the
editors choose the head particles because this term predates the term marker and is more
typical of the South Slavic linguistic tradition (p. 7). Additional motivation lies in the
predominant use of the term particle in the relevance-theoretic literature, which is relevant as
most papers in this volume are couched within the relevance-theoretical framework. Since there
is no generally accepted term to denote these linguistic items or a single definition that would
unambiguously describe them, the lack of consensus is typical of every discussion relating to

them. On the other hand, the assertion about their discourse-pragmatic status as a group of
linguistic entities that share similar functional properties and facilitate the process of uttering
understanding appears to be almost unequivocally supported. In accordance with this complex
and controversial issue, the contributors themselves refer to various objects of their study
interchangeably as discourse/pragmatic particles/markers/connectives.
The editors decision to include discourse particles from the South Slavic languages is based on
the status of the particles as a neglected linguistic phenomenon within these languages.
According to them, due to the predilection for written text over spoken discourse as well as the
traditionally predominant grammatical approaches within the text, the negligence and absence of
research on discourse particles in the South Slavic languages is the salient feature. In addition, the
editors address another significant topic, the linguistic area known as the South Slavic dialectical
continuum, and offer short surveys of the sociolinguistic situation of the topic. By cautiously
demonstrating the linguistic and socio-political status of the Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian,
Bosnian, Croatian and Slovenian languages, they highlight the current linguistic view on the
socio-political boundaries that define these languages.
The editors also include a short overview of the main relevance-theoretic aspects in a clear and
concise manner in order to avoid unnecessary repetitions in the succeeding chapters (p. 9).
Their aim is to provide readers with a helpful overview, given that most contributors apply that
particular theoretic approach.
Having situated this volumes work within the broader theoretical, methodological and
sociolinguistic contexts, the editors conclude the Introduction with a short description of the six
papers comprising the remainder of the book.

Chapter 2: Grace E. Fielder: Ama, a Bulgarian adversative connective (pp. 23-44)

Integrating relevance-theoretic framework and discourse analysis approach, this paper aims to
account for the different functions of the Bulgarian adversative connective ama (but). The
analysis is based on the data taken from two text corpora: Bulgarian spoken discourse collected in
the 1990s and a late nineteenth-century comic novel. The author argues that the second source is
a very particular kind of text that employs various stylistic registers and is used for comparison
with contemporary data. Despite the problems with this comparison, due to the temporally distant
nature of the data and the different registers employed in them, it allows the author to make some
valid comparisons about the use of ama, either in relation to another Bulgarian adversative
conjunction no which has the same semantic meanings or concerning the possible changes of its
function over the time. By using the quantitative analysis of frequency and distribution of the two
conjunctions in both corpora, she demonstrates that ama is more frequent in colloquial discourse
and, thus, more suitable for use as a discourse marker due to reasons of register. In contemporary
literary language, ama is used both as an adversative conjunction and as a discourse marker,
while the author highlights the loss of the particles marked cultural status from the past in the
current colloquial Bulgarian and its communicative use by all of the informants. After presenting
a very clear description of the functions of ama as a discourse marker, the author suggests that
ama is used primarily as interactional marker expressing opposition or contrast. Ama can connect
in an adversative relation on a local level or on a larger, more global level. Thus, the adversity of
ama is to be associated not to the implied proposition or assumption, but rather to one that may
be inferred from the context. It is also used to initiate a turn exchange, particularly frequent in
questions where the speaker is trying to get more information from the hearer. She concludes that

ama may express the speakers adversative reaction or relationship with either the preceding
discourse or some other element in the extralinguistic context (p. 42).

Chapter 3: Alexandre Svigny: Kamo, an attitudinal pragmatic marker of Macedonian (pp. 45-63)
The author describes the Macedonian discourse marker kamo in six types of linguistic structures
within the relevance-theoretic framework as a means to demonstrate its use as an indicator of the
speakers attitude towards the hearer and/or the situation of utterance. He uses data collected in
the Egyptian-Macedonian speech community in Canada, which has a unique composition of
immigrants as well as second and third generation Macedonian-Canadians who have preserved
spoken fluency in the Macedonian variant of their parents. As kamo belongs to locative adverbs
in Macedonian, the author provides a short overview of the comparative interrogatives in other
South Slavic languages, pointing out that only kamo permits the speaker to express a series of
affective nuances. He proposes three notions from the relevance theory as being of particular use
in the analysis of kamo, specifically interpretive resemblance, metarepresentation and echoic
mention. In terms of distribution, the pragmatic marker kamo may have six contextual
occurrences. After examining each of these constructions, the author provides a unitary account
of kamo in terms of procedural information: its primary purpose is to indicate that the utterance
it introduces is not really a request for information or a wish, but a case of interpretative use (p.
61). He demonstrates that the pragmatic marker kamo signals certain attitudes of the speaker
toward an attributed utterance, specifically attitudes of disbeliefs. Thus, kamo is defined as
encoding procedural information and contributing to the explicit side of communication by
signalling the formation of an interpretive, higher-level explicature.

Chapter 4: Mirjana Mikovi-Lukovi: Markers of conceptual adjustment: Serbian ba and kao

(pp. 65-89)
In this paper, the author examines the semantics and pragmatics of the Serbian particles ba
(truly, just, exactly, precisely) and kao (as, as if, like). She argues that these particles
contribute to utterance comprehension, proposing a unified account of their uses. Following the
relevance-theoretic distinction between conceptual and procedural encodings, she shows that the
particles do not make any conceptual contribution however both serve as semantic constrains on
the explicit content of an utterance in different ways. As a starting point, the previous approaches
on the functions of the particles ba and kao are presented. The theoretical background discusses
the relevance-theoretic notion of conceptual adjustment, as the author considers it essential for
subsequent analysis. Using both constructed examples and examples from naturally occurring
discourse, she examines the discourse particles ba and kao as procedural constrains on the
pragmatic process of explicature construction through ad hoc concept formation. Her findings
suggest that the particle ba signals literal resemblance between lexicalized and communicated
concepts and is typically used whenever the speaker wants to make manifest a single precise
proposition or the part of the proposition that comes under the scope of the particle. Apart from
encoding literalness, the particle ba may also signal the relation of less-than-literal resemblance
between the lexical and the resultant ad hoc concept, especially that of pragmatic strengthening.
In both instances, the latter (emphatic ba) and the previous (specificatory ba) function as
markers of non-loose use. On the other hand, the particle kao serves as a marker of pragmatic

loosening because it reduces the basic explicature to one of a less-than-literal resemblance

marking it as weak. In addition, the particle kao may be used to signal interpretive language use
particularly, irony and reporting. The authors results show that the particles ba and kao have the
same basic role in utterance understanding, serving as semantic constrains on explicature,
although in opposite directions: a ba-utterance communicates a strong explicature, while a kaoutterance communicates a weak one. The author also gives a short account of the todays lexical
and pragmatic status of the two analyzed particles, albeit their conceptual and procedural
meaning.

Chapter 5: Aida Premilovac: The Bosnian discourse particle ono (pp. 91-101)
The author investigates the discourse particle ono (that) and its usage in Bosnian informal
discourse. The author analyses ono in regard to the main aspects of relevance theory: truthconditionality, the conceptual/procedural distinction, the explicit/implicit distinction, and the
notion of loose talk through data from conversations among friends, which she recorded in
2001. Beginning with a concise overview of demonstratives, she focuses on the Bosnian
demonstrative ono, particularly on its non-demonstrative uses. She argues that ono is a pragmatic
particle of loose talk. The author believes this position to be consistent with Andersens
(1998:156-157) description of the English pragmatic marker like, which he describes as a
general marker of loose use of language which explicitly signals that the utterance in some
respect is a less-than-literal rendering of a speaker's thought. Accordingly, she proposes a
comparison between Bosnian ono and English like. After considering the different objects of
loose interpretation, which may come under the pragmatic scope of both particles, she indicates
that there is a great deal of resemblance between them. Her results suggest that ono is a non-truth
conditional and a procedural linguistic device, which works at the level of explicatures. In
addition, she advocates further research in order to explain why ono may freely co-occur with the
particle kao (like) or with the focus particles ba (exactly), in the constructions kao ono and
ba ono. She intimates that this may affect its pragmatic function. Finally, the authors analysis of
Bosnian ono inevitably leads to the possible future reassessment of other Bosnian demonstratives
(ovo, ovaj, ovi) that may develop particle functions in informal talk.

Chapter 6: Mirjana N. Dedai: Reformulating and concluding: The pragmatics of the Croatian
discourse marker dakle (pp. 109-131)
The author evaluates the Croatian reformulator dakle (consequently, therefore, so, in other
words) and its potential uniqueness through a comparison with similar discourse markers in
other languages. Working on collected, authentic data, which includes more than three thousand
occurrences, she uses discourse analysis as her theoretical framework. By observing and
analysing the uses and functions of dakle, she demonstrates that dakle is non-conceptual, nontruth-conditional and multifunctional term, thus proving its status as a discourse marker. Dakle
makes the causative-resultative relationship between the preceding and following discourse
units/segments explicit (p. 111) and, therefore, it contributes to the inferential processes
involved in utterance understanding. In order to give a unitary, pragmatic account of dakle, the
author analyses its reformulational, interactional, and rhetorical functions. Basing her
categorization on the collected data, she proposes two types of reformulation that dakle activates:

expansion and summarization. The majority of examples reformulates the original message by
expanding the semantic content of the utterance using dakle. The remaining examples, however,
usually summarize the original message in a more concise and clear way, without adding
anything to the semantics of the reformulated utterance. As an interactional device, dakle can
function as an indicator of inferential conclusivity, or it can indicate a return to the previous point
of the speakers argumentation. It frequently appears as an opening to a rhetorical question; in
this instance, dakle functions as a prompt for a hearer to come up with a conclusion that is
already evident. After summarizing her findings about Croatian dakle, the author highlights the
comparisons she makes to similar discourse markers used in other languages, arguing that they
relate to each other in certain contexts, thus underlying the universality of the discourse markers.

Chapter 7: Igor . agar: Pa, a modifier of connectives: An argumentative analysis (pp. 133-162)
The author starts from a lexical dictionary definition of the Slovenian connective pa (and, but)
which is, in his words one of the (contextually) most diversified and most widely used lexemes
of the Slovenian language, as well as one of the least researched (p. 133). Providing an overview
of the general uses and classification of pa in traditional grammar books, the author argues that
pa is not just a propositional or grammatical operator as it is often categorized. Relying on data
from contemporary press, and employing the framework of argumentation theory, the author
explores a series of meanings created by the independent and compound uses of the connective
pa (and, but). His data shows that ker (because) and sicer (otherwise), when used together
with pa, significantly change their function and argumentative orientation. As such, he focuses on
the relation to the connectives ker and sicer, with which pa forms the compound connectives ker
pa (but since) and sicer pa (anyway). He presents more in-depth discussion of the chosen
theoretical framework, especially of the notions of topoi and polyphony as employed in the
theory of argumentation. To explain the meaning of pa in compound connectives, and the roles of
ker and sicer when used independently and in concert with pa, he uses substitutive analysis. His
rather extensive and detailed analysis reveals the roles that the connective pa, as a discursiveargumentative modifier of the connectives ker and sicer, may have. Pa can either activate
contextual knowledge or acts as an enabler to reach for common, general or implicit background
knowledge offered by a local discourse, or extra-discursive context. By exposing the polyphonic
structure of a given discourse segment, pa provides it with interpretive independence and
autonomy. The author proposes meanings of the two compound connectives too: the compound
connective ker pa alludes to some possible previous argument, while sicer pa primarily invokes
possible explanations of what is being related in the ongoing discourse. As a conclusion, he
highlights the fact that if ker and sicer are used without pa, they do not make such implicit
information available.
EVALUATION
The editors did the excellent job of reviewing some questions in the introductory chapter, which
undoubtedly can help to enlighten many aspects of the present volume. It serves as a link between
papers, while also providing an average reader with the necessary contextualization by situating
the volume into broader theoretical and methodological background, and by examining the sociopolitical status of South Slavic languages.

The six papers are presented in their order of appearance in the volume. There is a consistency of
format in the presentation of the essays. Most papers begin with a demonstration of existing,
mainly non-pragmatic work on particular linguistic item(s), highlight its/their discursive function
within the selected theoretical framework, use authentic data, and provide a unitary account of
the studied object(s). They have several other features in common. Each author treats one of the
repertory of markers of their respective South Slavic languages. The essays are predominantly
synchronic studies that use a wealth of naturally-occurring data through similar theoretical
approaches. The presentation of data in each paper is clear and easy to follow. As each of the
papers contains authentic data, the immediate translations in English are always provided, in
order to facilitate the readers understanding, especially if they are less familiar with (South)
Slavic languages. Their findings prove the analyzed linguistic items to be context-dependent,
polyfunctional elements, highly specialized in some dominant function(s). Each paper ends with
respective references, which, at first glance, may seem rather repetitive. Nonetheless, each paper
is written in such a way that they can stand alone for researchers interested in only one particular
language and/or discourse particle, which could easily be seen as an organizational advantage.
There is some overlap in the topics discussed, mostly concerning the theoretical models, which
the authors applied. More cross-referencing among the papers would add to comprehensiveness
each essay individually, and to the book as a whole.
Returning to the question about the specification of the term marker/particle and the editors
reasons for the selection of particle, I would have preferred them to have followed another line
of thought (Blakemore 2002, Fraser 1999, Jucker and Ziv 1998, Schiffrin 1987, Schourup 1999)
and have selected the descriptor marker. It seems that marker would have been more
appropriate for several reasons. First, the term 'marker' has become conventional and is used in a
wide range of similar research in many other languages (segnali in Italian, marcadores in Spanish,
marqueurs in French, Gliederungssignale in German, oznaka in Croatian etc.). Furthermore, the term
'particle' has traditionally been used to indicate a syntactic category and it usually implies short,
inflexible words, especially in the Slavic linguistic tradition. On the other hand, discourse
markers, by common consent, have a special status, as they clearly constitute a functional, and
non-morphosyntatic category, and can comprise various linguistic elements. It seems that the
selected title might, for an average (Slavic) language reader, be somewhat confusing and
ambiguous.
However, it is never easy to compile a volume on linguistic items, for which there are divergent
opinions relating to terminology and methodological approaches. On the whole, the volume
enhances the knowledge of the South Slavic languages by highlighting their discursive aspects
through the studies of their respective discourse markers. The present collection certainly opens
new prospects of the development of the discursive studies of (South) Slavic languages. It offers
better understanding of discourse strategies in the turbulent sociolinguistic area and contributes to
deeper comprehension of discourse markers across languages.
The volume is a valuable reference for anyone studying discourse markers, especially those in
South Slavic languages. Some contributors approached their essay through a systematic theorysupported analysis, while others are more theoretical and argumentative, hence presupposing that
the reader has some theoretical knowledge. Therefore, the target audience is graduate students
and researchers who may use the book as a tool to identify possible implications for further
research and challenges for carrying out new studies.
REFERENCES

Andersen, Gisle (1998). The Pragmatic Marker like from a Relevance-theoretic Perspective. In:
Jucker, Andreas H.; Ziv, Yael (eds.). Discourse Markers. Descriptions and Theory.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 145-170.
Andersen, Gisle; Fretheim, Thorstein (2000). Introduction. In: Andersen, Gisle; Fretheim,
Thorstein (eds.). Pragmatic Markers and Prepositional Attitude. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 1-16.
Blakemore, Diane (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The Semantics and Pragmatics of
Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, Bruce (1999). What are Discourse Markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952.
Jucker, Andreas H.; Ziv, Yael (eds.) (1998). Discourse Markers. Descriptions and Theory.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schiffrin, Deborah (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schourup, Lawrence (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107, 227-265.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Magdalena Nigoevi obtained her Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Zadar (Croatia)
with a dissertation about discourse markers in Croatian and Italian languages. She teaches at the
Department of Italian Language and Literature in the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of
Split (Croatia). Her research interests are semantics, linguistic pragmatics, and sociolinguistics,
primarily within the context of contrastive Croatian-Italian studies.