FUNCTIONING OF DISCOURSE MARKERS IN UKRAINIAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES

Abstract

The aim of the article is to identify the essence of the notion “discourse markers” and to perform a comprehensive analysis of their functional peculiarities in English and Ukrainian languages.

Methods: systematic, analytical and descriptive, sampling techniques, and definitional.

Results. The article deals with the variability of approaches to the definition of the notion “discourse markers” (DM). While conducting analysis, four trends of studies have been identified: pragmatic, cognitive, coherence-based, and functional. In addition, the most popular interpretations provided by Ukrainian and foreign researchers have been analyzed. Based on their definitions and analysis of the practical material, the article provides its own explanation of the notion. Though a number of DM in English and Ukrainian vary greatly, they have common features. Thus, according to their typology, DM are divided into several groups, namely: contrastive, elaborative, inferential, and discourse particles. Due to their heterogeneous character, Ukrainian and English DM include various grammatical categories, the most common are as follows: 1) coordinating conjunctions (elaborating, contrasting, and partitive); 2) subordinating conjunctions; and 3) expletives. From the perspective of functioning during a communicative act both in oral and written forms, DM are necessary: to introduce a new topic or to change an old communicative theme; to stop communication; to introduce or explain a sequence of actions; to influence an addressee; to forecast participants reactions while conducting a communicative act; to explain certain textual fragments; to correct or to clarify the information given earlier. While studying the functions of DM in English texts, it has been figured out that they often take an initial or medium position in the utterance. Besides, they do not depend on the structure of a sentence where they are used. They are also tracked in oral communication (oral discourse) more often in comparison with its written form. With regard to a phonological composition, DM tend to reduce and use contextual stresses.

Conclusions. DM represent an important word-formation needed for improving a communicative act and enriching a speech. It has been proved that the main characteristics of DM are heterogeneity, multicategory, and poly-functionality. Besides, during the analysis, it has been figured out that all DM of both languages have prototypic meanings, which lead to a certain level (stereotype) of their implementation in a communicative act. Also, the work represents perspective trends of further scientific researches, in particular, those related to bilingual parallel texts and DM functioning in different genres of English and Ukrainian languages.