1887
image of The role of well as a response-delaying marker in side story insertions
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study explores the use of the discourse marker as a response-delaying marker in non-straightforward answers to -questions, specifically when responses involve inserting a side story. Through a detailed analysis of conversational data, particularly from interviews, this study identifies a pattern in which is used to introduce background information as a side story before the core response is delivered, marked by as a discourse marker. This sequential use of and serves to structure the discourse in a way that allows the speaker to provide the necessary context or background before directly addressing the question. The study examines this phenomenon within the framework of discourse analysis, providing insights into how such markers function in managing conversational flow and response coherence.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.24099.tak
2025-07-17
2026-03-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2013Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9780748635511
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748635511 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aijmer, Karin, Ad Foolen, and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen
    2006 “Pragmatic Markers in Translation: A Methodological Proposal.” InApproaches to Discourse Particle, ed. byKerstin Fischer, –. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9780080461588_007
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588_007 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barth, Dagmar
    2000 “‘That’s True, Although not Really, but Still’: Expressing Concession in spoken English.” InCause — Condition — Concession — Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed. byElizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110219043‑017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043-017 [Google Scholar]
  4. Beeching, Kate
    2016Pragmatic Markers in British English: Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139507110
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139507110 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beeching, Kate, and Ulrich Detges
    (eds) 2014Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brinton, Laurel J.
    2017The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316416013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316416013 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cameron, Deborah
    2001Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cuenca, Maria Josep, and Maria-Josep Marín
    2009 “Co-occurrence of Discourse Markers in Catalan and Spanish Oral Narrative.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.010 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cuenca, Maria Josep, and Ludivine Crible
    2019 “Co-occurrence of Discourse Markers in English: From Juxtaposition to Composition.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Du Bois, John W., Wallace L. Chafe, Charles Meyer, and Sandra A. Thompson
    2000Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English Part I. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. Web Download. 10.35111/s2q7‑gq73
    https://doi.org/10.35111/s2q7-gq73 [Google Scholar]
  12. Finell, Anne
    1989 “Well Now and Then.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/0378‑2166(89)90054‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(89)90054-4 [Google Scholar]
  13. 1992 “The Repertoire of Topic Changers in Personal, Intimate Letters: A Diachronic Study of Osborne and Woolf.” InHistory of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics, ed. byMatti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen, and Irma Taavitsainen, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110877007.720
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877007.720 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fraser, Bruce
    2013 “Combinations of Contrastive Discourse Markers in English.” International Review of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1163/18773109‑13050209
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-13050209 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2015 “The Combining of Discourse Markers — A Beginning.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  16. Heritage, John
    2015 “Well-prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  17. Izumi, Emi, Kiyotaka Uchimoto, and Hitoshi Isahara
    2004The NICT JLE Corpus. Nihonjin 1200-nin no Eigo Supiikingu Koopasu [A spoken corpus of 1200 Japanese learners of English]. Tokyo: ALC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jucker, Andreas
    1993 “The Discourse Marker Well: A Relevance-theoretical Account.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90004‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lakoff, Robin T.
    1973 “Questionable Answers and Answerable Questions.” InIssues in Linguistics. Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, ed. byBraj B. Kahru, Robert B. Lees, Yacov Malkiel, Angelina Pietrangeli, and Sol Saporta, –. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Nikiforidou, Kiki
    2009 “Constructional Analysis.” InGrammar, Meaning and Pragmatics, ed. byFrank Brisard, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jef Verschueren, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.5.01nik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.5.01nik [Google Scholar]
  21. Norrick, Neal R.
    2009 “Interjections as Pragmatic Markers.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  22. Östman, Jan-Ola
    2005 “Construction Discourse: A Prolegomenon.” InConstruction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, ed. byJan-Ola Östman, and Mirjam Fried, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.06ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.06ost [Google Scholar]
  23. Owen, Marion
    1981 “Conversational Units and the Use of ‘Well…’.” InConversation and Discourse, ed. byPaul Werth, –. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Pons Bordería, Salvador
    2018 “The Combination of Discourse Markers in Spontaneous Conversations: Keys to Untying a Gordian Knot.” Revue Romane. Langue et Littérature (): –. 10.1075/rro.00008.pon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.00008.pon [Google Scholar]
  26. Pons Bordería, Salvador, and Maria Arguedas Estellés
    2009 “Expressing Digression Linguistically: Do Digressive Markers Exist?” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.011 [Google Scholar]
  27. Sakita, Tomoko I.
    2013 “Discourse Markers as Stance Markers: Well in Stance Alignment in Conversational Interaction.” Pragmatics and Cognition (): –. 10.1075/pc.21.1.04sak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21.1.04sak [Google Scholar]
  28. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. vol.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  29. Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Gene H. Lerner
    2009 “Beginning to Respond: Well-prefaced Responses to Wh-questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction (): –. 10.1080/08351810902864511
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810902864511 [Google Scholar]
  30. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  31. Schourup, Lawrence C.
    2001 “Rethinking Well.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00053‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00053-9 [Google Scholar]
  32. Svartvik, Jan
    1980 “Well in Conversation.” InStudies in English Linguistics for Randolph Quirk, ed. bySidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey N. Leech, and Jan Svartvik, –. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Takamura, Ryo
    2023Discourse Marker Well in Spoken American English: Some Suggestions for Politeness and Cross-Linguistics. Yokohama: Shumpusha.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2025a “Dual Function of (Inter)subjectivity in the Use of Well as a Discourse Marker.” Pragmatics. 10.1075/prag.23026.tak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.23026.tak [Google Scholar]
  35. 2025b “From Intersubjective to Textual Use of Well as a Discourse Marker: A Study from the Perspective of Politeness.” InSemantic-Pragmatic Change from Intersubjective to Textual Meanings, ed. byGiulio Scivoletto, and Ryo Takamura, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Tannen, Deborah
    2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511618987
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618987 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.24099.tak
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