Guidelines for Research in Discourse MarkersBruce Fraser

Boston UniversityMay 2005

The following constitutes some suggestions about how to research DMs. It is not the only way but it may help you get started.

First, you should become familiar with the main theoretical orientations within which DMs are analyzed. In Section I of the References below I have listed some of the basic literature, most of it written in English. There are also many papers written in other languages which deal with the theory. I simply have not listed them.

Second, you should become familiar with the main research work on the DM(s) you are researching, both in English and in the language you are investigating. In Section II of the References I have listed some but not all of the CDM literature, again in English only.

Guided by both the theoretical and description research, you should look at:

The syntactic patterns of the DM. Look not just where they occur in a S1-S2 sequence, but where researchers have suggested they occur in the syntactic structure. You should be sensitive here to both scope of the DM in terms of the position as well as pragmatic factors such as deference.

The semantic meaning(s) of the DM. Do NOT take a translation of English, but figure out in terms of where the DM occurs and with what meaning if there is more than one meaning. Keep in mind that the same DM can have a constant core meaning but a different interpretation as a function of the linguistic context.

Look also at the morphological structure of the DM to see if it tells you anything about the meaning and/or the function.

The pragmatic functions of the DM. Does the DM reflect certain roles, genders, attitudes, written language, etc.? Does it function on the semantic but not the speech act level?

All of these conclusions should be grounded in data, preferably taken from real sources. You should not rely on your intuitions except for the broad picture. Your intuitions become a slave to the emerging pattern and soon become corrupted.

If you have a large corpus, it will be important to know if your DM, for example, occurs primarily in S-initial, if it was used by men rather than women, in formal rather than informal speech, in written rather than oral language, etc. You need to back up your findings with examples and percentages.

If you use questionnaires, be very careful. There is often more than one DMs that will occur in a given “slot.”

DM PAPERS

References to, and versions of, some of these papers are available on http://people.edu.bu/bfraser

I. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF DMS

There are three different theoretical frameworks within which DMs are discussed. I have listed below the major researcher in alphabetical order and briefly indicated what their contribution is.

Diane BlakemoreBlakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. CUP 99.

Blakemore has adopted and contributed to Sperber & Wilson’s Relevance Theory (RT). She has a number of previous papers, but chapters 3-5 of this book summarize her position on DMs and the earlier papers are redundant. She never defines DMs and, in fact, maintains that they are not a coherent class of linguistic entities. Her purpose is to make a case for a clear distinction between procedural and content meaning. She does not form a coherent class.

***************************

Bruce Fraser - Fraser, B. 2005. Towards a theory of DMs. In K. Fischer (Ed), Approaches to Discourse Particles, Elsevier Press. Earlier papers are less detailed versions of this paper.

Fraser places DMs within a linguistic analysis of language but takes no position on the particular grammatical theory. In this paper he defines what DMs are, how they are characterized, the functional classes into which they fall, and indicates some of their variations in patterning.

*Pragmatic Markers. 1996. Pragmatics 6(2) 167-190 presents his analysis of those linguistic features which do not contribute to the propositional meaning of a sentence but do contribute to the interpretation: Basic Markers (e.g., please, Declarative Structure); Commentary Markers (e.g., sentence adverbials such as frankly, certainly); Parallel Markers (e.g. Sir, Your Honor, damned); and DMs (e.g., and, so, but).

Papers by Mosegaard-Hansen (2005) and Pons (2005) are also in this vein.

*****************************Deborah Schiffrin - Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. CUP.

Schiffrin, who hasn’t written anything theoretical since then (as far as I know), treats DMs from a discourse point of view, Working from sociolinguistics interviews, she proposes that DMs may exist on up to 5 levels of discourse, with their purpose being to increase coherence. She never defines DMs although she suggests some criteria including that there may be non-verbal ones.

There are also many papers by Sanders, Knott, and their colleagues. They call DMs cue phrases and are concerned with the role they play in discourse coherence.

2

REFERENCES

I THOSE THAT TREAT SOME GENERALASPECT OF DMS

Below are general references on discourse markers, mostly written in English, that deal with major issues. I have included work that uses the labels of discourse connective, discourse relation, cue phrases, pragmatic markers, pragmatic particles, discourse particles, etc., but I have excluded references to focus or modal particles.

Please note: I have not read all of the articles so there may be a few that were chosen because of their title but are not relevant. In addition, there are irregularities in the format of the citations and there are typos.

Abraham, W. (ed.). 1991. Discourse particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Abraham, W. 1991. Modal particle research: the state of the art. Multilingua 10(1/2):9-15.

Aijmer, K. 2002. English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Aijmer, K., A. Foolen & Anne-Marie Simon-Vanderbergen. 2005. Discourse particles in the perspective of heteroglossia. In Fischer, 2005.

Ameka, F. 1990-91. How discourse particles mean: The case of the Ewe "terminal" particles. J. of African Languages and Linguistics 12(2):143-70.

Andersen, G. & Fretheim. T. (eds.). 2000. Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude. [Pragmatics & Beyond. New Series 79]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Jucker, A. & Ziv, Y. 1998. Discourse markers: Introduction. In: A Jucker &and Yael Ziv (eds.). Discourse Markers: Description and Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1-12.

Ariel, M. 1998. Discourse markers and form-function correlations. Discourse Markers. Descriptions and Theory, A. Jucker and Y. Ziv (eds.), 223-259. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Bateman, J. & Rondhuis, K. 1997. Coherence relations: Towards a general specification. Discourse Processes 24: 3-49.

Bell, D. 1998. Cancellative discourse markers: a core/periphery approach. Pragmatics 8(4) 515-541.

Bestgen, Y. 1998. Segmentation markers as trace and signal of discourse structure. JoP 29: 753-763.

Birner, B. 1988. But as conventional implicature: Identifying the source of contrast. In Northwestern University Working Papers in Linguistics 1:16-28.

3

Blakemore, D. 1989. Denial and contrast: A relevance theoretic analysis of but. L&P 12:15-37.

Blakemore, D. 1996. Are apposition markers discourse markers? J of L 32: 325-347.

Blakemore, D & R. Carston. 1999. The interpretation of and-conjunctions. In Iten, C. & A Neelman (eds.), University College Working Papers in Linguistics 11:1-20. London: UCL.

Blakemore, D. 1988. ‘So’ as a constraint on relevance. In R. Kempson (ed.) Mental Representations. The interface between language and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blakemore, D. 1989. Denial and contrast: a relevance theoretic analysis of ‘but”. L&P 12:15-37.

Blakemore, D. 1993. The relevance of reformulations. Language and Literature 2.2:101-120.

Blakemore, D. 1996. Are apposition markers discourse markers? J. of Linguistics 32;325-347.

Blakemore, D. 2000. Indicators and procedures: nevertheless and but. J. Linguistics 36:463-486.

Blakemore, D. 2002 Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. CUP.

Brinton, L. 1990. The development of discourse markers in English. Historical lingustics and philology, ed. by J Fisiak, 45-71. Walter de Gruyter.

Brinton, L. 1996 Pragmatic Markers in English. Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton.

Briz Gómez, A. 1993. Los conectores pragmáticos en español coloquial (I: su papel argumentativo). Contextos XI 21/22: 145-188.

Carranza, I. 1994. A mechanism for contextualization: Discourse markers as cues oriented to conversational maxims.

Carston, R. 1993. Conjunction, explanation and relevance. Linguistics 90(1/2):27-48.

Christidis, A.-Ph. 19XX. On the categorical status of particles: The case for holophrasis. Lingua 82:53-82.

Cuenca, M-J. 2000. Defining the indefinable? Interjections. Syntaxis 3: 29-44.

Cuenca, M-J. 2001 Los conectores parentéticos como categoría gramatical. Lingüística Española Actual, XXIII/2: 211-235.

Culpeper, J. 1994. Why relevance theory does not explain the relevance of reformulations. Language and Literature 3: 43-48.

4

Diewald, G. 2005. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Fischer 2005.

Dijk, T. van. 1979. Pragmatic connectives. JoP 3, 447-456.

Ducrot, O. 1995. Les modificateurs déréalisants. JoP 24, 145-165.

Ducrot, O. 1980. Analyses pragmatiques. Communications 32, 11–60.

Espinal, T. 1991. The representation of disjunct constituents. Language 67(4), 726-62.

Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. 1982. “Phatic, metalingual and metacommunicative functions in discourse: Gambits and repairs”. In N.E. Enkvist (ed). Impromptu speech: A symposium. Abo, Abo Akademi, 71-103.

Fischer, K. 1998. Validating semantic analysis of discourse particles. JP 29, 111-127.

Fischer, K. 2005. Frames, constructions, and invariant meanings: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. In Fischer, 2005.

Fischer, K. 2000. From Cognitive Semantics to Lexical Pragmatics: The Functional Polysemy of Discourse Particles. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Fischer, K. 2000. Discourse particles, turn-taking, and the semantics-pragmatics interface". Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 8: 111-137.

Fischer, K. & Drescher, M. 1996 “Methods for the description of discourse particles: Contrastive analysis”. Language Sciences 18 (3-4), 853-861.

Foolen, A. 1991. Polyfunctionality and the semantics of adversative conjunctions. Multilinguia 10:79-92.

Foolen, A. 1996. Pragmatic particles. In Handbook of Pragmatics, Verschueren J. et al. (eds.), Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Foolen, A. 2001. Review of Hansen (1998). Studies in Language 25, 349-356.

Foolen, A. & Van der Wouden, T. 2002. Introduction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 16 (Special issue on 'Particles', T. van der Wouden, A. Foolen, and P. van de Craen (eds.)).

Frank-Job, B. 2005. A diachronic-functional approach to discourse particles. In Fischer, 2005

Fraser, B. 1987. Pragmatic Formatives. The pragmatic perspective, ed. by Jef Verschueren & Marcella Bertucelli-Papi. John Benjamins.

Fraser, B. 1988. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38, 19-33.

5

Fraser, B. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. JoP 14, 383-95.

Fraser, B. 1995. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica. 38 (1-4) 19-33.

Fraser, B. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2), 167-90.

Fraser, B. 1998. Contrastive discourse markers in English. In Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory edited by Jucker and Ziv. Pragmatics and Beyond, John Benjamins.

Fraser, B. 1999 "What are discourse markers?" Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931-952.

Fraser, B. 2001. The case of the empty S1. JoP 33, 1625-1630.

Fraser, B. 2005. Towards a theory of discourse markers. In Approaches to Discourse Particles edited by K. Fischer. Elsevier Press.

Fraser, B. Forthcoming. Sequences of DMs in English. Unpublished ms.

Fraser, B. Forthcoming. Review of Blakemore, Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. JoP.

Fraser, B. 1988. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38, 19-33.

Fuentes-Rodríguez, C. 1993.Conectores 'pragmáticos. In Esperanza Alcaide; María del Mar Ramos; and Francisco Salguero (eds.). Estudios lingüísticos en torno a la palabra, 71-104. Sevilla: Kronos.

Georgakopoulou, A. and Goutsos, D. 1998. Conjunctions versus discourse markers in Greek: the interaction of frequency, position, and functions in context. Linguistics 36, 887-917.

Goddard. C. 1979. Particles and illocutionary semantics. Papers in Linguistics 12, 185-227.

González, M. 2004. Pragmatic markers in oral narrative. John Benjamins.

Halliday, M. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London, Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. 1990. Functional Grammar. London, Edward Arnold.

Hansen, M.-B. Mosegaard. 1998. The semantic status of discourse markers. Lingua 104: 235-260.

Hansen, M-B. 1998. The function of Discourse Particles. A study with special reference to spoken standard French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hansen, M-B Mosegaard and C. Rossari, eds. 2005. The evolution of pragmatic markers. Special issue of Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6(2).

Hansen, M-B. M. 1998. The Function of Discourse Particles. John Benjamins.

6

Hansen, M-B. M. 1998. The semantic status of discourse markers. Lingua 104, 235-260.

Hovy, E. 1995. The Multifunctionality of discourse markers. Paper presented at Workshop on DM, Egmond-am-Zee, Holland.

Infantidou-Trouky, E. 1993. Sentential adverbs and relevance. Lingua 90 1/2, 69-90.

Iten, C. 2000. The relevance of Argumentation Theory. Lingua, 110, 665-699.

Jayez, J. & Rossari, C. 1998. Discourse relations vs. discourse marker relations. ACL'98 Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers, 72-78.

Jayez, J. & Rossari, C. 2000. The semantics of pragmatic connectives. The French donc example. In Anne Abeillé & Owen Rambow (eds.): Tree Adjoining Grammars: Formalisms, Linguistic Analysis and Processing. Stanford, CSLI.

Jucker A. and Y. Ziv, (eds.) 1998. Discourse Markers. Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Jucker, A. & Y. Ziv. 1998. Discourse markers: Introduction. In: A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv. (eds.). Discourse markers: Description and theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1-12.

Katriel, T. & M. Dascal. 1984. What do indicating devices indicate? Philosophy and Rhetoric 17(1), 1-15.

Keller, E. 1981. Gambits: Conversational strategy signals. In Coulmas (ed.), 1981.

King, B. 1992. On the meaning of empty words. Semiotica 89(1-3), 257-65.

Knott A. & Dale, R. 1994. Using Linguistic Phenomena to Motivate Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes 18(1), 35-62.

Knott, A. & Mellish, C. 1996. A Feature-Based account of the relations signalled by Sentence and Clause Connectives. J of Language and Speech 39(2-3), 143-183.

Knott, A. & Sanders, T. 1998. The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration in two languages. JoP 30, 135-175.

Knott, A. 1993. Using Cue Phrases to Determine a Set of Rhetorical Relations. In O. Rambow (ed). Intentionality and Structure in Discourse Relations. Proceedings of the ACL SIGGEN Workshop.

Knott, A. 1996. A Data-Driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh.

7

Knott, A. 2001. Semantic and Pragmatic relations and their intended effects. In T. Sanders, J. Schildperoord & W. Spooren (eds.). Text Representation: linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects. Benjamins, 181-196.

Knott, A & Sanders, T. 1998. The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. JoP 30:135-175.

König, E. 1985. On the history of concessive connectives in English. Diachronic and synchronic evidence. Lingua 66: 1-19.

König, E. 1986. Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: Areas of contrast, overlap and neutralization. In Traugott 1986: 229-246.

Lakoff, R. 1971. Ifs, ands, and buts about conjunction. Studies in linguistic semantics, ed. by C.Fillmore & T. Langendoen. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Lehmann, C. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In J. Haiman and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Lenk, U. 1998. Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation. JoP 30, 245-257.

Lenk, U. 1998. Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Lenk, U. 1995. Discourse markers and conversational coherence. In Organization in Discourse. Proceedings from the Turku Conference, B. Wårvik, S.-T. Tanskanen and R. Hiltunen (eds), 341-352. Turku: University of Turku.

Lenk, U. 1998. Discourse markers and global coherence on conversation. In JoP 30 (245-257).

Lewis, D. 2005. Discourse markers: A discourse-pragmatic view. In Fischer, 2005.

Louwerse, M. 2001. An analytic and cognitive parameterization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3), 291-315.

Mann, W. & Thompson, S. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8:243-281.

Maschler, Y. 1994. Meta-language and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society 23:325-366.

Maat, H. 1998. Classifying negative coherence relations on the basis of linguistic evidence. JoP

Meyer, C. 1992. Apposition in Contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Millis, K., J. Golding, & G. Barker. 1995. Causal Connectives Increase ???

8

Moeschler, J. 1989. Pragmatic connectives, argumentative coherence, and relevance. Arguentation 3(3):321-39.

Mosegaard-Hansen, M. 1998. The semantic status of discourse markers. Lingua 104:235-260.

Mosegaard-Hansen, M. 2005. A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours). In Fischer, 2005.

Murphy, L. 1993. Discourse markers and sentential syntax. Studies in the linguistic sciences, 23:163-7.

Oates, S. L. (2000) Multiple Discourse Marker Occurrence: Creating Hierarchies for of Coherence Relations in Context. Discourse Processes, 24(1):119-147.

Östman, J-O. 1989. On the Language-interval interaction of prosody and pragmatic particles. Levels of Linguistic Adaption, ed. bu J Verschueren. John Benjamins.

Östman, J-O. 1995. Pragmatic particles twenty years after. Proceedings from the Turku conference, ed. by B. Wårvik et. al. Anglicana Turkuensia 14:95-108.

Owen, M. 1989. Review of Deborah Schiffrin, Discourse Markers. Journal of ????

Pons, S. 1998. Conexión y conectores: estudio de su relación en el registro informal de la lengua. Valencia: Cuadernos de Filología.

Pons. S. 2000. Los conectores. In ¿Cómo se comenta un texto coloquial? E. Briz and Grupo Valesco (eds.). Barcelona: Ariel: 198-230.

Pons, S. 2001. Connective/Discourse Markers. An Overview. Quaderns de Filología. Estudis Lingüístics VI, 219-243.

Pons, S. 2005. A functional approach for the study of discourse markers. In Fiscer, 2005.

Portolés Lázaro, J. 1998 Marcadores del discurso. Barcelona: Ariel.

Posner, R. 1980. Semantics and pragmatics of sentence connective in natural language. In Speech act theory and pragmatics ed. by J. Searle et.al. Reidel, 169-203.

Power, R., Scott, D. & Doran, C. 1999. Generating Embedded Discourse Markers. ???

Quirk, R. et. al. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.

Redeker, G. 1990. Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. JP 14(3):367-81.

Redeker, G. 1991. Review article: Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29(6): 1139-72.

9

Redeker, G. 2005. Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse transitions. In Fischer, 2005.

Redeker, G. 1991. Linguistic markers of discourse structure. [review of Discourse Markers by Deborah Schiffrin]. Linguistics 29: 1139-1172.

Rouchota, V. 1998. Procedural meaning and parenthetical discourse markers. In Discourse Markers, edited by A. Jucker & Y Ziv. John Benjamins.

Rossari, C. 2000 Connecteurs et relations de discours: des liens entre cognition et signification. Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy.

Rossari, C. 2001. Les relations de discours: approches rhétoriques, approches pragmatiques et approches sémantiques. Verbum 23: 59-72.

Rossari, C. 2001. The discourse level sensitivity of consequence discourse markers in French. Cognitive Linguistics 12-3: 275-290.

Rossari, C. 2005. Formal properties of a subset of discourse markers: connectives, In Fischer, 2005

Rouchota, V. 1995. Discourse connectives: what do they link?. In. J. Harris & P. Backley (eds.). UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7, 199-212.

Rouchota, V. 1998. Connectives, coherence and relevance. In Rouchota & Jucker (1998). 11-57.

Rouchota, V. 1998. Procedural Meaning and Parenthetical Discourse Markers. In A.H Jucker & Y. Ziv (eds.). Discourse markers: Description and theory, 97-126.

Roulet E. 1999 La description de l'organisation du discours. Paris: Hatier.

Roulet, E. 1984. Speech acts, discourse structures, and pragmatic connectives. JP 8:31-47.

Roulet, E. 2005. The description of text relation markers in the Geneva model of discourse organization. In Fischer, 2005.

Rudolph, E. 1991. Relationship between particle occurrence and text type. Multilingua, 10(1-2)203-23.

Rudolph, E. 1996. Contrast: Adversative and Concessive Expressions on Sentence and Text Level. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Sanders, T. 1997. Semantic and Pragmatic Sources of Coherence: On the Categorization of Coherence Relations in Context. Discourse Processes 24: 119-147.

Sanders, T. et al. 1992. Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15(1), 1-36

10

Sanders, T., Spooren, W. & Noordman, L. 1992. Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics 4-2, 93-133.

Sanders, T., Spooren, W. and Noordman, L. 1992. Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes 15, 1-35.

Sanders, T. & Noordman, L. 2000. The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes 29, 37-60.

Sanders, T., J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (eds.) 2001. Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Schiffrin, D. 1992. Anaphoric then: Aspectual, textual and epistemic meaning. Linguistics 30 (4), 753- 792.

Schiffrin, D. 2001. Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In: D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 54-75.

Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.

Schiffrin, D. 2005. Discourse marker research and theory: revisiting and.

Schourop, L. 1985. Common discourse particles in English conversation: Like, Well, Y’know. Garland.

Schwenter, S. 2002, "Discourse markers and the PA/SN distinction". Journal of Linguistics, 38. (1), 43-69.

Schourup, L. 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107, 227-265.

Snoeck, F. 1995. “But” as an indicators of counterarguments and concessions. Leuvense Bijdragen 84.

Sweetser, E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspect of semantic structure. CUP Studies in Linguistics 54.

Travis, C. 2005. The Natural Semantic Metalanguage approach to discourse markers. In Fischer, 2005.

Unger, C. 1996. The scope of discourse connectives: Implications for discourse organization. Journal of Linguistics 32, 403-438.

van Dijk, T. 1979. Pragmatic connectives. JoP 3, 447-456.

11

van Dijk, T. 1981. Pragmatic connectives. Studies in the pragmatics of discourse, ed. by T. van Dijk. Mouton.

Warner, R. 1985. Discourse connectives in English. New York: Garland.

Weydt, H. 2005. What are particles good for? In Fischer, 2005.

Wierzbicka, A. 1986. Introduction [to special issue on 'Particles']. JoP 10, 519-534.

Wierzbicka, A. 1992.The semantics of interjection. JoP 18:2

Wilkins, D. 1992. Interjections as deictics. JoP 18:2

Zwicky, A. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61, 283-305.

II SPECIFIC RESEARCH ON A DM OR A CLASS OF DMS

Contrastive Discourse Markers

Fraser, B. 1998. Contrastive discourse markers in English. In Jucker and Ziv.

Abraham, W. (ed.). 1991. Discourse particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Abraham, W. 1979. But. Studia Linguistica 33, 89-119.

Anscombre, J.-C. & O. Ducrot. 1977. Deux mais en français? Lingua 43, 23-40.

Barker, S. 1991. Even, still and counterfactuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 1-38.

Barker, S. 1994. The consequent-entailment problem for even if. Linguistics and Philosophy 17, 248-260.

Bell, D. 1998. Cancellative discourse markers: A core/periphery approach. Pragmatics 8(4), 515-541.

Birner, B. 1088. But as conventional implicature: Identifying the source of contrast. In Northwestern Univeristy Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 16-28.

Blakemaore, D. 1989. Denial and contrast: A relevance theoretic analysis of but. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 15-37.

Blakemore, D. 2000. Indicators and procedures: nevertheless and but. Journal of Linguistics 36, 463-486

Brinton, L. 1996. Pragmatics markers in English: Grammaticalization and Dikscourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

12

Carston, R. 1993. Conjunction, explanation and relevance. Lingua 90, 27-48.

Couper-Kuhlen, E & Kortmann, Bernd (Hg.). 2000. Cause - Condition - Concession - Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter (Topics in English Linguistics 33)

Dascal, M. & Katriel, T. 1977. Between semantics and pragmatics: The two types of ‘but’ – Hebrew ‘aval’ and ‘ela’. Theoretical Linguistics 4, 143-172.

Degand, L. 2000. Causal connectives or causal prepositions? In: JoP 32, 687-707.

Egbe, D. 1981. Aspects of English grammar and usage. Papers in linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication 14, 271-296.

Eulenberg, A. 1995. But revisited. Unpublished ms, U of Indiana.

Fischer, K. 1998. Validating semantic analysis of discourse particles. JoP 29, 111-127.

Foolen, A. 1991. Polyfunctionality and the samantics of adversative conjunctions. Multilinguia 10, 79-92.

Fraser, B & M. Malamud-Makowski. 1996. English and Spanish contrastive discourse markers. Language Sciences 8 (3-4) 863-881. Also in K. Jaszczolt & K. Turner (eds.). Contrastive Semantics and Pragmatics. Vol. II: Discourse Strategies. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd., 363-881.

Fraser, B. 2001 A View of English buts. In Festschrift for J-O Ostman.

Fraser, B. 1998. Contrastive discourse markers in English. In Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory edited by Jucker and Ziv. 301-326 Pragmatics and Beyond, John Benjamins.

Henkemans, F Snhoeck. 1995. ‘But’ as an indicator of counter-arguments and concessions. Leuvense Bijdragen 84:

Ifantidou-Trouki, E. 1993. Sentential adverbs and relevance. Lingua 90, 69-90.

Iten, C. 1997. Because and although: a case of duality? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 55-76.

Iten, C. 1998a. Because and although: a case of duality? In Rouchota, V. & A. H. Jucker (eds.). Current Issues in Relevance Theory, 59-80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Iten, C. 1998b. The meaning of although: a relevance theoretic account. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 81-108.

Katriel, T. & Dascal, M. 1984. What do indicating devices indicate? Philosophy and Rhetoric 171, 1-15

13

Knott, A. & Sanders, T. In press. The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: an exploration of two languages. JoP.

Knott, A & Sanders, T. 1998. The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. JoP.

Koenig, E. 1988. Concessive connectives and concessive sentences: Cross linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. In Explaining language universals ed. by J. Hawkins. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 145-185.

Koenig, E. 1988. concessive connectives and concessive sentences: Cross linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. In Explaining language universals ed. by J. Hawkins. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, Pp. 145-185.

König, E. 1985. On the history of concessive connectives in English. Diachronic and synchronic evidence. Lingua 66: 1-19.

Lakoff, R. 1971. Ifs, ands and buts about conjunction. In Studies in Linguistics Semantics ed. by C. Fillmore and T. Langendoen. Holt, Reinhart & Winston, New York, 115-50.

Lang, E. 2000. Adversative connectors on distinct levels of discourse: A re-examination of Eve Sweetser's Three-level Approach. In: Kortmann, Bernd / Couper-Kuhlen,

Oversteegen, L. 1997. On the Pragmatic Nature of Causal and Constrastive Connectives. In Spooren, W. and Risselada, R. (eds): Discourse Processes, Volume 24, Special Issue on Discourse Markers. Greenwich, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing Corporation, pp. 51-85.

Posner, R. 1980. Semantics and pragmatics of sentence connective in natural language. In Speech act theory and pragmatics ed. by J. Searle et.al. Reidel, 169-203.

Quirk, R. et. al. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.

Redeker, G. 1990. Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. JoP 14(3):367-81.

Redeker, G. 1991. Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistic 29:1139-1172.

Rouchota, V. 1990. ‘But’: Contradiction and relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 65-81.

Roulet, E. 1984. Speech acts, discourse structures, and pragmatic connectives. JP 8:31-47.

Rudolph, E. 1996. Contrast. Adversative and concessive relations and their expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on Sentence and Text Level. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter

14

Rudolph, E. 1996. Contrast: Adversative and Concessive Expressions on Sentence and Text Level. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Salkie, R. 1996. The “all but” construction. E-mail posting, Linguistic List 7-1559.

Sanders, T, Spooren W. & Noordman, L (1992) Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representations. Cognitive Linguistics.

Sanders, T. 1997 Semantic and pragmatics sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes 20.

Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. CUP

Schourup, L 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107: 227-265

Sidiropoulou, M. 1992. On the connective although. JP 17:210-221

Snoeck, F. 1995. “But” as an indicators of counterarguments and concessions. Leuvense Bijdragen 84.

Sweetser, E. 1990 From etymology to pragmatics. CUP. Chapter 3.

Traugott, E. 1994. UNLESS and BUT conditionals; A historical perspective. Proceedings of the Duisburg Symposium on Conditionals ed. by Angeliki Athenasiadou and Rene Dirven. Mouton de Gruyter.

van Dijk, T. 1979. Pragmatic connectives. JoP 3: 447-456

Warner, R. 1985. Discourse connective in English. Garland.

15