Co-occurrence of discourse markers in English: From juxtaposition to composition

Cuenca, María Josep; Crible, Ludivine

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.001

Cited by 25 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The full list of the 33 DM types is the following: allez, alors, après, Ludivine Crible, Liesbeth Degand au fond, ben, bien que, bon, bref, donc, eh ben, en fait, en même temps, en plus, encore que, enfin, et, et puis, hein, là, maintenant, mais, même que, ou, ou alors, parce que, pourtant, puis, quand même, quoi, quoique, sinon, tu vois, voilà. Appendix 3 reproduces the list of all the DMs in the sample with their annotated domains and functions. It should be noted that we considered some complex DMs as one unit (e.g., et puis, eh ben) when they were fixed, their order of appearance could not be reversed and they performed one joint function (see Cuenca & Crible, 2019, for co-occurrence criteria).…”

Section: Data Used In This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Domains and Functions: A Two-Dimensional Account of Discourse Markers

Crible¹,

Degand²

2019

discours

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discourse markers and their functions have been modeled through a large number of very diverse frameworks. Most of these models target written language and the discourse relations that hold between sentences. In this paper, we present, assess and apply a new annotation taxonomy that targets discourse markers (instead of discourse relations) in spoken language and addresses their polyfunctionality in an alternative way. In particular, its main innovative feature is to distinguish between two independent layers of semantic-pragmatic information (i.e., domains and functions) which, once combined, provide a fine-grained disambiguation of discourse markers. We compare the affordances of this model to existing proposals, and illustrate them with a corpus study. A sample of conversational French containing 423 discourse marker tokens was fully analyzed by two independent annotators. We report on inter-annotator agreement scores, as well as quantitative analyses of the distribution of domains and functions in the sample. Both powerful and economical, this proposal advocates a flexible and modular approach to discourse analysis, and paves the way for further corpus-based studies on the challenging category of discourse markers.

show abstract

Section: Data Used In This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Domains and Functions: A Two-Dimensional Account of Discourse Markers

Crible¹,

Degand²

2019

discours

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, a compound DM, as an instance of a combined DM, is a DM which consists of more than one DM and which jointly act as a single DM expressing a single meaning. This can be shown in the following example (Cuenca & Crible, 2019, p. 179):Imagine you’re in a pub and I’ve said to you what’s he like (1.900) and then just describe them (0.200) he’s this and this//I think people aren’t used to describing peoples’ personalities//no no no it wa- but anyway all I’m saying is it’s been a very interesting way of meeting people…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Imagine you're in a pub and I've said to you what's he like (1.900) and then just describe them (0.200) he's this and this//I think people aren't used to describing peoples' personalities//no no no it wa-but anyway all I'm saying is it's been a very interesting way of meeting people Cuenca and Crible (2019) suggest that in this example but and anyway act jointly as a repair of an incomplete utterance which prefaces a concluding remark. Cuenca and Crible (2019) argue that juxtaposed DMs are different from combined DMs with respect to their behavior and their scope over discourse units. They mention that "juxtaposed DMs take scope on different units, whereas combined DMs take scope over the same discourse unit" (p. 172).…”

Section: Analysis ʕAla Alruʁummentioning

confidence: 99%

Two Types of Concession: Evidence From Discourse Markers

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the use of concessive discourse markers (DMs) in Jordanian Arabic (JA), particularly relying on a corpus analysis of naturally occurring data. It argues that there are mainly two types of concession in JA: extrinsic concession and intrinsic concession. The two types of concession are shown to differ from each other with respect to Kratzer’s compatibility of propositions. Intrinsic concession occurs when a speaker has a manifest intention/meaning that does not cause hearers to question its occurrence. This type is realized when one discourse segment is not compatible (i.e., does not normally happen at the same time) with another discourse segment (e.g., somebody is so rich, but he/she lives in a very poor house). Extrinsic concession, on the other hand, occurs when a speaker has a latent intention/meaning that normally causes hearers to question its occurrence. This type of concession emerges when discourse segments are compatible with each other (i.e., may normally happen at the same time), in which case the made-up concession is enforced by the speaker (e.g., somebody is poor, but he/she lives in a poor house). The study shows that certain discourse markers in JA are preferred over others in each type.

show abstract

“…), which even prompted Schneider (2014) to suggest anduh and butuh as joint spellings for these recurrent clusters in English. Indeed, through repeated joint exposure, discourse markers and filled pauses might become entrenched as one unit, forming a "complex" discourse marker, similar to and then, with a specific function (see Crible & Cuenca, 2019). By contrast, the higher relative frequency of the opposite pattern (e.g.…”

Section: Filled Pauses and Discourse Markersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dual status of filled pauses: Evidence from genre, proficiency and co-occurrence

Kosmala

Crible

2021

Lang Speech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present corpus study aims to contribute to the debate regarding the lexical or non-lexical status of filled pauses. Although they are commonly associated with hesitation, disfluency, and production difficulty, it has also been argued that they can serve more fluent communicative functions in discourse (e.g., turn-taking, stance-marking). Our work is grounded in a usage-based and discourse-functional approach to filled pauses, and we address this debate by examining the multiple characteristics of euh and eum in spoken French, as well as their co-occurrence with discourse markers. Combining quantitative and qualitative analyses, we analyze their distribution across different communication settings (prepared monologs vs. spontaneous conversations) and levels of language proficiency (native vs. non-native). Quantitative findings indicate differences in frequency, duration, position, and patterns of co-occurrence across corpora, and our qualitative analyses identify fine-grained differences, mainly two distinct patterns of distribution (initial position clustered with a discourse marker vs. medial position clustered with other hesitation markers), reflecting the different “fluent” and “disfluent” uses of filled pauses. We thus argue for a dual status of euh and eum based on formal, functional, and contextual features.

show abstract

Co-occurrence of discourse markers in English: From juxtaposition to composition

Cited by 25 publications

References 13 publications

Domains and Functions: A Two-Dimensional Account of Discourse Markers

Domains and Functions: A Two-Dimensional Account of Discourse Markers

Two Types of Concession: Evidence From Discourse Markers

The dual status of filled pauses: Evidence from genre, proficiency and co-occurrence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About