JoLIE 5/2012

Back to issue page







Fatemeh Zarei

Shiraz University, Iran






This study examines what discourse markers (DM) and their characteristics are in English. It describes the range of uses of English discourse markers in conversations included in Interchange books. It also determined the most frequently used discourse markers. It was found that “oh” and “well” were the most frequently used discourse markers in the conversations, and then the functions of them were explored to find the reason why the spoken discourse of the speakers was replete with forms such as “oh” and “well”. The study implies that there is a need to make learners aware of these markers and their pragmatic functions. Teachers’ use of discourse markers as a model for students is also really crucial in teaching language in classroom settings.


Key words: Discourse markers; DM characteristics; Pragmatic functions of DM.





Archakis, A. (2001).On discourse markers: Evidence from Modem Greek. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1235-1261. DOI:


Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.


Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances: An introduction to pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.


Blass, R. (1990). Relevance relations in discourse: A study with special reference to Sissala. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Brillanceau, D. (2005). Spontaneous conversations: a window into learners’ autonomy. Connecting Research and Practice, 8 (A), 22–25.


Brinton, L.J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.


CaGiora, R. (1997). Discourse coherence and theory of relevance: Stumbling blocks in search of a unitied theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(1), 17-34. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00065-8


Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2000). The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, 60–80.


Dale, R. (1991). The role of punctuation in discourse structure. In Proceedings of AAAI Fall Symposium on Discourse Structure in Natural Language Understanding and Generation, Asilomar, CA, 13–14.


Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383-395.


Fraser, B. (1999) .What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31, 931-952. DOI:


Fuller, J. (2003).The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(1), 23–45. DOI:


Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), and 410-30.


Furman, R., & Ozyurek, A. (2007).Development of interactional discourse markers: Insights from Turkish children’s and adults’ oral narratives. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1742–1757.


Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the ways with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.


Heritage, J. (1984). A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J.M., & Heritage, J, (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. (pp. 299–345) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Hobbs, J. (1985). On the coherence and structure of discourse. Technical report, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.


Jean, E. F., & Josef, C. S. (1999). Discourse markers in spontaneous speech: Oh what a difference an Oh makes. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 280–295.


Jucker, A. H. (1993). The discourse marker ‘well’: a relevance theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19, 435–452. DOI:


Knott, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18(1), 35-62. DOI:


Knott, A. (1996). A data-driven methodology for motivating a set of coherence relations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.


Knott, A., & Sanders, T. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: an exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 135–175. DOI:


Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse. New York: Academic Press.


Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (1987). Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization. Technical Report, Information Sciences Institute, Marina del Rey, CA.


Montes, R.G. (1999). The development of discourse markers in Spanish Interjections. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1289-1319. DOI:


Muller, S. (2004). ‘Well you know that type of person’: functions of well in the speech of American and German students. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 1157–1182.


Ostman, J. O. (1982). The symbolic relationship between pragmatic particles and impromptu speech. In N. E. Enkvist (Eds.), Impromptu Speech: A Symposium. (pp. 147–177).


Schiffrin, D. (1986). Functions of and in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 41–66. DOI:


Redeker, G. (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29, 1139-1171.


Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Blackwell.


Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Tagliamonte, S. (2005). So who? Like how? Just what? Discourse markers in the conversations of Young Canadians. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1896–1915. DOI:


Tree, J.F., & Schrock, J.C. (1999). Discourse markers in spontaneous speech: Oh what a difference an Oh Makes. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 280–295.


Zwicky, A. (1985). Clitics and particles. Language, 61, 283-305.



How to cite this article: Zarei, F. (2012). An investigation of discourse markers in English. Journal of Linguistic and Intercultural Education – JoLIE, 5, 191-210. DOI:   



For details on subscription, go to: