"diye" (digar) in Hamedani dialect;, a multifunctional discourse marker

Document Type : .

Authors

1 Linguistics Department, Faculty of Literature and humanities, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

2 Bu-Ali Sina University

3 Professor of Minority Languages in the Middle East, Goethe University Frankfurt

Abstract

The main function of discourse markers is to make connections between the discourse and the discourse situation, thus managing the interaction between speaker and listener, expressing the speaker's attitude, and organising the flow of discourse. In this research, different functions of the pragmatic marker diye in the Hamedani dialect were examined. To achieve this goal, around six hours of audio and video files of the Hamedani dialect corpus were used. Diye is a high-frequency pragmatic marker in the Hamedani dialect and has several functions. For example, our results show that this pragmatic marker is used for interpersonal functions such as expression of attitudes, emphasis, and confirmation-seeking, as well as for indirect responses (in order to evade the subject and appeal to shared knowledge between speaker and listener). In terms of textual function, it helps to keep or relinquish the floor, show a sequence of events, or end a topic, or to express an explanation, justification, contradiction, addition, or conclusion in relation to a previous or subsequent proposition. Examining the intonation of diye with Praat software shows that the intonation pattern of this pragmatic marker varies, depending on its particular function.

Keywords

References

Bartholomae, Ch. (1906). Zum altiranischen Wörterbuch. Trübner.
Beeching, K., & Y. F. Wang (2014). “3 Motivations for meaning shift at the left and right periphery: well, bon and hao”. Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery. K. Beaching, & U. Detges, U. (Eds.), Brill, Leiden, 47-72.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brinton, L. J. (2008). The Comment Clause in English. Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge University Press.
Dér, C. I. (2010). “On the status of discourse markers”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57(1). 3–28.
Erman, B. (1987). Pragmatic Expressions in English. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Frank-Job, B. (2006). “A Dynamic- Interactional Approach to Discourse Marker”. Approaches to Discourse Particles. K. Fischer (Ed.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, 395-413.
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, 383-395.
Fraser, B. (1996). “Pragmatic markers”. Pragmatics 6, 167 - 190
Ghaderi, S. (2021). “The functions and evolution of xob ‘well’ in Persian: A thetical analysis”. Lingua 262, 103-129.
Gohl, C., & S. Günthner (1999). „Grammatikalisierung von weil als Diskursmarker in der gesprochenen Sprache“. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft. 18(1), 39–75.
Goldberg, J. A. (1980). Discourse particles: An analysis of the role of y'know, I mean, well, and actually in conversation. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University].
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & R Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English (English Language Series 9). London: Longman.
Hansen, M. B. M. (1998). “The semantic status of discourse markers”. Lingua. 104, 235-260.
Heritage, J. (2015). “Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: a conversation analytic perspective”. Journal of Pragmatics. 88, 88-104.
Hopper, P. J., & E. C. Traugott (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jucker, A. H. (1993). "The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account". Journal of pragmatics 19: 435-452.
Keller, E. (1979). “Gambits: Conversational Strategy Signals”. Journal of pragmatics 3. 219-238.
Labov, W., & D. Fanshel (1977). Therapeutic discourse. New York: Academic Press.
Lakoff, R. (1973). "Questionable answers and answerable questions". Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Rencc Kahanc. B. Braj et al. (eds.), 453-467.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostman, J. (1995). “Pragmatic particles twenty years after”. Organization in discourse. B. Wavik, S. K. Tanskanen, & R. Hiltunen (Eds.), Department of English University of Turku, Finland, 95-108.
Ostman, J.-O. (1982). "The symbiotic relationship between pragmatic particles and impromptu speech". Impromptu Speech. N. E. Enkvist (ed.), 147-177.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, & J. Svartvik (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London.
Redeker, G. (1990). "Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure". Journal of pragmatics. 14, 367-381.
Redeker, G. (1991). “Review of Schiffrin 1987”. Linguistics 29: 1139-1172.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C. (2012). “Intersubjectification and clause periphery”. English Text Construction 5. L. Brems, L. Ghesquière & F. Van de Velde (eds.), 7-28.
Traugott, E. C. )1982(. “From propositional to textual and expressive meanings; some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization”. Directions for historical linguistics. W. Lehmann, & Y. Malkiel (eds.), 245–271. https://doi. org/10.1075/cilt.24.09clo
Watts, R. J. (1989). "Taking the pitcher to the 'well': Native speakers' perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation". Journal of pragmatics 13: 203-237.
Wierzbicka, A. (1976). “Particles and linguistic relativity”. International Review of Slavic Linguistics. 1, 327-367.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics