Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 21:1 (2020) ► pp.104–144

Mandarin Chinese buguo (‘but’) as a metacoherence marker in TV/radio interview talks

| National Kaohsiung Normal University
| National Sun Yat-sen University
| National Pingtung University
| National Kaohsiung Normal University

This study examines the uses of Mandarin Chinese buguo ‘but’ as a contrastive discourse marker (CM) in spoken discourse. The data were taken from casual conversations, TV/radio single-interviewee interviews and TV panel news interviews. We found that two main types of the CM buguo were used to mark contrast: restrictive buguo and cancellative buguo. Restrictive buguo is similar to the adv buguo in usage in that it modifies the validity of the preceding proposition to signal implicit contrast. Cancellative buguo is used to cancel the validity of a previous proposition to indicate explicit contrast. As such, restrictive buguo can serve as a topic-shift marker and to convey implicit disagreement; cancellative buguo often acts as a topic-change marker used to introduce explicit disagreement. In particular, both restrictive buguo and cancellative buguo can serve as metacoherence markers, which are often employed by interview hosts/hostesses to make the discourse optimally coherent.

Keywords: contrastive discourse marker, explicit contrast, implicit contrast, turn-taking, metacoherence marker
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Types of buguo
    • 1.2Previous studies on buguo
  • 2.Data and method
  • 3.Distribution and occurrence of buguo in the data
  • 4.The discourse-pragmatic functions of buguo
    • 4.1Marking contrast
      • 4.1.1Restrictive adv buguo
      • 4.1.2Restrictive CM buguo
      • 4.1.3Cancellative CM buguo
      • 4.1.4Marking contrast in a continuum
    • 4.2Marking transition within a speaker’s turn
    • 4.3Marking transition across speaker turns
    • 4.4Displaying disagreement
  • 5. Buguo as a metacoherence marker
  • 6.The uses of buguo in the single-interviewee interview data and in the panel discussion data
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 2 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00051.wan
References
Aijmer, Karin
2013 Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Elaine S. & Brizuela, Maquela & DuPuy, Beatrice & Gonnerman, Laura
1999 Cross-linguistic evidence for the early acquisition of discourse markers as register variables. Journal of Pragmatics 31(10). 1339–1351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar
2003 Concession in spoken English: On the realisation of a discourse-pragmatic relation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1989 Denial and contrast: A relevance theoretic analysis of but . Linguistics and Philosophy 121. 15–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia
(ed.) 1984 Some remarks on illocution and metacommunication. Journal of Pragmatics 8(4). 449–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1987 Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, Russell S. (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Xiao-ming
1998 Zhuanzhe jushi yu zhuanzhe ci [Transition construction and transition words]. Journal of Hubei Institute for Nationalities (Social Sciences Edition) 41. 36–40.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E.
2002 Disagreements and third parties: Dilemmas of neutralism in panel news interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 34(10–11). 1385–1401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, Malcolm
1977 An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Thompson, Sandra A.
2000 Concessive patterns in conversation. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause-condition-concession-contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 381–410. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan
1997 Intonation. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul & Heritage, John
1992 Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Drew, Paul. & Heritage, John (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (Studies in Institutional Sociolinguistics 8), 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. & Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan & Cumming, Susanna & Paolino, Danae
1993 Outline of discourse transcription. In Edwards, Jane A. & Lampert, Martin D. (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research, 45–89. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E.
2000 The treatment of contrasts in interaction. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause-condition-concession-contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 283–312. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulou, Alexandra & Patrona, Marianna
2000 Disagreements in television discussions: How small can small screen arguments be? Pragmatics 10(3). 323–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guillot, Marie-Noëlle
2008 Freedoms and constraints in semi-institutional television discussions: The case of mixed format panel discussions. Journal of Pragmatics 40(2). 179–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
2000 From concessive connector to discourse marker: The use of obwohl in everyday German interaction. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause-condition-concession-contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 439–468. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddington, Pentti
2004 Stance taking in news interviews. SKY Journal of Linguistics 171. 101–142.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya
1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken
2005 Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia
2001 Semi-institutional discourse: The case of talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics 33(2). 209–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kakavà, Christina
1993 Negotiation and disagreement by Greeks in conversation and classroom discourse. Washington, DC: Georgetown University. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É.
(ed.) 1995 Discourse configurational languages. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard
1991 The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korolija, Natascha
1998 Recycling context: The impact of prior conversation on the emergence of episodes in a multiparty radio talk show. Discourse Processes 25(1). 99–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, David
1987 The semantics of just . Journal of Pragmatics 111. 377–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenk, Uta
1998 Marking discourse coherence: Functions of discourse markers in spoken English. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Li, Xiaoqi
(ed.) 2003 Xiandai Hanyu xuci shouce [A guide to function words in modern Chinese].. Beijing: Beijing University Press.Google Scholar
Lu, Fubo
2000 Duiwai Hanyu changyong ciyu duibi lishi [Comparative illustration of common Chinese words and expressions]. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.Google Scholar
Lü, Shuxiang
1980 Xiandai Hanyu babai ci [800 words in modern Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Mann, William C. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1992 Relational discourse structure: A comparison of approaches to structuring text by ‘contrast’. In Hwang, Shin Ja J. & Merrified, William R. (eds.), Language in context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre, 19–45. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W.
1980 Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica 30(3). 263–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob L.
1993 Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Miracle, W. Charles
1991 Discourse markers in Mandarin Chinese. Columbus: Ohio State University. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu
1990 Modelling functional differentiation and function loss: The case of but . In Adamson, Sylvia M. & Law, Vivien A. & Vincent, Nigel & Wright, Susan (eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 337–355. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann & Yule, George
2002 The metapragmatics of and everything . Journal of Pragmatics 341. 785–794. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph. & Greenbaum, Sidney & Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, Claudia
1978 Contrast conjunctions in English, Japanese, and Mandarin Chinese. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey & Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail
1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987 Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A.
1999 Pragmatics of conditional marking: Implicature, scalarlity, and exclusivity. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
2000 Viewpoints and polysemy: Linking adversative and causal meanings of discourse markers. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause-condition-concession-contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 257–282. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2000 Invoking scalarity: The development of in fact . Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1). 7–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969 Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shen, Jiaxuan
2004  Shuo buguo [Remarks on buguo ]. Journal of Qinghua University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) 19(5). 30–36.Google Scholar
Shi, Jinsheng & Sun, Huiyan
2010  Danshi lei zhuanzhelianci de neibu chayi ji qi xingcheng jizhi [The inner differences among danshi type transition connectors and the constraints on their development]. Yuwen Yanjiu [Linguistic Research] 2010(4). 34–40.Google Scholar
Sornig, Karl
1977 Disagreement and contradiction as communicative acts. Journal of Pragmatics 1(4). 347–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita
1994 An introduction to spoken interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Teng, Shou-hsin
1994 Hanyu jinyici yongfa cidian [Chinese synonyms usage dictionary]. Taipei: Crane Publishing.Google Scholar
Tseng, Ming-yu
2012 Towards a metapragmatic analysis of self-review in research grant proposals: From relevance to metarelevance. Intercultural Pragmatics 9(3). 335–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013  Dan as a discourse marker, metadiscourse device and metapragmatic marker: Examples from the evaluation reports of Taiwan’s higher education sector. Journal of Pragmatics 50(1). 108–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B.
2002 Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2006 The semantic development of scalar focus modifiers. In Kemenade, Ans van & Los, Bettelou (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 335–359. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie
2000 Concession implies causality, though in some other space. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause-condition-concession-contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 361–380. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef
2000 Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. Pragmatics 10(4). 439–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Yu-Fang
2005 From lexical to pragmatic meaning: Contrastive markers in spoken Chinese discourse. Text & Talk 25(4). 469–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Yu-Fang & Tsai, Pi-Hua
2007 Textual and contextual contrast connection: A study of Chinese contrastive markers across different text types. Journal of Pragmatics 39(10). 1775–1815. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Yu-Fang & Tsai, Mei-Chi & Schams, Wayne & Yang, Chi-Ming
2013 Restrictiveness, exclusivity, adversativity, and mirativity: Mandarin Chinese zhishi as an affective diminutive marker in spoken discourse. Chinese Language and Discourse 4(2). 181–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, Hsiao-Ching
2003 A case study on the grammaticalization of GUO in Mandarin Chinese – Polysemy of the motion verb with respect to semantic changes. Language and Linguistics 4(4). 857–885.Google Scholar
Zhang, Yisheng
2000 Xiandai Hanyu fuci yanjiu [A study on modern Chinese adverbs]. Shanghai: Xuelin.Google Scholar