The Analysis of Characteristics of Discourse Marker WELL

【Abstract】：It is very common in English to use the expression form like “well”， “oh”， “you know”， “you see”， “I mean”， “that is to say”， “in other words”， “as I said”， which are all discourse markers. They are small words which do not contribute to the propositional content of the utterance which they modify. The present paper focuses on the pragmatic functions of the discourse marker WELL in verbal interaction.

【Keywords】：discourse "markers; "WELL; "communicating "purpose; "English "learners

1. Introduction

Since Levinson suggests that learning from pragmatic aspect on their own characteristics is extremely called for， discourse markers arouse linguists“ great interests in the pragmatic field. Linguists study discourse markers from different perspectives such as the coherence theory （Schiffrin）， the syntactic-pragmatic perspective （Fraser） and the relevance theory （Blakemore）. Schiffrin maintains that discourse markers function to “add to discourse coherence” and that coherence is “constructed through relations between adjacent units in discourse” （Shiffrin， 1987：24-25）. Fraser approaches discourse markers from a syntactic-pragmatic perspective but he also analyses the semantic properties of discourse markers that contribute to the procedural meaning of utterances in interpretation. What’s more， Blakemore is the first researcher who approaches discourse markers from the point of view of Relevance Theory. According to Relevance Theory， human communication is relevant-oriented. A speaker， by making an utterance， makes his claim that it will be worthwhile to process this utterance. And Blakemore explains how discourse markers do not encode conceptual meaning. Instead， they have a procedural role in the referential process of comprehension， constraining the range of possible interpretations of the utterance and hence reducing the processing efforts required.

WELL， as a complex discourse marker， such a little word never appears as a right-hand discourse bracket， but tends to appear outside the propositional structure of its main clause. No matter whether placed at the beginning or in the middle of

discourse， it has pragmatics scope over the ensuing proposition. The significance of such kind of discourse marker is obvious in that it locates the speaker into a communicative process at points where some proper direction is called for to the hearer in terms of how to understand the upcoming utterance and its relation to the previous utterance. So Blakemore claims that it is “frustratingly elusive and appears to change with each of its uses”. （Blakemore， 2002：129）

Blakemore explains the discourse markers from the aspect of relevant theory which interests me most. She assumes that discourse markers totally signal how the relevance of one proposition is dependent in the interpretation， directing the hearer to search for optimal relevance when processing utterance， because the aim of human communication is to create expectation of relevance. For the sake of achieving this purpose， the speaker tends to show the most informative utterance to guarantee the hearer to achieve the expected relevance with the smallest processing effort， and the hearer makes full use of the constraints provided and searches for the utterance interpretation expected. Chinese scholars Ran Yongping and He Ziran （1999） hold the same opinions that the creation and understanding of utterance should be carried out in a cognitive process.

2. The Functions of WELL as a Discourse Marker

2.1 WELL as a Mitigation Marker

As Brown and Levinson （1978：65） put it that it is the case that certain kinds of acts intrinsically threaten face， namely those acts by their nature running contrary to the face of the hearer and of the speaker. It is unavoidable that sometimes a request is refused， and a suggestion is declined， even an offer is declined by the speaker in communication. Thus certain linguistic strategies must be chosen from an elaborate repertoire of positive and negative politeness in order to provide redressive action. The discourse marker WELL can be used to obtain mitigation so as to reduce face threat. According to Fraser， “mitigation is defined not as a particular type of speech

act but the modification of a speech act： the reduction of certain unwelcome effects which a speech as has on the hearer”. （Fraser 1990： 391）

A： His proposal to solve that problem sound reasonable.

B：WELL， it isn’t true.

Compared to the direct answer “That isn’t true”， WELL serves to soften the effect making by the speaker’s opposition to A. If the speaker fails to put WELL before his answer， he might be considered as an impolite man， who is uneasy to talk with. "Therefore， WELL may contribute to a successful communication， avoiding some unpleasant results. The same phenomenon happens in another conversation below.

2.2 WELL as a Contemplation Marker

In the process of conversation， language is not always perfect but with flaws or pauses， hesitations， and sometimes the speaker may need time to contemplate， in these situations， the discourse marker WELL can be used to show one’s hesitation or delay. From "this "point， "“WELL is "an "evincive， "indicating "that "the "speaker "is "mentally "thinking or consulting with themselves before proceeding.” （Schourup， 1985： 1023）

A. Paul： WELL， many people find Tom’s manner abrasive. （Schourup， 2001）

From this utterance， the speaker Paul’s attitude towards Tom’s manner is inclined to promote his audience to produce the interpretation in B.

B.Paul is saying with great doubt about the fact Tom’s manner abrasive.

Using discourse marker WELL shows the speaker’s state of mind about his hesitation in expressing his own attitude. WELL here can be viewed as procedural information contributing to help the hearer get an interpretation like B. that is， WELL is considered to be a mental-state interjection， functioning procedurally when appearing at the beginning utterance. In addition， the discourse marker WELL is constantly applied to the utterance at the time the speaker has nothing to express or is searching for a proper word， just as Klerk （2005：1193） puts it， acting as ‘place filler’. Look at an example below.

A：How much are you selling your car for？

B：WELL， let me see…h(huán)ow about 3，000 dollars.

When A is asked about his own expected price about his car， he uses WELL at the beginning of the utterance， indicating that the price he wants is hard to tell at one time. When the speaker has nothing to respond immediately or just is searching for a proper word， he probably would use WELL to signal a procedural meaning to the hearer. In such case， it is acting as a place filler.

2.3 WELL as a Correcting Marker

WELL appears as a correcting marker functioning the correction when a wrong word is used or a mistake assumption is made. Correcting can be self-correcting and correcting other’s mistakes or wrong message. Self-correcting is that the speaker wants to revise his expression by means of WELL， because he is aware that there is something wrong he produced. In order to reduce the processing effort and achieve the maximal relevance by the hearer， the speaker corrects his previous utterance and makes the sentences demonstrate the truth to make sure the communication successful in according to the relevant theory.

A： Good morning， B. I hope you’ve recovered from your illness.

B： Yes， thank you. Er， WELL， not fully， but I’m on the mend.

According to relevant theory， B uses WELL to correct his utterance that his illness has not fully recovered. Such a behavior can reduce A’s processing effort to understand B. After B correcting himself， A achieves the maximal relevance of B’s utterance.

2.4 WELL as a Coherence-achieving Marker

In oral narrative， a speaker has no time to plan his message or to revise it afterword. As a result， he often uses WELL， you see， you know， or other discourse markers， which tell us something about the speaker’s attitude to his audience and the speaker’s intention in order to help his narration， thus reinforcing the coherence of the whole discourse. WELL is one of the ways used frequently to meet such needs.

I tend to discuss two functions of the discourse marker WELL as a coherence-achieving marker： one is topic-shifting indicator and the other is narrative discourse marker.

2.4.1 WELL as a Topic-shifting Indicator

WELL can be used to demonstrate a topic changed， drawing the hearer’s attention to the following utterance. For example， WELL is an indicator to the hearer that while “all is well”， there comes some unexpected utterance. WELL then plays a transition role “in easing recognition of the resulting topic shift”.（Blakemore， 2002：141） The speaker plans to catch partner’s focus by using the discourse marker WELL to imply the hearer that it is worth making effort to maintaining a common understanding of the context. The following example I selected from the American TV serials is a good demonstration of topic-shift.

Rex： So， have the police come up with any leads？

Gabrielle： Not really. They’ll be able to determine the make and model of the car， but without any eye witnesses， no one seems very optimistic.

Bree： WELL， more importantly， is there any good news about Juannita？

From above example， Bree and her husband pretend to visit Gabrielle’s house because Gabrielle’s mother-in-law has a car accident. But it is Bree’s son Andrew who hit her. Their purpose is to finding our more information about the car accident. After obtaining the new information that there is no eye witness， they fell much relax， then using WELL to turn the conversation into her course naturally.

2.4.2 WELL as a Narrator Discourse Marker

WELL as a narrative discourse marker is in a sense for establishing a mutual understanding between a speaker and hearer of a certain relevant context. To be exact， the function of WELL is to draw the addressee’s attention to the discourse which is important for reaching an understanding or why the utterance is being uttered. As Norrick mentions， “Closely related to the use of WELL to indicate a topic shift， marking stages in oral narrative such as the beginning， a resolution or an evaluation， etc”（Norrick， 2001：853）. Look as two examples.

（1）WELL as a narrative beginning

“WELL， child，” said my aunt， when I went downstairs.

“And what of Mr. Dick， this morning？” " （Dickens， 1994：175）

From above example， we notice that the aunt use WELL to begin a conversation.

（2）WELL as a narrative resolution or evaluation

Tom： Great. What---what have you got？

Lynette： WELL， you know how we both agree that one of us needs to stay home and parent the kids and one of us needs to go off and make a living.

（Desperate Housewives）

Lynette and her husband Tom are discussing who will act as a breadwinner and whose job is staying at home taking care of their children in this conversation. Lynette has previously suggested that she maybe should be a successful business person who makes money to support family. Lynette’s utterance begins with WELL which conveys her point， at the same time established an evaluation relation between the utterances WELL introduces and her conclusion. To put is simply， WELL here mainly is used to reinforce the strength of the utterance to be delivered in its following utterance.

3. Conclusion

Discourse markers serve a rather wide range of frequently used in our daily language， which pragmatic functions are quite crucial for human communication. Discourse markers that the present study may arouse English learners’ awareness of them. With the pragmatic functions of discourse marker WELL in mind， it is likely to provide guidelines for English learners in their translation practice.

References：

[1]Blakemore， D. Indicator and Procedures： Nevertheless and But[J]. Journal of Linguistics，36， 2002.

[2]Brown， P.， amp; Levinson， S. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage[M]. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1987.

[3] Fraser， B.What are Discourse Markers？[J]. Journal of Pragmatics， 391， 1990.

[4]Klerk， V. Procedural Meanings of Well in a Corpus of Xhosa English[J]. Journal of Pragmatics， 37， 2005.

[5]Norrick， N.R. Discourse Markers in Oral Narrative[J]. Journal of Pragmatics， 33， 2002.

[6] Schourup， L. Common Discourse Particals in English Conversation[M]. New York： Garland， 1985.