DESARROLLO CONCEPTUAL DE LA ATENCIÓN PRIMARIA DE SALUD

Schiffrin’s (1987) influential study of English discourse markers is one of the most important detailed studies that has addressed these linguistic items. Her analysis included 11 English discourse markers (oh, well, but, and, or, so, because, now, then, I mean and y’know)as they appeared in a corpus of sociolinguistic interviews with Jewish Americans.

Schiffrin (1987) defines discourse markers as ‘sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of talk’ (p. 31). This definition introduces two significant aspects of discourse markers. The first significant aspect refers to the fact that discourse markers are elements that work at the level of discourse and consequently are dependent on the sequence of discourse. Schiffrin (1987) argues that this sequential dependence can be seen where discourse markers combine two units which do not belong to the same syntactical category, as in the following

31

example in which the discourse marker and links a declarative sentence with an interrogative sentence:

(7)

Debby: I don’t like that

Zelda: I don’t like that. And, is he accepting it?

(Schiffrin, 1987, p. 38, example 8)

As for bracketing, Schiffrin (1987) claims that she deliberately chooses the term ‘units of talk’ to avoid excluding cases in which markers appear in non-traditionally defined units, such as ideas, turns, speech acts or tone units. Thus, she states that:

‘a unit which focuses on how linguistic structure, meaning, and act are phonologically realized in speech might seem to be a more promising basis for our definition of markers.’ (Schiffrin, 1987, p. 33)

This broad definition allows Schiffrin to ‘use presence of a marker as an indicator of some yet undiscovered unit of talk’ (1987, p. 36). Based on her analysis of English discourse markers in unstructured interviews, Schiffrin (1987) proposes a model of discourse coherence consisting of five planes of analysis: exchange, action, ideational structures, information state and participation framework, which collectively she refers to as a Model of Discourse Coherence. Below is a summary of Schiffrin’s (1987, p. 316) categories of markers used on each of the planes of discourse. Table 2.3 illustrates that discourse markers are multi- functional as certain markers are used more on one plane of discourse than on the other. Each column in the table represents the different structures of the discourse.

32 Table 2.3 Planes of discourse marker functions Information state Participation framework Ideational structure

Action structure Exchange structure

oh oh oh

well well well well well

and and and

but but but

or or

So so so so so

because because because

now now

them then then

I mean I mean I mean

you know you know you know you know

Note: the primary plane is represented in bold font (Schiffrin, 1987, p. 316) The ‘exchange structure’ indicates the sequence of conversational roles and how turn changes interrelate. The ‘action structure’ shows how different speech acts of speakers are sequenced and determined, reflecting participants’ identities, social factors and actions. The ‘ideational structure’ differs from the exchange structure and the action structure, which are pragmatic, in that it consists of semantic units which Schiffrin calls ‘ideas’. It reflects different semantic relationships among ideas within the discourse. This plane includes three kinds of relations: cohesive, topical and functional (Schiffrin, 1987, p. 26). The ‘participation framework’ indicates the different ways in which speakers relate to each other. Finally, there is the ‘information state’ which is concerned with what the speaker and the hearer share in terms of cognitive capacities; according to Schiffrin (1987), this plane ‘involves the organization and management of knowledge and meta-knowledge’ (p. 28). Fraser (1999) cites these planes with some adaptations:

Exchange Structure, which reflects the mechanics of the conversational interchange (ethnomethodology) and shows the result of the participant turn-taking and how these alternations are related to each other;

33

Action Structure, which reflects the sequence of speech acts which occur within the discourse;

Ideational Structure, which reflects certain relationships between the ideas (propositions) found within the discourse, including cohesive relations, topic relations, and functional relations;

Participation Framework, which reflects the ways in which the speakers and hearers can relate to one another as well as orientation toward utterances; and

Information State, which reflects the ongoing organization and management of knowledge and metaknowledge as it evolves over the course of the discourse.

(Fraser, 1999, p. 934)

Schiffrin (1987) makes the point that discourse markers can function at different levels of discourse structure (linguistic or non-linguistic). They can operate at the ‘ideational’ (informational) structural level in the sense that they indicate relations between ideas in discourse or, in other words, they mark the organization of ideas in discourse. For instance, a discourse marker such as but indicates that what follows it contrasts with what precedes it. They can also operate in relation to the participation framework (discourse exchange and interaction) in the sense that they play a role in controlling the conversational labour between speakers and hearers as is the case with oh and well.

However, these coherence planes have not gone unchallenged. Redeker (1991) criticizes Schiffrin’s (1987) coherence planes and proposes an alternative, suggesting a revised model of discourse coherence. This model includes three components: ideational structure, rhetorical structure and sequential structure. These three components suggested by Redeker are roughly equivalent to Schiffrin’s ideational and action structures and ‘an extended variant

34

of [Schiffrin’s] exchange structure’ (Redeker, 1991, p. 1167). Redeker’s sequential structure is different from Schiffrin’s exchange structure in that it can account for sequential transitions in monologic talk as well as dialogic discourse. Another difference between the two models, as Redeker claims, is that Schiffrin defines the planes of her coherence model in relation to the markers’ functions and does not provide an independent definition of each plane (Redeker 1991, pp. 1167–1168), whereas Redeker defines the components of her model irrespective of the functions of the discourse markers within them.

However, I agree with Müller (2005) that Redeker’s (1991) model does not include all the functions of discourse markers and does not define them precisely. Müller states:

‘[…] I do not find her model more convincing. It does not accommodate all functions of discourse markers either (for example in turn-transitions or the negotiation of interpersonal relationships) and does not seem to be any more precise in its definitions than Schiffrin’s model.’ (2005, p. 30)

Redeker (1991) disagrees with Schiffrin’s (1987) conclusion that only two discourse markers

so and well can work on all planes of talk as shown in Table 2.3 above. Redeker (1991) argues that if Schiffrin’s model is applied to a wider range of data, such as narrative and spontaneous talk, nine out of the 11 markers can actually function on all five planes of discourse. Thus, Redeker (1991) states:

‘I will argue that DS’s [Schiffrin’s] minimalist approach to the semantics of discourse markers places too heavy a burden on the syntactic and contextual determination of marker meanings. If the coherence model is applied consistently to a slightly wider range of talk, the model ceases to discriminate between the markers.’ (p. 1139)

35

Furthermore, Redeker (1991) criticizes the ‘vaguenesses and inconsistencies of theoretical concepts and terminology’ as well as the failure of Schiffrin’s work to provide clear and reliable quantitative information concerning the discourse markers investigated in her study (Redeker, 1991, pp. 1160–1161). In this study, I address Redeker’s concerns by providing frequencies of the use of discourse markers by different categories of speaker.

In addition, Redeker (1991) believes that two of the planes suggested by Schiffrin (information structure and participation framework) do not directly contribute to discourse coherence. Redeker states:

‘[...] the components information structure and participation framework are clearly not on par with the other three planes. The cognitions and attitudes composing these two components concern individual utterances, while the building blocks at the other three planes are relational concepts’ (Redeker, 1991, p. 1162)