2.3. The Discourse-Cognitive Approach

Discourse markers are elements that fill the discoursal and cognitive slots that spoken language needs in order to weave the net of interaction. This dynamic approach is geared to the description of the discourse and the cognitive status of the markers, but does not limit them to a closed-class functions. The approach intends to account for the two main issues: the issue of a ‘core meaning’ for each marker, and the nature of ‘accepted’ functions of discourse markers. The question of the core meaning poses many problems, since each element may appear in such a multiplicity of functional contexts, and with such a varied array of meanings, that it is very difficult to assign a core meaning, especially in the case of pause markers and interjections. Second, with regard to the elaboration of an accepted repertoire, what we find in discourse is not just a series of discourse markers; rather, we are dealing with discourse slots (functions), where any element – provided it fulfills several conditions related to context and prosody – can function as a discourse marker. In other words, the phenomenon of discourse markers shows that spoken interaction needs to have a pragmatic skeleton, consisting of such discourse slots, that holds the communicative force of the interaction together. The slots are filled by elements that may vary according to regional, ideolectal, or sociolinguistic features.

Due to this multiplicity of conditions that determine the choice of an element (multiplicity of functions and multiplicity of elements realizing each function), the challenge is to find a principled method of selection and a corresponding analysis of this phenomenon. In other words, how can we decide about the appropriateness of the meaning of an element in a specific discourse slot? What are the contextual interactions between the discourse marker and the slot in which it occurs?

When one looks at the elements that function as discourse markers, it becomes immediately clear that there are elements the meaning of which is clear: you know, I see; alongside with them, we find other elements whose meaning it is difficult to trace: mhm, aha. This inclusion of discourse markers that have no apparent meaning or grammatical characterization, but play a role in the cognitive structure of interactants, has led to the notion of ‘discourse grammaticalization’. According to this view, discourse markers are elements that have undergone a process of discourse grammaticalization and have included in their semantic/grammatical meaning a pragmatic dimension that has interactional purposes. In other words, a grammaticalized marker becomes a homonym in a particular synchronic system that, when realizing a discourse function, constrains the relevance of the proposition it introduces, as Hopper and Traugott (1993) have suggested.

Based on the work on grammaticalization by Heine (1991) and Hopper and Traugott (1993), Romero Trillo (2001) classified discourse markers as follows:

1. A categorial items such as: yeah, yep, m, mhm, etc.

2. Lexical items such as: listen, well, good, fine, etc.

3. Lexical composites such as: I mean, you know, the thing is, oh my God.

He also marked a distinction between ‘operative markers’ (those dealing with managing concepts or tools), and ‘involvement markers’ (those dealing with social rapport).

The discourse grammaticalization approach to discourse markers – an approach shared by other scholars such as Aijmer (2002) – addresses the question of the versatility of meanings and the nontransparent nature of these elements that may not have a unique pragmatic meaning. Clearly, several elements (I see, I know, yes, yeap, m, mhm, aha, etc., . . .) could realize such a function. The only possible way out of this quandary is by appealing to the notion of appropriateness, defined as ‘‘the possibility to choose the most adequate element in the realization of a certain function in a specific context’’. By using the notion of appropriateness, we emphasize that the use of a particular form in discourse is not dependent on any kind of grammatical assessment (as a matter of fact, many discourse markers do not belong to any particular grammatical category, but on the frequency with which it appears in a significant corpus-based language sample (representing a native speaker’s linguistic competence).

Appropriateness is based on the assumption that there are no pre-established rules that determine the correct or incorrect use of a given element as a discourse marker, but that speakers will rely on the regularities of certain parameters that are considered adequate to a given linguistic situation. These parameters are not only linguistic but also extralinguistic, such as social class, context of the situation, age of the speakers, etc.

Навчальне видання

Автори:

Сазонова Ярослава Юріївна,

Невська Юлія Володимирівна,

Мороз Тетяна Юріївна

Нотатки до лекцій та методичні рекомендації

з курсу комунікативної граматики англійської мови

для студентів факультету іноземної філології

Відповідальний за випуск: Сазонова Я.Ю.

Підписано до друку Формат 60х84/16 Папір офсетний.

Гарнітура Times New Roman. Друк офсетний. Ум.друк.арк. 5

Обл. – вид.арк. Зам № Тираж 150 прим. Ціна договірна

Надруковано в:

78