. . .

, 2010

811.11142

CONTRASTIVE DISCOURSE MARKERS IN INDIRECTNESS

STRATEGIES

Volkova L.M.

.

,
, , .
: , ,
, , .

, , , .
: , ,
, , .

The article introduces contrastive discourse markers of the English language and
reveals the role they play in realizing indirect discursive strategies. Concessive and
temporal semantics of discourse markers makes them perfect means of realization of
indirect discourse strategies of inducement, evaluation, hedging, changing or closing
the topic of interaction.
Key words: discourse marker, discourse strategy, explicit proposition, implicit proposition,
correlation.

People have different beliefs about language. One
of them is that good usage involves (among other
things) clarity, precision and directness. Hence, it is
believed that vagueness, ambiguity, imprecision, and
general woolliness are to be avoided [2, p. 1]. However,
actual language in use proves the contrary. Language
is deceptive and vague because it is used by people.
Quite often, for different reasons, we tend not to reveal
our real purpose. To achieve his communicative
intention, the communicator has to choose one of a
range of different language and speech means we have
at our disposal. In natural communication it is often
achieved by indirectness strategies. The article is aimed
at revealing the role of discourse markers in
communicative indirect strategies. The object of
investigation of the article is discourse markers with the
invariant meaning of contrast as components of
indirectness strategies. The subject of investigation is
semantic, pragmatic and functional peculiarities of the
discourse markers. The actuality of the research is
predetermined by the necessity of revealing specific
conditions of functioning of those language units that
are devoid of referential and nominative power.
The notion of discourse markers was first introduced
by D.Schiffrin. She defined discourse markers as
sequentially dependent elements that bracket units of
talk and considered them as a set linguistic expressions
that comprised of members of word classes as varied
as conjunctions (because, and, but, or), interjections
(oh), adverbs (now, then), and lexicalized phrases
(yknow, I mean). Her main conclusion was that these
markers could work at different levels of discourse to
connect utterances across different planes [4, p. 312; 5,
p. 5475]. A decade later D. Blakemore classified as
discourse markers some utterance initial units like so,
well, still, after all defining the role these expressions
play as marking, signaling or indicating how one unit of
discourse is connected to another [1, p. 113]. B.Frazer
sees discourse markers as serving an integrative function
in discourse, contributing to discourse coherence, he
defines them as discourse glue and provides their
pragmatic classification; his list of discourse markers
comprises about 30 lexical items belonging to different
classes of words [3, p. 116]. All language analysts
mentioned above agree upon the fact that the main
function of discourse markers is to provide cohesive
ties within discourse fragments. In this article, we will
try to show that cohesive function is not the only one,
and by far not the most important one that these small
language units can perform.

100
 Contrastive discourse markers are defined so
because at the discourse level they correlate two
utterances by means of rendering the semantic
meaning of contrast: the explicit proposition with a
discourse marker is opposed to the implicit proposition
that is not expressed formally in the discourse. Let us
consider the following example:
Luigi smiled with excitement. With a little luck, his
cameras were about to record Marco getting nabbed.
Maybe they would kill him right there in the living room,
captured on film. Perhaps the plan would work after all
[6, p. 236].
In the given text fragment by means of the
discourse marker after all , the following implicit
information is rendered: the plan was not expected to
work, it was destined to fail as there were a lot of
obstacles. Thus, the implicit information revealed by
means of correlating two propositions, is opposed to
the explicit one. In addition, the meaning rendered by
after all contains a semantic component of concession
(though the plan was destined to fail). This observation
is crucial for our research because it serves the basis
for distinguishing other function words that possess a
contrastive-concessive semantics. Besides, the invariant
meaning of contrastive semantics may also be
combined with the meaning of a temporal change,
which makes the group of analyzed discourse markers
even broader.
The group of contrastive-concessive discourse markers
includes 10 language units: anyway, anyhow, at any rate,
in any event, at least, anyhow, actually, in any case, in
fact, really. At the discourse level all these items reveal
similar qualities because they also render the idea of
concession by correlating explicit and implicit propositions.
As it was mentioned above, contrastive ties revealed
by discourse markers may also be temporal. The
following example illustrates the scope of action of a
temporal discourse marker:
The lobby was empty at such an early hour, and
Richard was already at his desk with a tall cup of coffee,
the Wall Street Journal, and evidently very little to do
[6, p. 161].
By means of already the explicit information Richard
was already at his desk is opposed to the implicit
information Richard was not at his desk before .
Consequently, the discourse marker already implies
that the state of things was different before by rendering
the idea of temporal change.
The list of temporal discourse markers includes 8
language units: already, still, yet, as yet, so far, any
more, any longer, at last. All these items render the
meaning of temporal change by correlating explicit
and implicit propositions.
The inherent semantic meaning of contrast makes
temporal and concessive discourse markers perfect
means of conveying important pragmatic information
in conversational discourse. The latter, in its turn,
predetermines the use of these items as important
components of indirect communicative strategies,
especially those of hedging aimed at saving the
speakers face in the process of interaction.
Let us consider the pragmatic potential of the
temporal discourse marker yet in the following discourse
fragment:
101
Toni, he responded with pleasure. Its nice to hear
from you. What made you call me at this ungodly hour?
The whole truth? Ive been pining here, hoping
youd make a house call. Since it didnt look like it was
going to happen, I phoned your apartment. When I got
no answer, I decided to find out whether you were on a
heavy date or buried in research. Is there someone in
your life yet? [8, p. 47].
The meaning of a temporal change in the future
inherent in the semantic structure of yet makes it possible
for this marker to change the illocutionary force of a
speech act. In the present example the item yet which
correlates the utterance Is there someone in your life
yet? with the implicit proposition There will be someone
in your life sooner or later acts as the marker of the well
hidden indirect strategy of inducement because it
transforms the interrogative utterance into the indirect
speech act a directive Its about time for you to find a
girlfriend. The speaker resorts to the hedging strategy in
order to reduce his responsibility for making the hearer
perform a certain action, which gives him an opportunity
to save face in the process of speech interaction.
Concessive markers are very popular means of
expressing communicants intention in indirect
strategies, and that is why they are frequently used by
native speakers in conversations. Of special interest here
are anyway and actually as these small and practically
invisible language units are capable of rendering various
pragmatic meanings. Consider the following example
of actually:
Andrew are you busy tonight? Ted asked
nervously. I mean, could you spare me five minutes
after the library closes?
Sure, Lambros. Want to go downstairs to the Grill
for a couple of cheeseburgers?
Uh? Well, actually, Id prefer some place a little
more private [7, p. 97].
The last utterance of this discourse fragment
introduces the implicit proposition though you suggested
going to the Grill, I dont like this idea. Specific procedural
concessive semantics of the discourse marker actually
makes it a perfect means of realizing the indirect strategy
of polite rejecting the proposal of the previous speaker.
The semantics of concessive contrast allows anyway
in the next discourse fragment to function as an important
component and even basic means for realization of
indirect strategy of evaluation:
Tony hit the roof. Ill bet that childless old bitch
which put this into your head. I dont want any shrinks
butting into our lives, she shouted. Were perfectly
capable of dealing with Heather on our own I am,
anyway [8, p. 167].
The utterance I am, anyway correlates with the
implicit proposition though others may find Heather
difficult to deal with. Thus, by means of anyway, the
speaker provides an implicit evaluation and makes the
utterance a component of the indirect hedging strategy.
In the utterance-initial position anyway is a marker
of the following conversational strategies: the strategy
of topic changing, the strategy of closing the topic of
conversation, the strategy of summing-up. It should be
noted that all these strategies are indirect because of
the invariant meaning of contrastive concession inherent
in the semantic structure of this discourse marker. The
example below illustrates the use of anyway as a pre-
closing device:
Do you ever see her? he asked with a touch of
self-pity. Across a crowded commissary, so to speak.
Dont worry, I always give your love. And does she
even remember me? Are you kidding? Anyway, take
care of yourself. Speak to you next week. It was oddly
when he hung up that Sandy realized that his father
had not directly answered his question [Prizes, p. 105].
Using anyway makes it possible for Sidney, who
does not want to discuss with his son an unpleasant
subject about his mother, to close the conversation.
The indirect strategy is chosen by the speaker in order
to weaken a possible negative perlocutionary effect on
the hearer.
It must be emphasized that discursive competence
implies the knowledge and proper usage of discourse
markers of English in conversational strategies in order
to perform all communicative tasks successfully.
Therefore, contrastive discourse markers that can
function in discourse as means of realization of
indirectness strategies of inducement, evaluation,
rejecting the proposal or closing the conversation are
indispensable in natural communication as they often
help to make communication felicitous.
The prospect of further investigation lies in
establishing the role of discourse markers of other
functional groups in realizing indirectness strategies in
conversational discourse.

Literature
1. Blakemore D. Discourse and Relevance Theory / Diana Blakemore // The Handbook of Discourse Analysis /
[eds. Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton]. Malden : Blackwell Publishing, 2003.
P. 100118.
2. Channell J. Vague Language / Joanna Channell. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1994. 226 p.
3. Frazer B. Discourse Markers across Language / Bruce Frazer // Pragmatics and Language Learning :
Monograph Series University of Illinois. 1993. Vol. 4. P. 116.
4. Schiffrin D. Discourse Markers / Deborah Schiffrin. N.Y. : Cambridge University Press, 1996. 364 p.
5. Schiffrin D. Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Context / Deborah Schiffrin // The Handbook of
Discourse Analysis / [eds. Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton]. Malden : Blackwell
Publishing, 2003. P. 5475.

Sources of Illustrations
6. Grisham J. The Broker / John Grisham. N.Y. : Doubleday, 2005. 307 p.
7. Segal E. The Class / Erich Segal. N.Y. : Bantam Books, 1985. 531 p.
8. Segal E. Prizes / Erich Segal. N.Y. : Ivy Books, 1995. 500 p.

102