Title: The Natural Semantic Metalanguage Approach to Discourse Markers

Running Head: NSM Approach to Discourse Markers

Author: Catherine Travis

0. Introduction

This paper presents an analysis of discourse markers based within the framework of

the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (cf. Wierzbicka 1996, and references therein).

It argues that discourse markers can only be fully understood if the meaning(s) they

carry when used in different contexts are exhaustively defined. Within this

framework discourse markers are treated as polysemous, having a range of different

meanings all of which share some element in common. The shared element of

meaning can be considered a ‘partial semantic invariant’ (cf. Goddard 2000: 144,

Wierzbicka 1988: 344), and it is this that ties the uses of the marker together, while

other components of meaning that differ account for the variation across the range

of use. Such an analysis makes a clear distinction between what is encoded in the

semantics of the marker and what is encoded in its pragmatics of use. I will

illustrate how this can be done through an analysis of the Spanish discourse marker

bueno (‘well’, ‘good’, ‘right’), based on a corpus of conversational Colombian

Spanish.

I am using the term discourse marker here in a broad sense to refer to the

heterogeneous group of linguistic items that act on (or ‘mark’) segments of

discourse, and function to indicate how those segments are to be understood in the

context of the surrounding discourse. As in the other papers in this volume, the

class is thus given a functional rather than a formal definition. There are, however,

1

a number of formal features that are typically associated with discourse markers,

such as prosodic, syntactic, and semantic independence. I will discuss in some

detail the functional and formal features of discourse markers in an attempt to help

clarify what constitutes this class, and how discourse markers can be distinguished

from other related elements.

0.1. Approach

My approach to the study of discourse markers involves three key aspects: the

environments in which the marker occurs; the functions it plays; and the

meaning(s) it carries. Understanding each of these is essential to a full

understanding of discourse marker use.

The environment of occurrence refers to the structural position in which the marker

is found: turn initially, turn medially, turn finally; following and/or preceding what

kind of syntactic and/or discourse unit; acting on preceding or upcoming material;

and so on. Included here is the prosody of the marker. I deal with prosody in a very

general sense, in terms of the intonation contour with which the marker occurs:

continuing (with a slight rise in pitch), final (with a fall to low pitch), or rising

(with a high rise in pitch).i In some cases, the prosody of the surrounding material

may also be relevant, for example, whether the intonation unit prior to the marker

occurs with continuing, final, or rising intonation, or is left incomplete. Discourse

markers often occur in a range of different positions, and with a range of intonation

contours, and as we will see in the analysis of bueno, these must be taken into

account when considering marker meaning.

2

Discourse markers are highly multifunctional. For example, they can be used to

mitigate an utterance, to highlight an utterance, to seek listener agreement, to move

on to a new topic, to close a topic, to reformulate an utterance, and so on. The one

function may be found in a range of discourse environments (e.g. utterances can be

mitigated at any point), or it may be specific to one environment (e.g. a marker that

introduces a new topic may be more likely to occur turn initially). Thus, function

needs to be considered independently from environment of occurrence.

Function also needs to be considered independently of semantics because not every

function of use represents a distinct meaning. For example, a marker can be used

with the same meaning to carry out related functions, such as seeking agreement

and closing a topic, or seeking agreement and mitigating an utterance (as is the case

for bueno). In order to recognize whether a marker is being used with the same

meaning in different contexts we need to be able to distinguish between what is

inherent to the meaning of the marker and what is contextually induced, and

thereby identify the semantic core of the marker.

A description based solely on environment of occurrence and function fails to

capture much important information about the marker. In particular, it does not

capture what it is that that is shared across the range of use; how one marker differs

from others that can be used with similar functions and in similar environments; nor

what the relationship is between the marker and homonymic forms in other word

classes. The semantics of the marker represents ‘the unifying principle behind its

apparently diverse use’ and ‘the logic which controls the native speaker’s use of it’

(Wierzbicka 1976: 333). A full analysis of a discourse marker must therefore

include an outline of its semantics, alongside discussion of its environments of

occurrence and functions.

3

In the analysis of bueno presented below I will attempt to show how the

environments of occurrence can be distinguished from its functions, and how, from

this, we can extrapolate its meanings. Before doing this, I will outline the basic

tenets behind the methodology to be applied in the semantic analysis.

0.2. Methodology

The analysis of discourse markers to be presented here represents an extension into

the area of discourse of a semantic theory that has been widely applied to lexical

semantics, namely Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) (Goddard and

Wierzbicka 1994, 2002a, 2002b, Wierzbicka 1996, inter alia). This approach is a

way of defining words and concepts via reductive paraphrase. It involves using a

limited set of simple words and simple syntactic patterns as the language of

definition to present a paraphrase of the meaning under consideration, that is, ‘an

equivalent expression composed exclusively of simpler meanings than the original’

(Goddard 2000: 129).

NSM theory is based on the premise that although semantic systems of different

languages are unique, and most words do not have direct translations in other

languages, there is a small set of words, called ‘primitives’, that are found in all

languages. NSM theorists maintain that the meaning of each of these words is so

basic that they cannot be defined, and that they can be used to define all other

words and concepts. The list of primitives proposed in Goddard and Wierzbicka

(2002a) numbers around 60, and is given in Appendix A.

4

NSM theorists also maintain that there is a small set of universal rules regarding the

ways in which these words can be combined to form sentences. It is claimed that

these patterns of co-occurrence represent a kind of ‘universal grammar’ (cf. papers

in Goddard and Wierzbicka 2002a, 2002b, Travis 2003, Wierzbicka 1996: 112ff).

Thus, SAY, for example, is argued to occur universally with a person subject and an

object complement (e.g. ‘I say something’); with a topic of speech (‘I say

something about something’); with an addressee (‘I say something to someone’);

and to introduce direct speech (‘I say: I want you to know something’). Although

these notions may be expressed with different syntactic structures in different

languages, the theory maintains that there is no language in which SAY cannot occur

in these environments and that these basic sentences are directly translatable across

languages.

Within the NSM approach, word meaning is understood to be made up of a set of

components. The set of components presented in a definition represents the core

meaning, or the semantic invariant, that is, those elements of meaning that are

shared across all contexts of use. This involves making a strict distinction between

pragmatics and semantics: any elements of meaning that are attributable to the

environment of occurrence are understood to be pragmatic, and should not be

included in the definition. Thus, unlike many other semantic approaches, NSM

argues that the meaning of words is determinate and can be exhaustively explicated.

If it is not possible to capture all uses of a word in the one definition, that is, where

there are differences in meaning across the range of use that cannot be attributed to

the context, then the word is polysemous. The traditional definition of polysemy is

the existence of two or more related meanings (cf. Lyons 1977: 550ff). This

definition is adopted by NSM, but the nature of the approach allows us to be more

5

specific about what is meant by ‘related’: a word is polysemous if it can be shown

to have two (or more) distinct meanings each of which shares at least one of their

components. ‘Components’ here does not refer to some abstract notion (e.g. the fact

that the two meanings of port, ‘harbor’ and ‘liquor’, both refer to concrete entities),

but rather to a specific element of meaning that can be expressed via reductive

paraphrase and that would need to be included in an exhaustive definition of the

item under consideration.

This definition of polysemy means that the range of definitions of a polysemous

item will share a semantic core, or a ‘partial semantic invariant’ (‘partial’ because

on its own it does not account for the full meaning, but nevertheless ‘invariant’

because it is found across the range of use of the item) (cf. Goddard 2000: 144,

Wierzbicka 1988: 344). Where there is no ‘partial semantic invariant’ the meanings

are not related and we are dealing with homonymy not polysemy. In the analysis of

bueno presented below I will argue that it has four different but related meanings,

and I will illustrate how its polysemy is captured in the set of definitions proposed

through both shared and distinct components of meaning. (See Fischer (this

volume) for a similar account of discourse marker meaning).

The notion that discourse markers are polysemous with a partial semantic invariant

shared across the range of use offers great insight into their meaning and use.

Extracting shared components of meaning highlights the link between different

uses of the markers, as well as the link between marker use and lexical use of

homonymous forms (where such forms exist), for example, in the case of bueno,

between the marker and the adjective meaning ‘good’. Identifying the range of

meanings a particular marker has also helps to explain the broad functional

spectrum in which it is used.

6

NSM has not been widely applied to the analysis of discourse markers. Where it

has been applied, however, it has proved an extremely useful tool for capturing

marker meanings (cf. Fischer 1998, Goddard 1994, Rieschild 1996, Travis 1998,

Forthcoming-a, Wierzbicka 1976, 1994). This paper (and that by Fischer, this

volume) represents an important advancement of the application of the theory into

the area of discourse where its merits remain to be exploited.

0.3. Data

This study is based on a corpus of conversational Colombian Spanish, recorded in

the city of Cali, Colombia, in 1997. The corpus consists of five and a half hours of

conversation (roughly 60,000 words), and contains 130 tokens of the marker bueno,

to be discussed in detail below. The data were collected by two native speakers,

who recorded spontaneous conversations between themselves and their family and

friends over a period of two months. I believe the data are as natural as is possible

in a situation where participants are aware they are being recorded. For more details

about the corpus, see Travis (Forthcoming-a).

The data have been transcribed in accordance with the method developed at the

University of California, Santa Barbara (cf. Chafe 1993, Du Bois, Schuetze-

Coburn, Paolino and Cumming 1992). The transcription conventions are given in

Appendix B. Central to this method is the concept of the ‘intonation unit’, which is

defined as ‘a stretch of speech uttered under a single, coherent intonation contour’

(Du Bois et al. 1992: 17). The perception of a stretch of speech as being uttered

under a coherent contour is largely determined by the boundaries of that contour,

7

and intonation unit boundaries often co-occur with any or all of the following:

pausing, pitch reset, accelerated speech at the beginning of a new intonation unit

(anacrusis), and lengthening of the syllable or syllables at the end of an intonation

unit (Chafe 1993: 34ff, 1994: 57ff, Du Bois et al. 1992: 100ff). This is significant to

us here, as discourse markers typically occur in an intonation on their own, as will

be discussed below.

0.4. Problem Statement

The three biggest issues surrounding discourse marker research in recent years and

discussed at length in the papers in this volume are the following:

how to define the class, and what to call it;

how to capture discourse marker meaning, and whether it is best

characterized as semantic or pragmatic; and

how the polyfunctionality of markers and the relationship between the

different functions can be accounted for.

The lack of agreement on a name and a definition for the class is partly due to the

different theoretical approaches within which discourse markers have been studied,

but it is also partly an artifact of the heterogeneity of the class (cf. discussion in

Fischer (2000b: 13ff), Jucker (1993: 436) and Jucker and Ziv (1998: 1ff)). The only

area of consensus regarding discourse markers, even for the authors in this volume,

appears to be that they are heterogeneous and represent a functional class made up

of items playing some kind of pragmatic role in discourse management. In an

attempt to better understand what makes up the class of discourse markers, in the

8

following section I will discuss some functional and formal characteristics that are

typically associated with them.

Given the lack of agreement about what discourse markers are it is not surprising

that there is no widely accepted label for such items. In order to bring about some

degree of standardization in the terminology, a maximally broad term that can

cover as wide a range as possible of items generally considered to fall into this class

is desirable. I believe the term discourse markers meets these criteria. This term has

been used in the past to include a range of related items, including connectives,

(discourse and modal) particles, interjections, tag questions, and so on. The term

also has the advantage of accurately capturing the idea that these elements ‘mark’

segments of discourse, given their role of indicating how chunks of discourse are to

be understood in the broader context of use.

In terms of discourse marker meaning, I am drawing a sharp distinction between

semantics and pragmatics, based on what elements of meaning are inherent in the

marker itself, and what are pragmatically induced from the context. In the analysis

of bueno below I will show that it adds an identifiable and specifiable meaning to

the contexts in which it is used, and that this can be distinguished from further

implications that may become attached to bueno in particular contexts (what

Hansen, this volume, refers to as ‘side-effects’).

In accordance with this understanding, I believe that discourse markers can be

defined using the same methodology as is applied in lexical semantics. Thus, I am

in agreement with Fraser (this volume) that the distinction between ‘procedural’

and ‘conceptual’ meaning is not tenable (cf. discussion of this distinction in Nyan,

this volume, Ler, this volume, and Blakemore 1987, 1996). The main problems

with treating discourse markers as carrying a different kind of meaning from other

9

lexical items are, first, that it is often unclear whether a given item is functioning as

a discourse marker or not (as noted by Hansen, this volume), and second, that it

obscures the relationship between the marker and lexical uses of homonymic forms.

The relationship between the marker bueno and the adjective, meaning ‘good’ will

be discussed in the analysis presented below, and it will be shown that the meaning

of the adjective forms part of the meaning of the marker.

This leads us to the final problem noted above, related to the polyfunctionality of

discourse markers. The NSM framework employed here neatly captures the

relationship between the different uses of the marker in the identification of a

partial semantic invariant that is shared across the range of use. At the same time, it

shows how marker uses relate to the lexical use of the same item, as there is likely

to be some element of meaning in common given that markers typically derive

from their lexical counterparts (cf. Waltereit, this volume, also Brinton 1996,

Onodera 1995, Traugott 1995, 2000). The polyfunctionality is not problematic in

this analysis in which (1) markers are recognized as commonly being polysemous,

so it is accepted that may also have a range of functions, and (2) each function does

not equate with a distinct meaning, as discussed above, so we do not have a random

assignment of multiple meanings.

In Sections 2 and 3, in which I present the analysis of the Spanish marker bueno, I

will demonstrate how polyfunctionality and polysemy interrelate, and how the

notion of the ‘partial semantic invariant’ ties the different uses together. Before

doing this, we will first consider in more detail some of the features of discourse

markers that can help delimit the class.

10

1. Definition

I noted above that discourse markers represent a heterogeneous class. Because of

this, there appears to be no set of criteria that can definitively distinguish discourse

markers from other related linguistic elements and exhaustively delimit the class (as

is also noted in many other papers in this volume). There, are, however, certain

features that are typically associated with discourse markers, that can help us

identify whether a given element is functioning as a marker in any one context.

These features are both functional and formal. Functionally, discourse markers can

be described as playing both a contextualizing and an interactional role, being used

to indicate how an upcoming or prior utterance is to be understood in the context of

the surrounding discourse, and to indicate something about the speaker’s attitude to

the message content and to the addressee. Formally, discourse markers tend to be

intonationally, syntactically, and semantically independent from the surrounding

discourse. I will now briefly discuss each of these features and will show how they

can help distinguish discourse marker uses from non-discourse marker uses of

homonymic forms (see Travis (Forthcoming-a) for more detailed discussion of

these features). It will be seen that these features are not categorical, but taken as a

set they provide a useful guide as to whether or not a given item is functioning as a

discourse marker in a certain environment.

11

1.1. Contextualizing and interactional role of discourse markers

One of the key roles of discourse markers is to indicate how an upcoming or prior

utterance is to be understood in relation to the discourse context in which it occurs

(cf. Blakemore 1987: 105, Briz 1993a: 147, Fischer 2000b: 26, Fuentes Rodríguez

1993c: 71, Hansen 1998: 75, Lenk 1998: 246, Redeker 1991: 1168, Schiffrin 1987:

327). In this sense, markers function as a kind of meta-message to the addressee,

guiding them towards the interpretation intended by the speaker. In doing this they

also play an interactional role, indicating something about the speaker’s attitude to

the hearer and/or the discourse content (Briz 1993b: 50ff, Fischer 2000b: 26,

Fuentes Rodríguez 1993c: 71, Lenk 1998: 247, Martín Zorraquino 1991: 225,

Östman 1981:39ff, Schiffrin 1987: 322ff).

The following examples present some widely used discourse markers in Colombian

Spanish, and illustrate the contextualizing and interactional role they play as

compared with homonymic non-discourse marker forms.

Examples (1) and (2) illustrate respectively the marker use of bueno, meaning

something similar to English ‘well’, and its lexical use, meaning ‘good’. In (1),

Milena is discussing work done by environmental organizations in the small town

where she lives, and is saying that in the light of all there is to be done, there is not

enough money. Rosario accepts this with bueno, but adds that even small projects,

when timely, can make a difference.

12

(1) M: .. No es suficiente.~~ ~ not be-3SG sufficient

R: Sí.~~ Yes

~~ ... Bueno,

~~ pero a veces cositas pequeñitas,~~ but PREP times things-DIM small

~~ no?ii

~~ not

~~ Hay proyeticos así=,~~ there.is projects-DIM like.this

~~ Como=,~~ like

~~ .. puntuales,~~ ~ timely

~~ .. No?~~ ~ not

MILENA: ‘It’s not enough.’

ROSARIO: ‘Yes. ... Bueno, but sometimes little things, don’t you think? There are projects like that, kind of, timely, don’t you think?’

contamination (1262-1269)iii

The role of bueno here is to indicate that Rosario accepts what Milena has said, but

that her acceptance is only partial and some modification is required. Note that it

occurs with continuing intonation, indicating that the speaker has something further

to say. Interactionally, it mitigates this upcoming modification. We can readily see

how this differs from the lexical use of bueno illustrated in the following example.

ii The tag question ¿no? used here and in the intonation unit below would also be

classified as a discourse marker according to this analysis.

iii The information given here represents the name of the conversation from which

the example is drawn and the line numbers of the excerpt.

13

(2) P: .. Es que,~~ ~ be-3SG COMP

~~ ese diccionario es muy bueno.~~ that dictionary be-3SG very bueno

~~ Muy completo.~~ very complete

PATRICIA: ‘It’s that that dictionary is very bueno (‘good’). Very thorough.’

dictionary (635-637)

Here, bueno is modifying the noun dictionary. It is not contextualizing a prior

utterance, and it is not playing an interactional role.

Bueno can also occur on its own to form a turn. In this environment, it expresses

the speaker’s acceptance of a prior utterance. It is clearly not functioning as an

adjective as it is not modifying a noun, but its status as a discourse marker is not

clear-cut, as it does not contextualize an utterance (because it occurs on its own).

This is illustrated in the following example where Angela asks her aunt, Celia, to

fill in the consent form for this study, and Celia agrees with bueno.

(3) A: Me haga el <@ favor~@>.~~ 1SG.DAT do-3SG.SJV the ~ favor

C: Yo?~~ I

~~ Bueno.

ANGELA: ‘If you’d be so kind’.CELIA: ‘Me? Bueno.’

almuerzo (1277-1279)

The role of bueno here is primarily interactional in that it encodes a notion of

acceptance similar to that encoded in (1) (although here it indicates full, as opposed

to partial, acceptance). In this sense, it can be treated as a kind of discourse marker,

and should be analyzed alongside the use presented in (1). The differences in these

two uses serves to demonstrate the heterogeneity of the class, and the difficulty that

sometimes arises in classifying different uses.

14

Examples (4) and (5) present respectively the use of o sea as a marker, meaning

something like English ‘I mean’, and its lexical use, meaning ‘or be it’. In (4), Sara

is explaining different payment options available in an insurance policy. She states

that six-monthly payments are made to a cashier, and then following o sea,

specifies the mode of payment this involves.

(4) S: .. Cuando se paga semestral,~~ ~ when 3REFL pay-3SG six-monthly

~~ el pago es po=r caja.~~ the payment be-3SG for cashier

~~ O.sea,

~~ en efectivo o en cheque.~~ in cash or in cheque

SARA: ‘When it’s paid six-monthly, it’s paid to a cashier. O sea, by cash or by cheque.’

insurance (130-133)

In its lexical use, o sea introduces one noun phrase as an alternative for another.

Literally, o sea is made up of ‘or’ and the third person singular present subjunctive

form of the verb ser ‘to be’. There are no examples of the lexical use of o sea in the

conversational database, and this use is vary rare in casual conversation. I will

therefore illustrate this use with an example drawn from a Colombian novel. The

writer here is discussing rally driving, and the fact that it is very hard for

Colombian drivers to get sponsorship, because the companies that make the car

parts sponsor people from their own country and there are no Colombian

companies involved in manufacturing such parts.

15

(5) Allí pesan los intereses de los fabricantes de motores,there weigh-3PL the interests of the manufacturers of engines

los de las llantas, los de no sé quién,those of the tyres those of not know-1SG who

para que el escogido sea un alemánfor COMP the chose-PART be-3SG.SJV one German

o sea un francés o sea un japonés~…or be-3SG.SJV one French or be-3SG.SJV one Japanese

‘There what counts are the interests of the manufacturers of the engines, of the tyres, of I don’t know who, so that the chosen [driver] be a German o sea (‘or be’) a French person o sea (‘or be’) a Japanese …’

(Castro Caycedo 1999: 205)

The lexical use of o sea could be described as a more formal way of saying o ‘or’,

in that the verb in the preceding clause is repeated. The reason the verb ser ‘to be’

is used to introduce the alternative is simply because that is the verb used in the

preceding clause. The role of o sea in this literal sense is neither contextualizing nor

interactional, and it can readily be distinguished from the marker use seen in (4).

The following two examples illustrate respectively the use of verdad ‘true’ as a tag

question and as an adjective. Example (6) comes from a conversation in a

restaurant, and Angela is urging her interlocutors to decide what to order. Verdad

here does not mark the truth of her utterance (which is a question, and therefore not

verifiable), but highlights its importance, indicating to her interlocutors that they

should pay attention to her.

(6) A: Ve,iv

~~ hey

~~ qué vamos a pedir,~~ what go-1PL PREP order-INF

~~ verdad.

ANGELA: ‘Hey, what are we going to order, verdad.’

pizza (340-342)

16

In (7), verdad is used in its literal sense meaning ‘true’. Here it does not act on

another utterance to contextualize it, nor is it playing an interactional role. Rather, it

is used to verify the truth of a prior statement

(7) A: yo no te estoy diciendo que no,~~ I not 2SG.DAT be-1SG say-GER COMP no

~~ que mi mamá no sea así,~~ COMP my mum not be-3SG.SJV like.this

~~ porque sí.~~ because yes

~~ Sí es verdad.~~ yes be-3SG verdad

ANGELA: ‘I’m not saying that no, my mum isn’t like that, because yes, it is verdad (‘true’).’

restaurant (627-630)

These few examples serve to illustrate the functional role markers play, and how

this distinguishes them from homonymic forms in other word classes. They show

how it is that markers function as meta-messages about how the speaker wants an

utterance to be understood in the context of the surrounding discourse. As is also

argued by Nemo (this volume) and Nyan (this volume), the meta-message the

marker gives represents it core meaning. Discourse markers can therefore be

defined in terms of the comment they make about the utterance(s) they mark, and

this can be captured in NSM definitions with the component ‘I say: …’.

Another point to make here is that markers indicate that an utterance is non-initial.

That is, they mark an utterance as responding to some prior aspect of the discourse,

or, in some cases, to an extra-linguistic situation (cf. Martín Zorraquino 1994: 410

for further discussion of this point). This allows us to specify further the format of

marker definitions proposed within the NSM framework by including information

regarding their contexts of use. The context is, of course, not part of the semantics

of the marker.v However, it may be useful to include contextual information in

17

marker definitions in the form of a frame in which the marker occurs. I propose that

discourse marker definitions be presented in the following format:

[someone said something / something happened]

I say: ……

‘Someone said something’ captures the use of a marker to respond to prior

discourse, and ‘something happened’ to respond to an extra-linguistic situation.

This component is given in square brackets, to indicate that it represents the context

and is not part of the semantics of the marker, with the core meaning being given

following ‘I say’. We will see how this applies to the different meanings of bueno

in Section 3 below.

1.2. Independence of discourse markers

1.2.1. Prosodic independence

Discourse markers tend to be set of intonationally from the surrounding discourse,

as has been widely recognized in the literature (Chafe 1993: 37, Du Bois et al.

1992: 103, Hansen 1998: 66, Martín Zorraquino 1991: 255, Redeker 1991: 1166).

It is important to note that prosodic independence is not determined solely on the

basis of pausing for, as Pons (this volume) states, discourse markers are not

necessarily surrounded by pauses. As can be seen above, bueno in (1) is preceded

but not followed by a pause, there is no pausing surrounding o sea in (4), and

verdad in (6) follows directly on from the prior material. Prosodic independence as

used here refers to discourse markers occurring in an intonation unit on their own,

and, as noted above, pausing is just one of a set of features to identify intonation

18

units. In the database, the majority of the discourse markers occur in intonation

units on their own, and when they do not they occur with minimal accompanying

material, such as ah ‘oh’ (e.g. ah bueno ‘oh, OK’), or y ‘and’ (e.g. y entonces ‘and

so’).

The notion of prosodic independence can help distinguish discourse marker uses

from lexical uses. In the examples given above, we can see that bueno in (1) and

(3), o sea in (4), and verdad in (6) occur in an intonation unit on their own, when

they are used as markers, but they are prosodically integrated into the surrounding

material in (2), (5) and (7), when they are used in their lexical sense.

1.2.2. Syntactic independence

Discourse markers are syntactically independent in that they are not part of the core

syntactic structure of the utterance in which they occur. This means that the

utterance would remain syntactically intact if they were removed. This is presented

in most studies as one of the defining features of discourse markers (cf., for

example, Fischer 2000b: 26, Fraser 1988: 27, Hansen 1998: 75, Schiffrin 1987:

328, inter alia for discussion, as well as the other papers in this volume).

This can again be illustrated with the examples seen above. Consider the use of

bueno in (1) and (2): in (1), bueno need not be stated, while in (2), the removal of

bueno results in a syntactically incomplete utterance (ese diccionario es muy ‘that

dictionary is very’). In the case of o sea, in (4), the utterance remains intact without

its use, while in (5) a different meaning is expressed. Without o sea (para que el

escogido sea un alemán, un francés, un japonés ‘so that the chosen one be a

German, a French person, a Japanese’) the utterance reads as a list of different

19

possibilities, rather than specifically presenting ‘French’ and ‘Japanese’ as

alternatives for ‘German’. Verdad in (6) can also be removed, while its removal in

(7) would imply an elided adjective (leaving sí es ‘it is’).

As is stressed by Hansen (this volume) and Fraser (this volume) the fact that the

utterance remains syntactically intact without the use of the marker does not mean

that the same meaning is expressed. Removal of the marker affects the pragmatics

of the interaction as the utterance is no longer contextualized in the same way, and

the interactional meaning is lost.

1.2.3. Semantic independence

‘Semantic independence’ is used here analogously with prosodic and syntactic

independence to refer to the fact that discourse markers are not inherently tied to

any specific element of the discourse, that is, their scope is indeterminate.

In (1), for example, we cannot know how much of Rosario’s turn bueno is intended

to introduce, whether it is it just marking ‘but sometimes little things’, or whether it

is also marking what Rosario goes on to say, ‘there are projects that are timely’. In

(2), on the other hand, where bueno is used as an adjective, it is marking the

preceding noun, ‘dictionary’. In (3), bueno responds both to Angela’s request, and

Celia’s confirmation that it is she who needs to sign the form. Here bueno is

referring to a general notion that has been established in the prior discourse, rather

than to any one specific contribution.

In the case of o sea, we can see that in (5) it is marking the noun phrases which it

presents as alternatives (German, French, Japanese), while in (4) it could be

understood as specifying what is meant by the preceding intonation unit ‘it’s paid to

20

a cashier’, or by the two preceding units ‘when it’s paid six-monthly, it’s paid to a

cashier’.

Likewise, in (6) it is impossible to state how much of the preceding material is

marked by verdad (i.e. ‘what are we going to order’ or ‘hey, what are we going to

order’). The lexical use of verdad in (7), however, also has broad scope, as it is

referring to what has been said about Angela’s mother in the prior conversation.

Discourse markers are of course not the only elements that can be used with

indeterminate scope, and this feature on its own is therefore of little use. It is

significant only when seen as part of a set with the other features outlined here.

This set of features are interrelated: the prosodic independence of markers is related

to the fact that they are not integrated into the core syntactic structure of the

utterance, and it is this that facilitates their marking large, often indeterminate,

segments of text. This in turn is related to their functional role of contextualizing

those segments in the surrounding discourse.

2. Functional Spectrum

As discussed above, discourse markers fulfill a multitude of functions, and the one

discourse marker can also have a very broad range of use. Polyfunctionality has

been of great concern to those working with discourse markers, and because of

their wide range of use, a certain vagueness or indefinability in the semantics

appears to be assumed. However, it seems that the vagueness of the semantics of

markers is taken as a given, rather than treated as a testable hypothesis. In the

remainder of this paper, I will argue against this notion, and will show that, with an

21

appropriate semantic methodology, discourse markers can be analyzed with the

same method as other lexical items, and their meaning(s) can be identified and

exhaustively defined.

In order to do this, we will consider the marker bueno, looking further at its range

of use, and outlining the meanings these uses carry.

2.1. Discourse environments of buenovi

The marker bueno occurs in a number of different environments. We have seen

above, in (1) and (3), that it can occur in response to a contribution made by an

interlocutor. I classify all such uses as ‘turn initial’, although, as can be seen in

these two examples, it can be preceded by other minimal material. Turn-initial

bueno occurs with both continuing, as in (1), and final intonation, as in (3), and can

be uttered in response to both comments, as in (1), and questions, or other material

requesting a response, as in (3).

Bueno also occurs turn-medially, responding to the same speaker’s speech, and

again, it occurs with both continuing and final intonation. As well as the general

distinction between turn-medial bueno with continuing and final intonation, we can

also note its use in one specific environment, which is prefacing direct speech. This

use is clearly functionally distinct from the others, and it is also structurally distinct,

in that it occurs either accompanied by the verb decir ‘to say’, or with marked

syntax indicating that it is introducing direct speech (e.g. a subject without a verb, y

yo, bueno. Ojalá. ‘And I, bueno, I hope so.’).

22

Bueno does not occur turn-finally in the database. We saw above that it can

constitute a turn on its own, but I have classified such use as turn-initial, to

highlight the similarity between this use and its turn-initial use prefacing a

response. Bueno also does not occur with rising intonation in the database, though

such use is heard in other dialects of Spanish, and may be occasionally heard in

Colombian Spanish.

2.2. Functions of bueno

The discourse environments in which bueno occurs map on to a range of different

functions. These are laid out in the table below. As this table shows, there is a very

close correlation between the structural position in which the marker occurs, its

prosody, and its function. The only areas where the correlation breaks down is for

the functions of marking a reorientation and a closing, both of which occur in turn

medial position with final intonation, and in marking direct speech, which can

occur with both final and continuing intonation. This can be explained by the

semantics of the marker, which, as we shall see, also interrelate with its structural,

prosodic and functional properties. It will be shown that the semantics of bueno in

the contexts of marking a reorientation and a pre-closing, are identical, and that its

use introducing direct speech is in fact a secondary function. The role of bueno in

direct speech is to ‘quote’ one of the other functions identified, and its variable

intonation is a feature of the function being ‘quoted’.

23

STRUCTURAL POSITION INTONATION CONTOURvii FUNCTION

turn initialfinal acceptance

continuing mitigation

turn medial

finalreorientation

pre-closing

continuing correction

finalintrod. direct speech

continuing

In the following discussion I will address the different functions individually, and

in Section 3 I will outline the different meanings of the marker.

2.1.1. Acceptance

The use of bueno to encode acceptance was seen above, in example (3), in which

Celia used bueno to agree to Angela’s request to sign a form. This function has

been widely recognized in the literature (Bauhr 1994: 92ff, Beinhauer 1968: 352ff,

Cortés Rodríguez 1991: 112, Fuentes Rodríguez 1993a: 208ff, Martín Zorraquino

1991: 263, Ocampo 2002), although it is often described as encoding a notion of

concession or resignation, as though it were a kind of reluctant acceptance (Bauhr

1994: 92ff, Beinhauer 1968: 353, 355, Fuentes Rodríguez 1993a: 208ff,

1993b:194). There appears to be no implication of reluctance in (3), and I would

argue that rather than ‘concession’ or ‘resignation’, bueno is simply a neutral

acceptance device which can be contrasted with elements such as con mucho gusto

‘with pleasure’ and muy bien ‘very good’, which could be seen as more enthusiastic

24

ways of expressing acceptance. Because of its neutrality, it can occur with reluctant

responses, but the reluctance is not encoded by bueno itself, but by other material

with which it may co-occur.viii

2.1.2. Mitigation

The use of bueno to mitigate an upcoming modification of a contribution by an

interlocutor was seen in (1), where it introduces a response that partially disagrees

with the prior contribution by another interlocutor. This use is also found when

bueno prefaces an answer to a question, in which case it occurs with answers that

are not straightforward. This has been noted in the literature, and it is argued that

bueno is used to soften responses that are not what would be expected (or desired)

from the surrounding context, such as comments that do not concord with prior

discourse, statements that disagree with what someone else has said, as in (1), or

answers that do not fully respond to a question (cf. Bauhr 1994: 120, Cortés

Rodríguez 1991: 108, Fuentes Rodríguez 1993a: 219, Gregori Signes 1996: 161ff,

Ocampo 2002, Serrano 1999: 121ff). I am therefore using ‘mitigation’ in a broad

sense here to refer to the use of bueno marking dispreferred responses (Levinson

1983: 332ff).

An example of the use of bueno prefacing an answer to a question is given below.

Here, Angela asks her interlocutor about the difference in price between various

options available in an insurance policy she is taking out. Sara does not

immediately answer this question: she first outlines one very important element of

the policy (not reproduced here), and only then does she turn to answer Angela’s

question. Thus, the response immediately following the question does not in itself

25

constitute an appropriate answer, although Sara does go on to answer Angela’s

question following this. Bueno is used in this context to acknowledge the validity of

the question, and to indicate at the same time that it is not going to be answered

without some further information being given.

(8) A: Y cuál es la diferencia,~~ and which be-3SG the difference

~~ O.sea,~~ I mean

~~ En plata.~~ in money

~~ @@

S: .. Bueno,

~~ .. Y entonces,~~ ~ and so

~~ Esoix también es super importante.~~ that also be-3SG super important

ANGELA: ‘And what’s the difference, I mean, in money. @@’

SARA: ‘Bueno, and so, that is also very important.’

insurance (377–383)

The ‘mitigating’ role of bueno (when it prefaces a response), and its role marking

acceptance (when bueno constitutes a response on its own) are similar, as both

involve saying something positive about some aspect of the prior discourse.

However, when bueno prefaces a response, it encodes only partial acceptance, and

indicates that a modification is upcoming. This is also in accordance with the

prosodic difference between these two uses, with bueno encoding acceptance

occurring with final intonation (implying that nothing more is forthcoming), and

bueno encoding partial acceptance occurring with continuing intonation (implying

that the speaker is going to say something more). In this sense, we have prosody

interacting with the semantics of the marker, as will be discussed further in Section

3 below.

26

2.1.3. Reorientation

We will now consider the turn-medial use of bueno, where it responds to a

contribution by the same speaker. The most common use of bueno in this

environment is to mark a reorientation in topic. This includes introducing a new

topic; closing a topic; prefacing a digression from the main topic; returning to a

prior topic following a digression; and moving on to the key point of a topic,

having outlined background information (cf. Bauhr 1994: 106, Beinhauer 1968:

352ff, Cortés Rodríguez 1991: 105ff, Fuentes Rodríguez 1993a: 210ff, Gregori

Signes 1996: 167, Martín Zorraquino 1991: 261, 1994: 411, Ocampo 2002, Serrano

1999: 120). In the following example, bueno indicates that the speaker is moving

from introductory information of the story she is telling to the main point. She is

talking about a man in the restaurant where she and her husband are having lunch,

and having stated that he appears to have some kind of problem, she goes on to

present an example of this, that he has been talking to himself.

(9) A: Mira que,~~ look-2SG.IMP COMP

~~ .. este señor,~~ ~ this man

~~ ...(2.0) Hm,~~ ~ Hm

~~ Parece que tiene es como~--~~ seem-3SG COMP have-3SG be-3SG like

~~ .. un problema,~~ ~ one problem

~~ o yo no sé.~~ or I not know-1SG

~~ Bueno.

27

~~ ... Estaba ahorita=~--~~ ~ be-3SG.IMPF now-DIM

~~ así como,~~ like.this like

~~ hablando .. solo?~~ speak-GER ~ alone

ANGELA: ‘Look, this man, …(2.0) Hm, he seems to have kind of a problem, or something. Bueno. … Just now he was kind of talking to himself.’

restaurant (911–920)

As with the other uses of bueno we have seen, its role here is to mark acceptance of

what Angela has said. In this case, her acceptance of this information allows her to

move on; she does not provisionally accept what she has just said in order to

modify it, but in order to continue with the main point of what she wants to say.

Note that bueno occurs with final intonation, giving the prior discourse a tone of

completion, with the implication being that having completed one aspect of the

discourse the speaker can move on to another.

2.1.4. Pre-closing

Another turn-medial use of bueno with final intonation is as a pre-closing device,

marking movement towards a conversational closing. This use has been discussed

in the literature, and it is generally described as playing the role of seeking

agreement to end the conversation (Bauhr 1994: 111ff, Gregori Signes 1996: 168,

Martín Zorraquino 1991: 263, Placencia 1997: 59). The following example comes

from a telephone conversation, of which only one side was recorded (hence the

long pauses, which are when the other interlocutor is talking), but the pre-closing

role of bueno can clearly be seen.

28

(10) M: Sí.~~ yes

~~ ...(2.0) Ah hah.~~ ~ Ah hah

~~ ... Bueno.

~~ ... Bue=no.

~~ Hasta luego,~~ until later

~~ chao.~~ ciao

MILENA: ‘Yes. ...(2.0) Ah hah. ... Bueno. ... Bue=no. See you later, ciao.’

campaign (206-211)

This use is essentially the same as what I have termed ‘reorientation’, but in this

case, the reorientation is towards a closing. This use appears to have become a

somewhat ritualized part of the leave-taking process, as interlocutors attempt to

undertake a smooth farewell.

2.1.5. Correction

When bueno occurs turn-medially with continuing intonation it functions to

introduce a correction or a modification of what the same speaker had said in prior

discourse. That is, the speaker has said something, but then wishes to change in

some way what was said, and bueno is used to mark this. This function has also

been discussed in the literature (Bauhr 1994: 101ff, Cortés Rodríguez 1991: 106ff,

Fuentes Rodríguez 1993a: 175, Gregori Signes 1996: 162ff, Martín Zorraquino

1991: 263, 1994: 409). This is illustrated in the following example, where Omar

begins to ask how a certain problem has been resolved, but then cuts himself off to

acknowledge that the problem has not been fully resolved. He introduces this

correction with bueno.

29

(11) O: Cómo solucionaron~--~~ how solve-3PL.PRET

~~ .. Bueno,

~~ claro que,~~ of.course COMP

~~ me imagino que no se ha solucionado.~~ 1SG.REFL imagine COMP not 3REFL have-3SG solve-PART

~~ ... El problema de~--~~ ~ the problem of

~~ de~--~~ of

~~ Presupuesto para=~--~~ budget for

OMAR: ‘How did they resolve -- Bueno, of course, I imagine that it hasn’t been resolved. … The problem of the budget for --’

Tumaco (1825–1831)

Bueno here indicates that the corrected material is not entirely wrong, that is, it can

be partially accepted, but that some minor modification is needed. Note that this use

is similar to that described above as functioning to mitigate an upcoming

modification of another’s utterance: both imply some kind of acceptance of prior

discourse before going on to say something slightly different.

2.1.6. Direct speech

The final function of bueno to be discussed is its use introducing direct speech.

When used in this way, bueno highlights the upcoming quoted material by overtly

marking the transition between indirect and direct speech (cf. Bauhr 1994: 112,

Gregori Signes 1996: 164). At the same time, bueno serves to contextualize the

quote. In this environment, bueno is interpreted as part of the quoted material, and

appears to ‘quote’ one of the functions discussed above. That is, it indicates that the

upcoming material (the quote) was produced as an acceptance, a mitigation of an

upcoming comment, a reorientation, a pre-closing, or a correction in the

30

conversation from which it is drawn (i.e. in the quoted conversation). Bueno

introducing direct speech therefore occurs with both continuing and final

intonation, as the intonation of the function being quoted determines the intonation

with which bueno occurs. In the following example bueno occurs with continuing

intonation, and appears to be playing the role of mitigating an upcoming response.

Here, Santi is describing the fact that his mother-in-law talks about others behind

their backs, and that he draws the conclusion on this basis that she must also talk

about him behind his back.

(12) S: Y yo digo,~~ and I say-1SG

~~ bueno,

~~ si es así,~~ if be-3SG like.this

~~ .. Entonces,~~ ~ then

~~ .. de mí también tiene que ser así.~~ ~ of me also have-3SG COMP be-INF like.this

SANTI: ‘And I say, bueno, if she’s like that, then she must also be like that about me.’

restaurant (574–578)

It is interesting to note that other Spanish markers commonly occur introducing

direct speech, in particular pues ‘well, then’ (cf. Travis Forthcoming-a, Travis

Forthcoming-b) and no ‘no’. Redeker (1990: 374) has noted that English discourse

markers are also commonly used in this way. This may be a rhetorical device used

to help contextualize direct speech, and deserves further attention.

The above discussion has illustrated the multifunctional nature of bueno. In the

following section, I will outline how these different uses can be accounted for in a

semantic model.

31

3. Model

In this Section, I will show how the meanings of bueno map onto the discourse

environments in which it occurs and the functions it has.

The aim of the semantic analysis is to determine if any elements of meaning are

shared across the range of use of a given discourse marker, and if so, what are those

shared elements; whether they relate to the lexical source; and whether additional

elements of meaning are encoded in the different functions.

From the discussion of the different uses of bueno presented above, it is apparent

that these uses cannot be accounted for by just one definition, but that they do not

require entirely distinct definitions either, since shared across the range of use is a

notion of positive evaluation of an aspect of the prior discourse. We have seen

bueno used to encode acceptance; to mitigate an upcoming utterance, which it does

by encoding partial acceptance; to mark reorientation in topic, which it does by

accepting what preceded and thereby paving the way to move on; to move towards

a conversational closing, by accepting the conversation up to that point; and to

introduce a correction, where it functions to acknowledge partial validity of the

corrected item. Thus, these functions represent a set of related meanings centered

around the notion of positive evaluation. We can therefore analyze bueno as

polysemous, with the notion of ‘positive evaluation’ as its semantic core, or partial

semantic invariant. This notion can be captured in NSM with the following

component:

I say: this is good

32

In this way we can see that the marker bueno contains the adjective bueno as part of

its meaning. Thus, the semantics of the lexical source have been retained in the

semantics of the discourse marker, but with the interactional and contextualizing

role of the marker, its meaning has extended beyond that of the adjective.

Note that although the marker contains as part of its meaning the adjective ‘good’,

this does not mean that bueno, the adjective, and bueno, the discourse marker, are

also polysemes. The adjective and the marker have related meanings, but they do

not share a component of meaning as such: the adjective does not encode ‘I say:

this is good’, but merely ‘good’ (one of the proposed primitives of NSM, cf.

Appendix A). Thus, I would argue that the adjective and the discourse marker are

homophonous.

I propose that the functions of the discourse marker bueno discussed here represent

four related meanings, which are defined and discussed further below. These

include its use to encode acceptance (which I shall term bueno1); to mitigate a

response (bueno2); to mark a reorientation (including a reorientation towards a

closing) (bueno3); and to mark a correction (bueno4). As discussed above, its

occurrence with direct speech is best treated as a sub-function of these others,

where it serves to contextualize the quote, marking it as an acceptance, a response,

a reorientation or a correction.

The four definitions I propose for bueno are given below. Note that all definitions

begin with a component presented in square brackets representing the context in

which the marker occurs. Variations of the basic form presented above (someone

said something) are given where further specification of the environment is needed.

This will be discussed further below.

33

bueno1 (acceptance)

1. [you said something (X) to me now

2. I think: you want me to say something]

3. I say: this (X) is good

4. I don’t want to say anything more

bueno2 (mitigation)

1. [you said something (X) to me now

2. I think: you want me to say something]

3. I say: this is good

4. I want to say something more about this

bueno3 (reorientation, pre-closing)

1. [someone said something (X)]

2. I say: this is good

3. someone can say something else now

bueno4 (correction)

1. [I said something (X) now]

2. I say: this (X) is good

3. I want to say something else about this

In each use, bueno responds to some aspect of the prior discourse, but the uses

differ in terms of whose speech it responds to. When encoding acceptance and

mitigating a response, bueno occurs in response to an immediately prior comment

by another interlocutor (therefore, ‘you said something to me now’). Furthermore,

in these functions, bueno indicates that the speaker believes the addressee expects a

response, and this is captured in component two (‘I think you want me to say

something’).

34

When marking a reorientation, it can respond to the same speaker’s speech, as seen

in (9), or to someone else’s speech, as seen in (10), and therefore is defined as

responding to ‘someone’. And when introducing a correction, it always responds to

the same speaker’s immediately prior speech, and therefore is defined as ‘I said

something now’.

Although all uses of bueno encode the notion ‘I say: this is good’, bueno1 and

bueno4 differ from bueno2 and bueno3 in that for bueno1 and bueno4, ‘this’

specifically refers to the content of what was said (as is captured with the use of ‘X’

in the definition), while bueno2 and bueno3 refer to the contribution itself. Thus, in

(3) and (11), the use of bueno indicates respectively acceptance of the request made

by the addressee to sign the informed consent form, and acceptance of the wording

which Omar then corrects (cómo solucionaron -- ‘how did they resolve --’). In (1)

and (9), however, the speaker is not saying ‘it is good that there isn’t enough

money’ in (1), or ‘it is good that this man has a problem’ in (9), but merely ‘it is

good that this point has been established, and now I can go on’.

Bueno1 also differs in that it indicates that the speaker has no more to say, and

implies acceptance with no reservations, while the other uses all imply that the

acceptance is only partial, and that some modification, or correction, of a prior

utterance is needed, or that something more needs to be said. Bueno2 indicates that

the speaker wishes to say something more about what has been said, which may be

a modification of a prior comment, or the presentation of further information before

going on to answer a question. Bueno3 does not indicate that the same speaker will

continue, but that the discourse can continue (by the same speaker or by someone

else) because of what has been established, and it allows for the conversation to

move in a new direction. For this reason I have specified that the speaker says that

35

‘something else’ can be said, as opposed to ‘something more’. In this sense this use

is similar to bueno4, where, again, the speaker is not merely adding information to

what has been said, but is saying something different which in this case constitutes

a correction. That is, the speaker is not just saying something different, but is

saying something different about what has been said, and therefore I have specified

‘I want to say something else about this’ as opposed to ‘someone can say

something else now’, as I proposed for bueno3.

It is important to note that these meanings correspond to the intonation contour with

which bueno occurs: when the speaker wishes to say something more, bueno occurs

with continuing intonation, and when they wish to indicate that they have

completed what they want to say, it occurs with final intonation. This does not

mean that the meaning can be attributed to the intonation contour alone, but that we

have an interaction of different linguistic features giving rise to different meanings.

Note that a similar notion is proposed by Yang, this volume, and by Ferrara in her

study of the prosody of anyway (1997).

These definitions demonstrate that despite the wide range of contexts in which

bueno occurs and the many functions it carries, its meaning in each of these

environments can be accounted for. The definitions may not be fully predictive, due

to the syntactically optional nature of discourse markers, but they do show which

meaning is being employed in any one context, and they capture precisely the

meaning encoded carried by bueno each time it is used.

36

4. Broader Perspective

This paper has discussed the pragmatic role discourse markers play in conversation.

Assigning markers a pragmatic role, however, does not mean that they must be

treated as having purely pragmatic meaning. I have attempted to show that while a

discourse-functional analysis based on identifying environments of occurrence and

corresponding functions is highly insightful into discourse marker use, a semantic

analysis is essential for a full understanding of the meanings motivating the

functional role. I have argued that the semantics and pragmatics of discourse

markers can be distinguished in the same way they are distinguished for other

lexical items. And I have argued on this basis that discourse markers can be defined

with a semantic methodology of wide application, and do not require any specific

semantic treatment. This allows us to account for marker and non-marker uses

within the same model, and thereby allows direct comparisons to be drawn between

such uses. This is particularly important when considering the development of

discourse markers, given that they tend to develop as extensions from the lexical

meaning. In relation to this, I have also discussed in some detail the notion of

polysemy and how it can be rigorously accounted for in a semantic model through

the notion of the partial semantic invariant. In the case of bueno, I have argued that

the partial semantic invariant is ‘I say: this is good’, and that this component of

meaning has been retained from the lexical meaning of ‘good’ from which the

marker derives.x

Much remains to be done in the study of discourse markers. This paper has

addressed some of the key issues of the field, namely what markers are, how to

account for their meaning, and how to deal with their polysemous and

37

polyfunctional relations. It is hoped that this contribution, with the other papers in

this volume, will help heighten our understanding of discourse markers, and pave

the way for more unified research in this area.

38

Appendix A: Proposed semantic primes (Goddard and Wierzbicka 2002a: 14)

Substantives: I, YOU, SOMEONE, PEOPLE/PERSON,SOMETHING/THING, BODY

Determiners: THIS, THE SAME, OTHERQuantifiers: ONE, TWO, SOME, ALL, MANY/MUCHEvaluators: GOOD, BADDescriptors: BIG, SMALLMental predicates: THINK, KNOW, WANT, FEEL, SEE, HEARSpeech: SAY, WORD, TRUEActions, events, movement: DO, HAPPEN, MOVEExistence and possession: THERE IS, HAVELife and death: LIVE, DIETime: WHEN/TIME, NOW, BEFORE, AFTER,

A LONG TIME, A SHORT TIME, FOR SOME TIMESpace: WHERE/PLACE, HERE, ABOVE, BELOW,

FAR, NEAR, SIDE, INSIDE“Logical” concepts: NOT, MAYBE, CAN, BECAUSE, IFIntensifier, Augmentor: VERY, MORETaxonomy, partonomy: KIND OF, PART OFSimilarity: LIKE

Appendix B: Transcription Conventions (Du Bois et al. 1992)

. final intonation contour .. short pause (about 0.5 secs), continuing intonation contour ... medium pause (> 0.7 secs)? appeal intonation contour ...(N) long pause (of N seconds)-- truncated intonation contour @ one syllable of laughter= lengthened syllable <@ @> speech while laughing

Appendix C: Gloss-line Abbreviations

NB: all verbs are in the present indicative, unless otherwise indicated.

COMP complementizerDAT dative pronounDIM diminutiveGER gerundIMP imperativeIMPF imperfect

INF infinitivePART participlePREP preposition (a)PRET preteriteREFL reflexiveSJV subjunctive

1 1st person2 2nd person3 3rd personSG singularPL plural

39

References

Bauhr, Gerhard

1994 "Funciones discursivas de bueno en español moderno". Lingüística

Española Actual 16(1): 79-124.

Beinhauer, Werner

1968 El español coloquial, 2nd ed. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.

Blakemore, Diane

1987 Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Blakemore, Diane

1996 "Are apposition markers discourse markers?" Journal of Linguistics 32:

325-347.

Brinton, Laurel

1996 Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse

functions. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Briz, Antonio

1993a "Los conectores pragmáticos en español coloquial (I): Su papel

argumentativo". Contextos 11(21/22): 145-188.

Briz, Antonio

1993b "Los conectores pragmáticos en la conversación coloquial (II): Su papel

metadiscursivo". Español Actual 59: 39-56.

Castro Caycedo, Germán

1999 Colombia X. Bogota: Planeta.

Chafe, Wallace

40

1993 "Prosodic and functional units of language". In Jane Edwards and Martin

Lampert (eds.). Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research, 33-

43. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chafe, Wallace

1994 Discourse, consciousness and time: The flow and displacement of conscious

experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cortés Rodríguez, Luis

1991 Sobre conectores, expletivos y muletillas en español. Málaga: Editorial

Librería Ágora.

Du Bois, John W.; Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan; Paolino, Danae; and Cumming,

Susanna

1992 "Discourse transcription". Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 4.

Ferrara, Kathleen

1997 "Form and function of the discourse marker anyway: Implications for

discourse analysis". Linguistics 35: 343-378.

Fischer, Kerstin

1998 "Validating semantic analyses of discourse particles". Journal of

Pragmatics 29: 111-127.

Fischer, Kerstin

2000a "Discourse particles, turn-taking, and the semantics-pragmatics interface".

Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 8: 111-137.

Fischer, Kerstin

2000b From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics: The functional polysemy of

discourse particles. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Fraser, Bruce

41

1988 "Types of English discourse markers". Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38: 19-

33.

Fuentes Rodríguez, Catalina

1993a "Comportamiento discursivo de bueno, bien, pues bien". Estudios de

Lingüística 9: 205-221.

Fuentes Rodríguez, Catalina

1993b "Conclusivos y reformulativos". Verba 20: 171-198.

Fuentes Rodríguez, Catalina

1993c "Conectores 'pragmáticos'". In Esperanza Alcaide; María del Mar Ramos;

and Francisco Salguero (eds.). Estudios lingüísticos en torno a la palabra, 71-104.

Sevilla: Kronos.

Goddard, Cliff

1994 "The meaning of lah: Understanding 'emphasis' in Malay (Bahasa Melayu)".

Oceanic Linguistics 33(1): 145-165.

Goddard, Cliff

2000 "Polysemy: A Problem of Definition". In Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock

(eds.). Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, 129-151. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Goddard, Cliff and Wierzbicka, Anna (eds.)

1994 Semantic and lexical universals: Theory and empirical findings. Amsterdam

/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Goddard, Cliff and Wierzbicka, Anna (eds.)

2002a Meaning and universal grammar: Theory and empirical findings, vol. 1, 2

vols. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Goddard, Cliff and Wierzbicka, Anna (eds.)

42

2002b Meaning and universal grammar: Theory and empirical findings, vol. 2, 2

vols. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Gregori Signes, Carmen

1996 "'Bueno, hasta luego': El uso de bueno en conversaciones". Miscelánea: A

Journal of English and American Studies 17: 157-170.

Hansen, Maj Britt Mosegaard

1998 The function of discourse particles: A study with special reference to spoken

standard French. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Jucker, Andreas H.

1993 "The discourse marker well: A relevance theoretical account". Journal of

Pragmatics 19: 435-452.

Jucker, Andreas H. and Ziv, Yael

1998 "Discourse markers: Introduction". In Andreas H. Jucker and Yael Ziv

(eds.). Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, 1-12. Amsterdam /

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Lenk, Uta

1998 "Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation". Journal of

Pragmatics 30: 245-257.

Levinson, Stephen

1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyons, John

1977 Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martín Zorraquino, María Antonia

43

1991 "Elementos de cohesión en el habla de Zaragoza". In José María Enguita

Utrilla (ed.). I curso de geografía lingüística de Aragón, 253-286. Zaragoza:

Institución Fernando el Católico.

Martín Zorraquino, María Antonia

1994 "'Bueno' como operador pragmático en español actual". Encuentro de

Lingüistas y Filólogos de España y México 2: 403-412.

Ocampo, Francisco

2002 "De 'el asunto está bueno' a 'bueno, el asunto está': El uso del adjetivo

calificativo bueno como partícula discursiva". Paper presented at the XIII Congreso

Internacional de ALFAL, Universidad de Costa Rica.

Onodera, Noriko Okada

1995 "Diachronic analysis of Japanese discourse markers". In Andreas H. Jucker

(ed.). Historical pragmatics, 393-437. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Östman, Jan-Ola

1981 You know: A discourse-functional approach. Amsterdam / Philadelphia:

John Benjamins.

Placencia, María Elena

1997 "Address forms in Ecuadorian Spanish". Hispanic Linguistics 91: 165-202.

Redeker, Gisela

1990 "Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure". Journal of

Pragmatics 14: 367-381.

Redeker, Gisela

1991 "Linguistic markers of discourse structure" [review of Discourse Markers

by Deborah Schiffrin]. Linguistics 29: 1139-1172.

Rieschild, Verna Robertson

44

1996 "Lebanese-Arabic discourse: Adult interaction with young children (with

reference to Australian-English situations)". Unpublished PhD thesis, Australian

National University, Canberra.

Schiffrin, Deborah

1987 Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Serrano, María José

1999 "Bueno como marcador discursivo de inicio de turno y contraposición:

Estudio sociolingüístico". International Journal of the Sociology of Language 140:

115-133.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs

1995 "The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of

grammaticalization". Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on

Historical Linguistics, University of Manchester.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs

2000 "Constructions in grammaticalization". In Brian Joseph and Richard Janda

(eds.). Handbook of historical linguistics, 1-22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Travis, Catherine E.

1998 "Bueno: A Spanish interactive discourse marker". Berkeley Linguistics

Society 24: 268-279.

Travis, Catherine E.

2003 "The semantics of the Spanish subjunctive: Its use in the Natural Semantic

Metalanguage". Cognitive Linguistics 14(1): 47-69.

Travis, Catherine E.

Forthcoming-aDiscourse markers in Colombian Spanish: A study in polysemy.

Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

45

Travis, Catherine E.

Forthcoming-b "The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers: An

analysis of Spanish pues". In József Andor and Péter Pelyvás (eds.). Empirical,

cognitive-based studies in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Oxford: Elsevier.

Wierzbicka, Anna

1976 "Particles and linguistic relativity". International Review of Slavic

Linguistics 2: 251-312.

Wierzbicka, Anna

iEndnotes

I would like to thank Alan Baxter, Hilary Chappell and Timothy Curnow for their

insightful comments on an earlier version of the analysis presented here; María

Elena Rendón and Marianne Dieck for their help with data collection; and Kerstin

Fischer for her valuable feedback on this paper.

? See Yang, this volume, for a more detailed account of discourse marker prosody.

v See Fischer (2000a) for discussion of the notion that discourse markers do not

hold turn-taking properties, but derive their turn-taking role from the positions in

which they occur, their intonation, and their meaning.

vi See Travis (1998, Forthcoming-a) for more detailed analyses and discussion of

bueno, though it should be noted that the semantic analysis presented in the 1998

work differs slightly from that presented here.

vii It should be noted that those uses I have specified as occurring with final

intonation may occur with continuing intonation in some marked contexts, for

example when followed by a vocative (e.g. Bueno, mi amor. ‘Bueno, my love.’).

viii Other material that can be used to indicate reluctance are other lexical items,

pauses, tone of voice, etc.

46

1988 The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Wierzbicka, Anna

1994 "'Cultural scripts': A new approach to the study of cross-cultural

communication". In Martin Pütz (ed.). Language contact and language conflict, 69-

87. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Wierzbicka, Anna

1996 Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

iv Ve is a discourse marker which literally means ‘look’ and is used as an attention-

getting device.

ix Eso ‘that’ here refers to another element of the policy that Sara had been

describing when Angela asked her about the cost, and not to the cost itself.

x For discussion of the relationship between the different uses of bueno, see

Ocampo (2002).

47