Hubbry Logo
Discourse markerDiscourse markerMain
Open search
Discourse marker
Community hub
Discourse marker
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Discourse marker
Discourse marker
Discourse marker
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A discourse marker is a word or a phrase that plays a role in managing the flow and structure of discourse. Since their main function is at the level of discourse (sequences of utterances) rather than at the level of utterances or sentences, discourse markers are relatively syntax-independent and usually do not change the truth conditional meaning of the sentence.[1] They can also indicate what a speaker is doing on a variety of different planes.[2] Examples of discourse markers include the particles oh, well, now, then, you know, and I mean, and the discourse connectives so, because, and, but, and or.[3] The term discourse marker was popularized by Deborah Schiffrin in her 1987 book Discourse Markers.[4]

Usage in English

[edit]

Common discourse markers used in the English language include you know, actually, basically, like, I mean, okay and so. Discourse markers come from varied word classes, such as adverbs (well) or prepositional phrases (in fact). The process that leads from a free construction to a discourse marker can be traced back through grammaticalization studies and resources.[citation needed] Discourse markers can be seen as a “joint product” of grammaticalization and cooption, explaining both their grammatical behavior and their metatextual properties.[5]

Traditionally, some of the words or phrases that were considered discourse markers were treated as fillers or expletives: words or phrases that had no function at all. Now they are assigned functions in different levels of analysis: topic changes, reformulations, discourse planning, stressing, hedging, or backchanneling.

Yael Maschler divided discourse markers into four broad categories: interpersonal, referential, structural, and cognitive.[6]

  • Interpersonal markers are used to indicate the relationship between the speaker and the listener.
    • Perception: look, believe me
    • Agreement: exactly, or disagreement: I'm not sure
    • Amazement: wow
  • Referential markers, usually conjunctions, are used to indicate the sequence, causality, and coordination between statements.
    • Sequence: now, then
    • Causality: because
    • Coordination: and, or non-coordination: but
  • Structural markers indicate the hierarchy of conversational actions at the time in which they are spoken. These markers indicate which statements the speaker believes to be most or least important.
    • Organization: first of all
    • Introduction: so
    • Summarization: in the end
  • Cognitive markers reveal the speaker's thought process
    • Processing information: uhh
    • Realization: oh!
    • Rephrasing: I mean

In her book on discourse analysis, Barbara Johnstone called discourse markers that are used by speakers to take the floor (like so) "boundarymarking uses" of the word. This use of discourse markers is present and important in both monologue and dialogue situations.[2]

Examples in other languages

[edit]

Another example of an interpersonal discourse marker is the Yiddish marker nu, also used in Modern Hebrew and other languages, often to convey impatience or to urge the listener to act (cf. German cognate nun, meaning 'now' in the sense of 'at the moment being discussed', but contrast Latin etymological cognate nunc, meaning 'now' in the sense of 'at the moment in which discussion is occurring'; Latin used iam for 'at the moment being discussed' (and many other meanings) and German uses jetzt for 'at the moment in which discussion is occurring').[7] The French phrase à propos can indicate 'a smooth or a more abrupt discourse shift.'[5]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Discourse marker

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A discourse marker is a lexical expression, typically drawn from classes such as conjunctions, adverbs, or prepositional phrases, that signals a relationship between segments of discourse by linking a subsequent segment (S2) to a prior one (S1). These markers convey procedural rather than conceptual meaning, guiding the interpretation of discourse in a context-dependent manner without altering the truth-conditional content of the propositions involved. Common examples include words like "but," "however," and "therefore," which help structure communication in both spoken and written forms. Discourse markers serve dual primary functions: textual and interpersonal. Textually, they organize discourse by indicating relationships such as addition, contrast, cause, or exemplification, thereby enhancing coherence and facilitating the flow of ideas across or utterances. For instance, markers like "so" or "and" often mark inferences, conclusions, or continuations, while "however" signals opposition or contrast. Interpersonally, they engage listeners or readers by expressing speaker attitudes, mitigating face-threatening acts, or managing conversational turns, such as through hesitation fillers like "um" or engagement signals like "you know." These functions are particularly prominent in spoken English, where markers help speakers repair utterances, emphasize points, or check comprehension. In linguistic research, discourse markers are recognized for their multifunctionality, varying by , speaker , and . Studies show they are more frequent in informal speech than formal writing, with non-native speakers often underusing them compared to native users, affecting perceived . For example, the marker "like" can approximate ("I have like a million ideas"), focus new information, or introduce quotations, demonstrating its role in conveying nuance and holding turns. Across languages, equivalents exist but differ in prosody and distribution, influencing cross-linguistic comparisons of pragmatic competence. Overall, discourse markers are essential for interactive coherence, bridging semantic content with pragmatic intent in everyday and academic communication.

Definition and Overview

Core Definition

Discourse markers are lexical expressions that signal relationships between units of discourse, such as or larger segments, without contributing to the propositional content of the . They function primarily at the level of , guiding the interpretation of how one part of the text relates to another, rather than adding to the truth-conditional meaning. Key characteristics of discourse markers include their procedural meaning, which provides instructions for how to process the surrounding ; non-truth-conditional semantics, meaning their presence or absence does not affect the of the ; and prosodic independence, allowing them to form separate intonation units or occur with flexible positioning relative to the clause. These features distinguish discourse markers as pragmatic tools that facilitate coherence and interaction in spoken and written language. The term "discourse marker" emerged in the linguistic literature during the , reflecting growing interest in how speakers organize talk in conversation. It was coined by Deborah Schiffrin in her seminal 1987 book Discourse Markers, where she analyzed their roles in everyday discourse based on sociolinguistic fieldwork. Discourse markers differ from traditional conjunctions, such as "and," which contribute to the propositional structure and truth conditions of sentences, whereas markers like "furthermore" operate outside propositional content to indicate additive relations at the discourse level. Similarly, they are distinguished from fillers like "um," which primarily serve as hesitation devices to manage pauses or planning without structuring discourse relations.

Primary Functions

Discourse markers serve several core roles in organizing , including managing topics by introducing new ones or shifting between them, signaling coherence by linking ideas across utterances, and expressing the speaker's attitude through hedging or emphasis. For instance, markers like "anyway" facilitate topic shifts by indicating a return to a previous line of discussion or departure from an off-track tangent, thereby maintaining the flow of . Similarly, they link propositional content, such as using "so" to indicate consequence or summary, which helps structure the logical progression of ideas. In expressing attitudes, markers like "sort of" hedge commitments to soften assertions, while "really" adds emphasis to convey or surprise. A key distinction in how discourse markers operate is between procedural and conceptual encoding, where they primarily provide procedural instructions that guide the listener's processes without contributing factual or propositional content. Unlike conceptual expressions that add descriptive information to the discourse's truth conditions, procedural markers specify how to interpret relations between utterances, such as directing to contextual assumptions or inferential pathways. This non-propositional allows markers to operate at a meta-level, constraining without altering the core semantic content of the message. These functions significantly enhance listener comprehension by facilitating smooth in conversations and promoting textual cohesion in written or spoken narratives. In interactive settings, markers like "well" signal upcoming responses or repairs, easing transitions between speakers and reducing miscommunication. For cohesion, they create implicit bridges between segments, helping recipients integrate information into a unified whole. Empirical studies underscore their prevalence, highlighting their integral role in everyday communication.

Theoretical Foundations

Role in Pragmatics

In , discourse markers play a crucial role in facilitating and interpretation during communication. Within , proposed by Sperber and Wilson, these markers serve as efficiency aids in ostensive communication, where speakers overtly signal their intent to convey information to hearers. By constraining the interpretive process, markers such as "well" guide hearers toward optimal , reducing cognitive effort in processing utterances while ensuring the manifest assumptions align with contextual expectations. This integration highlights how discourse markers enhance communicative efficiency by explicitly directing inferential pathways, thereby minimizing ambiguity in ostensive acts. Discourse markers also intersect with Gricean implicature theory, extending beyond semantic content to pragmatic inferences. For instance, the marker "but" generates a conventional of contrast, signaling that the subsequent opposes or qualifies the preceding one in a way not entailed by truth-conditional meaning alone. distinguished this from conversational implicature by noting its attachment to specific lexical forms, making it non-cancellable and context-independent in triggering expectations of opposition. This function underscores how discourse markers contribute to adherence, enabling hearers to infer speaker intentions through maxim violations or fulfillments. Furthermore, discourse markers support and face-saving strategies, as outlined in and Levinson's framework, by mitigating threats to interlocutors' positive or negative face. The marker "well," for example, acts as a that softens dispreferred responses or assertions, providing a pause for face redress and allowing speakers to maintain without direct confrontation. This mitigative role aligns with off-record strategies, where indirectness preserves and in interactions. Cross-cultural pragmatic variations reveal differences in discourse marker interpretation, often tied to norms of indirectness. Studies indicate that in high-context cultures emphasizing collectivism, such as certain East Asian societies, markers signaling or are interpreted with greater emphasis on relational , leading to higher indirectness compared to low-context cultures like those in Anglo-American settings, where direct contrast markers like "but" may convey sharper opposition. These interpretive divergences can result in miscommunication if cultural schemas for differ, highlighting the need for context-sensitive pragmatic analysis.

Place in Discourse Analysis

In discourse analysis, Deborah Schiffrin's model positions discourse markers as key elements that integrate utterances across multiple planes of discourse, enabling speakers to construct coherent conversations. Specifically, Schiffrin (1987) identifies four planes: the plane of the idea, which organizes propositional content; the plane of relations, which signals logical connections between ideas; the plane of the exchange, which manages and speaker roles; and the plane of the act, which frames utterances as speech acts. This framework underscores how markers like "oh" or "but" operate simultaneously on these levels to maintain coherence in spoken interaction. Within (SFL), as developed by M.A.K. Halliday, discourse markers contribute primarily to the , which organizes information flow and ensures cohesion in texts. Halliday and Hasan (1976) classify conjunctive elements—many of which function as discourse markers— as cohesive ties that link clauses and sentences, such as through additive ("and"), adversative ("but"), or sequential ("then") relations, thereby creating texture in discourse. This complements ideational and interpersonal functions by structuring the message as a unified whole, with markers facilitating thematic progression and across units of text. In (CA), discourse markers facilitate the sequential organization of talk, particularly in and repair sequences. Adjacency pairs, such as question-answer or greeting-response, rely on markers like "so" to signal transitions or closings, ensuring conditional relevance between turns, as noted in foundational CA work by Schegloff and Sacks (1973). Similarly, in repair sequences—where speakers correct or address troubles in speaking, hearing, or understanding—markers such as "uhm" or "well" initiate self-repairs or other-initiations of repair, maintaining the progressivity of interaction without disrupting its flow. Quantitative approaches in often employ corpus tools to examine marker distribution, revealing patterns in frequency and context. For instance, analysis of the (BNC), a 100-million-word collection of , shows that discourse markers like "well" occur approximately 0.47 times per 1,000 words in spoken subcorpora, with higher frequencies in informal conversations compared to formal genres, highlighting their role in structuring everyday . Such frequency counts, derived from tools like the BNC XML edition, enable researchers to map distributional variations across registers, supporting empirical insights into discourse organization.

Classification and Types

Structural Classifications

Discourse markers are structurally classified according to their syntactic integration within utterances and their prosodic realization, which distinguish them from core sentence elements. Syntactically, they often exhibit loose attachment to the host clause, allowing flexibility in positioning that signals discourse organization without altering propositional content. Prosodically, especially in spoken language, they are marked by distinct acoustic patterns that aid in their identification and functional interpretation. These classifications highlight how form influences the marker's role in structuring interaction. One primary syntactic distinction involves parenthetical versus sentence-initial or positions. Parenthetical markers, such as "you know" or "I mean," are inserted medially or finally within a sentence, maintaining syntactic independence and often set off by pauses or intonation breaks, which positions them outside the main 's argument structure. In contrast, sentence-initial or adverbial markers like "however" or "thus" occupy peripheral positions at the boundary, functioning as adverbials that link propositions while adhering more closely to sentence . This positioning reflects the marker's degree of integration: parentheticals are more detachable and comment-like, whereas adverbials contribute to -level coherence. Structurally, discourse markers also differ between oral and written modes. Oral markers frequently derive from interjections, such as "oh" or "well," which rely on prosodic cues like rising intonation for or emphasis, integrating seamlessly into spontaneous speech flows. Written markers, by comparison, typically appear as conjunctive adverbs (e.g., "moreover" or "consequently") that explicitly connect sentences via , providing visual structural cues in the absence of auditory features. This modality-based divide underscores how oral markers prioritize interactive fluidity, while written ones emphasize textual linearity. Multifunctionality manifests structurally through a single marker's adaptability across positions and forms depending on contextual demands, without altering its core lexical identity. For instance, "anyway" can shift from an role in initial position to a parenthetical one medially, where its procedural signaling of topic resumption varies by syntactic embedding. This flexibility arises from the marker's non-truth-conditional nature, allowing structural variation to cue different planes simultaneously, such as ideational or participatory structures. Phonological features further delineate discourse markers in spoken discourse, with stress patterns and intonation contours serving as key identifiers. Markers often receive reduced stress or form autonomous intonation phrases, marked by level or falling contours and brief pauses, which differentiate them from lexical words; for example, "well" may exhibit a low-rise intonation to invite response. Acoustic analyses, such as those using feature extraction tools, classify these prosodic traits with accuracies up to 87% in lecture corpora and 84% in dialogues, highlighting intonation's role in bounding discourse units.

Functional Categories

Discourse markers are often classified according to their semantic-pragmatic functions in linking or relating segments of , thereby facilitating coherence and guiding interpretation. In this framework, discourse markers act as relational operators that specify the interpretive relationship between an utterance's basic message and the preceding or following context. This classification emphasizes how markers contribute to the overall and flow of communication by encoding relations such as , contrast, causation, or . A core set of functional categories derives from conjunctive relations, which signal logical or semantic connections between propositions. Additive markers, such as "also" or "moreover," function to incorporate new information that supplements or extends prior content without altering its truth conditions. Adversative or contrastive markers, exemplified by "however" or "but," introduce opposition, concession, or correction to the preceding , highlighting differences or limitations. Causal markers, like "therefore" or "because," indicate relations of cause, reason, or result, thereby establishing explanatory links between ideas. Temporal or sequential markers, such as "then" or "next," organize discourse by denoting time-based progression or order of events. In addition to these connective roles, discourse markers fulfill illocutionary functions by modifying the speech act force of an utterance. For instance, "please" serves as an illocutionary marker that indicates a request or polite directive, softening the and signaling speaker intent without contributing to propositional content. Discourse management markers, such as "anyway," enable speakers to navigate conversational structure, often by initiating a topic shift, resuming a prior thread, or dismissing digressions to refocus the interaction. Markers of exemplification and elaboration provide further specification or illustration of preceding ideas, enhancing clarity and detail. markers like "for instance" or "e.g." introduce specific examples to support or clarify a general statement, functioning within elaborative relations to expand on the . These categories collectively underscore the pragmatic versatility of discourse markers in maintaining discourse coherence across various relational dimensions.

Usage in English

Common Examples

Discourse markers such as well, oh, now, and anyway frequently appear in spoken English to manage conversational flow, particularly in informal contexts. Well often serves as a hesitation device to fill pauses while the speaker formulates thoughts or as a marker of resumption after a , for example, "I was thinking about the trip, well, maybe next summer instead." It also functions in backchanneling to acknowledge the listener and signal an upcoming response, as in "That's interesting, well, I agree but...". Oh typically indicates surprise, realization, or a shift in , aiding or backchanneling, such as "Oh, I didn't realize that was the case." Now marks topic shifts or resumption, emphasizing the present point, e.g., "We talked about the budget; now, about the timeline." Anyway signals resumption or dismissal of a side topic to return to the main thread, like "I got sidetracked with the weather; anyway, back to your question." In formal writing, discourse markers like however, moreover, and thus structure arguments by indicating logical relations. However introduces contrast or concession, clarifying opposition between ideas, as in "The results were promising; however, further testing is required." Moreover adds supportive information, building on prior points, for example, "The reduces costs; moreover, it enhances ." Thus denotes consequence or conclusion, linking cause to effect, such as "The data supports this hypothesis; thus, we recommend implementation." These markers enhance coherence in academic and professional texts by explicitly signaling transitions. Informal spoken English commonly features you know and I mean for interactive purposes. You know acts as an exemplifier to engage the listener and check shared understanding, often softening assertions, e.g., "It's like, you know, the best option available." I mean functions as a reformulator to clarify or correct a previous statement, refining the message, as in "He's really dedicated—I mean, he works overtime every week." These markers facilitate smoother exchanges in casual dialogue by inviting participation and adjusting expressions on the fly. Corpus-based analyses highlight well as the most common discourse marker in English conversation, appearing frequently in spoken corpora like the (BNC), where it constitutes a significant portion of turn-initial positions to manage structure. For instance, in the BNC spoken component, well occurs over times, often serving multiple interactive roles.

Contextual Variations

Discourse markers in English exhibit significant variation depending on the level of formality in the communicative context. In formal settings, such as , markers like "nevertheless" are preferred to signal contrast, as they convey a precise opposition between ideas while maintaining a sophisticated tone; for instance, a sentence might read, "The experiment yielded positive results; nevertheless, further validation is required." In contrast, informal casual talk favors simpler markers like "but" for the same function, allowing for fluid, spontaneous expression, as in "I wanted to go, but it was too late." This distinction arises because formal prioritizes clarity and detachment, while informal speech emphasizes relational dynamics and brevity. Dialectal differences further shape the use of discourse markers, particularly with "like," which appears at higher frequencies in (AAVE) compared to mainstream varieties, often serving quotative or approximative roles to enhance narrative vividness and identity signaling. In AAVE, "like" integrates into conversational structures to mark reported speech or thought, contributing to rhythmic and expressive patterns unique to the dialect. These variations reflect broader sociolinguistic embedding, where markers reinforce community norms and cultural resonance. Genre-specific adaptations highlight how discourse markers align with structural demands; sequential markers such as "then" and "next" predominate in narratives to guide chronological progression, as seen in where they organize events into a coherent timeline. Conversely, in discourse, contrastive markers like "however" and "yet" are more prevalent to delineate oppositions and bolster persuasive logic, emphasizing relational tensions between claims. This selective deployment ensures markers support the genre's rhetorical goals, with narratives favoring temporal flow and arguments prioritizing logical confrontation. Sociolinguistic factors, including and age, influence marker frequency and selection, notably for "like," which younger speakers employ more often as a or exemplifier, peaking in to facilitate peer interaction and stylistic . Studies indicate that females tend to use "like" at higher rates than males across age groups, associating it with relational and approximative functions in social contexts. These patterns underscore how markers like "like" serve as identity cues, varying with demographic traits to navigate interpersonal dynamics.

Cross-Linguistic Examples

In Indo-European Languages

In , discourse markers often exhibit functional parallels across Romance and Germanic branches, serving to signal transitions, contrasts, or causal relations in spoken and written . These markers, derived from common ancestral roots, facilitate coherence in communication while adapting to language-specific pragmatic norms. In French, "donc" functions primarily as a causal connector meaning "so" or "therefore," linking propositions in explanatory sequences, while "mais" operates as a contrastive marker equivalent to "but," introducing opposition or concession in dialogues. These usages are prevalent in oral French, where "donc" reinforces inference and "mais" softens disagreements, as observed in corpus analyses of conversational data. German employs "aber" similarly as a contrastive discourse marker for "but," marking shifts in argumentative flow or topic boundaries, and "nun" as a sequential indicating "now" to structure progression or temporal ordering. In spoken German, "nun" often signals a pause for elaboration, akin to English "now," enhancing in interactions. In Spanish, particularly in oral , discourse markers—commonly known as muletillas—are extensively used to fill pauses, facilitate transitions, clarify ideas, seek agreement, or contribute to natural-sounding casual speech. "Pues" serves as a polyfunctional marker translating to "well," used for topic initiation, hesitation, or exemplification, while "entonces" denotes "then" or "so" to indicate consequence or chronological sequence. Other common muletillas include "bueno" ("well" or "okay") to start statements or express agreement, "o sea" ("I mean" or "that is") to clarify or rephrase, "a ver" ("let's see") to pause or reflect, "este" or "esto" ("um") for hesitation (more prevalent in some regions), "en plan" ("like") in informal speech especially in Spain, "¿sabes?" ("you know?") to seek agreement, "vale" ("okay" or "right") especially in Spain, "es que" ("it's just that") to provide explanation, and "digamos" ("let's say") to approximate or hedge. Usage varies regionally, with certain markers more characteristic of Peninsular Spanish (e.g., "en plan," "vale") or Latin American varieties (e.g., "este"). These markers are frequent in contexts among Spanish speakers, where "pues" bridges ideas and "entonces" advances plots in personal recounts. Many such discourse markers in these languages share etymologies traceable to Proto-Indo-European roots. For instance, contrastive markers like French "mais" and the Spanish "mas" (an archaic form equivalent to "but") derive from Latin "magis," while sequential forms such as German "nun" connect to broader Indo-European deictic particles. This shared heritage underscores functional similarities, such as causal signaling, despite phonological divergences.

In Non-Indo-European Languages

In Japanese, sentence-final particles such as ne and yo serve as key discourse markers that modulate interpersonal dynamics in spoken interaction. The particle ne primarily functions to seek agreement or confirmation from the listener, acting as a mediatory device that fosters shared understanding and emotional involvement while maintaining conversational harmony. In contrast, yo conveys assertive emphasis, signaling the speaker's or stance to underscore the and guide the hearer's response without direct confrontation. These particles exemplify how Japanese discourse markers often operate at the utterance periphery, integrating prosodic and pragmatic cues to manage and relational aspects of dialogue. In , utterance-final particles like ba and a fulfill interactional roles by softening or suggesting propositions within discourse. The particle ba typically adopts a suggestive function, inviting agreement or compliance in a tentative manner, which helps mitigate face-threatening acts during social exchanges. Similarly, a (or its variant ya) serves as a softener, reducing the of statements to promote and in ongoing interaction. These markers highlight typological features of , where modality particles encode subtle pragmatic nuances that align with cultural emphases on indirectness and relational harmony. Arabic employs particles such as wa and to extend connective and emphatic roles across discourse units. The conjunction wa ("and") functions beyond simple coordination to link clauses or sentences, facilitating cohesive transitions and additive relations in or argumentative structures. Meanwhile, ("indeed") acts as an emphatic marker, elevating the of propositions in equational sentences and directing interpretive focus toward factual assertion. In like , these particles integrate syntactic case assignment with discourse-level signaling, differing from Indo-European patterns by embedding emphasis within nominal frameworks. Translating these prosodic discourse markers from non-Indo-European languages to English presents significant challenges, as particles like Japanese ne/yo, Mandarin ba/a, and wa/inna often lack direct equivalents and rely on contextual inference or intonation that does not transfer straightforwardly. This results in frequent under- or over-translation in subtitling or literary contexts, where the interactional or emphatic nuances are diminished, altering the pragmatic intent. Such difficulties underscore typological divergences, where non-Indo-European markers prioritize relational and prosodic functions over explicit lexical content.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216698001015
  2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222481598_What_are_discourse_markers
  3. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44020-022-00005-3
  4. https://www.mdpi.com/2226-471X/10/10/266
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9620696/
  6. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1427062/full
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0024384196900261
  8. https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/bpl_images/content_store/WWW_Content/9780631205951/003.pdf
  9. https://www.academia.edu/33515033/Discourse_Markers_Deborah_Schiffrin
  10. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/discourse-markers/A03E5F3A2E1A32F803256EF79F37374E
  11. https://journals.uni-lj.si/elope/article/download/3258/2965/6042
  12. https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/bpl_images/content_store/WWW_Content/9780631205951/005.pdf
  13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.40.1-2.24
  14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360658171_Unpacking_the_functions_of_discourse_markers_in_academic_spoken_English_a_corpus-based_study
  15. https://monoskop.org/images/e/e6/Sperber_Dan_Wilson_Deirdre_Relevance_Communica_and_Cognition_2nd_edition_1996.pdf
  16. https://web.stanford.edu/~cgpotts/papers/potts-book-2005.pdf
  17. http://www.ugr.es/~frapolli/Gricedef.pdf
  18. https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_64421/component/file_2225570/content
  19. https://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/lee-well.pdf
  20. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311983.2018.1461048
  21. https://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
  22. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/discourse-syntax/discourse-markers/F1D328AEFDB121C6EC54A000D8FE6AC8
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215039022000017
  24. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/pbns.57.07rou/html
  25. https://beckassets.blob.core.windows.net/product/readingsample/112309/9780521886734_excerpt_001.pdf
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216608001859
  27. https://nps.edu/web/gwc/conjunctive-adverbs
  28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247932401_The_Multifunctionality_of_Discourse_Markers
  29. https://aclanthology.org/W09-3715.pdf
  30. https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2015/Papers/ICPHS0634.pdf
  31. https://journals.uni-lj.si/elope/article/download/3323/3016
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037821669090096V
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216620301302
  34. https://www.atlantisjournal.org/index.php/atlantis/article/view/733
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339029033_The_Use_of_%27Oh%27_and_%27Well%27_as_Discourse_Markers_in_Conversation_of_Bandung_State_Polytechnic_Students
  36. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/discourse-markers/well-marker-of-response/226930FF401D6A0C411610613C3A6570
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216625000955
  38. https://openlab.citytech.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/group-documents/19864/1522867039-MaschlerSchiffrinproofsfinal.pdf
  39. https://ojs.plhr.org.pk/journal/article/download/982/867/1628
  40. https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijel/article/download/0/0/51434/55882
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50819070_An_analysis_of_english_discourse_markers_of_reformulation
  42. https://minerva.usc.gal/rest/api/core/bitstreams/0e0dd0a9-51d3-4bd4-a835-c8e54d8e1fd4/content
  43. https://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/bncfreq/
  44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276232630_Causal_and_Contrastive_Discourse_Markers_in_Novice_Academic_Writing
  45. https://www.asau.ru/files/pdf/1708701.pdf
  46. https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/english/discourse/discourse-markers/
  47. https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-speech/article-pdf/84/3/259/229805/ASp84.3.1Kohn-Franz.pdf
  48. http://martinschweinberger.de/docs/articles/mschPHD20150129.pdf
  49. https://jurnal.unimed.ac.id/2012/index.php/ellu/article/download/36226/18733
  50. https://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_4_Special_Issue_February_2014/34.pdf
  51. https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-speech/article/88/2/117/5970/THE-DEVELOPMENT-OF-Children-s-USE-OF-DISCOURSE
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378252142_A_corpus-based_analysis_of_discourse_marker_%27like%27_functions_in_podcasts_A_gender_study
  53. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04961492/document
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002438411200160X
  55. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110348989-010/html
  56. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-in-society/article/catherine-e-travis-discourse-markers-in-colombian-spanish-a-study-in-polysemy/E8E091DA142FBBCF68AC703C240640B9
  57. https://repository.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/35/
  58. https://www.spanishdict.com/guide/filler-words-in-spanish
  59. https://www.spanishobsessed.com/spanish-fillers/
  60. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mais
  61. https://theses.cz/id/ym1cvi/DP_Jana_Belicova_Japanese_Discourse_Markers.pdf
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216606001330
  63. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00105.x
  64. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220531692_Relevance_and_the_Discourse_Functions_of_Mandarin_Utterance-Final_Modality_Particles_1
  65. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=ltt_etds
  66. https://www.davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/65e7cdc7127f6.pdf
  67. https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.943.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.