Abstract
The objective of this article is to investigate the use of three of the most frequent pragmatic markers in English conversation in the London-Lund Corpus, i.e. “well”, “you know” and “I mean”. Specifically, the aim is to study the characteristics of the prosodic patterns and the Tone Unit position in the realization of pragmatic functions by the markers. The article combines the thorough analysis of the corpus data with the description of the function of these elements in the realization of Adaptive Context within the Dynamic Model of Meaning approach to pragmatics and communication.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the Journal editor and the anonymous referees for their insightful comments on the initial version of the manuscript.
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.10Search in Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 2013. Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748635511Search in Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.), 2006. Pragmatic markers in contrast. Oxford: Elsevier.10.1163/9780080480299Search in Google Scholar
Balog, Heather. 2012. Early prosodic production: pragmatic and acoustic analyses for L2 language learners. In Jesús Romero-Trillo (ed.), Pragmatics and prosody in English language teaching. Dordrecht: Springer. 133–147.10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_9Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486456Search in Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane & Fabrizio Gallai. 2014. Discourse markers in free indirect style and interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics 60. 106–120.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.003Search in Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1989. Intonation and its uses: Melody in grammar and discourse. London: Edward Arnold.10.1515/9781503623125Search in Google Scholar
Brazil, David. 1975. Discourse intonation 1/2. Birmingham University Press, Birmingham.Search in Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110907582Search in Google Scholar
Bryman, Alan & Duncan Cramer. 1997. Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 12 and 13: A guide for social scientists. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Buysse, Lieven. 2012. So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 1764–1782.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.012Search in Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166973Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Martin. 1992. Prosodic cohesion in a systemic perspective: Philip Larkin reading ‘toads revisited’. In Paul Tench (ed.), Studies in systemic phonology. London: Pinter. 206–230.Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139174220Search in Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin (ed.). 2006. Approaches to discourse particles. Oxford, England: Elsevier.10.1163/9780080461588Search in Google Scholar
Gladkova, Anna & Jesús Romero-Trillo. 2014. Ain’t it beautiful? The conceptualization of beauty from an ethnopragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 60. 140–159.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.005Search in Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1984. On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.10.1515/9783110859263Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783111357447Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 1970. A course in spoken English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia & Diane Litman. 1993. Empirical studies on disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics 19. 501–530.Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2004. Editorial: Lexical merging, conceptual blending, and cultural crossing. Intercultural Pragmatics 1. 1–26.10.1515/iprg.2004.005Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2006. On my mind: Thoughts about salience, context and figurative language from a second language perspective. Second Language Research 22. 219–237.10.1191/0267658306sr266raSearch in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 385–406.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813313Search in Google Scholar
Norrick, Neil R. 2009. Pragmatic markers: introduction. Journal of Pragmatics 41. 863–865.10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.008Search in Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 1993. Reading aloud and the structure of information. Revista Complutense de Estudios Ingleses 1. 133–142.Search in Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 1994. Ahm,ehm…You call it theme? A thematic approach to spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 22. 495–509.10.1016/0378-2166(94)90080-9Search in Google Scholar
Romero Trillo, Jesús. 2001. A mathematical model for the analysis of variation in discourse. Journal of Linguistics 37. 527–550.10.1017/S0022226701001050Search in Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2002a. The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 34. 769–784.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00022-XSearch in Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2002b. The sympathetic circularity function in English: An intonation corpus-driven analysis. Revista Complutense De Estudios Ingleses 10. 87–112.Search in Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2007. Adaptive management in discourse: The case of involvement discourse markers in English and Spanish conversations. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6. 81–94.10.5565/rev/catjl.125Search in Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2012a. Pragmatic markers. In Chapelle, Carol (ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 4522–4528. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley.10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0929Search in Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2012b. Introduction. In Romero-Trillo, Jesús (ed.), Pragmatics and prosody in English language teaching. Dordrecht: Springer. 1–6.10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_1Search in Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2012c. Pragmatic triangulation and misunderstanding: A prosodic perspective. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 6. 43–5310.1558/lhs.v6i1-3.43Search in Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2014. ‘Pragmatic punting’ and prosody: evidence from corpora. In María de los Angeles Gómez González, Francisco J. Ruíz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco Gonzálvez García & Angela Downing (eds.), The functional perspective on language and discourse: Applications and implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 209–221.10.1075/pbns.247.11romSearch in Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2015. It is a truth universally acknowledged…You know? The role of adaptive management and prosody to start a turn in conversation. Pragmatics and Society 6. 117–145.10.1075/ps.6.1.06romSearch in Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús & Laura Maguire. 2011. Adaptive context, the fourth element of meaning. International Review of Pragmatics 3. 228–24110.1163/187731011X597523Search in Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús & Jessica Newell. 2012. Prosody and feedback in native and non-native speakers of English. In Jesús Romero-Trillo (ed.), Pragmatics and prosody in English language teaching. Dordrecht: Springer. 117–131.10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_8Search in Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611841Search in Google Scholar
Svartvik, Jan. 1980. ‘Well in conversation’. In Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey N. Leech & Jan Svartvik (eds)., Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk. London: Longman. 167–177.Search in Google Scholar
Svartvik, Jan & Randolph Quirk. 1980. A corpus of English conversation. Lund: Lund University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tench, Paul. 1992. Tone and the status of information. In Paul Tench (ed.), Studies in systemic phonology. London: Pinter. 161–174.Search in Google Scholar
Torgersen, Eivind N., Costas Gabrielatos, Sebastian Hoffmann & Susan Fox. 2011. A corpus-based study of pragmatic markers in London English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7. 93–11810.1515/cllt.2011.005Search in Google Scholar
Vaez Dalili, Mehdi & Hossein Vahid Dastjerdi. 2013. A contrastive corpus-based analysis of the frequency of discourse markers in NE and NNE media discourse: Implications for a “universal discourse competence”. In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9. 39–69.10.1515/cllt-2013-0010Search in Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 1989. Taking the picture to the ‘well.’ Native speaker’s perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 13. 203–237.10.1016/0378-2166(89)90092-1Search in Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne, Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen & Karin Aijmer. 2010. How prosody reflects semantic change: a synchronic case study of ‘of course’. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and gramaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 103–154.10.1515/9783110226102.2.103Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
