application of schourup (1999)’s characteristics on the ... › gjhss_volume13 ›...

© 2013. Marwan A. Jarrah. This is a research/review paper, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Global Journal of HUMAN SOCIAL SCIENCE Linguistics & Education Volume 13 Issue 4 Version 1.0 Year 2013 Type: Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal Publisher: Global Journals Inc. (USA) Online ISSN: 2249-460x & Print ISSN: 0975-587X

Application of Schourup (1999)’s Characteristics on the Arabic Contrastive Discourse Markers

By Marwan A. Jarrah

University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain

Abstract - The aim of the present study was to apply the features most commonly attributed to Discourse Markers as stated by Schourup (1999) on the Arabic contrastive Discourse Markers. Indeed, these features are connectivity, optionality, non-truth-conditionality, weak clause association, orality, initiality, and multi-categoriality. This application aims at justifying the assumption of why such words are considered Discourse Markers in Arabic. The study concludes that the Discourse Markers in general and the contrastive Discourse Markers in particular are frequent in discourse, and they serve certain functions rather than coherence, cohesion, or text unity. The contrastive Discourse Markers are varied in terms of frequency. The study also recommends investigating all other kinds of Discourse Markers within these features.

Keywords : discourse markers; contrast; optionality; orality.

GJHSS-G Classification : FOR Code :

Application of Schourup 1999s Characteristics on the Arabic Contrastive Discourse Markers

Strictly as per the compliance and regulations of:

751001


Marwan A. Jarrah

Abstract - The aim of the present study was to apply the features most commonly attributed to Discourse Markers as stated by Schourup (1999) on the Arabic contrastive Discourse Markers. Indeed, these features are connectivity, optionality, non-truth-conditionality, weak clause association, orality, initiality, and multi-categoriality. This application aims at justifying the assumption of why such words are considered Discourse Markers in Arabic. The study concludes that the Discourse Markers in general and the contrastive Discourse Markers in particular are frequent in discourse, and they serve certain functions rather than coherence, cohesion, or text unity. The contrastive Discourse Markers are varied in terms of frequency. The study also recommends investigating all other kinds of Discourse Markers within these features.

I. Theoretical Background

iscourse analysis, which is the study of language in use(Brown and Yule, 1983) and which specializes basically in extra-sentential levels, is

generally considered a relatively modern branch of linguistics. Upon delving into these extra-sentential levels such as text and context, one finds out that new discoursal phenomena have swiftly emerged and occupied a uniquely distinguished position among other existing linguistic phenomena. Discourse Markers (henceforth DMs) are examples of such new phenomena, which have hence been an open and fertile area for ongoing research.

Indeed, it is apparently palpable that the starting point of investigating DMs and their potentially underlying roles in discourse goes mainly back to Labov and Fanshel (1977) who discuss a question, beginning with “well”. They wrote:

As a discourse marker, well refers backwards to some topic that is already shared knowledge among participants. When well is the first element in a discourse or a topic, this reference is necessarily to an unstated topic of joint concern. (p.156)

(For details, see Fraser, 1999) They contend that well links a discussed topic,

given information, no matter whether it is stated in the discourse or not, with a fairly untouched one, new information. Therefore, it serves as an extra-sentential connective which renders the discourse in which it occurs more coherent.

During the past years, investigating DMs has considerably turned into a growth industry in linguistics, with dozens of research papers, appearing yearly (Fraser, 1999). For a field in which interest is so broadly based, DMs have been by and large investigated within many (either traditional or recent) linguistic frameworks, which reflect, in turn, various research interests, methods, and goals. With the profusion of approaches which have been tackling DMs, there have come inevitable disputes relating to classification and functions of them.

These disputes have recently quickened as DMs have increasingly come to be regarded not only as a heavily explored facet of language behavior but also as a testing basis for dissimilar hypotheses. These hypotheses have been associated fundamentally with the boundary between pragmatics and semantics in general and with theories of discourse structure and utterance interpretation in particular (Schourup, 1999).

Thus, DMs have been probed into from a discoursal point of view. Commenting on their functions in discourse, Matras (1997) insists on that because of the fact that the operational domain of DMs is on the whole regarded as “units of discourse such as sentences and paragraphs, rather than inter-sentential predications, with the result that they provide information at the discourse level”. Yet, emerging extra-sentential approaches, DMs were neither taken into consideration nor received even linguistic debates held by linguists who did not regrettably exceed the boundaries of the sentence, which was for ages deemed the mainstay of theory of grammar.

Modern linguistics, however, emphasizes the grammatical importance of connected discourse. For functional linguists, for instance, grammar cannot be understood “just by looking at it from its own level;” rather, it has to be handled with “from above” (Halliday, 2004).

Regarding DMs in Arabic, they have not received enough (if any) interest probably due to the same reason mentioned above, namely, a sentence being the main concern for grammarians. For example, Ryding (2005) introduces DMs in Arabic as words, connecting one part of discourse with another and signaling relationships between phrases, clauses, sentences and paragraphs. Ryding herself lists some expressions which are regarded as DMs such as ball ‘English: rather”. She limits her study to the sentence

D

© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)

Year

Glob a

l Jo

urna

l o f H

uman

S ocial S

cien

ce

(D DDD) G

201

3

51

Volum

e XIII

Issue

IV Ver

sion

I

Keywords : discourse markers; contrast; optionality; orality.

Author : The University of Jordan. E-mail : [email protected]

boundaries. Al-Warraki and Hassanein (2002) present a thorough list of linking words and expressions used in Modern Standard Arabic. They classify these items on semantic and functional grounds. However, the main theme depicted in their whole book is mainly oriented towards teaching Arabic writing, not determining DMs.

In a nutshell, it is largely important to emphasize the fact that DMs, as a discoursal phenomenon, have not received enough attention from traditional Arabic grammarians that is because the domain of traditional Arabic grammar studies did not exceed the sentence limits. Just as traditional linguists in English, traditional Arabic grammarians confined their work to the sentence level when investigating different language phenomena (Kammensjö, 2005).

Regarding the functions of DMs, many researchers have supposedly claimed that DMs are there in discourse for both cohesion and coherence purposes; that is, they are essentially employed in order to get the text unified. Few researchers, on the other hand, regard them as linguistic tools to serve other purposes rather than coherence or text unity. In fact, some claim that they have linguistically significant roles in both production and interpretation of the text. Accordingly, they are important not only for their coherence-based functions but also for both the speaker and hearer alike in order to deliver and understand messages, respectively.

II. Discourse Markers

As expected, there has been multi-dimensional disagreement among linguists on the definition of DMs. Taboada (2006), for instance, states, "Discourse markers are as pervasive in language as they are difficult to define for the linguists". Linguists disagree partially and/or completely on many of the rudimentary aspects of DMs, including the semantic and syntactic features of these expressions, the function they express, and the role they serve in the text or discourse. Such disagreements do actually refer to the various linguistic perspectives, approaching DMs.

Indeed, many attempts have been made to characterize DMs in a more technical fashion (Cf. Maschler, 1994). Probably due to the lack of agreement among researchers on how to define this linguistic phenomenon as mentioned above, DMs have frequently appeared under different (but somehow related) labels such as cue phrases (Knot and Dale, 1994), discourse connectives (Blakemore, 1987), pragmatic operators (Ariel, 1994), to mention only a few, however.

Be that as it may, Schourup (1999) provides a

more tangible definition for DMs, presenting the main linguistic characteristics assigned to them in discourse; she states

"….the typical DM referred to in the literature is a syntactically optional expression that does not affect

the truth-conditions associated with an utterance it introduces and is used to relate this utterance to the immediately preceding utterance."(p. 234)

Schourup, thus, attributes certain linguistic characteristics to the elements supposed to be DMs such as being optional, not affecting truth-conditions, cohesive, etc. Similarly, a number of linguists point out that DMs are expressions functioning primarily to signal relations between units of discourse and thereby contributing to discourse coherence or textuality (Schourup, 2011). On the other hand, Hansen defines DMs as “linguistic items of variable scope, and whose primary function is connectivity” (Hansen, 1997). In addition, Schiffrin defines DMs as “elements proposing the contextual coordinates within which an utterance is produced and designed to be interpreted” (Schiffrin, 1987)

In reality, discourse analysts working on exploring the main functions of DMs diagnose DMs as linguistic items which aim at making the whole discourse more coherent and cohesive. They generally propose and suggest definitions for DMs, depending on this extra-sentential function, which has accompanied DMs since the time they got to the floor. Nevertheless, because of emerging new linguistic theories as well as perspectives which do not separate the text from the setting or situation in which it has been created, new functions associated with DMs, depending on the setting such as speaker, addressee, audience, etc., have emerged. That is because, as Brown and Yule (1983) claim, the analysis of discourse cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independent of the purposes or functions which those forms are designed to serve in human affairs.

III. Statement of the Problem

After surveying the literature, the researcher has the courage to claim that there is no one single study has investigated this important subject depicted in contrastive DMs in Arabic, through applying Schourup (1999), which are connectivity, optionality, non-truth-conditionality, weak clause association, orality, initiality, and multi-categoriality.

IV. Significance of the Study

DMs are primarily linguistic clues any discourse analyst, speaker, hearer, etc. can manipulate to analyze, produce and interpret the discourse efficiently. Therefore, DMs are importantly regarded as a salient resource towards understanding the discourse properly.

This study is clearly of importance because it:

1. Provides us with a ‘somewhat detailed’ account of one category of Arabic DMs, namely, contrast.

2. Establishes a solid background for every prudent researcher who wants to deal with discoursal issues in general and with DMs in particular because

Application of Schourup (1999)’s Characteristics on the Arabic Contrastive Discourse MarkersGloba

l Jo

urna

l of H

uman

Soc

ial Sc

ienc

e

Volum

e XIII

Issue

W

(

D DDD)G


Year

2013

220

252

IV Ver

sion

I

understanding DMs plays a considerably significant role in figuring out how language users produce and interpret utterances and texts.

V. Review of Related Literature

Coached with the framework of the relevance theory, Gibbs and Bryant (2008) present the results of four experiments that examined people’s real-life answers to questions about the time. Their hypothesis was that people strive to make their answers optimally relevant for the addressee, which in many cases allows people to give rounded, and not exact, time responses. Moreover, analyses of the non-numeral words, hesitations, and latencies of people’s verbal responses to time questions reveal important insights into the dynamics of speaking to achieve optimal relevance. People include discourse markers, hesitation marks, like ‘‘uh’’ and ‘‘um’’, and pauses when answering time questions to maximize the cognitive effects listeners can infer while minimizing the cognitive effort required to infer these effects. This research provides new empirical evidence on how relevance considerations shape collaborative language use.

In a study highlighting the roles of DMs in the text, Borderia (2008) examines discourse connectives (another name for DMs) and other related set of markers within RT. The researcher collected data from colloquial conversations to provide evidence that conceptual and procedural features can coexist within a single marker. The study concludes that the examination of tokens of language use (such as DMs) is not merely an optional activity in the process of linguistic theory making. In addition, it claims that any scholar working on language use could reasonably take into account the actual use of language and, therefore, research on DMs is still worthwhile.

Olmos and Ahern (2008) revise previous analyses of but and although formulated within a relevance theoretical framework and offer a new perspective on their functions based on cross-linguistic data. These connectives had been described in terms of effort-saving devices that lead the addressee to suspend or eliminate assumptions. They discuss different uses of these adversative and contrastive connectives in both English and Spanish and propose that their meaning consists in indicating that a contrast should be established between an explicitly expressed proposition and possible alternative propositional representations. The study concludes that the DMs procedural content that they encode affects the inferential process of identifying the higher-level explicatures of the utterance.

Al-Kohlani (2010) examines the functions of DMs in Arabic newspaper opinion articles. The main goal of the study is to identify DMs which are used in Arabic newspaper opinion articles and describe their

function at two levels of text structure, i.e. the sentence and the paragraph levels. To this effect, the study analyzes 50 texts that form the data in the study, taking a semantic/pragmatic relation-based approach.

The analytical model employed in this study consists of three steps. In the first step, she segments the texts into paragraphs and sentences. In the second step, she describes the functional relations that connect units of texts at each level. To do so, two descriptive tools are employed: the Rhetorical Structure Theory (to describe relations between sentences) and the Text-type Theory (to describe the relations that connect paragraphs). In the final step, she identifies the DMs at the units’ boundaries. The study concludes that DMs are not only connecting words that contribute to the cohesion of text, but they are also crucial tools for achieving communicative acts in the text.

Bell (2010) examines a cluster of three English contrastive cancellative DMs, namely "yet", "neverth-eless", and "still", which share similar pragmatic instructions but differ in their varying semantic and syntactic properties. The study depends on both naturalistic (random and non-random) and introspected sources for data collection. She concludes that the more vague the instruction carried by a contrastive marker, the greater its ability to operate globally and conversely, the more detailed the instruction, the less its ability to operate globally.

Lee-Goldman (2011) proposes three senses of no as a DM, on the basis of their pragmatic, semantic, and turn-sequential features. These senses do the work of (i) topic shift, (ii) misunderstanding management, and (iii) turn-taking conflict resolution. While they share very important semantic and pragmatic characteristics with other DMs and non-DM senses of no, especially negation and indexicality, they are distinguished from each other and other senses by their position within the utterance and larger discourse. He points out the significance of the existence of these senses for examination of complex DMs, and for the representation of ongoing discourse.



Year

Glob a

l Jo

urna

l o f H

uman

S ocial S

cien

ce

(D DDD) G

201

3

53

Volum

e XIII

Issue

IV Ver

sion

IDrawing on RT, Schourup (2011) discusses the

English DM now. She argues that it is preferable to formulate the meaning of the marker now without reference to coherence or discourse structure. She examines two relevance-theoretic proposals: one in which now encodes a procedural development of a higher-level explicature, and one in which now encodes a procedural constraint on context selection. She concludes that the use of now as a DM lessens the effort required by the hearer in assigning reference and thus constrains inferential processes, which lead to the derivation of explicatures.

VI. Methods and Procedures

a) Sample of the Study The sample of the study consists of twenty two

parliamentary texts delivered by representatives under the dome of the Jordanian Parliament (December 19th, 2010-December 23rd, 2010). These texts represent, of course, different vantage points as well as political positions towards voting for or against the formation of the Prime Minster, Mr. Sameer Al-Rifai's second government. It is worth noting that all of the speeches chosen belong to the descriptive research.

b) Data Collection This study is a corpus-based investigation, so

actual data for the purpose of the study have been sought. More precisely, the study depends heavily on Jordanian parliamentary debates. Twenty two speeches delivered by members of Jordanian Parliament (16) and containing many contrastive links are selected. In fact, all speeches of the 4th session (2nd day) of the confide-nce debates (December 12th, 2010) were chosen. The speeches were reviewed by three linguists to determine their suitability for the study.

c) Data Analysis The features most commonly attributed to DMs

as stated by Schourup (1999), which are connectivity, optionality, non-truth-conditionality, weak clause associ-

ation, initiality, and multi-categoriality will be applied on the most frequent contrastive DMs which appear in the texts chosen for the purposes of the study so as to justify the assumption of why such words are considered DMs in Arabic.

VII. Findings and Discussion a) Applications of Schourup's DMs Characteristics

Schourup (1999) locates definite characteristics which much accompany DMs. Such observed characteristics are oftentimes regarded as the basic parameter adopted to make sure whether this or that lexical item is recognized as a DM or not. These characteristics are as follows: connectivity, optionality, non-truth conditionality, weak clause association, initiality, orality, and finally multi-categoriality. Yet, the main argument is centrally extended to the first three mentioned characteristics; that is because, according to Schourup, connectivity, optionality, and nontruth condi-tionnality are repeatedly taken together to be necessary attributes of DMs. The remaining characteristics are, the argument goes, less consistently realized as substant-iating criteria for a DM.

Prior to applying these contributing characteristics to the contrastive DMs, we provide a comprehensive list of the contrastive DMs found in the study data. The contrastive DMs found in the study sample are listed in Table 1 below.

Table 1 : Contrastive DMs Found in the Study Sample

As Table 1 shows, these fifteen DMs are ordered in a descending fashion (32 occurrences for laakin

versus 1 occurrence

for ruĠma]]?

ann, baynama,

and maʕkullil?asaf). The frequency of occurrences is actually of paramount importance for the study purposes because it highlights the DMs which need an in-depth scrutiny.

In fact, the most frequent contrastive

DM is laakin

with 32 occurrences, directly followed by ball

with

24 occurrences. To the contrary, the least frequent contrastive

DMs are:

ruĠma?ann, baynama, and

maʕkullil?asaf with only one occurrence for each. It is

worth mentioning that wa,

ranking third, is a rather frequent contrastive

DMs

with 17 occurrences. This


l Jo

urna

l of H

uman

Soc

ial Sc

ienc

e

Volum

e XIII

Issue

W

(

D DDD)G


Year

2013

220

254

IV Ver

sion

I

NO. DMArabic

TranscriptionMeaning

FrequencyNo percentage

1. لكن Laakin But 32 28%2. بل Ball But 24 21%3. و Wa But 15%4. إال أن ?illa ?anna But rather 11 9%5. ال بل laa ball But, rather, instead 7 6%6. مع أن maʕ ?ann Although 6 5%

7. رغم ruĠma Though 4 3.5%8. بالرغم من bilraĠmi min Although 3 2.6%9. غير أن Ġayra?ann Yet 2 1.8%10. في حين fiЋiin Whereas 2 1.8%11. مع العلم أن maʕ?alʕilmi ?ann Despite the fact that 2 1.8%

12. على الرغم ʕala alruĠmi Although 2 1.8%

13. بينما Baynama Whereas 1 0.9%14. رغم أن ruĠma ?ann Although 1 0.9%15. مع كل األسف maʕkullil?asaf But, unluckily, 1 0.9%

Total 115 100%

17

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_pharyngeal_fricative�







their usage is far from being accidental, a state of affairs that require further probing.

There is no enough room to apply all

characteristics to all contrastive DMs found in the study data. Therefore, on the basis of the contrastive DMs occurrences, the researcher is are going to apply the characteristics posited by Schourup(1999) to the most three frequent contrastive DMs which are laakin, ball, and wa with some instances cited from the remaining DMs, though.

b) Connectivity Schourup (1999) indicates that the

characteristic figuring most prominently in definitions of DMs is their use to connect utterances or other discoursal units with one another. It is claimed that connectivity is conceived in three different ways: (1) contributing to inter-utterance coherence (Levinson, 1983); (2) marking boundaries between verbal activities; and (3) implying relations between two textual units (Maschler, 1994).

Consider, for example, laakin in the following extract, where these three functions, all related to connectivity, could be highlighted:

"ان محافظة الطفيلة محافظة طاردة بتميز حيث تشهد يوميا هجرة ما بين سبع الى عشرة اشخاص بحثا عن مصادر عيش كريم سواء في العاصمة

او المحافظات األخرى، وأزيد أيضا لمن ال يعرف عن خصائصها الديمغرافية لكنUإن معدل النمو السكاني فيها هم األدنى بين محافظات المملكة U ليس بسبب

(1) بسبب الهجرة القسرية ألبنائها."UبلUبرامج تنظيم األسرة

"Tafilah governorate is a completely unattractive area. It daily witnesses the emigration of about 6-10 people who seek sources of living in the capital or other governorates. I go further to acquaint those not knowing its demographic characteristics and say that the rate of population growth in Tafilah is the lowest amongst all governorates in the Kingdom,

but

not because of family

planning programs, but rather

because of forced emigration."

It could be hypothesized that laakin here links the propositions of the textual units with each other; it connects the notion of low rates of population growth with its causes. Because of this, it then serves as an inter-connective that renders the text in which it appears as one unit. In other words, it contributes to inter-utterance coherence. Not only this, but it also marks the boundaries between the verbal activities in that it could function as a pausing point in the oral speech. For, the whole extract cannot be produced as one breath-unit orally. Lastly, by virtue of its semantic content (namely concession), it helps display the discoursal relation(s) exhibited between the two textual units it connects.

Following Hansen's claim (1997), it could also be argued that laakin here links its host utterance not only to the linguistic co-text but also to “the context in a wider sense” (p. 156). In detail, the point that the speaker wants to communicate here is related to what

he wants to say about the governorate of Tafilah as a whole. In other words, one primary goal is to connect the local with the global as lakin connects the problem with its major causes. Therefore, it can be maintained that lakin functions as an intersentential connective in Arabic.

Although connectivity is highly appreciated when it serves extrasententially because the sentence components hang up together by virtue of the grammatical structure (Halliday and Hasan, 1976), it is somewhat mandatory to state that laakin can also serve as an intrasentential connective, within the boundary of the sentence:

حسنا وهللا الحكومة السابقة أعلنت برامج محددة بمواعيد وانجاز ....... ماذا حصل في السنة السابقة؟ أين اإلنجاز؟ كيف حدث اإلنجاز؟ كم هو

كلفنا ذلك كثير Uلكن Uاإلنجاز؟ ما هي تكلفة هذا اإلنجاز؟ يمكن أن نكون قد أنجزنا (2) وزادت المديونية.

Government pledged to carry out time-limited programs that would result in great achievements. What happened last year? Where is the achievement? How did it happen? How much does this achievement cost? We might have made achievement some progress, but it cost a lot and, eventually, the debts increased.

In this text, laakin links two clauses within the

same sentence. It connects the dependent clause ( يمكن (we might have made some progress) (أن نكون قد أنجزنا

with the independent one ( it) (كلفنا ذلك كثير وزادت المديونيةcost a lot, and debts increased). In reality, working of laakin intrasententially is, it seems, both axiomatic evidence and a significant sign that such a DM is not only meant for coherence or cohesion purposes.

Concerning the second most frequent contrastive DM, ball (but), it connects the notion of one textual unit directly with that of the preceding textual unit. Based on Halliday and Hassan (1976), an adversative device renders the text more cohesive when it works intersententially. This observation would be applied to ball as shown in the following example:

وفيما يتعلق بالثروة الحيوانية التي كانت تشكل دخال لمعظم أسر البادية والريف فقد أجهزت عليها الحكومات المتعاقبة، UبلUالبادية الوسطى

أن المطلوب المحافظة عليها كثروة UبلUوأطالب الحكومة أن ال تقع بنفس الخطأ، وطنية من خالل تخفيض أسعار األعالف وفتح بعض اآلبار االرتوازية

(3)الموجودة في البادية األردنية للتخفيف من أعباء نقل المياه. As for animal wealth which was once the main

source of living for most families in the middle Badia and

even the whole Bedia and rural areas, successive governments have exterminated it, and I call on this government not to make the same mistake. Rather, what is requested is to preserve it as a national wealth through lowering food prices and opening access to artesian wells in the Jordan Badia to alleviate water transferring burdens.

This text introduces us with a precise explanation of the functions of ball in discourse by drawing a comparison between the function of the first mentioned ball and that of the second mentioned ball.



Year

Glob a

l Jo

urna

l o f H

uman

S ocial S

cien

ce

(D DDD) G

201

3

55

relatively frequent use of some DMs should entail that

Volum

e XIII

Issue

IV Ver

sion

I

The first ball connects some lexical items with one another within the sentence boundaries in which it occurs. To be clear, it connects the two lexical item البادية with other lexical items (Badia and Countryside)والريفwhich are البادية الوسطى (Middle Badia). Hence, it would be claimed that ball here works intrasententially and does not by any means play any role in text connectivity.

Nonetheless, the second ball connects two conflicting propositions altogether. Definitely, it connects the proposition of what the government has negatively done towards the animal resources in Jordan with the proposition of what the government has to do. Thus, the second ball connects some entities outside the sentence boundaries. Consequently, ball as a contrastive DM works both intresententially and intrasententially.

The third most frequent DM, wa (and), works as a connective at either the intersentential or intrasentential levels. Firstly, it works intrasententially as indicated in the following one-sentence text:

على كل حال UوهيUال نريد برامجا لعقود او حتى لعقد قادم (4) موجودة في األجندة الوطنية التي تريد الحكومة تحديثها.

We are not after programs that will last for decades or even for the upcoming decade, given that these programs are already existed in the national agenda which is to be updated by the government.

In the above example, wa connects two linguistic units within the sentence boundaries. These two linguistic units have conflicting themes. So, it would be suggested that wa here serves as an intrasententially-connecting contrastive DM. On the other hand, it works as an intersententially-connecting contrastive DM as shown in the text below:

إنني من منطلق الحرص على وقتكم الثمين وإلتاحة الفرصة لزمالئي النواب فإنني سأنهي مناقشتي لخطاب الحكومة بالقول إنني لن أستطيع

أن كان وأن أحاسب الحكومة على ماض ربما ال يكون لهذه الحكومة دور فيه (5) لي مالحظات على أداء رئيسها او بعض أعضائها في الحكومات السابقة.

Out of care for your precious time, and in order to leave the floor to my representative colleagues, I will end up the discussion of the government program, by saying I can never hold the government representative for a past in which it might have had no role, though I claim serious reservation about the performance of its head or some of its members in previous governments.

In this example, wa connects two completely contradictory themes delivered by the sentences it connects. To be precise, wa connects the notion of inability to ask for some deeds conducted once by other governments with the idea of presence of some negative observations associated with the prime minister's and some present ministers' past performance. It connects, therefore, two separate sentences with conflicting propositions. For this, it works intersententially.

The point worth noting here is that when DMs are investigated based on (con) textual relations, many contextual functions attributed to these DMs come to the

floor. For example, on probing into the (con) textual functions of wa in the study data in order to set up an exhaustive understanding of its use as a contrastive DM, it is noticed that wa serves as an ending marker, that is, it marks the end of the speech.

...... نحن معنيون بشئ واحد هو أن ال نخذل البالد وسيد البالد في مشروع االصالح والتغيير أن ال نخذل األمل بأن تكون االنتخابات كما أرادها

الشعب محطة تحول حقيقي تضع األردن الغالي على سكة التقدم (6) عليكم ورحمة هللا وبركاته.UوالسالمUواألزدهار،

We are mainly concerned to let down neither

the Country nor the King regarding the programme of reforms and not to let down the hope the people have on the upcoming elections to be a real turning point which help Jordan on the path of progress and prosperity. And yet, peace and God's mercy and blessings be upon you.

It is astonishing to point out that all speeches of the study sample end with the same sentence ( السالم عليكم(ورحمة هللا وبركاته

(peace and God's mercy and blessings

be upon you) initiated by wa. This wa is hence not

accidentally used. It marks the end of the speech, and the ending sentence ( السالم عليكم ورحمة هللا وبركاته ) (peace and God's mercy and blessings be upon you) cannot serve the function attributed to it as an ending sentence without this wa

at the beginning of it. This combination,

in turn, caters for a strong signal to the underlying significance of this DM in ending expressions.

According to Arabic traditional grammar, this

wa is called "an introductory DM"! How does such a

marker ending the speech serve as an introductory DM!? In reality, we reckon that this

wa

is by and large

regarded as a marker of a special kind of concession because it connects two different themes: the main theme of the whole topic with the theme of goodbye which is somehow unacknowledged for the audience if the speaker does not pave the road for it by other ending expressions or by changing his/her intonation.

For other contrastive DMs found in the study

data, it is significant to ascertain that the notion of connectivity is continually present when diagnosing them. In addition, they can serve both intrasententially and intresententially in terms of connectivity. This finding broadly alludes to the fact that coherence is not the only reason for using such DMs. The following text

explains

the intersententiality of one of the contrastive DMs found

in the data; namely ʕala alruĠmi .

.....وهنا ال بد من اإلشارة الى كثرة خطابات الحكومات عن تحقيق مبدأ العدالة والمساوة بين أبناء الوطن وتكافؤ الفرص وتوزيع المكتسبات بين

من هذا كله بقي األمر في سياق المصالح Uوعلى الرغم Uالمحافظات واأللوية، واعتبارات التي تخدم كل رئيس حكومة مكلف وطاقمه الوزاري المنتقى وتحكم

(7)قرارتها مصالح شركات المال واألعمال.

One can notice many government speeches about the achievement of the principle of justice and equity among the people of different governorates and district.

Nevertheless, all those speeches have remained confound to interests of every prime minister and his


l Jo

urna

l of H

uman

Soc

ial Sc

ienc

e

Volum

e XIII

Issue

W

(

D DDD)G


Year

2013

220

256

IV Ver

sion

I


ministerial team whose decisions are governed by the interests of financial business companies.

This text strongly validates the assumption that ʕala alruĠmi connects two conflicting themes: the theme of many speeches about fulfilling and achieving the notions of justice and equality between individuals with the conflicting theme of conducting deeds opposite to these notions. Moreover, these themes are contained in different sentences. So, it works as an intersententially contrastive DM.

To this end, it is worthy reiterating Schourup (1999)'s assertion about connectivity in general. If connectivity is regarded significant for a DM status, it would be resorted to in order to distinguish DMs from various other initial elements such as illocutionary and attitudinal adverbials, and from primary interjections. However, connectivity alone is insufficient to tell the difference between DMs and coordinators joining intrasentential elements.

c) Optionality The idea of optionality is undoubtedly of chief

importance in this thesis. Obviously, one ultimate goal of this thesis is to prove that DMs are not optional but essential to the meaning of discourse. It is integral to stress two central points raised by some researchers as regards optionality of DMs in order to refute them in the subsequent section.

DMs are repeatedly considered as optional in two different senses. Firstly, they are almost universally regarded as syntactically optional in the sense that their removal does not alter the grammaticality of its host sentence (Fraser, 1988). Though it would render the interpretation process more delicate, their absence never makes a sentence ungrammatical (Brinton 1996). Secondly, DMs are also widely claimed to be optional in that they do not enlarge the possibilities for a semantic relationship between the elements they associate. Therefore, if a DM is omitted, the relationship it signals is still available to the hearer, though no longer explicitly cued. (Schourup, 1999)

As a result, researchers claim that DMs are optional due to their syntactic or semantic insignificance. They do not, however, take other strongly-related aspects into account. The vital roles served by DMs in general and contrastive ones in particular will be heavily investigated later. What I would like here to emphasize is some linguists' syntactically-based points of view regarding the optionality of DMs. For example, James (1980) states that English makes use of widely prevalent class of words called discourse markers to refer to the logical relationships between sentences. He adds that these markers are optional and provides the following two examples for comparison:

i) He huffed and he puffed and he blew the house down.

ii) He huffed and he puffed and, consequently he blew the house down

He comments that (i) and (ii) identify the same objectivity. They are different in (ii) being unequivocal about the three actions performed by doer: his blowing down of the house is stated in (ii) to be caused by his huffing and puffing. He accentuates that whether or not we are explicit depends considerably on how precise we need to be, which relies eventually on the setting of the communication (p. 120).

Apparently, James (1980) barely explicates how 'consequently' is optional but rather lays down that the so-called setting of communication would immediately resolve any setback facing the hearer if DMs are removed from, say, the speech. He ignores other-related psychological factors DMs can come up with in the utterances involved; these factors clear the way for the hearer to get the message intended with maximum efficiency. The primary thrust of the current thesis is to refute the claim that DMs are an optional category in speech.

d) Non-Truth Conditionality According to Schourup (1999), DMs are

generally thought to contribute nothing to the truth-conditions of the proposition expressed by an utterance. Some (e.g. Fraser, 1996) take this into consideration in order to highlight that DMs hardly affect the truth-conditions of sentences, but support has grown to consolidate the view that truth-conditions pertain not to sentences but to mental representations. Kempson(1986) argues that truth-theoretic content is exclusively determined with respect to propositional forms of the language of inference. The non-truth conditionality of DMs distinguishes them from uses of ‘content’ words, including manner adverbial uses of words like sadly, and from disjunctive forms which do affect truth-conditions, such as evidential and hearsay sentence adverbials (for details, seet Ifantidou-Trouki, 1992).

As a result, as nontruth-conditional items, DMs are not regarded as part of the propositional meaning of the utterance, sentence, etc. Nontruth conditionality, on the other hand, is an extremely key factor by which it distinguishes DMs from other apparently similar items. It is evidently claimed that all DMs found in the study data have such an attribute. To be clear, all occurrences of laakin, the most frequent DM, suggest that insertion of it to any sentence never affects or even changes the already stated proposition of the sentence, utterance, etc. الغالء امتحان وال أصعب، وعيون الماليين تتطلع الى هذا المجلس

ما يعاني منه عامة الناس UلكنUعلى أنه الرجاء واألمل, ال نطالب بالمعجزات ومن شطف العيش ومرارة الحرمان وبؤس الفقر ال يخفى عليكم، وان وصف

(8)صاحب الجاللة الملك المعظم حفظه هللا الفقر بالشر له داللته. High prices are a tough question. Millions are

looking with a glimmer of hope to this Parliament. We are



Year

Glob a

l Jo

urna

l o f H

uman

S ocial S

cien

ce

(D DDD) G

201

3

57

Volum

e XIII

Issue

IV Ver

sion

I


not asking for miracles. But you all know the abject poverty and misery that people live on a vast scale. In addition, King's words describing poverty as evil are very significant.

As indicated in the above text, laakin does not affect the truth condition of the sentence in which it is inserted. In other words, the proposition of the sentence initiated by laakin is what people suffer from is widely apparent for all people; this proposition is neither altered nor modified when laakin is taken into consideration. To explicate this important characteristic more, consider the following examples:

هذا وحده غير UلكنUان الخطابة مهارة يتقتها كثير منا -1 (9a) كاف ألن يكون النائب نائبا حقيقيا يمثل طموحات األمة وآمالها.

Delivering eloquent speeches is a skill that most of us master. But, having such a skill is insufficient for a deputy to be a true representative of his people's hopes and ambitions.

ان الخطابة مهارة يتقنها كثير منا . هذا وحده غير كاف -2 (9b) ألن يكون النائب نائبا حقيقيا يمثل طموحات األمة وآمالها.

Delivering eloquent speeches is a skill that most of us master. This alone is insufficient for a deputy to be a true representative of his people's hopes and ambitions.

The first text, which is written verbatim, consists of two clauses with a unique proposition for each. What is important to focus upon here is the proposition of the second clause ( لكن هذا وحده غير كاف ألن يكون النائب نائبا حقيقيا

But, having such a skill is ) (يمثل طموحات األمة وآمالهاinsufficient for a deputy to be a true representative of his people's hopes and ambitions.) Its proposition is the inadequacy of eloquence alone for a deputy to be a successful representative to the hope and ambitions of the nation. When laakin is removed as shown in the second sentence, the proposition of the same clause is not changed or modified. It is still insufficiency of eloquence alone for a representative to be a successful one. The removal of laakin with maintaining the same proposition demonstrates that it does not affect the truth condition of the clause in which it is inserted.

Actually, this finding of laakin leads us to two major generalizations about it: 1- laakin is a DM in terms of nontruth conditionality; that is because it works at the discoursal not propositional level. 2- It is compulsory to think of other techniques in order to analyze such DMs.

As for other contrastive DMs, it would be hypothesized that they do not contribute to the truth conditionality of the utterances in which they are inserted. In fact, this characteristic is evidently conspicuous in all occurrences of contrastive DMs found in the study sample. The following are two examples related to two contrastive DMs, namely, ?illa ?anna and and fiЋiin:

"......تعلمون أيها السادة أن وطننا محدود الثروات ليس بلدا نفطيا وال صناعيا ونرى إن المخزون التاريخي الهائل ومواقعنا السياحة يشكل لنا

إحدى أعمدة االقتصاد الوطني اذا أحسن استغاللهما وجرش تنفرد بهاتين انعكاسات هذه الثروة الوطنية ما زالت دون Uإال أن Uالميزتين السياحية واألثرية

الطموح كي تحقق الغاية المرجوة منها في تشغيل القطاعات الواسعة من الشباب (10)والباحثين عن العمل.

“You know, gentlemen, that country is with limited natural resources. It is not an oil-exporting or industrial country. We know that the enormous historical remains and the tourism sites are of the pillars of the national economy if they are properly utilized. Jerash is distinguished with these two features. However, the impact of this national wealth is still below the ambition to achieve the desired demands in recruiting the young people and job seekers in such sectors. “

In this text, apart from connectivity of? illa? anna, the proposition of the clause it starts is not re-adjusted when it is removed from the sentence. The proposition is that "the potential outcomes gained from the national resources of both tourism and ruins are not properly utilized." In reality, this proposition remains the same when ?illa ?anna is taken off from the clause. This finding indicates that this contrastive DM has nothing to do with the proposition of the clause it starts. It would be generalized that its existence is not orientated towards changing propositions of the clauses but towards playing other roles depicted in utterance production and perception.

"أتساءل كيف نسبت سلطة منطقة العقبة االقتصادية الخاصة للحكومة السابقة، يعني حكومة دولة نادر الذهبي، بتفويض ما يزيد على ثالثة آالف دونم من األراضي الواقعة ضمن حدود وادي رم لشركة مملوكة لمتنفذ

Uفي حينUإلقامة مخيم سياحي عليها في منطقة أثرية هامة،

U

أن أكبر مشروع U(11) دونما30سياحي في العالم يمكن إقامته على مساحة ال تتجاوز

“I wonder how Aqaba Special Zone Economic Authority got the previous government, I mean the government of his Excellency Nader Dahabi, authorize more than three thousand dunums of land located within the boundaries of the Wadi Rum for a company owned by an influential person to set up a tourism camp on an area of important historical remains. U

Yet, the largest

tourism project in the world can be set up on an area of no more than 30 dunums U.

Here, again fiЋiin does not contribute to the truth conditionality of the clause it introduces. The proposition of the clause per se is not altered if this contrastive DM gets removed from the sentence. To be clear, the proposition of the clause underlined above, "the greatest tourism project in the world can be established on an area not exceeding 30 dunums" remains the same with no regard to the existence of DMs in the beginning. As a result, the same generalization would be set for this DM that it is not meant for connective purposes but rather for sentence formation and conception. To sum up, not to contribute to truth-conditionality is deemed paramount because it is by which we can distinguish DMs from other makers which contribute to propositional content of the clauses they appear in.

e) Weak Clause Association


l Jo

urna

l of H

uman

Soc

ial Sc

ienc

e

Volum

e XIII

Issue

W

(

D DDD)G


Year

2013

220

258

IV Ver

sion

I

According to Schourup (1999), DMs are oftentimes considered as elements occurring either outside the syntactic structures or loosely adjoined to them. In an attempt to account for this observation, Hansen (1997) argues that weak clause association is repeatedly correlated with phonological independence. DMs are often said to constitute independent tone units. In addition, Al-Kohlani(2010) states that this characteristic concerns the detachment of DMs from their host sentence in terms of syntactic structure. Apparently, this characteristic along with non-truth conditionality confirms that DMs are both syntactically and semantically separated from sentences they introduce, respectively.

As regards the contrastive DMs found in the study sample, it is not arguable that these DMs do not alter the syntactic structures of the clauses they are introduced in despite the fact that some of these DMs such as laakin can change some diacritic markers attached to some words by virtue of their syntactic positions in the sentence. Further, following Schourup's claim (1999), these DMs have their own syntactic structures which are distinctive from those of the clauses. Table 2 shows the contrastive DMs in terms of weak clause association:

Table 2 : Contrastive DMs in terms of weak clause association

NO.

DM

Can it change the words

order of the host sentence?

Can it change some syntactic

diacritic markers of

certain words? 1. laakin No Yes, when /n/ is

geminated 2. ball No No 3. wa No No 4. ?illa ?anna No Yes, when /n/ is

geminated 5. laa ball No No 6. maʕ ?ann No Yes, when /n/ is

geminated 7. ruĠma No No 8. bilraĠmi min No No 9. Ġayra?ann No Yes, when /n/ is

geminated 10. fiЋiin No No 11. maʕ?alʕilmi

?ann

No Yes, when /n/ is geminated

12. ʕala alruĠmi No No

13. baynama No No 14. ruĠma ?ann No Yes, when /n/ is

geminated 15. maʕkullil?asaf No No

As indicated in Table 2, all contrastive DMs do not alter the word order of the clauses they appear in. In addition, they do not change some syntactic

diacritic markers of words of the host sentences only in the event that /n/ at the end of certain DMs is geminated., namely when laakin, ?illa ?anna

, maʕ

?ann,

Ġayra?ann, , , Maʕ?alʕilmi ?ann, and ruĠma ?ann are

spoken with geminated /n/. This finding validates the

claim that DMs do not contribute to the syntactic structure of the host sentences but only when they are emphatically used. Such a finding supports the main assumption of the present thesis that these DMs are there

not to serve semantic or syntactic purposes but to

facilitate the processes of production and conception of the clauses, utterances or sentences they occur in.

f)

Initiality

Hansen (1997) states that DMs typically introduce the discourse texts they mark. Schourup (1999), in turn, tells that though this characteristic is barley considered criteria1 for DM status, most DMs are at least possible in initial position, and many appear in this position predominantly. Shielded with RT, she adds that the tendency of DMs to appear initially is potentially associated with their ‘superordinate’ use in order to limit the contextual interpretations of an utterance; in general, it would make the communicative sense to restrict contexts early before interpretation can run astray.

It is worth noting that all contrastive DMs found

in the study sample occur at the beginning of the clauses they introduce when they work intersententially. They never occur at the end the clauses nor in the middle when they work at discourse level. This finding is in harmony with the main assumption of the present thesis; how would such DMs play a significant role in, say, production of the utterance if they occur in the middle or at the end of the clauses they appear in?

g)

Orality

Following Schourup (1999), most DMs are primarily used in speech.

She provides us with a sweeping generalization for the spoken use of DMs; she claims that such DMs are orally used by the virtue of their less formality than other markers. However, as indicated in Table 1 above, that there are 15 contrastive DMs found in the text with about 115 occurrences for all. Aside from other common DMs, contrastive DMs are roughly widely prevalent in the study sample which is usually spoken not written. This wide prevalence of DMs in orally-prepared speeches substantiates their importance in terms of communicative acts.

Actually, the prime function of language is communication, and this function is mainly noticed when it is spoken not written. Since these DMs are more orally used, it would certainly be theorized that these DMs have something to do with the communication especially with its two essential processes: production and perception of utterances. Consequently, it would be



Year

Glob a

l Jo

urna

l o f H

uman

S ocial S

cien

ce

(D DDD) G

201

3

59

inappropriate to diagnose such makers apart from their main communicative functions.

Volum

e XIII

Issue

IV Ver

sion

I









h)

Multi-Categoriality

Schourup(1999) states that DM status is independent of syntactic categorization. She claims that categories to which DMs function has been attributed include adverbs, coordinating and subordinating conjunctions, interjections, verbs, and clauses, and it is often assumed that DMs consists of a functionally related group of items drawn from other classes. Besides, Al-Kohlani (2010) confirms that this feature of DMs poses a substantial difficulty in describing them as one group.

Concerning the contrastive DMs of the study sample, it is evident that they are different in terms of syntactic classification. This finding entails that it is impossible to label these DMs under one syntactic category. Table 3 illustrates the diverse syntactic categories of DMs found in the study sample.

Table 3

:

The Diverse Syntactic Categories of DMs Found in the Study Sample

NO.

DM

The syntactic category

1.

laakin

Coordinating conjunction

2.

ball

Coordinating

conjunction

3.

wa

Coordinating conjunction

4.

?illa ?anna

Phrase

5.

laa ball

Phrase

6.

maʕ

?ann

Phrase

7.

ruĠma

Noun

8.

bilraĠmi min

Prepositional phrase

9.

Ġayra?ann

Phrase

10.

fiЋiin


11.

maʕ?alʕilmi ?ann


12.

ʕala alruĠmi


13.

Baynama

Adverb

14.

ruĠma ?ann

Phrase

15.

maʕkullil?asaf


As indicated in Table 3 above, it would be by and large hypothesized that there are four main syntactic categories of contrastive DMs: coordination conjunctions, adverbs, phrases, and prepositional phrases expressions. It is also important to indicate that

there are no verbs which can depict a concession in Arabic. Besides, based on the study data, concession in Arabic cannot be framed without an appropriate DM. The latter point shows that contrastive DMs are essential in Arabic to lay down this relationship, which means that they are not optional but necessary in discourse.

Syntactically speaking, we can pose a distinction between DMs. Obviously, there are, we guess, two kinds of DMs in terms of their own syntactic structures: simple and complex. Simple DMs are defined as those markers consisting of only one word such as laakin, ball, and wa. Complex DMs are those markers comprising more than one lexical item, or word.

These markers include the following: maʕ?alʕilmi ?ann, bilraĠmi min, maʕkullil?asaf, etc. This distinction is actually very important for the study purposes because those simple DMs are more frequent than the complex DMs.

VIII.

Summary

It is essential to highlight two points regarding the general status of DMs. First, the above seven characteristics of DMs suggest that these expressions are not considered as a haphazard group of expressions, but rather members of a functionally coherent group (Fraser, 1990). Second, DMs are considered as a functionally related class, which is independent of syntactic categorization (Schourup 1999).

Nevertheless, we have attempted in this section to apply all these seven characteristics to the contrastive

DMs found in the study sample. It has been found out that these characteristics are mainly attributed to all 15 contrastive

DMs found in the sample except for the characteristic of optionality. As a result, to label these 15 words as DMs is not an unsystematically posed claim. Therefore, Arabic DMs in general and contrastive

DMs in particular are to be diagnosed in order to determine their underlying roles in discourse..

1.

Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A. (2006). Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

2.

Al-Kohlani, F. (2010). The Function of Discourse Markers in Arabic Newspaper Opinion Articles. Unpublished PhD dissertation; Georgetown University

3.

Al-Warraki, N. and Hassanein, A. (2002). The Connectors in Modern Standard Arabic, 4th ed. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.

4.

Ariel, M. (1994). Pragmatic Operators. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 3250-3253. Oxford: Pergamon Press

5.

Bell, D. (2010). Nevertheless, Still, Yet: Concessive Concellative Discourse Markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 42: 1912-1927

6.

Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.

7.

------(1992). Understanding Utterances. Oxford, Blackwell.

8.

-------

(2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 99, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


l Jo

urna

l of H

uman

Soc

ial Sc

ienc

e

Volum

e XIII

Issue

W

(

D DDD)G


9. Borderai, P. (2008). Do discourse markers exist? On the Treatment of Discourse Markers in Relevance Theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40: 1411-1434.

Year

2013

220

260

Bibliography

IV Ver

sion

I









10.

Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Function. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

11.

Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Carston, R. (2000). Explicature and Semantics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 12, 1-44. S. Davis & B. Gillon, (eds.), Semantics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

13.

Crevels, M. (2000). Concessives on different semantic levels: A typological perspective. In Couper-Kiihlem, E. and B. Kortmann (eds.) Cause-Condition-Concession-Contrast, Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 313-340.

14.

Dor, D. (2003). On newspaper headlines as relevance optimizers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35: 695-721.

15.

Fraser, B. (1988). Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica,

38(1-4): 19-33.

28.

Kammensjö, H. (2005). Discourse Connectives in Arabic Lecturing Monologue. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

29.

Karantzola, E. (1995). Let's talk about concession: The case of the Modern Greek particle as. Journal of Pragmatics,

24:

55–75.

30.

Kempson, R. M. (1986). Ambiguity and the Semantic-pragmatic Distinction. In: C. Travis (.ed) Meaning and Interpretation, 77-103. Oxford, Blackwell.

31.

Kim, Y (2002). Concession and Linguistic Inference. Proceedings of The 16th Pacific Asia Conference. The Korean Society for Language and Information.

32.

Knot, A. and Dale, R.(1994). Using Linguistic Phenomena to Motivate a Set of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes,

18(1):35-62.

33.

Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic Discourse. New York: Academic Press.

34.

Lee-Goldman, R. (2011). No

as a discourse marker. Journal of Pragmatics,

43: 2627-2649.

35.

Maschler, Y. (1994). Metalanaguaging and Discourse Markers in Bilingual Conversation. Language in Society, 23: 325-366.

36.

Matras, Y. (1997). The Function and Typology of Coordinating Conjunctions: Evidence from Discourse and Language-contact Situations. Discourse and Pragmatics In functional Grammar, edited by John H. Connolly, Roel M. Vismans, Christopher S. Butler, and Richard A. Gatward, 177-191. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

37.

Matsui, T. (1993). Bridging Reference and the Notions of Topic/Focus. Lingua, 90:49-68.

38.

Olmos, S and Ahern, A. (2008). Contrast and propositional attitude: A relevance theoretic analysis of contrast connectives in Spanish and English. Lingua,

119(1): 51–66.

39.

Pustejovsky, J. and Bouillln, B. (1995). Aspectual Coercion and logical polysemy. Journal of Semantics, 12:133-162.

40.

Ramos, F. (1998). A Decade of Relevance Theory:

Journal of Pragmatics,

30:

305-345.

41.

Risselada, R. (1998). The discourse functions of sane: Latin

marker of agreement in description, interaction and concession. Journal

of Pragmatics, 30: 225–244.

42.

Ruhl, C. (1989). On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics. SUNY Press, Albany.

43.

Ryding, C. (2005). A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

44.

Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse Markers: A Tutorial Overview. Lingua,

107:227-265.

45.

------(2011). The Discourse Marker Now: A Relevance -Theoretic Approach: Journal of Pragmatics,

43:

2110-2129.

46.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



Year

Glob a

l Jo

urna

l o f H

uman

S ocial S

cien

ce

(D DDD) G

201

3

61

47. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Language and Cognition. Oxford : Blackwell.

16. ------(1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 383-395.

17. ----- 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6 (2): 167-190.

18. ------ (1999). What Are Discourse Markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31:931-952.

19. Fuller, J. (2003). The Influence of Speaker Roles on Discourse Markers Use. Journal of Pragmatics, 35: 23-45

20. Fretheim, T. (2000). In defence of monosemy. In: Paper presented at the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Budapest, July 9–14, 2000.

21. Gibbs, R. W., & Bryant, G. A. (2008). Striving for optimal relevance when answering questions. Cognition,106 (1): 345-369.

22. Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd edition. Revised by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. London: Hodder Arnold.

23. Halliday, M. A. K., and Hasan, R. (1976).Cohesion in English. London: Longman

24. Hansen, M. (1997). Alors and Donc in Spoken French: A Reanalysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 28: 153-187

25. Infantidou-Trouki, E. (1992). Sentential Adverbs and Relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 4: 193-214.

26. Iten, C. (2005). Linguistic meaning, truth conditions and relevance, the case of Concessives. London, UK: Palgrave.

27. James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman

Volum

e XIII

Issue

IV Ver

sion

I

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03782166�



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03782166/24/1�

http://dspace.wul.waseda.ac.jp/dspace/handle/2065/12015�


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00243841/119/1�

48.

(1995). Postface to the Second Edition of Relevance: Communication and Cognition,

Second edition. Oxford :Blackwell.

49.

Taboada, M. (2006). Discourse Markers as Signals (or not) of Rhetorical Relations.

Journal of Pragmatics, 38:567-596.

50.

Bezuidenhout, A. (2004). Procedural Meaning and the semantics/pragmatics interface. In: The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction,

edited by C. Bianchi, 101-131. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

51.

Wilson, D and Sperber, D. (1993) Linguistic Form and Relevance. Lingua, 90: 1-25.

52.

----(2004). Relevance Theory. The Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Horn, L and Ward, G. 607-632. Malden: Mass, Blackwell.

53.

Wang, Y. and Tsai, P. (2005). Hao

in spoken Chinese discourse: relevance and coherence. Language Sciences,

27: 215–243.

54.

Zienkowski, J. (2011). Discursive pragmatics: A platform for the pragmatic study of discourse. In: Discursive Pragmatics. Edited by Zienkowski, J., Östman, J. and Verschueren, J. John Benjamins Publishing Company.


l Jo

urna

l of H

uman

Soc

ial Sc

ienc

e

Volum

e XIII

Issue

W

(

D DDD)G


-------

Year

2013

220

262

IV Ver

sion

I

http://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/hoph.8.01zie�





www.GlobalJournals.org

Global Journals Inc. (US) Guidelines Handbook 2013

application of schourup (1999)’s characteristics on the ... › gjhss_volume13 ›...

Documents