Schiffrin - DM Theory & And

8/18/2019 Schiffrin - DM Theory & And

1/66

Title: Discourse Marker Research and Theory: Revisiting and

Running head: Discourse Marker Research and Theory: Revisiting and

Author: Deborah Schiffrin

0. Introduction

The study of what Robert Longacre (1976) aptly called “mystery particles has

proliferated o!er the past twenty years" #ords such as well, and, like$ now and

y’know ha!e been studied by scholars from !irtually all branches of linguistics (e"g"

applied$ formal$ computational$ sociolinguistic$ psycholinguistic$ historical$

de!elopmental) and ha!e %ept pace with the de!elopment of new approaches for

the analysis of discourse (e"g" corpus linguistics) and new paradigms in both

semantics (e"g" cogniti!e semantics) and pragmatics (e"g" rele!ance theory)" The

range of languages in which such terms ha!e been e&amined is typologically

di!erse$ including$ for e&ample$ 'hinese$ anish$ rench$ *ebrew$ +ndonesian$

Latin and ,ayan" -ttention has been focused on both synchronic patterns

(within.across speech situations and language contact situations)$ and diachronic

change (first and second language ac/uisition$ grammaticali0ation)" i!en so wide

a range of theoretical and analytical di!ersity$ perhaps it should not be surprising

that there has not yet emerged a consensus in some of the basic tenets of discourse

mar%er research or theory"

-fter introducing my approach (2"1)$ methodology (2"3)$ use of data in this study

(2"4)$ and problem to be addressed (2"5)$ + present my definition of discourse


2/66

mar%ers (1)$ + then use a brief analysis of and to e&plore one of the central problems

in discourse mar%er researchtheir functional spectrum (3)" ,y conclusion fits the

analysis into a more general model of discourse mar%ers (4) and lin%s both analysis

and model to broader issues in the study of language (5)"

0.1 Approach

The basic components of my approach are meaning (semantic$ pragmatic)$

discourse and function" -lthough all of these are common terms in linguistics$ each

is itself polysemous$ e!o%ing a range of meanings that are embedded in what are

sometimes !ery different approaches to$ and goals of$ linguistic in/uiry"

+n his two !olume reference boo% Semantics$ Lyons (1977) begins by illustrating

o!er a do0en meanings of the word meaning"8 nly two are usually ta%en as

falling within the scope of linguistic theory and analysis: sense and reference" The

sense of a word is rooted in linguistic %nowledge and stems from relations among

words themsel!es" ;ince sense is based on connections within language$ it is

generally assumed that we share the sense of words through our %nowledge of the

networ%s of meaning in which words are embedded and through our membership in

a speech community" or e&ample$ we are assumed to share %nowledge of the

semantic relationship that lin%s fruit and pear (hyponmy) or hot and cold

(antonymy)" Reference is a relation between language and something in the world"

+n %eeping with ,orris8 (194


3/66

within the linguistic subfield of semantics" ,uch current wor% in semantic theory

lin%s the study of sense and reference by focusing on truth conditional meaning$ i"e"

formally specifying the conditions that would ha!e to hold for a proposition to be

true"

;ome mar%ers (e"g" and ) are homonymous with words whose semantic meaning is

based on their logical properties$ hence$ on their contributions to the conditions

under which propositions would be true" -lthough this allows a small group of

mar%ers to be incorporated as discourse operators into formal models of discourse

processing (e"g" >olanyi 3221)$ other mar%ers contribute meaning in ways other

than through truth?functions" ,ar%ers may contribute semantic meaning to

discourse through metaphorical e&tensions (e"g" now and then$ ;chiffrin 1992)"

,ar%ers of spea%er stance may de!elop through loss of literal meaning (e"g"

@rinton (3224) on I mean$ Aar%innen (in press) on I think ) and may be classified as

mar%ers of pragmatic commentary rather than discourse mar%ers per se (e"g" raser

1992)"

Bnli%e sense and reference that remain relati!ely stable across spea%er and

situation$ pragmatic meanings !ary across spea%ers and situations" This dependence

can be captured by defining pragmatics as the study of the use of conte&t to ma%e

inferences about meaning (asold 1992: 119C see Le!inson 19


4/66

@ecause pragmatics presupposes conte&t$ it pri!ileges the study of actual samples

of language use$ rather than the study of hypothetical e&amples of language use"

Thus the study of pragmatic meanings turns attention away from language as an

abstract representational system to concrete instantiations of language in utterances$

i"e" !erbali0ations.inscriptions by a spea%er.writer for a hearer.reader in a conte&t"

The entry of conte&t into the study of meaning also leads us to the analysis of

discourse: we do not produce utterances in isolation from other utterances" This

shift to a larger unit of analysis creates other challenges$ stemming primarily from

the scope and di!ersity of discourse theories$ approaches and methodologies

(;chiffrin 1995a$ ;chiffrin$ Tannen and *amilton 3221)" +t is thus helpful to

separate discourse analysis into three separate (but interrelated) foci of in/uiry:

1" Within a sentence (or other syntactic, informational andor prosodic unit!: how

parts of language based in core8 parts of grammar (including morphemes$

le&emes$ phrases$ clauses$ sentences) and marginal8 parts of grammar (e"g"

intonation$ prosody$ information structure) are related to (e"g" designed for$

constrained by) the larger te&tual units in which they occur and the conte&t that

those te&ts co?constitute"1

3" "e#ts: how se/uences of sentences (or other syntactic$ informational and.or

prosodic units) are linearly and hierarchically structuredC what ma%es them

cohesi!e and coherentC the differentiation of types of te&ts (stories$ descriptions$

lists$ arguments$ and so on) and their defining characteristics


5/66

4" $onte#ts: how language is part of larger systems of meaning and practice$

including those embedded in concrete situations of face?to?face interaction$

social gatherings$ societies$ ideologies$ and cultures and so onC the “wor% that

language and other semiotic systems accomplish in all areas of our li!es

The three foci are related: whereas the first focuses on sentence?le!el units (words$

phrases$ and so on)$ the second and third mo!e to larger units within which the

smaller are embedded" Thus$ beginning at any one focal point re/uires attention to

the others"

The final part of my approach is function" -lthough functions usually reflect

recurrent use$ they are not the same as use per se" #hereas there is no inherent

relationship between one use and another$ functions are related to one another: they

are located within a system or organi0ation in which they connect to one another

and to the larger system" Thus words (at the lowest le!el of discourse analysis) are

related to each other through their position in a networ% of meanings and through

their recurrence in the larger systems to which they contribute (te&ts and conte&ts)"

#hat is thus at issue is an abstract system in which utterances (or parts of

utterances) are related to one another within a spea%er.hearer?based system of

te&t.conte&t that enables the production and reception of meaning(s)"

+n my model of discourse (;chiffrin 19


6/66

relationships to each other and to what they are saying" -ctions also relate spea%er

and hearer" *owe!er$ because they re/uire structured %nowledge about what

counts as8 a particular action and ha!e somewhat constrained se/uential

contingencies$ + separate an action structure from both information state and

participation framewor%" Li%ewise$ + consider an e#chan%e structure the

organi0ation of turns at tal%to in!ol!e interactional contingencies that are at least

partially uni/ue to the distribution of spea%ing.hearing rights" inally is an

ideational structure the most semantic structurein!ol!ing not only

propositions$ but also topic.comment and information status" Relationships within

these domains$ and between8 them$ pro!ide the system within which mar%ers

function as inde&icals (see section 5)"

The functions of mar%ers are !ery similar to their pragmatic meanings" @oth are

embedded within$ and dependent on$ te&t.conte&t as sources of their systematic

contribution to the structure$ significance and coherence of discourse" #hat differs

is that functions are relational: they relate units within domains to each other and

relate domains themsel!es to each other (;chiffrin 19


7/66

,y analyses of discourse mar%ers re/uire$ first and foremost$ attention to actual

uses of mar%ers in discourse" -fter choosing a corpus$ + identify all occurrences of

the le&ical item that are potential appearances of the discourse mar%er (e"g" all cases

of and ) and then decide which are discourse mar%ers" nce + ha!e identified the

to%ens to be e&amined$ + analy0e the discourse se/uences in which the to%ens

appear$ as well as other occurrences of the mar%er$ in order to balance seuential

and distri)utional accounta)ility (;chiffrin 19


8/66

mar%er$ but also for its !ariable appearance (or non?appearance) in e&pected sites"

@ecause a mar%er is typically not limited to one particular type of se/uence (let

alone to the particularities of =ust one se/uence itself)$ distributional analyses also

help us a!oid ele!ating a particular use of a mar%er to the status of a general

function" F&amining a gi!en mar%er where!er it occurs thus balances the specificity

of a se/uential analysis with generality: an e&planation of why a mar%er occurs in

one slot should be related to an e&planation for why it occurs in another slot$ and

why it does not occur in other slots"

The interdependence between distributional and se/uential analyses also flows in

the other direction" inding a distributional pattern depends on line?by?line

analyses$ and then$ on the classification of the results of such analysis$ i"e"

se/uential en!ironments$ as “slots (the sites referred to abo!e) in discourse" or

e&ample$ when + was interested in the relationship between mar%ers and turn?ta%ing

(;chiffrin 19


9/66

!aries for different mar%ers" The multiplicity of potentially rele!ant slots not only

highlights the importance of balancing se/uential and distributional accountability"

+t also suggests that a model of discourse mar%ers should always remain heuristic

(section 4): although it can point us toward the general parameters of discourse

slots$ a model must remain adaptable enough to incorporate different meaning(s)$

use(s) and function(s) that become apparent through se/uential and distributional

analyses"

0.+ *ata

'losely lin%ed to both approach and methodology is data: what are the te&ts and

conte&ts in which a mar%er is analy0edH how does the data pro!ide different slots

and se/uences in which mar%ers can occurH

ata for my analysis are inter!iews from two sources: a sociolinguistic inter!iew in

a >hiladelphia neighborhoodC an oral history inter!iew with a *olocaust sur!i!or"

The purposes of these two types of inter!iews differ" The research goals of

sociolinguistic inter!iews are to understand linguistic change and !ariation in a

speech communityC this re/uires a large body of stylistically !aried speech from

people whose social characteristics !ary (see Labo! 19


10/66

/uestions that open a topic of tal% and prompt the respondent to e&pand on his.her

own topics"

+nter!iews contain a !ariety of te&t types: stories$ descriptions$ e&planations$

assessments$ arguments$ and so on" + chose lists as the initial data for this sample

analysis because both their meanings and their structuresboth of which are

crucial to the analysis of and $ the mar%er in which + am interestedare relati!ely

transparent" -s an operational definition of lists$ + rely upon the following

characteristics (;chiffrin 1995b)" Lists are spo%en or written te&ts in which (1) the

parts of a list are items$8 either entities or actions that are (3) members of a larger

set" Fnumeration of the members of this set (4) typically occupies an e&tended turn

at tal% (comparable to a narrati!e) from one spea%er (5) in which the main

coherence source is the semantic connection among the items as set?members" This

connection can be con!eyed through (D) the use of repetition$ ellipsis$ parallelisms

and the recurrent use of and and then" Thus$ the central coherence relation (Anott

and ;anders 199olanyi 3221)"

+ also e&amine the se/uences in which the lists appear" ;ince the lists occupy a

number of different turn spaces (e"g" they can be pro=ected so as to occupy a single

turn at tal%$ their continuity can be prompted)$ + comment upon the use of and in

turn?initiation and turn?continuation" Li%ewise$ since the lists to be e&amined from

both inter!iews pro!ide answers to /uestions$ + present obser!ations about the use

of and in the /uestions themsel!es" +n %eeping with the methodology outlined

abo!e (section 2"3)$ + draw upon se/uential analyses of and in specific lists and

distributional analyses of and within lists$ turns and /uestions"


11/66

0.4 Problem statement

-s e&plained in pre!ious sections$ my approach to the functional spectrum of

mar%ers depends upon analysis of the interplay among meaning$ function$ and

discourse (te&t.conte&t)" + e&plore this interplay through an analysis of one mar%er$

and $ in three discourse sites: lists$ turns at tal%$ and /uestions"

>rior research suggests that and connects structurally coordinate units" Get the

coordinating function of and appears in a range of discourse en!ironments and with

a !ariety of units$ as noted not only in my own wor% (;chiffrin 19


12/66

>rior research also agrees that and has meaning" *owe!er$ attempts to assign

meaning or meaning s to and ha!e “been a moot point since anti/uity (i% 196osner 19


13/66

definition of discourse mar%ersthe set of items in which and is included+ use

an analysis of and in lists$ turn?ta%ing and /uestions to address this /uestion"

1. Definition

The different labels for what + am calling “discourse mar%ers are not =ust

alternati!e words for the same thing: they reflect different ways of thin%ing about

the organi0ation of what ends up being different sets of words and e&pressions" or

some$ the underlying unity is pragmatic functionC for others$ it is role in discourse"

;ome scholars find the term mar%ers8 to presuppose a pre?e&istent meaning that is

linguistically inde&ed$ suggesting instead that the term particles8 allows for words

that create meanings to be added to the utterances" The conse/uences of different

labels are thus both practical and theoretical" n a concrete le!el$ !ery different

items can end up being accounted for within an analysis" -t a theoretical le!el$ the

inclusion of different e&pressions can represent a reliance on different unifying

principles$ some formal$ some functional"

+n my initial wor% on discourse mar%ers (;chiffrin 19


14/66

con=unctions (e"g" and $ )ut $ or )$ inter=ections (oh)$ ad!erbs (now$ then) and

le&icali0ed phrases ( y’know$ I mean)" + also proposed a heuristic discourse model

with different domains: a participation framewor%$ information state$ ideational

structure$ action structure$ e&change structure (see section 2"1)"

-lthough + had initiated and de!eloped my analysis of mar%ers with an operational

definition$ + concluded with a more theoretical definition" irst$ + tried to specify the

conditions that would allow a word to be used as a discourse mar%er: syntactically

detachable$ initial position$ range of prosodic contours$ operate at both local and

global le!els$ operate on different planes of discourse (;chiffrin 19


15/66

domains of discoursehelps to integrate the many different simultaneous processes

underlying the construction of discourse$ and thus$ helps to create coherence"

;ubse/uent wor% that focused specifically on then (;chiffrin 1993) e&panded upon

the inde&ical property of mar%ers by showing how the deictic meaning of then

pro!ides a template not only for meanings within discourse (successi!e$ epistemic)$

but also for grammatical (aspectual) meaning" +n section 5$ + pursue the inde&ical

properties of mar%ers more fully and suggest that mar%ers are a subclass of

inde&icals"

. Analysis of functional s!ectru"

+n this section$ illustrate how my approach$ methodology and model fit together by

analy0ing and in two lists$ two turn?ta%ing en!ironments$ and two types of

/uestions" The analysis suggests that and has one meaning (additi!e) that is

essential to interpretation of why prior and current utterances can be treated

cumulati!ely" The additi!e meaning of and combines with its structural status (as a

coordinating con=unction) to ha!e one basic function (continue a cumulati!e set8)"

This function contributes to the process of constructing discursi!e se/uences whose

smaller parts combine to form a larger structure" ifferent uses of and (e"g"

continue a list$ continue a topic from a prior answer) are grounded in the specific

sites in which and appears and is interpreted"

,y analysis begins with two lists" Lists typically ha!e a clear semantic structure$ in

which items ha!e both coordinate lin%s (e"g" between K1 and K3) and hierarchical

lin%s (e"g" between K1 and K1-)" Thus we can use lists to learn more about the


16/66

semantic and structural bases of and " Li%e most discourse units$ howe!er$ lists do

not appear on their own: they emerge in concert with other means of te&t.conte&t

organi0ation$ e"g" within a turn?ta%ing system and within se/uential structures

including (but not limited to) ad=acency pairs" @y attending to the emergence of

lists within turn e&changes and ad=acency pairs$ we can e&amine the role of and not

=ust in ideational structures (the semantic relationships between items (set?

members) in a list)$ but also in e&change structures (the management of turns at

tal%)$ and action structures (the as%ing and answering of /uestions)" This is

important because when and does appear at the intersection of simultaneously

emerging structures$ the constraints impacting it do not always con!erge or

complement one another" +nstead$ they may di!erge or e!en conflict with one

another"4

+ analy0e and in three different subsections" +n section 3"1$ + present a monologic

list to show the role of and with coordinate list?itemsC the use of and in turn?ta%ing

is briefly mentioned" +n section 3"3$ + turn to a more dialogic list in which an

+nter!iewer8s /uestions co?construct (and alter the structure of) the +nter!iewee8s

list and introduce additional turn?ta%ing en!ironments" +n section 3"4$ + turn to the

use of and with +nter!iewer /uestions" ;ince each subsection raises issues to be

pursued in the ne&t$ the analysis not only tells us about and $ but also illustrates

methodological and theoretical aspects of my approach to mar%ers$ especially their

close interdependency and mutual reliance on data"

2.1 And in a list of RACE TRACKS AROUND HERE


17/66

+n this section$ + discuss L+;T (1)$ in which Aay presents the race trac%s near her

house in response to a tag /uestion from -nne (a sociolinguistic +nter!iewer) about

the popularity of racing" i!e features of the list are rele!ant to analysis: (1) the list

co!ers a closed set of items (R-'F TR-'A; -RBE *FRF)$ (3) its linear order

matches its hierarchical semantic organi0ation$ (4) it follows a depth?before?breadth

order$ (5) it is relati!ely monologic$ and (D) it occupies an e&tended turn at tal%" The

Roman numerals and letters on the left of Aay8s list indicate the organi0ation of

items in the list" These help us see the depth before breadth structure: a

superordinate item K1M is presented and e&panded with subordinate items (K1-M$

K1@MN) before the ne&t superordinate list item is presented" + use OOOO to indicate

a list item not prefaced by and "5

#IST $1% RA&' TRA&(S AR)*+D ,'R'

- #)&A# RA&' TRA&(S -nne: (a) RacingPs big around here$ isnPt itH

Aay: (b) Geh"

-nne (c) Geh"

-1 RA&' TRA&(S I+ + Aay: (d) #ell$ you got uh$ Iersey"

-1a (e) OOOGou got""",onmouth

-1b (f) and you got arden ;tate"

-1c (g) OOOOG8got -tlantic 'ity"

-nne: (h) ,mhmm"

-/-a RA&' TRA&( I+ A Aay: (i) -nd then uh here you got Liberty

@ell"

-b (=) -nd theyPre building a new one up

in Eeshaminy"


18/66

-nne: (%) ThatPs right" +P!e ne!er seen that$ Q

-/-a RA&' TRA&( I+ D' Aay: (l) -nd uh""" you gotQ

-nne: Qthough"

Aay: Qelaware"

-2 RA&' TRA&( I+ +3 (m) -nd of course$ if you want to re?

be? really go at it you can go up to

Eew Gor%"

-nne: (n) ,mhmm"

-2a Aay: (o) QOOOOGou got -/uaduct

-2b (p) and you got ;aratoga

-2c (/) and you ha!e that @elmont$ yP%now"

TA4#' 1 summari0es the use of and in L+;T (1)" The subordinate column

includes the two list?items ,E,BT* K1-M (e) and -B-B'T K5-M (o)

that branch from (and se/uentially follow) their superordinate list?items IFR;FG

K1M (d) and EF# GRA K5M (m)" The coordinate column includes list?items at

the same le!el$ either upper?le!el items (K1$ K3N) or lower?le!el items (K1-$

K1@N)"

TA4#' 1. AND I+ #IST $1%

Su)ordinate $oordinate "otal

and 2 7 7

-ero’ 3 3 5

"otal 3 9 11


19/66

The distribution of and in L+;T (1) is largely predicted by its semantic structure"

7


20/66

The se/uential conte&t of the ne&t and absence illustrates the importance of

semantic structure in con=unction with turn?ta%ing$ thus bringing up the important

issue of con!ergence.di!ergence among constraints from different discourse

domains" #hen introducing -B-B'T K5-M (in (o)) after -nne8s turn?

continuer (mmhmm (n))$ Aay does not use and :

K5 R-'F TR-'A +E EG Aay: (m) -nd of course$ if you want

to re? be? really go at it you can go

up to Eew Gor%"

-nne: (n) ,mhmm"

K5a Aay: (o) QOOOOGou got -/uaduct

;ince -B-B'T is the first lower?le!el item of K5M$ it is not surprising to find that

ou %ot Auaduct is not and ?prefaced" This absence becomes more analytically

interesting$ howe!er$ when we consider its turn?ta%ing en!ironment" The turn?

continuer mmhmm (n) that preceded ou %ot Auaduct is not -nne8s only turn?

continuer$ as we see below:

K1c Aay: (g) G8got -tlantic 'ity"

-nne: (h) ,mhmm"

K3.K3a Aay: (i) -nd then uh here you got Liberty @ell


21/66

K3b Aay: (=) -nd theyPre building a new one up in

Eeshaminy"

-nne: (%) ThatPs right" +P!e ne!er seen that$ though

K4.K4a Aay: (l) -nd uh"""you got elaware"

K4.K4a Aay: ( l) -nd uh"""you got elaware"

-nne: (m) ,mhmm"

K5 Aay: (n) -nd of course$ if you want to re? be? really go

at it you can go up to Eew Gor%"

-nne recurrently follows a strategy common in sociolinguistic inter!iews: her

mmhmm and that’s ri%ht wor% as turn continuers that pass responsibility for the

floor bac% to Aay (cf" Iuc%er and ;mith8s (199


22/66

EF;*-,+EG K3@M to which FL-#-RF K4M is addedH *ow do we %now that

it is >FEE;GL-E+- K3M to which FL-#-RF K4M is addedH

-lthough world %nowledge ob!iously helps$ there are also linguistic cues that

reflect that %nowledge and indicate its rele!ance for hearer interpretation of the

correct lin%" Eotice$ for e&ample$ that FL-#-RF K4M in (e) is differentiated

from the =ust?prior list?item EF;*-,+EG K3@M in (f)" FL-#-RF is introduced

by the focusing de!ice you %ot : repetition of this predicate lin%s all the items in the

list e#cept the two list items (EF;*-,+EGM$ EF# GRAM) that preceded

FL-#-RF" Thus other linguistic de!ices pro!ide indications that and connects

list itemse!en if they are not ad=acentthat are structurally compatible through

their semantic relationships"D

+ will use one more e&ample from R-'F TR-'A; -RBE *FRF to support

the importance of semantic structure for and ?prefacing in lists: the absence of and

with the same?le!el list item -TL-ET+' '+TG K+'M" -lthough -TL-ET+' '+TG

is certainly a part of the subset K1M TR-'A; +E EF# IFR;FG$ it has a different

status" #hereas K1-M and K1@M are Eew Iersey race trac%s that are not named

after towns$ K1'M shares its name with the well %nown resort near which it is

located" ;o the switch from and to 0ero8 is a te&tual switch that iconically reflects

the different way that -TL-ET+' '+TG fits into the o!erall set" (;ee ;chiffrin

(1995b$ 19


23/66

the !ery same turn?ta%ing en!ironment (after the other8s turn?continuer) only if the

list?item in that ne&t?turn is semantically coordinate with the list?item from the

prior?turn" And and 0ero8 create se/uential contrasts that differentiate typical from

atypical list members"

&.& And’ in a list of somethin% a)out yourself now

+n this section$ + discuss L+;T (3)$ from the opening of a !ideo taped oral history

inter!iew with a *olocaust sur!i!or ;usan @eer (;@)"6 L+;T (3) is longer and more

comple& than L+;T (1)" +ts topic is potentially broader and open ended: the

+nter!iewee (;@) is as%ed to tell the +nter!iewer (+er) somethin% a)out yourself

now" The +er8s first /uestion pro!ides a breadth?before?depth structure in which

lower?le!el items (K1-M$ K1@MN) that are part of one upper?le!el item K1M are

e&panded before opening the ne&t upper?le!el item (K3M)" Later /uestions continue

to build upon this structure to co?construct ;@8s list" @ecause L+;T (3) is more

dialogic$ sites of participant co?construction create mismatches between se/uential

presentation and hierarchical structure"

1. +er: LA; -T '-,FR-M +Pm r" onald reidheim"

&. LA; -T 'L+>@-R$ B> -E #EM

+. LA; -T '-,FR-M

/. This afternoon +Pm inter!iewing ,rs" ;usan @eer"

. ,rs" @eer is a sur!i!or from '0echoslo!a%ia$

. and wePre pri!ileged to hear her story today"


24/66

2. TBRE; T -'F ;@M *ello" *ow are yP Eice to see you

3. ;@: *i" *ow are you uh:

4. +er: OOO+Pd li%e you to tell me a li? something about yourself now"

5slow6

10. GourNfamily and7.

11. ;@: ,mhmm"

1&. Bh +P!e been li!ing in 'le!eland for the last 46 years"

1+. +er: mmhmm

1/. OOO + uh at the present time uh + am a housewife$

1. and uh uh occupy myself uh uh sometimes helping my husband$

with his office$ when needed +E @RF-T*M

1. +er: #hat does he doH

12. ;@: *ePs a podiatrist"

13. +er: uhhuh

14. And uh other times$ + pursue$ uh really uhNumNthings that + en=oy

&0. um going to the museum$

&1. and swimming$

&&. and uh !isiting ill people$

&+. and uh um spending time uh decorating my home$Q

&/. +er: mmhmm

&. ;@: Qand thatPs aboutN E;M

&. +er: OOOO,ay + as% how old you areH

&2. ;@: Ges$ +Pm si&ty years old"

&3. +er: ,mhmm" ;i&ty"


25/66

&4. ;@: ,mhmm"

+0. +er: #hat +Pd li%e to do first$

+1. oh? d? lemme as%? if you ha!e?you ha!e childrenH

+&. ;@: Ges$ + ha!e two children"Q

++. +er: mmhmm mmhmm

+/. ;@: Q+ ha!e a son$

+. who is thirty three"Q

!. I5er: ""h""

+2. ;@: Q And + ha!e a daughter$

+3. who is twenty se!en"

+4. ;hePs married

/0. and li!es in Eew Gor%"Q

/1. +!er: + see"

/&. ;@: Q And um she uh studied =ournalism

/+. but uh wor%s as a public relation person"

//. +er: mmhmm"

/. And what does your son doH

/. ;@: Bh he8s a?

/2. inNin #ooster

/3. and umN doesn8t do !ery much really"

/4. +er: mmhmm

0. OOOO? does he ha!e a familyH

1. ;@: Eo"

&. +er: OOOOLemme as% you to go bac% to$ the years$ before the war$Q


26/66

+. ;@: o%ay

/. +er: Qin the? in the 19428s$ let8s say about the mid 19428s$Q

;@: Right" o%ay

. +erC Qand um describe a little bit about your e&periences then$ what?Q

. ;@: o%ay

2. +er: where you li!e:d$

3. and something about your family"

;@8s list structure is co?constructed by her own orientation to personal information

and the o!erarching structure presented by the +er and reinstated by his /uestions"

These two participant structures create both semantic and turn?ta%ing en!ironments

for and " These participant structures create an interactional se/uence in which the

hierarchical list structure in 6I7*R' 1 is co?constructed"


27/66

#IST STR*&T*R': 6R)M S'8*'+&' T) ,I'RAR&,3

K tell me somethin%

K1 a)out now K3 a)out then

K1a you K1b family K3a you K3b family

K1aa where7 ab how lon% N ac 8o)N ad acti9itiesN ae a%e K 1ba hus)and K1bb two children

K1bb 8o)

37


28/66

K1ada K1adb K1bba K1bbb

sometimes other times son dau%hter

K1adaa K1adbb K1bbaa K1bbab K1bbac K1bbad K1bbba K1 bbbb K1bbbc K1bbbd K1 bbbe

help hus)and en8oy thin%s a%e 8o) where children a%e married where edc 8o)

K1adbba K1adbbb K1adbbc K1adbbd

%o to swim 9isit ill decorate home

museums

3


29/66

The +er8s initiating /uestion (presented as a re/uest$ see section 3"4) establishes

the first part of a binary distinction between E# K1M (post ##++ current life) and

T*FE K3M (earlier times$ including both pre ##++ and ##++)" 'onsistent with the

breadth?before?depth structure$ two subtopics of E# are also introduced:

GBR;FL K1-M and GBR -,+LG K1@M" ;@ spea%s about herself K1-M in lines

(13) to (16) and lines (32) to (36)" K1-M branches (K1--M to K1-M) to include

where ;@ L+F;$ *# LE$ ''B>-T+E (housewife)$ and -'T++T+F;" The latter$

-'T++T+F; K1-M$ branches further to ;,FT+,F; and T*FR T+,F;" The

;,FT+,F; acti!ity is not e&panded beyond helpin% my hus)and (which is also the

first introduction of a family member K1@M)" The T*FR T+,F; acti!ity K1-@M is

specified as T*+E; + FEIG" This list?item branches further into four subtypes:

+E T ,B;FB,;$ ;#+,,+E$ +;+T+E +LL >F>LF$ F'R-T+E *,F"

-lthough + ha!e thus far been describing the list as constructed by ;@ alone$ the

+er as%s si& /uestions during ;@8s response to his initial re/uest to tell somethin%

a)out yourself " -ll the /uestions contribute to the list by bringing up topics from

le!els in the list structure higher than the items in =ust?prior tal%" +t is for this reason

that we need to e&amine the presence.absence of and not only in ;@8s list$ but also

in the +er8s /uestions and ;@8s answers to the /uestions" The /uestions as%ed by

the +er are:

(16) #hat does he doH

(36) ,ay + as% how old you areH

(42) #hat +Pd li%e to do first$ oh?

d? lemme as%? if you ha!e? you ha!e childrenH

(55) And what does your son doH


30/66

(59) ? does he ha!e a familyH

(D3) Lemme as% you to go bac% to$ the years$ before the war$

in the? in the 19428s$ let8s say about the mid 19428s$

and um describe a little bit about your e&periences then$

what? where you li!e:d$ and something about your family"

-lthough some of the /uestions ((16)$ (55)$ (59)) build on what ;@ has =ust said$

they all bring up topics from le!els higher in the list structure than the ad=acent

items" This global (rather than local) orientation creates a choice for ;@: she can

either continue the +er8s more global list orientation or return to her own more

locally emergent list structure" -s we see below$ ;@ balances both global and local

le!els of the list by first answering the +er8s /uestions and then returning to her

own emergent list structure"

The +er8s first /uestion What does he do: (16) is se/uentially implicated by what

;@ has =ust said about her husband" -lthough ;@ mentions that she helps her

husband$ with his office, when needed (1D)$ she does not say what %ind of wor% he

does" The +er8s /uestion addresses this information gap" +t also brings up

information structurally rele!ant to two earlier parts of the list set up in the +er8s

/uestion: ;@8s *B;F#+F occupation K1-M and -,+LG K1@M"

-fter answering What does he do: with ;e’s a podiatrist (1


31/66

continuerC what inter!enes here is an embedded /uestion. answer se/uence that

briefly shifts the structural le!el of the list" Get we still find and prefacing the list

ma%ers8 return to the floor when the ne&t list?item is semantically coordinate with a

list?item prior to the list?ma%er8s brief lapse of the floor"

The ne&t two +er /uestions are not se/uentially implicated by the topics of prior

ad=acent tal%" 'ay I ask how old you are: (37) follows ;@8s self description and her

coda and that’s a)out7 5nods6 (36) about her acti!ities" ;@8s -F (li%e her

husband8s occupation) is part of a higher le!el list item (GBR;FL K1-M) and

again$ ;@8s response pro!ides the information" #hat differs$ howe!er$ is predicted

by the coda (3D)" Rather than return to the prior list$ ;@ participates with the +er in

a cycle of ac%nowledgements and turn passes ((3


32/66

K1@@-M + ha!e a son$ K1@---M who is thirty three

K1@@@M And + ha!e a daughter$ K1@-@-M who is twenty se!en"

ollowing the couplet$ ;@ further e&pands the -B*TFR node of her list with

mention of marital status$ residence$ education$ and =ob"

The +er8s ne&t two /uestions ( And what does you son do: (5D)$ *


33/66

/uestions prompted ;@ to e&pand higher nodes in the list structure$ after which she

returned to her own list e&pansion"

-lthough we ha!e noted occurrences of and in passing$ let us now e&amine how the

co?construction of L+;T (3) has a bearing on the use of and " TA4#' summari0es

the presence.absence of and in L+;T (3)"


34/66

43" ;@: Ges$ + ha!e two children"Q

44" +er: mmhmm mmhmm

45" ;@: QHandM + ha!e a son$

#ithout and $ we use our %nowledge of the world to correctly infer ;@8s intended

relationship between things + en=oy8 K1-@@M and museum8 K1-@@-MC

li%ewise$ for children8 K1@-@M and son8 K1@-@@M" And would disallow these

readings and pro!ide radically alternati!e$ and confusing$ readings: we would infer

that going to the museum is not something that ;@ en=oys and that the son is not

one of ;@8s children"

#hen we e&amine more closely the use of and with same le!el items from L+;T

(3)$ we find a surprisingly slim ma=ority (D6S (9.16)) in the $oordinate column" -s

we see in TA4#' $ howe!er$ the coordinate?le!el uses of and are hea!ily s%ewed

toward ;@8s list items$ with only one appearing as a preface for an +er /uestion"

TA4#' . AND I+ DI66'R'+T ARTI&IA+T SIT'S )6 #IST $%

S=’s list items I>er’s ? items "otal

and < 1 9

-ero’ 3 D 7

"otal 12 6 16

#hereas ;@ uses and to preface


35/66

This difference highlights the different orientations that ;@ and the +er ha!e to the

list and its role in the inter!iew" #hereas ;@ is organi0ing and pro!iding

autobiographical information to answer a /uestion$ the +er is eliciting another8s

biographical information in order to fulfill the goals of an inter!iew" Thus each

participant is wor%ing from a different information state: ;@ from the facts of her

own life$ the +er from a general inter!iew8 template" ;@ and the +er also occupy

different positions in the action and e&change structure: the +er8s turns are focused

on as%ing /uestionsC ;@8s turns$ on answering /uestions"

These intersections of the two different participant orientations create two discourse

sites for the use of and " irst is the +er8s /uestion" ;@8s list?items e!o%e two

/uestions from the +er: about husband8s =ob K1@--M$ about son8s =ob K1@@@@M" +t

is only when the /uestion builds upon ;@8s most recent list?item to see%

information that it is and ?prefaced" #e discuss this discourse site more fully in

section 3"4"

The second site created by the two different participant orientations is ;@8s return

to the floor after either an embedded /uestion.answer se/uence or the +er8s turn

continuers" Recall that and in L+;T (1) reflected semantic structure more than turn?

ta%ing: and prefaced Aay8s return to the floor only if the list?item was semantically.

structurally coordinated with a prior list?item" #e see the same dominance of

semantic structure in L+;T (3): and prefaces a ne&t?turn ;@8s list?item in her ne&t?

turn is coordinate with the list?item from her prior?turn$ hence$ not in (45)$ but in

(19)$ (47) and (53) below:

K1@- (43) two children8

K1@@- (45) (Uand) son8


36/66

K1-- (1D) sometimes8 acti!ity

-1AD4 $1% and ;other ti"es< activities

K1@@- (45) son8

K1@@@ (47) and daughter8

K1@@@' (52) daughter8s residence8

K1@@@.F (53) and daughter8s =ob8

+n sum$ L+;T (3) has allowed us to e&amine how two different participants in an

interaction orient to the construction of one list" #hereas the +er as%s /uestions

that elicit different parts of the list from ;@8s personal biography$ ;@ organi0es and

pro!ides autobiographical information within a framewor% partially e!o%ed by the

+er8s /uestions$ but also attendant to her own schema" These different participant

orientations stem partially from the information state from which each began$ but

also become interwo!en with the emergent semantic structures and the organi0ation

of turn?ta%ing" -lthough this creation of more comple& discourse sites complicates

the use of and $ we ha!e seen$ again$ the crucial impact of semantic structure on the

use of and in lists"

&.+ And’ with reuests for information


37/66

The +er8s use of /uestions to initiate and sustain L+;T (3) are only a few of his

many information?see%ing re/uests throughout the inter!iew$ all designed to elicit

information about different periods$ e!ents$ and people in ;@8s life prior to$ during$

and after the *olocaust" Get e!en within this relati!ely small set of /uestions$ we

saw important differences in function (e"g" setting the agenda$ prompting e&pected

information)$ se/uential rele!ance (local !s" global) and form (e"g" indirect re/uests

for information$ yes?no interrogati!es)"

+n this section$ + focus on the use of and in the +er8s /uestions throughout the oral

history inter!iew"9 + differentiate two types of /uestions: Local. ependent and

lobal.+ndependent" Local.ependent /uestions are connected to (i"e" dependent

on) topics of ad=acent tal%: the +er pursues a topic from ;@8s answer to a prior

/uestion$ either by e&panding ;@8s topic or creating a step?wise transition to a new

topic" lobal. +ndependent /uestions are less connected toand thus relati!ely

independent ofprior tal%" They elicit basic demographic information and

introduce themes that relate to the o!erall goals and guidelines of the inter!iew (e"g"

early signs of anti?;emitism$ feelings at liberation)$ lobal.+ndependent /uestions

pro!ide an o!erarching and higher?le!el organi0ation for the inter!iew"

TA4#' 2 shows the presence.absence of and in Local.ependent and

lobal.+ndependent /uestions"

TA4#' 2. AND I+ 8*'STI)+S I+ T,' )RA# ,IST)R3 I+T'R5I'=

Local.ependent lobal.+ndependent "otal

and

other mar%ers

1<

32

1

4

19

34


38/66

0ero8 69 11


39/66

;>FF'* -'T;

7#)4A# #)&A#

S1a: 8uestion91 S1a: 8uestion91

;3a: -nswer?1 ;3a: -nswer?1

;1b: and uestion?3 ;1b: and uestion?3 -nswer 1MM

+F- ;TRB'TBRF

I+D''+D'+T D''+D'+T

S1a: Inco"!lete ro!osition91 S1a: Inco"!lete ro!osition91

Sa: &o"!lete ro!osition91 Sa: &o"!lete ro!osition91

;1b: and +ncomplete >roposition?3 ;3b: >roposition?3

;1b: and +ncomplete >roposition?3a

Located in the ;>FF'* -'T domain are /uestions and answers" The global

connection is between two of the same speech acts: two /uestions (a$ b) from one

spea%er (;1)" The local connection is between two different speech acts: answer and

/uestion from different spea%ers" #hereas the global connection is similar to the

connection between higher?le!el coordinate list items$ the local connection is

reminiscent of a connection between two different?le!el list itemswhich does not

occur" +t is thus the local connection that seems to contradict the coordinate

structure constraint of and : two structurally different units are connected by and "

#hen we re?analy0e the se/uence in terms of idea structure$ howe!er$ the use of

and with a /uestion se/uentially implicated by a prior answer ma%es perfect sense"

+n both +ndependent and ependent se/uences$ ;1a presents an incomplete

proposition (i"e" the ideational underpinnings of a /uestion) and ;3a completes the


40/66

proposition (i"e" fills the proposition)" #hen ;1b then goes on to present another

incomplete proposition$ prefacing this with and $ we ha!e the ideational foundation

of a series of and ?prefaced globally connected /uestions" @ut another option is for

;3 to continue by presenting more information than needed to answer the /uestion$

i"e" continue the answer slot with >roposition?3 (;3b)" #hen ;1b then focuses on a

source of incompleteness in >roposition?3$ we ha!e the e/ui!alent of a dependent

/uestionone whose topic has followed from the (e&tended) =ust?prior answer

pro!ided by ;3b"

The separation of domains in 6I7*R' e&plains the use of and based on either

propositional or speech act relationships" +t also shows how and will reflect

propositional structure if speech act and ideational structure present conflicting

constraints for and ?prefacing" This result is consistent with the dominance of

semantic structure o!er turn?ta%ing constraints in L+;T; (1) and (3)"

-lso supporting this domain?based e&planation of and is the one e&ample of an

and ?prefaced lobal.+ndependent /uestion in the oral history inter!iew" +n (5)$ ;@

has been answering the +er8s /uestion about T*FE (a continuation of L+;T (3))

by describing her hometown and family life in that town" ;he concludes with it was

a small town life (96):

$2% '-AM#' )6 7#)4A#/I+D''+D'+T 8*'STI)+

96" ;@: -nd it was a comfortable life$ itPs a? it was a small town life"

97" +er: #ho? how many did you ha!e in your familyH + m?

9


41/66

121"+er: -nd uh when were you born"

123";@: + was born in 1935"

-fter ;@ closes the description of her town ( And it was a comforta)le life, it@s a< it

was a small town life (96))$ the +er8s /uestion (Who< how many did you ha9e in

your family: (97)) returns to an item from an earlier agenda /uestion (descri)eN

somethin% a)out your family (D9))" ;@ answers the /uestion ( ust myself (9


42/66

The se/uential position of And uh when were you )orn: is reminiscent of a second

location for and ?prefaced /uestion in the clinical consultations studied by

*eritage and ;or=onon (1995)" +n addition to the basic mar%ing of agenda

/uestions was a strategic use of and to normali0e contingent /uestions or

problematic issues" #hereas the agenda?mar%ing uses of and coordinate

units within the speech act domain (connecting /uestions on the “same

le!el in the inter!iew structure)$ then$ the use of and with contingent

/uestions coordinates units within the ideational domain: information

from the prior answer e!o%es a ne&t?/uestion" The use of and to

normali0e /uestions whose rele!ance stems not from the agenda of a

speech e!ent.situation$ but from prior?turn$ is also reminiscent of

*alliday and *asan8s (1976) e&ternal (or metaphorical) meaning: rather

than being manifest in te&t$ what pro!ides the additi!e relationship is the

spea%er him.herself" oing bac% to and uh when were you )orn (12)$

then$ notice that as%ing about date of birth is not itself problematic" @ut

as%ing about it after ;@ has already been tal%ing about her later life

disturbs the usual chronological order not only of life itself$ but also of

oral history !ersions of life" Thus it is the spea%er who establishes an

additi!e connection through and to routini0e a /uestion that is potentially

problematic because it is schematically and globally out of place"

-lthough we ha!e e&plained why and does not typically preface the lobal.

+ndependent /uestions in the oral history inter!iew$ and e&plained the one case

where it does$ we still need to consider why and prefaces the Local.ependent

/uestions" +n a follow up study of the /uestions in the *eritage and ;or=onen (1995)

corpus$ ,atsumoto (1999) turned attention away from the acti!ity8 le!el of the


43/66

inter!iew to the informational8 le!el" ,atsumoto8s analysis of linguistic features of

the /uestions showed that and ?prefacing underscored a /uestion8s s%ewed

orientation toward affirmati!e polarity$ thus re!ealing the /uestioner8s orientation

toward a positi!e response"

To see if a s%ewed orientation8 was pertinent to and ?prefacing of the /uestions in

the oral history inter!iew$ + separated the Local.ependent /uestions into two

groups: interrogati!es and declarati!es" The interrogati!es include yes?no and #*?

/uestions: these forms grammaticali0e a choice between (or among) options" The

declarati!es are statements with optional rising /uestion8 intonation: they

grammaticali0e a selection between two optionsC confirmation is sought for the

selection" TA4#' > shows the presence.absence of and with these two forms of

Local.ependent /uestions"

"A=BC . -E WI"; "WD EDR'S DE BD$AB*CFCG*CG" ?HCS"IDGS

*eclarati9es Interro%ati9es "otal

and

other mar%ers

7

6

11

15

1<

32

0ero8 1< D1 69

Total 41 76 127

T-@LF D shows that and prefaces 33S (7.41) of the declarati!e forms and 7S

(11.76S) of the interrogati!e forms" This preference shows$ again$ that and

functions largely within the ideational domain of discourse"


44/66

- comparison between e&amples of an and ?prefaced declarati!e and an and ?

prefaced interrogati!e suggests that the former reflects a participation framewor% in

which interlocutors inde& a shared orientation toward information" +n (D)$ ;@ is

tal%ing about liberation at the end of ##++"

(6) 99


45/66

331" and he says$ VGP%now$ + =ust recei!ed a newest decree$ that says

that girls$ between ages 1D and 17$ will ha!e to be ready$V

333" uh + thin%$ he? he ga!e it to us li%e a month$ ahead"

+er: 334" ,mhmm"

;@: 335" Bh this was um around uh end of ebruary"

33D" -nd he said t?

+er: 336" F? end? end of ebruary$ nineteen forty twoH

;@: 337" Eineteen forty

two"

+er: 33


46/66

%irls ha9e to )e rea"# for:(42)" #hat the +er is see%ing here differs from the

temporal clarity sought in the first /uestion" #hereas the year was referentially

important$ %nowing what the girls were supposed to be ready for is pi!otal to the

narrati!e action: not %nowing the goal of the newest decree (to deport girls to a

labor camp) will compromise the point of the story (the girls need to be smuggled

out of the country)" ;ince ;@ had continued her story without e&plaining the goal$

we can assume that she had presumed the +er8s ability to infer the goal" The

restarts (and wha< wha< re< ready) and contrasti!e stress on ready in the +er8s

/uestion re!eal the problematic gap in his %nowledge" The initial and $ latched onto

;@8s own and uh as she begins to return to her story$ compensates for the

problematic gap by glossing the /uestion as an un problematic continuation of the

story"

#e ha!e now seen that and ?prefacing occurs more fre/uently with Local.

ependent /uestions than with lobal.+ndependent /uestions: within the former

group$ and prefaces /uestions that anticipate a particular answer more than

/uestions that do not" This pattern recalls the participation framewor% obser!ed in

relation to the +er8s use of /uestions to co?construct L+;T (3)" espite the different

orientations toward the list defined by their participant roles in the inter!iew$ the

+er and ;@ coordinated their list contributions" ;o$ too$ they are coordinating their

different orientations toward information in the oral history as a whole: the +er

as%s a /uestion$ ;@ answers it with more information than is re/uired$ the +er

builds a cooperati!e and informed ne&t?/uestion from ;@8s answer" These

cumulati!e lin%s across turns create a flow of topics and information within the oral

history inter!iew that are consistent with its goals of eliciting the story of a pri!ate8

life for a !ariety of public8 audiences"12


47/66

+n sum$ understanding the use of and with the +nter!iewer8s /uestions in the oral

history inter!iew has re/uired that we separate two domains of discourse: ideational

and action" ;eparating these domains has led us to as% the same /uestions as%ed in

analyses of and in lists: how can we account for multiple constraintsH what happens

when constraints con!erge or compete with one anotherH The answer is also the

same" -lthough we ha!e added ad=acency pairs to the potential range of discourse

sites in which and can appear$ the pattern of and ?prefacing with /uestions in this

oral history inter!iew again highlights the importance of ideational structure" 'o?

construction of a list$ and /uestions about emergent topics$ complicate the

identification and analysis of discourse sties" Get again$ the crucial constraint on the

use of and is ideational structure"

&./ $onclusion

+n this section$ + analy0ed the meaning(s)$ use(s) and function(s) of and in lists$

different turn?ta%ing en!ironments$ and types of /uestions" The analysis suggests

that and has one meaning (additi!e) that combines with its structural status (as a

coordinating con=unction) to ha!e one basic function (continue a cumulati!e set8)"

The sets can !ary (ideas$ turns$ actions)$ as can the specific uses (e"g" add an upper

le!el list?item$ continue a topic from a prior answer) that are produced when

different features combine to create highly specific discourse sites" Ee!ertheless$

when the domains underlying the discourse sites create di!ergent units that pro!ide

potential “parts of a set$ it is the ideational domain that most constrains the use of

and "


48/66

. Model

+n this section$ + integrate the general results of the analysis into the model

re!iewed in section 2"1" Recall that the model contained different domains"

Relationships appeared at two le!els: units within each domain could be related

locally and globallyC domains themsel!es could also be related" The analysis of and

in section 3 showed that local and global relationships within one domain at a time

can be inde&ed by and " These domains can differ: and can lin% propositions at an

ideational le!el$ /uestions at a speech act le!el$ and turns at an e&change le!el"

-lthough and can occur at the intersection of different domains$ one domain was

prioriti0ed" The ideational domain was most pertinent for the use of and a fitting

outcome gi!en the co?e&istence of and as a sentential con=unction"

+n my earlier problem statement (section 2"5)$ + noted that the structural and

interpreti!e problems raised by and are actually two facets of one problem: what is

the te&tual anchor for an and ?prefaced utteranceH Resol!ing this problem re/uires

identifying units that can be added together$ presumably$ because they share some

/uality whose combination is important to the coherence of the discourse" -lthough

part of the problem has been resol!edthe default unit pro!iding a te&tual anchor

is ideationalstill not completely resol!ed is which ideational units$ out of the !ast

number of those being put forth in discourse$ combine into a cumulati!e set"

*ere + suggest that two pragmatic principles help account for which units in a

single domain can be related to one another and in what way" irst is an -d=acency

>rinciple" -lthough + base this principle on the 'on!ersation -nalytic ('-)


49/66

in=unction that utterances are both conte&t?reflecting and conte&t?creating$ it could

also be deri!ed from the ricean ma&im of ,anner or uantity (rice 197D)"

;ac%s (1974$ Lecture 5$ pages 11? 13) describes the importance of ne&t?position for

coherence:

There is one generic place where you need not include information as to

which utterance you8re intending to relate an utterance toNand that is if you

are in Ee&t >osition to an utterance" #hich is to say that for ad=acently

placed utterances$ where ne&t intends to relate to a last$ no other means than

positioning are necessary in order to locate which utterance you8re

intending to deal with"

The -d=acency >rinciple leads hearers to try to define a coherence relation between

ad=acent utterances" @ecause Btterance?1 immediately precedes Btterance?3$ it

creates a conte&t for Btterance?3" Btterance?1 is thus the default location from

which to define a coherence relation with Btterance?3"

-n +nformati!eness >rinciple helps define the relationship between ideational units"

This principle$ adapted from Le!inson8s (19


50/66

And appears in the following scale of informati!eness$ in which each item to the

right in (a) pro!ides more information (specified in (b)) about how to connect two

propositions than the ones on the left:

(a)0ero8 and then so

(b)rele!ance addition succession conse/uence

The >rinciple of +nformati!eness allows an inference of succession without then$

but the then?prefacing of Btterance?3 encodes a successi!e8 meaning" Li%ewise$

going bac% in the scale$ we might infer addition8 by mere ad=acency (i"e" at the

0ero8 at the far left) through world %nowledge$ but the use of and would encode

addition"8 The >rinciple of +nformati!eness thus allows the inference of possible

relationships between propositions without discourse mar%ers" #hat mar%ers thus

do is select a meaning from among those potential relationships"

The role of pragmatic principles within the model also recalls the similarity

between pragmatics and functions noted in earlier discussion of my approach

(section 2"1)"

The pragmatic meaning of and is a%in to its function: both are based on its semantic

meaning (additi!e) in combination with its structural status (as a coordinating

con=unction) to mar% the spea%er8s communicati!e intention to continue a

cumulati!e set"8 @oth pragmatic meaning and function are embedded within$ and

dependent on$ the emergence of te&t.conte&t and the systematic ways in which parts

wherein relate to one another to form more macro?le!el structures and meanings"

>ragmatic meaning thus contributes to the inde&ing of relations within te&t.conte&t"


51/66

2. Relevance

-nalysis of and is rele!ant to two broader issues in discourse mar%er research and

theory: multiple functions of mar%ers and inde&icality" + ha!e suggested that and

has one semantic meaning$ many uses$ and one pragmatic meaning.function" @ut

this allocation may differ for different mar%ers whose sources are in different word

classes or whose te&t.conte&t distribution differs" Thus we must include the

possibility of input !ariance among mar%ers: the impact of meaning and discourse

can !ary across types of mar%ers and across indi!idual to%ens of those types" -nd

this means that the functional spectrum of mar%ers can itself !ary" ,ultiplicity may

appear at le&ical le!els if a single discourse mar%er has more than one meaning or

function" -lternati!ely$ if all mar%ers ha!e singlebut differentfunctions and it

is only mar%ers in toto that perform multiple functions$ multiplicity may appear

only at the word class le!el"

-lthough multiple possibilities for multiplicity may seem unnecessarily

complicated$ these functional layers ma%e sense once we pursue more seriously the

larger class within which mar%ers are situated: mar%ers are a subclass of inde&icals"

The ad!antage of !iewing discourse mar%ers as inde&icals is that many of the

features that seem so worrisomeincluding$ but not limited to multiplicityare

actually regular features of deictic e&pressions"

'onsider$ first$ that deictics pro!ide indices to different aspects of conte&t$ most

centrally to space$ time$ and person" Get this does not mean that a particular deictic

e&pression cannot e&tend its reach to another domain" ;patial indices$ for e&ample$


52/66

commonly ac/uire temporal interpretations" +f we spea% of mo!ing up8 or mo!ing

bac%8 a meeting$ we do not literally mean that the meeting is a physical ob=ect to be

mo!ed !ertically or hori0ontally in space: it is a situation with a temporal onset that

will now shift in linear time" The inde&ical range of discourse mar%ers is similar"

,ar%ers may ha!e default conte&tual homes8 in the particular domains of

discourse to which they point" or e&ample$ some mar%ers point to an information

state$ others to an action structure$ and still others to the organi0ation of ideas" @ut

this does not mean that they cannot e&tend their reach as different domains come

into simultaneous play during a discourse or as the mar%er itself is metaphorically

e&tended o!er time (;chiffrin (19


53/66

the personal pro&imal pronoun we can inde& a small two person with8 (offman

1971) or an entire nation" ;imilarly$ the mar%er oh can inde& a change in

information state e!o%ed either by retrie!al of a momentarily forgotten word or by

the understanding of a new$ long$ and comple& algorithm" +n both physical and

te&tual worlds$ then$ the problem of fi&ing the scope is the same"

-nother similarity is that both traditional deictics and discourse mar%ers can be

treated not only as an open class that allows temporary members$ but also as a class

whose members !ary in their degree of core or peripheral membership" or

e&ample$ here is always a deictic$ but he is not always a deicticC well is always a

mar%er$ but and is not always a mar%er" or some scholars$ nouns li%e neighbor8

ha!e a deictic component$ simply because it e!o%es someone who li!es close to

one8s home base" Li%ewise$ Eorth and ;outh are orthogonally fi&ed to one another$

but whether we dri!e Eorth to get to @oston or ;outh depends upon our starting

point: is this deicticH 'omparable /uestions can be as%ed about the e&pressions that

are li%e mar%ers (e"g" I think ) in some dimensions$ but not in others (Aar%%ainen (in

press))" The !ariability in terms of core and peripheral status$ then$ suggests that

both deictics and mar%ers are porous: conte&t can lea%8 into their meanings$ their

uses$ and their functions in different degrees"

inally$ !iewing mar%ers as inde&icals pro!ides a way of brea%ing down two of the

%ey barriers in the definitional di!ide between mar%ers and particles" irst is the

difference between displaying (mar%ers) and creating (particles) meaningC second is

whether mar%ers (or particles) portray spea%er stance and attitude"

The term mar%er8 often implies that a linguistic item is displaying an already

e&istent meaningC the term particle8 often implies that a meaning not otherwise

a!ailable is being added into the discourse" Get deictics ha!e a more comple&


54/66

relationship with conte&t than the one way path implied by either !erb (display8 or

add8) used abo!e: they select among possible coordinates and possible centers8

(points of reference) for those coordinates" +f + say$ for e&ample$ I li9e here$ the

word here8 doesn8t tell you e&actly what here8 + mean: the room$ the house$ the

neighborhood$ the city$ the country" The specific here8 depends on many factors$

including what we ha!e been tal%ing about before" Ee!ertheless$ the pro&imal

meaning of here8 does fi& one coordinate: if you %now where + am physically

situated at the moment of spea%ing$ you %now that this place is located within the

physical parameters of where I li9e" Eotice$ howe!er$ that this whole set of

assumptions can be completely o!erridden if the deictic center shifts from the

utterance to a map: + may say I li9e here when pointing to a city (or street$ or

country) on a map e!en if + am not physically situated at that place when spea%ing"

Li%e deictics$ discourse mar%ers can also select conte&tual coordinates from a range

of possibilities in their worldthe te&t.conte&tual worldby shifting their center$

i"e" their domain" The distal meaning of then can con!ey temporal succession across

episodes in a narrati!e or succession of items in a list$ both between ad=acent

utterances (local) or non?ad=acent utterances (global)$ as well as between single

utterance or multiple utterances" escribing the principles by which a spea%er

chooses$ and a hearer interprets$ those te&tual coordinates raises analytical

problems parallel to the selection of a location in I li9e here.

-s noted abo!e$ mar%ersli%e deicticscan switch their center"8 or e&ample$

different domains can ser!e as centers for production and interpretation of the same

mar%er: so can mar% a transition from a warrant (information state) or from a turn

(e&change structure)C okay can mar% appro!al of an idea (participation framewor%)

or agreement with a proposed acti!ity (action structure)" Rather than display or


55/66

create meanings$ then$ it may be more accurate to say that$ as inde&icals$ both

deictics and mar%ers select from a range of possible meanings that depend on the

domain and its point of reference" ;pea%ers use both deictics and mar%ers to

“display their selection of a meaning from a possible range of meanings" @ecause

the !erbali0ation of that deictic.mar%er ma%es e&plicit what had pre!iously been

only one possibility from a range of possibilities$ it can appear to be a newly added

or “created meaning"

-nother parameter on which mar%ers differ from particles concerns the reliance of

the former on se/uential units of discourse" *ere + want to suggest that if we

concei!e of discourse as se/uences of utterances$ i"e" te&t.conte&t pairings

(;chiffrin 1995a: 'hapter 3)$ then we can include not only relationships between

units (e"g" actions$ turns$ propositions) that typically appear in se/uences$ but also

relationships between aspects of te&t and conte&t" or e&ample$ self and other are

clearly part of a conte&t: they can ha!e relationships of solidarity$ distance$ and so

on" The way a spea%er is committed to (or detached from) a belief is a relationship

between self and content of tal%" f course the self?other$ and self?content

relationships$ are not seuentially organi0ed parts of discourse"11 @ut once we

reali0e the centrality of self$ other$ and content to te&t and conte&t$ what is said to

be mar%ed by particlesspea%er.hearer alignment$ stancecan be said instead to

be mar%ed as relationships between parts of a discourse" To do so re/uires

recogni0ing self$ other$ and content as units of discoursenot utterances

themsel!es$ but certainly part of the conte&t that creates an utteranceand thus

open to the same inde&ical mar%ing as other aspects of utterances"


56/66

References


57/66

@rinton$ Laurel

3224 I mean: the rise of a pragmatic mar%er" Faper presented at HR" &00+.

'otter$ 'olleen

1996 “Fngaging the reader: The changing use of connecti!es in newspaper

discourse" +n: -rnold et al" (eds") Sociolin%uistic >ariation: *ata, "heory and

Analysis. ;tanford Bni!ersity: 'enter for the ;tudy of Language and +nformation

>ublications$ 364? 37


58/66

raser$ @ruce

1992 -n approach to discourse mar%ers" ournal of Fra%matics 15$ 4aul

197D “Logic and con!ersation" +n: >eter 'ole and Ierry ,organ (eds")" Speech

Acts (Synta# and Semantics, >olume +!" Eew Gor%: -cademic >ress$ 51WDress"

*alliday$ ,ichael$ and Ru/aiya *asan

1976 $ohesion in Cn%lish" London: Longman"

*an%s$ #illiam

1994 Referential Fractice" 'hicago: 'hicago Bni!ersity >ress"

*eritage$ Iohn$ and ,ar=a?Leena ;or=onen

1995 “'onstituting and maintaining acti!ities across se/uences: And prefacing"

Ban%ua%e in Society 34 (1)$ 1? 39"

Iuc%er$ -ndreas


59/66

1997 “The discourse mar%er well in the history of Fnglish" Cn%lish Ban%ua%e and

Bin%uistics 1: 1?112"

Iuc%er$ -ndreas$ and ;ara ;mith

199< “-nd people =ust you %now li%e XwowX: iscourse mar%ers as negotiating

strategies" +n: -ndreas Iuc%er and Gael Ji! (eds")" *iscourse 'arkersJ *escription

and "heory. -msterdam: Iohn @en=amins$ 171? 323"

-ndreas Iuc%er and Gael Ji!

199< “iscourse mar%ers: +ntroduction" +n: -ndreas Iuc%er and Gael Ji! (eds")"

*iscourse 'arkersJ *escription and "heory. -msterdam: Iohn @en=amins$1?13"

Aar%%ainen$ Flise

+n press Cpistemic Stance in Cn%lish $on9ersation" >hiladelphia: Iohn

@en=amins"

Anott$ -listair$ and Ted ;anders

199< “The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic mar%ers: -n

e&ploration of two languages" ournal of Fra%matics 42$ 14D? 17D"

Labo!$ #illiam

19


60/66

Leech$ eoffrey

19ress"

,aschler$ Geal

199< “ Rotse lishmoa keta: Wanna hear somethin% weirdfunnyH ;egmenting

+sraeli *ebrew tal%?in?interaction" +n: -ndreas Iuc%er and Gael Ji! (eds")"

*iscourse 'arkersJ *escription and "heory. -msterdam: Iohn @en=amins$ 14? 62"

,atsumoto$ Aa0u%o

1999 “ And ?prefaced /uestions in institutional discourse" Bin%uistics 47?3$ 3D1?

375"

,ey$ Iacob

3221 Fra%maticsJ An Introduction. ,alden$ ,- : @lac%well >ublishers"


61/66

,orris$ 'harles

194< “oundations of the theory of signs" +n: tto Eeurath$ Rudolph 'arnap and

'harles ,orris (eds") International Cncyclopedia of Hnified Science" 'hicago:

Bni!ersity of 'hicago >ress$ 77?14eterson (eds")" *e9elopin% Garrati9e Structure" *illsdale$

Eew Iersey: Lawrence Frlbaum -ssociates"

>olanyi$ Li!ia

3221 “The linguistic structure of discourse" +n: eborah ;chiffrin$ eborah

Tannen and *eidi *amilton (eds")" "he ;and)ook of *iscourse Analysis" &ford:

@asil @lac%well$ 36D?3osner$ R"

19


62/66

;chiffrin$ eborah

19


63/66

forthcoming “raming self$ other and e&perience in the first fi!e minutes" +n:

eborah ;chiffrin$ -nna eina and ,ichael @amberg (eds")" *iscourse and

Identity" 'ambridge: 'ambridge Bni!ersity >ress"

;chiffrin$ eborah$ eborah Tannen and *eidi *amilton (eds")

3221 "he ;and)ook of *iscourse Analysis. &ford: @asil @lac%well"

;egal$ Frwin$ Iudith uchan$ and >aula ;cott

1991 “The role of interclausal connecti!es in narrati!e structuring" *iscourse

Frocesses 15 (1)$ 37? D5"

;prott$ Richard

1993 “'hildren8s use of discourse mar%ers in disputes" *iscourse Frocesses 1D

(5)$ 534?549"

;weetser$ F!e

1992 Erom Ctymolo%y to Fra%maticsJ 'etaphorical and $ultural Aspects of

Semantic Structure. 'ambridge: 'ambridge Bni!ersity >ress"

#ard$ regory and @etty @irner

3221 “iscourse and information structure" +n: eborah ;chiffrin$ eborah

Tannen$ and *eidi *amilton (eds")" "he ;and)ook of *iscourse Analysis" &ford:

@asil @lac%well$ 119?147"


64/66

1 'ndnotes

+ use the core.marginal distinctionwhose !alidity has been rightfully challenged by Iohn umper08

(19ons

@orderYa (this !olume) who points out that the mulifunctionality of connecti!es ma%es it unli%ely that a

/ualitati!e study could capture all the different ways that !ariables might be associated with one

another" -lthough + will not pursue a statistical analysis here$ the logic of the analysis is similar"

5 Two points" irst$ the race trac%s are grouped by states (the upper le!el item): EI is Eew Iersey$ >- is

>ennsyl!ania (the location of -nne and Aay)$ F is elaware$ EG is Eew Gor%" ;econd$ + ha!e

assigned a dual status to the list?items in lines (i) and (l) because they are presented in one syntactic

unit" Fach is counted only once in T-@LF 1"

D ;chiffrin (1995a: 395? 6C 1995b) notes the interdependence between the use of mar%ers in lists and

other list?ma%ing de!ices that re!eal set membership and core !s" peripheral categories (e"g" intonation$

repetition$ presentational sentences$ syntactic parallels$ ellipsis)"

6 + am grateful to the Bnited ;tates *olocaust ,emorial ,useum (#ashington "'") for ma%ing this

oral history a!ailable to me$ as well as the Eational -lliance of Iewish #omen ('le!eland @ranch) for


65/66

+ am grateful to the Bnited ;tates *olocaust ,emorial ,useum (#ashington "'") for ma%ing this oral

history a!ailable to me$ as well as the Eational -lliance of Iewish #omen ('le!eland @ranch) for

inter!iewing ,rs" @eer and allowing B;*,, to act as a national repository for the oral history"

7

The importance here of occupation8 pic%s up the theme of husband8s occupation discussed earlier" +

discuss this in more detail in a comparison among different openings of oral history inter!iews

(;chiffrin$ forthcoming)"


66/66

Documents

Schiffrin - DM Theory & And