A Discoursal Analysis of Functional Spectrum of Discourse Markers in Translation Criticism: Pedagogic and Research Implications in Discourse Monitoring

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 Assistant professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Arak University, Arak, Iran

2 Instructor, Department of English Language and Literature, Arak University, Arak, Iran

Abstract

Establishing coherence in discourse is an interactive process that is activated through different types of communicative knowledge and skills. Part of this knowledge includes knowledge of the text to organize grammatical and lexical forms to convey meaning. Another part of this faculty is connected to the metalanguage level. It consists of the power to express personal and social identities, to use language to express attitudes and negotiate meaning, and the cognitive ability to manipulate ideas (Maschler and Schiffrin, 2015). Discourse markers (DMs) function in all of the above cognitive, expressive, social, and textual domains and operate as metacommunicative and metadiscursive elements (Frank-job, 2006). Consequently, they become devoid of semantic meaning due to their sensitivity to contextual variables in real-life situations and assume new interactive pragmatic behaviors and strategies known as pragmaticalization in discourse (Jucker & Ziv, 1998). Therefore, their real precise and comprehensive uses, functions, and strategies can mainly be explored within the framework of communicative purposes and interactive contexts. Accordingly, some researchers have come to the idea that analysis of a functional spectrum of discourse markers in social contexts is the most practical and useful method of investigation (Crible & Degand, 2019; Frank-job, 2006; Groute, 2002; Hyland, 2005; Trillo, 2009). As a result, the researchers tried to analyze translation criticism in the Persian language in terms of the types and the frequency of DMs functions.
This descriptive, qualitative, and explorative study benefits from various scientific and research informing bases and resources: the study of famous and key authors’ theoretical studies, investigation of key empirically corpus-based researches, and pragmatic analysis of the functional spectrum of discourse markers in randomly selected translation criticism corpus in the Persian language during the three last decades. Moreover, the present study applied Fraser’s (2006) taxonomy of discourse markers and Brinton’s (1996) functional model for the analysis of discourse markers. The taxonomy of discourse markers provides the criteria for the determination of DM use from non-DM use of these metadiscursive elements in translation criticism discourse. And the functional model is applied to discover the functional range of DMs in this genre. Another informing resource of the research was its raters. Both raters were English instructors with 5 years of experience in teaching, familiar with the literature, have conducted researches in this area, and possessed the necessary expertise.  
The corpus consisted of 15 translation criticisms written by Iranian translation professors (%75) and professional translators (%25) published in Motarjem, the Iranian journal with more than 30 years of experience in translation theory, analysis, and education. Moreover, the corpus consisted of more than 30000 words selected randomly. All of the instances of DMs’ use were determined and sorted by applying Fraser’s taxonomy of discourse markers and DMs functional spectrums were analyzed and explored through Brinton’s functional model. And about 50% of the instances of the DMs along with their functions in the sentence were extracted and given to the raters to approve the reliability of the research.
The findings resulted in a six-plane functional spectrum model for a discourse monitoring system in the translation criticism genre including information indicators, topic switchers, attitude markers, temporal markers, opening markers, and closing markers. They are not covered in Persian grammar and dictionaries. Also, the correlation coefficient of inter-rater reliability was .61, which is an acceptable index of reliability. The diversity and flexibility in the functional spectrum can be justified from different perspectives. Subsequently, in the process of translation criticism DMs are manipulated creatively in order to prove the inadequacies of the translation or to characterize the qualifications of the rendering. This justification is in line with findings and ideas reported by Fischer (2006). Moreover, justification for this flexibility is related to Frank-job’s (2006) view of pragmaticalization of meaning in discourse. That is, in real-life situations, the propositional meaning of discourse markers is changed drastically, they assume pragmatic meanings, and these meanings change based on context. This context covers cognitive, expressive, social, and textual domains. These domains are manipulated by contextual variables. These variables include people, places, and times. DMs’ functional spectrums manipulated by the variables and they assume new interactive meanings in discourse. This functional spectrum may constantly be influenced by multiple, complex, innovative, and creative inferences and is always changing, developing, and evolving systematically. As DMs form the basic cognitive, social, cultural, and efficient discursive system of human communication, then, it is recommended that any modifications, developments, and plans in education, research, and management in various aspects of translation education be based on research on the pragmatic functions of these metalanguage elements.

Keywords

References

 

Abdolkhani, M. & Alipour, S. (2015). A contrstive study of discourse markers between Iranian and American physics lectures. International Journal of Language Learning, 8(1), 204-218.
Adeyemi, B. (2018). Discourse markers in writing and answering essay type questions. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Research, 17(7), 106-119.
Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: Johan Benjamins.
Azadi, G. & Chalak, E. (2017). The frequency of Macro/Micro discourse markers in Iranian EFL learners’ composition. International Journal of Education, 6(1), 20-40.
Biria, R. & Mashhadi, M. (2011). Socio-pragmatic functions of discourse markers in international law texts. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(11), 1479-1487.
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: grammaticalization and discourse functions. New York: Mounto de Gruyter.
Brinton, L. J. (2015). Historical Discourse Analysis, In N. Tanen, T. Hamilton, and D. Schiffrin. (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 222-242) Oxford: Blackwell.
Castro, C. M. (2009). The use and functions of discourse markers in EFL classroom interaction, Profile, 11, 57-77.
Crible, L. & Cuenca, M. (2019). Co-occurrence of discourse markers in English: From juxtaposition to composition, Journal of Pragmatics, 140(5), 171-184.
Crible, L. & Degand, L. (2019). Domains and functions: a two-dimensional account of discourse markers, Discours, 4(5), 15-30.
Crible, L & Pascual, E. (2020). Combinations of discourse markers with repairs and repetitions in English, French and Spanish, Journal of Pragmatics, 5(7), 54-67.
Dagand, L. & Cuenca, M. J. (2019). Discourse Marker use: from production to comprehension. Workshop proposal for the 53rd SLE Conference Bucharest (Romania), 26 – 29 August 2020.Retrievedfrom <http://sle2020.eu/downloads/workshops/Discourse%20Marker%20use.pdf>
Faghih Malek Marzban, N. (2008). The Functions of Conjunctions, Olum Ensani Alzahra, 17(68-69), 145-168 [In Persian].
Fani, K. (2009). A Glorious Translation, Motarjem, 48, 51-58 [In Persian].
Farhady, S. (2015). A New Look at Divine Comedy, Motarjem, 58, 141-156 [In Persian].
Farhady, H. (2009). Reseach Methods in Applied Linguistics, Tehran: SAMT.
Fisher, K. (2006). Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amstersam: Elsevier.
Frank-Job, B. (2006). A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 359-375). Oxford: Elsevier.
Fraser, B. (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 240-256). Oxford: Elsevier.
Fraser, B. (2013).Combinations of Contrastive Discourse Markers in English, Journal of Pragmatics 30(7), 112-121.
Fraser, B. (2015).The combining of Discourse Markers – A beginning, Journal of Pragmatics, 86(7), 123-138.
Groute, B. (1998) Representing temporal discourse markers for generation purposes. In The association for Computational Linguistics (Eds.,). Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers (pp. 22-29). 15 August 1998. Montreal, Canada. Retrieved from <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2416454>.
Hajimia, H. (2018). A corpus based analysis of discourse markers in Malaysian online news paper articles. Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(1), 19-24.
Haselow, A. (2019). Discourse marker sequences: Insights into the serial order of communicative tasks in real-time turn production. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 1-18. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.003.
Hellermann, J., & Vergun, H. (2007). Language which is not taught: The discourse
marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1),
157–179. Horn, A. & Hansson, P. (1999). Discourse markers and the segmentation of discourse. Lund University Working Papers, 47(5), 123-139.
Horn, A. & Hansson, P. (1999). Discourse markers and the segmentation of discourse. Lund University Working Papers, 47(5), 123-139.
Hoseini, S. (1992). Introducing selected translations, Motarjem, 7, 22-28 [In Persian].
Hoseini, H. ( 2000). Mosht Dar Nemaye Dorosht. Tehran: Sorush [In Persian].
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Jafarpor, A. (1995). Testing English as a second langauge, Motarjem, 14, 60-65 [In Persian].
Jucker, A., & Ziv, Y. (1998). Discourse Markers: Description and Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kassaei, Gh. & Amouzadeh, M. (2020). The combination of Discourse Markers in Persian. International Review of Pragmatics, 12(1), 135-163.
Khazaeefar, A. (1994). Tom Jones, Motarjem, 7, 32-49 [In Persian].
Khazaeefar, A. (1995). The stories of Sherluck Holmz, Motarjem, 19, 56-60 [In Persian].
Khazaeefar, A. (2005a). Zerost is talking, Motarjem, 41, 39-47 [In Persian].
Khazaeefar, A. (2005b). In Hitherto, Motarjem, 30, 34-38 [In Persian].
Khazaeefar, A. (2005c). Memories after death, Motarjem, 30, 34-40 [In Persian].
Khazaeefar, A. (2005d). The Lost Paradice, Motarjem, 40, 24-29 [In Persian].
Kosari, A. (1995). A study of a translation, Motarjem, 17, 84-91 [In Persian].
Kosari, A. (2016). Translations of Bakhtyari, Motarjem, 61, 23-32 [In Persian].
Lewis, M. (2006). Discourse markers in English: a discourse-pragmatic view. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 43-61). Oxford: Elsevier.
Manan, A. & Raslee, A. (2018). Explicit discourse marker instruction to improve coherence and cohesion. International Journal of Research, 10(6), 60-81.
Maschler, Y. & Schiffrin, D. (2015). Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning, and Context. In N. Tanen, T. Hamilton, and D. Schiffrin. (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 179-221) Oxford: Blackwell.
Matei, M. (2010). Discourse markers as functional elements. Buletine of the Transilvania University of Brasov, 25-42.
Mithun, M. (2015). Discourse and Grammar. In N. Tanen, T. Hamilton, and D. Schiffrin. (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 32-45). Oxford: Blackwell.
Mohammadi, A. M. (2015). An Introduction to Discourse Monitoring System: Theories,Models, Strategies, and Researches. Journal of Foreign Language Research, 5(1), 61-86 [In Persian].
Muller, S. (2005). Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Naderi Moghaddam, S. (1390). Myane Mandan o Raftan, Motarjem, 6, 159-165 [In Persian].
Nejadansari, D. &. Mohammadi, A. M. (2014). The frequencies and functions of discourse markers in the Iranian University EFL classroom discourse. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(2), 1-18.
Nunan, D. (2004). Second language teaching and learning. London: Newbury House.
Petkhova, B. & Bant, H. (2009). Towards a multidimentional semantics of discourse markers in spoken dialogue. In H. Bunt, V. Petukhova and S. Wubben (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international conference on computational semantics (IWCS-8) (pp. 157-168), Tilburg: Tilburg University. Retrieved from <https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/1693756.1693773>
Redeker, G. (2006). Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse transitions. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 339-357). Amstersam: Elsevier.
Richards, J. C. (2015). Key issues in Language Teaching. London: CUP.
Salari, Z. (2012). The story of two cities. Motarjem, 58, 109-116 [In Persian].
Salehi, A. (2013). Criticism of two translations. Akhlagh Olum Tarbeyati, 1, 38-52 [In Persian].
Sami. P. (2019). On a discourse marker combination in spoken American English: ’Oh Well’ as a case study. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(7), 109-130
Sayadkooh, A., & Reisi, A. (2017). Functions of Vav in Golestan. Honar Zaban, 1(2), 5-35.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (2006). Discourse marker research and theory: revisiting and. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 315-339). Amstersam: Elsevier.
Seliger, H. & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second Language Research. Oxford: OUP.
Shafee Kadkani, M. (2006). Poerty Music. Tehran: Aghah [In Persian].
Soon Lay Vivien, L. (2006). A relevance-theoretic approach to discourse particles in Singapore English. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 149-167). Amstersam: Elsevier.
Tavakoli, M. & Karimnia, H. (2017). Dominant and gender specifi tendencies in the use of dixcourse markers. World Journal of English Language, 7(2), 20-37.
Travis, C. (2006). The Natural Semantic Metalanguage approach to discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 219-243). Amstersam: Elsevier.
Trillo, R. J. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(34), 769–784.
Waltereit, R. (2006). The rise of discourse markers in Italian: a specific type of language change. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 61-77). Amstersam: Elsevier.
Ziaghadam, F. & Simin, S. (2018). Speech-like pragmatic markers in essays by Iranian students and native English speakers. International Journal of Foriegn Language and Research, 6(21), 133-146.
Zeevat, H. (2006). A dynamic approach to discourse particles. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 133-149). Amstersam: Elsevier.
Zorluel, H. & Okan, Z. (2018). Discourse markers in EFL classrooms: A copuse driven research. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(1), 50-66.
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 13, Issue 39
July 2021
Pages 91-116

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics