Get documents about "Having I present simple active verb is one of the formal features to mark
Document Sample
3.2.11 Comment Clauses are Satellites / Tails
Languages differ in marking pragmatic functions. Some languages have
special markers others may use special ordering patterns or prosodic
patterns(Dik,1978:19).Predication is a semantic term refers to the whole sentence
(subject + predicate).
Dik(ibid:17) says that nuclear predication can be expanded by satellites ,i.e.:
*[nuclear predication + a satellite =extended predication].
Satellite, in dictionary, is a state of depending upon and taking the lead from another
,that’s to say satellites carry the main idea of the predication though they are optional.
Here Dik agrees with Sledd (1959:276) who says that the things that matter most to
us are often very effectively reported in dependent clauses.
Dik (ibid : 49) defines satellites as optional extensions(expansions) of the
nuclear predication specifying additional aspect of the state of affairs designated by it
.
Satellites are introduced by expansion rules of paraphrase . They are peripheral
constituents. They have semantic functions like characterization (which is considered
a pragmatic function by
Jacobson(1978:30-1) .
As it seems ,the term 'satellites' refers to the adverbial clauses ofdisjuncts (
sentence adverbials) and conjuncts which are peripheral and optional . Consequently,
they may refer to CCs because CCs are also sentence expansions which are optional
and they also characterize utterances.
Dik (ibid:130) says that 'topic' vs . 'comment' , 'theme' vs. 'rhyme' , 'given'
vs. 'new' ,are pragmatic functions in linguistic theory . These pragmatic functions are
handled in functional grammar . Another pragmatic function is 'tail' :it is a right –
dislocated constituent that follows the predication:-
[ ,predication ,(xj) Tail]
66
It is an optional addition to the predication . A constituent with tail function
presents as an afterthought to the predication. Tail modify or clarify the predication .
He (ibid :153 ) says that the typical position of the tail is after the predication . The
Tail is characteristically set off from the predication by means of a break in the
intonation pattern , which is symbolized by means of a comma (comma-intonation ) .
It is possible that the Tail , when in parenthesis , takes an internal position to the
predication.
e.g. I trust John very much ,your brother I mean . He (ibid:154) also added that
Tails specify or modify the predication . Modification may include 'correction' as in :
e.g. John won't even be invited ,eh…Bill I mean .
Satellite and Tail refer to the some constituent. The Tail is partially
independent on the predication and this partial independence lies in the fact that it
does not contain a further spelling out of material contained in the predication . Tail
is an external pragmatic function .some grammarians ,like Jacobson (1978:82) ,call
the intonation that accompany the adverb 'tail-intonation' .
Harrison (1976:267) says that it seems in the sentence : it seems(that)he
will return tomorrow is considered a comment and[he will return tomorrow ] is a
topic of verbs like it seems and it is surprising 'it seems', when put in the middle or
at the end of a sentence and with different intonation ,is a CC . 'It is surprising
',when changed in to which is surprising ',at the end of a sentence or what is
surprising at the beginning of a sentence and with different (special) intonation ,it
becomes a CC.
Buysschaert(1982:118) assures that " comment" is pragmatic function by
saying that exclamations and interjections are comments ,their topic is the situation .
The simple exclamation gosh! Is a comment of astonishing / surprising whose topic is
the situation itself which is outside the utterance .
In case of CCs : style disjunct CCs are comments whose topic is the
situation since they reflect the speaker's attitude towards the way of communication,
while content disjunct CCs are comments whose topics are the utterances of the
speaker that accompany the comments . This fact is assured by Harrison (1976:267)
who points out that an entire sentence can function as a topic of verbs like it seems
and it is surprising , which are comments .
67
3.3 Comment Clauses & ٍSome Related
Pragmatic Notions:
3.3.1 The Performative Function Of Comment
Clauses
Pragmatically , the present study is concerned with CCs in their
performative function in the light of speech act theory .
The performative analysis states that every sentence we utter refers , self-
reflexively , to our utterance of it , that every sentence comes equipped , in its
underlying structure , with a higher performative clause of the form:[I + Verb
of communication + you ] (Mittwoch 177-184 ).
Having( I + present simple active verb) is one of the formal features to mark
utterances to be performatives (Coulthard, 1985: 15).
Style-disjuncts CCs ,including to – infinitive-and (ed, ing)
participle- clauses , are mainly concerned .
Mittwoch (ibid) used the following set of style disjuncts for the
performative analysis ; such sentence adverbials modify the pragmatics of speech
situation ; they are speech –act sentence modifying adverbials :
a- Frankly.
b- Frankly speaking. I don't trust Bill
c- In all frankness
d- To be (quite) frank.
68
These style disjuncts arise from deleted performative clauses of the form (I
tell you) which , as the writer argues , do not play the role of a
superordinate sentence in deep structure but only have a relationship of
juxtaposition or parenthesis to the rest of the sentence , orelse such clauses
lose their performative function in case they have a relation of
superordinate versus subordinate type with the rest of the sentence .
Concerning to-infinitive CCs ,it is found difficult to determine that they are
also derived from performative sentences of the form I tell you only when
such infinitive clauses function as infinitives of purpose , i.e (b) is derived
from (a):
(a) -(In order) to be frank I must tell you that I don't trust Bill .
(b) -To be frank {I tell you } that I don't trust Bill .
This is unacceptable because I tell you here is a superordinate sentence and
in such a case it can't be considered a performative .To be frank , then , is
not infinitive of purpose(Mittwoch , 1977: 180) .
Anyhow , Jspersen(1933 : 338)considers clauses like to be Frank purpose
infinitives while Zndvoort ( 1972:11) points out that such infinitives are not
infinitives of purpose .
To be Frank , being a CC , does not function as an infinitive of purpose ,
but reflects the speaker's attitude towards the main clause in the sentence .
The performative hypothec is reduces the pragmatic phenomenon of
illocutionary force to semantic (Leech , 1980 : 59-60) .According to the
abstract performative hypothesis , the illocutionary force is that part of the
meaning of a sentence which corresponds to the highest clause in its
semantic representation (Sadock cited in Leech 1980 : 59 ).This means that
the sentence adverb Frankly in the sentence (Frankly , he is right )
corresponds to the higher abstract performative sentence (or hypersentence
): I tell you Frankly in which Frankly is a manner adverb that modifies
the higher performative verb tell (Greenbaum ,1969:92; Meyers , 1974
:197; Bartsch ,1976:11; Partridge , 1982 :45; Chalker ,1984:211;
Swan,1998 : 24) .
In the light of the abstract performative hypothesis, Sadock (1974 :
34-7) asserts that adverbs , in general , are reduced versions of higher
clauses . this is the case with sentence adverbs since they are parenthetical
because parenthetical clauses are associated with abstract performative
clauses rather than with the content of the sentence parenthetical clauses,
then are suitable for different sorts of illocutionary acts .
69
Here Sadock wants to extend the performative hypothesis to illocutionary
force .
The higher performative verbs of saying (say , tell , speak ,…..) are
not only used in parenthetic reporting function but used by the speaker to
achieve a pragmatic goal by expressing the speaker's attitude towards the
utterance (partridge ,1982 : 42-3) .
The performative hypothesis ,then ,should be analysed pragmatically
,not semantically so that its advantages ,as Searle (cited in leech 1980 : 61)
argues , can equally be advantages of pragmatic analysis which has more
additional advantages .The performative hypothesis is only one of the
pragmatic aspects . The performative sentences have a metalinguistic
character . They are a class of indirect speech statements (Leech ,1980:62 ) .
CCs of style – disjunct type like to put it mildly ,putting it bluntly ,
Frankly speaking and of content – disjunct type like I say ,reflect a per-
formative origin . these style disjunct constructions correspond to speech –
act adverbials : Frankly , honestly , …..(ibid: 73) .
The pragmatic analysis of the performative adverbs like Frankly in
(Frankly , he wrote about it) , shows more additional pragmatic functions (rather
than the performative one ) namely expressing speaker's attitude of sincerity and
characterizing the utterance following it . The pragmatic function of Frankly and its
corresponding constructions (to be Frankly , Frankly speaking) , as (Jacobson ,
1978 ) states are :
a) performative function
b) characterizing the utterance following it .
c) expressing sincerity attitude .
This becomes clear when the semantic function is kept a part from the
pragmatic function . Frankly in its semantic function is considered a manner adverb
in the underlying higher sentence . here Jacobson(1978 : 17)focuses on the per-
formative adverb in the higher sentence , not on the higher verb it modifies.
3.3.1.1 The Performatives in Style
Disjuncts and Content Disjuncts
The performative sentences are the most debatable type of hidden sentences in
deep structure . The performatives of the most interest to linguists are those which
use expressions of saying :declare , command , ask … and their synonyms. Sentences
70
adverb like Frankly , Frankly speaking can be analysed as higher Sentences which
have other Sentences subordinate to them . These higher Sentences have higher verbs
like tell, declare , say which concern the manipulation of information : hearing it ,
giving it , getting it , explaining it and seeking it . (Bolinger , 1975 :166 -168 ) .
The above performative are style disjunct, adverbs whose higher verbs are deleted (in
deep structure). In case of content disjuncts on the contrary, they have higher verbs
but no adverbs . the following examples , as stated by Bollinger (ibid : 168-169,181-
183) , are T1CCs , of content disjunct type :
e.g. The first one , I mean ,was not intended for you .
e.g. He doesn't care , I don't suppose ,
e.g. But I have no objection , mind you .
e.g. Since it's my turn to guess , it's 1949 , I guess .
The underlined words are higher sentences having per formative verbs . They are
CCs .
Performative verbs are one of the explicit illocutionary - force indicators for being
lexical items (Bartsch , 1979:13) and (Haverkate ,1983: 456) .
3.3.2 Comment Clauses as Illocutionary –
Force Modifiers
Modifying the illocutionary force means increasing or decreasing the
illocutionary force . It is a process which involves the speaker in expressing the
degrees of belief , desire and strength of feelings , commitment and seriousness
of intention . This process is achieved by referring to sincerity conditions and
by referring to the category of expressives . The strategies used are :-
a. Boosting : which positively affects the speech act by positive feelings
(attitudes)towards the hearer .
b. Attenuation and mitigation : which negatively affects the speech act
by showing negative feelings towards the hearer.
The linguistic devices that realize these strategies are used in communication process
Boosting : it means emphasizing and strengthening the force of the speech act, its
linguistic devices are called boosters.
71
Mitigation :it involves weakening , softening or reducing the force of speech act its
linguistic devices are called downtoners .
The reasons for modifying illocutionary force are :
* to convey speaker's attitude to the content of the proposition .
* to express speaker's attitude to the addressee in context of utterance
Linguistic devices of boosting are :
A- The lexical devices used for boosting illocutionary force.
i) Speaker – oriented boosters : they are style disjuncts like frankly ,
honestly , truthfully which correspond to CCs to be Frank, to be honest
, to tell the truth and other speaker- oriented boosters like I believe , I'm
certain , I assure you , believe me which are CCs .
ii) Hearer - oriented boosters : they are expressions like you know, you
see ,as you know which are CCs . These may boost or attenuate the force
of speech act depending on their position , intonation contour and the
context of the utterance:
e.g. the film ,as you know , was a failure .
iii) Content - oriented boosters : they comment impersonally on the validity
of the proposition asserted .
like it is certain , without doubt
B- Discoursal devices : they are metapragmatic devices like I ask you , I tell you ,
I warn you , I repeat , let me stress , I would emphasize and metadiscoursal
devices like as you say , as X has just said , and linking signals like what's more
which reinforce and emphasize the speech acts it introduces :
e.g. As you say , there are a number of important issues .
Linguistic devices of attenuating (mitigation) are :
A- Lexical devices :
i) Speaker – oriented downtoners : they express speakers's reservation in
relation to a particular speech act , and reflect speaker's doubt concerning
the validity of the proposition being asserted . This category includes
expressions like as itseems to me and parentheticals like I guess , I
suppose , I reckon , I gather with intonation of their own :
e.g. It's rather good, I suppose .
I think and I believe are parenthetical verbs which , with different intonation pattern
and in different contexts , may boost or attenuate the force of the utterances they
modify.
72
ii) Hearer - oriented downtoners : many of the expressions that function
as hearer – oriented boosters can function as hearer – oriented downtoners.
You know is an obvious example by which the speaker politely reduces
the unwelcome effect of speech act :
e.g. I'm pretty angry about this , you know (downtoners ).
iii) Content or other oriented downtoners : the dersponsibilizing devices focus
on the distinction between appearance and reality on the basis of attenuation :
e.g. Strictly speaking , this was my desk , not yours .
(Holmes , 1984:345-365).
As mentioned by (Dua, 1984 :421) , you know , as a pragmatic expression , is
used as a politeness device especially in final position . politeness aspect focuses on
the addressee's point of view .
As is clear , CCs work as boosters or downtoners (the terms used by Holmes ) to
modify the illocutionaryforce of speech acts . It is a pragmatic function which is
mentioned by Quirk et al. (1985 : 620) but indirectly when they point out that I
wonder , I suppose politely reduce the impact and urgency of questions and
conditions and convery an apoloegetic tone:
e.g. Is Mary at home , I wonder ?
e.g. Mary is not free for a mement , I suppose ?
3.3.3 Comment Clauses as Discourse
Markers
In ordinary conversation, people frequently use words and phrases that have
various and sometimes rather ambiguous , functions (outside contextual
situation).These include items like you know , you see and others . These discourse
markers can signal a number of things such as uncertainty or the wish to disagree but
politely , or they can be ' in-group markers' (you may use a certain expression used by
other people (e.g. your friends) to show that you are part of the group ) . A discourse
marker may have more than one function at the same time . (Thornborrow and
Wareing ,1998 :127) .
Discourse markers as Crystal (1997 : 119)defines , are sequentially dependent
clauses which de marcate units of speech like well , I mean . Discourse grammar has
developed as an alternative to generative conception of grammar ; it is the functional
communicative grammar .
73
Mathesius (1975:144) says that colloquial English has (in use )short inserted
clauses used in conversation (e.g. he'll come , I think) .Such clauses (including CCs )
are Discourse fillers or time fillers . They arrange and sum up thoughts . They attract
attention and give the impression of fluency because they fill gaps of pauses .Long
pauses are not desirable and restricted to grammatical contexts which are incomplete
but uninterrupted ; when a speaker uses a(turn – taking device like you know , the
other participants could not interrupt him , but when he just pauses , he might be
interrupted . Anyhow the interrupted movement put some expressions in unusual
places which may reflect a stylistic strategy (Swan , 1998 : 468) .It is the rhetoric of
the sentencewhich is often found in literary style ( Irmscher & Stover , 1985:ch.6) .
Willis (1975:101,91) says that a parenthetic constituent which is a type of aside ,
is used by the writer when he wants the interpolated comment to stand out not boldly
but like a footnote like as the preacher said ,you'll find out , which are CCs .
Quirk et al. (1985: 1481) also call some CCs asides :
like you see , you know , as you know etc .
It is clear that some CCs are used to fill gaps ( time fillers or discourse fillers )and
arrang or sum up speaker's thought . Also , they are used to attract listener's attention.
They may be accompanied by voiceless or voiced hesitation .
Indirectly , most CCs are considered discourse markers by Swan(1998 :151-58)
who mentions that discourse markers show the connection between what a speaker is
saying and what has already been said or what is going to be said . There are many of
these discourse markers; some are used in informal speech or writing ; others are
more common in a formal style . the most
common examples which are CCs are :
a . Mind you: for emphasizing a contrast .
b . As I was saying: for returning to previous subject .
c . Generally speaking: for generalizing .
d . What's more: for adding .
e . I mean: for making things clearer and for giving details .
f . I think , I feel , I suppose , I'm afraid , I guess , I mean , So to speak :
for softening and correcting .
g . To tell the truth :for referring to the other person's expectations .
h . Honestly , Frankly , No doubt: for showing one's attitude to what one is
saying .
i . No Doubt: for persuading
74
j . You know , I mean , I don't know: for gaining time .
3.3.4 Comment Clauses as Pragmatic
Expressions
you know , you see , I mean are the CCs that are used as pragmatic
expressions , i.e clauses that have communicative functions more than having
distinct meanings . They, sometimes , are empty ( have no meaning )used as time
fillers or turn – taking devices . They are more frequent in extempore speech. The
following example (cited in Knowles , 1987 : 186 ) show the use of you know in
unprepared speech :
"When I was in er….. first called up , we were erm …
very cold you know . It was February, and we had to erm … I think I want to
Margate at first, you know, very cold there…marching up and down the prom,you
know and sort of erm…and I had terrible neuralgia, because
it was so cold , so I had to have tablets for that …"
You know is more frequent in spoken discourse than in written discourse(Leech et
al .1982:141) .The frequent use of you know , you see , or I mean , though may
have important communicative function , is unpreferred by some writers like Choy
(1980:139) who says:
"Continual repetition of the parenthetical expression you know should be
avoided in both speech and writing . If you are speaking clearly and listener is
paying attention , he knows what you are saying and does not have to be constantly
reminded of the fact . Besides , you know , continually repeating you know can be
irritating to your listener ; and you know , it doesn't really accomplish anything ."
You know , You see are shared - knowledge indicators where a participant uses to
break into discourse with a response or a contrasting viewpoint :
75
A . Are you going to warburton's ?
B . Well ,you see ,I no longer work there.
A . I find his explanation of relativity absolutely baffling .
Isn't he an incredibly bad lecturer ?
B . Well, you know, you missed the lecture before last and I think it was pretty
crucial(Quirk et al.,1985 : 1482) .
Shard -knowledge indicators like you know, you see, I mean , right ? are
stereotyped expressions used with high frequency in conversations (see 3.3.4).
You know is a pragmatic expression that fulfils pragmatic functions more than
other types of CCs. It is difficult to know it's literal meaning only when used in
contextual situation. It may have more than one function at the same time .
You know means that an "explanatory comment" is coming . in the following
sentence ,(The people that buy silver love it )is an explanatory comment (Halliday
,1985 :283,350):
e.g. you know , the people that buy silver love it .
You know may also be used as an indicator of topic – shift (topic – change) in
conversation(Brown and Yule . 1983:106) .
You know when used initially is an agreement token having the same function of
you know what I mean . It differs from the tag you know which comes finally in
function and even in pronunciation ; the tag one is very short (with short vowel )
(Sebba and Tate , 1986 : 170-2).
You know is a pragmatic expression which has many function . To have a
pragmatic functions means to be characterized in terms how the expression violates
the Gricean conversational implicatures ; this is one of the pragmatic approaches .
Another approach developed by Otsman (1984:418)is the alternative discourse –
functional approach for the study of pragmatic phenomena
The discourse – functional approach is based on the following strategies : (ibid)
1) face – saving (concerning the speaker) versus
politeness(concerning the hearer ).
2) implicit versus explicit.
76
3) planning versus indirectness
I guess, I think are CCs used by the speaker as face – saving devices while tags
like don't you think show politeness. Speaker's attitudes and emotions are implicit
aspects of communication which cover both interpersonal and textual functions of
language (ibid: 420-1).
Most CCs are then implicit devices understood only within context of situation .
CCs like I mean , you know show indirectness in unplanned conversation.
Dua (ibid:417)says that you know belongs to interjections by James (1973:18) ,
hedges by Lakoff (1975:53) and turn – taking devices by Hinton and Lakoff
(1979:80).
Following the strategies of the discourse – functional approach , you know is a:
Face - saving device (especially in initial position).
politeness device (especially in final position ).
turn – switching marker .
indicator of non – planning and indirectness (hedginess).
pause – filler /hesitation – marker(Dua, 1984: 419-23).
.
As it seems you know has various functions which are anchored to situation
like any other pragmatic expressions . CCs , especially which are stereotyped or
idiomatic expressions ,are pragmatic expressions .
You know is then considered both a discourse marker and a stylistic marker of
formality and informality on politeness - modality level.
You know , when uttered with a falling nucleus and low prominence , it here
indicates that the addressee knows the already shared knowledge, in this case it is
often in final or medial position ; but when the speaker wants to assure that the
addressee is following him , he uses you know in initial position(Quirk et al.,1985:
1481-2). You know and you see are shared knowledge indicators .
3.3.5 Hedging as a Pragmatic Function
Hedging is a form of nonliteral illocutionary act in which what one
claims directly is less than what one intends to claim . Hedging is a
communicative strategy for "saying less than one means" . we utter hedges
77
when the emotional acceptability of the context of a sentence becomes acute .
The aim is to make the sentences more acceptable by the hearer . It is a strategy
of indirection , i,e. of politeness employed by the speaker so as not to
discomfort the hearer .By using Hedges , the speaker makes modification in the
utterance . Hedges may accompany sentences that lack chances of ratification
(on the side of the hearer )and that need to be downtoned or softened . Here the
meaning of downtoned sentences is not identical with what is actually meant
(Stein,1986:670) .
Hedging may mean speaker's indetermination . It is a way of making
the content of a sentence acceptable ; a content with indetermination would be
acceptable, being flexible.There are three major features of hedging :
a. ambiguity between the literal meaning and the downtoned one .
b. contrast between what is said and what is meant .
c. reconcilability of such contrast on the side of the
hearer (recoverability of meaning ).
Hedging is then concerned with linguistic indetermination . Indetermination
here is not in the content of the proposition , but in the neustic (the emotional or
attitudinal side of the speaker ) . i.e. the emotion here is restricted by the
indetermination. Lakoff (cited in Jacobson 1978:64)defines Hedges as words whose
job is to make works fuzzier or less fuzzy .
The kinds of neustic indetermination that show hedges are :
a) Yes/no questions or to be precise sentences of interrogative from made as
opposed to asking questions.
b) Modal expressions (modal adverbs , verbs of intention , thinking , etc . used
modally ).
c) Tag questions.
d) Modalized assertions including parenthetical verbs such as think , suppose ,
believe and hope .
It is clear that hedges is considered through modal adverbs like supposedly
and certainly , seemingly which correspond to suppose , seem , be certain
(Stein ,1986:760-762) .
Examples
a. You are lying ,yes?
b. She is , I may say ,not sincere.
c. You are lying ,aren't you ?
d. You'll arrive in time , I hope . (in order not to look like an order )
78
As is clear , hedging is a strategy to show indirectness and politeness as Leech
and Short (1981:313)believe .
3.3.6 Comment Clauses Break Grice's Maxims
Yule (1996:37-8) talks about the cooperative principle of conversation which
is elaborated in four sub – principles called the maxims of Grice(1975) . Following
these maxims , we assume that the speaker:
a) will provide an appropriate amount of information .
b) is telling the truth .
c) is relevant .
d) is trying to be as clear as he can .
There are certain kinds of expressions the speaker uses to say that he may be
in danger of not being adhering to the principles . These expressions are called '
hedges'. Concerning the maxim of ' quality' for cooperative interaction , these
expressions ( hedges ) like : as far as I know , I guess which are CCs , indicate that
what the speaker says is not fully accurate .
The expressions : as you probably know , to cut a long story short show that the
speaker is conscious of 'the quantity' maxim .
These expressions which act as hedges on cooperative maxims (quality and
quantity) show that the speaker is aware of the maxims and trying to observe them .
Quirk et al. (1985: 1113) mention that the verbs believe and think may hedge (
express tentative meaning ) and only the hedging meaning (not the definite meaning)
is present in CCs . They consider hedging a semantic function of T1CCs, while
Jacobson ( 1978 :64) agrees with Yule by considering hedging a pragmatic function .
When an expression is said to have a pragmatic function, it means to be
characterized in terms of how this expression violates Gricean conversational
implicatures (Dua, 1984:417) .
This fact is mentioned by Leech and Short (1981:295-98)saying that
conversational maxims, unlike grammatical rules , are often violated . In this sense
they are rhetorical principles found in literary texts .
As is clear the cooperative principle is not always obeyed as in the following
example where a question is answered by another question :
" 'well , you know where papple wick street is , don't you ?' the
copper asked me taking no notice of man .
79
'Ain't it off Alfreton Road ?' I asked him back , helpful and bright"
.
(Allan Silltoe , " The Loneliness of the Long DistanceRunne")
3.3.7 Comment Clauses as Argumentation
Indicators
Most CCs are stereotyped expressions (a class of expressions of fixed
linguistic form) .
CCs that indicate common knowledge like you know , as you have heard play a
specific role in argumentative conversation. Argumentation is a speech act but in
danger of being considered or reduced to merely semantic – logical concept .
Argumentation is a kind of interaction (Quasthoff, 1987:36-8) .
CCs like I believe , I would mean , I would say, I find indicate argumentative
action schema used In academic or public settings . These argumentative expressions
are also discourse markers since there is a relation between argumentation and
discourse markers especially those that express common knowledge and perform
interactive function . Common knowledge function within the structure of
argumentation (ibid:12) .
Some collective (common) knowledge indicators like I mean , you know ,
you see , you understand , right ? are discourse markers and they are linked to
argumentative structure . Argumentation, than, is of two types : one that has a logico
– semantic function and a type that performs interactional functions (ibid: 40-45).
3.3.8 Expressing Emotion as a Pragmatic
Function
Emotional outlet is considered a pragmatic function by Crysal and
Davy (1969:106-7) and also by Jacobson (1978:64)who says that emotion can be
expressed by pleasure , displeasure , anger , surprise , or even by reluctance to
accept a certain state of affairs by using I'm certain (I'm sure). He adds that
sincerity marking adverbs like to be honest also serve to give vent of emotion .
Appellative (emotive) function , as Bartsch (1976:49) says , is a pragmatic
function which may accompany the performative function of certain adverbs .
Leech and Svartvik (1994:157) say that I'm afraid expresses emotion which is a
pragmatic function .
80
Expressions beginning with as do not express emotion (Hudson , 1971:163) .
Yule (1996:53)talks a bout the functions of speech acts and mentions the
expressive function as one of them . So, expressing feelings is a pragmatic
function .
3.3.9 Comment Clauses as
Metacommunicative Utterances
Leech (1980 :61-8) says that the performative sentences have a
metalinguistic character that provides the logical condition for using the present
tense since pragmatic analysis depends mainly on four elements :speaker / hearer /
utterance / and time of utterance . He says that verbs of saying are illocutionary
verbs that reflect speaker’s attitude towards the utterance to achieve a pragmatic
goal .
Leech here agrees with Bartsch (1976 : 47-9) who points out that pragmatic
characterization is based on performative utterances in the first person present tense
and that the performative use of sentences also has an appellative (emotive) function
which is also considered a pragmatic function by some grammarians . Jacobson (1978
: 30) also calls adverbs like frankly , honestly " metacommunicate " preverbs which
pragmatically characterize utterances . Bartsch (1976 : 62)agrees with Sadock (1974 :
39)and Leech (1980 :73) that metacommunicative adverbials like honestly , frankly
etc . ,which are called speech – act adverbial by Leech , must be parenthetical .
Bolinger (1971 : 151) also calls such sentence adverbials "performatives" and he says
that they are "comma insertions " i .e. , parenthetical and that they modify speaker's
view of the proposition .
Bartsch (ibid : 62-3) states that these parenthetical adverbials include
expressions like to tell the truth , frankly speaking ,speaking briefly which are
CCs .Metacommunicative utterances , as Bartsch (1976 : 56-62) says , are utterances
the speaker makes about other utterances of his own . They are two types :
1. they are attitudes towerds the truth value of propositions .
2. they are utterances made about the form of other utterances or the process of
communication .
As it seems , these two categories of utterances are parallel to Quirk et al.'s two
semantic categories of disjuncts repectively :
1. attitudinal disjuncts .
2. style disjuncts.
81
Bartsch (ibid) points out that these metacommunicative utterances are of
several types . They include confirmatory utterances like as you know which is a CC
and parenthetical adverbials like strictly speaker, which is also a CC.Theyhave no
bearing on the content of the rest of the sentences . These parenthetical adverbials
provide information a bout the act of communication and comment on the way in
which something is asserted . Such parts of speech are called (insertions) into speech.
They are expansions of the hypersentences; speaking frankly, for instance, is an
expansion of the hypersentence I speak frankly.
It is commonplace to say that the function of language is communication .
Language can be used to convey information , express feelings , persuade
someone to do something and to talk about language. Talking about language is a
metalinguistic function of language ; persuading someone to do something is a
conative function ; expressing feelings is an expressive function of language ;
making a contact with someone is a phatic function as in conversation . Language
is often used to fulfil more than one function (Leech et al. 1982:150) .
Jacobson (1978:26,31) point out some pragmatic functions of the comment
adverbials frankly and honestly are :
1) characterization of utterances : metacommunicative adverbials
characterize utterances since they express something about
communication process ; for example honestly suggests the idea " I
say this honestly " . It involves the use of verbs of communication like
say and tell .
2) marking sincerity : this pragmatic function may accompany
emotional outlet .
Jacobson (ibid:60 , 64-5 ,67) mentions some other pragmatic function :
3) sincerity meaning may be ironical to suppress the truth and this is a
pragmatic function.
4) collocation of (I promise and you )marks the utterance as
performative which is a pragmatic function.
5) Focusing and emphasis are also pragmatic function.
It is clear that an adverbial may have more than one pragmatic function.
Bartsch (1976:64) states that in brief is an adverbial that characterizes the utterance
to be
1) a short utterance.
2) a summary of what has been said previously . In brief is a prepositional phase
and crystal (1988:191)mentions in words of one syllable as an example of
CCs .It may be considered an elliptical form of (speaking) in brief or (put) in
brief.
82
Quirk et al. (1985:1115) agree with Jacobson that sincerity meaning may be
ironical to supress the truth; i.e. by saying to tell the truth, the speaker may not be
saying the truth. This may be clear in too informal situations of no serious
conversation .
To Conclude:
CCs are used to fulfil discoursal functions and pragmatic functions. A CC may
fulfil more than one function at the same time. CCs, being discourse markers or
pragmatic expressions have the following functions:
Discoursal Functions
Discourse – organizing devices:
Discourse filler = time fillers, with no or little meaning , just to fill gaps of
pauses of normal non – fluency.
Turn – taking devices.
Transitional devices which sum up and arrange thoughts
Monitoring devices which show the monitoring role of the speaker to
attract hearer's attention.
Devices for gaining time or playing for time.
Indicators of non – planning .
Face – saving devices .
Pragmatic Functions
Illocutionary - force modifiers being boosters or mitigators.
Hedges.
Characterizing utterances being performatives.
Indicators of argumentation.
Indicators of politeness, distancing, and indirectness.
Expressing emotions.
83
