Discourse Markers: An Enunciative

Approach 1st Edition Graham Ranger

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/discourse-markers-an-enunciative-approach-1st-editi
on-graham-ranger/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

A Contrastive View of Discourse Markers: Discourse

Markers of Saying in English and French Laure Lansari

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-contrastive-view-of-discourse-
markers-discourse-markers-of-saying-in-english-and-french-laure-
lansari/

Discourse Markers and Beyond: Descriptive and Critical

Perspectives on Discourse-Pragmatic Devices across
Genres and Languages Péter B. Furkó

https://textbookfull.com/product/discourse-markers-and-beyond-
descriptive-and-critical-perspectives-on-discourse-pragmatic-
devices-across-genres-and-languages-peter-b-furko/

An Invitation to Computational Homotopy 1st Edition

Graham Ellis

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-invitation-to-computational-
homotopy-1st-edition-graham-ellis/

Speculative Realism An Introduction Graham Harman

https://textbookfull.com/product/speculative-realism-an-
introduction-graham-harman/
Managing Airports An International Perspective Anne
Graham

https://textbookfull.com/product/managing-airports-an-
international-perspective-anne-graham/

An introduction to medicinal chemistry Graham L Patrick

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-medicinal-
chemistry-graham-l-patrick/

An Introduction to Medicinal Chemistry Graham L.

Patrick

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-medicinal-
chemistry-graham-l-patrick-2/

Lonely Planet Pocket Marrakesh Helen Ranger

https://textbookfull.com/product/lonely-planet-pocket-marrakesh-
helen-ranger/

The Discourse of Neoliberalism An Anatomy of a Powerful

Idea Discourse Power and Society Simon Springer

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-discourse-of-neoliberalism-
an-anatomy-of-a-powerful-idea-discourse-power-and-society-simon-
springer/
Discourse
Markers
An Enunciative Approach

GRAHAM RANGER
 Discourse Markers

“This book is an extremely valuable contribution to the study of discourse mark-

ers from an enunciative perspective. It begins at the beginning, with a thorough,
yet accessible, introduction to the Theory of Enunciative and Predicative
Operations. It then proceeds through a comprehensive review of previous works
to a corpus-based study of discourse markers in English. I highly recommend
this book for any student or advanced researcher looking for a solid, consistent
theoretical model to capture the inherent variability of discourse markers.”
—Guillaume Desagulier, Université Paris Nanterre, France

“This book will most certainly create a greater awareness and appreciation of
Culioli’s Theory of Enunciative and Predicative Operations as a framework for
modeling natural language activity. The advantages of the method are illustrated
by the insightful analysis of the discourse markers ‘anyway’, ‘in fact’ and ‘indeed’
and ‘I think’.”
—Karin Aijmer, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
 Graham Ranger

Discourse Markers
An Enunciative Approach
Graham Ranger
Département des études du monde anglophone, UFR-ALL
Université d’Avignon et des Pays de Vaucluse
Avignon, France

ISBN 978-3-319-70904-8    ISBN 978-3-319-70905-5 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70905-5

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018930133

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © theendup / Alamy Stock Photo

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

This book is intended for researchers and graduate students in linguistics

but also for anyone interested in linguistic theorisation and / or the for-
mal modelisation of the discursive phenomena of natural language.
Chapter 2 focusses on theorisation. Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 provide an
application of the theory to a number of discourse markers. While Chaps.
3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 frequently cite concepts and issues evoked in Chap. 2,
each chapter can stand alone and be read independently, for those whose
interest points them towards one particular question.
The Theory of Enunciative and Predicative Operations is a well known
and widely respected theory, practised in France and other countries. It
provides a rigorous, comprehensive framework for modelling the dynam-
ics of natural language activity. Many aspects of it can be related to other
major theories of language, including Transformational Grammar,
Generative Semantics, Functional Systemic Linguistics, Cognitive
Grammar or Construction Grammar, among others. Despite these fea-
tures, the theory remains little known in English-speaking linguistic
circles.
With this book I hope to contribute to a greater awareness within
anglophone linguistics of this fascinating approach, with a sustained
application of the theory to the problematics of discourse marking in
general and to a number of discourse markers in particular. One very

v
vi Preface

important difference between the theory and many other approaches is

the idea that pragmatic potentials are in a large measure built into the
semantics of linguistic items – provided one recognises that fully-fledged
meaning emerges only at the end of a complex process of configuration
relative to context and situation.
The presentation of the Theory of Enunciative and Predicative
Operations in the following pages draws heavily upon the writings of
Antoine Culioli and his close collaborators. The presentation of the the-
ory and its application of the theory to specific discourse-marking issues
nonetheless represents a personal reading and interpretation of these texts
and is not intended to provide in any sense a definitive account. Not all
enunciative linguists would necessarily choose to give priority to the same
aspects of the theory as me, nor indeed would all enunciative linguists
agree with my analyses.
If this book encourages the reader to explore the theory further, to
return to the foundational texts and to forge his or her own opinions on
these questions, then it will have fulfilled much of its intended
purpose.
The material for this book has developed over some twenty-five years
of teaching and research. I would like to thank my students at the
Université d’Avignon et des Pays de Vaucluse, who have, often unwit-
tingly, contributed to the emergence of new problem areas and with these
the development of new ideas. I thank also those colleagues with whom I
have, directly or indirectly, been able to discuss its contents, or who have
contributed by their research to my own reflexion. These include – non-­
exhaustively – Jean Albrespit, Agnès Celle, Hélène Chuquet, Jean
Chuquet, Gilles Col, Lionel Dufaye, Claude Delmas, Guillaume
Desagulier, Catherine Filippi-Deswelle, Yann Fuchs, Lucie Gournay,
Jean-Rémi Lapaire, Jean-Marie Merle, Renaud Méry, Aliyah Morgenstern,
Denis Paillard, Catherine Paulin, Blandine Pennec, Wilfrid Rotgé,
Martine Sekali, Shirley Thomas and Anne Trévise. Thanks also to the
anonymous reviewers of the first drafts of this book, as well as to the
reviewers of the articles which have served over the years as a testing
ground for many of the ideas it contains.
 Preface
   vii

Lastly my thanks go to Professor Antoine Culioli, for the inspiration

and enthusiasm of his work, and to his students, whose patience and
enthusiasm have contributed to the propagation of the ideas of this semi-
nal thinker.

Avignon, France Graham Ranger

 Contents

1 Introduction   1
1.1 Introduction   1
1.2 The Term discourse marker  2
1.3 The Multiplicity of Theoretical Approaches   3
1.4 The Multicategorial Nature of Discourse Markers   4
1.5 The Multifunctional Nature of Discourse Markers   6
1.6 Summary and Outline of the Book   9
Bibliography  12

2 The Theory of Enunciative and Predicative Operations  17

2.1 Introduction  17
2.2 The Theory of Enunciative and Predicative Operations  19
2.3 Aims of Linguistic Enquiry  19
2.4 Methods of Linguistic Enquiry  24
2.5 Discourse Markers Within the TEPO  37
2.6 Multicategoriality Revisited  38
2.7 Multifunctionality Revisited  42
2.8 The Schematic Form  57
2.9 Towards an Enunciative Definition of the Discourse
Marker Category  64

ix
x Contents

2.10 Chapter Summary  77

Bibliography  86

3 Anyway: Configuration by Target Domain  93

3.1 Introduction  93
3.2 Previous Studies  96
3.3 A Schematic Form for anyway102
3.4 Regulation of Interpropositional Relations 105
3.5 Corrective Values: Regulation of Operations
of Representation109
3.6 Regulation of Intratextual and Intersubjective Relations 114
3.7 Summary and Discussion 129
Bibliography 133

4 Indeed and in fact: The Role of Subjective Positioning 135

4.1 Introduction 135
4.2 Previous Studies 138
4.3 Accounting for Variation in indeed / in fact143
4.4 Corpus Findings 154
4.5 Further Cases 162
4.6 Concluding Discussion 171
Bibliography 176

5 Yet and still: A Transcategorial Approach to Discourse

Phenomena 179
5.1 Introduction 179
5.2 Previous Studies 182
5.3 Schematic Forms for yet and still186
5.4 Aspectuo-Modal Values 187
5.5 Quantifying Values 198
5.6 Argumentative Values 203
5.7 Summary 221
Bibliography 223
 Contents
   xi

6 Discourse Marker Uses of like: From the Occurrence

to the Type 227
6.1 Introduction 227
6.2 The Preposition like: Schematic Form and Variations 230
6.3 The Discourse Marker like240
6.4 Quotative be like253
6.5 Discussion and Conclusion 264
Bibliography 272

7 I think: Further Variations in Subjective Endorsement 275

7.1 Introduction 275
7.2 Previous Research 276
7.3 Schematic Form and Parameters for Configuration 281
7.4 Case Studies of Contextually Situated Values 286
7.5 Concluding Discussion 298
Bibliography 302

8 General Conclusion 305

Index 311
 List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 The notional domain 31

Fig. 2.2 The branching path model 33
Fig. 3.1 Sequential relationship leading from p to q103
Fig. 3.2 Relationship marked by anyway104
Fig. 3.3 Concessive anyway106
Fig. 3.4 Additive anyway107
Fig. 3.5 Corrective anyway111
Fig. 3.6 Resumptive anyway118
Fig. 3.7 Resumptive anyway in chronological projection 119
Fig. 4.1 Evolution of indeed in the COCA 1990–2012 144
Fig. 4.2 Schematic form for indeed146
Fig. 4.3 Parametered schema of indeed for values of reinforcement 147
Fig. 4.4 Parametered schema of indeed: alignment with an
absent speaker 148
Fig. 4.5 Parametered schema of indeed: alignment with the
cospeaker148
Fig. 4.6 Schematic form for in fact149
Fig. 4.7 Parametered schema of in fact: self-correction 150
Fig. 4.8 Parametered schema of in fact: opposition with an absent
speaker151
Fig. 4.9 Parametered schema of in fact: opposition with the
cospeaker151

xiii
xiv List of Figures

Fig. 5.1 Representation of perfective aspect 188

Fig. 5.2 Prospective validation, threshold, effective validation 189
Fig. 5.3 The branching path model and aspectual determination 189
Fig. 5.4 The branching path model and the notional domain 189
Fig. 5.5 Points tm and tn within a larger set on the ordered class
of instants 190
Fig. 5.6 Representation of yet another success200
Fig. 5.7 Preconstructed situation: frozen yoghurt is good for you202
Fig. 5.8 Constructed situation: frozen yoghurt is not good for you202
Fig. 5.9 Abstract representation of concessive still209
Fig. 5.10 Instantiated representation of concessive still209
Fig. 5.11 Abstract representation of concessive yet210
Fig. 5.12 Instantiated representation of concessive yet210
Fig. 5.13 Abstract representation of conclusive values for initial still219
Fig. 6.1 A representation of predicative like (similarity) 233
Fig. 6.2 A representation of non-predicative like (exemplarity) 236
Fig. 6.3 A representation of the schematic form for like239
Fig. 6.4 A representation of discourse marking like248
Fig. 6.5 A representation of quotative be like259
Fig. 6.6 A representation of the schematic form for like indicating
enunciative responsibilities 266
Fig. 7.1 A representation of initial I think in evaluative context 287
Fig. 7.2 A representation of initial I think in assertive context 290
 List of Tables

Table 1.1 Diversity of source categories for discourse markers 5

Table 2.1 Three levels of representation 20
Table 4.1 “The lexical field of actuality” 141
Table 4.2 Cross-corpus frequencies of indeed and in fact145
Table 4.3 Constructional frames for indeed and in fact155
Table 4.4 Frequencies of initial and medial indeed in the spoken BNC 157
Table 4.5 Conjunction collocates of indeed in a 1-L window sorted
by relevance (M.I.) 159
Table 4.6 Conjunction collocates of in fact in a 1-L window sorted
by relevance (M.I.) 159
Table 4.7 Conjunction collocates of medial indeed in a 1-L window
sorted by relevance (M.I.) 160
Table 4.8 Conjunction collocates of medial in fact in a 1-L window
sorted by relevance (M.I.) 160
Table 5.1 Modal collocates of yet in a 1-L window sorted by
Log-likelihood196
Table 5.2 3-L 3-R adverbial collocates of sentence initial yet by
M.I. score 213
Table 5.3 1-L conjunction collocates of yet and still sorted by
Log-likelihood213
Table 7.1 Occurrences of I think by position in a random sample
from the spoken BNC 286

xv
 1
Introduction

1.1 Introduction
In this book I will be pursuing two main objectives. The first is to provide
an introduction to the Theory of Enunciative and Predicative Operations
(TEPO), developed over the last forty years or so by Antoine Culioli and
associated researchers.1 The second is to use the tools of the theory to
describe a selection of present day English discourse markers, including
anyway, in fact and indeed, yet and still, like and I think. The way the
theory moves from close observation of situated language use to the pos-
sibility of cross-linguistic generalization, from Saussurean parole to langue,
and back again, has led to the development of a number of concepts
which are particularly well suited to the description of discourse phe-
nomena, in their sometimes baffling complexity. Before I present the
theory, however, let me begin by considering some of the difficulties the
study of discourse markers holds for the linguist.

© The Author(s) 2018 1

G. Ranger, Discourse Markers,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70905-5_1
2 G. Ranger

1.2 The Term discourse marker

The first difficulty is terminology, as the term discourse marker is not uncon-
troversial in itself: many authors use alternative designations, and, even
when the term of discourse marker is used, its extension is variable. Brinton
(1996, p. 29) and Fraser (2009, p. 2) together list nearly thirty terms cover-
ing coextensive or overlapping domains, including comment clause, connec-
tive, continuer, cue phrases, discourse connective, discourse-­deictic item,
discourse operator, discourse particle, discourse-shift marker, discourse-signal-
ling device, discourse word, filler, fumble, gambit, hedge, indicating devices,
initiator, interjection, marker, marker of pragmatic structure, parenthetic
phrase, phatic connectives, (void) pragmatic connective, pragmatic expression,
pragmatic particle, reaction signal and semantic conjuncts. Both authors,
incidentally, opt to use pragmatic marker as the most general term.
While some of the above items, such as hedge, initiator or parenthetic
phrase designate fairly clearly delimited subcategories (albeit on the het-
erogeneous criteria of semantics, interaction or syntax, respectively),
other items mean different things for different researchers. For some, par-
ticle is a syntactic term used only for invariable one word items (certain
adverbs, prepositions, etc.), for others, particle is seen more inclusively
and used indifferently for all sorts of related items.2 Fraser, in common
with many, prefers marker but uses the term discourse marker only as a
subcategory of pragmatic marker for those items which “signal a relation
between the discourse segment which hosts them, and the prior discourse
segment” (Fraser 2009, p. 296). Despite the terminological diversity,
however, discourse marker seems to be the most frequent label. As
Schourup notes, “The term D[iscourse] M[arker] […] is […] the most
popular of a host of competing items used with partially overlapping
reference” (Schourup 1999, p. 228).
In the scope of the present study, I will initially be using discourse
marker pretheoretically, as the most general term available to refer to a set
of markers which cannot be described satisfactorily without reference to
discursive phenomena. I shall however be returning more precisely to the
term in Chap. 2, in a critical discussion of how “discourse” and “marker”
are each to be understood within the Theory of Enunciative and
Predicative Operations.
 Introduction 3

1.3  he Multiplicity of Theoretical

T
Approaches
This terminological confusion surrounding the set of discourse markers
derives, on the one hand, from the fact that this is a relatively recent
domain of linguistic enquiry and, on the other, from the variety of theo-
retical approaches adopted, each with its own research programme and its
own set of (often unvoiced) assumptions about what aspects of language
it is interested in researching.3
The study of discourse markers as such would undoubtedly have been
difficult within the mainstream linguistic movements of the 1950s and
1960s.4 The pressure of the written norm sidelined spoken items like
Well, Oh or Ah, as well as purportedly non-standard uses of markers such
as anyway, like or whatever.5 At the same time, the Saussurean focus on
langue pushed discourse markers into the realm of parole, while Generative
Grammar was theoretically unprepared either to look closely into ques-
tions of performance or to consider the transsentential and intersubjective
features of language which the study of discourse markers cannot ignore.6
Since the 1970s and the 1980s, interest in discourse markers has
increased exponentially, however, from a whole range of theoretical per-
spectives. In conversation analysis or ethnomethodological approaches,
discourse markers are studied in so far as they reveal the structures of
conventionalized rituals of conversational interaction.7 Neo-Gricean and
more generally pragmatic approaches focus on the way discourse markers
orient interpretative possibilities, providing procedural indications that
contribute to constraining available interpretations, in accordance with
the Gricean cooperative principle. Such approaches have been developed
more particularly, in the framework of Relevance Theory, in respect of
Grice’s maxim of Relation: Be relevant.8 Anscombre and Ducrot consider
discourse markers as evidence of the way in which argumentative possi-
bilities are not the result of mere pragmatic enrichment but are inscribed
in the semantics of linguistic items themselves,9 while Grize, Sanders or
Mann and Thompson, for example, from very different methodological
perspectives, look at how discourse markers participate in marking recur-
ring “argumentative schemata” or “coherence relations” in natural
4 G. Ranger

l­ anguage.10 Discourse markers in English often concurrently have hom-

onymous, non-discursive uses from which they are diachronically derived.
This feature has inspired studies in phenomena of grammaticalization –
or pragmaticalization – which posit pragmatic principles at work behind
regular patterns of language change.11
Other perspectives could be mentioned, but whatever approach is
adopted will have an inevitable influence both on the terminological
options and on the extension of the area of enquiry. Terms such as “ini-
tiator”, “continuer” or “reaction signal”, for example, imply a conversa-
tion analysis approach, while “pragmatic connective” suggests a
pragmatic approach to intertextual relations. Correlatively, conversation
analysts and ethnomethodologists will probably have more to say about
“Oh”, “Ah”, “Mmm” etc. (interjections or backchannels) than those
who study argumentation in language, who are more likely to focus
their attention on “However”, “Nevertheless” or “So”, for example. The
object of study “discourse marker” (in the broadest sense), therefore,
will not include the same linguistic items, depending upon the angle of
approach.
The diversity of theoretical perspectives on discourse markers often
makes inter-theoretical comparison and dialogue difficult, not to say
impossible. The articles anthologised in Fischer (2006), although
intended to “present such a path through the jungle of different
approaches” (Fischer 2006, p. 1), unfortunately do little to alleviate the
impression of confusion in the domain.12 The different conclusions as to
what discourse markers are, and what they do, seem to be dictated by
preexisting and often incommensurable differences in theoretical
standpoint.

1.4  he Multicategorial Nature of Discourse

T
Markers
A further hurdle in the study of discourse markers is their multicategorial
nature. A large number of discourse marker forms derive transparently
from other linguistic categories. The table below gives an indication of
the diversity of source categories for discourse markers (Table 1.1):
 Introduction 5

Table 1.1 Diversity of source categories for discourse markers

Categories Markers
Subordinating conjunctions because, since, though …
Coordinating conjunctions for, so, and, or, but …
Independent clauses I mean, you see, you know …
Imperatives say, let’s say, look, listen …
Subordinate clauses as it were, so to speak, what’s more
…
Manner adverbs consequently, surely, frankly …
Other adverbs nevertheless, anyway …
Prepositions like
Prepositional phrases on the contrary, after all, in particular
…
Interjections Oh, Ah, Gosh …
Interrogatives Why, What …
Various unclassifiable fixed expressions Proof that, The fact is that …

In this respect Fraser notes that discourse markers “do not constitute a
separate syntactic category” , going on to add, “There are three sources of
D[iscourse] M[arker] – conjunction, adverb, and prepositional phrases –
as well as a few idioms like still and all and all things considered” (Fraser
1999, p. 943). Fraser’s “discourse markers”, of course, constitute only a
subcategory of the larger extension we accord to the same term here.
The only really consensual syntactic property of discourse markers in
the broadest sense is their syntactic and prosodic detachability, and their
overall preference for clause-initial position.13
Given the lack of arguments for a syntactic category of discourse mark-
ers, research more usually focusses on functional properties, as Schourup
puts it:

D[iscourse] M[arker]s are most often said to constitute a functional cate-

gory that is heterogeneous with respect to syntactic class. On this view DM
status is independent of syntactic categorization: an item retains its
­non-­DM syntactic categorization but does ‘extra duty’ as a non-truth-­
conditional connective loosely associated with clause structure. (Schourup
1999, p. 234)

It is accordingly to the function(s) of discourse markers that we now

turn.
6 G. Ranger

1.5  he Multifunctional Nature of Discourse

T
Markers
The functions of discourse markers can be evoked with at least two goals
in mind. The aim can be to describe general properties with a view to
delimiting a class of discourse markers relative to other categories, or to
use specific properties with the aim of distinguishing different types of
discourse markers within the overall discourse marker category. Let us
look at each of these approaches in turn.
Most definitions agree to consider that discourse markers are non
truth-conditional, that is, that they contribute nothing to the truth-­
conditional, propositional content of their host utterance. Definitions in
terms of positive properties are less consensual, however.
For Schiffrin, discourse markers are “sequentially dependent elements
which bracket units of talk” (Schiffrin 1987, p. 31). This is a working
definition which is refined in the course of the discussion in her Discourse
Markers. In the final chapter, she writes: “markers provide contextual coor-
dinates for utterances: they index an utterance to the local contexts in
which utterances are produced and in which they are to be interpreted”
(Schiffrin 1987, p. 326 original emphasis). The “local contexts” Schiffrin
is speaking of include both participants and text.
For Fraser, discourse markers – Fraser’s “pragmatic markers” – are non-­
propositional contributions to sentence meaning which are “[…] linguis-
tically encoded clues which signal the speaker’s potential communicative
intentions” (Fraser 1996, p. 68).
A difficulty with this type of functional definition, however, is that it
does not delimit a finite class, since, as Fischer notes, the general ­functions
proposed by Fraser or Schiffrin might just as well be carried out by other
linguistic expressions:

For instance, conversational management functions are also fulfilled by

speech formulas and nonlexicalized metalinguistic devices, such as au ris-
que de me répéter [at the risk of repeating myself]. Stance can be expressed by,
among others, modal verbs, adverbs, parenthetic clauses, or tag questions.
And linking functions can also be fulfilled by conjunctions and speech
formulas. (Fischer 2006, p. 5)
 Introduction 7

Correspondingly, definitions of the discourse marker category are

often an ad hoc mixture of non truth-conditionality, functional features –
such as Schiffrin’s or Fraser’s – and formal features (short words or fixed
phrases, adverbs, etc.) – which aim to exclude from the category of dis-
course markers the nonlexicalised metalinguistic devices, speech formu-
las, et cetera, mentioned by Fischer.
Not all approaches to discourse markers consider them as non truth-­
conditional. Argumentation Theory (Anscombre and Ducrot 1983, etc.)
or Relevance Theory as presented in Blakemore (2004) prefer to consider
truth-conditionality irrelevant to the representation of linguistically con-
structed meaning. In the next chapter I shall propose a definition of the
properties of discourse markers within the Theory of Enunciative and
Predicative Operations which also rejects the truth-conditional paradigm.
Let us move on now to see how a functional approach might help
determine classes within the set of discourse markers. There are numerous
attempts to define specific properties of discourse markers or families of
discourse markers within an overarching category.
Fraser’s 1996 contribution draws the conclusions from his broad func-
tional definition of “pragmatic markers” to distinguish four subcategories:
basic markers (markers of “illocutionary force”, essentially, including mood),
commentary markers (Fraser gives the examples of sentence-­initial stupidly,
frankly etc.), parallel markers (vocatives, certain interjections), discourse
markers (relating text to foregoing discourse) (Fraser 1996, pp. 168–169).
These categories form the object of further subcategorisation.
Schiffrin (1987) distinguishes five different “planes of talk” on which dis-
course markers operate: “exchange structures, action structures, idea struc-
tures, participation frameworks, and information states”, a list which is
reduced by Redecker to three “components of coherence […] ideational struc-
ture, rhetorical structure, and sequential structure” (Redecker 1991, p. 1167).
Brinton (1996) lists no fewer than nine functions of discourse markers
ranging from the clearly argumentative function of marking “sequential
dependence” (pace Levinson 1983) to the interactional functions of indi-
cating “cooperation, sharing, intimacy” (1996, p. 36). These are however
synthesized, in Brinton as in Fernandez-Vest (1994, p. 31) and elsewhere,
to a more fundamental opposition between the textual (consequently,
however, etc.) and the interpersonal (frankly, you see, etc.).14
8 G. Ranger

It would be possible to quote further attempts at subcategorisation

within the broad class of discourse markers (particles, etc.). The point
however is clear: the lack of any clear consensus as regards the functions
of discourse markers is a predictable consequence of three factors: the
diversity of theoretical approaches to the question, the members included
in the discourse marker category and the heterogeneous nature of dis-
course markers themselves.
We have seen that discourse markers derive from a range of grammati-
cal categories and often continue to function standardly within their
source categories. Adverbs such as hopefully, or frankly, for example,
might function either as discourse markers, expressing speaker comment
or stance relative to the host clause, or as manner adverbs. In addition to
this, many discourse markers can also often function on more than one
discourse level. Take the marker anyway, in examples (1)–(4):

(1) Maybe he would feel better if he had something. He put a forkful in his
mouth. It was cold. He ate it anyway. HJC 141215
(2) “I think a course of electroconvulsive therapy is what young Byrne
needs.” “The mental hospital?” Sister Cooney looked concerned. “Yes, but
don’t tell him that – not for the moment, anyway.” A7J 559
(3) Why not resign? Even contemplating walking out over such a small
matter may seem ridiculous, but within the context of that small world, the
dispute was a major one. Also, and I don’t want to go on about this, I was
a lonely person in those days and I had very little else to think about.
Anyway, on with my story, for soon other pressures were to be brought to
bear. A0F 130
(4) Inside, the elderly English upper-class proprietor told me that true
Communism only survives in Albania. Who wants true Communism any-
way? Not the Albanians, I’m sure. ADM 2146

In each of these examples anyway functions as a discourse marker, but

in different ways, as we can show by the reformulations available for each
example. In (1), the function of anyway is equivalent to even though: He
ate it even though it was cold. In (2) anyway might be reformulated as in
any case, or at least but not with even though. In (3) sentence-initial any-
way provides a way of returning to a topic after a previous digression (cf.
on with my story) and might be replaced in this role by So or Well. In (4)
 Introduction 9

anyway, in association with an interrogative, adds a conflictual note to

the question Who wants true Communism? which might alternatively be
rendered by an intensive such as Who ever / on earth …? et cetera. In
terms of functions, it might be possible to speak, within the discourse
marker paradigm, of an intertextual, concessive function (1), an interper-
sonal, self-corrective function (2), a topic-management function (3) or
an interpersonal, intensive function (4). However, it appears problem-
atic, if not undesirable, to limit each use in context to one function: in
(4), for instance, anyway certainly contributes to making the question
sound more polemical than it would do otherwise, and hence could be
qualified as having an interpersonal function, but it also relates the inter-
rogative back to some foregoing text, and in this respect carries out a
textual, linking function. Similarly, in (3) the sentence-initial use of any-
way serves a recentring function, resuming a previous topic, but also par-
ticipates in an informal style which in turn carries implications for the
relation between speaker and co-speaker et cetera.16
In short, not only are discourse markers multifunctional, in that the
category as a whole covers a range of different types of functions, but in
addition, many individual markers are liable to be used in different, often
overlapping ways. This leads to a further problem in describing the mean-
ing of discourse markers: if one linguistic form is associated with more
than one meaning in context, should we see this as homonymy, poly-
semy, or should we aim for a monosemous account of meaning, from
which the various situated meanings might be derived?17 Of course this
question is not specific to discourse markers, but in view of the properties
of this linguistic category, it is particularly germane to their study and we
shall correspondingly return to it at length, in the framework of the
TEPO, in the next chapter.

1.6 Summary and Outline of the Book

The preceding pages have dealt with some of the issues raised by the study
of discourse markers. I began by showing that the term discourse marker
itself is not universally accepted and that, when it is used, depending
upon the author, it does not necessarily include the same phenomena.
10 G. Ranger

Indeed there is no consensus as to the list of members of the class of dis-

course markers, even when the term is taken in its broadest acceptation.
It is difficult to establish common ground for dialogue between often
divergent theoretical positions, each with its own approach, questions
and assumptions as to the object of research. Part of this theoretical diver-
gence can be attributed to the relative novelty of discourse markers as a
research field. Part of it, however, is due to the nature of discourse mark-
ers themselves, which derive from numerous source categories – where
they may continue to function as before – and which, even when they do
recognizably function as discourse markers, often carry out more than
one function simultaneously. Consequently, the study of discourse mark-
ers raises, more acutely perhaps than elsewhere, the familiar question of
how to account for asymmetric form-meaning mappings.
The TEPO developed as a formal linguistics that eschews the traditional
modular separation of domains between syntax, semantics and pragmat-
ics. This property makes it particularly sensitive to the formalization of
discourse phenomena. Culioli has devoted a number of papers to certain
discourse markers in French, including donc, bien or mais, while, more
recently, Paillard has developed a specifically enunciative approach to the
study of the category of discourse markers in French with a series of foun-
dational articles and his Inventaire raisonné des marqueurs discursifs du fran-
çais.18 Work on English discourse markers within the TEPO has tended to
focus on specific markers or configurations. In the following chapter, I will
present the TEPO and reformulate some of the issues raised above, within
this framework, before going on to illustrate the methods of the theory in
the study of the English discourse marker anyway (Chap. 3). The subse-
quent chapters will look in turn at the discourse markers in fact and indeed
(Chap. 4), yet and still (Chap. 5), like (Chap. 6) and I think (Chap. 7).

Notes
1. In French the theory is known as the Théorie des Opérations Prédicatives
et Énonciatives, commonly abbreviated to TOPE.
2. See for example Östman’s use of the term particle for the comment clause
you know (Östman 1981). Fried and Östman (2005, p. 1757) justify the
 Introduction 11

use of pragmatic particle as a catch-all term. Lenk (1998) chooses to con-

sider discourse marker as a subcategory of particle. Schourup (1999,
pp. 229–231) or Fischer (2006, p. 4) contain useful presentations of the
terminological difficulties, commenting upon the particle / marker dis-
tinction in some detail. The term particle would appear to be more wide-
spread among researchers working on Germanic languages (except
English) where the category of modal particles is long established, as noted
by Wierzbicka (1986, p. 520). Fernandez-Vest defends the use of the term
particule in French (Fernandez-Vest 1994), while Dostie discusses the
opposing positions of Fernandez-Vest and Fraser (Dostie 2004, pp. 41 sq).
3. Schourup concludes along similar lines: “Such variation is to be expected
in an area that has only recently become a focus of intensive study and
which bears on many different areas of discourse research, cognitive,
social, textual, and linguistic” (Schourup 1999, p. 242).
4. Which is not to say that discourse markers had not fallen under scrutiny
previously. Finell (1986) discusses Jespersen’s and Sweet’s early contribu-
tions to the field.
5. See Östman (1995, p. 95) for support but also for a brief presentation of
work on pragmatic particles in languages other than English before the
1970s.
6. One exception to this would be J. R. Firth and in particular the neo-­
Firthian approach in Halliday and Hasan’s pioneering study of Cohesion
in English (2013).
7. See for example Schegloff and Sacks (1973) or Schiffrin’s justly influen-
tial Discourse Markers (1987).
8. As in Relevance (Sperber and Wilson 1986) and, more specifically on
discourse markers, Blakemore (1989a, 1989b) and Blakemore (2004).
In a non-Relevance Theoretical approach, successive studies by Fraser
(1988, 1990, 1999, 2006a, 2006b, 2009 or 2013) give a progressively
finer-­grained taxonomy of discourse markers (which for Fraser are a sub-
set of pragmatic markers).
9. See in particular L’argumentation dans la langue (Anscombre and Ducrot
1983).
10. Useful references here are Grize (1990, 1996), Knott and Sanders (1998),
Sanders et al. (1992) or Mann and Thompson (1983).
11. Key texts here are From Etymology to Pragmatics (Sweetser 1990),
Grammaticalization (Hopper and Closs Traugott 2003), or, for more
punctual studies of specific markers, Closs Traugott (1995, 1999 or
2005).
12 G. Ranger

12. Paillard (2009, p. 118) or Paillard and Vũ (2012, p. 10) arrive at a simi-
lar conclusion.
13. Even so, there are discourse markers which only accept clause-final posi-
tion, such as adverbial though and many the meaning of which changes
significantly according to position, such as after all, or anyway.
14. Halliday and Hasan (1976, p. 26) also make this distinction, again pres-
ent in the opposition between stance adverbials and linking adverbials in
Biber et al. (1999, pp. 853–892), or indeed disjuncts and conjuncts in
Quirk et al. (1985, pp. 612–647). Pennec’s recent enunciative study
makes distinctions of a similar nature, too (Pennec 2016, pp. 78–81).
15. Examples here and elsewhere, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from
the British National Corpus, accessed essentially via the BNCweb online
platform. The alphanumerical references given after each example iden-
tify texts and line numbers respectively (Hoffmann et al. 2008).
16. These remarks should be understood as pretheoretical. We return to any-
way in more detail in Chap. 3.
17. The contributions in Fischer (2006) are in fact organized according to
the criterion of whether they adopt a polysemous or a monosemous per-
spective on discourse markers.
18. See, for example, Culioli (1990, pp. 115–126, pp. 135–176), Paillard
(1998, 2000, 2002, 2009, 2011, 2015) or Paillard and Vũ (2012).

Bibliography
Anscombre, J. C., & Ducrot, O. (1983). L’argumentation dans la langue.
Philosophie et Langage. Bruxelles: P. Mardaga.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
Blakemore, D. (1989a). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (1989b). Denial and Contrast: A Relevance Theoretic Analysis of
“But”. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(1), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00627397.
Blakemore, D. (2004). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and
Pragmatics of Discourse Markers (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 99).
Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and
Discourse Functions (Topics in English Linguistics 19). Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
 Introduction 13

Closs Traugott, E. (1995). The Role of the Development of Discourse Markers in a

Theory of Grammaticalisation (Version of 11/97). Presented at the ICHL XII,
Manchester.
Closs Traugott, E. (1999). The Rhetoric of Counter-Expectation in Semantic
Change: A Study in Subjectifícation. In A. Blank & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical
Semantics and Cognition. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. http://www.degruyter.com/
view/books/9783110804195/9783110804195.177/9783110804195.177.xml.
Closs Traugott, E. (2005). Actually, Press Reports and Academic Writing Are
Not ‘Faceless.’ Oralité et Cognition: Incarnée Ou Située. Congrès International
Des Linguistes (pp. 111–126). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Culioli, A. (1990). Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation: opérations et représenta-
tions. Collection L’homme dans la langue. Gap: Ophrys.
Dostie, G. (2004). Pragmaticalisation et Marqueurs Discursifs: Analyse Sémantique
et Traitement Lexicographique. Champs Linguistiques. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Duculot.
Fernandez-Vest, J. (1994). Les particules énonciatives dans la construction du dis-
cours. Linguistique Nouvelle. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Finell, A. (1986). However. A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of “However”
(Unpublished Pro Gradu Thesis). Abo: Abo Akademi.
Fischer, K. (2006). Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fraser, B. (1988). Types of English Discourse Markers. Acta Linguistica
Hungarica, 38, 19–33.
Fraser, B. (1990). An Approach to Discourse Markers. Journal of Pragmatics,
14(3), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V.
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic Markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167–190.
Fraser, B. (1999). What Are Discourse Markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7),
931–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5.
Fraser, B. (2006a). On the Universality of Discourse Markers. In K. Aijmer &
A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Pragmatic Markers in Contrast
(pp. 73–92). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fraser, B. (2006b). Towards a Theory of Discourse Markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.),
Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 189–204). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fraser, B. (2009). An Account of Discourse Markers. International Review of
Pragmatics, 1(2), 293–320. https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909X1253804
5489818.
Fraser, B. (2013). Combinations of Contrastive Discourse Markers in English.
International Review of Pragmatics, 5(2), 318–340. https://doi.org/10.1163/
18773109-13050209.
14 G. Ranger

Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction Grammar and Spoken
Language: The Case of Pragmatic Particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11),
1752–1778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013.
Grize, J.-B. (1990). Logique et Langage. Collection L’Homme Dans La Langue.
Gap: Ophrys.
Grize, J.-B. (1996). Logique Naturelle et Communications. Psychologie Sociale.
Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976 [2013]). Cohesion in English. Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
Hoffmann, S., Evert, S., Smith, N., Lee, D., & Berglund Prytz, Y. (2008).
Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb: A Practical Guide. English Corpus
Linguistics (Vol. 6). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge/
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Knott, A., & Sanders, T. (1998). The Classification of Coherence Relations and
Their Linguistic Markers: An Exploration of Two Languages. Journal of Pragmatics,
30(2), 135–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00023-X.
Lenk, U. (1998). Discourse Markers and Global Coherence in Conversation.
Journal of Pragmatics, 30(2), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-
2166(98)00027-7.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.
Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1983). Relational Propositions in Discourse
(Technical Report ISI/RR-83-115). Information Sciences Institute.
Östman, J.-O. (1981). You Know: A Discourse–Functional Approach [Pragmatics
and Beyond II: 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Östman, J.-O. (1995). Pragmatic Particles, Twenty Years After. In Organization
in Discourse: Proceedings from the Turku Conference (Vol. 14, pp. 95–108).
Turku: Anglicana Turkuensia.
Paillard, D. (1998). Les mots du discours comme mots de la langue I. Le gré des
langues, 14, 10–41.
Paillard, D. (2000). Les mots du discours comme mots de la langue II. Le gré des
langues, 16, 99–115.
Paillard, D. (2002). Les mots du discours: identité et variation. Les cahiers de
linguistique de l’INALCO, 31–47.
Paillard, D. (2009). Prise en charge, commitment ou scène énonciative. Langue
française, 162(2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.162.0109.
Paillard, D. (2011). Marqueurs discursifs et scène énonciative. In S. Hancil
(Ed.), Marqueurs discursifs et subjectivité (pp. 13–32). Mont-Saint-Aignan:
Presses Universitaires de Rouen et du Havre.
 Introduction 15

Paillard, D. (2015). Les locutions en + N dans leurs emplois comme marqueurs

discursifs.
Paillard, D., & Vũ, T. N. (2012). Inventaire raisonné des marqueurs discursifs du
franc̦ais: description-comparaison-didactique. Hanoi: Editions Université
Nationale de Hanoi : Agence universitaire de la francophonie.
Pennec, B. (2016). Document de Synthèse: des connecteurs aux marqueurs de dis-
cours : cohésion, intersubjectivité et réflexivité. Université de Paris-Sorbonne.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Redecker, G. (1991). Review article. Linguistics, 29(6), 1139–1172. https://doi.
org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.6.1139
Sanders, T., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a Taxonomy of
Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01638539209544800.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening Up Closings. Semiotica, 8(4).
https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse Markers. Lingua, 107(3–4), 227–265. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural
Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1986). Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 10(5), 519–534.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(86)90011-1.
 2
The Theory of Enunciative
and Predicative Operations

2.1 Introduction
The term “discourse marker” is, as seen above, undoubtedly the most
widely used among the many terms competing to designate sets of similar
linguistic items. The use of the term is rarely accompanied with a reflex-
ion as to what it implies, however. How should we understand the “dis-
course” that a “discourse marker” marks, and what do we mean by
“marking”? The answers to both questions are in fact central to the per-
spective we take on discourse markers.
“Discourse”, to begin with, is frequently used in at least two different
ways. Firstly, it can be used to refer to language “above the sentence or
above the clause”.1 Linguists who understand – explicitly or implicitly –
discourse in this way will tend to consider that discourse markers relate
to transsentential questions of textual cohesion, working as textual
­linking devices.2 Secondly, discourse can mean “language in use”,3 i.e.
what Brown and Yule refer to as the “interactional” function of language
“involved in expressing social relations and personal attitudes” (Brown
and Yule 1983, p. 1). Linguists working on discourse markers in this

© The Author(s) 2018 17

G. Ranger, Discourse Markers,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70905-5_2
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
II..
MAALISKUU.

Huokui lauha maaliskuu ja taivas vihmoi luntaan. Kaupunki

nukkui himmeää untaan.

Pyhää raamattua luin,

kun tähdet täytti taivaan.
Raukenin hiljaa
ihanaan vaivaan.

Ajattelin ystävää,
niin ankaraa, niin hyvää…
Kuuntelin rinnan
kuohua syvää.

Huokui lauha maaliskuu ja taivas vihmoi luntaan. Kaupunki

nukkui himmeää untaan.
ESIKEVÄT.

Talitiaisen metallihelke läpi sulavan vaahterapuiston soi. On

rintani onnea täynnä, jota kielin en kertoa voi.

On rintani sinua täynnä, joka silmikoivien laulujen maan

siniusvaisen minulle näytit, mihin kanssasi lähteä saan.
SINULLE.

Sa yksi ainut mun elämääni valoa toivon ja riemun toit. Sa

yksi ainut kuin kiurun ääni mun ikävääni iloa soit.

Tuul' lämmin vastaa mun hyräilyyni ja tuoksu tuomien

huumaa mua. On ilta kevään niin kuulas, tyyni — ei oma
syyni, jos lemmin sua!
SININEN TAIKA.

Saartaa usva sininen järven, saaren kaukaisen, kasteraikkaan

metsän, maan, ilman rannat harsollaan.

Sinilatvat, lemmikit
niityn peittää kaunihit.
Sinilaineet sielussain
lakkaamatta keinuu vain…

Siniseksi kaikki käy, mitään muut' ei enää näy. Hullu,

syvälle ken niin hukkui silmiin sinisiin!
KEVÄTESIKOT.

Oli taivas heleän sininen ja aamun kohua täynnä tori. Luo

tytöntypykkä pieni sai kädessä kukkaskoti. Oli taivas sininen.

Hän minulle keltakimppusen

myi silmin ilosta kimmeltävin.
Kivet soittivat jalkaini alla.
Kuin yli pilvien kävin
kera keltakimppusen.

»Näin varhaisella sun kukitti ken?» soi puistosta armaan

naurava ääni. On surku somuutta kukkain: kun suudelmin
peitti hän pääni, ne kuolivat rutistuen.
ALLI.

Soi ulapalta ääni allin harmaan. Sa mietit: »Vilu aavalla on

varmaan, kun vihaisesti ärjyy vaahtopäät ja tuuli irroittaapi
salmen jäät.»

Niin monin aamuin valituksen kuulit

ja mieles heltyi — lemmeksi sen luulit.
Ah, että säälistä se heltyi vain
mua vuoksi kohtaloni armahtain!

Sa laske jälleen ulapoille alli, sen kuolla kevättalven

tyrskyyn salli, kun vihaisesti ärjyy vaahtopäät ja tuuli irroittaapi
salmen jäät.
MENNYT.

Sa ruusut sylihini kannoit,

yön tähden kiinsit hiuksihin.
Sa huulilleni soinnut annoit.
Kuin huilu nauroin, helisin.

Myös opettanut oisit mulle

kuink' unhottaa pois kaiken sen!
Jäi puolet sielustani sulle.
Kuin viulu itken, värisen.
ITKEVÄ LINTU.

Jo kuoppasimme nurmeen me raukan tuskistaan. Sen rinnan

punahurmeen joi ahnas multa maan. Syyslehdet ylle kummun
on puista varisseet. Nyt viisahat me oomme ja vanhat,
väsyneet.

Mut joka ilta saapi se jälleen ikkunaan, min takaa

tirskuttaapi ja värjyy viluissaan. Yön kaiken kartanolta kuin
itkun ääni soi… Se kuollut ei? — Siis miksi sen hautasimme,
oi!

III.
MYRSKY.

Rajutuuli ruoskien lehtiä ajaa! Terässiima sinkuvi, piiskaniskut

kajaa: Taistohon, taistohon, tahdoit taikka et! Kiivas on
kamppailu, hurmeessa kalvat, sodan laki säälitön, orjain
henget halvat. Legioonat kentille lyötyinä jää tuhannet!

Huutavi myrskyhyn silvottu sielu: — Myötäsi vie minut,

tuhon tulinielu, taistohon, taistohon tahdon sukeltaa! Kaikkeni
heittää hiuskarvan varaan, haavoissa nauttia Voittoni paraan!
tuskasta juopua turtunut. tuntoni saa!
DANSE MACABRE.

Taas taudin poltetta, purppuraa on täynnä puistikot, kentät,

kunnaat. Näin kesän huumeisen kisailusta syys korjaa
katkerat lunnaat. Oi, kaikki kauneus sairastaa! On marjat
pihlajan niinkuin verta. Tuo kuumehehkua, kuihtumusta maan
riemu runsainkin kerta.

Syysusvat kalseat kaupungin nyt kietoo vaippaansa lailla

houruin ja hiilenkarvaiset sauhut mataa tuol' yllä kattojen
kouruin. On löyhkä ilmassa spitaalin ja myrkkyhöyryjä nousee
maasta. Vuon ruostelaineihin lehdet sataa kuin rutonkeltainen
saasta.

Nyt kutsuu kuolema karkeloon, jo vinkuu viulut ja rummut

raikaa ja tuhkanharmaalta taivahalta vain nauru naakkojen
kaikaa. Siis tanssi hillitön alkakoon! Puut huitoo hurjasti oksin
paljain ja kolkon tuomiokirkon alta käy vainaat juontihin
maljain.
BERBERIS.

Taas aamuvarhaisella vanha tieni vie halki noenharmaan

kaupungin. On myöhäissyys. Sa yksin, pensas pieni maan
puoleen taivut oksin riutuvin.

Sun ylles vedenraskaat hiuteet hajoo

ja käärii sairaan sadeharsoillaan.
Mut kuumeenpunaisina putoo, vajoo
sun marjas lumihyhmään valkeaan.

Kuin hapan viini hankeen pisaroivat

sun verikyyneleesi kirpeät.
Ma tiedän, mistä kertoa ne voivat
ja mitä mykkyyteensä kätkevät.

Sun tiedän kärsimyksen kalkin juoneen, oi Berberis, sa

pensas punainen! Ma alttarille talven suruhuoneen myös itken
intohimot sydämen.
LOKAKUU.

Aamukylmä. En kierrekaihdinta nosta. Kuuluu aution

huoneeni hämärään tuulen tyhjä puhelu puistikosta,
naurunhohotus käheä sadesään.

Lehdet siellä kultaiset kulisevat,

jotka mädätä lumen alla saa,
kypsät hedelmät haljeten putoilevat,
kalmanhajua uhoo kostea maa.

On se voimakas ollut ja kaunista luonut.

Aivoissa nyt ei aatosta yhtäkään.
Ah, se on liioin syönyt ja liioin juonut! —
Yltyy nauru käheä sadesään.
LAULU SYKSYISESTÄ IKÄVÄSTÄ.

Ah ystävä, mua seuraa ikäväni kuin ukkospilvi musta,

muodoton, ja niinkuin paasi painaa sydäntäni se tunto, että
turhaa kaikki on.

Maa kevään aikaan ihanuuden hurmaa

niin ylen paljon synnyttää ja luo:
Syys saapuessaan kaiken ruhjoo, surmaa
ja luonnon kuuman sydänveren juo.

Oi katso, makaa puistokäytävillä

taas ruskein kasoin lehdet kuollehet,
ja niinkuin ruumiit riippuu seinämillä
nyt paleltuneet krassiköynnökset.

Niin kuolee kaikki kaunis iäst' ikään, pois ilo, lempi katoo,
ystäväin! On syys mun tehnyt sairahaksi, mikään ei lääkitä voi
ikävöintiäin.
ROCOCO.

Kurkistaapi sisään ikkunasta talviaamu takaa uudinten

nukkujata vuoteen silmäillen, naista nuorta, vielä melkein
lasta.

Illan kaunotarta katsoo huomen,

näkee ihon heljän harmenneen,
sinertävän vaon piirtyneen
alle ummistetun silmäluomen.

Silkkihiukset sekoo pehmeästi

pieluksien kultakirjailuun,
mutta pienen, pilkallisen suun
punamaali viiltää pistävästi.

Rutistuneet ruusut peittää maton huivi, viuhka, kirje

vierellään. — Aamuauringoll' on hymyssään kaihomieli sanoin
lausumaton.
HIILIPIIRROS.

Musta, sankka savupatsas lailla käärmehen kohoo

sysikiemuroina ilman lakehen — haihtuu niinkuin houreuni,
aatos syntinen.

Sumu kietoo suortuvansa rantapetäjiin, liukuu pitkin

ulappaa sen ääriin etäisiin. Pimeys kuin myrskyn paine siivin
saapuu niin.

Tuikkii tunnein pitkin yössä lyhty majakan, valon heittää

valjun ylle aavan maiseman. Kaukaa lyöpi malmikello kerran
ainoan.
VIERAS.

Ma talviyössä valvon, seuranani vain kasvot vihertävät

kuollehen —! Käy kylmän väreet pitkin ruumistani, ja sydän
seisahtuu kuin kuunnellen.

On armaan kielokimppu huoneessani, ja ilmassa ui

sulotuoksu sen. Mut suusta vainajan lyö vastahani maan
ummehtuneen löyhkä saastainen.

Tuo mykkä vieras miten tuijottaakaan!

Oi, etkö kerran kuoltuasi saakaan
sa jäädä mullan syvään lepohon?

Viel' elävien sääliäkö anoin. öin harhaat tuskallisin

sielunjanoin luo kauhunsairaan ihmisolennon?
SUOHAUTA.

Näin unta: korpisuohon upposin, ja toivo pelastuksen puuttui

multa. Ei peninkulmiin häämöttänyt tulta, ja seutu peittyi
pakkashuuruihin!

Mut yöhön huusin voimin viimeisin ja apua viel', armas,

anoin sulta: on sydämesi niinkuin puhtain kulta, se pysyy,
kaikki muu jos pettääkin!

Vain syvemmälle liejuun jalka vajoo…

Sun tiesi tietymättömissä kulkee,
et kuule epätoivonhuutoain!

Jo silmissäni tummuu, särkyy, hajoo,

suohauta minut uumeniinsa sulkee! —
Ma herään pimeässä parahtain.
IV.
KEVÄTHYMNI.

On Jumala hyvä, Hänen tekonsa hyviä ovat. Tänä päivänä

suli kuin pakkasjää kaikk' ajatukseni kovat. Ma onnesta itken
ja kyyneltulvahan hukun. Kevätpuroina katkeruus virtaa pois,
ma kiitos huulilla nukun.

On Jumala hyvä,
taas miljoonat silmut Hän avaa.
Kukat, hyönteiset talvihorteestaan
Hänen henkäisyllään havaa.
On Jumala hyvä,
Hänen lempensä määrää on vailla,
jalanjälkensä kultaiset nähdä voin
ma vesillä ja mailla.

On Jumala hyvä, taas katsoo Hän ihmisen puoleen, joka

talven tappavan painon alla on vaipunut pimeään huoleen. On
Jumala hyvä, Hän hymynsä säteillä antaa, Hänen silmäinsä
loiste on mittaamaton kuin meri, jolla ei rantaa.