Approaches of OM

Approaches of OMWithin the past fifteen eld or so there has been much studies ab appear the theoretical attitude of dis job markers (DMS) focusing on what they be ,what they mean and what subroutines they manifest. Fraser (1999) maintains that teseachers claim hold that DMS be lexical evinceions that relate lecturing about subdivisions , but they have disagreed on how they atomic number 18 defined and what functions they carry.Similar to this view, shourup (1999) argues that there is inequality on functions on fundamental issues in the study of DMS. researchers are unable to agree on the well-formed category of DMS or how to delimit their class or plane what types of gist these markers express. In order to understand more about DMS in language it is necessary to refer to tow approaches of DMSThe reliance system and cohesiveness teased approach1/ glueyness based approachWithin coherence theory it is assumed DMS runaway a major grapheme in dis course rendition by using coherence relations betwixt preaching units.As shourup (1999,p.240) argues that the interpretation of a school schoolbook, according to the coherence group. Depends on the designation of coherence relations between the units of that text . this group includes researchers who adopt a coherence-based theory. The main figures of this group are Schifrin (1987). Fraser (1988-1990) and redeker (1990-1991).Schifrin (1987) studies the semantic and grammatical status of DMS and their functions . since she belongs to the coherence group, Schifrin states that DMS contribute to the coherence of the text by establishing coherence relationships between units of talk Schifrin (1987,b.9).He adds that DMS indicate that the interpretation of wizard cla accustom is determined by the cultivation derived from the prior clause .Schifrin proposes that DMS have a coherence graphic symbol in the sense that they relate informational units in the present dialogue with informational units in th e prior discourse , this is what Schifrin c anys local coherence in her framework which promoter that it is local in the sense that DMS link deuce adjacent units in the text.She states that DMS have both cohesive and structural roles structural because they link twain (or more) syntactic units, and similarly cohesive because the interpretation of the vocalisation depends on the junto of both conjuncts. It cigaret be summarized that Schifrin concentrates on the linguistic and structural role that DMS play to achieve discourse coherence by linking discourse units The sec figure of coherence-based theory is Fraser(1999).Similarly to Schifrin, Fraser maintains that DMS contribute to the coherence of a text by indicating coherence relationships between units of talk however, Fraser(1999,938) indicates that DMS do non have to signal any relationship between fragment 2 and instalment 1 (adjacent segments of talk ).A discourse marker can relate the segment it introduces with any opposite previous segment in discourse .And this is cognise as global coherence ,it is contrasted to Schifrins local coherence .Frasers (1997-1999) account focuses on hardheaded functions of DMS he calls them prosaic markers. Fraser define DMS in his proposal as they are linguistic element that encode leads which signal the speaker potency communicative intention .2/ Relevance-based accountSperber and Wilson (1986,1995) have developed the relevancy theory. It is a pragmatic model that explain how speakers interpret utterances. It based on cognitive ability of the meeter to interpret the utterance rather the linguistic adept.The relevance theory suggests that the minds central processor is highly ri infract in holding the information because it is specifically oriented towards the search for relevance (as cited in the use of discourse markers in E.F.L learners writing by ana cristina laluerta Martinez university of Oviedo). The principle of relevance determines that all utte rances are ruled by the level of optimal relevance .that is to enunciate ,when a speaker calls a hearers attention to the utterance .He is claiming that his utterance is relevant enough to deserve the hearers attention. To discuss deeply the relation between relevance theory and discourse markers , Blakemore should be present Blakemore (1987) argument is that DMS play a crucial role in the interpretation of utterance by providing the hearer/ proofreader with some guidance in the inferential microscope stage to reach the optimal relevance. According to Blakemore (1987), connectives contribute to the interpretation process.Usually a speaker/ source has a specific interpretation of his utterance and to bunkbook the hearer/reader to reach the right interpretation DMS are so important .They provide the specification of certain properties of the context and the contextual workuate .The level of optimal relevance elbow room that the larger contextual issuing the smaller cognitive ef fort . generally the hearer stores a tour of assumption in his memory ,and these assumptions can interact with the refreshful information conveyed by the speaker , which come up with three results a new assumption or the contradiction , and even elimination , of an assumption Blakemore (1992p.135).This the speakers/writer can help the hearer by reducing the cognitive effort. As Blakemore (1992p.176) a speaker may use the linguistic from of his utterance to guide the interpretation process. Similar gives of discourse markersDespite the large disagreement about the definition and the classification of discourse markers ,There are some radical trait and features shared by discourse markers have been identified in DMS studies.Schourup (1999) argues, to identify a small sent of characteristic most(prenominal) unremarkably attributes to discourse markers and to items referred to by other closely associated terms. He realizes the most common features in these expressions from some studies in the discourse markers. These features are multi-categoriality, connectivity, mon-trueness conditionality, lite clause association, signity, and optionalitya-multi- categoriality It is viewed that discourse markers constitute a functional category that is sundry(prenominal) with respect to the syntactic class (as cited in (similar features).Because items that are usually include in DMS are not structurally unified. They are derived from a classification of grammatical sources. Schourup (1999,p.134) distinguishes in wich DM function has been a attributed whether language ilk adverbs (eg, now actually, anyway), coordinating and subordinating conjunctions (e.g, and, but, because). Interjections (e.g, oh, gosh, boy) verbs (e.g, say, look, see) or it can includes clauses (e.g, you see, I mean, you know). The position that DMS are drown from different word classes makes them difficult to define them structurally.And that substance they have identical counterparts that a re not used as markers. Kohlani (2010,p39) hints out that despite the great dispute regarding the coexistence of two structurally identical items that function differently in discourse, they do not overlap in discourse When an expression functions as a discourse markers ,it does not express the propositional heart of, its identical counterparts.As cites in janina buintkiene (2015)b- connectivity connectivity is a common point shared by many studies concerning the DMS. They agree that DMS connect utterances or other discourse unites. However, there is a great disagreement about the character of the connection discourse markers express and the nature and extent of the element committed ,as Schourup ( 1999,p20)point out. Thus connectivity is conceived differently due to the way discourse is viewed.In coherence-based studies, desire Schifrin (1987) and Fraser (1999) defined DMS as connectives which relate two textual units by gull the relationships between them they contribute to in ter-utterance coherence. For coherence-based studies DMS have an important role in connecting one segment of text to another. In relevance-based studies, DMS do not connect one segment of text to another but they provide the hearer/reader with the right interpretation of the segment they introduce.Blakemore (1987) noted that DMS can play the role of connecting the host utterance not but the linguistic co-text but also to the context in a wider sense. For within relevance theory, discourse markers are viewed as expressing inferential connections that constrain the cognitive processes underlying the interpretation of the segment they introduce (Blakemore(2002,p.5).similar to this view, shourup (1999,p.230-232)states that DMS do not connect one segment of text to another. Rather they connect the propositional content expressed by their host execration to assumptions that are expressed by context.He concludes that if connectivity is criterial for DM status, it can be used to distingui sh DMS from various other initial element such as illocutionary adverbials (e.g, confidentially), attitudinal adverbials (e.g, sadly) and from primary interjections (e.g, oops). c/ nontruth-conditionality nontruth-conditionality is also a feature that most researchers attribute to discourse markers. Saying that DMS are nontruth-conditional means that they bring no meaning or condition to the sentence.As Schourup (1999,p.232) claims that DMS are generally thought to contribute nothing to the truth-conditions of the proposition expressed by an utterance. Fraser (1996) also claimed that DMS do not influence the truth-conditions of sentences he approved the root word that truth-conditions pertain to mental representations not to sentences. Accordingly ,for many researchers discourse markers are nontruth-conditional means that DMS are part of the pragmatic component of the sentence.Ostman (1995,p.98) argues that their primary labor in language is not link up to the propositional aspec t of sentences, but to the pragmatic functioning of language. Moreover, Blakemore (2002) points out that pragmatic is defined as meaning minus truth conditions. She argues that pragmatic information which is not part of the truth conditional content cannot be obtained through decoding linguistic forms.As a conclusion, DMS are non-propositional expressions means that they are not part of propositional meaning of the sentence moreover this does not mean they do not effect this meaning. DMS are not important in the propositional twist, but they do effect the propositional meaning. As Andersen (2001) argues that the meaning of the sentence is not handled solely by the words contained in the utterance rather is conveyed by complex semantic and pragmatic processes, as cited by kohlan (2010).d/ weak clause associationanother characteristic of discourse markers that has been identified by Schourup (1999,p.232-234) is weak clause association.It is similar to the nontruth-conditionality fea ture is the sense of the detachment of DMS from their host sentence. As cited in janina buitkiene (2015), Brinton argues (1996,p.34), DMS usually decease cither outside the syntactic structure or loosely connected to it. DMS are regarded as being outside the propositional content and the syntactic structure of the sentence. Schourup (1999) points out that some of DMS have their syntactic structure such as on the other hand and you know (232).It is also because of their loose grammatical attachment to the structure of their host sentence, that discourse markers are after specialise from the main clause by comma or independent two unit regard Len whether they occur within the clause or at its initial (ibid, 233). e/ initialityIS one of the most noticeable feature of discourse markers. For some researchers. DMS occurs initially in the sentence. As Hansen (1997,p.157) points out that markers must necessarily precede their host unit.Similarly, Fraser (1990,p389) state typically occur only in utterance-initial position. The significance of the initial position as a text organizer is what makes it the most appropriate place in which discourse markers can fulfill their role in discourse. As cited in.The place of DMS is related to their function in discourse. Schourup (1999) states. because they are used to restrict the contextual interpretation of an utterance he adds it makes sense to restrict context early in the first place interpretation can run astray (233).Moreover, kohlani (2010.48) argues that initial position give for DMS wide scope over the whole sentence or separate to influence hearer or reader interpretation of everything that follows. f/ Optionality being optional rather than obligatory is another feature of discourse markers. Accordingly, DMS can be present or absent in the discourse. As Schifrin (1987) argues. are neer obligatory.Moreover, Schourup (1999,p.231) states that DMS are optional in two perspicuous senses syntactically optional in the sense that removal of a DMS does not alter grammaticality of the sentences and in the further sense that they do not overstate the possibilities for semantic relationship between the element they associate. However, he adds. it is never claimed that the optionality of DMS renders them useless as redundant.This means even if DMS are regarded as syntactically and semantically optional, pragmatically are not. Supporting to this view, Brinton (1996) argues, they are not pragmatically optional or superfluous. Instead , they guide the hearer/reader to a particular interpretation. As Brinton (1996,p.34) argues they reinforce or clue the interpretation intended by the speaker.