JOURNAL OF ELT AND POETRY

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Issue.2. 2014
JOURNAL OF ELT AND Vol.2.
POETRY
A Peer reviewed International Research Journal
Articles available online http://ww.journalofelt.in
A Premier Publication from KY PUBLICATIONS, India.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
DISCOURSE MARKERS AND THEIR FUNCTIONS IN KHORRAMABADI VARIETY OF
LORI
MILAD EINI ROUMIANI , MOHAMMAD JAVAD MOHAMMADI , BIZHAN HEKMATSHOAR
TABARI
1
2
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz
Fraydan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.
3
Ayandegan University of Tonekabon, Iran
ABSTRACT
Article Info:
Article Received: 20/03/2014
Revised on: 15/04/2014
Accepted on :17/04/2014
Discourse markers (hence after DMs) are those linguistic elements which
connect the speech and sentences without changing the basic meaning.
The present study intended to target the various functions of DMs in the
speaking of two groups of teenagers and adult speaker of Persian language.
To this aim the study took into account three DMs such as kha, dache, and
um, in spontaneous telephone conversations between about 20 Lori native
speakers. Obtained results revealed a statistically significant use of these
polysemous DMs by the speakers. Kha mostly functions as back channel to
assure that hearer is following what the speaker is saying. Da che primarily
acts as topic-introducing to start a new topic. Um in most cases is used as
pause-filler for the speaker to buy some more time in organizing the next
possible messages.
KEY WORDS: discourse marker, polysemous discourse marker, filler,
conjunction
.
INTRODUCTION
Discourse markers(DMs) are phrases and words or maybe some sounds like phrases which function in
the linguistic system to create relationships among the topics or grammatical parts in discourse and make the
235 |
http://www.journalofelt.in
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Vol.2. Issue.2. 2014
speech or discourse cohesive (Hellerman&Vergun, 2006). According to Müller (2004) discourse markers have
been investigated from a variety of viewpoints and approaches, e.g. as demonstrating sequential relationships
between parts of a text or other kinds of conversations.
Schourup (1999) calls DMs by a variety of other names, such as discourse particles and discourse
operators. These particles and operators act as connective elements in the speech, which Lenk (1998) assigns
this name to above mentioned DMs and it means parts that fit together well so that this is obvious and easy
for understanding. According to these definitions and terms which assigned to DMs, DMs are divided into two
categories or more, particles such as (well, then, I mean) also known as fillers and operators or connectives
such as (and, because, but,if) which are also called conjunctions(Fraser, 1999).
Generally, speakers when they are talking to each other try to make the speech more understandable by using
DMs, and this also makes the situations comfortable for them to think about the next step in speaking by
saving their time. But notice that DMs always do not carry just one function with them, there can be more
function in one DM, so this kind of DM is called polysemous DM. An extensive body of research concerning
discourse analysis is dedicated to highlight the different functions of DMs in many languages. Considering the
importance of this matter and the fact that almost nothing has done about functions of DMs based on the
comparison of adults and teenagers using these elements so far, the present study aims to address the
frequency of DMs between two groups of adults and teenagers with the logic of comparing the DMs usage and
their frequency in these two groups of speakers.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Linguists have analyzed DMs from different points of view; some investigated the DMs based on their
connectivity functions and coherence like Lenk (1998). The work Lenk has worked on it is about the coherence
made by DMs and the coherence which is established by DMs for better understanding. In the first work the
focus is on DMs such as however and still and their role in increasing the coherence of spoken discourse.
Degand (2009) studied the DMs; she defined DMs as polysemous linguistic items. A DM can have more than
one function at the same time which is referred as polysemous DMs, and one of the goals of this paper is to
consider these kindsof DMs. DMs show a relationship between discourse units, and the optionality of DMs
backs to the fact that they are always syntactically optional; it means they (DMs) can be removed from the
sentences without changing the meaning and also without changing the grammatical structure (Degand,
2009). Within the wide scope of ways which deal with polyfunctionality of DMs two extremes are possible. The
first one is the so-called monosemy which refers to those DMs with just one function or meaning and the
second is so-called homonymy which are ascribed to those DMs with different interpretations of meaning and
functions (Degand, 2009). In her study Degand found many DMs with different functions which can be come
out from polysemous DMs by different notions.
Fuller (2003) considered DMs such as you know, like, oh, well, yeah, and I mean in two speech
contexts to find about the role of DMs in marking and negotiating speaking roles. The contexts were interview
and casual conversations. By above mentioned factors Fuller wanted to describe the status of DMs in her
study. The results of her study shows that oh and well are more used in conversations. In this study well and oh
are used as reception markers for creating the coherence between speaker turns. In interviews, speakers use
oh and well less for their role as interviewee does not need as much response to the other interlocutor’s
statements. The DMs youknow, like, yeah and I mean were used at same rates in the contexts, showing that
the functions of these presentation markers are more universal.
Cohen (2007) defines DMs as verbal items such as well, yeah, like which lack semantic weight but
operate at the discourse domain. So such verbal items interpreted as parts of linguistic performance. Cohen
argues that DMs are mono-functional verbal items, which the whole function is to work as conversational
controlling means; that is, to show the status of a conversation participant’s alignment with the proceeding
conversation at the exact time.
Giving the importance of DMs in making the speech more coherent and the fact that very little study
has been devoted to highlight the use and functions of DMs among Iranian native speakers, the present study
236 |
http://www.journalofelt.in
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Vol.2. Issue.2. 2014
aims to comparethe frequency of DMs usage between two groups of adults and teenagers specifically using
the DM um.
METHODOLOGY
PARTICIPANTS
The aim of this article is to investigate the frequency of DMs in the speaking of two groups of teenagers and
adults. Two groups of teenagers and adults were randomly selected to this aim which their age ranges from 20
to 23 for the first group and 27 to 30 for the second. The selection of the participants was based on the point
of comparing the frequency of the use of DMs between the group of teenagers and adults.
INSTRUMENTS
The instruments applied in this study were clearlyan audio recorder by which the speakers’ voice was
recorded in a high quality for more and precise investigation concerning the use of DMs. This audio recorder
recorded the voices of native participants in a high quality which anybody can hear any elements in the
speakers’ voice. The participants in this study were not required to speak in a routine conversation like an
interview; accordingly their speaking was recorded spontaneously. The participants were only required to
retell the short story as they were telling the story for a child.
PROCEDURE
Every participant of the present study was given a short story and also a specific period of time to
rehears the story and then retells it. In this way the participants did the job and retold the story individually.
Their voice was recorded and investigated several times by the researcher for recognizing the frequency of
DMs usage in their speaking. In this study 20 participants’voice when they were retelling the short story was
recorded and every part was about 4 minutes in average. The duration of the whole audio recorded data was
about 80 minutes.
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The first step was to calculate the words which were articulated by the participants; therefore, the
researcher calculated the whole words. For doing this, the whole conversations (about 80 minutes) were
transcribed and the total number of words was calculated. The calculation showed there were about 8840
totally (the exact number of words said by the speaker was not clear). In this study only one possible DMum,
was the target for investigating the frequency of DMs usage in speaking. The rationale behind this point was
that because the speakers were not supposed to have a conversation and their speaking was a kind of
monologue. So, the researcher only focused on the use of the above-mentioned DM (um). It is worthy to say
that for being sure about the results the researcher had to listen to any conversation separately more than
once and also another party was called to listen to the conversations and the number of DMs used in
conversations for more certainty. At the end, the conversations were listened by researcher and assistants for
the use of DMs and their functions (notablypolysemuos functions). The different and possible polysemous
functions of DMs were controlled and some examples with their translations in English were presented and
explained from corpora in depth.
The results revealed the three selected DMs frequencies, and what here is worthy to mention is that
the functions and possible polysemous functions of each DM calculated together, further analysis in detail will
be showed in the examples of different functions of these DMs in different situations with different intends.
Kha
This DM has at least three functions in Lori dialect, something identical to khob in Persian language.
The first function of this DM is signaling the other part of conversation in a rising intonation to say more or
continue the story which he/she is talking about. In this situation the speaker wants to know more and signal
the other party to continue talking about intended subject which both are talking about.
237 |
http://www.journalofelt.in
Vol.2. Issue.2. 2014
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Table1. DMs and their frequency
The number of
occurrence
DM “Kha”
DM “da che”
DM “um”
Speaker 1
8
3
3
Speaker 2
6
2
5
Speaker 3
5
4
3
Speaker 4
7
4
2
Speaker 5
4
1
6
Speaker 6
6
3
5
Speaker 7
8
2
5
Speaker 8
7
2
4
Speaker 9
5
3
6
Speaker 10
4
4
5
Speaker 11
5
3
4
Speaker 12
7
1
5
Speaker 13
6
2
4
Speaker 14
5
1
3
Speaker 15
8
1
5
Speaker 16
6
2
6
Speaker 17
4
1
6
Speaker 18
6
3
5
Speaker 19
6
2
4
Speaker 20
5
1
3
118
45
89
Total number
In example (1), the first function of this DM is presented. Here, the other party is talking about
something and the selected speaker stops him/her to signal him/her for getting new information and also the
rest of the story. The researcher just indicated to the selected speaker’s statements. It works as an
intonational cue, by rising intonation the speaker wants to signal something significant or as back channel to
assure the speaker that the hearer is following his/her speech.
Example (1): /gotirӕ tǝ nӕ u:tʃ ǝ , hӕ ?/ /Xa?/
Translation: you said they went there. /? Tell me more/go on.
238 |
http://www.journalofelt.in
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Vol.2. Issue.2. 2014
In the above example the selected speaker repeats the other party’s statement again, in a question
form or just in a declarative one to get more information about the story and find more about the rest of the
story.
Another function of the khais to get affirmation from the other party to continue the conversation, in
other words this DM works like a green light to continue the movement. Itfunctions as turn-maintenance.
Example (2): /daʃ tǝ mmǝ rӕ temhonӕ ʃ okebeɪ nemǝ ʃ , Xa? /
Translation: I was going to their home to see him…ok?
In this situation the selected speaker is talking to the other party and then uses the DM to get
affirmation and permission from the other party for going on. Here the speaker also wants to get the attention
of the other speaker. It is concluded that one of the functions of khais to serve as attention cue for getting
other parties’ attention.
The third function of the khais when the speaker imposes a kind of stipulation in his/her addressee’s
statement or something like the opposite statement. In this situation again the selected speaker stops the
other party’s talking to add his/her idea or opinion about the subject which they are talking about.
Example (3): /Xa…roeɪ utʃ ǝ beɪ nishkenemǝ toniveʃ boeɪ ! ӕ gӕ rkӕ sǝ teʃ bu:ӕ ./
Translation: If you go there and see him, you won’t be able to tell him! If he will not be alone, you
cannot tell him.
Here khaacts as a conditional marker. The selected speaker stops the other one’s speaking and say
his/her opinion about the condition. The khahere acts like English“if”, and stipulates something in the
situations. In addition to state his/her opinion the speaker wants to say to the other speaker that something
he/she is going to do is not possible.
Da che
Da che is used mostof the times for closing a topic under conversation and opening another topic for
discussing. The other function of da che is to get new information from the other party and also acts like
“anything else?” Examples provided in the study show more about the functions of this DM which are two
functions.
Example (4): /daʃ tǝ mmerӕ tǝ m je dӕ fӕ dǝ Xǝ a:bodi:meʃ ./ (Speaker 1)/Dӕ tʃ ǝ , karekӕ tXu:
peʃ merӕ ? hoqu:qeʃ Xua?/ (Selected speaker)
Translation: I was crossing the street and see him suddenly. (Speaker 1)
What else? How is your job? How is your salary? (Selected speaker)
In this example the speaker 1 is talking about something which is nearly finished and not important
for the selected speaker anymore, and then the selected speaker stops him/her and changes the topic and
closes the former topic by introducing another new topic. This DM is sometimes used more than once in a
sentence but not always. It functions as a topic introducing marker.
The second function of da cheis to get new information, here the DM used somehow separate from
the whole text or sentence but it considered as a DM. The speaker says this DM to get news and new
information about other things which might have happened.
Example (5): /dӕ tʃ ǝ ? tʃ eXӕ bӕ rdǝ beraret? Ha kodƷ a? /
Translation: what else? What’s new about your brother? Where is he?
Here the other party may is talking about his/her family and the selected speaker stops him/her again
and asks about another member of the other speaker’ family to get new information. Something here which
should be mentioned is that the function of da cheis like the first function of khain the way that the speaker
wants to get new information. Another point is that in Lori dialect sometimes two DMs kha and da cheused
together in those situations mentioned above. But here the merged phrase cannot be a DM precisely and
should be studied more.
Example (6): /Xadӕ tʃ ǝ ? tʃ eXӕ bӕ r?/
Translation: ok…what else? What’s new?
In this example the speaker says the phrase which is the result of merging the two DMs to get new
information again, but it is used in separate and farther distance in a sentence which is uttered.
239 |
http://www.journalofelt.in
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Vol.2. Issue.2. 2014
Um
This DM is used by speakers as pause filler most of the time, but other applications and functions of
this DM also are significant. The first functionum manifests is when the speaker hesitates about next step in
talking and take his/her time to think more about what he/she wants to say in continue. The other function is
when the other party is talking and the second party continues the talking by saying um to show the
agreement with his/her addressee and this may be accompanied by nodding the head and other body
gestures.
Example (7): /omaɪ tʃ ǝ …um…got kevebabatboketӕ masǝ vambeɪ rӕ ./
Translation: he came here…um…said to me “Tell your father tocall me”.
In the above example the speaker is talking, but hesitates about the next word or phrase he/she
wants to say and in this moment uses the um as a pause filler to think for some seconds or less, and then he
goes on the conversation, this pause filler has the same function in English, and is equal with its counterpart
uhhin English.
Example (8): /veostadgotemkemǝ mӕ qalӕ nǝ neveʃ temӕ ./(Speaker 1)
/ um…tʃ ǝ got ostad?/ (Selected speaker)
Translation: I told to the teacher that I had written the paper. (Speaker 1)
Um…what did the teacher say? (Selected speaker)
In example (8), the speaker 1 is talking about a subject and the selected speaker in his/her turn tries
to show his/her agreement by saying um and this signals the speaker 1 that he/she paid attention and got the
message, and then continues the conversation more. The DM um here has the function of attention, which is
called attentional cue.
CONCLUSION
The aim of this study was to investigate the functions of three and the most frequent polysemousDMs
kha, da che, and um in Lori dialect. For this aim a group of 20 native speakerswas selected and their phone
conversations were recorded in a spontaneous way. Then the recorded audio was listened for investigating the
functions of these three polysemous DMs, and analysis in details revealed the different functions of above
DMs in different situations.
The first function of kha is to get new information from the other party or the addressee in a rising
intonation, so it is considered as an intonational cue. The other function of the khais when the speaker wants
to get the affirmation from the other party and its counterpart in English is ok, but in a rising intonation. It
works like a green light which says the way is open for going on the conversation. The third function of this DM
is imposing a kind of stipulation on the addressee’s statement; by this act the speaker states his/her idea
about the subject.
Da che is mostly used for terminating a topic and starting another one for discussing. A further
function of da che is to get new information from the other party; this DM acts like its English counterpart
“anything else?”
Um is used by speakers as pause filler most of the time. The first function is when the speaker
requires extra time to go to the next step in talking and think more about what he/she wants to say in
continue. The other function is when the other party is talking and the second party continues the talking by
saying um to indicate the agreement with his/her addressee and this may be accompanied by body language
such as nodding the head.
The present study accompanied by some limitations because of the way data was gathered. The main
problem was the quality of some parts of the recorded conversations. Some recorded conversations had not
the acceptable quality and this was mainly the result of spontaneous recording, for example some additional
noises which were recorded during the process made it impossible to analyze the voice of participants closely.
So the researcher had to ignore these recordings and look for other participants to record their voice in a
better situation.
The researcher just focused on the three of the most frequent DMs in Khorramabadi variety of Lori.
Of course there are other DMs in this language which demands more investigations. Therefore, Lori speaking
240 |
http://www.journalofelt.in
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Vol.2. Issue.2. 2014
researchers working in this arena can carry out their studies based on the centrality of DMs roles in the spoken
language to reach a comprehensive glossary of Lori DMs.
REFERENCES
Cohen, E. (2007). Discourse markers: context and context sensitivity. Proceedings of the Israeli Linguistic
Society 16.
Degand, L. (2009). On describing polysemous discourse markers. What does translation add to the picture?
Universitécatholique de Louvain
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Elsevier, Lingua (31), 931-952.
Fuller, J. M. (2003). The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use.Elsevier, Lingua (35), 23-45.
Hellerman, J. &Vergun, A. (2007). Language which is not taught: the discourse marker use of beginning adult
learners of English. Elsevier, Lingua (39), 157-179.
Lenk, U. (1998). Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation. Elsevier, Lingua (30), 245-257.
Müller, S. (2004).Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse.Justus Liebig University,
Giessen.John Benjamins Publishing Company.Amstedam/Philadelphia.
Ruhi, Ş. (2009). The pragmatics of yanias a parenthetical marker in Turkish: Evidence from the METU Turkish
Corpus. Working papers in corpus-based linguistics and language educations3.
Shourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Elsevier, Lingua (107), 227-265.
241 |
http://www.journalofelt.in

Download Report