IntroductionWhen it comes to spoken interactions between two or more

people,it is self-evident that all of them need to cooperate in

order to make the conversation successful.For one thing, they

must arrange their different turns, sequence and lengths of the

different speakers contributions.On the content level,it is

essential that speaker and hearer come to a mutual

understanding.While the hearer needs to make inferences from

the speaker’s utterances and signal his or her understanding or

non-understanding accordingly ,it lies in the speaker’s

responsibility to support the hearer’s process of understanding

by giving different kinds of clues to what it is that he or she

means to say, so that the hearer can come to an understanding

similar to their own.One of the strategies they draw on is

concerned with signaling the boundaries and relations between

different parts of his discourse .For this purpose, the speaker

uses lexical “signposts”,which structure the discourse on a

metacommunicative level. On type of these lexical items are

discourse markers. The word discourse is used to refer to a

piece or unit of writing or speech that is longer than,

respectively, a sentence or an utterance. In writing,

especially academic writing, it isessential for the author to

guide the reader through the discourse signalling what is

important and how each sentence connects to others. Readers who3

have to “work” too hard to understand where to focus their

attention and to link together the concepts presented in the

writing do not have enough mental energy to process the

author’s ideas and to remember them after having finished

reading.One of the main ways that authors help guide readers

through discourse is by “marking”how the coming sentence or

clause relates back to previous discourse. Thus if the author

wants to show a continuation of a previous line of thought,

s/he will begin the coming sentence with a marker. This

automatically helps thereader to approach the coming sentence

with the knowledge of how it relates to the theme the author is

constructing (i.e. this is another sentence in support of an

idea previously posited). If, on the other hand, the author

wants to signal a change in direction of the discourse, s/he

will utilize a.It isn’t easy to present a complete list of

discourse markers and their various functions.There are many of

them, and, perhaps even more importantly, some of them are used

more in speech than in writing, or vice versa or some of them

are more informally used than formally and so on and so on. The

best way to understand an effective use of discourse markers is

to read a lot.However, reading without paying special

attentions to discourse markers may besome what helpful, but

not completely. You must take a step back from the reading

processin order to pick out and notice how the author is

employing discourse markers and whatthey add to the reading

4

experience. In this way, you can begin to develop both a

consciousand unconscious knowledge of how to use them yourself.

What’s important is NOT to simply throw discourse markers

haphazardly into your writing. This is the case, for example,

of learners who remember suddenly, “oh yeah, I’m supposed to be

using those discourse markers” and then arbitrarily write one

of the common ones remembered at the moment.I have compiled

some lists of discourse markers for you to look at and study,

and to keep close at hand when you are writing. While it is

obvious that you may develop a prefer encefor certain discourse

markers, you should try to vary them, especially now as you are

learning to write academic English. You are in the process of

learning and developing a writing style and so if you limit

yourself to the use of just a few discourse markers now, you

will inevitably continue to develop a style which is more

limited and less versatile. Below you will find 3 separate

lists and/or tables which show discourse markers, their

functions, grammatical definitions and some examples. I have

decided to include all three, even if this means that there are

repetitions, in order to show you how different people might

look at discourse markers differently. In other words, these

are not mathematical formulas but rather expressions which may

be interpreted and utilized in slightly different ways by

different authors. You may find that one list or table in

5

particular appeals to you in its presentation, explanation and

organization.

Chapter 1

1.1Definition and characteristics

A discourse marker is a word or phrase that is

relatively syntax-independent and does not change the truth

conditional meaning of the sentence, and has a some what empty

meaning. In Practical English Usage Michael Swan defines a

'discourse marker' as 'a word or expression which shows the

connection between what is being said and the wider context.

Traditionally, some of the words or phrases that were

considered discourse markers were treated as "fillers" or

"expletives": words or phrases that had no function at all. Now

they are assigned functions in different levels of analysis:

6

topic changes, reformulations, discourse planning,

stressing, hedging, or backchanneling.

As far as their morphological form is concerned, discourse

markers are short, consisting of one to three syllables .

The crucial point ,however ,lies in the fact that they have

“lost”their lexical menaning.When an item is used in its

discourse marker function, it does not have it’s lexical or

propositional, menaning,nor does it modify the propositional

content of the utterance occurs with in any way.This is often

favoured by their syntactic posiyion which is usually”outside

the sentential karnel structure in the pe-front field

“(Aijmer).Lnk puts it similarly:”these lexical items usually

occur in certain syntactic position often utterance-or

intonation unit initially”

Instead of carrying propositional meaning ,discourse markers

function on a metacomunicative level , indicating the

structural organization of the discourse. This can for example

include topical actions such as changing topics or closing

digressions, or floorholding functions .

In this function, discourse markers thus have a paragmatic

meaning , acting on a metalinguistic level.Lenk summarises this

under the key words delexicalisation and progmaticalisation.

The same lexical item can function either as discourse marker

or be used in its propositional function.If used in its

7

propositional meaning .It cannot act as a discourse marker,if

it carries pragmatic meaning,it cannot be a proposition marker:

Lenk argues that propositional and pragmatic meaning are not

compietly separate from each other but that they are

etymologically related and share “some care aspects of

meaning”.As mentioned above ,they must , however ,be strictly

separated.Clues to distinguish the two uses can be drawn from

the syntactic position of the items,it’s phonological features

and also from collocations .As these things vary for each

discourse marker,the criteria for distinguishing the two

discourse markers investigated here will be discussed in the

language specific chapters.

There seems to be a common agreement at least in German

literature to make a distinction in terms of membership of

different word classes: while used in its propositional

meaning, the lexical item in question is classified as a.g. an

adverb, it belongs to the word class of particles when it

carries a non-propositional function.This class is further

divided into Modalpartikeln and Gliederungspartikeln.

One criterlon with which discourse markers can be classified is

their scope.In their function to tie together parts of the

discourse,they can either act on a local or a more global

level, i.e. between”two immediately adjacent utterances:

or“discourse segments further apart “.Lenk, howeve,finds in

her study that some of the so-called local markers can also

8

relate to “ not immediately adjacent” but more distant

discourse units and suggests that local and global orientation

should be viewed as extreme ends of a continuum.

Another characteristic feature of discourse markers is the fact

that in addition to their scope ,they also differ in term of

their orientation,i.e.the direction in which they function in

the discourse.Retrospective discourse markers,on the one

hand,link the utterance they occur in to preceding

discourse.Prospective ones, on the other hand,refer to

following discourse and can announce”discourse segments

intended to follow.There can also be markers that combine both

directions.

1.2 Function

After the term discourse marker has been defend, this chapter

will deal with the different kinds of function ascribed to them

and try to find a general classification of them on which the

instances of English now and German nun can be bassed later on.

It has already been mentioned that discourse markers can fulfil

a multitude of functions.these function,however , are given

different weight by most of the studies, and there seems to be

no universal classification.

Lenk treats the issue in the following way:she makes a

distinction between pragmatic particles on the one hand and

discourse markers on the other .Discourse markers constitute a

9

subgroup of pragmatic particles, being concered mainly with “

indicating various features of discourse structure” and ,in

general ,”with topical actions.Pragmatic particles,on the other

hand ,function in a different way,as they are “involved with

matters of politenessor ,in more general words ,relationship

issues between the participants in the conversation “

The distinctive line is thus the kind of function they

perform:Pragmatic particles carry out interpersonal function,

whereas discourse markers have a textual one.

In addition to the issue that it may be disputable that

discourse markers do not have interpersonal meaning –

Aijmer,for instance,assigns affective meaning to now-Lenk does

not take any interest in a possible function with regard to

turn-taking.

It is only briefly mentioned that discourse markers can be also

concerned with turn-taking and “ that self-repairs are often

introduced “by them ,but this aspect is not represented in her

categorization of function.as mentioned above ,her work

concentrates on the functions of indicating topical actions.

Another researcher dealing with a categorization of discourse

marker functions is Aijmer. Following J. Halidays distinction

of ideational,interpersonal and textual function, she argues

that discourse markers do not work on an ideational level ,as

it is their most important characteristic that they neither

have propositional content on their own nor contribute to the

10

proposition of the utterance they occur in.They can,

however , function on an interpersonal level;then they “express

attitudes,feelings and evaluations” and also play a role in

terms of politeness.On the textual level ,discourse markers are

“concerned with textual resources the speaker has for creating

coherence “So far, she seems to be in line with Lenk’s

distinction,except that her discourse particles can have

interpersonal or textual meaning,while Lenk puts up two

different categories of lexical items according to their

function.

Aijmer then further categorises the two functions.She divides

the textual function into frame function and qualifying

functions.

The frame functions are involved in “drawing the hearer’s

attention to a transition or a break in the conversation

routine” and can take the following forms:

1.Marking transitions

2.introducing a new turn

3.introucing and explanations, justification, background

4.introducing or closing a digression

5.Self-correction

6.introducing direct speech

The qualifier function ,on the other hand, seem to be concerned

with indetifying a Discourse unit as a reaction to the

immediately preceding one:

11

Whereas the frame function seems to be more or less congruent

with what Lenk understands as indicating topical actions, the

qualifying function indicates the nature of the following

utterance as a reaction to what has been said before.

Markers and discourse

My analysis of discourse markers (Schiffrin 1987) was motivated by

several concerns. From a sociolinguistic perspective, I was

interested in using methods for analyzing language that had been

developed by variation theory to account for the use and distribution

of forms in discourse. This interest, however, was embedded within my

view of discourse not only as a unit of language, but as a process of

social interaction. My analysis thus tried to reconcile both

methodology (using both quantitative and qualitative methods) and

underlying models (combining those inherited from both linguistics

and sociology). Unifying the analysis was the desire to account for

the distribution of markers in spoken discourse in a way that

attended to both the importance of language and interaction. My

initial work defined discourse markers as sequentially dependent

elements that bracket units of talk ,i.e. nonobligatory utterance-

initial items that function in relation to ongoing talk and text. I

proposed that discourse markers could be considered as a set of

linguistic expressions comprised of members of word classes as varied

as conjunctions (e.g. and, but, or), interjections (oh), adverbs

(now, then), and lexicalized phrases (know, I mean). Also proposed

was a discourse model with different planes: a participation

framework, information state, ideational structure, action structure,12

exchange structure. My specific analyses showed that markers could

work at different levels of discourse to connect utterances on either

a single plane or across different planes.

Markers And Pragmatics

Like the work reviewed thus far, Fraser’s (1990, 1998) perspective on

discourse markers is embedded within a larger framework that impacts

upon the analysis of markers. In contrast to Halliday and Hasan –

whose main interest was the cohesion of text – Fraser’s theoretical

framework concerns the meaning of sentences, specifically how one

type of pragmatic marker in a sentence may relate the message

conveyed by that sentence to the message of a prior sentence. And in

contrast to my approach in Schiffrin (1987) – whose starting point

was to account for the use and distribution of markers in everyday

discourse – Fraser’s starting point is the classification of types of

pragmatic meaning, and within that classification, the description of

how some pragmatic commentary markers.Fraser’s framework depends upon

a differentiation between content and pragmatic meaning. Content

meaning is referential meaning: “a more or less explicit

representation of some state of the world that the speaker intends to

bring to the hearer’s Discourse Markers 59 attention by means of the

literal interpretation of the sentence” .Pragmatic meaning concerns

the speaker’s communicative intention, the direct (not implied)

“message the speaker intends to convey in uttering the sentence” .It

is conveyed by three different sets of pragmatic markers: basic

pragmatic markers (signals of illocutionary force, e.g. please),

commentary pragmatic markers (encoding of another message that

13

comments on the basic message, e.g. frankly), and parallel pragmatic

markers (encoding of another message separate from the basic and/or

commentary message, e.g. damn, vocatives). Discourse markers are one

type of commentary pragmatic marker: they are “a class of

expressions, each of which signals how the speaker intends the basic

message that follows to relate to the prior discourse”. Fraser’s more

recent work builds upon the sequential function of discourse markers,

such that discourse markers necessarily specify (i.e. provide

commentary on) a relationship between two segments of discourse: this

specification is not conceptual, but procedural .

Discourse connectives

Discourse connectives is that they are often polysemic and a

singlelexical item can be used to convey several coherence relations.

For example, the connective if  can beused to convey a conditional or

a causal meaning and the connective since can convey a temporal or

acausal meaning. Because of these numerous ambiguities and the

necessity to grasp sometimes complexcoherence relations, discourse

connectives are a reputedly difficult class of lexical items to

master. 

Political Discourse

Chilton and Schaffner (2002) mention that political activity does not

exist without the use of language and the doing of politics is

constituted in language. The relationship between language and

politics stems from the fact that language can be thought of as a

resource which is drawn up on to achieve socio-political goals.

14

Language seems to be a very important tool used by political

communities to establish group awareness and cement voters by making

them feel that their votes count (Grabias, 2001). So, Van Dijk (1997)

observes that each speech delivered by a politician is a realization

of his intention and has its own function. It is pointed out that in

political discourses, the participants which are called "political

actors”, make their speeches at the higher level of correctness as

part of the formal language style. In addition, the choices of words

must be suited to the given situation and needs. While the opinion of

Chruszczewski (2002) is that by directing presidents speeches (texts)

into the desired direction, the texts can quite often manipulate a

large number of recipients. Hudson (1978) agrees with Chruszczewski

by saying that language used in speeches is undoubtedly expected by

the audience and that professional politicians select specific

phrases in order to persuade and influence receivers. For

politicians, language is a very important tool used to achieve

something. In political discourse, there are the speakers and

receivers. The speakers try to address all people in his process and

the receivers try to interpret the texts delivered by politicians

making use of their intertextual and political knowledge (Grabias,

2001).

So, as a tool, language will be used to achieve political aims and

discourse markers will be part of this tool to indicate the speaker's

attitude toward the audience. The next section, definition,

classification and functions of discourse markers will be explained.

Definition of Discourse Markers:

15

Traditionally, points that some of the words or phrases that were

considered discourse markers were treated as "fillers" or

"expletives": words or phrases that had no function at all, while,

now they are considered functional at different levels of analysis:

topic changes, reformulations, discourse planning, stressing,

hedging, or channeling. So those functions can be classified into

three broad groups: (a) relationships among (parts of) utterances;

(b) relationships between the speaker and the message, and (c)

relationships between speaker and hearer. According to Lynn and Zic

in linguistics, a discourse marker is a word or phrase that is

relatively syntax-independent and does not change the meaning of the

sentence, and has a somewhat empty meaning, while, Swan defines a

discourse marker as “a word or expression which shows the connection

between what is being said and the wider context”. For him, it is

something that first, connects a sentence to what comes before or

after and second, indicates a speaker's attitude to what he is

saying.

Therefore, discourse markers can be defined as linguistic expressions

of varying length which carry pragmatic meaning and can facilitate

the discourse. The main classification of discourse markers will be

mentioned in the next section.

Classification of Discourse Markers

Hyland and Tse (2004) mention that discourse marker categories are

intrinsically and ultimately interpersonal, and one of their main

aims is to persuade the reader. They classify discourse markers into

the functional headings of interpersonal and textual markers. Textual

16

discourse markers refer to the organization of discourse. They also

fulfill a persuasive function and attain a persuasive effect, while

the interpersonal reflects the writer’s stance towards both the

content of the text and the potential reader.

17

Chapter 2

2.1Types of discourse markers

The most striking observation in the quantitative analysis

above is thatcompared with the native speaker corpus the non-

native speakers significantly over use

 so

and

well 

whereas they significantly under use most other discourse

markers. How can this be explained? The answer to that question

probably lies in the different nature of these items. Discourse

markers are often regarded as functioning on one of two levels.

The first of these is the structural or textual level, on which

markers have a clear role to play in the organisation of the

discourse. For instance,they mark a transition (between topics,

conversations, etc.), introduce or close a digression, act as a

self-correction device, indicate agreement, etc.As Lenk (1998)

puts it: they “signal for the hearer how the speaker intendsthe

present contribution to be related to preceding and/or

following partsof the discourse” (1998: 52). Another level on

which discourse markerscan function is the interpersonal or

phatic. They express “attitudes,feelings and evaluations” of

18

speakers towards hearers or refer to epistemological concepts,

e.g. they are hedges or politeness devices

We use different discourse markers in speaking and writing. In speaking, the

following discourse markers are very common:

anyway like right you know

fine now so I mean

good oh well as I say

great okay mind you for a start

In writing, the following discourse markers are common:

firstly in addition moreoveron the other

hand

secondl

y

in

conclusion

on the one

handto begin with

thirdly in sum

Discourse markers do not always have meanings that you will

find in your dictionary. However, they do have certain

functions, and some discourse markers, such as well, can have a

number of functions.

Discourse markers that organise what we say

Some discourse markers are used to start and to end

conversations. Some are used to start new topics or to change

topics.

A.I hope to make sixy one of these days ( William Saroyan, Many

miles per hour)19

Ordering what we sayWe also use discourse markers to order or sequence what we say. Some of the

common words and phrases which we use for this are:

and in general second to sum up

and then in the end secondly what’s more

first (of all) last of all so well

firstly next lastly a … b

for a start on top of that third(ly)firstly and secondly are more formal than first and second.

The third and last race was seventy-five miles.( William

Saroyan, Many miles per hour)

Discourse markers as responses

As we listen to someone speaking, we usually show our response

to what we hear either by gesture (head nod) or by a short

response (Mm, yeah, really, that’s a shame). This shows that we are

listening to and interested in what is being said. We call

these short responses ‘response tokens’.Common response tokens include:

absolutely fine okay wow

(all) right goodquite (more

formal)yeah

certainly great really yes

definitely I see sure glad

exactly no wonderful

20

Discourse markers showing attitudeSome expressions are used to mark attitude or point of view in speaking or

writing.Common expressions of attitude are:

actually frankly I think (I’m) sorry

admittedly hopefully literally surprisingly

amazingly honestly naturally thankfully

basically ideally no doubt to be honest

certainlyif you ask

meobviously

to tell you the

truth

clearly I’m afraid of courseunderstandabl

y

confidential

ly

I must

admit

predictabl

yundoubtedly

definitelyI must

sayreally unfortunately

essentially in fact sadly

fortunately indeed Seriously

2.1A selection of discourse markers

I have selected some of the most commonly

studied discourse markers.

1.So

A dozen magazines full of love stories,a radio , an orthophonic

phonograph,so she could feel that she wasn’t alone and not be

fraid or ashamed.(The Mother,p-24)21

So is a highly versatile discourse marker,which can take on a

number of different guises in one and the samerelatively short

stretch of speech.It has a basic inferential meaning but is

equally able to perform a varied setof functions.

2.Well

Well,that isn’t so bad , I said.(pg 98)

Excerpt exemplifies two of well ’s main uses marking an answer

to a question in a qualifying way and self-correction or

rephrasing. Well as the adverb form of  good and those in

phrases such as as well were excluded from this study.

3.You know and I mean

I mean that there is no matter how much far it is , you must

go.(pg82)

Although you know and I mean are frequent in spontaneous talk,

researchers have not agreed on what purpose they serve. They

have been thought by some to be used similarly and by others to

be used differently. Similarities of uses at a surface level

encouraged historical discussions of these two markers in the

same breath. Each discourse marker’s basic meaning, with “you

know”’s basic meaning being to invite addressee inferences and

“I mean”’s basic meaning being to forewarn upcoming

adjustments.

22

4.Like

Pete said ,how can you sleep at time like this.(pg 29)

This analysis of like as a discourse marker looks at its

meaning relative to its position in the clause, and the

discoursal context including the type of interaction. Like

cannot be left outwithout rendering the utterance ungrammatical

or unintelligible, which isone of the features most often

ascribed to discourse markers. It should benoted that there is

no consensus in this respect.

5)Now and Then

Now I can go.(pg 127)

For the love of God,then ,what do you suppose that commotion

was? (pg 126)

"Then indicates temporal succession between prior and upcoming

talk. Its main difference from now is the direction of the

discourse which it marks: now points forward in discourse time

and then points backward. Another difference is

that now focuses on how the speaker's own discourse follows the

speaker's own prior talk; then, on the other hand, focuses on

how the speaker's discourse follows either party's prior talk.

6)mind you / still

Not that it's his fault, mind you. (pg 32)

23

 Mind you is an example of an informal linking device used in

spoken English to point out that what you are going to say as

an afterthought contradicts what has already been

said. Still can be used in a similar way:

7) Incidentally

Incidentally Pumb forget all about it . (pg 125)

 Incidentally can also be used to introduce afterthoughts but

it does not contradict what has already been said like mind

you or still. But it does indicate a change in direction of the

conversation. It used in informal and semi-formal spoken

English. Incidentally is slightly more formal.

8) Nevertheless

Nevertheless,he rented a small apartment in the morning,and

felt glad about it .(pg 24)

 Like mind you and still nevertheless is used to introduce a

contrast with what has been said before. However, it is much

more characteristic of written English:

9)Therefore

The Mexicians are a noble and simple people.Therefore they

cannot keep a pack of hounds.(pg 68)

These expression show that the second statement follows

logically from the first statement

24

10)moreover, furthermore, in addition

You can’t come with us, moreover you have a lot of things to

do. (pg 32)

We use these expressions to add information to what has been

said. The usage of these words is much more elegant than just

making a list or using the conjunction 'and'.

11)Admittedly

He was admittedly the one who had lost the documents.

We use admittedly in sentence when we allow   someone to join

an organization,

 allow or concede as valid,

12) Similarly, likewise

I told him I was pleased to meet him, and he answered me

saying, Likewise. (pg 80)

We use ‘similarly’ and ‘likewise’ to show that something is

similar to something else that has already been mentioned.

13) Yeah

Yeah , it’s great idea. (pg 24)

Yeah can also be invoked to provide a (positive) reaction,

affirmation, or endorsement of something the other speaker has

said, in which case it is called a discourse response:

25

14)Obviously

We will obviously have to pay for that.

Used to emphasize that you are talking about something that is easy to see, understand, or recognize

15) Alternatively

Alternatively, you could do it in USA.

something that can be chosen instead of something else : a choiceor option

16) Especially

She is very old, especially for a young girl of six.( William

Saroyan,Gaston)

It used to indicate something that deserves special mention

17) Actually

Actually it was at least once every day,but the days were so

long every day seemed like a

week.

It used to refer to what is true or real.

18) Exactly

That’s exactly the kind of voice we need for our singing

telegrams. (William Saroyan,The

26

Human Comedy

  In a correct or precise way : in a way that agrees completely with what is needed.

19) Glad

I’ll be glad when next summer rolls around,so I can go to work

at Rosenberg’s and buy that hack. ( William Saroyan, Many miles

per hour)

Feeling pleasure, joy, or delight

20) The third

The third and last race was seventy-five miles.( William Saroyan,Many miles per hour)

Occupying the number three position in a series.

ConclusionThe theoretical overview of the concept of discourse marker and

various approaches to the definition and deliitation of the

category revealed that so far there is no complete consensus

about their status.The most prominent theoretical orientations

which aim at explaining their presence in discourse provide with

diverse accounts:within Discourse –coherence approach discourse

markers ae seen as contributing to the identification of

27

coherence relations obtaining between two textual units, their

structural functions are emphasized ,while within Relevancetheory

approach they are seen as signals thet facilitate the

interpretation of a given message or sequence of utterances, thus

this approach puts more weight on their cognitive aspect.Despite

the lack of consensus in the literature on discourse markers,

their importance in text generation and interpretation is never

denied.The universally appreciable observation is thatdiscourse

markers clue the interpretation intended by the speaker.Discourse

markers are capable of performing a variety of conversational

functions not necessarily related to the original lexical meaning

of an item.The functions of discourse markers may be explained

in terms of the basic aspects of pragmatic meaning:subjective,

interactional and textual.Subjective functions express the

speakers attitude or his/her commitment towards

propositions/assumption;interactional functions are oriented

towards the hearer and may be used to engage him in

conversation:and textual functions contribute to the coherence

and structure of the discourse. Accordingly,some markers can

primaily be associated with one of the three functional domains.

The last chapter has presented the result of th translations of

the use of three discourse markers in lawers’Questions.The three

discourse markers ,namely ‘well’,’see’ and ‘now’ were chosen as

the topic of analysis for two reasons: the high frequency of use

28

as prefaces to lawers, questions, and their very low occurrence

in the interpreted version of the questions.

In cross-examination they were generally used as markers of

argumentation and confrontation ,mostly initating disagreements

or challenges.When found in examination –in-chief,they were

mostly used maintain cotrol of the flow of information, asa well

as to mark progression in the story-line.’Well’ and ‘see’ were

most prominent in cross-examination ,whereas ‘no was mostly used

in examination-in-chief.This led to the conclusin that the

markers ‘well’and ‘see’are more argumentative than ‘now’in

courtrom questioning.Supporting this suggestion was fact that

‘wll’and se were mostly followed by the most coercive question

types ,and ‘now; bye less coercive types.

The choice of word will also alter the force or strength with

which the illocutionary point is presented, such as the

difference between’I suggest’ and ‘I insist’.Similarly in the

case of discourse markers prefacing counsel’s questions, their

omission by the interpreters will alter the illocutionary force

or strength with which the question is asked.

It is, of course, difficult to control the perlocutionary effect

of any utterance, but it is logical to presume that a change of

force can have a possible change of reaction.

29

References1.Aijmer,K.(2002).English Discourse Particles.Evidence from a

Corpus.Amsterdam :john Benjamins.

2.Andersen,G,(2001), Pragmatic markers and Sociolinguistic

Variantion.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:

John Benjamins.

30

3.Berk-Seligson,S. (1990) The Bilingual Courtroom:Court

Interpreters in the judicial Process, Chicago:The University of

Chicago Press.Crystal,D.(1994)The Cambridge Encyclopedia of

Language,Cambridge University Press.

4.Blakmore, D.,(2002).Relevance ad Lingustic Meaning: The

Semantiics and pragmatics of Discourse Markers

.Cambridge/Enfland:Cambridge University Press.

5.Brinton, L.J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in

English:Grammaticalization and discourse Functions.Berlin:Mouton

de Gruyter.

6.Brinton,L.J.(2003).I mean:the rise of a pragmatic marker.GURT

2003.

7.Danet,B, and Bogoch, B. (1980). Fixed fight or freefor-all.An

Empiriacll study of combativeness in the adversary systemof

justice.,British Journal of Low and Society,77:36,60.Fowler,Y,

(1997).The courtroom interpreter.Paragon and intruder,in First

International Conference on O\Interpreting in Legal,Health and

Social Service Settings. The Crtical Link: Interpreters in the

Community ,Orillia ,Ontario,Canada.14 April 1995.Conference

proceedings.Amsterdam:John Benjamins,191.200.

8.Fraser,B. (1990) An approach to discourse markers,Journal of

Pragamatics, 14: 383,95, Green,G.(1990)Linguistics anlayisis of

conversation as evidence regarding the interpretation of speech

events, in J. N. Levi and A. g. Walker Language in the Judical

Process,New York: Plenum Press,247,77.Grice,P. (1975) Logic and

31

conversation,in Cole and Morgan,Speech Acts, 41.58.Hale ,S.

(1996) Pragmatic considerations in court interpreting, Australian

Review of Applied Linguistics, 19(1):61.72. Hale, S. (1997a) The

treatment of Register Variation in court Interpreting,The

Translator , 3(1):39.54. Hale , S. (1997b) Interpreting

Politeness in Court.A study of Spanish –English interpreted

proceedings., in S.Campbell and S. .Hale ,(eds) proceedings of

the 2nd Annual Macarthur Interpreting and Translation

Conference.Research, Training and Practice. Milperra:UWS

Macarthur / LARC. Hatim , B and Mason , I.. (1990) Discourse and

the Translator,Essex: Longman.House, J. (1977) A Model For

Translation Quality Assessment, Tubingen:Gunter Narr Verlag.

9.Gonzalez,M., (2004).Pragmatic Markers in Or5al Narrative : the

Case of English and Catalan.

10.Hudson , R. A. (19975).The meaning of

questions.,Language,51:1.31. Lakoff, G. (1975).Hedges: A study in

mening criteria and the logic of fuzzy co0ncepts ., Papers from

the 11th Regional Meeting.Chicago Linuistic Society,

183.227.Chicago: Linguistics Department University of

Chicago.Lakoff, R.( 1973)Questinable answers and answerable

questions in R.B.L. Braj, B.Kachru,Y.Malkiel,A.Pietrangeli, S.

Soporta Issues in Linguistics:Papers in Honour of Henry and

Renee Kahane,Urbana:University of Illinois Press,

453.567..McCarthy,M.(994).What should we teach about the spoken

language?.Australian Review of Applied Linguistics,17(2):

32

104.20.82 Forenstic Linguistics Pomerantz,A. (1975). Second

assessments: astudy of some features of

agreements/disagreements,unpublished doctoral thesis,University

of Caifornia ,Irvine.

10.Muller, S., (2005). Discourse markers in Native and No-native

English Discourse.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:john Benjamins.

11.Schiffrin, D. (1985).Conversational coherence : The role of

well.,Language, 61(3) 640.67.

Schiffrin,D. (1987) Discourse Markers, Cambridge:Cambridge

University Press. Schourup,L.(1985) Common Discourse Particles in

English Conversation.

33