Home⇛Journal of Education, Management, and Development Studies⇛vol. 2 no. 3 (2022)

Discourse Markers in an Online Community of Buhînën People

Marlon S. Pontillas | Francis Roi Rañada

Discipline: Linguistics

 

Abstract:

One of the language communication challenges is how it works as speakers use it. Some words may not change their semantic meaning, but when it is meant to say on speaker’s intention, it impacts the context; these particles are discourse markers. It has been used in everyday interaction, face-to-face communication, writing, and an online environment. This compels the researcher to investigate further the occurrences of the discourse markers in Buhînën People in an online community. This study centralized how discourse markers maintain their status of cohesion and interpersonal in computer-mediated communication. This qualitative study was based on Gustilo and Palacio’s (2016) study on discourse particles. Discourse markers were categorized into two: textual and relational categories. The corpus of 2,000 Facebook posts, primarily texts, was the data collected from the most numbered population on the Facebook online group of Buhînëns. Then, the survey was conducted to gather data about the pragmatic relation of relational discourse markers. The data revealed that the most hits were the discourse marker ‘na’ for the textual category, whereas ‘po’ for the relational category. It also revealed that more textual discourse markers were found. The functions proved the idea of metalingual function (Maschler & Schiffrin, 2015), as it has many functions in both categories, including the micro-function of relational discourse markers. Furthermore, the study also answered the importance of the discourse markers in pragmatics and computer-mediated communication, through which they served both their primary roles as structural and interpersonal.



References:

  1. Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus (Vol. 10). John Benjamins Publishing.
  2. Asik, A., & Cephe, P. T. (2013). Discourse Markers and Spoken English: Nonnative Use in the Turkish EFL Setting. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 144–155.
  3. Banguis-Bantawig, R. (2019). The role of discourse markers in the speeches of selected Asian Presidents. Heliyon, 5(3), e01298.
  4. Blommaert, J. (2007). Sociolinguistics and discourse analysis: Orders of indexicality and polycentricity. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 2(2), 115–130.
  5. Chandler, D. (1999). Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler. Semiotics for Beginners.
  6. Crible, L., & Cuenca, M.-J. (2017). Discourse markers in speech: characteristics and challenges for corpus annotation. Dialogue and Discourse, 8(2), 149–166.
  7. Dan. (2019). Social media statistics in the Philippines. Retrieved from Talkwalker. https://www.talkwalker.com/blog/social-media-statistics-philippines
  8. December, J. (1996). What is computer-mediated communication. Website: http://www. december. com/john/study/cmc/what. html (last access: 15.12.2003).
  9. E.J.Pratt Library. (2003). Semiotics encyclopedia online - Welcome. Semioticon | Open Semiotics Resource Center. Retrieved from https://www.semioticon.com/seo/index.html
  10. Ghanbari, N., Dehghani, T., & Shamsaddini, M. R. (2016). Discourse markers in academic and non-academic writing of Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(7), 1451.
  11. Heeman, P. A., & Allen, J. (1999). Speech repains, intonational phrases, and discourse markers: modeling speakers’ utterances in spoken dialogue. Computational Linguistics, 25(4), 527–572.
  12. Hernández, T. (2008). The effect of explicit instruction and input flood on students’ use of Spanish discourse markers on a simulated oral proficiency interview. Hispania, 665–675.
  13. Jones, S. (1995). Understanding community in the information age. Sage, California.
  14. Kapranov, O. (2019). Discourse markers in writing on Facebook by early balanced English/Italian bilinguals.
  15. Kübler, S., & Zinsmeister, H. (2015). Corpus linguistics and linguistically annotated corpora. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  16. Lakoff, G. (1975). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In Contemporary research in philosophical logic and linguistic semantics (pp. 221–271). Springer.
  17. Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C., & Smith, N. (2009). Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge University Press.
  18. Liu, B., & Xiao, E. (2009). Chinese discourse markers in oral speech of mainland Mandarin speakers. In Proceedings of the 21st North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-21) (Vol. 2, pp. 358–374). Bryant University Smithfield, Rhode Island.
  19. Martinovic-Zic, A., & Moder, C. L. (2004). Discourse across languages and cultures. Discourse Across Languages and Cultures, 1–369.
  20. Martínez, A. C. L. (2004). Discourse markers in the expository writing of Spanish university students. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE),(8), 63–80.
  21. McENERY, T.-W., & Wilson, A. (2001). A.(1996) Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  22. Min, S. (2011). A Corpus-based Analysis of EFL Learners’ Use of Discourse Markers in Crosscultural Communication. English Language & Literature Teaching, 17(3), 177–194.
  23. Nasir, S. H. (2017). The Interpretation of Discourse markers ya ‘yes’ and nggak ‘no’ in Indonesian.
  24. Palacio, M. A., & Gustilo, L. (2016). A Pragmatic Analysis of Discourse Particles in Filipino Computer Mediated Communication. Online Submission, 16(3), 1–19.
  25. Polanyi, L., & Scha, R. J. (1983). The syntax of discourse. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 3(3), 261–270.
  26. Sani, I. (2020). Functions of English Discourse Markers on Facebook Among Umaru Musa Yar’adua University Members of Academic Staff. In Papers of the 7th International Conference on Language, Literature, Linguistics & Communication 2020, 27.
  27. Shimada, K. (2014). Japanese EFL Learners’ Acquisition of Discourse Markers: A Comparative Analysis of Spoken Corpora and English Textbooks (Doctoral dissertation, (University of Tsukuba)).
  28. Statista Research Department. (2020, January). Philippines: Share of e-Commerce activities of internet users. Retrieved from Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1125430/philippines-e-commerce-activities-internet-users/
  29. Statista Research Department. (2021, June). Philippines: Major B2C e-Commerce sites by monthly visits 2021. Retrieved from Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/993273/philippines-major-b2c-ecommerce-sites/
  30. Tan-de Ramos, J. (2010). A Comparative Study of the Discourse Marker Types in the Body Section of the. TESOL Journal, 2, 62–73.
  31. Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E., & Schiffrin, D. (2015). The handbook of discourse analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
  32. Tree, J. E. F., & Schrock, J. C. (1999). Discourse markers in spontaneous speech: Oh what a difference an oh makes. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(2), 280–295.
  33. Walrod, M. (2006). The marker is the message: The influence of discourse markers and particles on textual meaning. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 37(2), 100–119.
  34. Wang, Y. (2011). A Discourse-Pragmatic Functional Study of the Discourse Markers Japanese Ano and Chinese Nage. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(2).
  35. Yunus, M. M., Salehi, H., & Nordin, N. (2012). ESL pre-service teachers’ perceptions on the use of paragraph punch in teaching writing. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 138.
  36. Yunus, M. M., Salehi, H., & Nordin, N. (2012). ESL pre-service teachers’ perceptions on the use of paragraph punch in teaching writing. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 138.

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic