Teorie relevance a nově vznikající diskurzní částice

Relevance Theory and Emerging Discourse Markers

Gisle Andersen




This article explores the relevance-theory view of utterance interpretation (Sperber and Wilson 1986/1995) and illustrates its application in a qualitative investigation of authentic corpus data. The purpose is to show that observations derived from corpora can shed significant light on how constraints on relevance are practised by real speakers in real discourse contexts. The study focuses on discourse markers and argues that there is a need to focus more systematically on emerging discourse markers and their contributions to relevance. It is argued that the corpus-based approach can lead to new knowledge about pragmatic functions and subtle differences between different items, and that this extends beyond what is gained from a strictly theoretical or experimental approach, by far the most common approaches in the previous relevance-theory literature. As a case in point, the article includes an empirical study of the discourse marker as if, based on the large English TenTen corpus (Jakubíček et al., 2013).


diskurzní částice, jazykový kontakt, přejímání, webový korpus, angličtina, norština


discourse marker, language contact, borrowing, web corpus, English, Norwegian




Aijmer, K. (2002): English discourse particles: evidence from a corpus. Studies in corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Aijmer, K. — Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (eds.) (2006): Pragmatic markers in contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Ameka, F. (1992): Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, s. 101–18.

Andersen, G. (2000): The role of the pragmatic marker like in utterance interpretation. In: G. Andersen — T. Fretheim (eds.), Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, s. 17–38.

Andersen, G. (2001): Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Andersen, G. (2010a): A contrastive approach to vague nouns. In: G. Kaltenboeck (ed.), New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald, s. 35–48.

Andersen, G. (2010b): A pragmatic perspective on English-to-Norwegian borrowing of discourse markers. In: 4th International Conference on Intercultural Pragmatics a Communication (Madrid, Španělsko).

Andersen, G. (2012): A corpus-based study of the adaptation of English import words. In: G. Andersen (ed.), Exploring newspaper language — Using the web to create and investigate a large corpus of modern Norwegian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, s. 157–92.

Andersen, G. (2014): Pragmatic borrowing. Journal of Pragmatics, 67, s. 17–33.

Andersen, G. (2015): Relevance. In: K. Aijmer — Ch. Rühlemann, Corpus Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 143–168.

Andersen, G. (2020): Three cases of phraseological borrowing: a comparative study of As if, Oh wait and the ever construction in the Scandinavian languages. Ampersand, 7, 2020, 100062, s. 1–9.

Andersen, G. — Fretheim, T. (eds.) (2000): Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bazzanella, C. — Morra, L. (2000): Discourse markers and the indeterminacy of translation. In: I. Korzen — C. Marello (eds.), Argomenti per una linguistica della traduzione, On linguistic aspects of translation, Notes pour une linguistique de la traduction. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, s. 149–57.

Blakemore, D. (1987): Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.

Blakemore, D. (1992): Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.

Blakemore, D. (1996): Are apposition markers discourse markers? Journal of Linguistics, 32, s. 325–47.

Blakemore, D. (2000): Procedures and indicators: nevertheless and but‘. Journal of Linguistics, 36, s. 463–86.

Blakemore, D. (2006): Discourse markers. In: L. R. Horn — G. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, s. 221–40.

Blakemore, D. (2010): Communication and the representation of thought: The use of audience-directed expressions in free indirect thought representations. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, s. 575–99.

Blass, R. (2000a): Particles, propositional attitude and mutual manifestness. In: G. Andersen — T. Fretheim (eds.), Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, s. 39–52.

Blass, R. (2000b): Relevance relations in discourse: A study with special reference to Sissala. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brinton, L. (1996): Pragmatic markers in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Brinton, L. (2014): The extremes of insubordination: Exclamatory as if! Journal of English Linguistics, 42, 2, s. 93–113.

Carston, R. (1996): Enrichment and loosening: complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, s. 205–32.

Carston, R. (2002): Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication Oxford: Blackwell.

Carston, R. (2006): Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In: L. R. Horn — G. Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, s. 633v56.

Cheshire, J. et al. (2008): Ethnicity, friendship network and social practices as the motor of dialect change: Linguistic innovation in London. Sociolinguistica Jahrbuch, 22, s. 1–23.

Christie, Ch. (2007): Relevance theory and oliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 3, s. 269–94.

Culpeper, J. (2011): Politeness and impoliteness. In: G. Andersen — K. Aijmer (eds.), Pragmatics of society. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, s. 393–438.

D’Arcy, A. (2007): Like and language ideology: Disentangling fact from fiction. American Speech, 82, 4, s. 386–419.

Escandell-Vidal, V. — Leonetti, M. — Ahern, A. (eds.) (2011): Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives. Bingley: Emerald.

Fletcher, J. — Grabe, E. — Warren, P. (2004): Intonational variation in four dialects of English: the high rising tune. In: S.-A. Jun (ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Foolen, A. (2006): Polysemy patterns in contrast: The case of Dutch toch and German doch. In: K. Aijmer — A.-M. SimonVandenbergen (eds.), Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier, s. 59–72.

Foolen, A. (2011): Pragmatic markers in a sociopragmatic perspective. In: G. Andersen — K. Aijmer (eds.), Pragmatics of Society. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, s. 217–42.

Fretheim, T. (1981): „Ego“-dempere og „alter“- dempere. Maal og Minne, 1–2, s. 86–100.

Fretheim, T. (1992): The effect of intonation on a type of scalar implicature. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, s. 1–30.

Fretheim, T. (1998): Intonation and the procedural encodung of attributed thoughts: The case of Norwegian negative interrogatives. In: V. Rouchota — A. Jucker (eds.), Current issues in relevance theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, s. 205–36.

Grice, H. P. (1975): Logic and conversation. In P. Cole — J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, s. 41–58.

Grice, H. P. (1989): Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. — Hasan, R. (1976): Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Heritage, J. (1984): A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In: M. Atkinson — J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (2002): Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In: C. E. Ford — B. A. Fox — S. A. Thompson (eds.), The language of turn and sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jakubíček, M. — Kilgarriff, A. — Kovář, V. — Rychlý, P. — Suchomel, V. (2013): The TenTen corpus family. In: 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference , s. 125–127. https://www.sketchengine.eu/wp-content/uploads/The_TenTen_Corpus_2013.pdf

Jary, M. (1998): Relevance theory and the communication of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, s. 1–19.

Jary, M. (2008): The relevance of complement choice: A corpus study of ‚believe‘. Lingua, 118, s. 1–18.

Johansson, S. (2006): How Well can well be Translated? On the English Discourse Particle well and its Correspondences in Norwegian and German. In: K. Aijmer — A.-M. SimonVandenbergen (eds.), Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier, s. 115–38.

Johansson, S. — Graedler, A.-L. (2002): Rocka, hipt og snacksy: om engelsk i norsk språk og samfunn. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget.

Jucker, A. (1993): The discourse marker well: a relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 5, s. 435–52.

Jucker, A. (2002): Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In: R. J. Watts — P. Trudgill (eds.), Alternative histories of English. London: Routledge.

Lutzky, U. (2012): Discourse markers in Early Modern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Matsui, T. (2000): Linguistic encoding of the guarantee of relevance: Japanese sentencefinal particle yo. In: G. Andersen — T. Fretheim (eds.), Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, s. 145–72.

Nicolle, S. (1998): A relevance theory perspective on grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, s. 1–35.

Nicolle, S. (2000): Markers of general interpretive use in Amharic and Swahili. In: G. Andersen — T. Fretheim (eds.), Pragmatic markers a propositional attitude. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, s. 173–88.

Norrick, N. (2011): Interjections. In: G. Andersen — K. Aijmer (eds.), Pragmatics of Society. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, s. 243–92.

OED Oxford English Dictionary Online. Peckham, A. (2005): Urban Dictionary: Fularious street slang defined. Kansas City: Andrew McMeel.

Person, R. F. (2009): “Oh” in Shakespeare: A conversation analytic approach. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 10, 1, s. 84–107.

Prince, E. F. (1988): On pragmatic change: The borrowing of discourse functions. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 5–6, s. 505–18.

Quirk, R. et al. (1985): A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

Schiffrin, D. (1987): Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schourup, L. (1985): Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York: Garland.

Schwenter, S. — Traugott, E. C. (2000): Invoking scalarity: The development of in fact. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1, s. 7–26.

Smith, S. W. — Jucker, A. (2000): Actually and other markers of an apparent discrepancy between propositional attitudes of conversational partners. In: G. Andersen — T. Fretheim (eds.), Pragmatic markers a propositional attitude. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, s. 207–38.

Sperber, D. — Wilson, D. (1986/1995): Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sperber, D. — Cara, F. — Girotto, V. (1995): Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition, 57, s. 31–95.

Suzuki, S. (2000): Surprise and animosity: The use of the copula da in quotative sentences in Japanese. In: G. Andersen — T. Fretheim (eds.), Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, s. 239–54.

Traugott, E. C. (1982): From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In: W. P. Lehmann — Y. Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives on histroical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, s. 245–271.

Traugott, E. C. (1995): Subjectification in grammaticalization. In: D. Stein — S. Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, s. 31–54.

Treffers-Daller, J. (2007): Borrowing. In: J.-O. Östman — J. Verschueren (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics Online. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins.

Van Der Henst, J.-B. — Sperber, D. — Politzer, G. (2002): When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of indeterminate relational problems. Thinking and reasoning, 8, 1, s. 1–20.

Watts, R. J. (1986): Relevance in conversational moves: A reappraisal of well. Studia Anglica Posnanensia, 19, s. 37–59.

Watts, R. J. (1988): A relevance-theoretic approach to commentary pragmatic markers: the case of actually, really and basically. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 38, 1–4, s. 235–60.

Watts, R. J. (1989): Relevance and relational work: linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua, 8, 2/3, s. 131–66.

Watts, R. J. (2003): Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, D. (1995): Is there a maxim of truthfulness? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, s. 197–212.

Wilson, D. — Sperber, D. (1981): On Grice’s theory of conversation. In: P. Werth (ed.), Conversation and discourse: Structure and interpretation. London: Croom Helm, s. 155–78.

Wilson, D. — Sperber, D. (1993): Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90, s. 1–25.

Wilson, D. — Sperber, D. (2002): Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111, s. 583–632.

Wilson, D. — Sperber, D. (2006): Relevance theory. In: L. R. Horn — G. Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, Oxford: Blackwell, s. 607–632.

Úvod > 2021.2.1