The Pragmatic Functions of Discourse Markers in Katherine Birbalsingh’s

Spontaneous Speech on Michaela Community School’s Tiger Teachers Event

Andy Setiawan
Tidar University
Setiawan271098@gmail.com

Introduction
Many speakers even native-speakers sometimes struggle with discovering a proper way to
express themselves. Meanwhile, the less skilled speaker is having more communication
problems he or she will face (Kaivanpanah, Yamouty & Karami, 2012). In some conversations
or speeches, people utter some sounds as well as words. Nevertheless, they usually have
disfluencies. Thus, many spontaneous speakers of several languages have some pauses and there
are certain pause fillers that those speakers resort to when needed. “Um, well, okay, I mean” are
only some of them when they want to plan the next utterance. Andersen (2001), Aijmer (2002),
Trujillo Saez (2003) called the phenomenon as discourse markers. A great deal of studies have
been conducted to see whether discourse markers contribute to pragmatic and communicative
capability and if they do, in what ways? In fact, the popularity of the topic to do research on
discourse markers has even created vagueness in terminology (Aşık, 2012, p.16).
Discourse Markers are class of small recurrent linguistic items that generally have little
lexical import but severe significant pragmatic functions in conversation (Andersen 2001).
Discourse markers are the most popular and common term used to refer to group expressions.
However, there are two types of discourse markers functions as pragmatic. There are textual
function and interpersonal function (Castro 2009). The textual function is distinct from both
experiential and interpersonal because its object is language itself. Language “creates a semiotic
world of its own: a parallel universe, or ‘virtual reality’ in modern terms.” In other side, the
interpersonal function refers to the grammatical choices that allow speakers to ratify their
complex and varied interpersonal relations. This theory of methodical functional linguistics
based on the claim that a speaker not only talks about something but is always talking to and
with others. Language not only construes experience but also simultaneously acts out “the
interpersonal encounters that are essential to our survival (Halliday, 2003).
Method
The objective of this study was to examine the amount and the pragmatic function of
discourse markers used in Katherine’s Birbalsingh’s spontaneous speech video. This study was
conducted by using a quantitative and qualitative approach.
The object of this research was Katherine Birbalsingh’s spontaneous speech video with
5:55 minutes duration in November 2016 on Michaela Community School’s Tiger Teachers
event which taken from YouTube. This research conducted a discourse analysis. The researcher
used the video and the transcript of Katherine Birbalsingh’s Spontaneous Speech.
Beginning the study, the researcher described what discourse markers are according to
several experts. Formerly, the researcher looked for and chosen a video. After collecting the data
of this study, the researcher wrote the transcripts of the selected video and analyze the frequency
also the pragmatic function of discourse markers. In this process, the researcher used three steps.
First, the researcher looked for a video of Katherine Birbalsingh’s spontaneous speech, and then
found the sentences containing discourse markers. Second, the data were collected and counted
through the occurrence of discourse markers uses. After that, the researcher analyzed and
classified them into the pragmatic function of discourse markers. Third, the findings of
classifications were defined and explained as the possible reasons why Katherine Birbalsingh
used those markers in her speech. Those three steps were to answer the research questions in this
study. Finally, the researcher drew the conclusion based on the finding in this research.

Findings and Discussion

This part consists of two sections; they are the frequency of discourse markers and the
pragmatic function of discourse markers in Katherine Birbalsingh’s spontaneous speech which
are deliberating the results of this study.

The Frequency of Discourse Markers Used in Katherine Birbalsingh’s Spontaneous Speech

In this section, the researcher counted the frequency of discourse markers used in
Katherine Birbalsingh’s video by using a table.
Table 1.1: Frequency of discourse markers used in the video
Discourse Occurrences Discourse Occurrences
markers markers
Okay 2 Because 13
Right 1 You Know 1
I mean 4 But 6
Um 2
 Table 1.1 shows the discourse markers used by Katherine Birbalsingh and their frequency
of occurrences. “Because” had been used more than the others. It is because in Katherine speech,
most of her utterance are having sequence meaning and “because” is the suit markers to use.
That was why Katherine use it many times.

Pragmatic functions of Discourse markers in Katherine Birbalsingh Spontaneous Speech

There are two main pragmatic functions of discourse markers. First as textual function and then
as interpersonal function.

Textual Functions
Table 1.2: Opening Frame Marker
Function Type Examples Found
To commence discourse, including claiming the Opening frame marker Okay
attention of the hearer

Utterance Okay, I mean it's funny because everybody has their own thing and they
think…

In some other cases, the speaker may change or shift the present topic to another. In her
speech, she began her speech by saying “Okay” for her first word. In this situation, the “Okay”
was a signal to show that she will begin a speech as the answer to the question from a listener.

Table 1.3: Closing Frame Marker

Function Type Examples Found
To close discourse Closing frame marker right

Utterance …that's our role! that's what we're meant to do, when we don't do that, we
let them down, right?

Katherine ended a topic by giving a word signal “right.” In this situation, “right”
indicated as the closing of an utterance from Katherine that had said about the impact for the
children when the role of adults did not run.
Table 1.4: Turn-takers (Turn Givers)
Function Type Examples Found
To support the speaker in obtaining or resigning turn-takers (Turn givers) um
the floor

Utterance …but these are all systems and values that are universal that could happen
anywhere. Um, of course, it could happen in a primary…

Katherine was trying to do the next utterance by considering the previous utterance “that
could happen anywhere.” Formerly, she began to say “...could happen in a primary I mean you
you just…” by using “um” to elaborate what she meant.

Table 1.5: Fillers (Turn Keepers)

Function Type Examples Found
To serve as a filler or delaying tactic used to Fillers (Turn keepers) okay
sustain discourse or hold the floor.

Utterance Okay, I mean it's funny because everybody has their own thing and they
think…

In this situation, Katherine gave a signal to designate that she will begin her speech or
answer, so the listener will give attention to her as the response.

Table 1.6: Topic Switchers

Function Type Examples Found
To show a new matter or a partial shift in topic Topic switchers because

Utterance …the journey is to make it to the top, and when you move up you're doing
it because you want to get a merit you want to…

“Because” was a signal as a switcher from the previous talk to the next topic because of
relevancy.
Table 1.7: Information Indicators
Function Type Examples Found
To denote either new or old information Information indicators because

Utterance …children are children and they need to be taught because that's what our
job is.

Katherine delivered old information about the role of the adult to children is teaching
them by using “because” to say the reason.

Table 1.8: Sequence/ Relevance Markers

Function Type Examples Found
To mark sequential dependence Sequence/relevance I mean
markers

Utterance it's ludicrous, I mean, children are children, and they need to be taught
because that's what our job is.

“I mean” refers to “what our job is” from the previous statement, “…they say it just so
happens we're here so then they're saying it can't happen elsewhere.”

Table 1.9: Repair Markers

Function Type Examples Found
To repair one’s own or others discourse Repair markers I mean

Utterance …in London with children from ethnic minorities, I mean they say it just
so happens we're here so then they're saying it can't happen elsewhere.

Katherine indicated that she was trying to change the topic purpose without changing the
content by using “I mean.”
Interpersonal Functions
From an interpersonal perspective, discourse markers are seen as vehicles contributing to the
establishment and maintenance of relationships between the speaker and hearer. To show the
relationship between the speaker and his/her orientation towards the produced discourse is
considered as an intrinsic feature of discourse markers. They are used as hedges to express
uncertainty and as appeals to the hearer for confirmation. They could be used as a reply or
feedback to the previous utterance as well (Yilmaz, 2004).
The interpersonal function is divided into two parts: subjective and interpersonal.

Table 2.0: Subjective

Function Type Examples Found
Subjectively, to express a response to the earlier Response / reaction -
discourse containing back-channel signals of markers
understanding and continued attention while
another speaker is having his/her turn.
Utterance: -

Backchannel signals -
Utterance: -

There were no discourse markers as subjective found in the video. It was because
Katherine did not give respond in the way of words like back-channel signals of understanding
and continued attention, but she gave the respond physically by nodding her head when she
understood the question from a listener.
Table 2.1: Interpersonal
Type Examples Utterance: Function
Found
Cooperation, okay Okay, I mean it's Interpersonally, to affect
agreement marker funny because cooperation or sharing,
everybody has their including confirming shared
own thing… assumptions, checking or
Disagreement marker but …could it happen in stating understanding,
Coastal town, could it requesting confirmation,
happen in a primary, uttering difference saving face
but these are all (politeness).
systems and values
that are universal…
Checking yeah Listener: Yeah, okay,
understanding next one again it has
markers been asked a few
times about
replicating Mikayla or
applying it to other
schools…

To influence cooperation or sharing, including confirming shared assumptions, checking

or expressing understanding, requesting confirmation, expressing difference saving face
(politeness), Katherine used “okay” as the understanding expression when she understood the
question from a listener and “but” as the disagreement. Furthermore, the listener used “yeah” as
understanding markers, this probably before she asked a question, Katherine was already having
a speech but unfortunately, the speech was not recorded in the video.

Conclusion
The result of this study exposed that there were two types of pragmatic function of
discourse markers: those were textual function and interpersonal function. The textual function
of discourse markers divided into eight parts: Opening frame markers, closing frame markers,
turn taker, fillers, information indicators, sequence/ relevant markers and repair markers.
Meanwhile, the interpersonal function was divided into two parts: Subjective and interpersonal.
Speakers use discourse markers to connect the ideas of topics. Even though they maybe in the
same form of words but they can be different in the use because it depends on the situation.
References
Alami, Manizheh. (2015). Pragmatic Functions of Discourse markers: A Review of Related
Literature. 10.13140/RG.2.1.3034.3121.
Andersen, G. (2001). Pragmatic Markers of Sociolinguistic Variation: A Relevance-Theoretic
Approach to the Language of Adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aşık, A. (2012). Discourse Markers and Spoken English: Nonnative Use in the Turkish EFL
Setting. PhD Dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
Castro, C. (2009). The use and functions of discourse markers in EFL classroom interaction.
Profile 11, p. 57-77.
Clark, H. H. & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84,
73-111.
Erten, S. (2014). Teaching Fillers and Student Filler Usage: A Study Conducted at ESOGU
Preparation School. International Journal of Teaching and Education, 2(3), 67-79.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2003). On the “architecture” of human language. On Language and
Linguistics. Volume 3 in the Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday. London and New York:
Equinox. P. 16.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2003). Is the grammar neutral? Is the grammarian neutral? In J.J. Webster
(Ed.), On Language and Linguistics. Volume 3 in the Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday.
London and New York 2003, p 276.
Kaivanpanah, Sh., Yamouty, P., & Karami, H. (2012). Examining the effects of proficiency,
gender, and task type on the use of Communication strategies. Porta Linguarum, January 2012,
79-93.
Verdonik, Darinka & Rojc, Matej & Stabej, Marko. (2007). Annotating discourse markers in
spontaneous speech corpora on an example for the Slovenian language. Language Resources
and Evaluation. 41. 147-180. 10.1007/s10579-007-9035-7.
Yilmaz, E. (2004). A Practical Analysis of Turkish Discourse Markers: yani, iste andsey. PhD
Thesis. Istanbul: Middle East Technical University.