Approaches to Discourse‐Relational Devices (DRDs): Textual Connectors, Discourse Markers, Modal Particles  15‐16 October 2019 Bucharest 

BOOK OF ABSTRACTS 

University of Bucharest, Romania 2019

 

Bucharest Discourse Workshop Approaches to Discourse-Relational Devices (DRDs): Textual Connectors, Discourse Markers, Modal Particles 15-16 October 2019 Organised by: University of Bucharest, Faculty of Letters, Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics & Research Institute of the University of Bucharest (ICUB) Organising Committee: Ariadna Ștefănescu Verginica Barbu Mititelu Sorina Postolea

3

Contents

INVITED TALKS 

Contextual constraints on discourse marker use .................................................................... 5 Liesbeth DEGAND 

From connectives to discourse relations - an analysis of CONTRAST ................................. 6 Manfred STEDE

REGULAR PAPERS 

Pragmatic aspects of the discourse marker ozcă .................................................................... 7 Marinela BOTA 

Some pragmatic aspects of the adverbial structure de-amu from the Romanian variety spoken in Moldova ................................................................................................................. 8 

Valentina COJOCARU Discourse markers and other signals: annotation and analysis ............................................ 10 

Ludivine CRIBLE Translating connectors: the case of Old Church Slavonic ................................................... 12 

Andrea DI MANNO  Metadiscourse functions and markers in current religious discourse. Catechesis. .............. 13 

Anamaria GRECU A taxonomy of the pragmatic markers within the current Romanian religious discourse ... 15 

Luminița HOARȚĂ CĂRĂUȘU Epistemic certainty and metalinguistic of truth in political discourse ................................. 17 

Liliana HOINĂRESCU “Actually”: the concealed lever ............................................................................................ 18 

Mihaela IONESCU (MLADENOVICI)  Special indefinites as discourse markers. Evidence from English and German .................. 20 

Sofiana I. LINDEMANN On the pragmaticalization of the adverb neapărat ‘necessarily’ ......................................... 22 

Carmen MÎRZEA VASILE  Romanian Anglicisms: from fully-fledged lexical items to discourse markers ................... 24 

Anabella-Gloria NICULESCU-GORPIN, Monica VASILEANU Oral description and its markers: a corpus-based analysis ................................................... 25 

Liana POP 

4

Mersi, apropo, pardon en roumain actuel: de l’étymologie à la pragmatique lexicale ....... 27 Cecilia-Mihaela POPESCU 

Un marqueur discursif récent en roumain : dacă e – typologie, valeurs pragmatiques, aspects sociolinguistiques .................................................................................................... 30 

Roxana Magdalena PREDA The use of hashtag in Facebook status updates .................................................................... 31 

Sorina-Alexandra SILIVESTRU The Romanian marker păi and its English equivalent well in professional spoken interaction ............................................................................................................................. 33 

Cristina Andreea STAN  Les verbes parenthétiques en roumain parlé ........................................................................ 35 

Claudia TIMOCI  Reloaded for an update: uită-te! (vb. imper. look at...!) vs uite! (interj. look!/here!) .......... 38 

Andra VASILESCU  Are (inferential) DMs more or less (cognitively) salient as (purely) descriptive referential words? The argument from translation ................................................................................ 38 

Anca-Marina VELICU  Interactive metadiscourse in academic book reviews in Serbian and English: subgenre variation ................................................................................................................................ 41 

Ana VUČIĆEVIĆ, Katarina SUBANOVIĆ  Le marqueur discursif de fapt « en fait »: variation selon les registres de langue et les types de textes ................................................................................................................................ 42 

Rodica ZAFIU  The combinability of German contrastive connectives ........................................................ 43 

Regina ZIELEKE  

INVITED TALKS

Contextual constraints on discourse marker use

Liesbeth DEGAND University of Louvain, Belgium

Starting point of this contribution is the idea of “the paradox of discourse markers”. The paradox consists in the observation that DMs are highly frequent in language in use, thus informing us of a crucial inherent aspect of human language. At the same time, DMs appear to be optional at the sentence level (syntax and semantics), thus challenging grammatical description. It follows that we are facing the paradox of an inescapable linguistic category without consensual linguistic description. To resolve this paradox, I believe we need more (fine-grained) knowledge about the ways DMs are used in different communicative contexts. Despite an impressive quantity of work starting in the early 1980s, the linguistic description of DMs remains scattered, most and foremost because the bulk of research on this linguistic class consists of a multitude of case studies of particular DMs in a diversity of languages (for a recent overview, see Blühdorn, Foolen, and Loureda 2017; Fischer 2014; Maschler and Schiffrin 2015). Less of the work has been concerned with the categorical description of DMs as a linguistic class (notable exceptions are Crible, 2017; Fischer, 2014; Fraser, 1999). It is this latter line of research that I will follow here to illustrate how the study of DMs in spoken language, in our case French, can bring us closer to descriptively and explanatorily adequate language theory. Thereby I will pay attention to syntactic (syntagmatic position, syntactic source category), semantic (function and meaning) and pragmatic (domain of use, register) factors playing a constraining role in the use of DMs in speech. Results are based on a sample of 1782 DMs extracted from a richly annotated corpus of spoken French (LoCAS-F, Degand et al. 2014) accounting both for the polyfunctional and polysemic nature of DMs (Crible & Degand in press). In the presentation, I will develop how specific contextual features (degree of preparation, degree of interaction, topological distribution and morpho-syntactic category) influence the type of DMs, the domains in which they are used, and the functions they express. Thus, it will be shown that, in line with Fischer (2014: 290) “individual items and their uses can be located on several corresponding dimensions, clustering into highly interconnected groups. This allows us to assume that discourse markers form a single, yet heterogeneous class.” References Blühdorn, H., Foolen, A, & Loureda, O. (2017). Diskursmarker: Begriffsgeschichte – Theorie

– Beschreibung Ein Bibliographischer Überblick. In Blühdorn, H., Deppermann, A., Helmer, H., & Spranz-Fogasy, T. (Eds.) Diskursmarker im Deutschen: Reflexionen Und Analysen. Göttingen, Verlag für Gesprächsforschung: 7-47.

Crible, L. (2017). Towards an Operational Category of Discourse Markers: A Definition and Its Model. In C. Fedriani & A. Sanso (Eds.), Discourse Markers, Pragmatic Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives, Amsterdam, John Benjamins: 101-126.

Crible, L. & Degand, L. (in press). Domains and functions: A two-dimensional account of discourse markers. Discours: revue de linguistique et psycholinguistique.

6

Degand, L., Martin, L. J., & Simon, A.-C. (2014). Unités discursives de base et leur périphérie gauche dans LOCAS-F, un corpus oral multigenres annoté. In CMLF 2014 - 4ème Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française 2014, edited by EDP Sciences. Berlin, Allemagne.

Fischer, K. (2014). Discourse Markers. In Schneider, K. P. & Barron, A. (Eds.), Pragmatics of Discourse. Handbooks of Pragmatics, Vol. 3. Boston, De Gruyter Mouton: 271–94. 

Fraser, B. (1999). What Are Discourse Markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31 (7): 931–52. Maschler, Y., & Schiffrin, D. (2015). Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning, and Context.

In Tannen, D., Ehernberger Hamilton, H., & Schiffrin, D. (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd Edition, Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons: 189–221.

From connectives to discourse relations - an analysis of CONTRAST

Manfred STEDE Universität Potsdam, Germany

The various popular inventories of discourse relations have proposed somewhat different sets of labels for the field of Contrast/Concession, and often the definitions turn out relatively vague. In this talk I propose to supplement the top-down perspective (What relations can occur in coherent text) with a bottom-up perspective (What do contrastive connectives express, specifically?), which results in a map of functions that are somewhat more fine-grained than the discourse relations conventionally used. I will present some empirical results and discuss to what extent the proposed categories can be applied across languages. Finally, some implications for the online connective database connective-lex.info are pointed out.

REGULAR PAPERS (IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

Pragmatic aspects of the discourse marker ozcă

Marinela BOTA University of Bucharest, Romania

The paper represents an analysis of the pragmatic values of the discourse marker ozcă recorded in oral interactions of the Romanian language varieties from Transylvania. The objectives taken into consideration for the analysis of the discourse marker ozcă are: (a) to establish the inventory of the discursive functions encountered in the recorded corpus and (b) to assess the pragmaticalization stage of the marker. The theoretical frame for conceptual delimitation and classifications related to discourse markers and the pragmaticalization process relies on international (Traugott 1995; Schiffrin 2001; Magaña 2005) and Romanian references (Ștefănescu 2007; Zafiu 2008; Cojocaru 2015). The discourse marker of modality attitude ozcă (which comes from o zis că) is specific to the regional register and has a similar evolution with cică from the Romanian popular register and with dizque from Spanish. Ozcă is frequently used with quotation value and gets specialized as a mark of non-assumption or mistrust in an opinion. The pragmaticalization parameters which overlap with those of the grammaticalization process of the discourse marker ozcă are: full verbal form followed by a complementizer > loss of anaphoric reference > loss of the subject > coalescence of the forms > acquisition of pragmatic values > loss of the possibility of combining with negatives and impersonal marks > fixed form that can accept another relative. The marker is encountered in contexts where it loses anaphoric reference, transitivity, relation to a subject and cannot be combined with negative marks or impersonal marks. In addition to the quotation value (a) the discourse marker ozcă develops other pragmatic values and it is encountered with different functions such as: to insure the continuity within a discourse sequence as in (b), (c) ozcă alternates with the full form o zis că (stratification). A generalization tendency is observed by increasing the frequency with which ozcă is used as a marker for organizing and structuring information (d), (e), optionally preceeded by the narrative connector și (f). Also it is encountered with values as evidential marker with initial position (g), (h) where plays a similar role with the evidential cică, or as a discourse marker of epistemic attitude of uncertainty (i) with flexibility of the position within the sequence.

(a) ozcă șase sute i-or dat pe ea s-o ducă la grădina zoologică sau la muzeu undeva. (b) Ș-o zis că ei cum or mers pe acolo, ozc-or văzut lupchii cum erau pe-acolo (c) Ni-o zis Andrei c-o zis că numa dacă are patru ge, ozcă dacă are, ăsta are numa trei ge, ș-ozcă dacă are patru ge atuncea poți să prinzi (d) ozcă când vinea bea câte-o doniță de apă, […], ozcă câte-o doniță d-aia de apă bea. (e) Ozcă s-o luat și s-o dus pe munte undeva în ăsta, ozcă acolo pe munte era o herghelie de cai […] (f) ș-ozcă era cum erau papuci din-ăia cu talpă / ș-ozcă scoate ăla pita din traistă cum era (g) ozcă șase sute i-or dat pe ea s-o ducă la grădina zoologică

8

(h) Ozcă preoteasa o zîs: păi ești bărbat, întorce-te și spune-le la oameni. (i) și cum auzi iel, că iel o fost acolo, ozcă cred că s-o dus și i-o zis la preoteasa ca să spuie, știi, că are...ăsta.

References Cojocaru, V. (2015). Marcatori discursivi în limba română vorbită în Republica Moldova:

aspecte pragmatice și sociolingvistice, teză de doctorat, București: Universitatea din București, Facultatea de Litere.

Magaña, E. (2005). El paso de „dice que” a „dizque”, de la referencia a la evidencialidad. Contribuciones Coatepec:

Schiffrin, D. (2001). Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Context. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton (ed.), 2001, The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, Blakwell Publishers: 54-76.

Ștefănescu, A. (2007). Conectori pragmatici. București, Editura Universității din București. Traugott, E. C. (1995). The Role of the Development of Discourse Markers in a Theory of

Grammaticalization. Stanford University. Zafiu, R. (2008). Modalizarea. In V. Guţu-Romalo (coord.), GALR, vol. II: Enunţul.

Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Române: 673−697.

Some pragmatic aspects of the adverbial structure de-amu from the Romanian variety spoken in Moldova

Valentina COJOCARU

University of Bucharest, Romania “Iorgu Iordan‒Al. Rosetti” Institute of Linguistics

The Romanian variety spoken in The Republic of Moldova, also known as Moldovan Daco-Romanian, has recently aroused many linguists’ interest (Ștefănescu 2016; Costea 2017, 2018, a.o). For more than 200 years, Moldovan Daco-Romanian has been under an intense linguistic contact with Russian, being isolated from standard Daco-Romanian. These factors led to two unavoidable phenomena: (1) the introduction of Russian elements into various areas of the vocabulary, phonology, morphology, and syntax; (2) the preservation of numerous features from old Romanian at all levels of the language. Given the sociolinguistic factors, it is little surprising, therefore, that the syntax or morphology preserved certain features, but what is quite surprising is to find old Romanian features at the discourse level, the level of spontaneous speech, subject to change and innovation. Alongside Russian discourse markers, which are quite numerous and very frequent in spontaneous speech (Cojocaru 2018), there are several “local” discourse markers, some of them being attested in the historical region of Moldavia at the end of nineteenth century: mătincă ‘I think (that)’, psinică ‘it seems (that)’/‘probably’, de-amu ‘already’/‘from now on’ (Iordan 1950 ; Dimitrescu 1958 ; Ivănescu 1980 ; Arvinte 2002); these have disappeared from standard Romanian. In the present contribution we focus on both the grammaticalization and the pragmaticalization of the structure de-amu, whose procedural profile goes beyond its semantic sphere and develops new pragmatic values. The structure de-amu has developed from/contains two lexical elements: prep. de ‘from’ (which, in this particular case, indicates the beginning moment of a temporal process) and the temporal deictic amu ‘now’ (which is the regional, colloquial counterpart of standard Romanian acum ‘now’) into one single unit

9

with no temporal value whatsoever, as it marks the attitude of the speaker related to the moment of the speech. The discourse analysis of de-amu is based on a corpus of texts spanning over a long period of time, which allows us to compare the usage and the frequency between centuries, trying to isolate the moment when the two elements became one unit, losing their initial temporal value. For old Romanian (early sixteenth to the late eighteenth century, more specifically up to 1780) the corpus includes various religious writings, which make up the largest part of literature of the time, short writings, such as documents, bills of sale, wills, and letters. For the early nineteenth to late twentieth century the corpus is made up mainly of prose. For present-day Romanian, the corpus contains examples of spontaneous speech (some of them are published in Bochmann 2002), the others (to be published), text messages, and chat conversations. Corpus ASACHI.1811-69 = Asachi, G. Opere. In N. A. Ursu (ed.), Bucureşti, Minerva, 1973. CREANGĂ.1881-9 = Creangă, I. Opere. In I. Iordan & E. Brâncuș (ed.), Bucureşti, Minerva,

1970. BOCHMANN.1997-8 = Limba română vorbită în Moldova istorică. Vol. II, Texte. Klaus

Bochmann & Vasile Dumbravă (eds), Leipzig, Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2000. (Moldovan Daco-Romanian, Bălți, Chișinău)

C.EV.1581 = Coresi, Evanghelie cu învăţătură. (1581). vol. I. In S. Pușcariu & Al. Procopovici (eds), Bucureşti, Socec, 1914.

CL.1570 = Coresi, Liturghier. (1570). In Al. Mareș (ed.), Bucureşti, Editura Academiei, 1969. [Brașov, Wallachian subdialect].

CT.1560-1 = Coresi, Tetraevanghel. In F. Dimitrescu (ed.). 1963. Tetraevanghelul tipărit de Coresi. Brașov 1560—1561, comparat cu Evangheliarul lui Radu de la Mănicești. 1574. Bucureşti, Editura Academiei. [Wallachian subdialect, Brașov].

D.ORH.1481–1827 = Aurel V. Sava (ed.). 1944. Documente privitoare la Târgul și Ținutul Orheiului, Bucureşti. [Moldovan subdialect, Orhei, Moldova].

References Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Arvinte, V. (2002). Normele limbii literare în opera lui Ion Creangă. Iași, Editura

Universității „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”. Bochmann, K. & Dumbravă, V. (eds.). (2002). Limba română vorbită în Moldova istorică,

vol. I‒II. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag. Brinton, L. J. (2017). The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English. Pathways of Change.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Cojocaru V. (2016). Marcatori discursivi în româna vorbită în Republica Moldova: aspecte

pragmatice și sociolingvistice, PhD Thesis : Universitatea din București. Costea, Ș. (2018). Verb movement in Moldovan Daco-Romanian: Romance heritage or

Russian influence? In V. Cojocaru, M. Naidinoaia-Tăbăcitu, A. Nicolae, R. Zafiu (eds) Variație în română și în limbile romanice. Bucureşti, Editura Universității din București: 47‒57.

Diewald, G. (2011). Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions”, Linguistics 49 (2): 365–390.

Iordan, I. (1950). Note sintactice. Studii și cercetări lingvistice 1: 269–79.

10

Lehmann, C. (2002). Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Universität Ertfurt. Schiffrin, D. (1988). Discourse Markers. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Ștefănescu, A. (2016). Variație și unitate în limba română standard din Basarabia, Bucureşti:

Editura Universității din București. Traugott, E. C. (1995). The Role of the Development of Discourse Markers in a Theory of

Grammaticalization, http://www.stanford.edu/~traugott/ect-papersonline.html. Traugott, E. C. & Hopper, P. J. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press. Traugott, E. C. (2007). Discussion article: Discourse markers, modal particles, and contrastive

analysis, synchronic and diachronic. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 139-57. Ziv, Y. & Jucker, A. (1998). Discourse Markers: Description and Theory.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Discourse markers and other signals: annotation and analysis

Ludivine CRIBLE University of Edinburgh, U.K.

Discourse markers, i.e. “sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of talk” (Schiffrin 1987: 31), are the focus of an abundant research field investigating the many aspects of their behavior, either from a syntactic, semantic, prosodic or other approach. These pragmatic expressions such as but, well, so, I mean, however or you know in English, are particularly fascinating from the perspective of their polyfunctionality, which has been explained and modeled under several different theoretical frameworks (see Fischer 2006 for an overview). These models include, among others, the notion of multidimensionality in the Dynamic Interpretation Theory (Petukhova & Bunt 2009), the five “planes of talk” in Schiffrin (1987), the concept of “meaning potentials” (Norén & Linell 2006; Aijmer 2013), the constructionist approach by Fischer (2010, 2015) or the three components of discourse structure in Redeker (1990) (see also González 2005). Combining theoretical and methodological considerations, Crible & Degand (in press) propose a corpus-based annotation scheme for (spoken) discourse markers, where their functional spectrum is seen as the interface between two independent dimensions, namely a domain and a function. Our four domains (viz. ideational, rhetorical, sequential and interpersonal) are rooted in the tradition of cognitive models of discourse structure (e.g. Redeker 1990; Sweetser 1990; Sanders 1997) and correspond to different layers of discourse which speakers (or writers) can address: content relations (ideational), subjective and metalinguistic meanings (rhetorical), discourse structure (sequential) and speaker-hearer relationship (interpersonal). Functions, on the other hand, are more specific interpretations of the type of operation which a discourse marker is performing in a given context (fifteen types, e.g. causal relation, topic-shift, turn-taking, face-saving, etc.). Discourse markers are the prototypical signals for coherence relations and other discourse-structuring functions. However, they are not the only linguistic elements that are responsible for discourse-pragmatic inferences: in recent years, several authors have considered the role of additional discourse signals such as negative polarity (Webber, 2013) or focus markers (Carlson, 2014), for instance. In example (1) below, the marker whereas co-occurs with further signals of contrast, including the difference in polarity and the syntactic parallelism between the two segments.

(1) You cannot overdose with marijuana, whereas you can overdose with alcohol.

11

The most comprehensive approach to these other signals to date is proposed by Das & Taboada (2018) and their annotation scheme applied to the RST Signalling corpus (see also Péry-Woodley et al., 2018). I recently proposed a different approach to the analysis of discourse signals, which relies on systematic annotation of discourse configurations (e.g. verb tense, polarity, syntactic constructions etc.) in order to identify function-specific signals (Crible, in press). This statistical method allows to tease apart mere collocations from predictive cues that combine with discourse markers. In this presentation, I will present and illustrate the annotation schemes for discourse marker functions and other discourse signals. Firstly, I will define in detail the values in Crible & Degand’s (in press) two-dimensional taxonomy for domains and functions. This overview will then be applied to a short extract of English conversation where marker identification and disambiguation will be manually applied. Extraction and data analysis will also be illustrated. Secondly, I will briefly present the coding scheme for segment-internal features that might contribute to discourse interpretation, and show how these signals can be identified and analyzed in combination with discourse markers. This hands-on session will show how different levels of analysis can be combined to provide an accurate and exhaustive portrait of discourse signalling devices in authentic corpus data. References Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding Pragmatic Markers. A Variational Pragmatic Approach.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bunt, H. (2011). Multifunctionality in dialogue. Computer Speech and Language 25: 222-

245. Carlson, K. (2014). Predicting contrasts in sentences with and without focus marking. Lingua

150: 78–91. Crible, L. & Degand, L. (in press). Domains and functions: a two-dimensional account of

discourse markers. Discours. Das, D., & Taboada, M. (2018). Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond

discourse markers. Discourse Processes 55(8): 743–770. 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: 1-20.

González, M. (2005). Pragmatic markers and discourse coherence relations in English and Catalan oral narrative. Discourse Studies 77(1): 53-86.

Norén, K. & Linell, P. (2006). Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts: An empirical substantiation. Pragmatics 17(3): 387-416.

Péry-Woodley, M.-P., Ho-Dac, L.-M., Rebeyrolle, J., Tanguy, L., & Fabre, C. (2017). A corpus-driven approach to discourse organisation: from cues to complex markers. Dialogue & Discourse 8(1): 66–105.

Petukhova, V. & Bunt, H. 2009. Towards a multidimensional semantics of discourse markers in spoken dialogue. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Semantics: 157-168.

Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 367-81.

Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Webber, B. (2013). What excludes an alternative in coherence relations? Proceedings of the

10th International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS2013): 276–287.

12

Translating connectors: the case of Old Church Slavonic  

Andrea DI MANNO La Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

The aim of this study is to analyse textual connectors in the Old Church Slavonic (OCS) translation of the Gospel, with particular emphasis on the clitic particle že. When it comes to the ancient translations of the New Testament, there is a certain pessimism in the literature about separating Greek features from the ones of the translating languages (with possibly the exception of Jerome’s Bible). In particular, OCS translations are said to be particularly slavish with respect to the original Greek text. Nonetheless, at a closer scrutiny, while most Greek connectors have regular translational equivalents (dé - že, gár - bo, etc.), such correspondences are far from absolute (cf. Brock, 1976 for similar observations on Old Syriac particles). The discrepancies between the source text and the translated one may cast some light on the discourse articulation of these languages (see Klein, to appear). As Table 1 shows, OCS že in most instances translates Greek dé, but, e.g., we have 74 tokens, where OCS že does not correspond to an overt marker in the original text. Moreover, if we consider OCS a, we see that the two seem to overlap to a certain extent. In addition to OCS a, the study will take into account all the semantic neighbours of OCS že, i.e. obače, nŭ, i, and their Greek correlates. Traditionally, they are all categorised both as conjunctions and particles (see SS) and their meaning ranges from ‘strongly adversative’ (obače) to ‘additively conjunctive’ (i), with a and že defined as both ‘adversative’ and ‘additively conjunctive’ (see SS; for a semantic account of these items see also Efimova, 1997; Efimova, 2004). As it is clear, a purely semantic account cannot do justice to the peculiarities of these connectors. In fact, a better understanding of their differences can be achieved only by looking at the portions of text in which they occur. Thus, I will try to single out the textual environments that might have led to the choice of, e.g., OCS a instead of že while translating Greek dé. This comparative analysis will be based mainly on the OCS Codex Marianus (often making reference to Codex Zographensis, Codex Assemani and Savvina Kniga) and the Byzantine recension of the Greek New Testament, with support from the Classical Armenian, Latin and Gothic translations as well. The data will be drawn from the PROIEL treebank and both quantitative and qualitative analysis will be carried.  

dé  kaí  mén  kaítoige  méntoi  ou̓n  te  tóte  -  Total že  1171  16  5  -  1  175  10  1  74  1453 a  121  33  -  1 - 1 - - 1  157

Table 1. References Brock, S. P. (1976). The treatment of Greek particles in the old Syriac Gospels, with special

reference to Luke. In J.K. Elliott (ed.), Studies in New Testament Language and Text (Novum Testamentum Supplements, 44), Leiden: pp. 80-86. 

Efimova, V. S. (1997). Nŭ i drugie sojuzy v staroslavjanskom. In T. M. Nikolaeva (ed.), Slavjanskie sočinitel’nye sojuzy, Moskva: pp. 62-79. 

Efimova, V. S. (2004). O sočinitel’nyx sojuzax v staroslavjanskom jazyke – gde mesto sojuzu a?. In T. M. Nikolaeva (ed.), Verbal’naja i neverbal’naja opory prostranstva mežfrzjvyx svjazej, Moskva: pp. 47-56. 

13

Klein, J. S. (to appear). Discourse Articulation in the Gothic Gospels, with Notes on the Treatment of the Same Phenomenon in the Classical Armenian and Old Church Slavic Versions. In A. Ratkus (ed.), Studies in Gothic.

SS = Cejtlin, R. M., Večerka R., Blagova, E. (eds.). (1999). Staroslavjanskij slovar': po rukopisjam X-XI vekov. Moskva:Russkij jazyk. 

Metadiscourse functions and markers in current religious discourse. Catechesis.

Anamaria GRECU “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iaşi, Romania

This paper, with its broad analysis of the corpus, draws on the integrative view on argumentation (Amossy 2010). The practical part follows the theoretical line, which combines current approaches to argumentation: linguistic, communicative, dialogic, generic, figurative and textual approaches. The dialogic approach is the starting point in the analysis of the functions which metadiscourse, seen as a part of dialogism, has in a particular type of preaching, that is, in catechesis. The texts on which our analysis is built are interactions where the exchange not only stimulates the participants (emotionally, cognitively, actively) at micro level, in a dialogic relationship, but also engages them in an authentic dialogue. The corpus analysed contains transcripts of the audio-video material recently collected, at a Romanian parish in Vienna, Austria, as part of the postdoctoral research. The transcripts come with a presentation box indicating the particulars of the performance (pointing out the cult's forms of expression, materials used, religious objects and vestments, ritual aids, didactic props all of which are believed to enhance the persuasive function in religious symbolism). The transcripts observe the conventions established in Corpus de limbă română vorbită actuală nedialectală1 and will be accompanied by detailed, explicit notes of nonverbal elements (microanalytical approach), terminology aligned to the literature (Collett 2011; Chelcea 2005; Corazze 1980; Cosnier 2007; Pease 1997; Onu 2008; Birdwhistell 1970); also, frequent references to the three gesture axes will be made: gestures described on the vertical axis (arms go upwards-downwards or downwards-upwards, with corporeal contact or parallel to the body; gestures described on the horizontal axis (arms go rightwards-leftwards or leftwards-rightwards, with corporeal contact or parallel to the body); gestures described on the in depth axis (arms go frontwards-backwards or backwards-frontwards, with corporeal contact or in its proximity, towards and from the body)2. To be effective, the preacher, as organizer of the interaction, needs to constantly adjust his discourse and assume a metadiscoursive approach, even towards his own words. He needs skills (in our paper we speak of metadiscoursive skills derived from intradiscoursive dialogic skills), to answer the pragmatic principle that: "... communication becomes pragmatically effective only when, on delivering a message, the speaker keeps the receiver constantly in mind"3. The preacher, then, acting strategically and purposefully, does not hesitate to comment on his own statement, and catecheses abound in metadiscoursive structures where

1Luminița Hoarță Cărăușu (coordonator), Corpus de limbă română vorbită actuală nedialectală, Editura Universității „Alexandru Ioan Cuzaˮ, Iași, 2013, p. 11. 2apud Florea Barbu, Limbaj gestual, comunicare și interpretare, Editura Lumen, Iași, 2010. 3Traian D. Stănciulescu, La început a fost semnul, o altă introducere în semiotică, EdituraPerformantica, Iași, 2004, p. 72. According to the author, this follows precisely from the pragmatic quality of the sign during communication, which in turn follows from its suitability to the receiver, meaning: the possibility of the receiver to receive the signifier; the possibility of the receiver to receive and understand the signified; the receiver's interest in the reception (attention grabbers); the possibility that the receiver use effectively the message contained in the signs.

14

statements are assessed, self-assessed and commented upon, and even invite the interlocutor's endorsement. We propose to analyse these metadiscoursive forms building on the premise that with the employment of specific markers metadiscourse acquires new meanings and therefore allows for a functional analysis, closely related to various theoretical concepts on discourse, analysis of argumentation and 'face to face' interaction, and studies on plurisemiotic, multimodal, pluridimensional, multichannel communication. The analysis of metadiscourse functions will take into account not only verbal and paraverbal but also nonverbal material; according to the corpus, all these discourse acts are, we believe, organised strategically and purposefully to support the argument. Therefore, we propose to insist on the functions and role of: reformulations and corrections4; the pointing out of impropriety in certain words; the explicit elimination of interpretation errors; reparatory structures5, etc., in catechetic interaction, for an effective reception of the message (from the perspective of the argumentation). Following these observations, starting from the verbal and paraverbal analysis of the corpus, we also aim to analyse the nonverbal material, by concentrating our study particularly on coverbal gestures. References Amossy, R. (2010). Lʼargumentation dans le discours. 3e édition, Cursus Lettres. Paris:

Armand Colin. Authier-Revuz, J. (2004). La Répresentation du discours autre: Un champ multiplement

hétérogène. In Le discours rapporté dans tous ses états, Actes du Colloque International Bruxelles – 8-11 novembre.

Barrier, G. & Pignier, N. (eds.). (2001). Sémiotiques non verbales et modèles de spatialité. Textes du congrès Sémio: Editura Pulim.

Bres, J., Haillet, P. P., Mellet, S., Nølke, H. & Rosier, L. (2005). Dialogisme et polyphonie. Approches linguistiques. Actes du colloque de Cerisy, De Boeck Supérieur: «Champs linguistiques».

Calbris, G. & Porcher, L. (1989). Geste et communication. Langues et apprentisage des langues. Collection dirigée par H. Besse et E. Papo, École normale supérieure de Fontenay – Saint-Cloud CREDIF, Paris: Hatier.

Cărăușu Hoarță, L. (2004). Pragmalingvistică. Concepte și taxinomii. Iași: Editura Cermi. Charaudeau, P. (1957). Langage et discours. Éléments de semiolinguistique. Théorie et

pratique. Paris: Hachette. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1996). La conversation. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2012). Les actes de langage dans le discours. Théorie et

foctionnement, Cursus, sous la direction de Henri Mitterand, Paris: Armand Colin.

4Generally, in religious discourse, rephrasings and corrections, marked "text┴" (removed structure and reformulation) appear: either over background noises marked, within the corpus, , and the correction: rephrasing and repetition: „…diavoluʼne_a+ ┴ când diavoluʼne_a invita:t în ra:i↑(ridicând ușor mâna stângă, cu degetul arătător al mâinii ridicat)...”; or with the preacher's paraverbal gesture: a fast tempo : „…u:nde_să_l i-dentificăm(repetând gestul pe axa de adâncime)să_l_să_l ma:rginalizăm┴(gest ilustrativ: ridicarea ușoară a brațelor ambelor mâini)să_l mă:rginim_să_l limită:m↑...”. Sometimes, repetition is marked metalinguistically, as in: „…v_am mai spus_o și v_o repet↑+î: du-minică:(gest al degetului arătător, indicând către credincioșii din fața sa; mișcare simultană a mâinii pe axa orizontală dreapta-stânga)...”. 5Rephrasing markers predominate in religious discourses; they do not come after the dropping of the previous statement, and this maintains fluency in argumentation without creating a visible 'break' in its cohesion; rephrasings are introduced with meta-statement comebacks, which: provide additional clarifying explanations: : „cu_alte cuvinte:sînt_tine:ri”; conclusions are drawn, in concluding remarks with sumative or conclusive purpose: „… „…în con-clu:zie↑+(ridicând bărbia, marcând conturul melodic ascendent non-terminal și revenind)”.

15

Maingueneau, D. (2009). Les termes clès de lʼanalyse du discours. Nouvelle édition revue et augmentée, Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

Măgureanu, A. (2008). La structure dialogique du discours. București: Editura Universității din București.

A taxonomy of the pragmatic markers within the current Romanian religious discourse

Luminița HOARȚĂ CĂRĂUȘU “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iaşi, Romania

Our study analyses the sermons in the collection Corpus de limbă română vorbită actuală nedialectală (coordinator Luminița Hoarță Cărăușu), Editura Universității „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, Iași, 2013, from the point of view of the types of pragmatic markers that appear in the discourse, but also the texts belonging to the current religious discourse present in two books written by the priest Arsenie Boca (Cărarea Împărăției, 5th edition, edition curated by the Priest Conf. Dr. Simion Todoran and Nun Zamfira Constantinescu, Editura Sfintei Episcopii Ortodoxe Române a Aradului, Deva, 2006 = C.Î.) and Cuvinte vii, (Second edition, rev., edition curated by Bishop Dr. Daniil Stoenescu, Editura Charisma, Deva, 2006 = C.V.). In the fabric of the related texts, there can be identified several types of pragmatic markers with various pragmatic roles: the pragmatic marker deci, with a themed role, various pragmatic markers of discourse organisation, some types of pragmatic markers that increase the recipient’s attention, markers that connect various discourse parts, discoursive markers that introduce a piece of information with obvious explanatory functions, relating, at the same time, the explanation with the previous discourse:

1. The pragmatic marker deci, with a themed rol: (i) „ vedeţi că_şi ioghinii şi_n general religiile acestea orientale îndeamnă la post

îndeamnă la supunerea trupului dar sensul pe care ei îl invocă nu are nici_o legătură cu sensul postului creştin. însă mai grav este că unii creştini care se numesc şi ortodocşi dintre cei ai noştri înţeleg sau fac apel pentru a_şi uşura această nevoinţă între ghilimele pentru că vom vedea că nu este o nevoinţă postu’ fac apel iată că acum ştiu sfânta scriptură (îşi drege vocea) la un verset pe care mântuitorul hristos sau pe care căruia mântuitorului hristos i se reproşează de către iudei în legătură cu mâncatul cu mâinile nespălate (îşi drege vocea). deci spun ei la replica dată de hristos că nu_intră sau nu ceea ce (xxx) intră în gură spurcă pe om ci ceea ce iese din gură.” (CLRVAN 2013: 13);

(ii) „Sufletul are și el o parte pătimașă, care, prin negrijă, nărăvindu-se cu viața cea trupească, așa se învoiește și se leagă de tare cu plăcerea din lumea aceasta, încât n-ar mai vrea să-i moară trupul, ci ar vrea să fie veșnică viața aceasta vremelnică. Poate că și de aceea a lăsat Dumnezeu viața aceasta așa de necăjită, ca să ne mai și săturăm de ea. Deci, ca niște dezlegați de plăcerile vieții, mai fericiți sunt săracii, ca bogații.” (C.Î. 2006: 23).

2. Pragmatic markers of discourse organisation: (i) „cum spune dumnezeiescul apostol pa:vel↑(strângând aceeași mână în pumn orientând degetul mare

în sus, marcând cuvintele cu mișcări sacadate pe axa verticală sus-jos)așada:r_în primul rând botezul↑+(orientându-se către auditoriul din centru, ridică mâna la nivelul pieptului, marcând cu același gest cuvintele)în al_doilea rând SFÂNTA și DUMNEZEIASCA scriptură↑+(gest coverbal, ilustrativ marcând actul enumerării prin ridicarea degetului arătător)în al trei:lea râ:nd↑(continuând gestul îndreaptă cele trei degete către auditoriu, mișcând trupul pe axa de adâncime față-spate)IUBIREA fraților↑ față de dumnezeu:↑ și față de oameni.(orietându-se pe axa orizontală dreapta-centru către auditoriul din centru) „lărgiți↑fraților și surorilor_i:nimile voastre↑”(gest ilustrativ prin răsfirarea degetelor mâinii stângi, cu deschiderea palmei și orietarea sa în sus; mișcând trupul sacadat pe axa de adâncime fată-spate)spune sfântul_apostol pavel.” (CLRVAN 2013: 63);

16

(ii) „Păcatele au urmările cele mai felurite asupra omului: 1. Pe unii păcatele-i smeresc, îi ruşinează înaintea lui Dumnezeu şi-i hotărăsc la îndreptare. 2. Pe alţii, mai înrăiţi în ele, îi sălbătăcesc cu totul. 3. Dar pe alţii îi împing până la nebunia fără întoarcere.” (C.V. 2016: 28).

3. Markers that increase the recipient’s attention: (i) „De aceea zic, cine vrea să vadă pe Domnul în veacul fără de sfârșit, după înviere,

trebuie să meargă cu El toată calea, iar nu numai până la un loc, sau numai până la o vreme.” (C.Î. 2006: 27);

(ii) „Noi însă zicem: unde este fericirea aceea, să cădem și noi în „primejdia” în care a căzut Dumnezeu; iar de nu ne primejduim pentru Dumnezeu e semn că nu suntem vrednici.” (C.Î. 2006: 27).

4. Markers that connect various discourse parts: (i) „ în duminica aceasta numită aşa cum spuneam şi_a izgonirii lui adam din rai

sfânta evanghelie arată cum trebuie să lucrăm în această perioadă pentru ca osteneala noastră să nu fie zadarnică. în vremurile noastre iubiţi credincioşi postul are o conotaţie mai puţin religioasă. sînt multe (xxx) din păcate nu sunt aici cei care privesc postul într_un mod cu totul trupesc. dumneavoastră veniţi permanent la biserică şi ştiţi lucrurile acestea de aceea dumneavoastră va trebui să fiţi purtători ai acestui mesaj în mijlocul celora celor cărora veţi merge. nu vin totdeauna sau puţin se puţin se înnoieşte biserica de aceea sînt lucruri pe care astăzi le veţi auzi şi R pe care cu siguranţă le ştiţi deja.” (CLRVAN 2013: 12-13);

(ii) „apa↑ cea duhovnicească” din care suntem chemați să bem noi TOȚI creștinii ortodocși(marcând cuvintele cu mișcări sacadate ale capului pe axa verticală sus-jos, revenind cu orientarea corpului și a privirii către auditoriul din dreapta sa)botezați în numele sfintei treimi↑iar această apă duhovnicească spune sfântul pavel↑+„iz-vorăște↑din PIAtra cea duhovnicească↑(marcând emfaza cu mișcări ale mâinii stângi în care ține crucea de lemn, în timp ce mâna dreaptă este strânsă în pumn)iar piatra cea duhovnicească este hristos.”+(repetând gestul, privește către auditoriul din fața sa, iar pumnul mâinii drepte este așezat la nivelul pieptului)încât↑(marcând conectorul cu aceeași mișcare a mâinii stângi ce ține crucea de lemn)NOI am_venit_la_biserică ASTĂZI↓(repetând gestul către auditoriul din dreapta sa)am participat la dumnezeiasca liturghie↓(revenind cu mâinile în dreptul pieptului;ținând crucea de lemn cu ambele mâini, mâna o acoperă pe cea stângă)primim APA cea binecuvântată↑ pentru a-l primi pe hristos dumnezeu↑OMUL(marcând emfaza cu mișcări ale mâinilor ținând crucea pe axa verticală sus-jos)în viața noastră↓(marchează cuvintele aplecându-se ușor auditoriu, se mișcă simultan pe axa orizontală stânga-centru-dreapta)în casele noastre↓în țara noastră:↓în lumea noastrăși cum îl putem primi:↑(repetând același gest al mâinilor orientându-se către auditoriul din dreapta sa)pe hris-tos_domnul în viața noastră?” (CLRVAN 2013: 61-62).

5. Discoursive markers that introduce a piece of information with obvious explanatory functions, relating, at the same time, the explanation with the previous discourse:

(i) „întrucât această lege a domnului este sădită în inima în mintea fiecărui om. din momentul în care un om se naşte el ştie şi simte ce este bine şi ce este rău. vedem chiar ş’_în viaţa copiilor persoane nevinovate care nu cunosc pe de rost cele zece porunci care încă n’_au învăţat ceea ce cere dumnezeu cum îşi dau bine seama când greşesc când îl supără pe dumnezeu sau îi supără pe ceilalţi copiii prin păcatele lor căci în inima fiecărui om dumnezeu a pus a plantat această poruncă aceste porunci ale (xxx) binelui şi a răului porunci care sunt implantate numai nu numai în inima creştinilor dar în inima fiecărui om.” (CLRVAN 2013: 47-48);

(ii) „toţi avem acces la iertarea şi la milostivirea lui dumnezeu. de_aceea trebuie să fie încurajator exemplul acestor tâlhari. exemplul tâlharului bun în mod special. că indiferent ce_am făcut indiferent de răul pe care l_am făcut dumnezeu acordă iertarea sa. ” (CLRVAN 2013: 55).

17

6. Pragmatic markers used to ask for agreement or/and confirmation: (i) „acesta este mesajul pe care de fapt vrea să_l dea hristos. nu mai mult sau nu mai

departe însuşi hristos când îşi începe activitatea sa pământească ca să înţelegem că nu elimină postu’ ci dimpotrivă îl promovează ca armă nu ? împotriva vrăjmaşilor împotriva vrăjmaşului nevăzut care este diavolul nu? însuşi mântuitorul hristos spuneam îşi începe activitatea sa pământească postind patruzeci de zile. nu? şi patruzeci de nopţi în pustiul karantania. nu mai vorbim şi de faptul că sfinţii apostoli au ţinut postu’ nu mai vorbim de cei din vechiul testament moise ilie (xxx) se spune şi_n cântările de la utrenie,,ilie a încuiat ceru’ ” şi aşa mai departe prin post. (CLRVAN 2013: 13-14).

Sources CLRVAN = Hoarță Cărăușu, Luminița (coord.). (2013). Corpus de limbă română vorbită

actuală nedialectală), Iași: Editura Universității „Alexandru Ioan Cuza. C.Î. = Boca, Arsenie. (2006). Cărarea Împărăției. In Simion Todoran & Zamfira

Constantinescu (Eds), Deva: Editura Sfintei Episcopii Ortodoxe Române a Aradului. C.V. = Boca, Arsenie. (2006). Cuvinte vii. In Daniil Stoenescu (ed.), Deva: Editura Charisma.

References Dincă, G. (2008). Strategii de construcție a predicii. In Saramandu, N., Nevaci, M., Radu, C. I.

(eds.), Lucrările primului simpozion internațional de lingvistică, Institutul de Lingvistică „Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti”, București, București, 13-14 noiembrie 2007, Editura Universității din București: 375-402.

Fraser, B. (1990). An Approach to Discourse Markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14. Gramatica limbii române, Editura Academiei, București, 2005, vol. al II-lea, Enunțul

(=GALR). Hoarţă Cărăuşu, L. (2016). Arsenie Boca, Cuvinte vii. O analiză din perspectivă gramaticală și

retorico-pragmatică. Analele științifice ale Universității „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iași (serie nouă), secțiunea IIIe, Lingvistică, tomul LXI / 2015, Editura Universității „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”: 43-59.

Hoarță Cărăușu, L. (2015). Arsenie Boca. Cărarea Împărăției. Particularități morfosintactice și retorico-pragmatice. Analele Științifice ale Universității „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iași, Secțiunea IIIe, Lingvistică, Tomul LX/2014, Editura Universității „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”: 51-80.

Hölker, K. (1988). Zur Analyse von Markern, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Lichem, K. (1981). Bemerkungen zu den Gliederungssignalen im gesprochenen Italienisch. In

Ch. Schwarze, Italienische Sprachwissenschaft, Tübingen: Narr. Stati, S. (1996). La semantica delle relazioni transfrastiche. Studi orientali e linguistici, 6,

1995-1996, Universita degli Studi di Bologna.

Epistemic certainty and metalinguistic of truth in political discourse

Liliana HOINĂRESCU “Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti” Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy

The paper aims to analyze the cases in which the speaker tends to strengthen his discursive commitment regarding the truth of his utterances. It is well known that in speech act theory, assertions are defined as speech acts that accomplish the veracity condition. By asserting something, the speaker simultaneously guarantees the truth of what he said (Searle 1979: 12-13; for discussion, see Zuczkowski, Bongelli, & Riccioni: 2017). The categorical assertions

18

(without any modal device) express the certainty, the indicative mode functioning as a marker of this epistemic stance. Conversely, the explicit reference to the veracity of utterance, which is pragmatically redundant, becomes the symptom of other discursive attitudes, in most cases polemical one. The metalinguistics of truth has different devices, from the emphatic use of performative verbs: “I affirm that…” to the expressions, such as “The truth is that…”, and stance adverbs and phrases: actually, really, in act, in fact (for a comprehensible list of linguistic markers used in the construction of stance see Biber 2006: 92-93, quoted by Weston 2014: 105-106). As far as the epistemic markers of certainty in fact, in reality are concerned, they appear in (highly) dialectical (controversial) or argumentative/ rhetorical contexts. They correspond to non-paraphrastic reformulation markers, which express the highest distancing of the speaker, invalidating the statement to which they relate (Rossari 1990) and consequently indicating the speaker’s disagreement. Analyzing a corpus of parliamentary debates taken from the British and Romanian Parliament, the paper aims to isolate such polemical contexts and to describe the persuasive force of epistemic markers of certainty. I am equally interested in determining the frequency of the emergence of markers of certainty in political discourse, and to what extent they express not only a discursive-rhetorical commitment, but also an engaged political stance (see also Arrese & Marin 2011). References Arrese, J. & Marin, I. (2011). Effective vs. Epistemic Stance and Subjectivity in Political

Discourse. Legitimising Strategies and Mystification of Responsibility. In Cris Hart (ed.) Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 193-223.

Biber, D. (2006). University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Rossari, C. (1990). Projet pour une typologie des opération de reformulation. Cahier de Linguistique francaise 11: 345-359.

Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weston, J. (2014). The Linguistic Construction of Epistemological Difference. Doctoral dissertation. Queen Mary: University of London.

Zuczkowski, A., Bongelli, R., & Riccioni, I. (2017). Epistemic Stance in Dialogue: Knowing, Unknowing, Believing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

“Actually”: the concealed lever

Mihaela IONESCU (MLADENOVICI) University of Bucharest, Romania

The aim of this article is to explore how the subtitlers’ decision to recover or omit actually in the process of translation and the types of contexts in which it occurs in documentaries enable us to decide upon the functions of this linguistic item. The corpus selected consisting of documentaries broadcast on television and their official Romanian subtitles, I will also outline the characteristics of these two types of text. Actually has a procedural, computational meaning, not a conceptual one, therefore having undergone a process of delexicalisation and being difficult to translate. It signals the inferential route the hearer is to take, guiding the comprehension process. Along the lines of the theory developed by Diane Blakemore within the Relevance Theory framework, actually

19

belongs to that category of discourse markers whose cognitive effect is the contradiction and elimination of an existing assumption. Its presence in discourse is also indicative of a correlation the hearer/ reader is expected to make between two units of text as actually conveys the idea of contrast which nevertheless encompasses more finely-grained usage meanings. Therefore, it can signal an explicit or implicit contrast between : (1) what is generally known or considered normal and the real state of events; (2) the expectations of the discussants or what the hearer might want to hear and the reality; (3) marked and unmarked information. This contrastive correlation is also instrumental in building efficient argumentative moves in order to persuade the viewer about the tenability of the theory presented. If we take into account the variety and the role of the people delivering discourse in documentaries, these TV progammes fall into three categories: (1) those in which argumentation is built by one main arguer assisted only occasionally or never by the interventions of experts; (2) documentaries in which the main arguer’s perspective is interwoven with explanations of a larger number of experts (investigative psychologists, astrobiologists, tornado chasers, curators, chronobiologists, archeologists, etc.), participants and volunteers in a trial, experiment or activity who bring further evidence and arguments in support of an idea; (3) those which rely more on the face-to-face interaction between the main arguer and the participants who are helping him/ her build the argumentation. The frequency of the discourse marker actually varies according to these three categories. There are documentaries in which the discourse marker actually is never used by the arguers (‘Deadly disasters’, season 1, episode 5, 2019, BBC Earth; ‘Apollo 8: the mission that changed the world’, 2018, National Geographic), others which display a limited number of occurrences of this discourse marker and those where the verbal patterns of the speaker include it quite frequently (‘The honesty experiment’, 2018, BBC Earth). This distribution is strongly linked to the protagonists’ personality, affective involvement and linguistic habits as each of them comes with specific particularities and, if there is an alternation of speakers, the manner in which discourse is built can vary. As a result, the subtitlers’ task to accurately recover the functions conveyed by actually is demanding, taking into account the technical and spatial constraints imposed by audiovisual translation and the fact that this type of linguistic transfer implies the transformation of spoken discourse into written text. References Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell. Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: the semantics and pragmatics of

discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blakemore, D. (2004). Discourse markers. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (Eds.), The

Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing: 221-241. Cintas, J. D., & Remael, A. (2007). Audiovisual translation: subtitling. Manchester: St.

Jerome Publishing. Gottlieb, H. (1994). Subtitling: diagonal translation. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 1,

101-123. Retrieved July 4, 2018 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254334056.

Eemeren, F., Houtlosser P., & Henkemans, A. F. S. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse – a pragma-dialectical study, Dordrecht: Springer.

Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31: 931-952. Fraser, B (2009). An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics, 1:

293-320.

20

Oswald, S. (2007). Towards an interface between pragma-dialectics and relevance theory. Pragmatics and cognition, 15 (1): 179-201.

Wilson, D. (2011). The Conceptual–Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti & A. Ahern (Eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, Bingley: Emerald: 3-31.

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90: 1-25. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D (2004). Relevance theory. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward

(Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing: 607-633. Tognini-Bonelli, E. (1993). Interpretative nodes in discourse: actual and actually. In Baker,

M., Francis, G. & Tognini-Bonelli, E. (Eds.), Text and technology. In honour of John Sinclair. Philadelphia/Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company: 193-213.

Wilson, D. (2016). Reassessing the conceptual-procedural distinction. Lingua, 175-176 : 5-19.

Documentaries Apollo 8: the Mission That Changed the World (2018). National Geographic. Body Clock: What Makes Us Tick (2018). BBC Earth. Forbidden History: Nikola Tesla (2014, season 1, episode 6). Viasat History. Jupiter Revealed (2018). BBC Earth. Killer Volcanoes (2017). Discovery Science. The Honesty Experiment (2018). BBC Earth. The Last Days of Pompeii (2017, episode 2). Viasat History. The Placebo Experiment (2018). BBC Earth. The Real Vikings, Age of Invasion (2016, season 1, episode 1). History Channel. The Story of God (2016, season 1, episode 1). TVR 1. Wild Tube (2018, season 1, episode 6). Viasat Nature.

Special indefinites as discourse markers. Evidence from English and German

Sofiana I. LINDEMANN Transilvania University of Braşov, Romania

One of the fundamental questions underlying theories of language production concerns referent-tracking. A body of linguistic and psycholinguistic studies found out that several factors, such as prominent syntactic positions and different thematic roles, influence the frequency of re-mention and the rate of pronominalization of referents. In this paper, we focus on referents mentioned in non-prominent positions (as direct objects realized by indefinite noun phrases) in English and German and argue that different types of indefinite noun phrases affect the discourse structuring potential of their referents in different ways. Study1: The English data (Indefinite-this vs. indefinite-a) According to several studies (Prince 1981; Ionin 2006), English this can be used as an indefinite determiner alongside the simple indefinite article a(n). The Experiment (Exp1) investigates whether referents introduced by this and a(n) differ in terms of frequency of subsequent mention and likelihood pronominalization. Design. We used a multi-sentence continuation task with no pronoun-prompt. Participants (n=20) read story fragments (e.g. (1), n=20) and were asked to add five logical and natural-sounding sentence continuations to each of the stories. All critical referents were constructed in direct object position and were realized as indefinite noun phrases. We only manipulated the morphological realization of the direct objects (2 conditions: this-condition and a(n)-condition). In light of previous findings, which showed that this-referents are more accessible than a(n)-referents (Gernsbacher & Shroyer

21

1989), we predict that this-referents will be: (i) more frequently picked up, and (ii) more likely to be pronominalized in the subsequent discourse, compared to a(n)-referents. Results. This-referents were picked up in the subsequent discourse more often than a(n)-referents (in 85% vs. 15% of the cases), but contrary to our predictions the anaphoric expressions used for both indefinite types were definite noun phrases. Study2: The German data (Indefinite-so’n vs. indefinite-ein) The German determiner so’n can be used in a similar way as English indefinite this (Chiriacescu 2010; 2011). Experiment 2 (Exp2) had the same design, but tested the discourse behavior of indefinite so’n compared to that of the simple indefinite headed by ein(e) (‘a(n)’). Again, we manipulated only the type of indefinite noun phrase, which resulted in 2 conditions: so’n-condition and ein(e)-condition. Our prediction is, that if the accessibility of so’n-referents is comparable to that of referents preceded by indefinite-this, then the results of the two experiments should be similar. Results: Similar to the findings of Exp 1, so’n-referents were picked up more often in the ensuing discourse than the ein(e)-referents (in 80% vs. 17% of the cases), but did not show a preference for pronominalization. Conclusions: First, both indefinite this and indefinite so’n signal the referential persistence of their referents in the subsequent discourse. Second, the findings of both Exp1 and Exp2 underline the necessity to dissociate between frequency of subsequent mention and likelihood of pronominalization, as they do not point to the same type of accessibility of a referent (confirmation of recent studies on language production, e.g. Kehler, Kertz, Rohde & Elman 2008; von Heusinger & Chiriacescu 2009). Third, we argue that the different markers of indefinite noun phrases (i.e. this in English and so’n in German) are used as discourse markers to give structure to the subsequent discourse rather than to signal the accessibility of their associated referents.

this-condition a(n)-conditionYesterday evening was so warm that James decided to hang out with friends at the local coffee shop. On his way downtown, he saw this kid coming down the street.

Yesterday evening was so warm that James decided to hang out with friends at the local coffee shop. On his way downtown, he saw a kidcoming down the street.

Table 1. Sample experimental item from Exp1 on English References Chiriacescu, S. (2010). Funcția prezentativă a lui so’n în limba germană (‘The presentative

function of German so’n’). In Saramandu, N., Nevaci, M., & Radu, C. I. (eds), Lucrarile celui de-al treilea Simpozion International de Lingvistic. Bucureşti: Editura Universității din Bucureşti.

Chiriacescu, S. (2011). The discourse structuring potential of indefinite noun phrases. Special markers in Romanian, German and English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stuttgart.

Gernsbacher, M & Shroyer, A. (1989). The cataphoric use of the indefinite this in spoken narratives. Memory & Cognition 17 (5): 536-540.

von Heusinger, K. & Chiriacescu, S. (2009). Definite “Bare” Nouns and pe marking in Romanian. In: M. T. Espinal, M Leonetti & L. McNally (eds.). Proceedings of the IV Nereus International Workshop “Definiteness and DP Structure in Romance Languages”. Arbeitspapier 124. Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz: 63-82.

Ionin, T. (2006). This is definitely specific: specificity and definiteness in article systems. Natural Language Semantics. Springer. 14: 175-234.

Kehler, A., L. Kertz, H. Rohde & J. Elman. (2007). Coherence and Coreference Revised.

22

Journal of Semantics 25: 1-44. Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P (ed.), Radical

pragmatics, New York, Academic Press: 223-56.

On the pragmaticalization of the adverb neapărat ‘necessarily’

Carmen MÎRZEA VASILE University of Bucharest, Romania

‛Iorgu Iordan − Alexandru Rosetti’ Institut of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest

In Modern Romanian, the participial adjective (ne)apărat derives from the transitive verb a apăra ceva / pe cineva ‘to defend/protect something or someone’ and the noun it modifies is its underlying direct object. (1) Invadatorii s-au apropiat de hotarele neapărate ale ţării. ‘The invaders approached the country’s undefended borders.’ General dictionaries of Modern Romanian record both an adjectival and an adverbial use for the lexeme neapărat (lit. ‘undefended’): (2) adj. ● de care nu te poți lipsi, care este (absolut) necesar; indispensabil ‘which one cannot forgo; absolutely necessary; indispensable’

● (rar) căruia nu i te poți împotrivi, care nu poate fi ocolit, evitat sau omis; fatal, inevitabil ‘(rare) something which one cannot oppose to; which cannot be circumvented, avoided or omitted; fatal, inevitable’ adv. ● în mod necesar, cu orice preț; negreșit ‘necessarily; at all costs; perforce’.

(DEX – Dicționarul explicativ al limbii române) These definitions do not show a clear relation with the regular (literal) meaning ‘undefended’. The main goal of the paper is to explain how semantic-pragmatic values of the lexeme neapărat emerged in Modern Romanian. The study is based on corpora survey (for Contemporary Romanian, CoRoLa; for Old Romanian, the corpus used for SOR) and it is organised as follows. First, we describe the morphosyntactic and pragmatic values of the lexeme neapărat in contemporary Romanian. We present its adjectival and adverbial use and the modal values associated with it; we also provide some quantitative data that are relevant for the categorial issue adjective-adverb (Hummel & Valera 2017). We show that the adverbial use of the lexeme neapărat is much more frequent than the adjectival one, and its value is deontic (3a) and, secondarily, epistemic (3b). In general, neapărat functions like an intensifier (3a-b) (see also Zafiu 2020, mss). (3) a. Trebuie să vezi neapărat acest film. ‘You absolutely must see this movie.’ b. Profesorul e atât de supărat! Trebuie neapărat să fi greșit ei undeva. ‘The teacher is so angry! By all means, they must have erred somewhere.’ Then, we examine the use of the lexeme in Old Romanian. We inventory the ambiguous argumental configurations of the verb a apăra ‘to stop, forbid’ and the values of its adjectival participle (ne)apărat. Special attention is paid to the fact that the participial adjective could modify not only its underlying direct object, but also the underlying indirect object (4) or a prepositional phrase:

23

(4) E cândŭ trecu Sâmbăta și neapărate fură de leage (că Sâmbăta nu da leagea, nici lăsa să lucreze ceva, ce gătiră myrŭ) și vineră la mormântŭ, să ungă pre Isusŭ (CC2.1581: 139) ‘And when Saturday passed and the law did not forbid them [from doing this] (because on Saturday the law did not let nor allow [anyone] to work on anything; they just prepared the myrrh) and they came to the grave to anoint Jesus.’ In example (4), the structure: [femei] neapărate de lege women.FEM unforbidden.FEM.PL by law ‘women allowed/unforbidden by the law (to/from...)’ has two possible underlying argumental configurations: ← legea nu le apără pe femei law.FEM.DEF not CL.ACC.3.F.PL forbids DOM women.ACC or ← legea nu (le) apără femeilor law.FEM.DEF not CL.DAT.3.F.PL forbids women.DAT.DEF ‘the law allows/doesn’t forbid the women (from...)’ Another important observation is related to the modal meaning of the (negative) adjectival participles (Rainer 1999; Oltra-Massuet 2014; Fábregas & Marín 2017; Mîrzea Vasile 2018), like in example (5): (5) Această viaţă trecătoare iaste... şi pre urmă vine moartea cea neapărată (Dosoftei, V.S., 1682-1683, 140v/19, in DLR) ‘This life is fleeting... and then the unstoppable death comes’ The data collected from Old and Modern Romanian, alongside with their interpretation in large and narrow context (the period and its morfosyntactic characteristics, the type of the text, the register, etc.) will help us to envisage the pathway(s) of pragmaticalization (for a general discussion about the type of the historical process of change – grammaticalization, lexicalization, or pragmaticalization, see Brinton 2017: 26-37) of the lexeme neapărat, within the diachronic pragmatics framework (see Traugott 2011; Ghezzi & Molinelli 2014, a.o.). We will check the common hypothesis of the diachronic development of pragmatic functions: premodal > deontic > epistemic; objective > subjective; evaluation > intensification; scope within the proposition > scope over the proposition > scope over discourse (Brinton 2017: 24-26; Traugott & Dasher 2002: 148; Athanasiadou & Canakis & Cornillie 2006; Narrog 2012). We will see that not all the evolution paths will continue up to to Modern Romanian and that the type of register in which the item occurs can limit the range of possibilities of pragmatic developments. References Athanasiadou, A., Canakis, C., & Cornillie, B. (2006). Subjectification: various paths to

subjectivity. Berlin / New York, Mouton de Gruyter. Brinton, Laurel J. (2017). The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English. Pathways of

Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. CoRoLa – Corpus of Contemporary Romanian – http://corola.racai.ro/ DEX. (1975). – Academia Republicii Socialiste România, Institutul de Lingvistică din

București, Dicționarul explicativ al limbii române, Ion Coteanu, Luiza Seche, Mircea Seche (Eds), București, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.

24

Fábregas, A. & Marín, R. (2017). Problems and questions in derived adjectives. Word Structure 10(1): 1–26. DOI: 10.3366/word.2017.0098.

Ghezzi, C. (2014). The development of discourse and pragmatic markers. In: Chiara Ghezzi & Piera Molinelli (Ed.), Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press: 10-26.

Ghezzi, C. & Molinelli, P. (Eds). (2014). Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Hummel, M. & Valera, S. (Eds). (2017). Adjective Adverb Interfaces in Romance. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Mîrzea Vasile, C. (2018). Participiile adjectivale necanonice în română, Al 18-lea colocviu internaţional al departamentului de lingvistică: Româna și limbile romanice, Universitatea din București, 23-24 noiembrie 2018.

Narrog, H. (2012). Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford, Oxford University Ppress: 1-113.

Niculescu, D. & Mîrzea Vasile, C. (2019). Observații despre participiul perfect activ cu valoare adjectivală în româna veche. In G. Pană Dindelegan, A. Boioc, B. Croitor (Eds), Variație diacronică și diatopică. Note gramaticale. București, Editura Universității din București: 113-129.

Oltra-Massuet, I. (2014). Deverbal Adjectives at the Interface. A Crosslinguistic Investigation into the Morphology, Syntax and Semantics of -ble. Mouton de Gruyter.

Pop, L. (2010). Absolut Vodka. De quelques adjectifs à sens procédural. In J. Goes & E. Moliné (Eds), L’adjectif hors de sa catégorie (Actes du Colloque franco-roumain Université d’Artois, 23-25 mai 2007), Arras, Artois Presses Université: 223-244.

Rainer, F. (1999). La derivación adjectival. In: Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (Eds), Gramaticá descriptiva de la lengue española, Madrid, Espasa: 4595-4644.

SOR. (2016). – Pană Dindelegan, G. (Ed.), The Syntax of Old Romanian. Oxford, Oxford University Press (on-line version with supplementary examples at http://www.lingv.ro/images/6.pdf).

Traugott, E. (2011) Pragmatics and language change. In: Keith Allan & Kasia Jaszczolt (Eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 549-565.

Traugott, E. & Dasher, R. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Zafiu, R. (in press). 2020. „Neapărat”.

Romanian Anglicisms: from fully-fledged lexical items to discourse markers

Anabella-Gloria NICULESCU-GORPIN, Monica VASILEANU “Iorgu Iordan – Alexandru Rosetti” Institute of Linguistics

University of Bucharest, Romania That ‘English has turned into the first global language’ (Crystal: 2003) is nowadays a commonplace of linguistics and beyond. This is why English borrowings and Anglicisms have become an important research topic over the last 30 years or so, both in Romanian and international linguistics, with an emphasis on counting them, findings ways to norm and standardise them. We have tried to take one step further and to find some possible psycho-linguistics explanations for the great expansion of English on present-day Romanian (Niculescu-Gorpin & Vasileanu 2018).

25

We have encountered an interesting phenomenon when analysing different lexical Anglicisms, i.e. several items seem to have two different (opposing?) functions depending on the contexts in which they appear, i.e. that of a fully-fledge lexical item or that of a discourse marker (Jucker & Ziv 1998). Our presentation will discuss such cases. Trying to identify which are the lexical Anglicisms that behave in this way, we have drawn the following list of items: great, cool, ok, shit, fuck, items with strong emotional load. Our analysis comprises the following steps: first of all, making appeal to several Romanian corpora (CoRoLa, corpuses of transcribed spoken Romanian, and other materials that are available in electronic format) we have tried to establish when they were first attested and extract as many contexts as possible to be able to study their behaviour, and also see whether they appear in any dictionary and if so, how they are defined; the second step represents the analysis of these occurrences to see whether all of them occur within both contexts, i.e. as fully-fledge lexical items and as discourse markers or not; based on our analysis we propose a description of the contexts that mark each of these cases and try to see whether they are mutually exclusive or they may co-occur as it happens in English. References Jucker, A. & Ziv, Y. (Eds.) (1998). Discourse Markers: Discription and Theory.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Andersen, G. (2014). Pragmatic borrowing. Journal of Pragmatics, 67: 17- 33. Matras, Y. (2000). Fusion and the cognitive basis for bilingual discourse markers.

International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(4): 505-528. Niculescu-Gorpin, A. G. & Vasileanu, M. (2018). Acceptability and diffusion of luxury

Anglicisms in present-day Romanian. Pragmatics & Cognition, 25(1): 86-121.

Oral description and its markers: a corpus-based analysis

Liana POP Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj, Romania

Our study is a corpus-based analysis of oral description as a particular type of textual structure, its discourse and textual markers. Our distinction between these two categories of linguistic expressions is based on a representation of discourse as the progressive creation of a final product, a text. We define discourse markers as pragmatic expressions responsible for the local operations of discourse production. Textual markers are defined in this paper as expressions of completion (which open or close a textual construction). The corpus contains 15 comments about an image. The comments were requested by a teacher6 during a course of Romanian as a foreign language from students with good language competence. The method we used is the following: first, we identified all the pragmatic expressions in these 15 texts, then we classified them into discourse structuring markers and textual markers. We also identified modal expressions. They express mental operations during textual production. These pragmatic expressions were used by the speakers to delimitate mental and linguistic operations – which can be considered typical for the oral production of descriptions.

6 Aida Duma, 2016. 

26

We found the following types of expressions, which we interpret as linguistic markers of the operations performed by the speakers:

more or less explicit perception expressions, which are typical for descriptive texts. Some are explicit verbs, as a vedea ‘to see’ (ex. ce văd ‘what I see’); indefinite pronouns, as ceva ’something’. The use of proximal and distal deictic choice seems very interesting. They express subjective perception and a dynamic perspective shift, from an objective to a subjective one (appropriation) – from asta ‘this one’ to ăla ‘that one’, or the other way around;

expressions of categorial identification, involving a mental interpretation of what is perceived, with more or less explicit markers (hedges). In our texts, we identified: mă gândesc, mă duce cu gândul ‘I think’, îmi aminteşte de ‘it reminds me of’, cred că ‘I think that’, bănuiesc ‘I presume’, asta nu ştiu ce o fi ‘I don’t know what that can be’, seamănă cu ‘It’s like’, pare ‘It seems’, nu pare a fi ‘It doesn’t seem’, nu ştiu (exact) ‘I don’t know (exactly)’, vreo ‘some’, probabil ‘probably’, gen nu ştiu ‘like I don’t know’, un fel de ‘a kind of’, cam, aşa ‘something like that’. We also identified other expressions of categorical approximation, which deny a previous representation, as ba nu ‘no’, reformulate or correct it, as adică ‘that is’; or even verbalize explicitly what the students imagine is expected in their descriptive performance: pot fi probabil mai multe interpretări ‘probably there may be several other interpretations’;

thematic markers, which indicate the speakers’ moving on to another element in the image: avem ‘we have, there is/are’, iar ‘and’, combined with enumerative markers, as şi ‘and’, şi în rest ‘and besides that’, după aia ‘after that’, plus, etc. Linear organizers are also present: în primul rând ‘first of all’;

finally, we identified expressions that indicate the speakers’ effort to produce a complete descriptive text. The opening marker is, generally, an oral one: păi ‘well’; transitory ones: bun ‘ok, well’ or aşa ‘so’; closing markers are: cred că atât ‘I think that’s all’, (şi) cam atât ‘(and) it’a almost all’, cam asta ‘something like that’. A typical oral operation seems to be the one in which the speaker remembers to add other elements after he finishes his text; the expression used can be considered an omission marker: aaa și...’o, and...’.

The results are relevant from several points of view: they show pragmatic markers not with their individual function, but in an

spontaneous oral production and in a specific context which presents all discourse, textual and modal markers “at work”;

they show both explicit and implicit pragmatic markers; they confirm the representation of a typical descriptive sequence in oral texts, with

its objective and subjective operations, i.e. aspects of the described object, and interpretation of the visual perception;

they show specific markers of this particular type of description – in the presence of a teacher –, with the verbalization of the perception: explicit verbs as ce văd ‘ what I see’ (as a response) and numerous deictic shifts between proximal and distal perception. They are similar, in this type of oral description performed in a didactic context, to other types of oral descriptions: for instance, a tourist guide’s description of artistic and tourist attraction sites.

The study of the oral description in general still needs further research. References Adam, J. M. (1987). Textualité et séquentialité. L'exemple de la description, Langue française

74: 51-72. Adam, J. M. (1997). Les textes : types et prototypes, Paris, Nathan. [3e édition].

27

Adam, J.-M. (1999). Linguistique textuelle: des genres de discours aux textes, Paris, Nathan. Apothéloz, D. (1983). Eléments pour une logique de la description et du raisonnement spatial.

Degrés: 35-36, pp.b1-b19. hal-00870177. Cauterman M.- M. & Craczyk, B. (1986). Sujet: décrivez votre chambre. Le Français

aujourd’hui, 74. Rabatel, A. (1998). La Construction textuelle du point de vue, Lausanne-Paris, Delachaux et

Niestlé. Corpus Duma, A. (2016). Le discours sur image: étude des opérations discursives, Communication at

Colloque « ORAL 2016 : langues romanes. Corpus, genres, niveaux d’analyse”, University Babeş-Bolyai of Cluj, 13-14 May.

Mersi, apropo, pardon en roumain actuel: de l’étymologie à la pragmatique lexicale

Cecilia-Mihaela POPESCU Université de Craiova, Romania

Dérivée de la pragmatique lexicale, un domaine de recherche assez nouveau (v. Martin 2008), « qui étudie les processus par lesquels la signification littérale des mots (ou spécifiée linguistiquement) est modifiée en usage » (Wilson 2006 : 33), cette approche se propose d’analyser la signification et le fonctionnement « in context and in use, including motivational factors, perception and post hoc effects of the use [...] » (Andersen, Furiassi & Mišić Ilić 2017: 103) de quelques mots que le roumain a emprunté au français au 19e siècle, par la voie orale. Il s’agit, plus précisément, d’une petite série de francesismes, qui, tout en gardant, d’une manière plus ou moins nette, leur trait sémantique d’origine (‘the core meaning’), actualisent aussi dans la langue actuelle de différentes valeurs affectives, attitudinales et pragmatiques, fortement liées au contexte communicatif et parfois extrêmement fines et difficilement à déceler. Tel est le cas du mot mersi, à l’origine une interjection provenue du fr. merci, qui, dans bien des situations discursives, fonctionne soit comme un marqueur de confirmation et d’accord, actualisant l’adhésion du locuteur au point de vue de son interlocuteur (et parfois même une certaine nuance de résignation, comme infra sous (1), où le mot analysé est équivalent à l’assertion « asta e! » ‘c’est ça!’), soit, tout en changeant la polarité, le désaccord et une nuance affective appartenant à l’aire sémantique du dégoût/de la désolation (mersi devient sous (2), par exemple, un synonyme du (roum.) halal!; mai bine lipsă! « je m’en fous ! / ça ne m’intéresse pas!») : (1) Desigur, condiția e să rămân cu mintea de-acum. Dacă mă trezesc tot cu mintea de pe

vremea aia, atunci... mersi, mai bine nu mă mai deranjez să cobor. Stau în mașina timpului și aștept să treacă urgia (Unde coborîți, în drum spre 1954? By Simona Tache, in CoRoLa).

(2) să te umilească cu banii lor, mașinile lor, grătarele lor care-ți bagă tot fumul în casă, nunțile, botezurile, din cauza cărora stai baricadat ca să nu surzești de la vreun Guta sau Salam. Nu, mersi, n-am cum să diger vreodată ce spui, n-am cum să fiu de-acord cu tine. Mă bucur că n-am făcut un copil pe care să-l chinuie o Românie tiganizată. Să trăiești la fel de bine ca idolii tăi (Dragoș Bucurenci, in CoRoLa).

28

Un autre cas de figure est celui de mot apropo (avec la variante a propos), un adverbe emprunté au fr. à propos au 19e siècle, qui a récemment acquis plusieurs fonctions métadiscursives comme marqueur de digression (v. 3) ou bien comme marqueur de changement de topique (v. Ionescu / Popescu 2018), actualisant l’abandon d’un sujet en faveur d’un autre, l’introduction d’un nouveau topique, l’éloignement provisoire d’un topique récemment abordé, etc. À ces types d’emplois il faut ajouter la fonction interactionnelle de marqueur d’appel, apropo exprimant le fait que le locuteur attire l’attention à son interlocuteur et « l’accroche » dans son acte de parole, comme on peut voir infra sous (4) : (3) Acest post despre pasiune a fost scris la provocarea Noului Renault Clio, “noua formă

a pasiunii” (care, apropo, arată foarte mișto, mult mai mișto decât vechiul meu Renault Clio, de care mă leagă atâtea și atâtea aventuri rutiere...) (Cu ce mă ocupam prin clasa a III-a by Simona Tache 2012, in CoRoLa).

(4) ... ceilalți, între care mai mulți tineri ofițeri, în curent cu afacerea boicotului, privind-o cu admirație, își dedeau coate. Cucoana, foarte satisfacută, vrea să plece: - Apropo, coniță, sărut mâna: șampanie? Am ceva bun de tot; un Pommery extra, garantat. - Cum îl dai? întreabă cucoana, aruncând pe sub genele-i mai pudruite ... (Caragiale, Politică și delicatețe, in Archeus.ro).

Enfin, le mot roumain pardon est une autre illustration éloquente de la manière dont le sens des items lexicaux se construit dans le contexte de communication. Cette interjection ayant pour étymon le mot français homonyme fonctionne de nos jours non seulement comme une formule de politesse à laquelle le locuteur fait appel lorsqu’il veut s’excuser ou bien pour demander la permission, mais aussi comme un véritable marqueur de reformulation paraphrastique (v. 5), comme un marqueur de désaccord et de proteste (v. 6), comme un marqueur d’appel, de la requête informationnelle (v. 7) ou du contrôle sur la qualité de la réception du message : (5) Pree, da nu te credeam așa prost; pardon, voiam să zic șiret. (Contemporanul, VIIII 99,

in DLRLC). (6) A. Tu n-asculți! Îl surprinse Alexandru Vardaru.// B. – Pardon! Ascult. De ce să n-

ascult? (C. Petrescu, î. I 11., in DLRLC). (7) Mai departe nu știu ce s-a întâmplat cu el, știu doar că s-a însurat și știu că stă în

continuare prin zonă. Deci, pardon? Asta unu la mână. Doi la mână,... (Nu în numele meu by Dragoș Bucurenci (2013), in CoRoLa).

En conclusion, cette approche qui amène en discussion la notion d’« emprunt pragmatique » (‘pragmatic borrowing’), propose une réorientation méthodologique sur le traitement de l’emprunt linguistique, vu maintenant non plus de manière statique et comme une entité per se, mais étroitement lié au contexte communicatif, y compris à un certain « background » identitaire, de nature culturelle, sociale, cognitive etc. (Mišić Ilić 2017: 103-115; Terkourafi 2011: 218-235). Autrement–dit, une telle démarche va relever que « once borrowed into recipient language, these terms lose much of their speech-act potential, functioning primarily to signpost locally relevant dimensions of variation, such as discourse-, gender-, class- or ethnicity-based variation » (Terkourafi 2011: 218). Références Andersen, G., Furiassi, C., & Mišić Ilić, B. (2017). The pragmatic turn in studies of linguistic

borrowing. Editorial. Journal of Pragmatics 13/2017: 71