The Discourse Marker of Are/bale-Na (yes-no) in Persian

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Languages, University of Isfahan

2 esfahan university

Abstract

This study explores the discourse marker of Ar-e-Na in Persian. To this end, 180 files of telephone conversation from Bijankhan corpus and other data from radio and television interviews have been used to for the analysis. The functional classification of the discourse marker Are/bale-Na was carried out based on the Traugott model. She proposes three types of pragmatic functions for any discourse marker. The propositional function of Are/bale-Na indicates both positive and negative responses. The textual function of Are-Na fulfills the discourse function of cohesion and text organization. The expressive or interpersonal function of Are/bale-Na fulfills the pragmatic functions of hedging and face-saving via softening or reducing the negative force of an utterance. Moreover, Are/bale-Na can be used to function a number of other communicative cues simultaneously. It argues that these different functions can be explained in terms of grammaticalization process as well as the cline of semantic change.

Keywords

References

-  خانلری، پرویز (۱۳۶۵)، تاریخ زبان فارسی، جلد دوم، تهران: نشر نو.
-  عموزاده، محمد و نورا، اعظم (1393)، «دستوری‌شدگی عبارت یعنی از منظر دستور گفتمان»، پژوهش‌های زبانی ۵ (۱)، 94-75.
-  نورا، اعظم (1394)، بررسی ابعاد دستوری شدن نقش نماهای گفتمان در زبان فارسی روزمره، پایان‌نامه‌ی دکتری زبان‌شناسی، دانشگاه اصفهان.
-  Aijmer, K. (2002), English discourse Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
-  Alami, M. (2016), An investigation of pragmatic functions and position of prevalent Persian discourse markers used in casual conversations among Tehrani speakers. International journal of applied linguistics & English literature, 5 (1), 250-263.
-  André, V. (2005), Oui-non: une pratique discursive sous influence. Marges linguistiques, 9, 195-213.
-  Brinton, L. J. (1996), Pragmatic markers in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-  Brinton, L. J. (2008), The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-  Brinton, L. J. (2010), The development of I mean: Implications for the study of historical pragmatics. Susan M. Fitzmaurice and Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Methods in Historical Pragmatics, (37-80). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-  Burridge, K. & Florey, M. (2002), ‘Yeah-no he’s a good kid’: a discourse analysis of Yeah-no in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics (22), 149–171.
-  Christenfeld, N., Schachter, S. & Bilous, F. (1991), Filled pause and gestures: It’s not coincidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(1), 1-10.
-  Dik, S. (1997), The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions (Functional Grammar Series, 21.) Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
-  Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn S., Cumming, S. & Paolino, D. (1993), Outline of Discourse Transcription. In Jane Edwards & Martin Lampert (Eds.) Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. (45-89). Hillsdale, NS: Laurence Erlbaum.
-  Fischer, K. (2014), Discourse Markers. In K. Schneider & A. Barron (eds), Pragmatics of Discourse. Mouton de Gruyter, Handbooks of Pragmatics, vol. 3, 271-294.
-  Halliday M. & Hasan R. (1976), Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
-  Harder, P. & Boye, K. (2012), (Inter)subjectification and pragmaticalization in a functional theory of grammaticalization. In Auwera, J. & Nuyts, J. (Eds.), Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification, (9-20). Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Wetenschappen en Kunsten.
-  Heine, B. & Kaltenböck G. (2016), Ways leading to transcategoriality. Paper presented at the Workshop on Transcategoriality, Université de Rouen, April 27, 2015.
-  Heine, B. (2013), On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics, 51(6), 1205-47.
-  Heine, B. (2018). Are there two different ways of approaching grammaticalization? In S. Hancil, T. Berban & J. Vicente Lozano (Eds). New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change, 23-54.
-  Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T & Long, H. (2017), Cooptation as a discourse strategy, Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences 55 (4), 813-856.
-  Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T. & Long, H. (2013), An outline of discourse grammar. In S. Bischoff & C. Jeny (eds.), Reflections on functionalism in linguistics. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
-  Hopper, P. J. (1991), on some principles of grammaticalization. in Traugott, E. & Heine, B. (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, (17-36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
-  Jacobs, A. & Jucker, A. H. (1995), “The historical perspective in pragmatics”. In A. Jucker (Ed.), Historical Pragmatics (3–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-  Kaltenböck, G. (2013), The development of comment clauses. In Aarts, Bas, Joanne Close, Geoffrey Leech and Sean Wallis (eds.), The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora, (286-317). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-  Lee-Goldman, R. (2011), No as a discourse marker. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2627-2649.
-  Lyons, J. (1995), Linguistic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-  Moore, E. (2007), Yeah-No: a discourse marker in Australian English. Honours thesis, Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, The University of Melbourne
-  Ocampo, F. (2006), Movement towards discourse is not grammaticalization: The evolution of /claro/ from adjective to discourse particle in spoken Spanish. In Nura Sagarra & Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 9th Hispanic linguistics symposium, (308–319). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
-  Ostman, J. (1995), Pragmatic particles twenty years after. In Wavik, B., Tanskanen, S. K. & Hiltunen, R. (Eds.), Organization in discourse, (95-108). Department of English, University of Turku, Finland.
-  Schiffrin, D. (1987), Discourse Markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
-  Schiffrin, D. (2001), Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (54–75). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
-  Schiffrin, D. (2006). Discourse marker research and theory: revisiting and. In K. Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (315–338). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
-  Traugott, E. & Dasher, R. (2002), Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-  Traugott, E. & Heine, B. (1991), Approaches to grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
-  Traugott, E. & König, E. (1991), The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, E. & Heine, B. (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, (189-214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
-  Traugott, E. (1982), From Propositional to Textual and Expressive Meanings: Some Semantic-Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization. In Lehmann & Malkiel (Eds.) Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. (245-271). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
-  Traugott, E. (1989), On the rise of epistemic meaning in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65(1), 31-55.
-  Traugott, E. C. (1999), The Rhetoric of counter-expectation in semantic change: a study in subjectification. In: A. Blank, & P. Koch. (Eds.), Historical Semantics and Cognition (61-89). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
-  Wierzbicka, A. (1991), Cross-cultural pragmatics: the semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-  Wu, F. (2004), Recent studies on grammaticalization. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 1, 18-24.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics