Difference between revisions of "Discourse markers"

From English Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 1: Line 1:
<big>Discourse connectors (overview) </big>
+
The term discourse markers encompasses one of two types of lexical items, as linguists use the term varyingly. This Wiki uses the term [[discourse particles]] for the first category, and discourse marker or [[connectors]] for the second, broader category.
  
  
Discourse connectors, also known as connectives or transitionals, are words that connect phrases, clauses, sentences, and ideas, such as ''but, and, so, then, although'' and numerous others. They are crucial for establishing coherence, or logical flow of sentences, clauses, and ideas, in written or spoken discourse. This overview page presents different linguistic categories of connectors. Other pages (forthcoming) will provide detailed lists of connectors, discussion of pedagogy, and problems of ESL/EFL students with English connectors. See also Swales & Feak (2004)<ref name="sf">Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). ''Academic writing for graduate students''. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.</ref>.
+
'''[[Discourse particles]]''' are extrasyntactic particles, i.e., items that don't fit into normal categories of function words, and don't really form or belong to a typical syntactic constituent. These often occur sentence initially, and sometimes sentence finally or before certain types of constituents within a sentence. These include:
 +
* Pause markers, fillers, or hesitatives, e.g., ''uh, uhm, er''
 +
* Information management markers, indicating that something is new to the speaker, that the speaker believes something is new, old, or inferrable to the listener, such as ''you know, gee, gosh, I mean.''
 +
* Expectation" markers, indicating that responses that are contrary to expectation, including unexpected topic shifts, such as ''now, well.''
 +
* Sentence final particles in Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and other languages, such as interrogative, suggestive, and tag question particles (e.g., Mandarin ''ma, ba, ne'').
 +
* The common colloquial particle ''like,'' especially among younger people, which is often treated as a focus marker (for new or contrastive information) or a hedge marker (a pragmatic softener).  
  
Connectors include most conjunctions, as well as conjunctive adverbs and other expressions that have been pressed into service as connectors. Most of these connectors are also called [[discourse markers]], which refers to those that do not crucially affect the truth value of the clause or sentence. In other words, conjunctions  like ''if, whether, unless, before'' would be excluded from the category of discourse markers, as they negative or significantly  limit the truth value of their clauses.
 
  
[[Discourse particles]] are differentiated as a separate category, due to their unique grammatical and pragmatic features; these include terms such as ''[[like (discourse particle)|like]], well, oh, I mean,'' etc.
+
'''Discourse markers''', i.e., discourse [[connectors]] or connectives: conjunctions, conjunctive adverbs, and other structures that connect sentential units and thoughts (excluding temporal and irrealis conjunctions such as ''if, when, unless, before''...).  
  
  
==Syntactic categories==
 
Connectors can be divided into more traditional grammatical categories as follows. For more on the difference in usage between coordinating and subordinating conjunctions, see the section on pragmatics below.
 
  
 +
These have often been neglected in linguistics and in second language education, but started to receive attention from the 1980s from pragmatics researchers. They are of interest to linguists due to their functions or the issues that they raise:
 +
# Semantic and pragmatic properties of particles and connectives
 +
# Their role in information structure, possibly leading eventually, someday, to a well developed linguistic model of information structure
 +
# How they affect or participate in information structure of language, and how they inform more sophisticated theories of information structure beyond the simple new/old information distinction.
 +
# How they might affect psycholinguistic processing of language, as measured, for example, in reaction time experiments and comprehensions experiments.
 +
# How they differ cross-linguistically, and how cross-linguistic differences might shed light on their semantic and pragmatic properties.
 +
# How their use might be affected by or play a role in social cognitive aspects of language use.
 +
# Their historical pragmatic development in the language.
 +
# What sentence-initial and sentence-final markers can show us about the properties of the left and right peripheries of sentences.
 +
# The unique and common usage of sentence final particles in East Asian languages.
  
===Coordinating conjunctions===
 
These coordinate two clauses or verb phrases, or smaller units, such as two nouns (e.g., ''cat and mouse''), adjectives (e.g., ''good and bad''), or other word types, e.g.:
 
* and, or, but, yet, just as, such as, also, both...and, either...or
 
  
 +
See also: [[teaching discourse markers]]
  
The paired conjunctions like ''both...and'' and ''either...or'' are traditionally known as correlatives.
 
  
 
+
[[Category:Pragmatics]]
===Subordinating conjunctions===
 
These subordinate a dependent clause to a main clause, and are distinguished from subordinators that are not connectors in the normal sense (like relative pronouns and complementizer [[particles]] such as ''that'').
 
* after, before, although, as, while, whereas, since, because
 
 
 
 
 
===Conjunctive adverbs===
 
These are adverbs that have taken on the function of conjoining clauses, e.g.:
 
* however, furthermore, therefore, thus
 
 
 
 
 
===Sentence adverbs===
 
These adverbs, also known as sentential adverbs, express the speaker's assessment of the whole sentence, and are similar to (if not slightly overlapping with) the conjunctive adverbs. They are set apart from the rest of the sentence with a comma in writing, or a slight intonational rise or juncture in speaking.
 
* Naturally, Incidentally, Thankfully, Regrettably, Fortunately, Apparently, Especially
 
 
 
 
 
===Emphatic adverbs===
 
These emphasize the particular word that they modify.
 
* Even, only, merely, especially, particularly
 
 
 
The adverb ''especially'' is also used as a sentence adverb at the beginning of the sentence. However, if it modifies the whole sentence as a sentence adverb, this is colloquial or informal style, and is dispreferred in academic writing. In formal writing, it can occur sentence-initially only if it modifies a following adjective or other word. That is, ''especially'' sentence-initially is fine in formal style if used only as an emphatic adverb, not as a sentence adverb. If it is used as an emphatic sentence adverb, this interrupts the natural flow of academic prose, as it emphasizes and calls attention to the whole clause (like raising one's voice or typing in all capital letters - excessive emphasis on an entire clause). Instead, moving it to only modify a single word in the sentence, or replacing it with the less emphatic ''particularly / in particular'' would be better options.
 
# The information is various from the exchange rate and stock prices and to the current of national economy. Especially, economic predictions are useful for planning long-term economic policy for several reasons. (colloquial)
 
# ... Economic predictions are especially useful for planning long-term economic policy for several reasons. (better academic style; ''especially'' is only an emphatic adverb, modifying only ''useful'')
 
# ... In particular, economic predictions are useful for planning long-term economic policy for several reasons. (also better for academic style)
 
 
 
 
 
===Prepositions===
 
Prepositions can serve as transitionals, particularly prepositional phrases, compound prepositions, and phrases derived from participle plus preposition.
 
 
 
1. Compound prepositions
 
* because of, due to, except for
 
 
 
2. Participle plus preposition
 
* based on, according to, depending on
 
 
 
3. Prepositional phrase
 
* in light of, as a consequence of, in addition to
 
 
 
 
 
===Other phrases===
 
Other multi-word expressions have come to be used as transitionals, e.g.,
 
* this instant, as a matter of fact, as mentioned previously, last but not least, that is to say, in other words, to put it mildly, to repeat
 
 
 
==Semantic-pragmatic categories==
 
Traditional categories for the types of transitions are as follows.
 
# '''Time and sequence:''' ''and, then''
 
# '''Addition:''' ''and, also, too''
 
# '''Repetition, emphasis:''' ''as mentioned, the aforementioned, that is, that is to say, to repeat''
 
# '''Exception:''' ''other than, except for''
 
# '''Example:''' e.g., for example, like, as, for instance''
 
# '''Reason, purpose:''' ''because, since, in order to''
 
# '''Result:''' ''so, thus, as a result, hence''
 
# '''Condition:''' in case, if, whether, in case (of)''
 
# '''Concession (weaker contrast)''' ''but, yet, although, while''
 
# '''Contrast:''' ''but, however, on the other hand, whereas''
 
# '''Comparison:''' ''as, just as, likewise, in like manner, similarly''
 
# '''Summary:''' ''in conclusion, in sum, overall''
 
# '''Enumeratives:''' ''first, second, third''
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
==Pragmatic categories==
 
 
 
===Topical adverbs===
 
Some adverbials function like sentence adverbs, but also serve topic transitional functions, signalling a shift or focusing in topic. Topical adverbs (this is my own name for them – this is not a standard term) are somewhat similar to sentence adverbs, except that they function to identify or qualify the topic of the coming clause.  This adverb is similar to a normal adverb within a sentence, but moved to the beginning to make the topic more explicit, to emphasize the speaker's point, to give it more prominence, to shift the topic to a new but somewhat related topic, or to avoid too many other adverbs inside the sentence.
 
* Economically, this would be infeasible to implement while the markets are too unstable. (cf. "This would be economically infeasible to implement")
 
* Politically, it would be unwise for the senator to suddenly propose such an outrageously expensive funding project at an economically depressed time as this.
 
 
 
 
Many words could be used like this, such as these, and many others, such as adverbs related to specific topics or fields of study:
 
* scientifically, mathematically, artistically, financially, intellectually, philosophically, computationally, psychologically, economically, politically, intellectually, biologically, environmentally, presently, evolutionarily, emotionally
 
 
 
 
 
===Topic shift markers===
 
Some words are used to manage shifts to new topics, or shifting back to previously mentioned topics (reshifts). In colloquial English and narratives, now can be used for new topics or reshifts; anyway can be used colloquially for reshifts. In various kinds of contexts, ''as to, as for, as regards, regarding'', etc. can be used for reshifts, but in academic writing these are less common; one should be careful not to overuse these to avoid sounding stylistically too mechanical, artificial, colloquial, or formulaic.
 
* Now, as I was saying...
 
* As for the unresolved matter of late orders, we've decided to consult with the home office.
 
* As regards your proposal, we currently cannot undertake such a complex project.
 
 
 
 
 
===Presentational ''there is/are''===
 
Sentences beginning with ''there is'' or ''there are'' function to present or introduce new topics (e.g., sentence subjects) to the discussion.
 
* There's a unicorn in my garden!
 
* There's not much that can be done about this problem.
 
 
 
 
 
This is more common in informal writing or conversation. In academic writing, there is/are is less commonly used. Instead, academic writers simply start a new sentence with a full noun subject, or begin a new paragraph for a more significant topic shift.
 
* The situation seems serious, but unfortunately, not much can be done about this problem at this time.
 
 
 
 
 
===Foregrounding and backgrounding===
 
The main difference between coordinating conjunctions versus subordinating conjunctions, or between main clauses and dependent clauses, aside from their syntax, has to do with information flow, namely, foregrounding and backgrounding.
 
 
 
Joining two clauses (or simply introducing the second clause) with coordinating conjunctions put both phrases in the foreground of the flow. On the other hand,  subordinating conjunctions put less emphasis on, or draw less cognitive attention to one phrase, that is, they background it. Consider the following pairs.
 
 
 
 
 
: 1a. I ran the simulation, and then the problem became apparent.
 
 
 
: 1b. After I ran the simulation, the problem became apparent.
 
 
 
 
 
: 2a. We ran 40 subjects in the experiment, but it yielded no conclusive results.
 
 
 
: 2b. Although we ran 40 subjects in the experiment, it yielded no conclusive results.
 
 
 
 
 
: 3a. Gender turned out to have a significant effect in past studies, so it was entered as a control variable.
 
 
 
: 3b. Because gender turned out to have a significant effect in past studies, it was entered as a control variable.
 
 
 
 
 
When we read the (b) examples, the dependent clauses are read more quickly and receive less cognitive attention and processing than their main clause counterparts in the (a) examples. This contributes to a smoother flow in the writing and information flow. Writers can manipulate this by using some connectives to put more focus or emphasis on some items, and can use other connectors to put some items in the background of readers' attention.
 
 
 
Coordinating conjunctions foreground both phrases, while many subordinating conjunctions background the subordinate (dependent) clauses1. That is, they draw readers' attention to the main clauses, but less attention to the subordinate clauses. Some adverbial words also work like conjunctions, and these often foreground both phrases. The more common connectors ''and, so, but, or'' actually provide relatively weak foregrounding, while many others have more specific meanings and provide stronger foregrounding.
 
 
 
 
 
{| class="apatable"|
 
|-
 
| class="header" | Foregrounding connectors
 
| class="header" | Backgrounding connectors
 
 
 
|- class="apacell" |
 
| class="apacell" width="40%" | furthermore, in addition 
 
but, however, yet  <br>
 
so, thus, therefore, for    <br>
 
meanwhile, during
 
 
 
| class="apacell"  width="40%" | as   
 
although, though, while    <br>
 
because, since  <br>
 
before, after, while, when
 
|}
 
 
 
 
Dependent (subordinate, adverbial) clauses can be used with flexibility to express a particular flow and nuance. If the subordinate clause is placed at the beginning of the sentence, it can form a cohesive, organizing link between the text and/or ideas immediately before the clause and the new information that follows. On the other hand, dependent clauses at the ends of sentences provide expansion of the information in the main clause. For example,
 
 
 
  <blockquote>
 
This ability to influence public opinion and mobilize the entire nation against a particular deviant activity ... illustrates the vast power of the mass media in defining deviance and mobilizing support for strong social control. Because they need to capture the public interest, the mass media often sensationalize crime and deviance. (Thompson & Hickey, 2002, p. 183; cited in Hinkel, 2013, p. 248)<ref name="hinkel">Hinkel, E. (2013). ''Teaching academic ESL writing''. Routledge.</ref>  </blockquote>
 
 
 
 
 
In this excerpt, the sentence-initial position of the because clause connects the information in the preceding sentence to that in the main clause (e.g., public opinion—public interest, the mass media—they, and vast power—capture). Specifically, adverbial clauses at the beginning of sentences play the role of connectives and transitions between ideas and information in keeping with the-old-information-first-and-the-new-information last pattern.  The following example shows how the subordinate clause (adverb clause) expands on the preceding idea in the main clause by providing further examples or support.
 
  <blockquote>
 
The annihilation of a minority may be unintentional, as when Puritans brought deadly diseases that Native Americans had no immunity to (Thompson & Hickey, 2002, p. 237; cited in Hinkel, 2013, p. 248)<ref name="hinkel"></ref>. </blockquote>
 
 
 
 
 
==References==
 
<references/>
 
 
 
 
 
[[Category:Writing]] [[Category:Grammar]] [[Category:Pragmatics]]
 

Revision as of 06:07, 25 May 2016

The term discourse markers encompasses one of two types of lexical items, as linguists use the term varyingly. This Wiki uses the term discourse particles for the first category, and discourse marker or connectors for the second, broader category.


Discourse particles are extrasyntactic particles, i.e., items that don't fit into normal categories of function words, and don't really form or belong to a typical syntactic constituent. These often occur sentence initially, and sometimes sentence finally or before certain types of constituents within a sentence. These include:

  • Pause markers, fillers, or hesitatives, e.g., uh, uhm, er
  • Information management markers, indicating that something is new to the speaker, that the speaker believes something is new, old, or inferrable to the listener, such as you know, gee, gosh, I mean.
  • Expectation" markers, indicating that responses that are contrary to expectation, including unexpected topic shifts, such as now, well.
  • Sentence final particles in Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and other languages, such as interrogative, suggestive, and tag question particles (e.g., Mandarin ma, ba, ne).
  • The common colloquial particle like, especially among younger people, which is often treated as a focus marker (for new or contrastive information) or a hedge marker (a pragmatic softener).


Discourse markers, i.e., discourse connectors or connectives: conjunctions, conjunctive adverbs, and other structures that connect sentential units and thoughts (excluding temporal and irrealis conjunctions such as if, when, unless, before...).


These have often been neglected in linguistics and in second language education, but started to receive attention from the 1980s from pragmatics researchers. They are of interest to linguists due to their functions or the issues that they raise:

  1. Semantic and pragmatic properties of particles and connectives
  2. Their role in information structure, possibly leading eventually, someday, to a well developed linguistic model of information structure
  3. How they affect or participate in information structure of language, and how they inform more sophisticated theories of information structure beyond the simple new/old information distinction.
  4. How they might affect psycholinguistic processing of language, as measured, for example, in reaction time experiments and comprehensions experiments.
  5. How they differ cross-linguistically, and how cross-linguistic differences might shed light on their semantic and pragmatic properties.
  6. How their use might be affected by or play a role in social cognitive aspects of language use.
  7. Their historical pragmatic development in the language.
  8. What sentence-initial and sentence-final markers can show us about the properties of the left and right peripheries of sentences.
  9. The unique and common usage of sentence final particles in East Asian languages.


See also: teaching discourse markers