Discourse marks as a component of dialect speech
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17721/um/56(2026).24-40Keywords:
discursive units, discursive marker, oral narrative, dialect textAbstract
Background. Most modern dialectological studies focus on traditional descriptions of different levels of language. However, no less relevant are communicative and pragmatic approaches to the analysis of dialect text, which reflect the processes of emergence and implementation of oral speech. One of the components of dialect narrative is discursive markers. Such units of oral speech have not yet been the object of dialectological research.
Methods. The present research employs general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, as well as descriptive, component, discourse analysis techniques, etc.
Results. The article clarifies the emergence of the concept of “discursive marker” in foreign and Ukrainian linguistic practice. The change in views on such elements of discourse is described (from their perception as destructive elements of the text to the understanding of their communicative and pragmatic potential). The role and functions of discursive markers in dialect speech are demonstrated. It is established that they are an important component of dialect narration, associated with its syntactic, semantic, communicative and pragmatic functional aspects. It is shown that the perception of such units during direct communication with a dialect speaker differs from their perception during reading and analyzing dialect stories from collections of dialect texts.
Conclusions. The functional load of discursive markers in dialect narration has been established. The main function of such speech elements is structuring, they also perform other functions – indicative, anaphoric, allocative, reinforcing, phatic, expressive and evaluative, regulatory, programming, etc. A promising task for dialect studies is to establish a list of general language discursive markers, as well as to identify typical units for a particular dialect. This will clarify the understanding of the structural features of dialect narration and will supplement the composition of differential units of different dialects. The need to reflect such units of speech in lexicographic works requires a separate analysis.
Information about the author:
Nataliia Verbych – PhD in Philology, Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Dialectology at the Institute of the Ukrainian Language of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
E-mail: nataljaverbich@ukr.net
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3373-6332
References
Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh University Press.
Ariel, M. (1994). Pragmatic operators. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 3250–3253). Pergamon Press.
Batsevych, F. S. (2010). Essays on linguistic pragmatics. PАІS [in Ukrainian].
Bybyk, S. P. (2013). Oral literary language in Ukrainian everyday culture. Aspect-Polygraph [in Ukrainian].
Bilodid, I. K. (Ed.). (1974). Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language: in 11 volumes. Vol. 5. N–O. Naukova dumka [in Ukraini-an].
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances. Blackwell.
Dijk, T. A. (1979). Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 3. 447–456.
Foolen, A. (1996). Pragmatic particles. In Handbook of Pragmatics. (pp. 1–24). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167–190.
Fraser B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of pragmatics, 31, 931–952.
Grosz, B., & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175–204.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
Hrytsenko, P. Yu. (2000). Text as a space for the manifestation of dialect phenomena. Zbirnyk linhvistychnykh prats do 60-richchia prof. O. A. Kolesnykova (pp. 9–15) [in Ukrainian].
Hrytsenko, P. Yu. (2003). Texts as a source for the study of Ukrainian dialects in Romania. In M. Pavlyuk, I. Robchuk (Eds.) Ukrainian dialects of Romania. Dialect texts. Institute of Ukrainian Studies named after I. Krypʼyakevych NAS of Ukraine, I–XVI [in Ukrainian].
Ilyk, O. (2014). Principles of marking discourse words in the text corpus of short prose by I. Franko. Scientific notes of the National University of Ostroh Academy. Series "Philological", 46, 71‒74 [in Ukrainian].
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Longacre, R. E. (1983). The grammar of discourse. Plenum Press.
Lysetska, Yu. (2016). Differential properties of discourse markers. Bulletin of the Ivan Franko Zhytomyr State University. Series "Philological Sciences", 2(84), 79–82 [in Ukrainian].
Моisiienko, А. (2025). A discourse marker "аж" within the dy-namic system of utterance and text. Ukrainske movoznavstvo, 55, 178–193 [in Ukrainian]. https://ukr.movoznavstvo.knu.ua/uk/issue/view/501/453
Nazarova, T. V. (Ed.). (1977). Speak Ukrainian: A Collection of Texts. Naukova dumka [in Ukrainian].
Ohiienko, I. (2009). Discursive words of Turkish origin in the texts of modern Bulgarian mass-media [PhD dissertation abstract in Philology, NASU O. O. Potebnia Institute of Linguistics] [in Ukrainian].
Oleksenko, O., & Shokurov, O. (2023). Artistic Functions of Function Words in Lina Kostenko’s Poetic Speech. Linhvistychni doslidzhennia, 1, 8–30 [in Ukrainian]. http://journals.hnpu.edu.ua/index.php/lingvistics/article/view/13773
Östmann, J.-O. (1995). Pragmatic particles twenty years after. In B. Wärvik, S.-K. Transkanen, R. Hiltunen (Eds.), Organization in discourse (pp. 95–108). University of Turku.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum S., Leech G. & Svartvik J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman.
Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 367–381.
Romanyna, I. R. (2015). Structural and semantic features of dialect texts about miracles in the Transnistrian dialect [Dissertation of Сandidate of Рhilological Sciences, NASU I. Krypiakevych Institute of Ukrainian Studies] [in Ukrainian].
Rozanova, N. N. (1983). Supersegmental phonetics. Russian colloquial speech: phonetics, morphology, vocabulary, gestures (pp. 5–79). Nauka [in Russian].
Rusnak, N. A. (2011). Dialect text: linguocognitive and pragmatic aspects [PhD dissertation abstract in Philology, NASU Institute of the Ukrainian Language] [in Ukrainian].
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.
Skrebnev, Yu. M. (1985). Introduction to colloquialism. Publishing house of Saratov State University [in Russian].
Stubbe, M. & Holmes, J. (1995). You know, Eh and Other “Exasperating Expressions”: An analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English. Language & Communication, 15(1), 63–88.
Stubbs, M. (1986). A matter of prolonged fieldwork: notes towards a modal grammar of English. Applied Linguistics, 7, 1–25.
Syrotynina, O. B. (1974). Modern Russian colloquial speech and its peculiarities. Prosveshchenye [in Russian].
Tsar, I. M. (2021). Ukrainian everyday speech in the urban youth environment. Naukova dumka [in Ukrainian]. https://iul-nasu.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/TSar.pdf
Traugott, E. (1995). The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228691469_The_role_of_discourse_markers_in_a_theory_of_grammaticalization
Vezhbytska, A. (1978). Metatext in the text. New in Foreign Linguistics, Text Linguistics, 8, 402–421. Progress [in Russian].
Zasiekin, S. (2001). Discursive markers of coherence of English-language dialogical text: cognitive and pragmatic aspects [PhD dissertation abstract in Philology, Kyiv National Linguistic University] [in Ukrainian].
Zemskaya, E. A. (1987). Russian conversation: linguistic analysis and training problems. Russkii iazyk [in Russian].
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Наталія ВЕРБИЧ, канд. філол. наук, ст. наук. співроб.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
