Volume 04 Issue 11-2024
25
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
11
P
AGES
:
25-28
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
Discourse markers frequently develop over time and have their origins in earlier linguistic forms. Many markers begin
as complete lexical items, such as conjunctions, adverbs, or verbs, and then pick up extra pragmatic functions. They
gradually become increasingly semantically "bleached" and serve as discourse markers, losing some of their initial
meaning.
KEYWORDS
Pragmatic, functions, discourse, marker, linguistic, component, cooperative, principle, sociolinguist, multimodal,
relevance, coherence, utterance.
INTRODUCTION
The linguistic history of "discourse markers" is strongly
linked to pragmatics, conversation analysis, and the
ways in which language is used for goals other than the
simple transfer of information. Discourse markers have
always existed in natural language, but they weren't
officially acknowledged and investigated as distinct
linguistic phenomena until the second part of the 20th
century.
Despite being employed in languages for centuries,
discourse markers were not officially acknowledged as
separate linguistic components. Early grammarians
paid little attention to conversational dynamics or how
speakers control speech, instead concentrating on
syntax and semantics (sentence form and meaning).
The Pragmatics Foundational Work:with the growth of
pragmatics
—
the area of linguistics that examines
language in use, emphasising meaning in context and
how speakers communicate beyond literal word
meanings
—
the study of discourse markers gained
significance.
Research Article
COGNITIVE METHODS: THE LEVEL ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE MARKERS
Submission Date:
November 06, 2024,
Accepted Date:
November 11, 2024,
Published Date:
November 16, 2024
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijll/Volume04Issue11-06
Safoyeva Sadokat Nasilloyevna
Bukhara State Pedagogical Institute, Teacher of English language and literature department, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ijll
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 04 Issue 11-2024
26
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
11
P
AGES
:
25-28
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
John Austin (1962): Austin developed the concept of
"speech acts" in his book "How to Do Things with
Words," highlighting the ways in which utterances fulfil
purposes (such as making requests, offering an
apology, or asserting) that go beyond their syntactic
and semantic structure. Austin's theories cleared the
path for a more thorough comprehension of language
use in interaction, even though they were not
specifically related to discourse markers. H.P. Grice
(1975): Grice's essay "Logic and Conversation"
emphasised the importance of cooperative principles
and maxims in communication through his theory of
"conversational implicature." Studying the little,
frequently disregarded words (later referred to as
discourse markers) that aid in managing these
inferences became possible when he demonstrated
that humans infer meanings beyond literal language.
METHODOLOGY
Spoken language, conversation, and interaction
became more and more important in linguistic
research during the 1970s and 1980s. During this time,
linguists and sociologists started methodically
examining the structure of conversations, leading to
the development of "discourse analysis" and
"conversation analysis."
Schiffrin (1987): Deborah Schiffrin, an American
sociolinguist, revolutionised the field with her seminal
research "Discourse Markers" (1987). In his analysis of
discourse markers in conversation, Schiffrin argued
that "well, so, and, but, because," and "oh" help
regulate speech coherence. Schiffrin was among the
first to consider discourse markers as a distinct
category of words with organisational functions in
communication. Because of Schiffrin's study, many
linguists have studied the pragmatic and interactional
roles of these markers in many languages.
Extension of Research. Since the 1990s, linguistics has
conducted a great deal of study on discourse markers,
which has influenced fields like pragmatics,
sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics. Research has
increased in the following areas:
Cross-linguistic Studies: When researchers started
examining discourse markers in a variety of languages,
they found that while the specific markers differ, their
roles in discourse management are universal. For
example, the Japanese conversation markers "ne" and
"ano" have the same function as the English ones
"well" and "you know."
- Formal vs. Informal Contexts: Linguists investigated
how the formality of the context affects speech
signals. Discourse markers like hence and anyway are
frequently used in formal writing, whereas like, you
know, and well are frequently used in informal spoken
circumstances.
-Multimodal Interaction As technology has developed,
researchers have also examined how discourse
markers are used in digital and multimodal
communication (e.g., video calls, text messages, etc.).
They nevertheless have a significant impact on the
formation of discussions, even in virtual encounters.
The function of discourse markers has been attempted
to be explained by a number of theories:
Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson, 1986):
According to this theory, discourse markers control
relevance in conversation, which aids the listener in
understanding what is being said. For instance, good
lets the listener know when the speaker is hesitant or
Volume 04 Issue 11-2024
27
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
11
P
AGES
:
25-28
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
about to make a change, which helps them modify
their expectations. -
Research
: Discourse Coherence Theory: Coherence, or
the logical or thematic connections between various
elements of a text or conversation, is frequently
examined in connection with discourse markers. Thus,
markers like denote causal relationships, whereas but
denotes contrasts.
Certain discourse markers are linked to politeness
strategies that help speakers use face-saving or softer
speech, according to Brown and Levinson's (1987)
Politeness Theory. For example, you can use it to
hedge a statement or ensure that the listener is
actively participating in the discourse.
Certain discourse markers are linked to politeness
strategies that help speakers use face-saving or softer
speech, according to Brown and Levinson's (1987)
Politeness Theory. For example, you can use it to
hedge a statement or ensure that the listener is
actively participating in the discourse.
Analyse
: Discourse Indicators: Conversation markers
are now widely recognised as crucial tools for
managing conversations. They are fundamental to
conversation, text organisation, and even rhetorical or
persuasive approaches. Research on discourse
markers is continually evolving, with a focus on:
New Trends in Digital Communication Markers: There
is constant interest in how discourse markers change
in digital contexts, such as social media and instant
messaging (e.g., lol, btw, or anyway).
-Cognitive Approaches: In order to improve fluency and
comprehension in the learning of both first and second
languages, researchers are also investigating the
cognitive processing of discourse markers.
CONCLUSION
Discourse markers are words or phrases that help
organise spoken or written language. They assist the
reader or listener in following the discourse by
regulating the flow of the conversation, highlighting
linkages between ideas, or demonstrating transitions.
When it comes to maintaining coherence, clarifying the
communication structure, and helping the speaker
signal shifts in topic, attitude, or focus, these indicators
can be particularly useful.
REFERENCES
1.
John Austin ."How to Do Things with Words”
Second Edition. Publication 1975.
2.
H.P. Grice . “Logic and conversation” pp. 41
-58.
Publication 1975.
3.
Aijmer, K. Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A
Variational Pragmatic Approach.
–
Edinburgh:
Edinburgh Univ. Press, 2013.
–
192 p.
4.
Qayumova, N., & Safoyeva, S. (2020). The
Connotative meanings of noun and adjective
lexemes in Uzbek and English languages. Scientific
reports of Bukhara State University, 6(82).
5.
5.Nasilloyevna, S. S. The connotative meanings of
noun and adjective lexemes in uzbek and english
languages .
6.
6.Sadokat Safoyeva, Text-reality integration and
sociological analysis of literary text , центр
научных публикаций (buxdu.uz): Том 26 № 26
(2022):
Статьи и тезисы (buxdu.uz)
7.
7.Sadokat Safoyeva, Lingvistics features of the
publistic style, центр научных публикаций
Volume 04 Issue 11-2024
28
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
11
P
AGES
:
25-28
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
(buxdu.uz): Том 8 № 5 (2021): Maqola va tezislar
(buxdu.uz)
8.
Shavkatovna, S. N., & Nasilloyevna, S. S. (2020).
Linguistic features of the publicistic style.
ACADEMICIA: An International Multidisciplinary
Research Journal, 10 (11), 1419-1425.
