Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722



There has been consistent interest in discourse makers over the past couple of decades, and various proposals have been put forth regarding their functions. The present paper analyzes discourse markers in general as indicators of types of connectedness between expositive illocutionary acts (Austin [1962]1975), which bring about illocutionary effects in discourse. The discourse marker in particular indicates a gap between the preceding expositive illocutionary act and the present one, signaling the present expositive illocutionary act is of a non-committal type. This gap is analyzed, depending on the types of the preceding and present expositive illocutionary acts, as divergence, hesitancy, a transition from one expositive illocutionary act to another, or a boundary between them.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2013Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, J. L.
    [1962] 1975How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. [1961] 1979Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blakemore, Diane
    2002Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolinger, Dwight
    1989Intonation and its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Caffi, Claudia
    2007Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Carlson, Lauri
    1984“Well” in Dialogue Games: A Discourse Analysis of the Interjection “Well” in Idealized Conversation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.v.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.v.5 [Google Scholar]
  8. Carter, Ronald and Michel McCarthy
    2006Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Green, Georgia M.
    2006 “Discourse Particles and the Symbiosis of Natural Language Processing and Basic Research.” InDrawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn, ed. by Betty J. Birner , and Gregory Ward , 117–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.80.08gre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.80.08gre [Google Scholar]
  10. Fetzer, Anita
    2006 “‘Minister, we will see how the public judges you.’: Media references in political interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics38: 180–195. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.017 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2011 “‘Here is the difference, here is the passion, here is the chance to be part of a great change’: Strategic context importation in political discourse.” InContext and Contexts: Parts Meet Whole?, ed. by Anita Fetzer , and Etsuko Oishi , 115–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.209.08fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.209.08fet [Google Scholar]
  12. Fischer, Kerstin
    (ed) 2006Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Jucker, Andreas H.
    1993 “The discourse marker well: A relevance theoretical account.” Journal of Pragmatics19: 435–52. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90004‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9 [Google Scholar]
  14. Norrick, Neal R.
    2001 “Discourse markers in oral narrative.” Journal of Pragmatics33: 849–78. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80032‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80032-1 [Google Scholar]
  15. Mey, Jacob
    2001Pragmatics: An Introduction2nd ed.Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Oishi, Etsuko
    2014 “Evidentials in entextualization.” Intercultural Pragmatics11(3): 437–62. 10.1515/ip‑2014‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0020 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2015 “Follow-ups as speech acts in mediated political discourse.” InThe Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and functions of follow-ups, ed. by Anita Fetzer , Elda Weizman , and Lawrence N. Berlin , 33–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.259.02ois
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.259.02ois [Google Scholar]
  18. 2017 “Illocutionary effects, presupposition, and implicature.” InPragmatics at its Interfaces, ed. by Stavros Assimakopoulos , 71–88. Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501505089‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505089-005 [Google Scholar]
  19. Oishi, Etsuko and Anita Fetzer
    2016 “Expositives in discourse after discourse” Journal of Pragmatics96: 49–59. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.03.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Östman, Jan-Ola
    1995 “Pragmatic particles twenty years after.” InOrganization in Discourse: Proceedings from the Turku conference, ed. by Brita Wårvik , Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen , and Risto Hiltunen , 95–108. Turku: University of Turku.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Schiffrin, Debora
    1987Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  22. Schourup, Lawrence
    2001 “Rethinking well .” Journal of Pragmatics33: 1026–60. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00053‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00053-9 [Google Scholar]
  23. Searle, John R.
    1979Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error