Search

The majority of functional models of language, which purport to account for text, do not recognize the distinct dimension corresponding to "discourse", as conceived here. Instead, the various semantic-pragmatic aspects of the use of indexical expressions, in particular, tend to be conceived uniquely in terms of the textual environment of the markers involved. Correlatively, the invocation of "context" in such approaches tends to be limited essentially to the co-text. But according to the present study, such expressions operate in terms of the mental discourse representations which the participants are jointly as well as severally constructing as the discourse proceeds. The article's aim is to show that the discourse dimension of language use is crucial to the ways in which indexical markers function, and hence should be taken into account in their modelling. This can only be done, it is argued, by integrating their treatment within a model of the broader utterance context in which such expressions are used, thus permitting a dialectic between the system-derived properties of such expressions and those emanating from the particular uses of such resources in actual communication. • The dimensions 'text' and 'discourse' are often confused or conflated by many authors. • For an adequate account of indexical reference, the roles of each meta-dimension need to be distinguished. • Context is the crucial mediating dimension making possible the creation of discourse from text. • Two major functional models of language are examined in terms of this three-way distinction, but are both found wanting. • Integrating indexical reference within a broader model of use will make discourse and context fully relevant alongside text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the use of ‘like’ as a discourse-pragmatic marker by recently-arrived Polish and Chinese migrants in Dublin, Ireland. The data comprises 14 hours of audio-recorded sociolinguistic interviews with 42 participants, including a control sample of six native Irish English speakers. The frequency of ‘like’ is investigated, along with its variable positioning within the clause, and its discourse-pragmatic function. In total 926 tokens are examined, and statistical tests, including fixed and mixed effects regression models, are used to determine the significance of the results. The results show that the frequency of ‘like’ among the non-native speakers reaches the levels of the native speakers after approximately three years of residence in Ireland. Proficiency in English is not found to be significant, suggesting that it is exposure to native speaker input that drives this acquisition. The results also show that ‘like’ in clause-final position, considered to be an emblematic feature of Irish English (and a ‘non-standard’ feature of world Englishes more generally), was employed significantly more often by the native Dubliners, with no effect in this instance for length of residence among the migrants. As regards the function of ‘like’, it was found to be used predominantly to illustrate, explain or introduce information. ‘Like’ in clause-final position was also found to be used as a mitigator or hedge, predominantly by the Irish, and particularly in short statements of personal opinion that could be perceived as face-threatening or opposing the interlocutor's views. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the incorporation of discourse-pragmatic features from English into Serbian, proposing the term ‘pragmatic Anglicisms’ to denote a range of directly or indirectly borrowed forms from English with pragmatic functions. The article offers a descriptive and taxonomic framework for the study of pragmatic Anglicisms in Serbian and analyzes their formal and functional characteristics, as well as sociolinguistic, sociopragmatic and sociocultural aspects of their use, related to the users, registers, stylistic and communicative markedness, motivational factors, perception and evaluation by Serbian native speakers, post hoc effects, and cultural influences. Apart from the commonly identified classes, such as interjections and discourse markers, the article recognizes the use of (calqued) discourse formulas from English in situations where there are either existing Serbian ones or a discourse ‘gap’ (i.e. when both the previously non-existent communicative act and the formulaic expression are adopted from English). This subclass is particularly interesting since it is not only a novel linguistic element that is thus introduced, but a novel communication and cultural pattern from the Anglo-American globalizing culture that gets adopted through new discourse formulas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This brief ‘conceptual’ paper offers some reflections on the status of ‘subjectivity’ in language. Section 1 highlights the differences and correlations between a few of the major current concepts of subjectivity, notably the ‘general’ ones by Traugott (1989) , Traugott and Dasher, 2002 ) and Langacker (1990, 1999, 2008) , and the specific one(s) as postulated in the context of the analysis of modal expressions ( Nuyts, 2001, 2012 ). Section 2 then zooms in on the ‘functional’ role in language use of the modality-related – or probably more accurately, attitude-related – dimension, focusing on its discursive status. Section 3 , finally, returns to the issue of how the major notions of subjectivity discussed in Section 1 relate, and how this can only be understood with reference to both the conceptual and the discursive status of the phenomena at stake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines the use of tag questions in Italian conversation. We propose a classification of their discourse functions, and provide an account of their syntactic and discourse contexts. The data used are recordings of conversation in several settings: experimental game settings, a reality TV show, and TV and radio talk shows, for a total of 60.4 h. The analysis uncovered seven main functions, some of which do not conform to existing classifications in the literature. We explore the relationship between these functions and the conversational settings in which they are used, their placement within the utterance, and their relationship with asymmetries in participants’ leadership roles in specific settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]