Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov • Vol.

3 (52) - 2010
Series IV: Philology and Cultural Studies

DISCOURSE MARKERS AS FUNCTIONAL

ELEMENTS

Mădălina MATEI∗

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to justify the necessity of adopting a

functional approach to the study of discourse markers but also to revisit the
theories connected to functionalism in linguistics and to define what a
functional approach to discourse markers would actually imply. In the first
part of the paper, the focus will be placed on functionalism and on those
theories which are most relevant for a functional analysis of discourse
markers. The second part of the paper will be centered on discourse markers,
their discursive and pragmatic functions as well as on their connection to
functional linguistics.

Keywords: pragmatic meaning, grounding, functionalism, discursive goal.

1. Introduction 3. these meanings are influenced by the

social and cultural context in which
The functional analysis of discourse they are exchanged
markers is perhaps the only pertinent 4. the process of using language is a
manner in which discourse markers can be semiotic process, a process of making
studied given the fact that some of them meaning by choosing. (Eggins 3)
are even devoid of semantic meaning The description of language as a semiotic
(Schiffrin, 1987; Ariel 223; Trillo 193). process is correct since the production of
But in spite of this semantic void, they meaning is not always semantically
have powerful pragmatic and functional determined. Especially in talk-in-
discursive roles as this paper will hopefully interaction in general and in the case of
show. In this paper, the functions of discourse markers in particular, it is
discourse markers will be singled out and pragmatic meaning that we are dealing
theoretical concepts related to the with. Pragmatic meaning especially in
functional analysis of discourse markers relation to discourse markers is defined by
will be reviewed. The main assumptions Deborah Schiffrin (2006) as the recurrent
that lead the researcher to the conclusion use of a certain marker to convey
that language is primarily a functional communicative meaning. The latter,
phenomenon have been put forth by Schiffrin adds, is dependant upon the
systemic linguistics who suggested four relational functions that markers develop
main theoretical claims meant to sustain in the respective text or context of use.
the functional character of language: As Simon Dik (83) comments the
1. language use is functional functional view presupposes that language
2. its function is to make meanings is an instrument used by individuals in
order to attain certain goals which can be

∗
Transilvania University of Braşov.
120 Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov • Vol. 3 (52) - 2010 • Series IV

traced back to the complex pattern of The expressive function that Mathesius
social interactions. In the functional view, (idem.) associated to the functional view of
speakers use linguistic expressions in such language is inextricably linked to the use
a way as to communicate messages that of discourse markers. The latter are
would manage to change the hearers sometimes used by speakers to express
mentally or emotionally, thus modifying emotions (oh, gosh), hesitations (well,
their knowledge, convictions or feelings. uhm, so), surprise, contrasting ideas (and,
Mathesius (qtd. in Daneš 11), apart from but, instead), seeking agreement (you
the communicative function of natural know, like, I mean), etc. We might say that
speech, advocates the existence of an this function dominates the use of some
expressive function. The latter presupposes discourse markers and permeates the use of
the manifestation of emotions and is others.
permanently intermixed with the
communicative function. In scientific 2. Discourse Markers and the Prague
discourse, however, the communicative School of Linguistics
character prevails. But Mathesius terms
these functions ‘external’ to language Discourse markers or continuatives in
which could prove that they are mostly Halliday’s terms, are elements that appear
connected to the manner in which language in initial position and which can be part of
functions in society, to its pragmatic the Textual Theme. But there are authors
effects, and not to an internal, grammatical from the Prague School of linguistics who
description of the language. As opposed to consider that the elements that we now
formalists who concentrate on truth term discourse markers are situated
conditions for the logical pattern of outside the Theme. One of these authors is
sentences without taking into consideration Nosek (158, 163) who speaks about
the meaning that the utterance was created sentence constituents or functives, textual
for, functionalists focus on meaning from elements that connect sentences and
the perspective of the manner in which ‘partial utterances’ into a coherent text.
language is used (Nuyts 69; Lock 1). They are constitutive elements that are
This broad perspective on the functional, semantically void.
social-conscious and goal-oriented nature of According to Nosek (idem.), the
speech is essential for the study of discourse sentence constituents function as a code
markers. The functional nature of markers is which is recurrent (or stereotypical, as this
proven by the predominantly procedural paper terms it) and this is why their
character of these items which are rarely repeated structure is known to native
endowed with semantic meaning, the speakers. As Nosek (163) puts it:
socially-dependent character of discourse ‘Their repeated structure is
markers is obvious in cases in which marker unconsciously mastered by a native
use differs according to the social context as speaker. It creates connections between
well as the social status that the participants the sentences, resulting in a text that is
in the speech event have and the goal- tied up by this important syntactic
oriented function of markers is illustrated by element. Although the constituents of the
their polyfunctionality which is an sentence operate functionally only within
indication of the pragmatic shift of meaning one sentence, they can reappear and be
that one discourse marker could undergo in repeated beyond the sentence limits in
order to be able to fulfill as many discursive different groupings and be identified by
goals as possible. speakers in sentence series , and thus
M. MATEI: Discourse Markers as Functional Elements 121

become a valuable grammatical and 3. The Functional Character of

textual orientation for the speaker.’ Discourse Markers
It is quite clear from Nosek’s description
of the manner in which sentence The class of discourse markers is
constituents function that the identification formed of elements which, as Ariel (224)
of these items’ functional roles within points out, either have a semantic meaning
discourse is mainly based on practice and and their interpretation in context resonates
on their stereotyped or recurrent uses. But I with their form (and, I mean) or of items
believe, at least as far as English is which are semantically empty (well, oh).
concerned, that even though native Moreover, even items that pertain to the
speakers are prompt in recognizing the former category, can acquire functions
function that such an element fulfils, it is towards which their inner semantic
not only them that could master and meaning is not conducive. For instance,
recognize the possible discursive functions there are cases in which the function of
of such items. For instance, in the process discourse marker and is that of discourse
of language learning, these patterns of continuative (discursive device used by
discourse marker use are inevitably speakers in claiming the floor), filler,
transmitted to L2 learners by means of hedge, etc.
conversation, written texts, movies, etc Given the fact that their semantic
as they are part and parcel of the dimension is no longer reliable, discourse
linguistic/interactional competence that markers can only be analyzed from a
non-native speakers aim to acquire. The functional perspective. As Gisela Redeker
acquisition of language by L2 learners is (339) rightfully claims, markers are not to
similar to children’s language learning. be seen as lexical items but as
Bates and MacWhinney (243), for ‘contextually situated uses of expressions’
instance, speak about the understanding whose functions are only identifiable in
and use of connectors with small relation to the communicative purpose of
children. They state that it is the the interactional situation in which they are
pragmatic function that precedes and used (Fischer 427,429).
guides the acquisition of language. In Acknowledging the lack of semantic
other words, speakers learn words and homogeneity of the class, Fischer (432)
their discursive functions in order to be attempts a categorization of discourse
able to express whatever pragmatic markers from a cognitive perspective.
meaning they need in order to make their Fischer claims that the mental processes
contribution efficient. In fact, speakers that discourse markers signal can help the
learn the linguistic means that help them researcher identify at least the subclasses
attain their desired ends. that they might form: interjection,
A substantial help in the understanding hesitation marker, segmentation marker.
of the functions of sentence constituents Fischer provides several examples of the
or discourse markers is provided by what mental processes associated to various
Halliday (1994) called Rheme. The markers and provides ‘translations’ for the
latter, being the expansion of the Theme, discursive functions identified.
provides the confirmation of the For instance, interjections oh, ah and
discursive direction that the initially oops indicate the sudden recognition of
placed discourse marker indicates. information and contain an ‘I now’-
component and hesitation markers, uh and
um, signal a current thinking process ‘I am
122 Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov • Vol. 3 (52) - 2010 • Series IV

thinking’. Segmentation markers, well, yes, form (as opposed to uniformity of form) is
okay, are divided into two groups: markers motivated by function.
whose meanings involve the Romero Trillo (193) explains the
communication partner (yes – ‘I think that plurality of meanings and functions that
you and I think the same’) and those which discourse markers can acquire in context
display the result of a cognitive process by the concept of ‘discourse
(well – ‘after I have thought about all I grammaticalization’ Through the process
know about it I say this’). of discourse grammaticalization, discourse
This functional-cognitive approach that markers have included in their semantic/
Fischer uses in the analysis of the grammatical meaning (if any) a pragmatic
functional spectrum of discourse markers dimension having interactional purposes.
leads her analysis to a logical, pertinent Trillo (idem) explains that a marker that
conclusion that markers have a particular has undergone the process of
rather than an arbitrary range of functions grammaticalization becomes a homonym
and even though there is disagreement which constrains the relevance of any new
concerning some of the new or possible function that emerges in a synchronic
functions that markers can have in context, system. In other words, it acts as censor for
there is however a commonly attributed any discursive function that is realized in
function for each item. Any other that particular synchronic context.
contextual functions of discourse markers This view would imply the existence of a
arise from the communicative tasks that core function that a discourse marker might
speakers have and it is the same have. Since we cannot always speak of
communicational task that determines the semantic meaning in association with
use of items form other word classes to discourse markers, a particular pragmatic
fulfil discourse marking functions. meaning might also be said to represent the
Ariel (242,243) draws attention to the core meaning of a marker. This would be the
same non-arbitrariness of discourse case with discourse marking be like whose
markers’ functions that Kerstin Fischer core pragmatic meaning is that of indirect
referred to. In what the relationship speech marker and the other discursive
between Form and Function is concerned, functions that might also be realized in
Ariel (idem) states that there are two discourse are story preface, quotation
equally possible relationships: first there marker, approximation marker, modesty
can be one function – many forms or, since marker (avoiding expert opinion) etc.
each of the forms is used for different
functions we can also have one form – 3.1.Grounding
many functions.
But these two possible relationships do The concept of grounding that Clark
not indicate grammatical arbitrariness (a and Schaefer (in Taboada 145) put forth is
term which is apparently very popular in another indication that discourse markers
both formal and functional linguistics) in have a functional role in discourse. Clark
the sense of randomness. The feature that and Schaefer (idem) start from the
characterizes them is unpredictability assumption that discourse markers guide
because forms may lend themselves to the setting of common ground (grounding)
several innovative meanings. In this sense, that takes place when speakers interact.
functionalists, according to Ariel, claim The common ground that the speakers have
that the discourse markers’ universality of at the beginning of their verbal interaction
is constituted of the mutual knowledge and
M. MATEI: Discourse Markers as Functional Elements 123

the set of background assumptions that claims that both markers show the
speakers have. Shared knowledge orientation of the speakers towards the
increases as the conversation unfolds and hearer’s needs and, at the same time,
other common points are added from the signal the fact that the speaker verifies
communicated information. the level of shared knowledge. I mean is
The receipt of new information and its connected to the same idea of common
integration into the domain of shared ground negotiation in the sense that, as
knowledge is confirmed by the hearer and Murar (ibid.) states, this marker is used to
thus more information is added to the ‘soften statements and to correct
above mentioned common ground. Hence, understandings’ (135).
Clark and Schaefer (ibid.) define
grounding as the collaborative process 4. Functions of Discourse Markers
whereby the hearer confirms the
understanding and the receipt of The multifunctional, polysemous
information through signals which are character of discourse markers has almost
sought for by the speaker. In the case of become a given in the study of discourse
lack of understanding, the information is markers as it is probably the most agreed
rephrased, repeated or other upon feature of these items. This section
comprehension verifications are discusses the functions that discourse
performed. markers fulfill in discourse. In Andrew
According to the two authors, grounding Kehler’s (241) view, a felicitous discourse
is considerably more prominent in task- has to meet the very important criterion of
oriented dialogues than in casual being coherent and it is the contribution to
conversation because the former discourse coherence that represents the
presupposes that the comprehension of primary function that discourse markers
information is a sine qua non condition for fulfil.
the passage to further stages in the • According to Diane Blakemore (232)
exchange. discourse markers are defined in terms of
Maria Teresa Taboada (145) provides a ‘their function in establishing connectivity
very interesting example of how grounding in discourse’. Connectivity could be
functions in the case of adjacency pairs. understood either as coherence or cohesion
Thus, the author states that an unexpected which mark text connections at different
part in an adjacency pair will usually be levels. Following Blakemore’s (234)
preceded by a discourse marker whose role definition, coherence is a cognitive notion
is that of signaling the fact that the sentence which represents the hearer’s integration of
is not in accordance with the common the received information/ propositions into
ground that speakers had with respect to the the larger representation of a text.
structure of an adjacency pair. Cohesion, however, implies the structural
Among the discourse markers that can be connection between different units of a text
used in grounding mention should be made as well as between different texts (Fraser,
of such markers as you know, you see and I in Blakemore 232) and, as Schiffrin 13)
mean. According to Ioana Murar (135), the states, cohesion depends upon a process of
discourse marking you know and you see semantic inferencing that departs from
mark the state of knowledge that exists words and sentences and reaches text and
between speakers or, in the light of the discourse level.
discussion above, the evaluation of According to many authors, discourse
common ground. Murar (idem) further markers can function both as cohesive
124 Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov • Vol. 3 (52) - 2010 • Series IV

devices and, given the fact that they have a involved or the subject matter of the text),
pragmatic meaning, they can also ensure tenor (the social distance (power and
text and discourse coherence (Blakemore, solidarity) between the participants in the
2006; Schiffrin, 1987, 2006; Müller, 2005; speech event and which determines the
Murar, 2008; Taboada, 2004; Trillo, 2009,; degree of familiarity in the wording) and
Cheshire, 2007, etc.). For instance, mode (is concerned with the medium
Deborah Schiffrin (326) defines the (spoken, written) by means of which the
contribution of discourse markers to text is expressed as well as with the
coherence as follows: ‘discourse markers amount of feedback) of discourse.
provide contextual coordinates for Generally (except for deviant cases
utterances: they index an utterance to the involving chronic social inadaptability of
local contexts in which utterances are speakers, mental illness, etc.) discourse
produced and in which they are to be markers are used in accordance with the
interpreted’ (326). three variables mentioned above thus
Several authors have attempted an constraining the discursive and contextual
analysis of the functions of discourse relevance of the discourse they bracket.
markers and have discovered a set of main • Markers guide the interpretation process
functions to which, of course, other context- of the hearer towards a desired meaning.
dependent ones could be added. Here is the This function involves the speaker’s
list of functions that have been mentioned indicating the hearer, by means of
in the literature (Schiffrin, 1987, 2006; discourse markers, the correct inferential
Blakemore, 2006; Müller, 2005; Murar, path that has to be taken in view of a
2008; Downing, 2006; Eggins, 2004). The correct understanding of the message.
following list goes from the general • They have an interactive or expressive
functions to the particular ones. function which covers such aspects as
• Discourse markers contribute to or politeness, face-saving or face-threatening
highlight cohesion and coherence relations uses of markers, turn-taking related uses of
in discourse. As opposed to other cohesive DMs, signaling emotional involvement of
devices such as conjunctions, discourse speakers in their contribution.
markers involve speaker choice. • Discourse markers have a deictic or
Conjunctions have an inherent meaning indexical function which indicates the
that determines their almost automatic discourse markers’ ability to show the
selection especially by native speakers. relationship that is to be established by the
However, with a discourse marker that is hearer between prior and ensuing
known to be able to fulfill a number of discourse.
functions, it becomes a matter of how the • They are functional elements of
speaker chooses to construct meaning. In discourse management in the sense that
other words, it is a matter of selecting the they are used in initiating discourse (e.g.
most appropriate sign that could now, now then, so, indeed), marking a
accommodate the desired pragmatic boundary or a shift, serve as a filler (e.g.
meaning. em, well, like), used as delaying tactic and
• Discourse markers act as constraints on markers can also be used in holding or
relevance. Here we can perhaps refer to claiming the floor (e.g. and, coz –
two types of relevance, discursive and because), focusing attention (e.g. look),
contextual, connected to Halliday’s (qtd. in diverting (e.g. well), reformulating (e.g. in
Eggins 9) three variables of field (the other words, I mean, actually) and
social activity in which the speakers are resuming (e.g. to sum up).
M. MATEI: Discourse Markers as Functional Elements 125

• Discourse markers are used to express In a functional use of language,

shared knowledge or common ground discourse markers constitute important
between speakers. By means of this functional elements that contribute to the
function which has been termed as coherence and cohesion of discourse, have
grounding, discourse markers are used to an important role in the interpersonal and
display other-attentiveness. The latter can expressive use of language and show
be achieved by the permanent verification conformity to the institutionalized uses of
of the listener’s understanding of language in its social and cultural context.
information (e.g. you see, got it) or by The lack of semantic meaning that
showing awareness that the communicated characterizes some discourse markers is
proposition represents common knowledge compensated by the manifest presence of
(e.g. you know, indeed). pragmatic meaning, an ever-changing
• Discourse markers are used in responses meaning in full accordance with the
to signal the hearer’s attention and dynamics of language use.
involvement, a function which can be
fulfilled by markers such as okay, right, I References
see, all right, etc. Minimal responses such
as mhm can also be included in this 1. Ariel, Mira. “Discourse Markers and
category. Form-function Correlations Strategies”
This list of functions is an ever- Discourse Markers. Eds. Jucker,
expanding one as well as the list of Andreas and Ziv, Yael. Philadelphia:
functions that a certain marker can acquire John Benjamins, 1998. pp. 223-259.
in discourse because the negotiation of 2. Bates, Elizabeth, MacWhinney, B.
meaning in talk-in-interaction is a never- “The Acquisition of Grammar”
ending process. Perhaps, the only aspects Functionalism in Linguistics Eds.
that remain perpetually valid are the three René Dirven and Fried, V.
variables of discourse (field, tenor and Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
mode – maybe with changed/adapted Benjamins Publishing Company, 1987.
names in future research) according to pp. 209-264.
which discourse is structured.
3. Blakemore, Diane. “Discourse
Markers” The Handbook of
5. Conclusion
Pragmatics Eds. Laurence R. Horn and
The first part dealt with the most Gregory Ward. Oxford&Malden:
important issues connected to Blackwell Publishing, 2006. pp.
functionalism and the performance of a 221-240.
functional analysis on language in general 4. Cheshire, Jenny. “Discourse variation,
and on discourse markers in particular. grammaticalisation and stuff like that”
Among the conclusion that this paper has Journal of Sociolinguistics 11/2, 2007:
drawn, probably the most important one is 155-193, Oxford: Blackwell
that the use of language is highly Publishing Ltd.
contextualized and it does not necessarily 5. Chesterman, Andrew. Contrastive
involve the creation of a semantic meaning Functional Analysis. Amsterdam/
but of a pragmatic one. This is why the Philadelphia: John Benjamins
definition of language as a semiotic system Publishing Company, 1998.
seems pertinent.
126 Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov • Vol. 3 (52) - 2010 • Series IV

6. Daneš, Fratišek. “On Prague School 15. Murar, Ioana. “The Functionality of
functionalism in linguistics” Discourse Markers in Conversational
Functionalism in Linguistics. Eds. Text” Annals of the University of
René Dirven and Fried, V. Craiova, Series Philology, English,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Year IX, NO.1, 2008, Craiova: Editura
Benjamins Publishing Company, Universitaria Craiova, 2008.
1987. pp. 3-38. pp. 125-139.
7. Dik, Simon, C. “Some principles of 16. Nosek, Jiři. “Constitutive, Informative
functional grammar” Functionalism in and Transformative Models in Modern
Linguistics. Eds. René Dirven and English Texts and Sentences”
Fried, V. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Functionalism in Linguistics Eds.
John Benjamins Publishing Company, Dirven, René and Fried, V.
1987. pp. 81-100. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
8. Downing, Angela. “The English Benjamins Publishing Company,
Pragmatic Marker surely and its 1987. pp. 157-168.
Functional Counterparts in Spanish” 17. Nuyts, Jan. Aspects of a Cognitive-
Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. Eds. Pragmatic Theory of Language. On
Aijmer, Karin and Simon- Cognition, Functionalism and
Vandenbergen, A.M. Oxford: Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
Elsevier, 2006. pp. 39-58. John Benjamins Publishing Company,
9. Eggins, Suzanne. An Introduction to 1992.
Systemic Functional Linguistics. 18. Redeker, Gisela. “Discourse markers
Second Edition, New York/London: as attentional cues at discourse
Continuum, 2004. transitions” Approaches to discourse
10. Fischer, Kerstin. “Frames, particles. Ed. Fischer, Kerstin.
constructions and invariant meanings: Oxford: Elsevier, 2006. pp.339-348.
the functional polysemy of discourse 19. Schiffrin, Deborah. Discourse
particles” Approaches to discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP, 1987.
particles. Ed. Fischer, Kerstin. 20. Schiffrin, Deborah. “Discourse marker
Oxford: Elsevier, 2006. pp. 427-448. research and theory: revisiting and”
11. Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Approaches to discourse particles. Ed.
Functional Grammar. Second Edition, Fischer, Kerstin. Oxford: Elsevier,
London & New York: Arnold, 1994. 2006. pp. 315-338.
12. Kehler, Andrew. “Discourse 21. Taboada, Maria Teresa. Building
Coherence” The Handbook of Coherence and Cohesion: Task-
Pragmatics Eds. Horn, Laurence and oriented Dialogue in English and
Ward, G. Oxford & Malden: Spanish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
Blackwell Publishing, 2006. pp. John Benjamins B.V., 2004.
241-265. 22. Trillo Romero, J. “Discourse
13. Lock, Graham. Functional English Markers” Concise Encyclopaedia of
Grammar. An Introduction for Second Pragmatics. Second Edition Ed. Mey,
Language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP, Jacob. London: Elsevier, 2009. pp.
14. Müller, Simone. Discourse Markers in 191-194.
Native and Non-native English
Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins B.V., 2005.