Functional potential of discourse marker “МІЖ ІНШИМ” in artistic speech

Abstract

Different approaches to clarify the definition of the term “discourse marker” are analyzed in the article. The author determines the status of discourse marker in the system of language units. The most famous classifications of discourse words in the linguistic tradition are observed.

The investigation of discourse markers has recently become an actively developing direction in linguistic research. Due to different perspectives in modern linguistics, there has always been disagreement in the terminology to discourse markers. There are various labels to describe this phenomenon including discourse words, discourse units, discourse connectives, discourse operators. In traditional linguistics these units belong to different parts of speech, although they may be combined into one word class according to their mutual properties and functions. D. Schiffrin represents the so-called coherence-based approach and maintains that discourse markers contribute to the coherence of the text by establishing coherence relationships between units of talk. D. Schiffrin gives a detailed analysis of twelve discourse markers in English: and, but, or, so, well, then, now, because, y’know and I mean. B. Fraser describes discourse markers as a type of pragmatic markers that signal a message specifying how the basic message is related to the foregoing discourse.

Discourse markers are defined as linguistic units, important components of discourse that create linguistic identity and help to identify the real intentions of the author and the mechanisms of influence on the listener. The author analyses different semantic and functional classifications of discourse units in the linguistic tradition. The article covers the main features of discourse marker “між іншим”, different aspects of its using in the literary texts of the 19^th–21^st century. The research is based on the Corpus of Ukrainian Language. The author makes an attempt to create the own classification of the main types of meaning of discourse marker “між іншим”. The semantics of the unit “між іншим” includes four components: providing additional information to the given message, brief remark, emphasizing the importance of information, evaluative comment to the basic information. It demonstrates different ways of using the discourse marker in the corpus of literary texts of the 19^th–21^st century.

Information about the author:

Anna Grabova – Student of the Institute of Philology, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (Ukraine).

E-mail: annushka-ua@ukr.net

__________

References

1. Baranov A. N., Kobozeva I. M. (1988). Modal parts in answers to questions. Pragmatika i problemy intencionalnosti.Moscow, pp. 45–69 (in Russian).
2. Baranov A. N., Plungyan V. A., Rahilina E. V. (1993). A guide to the discursive words of the Russian language. Moscow: Pomovskiy i partnyory, 205 p. (in Russian).
3. Batsevych F. (2014). Parts of Ukrainian language as discursive words. Lviv: PAIS, 228 p. (in Ukrainian).
4. Bogdanova N. V. (2012). About the project of the dictionary of discursive units of Russian speech (on corpus material). Kompyuternaya lingvistika i intellektualnye tehnologii.Moscow, vol. 11(18), p. 71–83 (in Russian).
5. Vinogradov V. V. (1947). Russian language (grammatical doctrine of the word). Moscow; Leningrad: Uchpedgiz, 783 p. (in Russian).
6. Zasiekin S. V. (2001). Discursive markers of coherence of the English-language dialogue: cognitive and pragmatic aspects. Extented abstract of candidate’s thesis. Kyiv, 20 р. (in Ukrainian).
7. Ilyk O. (2013). Discourse words : signs and criteria of view. Naukovi zapysky Natsionalnogo universytetu “Ostrozka akademiia”. Ser.: Filolohichna, vol. 38, pp. 185–188 (in Ukrainian).
8. Ilyk O. (2014). Classification of discursive words in the common modern knowledge. Lingvistychni studii/ Linguistic studios, vol. 28, pp. 73–81 (in Ukrainian).
9. Kiselyova K., Pajar D. (2003). Discursive words of the Russian language: contextual variation and semantic unity.Moscow: Azbukovnik, 207 p. (in Russian).
10. Kiselyova K. L. (1996). Invariant and variative in the semantics of discursive words. Extented abstract of candidate’s thesis. Moscow, 21 p. (in Russian).
11. Kobozeva I. M., Zaharov L. M. (2004). Why do we need a sounding dictionary of discursive words of the Russian language. Kompyuternaya lingvistika i intellektualnye tehnologii. Proceedings of the International Conference Dialog’2004. Moscow : Nauka, pp. 292–297 (in Russian).
12. Massalina I. P., Novodranova V. F. (2009). Discursive markers in the English language of naval affairs. Kaliningrad: Izdatelstvo FGOU VPO “KGTU”, 278 p. (in Russian).
13. Murashkovskaya E. M. (2014). Approaches to the study of discursive markers. Vestnik MGOU, vol. 5, pp. 53–59 (in Russian).
14. Nevs’ka Yu. V. (2018). Special features of typological discourse in epistolary discourse. Mova i kultura. Kyiv : Vidavnichyi dim Dmytra Burago, vol. 21, part. II(191), pp. 153–157 (in Ukrainian). 
15. Otkidych E. V. (2017). The functioning of textual scrapings “kstati” and “mezhdu prochim” in a monologic and dialogical text. Phd Thesis. Vladivostok: DVFU, 199 p. (in Russian).
16. Priyatkina A. F. (2002). Textual “SCRIPTS” and “SCRAPES-PHRASES” (on expanding the category of service units of the Russian language). Predlozhenie. Tekst. Rechevoe funktsionirovanie yazykovyh edinits. Elets: EGU, pp. 90–100 (in Russian).
17. Fraser B. (1996) Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, № 6 (2),  pp.167–190. 
18. Fraser B. (1999) What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, № 31, pp. 931–952.
19. Schiffrin D. (1987) Discourse markers. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 364 p.