Cover not available
Article published In:
Discourse linguistics: Theory and practice
Edited by Karin Aijmer and Anita Fetzer
[Functions of Language 21:1] 2014
► pp. 30–49

Avoid silence! Keep talking!

Pragmatic markers as phatic devices in teenage conversation

| University of Bergen
The primary aim of this study has been to find out whether the choice and frequency of pragmatic markers can be said to distinguish phatic talk (‘chats’) from informative talk. A secondary aim has been to consider the bonding effect of the pragmatic markers. Five conversational extracts from COLT (The Bergen Corpus London Teenage Language), four representing boys’ and girls’ phatic talk, and one representing informative teacher talk have been investigated. The study shows that the distinction between the two types of talk is not a matter of frequency but a matter of marker choice. The bonding effect of the markers dominates in the girls’ talk in the form of appeals for agreement and encouragement signals. In both types of talk, the pragmatic markers are successfully used to avoid conversational gaps.
Published online: 7 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.1.03ste
References (49)
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational routines in English. Convention and creativity . London: Longman.Google Scholar
2009. Interjections in the COLT Corpus. In Stef Slembrouck, Miriam Taverniers & Mieke Van Herreweghe (eds.), From ‘will’ to ‘well’. Studies in linguistics offered to Anne-Marie Simon Vandenbergen , 11–19. Ghent: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, Gisle. 1997. ‘They gave us these yeah, and they like wanna see like how we talk and all that’. The use of like and other pragmatic markers in London teenage speech. In Ulla-Britt Kotsinas, Anna-Malin Karlsson & Anna-Brita Stenström (eds.), Ungdomsspråk i Norden , 82–85. Stockholm: MINS.Google Scholar
1998. The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretic perspective. In Andreas Jucker & Yale Ziv (eds.), Discourse markers: Description and theory , 147–170. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen Gisle. 2001. Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation . Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Berland, Unni. 1997. Invariant tags: Pragmatic functions of innit, okay, right and yeah in London teenage conversation . Bergen: Bergen University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English. Grammaticalization and discourse functions . Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bynes, Anita. 1998. Swearing in COLT: A corpus-based study of expletive use among London teenagers . Bergen: Bergen University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald & Michael McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge grammar of English . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Channell, Joanna. 1994. Vague language . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Sue Fox, Paul Kerswill & Eivind Torgersen. 2007. Linguistic innovators: The English of adolescents in London. Swindon: ESRC.
Cheepen, Christine. 1988. The predictability of informal conversation . London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Cheepen, Christine & James Monaghan. 1990. Spoken English a practical guide . London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Drange, Eli-Marie, Ulla-Britt Kotsinas & Anna-Brita Stenström (eds.). 2002. Jallaspråk, slanguage og annet ungdomsspråk i Norden . Kristiansand: HøyskoleForlaget.Google Scholar
Edmondson, Willis & Juliane House. 1981. Let’s talk and talk about it. A pedagogic interactional grammar of English . Munich: Urban & Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt. 1998. ‘ Just wear a wig innit!’ From identifying and proposition-oriented to intensifying and speaker-oriented: grammaticalization in progress. In Timo Haukioja (ed.), Papers from the 16th Scandinavian conference of linguistics , 87–100. Turku: Turku University.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, Jean. 2001. Listeners’ uses of um and uh in speech comprehension. Memory and Cognition 29(2). 320–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbon, Dafydd. 1997. Oh er, phatic focus. Unpublished talk, University of Bielefeld.Google Scholar
Hasund, I. Kristine. 1996. COLT conflicts. Reflections of gender and class in the oppositional turn sequences of London teenage girls . Bergen: Bergen University MA thesis.Google Scholar
2003. The discourse markers ‘like’ in English and ‘liksom’ in Norwegian teenage language. A corpus-based, cross-linguistic study . Bergen: Bergen University PHD thesis.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1998. Complimenting — A positive politeness strategy. In Jennifer Coates (ed.), Language and gender , 100–120. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Laver, John. 1975. Communicative functions of phatic communion. In Adam Kendon, Richard M. Harris. & Mary Ritchie Key (eds.), The organization of behaviour in face-to-face communication , 215-238. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics . Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1923. Phatic communion. In John Laver & Sandy Hutcheson (eds.), Communication in face to face interaction . Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1988. Discourse markers . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1999. An introduction to spoken interaction . London: Longman.Google Scholar
2004. What is going on between speakers? In Alan Partington, John Morley & Louann Haarman (eds.), Corpora and discourse , 259–283. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2005a. ‘He’s well nice — Es mazo majo’. London and Madrid girls’ use of intensifiers. In Solveig Granath, June Millander & Elisabeth Wennö (eds.), The power of words. Studies in honour of Moira Linnarud , 207–216. Karlstad: Karlstad University.Google Scholar
2005b. ‘It is very good eh — Está muy bien eh’. Teenagers’ use of tags — London and Madrid compared. In Kevin Mc Cafferty, Tove Bull & Kristin Killie (eds.), Contexts — historical, social, linguistic. Studies in celebration of Toril Swan , 279–292. Pieterlen: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2006a. Teenagers’ use of slang. London and Madrid compared. Revue d’études françaises . Department of French. Centre for French Studies. Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.Google Scholar
2006b. Taboo words in teenage talk: London and Madrid girls’ conversations compared. Spanish in Context 31. 116–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Algunos rasgos característicos del habla de contacto en el lenguaje de acolescentes de Madrid. Oralia 111. 207–226.Google Scholar
2009. Vague category markers in youthspeak. In Rhonwen Bowen, Mats Mobärg & Sölve Olander (eds.), Corpora and discourse — and stuff. Papers in honour of Karin Aijmer , 287–295. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita, Gisle Andersen & I. Kristine Hasund. 2002. Trends in teenage talk. Corpus compilation, analysis and findings . Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita, Ulla-Britt Kotsinas & Eli-Marie Drange. 2002. Ungdommers språkmöter . Köbenhavn: Nordisk Ministerråd.Google Scholar
2009. Youngspeak in a multilingual perspective . Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tandberg, Anne. 1996. Innit from a grammatical and pragmatic point of view. Bergen: Bergen University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You just don’t understand . New York, NY: William Morrow and Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (ed.). 1993. Gender and conversational interaction . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Collins Cobuild English language dictionary . 1987. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Longman dictionary of contemporary English . 1987. London: Longman.Google Scholar
The new Oxford dictionary of English . 1998. Oxford : OUP.Google Scholar
Corpus oral de lenguaje adolescente de Madrid (COLAM). [URL]
The Bergen corpus of London teenage language (COLT). [URL]
Ungdomsspråk och språkkontakt i Norden (UNO). [URL]
Multilingual London English corpus (MLE).
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Bennett, Emma
2019. Bird Talking?. Performance Research 24:1 ► pp. 94 ff. DOI logo
Simpson, Ashley
2018. Democracy as Othering Within Finnish Education. International Journal of Bias, Identity and Diversities in Education 3:2 ► pp. 77 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.