A Contrastive View of Discourse

Markers: Discourse Markers of Saying

in English and French 1st ed. 2020
Edition Laure Lansari
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-contrastive-view-of-discourse-markers-discourse-m
arkers-of-saying-in-english-and-french-1st-ed-2020-edition-laure-lansari/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Discourse Markers: An Enunciative Approach 1st Edition

Graham Ranger

https://ebookmass.com/product/discourse-markers-an-enunciative-
approach-1st-edition-graham-ranger/

Discourse Markers and Beyond: Descriptive and Critical

Perspectives on Discourse-Pragmatic Devices across
Genres and Languages 1st ed. 2020 Edition Péter B.
Furkó
https://ebookmass.com/product/discourse-markers-and-beyond-
descriptive-and-critical-perspectives-on-discourse-pragmatic-
devices-across-genres-and-languages-1st-ed-2020-edition-peter-b-
furko/

Expressions of War in Australia and the Pacific:

Language, Trauma, Memory, and Official Discourse 1st
ed. 2020 Edition Amanda Laugesen

https://ebookmass.com/product/expressions-of-war-in-australia-
and-the-pacific-language-trauma-memory-and-official-
discourse-1st-ed-2020-edition-amanda-laugesen/

Construction of first genetic linkage map based on

microsatellite markers and characterization of di- and
tri-nucleotide microsatellite markers for Crassostrea
hongkongesis Haitao Ma
https://ebookmass.com/product/construction-of-first-genetic-
linkage-map-based-on-microsatellite-markers-and-characterization-
of-di-and-tri-nucleotide-microsatellite-markers-for-crassostrea-
The Palgrave Handbook of Educational Leadership and
Management Discourse Fenwick W. English

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-
educational-leadership-and-management-discourse-fenwick-w-
english/

Language, Vernacular Discourse and Nationalisms 1st ed.

Edition Finex Ndhlovu

https://ebookmass.com/product/language-vernacular-discourse-and-
nationalisms-1st-ed-edition-finex-ndhlovu/

Therapy as Discourse: Practice and Research 1st ed.

Edition Olga Smoliak

https://ebookmass.com/product/therapy-as-discourse-practice-and-
research-1st-ed-edition-olga-smoliak/

Uncertainties in GPS Positioning: A Mathematical

Discourse 1st Edition Alan Oxley

https://ebookmass.com/product/uncertainties-in-gps-positioning-a-
mathematical-discourse-1st-edition-alan-oxley/

Biosurveillance in New Media Marketing: World,

Discourse, Representation 1st ed. Edition Selena
Nemorin

https://ebookmass.com/product/biosurveillance-in-new-media-
marketing-world-discourse-representation-1st-ed-edition-selena-
nemorin/
A Contrastive View
of Discourse Markers
Discourse Markers
of Saying in English
and French
Laure Lansari
A Contrastive View of Discourse Markers
 Laure Lansari

A Contrastive View
of Discourse Markers
Discourse Markers of Saying in
English and French
Laure Lansari
Department of English Studies
Paris Diderot University
Paris, France

ISBN 978-3-030-24895-6 ISBN 978-3-030-24896-3 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24896-3

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: Maram_shutterstock.com

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

This book explores four discourse markers (henceforth DMs) contain-

ing a prototypical speech verb (say/dire) in contemporary English and
French: shall we say, on va dire, I was going to say and j’allais dire. The
analysis aims to show that these clausal units, originally based on expo-
nents of futurity, have pragmaticalised and acquired discourse functions
mainly dealing with metalinguistic comment. They are fairly rare, espe-
cially in comparison with better-described DMs such as disons, je veux
dire or you know and I mean. On va dire, j’allais dire and I was going
to say are in fact “emergent” (Siouffi et al. 2016) markers, which have
developed only recently and are still circumscribed to rather informal
registers (Lansari 2010a, b, 2017; Steuckardt 2014, 2016). Shall we say
has been attested since the mid-1800s in British English, but its fre-
quency of use remains low. Despite these common features, the diver-
gences of use between the four markers need to be examined in detail.
Based on comparable web data, the linguistic comparison carried out
here combines several levels of analysis and strives to correlate seman-
tic, pragmatic, syntactic and collocational parameters. The scope of the
study is mainly qualitative, since the discourse uses have to be identi-
fied manually. The data still reveals relevant tendencies in the use of the

v
vi      Preface

four DMs under scrutiny. This multidimensional analysis is conducted

within a theoretical framework that might be little known to English-
speaking readers: enunciative theories, which consider DMs to reflect
speaker stance. This theoretical approach sheds light on the specificity
of DMs of saying: they cannot be reduced to mere speech management
tools, as they more fundamentally signal that speaker commitment is at
issue. The goal of this research piece is twofold. On an empirical level, it
seeks to enrich our understanding of the four DMs compared here. On
a more theoretical and methodological level, it aims to set up an orig-
inal framework that does not restrict DMs to pragmatic functions but
instead integrates various parameters to describe the DMs under discus-
sion in terms of speaker commitment.
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the scholarly literature on DMs,
focusing more particularly on the pragmatic tradition dominant in
English linguistics and on the “énonciation” theories that have been
very influential in France and Switzerland in the last forty years. This
overview aims to show that the definition of the class of DMs largely
depends on the theoretical premises adopted.
Chapter 2 presents the theoretical and methodological framework
developed for the four DMs of saying under study, on va dire, shall we
say, j’allais dire, and I was going to say. The analysis builds on an enun-
ciative approach paying special attention to commitment issues. The
main hypothesis is that DMs of saying signal that commitment is some-
how problematic. The analysis specifically relies on samples of tokens
retrieved from comparable web-based corpora of the TenTen family.
The tokens are analysed through an annotation grid combining various
parameters (semantic-pragmatic, syntactic, collocational). The aim is to
provide a unique characterisation (a “discursive profile”) for each DM.
Chapter 3 presents the main corpus findings in relation to the anno-
tation grid. This short chapter successively examines the results obtained
for the different levels of analysis. The overall results show that the
four DMs have one pragmatic function in common: metalinguistic
comment. Despite this common feature, many divergences appear, as
regards both syntactic features and collocations.
Chapter 4 focuses on on va dire and shall we say, while Chapter 5
compares j’allais dire and I was going to say. The main assumption is
 Preface     vii

that on va dire and shall we say rely on a feigned intersubjective commit-

ment aiming to stabilise discourse, while j’allais dire and I was going to
say are associated with subjective commitment but fail to stabilise dis-
course. Despite these common semantic features, each DM has its own
discursive profile, with specific pragmatic functions and collocational
preferences.
Chapter 6 summarises the main results, with the aim of assessing the
degree of pragmaticalisation for each DM, and opens up future research
paths for the study of DMs, particularly for DMs of saying.

Paris, France Laure Lansari

References
Lansari, L. (2010a). On va dire: vers un emploi modalisant d’aller + inf. In
E. Moliné & C. Vetters (Eds.), Temps, aspect et modalité en français. Cahiers
Chronos (Vol. 21, pp. 119–139). Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.
Lansari, L. (2010b). On va dire: modalisation du dire et dénomination. In
P. Frath, L. Lansari, & J. Pauchard (Eds.), Res Per Nomen II - Langue,
référence et anthropologie (pp. 277–295). EPURE: Reims.
Lansari, L. (2017). I was going to say/j’allais dire as discourse markers in con-
temporary English and French. Languages in Contrast, 17(2), 205–228.
Siouffi, G., Steuckardt, A., & Wionet, C. (2016). Les modalisateurs émer-
gents en français contemporain: Présentation théorique et études de cas.
Journal of French Language Studies, 26(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0959269515000472.
Steuckardt, A. (2014). Polyphonie et médiativité dans un marqueur émergent:
on va dire. In J.-Cl. Anscombre, E. Oppermann-Marsaux, & A. Rodriguez
Somolinos (Eds.), Médiativité, polyphonie et modalité en français: études
synchroniques et diachroniques (pp. 67–84). Paris: Presses de la Sorbonne
Nouvelle.
Steuckardt, A. (2016). A la recherche du consensus: on va dire, on va dire ça,
on va dire ça comme ça. In L. Rouanne & J.-Cl. Anscombre (Eds.), Histoires
de dire. Petit glossaire des marqueurs formés sur le verbe dire (pp. 293–313).
Bern: Peter Lang.
 Contents

1 Introduction: Discourse Markers Within Different

Linguistic Traditions 1
1.1 Defining DMs in the Pragmatic Tradition 3
1.1.1 Historical Landmarks: The Rise
of a “Non-syntactic” Functional Class 3
1.1.2 A (Multi)Functional Approach Rather
Than a Semantic One 5
1.1.3 Different Types of Functions: Structural
Ones, but Not Only 6
1.1.3.1 From Structural to Attitudinal
Functions 6
1.1.3.2 Focus on “Mitigation” 9
1.1.4 DMs and Language Change:
Pragmaticalisation or Something Else? 10
1.1.5 Summary on Pragmatics and DMs 15
1.2 Defining DMs from an Enunciative Perspective 15
1.2.1 “Enonciation”: A Speaker-Centred Theory 16
1.2.2 Discourse Markers…of Operations 18

ix
x      Contents

1.2.3 Methodology: From Operations to the

Definition of a “Schematic Form” 22
1.2.4 Discourse Markers of Saying, Metalinguistic
Reflexivity and “modalisation du dire” 27
1.2.5 Summary and Discussion on “énonciation” and
DMs of Saying 33
References 40

2 Defining a Theoretical and Methodological Framework

for DMs of “Saying” 49
2.1 DMs of Saying: To Say or Not to Say? 50
2.2 An Original Enunciative Framework 54
2.2.1 Semantic Characterisation:
An Operation-Based Characterisation 55
2.2.2 Definition of the “Discursive Profile” 59
2.2.3 “Enonciation” and Pragmaticalisation? 60
2.2.4 Summary of the Theoretical Model 61
2.3 Corpus Data and Methodology 63
2.3.1 A Comparable Web-Based Corpus:
The TenTen Family 63
2.3.2 Methodology: Samples for a Qualitative Analysis 66
2.3.2.1 Identifying DMs: A Semantic-
Pragmatic Approach 68
2.3.2.2 Focus on on va dire and Shall We Say 70
2.3.2.3 Focus on j’allais dire and I Was Going
to Say 73
2.3.2.4 Discourse Uses in the Four Samples:
First Results 78
2.3.3 Presentation of the Annotation Grid 80
References 88

3 Overview of the Corpus Findings 95

3.1 Semantic-Pragmatic Level 96
3.1.1 Origin of Commitment and Relationship p/p′ 96
3.1.1.1 Origin of Commitment 96
3.1.1.2 P/p′ 97
 Contents     xi

3.1.2 Pragmatic Functions 98

3.2 Syntactic Level 102
3.2.1 Scope 102
3.2.2 Position with Respect to the Host 105
3.2.3 Position at the Sentence Level 106
3.2.4 Position in Turn-Taking 107
3.2.5 Degree of Autonomy 107
3.3 Collocational Level 109
3.4 Summary of the Findings 111
References 112

4 Corpus Findings I: On va dire and Shall We Say 115

4.1 Preliminary Remarks: “Emergent” on va dire vs.
Well-Established Shall We Say 116
4.2 Semantic Characterisation: From Instability
Towards Intersubjective Stabilisation 119
4.3 Metalinguistic Comment, Approximation
and Exemplification 122
4.3.1 Approximation 124
4.3.2 Exemplification 125
4.3.3 Focus on Let’s Say 127
4.4 Different Stabilising Modes 128
4.4.1 Syntactic Divergences: Greater Stabilisation
with on va dire 128
4.4.2 Co-occurrence with Other DMs
and Opposition Markers 135
4.4.3 Different Reformulation Uses 140
4.5 Pragmatic Strategies: Euphemism and Irony 145
4.6 Syntactic Classification 150
4.7 Summary and Discussion: Two Distinct “Discursive
Profiles” and Form-Meaning Motivation 160
4.7.1 Discursive Profiles: Greater Stabilisation
with on va dire 160
4.7.2 On va dire and Form-Meaning Motivation 161
4.7.3 Shall We Say and Form-Meaning Motivation 166
References 169
xii      Contents

5 Corpus Findings II: J’allais dire and I Was Going to Say 175
5.1 Preliminary Remarks: Summarising the Results
of the Annotation Grid 176
5.2 Metalinguistic Comment 181
5.2.1 Explicit Alterity: Mention of Both p and p′ 182
5.2.2 Implicit Alterity 190
5.2.3 Collocation Patterns 192
5.3 Topic Shifting and Affiliation 195
5.3.1 Topic Shifting in the TenTen Sample 197
5.3.2 Topic Shifting and Affiliation in the Spoken
COCA 199
5.3.2.1 Focus on Topic Shifting 200
5.3.2.2 Focus on Affiliation 205
5.4 Syntactic Classification 208
5.5 Summary and Discussion: Two Distinct “Discursive
Profiles” and Form/Meaning Motivation 210
References 213

6 Conclusion: Summary and Perspectives 217

6.1 Development of DM Status 218
6.1.1 Discourse Marking and DMs of Saying 218
6.1.2 Different Degrees of Pragmaticalisation? 219
6.2 Reformulation 220
6.3 Future Research: DMs Across Genres 225
References 226

Index 229
 List of Tables

Table 2.1 Normalised frequencies in enTenTen13

and frTenTen12 (pmw) 66
Table 2.2 Ratio of discourse uses 79
Table 3.1 p/p′ relationship 97
Table 3.2 Pragmatic functions 101
Table 3.3 Scope of shall we say 103
Table 3.4 Scope of on va dire 103
Table 3.5 Scope of I was going to say 103
Table 3.6 Scope of j’allais dire 104
Table 3.7 Syntactic position relatively to the host 105
Table 3.8 Position at the sentence level 106
Table 3.9 Position in turn-taking 107
Table 3.10 Degree of autonomy with the left 108
Table 3.11 Degree of autonomy with the right 108
Table 3.12 Co-occurrence with epistemic and degree markers 109
Table 3.13 Co-occurrence with opposition markers 110
Table 3.14 Co-occurrence with CMC signs 110
Table 3.15 Co-occurrence with other DMs 111
Table 4.1 Frequency of use of shall we say in the COCA
and the BNC 118

xiii
xiv      List of Tables

Table 4.2 Co-occurrence of on va dire et shall we say

with epistemic or degree markers 121
Table 4.3 Syntactic position of on va dire and shall we say 129
Table 4.4 Scope of shall we say 129
Table 4.5 Scope of on va dire 129
Table 4.6 Co-occurrence of on va dire and shall we say
with other DMs 135
Table 4.7 Co-occurrence of on va dire et shall we say
with opposition markers 138
Table 4.8 p/p′ relationship with on va dire and shall we say 140
Table 4.9 Co-occurrence of on va dire and shall we say
with CMC signs 150
Table 5.1 Ratio of discourse issues 176
Table 5.2 Pragmatic functions of j’allais dire and I was going to say 178
Table 5.3 Syntactic position with respect to the host 178
Table 5.4 Position at the sentence level 179
Table 5.5 Position in turn-taking 179
Table 5.6 Scope of I was going to say 180
Table 5.7 Scope of j’allais dire 180
Table 5.8 Types of metalinguistic comment 182
Table 5.9 Syntactic configurations 183
Table 5.10 Correlation between syntactic configuration
and type of metalinguistic 189
Table 5.11 Co-occurrence with epistemic and degree markers 192
Table 5.12 Co-occurrence with opposition markers 193
Table 5.13 Ratio of discourse uses of I was going to say
in the spoken COCA 195
Table 5.14 Pragmatic functions of I was going to say
in the TenTen and COCA samples 200
 1
Introduction: Discourse Markers Within
Different Linguistic Traditions

This chapter presents the theoretical background for the comparative anal-
ysis conducted here. It has a clear historical and epistemological dimen-
sion, as it seeks to confront two major traditions in the research field
of discourse marking. Its scope is rather modest, though, since it does
not provide an exhaustive overview of the scholarly literature on DMs.
In line with the English-French contrastive view adopted in the present
book, I more modestly compare two prominent traditions in the study of
DMs—on the one hand, the pragmatic tradition dominant in the English-
speaking countries; on the other hand, the enunciative tradition, which
has been influential only in France and Switzerland. An overview of the
literature on DMs in French and English linguistics actually highlights
major epistemological differences between the two linguistic traditions.
Therefore, comparing these two linguistic approaches sheds light on cru-
cial categorisation issues concerning the definition of the class of DMs
itself and the theoretical principles underlying the study of specific DMs.
The questions that we need to address are the following: What is the unify-
ing factor behind this supposed “class” of markers? What is the part played
by semantics, pragmatics and syntax, respectively, in this definition? How
do we account for the development of DMs and the links between the
original non-discursive uses and the newly acquired discursive uses? The
© The Author(s) 2020 1
L. Lansari, A Contrastive View of Discourse Markers,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24896-3_1
2 L. Lansari

two traditions compared do not necessarily provide the same answers,

hence the need to examine these various issues at closer quarters.
In the English-speaking literature, DMs are mainly analysed as func-
tional units in line with the pragmatic tradition initiated by Schiffrin
(1987) in this research field. On the other hand, the French tradition,
strongly influenced by speaker-centred theories known as theories of
“énonciation” (Ducrot et al. 1980, Ducrot 1985; Culioli 1990, 1999a, b),
sees DMs as traces of subjectivity reflecting various attitudinal stances.
Moreover, the pragmatic tradition has never paid much attention to DMs
based on a verbum dicendi (with the exception of Craig and Sanusi 2000;
Brinton 2005, 2008: 73–110), whereas the French enunciative framework
has given rise to many studies on such DMs (Saunier 2012; Péroz 2013;
Gómez-Jordana Ferary and Anscombre 2015; Rouanne and Anscombre
2016 to name only the most recent ones). Theories of “énonciation” have
been mainstream theories in France and Switzerland for the last forty
years. Outside the French-speaking community, however, they remain
largely unknown, part of the reason for this being that few publications
are in English (with the notable exception of Ranger 2018, who provides
a full-fledged presentation of Culioli’s theory, the Theory of Enunciative
and Predicative Operations). The two goals pursued in this chapter are to
familiarise scholars with enunciative linguistic approaches and to assess the
convergences and divergences between these theories and better-known
pragmatics-based theories.
Section 1.1 lays out the main tenets underlying the study of DMs
within a pragmatic framework, successively examining several aspects of
this linguistic tradition. I shall first briefly retrace the rise of DMs as a
“non-syntactic” but functional class in the 1980s (Sect. 1.1.1). I shall
then shed light on the functionalist view defended by pragmatics, at
the expense of a semantics-based analysis (Sect. 1.1.2). Subsection 1.1.3
explores the different types of functions that DMs may serve, and Subsec-
tion 1.1.4 discusses pragmaticalisation and other diachronic processes that
may lead to the development of DMs. Concluding remarks are presented
in Sect. 1.1.5. In Sect. 1.2, I move on to the definition of DMs within the
French-speaking tradition of “énonciation”. I shall start with a general pre-
sentation of “énonciation” as a speaker-centred theory (Sect. 1.2.1). The
next Subsection (1.2.2) is devoted to the definition of DMs as “markers
 1 Introduction: Discourse Markers Within … 3

of operations” in enunciative frameworks, while Sect. 1.2.3 concentrates

on the unitary approach to DMs advocated in Culioli’s Theory of Enun-
ciative and Predicative Operations. Subsection 1.2.4 sheds light on the
specificity of DMs of saying as reflexive markers commenting on speaker
commitment. Concluding remarks on enunciative approaches to DMs are
provided in Sect. 1.2.5.

1.1 Defining DMs in the Pragmatic Tradition

1.1.1 Historical Landmarks: The Rise
of a “Non-syntactic” Functional Class

Historically speaking, the class of DMs was first defined in the 1980s
within pragmatic studies that took an interest in items such as well or
I mean used in oral interaction in English, as in Schiffrin’s (1987) pio-
neering study. Originally, “discourse” thus referred to oral interaction and
responded to the crucial need to set up a new referential frame that went
beyond sentences or clauses and could accommodate linguistic markers
that were hard to analyse through well-established syntactic categories
(adverb, conjunct, etc.). Ranger (2018: 23) notes that the term “discourse”
may refer either to an extra-sentential level of analysis, or to language
use (“discourse” being opposed to abstract language structures). In origi-
nal pragmatics-based works, it corresponds to the former definition with
an additional emphasis on dialogical spoken interaction. In enunciative
approaches, discourse more simply refers to any language activity and does
not have a specific meaning in terms of genre (see Sect. 1.2).
The emergence of this research field may be seen as an important epis-
temological turn in linguistics, as it opened up new research paths in
areas that had been overlooked by the dominant linguistic theories of
the time, i.e. structuralism and generative grammar (Celle and Huart
2007: 1–2). Coining a new term—“discourse marker”—was a way to
expose the inadequacy of syntax to account for such linguistic items. The
class of DMs is thus intrinsically “non-syntactic”, and this has two major
consequences. First, from a semasiological viewpoint, the “non-syntactic”
approach explains the heterogeneity of the members of this class (Dostie
4 L. Lansari

and Pusch 2007; Lewis 2006; Beeching 2016), which gathers very differ-
ent markers that developed through a decategorisation/recategorisation
process (i.e. adverbs, interjections, clauses that came to be recategorised as
DMs). The four DMs compared in the present study went through that
very process: they started out as full clauses and gradually acquired a new
status as DMs, possibly as “comment clauses” (Brinton 2008). I shall leave
this question open for now: the syntactic behaviour of the four DMs of
saying under scrutiny and their possible recategorisation as specific DMs
called “comment clauses” (or “reduced parenthetical clauses” in other the-
oretical categorisations, see Schneider 2007) will be discussed in relation
to the corpus findings in Chapters 4 and 5.
It should be stressed that there exists a variety of terms to refer to these
specific markers: DMs, but also pragmatic markers, pragmatic particles,
etc. (Beeching 2016: 3). These various terms are not neutral and tend to
reflect specific theoretical positions. For instance, the term “fillers” implies
that these markers are devoid of any meaning, a belief that is nowadays
criticised by most researchers, hence the decline of the term itself in the
scholarly literature (Dostie and Putsch 2007: 6). “Discourse marker” is
undoubtedly the most widespread and theoretically neutral term (Paillard
2017).
Secondly, the “non-syntactic” nature of this new linguistic class has led
researchers to resort to other types of analysis, mainly pragmatic within
the English-speaking research community. It should be noted, however,
that some linguists have attempted to establish purely syntactic criteria to
define DMs, especially in terms of initial position, optionality and loose
connection with the rest of the clause (Schourup 1999: 230–232; Brinton
2008: 1). As stressed by Fischer (2006), such attempts have failed, since
there is no consensus whatsoever regarding syntactic criteria. For instance,
recent studies (Beeching and Detges 2014; Hancil et al. 2015) devoted
to the syntactic position of DMs contradict Schourup’s claim (1999) that
DMs systematically appear initially. Actually, there exist several syntactic
definitions of DMs, each definition ultimately depending on the type
of items analysed and on the researchers’ theoretical conception of what
DMs are and are not. This lack of consensus might have led researchers
to focus on other, non-syntactic dimensions of DMs. Recent approaches
(Aijmer 2013; Beeching 2016; Ranger 2018) take a different view and
 1 Introduction: Discourse Markers Within … 5

claim that, notwithstanding the absence of consensual syntactic criteria

defining the class as a whole, individual DMs should be studied from a
syntactic viewpoint. The aforementioned authors therefore argue that it is
crucial to examine the syntactic behaviour of a given DM—especially as
regards syntactic position—in order to correlate syntactic behaviour with
semantic-pragmatic features.
Given the heterogeneity of DMs mentioned above, it seems impossible
to define a unique syntactic behaviour common to all DMs. It may how-
ever be possible to analyse the syntactic features of individual members of
the class.
Let us now turn to the functional approach advocated by pragmatic
studies, which tend to background semantic issues in the study of DMs.

1.1.2 A (Multi)Functional Approach Rather Than

a Semantic One

Schiffrin’s (1987) pragmatic approach to DMs initiated a very influential

tradition that is still dominant in this research field. Her influence is best
seen in the adoption of the term “discourse marker” by most researchers,
even in the theories of “énonciation” (albeit with a slightly different mean-
ing, see Paillard 2017; Ranger 2018 and the discussion in Sect. 1.2). As
opposed to “pragmatic marker” used for instance by Aijmer (2013) and
Beeching (2016), “discourse maker” is less theoretically oriented, which
may explain its success.
In line with classic pragmatic works (Austin 1962; Searle 1969, 1975),
Schiffrin’s approach is by definition more functional than purely semantic
and is interested in what DMs “do” in discourse. Therefore, pragmatic
analyses aim to identify the diverse contextual discourse functions of the
DMs under scrutiny, which may for instance play a role in turn-taking
or as boosting devices, without necessarily defining a common semantic
denominator to the different functions. Generally speaking, pragmatic
case studies of DMs (such as Aijmer 2013; Beeching 2016; Brinton 2008;
Fraser 1999; Traugott 2010) assume that each DM has a “core meaning”
or “meaning potential” which gives rise to various pragmatic functions
depending on the context. This “core meaning” is not discussed at great
6 L. Lansari

length, since what matters are the discourse functions of a given DM. As
explained by Celle and Huart (2007: 3), the main theoretical tenet under-
lying such studies is that “a central meaning traceable to etymological
origins has given rise to related meanings which have come to be associ-
ated through usage, but […] the unifying factor behind a given discourse
particle is functional, rather than semantic”.
This general picture must not hide the existence of different theoret-
ical movements or schools within pragmatic studies. For instance, prag-
matic analyses carried out within Relevance Theory (Blakemore 2002;
Jucker et al. 2003) are critically less semantics-oriented than the ones
just mentioned. In Relevance Theory, DMs are equated with “signals”
(Aijmer 2013: 9–11) produced by the speaker and designed to help the
addressee make the right inferences about the speaker’s intended message.
This communication model is inherited from Grice (1957, 1975)1 and has
a strong cognitive orientation that does not foreground semantic issues but
cognitive-based inferential processes. This cognitive model seems harder
to reconcile with enunciative approaches than the publications previously
mentioned (Aijmer, Beeching, Traugott, etc.), which make no cognitive
claims regarding the addressee’s inferential processing.
Slightly different theoretical orientations also emerge in relation to the
various pragmatic functions DMs may develop.

1.1.3 Different Types of Functions: Structural Ones,

but Not Only

1.1.3.1 From Structural to Attitudinal Functions

Schiffrin’s groundbreaking book highlighted the “connective” and index-

ical function of DMs in oral interaction, focusing on the structuring role
of you know, well, I mean. For Diewald (2013), this structural approach
to DMs in relation to spoken communication has given rise to a specific
“school” in the literature on DMs. In this “school”, represented by Diewald
herself or by Riou (2015: 118–130),
 1 Introduction: Discourse Markers Within … 7

discourse markers are defined as indexical elements relating items of dis-

course to other items of discourse. Their indigenous functional domain
is the expression of those types of connections and interrelations that are
essential to and distinctive of spoken dialogic communication. They point
to organizational and structural features as well as to chunks of the non-
linguistic situation and environment; they take care of the thematic struc-
ture, and they control the turn-taking system and other aspects of speech
management. (Diewald 2013: 26)

This definition strictly equates “discourse” with oral interaction and is

rejected by proponents of another “school”, including Fraser (1999). In
Fraser’s definition, DMs are units connecting two textual segments in
spoken or written data and are limited to a set of markers consisting
of conjuncts, adverbs and prepositional phrases (and, or, but, so, in fact,
etc.). It is worth noting that for other scholars, this set of markers actually
corresponds to “connectives” and is seen either as a specific subclass of
DMs (Fischer 2006) or as an entirely distinct class (Dostie 2004; Pennec
2018).
Both Diewald’s and Fraser’s definitions rely on a very strict view of DMs,
for different reasons. Diewald’s definition restricts DMs to oral interaction,
while Fraser’s limits them to well-established syntactic categories, ruling
out interjections (e.g. oh) and clausal DMs (e.g. I think) from the class.
Problematically enough, the four DMs examined in the present book
do not seem to fit either definition: they are clausal DMs that do not
exclusively occur in dialogical oral contexts. My own definition of DMs is
less restrictive in order to accommodate a wider set of markers and textual
genres (see Chapter 2).
Despite undeniable divergences, it must be borne in mind that both
Diewald’s and Fraser’s schools bring to the fore the structural function of
DMs, either as speech management tools or as text-structuring devices.
By contrast, other scholarly publications advocate a slightly different view
in terms of discourse functions, highlighting the intrinsic duality of DMs
instead of foregrounding a purely structural role. Let us examine the two
following definitions:

pragmatic markers are distributed around two functional poles. On the one
hand, speakers in interaction need to manage turns and implement repair.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 V
Vacation in Reno.
R570311.
Validity checking controls.
MP25236.
Valley of the shadow.
LP43247.
Valve spacing and pressuring.
MU8999.
Vanguard Films, Inc.
R578232.
Vaudeville revue.
R573504.
V belts.
MP24919.
VD attack plan.
MP25037.
V. D. story.
LP43290.
Vega Kammback versus competition.
MU8946.
Vega versus competition.
MU8944.
Velvet prison.
LP43116.
Vendetta.
LP43443.
Venezuela.
MP24869.
Very merry cricket.
LP42986.
Very strange triangle.
LP43111.
Viacom International, Inc.
R567076 - R567077.
R570608 - R570610.
R572099 - R572115.
R579967 - R579975.
Vice versa.
LF145.
Vic Film (Productions) Ltd.
LP42961.
Victim.
LP43295.
Videgraphe Corporation.
MP25062.
Vigilante.
R578903 - R578904.
Vigilante rides again.
R578903.
Virtual storage concepts.
MP25132.
MP25133.
MP25163.
Virus.
LP43162.
Vise.
LP43239.
Vision of doom.
LP43480.
Vitaphone Corporation.
R567280 - R567288.
 R567290.
R569647 - R569649.
R571693 - R571696.
R573499 - R573504.
R576593.
R576596.
R576597.
R578349.
R578350.
R578351.
Vnuk, Wallace J.
MP25069 - MP25075.
Voices from the Russian underground.
MP25096.
Volcanic landscapes.
MP24911.
Volcanoes: exploring the restless earth.
MP24838.
Vortex.
LP43479.
Voter decides.
MP25137.
VSAM concepts and access method services usage.
MP25018.
VSAM concepts and facilities.
MP25432.
VS / DOS.
MP25162.
 W
Wacky Quacky.
R577570.
Wacky West on Wednesday.
MP25441.
Wake up and dream.
R568011.
Walfran Research and Educational Fund.
MP25069 - MP25075.
Walkaway.
MP24907.
Walking with the Master.
MP24846.
Walk south.
LP43408.
Wallis (Hal) Productions, Inc.
R578391.
Wall of silence.
LP43484.
Walls of night.
LP43028.
Wanted for murder.
R571260.
Wanted, more homes.
MP25403.
Ware, Harlan.
LP43200.
Warner Brothers, Inc.
LP42954 - LP42957.
 LP42969.
LP43118 - LP43119.
LP43626.
Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc.
R567279.
R567289.
R571689 - R571692.
R573498.
R576592.
R576595.
R578352.
Warner Brothers Productions, Ltd.
LP42953.
Warning to wantons.
LF147.
Warty the toad.
MP25394.
Washington. State Superintendent of Public Instruction. SEE
Brouillet, Frank R.
Wastepaper world.
LP43231.
Watchers.
LP43246.
Water is wide.
LP43373.
Weaker sex.
LF155.
We are curious, Scandinavia, 1973.
MU8974.
Weather: high and low pressure.
MP24784.
Weather — storm endangers forest animals.
MP24781.
Weather: superstition and facts.
MP24780.
Web of darkness.
LP43579.
Wednesday game.
LP43461.
We don’t want to lose you.
MP25339.
Weekend murders.
LP43099.
We have an addict in the house.
LP43574.
Weinkauf, David S.
MP25444.
Weird Wednesday.
LP43184.
Welcome home, Johnny Bristol.
LP43370.
Welcome stranger.
R578383.
Well — flowing, dead and unloading.
MU9002.
Well model and lift.
MU9003.
Wells, H. G.
LF130.
We’ll walk out of here together.
LP43457.
Welt, Louis A.
MU9010.
Wendland, John P.
MP25485.
Wenzonsky (Pio) Productions.
LP43122.
Werrenrath, Elizabeth I.
MP25269.
MP25270.
Wessex Film Productions.
LP141.
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.
MP25460.
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. Division of Instructional
Communications. Motion Picture Services.
MP25460.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
MU8988.
West of Dodge City.
R577566.
Weston Woods. SEE Weston Woods Studios, Inc.
Weston Woods Studios, Inc.
LP42979 - LP42980.
LP42984.
LP43121.
Wet chemical methods.
MP25303.
We’ve come of age.
MP24830.
What about McBride.
MP25466.
What do you do while you wait.
MP24839.
What do you want me to say.
MP25470.
What happens when you go to the hospital.
 MP25331.
What’s new in gonorrhea.
MP24796.
What’s your I. Q.
R567067.
R570213.
Wheel.
LP43534.
When the bough breaks.
LF149.
When the wind blows.
LP43015.
Where is my wandering mother tonight.
LP43509.
Where’s my little lame stray.
LP43315.
Where’s Tommy.
MP24905.
Where the lilies bloom.
LP43371.
Where the wild things are.
LP42984.
Where today’s cats came from.
MP25178.
Where we stand in Cambodia.
MP25090.
White, Carol Elizabeth Brand Gwynn.
MU8991.
Whitefield.
MP25065.
White House family in the United States of America.
MU8991.
White knight.
LP43043.
Whittemore, L. H.
LP43267.
Who are you, Arthur Kolinski.
LP43374.
Who’ll cry for my baby.
LP43439.
Who saw him die.
LP43156.
Who says I can’t ride a rainbow.
LP43350.
Who stole the quiet day.
MP25422.
Why is a crooked letter.
LP43141.
Wicked wolf.
R570609.
Wide open spaces.
R577488.
Wife killer.
LP42995.
Wife wanted.
R577411.
Wilderness: a way of life.
MU8937.
Wild heritage.
MU8950.
Wild kingdom.
MP24855 - MP24859.
MP25437 - MP25440.
Wild West.
 R569745.
Wild West chimp.
R572018.
Willard, Emmet E.
MP25273.
William: from Georgia to Harlem.
LP43093.
Williams, Bruce Bayne.
MU9005.
Willie Dynamite.
LP43623.
Wilson, Daniel.
MP24733.
Windjam.
MP24989.
Wind raiders of the Sahara.
MP24831.
Wine is a traitor.
LP43020.
Winger Enterprises, Inc.
LP43267.
Wings of an angel.
LP43003.
Winkler, Irwin.
LP43134.
Winn, William M.
MU8903.
Winning the West.
R572106.
Winter fun.
LP43535.
Winter holiday.
 R568019.
Winter Kill.
LP43320.
Wisconsin Regional Primate Research Center.
MP24800.
Witches of Salem: the horror and the hope.
LP43089.
Witch hunt.
LP43595.
With a shout, not a whimper.
LP43464.
Withers, Brian Gary.
LU3664.
Without reservations.
R570310.
With strings attached.
LP43042.
Wizan, Joe.
LP43209.
Wolf, Sidney.
MP25425.
Wolf adaptations for defense.
MP24763.
Wolf and the badger.
MP24764.
Wolfe, Tom.
LP43209.
Wolf hunting pronghorn antelope.
MP24791.
Wolper, David L.
MP25445.
Wolper Productions.
 MP24831.
MP25445.
Wolper Productions, Inc.
MP25482.
Woman alive.
MP25413.
Women.
LP43167.
Women, women, women.
MU9011.
Wonderful world of Disney, 1972 - 73.
LP43191 - LP43199.
LP43612.
MP25387.
Wonrac Productions.
LP42983.
Wood (Francis Carter) Inc.
MP24860.
Words of summer.
LP43157.
Wordworks.
MP25058 - MP25061.
Workers depend on each other.
MP25017.
Working heart.
LP43422.
Working set and locality.
MP25163.
World Book Encyclopedia.
LP43189.
World Film Services, Ltd.
LP42962.
World food problem.
MP25409.
World of Charlie Company.
MP25095.
World of concern.
MP24917.
World of darkness.
MP25214.
World of sports.
R567593.
R570079.
R572343.
R577572.
R578420.
World of the black maned lion.
MP25437.
World of work.
MP24832.
MP24833.
World premiere.
LP43101.
Worldwide Church of God, Pasadena.
MP25285 - MP25289.
MP25497 - MP25500.
Woroner Films, Inc.
MP24931.
MP24932.
MP24933.
MP25068.
MP25419.
Writing better business letters.
MP24888.
Writing workshop — secondary.
MP25370.
 X
Xerox Corporation.
LP42942 - LP42943.
LP43312 - LP43317.
Xerox Films.
LP42942 - LP42943.
LP43312 - LP43317.
 Y
Yachting Magazine.
MP25040.
Yacht Racing Magazine.
MP25040.
Yearling.
R566404.
Year 1200.
MP25088.
Yorkin, Bud.
LP43610.
LP43611.
You and your eyes.
MP24747.
You and your food.
MP24759.
You and your sense of smell and taste.
MP24754.
You and your senses.
MP24758.
You are there.
LP43357 - LP43369.
You can’t just hope they’ll make it.
MP25338.
Young mother.
MP25417.
Young widow.
R572754.
You’re too fat.
 MP25483.
You see, I’ve had a life.
MP25418.
Youth and church need each other.
MU8970.
Yugoslavian coastline.
MP25473.
 Z
Zaiontz, Michael G.
MP24976.
Zanuck, Richard D.
LP43102.
Zanuck / Brown.
LP43623.
Zardoz.
LP43258.
Ziff Davis Publishing Company.
MP25463 - MP25470.
Ziff Davis Publishing Company, CRM Productions.
MP25358.
Zlateh the goat.
LP43121.
Zoos of Geographic Society.
MP24741.
Zoos of the world.
MP24741.
Zweig, Stefan.
LF127.
Zwer, Joachim D.
MU8903.
 MOTION PICTURES
CURRENT REGISTRATIONS

A list of domestic and foreign motion pictures registered during

the period covered by this issue, arranged by registration number.
 LF
REGISTRATIONS

LF124.
Bedelia. England. 90 min., sd., b&w, 35 mm. Based on the book by
Vera Caspary. Appl. au.; Isadore Goldsmith. © John Corfield
Productions, Ltd.; 24May46; LF124.

LF125.
Don’t look now. An Anglo-Italian coproduction by Casey
Productions, Ltd. & Eldorado Films, S. R. L. England. 110 min., sd.,
color, 35 mm. From a story by Daphne DuMaurier. © D. L. N.
Ventures Partnership; 12Oct73; LF125.

LF126.
Men of two worlds. John Sutro. England. 107 min., sd., b&w, 16
mm. © Two Cities Films, Ltd.; 9Sep46; LF126.

LF127.
Beware of pity. A Pentagon production. England. 103 min., sd.,
b&w, 16 mm. From the novel by Stefan Zweig. © Two Cities Films,
Ltd.; 22Jul46; LF127.

LF128.
Theirs is the glory. England. 82 min., sd., b&w, 16 mm. ©
Gaumont British Distributors, Ltd. & General Film Distributors,
Ltd.; 14Oct46; LF128.
LF129.
Carnival. A Two Cities film. England. 93 min., sd., b&w, 16 mm. ©
Two Cities Films, Ltd.; 2Dec46; LF129.

LF130.
The History of Mister Polly. England. 96 min., sd., b&w, 35 mm.
The History of Mister Polly, by H. G. Wells. © Two Cities Films, Ltd.;
28Mar49 (in notice: 1948); LF130.

LF131.
The Reluctant widow. A Two Cities film. England. 86 min., sd.,
b&w, 16 mm. From the novel by Georgette Heyer. © Two Cities
Films, Ltd.; 1May50; LF131.

LF132.
Flood tide. A Pentagon production. England. 90 min., sd., b&w, 16
mm. © Aquila Film Productions, Ltd.; 2May49; LF132.

LF133.
Golden Salamander. A Ronald Neame production. England. 97
min., sd., b&w, 16 mm. © Pinewood Films, Ltd.; 3Feb50 (in notice:
1949); LF133.

LF134.
Fools rush in. A Pinewood Films production. England. 82 min.,
sd., b&w, 16 mm. From the play by Kenneth Horne. © Pinewood
Films, Ltd.; 23May49; LF134.

LF135.
Dear Mister Prohack. A Pentagon production. England. 89 min.,
sd., b&w, 35 mm. Adapted from the novel, Mister Prohack, by Arnold