A Study of Discourse Monitoring System in two Persian and English Literary Works Based on Comparative Discourse Analysis

Document Type : Original Research Article

Authors

1 Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Languages, Arak University< Arak, Iran

2 Department of English, Faculty of Literature and Languages, Arak university, Arak, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Comparative discourse analysis is a branch of linguistics focusing on comparative study of languages, cultures, and discourses in terms of similar linguistic and metalinguistic variables in the construction and monitoring of discourse (Linha, 2022). Monitoring discourse is the analysis of strategies in planning, distribution, production, and utilization of language to create coherence and relevance between units of discourse by the creative, innovative, and flexible way of application of discourse markers (DMs) in human communication (Mohammadi and Dehghan, 2021). This explorative, descriptive, and qualitative study analyzed coherence relations in “Modire Madreseh” by Jalal Aleahmad and “The Old Man and The Sea by Hemingway.
Background: DMs are the most frequent, complex, and creative meta-linguistic elements in human communication (Sayadkooh and Reisi, 2017). Their utilization in discourse is not random and they perform different cultural social and pragmatic functions facilitating human communication (Fraser, 2006). Theoretically, DMs are defined and analyzed from two perspectives: relevance theory by Sperber and Wilson (1995) and coherence theory by Glansberg (2018). And the assumptions include: all text possess coherence, there are different types of coherence relations in texts, and these coherence relations should be discovered by the people in discourse. Approaching DMs functionally, Redeker (2006) believes that DMs’ main function is establishing relationship between units of discourse. From a semantic perspective, Fraser (2006) analyzed DMs at sentence level and believes that they establish the relationship between messages in the former, present, and latter sentences. Aijmer (2013) concludes that DMs do not possess fixed lexical functions and their functions are contexts-dependent and context-sensitive resulting in different functions in discourse. Empirically, DMs are investigated in different languages skills such as writing, speaking, listening and translation by different investigators.
Methodology: This exploratory, descriptive, and qualitative study analyze coherence relations in two Persian and English literary works. Theoretically the study was supported by coherence theory in discourse analysis and the following analysis models established within this theoretical perspective: DMs inventory developed by Fraser (2006) and DMs functional inventory by Brinton (1996). Coherence theory centers around the appropriacy of concepts in terms of their relationship in the context of discourse. The corpus consisted of the following two Persian and English novels: “Modire Madreseh” by Jalal Aleahmad and “The Old Man and The Sea by Hemingway and these novels where selected due to the similar literary genre, similar readability levels, and close date of publication in two literary discourses. Moreover, to verify the reliability of the findings 20% the data were given to two raters to verify the researchers’ identification and classification of DMs and their functions.
Conclusion: The results of the quantitative analysis revealed that the construction of coherence relations between units of discourse was substantiated based on a four plane framework established by four groups of inferential, elaborative, contrastive, and temporal DMs in monitoring discourse. And the most frequent DMs were elaborative DMs. The qualitative analysis of the pragmatic functions of DMs applied in these literary works resulted in the following seven plane spectrum of functions for DMs: information indication, temporality, topic switch, opening markers, closing markers, turn exchange, and reform markers. This creative, flexible, and innovative approach in the construction and interpretation of discourse is substantiated through the application of pragmaticalization. So, new, creative, and context sensitive inferences about functions are substantiated for DMs and they are always being renewed, modified, and innovated substantially. Different implications in different research and educational perspectives about teaching literature, language, and different languages skills are suggested and discussed.

Keywords

References

Aijmer, Kate. (2013). Understanding pragmatic markers. Edinburgh: Edinburg University Press.  
Ale-Ahmad, Jalal. (1958). The School Principle, Tehran: Ferdowsi Publication. 
Boojari, Samira. (2019). A Comparative Study of the Frequency and Polyfunctionality of Discourse Markers used in American and British Novels, (Unpublished Master Thesis), Arak University, Arak, Iran.
Brinton, Lean. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: grammaticalization and discourse functions. New York: Mounto de Gruyter.
Castro, Carrol. (2009). The use and functions of discourse markers in EFL classroom interaction, Profile, 11, 57-77.
Crible, Leonard. & Degand, Robert. (2019). Domains and functions: a two-dimensional account
of discourse markers, Discours, 4(5), 15-30.
Dumlao, Robert. & Wilang, Jack. (2019). Variations in the use of discourse markers by L1 and L2 English users. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 202-209.
Fischer, Kate. (2006). Frames, constructions, and invariant meanings. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 427-447. Amesterdam: Elsevier.  
Fraser, Bruse. (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 240-256). Oxford: Elsevier.
Gandomkar, Leila. (2018). A Comparative Study of the Frequencies and Functions of Discourse Markers in Research Genre, (Master Thesis). Arak University, Arak, Iran.
Grillo, Sally, and Glushkova, Michael. (2016). Scientific Popularization in Brazil and in Russia: An Essay to a Comparative Analysis of Discourses, Bakhtiniana, 11 (2), 76-100
Hamza, Hadi. (2019). Identifying errors committed by Iraqi EFL Learners in using DMs. Journal of Al-Frahedis Arts, 2(34), 545-554. 
Hemingway, Ernest. (1952). The Old Man and The Sea, USA: Life.
Hoseini, Hasan. (2000). Mosht Dar Nemaye Dorosht. Tehran: Sorush
Irfan, Fariborz.  Shahzadi, Mobina. Talib, Nahid. & Awan, Hamid. (2020). A comparative corpus based analysis of discourse markers. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt / Egyptology, 17(11), 358-376.
Jalilifar, Ali. & Savaedi, Yavar. (2012). They want to eradicate the nation: A cross-linguistic study of the attitudinal language. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 4(2), 59-96.
Kaveifard, Ebad. & Allami, Hamid. (2011). Inferential Discourse Markers in Discussion Section of Psychology Research. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 1 (12). 1786-1791.
Khandaghi Khameneh, Ali. & Fakhraee Faruji, Leila. (2020). The Effect of Teaching DMs on Speaking Achievement. IJREE, 5 (4).
Linha, David. (2022). Comparative discourse analysis and other comparative approaches in language science. Sao Paulo, 35(2), 1-15.
Mashhady, Hosein.  Fatollahi, Majid.  and Shahraki, Amer.  (2015). A discourse analysis study of English and Persian newspaper editorials. Iranian Journal of Language Issues 1(2), 83-98.
Mohammadi, Ali. Mohammad. & Dehghan, Rahim. (2021). A discoursal analysis of functional spectrum of discourse markers. Scientific Journal of Language Research, 13(39), 90-114.
Nejadansari, Daryush. & Mohammadi, Ali. Mohammad. (2014). The frequencies and functions of discourse markers in the Iranian University discourse. International Journal of Research, 4(2), 1-18.
Quan, Lee., & Zheng, Leon. (2012). A study of self-repair markers in conversation by Chinese English learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(5), 1216-1223.
Redeker, Gee. (2006). Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse transitions. In K. Fisher (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 339-358). Amesterdam: Elsevier.  
Sadeghi, Behruz. & Ramezan Yarandi, Mohsen. (2014). Analytical study on the relationship between discourse markers and speaking. International Journal of Linguistics and Communication, 2(2), 22-41.
Sayadkooh, Ali. & Reisi, Ehsan. (2017). Functions of Vav in Golestan. Honar Zaban, 1(2), 5-35
Schiffrin, Debora. (2006). Discourse marker research and theory: revisiting and. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 315-339). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Shafee Kadkani, M. (2006). Poerty Music. Tehran: Aghah [In Persian].
Sperber, David., & Wilson, Dave. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Trihartanti, Robert.  (2017). An analysis on the different use of discourse markers in spontaneous and non-spontaneous utterances. LEARN Journal, 7(1), 22-44.
Yazdani, Akbar., & Salehi, Hoda. (2016). Metadiscourse markers of online texts: English and Persian online headlines. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 4(3), 41-46. 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics