TheMarkeristheMessage

TheInfluenceofDiscourseMarkersandParticleson
TextualMeaning
MichaelWalrod
CanadaInstituteofLinguistics/TrinityWesternUniversity
walrod@twu.ca

ABSTRACT

IntworecentdiscourseworkshopsinthePhilippines,Iworkedwithspeakersofeight
northerndialectstodiscovertheirinventoriesofdiscourse markersandparticles.Wealsoworked
tocategorizethesemarkers andtoidentifythefunctionorroletheyhadininfluencingor
determiningtheemergentmeaningofthe texts.Someoftheirfunctionsweretomaximize
(emphasize,intensify),tominimize(mitigate,qualify),torefute(disprove,discredit)ortohedge
(betentativeHartnett2004).ManyexamplesfromPhilippinelanguageswillbeprovided.
Thispaperexploresthephenomenonoftheenormousfunctionalloadof discoursemarkers
and particles.Discourse markersandparticles,andsomeadverbialsandinterjections,oftenhavea
sphereofinfluencethatismuchlargerthantheimmediatecontextoftheverbtheymodify,orthe
clauseinwhichtheyoccur.
Theissueofthesphereofinfluenceofdiscourseparticlesmaybeexaminedinthelightof
asemanticprosodytheory.Thenotionofprosodyhasalonghistorywithinthestudyof
phonologicalphenomena,inparticular,thosethathaveaspangreaterthanthesegmentoreventhe
syllable.Morerecently,phonologicalprosodyhasbeenexaminedinrelationtodiscourse
structure.Butwhereasmostempiricalworkexaminingprosodicsignalingofdiscoursestructure
hasfocusedontheuseofacousticcuestoidentifyboundariesofdiscourseunits(Mushinetal,
2003),weproposetoshowthatdiscourse markersand particlescanalsobeviewedascuesor
signalsofdiscoursestructure,andanalyzedwithreferencetopositionandfunctionwithinthetext.
Analyzingfromthisperspectiveshowsthatthe markers exertadisproportionateinfluenceonthe
emergentmeaningofthetext.Wewilldemonstratethecriticalimportanceofthediscourse
markersand particlesforlinguisticdiscourseanalysis,fortranslation,forinterpretation,andfor
effectivecommunication.

1. Introduction
Thispaperexploresthephenomenonoftheenormousfunctionalloadofdiscoursemarkers
andparticles.Discoursemarkersandparticles,andsomeadverbialsandinterjections,oftenhave
asphereofinfluencethatismuchlargerthantheimmediatecontextoftheverbtheymodify,or
theclauseinwhichtheyoccur.Notonlydotheyhaveabroadsphereofinfluence,butthedegree
ofthatinfluenceisremarkable.
Theissueofthesphereofinfluenceofdiscoursemarkersandparticlesmaybeexaminedin
thelightofasemanticprosodytheory.Thenotionofprosodyhasalonghistorywithinthe
studyofphonologicalphenomena,inparticular,thosethathaveaspangreaterthanthesegment
oreventhesyllable.Morerecently,phonologicalprosodyhasbeenexaminedinrelationto
discoursestructure.Butwhereasmostempiricalworkexaminingprosodicsignalingof
discoursestructurehasfocusedon theuseofacousticcuestoidentifyboundariesofdiscourse
units(Mushinetal,2003),discoursemarkersandparticlescanalsobeviewedascuesorsignals
 2

ofdiscoursestructure,andanalyzedwithreferencetopositionandfunctionwithinthetext.
Analyzingfromthisperspectiveshowsthattheparticlesexertadisproportionateinfluenceonthe
emergentmeaningofthetext.1
Thispaperwilldemonstratethecriticalimportanceofthediscoursemarkersandparticlesfor
linguisticdiscourseanalysis,fortranslation,forinterpretation,andforeffectivecommunication.

2. Definitionofdiscoursemarkersandparticles
Thereisagroupofphenomenainlanguagethatfunctionatthediscourselevel,morethanat
themorphologicalorsyntacticlevel.Oneofthecharacteristicsthatsettheseapartfrom
apparentlysimilarphenomena,isthedifficultyofanalyzingthemanddescribingthembasedon
morphologicalorsyntacticcriteria,orforthatmatterevenlexemiccriteria.2
Thequestionariseswhetherthisisasinglecategoryofphenomena,orseveralcategories
withsimilarfunctions.Therearemanyreferencesintheliteraturetodiscourseparticles,
discoursemarkers/cues,cuephrases(LouwerseandMitchell,2003:2023),pragmaticmarkers
(FleischmanandYaguello2004),andinterjections.Anothertermissequencemarkingparticles
orphrases(Frank,1999:26). Thetermcoherencerelations(inLouwerseandMitchell,2003)
seemstobeusedattimesasasynonymforDiscourseMarker,andattimesasagenerictermto
includeallthesephenomena.Asimilarphenomenonisdescribedastheglobalscope(versus
localscope)ofsomeadverbsoradverbialclauses(Givon,1993:3113).
Discoursemarkersaresaidtoinstructdiscourseparticipantshowtoconsideran
upcomingutterance,providingapathtowardtheintegrationofdifferentcomponentsoflanguage
useintoonecoherentdiscourse(LouwerseandMitchell,2003:202).
Definingthesephenomenarequiresthatwedescribetheirfunctionsindiscourse.Andthatis
nosimplematter,sincelikemanylinguisticfeatures,andlikelymorethanothers,thesefeatures
tendtohavemultiplesimultaneousfunctions.Oneistomarkinteractionalboundaries.Anotheris
toexpressattitudesandprovideinterpretivecues.Theseandotherswillbedescribedbelow.

1
ThenotionofemergenttextlevelmeaningwasdiscussedinWalrod2006(inpress).Rhee(2004)assertsthat
discourseisthelocusofactivemeaningnegotiation,inthecourseofwhichanarrayofpotentialmeanings
associatedwithaformismadeavailableforpossibleconventionalizationofcontextinducedreinterpretations.
Harrisonwrotecertainelementsofmeaningcanbeemergentinthesensethattheyneednotbedirectly
specifiedbyanyofthelexemesinastring,butariseasaresultofthecoactivationoftwoormorelexemesinagiven
context.Theythusbelongtothewholeusageevent,ratherthananyofitspartstakenindividually.Therealissue
hereisoneof boundaryphenomena. ToaskthequestionWheredoesthissemanticelementbelong?istorequire
clearboundariesbetweenthesemanticstructuresofseparatelexemes.Manybranchesofsciencearenow
convergingontheconclusionthatboundariesrarelyifeveroccurinanynaturalsystemsandareratheranartifact
imposedbytheobserver.Argumentsoverboundaryphenomenahavenoplaceinarealisticcognitivemodel,and
modernizingtheargumentusingwordslike schema and cognitive doesnotautomaticallyreleasetheanalystfrom
longstandingandlimitingmisconceptions(Harrison1997:107).
2
AnexampleofthisdifficultytodefineispresentedinCopelandsdiscussionoftheTarahumaraparticlepa,
whichhadbeendescribedasanemptyexpletiveparticlewithoutanyidentifiablemeaning.HoweverCopeland
assertsthatithasawiderangeofidentifiablefunctionsandthatitisoneofthemostfrequentlyoccurringformsin
thelanguage.HefurtherstatesthatanyattempttoconstructastrictlyformalgrammarofTarahumarasyntaxis
preordainedtofailure,becauseofthisparticle,whichtendstorelaxandoverridethesyntaxandstrengthentherole
ofpragmaticsintheconstrual(Copeland1997:3136).
 3

3. Prosodicfunctionsofdiscoursemarkersandparticles
WallaceChafe(1994:43)saidWritingsystemshaveneverdevelopedwaysofrepresenting
anythingthatevenapproachestherangeofspokenprosodicphenomena,andinthatsense,
writtenlanguageisseriouslyimpoverished.Discussionsofprosodyusuallyreferto
phonologicalfeaturessuchastoneandintonation,thattypicallyhaveasphereofinfluencethat
extendsbeyondthephonologicalsegmentorsyllable.
Damron,inanarticleaboutprosodicschemas,says,Theresultsofthisstudyindicatethat
researchinprosodycaninformourknowledgeofinformationstructureindiscourseaswellas
haveimplicationsforourknowledgeofdiscourseprocessing.Exploringoridentifyingtheexact
rolesofprosodyincommunicationisstillachallenge.Damron (2003:57)citesthefollowing
quotation:
Whileitisclearthatcontextualizationcuescannotbeassignedcontextindependent
stablemeanings,itisalsotruethatcontextualizationcuescannotbedismissedasmerely
conveyingtransitorynonreferentialexpressive,emotiveorattitudinaleffectsassome
sociolinguistsaswellasphoneticiansstudiesofdecontextualizedprosodicand
paralinguisticsignsseemtosuggest.(Gumperz1996:383)
MypointhereisthatGumperzandDamron (andMushinetal,2003)haveidentifiedprosodyas
beingverysignificantinthecommunicationofmeaningindiscourse,notwithstandingthelesser
importanceattachedtothembysomesociolinguistsandphoneticians.Bythesametoken,great
significanceandvery similarfunctionscanbeattributedtodiscoursemarkersandparticles,and
theirimportancecannotbeadequatelyrepresentedbyassigningthemtoasyntacticcategoryor
providingabriefdictionarydefinition.Inthisdiscussionofdiscoursemarkersandparticles,we
willexplorethenotionthatthey couldhaveprosodicfunctionsthatarerelevanttotextlevel
semanticsanddiscoursepragmatics.
Considerthisexampletakenfromatalkshowontheradio,discussingaviolentcrimeinthe
Vancouverarea.A72yearoldmanwasstabbedseveraltimesduringarobberyattempt. The
commentatorconcluded,
(1) Thiswassixoreightmonthsago.ThemanisSTILL recovering,unfortunately.
Thereiswhatseemstobeanerror, oratleastananomaly,indescribingtheoldmansrecovery
processasunfortunate.Thelargercontextofthisparticularexampledidnotpermitthe
interpretationthatthespeakerforsomereasondidnotliketheoldman,andwouldhave
preferredthathewouldnotrecover.Thespeakerwasclearlyincensedaboutthecommissionof
thecrime,andsympathetictowardtheoldman.
Inconversation,thissortofexampleoccursquitefrequently.Inthecontextofaconference
oflinguists,orin editingawrittentext,thisanomaly couldbedescribedasproblematic.Itisnot
ungrammaticalinthesenseofasyntacticerror.Butitisanomalousatsomesemanticor
pragmaticlevel.
Considerthepossibilitythatthisexampleisjudgedanomalousasaresultofourlinguistic
theoryandanalysis,whichhascategorizedwordslikeunfortunatelyasadverbs.Ifinfactour
theoryallowedforsuchwordstofunctioninaprosodicmannerasadpropositions,or
somethingwithanevenbroadersphereofinfluence,suchasan adschemaor
adepisode/adparagraph,theninthatcasetheremightnotbeanyanomaly.Unfortunately
wouldmodifythewholecriminalepisode.Andinfact,inconversation,thisisthewaythatmost
peopleperformtheinterpretiveact.Becauseofour inevitablebenttomakesenseof any
linguisticcommunication,we treattextsandutterancesholistically,andconstruethemeaning
thatthediscoursecontextguidesustoward. Ifwefocuson situatedlinguisticcommunication
 4

ratherthan decontextualizedlinguisticforms,thenwecanbecomfortablewiththenotionofa
prosodicfunctionofsomeunitsindiscourse. Toolan,agoodspokespersonforintegrational
linguistics,requiressuchafocusinlightoftheinevitablecontextualembeddednessof
language(1996:36).
Thecommonfunctionsofdiscoursemarkersandphonologicalprosodyhavebeenobserved
byChafe(1994)andothers.Certainmarkerssuchasinfact,rather,well,Imean,yknow,etc.
mayfunctionasguidestohelpthetextprocessortofollowtheflowofinformation,bysignaling
manyofthesamekindofrelationsthataresignaledbyprosodyandgestureinoralcontexts
(GeorgakopoulouandGoutsos,1999:935).
ThispaperrecommendsasimilarconceptwithrespecttoDiscourseMarkersandParticles.
Theyarelikecuesor roadsignswhichguideourprocessesoftextcomprehensionand
interpretation.Somehavereferredsuchcontextualcuesasconstraints(e.g.KatzandFerreti
2003:23),3 butIprefertotakeamorepositiveperspective.Ratherthanrestrainingusfromour
presumedeffortstomakeawronginterpretation,theyareguidingusquiteinexorablytowardthe
correctorrelevantinterpretation(SperberandWilson,1995). Theyarelikediscoursecowboys,
herdingusalongthehermeneuticaltrail.Theyarelikethecuesonamusicalscore(staccato,
pianissimo,fortissimo)guidingtheperformersinterpretationofthemusicalcomposition.In the
metalanguageoftextlinguisticsandcognitivescience,discoursemarkersandparticlesarethose
partsofspeechwhichfacilitateelaborativeinferencegeneration(OHalloran2003:136). Inother
words,theyconfirmorfacilitateexpectationdrivenunderstanding,andgeneratestillmore
expectations.
Thisfunctionofdiscoursemarkersandparticles,andthegreatfunctionalloadthattheycarry,
ismaximallysignificantincreatingtheemergenttextlevelmeaningincommunicationor
discourse.Forthatreason,Isuggestthattheybeviewedashavingasemanticprosodyfunction.
Thephenomenonofemergenttextlevelmeaningtendstobyahigherorderrulethanthekindof
semanticswedescribeinlexicography.DMsandDPstendto overruleor trumpthesemantics
oflexemesandpropositions.Intheexamplecited,thefinalsentencewasThemanisstill
recovering,unfortunately.Whatappearstohaveasyntacticfunctionofmodifyingtheverb
recovering,orevenstillrecovering,isactuallyfunctioningasadiscoursemarkeror
modifier,referringtothewholesordidincident, thecrimeanditsaftermath.

4. Additionalfunctionsofdiscoursemarkersandparticles
Blakemore(2002:45)suggeststhatfromacognitivepointofview,thereisnotasingle
classofdiscoursemarkers.Shesuggeststhatdiscourseisnotadecontextualizableobjectthat
canbeinvestigatedapartfromthehumanmind.Infact,forhertheobjectofstudyisnot
discourse,butthecognitiveprocessesunderlyingsuccessfullinguisticcommunication,andthe
expressionswhichhavebeenlabeledasdiscoursemarkersmustbeanalysedintermsoftheir
inputtothoseprocesses.Thisviewpermitsanalysisofmarkersfrommultipleperspectives.

3
KatzandFerrettidescribetwocompetingperspectives,twogroupsofmodelsusedtoexplainlanguageprocessing.
Thereareobligatoryfirstmodelsanddirectaccessmodels.Atraditionalversionofanobligatoryfirstmodel
wouldpositthatpeopleaccessaliteralmeaningfirst,andonlyifthatfailstomakesenseincontext,dotheylookfor
anothermeaning.Theypreferdirectaccessmodels,inwhichcontextcanbiasprocessingsothatonlythe
contextappropriateinterpretationsaredrawn(KatzandFerretti,2003:20).Theyfavorarecentrefinementofthis
approach,whichtheycallconstraintsatisfactionmodelsoflanguageprocessing.
 5

4.1. INTERACTIONAL
Markingtransitionpointsconversationalinteractioncuesbackchannelresponses.
TheseDMsmaysignalthepointwhereonespeakerisconcludingaremark,onespeakercueing
anothertorespond,oranotherspeakerseekingthefloor,or simplyaffirmingthepersonwhohas
thefloor(Hall,1987:4552).Theymaybeveryformulaic,andbefunctioningatapurely
interactionallevelratherthanhavinganyfunctionofcommunicatinglexicalsemanticmeaning.
(2) yeah,mhm,right,fine,okay,well,so,see, ohIknow
(3) Gadangallay(similartomanormate,butcanbeusedjusttomarktransition)
4.2. TEXTUAL
Markingorcreatingcohesion relations.Anyway,so,yeah,mhm,right,andsoonandso
forthyaddayadda(LouwerseandMitchell 202).Thesearefairlyneutralwithrespecttoattitude
andemphasis.Theyserveaslinkages.
Oneofourstudentsrecentlyrecountedthemarriageproposalshereceived.Ittookherso
muchbysurprisethatsheneededtoexcuseherselfforawhile.Atthatpointinthenarration,
therewastheclosureoftheepisodeleadinguptothatmoment,thenabriefinterlude,andthen
theresumptionofconversation.Thesentenceendingtheoneepisode,andthefollowingsentence
beginningthenext,startedwithbutanywayandsoanywayrespectively.
(4) Butanyway,IwasjustsoflooredthatIkindofhadtogetoutofthesituation.
Soanyway,Iwenttothebathroom andcamebackandwaslike,Yeah,thatwouldbe
okay.Wecouldlookatrings.
SomeDMsdoalittlemorethanjustestablishalink.ForexampleEnglishanywaymay
alsoindicatethatinspiteofwhatevernegativefactorswehavejustobserved,wewill nowmove
ontoabrighterormorepositiveconcept.Similarly inGadangkaddefunctionsasadiscourse
cuemeaningsettingthataside,oracceptingthatasthereality,letsmoveontosomething
better Itcanhavethisfunctioninmonologue,aswellasataturntakingboundary.
4.3. CONTEXTUALANDPRAGMATIC
Discoursemarkersserveascuestointerpretation(textprocessing).Theymaybesignalsof
attitudesandemotions(Walrod2004).
Awesomecoolallrightmarvelousgreat ratherquite extraordinaryincredible
absolutelytotallyexactlydefinitelycertainlyandperfect.
Markingliteralorfigurative:proverbiallyspeaking,inamannerofspeaking,literally
speaking(KatzandFerretti,2003).Gadangtermsmarkingtextasotherthanliteralare:
gangngariyan(forexample),andamparig(parable).However,theseshouldbeviewedas
discoursemarkersorcuesofaparticulartype,ratherthanasevidenceforarobustdistinction
betweenliteralandfigurativelanguage(Toolan1996,andWalrod2006).BothRicouer(1976)
andGibbs(1994)suggestthatasinglestrategyofmeaningconstrual isatwork,notaseparate
strategyformetaphoricalversusliterallanguage.

4.4. TEXTLEVELSEMANTICFUNCTIONS,LOGICALRELATIONS
Thesesignalrelationsbetweensentencesorevenparagraphsorlargerchunksoftexts:
therefore,moreover,consequently,ontheotherhand(calledsequencemarkingparticlesor
phrasesinFrank,1999:26)nevertheless tosummarize afterallssaidanddone attheendof
theday.
 6

Gadangexamplesincludethefollowing:kunnantu(therefore),kunnamantu(therefore
emphatic),massikitannukunnenoy (eventhough) total (insummary)gafusekunnenoy
(becauseofthat)gafuseiyawira(becauseofthese).

4.5. DISCOURSETHEMATICFUNCTIONS(RAISINGORLOWERING)
4.5.1. Maximize/confirm
absolutely,totally,definitely,exactly,precisely,sweet, righton.Anotherwayofmaximizing
thematicityofastatementorevaluationistouseadiscoursemarkerwhichsignalsthisisthe
clincherorthisshouldbebeyondquestioning,suchastosumupafterallssaidand
doneorattheendoftheday

(5) Gadang:total(tosumup) gafusokunnenoy(becauseofthat)gafuseiyawira

(becauseofthese)

4.5.2. Minimize/undermine/refute:
Whatever.Yeahright!Noway.Not.Hmph.Eeh!Bigdeal.Asif!
Aspecialcaseisyouthink?whichtendstomaximizethelikelihoodbutminimizethe
significanceofastatementorobservation.Itrefutesanimplicitclaimtothesignificanceor
relevanceofastatement.Thisisnearlysynonymouswith thatsanobrainer,orduh.
4.5.3. Hedge(expressuncertainty).
AccordingtoHartnett,linguistshaveidentifiedmanytypesofhedging,whichhavebeen
describedasappraisal,epistemicstatus,evaluation,evidentiality,intensity,modality,
qualification,stance,orvaguenessatleastsomeofwhichcanbeachievedthroughusing
downgraders,downtoners,indirectness,mitigation,tentativeness,andunderstatement
(Hartnett,2004:355).Someexamplesofthesesortsofthingswouldbewordsorphraseslike:
frequently,possibly,sometimes,tentatively,reportedly,apparently,itappearsthat,itisassumed,
andmanymodalssuchasshould,could,would,may,ormight.
Afunctionthatissomewhatsimilarinthatitexpressessomedoubtaboutsome
proposition(s)isSkepticism/cynicism:Whateveryeah,right!Thinkso?Ohyeah?AndGadang
adasi,andperhapssomeusesofTagalogtalaga.Thisisnornotexactlyhedging,inthatthe
speakerisconfidentthatthemattershouldbecalledintoquestion,whereaswithhedging,the
speakerlacksconfidenceaboutthefactualityofthematter.
4.5.4. Markasmainline/thematic
InthePeeblestext(aboutamarriageproposal),likewasused60timesin109sentences,
Mostinstanceswereinmaineventlinesentences.Itrarelyoccurredinbackgroundorcollateral
orauthorcommentsentences.Atsomesignificantpointsinthediscourse(e.g.aninciting
incidentortrigger),likewasusedupto3 timespersentence.
(6) Example:Andwehadatotallygreattimeandreconnectedandeverythingandwhen
Idleft,like,unbeknownsttome,like,hewas,like,reallysurehewantedtoget
married,butwehadnttalkedaboutitatalloranythingIwasstilltransitioningfrom
Africa.
ThisEnglishdiscoursemarkermaybeoneofasetofverysimilarmarkersindifferent
languages:EnglishlikeFrenchgenreNewZealandorBritainsortofGadangkanu.
Theremaybeauniversalatworkhere,aslightdisclaimerastotheexactaccuracyorexact
reliabilityoftheinformation!FleischmanandYaguello(2004:131),whoobservedthesimilarity
 7

betweenlikeandgenre,callitamismatchascomparedtotheidealaloosefititsasortof
hedge.Wedontwanttobeheldstrictlyaccountable!Ourconfidenceregardingtheinformation
isnotunqualified.Yetthefrequencyofthedistributionofallofthese,inthefourlanguages,
suggeststhattheyperformotherfunctions,quitepossiblyasmarkersofthemainlineofthe
discourse.
Othermarkerspossiblymarkingmainlinearesee yknowwhatImsaying thatswhatIm
talkinabout.4 Buttheseonesdonotseemtosharethatfeatureofspeakersinferiority
complex!Theyseemtoexpressstrongconfidenceinthevalueandreliabilityofthe
statement(s).
Anywayandsohavealsobeenobservedtomarkareturntothemainlineofatext,
followingsomebackgroundinformation.
4.6. NORMATIVEFUNCTIONS
HallsworkonSubanon(1987)describesthesocialfunctionsofbackchannelresponses,
promotinggroupsolidarity.LouwerseandMitchell(2003)haveobservedsimilarfunctions,
describedasacknowledgmenttokens.
Functionswhicharemoreexplicitlynormativeincludeevaluationsandimplied
prescriptions(goodorbad,rightorwrong,shouldormust).Forpityssakeforgoodnesssake.
InGadanggampade simplymeanshowever, butgampamatde (howevertsktsk) includesa
negativeevaluation.
Anothernormativefunctionisargumentation:toaffirmorrefute.Rightonexcellent
yeahawesomegreatnowaynotnochancefatchanceslimchancethatsanegative.

4.7. MULTIPLEFUNCTIONS
Lambsneurocognitivemodel oflinguisticspositselaboratedneuralnetworksandmultiple
simultaneousfunctionsinlanguage.Hesuggeststhattexts donotconveymeaning,buthumans
createorconstruemeaningbasedontheneuralactivationsresultingfromprocessingatext.
AlsoKatzandFerretti indicatethatmultiplecuesareprocessedsimultaneouslyandprovide
immediateprobabilisticsupportforcompetinginterpretationsin parallelovertime(2003:21).
Evenifwedonotacceptthatthemindissiftingthrough several possibleoptions,theimportant
pointisthesimultaneityandimmediacyoftheprocess.LouwerseandMitchell(2003:201)assert
thatdiscoursemarkerscanoperateatdifferentlevelsinthecommunication,andonediscourse
markercouldservemultiplefunctions.
ThediscourseparticlekanuinnorthernPhilippinelanguagesisfrequentlyapartofa
quotativeformula,andisoftentranslatedreportedly,andsaidtofunctionasadisclaimerof
responsibility,orasignaloffictionalmaterial.Butitisquitecertainlymorethanthat.Itisnot
necessarytodisclaimresponsibilitymorethan50timesinatextof73sentences(Walrod,
1979:43).Thereisnoriskofseriousconsequencesforfailingtorecountthecanonicalversionof
themonkeyandturtlestory.Thedistributionoftheparticlewasseentoberelatedtomarkingthe
maineventlineofthestory.Itoccurredineverymaineventsentence,exceptinclimactic
sections,whereaprincipalofMaximumDeletionwouldoverridethemainlinemarkingfunction.

4
Lamb(1999:32)describestheseassententiallexemes.Hepositslexemesatword,phrase,clause,sentence,and
discourselevels.
 8

5. Distributionofmarkersandparticlesindiscourse
Discoursemarkersaredistributedinparticularpositions.Markerssuchaslikeand
yknowwhatIm sayintendtooccurinalmosteverysentenceinsometypesofdiscourse,and
havetypicalslotssuchasjustbeforetheverb,introducingaquotation,orbetweenclauses.
Reallysignificantpointsindiscourseareoftensignaledbyclustersofmarkersor particles.
Thesecanbeepisodeboundaries,orsignalsofdiscoursepeak.
(7) Andso,anyway,hecameback
(8) But,um,anyway,yeah,andthenwejustsattogether
(9) EgampadewarapayoButon(Gadang)
AndhoweverexistjustpmButon
Free:andhowever,asforButon

6. RepresentativelistsofdiscoursemarkersinnorthernPhilippinelanguages
SeveralparticlesinIbaloiweresaidtocontributeinsomewaytointensification:
(10) a. pay(again,more,still,yet,also)
b. siya(intensification)
c. ga(please)
d. ngarod(then,signalstrongagreement)
e. noman(intensifyagreementordisagreement)
f. met(intensifier)
g. aya(intensify,confirmationorinquiry)

ThefollowingparticleswereidentifiedinFinallig(Barlig)(providedbyVeronicaPinosan)
(11) a. Koma(strongcommand,saidinanger,insistence,impatience)
b. Urum (hopefully,maybe)
c. Mampay(must,oughtto)
d. Mukun(ifitshouldhappen,hypothetically)
e. Nakkoran(goodgrieflikeTagalognaku)
f. Payat(really,assuredly)
g. Challu(emphaticintensification)
h. Kayman(indeedlikeIlocanopiman)
i. Pay(politeness,please)
j. Umpay(affirmation,yesreallylikeIlocanowenanya)
k. Ustu(right,correctlikeIlocanokusto)
l. Kuncha(yesindeed,certain,emphatic)
m. Kuun,kuuncha(maybe,uncertain)
n. Kiakiangay(natural,normalIlocanogagangay)
o. Kay,kayya,ayukayya(emphatictopersuadesomeoneofsomethingunusual)
ExampleAyukayyaomagkiangka,Comeon,youjump.
p. Kun,lawa,kunlawa(just,only,emphatic)
q. Kalinaat(suddenly)
r. Hiyachiat(atthatverymoment)
s. Siguradu(surely)
 9

t. Titiwa(truly)
u. Uray(evenif)
v. Uraymuhiyasa(evenifitislikethat)
w. Winnu(or,perhaps)

SeveralparticlesinGadang(G), Ilocano(I) CentralBontoc (B),andEnglish().5

(12) a. G.aralud,arakepayI.manen,metB.akhes(goahead,keepongoing)
b. G.malanI.dagus,metlaB.kannay (immediately,promptly)
c. G.pelangI.laeng B.yangkhay(just,only)
d. G.nadI.kumaB.koma,paachi,maachi (hopefullyshouldprescription)
e. G.nafulotI.onay,onayenB.chadlos(totally,excessively)
f. G.makkiyad I.aginggaB.soked,sokedona(until,onlythen)
g. G.kepayI.agtultuloyB.kayet(keepitup,keepon)
h. G.onseI.ngaminB.man(yesbecause,intensifyingcouldindicatereproof)
i. G.tantaronuI.amanganB.eleg(might,couldbeimminent,awarning)
j. G.kadI.kadiB.ngen(possibly?Rhetoricalquestionmarker)
k. G.lang,lamangI.langB.la,lang(just,only,mitigatesorminimizes)
l. G.makanudakappeludI.apayngata B.paykayet(howcome?Again/more?
Thatspushingthelimit.)
m. G.ayonkarugI.gayamB.tegwa(bytheway,nowthatIthinkofitorrealizeit)
n. G.ludI.ngarudB.ampay,mampay(really,emphatic)
o. G.antuludI.isongarudB.ngalud,galud(therefore,thatisthecase)tendsto
followaproposition.
p. G.kunnantuI.kastangarudB.ngalud,galud(therefore,sinceitslikethat)tends
toprecedeaproposition.
q. G.gampadeI.gayamB.pet(however,butyet,contraexpectationandsurprise)
r. G.mat(infact)
s. G.gampamatde(howeverinfactextremecontraexpectation,pejorative)
t. G.bakkanpelanginoy,nuammenalud(notonlythat,butratherreally).Possible
Bontocequivalent:achimampay(togreatlyintensify)
u. G.massikitannukunnenoyI.uraynukasta(eventhoughthatisthecase)
v. G.kaddeI.urayman(anyway,inspiteofthat)
w. G.kunnangkeI.kaslagamin(likeanexemplarof)

Therearesomefascinatingcombinationsof discoursemarkerspossiblein Gadang:

(13) a. in(completivesuffix,oftenfunctioningindiscoursemarkingrole,emphasis)
b. kekena(just,still,tothecontraryi.e.yourelying)(Ilocano:metket)
c. lang(only)
d. man(again,more)
e. ingke(justreallysuperlative)
f. ingkelamang(anythingwhatever)

5
ExampleswereprovidedbyWalrod(Gadang)andbyEstherJoyCailin(GadangandIlocano).CentralBontoc
exampleswereprovidedbyDaphneMarieFalageyandMyrlinS.Parting.
 10

g. imman(completive/emphaticagain)e.g.Hediditagain!(incredible!/pejorative)
h. gakkurug(truly) gakkuruwingke(trulytruly!)
i. malud(mat+lud)(infactreally)Inangwanamalud(itshisfaulthedidit)(cf.
IlocanoisunamangaminorisungaminandIfugaohiyamantuwali)

Thefollowingstandaloneparticlesmay constituteaclassofinterjections:
(14) a.attuy(wow)(Ilocano:apo)
b.iruy(surprise,mildlyscandalized,plusmildpejorative:youshowoff/flirt)
c.innuy,nnuy (youcantbeserious)
d.sah!(Youaintallthat!)
e.antom,ntom(yeah,right!)
Thesesuperchargedparticlesaresignificantbecausetheyhavesuchadramaticeffect,and
alsobecausethenotionsofsemanticprosodyandphonologicalprosodyarebothrepresentedin
eachofthem.Eachhasaparticularphonologicalprosodyassociatedwithit,asanintegralpartof
thelinguisticunit.
ThereisalsoauniquediscoursemarkerinGadang,allaywhichislikeman,mate,buddy.
ThisisasubiquitousinGadangconversationaslikeinEnglishorgenreinFrench.Butitis
usedprimarilybymen,usuallywhentalkingtoothermen.Womendouseit,butithasa
somewhatcomicaleffectinthatcase.Therearemanyphonologicalvariantsofallay,toexpress
differentmoodsorattitudes.Oneinparticular,alleewithlengthandheavylaryngealization,
expressesstrongemotionalreactionof beingoffendedorscandalized.

7. CONCLUSION
7.1. FunctionalloadandeffectivenessofDMsandDPs
SkilfuluseofDMsandDPsenablesthespeakerorwritertomanipulatethestrengthand
influenceofthecontextualcues,andcommunicateeffectivelyandpersuasively.
Emergenttextlevelmeaning.Wearebombardedwithinformationincommunication.
Toolan(1996:3)referstothisastheinevitablecontextualembeddednessoflanguage.
textual(semanticcontentof thetext/utterance)
contextual (allthepragmaticmarkersdiscussedabove,aswellassituationalcontext)
cognitive(ourcognitivegrids,pastexperience,sharedknowledgeinthespeechcommunity)
social(theongoingdialogueofthecommunity,whichmodifiesandaugmentsourknowledge)
normative(valuesystemsunderlyingallcommunication)(Walrod1988).
Allthesefactorscanbesubsumedundertheheadingof ContextofSituation(Malinowski
1935),leadingtoaTotalCommunicationModel.Discoursemarkersarethecuesthatarevery
effectiveinkeepingpeopleontherighttrackincommunication.Thus,ambiguityisararity. The
practiceofstudyingambiguitiesintheclassroomtendstobeanartifactofthelinguistorthe
academy.Inactualsituatedlinguisticcommunication,contextofsituation (alloftheabove)
herdsusdownthesalientandrelevanthermeneuticaltrail.Whereambiguitydoesexist,itis
usuallynegotiatedandresolvedquiteimmediately.
Communicationbereftoftheappropriatediscoursemarkerswill beinsipid,boring,and
ineffective.Writtencommunicationusesfewerdiscoursemarkersandparticlesthanoral
communication,butfindingtheoptimaldistributionofDMsandDPsinwrittentextswas
foundtobeextremelyimportantbymothertonguetranslatorsinthenorthernPhilippines.Itis
especiallycriticalwhen writingortranslatingnarrativeornormativetexts.
 11

REFERENCES
Biber,Douglas.1988.Variationacrossspeechandwriting.CambridgeEnglandNewYork:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Blakemore,Diane.2002. Relevanceandlinguisticmeaning:thesemanticsandpragmaticsof
discoursemarkers.CambridgeNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Chafe,WallaceL.1994.Discourse,consciousness,andtime:theflowanddisplacementof
consciousexperienceinspeakingandwriting.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Copeland,JamesE.1997.OntheTarahumaraparticle<pa>:anoptionalmodeofdelimiting
informationsegments.In LACUSForumXXIII,ed.byAlanK.Melby.
Damron,RebeccaL.2004.Prosodicschemas:evidencefromUrduandPakistaniEnglish.In
Discourseacrosslanguagesandcultures,ed.byCarolLynnModerandAida
MartinovicZic,5373.Studiesinlanguagecompanionseries.AmsterdamPhiladelphia:
JohnBenjamins.
Fleischman,Suzanne,MarinaYaguello.2004.Discoursemarkersacrosslanguages.In Discourse
acrosslanguagesandcultures,ed.byCarolLynnModerandAidaMartinovicZic,129
148.Studiesinlanguagecompanionseries.AmsterdamPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins.
Georgakopoulou,Alexandra,andDionysisGoutsos.1997. Discourseanalysis:anintroduction.
Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.
Gibbs,RaymondW.1994. Thepoeticsofmind:figurativethought,language,and
understanding.CambridgeEnglandNewYork,NY,USA:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Givn,Talmy.1993.Englishgrammar:afunctionbasedintroduction.Amsterdam
Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.
Hall,WilliamC.1987. AspectsofWesternSubanonformalspeech.Dallas,TXArlington:
SummerInstituteofLinguisticsUniversityofTexasatArlington.
Harrison,Colin.1997.Semanticspecification/semanticemergence:againstthecontainer
metaphorofmeaning.In LACUSForumXXIII,ed.byAlanK.Melby.
Hartnett,CarolynG.2004.Howdoesscienceexpressuncertainty.In LACUSForumXXX.
Katz,Albert,ToddR.Ferretti.2003.Readingproverbsincontext:theroleofexplicitmarkers.
DiscourseProcesses36(1):1946.
Lamb,SydneyM.1999.Pathwaysofthebrain:theneurocognitivebasisoflanguage.
AmsterdamPhiladelphia:J.Benjamins.
Longacre,RobertE.,andRobertE.Longacre.1983.Thegrammarofdiscourse.NewYork:
PlenumPress.
Louwerse,MaxM.,HeatherH.Mitchell.2003.Towardataxonomyofasetofdiscoursemarkers
indialog:atheoreticalandcomputationallinguisticaccount. DiscourseProcesses35(3).
Lyons,John.1995.Linguisticsemantics:anintroduction.CambridgeNewYork:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Malinowski,Bronislaw.1998(Originallypublished1935).Thetranslationofuntranslatable
words.In Philosophyoflanguage:Thebigquestions,ed.byAndreaNye.Malden,
Mass.:BlackwellPublishers.
Moder,CarolL.,andAidaMartinovicZic.2004. Discourseacrosslanguagesandcultures.
AmsterdamPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins.
Mushin,Ilana,LesleyStirling,JanetFletcher,andRogerWales.2003.Discoursestructure,
grounding,andprosodyintaskorienteddialogue.DiscourseProcesses35(1).
O'Halloran,Kieran.2003.Criticaldiscourseanalysisandlanguagecognition. Edinburgh:
EdinburghUniversityPress.
 12

Rhee,Seongha.2004.Fromdiscoursetogrammar:grammaticalizationandlexicalizationof
rhetoricalquestionsinKorean.In LACUSForumXXX.
Ricouer,Paul.1976.Interpretationtheory:discourseandthesurplusofmeaning. FortWorth:
TexasChristianUniversity.
Sperber,Dan,andDeirdreWilson.2001.Relevance:communicationandcognition.Oxford
Cambridge,MA:BlackwellPublishers.
Toolan,MichaelJ.1996.Totalspeech:anintegrationallinguisticapproachtolanguage.
Durham,N.C.:DukeUniversityPress.
Walrod,MichaelR.2006(inpress).Languageasobjectorevent:integrationoflanguageand
life.In Articlesonlinguistics,PergamonPress.
Walrod,MichaelR.2004.Theroleofemotionsinnormativediscourseandpersuasion.In
Emotionindialogicinteraction,ed.byEddaWeigand,211223.Amsterdam:John
Benjamins.
Walrod,MichaelR.1988.Normativediscourseandpersuasion:ananalysisofGa'dang
informallitigation. Manila:LinguisticSocietyofthePhilippines.
Walrod,Michael R.1979.DiscoursegrammarinGa'dang.Dallas,TXArlington:Summer
InstituteofLinguisticsUniversityofTexasatArlington.
The preceding document was presented at the Tenth International
Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (10ICAL). To properly reference
thiswork,pleaseusethefollowingformat:

<LastName>,<FirstName>.2006.<PaperTitle>. PaperpresentedatTenth
InternationalConferenceonAustronesianLinguistics.1720
January2006.PuertoPrincesaCity,Palawan,Philippines.
http://www.sil.org/asia/philippines/ical/papers.html

For other papers that were presented at 10ICAL, please visit

http://www.sil.org/asia/philippines/ical/papers.html.