What do pragmatic markers express?

Multifunctionality and polysemy in relation to PMs were discussed in Section 2.1.3. This section discusses what some of those functions or meanings may be in specific contexts. As noted earlier, one term that has been used to refer to PMs is “vague language”. The functions or meanings of PMs are admittedly difficult to pinpoint grammatically; as a group they are heterogeneous with little to unite them functionally (Aijmer & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2009: 5). But referring to PMs as “vague language” is somewhat misleading since they are often used to clarify intentions, resolve vagueness between communicators, and guide the hearer toward a fuller comprehension of the speaker’s intention. PMs function to organise thoughts (e.g., well, so and firstly), gain conversational control (e.g., as I was saying), manage a topic (e.g., anyway) and terminate it (e.g., whatever, okay), invite interaction (e.g., isn’t it, you know?), imply assumed mutual knowledge (e.g., and stuff, right) and much more.43 _{So when used in context, they serve to improve the overall communication process. There} is one situation in which PMs may appear to be vague, and that is when they are used cross- culturally and may be simply unfamiliar to the hearer. Although PMs exist in every natural language, use and understanding of PMs may present stumbling-blocks when learning a new language and when speaking in a language other than one’s mother-tongue or in a culture or social environment where PMs are used differently from one’s experience or preference. Some specific difficulties in terms of comprehending PMs in such contexts are discussed later in this chapter and at various points throughout this dissertation.

Several studies have made reference to PMs as indicators of the speaker’s attitude. Aijmer and Simon-Vandenbergen (2009: 4) note that PMs are often “related to the speech situation and not to the situation talked about”; in other words, they are speaker oriented as they reflect her perceived assumptions and state-of-mind. These assumptions may relate to any number of internal factors such as the speaker’s grasp of knowledge about the discourse topic or general ability to express herself, her assumptions about her audience’s knowledge, her degree of interest in or attention to other interlocutors, or her ease with her audience and level of concern with how the audience may view or judge what is said and how it is said. As one can see, PMs not only convey information about the speaker and her intention but reveal information the speaker may not be fully aware of communicating (e.g., Cameron et al., 1988; Andersen, 2001; Aijmer, 2002; Bell,

2009). In this regard, Östman (1995: 100 cited in Aijmer & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2009: 3) describes PMs as “‘windows’ through which one can make deductions about the speaker’s attitudes and opinions.”

From a relevance-theoretic perspective, PMs are also hearer-oriented as they serve as pointers for how the hearer is to interpret the utterance (Carston, 2002: 161). In this way, PMs are similar to paralinguistic cues (e.g., prosody, volume, and speech rate) since they reflect the “states of language users” and guide the hearer toward an inferential interpretation in line with the speaker’s intended meaning (Wilson, 2016a: 11).44 _{Jucker and Smith (1998: 173) argue that PMs do not convey specific} information so much as suggestions of information. Like paralinguistic cues, when PMs are used they activate the hearer’s mind-reading processes to determine how the speaker intended her utterance to be pragmatically interpreted.45 _{The hearer then makes decisions about the speaker and} her expressed thoughts during discourse based at least partially on how the speaker expresses these thoughts.

PMs can serve a variety of interpersonal functions. For example, Evison et al. (2007) suggest that PMs are often used as identifiers of social membership, and that in these cases there is an assumption of shared knowledge so that the markers can serve as utterance abbreviations. In this way, the use of PMs is relative to the expectation of some degree of shared knowledge. Examples of PMs that may function as markers for shared knowledge include and stuff, you know and (you) see. Norrick (2009a: 867) states that the use of interjections such as wow and damn can also communicate, for instance, contrast and degrees of intensity that are assumed the hearer will accurately interpret. Referring to the PM well, Jucker (1993) finds that in certain contexts it can function as a face-saving device for either the speaker or hearer, indicating, and possibly resolving, potential interpersonal awkwardness or distress. This function harks back to the use of PMs in power negotiating situations mentioned in Section 2.1.1.

44 _{The relevance-theoretic notion of procedurally encoded meaning is described in Section 3.2.1.2.}

45 _{Mind-reading is a process that relies heavily on the developmental idea of theory of mind (ToM); that is,}

the ability to understand that individuals have different and changeable mental states such as beliefs, interests, memory and knowledge (Sperber & Wilson, 2002; Westby, 2014). The ability to determine what, how and how much to communicate requires ToM before mind-reading can occur. ToM is believed to start developing at birth and is a basic requirement for successful communication and understanding its many functions (e.g., befriend, persuade). Mind-reading is discussed and described further in Section 3.2 and 3.3. For further reading on the topic of mind-reading, see http://cognitionandculture.net/blog/brent- stricklands-blog/why-reading-minds-is-not-like-reading-words.

In summary, the impressions PMs leave regarding the speaker, her thoughts and intentions cannot be dismissed as they guide the hearer in the interpretive process. Sometimes it is only when PMs are removed from utterances that their significance becomes apparent.