Discourse Markers

Discourse Markers GALINA B. BOLDEN Rutgers University, USA

The term discourse markers refers to a class of linguistic devices that includes words and phrases, such as, anyway, well, you know, I mean, oh, so, like, and uh. While exemplars of discourse markers might be easily recognizable, the category as a whole defies a clear definition. Scholars disagree about what items should (and should not) be included under this umbrella term and whether this is, in fact, an apt term. Consequently, a variety of other labels have been used to refer to some or all members of this category, including pragmatic markers, discourse particles, discourse connectives, discourse operators, hedges, fillers. The functioning of individual discourse markers is also difficult to explicate. Furthermore, there is substantial disagreement about whether discourse markers should be seen as inherently multifunctional (having different meanings in different contexts) or whether they should be conceptualized as having an underlying (or basic) meaning that gets specified or “particularized” on different occasions of use. Even though there is little agreement among scholars on how discourse markers should be defined or classified, the following characteristics of discourse markers have been suggested: Discourse markers serve metadiscursive functions; they have little or no propositional context-independent meaning; they may not belong to traditional word classes; they are not (or are only loosely) incorporated into the syntactic structure of an utterance; and they may be phonologically reduced and produced as separate prosodic units. This list is not uncontroversial, and the features that comprise it reflect the linguistic provenance of much of the research on discourse markers. In spite of the problems involved in defining and describing discourse markers, research in this area has thrived in recent decades. Research on discourse markers originates in pragmatics, a subfield of linguistics concerned with relationships between linguistic structures and contexts of language use. The study of discourse markers has, however, outgrown its home in linguistics and now extends to other fields (especially, communication, sociology, linguistic anthropology, and interactional linguistics), spans many theoretical and methodological orientations, and covers an increasingly wide variety of languages. Impetuses for scholarly interest in discourse markers are as diverse as the disciplinary and theoretical orientations of the researchers. While linguists use the study of discourse markers to answer questions about the nature of language, grammar, meaning, and cognition, language and social interaction (LSI) studies in this area have emerged out of interest in social interaction and the recognition that discourse markers play key roles in its organization. The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, First Edition. Karen Tracy (General Editor), Cornelia Ilie and Todd Sandel (Associate Editors). © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781118611463/wbielsi031

2

DI S C O U R S E MA R K E R S

The LSI approach to discourse markers is quite distinct from linguistic research in this area and focuses primarily on discourse markers’ functions in interaction. LSI studies are empirically grounded and ordinarily draw on corpora of audio/video recordings of naturally occurring spoken interactions (rather than invented examples or written texts, as linguistic research often does). Further, LSI research on discourse markers has primarily been concerned with how discourse markers are used as resources for social action, and, consequently, how they are deployed to enact or negotiate relationships between interactants. Much of this research thus uses conversation-analytic and/or discourse-analytic methods. The following is an overview of some common interactional functions of discourse markers documented in the LSI literature, with a focus on their use as resources for social action. Due to a tremendous cross-linguistic variability in the repertoires of discourse markers and the interactional jobs they may be put to, the overview is limited to English.

Interactional functions of discourse markers LSI researchers typically treat discourse markers as having a single, albeit rather broad, basic meaning that organizes how they are used in different contexts. LSI studies aim both to discover this basic meaning of discourse markers and to explicate their contextspecific uses. An analysis of contexts of deployment is thus central to this research enterprise. Researchers take into account the placement of discourse markers within a turn (for example, turn-initial v. turn-final; a stand-alone unit v. part of a turn), within an action sequence (for example, in initiating v. responding actions), and within larger courses of action or activities (such as, by reference to the overall structural organization of the interaction). Furthermore, discourse markers are seen as both reflecting relationships between interactional units and constituting contexts through their deployment.

Indicating contiguities and disjunctions between interactional units Ordinarily, in conversational interaction, each turn at talk is understood as emerging from the immediately preceding context and as part of the ongoing activity. On occasion, however, interlocutors have to show that their current turn is noncontiguous with what came just before. A break in contiguity may involve an interruption of the ongoing activity with a parenthetical comment or a misplaced introduction of a new topic or interactional project. In these contexts, discourse markers may be used to convey to the interlocutors how the current turn is to be understood in relation to what has occurred prior to it. Discourse markers indicating that an utterance should not to be understood as emerging from an immediately preceding context are known as misplacement or disjunction markers. In English, a number of discourse markers may mark the turn’s misplacement, including by the way, hey, listen, look, now, okay, and oh, among others. These are not interchangeable, each marker indexing a particular kind of relationship between the upcoming turn and the prior context. For example, in Transcript 1 the discourse


3

marker oh in line 3 (produced as a preface to a sequence-initiating action) indicates that Ava’s inquiry into Bee’s grandmother’s health is disjoined from the preceding talk—specifically, oh projects a mention of something Ava has just now remembered. (1) Bolden (2006) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

1 2 3 -> 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ava: Bee: Ava: Bee: Ava: Bee: Ava:

Yer home? .hhh= =[(Mnuh,)] =[Oh my ] mother wannduh know how’s yer grandmother. .hhh Uh::, (0.3) I don’know I guess she’s aw- she’s awright she went to thee uh:: hhospital again tihda:y, Mm-hm?, .hh t! .hh A:n:: I guess t’day wz d’day she’s supposetuh find out if she goes in ner not.= =Oh. Oh::.

In addition to indicating discontinuities, discourse markers can also convey the current turn’s affinity to some earlier talk or an in-progress task. For example, the speaker may “right bracket” what has come just before (with anyway, for example) before returning to some pending line of action. Furthermore, an action can be marked as agenda driven rather than occasioned by the prior talk. For instance, the discourse marker so may be used to indicate that the sequenceinitiating action it prefaces has “emerged from incipiency” (Bolden, 2006). In Transcript 2, Briar calls her friend Maya to congratulate her on a new job. This project has been sidetracked by an incoming call on another line (discussed in lines 1–5). When Briar finally introduces her reason for calling (line 6), she prefaces it with so to highlight its now delayed placement. (2) Bolden (2006) (Briar has just finished talking on the other line and returns to her conversation with Maya) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 -> 7 8 9 10 11

BRI: BRI: MAY: BRI: MAY: BRI:

MAY:

N-n-no:. She’s jus- (0.2) she was just calling cause I called her earlier. .hhh because I:- haven’t called her twice.=but- (.)>She was never< involved in the whole free call thing. *O:::h.* ((*breathy*)) So- congratu^lations Maya. #U-O:#:h tha^::nks. I- I was I’m wanted to call you right away, as soon as I >heard and then I didn’t have< your n:umber, [an then, [#u- u-# w-I have a letter for you sitting in my ba::g.

In institutional contexts, and-prefacing can be used to indicate that the question is driven by a bureaucratic agenda rather than interactionally generated from what has just occurred (Heritage & Sorjonen, 1994). Transcript 3 is taken from a home visit interaction between a nurse (HV) and a new mother (M). In lines 1–2, the nurse characterizes what she is about to do as a form-filling task that will be completed over a series of inquiries. And-prefacing (in line 10) marks the upcoming question as part of this bureaucratic activity.

4


(3) Heritage & Sorjonen (1994) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -> 11

HV:

Uh:m (0.5) .hh now fi:rst th’ particulars they want to know th’baby’s father’s a:ge. (2.0) He will b[e, [He will (.) nineteen. Nineteen. (0.8) ∘ Lovely.∘

HV: M:

(0.5) And his occupation, He’s a bookmaker.

HV:

G: M: HV:

While the discourse markers discussed above demarcate structural ties between interactional units, their deployment has important implications for enacting and negotiating personal and impersonal relationships between interlocutors (Bolden, 2006; Heritage & Sorjonen, 1994).

Conveying stances vis-à-vis prior actions A number of discourse markers (such as, well, uh, and oh) are used as prefaces to disaligning or disaffiliative responses, projecting a response that is in some way problematic. The discourse markers well and uh may preface dispreferred responses (i.e., responses that disalign with or reject the initiating action). In Transcript 4, A is asking her husband whether he is coming to their beach house early for the weekend (line 1), tilting her inquiry for a yes-type answer. B’s response (in lines 2–4) is prefaced with well, which projects disagreement (Schegloff, 2007). (4) Schegloff (2007) 01 02 03 04

1 2 -> 3 4

A: B:

Yuh comin down early? Well, I got a lot of things to do before gettin cleared up tomorrow. I don’t know. I w- probably won’t be too early.

In responses to wh-questions (when, what, how, etc.), well-prefacing indicates that the answer is not a straightforward one (Schegloff & Lerner, 2009). In Transcript 5, Jon inquires about the time of the golf outing Guy had proposed (line 1). Instead of giving a time, Guy launches into an extended explanation, using the discourse marker well to project a nonstraightforward response (lines 2–6). (5) Schegloff & Lerner (2009) 01 1 Jon: What time yih wanna ↑go↓:. 02 2 -> Guy: We:ll? 03 3 (0.5) 04 4 Guy: hWe’d haftuh call’n find o:ut 05 5 (0.9) 06 6 Guy: yihknow (.) whe:n 07 7 Jon: .hhh.t Well? ah’ll ↑tellyih. Call Infer↑ma↓tion.


5

A different kind of stance toward the initiating action is projected by oh-prefacing. Ohprefaced responses to inquiries mark the preceding inquiry as inapposite in terms of its relevance or presuppositions (Heritage, 1998). In Transcript 6, Leslie is a substitute teacher. In response to Mum’s inquiry about her schedule, Leslie claims to never know ahead of time, thereby problematizing the question’s presupposition that she would have access to that information. (6) Heritage (1998) 01 02 03

1 2 -> 3

Mum: Les: Mum:

Are you teaching this week? Oh I don’t know I never kn:o::[w. [∘ Ri:ght.∘

Furthermore, oh-prefaced responses to assessments (for example, “Isn’t this gorgeous!”) convey a claim of epistemic independence (Heritage, 2002).

Facilitating turn-taking Items such as mm hm, yeah, right, and oh (variously referred to as back-channel responses; continuers; response, receipt, or acknowledgment tokens, etc.) serve as resources in organizing an exchange of turns between conversationalists. Even though these discourse markers may seem very similar, research shows that they are put to distinct uses. For example, in English, oh functions as a “change-of-state” token, indexing a change in the speaker’s knowledge, awareness, or attention (Heritage, 1984). This use is illustrated in the following segment, where oh communicates E’s receipt and acceptance of the prior informing as news. (7) Heritage (1984) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

1 C: 2 3 4 5 6 E: 7 8 C: 9 -> E: 10 C: 11 12 -> E: 13 14 E:

.hhh I was um: (0.3) I wen’ u(.) I spoke t’ the gir- I spoke to Caryn. (0.2) .hh andum i’ w’z really bad because she decided of all weekends for this one to go away (0.6) Wha? (0.3) She decided to go away this weekend. = =Yeah .hhh (.) So that (.) y’know I really don’ have a place ti’stay .hO:::h. (0.2) .hh So you’re not gonna go up this weekend?

On the other hand, yeah (in line 9) is a continuation receipt, indicating that the speaker treats C’s prior turn as background. Similarly, tokens such as mm hm or uh huh function as “continuers” to indicate their speaker’s understanding that an extended unit of talk is being produced by the addressee and that this unit is not yet complete or response ready (Schegloff, 1982). For example, in line 6 of Transcript 1, Ava treats Bee’s response to her inquiry as not yet complete

6


by producing a continuer (cf. her use of oh in line 9). Furthermore, at least for some speakers, mm hm, and yeah appear to be alternative and nonequivalent ways of showing recipiency in the midst of an extended turn: mm hm indicates “passive recipiency” while yeah suggest a readiness to take the floor (Jefferson, 1984).

Directions for future research Given the importance of discourse markers in the organization of interaction, LSI scholars will continue to investigate their use, likely expanding to cover a wider variety of languages—a trend already evident in recent years. This will create increasing opportunities for cross-linguistic investigations, which are currently relatively rare. Furthermore, future research promises to contribute to (and in turn, benefit from) an increasingly sophisticated understanding of action formation and ascription. Recent investigations into the role of epistemics, for example, have already benefited from an understanding of discourse markers operating in this domain (such as, the English oh), and the trend is likely to continue. SEE ALSO: Conversation Analysis, Overview; Conversational Coherence; Discourse

Analysis; Editor’s Introduction

References Bolden, G. B. (2006). Little words that matter: Discourse markers “so” and “oh” and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 661–688. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00314.x Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3), 291–334. doi: 10.1017/S0047404598003017 Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 196–224). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23(1), 1–29. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500017656 Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “yeah” and “mm hm.” Papers in Linguistics, 17, 197–216. doi: 10.1080/08351818409389201 Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In B. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71–93). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A., & Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 42(2), 91–115. doi: 10.1080/08351810902864511


7

Further reading Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Galina B. Bolden gained her PhD at the University of California, Los Angeles, She is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at Rutgers University. Galina has conducted conversation-analytic research on the organization of social interaction in English and Russian, both in ordinary and institutional settings, as well as on the organization of bilingual talk. She has published articles in venues such as Communication Monographs, Discourse Studies, Human Communication Research, Journal of Communication, Journal of Pragmatics, Language in Society, Research on Language and Social Interaction, and Social Psychology Quarterly.