2.2.3 In pragmatics
From the perspective of pragmatics,the term discourse markers is more generally used to refer to the conjunctive resources among clauses.The scholars in pragmatics mainly pay attention to the communicative features of these discourse markers.Schiffrin(1987),Sweetser(1990)and Fraser(2006)are chosen as the representative theorists in this area.
As Figure 2.5 presents,Schiffrin(1987:25)analyzes the discourse markers from the perspective of discourse coherence or social interaction.Starting from the theory of discourse analysis,social interactional linguistics and pragmatics,she separates five hierarchies of discourse:IDEATION STRUCTURE,ACT STRUCTURE,EXCHANGE STRUCTURE,PARTICIPATION FRAMEWORK AND INFORMATION STATE.
Figure 2.5 A discourse model(Schiffrin,1987:25)
Based on this model,Schiffrin(1987)discusses 11 discourse markers:and,but,or,so,because,then,now,therefore,well,however,anyway,oh,you know,and I mean.Among these discourse markers,three coordinators and,but,and or are selected as the representative conjunctions and are analyzed from a combined perspective of syntax,semantics and pragmatics,which could be listed in Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.6 illustrates that all of these three conjunctions are syntactically coordinators.It can be seen that and has little semantic meanings but has pragmatic effect as a marker of continuation in interaction.The content of ideas and actions are not themselves part of the meaning of and;rather,they are“contextual parameters which work with and to organise ideas an perform actions”(Schiffrin,1987:189).This figure also shows that but has a contrastive meaning and pragmatically expresses the counter-expectation of the speaker and or marks inclusive options,with the semantic meaning of disjunction.Therefore,the coordinative role of these conjunctions could be considered as their function in idea structures,their semantic role as their textual meaning,and their pragmatic role as their interactional effect.
Figure 2.6 Conjunctions as discourse markers(Schiffrin,1987:190)
Sweetser(1990:76)uses conjunctions as the umbrella term to refer to the conjunctive devices.He proposes that conjunctions are ambiguous among usages in the content,epistemic,and conversational domains.Correspondingly,a three-way analyzing model of conjunctions is established,including content conjunctions,epistemic conjunctions and speech-act conjunctions.Sweetser’s point is that the interpretation of conjunctions does not rely on the grammatical form but on a pragmatically motivated choice between viewing the conjoined clauses as“representing content units,logical entities,or speech acts”(Sweetser,1990:78).Causal and conditional conjunctions are analyzed to prove his viewpoints.As to epistemic conditionals,he(Sweetser,1990:116)proposes that knowledge of the truth of the hypothetical premise expressed in the protasis would be a sufficient condition for concluding the truth of the proposition expressed in the apodosis.When referring to speech-act conditionals,the performance of the speech act represented in the apodosis is conditional on the fulfillment of the state described in the protasis(Sweetser,1990:118).
Fraser(2006)analyzes conjunctive markers by starting from the pragmatic perspective and puts forward the term pragmatic markers,which are separated into four types:basic pragmatic markers,commentary pragmatic markers,parallel pragmatic markers and discourse markers.Firstly,basic pragmatic markers“signal the type of message(the illocutionary force)the speaker intends to convey in the utterance of the segment”(Fraser,2006:189).The bold lexical expressions in the following examples belong to this type.
(17)I promise that I will be on time.(Fraser,2006:189)
(18)Please,sit down.(Fraser,2006:189)
(19)My complaint is that you are always rude.(Fraser,2006:189)
Commentary pragmatic markers signal“a message separate from but in the nature of a comment on the basic message”(Fraser,2006:189).According to him,there are four kinds of commentary pragmatic markers:assessment markers such as fortunately,sadly;manner-of-speaking markers such as frankly,bluntly speaking;evidential markers such as certainly,conceivably;as well as hearsay markers such as reportedly,allegedly.Similarly,Aijmer & Vandenbergen(2004)analyze the socalled pragmatic markers from the perspective of expectation,especially in fact,actually,really,and finally define these markers as expectation markers.
Parallel pragmatic markers“signal a message separate from the basis message”(Fraser,2006:190)which could be divided into defence markers and conversational management markers.Syntactically,Fraser(2006:194)summarizes five categories of discourse markers:coordinate conjunction such as and,but,or,nor,so,yet;subordinate conjunctions such as after,although,as,as far as,as if,as long as,assuming that,because,before,but that,directly,except that,given that,insofar that,if,in case,in order that,in that;adverbials such as anyway,besides,consequently,furthermore,still,however,then;prepositions such as despite,in spite of,instead of,rather than;prepositional phrases such as above all,after all,as a result,because of that,besides that.
Finally,Fraser(2006)proposes the semantic model of the conjunction and separates it into four types:contrastive markers,elaborative markers,inferential markers and temporal markers.Apart from reformulation markers such as that is to say,for example and temporal markers,most discourse markers could occur without the presence of the initial S1.Apart from these,he(Fraser,2006)also differentiates the polysemous approach and polyfunctional approach to analyze the discourse markers,namely some discourse markers have a single semantic core meaning but may function on more than one pragmatic domain.
Lewis(2006)shows that the discursive use of the expressions such as well,in fact,though,of course,anyway,actually,on the other hand is part of the wider phenomenon of speaker’s attitudes towards the ideas they express.His study of discourse markers hence becomes the study of modal and metatextual comment and is best approached under the rubric of discourse structure.
Chinese scholars also contribute a lot to the research of CMs from the pragmatic perspective.Li(李丛禾,2006)analyzes the explicit and implicit pragmatic functions of conjunction and.Li(李宗江,2009)describes four sentence patterns with the conjunction“bushuo(不说)”,and its semantic function and pragmatic function.Pan(潘璠,2004,2012)compares the use of stance adverbs by Chinese writers and native writers in terms of frequency,clausal positions and pragmatic effect.