Abstract
We cannot discuss spoken language without taking into account discourse markers.1 Discourse markers are lexical items such as well, I think, you mean, actually of course, so, in fact. Moder and Martinovic-Zic (2004: 117) describe them as being largely syntax-independent and their use does not change the truth-conditional meaning of a sentence, while Swan (2005: xviii) writes that they show a connection between what is said and the wider context. Below is an example showing the context in which several discourse markers (underlined) have been used:
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aijmer, K. (2013) Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach ( Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
Andersen, G. and Fretheim, T. (eds) (2000) Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude ( Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins ).
Barron, A. and Schneider, K. (2009) ‘Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction’, Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (4): 425–442.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999) The Longman grammar of spoken and written English ( London: Longman).
Blakemore, D. (2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Brinton, L. J. (1996) Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions ( Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter).
Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective ( New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Clift, R. (2001) ‘Meaning in interaction: The case of actually’, Language, 77 (2): 245–491.
Degand, L. (2014) ‘“So very fast then.” Discourse markers at left and right periphery in spoken French’, in K. Beeching and U. Detges (eds.) Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change ( Brill: Leiden ), pp. 151–178.
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 ( Amsterdam: Elsevier ), pp. 1–20.
Fox Tree, J. E. (2002) ‘Interpreting pauses and ums at turn exchanges’, Discourse Processes 34 (1): 37–55.
Fried, M and Östman, J.-O. (2005) ‘Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles’, Journal of Pragmatics, 37: 1752–1778.
Haselow, A. (2012) ‘Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English’, Language and Communication 32: 182–204.
Haselow, A. (2013) ‘Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse’, Folia Linguistica, 47 (2): 375–424.
Jucker, A. H. and Ziv, Y. (1998) ‘Discourse markers: Introduction’, in A. H. Jucker and Y. Ziv (eds) Discourse markers: Description and theory ( Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins ), pp. 1–12.
Kallen, J. L. (2015) “Actually, it’s unfair to say that I was throwing stones”: Comparative perspectives on uses of actually in ICE-Ireland’, in C. Amador-Moreno, K. McCaffety and E. Vaughan (eds), Pragmatic markers in Irish English ( Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins ).
Linell, P. (2008) ‘Grammatical constructions in dialogue’, in A. Bergs and G. Diewald (eds) Constructions and language change ( Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter ), pp. 97–110.
Mair, C. (2009) ‘Corpus linguistics meets sociolinguistics: The role of corpus evidence in the study of sociolinguistic variation and change’, in A. Renouf and A. Kehoe (eds) Corpus linguistics: Refi nements and reassessments ( Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi ), pp. 7–32.
McCarthy, M. J. (2003) ‘Talking back: Small, interactional response tokens in everyday conversation’, Research on Language in Social Interaction, 36 (1): 33–63.
Moder, C. L. and Martinovic-Zic, A. (2004) Discourse across languages and cultures ( Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
Norén, K. and Linell, P. (2007) ‘Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts: an empirical substantiation’, Pragmatics, 17 (3): 387–416.
Norrick, N. (2009) ‘Interjections as pragmatic markers’, Journal of Pragmatics, 41 (5): 866–891.
Oh, S.-Y. (2000) ‘Actually and in fact in American English: A data-based analysis’, English Language and Linguistics, 4 (2): 243–268.
Östman, J.-O. (1982) ‘The symbiotic relationship between pragmatic particles and impromptu speech’, in N.-E. Enkvist (ed) Impromptu speech: A symposium (Åbo: The Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation), pp. 147–177.
Östman, J.-O. (1995) ‘Pragmatic particles twenty years after’, in B. Wårvik, S.-K. Tanskanen and R. Hiltunen (eds) Organization in discourse ( Turku: University of Turku ), pp. 95–108.
Östman, J.-O. (2006) ‘Constructions in cross-language research: Verbs as pragmatic particles in Solv’, in K. Aijmer and A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds) Pragmatic markers in contrast ( Amsterdam: Elsevier ), pp. 237–257.
Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse markers ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A. (eds) (2008) Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages ( Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins ).
Schourup, L.C. (1985) Common discourse particles in English conversation ( New York: Garland).
Silverstein, M. (1976) ‘Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description’, in K. H. Basso and H. A. Selby (eds) Meaning in anthropology ( Albuquerque: University of Mexico Press ), pp. 11–55.
Smith, S. W. and Jucker, A. H. (2000) ‘Actually and other markers of an apparent discrepancy between propositional attitudes of conversational partners’, in G. Andersen and T. Fretheim (eds) Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude ( Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins ), pp. 207–237.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd ed. ( Oxford: Blackwell).
Swan, M. (2005) Practical English usage ( Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Taglicht, J. (2001) ‘Actually, there’s more to it than meets the eye’, English Language and Linguistics, 5 (1): 1–16.
Torgersen, E. and Gabrielatos, C. (2009) ‘A corpus-based study of invariant tags in London English’, Paper presented at Corpus Linguistics 2009, 22–25 July 2009, University of Liverpool.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (1993) ‘Interpretative nodes in discourse. Actual and actually’, in M. Baker, G. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds) Text and technology. In honour of John Sinclair ( Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins ), pp. 193–211.
Tottie, G. (2013) ‘Uh and um as sociolinguistic markers in British English’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16 (2): 173–197.
Traugott, E. C. and Dasher, R. (2002) Regularity in semantic change ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Van der Wouden, T. and Foolen, A. (forthcoming) ‘Dutch particles in the right periphery’, Paper presented at the International Conference on Final Particles, Rouen (France), 27–28 May 2010.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2015 Karin Aijmer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Aijmer, K. (2015). Analysing Discourse Markers in Spoken Corpora: Actually as a Case Study. In: Baker, P., McEnery, T. (eds) Corpora and Discourse Studies. Palgrave Advances in Language and Linguistics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137431738_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137431738_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-55729-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-43173-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Language & Linguistics CollectionEducation (R0)