Abstract
The paper deals with new research findings on pragmatic markers (PMs) use in spoken Russian. The study is based on two speech corpora: “One Day of Speech” (ORD, which contains mainly dialogues), and “Balanced Annotated Collection of Texts” (SAT, which contains only monologues). We explored two annotated subcorpora consisting of 321,504 tokens and 50,128 tokens respectively. The main results are as follows: 1) the extended frequency lists of PMs were formed; 2) PMs, that are frequently used in both types of speech, were identified (e.g., hesitation markers like tam ‘there’, tak ‘that way’), 3) the list of PMs, used primarily in monologue speech, was compiled (in this list there are such PMs as boundary ones znachit ‘well’, nu vot ‘well er’, vs’o ‘that’s all’); 4) the list of PMs, used primarily in dialogues, was made (among such PMs are, for example, “xeno”-markers takoj ‘like’, grit ‘says’ and meta-communicative markers like vidish’ ‘you know’, (ja) ne znaju ‘don’t know’). Particular attention was paid to the variability of pragmatic markers, as well as to complex cases of their identification. Finally, the most common models of pragmatic markers formation (for single-word and multi-word PMs) were revealed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The closest to the particles are “xeno”-markers, but they also differ from traditional particles, introducing someone else’s speech into the narrative (mol, de, deskat’), for example, due to the fact that the “atavisms” of grammatical meaning are retained predominantly: variability by gender and number (takoj/takaja/takie) or by face and number (gr’u, grit, grim, etc.) [7]. B. Fraser also includes “xeno”-markers to pragmatic markers, not to particles [17].
- 2.
On the difficulties of part-of-speech tagging of corpus material, given the presence of a large number of pragmatic markers in it, which are only etymologically related to traditional parts of speech, see, for example: [14].
- 3.
Such relationships between markers and outwardly corresponding full-valued lexical units are considered by B. Fraser as homophony [18].
- 4.
Linguists have written more than once about the prospects of the scaling method when describing the fate of particular units in our language/speech, cf.: “Recently, the idea that it is advisable to abandon the “Procrustean bed” of a clear and uncompromising scheme and prefer the method quantitative assessment, according to which each linguistic phenomenon should be described in case of the place it occupies on the gradual transition scale ” [1: 89]. Pragmatic markers on their “way from classical lexemes” often go through the grammaticalization [15, 16, 19], cf.:
• skazat’ – a verb in all the richness of its meanings and grammatical forms→skazhem as a parenthesis (ja zhe ne otlichu tak skazhem / tadzhika ot uzbeka) (frozen form, the result of grammaticalization)→(…) skazhem (…) as a PM, more often reflective (R) (tam slozhnaja publika / skazhem tak) or hesitative (H) (nu(:) / tam skazhem / *P nu / ne znaju / pajaet chto-to) (the result of pragmaticalization);
• sejchas – an adverb with a number of meanings and a grammatical characteristic→shchas (usually in a reduced form) – interjection (Ja? Xa! Shchas pr’am!) (the result of grammaticalization)→shchas-shchas as a hesitative marker (H) (usually with multiple repetition, reduction) (tak / shchas-shchas-shchas-shchas / podozhdi) (the result of pragmaticalization).
References
Arutyunova, N.D.: On criteria for selecting analytical forms. Analytical Constructions in Languages of Different Types, pp. 89–93. Nauka, Moscow-Leningrad (1965). (in Russian)
Baranov, A.N., Plungian, V.A., Rakhilina, Ye.V.: Guide to the Russian Discourse Words. Pomovsky i partnery, Moscow (1993). (in Russian)
Beliao, J., Lacheret, A.: Disfluency and discursive markers: when prosody and syntax plan discourse. In: DiSS 2013: The 6th Workshop on Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 5–9. Stockholm, Sweden (2013)
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V. (ed.): Speech Corpus as a Base for Analysis of Russian Speech. Collective Monograph. Part 1. Reading. Retelling. Description, St. Petersburg (2013). (in Russian)
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V.: Pragmatems in spoken everyday speech: definition and general typology. Perm University Herald. Russ. Foreign Philol. 3(27), 7–20 (2014). (in Russian)
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V. (ed.): Everyday Russian Language: Functioning Features in Different Social Groups. Collective Monograph. LAIKA, St. Petersburg (2016). (in Russian)
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V.: Grammatical Atavisms of the pragmatic markers in Russian speech. In: Glazunova, O.I. , Rogova, K.A. (eds.). Russian Grammar: Structural Organization of Language and the Processes of Language Functioning, pp. 436–446. URSS, Moscow (2019). (in Russian)
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N., Sherstinova, T., Blinova, O., Martynenko, G.: An exploratory study on sociolinguistic variation of Russian everyday speech. In: Ronzhin, A., Potapova, R., Németh, G. (eds.) SPECOM 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9811, pp. 100–107. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43958-7_11
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N., Sherstinova, T., Blinova, O., Ermolova, O., Baeva, E., Martynenko, G., Ryko, A.: Sociolinguistic extension of the ORD corpus of Russian everyday speech. In: Ronzhin, A., Potapova, R., Németh, G. (eds.) SPECOM 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9811, pp. 659–666. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43958-7_80
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N., Blinova, O., Sherstinova, T., Martynenko, G.: Corpus of Russian everyday speech one day of speech: present state and prospects. In: Moldovan, A.M., Plungyan, V.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the V.V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute. Russian National Corpus: Research and Development, Moscow, vol. 21, pp. 101–110 (2019). (in Russian)
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N., Blinova, O., Zaides, K., Sherstinova, T.: Balanced annotated collection of texts (SAT): studying the specifics of Russian monological speech. In: Moldovan, A.M., Plungyan, V.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the V.V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute. Russian National Corpus: Research and Development, Moscow, vol. 21, pp. 111–126 (2019). (in Russian)
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N., Blinova, O., Martynenko, G., Sherstinova, T., Zaides, K., Popova, T.: Annotation of pragmatic markers in the Russian speech corpus: problems, searches, solutions, results. In: Selegey, V.P. (ed.) Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Papers from the Annual International Conference Dialogue, Moscow, vol. 18 and 25, pp. 72–85 (2019). (in Russian)
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V., et al.: Pragmatic markers of russian everyday speech: the revised typology and corpus-based study. In: Balandin, S., Niemi, V., Tuytina, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 25th Conference of Open Innovations Association FRUCT, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 57–63 (2019)
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V., Zaides, K.D.: Pragmatic markers and parts of speech: on the problems of annotation of the speech corpus. In: International Workshop Computational Linguistics (CompLing-2020), June 19–20 2020, St. Petersburg. IMS-2020 Proceedings. CEUR (http://ceur-ws.org/) (2020) (in Print)
Degand, L., Evers-Vermeul, J.: Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. J. Hist. Pragmatics 16(1), 59–85 (2015)
Diewald, G.: Pragmaticalization (Defined) as Grammaticalization of Discourse Functions. Linguistics 49(2), 365–390 (2011)
Fraser, B.: Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2), 167–190 (1996)
Fraser, B.: Towards a theory of discourse markers. In: Fischer, K. (ed.) Approaches to Discourse Particles. Studies in Pragmatics, vol. 1, pp. 189–204. Elsevier, Oxford (2006)
Günther, S., Mutz, K.: Grammaticalization vs. Pragmaticalization? The development of pragmatic markers in German and Italian. In: Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N.P., Wiemer, B. (eds.) What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components, pp. 77–107. Language Arts & Disciplines, Berlin (2004)
Kiseleva, K.L., Payar, D.: Discourse Russian Words: an Experience of Context and Semantic Description [Diskursivnye slova russkogo jazyka: opyt kontekstno-semanticheskogo opisania]. Metatekst, Moscow (1998). (in Russian)
Kiseleva, K.L., Payar, D.: Discourse Russian Words: Variation and Semantic Unity [Diskursivnye slova russkogo jazyka: varjirovanie i semanticheskoe edinstvo]. Azbukovnik, Moscow (2003)
Lenk, U.: Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. Narr, Tuebingen (1998)
Schiffrin, D.: Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)
Schourup, L.: Discourse Markers. Lingua 107, 227–265 (1999)
Acknowledgements
The presented research was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project #18-18-00242 “Pragmatic Markers in Russian Everyday Speech”.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N., Blinova, O., Sherstinova, T., Gorbunova, D., Zaides, K., Popova, T. (2020). Pragmatic Markers in Dialogue and Monologue: Difficulties of Identification and Typical Formation Models. In: Karpov, A., Potapova, R. (eds) Speech and Computer. SPECOM 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12335. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60276-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60276-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-60275-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-60276-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)