الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 147 |  |  |
| | | from | 147 | | |
Abstract
Although many linguists (e.g., Schiffrin, 1987; Fraser, 1999, 2009 & Muller, 2005) have referred to the importance of prosody and syntax in identifying and characterizing Discourse Markers (henceforth DMs), little research has been done on the types, functions, positions, tones, prosodic and syntactic features of DMs, especially when used by non-native speakers of English. DMs, as defined by many linguists (e.g., Schiffrin, 1987; Heine, Kaltenböck, & Kuteva, 2019) are words, phrases or clauses that are independent of discourse. DMs are also syntactically detachable and set off prosodically from the rest of the utterance. Accordingly, the meaning and underlying message of discourse is complete if DMs are not used. However, one of the many functions of DMs is to organize the interaction between the speaker and the hearer.
To investigate DMs, a number of linguistic approaches such as the Integrative Theory (Schiffrin, 1987) and Coherence and Relevance Theory (Andersen et al., 1999 and Muller, 2005) should be taken into account. According to Schiffrin’s discourse model, there are five levels of talk on which DMs function: (1) exchange structure, (2) action structure, (3) ideational structure, (4) participation framework, and (5) information state. Schiffrin describes her model as ‘integrative’ since it involves multiple contextual components which contribute to the overall sense of ‘the coherence’ of discourse. Besides, the Relevance Theory is also important in investigating DMs because it is based on two frameworks, namely Coherence and Relevance. According to Andersen et al. (1999) and Muller (2005), while the coherence framework is concerned with textual functions, the relevance framework concerns itself with cognitive processes.
3
As for the classification of DMs, Fraser (2009) claims that a DM is one type of pragmatic markers. It can be subdivided into elaborative, contrastive, or inferential discourse marker. There are also syntactic cases for DMs, among which there is this pattern: S1- (and/but) +S2 in which S1 stands for segment one and S2 stands for segment two. It is worth noting here that the DM is part of segment two. It is therefore used to connect/contrast two utterances or independent clauses.
The features that are characteristic of discourse markers are both syntactic and prosodic. According to Aijmer (2013), the syntactic features include the position of a DM in the utterance (initially, medially, or finally) and the lexical categorization or lexical class of DM (e.g. conj., adv., excl., etc.). The prosodic features include intonation (i.e. tone and function of DM) and acoustic features (i.e. pitch and length). It is also worth mentioning here that parentheticals (also known as comment clauses or theticals) can also function as DMs. They are, according Biber et al. (1999), separate from the host utterance. A parenthetical also takes the form of a clause, a comment clause, and is attached whether at discourse-initial, middle or final position. It can easily be omitted from discourse making no change in the syntactic structure.
When an interlocutor uses such markers in his/her conversation, it means that s/