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, SchuetzeCoburn, 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.
(2)
P: .. Es
que,
~~ ~ be-3SG COMP
~~ ese diccionario es
muy bueno.
~~ that dictionary be-3SG very bueno
~~ Muy
~~ very
completo.
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.
13
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.
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.
14
(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.
(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 alemán
for
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
15
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)
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
16
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
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.
17
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
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.
18
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
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.
19
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
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.
20
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 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.
21
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.’).
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.
22
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’.
STRUCTURAL POSITION
INTONATION CONTOURvii
FUNCTION
final
acceptance
continuing
mitigation
turn initial
reorientation
final
pre-closing
turn medial
continuing
correction
final
introd. direct speech
continuing
23
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
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
24
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
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
~~ @@
25
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.
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,
26
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.
~~ ... 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
27
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.
(10)
M: Sí.
~~ yes
~~ ...(2.0) Ah hah.
~~ ~
Ah hah
~~ ... Bueno.
~~ ... Bue=no.
~~ Hasta
~~ until
luego,
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.
28
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.
(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
29
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
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
30
~~ .. 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.
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
31
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
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.
32
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.
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
I don’t want to say anything more
4.
bueno2
(mitigation)
1.
[you said something (X) to me now
2.
I think: you want me to say something]
3.
I say:
4.
this is good
I want to say something more about this
33
bueno3
(reorientation, pre-closing)
1.
[someone said something (X)]
2.
I say:
3.
this is good
someone can say something else now
bueno4
(correction)
1.
[I said something (X) now]
2.
I say:
3.
this (X) is good
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’).
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
34
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
‘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
35
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.
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
36
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
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.
Endnotes
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.
i
See Yang, this volume, for a more detailed account of discourse marker prosody.
37
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.
iv
Ve is a discourse marker which literally means ‘look’ and is used as an attention-
getting device.
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.
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).
38
Appendix A: Proposed semantic primes (Goddard and Wierzbicka 2002a: 14)
Substantives:
Determiners:
Quantifiers:
Evaluators:
Descriptors:
Mental predicates:
Speech:
Actions, events, movement:
Existence and possession:
Life and death:
Time:
Space:
“Logical” concepts:
Intensifier, Augmentor:
Taxonomy, partonomy:
Similarity:
I, YOU, SOMEONE, PEOPLE/PERSON,
SOMETHING/THING, BODY
THIS, THE SAME, OTHER
ONE, TWO, SOME, ALL, MANY/MUCH
GOOD, BAD
BIG, SMALL
THINK, KNOW, WANT, FEEL, SEE, HEAR
SAY, WORD, TRUE
DO, HAPPEN, MOVE
THERE IS, HAVE
LIVE, DIE
WHEN/TIME, NOW, BEFORE, AFTER,
A LONG TIME, A SHORT TIME, FOR SOME TIME
WHERE/PLACE, HERE, ABOVE, BELOW,
FAR, NEAR, SIDE, INSIDE
NOT, MAYBE, CAN, BECAUSE, IF
VERY, MORE
KIND OF, PART OF
LIKE
Appendix B: Transcription Conventions (Du Bois et al. 1992)
.
,
?
-=
final intonation contour
continuing intonation contour
appeal intonation contour
truncated intonation contour
lengthened syllable
..
short pause (about 0.5 secs)
...
medium pause (> 0.7 secs)
...(N) long pause (of N seconds)
@
one syllable of laughter
<@ @>
speech while laughing
Appendix C: Gloss-line Abbreviations
NB: all verbs are in the present indicative, unless otherwise indicated.
COMP
DAT
DIM
GER
IMP
IMPF
complementizer
dative pronoun
diminutive
gerund
imperative
imperfect
INF
PART
PREP
PRET
REFL
SJV
infinitive
participle
preposition (a)
preterite
reflexive
subjunctive
1
2
3
SG
PL
1st person
2nd person
3rd person
singular
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, 3343. 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: 1933.
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-a Discourse 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, cognitivebased 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
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, 6987. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wierzbicka, Anna
1996 Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46