|
Oh but of course, that's precisely why I came: Constraints on combining metatextual discourse markers in interviews and fiction| old_uid | 15274 |
|---|
| title | Oh but of course, that's precisely why I came: Constraints on combining metatextual discourse markers in interviews and fiction |
|---|
| start_date | 2018/01/17 |
|---|
| schedule | 14h |
|---|
| online | no |
|---|
| location_info | salle Celan |
|---|
| details | Organisé par le Lattice |
|---|
| summary | Studies of combinations of adjacent pragmatic markers have shown that there are considerable constraints on their order in English, e.g. Oates (2000), Fraser (2013, 2015), Koops and Lohmann (2015), Lohmann and Koops (2016). In this paper I draw on Fraser and Traugott (2017) and distinguish between pragmatic markers in general and the subclass of metatextual discourse markers (MMs) that are used to manage the discourse event. I investigate combinations of MMs, among them Oh, and, but, instead, of course, so, still. Using data from The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) for the years 2011-2015, I ask three questions. First, ‘What constraints are there on metatextual discourse marker combinations?’ Second, as it is widely held that discourse markers are less well represented in fiction than in spoken discourse (Bublitz 2017), I pose the question “Are metatextual discourse marker combinations dispreferred in COCA fiction compared to COCA interviews?” Finally,!
I suggest that fuller understanding of MM combinations can be gained by distinguishing their role in cueing continuing turns vs. responses and by asking “Are particular metatextual discourse marker combinations associated with turn continuation or response to prior text? If so, are these preferences reflected in COCA fiction?” |
|---|
| responsibles | <not specified> |
|---|
| |
|