The Application Of Pragmatics In Evaluating Discourse In Fiction For The Literature Classroom

Charlene Joy Oliveros
Alabat Island National High School, SHS Teacher II
Online ISSN: 2799-1296

View PDF

Abstract

Discourse markers (DMs), an open class of syntactically optional, non-truth-conditional connective expressions, help the readers organize, interpret, and evaluate the information. The study focused on the DMs found in Palanca One-Act Plays through pragmatic analysis, which aimed to offer a Pragmatic literary framework to analyze Philippine One-Act Plays in the literature classroom. In addition, this is to propose an innovative way of analyzing literary text, other than the usual and conventional way of analysis (i.e., analyzing the elements). The researcher used Andersen’s framework on the Pragmatic functions in analyzing the ten Palanca One-Act Plays from Carlos Palanca Memorial Awards for Literature to achieve that goal. By analyzing the one-act plays, the researcher found the prominence of DMs in written form, such as in plays. The study concluded that DM is multifunctional as it serves different functions in different contexts and displays several pragmatic features. This study also proved that pragmatics could be a springboard to analyze fictional discourse in the literature classroom where the proposed framework could be applied. Further, analyzing the literary discourse using the Pragmatic lens would depend on how the readers comprehend their use in specific situations. However, the readers will arrive at the writer’s intended meaning by applying the proposed framework for evaluating the discourse in fiction through pragmatic analysis.

Keywords

Discourse Markers (DMs), Fictional discourse, Palanca one-act plays, Pragmatics, Pragmatic functions

Corresponding Author:

Charlene Joy Oliveros, Alabat National High School, Quezon Province, Philippines

Email: charlenejoy.oliveros@deped.gov.ph

Recommended Citation:

Oliveros, C.J., (2021). The Application of Pragmatics in Evaluating Discourse in Fiction for the Literature Classroom. Asian Journal on Perspectives in Education, 1(1), 52-70.

Introduction

Pragmatics is the study of meaning conveyed by a speaker or writer and eventually interpreted by a listener or reader (Najeh, 2015). Hence, any linguistic items, whether written or spoken, might have diverse meanings based on their contextual application. In the early days of pragmatics, in the mid-19th century, pragmaticists were considered as either “language philosophers,” who depended on intuited data, or “conversation analysts,” who relied on tape-recorded “real” language. According to Fitzmaurice (2010), it is reasonable that linguists (i.e., Austin, Searle, Grice) might consider literary discourse as a minor reliable source of material in investigating standard communicative practices. Therefore, in empirical research of linguistics, it is a truism that spontaneous everyday communication, rather than the literary pieces, offers the perfect source of linguistic data for communication analysis.

With these realities, the pragmaticists took a longer time reconciling themselves of using the fictional texts. However, in recent years, numerous pragmaticists have begun using fictitious data in their investigations. Interestingly, they have done this with no apologetic justifications. Thus, the fictional language is no longer viewed as “artificial, deficient, or contrived” (Jucker & Locher, 2017). For this reason, Kytö (2010) said that those investigating historical discourse or pragmatics have been into corpora for their data. Hence, it is a rich data source that must be studied and investigated in its term.

Literary pragmatics refers to investigating effects that text producers’ authors expect to obtain by using language resources to establish a “working cooperation” with their audiences, the texts’ consumers (Mey, 2011). On the other hand, discourse markers (DMs) have long been considered the central concern in pragmatics. They describe the components present in discourse as the procedural meaning of the expression, which can help the primary communicators convey their intention. Scholars have attached various names or labels to this linguistic phenomenon, including discourse operators, pragmatic particle, gambits, discourse particles, discourse markers, pragmatic expressions, cue words, and many more, but Zhao (2014) contested that among those, the DMs are the most used. Moreover, the term “discourse marker,” according to Dér (2010) as cited in Lutzky (2012), is widely used in scholarly papers written in English.

DMs are an open class of syntactically optional, non-truth-conditional connective expressions. They are a separate functional class that consists of words or expressions from many different grammatical categories (Li, 2016). Furthermore, Brinton (1996), as cited in Alami (2015), refers to DMs as lexical items possessing the following features: optionality, difficulty on translation, the marginality of word class, syntactically free, emptiness of linguistic meanings, and lack of propositional meanings or grammatical functions.

Conventionally, DMs are confined merely to speech (Redeker, 1991; Goldberg, 1980; Keller, 1979; Erman, 1986, as cited on Sun, 2013); this definition limits DMs to spoken language. Essentially, DMs are used to sustain and realize the continuous discussion in spontaneous conversation. In addition, DMs are signals that allow a speaker to respond and interact in a conversation. They show the relationship or relevance of a word to a previous utterance or context. With the broad and gradual view on DMs, scholars started to include more and more items in the written language.

More studies on discourse markers defied claims on the restrictions of DMs on spoken genres as more scholars started to embark on DMs found on written genres. These studies include the “functions and distribution of DMs across the four registers: dialogue in drama, academic prose, legal documents and newspaper articles in the English language” by Šiniajeva (2005); “variation of conjunctive discourse markers in the genres of textbooks and scientific research articles studied” by Verikaitė (2005); “use of discourse markers in telephone conversations and television interviews” by Verdonik et al. (2008); “the function of discourse markers in Arabic newspaper opinion articles” by Kohlani (2010); “discourse markers in essays” by Feng (2010); “inferential discourse markers in research articles of psychology across English and Persian” by Kaveifard and Allami (2011); “causal markers across genres of newspaper articles, blogs and research papers” by Mulkar Mehta et al. (2011); “forms and functions of discourse markers in President Obama’s political speeches” by Ismail (2012); “discourse markers in academic report writing” by Sharndama & Yakubu (2013); and the “functions and the importance of discourse markers through political discourses in Albania” by Dylgjeri (2014).

Existing studies on DMs focus on different written genres; however, limited studies have tackled discourse markers in literature, particularly in prestigious competitions like Carlos Palanca Memorial Awards for Literature. Moreover, limited studies have delved into their interface despite the noticeable overlaps and commonalities of interest of the two disciplines (i.e., Pragmatics and Literary stylistics) (Chapman & Clark, 2014). Hence, this bridges the gap by bringing together discourse markers, pragmatics, and literature.

Moreover, Carlos Palanca Memorial Awards for Literature (CPMAL) is the only competition for literary writers in the Philippines that incentivizes writers to craft their exceptional literary pieces. Thus, CPMAL serves as the capital of the Philippines’ literary jewels produced by talented writers. It also helps disseminate these literary texts to the people.

Some of these literary pieces use DMs. For example, the 1st prize winner in the one-act play category entitled “Tic-tac-toe” by Noel Tacutin has this dialogue delivered by one of the characters named Jenny “oh, my goodness! What the fudge?” The use of DM “oh” varies when read and heard by a different group of people. Therefore, DMs’ functions will pave the way in unveiling the message of the literary texts because, as Sun (2013) points out, DMs can help the readers/listeners organize, interpret, and evaluate the information.

DMs are generally markers that do not fulfill a single function; instead, multifunctional. Hence, Andersen (2001) identified DMs’ pragmatic functions: the subjective, interactional, and textual. The subjective functions of DMs capture and make explicit the attitudinal relation between the speaker and the proposition contained in the utterance. DMs with interactional functions describe what the speaker perceives as the hearer’s relation to a communicated proposition/assumption. Finally, textual functions describe what the speaker perceives concerning the sequentially arranged units of discourse. 

With limited studies on DMs in literature in the Philippines, it is essential to conduct more studies on this topic or concept to help students understand literary texts. As Sun (2013) mentioned, DMs are essential in teaching reading because they give the readers sources of ideas and summaries of thought processes and mental status. In addition, readers are guided on the organization of texts and the transition of their expectations. Its most significant effect on the reader is involvement with the text as harmony between the writer and reader. More importantly, students start to read when familiar with the text’s topic, setting, and culture. Studies also revealed that they would start to love reading when they can relate to reading. Thus, reading contemporary plays and stories will fuel their interest in loving literature even more (Sun, 2013; Meyer, 1981).  

Studying literature involves analysis of the literary texts. According to Jucker & Locher (2017), language, whether fictional or “real,” is always contextualized, and the context in which it occurs must always be an essential part of the analysis. Despite this fact, in literature classrooms, teachers are confined with the conventional way of analyzing the texts where the elements (e.g., dialogues, settings, characters, plot, among others) are being identified and analyzed. Teachers seemingly do not put a high premium on integrating contexts in the literary analysis structure of the texts to analyze. Added to this fact is no established framework for analyzing DMs in fictional discourse, focusing more on spoken and nonfictional written genres (see Schiffrin, 1987; Brinton, 1996; Fraser, 1990, 1998; Fung & Carter, 2007). Thus, recognizing the importance of contextualization in promoting learning and retaining information (Boroch et al., 2007; Stone et al., 2006), this study fills the gap by offering a framework for analyzing fictional discourse.

These situations heightened the need to study DMs in a literary text and the relevance of applying pragmatics in evaluating discourse in fiction for the literature classroom.

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed at identifying and analyzing the discourse markers (DMs) found in Palanca One-Act Plays.

Specifically, the study answered the following questions:

1. What are the discourse markers (DMs) found in Palanca One-Act Plays?
2. What are the pragmatic functions of the discourse markers in terms of:
   • subjective functions; and
   • interactional functions?
3. What framework for evaluating discourse in fiction for the literature classroom could be devised based on the findings?

Theoretical Framework

DMs are linguistic expressions of different lengths, which carry pragmatic and propositional meanings. These are a class of short, recurrent linguistic items that generally have little lexical import but serve significant pragmatic functions in conversation (Andersen, 2001). These discourse markers fulfill the pragmatic functions of the utterance. DMs are in spoken and written or textual form. Moreover, discourse marker does not fulfill a single function, which makes it multifunctional. It means that one DM may carry several functions. Further, DMs are multifunctional because they can simultaneously serve different functions in different contexts and display several pragmatic features (Ostman, 1981; Schiffrin, 1987 as cited in Andersen, 2001).

There were broad frameworks on DMs. However, the framework used in the current study is Andersen (2001) because it gives a comprehensive functional categorization of pragmatic/discourse markers. Andersen (2001) describes the functional complexity of this category in terms of the well-known notions of subjective, interactional, and textual functions. However, this study only used the subjective and interpersonal functions since the textual functions deal with the coherence and textuality of discourse. Furthermore, Andersen (2001) claimed that interactional functions could not be separated from subjective functions since both deals with the communicative content of utterances and the speaker’s informative intention.

The first pragmatic function of the discourse markers is subjectivity. According to Andersen (2001), subjectivity describes the relationship between the speaker and a communicated proposition/assumption, such as whether she finds it surprising or trivial, fortunate, or unfortunate, among others. Andersen (2001), as cited in Drăguşin (2016), asserts that all markers evince a degree of subjectivity “since any utterance expresses a speaker’s intention to make something manifest to an individual.” He further maintains that DMs are generally the expression of the hearer’s inferential processes of the utterance interpretation that involves and are used to manipulate the context selection process. Hence, DMs refine the relation that exists between a communicated assumption and the interlocutors’ cognitive environment.

The subjective functions of discourse markers portray and create clear attitudinal relation among the speaker and the proposition covered in the utterance. According to Andersen (2001), subjectivity is a non-structuring feature of DMs; it includes various types of meaning such as the speaker’s epistemic stance, affective attitude, and evaluation of the newsworthiness of the propositional content. Andersen (2001) presented, then, the array of different subjective functions. Twelve (12) subjective functions of the discourse markers are identified through the type of attitude. For example, in epistemic stance: endorsement of P has a strong commitment and tentative attitude; epistemic stance: the rejection of P has downright rejection (irony) and weak doubt; source of knowledge has speaker’s claim and other’s claim (hearsay); metalinguistic stance has a strong lexical commitment and weak lexical commitment; newsworthiness has surprise and predictability, and affective evaluation has positive evaluation and negative evaluation. Therefore, it is vivid that the discourse markers have the capacity for conveying subjectivity.

Strong commitment and tentative attitude both play a part in negotiating the epistemic status or claim. It means that the new claim does not alter the content of the initial claim, but instead, it appears to alter the intensity of the commitment to the claim. Thus, the new claim is endorsed with the purpose of not changing the earlier claim. Strong commitment differs from a tentative attitude on the intensity of the expressed commitment. The former states a strong commitment, and the latter refers to a not so strong commitment (Smith & Jucker, 2000; Andersen, 2001).

Similarly, the downright rejection (irony) and weak doubt also play roles in negotiating the epistemic status. However, unlike the strong commitment and tentative attitude, it rejects the proposition. The new claim changes the content of the original claim. It shows rejection of the earlier proposition by offering an implied rejection of the statement. On the other hand, it can also be implicit rejection through irony. Weak doubt expresses a rejection but through hesitation on what is uttered (Andersen, 2001).

Other’s claim (hearsay) and speaker’s claim both play an essential role in showing the knowledge or belief of the speaker. It has something to do with the claim, which is a product of hearsay. It is not proven, but the speaker used other’s claims. On the other hand, the speaker’s claim expresses the notion of the speaker and his belief.

Strong lexical commitment and weak lexical commitment indicate that the expression contained in the proposition only partly suits the speaker’s communicative intentions. It also signals that the expression chosen by the speaker seems not the most appropriate one, and there might be an alternative expression that will communicate the ideas more effectively. Furthermore, the signal for the chosen expression does not suit the prior linguistic repertoire of the speaker (i.e., the speaker feels slight discomfort with its use).

Surprise and predictability both have something to do with the newsworthiness of the given information. Surprise is expressed when the listener did not expect what the speaker utters. It happens when they have different background information about the topic. On the other hand, predictability shows that expressed are already expected (Andersen, 2001).

Positive evaluation and negative evaluation introduce a diverging emotional evaluation of the facts. These denote the speaker’s affective attitude towards a statement which can be an assessment of the proposition. Furthermore, the following pragmatic function of DM is the interactional function, wherein the speaker recognizes the hearer’s role in a communicated proposition/assumption as it is hearer-oriented. Moreover, Drăguşin (2016) highlights that DMs with interpersonal functions convey attitudes, feelings, and evaluations. Interactional functions in DMs are vehicles contributing to establishing and maintaining the speaker’s and the hearer’s relationship. An intrinsic feature of DMs reveals the relationship between the speaker and his/her orientation concerning the discourse (Briton, 1996). As a scholar claims, “interactional features are to be understood as functional properties that concern the mutuality of context between speaker and hearer, and maybe concerned with saving hearer’s face, drawing the hearer into the discourse and expressing empathy towards him/her.”

Andersen’s model (2001) also depicts the interactional functions of discourse markers such as A-Signal and D-Signal. A-Signal involves marking alignment of contextual assumptions, while D-Signal involves marking divergent contextual assumptions. It shows that A-Signal and D-Signal can either be a presumption of contextual alignment/divergence (speaker to hearer) or recognition of contextual alignment/divergence (hearer to a speaker). Furthermore, A-Signal is marking alignment between interlocutors. It signals the acceptance of the current speaker on the truth of the previously uttered proposition without reorganizing the contextual background since it does not disrupt the assumptions. Thus, the expression may signify new information to the listener, but it adds to the existing contextual background without diverging from it (Andersen, 2001).

On the other hand, D-Signal is a signal of divergence between the contextual assumptions of the interlocutors. It can express surprise and doubt. Unlike the A-signal, the current speaker may be forced to reorganize the cognitive environment. There is newly acquired information that rejection must be made to the previously held contextual assumptions. In some cases, rejection is not necessarily what happens, as the credibility of the new information versus the strength of previously held assumptions is highly considered (Andersen, 2001).

Furthermore, A-Signal is marking alignment between interlocutors. It signals that the current speaker accepts the previous proposition’s truth without reorganizing the contextual background because nothing communicated by this utterance conflicted with previously held assumptions. The utterance may represent new information to the listener, but it simply adds to the extant contextual background without conflicting with it (Andersen, 2001).

On the other hand, D-Signal is a signal of divergence between the contextual assumptions of the interlocutors. It can express surprise and doubt. Unlike the A-signal, the current speaker may be forced to reorganize the cognitive environment. There is newly acquired information that rejection must be made to the previously held contextual assumptions. In some cases, rejection is not necessarily what happens, as the credibility of the new information versus the strength of previously held assumptions is highly considered (Andersen, 2001).

Methodology

Research Design

This study used a qualitative research design through pragmatic analysis based on Andersen’s (2001) model to identify the pragmatic functions of ten one-act plays, which won in the Carlos Palanca Memorial Awards for Literature.

In the pragmatic analysis of the DMs, the researcher used the framework of Andersen (2001). The researcher analyzed the DMs in dialogues, the narration,  and the previous utterances of the characters. Even though there is a claim that DMs always rely on underlying propositional meaning, it does not imply that they must occur in utterances where there is a proposition (Andersen, 2001). Hence, there is a need to look for the context of the utterances. However, there is a notion that the meaning of an utterance depends on the listener’s interpretation. As Yule (2006) stated, DM is a study of contextual meaning communicated by a speaker or writer and interpreted by a listener.

In written text, however, it operates differently. Mey (1999) mentioned that it is only through an active cooperative effort, shared between reader and author, that the interplay of voices can be successfully created and recreated. Hence, in the pragmatic analysis, there is a need to consider the writer’s intended meaning rather than the researcher’s subjective view.

Corpus

The corpus of the study was sourced from the ten recent award-winning One-Act Plays in Carlos Palanca Memorial Awards for Literature, excluding 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2017 because there were no declared first-place winners during these years. The One-Act Plays are: (1) won first place in the Carlos Palanca Memorial Awards for Literature, and (2) author published in the official website of Palanca Winners. The ten one-act plays are Her Father’s House (2004) by Glenn Mas; First Snow of November (2005) by Alfonso I. Dacanay; Ming Ming (2006) by Prince C. Fernandez; Time Waits (2007) by Debbie Ann Tan; Anybody’s Revolution (2008) by Maria Clarissa N. Estuar; Evening at the Opera (2011) by Floy C. Quintos; Blue Eyes (2013) by Jose Marte Abueg; How I Got my Black Leather Boots (2014) by Patrick John R. Valencia; The Adopted Healthy Baby (2015) by Gemino H. Abad Jr.; and Tic-Tac-Toe (2016) by Peter Solis Nery.

Specialist Informants

This study sought the expertise of three specialist informants to confirm the analysis of the corpus. They are experts in Linguistics and have a Master’s in Education major in English and Applied Linguistics. In addition, they have substantial experience in text/discourse analysis research.

Data Gathering Procedure

In conducting the study, a pragmatic analysis was employed. As a result, a corpus with the following procedures was observed in the study. Figure 1 below shows the summary of procedures applied in this specific study.

The first step focused on the collection and selection of the Palanca one-act plays. The researcher went to the Palanca Library located in Makati, Quezon City, to gather the One-Act Plays. The researcher chose all the recent first-place winners, but since there were years when there were no declared first-place winners, the researcher excluded the years without first-place winners and took instead the years ahead.

The selection of framework suited for the pragmatic analysis of DMs was the next step. The researcher looked for the frameworks for this study. Among these frameworks, Andersen’s (2001) framework suits the analysis of literary discourse in literature. The researcher analyzed the Palanca one-act plays using Andersen’s framework (2001) to identify three (3) pragmatic functions of DMs: (1) subjective, (2) interactional, and (3) textual function. Only the subjective and interactional functions are about attitudinal relations between the proposition expressed and an interlocutor. Therefore, the researcher focused on these functions. The analysis excluded the textual function since it identifies the textual properties (i.e., coherence) beyond exploring the text’s pragmatic properties.

In the analysis, the researcher looked for the discourse markers in all the ten one-act plays, followed by the discourse markers’ pragmatic analysis. The researcher used the model of Andersen (2001) on identifying the pragmatic functions of the DMs under the subjective and interactional functions. In the analysis process, the researcher analyzed the previous utterances and the narration to understand the context.   The next step was validating and ratifying the results, findings, and outputs by the three (3) Specialist Informants.

The researcher’s last step was to create a framework for applying pragmatics in evaluating discourse in fiction for the literature classroom based on the results and findings of this study. This framework may guide writers, students, and researchers to understand the importance of DMs and analyze the DMs in Palanca one-act plays or fictional discourse.

Results and Discussions

Part I. Discourse Markers in Palanca One-Act Plays

Table 1

Discourse Markers in Palanca One-Act Plays

Table 1 reveals the discourse markers found in the Palanca one-act plays after the pragmatic analysis. It further reveals that there were many DMs found in the one-act plays.

Eighteen discourse markers (DMs) were evident in Palanca one-act plays. These were so, oh, sort of, hmmm, huh/ha, you know, well, hey, ah, sure, surely, really, apparently, I guess, of course, and yes. These DMs repeatedly appear in the Palanca one-act plays but revealed no specific function, making it multifunctional. This result conforms with Šiniajeva’s finding (2005) that dialogue in drama register (being the closest to spoken discourse) is rich in the repetition of the discourse markers as, oh, well, I mean, I guess, etc. On the other hand, Lutzky (2012) mentioned that regarding the text type distribution, it could be observed that, leaving aside the miscellaneous category, “well” is predominantly represented in the text types of drama, comedy, and prose fiction, followed by didactic works. It means that it appears most often in constructed text samples that are primarily dialogic.

Part II. Pragmatic Functions of Discourse Markers

The following data will summarize DMs and functions after undergoing the pragmatic analysis of ten Palanca one-act plays. In the analysis, the researcher underwent the pragmatic analysis using Andersen’s model to identify the subjective and interactional functions of the DMs found in ten Palanca one-act plays. To reveal how pragmatic analysis was conducted, the researcher will take the DM “so” in both functions to display the array of pragmatic functions they carry in a single context. This is to show as well the multifunctionality of DMs, which this study was able to prove.

Pragmatic Functions of Discourse Markers in Terms of Subjective Functions

Table 2

Subjective Functions of Discourse Markers

After the pragmatic analysis, table 2 presents the discourse markers and corresponding subjective functions found in Palanca one-act plays. As revealed in the table, the discourse markers found in Palanca one-act plays are: so, oh, sort of, hmmm, huh/ha, you know, well, hey, ah, sure, surely, really, apparently, I guess, of course, yes, and okay/ok.

Further, it is revealed in the table that a single DM contains an array of functions. This observation supports the claims of Ostman (1981) and Schiffrin (1987), as cited in Andersen (2001), that discourse marker does not fulfill a single function, which means that one DM may carry several functions. Therefore, DMs are multifunctional because they function differently in contexts and display several pragmatic features simultaneously. Brinton (1996) also states the same view when she mentioned that discourse markers might be multifunctional. Similarly, Ranger (2018) stated that discourse markers are multifunctional. The category covers various functions, but many individual markers can be used in different, often overlapping ways.

The table revealed the subjective functions of the DMs. It revealed that the DM “so” has strong commitment, weak doubt, positive evaluation, and negative evaluation; the DM “oh” has speaker’s own claim, downright rejection (irony), downright rejection, and surprise; the DM “sort of” has tentative attitude and weak lexical commitment; the DM “hhmmm” has tentative attitude and speaker’s own claim; the DM “huh/ha” has tentative attitude, downright rejection (irony), surprise, speaker’s own claim, and positive evaluation; the DM “right” has negative evaluation, downright rejection (irony), and speaker’s own claim; the DM “you know” has tentative attitude, speaker’s own claim, and positive evaluation; the DM “well” has speaker’s own claim, tentative attitude, and downright rejection; the DM “hey” has surprise, downright rejection, positive evaluation, and negative evaluation; the DM “ah” has weak doubt and speaker’s own claim; the DM “sure” has downright rejection (irony), weak doubt, other’s claim (hearsay), and surprise; the DM “surely” has strong commitment; the DM “really” has strong commitment, weak doubt, surprise, and negative evaluation; the DM “apparently” has speaker’s own claim, downright rejection, and other’s claim (hearsay); the DM “I guess” has tentative attitude, positive evaluation, and predictability; the DM “of course” has predictability, downright rejection, and negative evaluation; the DM “yes” has downright rejection and strong commitment; and lastly, the DM “okay” has positive evaluation and tentative attitude as their subjective functions.

The following are the sample pragmatic analysis where subjective functions are evident.

Subjective function of DM “so”

In the following Exemplar, the DM “so” functions pragmatically to show positive evaluation.

In Exemplar 1, R expresses her emotion on “I” by asking why he treats him like that. Her question is not to raise a question to “I,” but to open her negative feelings on how she was treated. This observation is explicit in the response of “I,” where he asked him to stop crying. On the other hand, although not uttered explicitly, “I” then give his positive response to R’s sentiment by telling her that she is beautiful like a princess. Thus, showing a positive evaluation of the situation.

On the other hand, the DM “so” is a negative evaluation reflected in Exemplar 2.

The DM “so” in Exemplar 4 is used to express the emotion of Dolores on what Isabel tells her. An unfavorable evaluation is evident because in the dialogue, when she asked her to leave, it is seen that Isabel burst out with her negative feelings for Dolores. On the other hand, instead of comforting Isabel, Dolores, although not stated explicitly, negatively responds to the burst of Isabel by telling Isabel of her unchanged behavior. Further in her utterance, “So you have not changed,” she gives a negative judgment on Isabel’s personality based on the reaction that she has shown.

Pragmatic Functions of Discourse Markers in Terms of Interactional Functions

Table 3

Interactional Functions of Discourse Markers

Table 3 presents the pragmatic functions of the discourse markers in interactional functions after the pragmatic analysis of ten Palanca one-act plays. It shows that discourse markers can have both A-signal and D-signal functions depending on their context. This result is also in line with the idea of multifunctionality present in discourse markers. Finally, it manifests the ability to display several pragmatic features simultaneously (Ostman, 1981; Schiffrin, 1987 as cited in Andersen, 2001).

The interactional function which belongs to A-signal is so, sort of, hmmm, huh/ha, right, you know, well, ah, surely, really, of course, yes, and okay/ok. However, on the other hand, the DMs which have an interactional function of D-signal is so, oh, huh/ha, well, hey, ah, sure, really, apparently, yes, and okay/ok. Thus, the DMs following the interactional functions align with the claims of Andersen (2001) on the myriad of DMs that function either as A-signal or D-signal.

The following are the sample pragmatic analysis where interactional functions are evident.

Interactional function of DM “so”

As reflected in the Palanca one-act plays, the DM “so” has an interactional function of A-signal and D-signal,

It is evident in Exemplar 3 that DM “so” has an interactional function of A-signal. It is reflected in the Exemplar that the DM “so” is used by Mila to show that she accepts the information given by Howell, hence marking alignment of contextual assumptions. Moreover, it shows that Howell mentioned that he was asked to deposit checks, which Mila accepts and strengthens by adding information about it. It further reveals that Mila and Howell know that Ma’am Mendoza helped Vic, an observation supported by Piurko’s (2015) study, which found out that the DM “so” which is often called a causative or an inferential marker, signals that the given utterance is a conclusion that follows from the previous discourse.

On the other hand, the DM “so” has an interactional function of D-signal as evident in Exemplar 4.

It is displayed in Exemplar 4 that the use of the DM “so” by Bernice is to express that she is hesitant about what Andrea said; hence she is forced to reorganize her cognitive environment. That might be the reason why Bernice asked questions ironically because she has a different perspective from Andrea. However, as noticed, although there is no rejection made, there is no acceptance on the part of Andrea.

The next step was the interpretation of the findings and results. Finally, upon the identification of the pragmatic functions of the DMs in the Palanca one-act plays, the last step was ratifying the results, findings, and output by the Specialist Informants. Three (3) Specialist Informants ratified and validated the study’s results, findings, and output.

The last step done by the researcher was creating the final output, which is the framework for analyzing Pragmatics in discourse in fiction based on the results and findings of this study. This framework may guide writers, students, and researchers to understand the importance of DMs and analyze the DMs in Palanca one-act plays. However, more importantly, this can be used as a new way of analyzing literary texts, other than the conventional analysis that looked upon the elements.

Part III. Framework for Pragmatic Analysis of Discourse Markers in Fiction for Literature Classroom

In light of the study’s findings, the researcher proved that the framework of Andersen (2001) could be used to analyze discourse markers in fiction, an innovative way of analyzing literary texts because it is beyond the conventional way of analyzing text usually evident in the literature classes. This framework is designed to reveal the underlying pragmatic functions of the discourse markers in Philippine one-act plays. The corpus of this study had undergone pragmatic analysis that revealed the pragmatic functions of discourse markers in terms of subjective and interactional functions, which reveals that both functions appear in a single DM. The finding supports the claims of several researchers that discourse markers are multifunctional. Its purpose is to reveal to the researchers, linguists, pragmaticists, literary writers, literary teachers, and readers how a single discourse marker carries various meanings when used in a different context. It is also a suitable venue for the students to understand the concept of pragmatics and prove that language is powerful. Hence it can appear both in verbal and written forms.

This construct will also help the researchers dealing with the pragmatic analysis and will use Palanca one-act plays as the corpus of the study.

Conclusions

It could be derived from the study that numerous DMs are evident in the Palanca One-Act Plays, which manifest the prominence of DMs in written form, particularly in fictional discourse. Hence, this embraces the concept of the application of pragmatics in evaluating discourse in fiction for the literature classroom.

The multifunctionality of DMs revealed the variety of functions that appeared in different contexts of the plays and the several pragmatic features displayed simultaneously. It means that a particular DM has several subjective and interactional functions, as exemplified by the use of “so” in the Palanca one-act plays. Hence, this is a manifestation that one cannot attach a single function into a DM. Lastly, given the nature of Pragmatics, the pragmatic functions of the DMs depend on how readers comprehend their use in specific situations. It means that one can have a different interpretation of their functions and meanings.

Recommendations 

This study, which intends to show the application of pragmatics in evaluating discourse in fiction for the literature classroom, offers concepts and perspectives worthy of academic attention. This study recommends that the teachers, particularly the literature teachers, incorporate the Pragmatic analysis of Philippine One-Act Plays in their lessons that deal with pragmatics and discourse markers. Understanding Pragmatics in literary texts is a good start in understanding more complex Pragmatics in authentic language and conversation. On the other hand, appreciating discourse markers gives them the idea that a single word has different meanings and functions, depending on its contextual use. In doing so, they could utilize the output of this study in teaching DMs and pragmatics, particularly in the pragmatic analysis of the DMs in the Philippine one-act plays or fictional discourse.

Given the limitations of frameworks in literary discourse, this study would recommend that Pragmaticists and Linguists revisit the frameworks for literary texts and broaden the frameworks intended for pragmatic analysis of the DMs in literature. With due acknowledging the nature of Pragmatics, this paper recommends that literary writers cautiously use discourse markers and be mindful of the readers’ interpretations that contribute to the story’s overall meaning.

On the part of the students as the players of the texts, this recommends that they consider the thorough understanding of pragmatics by reading and analyzing Philippine literary texts. It will not only make them realize how powerful the language is, but it will also make them appreciate the richness of the culture in the Philippines. Finally, this recommends the future researchers conduct studies on the occurrences of the DM in literary texts. The study would identify the prominent DMs in literary texts. They could also integrate the textual functions of DMs in the pragmatic analysis of literary texts. They can also examine DMs using other frameworks. They could also conduct another study on DMs which used natural language and compare it to the results of this study.

References

Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Retrieved February 10, 2019, from http://www.amazon.com

Andersen, G. (2001). Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: A relevance theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Retrieved February 10, 2019, from http://www.amazon.com

Boroch, D., Fillpot, J., Hope, L., Johnstone, R., Mery, P., Serban, A., … & Gabriner, R. S. (2007). Basic Skills as a Foundation for Student Success in California Community Colleges. Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (RP Group).

Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Retrieved February 10, 2019, from https://books.google.com.

Chapman, S., Clark, B. (Eds.). (2014). Pragmatic Literary Stylistics. Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved April 21, 2019, from https://www.palgrave.com.

Dylgjeri, A. (2014). The function and importance of discourse markers in political discourse. Beder University Journal of Educational Sciences, 1/5: 26-35. Retrieved from http://bjes.beder.edu.al/uploads/arch-201405071008533025.pdf

Feng, L. (2010). Discourse Markers in English Writing. The Journal of International Social Research, 3/11, 299-305. Retrieved from http://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/cilt3/sayi11pdf/feng_li.pdf

Fitzmaurice, S. (2010). Historical pragmatics (Vol. 8). In Jucker, A. H., & Taavitsainen, I. (Eds.), Literary discourse (pp. 679-684). Retrieved from https://books.google.com.

Ismail, H. M. (2012). Discourse markers in political speeches: Forms and functions. J. Of College of Education for Women. 23 (4). Retrieved April 21, 2019, from https://www.academia.edu/24441181

Jucker, A. H. & Locher, M. A. (2017). Introducing Pragmatics of Fiction: Approaches, trends and developments. doi: 10.1515/9783110431094-001

Kaveifard, E. & Allami, H. (2011). Inferential discourse markers in discussion section of psychology research articles across english and persian, theory and practice in language studies, 1/12: 1786-1791.

Kohlani, M.A. 2010. The Function of Discourse Markers in Arabic Newspaper Opinion Articles. Doctoral Thesis. Washington: Georgetown University. Retrived from https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/552822/alfatima.pdf

Kytö, M. (2010). Historical pragmatics (Vol. 8). In Jucker, A. H., & Taavitsainen, I. (Eds.), Data in historical pragmatics (pp. 33-39). Retrieved April 21, 2019, from https://books.google.com.

Li, Q. (2016). A case study on the pragmatic use of discourse markers. Canadian Social Science, 12 (11), 106-113. Retrieved from http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/css/article/view/9032

Lutzky, U. (2012).  Discourse markers in early modern English. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com

Meyer, M. (1981). The pragmatics of reading: a new theory of language and literature. Philosophica, 28(2), 47-106.

Mey, J. L. (2011). Handbooks of Pragmatics. In W. Bublitz, A. H. Jucker & K. P. Schneider (Eds.), Pragmatics and literature (pp. 511-524).

Mulkar-Mehta, R., Gordon, A. S., Hovy, E. & Hobbs, J. 2011. Causal markers across domains and genres of discourse, ACM Digital Library, 183-184.

Najeh, L. (2015). Pragmatics: A hybrid innovation. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies. 1 (4), 365-373.

Piurko, E. (2015). Discourse markers: their function and distribution in the media and legal discourse. (Master’s Thesis). Vilnius Pedagogical University. Retrieved September 5, 2018, from gs.elaba.lt/object/elaba:8645298/8645298.pdf

Ranger, G. (2018). Discourse markers: An enunciative approach. Retrieved April 22, 2019, from https://books.google.com.

Šiniajeva, I. (2005). Discourse markers: their functions and distribution across registers. (Master’s Thesis). Vilnius Pedagogical University. Retrieved September 5, 2018, from gs.elaba.lt/object/elaba:1798776/1798776.pdf

Sharndama, E. C. & Yakubu S. 2013. An Analysis of Discourse Markers in Academic Report Writing: Pedagogical Implications. International Journal of Academic Research and Reflection, 1/3: 15-24. Retrieved September 5, 2018, from https://www.idpublications.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/AN-ANALYSIS-OF-DISCOURSE-MARKERS-IN-ACADEMIC-REPORT-WRITING-PEDAGOGICAL-IMPLICATIONS.pdf

Stone III, J. R., Alfeld, C., Pearson, D., Lewis, M. V., & Jensen, S. (2006). Building Academic Skills in Context: Testing the Value of Enhanced Math Learning in CTE. National research center for career and technical education.

Sun, W. (2013). The importance of discourse markers in English learning and teaching. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 3 (11), 2136-2140. doi:10.4304/tpls.3.11.2136-2140

Verdonik, D., Žgank, A. & Pisanski Peterlin A. (2008). The impact of context on discourse markers in two conversational genres, Discourse Studies, 10/6: 759-775.

Verikaite, D. (2005). Variation of conjunctive markers across different genres, man and the world, 03/7: 68-75.

Zhao, H. (2014). The textual function of discourse markers under the framework of relevance theory. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(10), 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.10.2105-2113

Author’s Bionote

Charlene Joy G. Oliveros is a Senior High School teacher at Alabat Island National High School, Alabat, Quezon Province. She is currently pursuing a Doctor of Education in Literature and Language Education at Far Eastern University, Manila. She is interested in pragmatics, discourse markers, and language policy.

ASIAN JOURNAL ON PERSPECTIVES IN EDUCATION

Far Eastern University
Institute of Education
FEU Campus, Nicanor Reyes Street, Sampaloc
Manila, Philippines, 1015
Email: ajpe@feu.edu.ph