Maket 2013:Layout 1.qxd


Functional-Communicative Study of

Adversative and Causal Discourse Markers

Siranush Khandanyan, Liza Mardoyan
Yerevan State University

W
ithin the framework of the following article we will focus on the peculiarities

of English adversative and causal discourse markers (DMs), mainly their func-

tional and communicative study. The whole study would be incomplete if we did not take

into consideration the role of discourse with its two forms - written and spoken. The

whole discourse may be presented in the form of a specific building which is being con-

structed due to every new “brick” put on its foundations. Discourse markers are the “pil-

lars” that help the “bricks” to construct the building.

Our main concern will be to define discourse, distinguish between its varieties and clar-

ify the status of discourse markers in the study of discourse.  The field of discourse is

explored by the specifications of different types of discourse markers and by the revelation

of their functional peculiarities in the organization of written text, their role in the achieve-

ment of coherent speech or speech patterns (monologue or dialogue) in written language.

Since the study of discourse markers is rather new in linguistics their functional and com-

municative study is not devoid of difficulties and presents special consideration. 

The diversity of the discourse field leads us to undertake a multidimensional linguis-

tic inquiry of discourse study -  textual discourse (determines how  sentences/utterances
are organized to form texts), pragmatic discourse (determines how sentences/utterances
are related to the intentions of language users).                                                                               

The whole nature of textual and pragmatic interpretation of DMs changes when we

deal with dialogues and monologues in written discourse, which were taken as a main

domain of our research on communicative function of adversative and causal DMs. In

this case DMs have to carry out their role as text organizers and the elements introduc-

ing interactional features. It is due to this pragmatic and functional approach in the study

of DMs that we witness their shift to multifunctionality (the ability to act as texture con-

nector or pass to pragmatic use in written domain) (Ariel 1998:121).

Irrespective of the predominance of textual or pragmatic function, the common thing

that all DMs share is connectivity. As opposed to other cohesive devices (conjunctions),

discourse markers involve speaker choice. This is the reason why they are easily shifted

from semantic domain into pragmatic one to fulfill the communicative function of the sit-

uational context. Thus, our main investigational routine is greatly connected with the

investigation of the shift from semantic (textual) to pragmatic domain.

Irrespective of the main theories dealing with the study of discourse markers they abridge

in the sense that they perceive similarly the main functions carried out by discourse markers

- they act as contextual coordinates, they index  adjacent utterances to the speaker/hearer or

both, and they index the utterance to prior or subsequent discourse (Schiffrin 1995:52).

Within the boundaries of this article we will try to focus on those DMs which are very

essential for the interpretation of discourse. It is the adversative and causal DMs that are

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

62



endued with the ability of linking the sentence elements both formally and mentally,

since adversative DMs indicate a contrary result or opinion to the content mentioned

above. On the other hand, the importance of causal DMs in text organization is due to the

need of justifications, reasoning, explanations and the addition of a new statement.

As we are concerned with the clear-cut scrutiny of adversative DMs, we find it necessary

to  present a range of adversative DMs, illustrated by Fraser: but, alternatively, although,
contrariwise, contrary to expectations, conversely, despite (doing) this/that, however,
even so, in contrast (with/to this/that), in comparison (with/to this/that), on the con-
trary, nevertheless, nonetheless, regardless, still, as a matter of fact, at any rate,
instead, yet, contrary to this (that), on the other hand, rather (than (do) this/that, still
whereas, etc. (Fraser 1999:145). However, for the complete revelation of the peculiari-
ties of adversative markers included in this range, we will speak about the notion of

adversity and contrast. According to Schwenter contrast can be manifested indirectly but
adversity provides explicit marking of clashes between different viewpoints with the help
of discourse markers bearing the meaning of adversity (Schwenter 1999:126).

The Academy had an unquestionable beauty and its library was rather
modest. (Th. More “Utopia” 2000:97)

The Coles were very good sort of people - friendly, liberal and unpre-
tending; but, on the other hand, they were of low origin, in trade, and only
moderately genteel.                                          (J. Austen “Emma” 1997:34)

The first example does not signal an explicit contrast, but hearers familiar with the

link between the “richness” and “poverty” will perceive it nevertheless. But the adversa-

tive DM on the other hand in the second sentence, helps to determine an explicit differ-
ence between  two parts of the sentence. In this sense the adversative markers indicate

the beginning of a different viewpoint.                                              

In order to understand the communicative nature of adversative discourse markers it

becomes necessary and essential to examine the number of ways that conceptualize the inter-

play between viewpoints in language use and language structure. Roulet distinguishes between

“monologues (one physical speaker) and dialogues (two-physical speaker), as well as between

monological (one viewpoint) and dialogical (two viewpoints) discourses.” (Roulet 1984:32).

The main distinction between monological and dialogical viewpoints is closely tied

to whether the viewpoints are constructed as argumentatively parallel, i.e. oriented

towards the same conclusion, or as argumentatively opposing, i.e. oriented toward differ-

ent conclusions. To illustrate what is meant here, we will consider the following sentence.

Their separation did not exist in all its finality, but Jennie felt destruc-
ted.                                             (Th. Dreiser “Jennie Gerhardt” 1911:305)  

Here, it is possible to isolate both the stated viewpoint that “Jane’s feeling of destruc-

tion” was the cause of “their separation”, and the underlying expectation that “their sepa -

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

63



ration” will cause her “feeling of destruction”. Thus, in this case, a single speaker  is

simultaneously advancing two viewpoints, which are in some sense incompatible, since

the first part of the utterance (S1) presupposes a positive coloring of the second part of

the utterance (S2). This presupposition is due to the negative use of the verb exist (did
not exist) after a word separation (having negative connotation), which leads to a posi-
tive coloring of S2. The communicative features of DMs are revealed with more difficul-

ty  from monological (one-speaker) viewpoint, since we need to have a semantically and
pragmatically burdened segment in the first part of the sentence, which helps the readers

to deal with a more pragmatically burdened second part of the sentence.                                          

Hereinafter, an example will be adduced, where we deal with a dialogue bearing
monological viewpoint.  It seems that S2 is the continuation of the thought expressed by
the speaker of S1. Therefore, we deal with monological viewpoint in a dialogue.    

Many a time has she said so; and yet I am no advocate for entire seclusion. 
On the contrary, when people shut themselves up entirely from socie-

ty, it is a very bad thing.             (Th. Dreiser “Jennie Gerhardt” 1911:140)  

In many cases one can witness a sentence presenting a dialogue which bears a dialog-

ical viewpoint. The background for such a use is the unexpected thought expressed by

the speaker of the second clause. This unexpected shift creates different lines of thoughts

expressed by different speakers.

He would make her an ideal husband, his father would be
pleased, everybody would be delighted.  

Instead, he had drifted and drifted, and then he had met Jennie,
and somehow; after that, he did not want her any more.  

(Th. Dreiser “Jennie Gerhardt” 1911:310)

Within the limits of our interest was the revelation of the main communicative and

functional features of adversative DMs with the help of their semantic shades unfolded

due to the contextual interpretation. The main way of investigation carried for adversa-

tive DMs will be implemented in the process of exploring the communicative and func-

tional peculiarities of causal DMs.

The importance of causal DMs is greatly connected with the role of causality. The latter

is an important phenomenon in discourse, since it plays a crucial role in discourse understand-

ing and question answering process. Second, causality is described as a major device for cre-

ating relevance in discourse becoming one among several principles of text organization.         

It goes without saying that the investigation of causal DMs could be carried out after

giving their general outline: because, for, on condition that, so that, supposing, although,
even though, so, unless, hence, since, as a consequence, consequently, then, therefore,
thus, as a result, accordingly, of course, on that condition, while, etc. In order to under-
stand the communicative and functional nature of causal discourse markers, it becomes

essential to pay attention to the intertwinement between the content, epistemic and speech

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

64



act level. They together constitute the shift that one needs to pass from textual to the prag-
matic fulfillment of causal DMs.  The content and epistemic level are more similar to

the monological viewpoint expressed by the adversative DMs.  The content level is more

similar to the monological viewpoint with semantic textual function, where the real-world

causality between events is expressed. However, the epistemic level is more similar to the

monological viewpoint with both pragmatic and textual functions, where the speaker’s

reasoning comes forth in statement comprehension process. The speech act level is the

complete functional “twin” of dialogical viewpoint expressed by adversative DMs. 

Ladies know what to fend hands against, because they read novels that
tell them of these tricks. 

(Th. Hardy “Tess of the d’Urbervilles” 2005:148) (content or fact level)
John loved and appreciated her because he came back leaving the

chain of all their grief behind. 
(Th. Hardy “Tess of the d’Urbervilles” 2005:158) (epistemic level)

“Does Jack Dollop work here? -  because I want him! I have a big bone
to pick with him, I can assure you.”

(Th. Hardy “Tess of the d’Urbervilles” 2005:158) (speech act level)

Thus, if we draw parallels between the functional and communicative nature of

adversative and causal DMs, we see that they are rather similar in their realizations, in

the sense that they carry out the textual function of elaboration and argumentation. The

communicative function of adversative DMs is realized by the distinction between

monological and dialogical viewpoints. However, in case of causal DMs the communica-

tive function is mainly expressed on a speech act and epistemic level. Since a content

causal sentence directly reflects a state of affairs in the world, it may be easier to process

than an epistemic causal sentence, which does not directly express real-world causality.

Therefore, the epistemic relation in some way is based on the underlying content relation

(background knowledge) (Blakemore 1998:125).

In this model it becomes clear that some part of background knowledge is essential

for the realization of the epistemic interpretation of the causal clause. Thus, in many

cases the content level or non-content realization of a given discourse marker depends on

its inner semantic background (whether it is more inclined to the fulfillment of commu-

nicative or textual function) as well as clausal environment. 

Any scientific research becomes more and more essential if it brings forth certain

shreds of further investigation. We found it necessary to present in general outlines one

of the important findings of our research - the overlap of causal and adversative DMs.

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

65



The overlap was mainly possible in case we had the embedded core meaning of a given

causal or adversative discourse marker. Due to that relation and clausal environment one

could witness some shades of correlation between the discourse markers within the lim-

its of our investigation. However, one of the crucial points of our findings was the fact

that only a narrow range of discourse markers (adversative and causal) could be resorted

to the overlap.  Hereinafter we will present that set of DMs, that are exposed to this over-

lap (Blakemore 1998:125).

though, even, despite, although, however, still, while, thus

The probabilities were that he would be very fair and liberal. At the
same time Robert was constantly beating her. Still, there was no certainty
that the old gentlemen might do anything or nothing.

(Th. Dreiser “Jennie Gerhardt” 1911:146)

The interpretation of this example seems rather incomprehensible at first sight, and

only the temporal meaning of the adversative marker still helps to unfold its extra seman-
tic realizations in a given discourse. Not to mention the role of context, that becomes cru-

cial for the adequate interpretation of the overlap of the marker still with causal mean-
ing.  Hereinafter, we find it necessary to resort ourselves to the representation of the main

conclusions and findings drawn within the boundaries of this article. 

The revelation of the communicative and functional peculiarities of adversative and

causal DMs was crucial due to their argumentative and elaborative specifications in dis-

course structure. The upbringing process of these peculiarities was due to the unquestion-

able role of context as well as the cohesion and coherence. One could find the commu-

nicative and functional realizations of adversative DMs only with the help of dialogical

and monological viewpoints. The study the textual and pragmatic function of causal DMs

was due to the peculiarities of content, epistemic and speech-act levels.                                           

The communicative function of adversative and causal DMs is more likely to occur

when they are not too dependent on a given context. The presence of a “wide” context,

which in itself has shades of low speech-act, hinders the total fulfillment of the commu-

nicative function, being more inclined to the textual one. These findings were useful for

drawing the final framework of the communicative and functional study of adversative

and causal DMs.

References:   

1. Ariel, M. (1998) Pragmatic Operators. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
2. Blakemore, L. (1998) Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell Inc.
3. Blakemore, L. (2001) Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell Inc.
4. Croucher, S. (2004) A Study of Discourse Marker Frequency in Impromptu Speaking.

Oklahoma: Oklahoma University Press.

5. Dowing, A. (2006) English University Grammar. New York: Oxon Inc.

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

66



6. Fraser, B. (1997) Contrastive Discourse Markers in English. Amsterdam: Benjamin
Inc.

7. Fraser, B. (1999) An Approach to Discourse Markers. New York: Dobson Publishing
House.

8. Fraser, B. (2009) Pragmatic Markers. New York: Dobson Publishing House.
9. Roulet, E. (1984) Speech Acts, Discourse Structure and Pragmatic Connectives. //

International Journal of Pragmatics, 8. New York.

10. Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. 
11. Schiffrin, D. (1995) Discourse Markers, Meaning and Context. Oxford: Maldon

Press.

12. Schwenter, A. (1999) Viewpoints and Polysemy: Linking Adversative and Causal
Meanings of Discourse Markers. Berlin: Berding Press.

Sources of Data:

1. Austen, J. (1997) Emma. London: Random House Group.
2. Dreiser, Th. (1911) Jennie Gerhardt. London: Random House Group.
3. Hardy, Th. (2005) Tess of the d’Urbervilles. New York: Random House Inc.
4. More, Th. (2000) Utopia. London: Random House Group.

¸ÇëÏáõñëÇ Ý»ñÑ³Ï³Ï³Ý ¨ å³ï׳é³Ï³Ý óáõóÇãÝ»ñÇ ·áñͳé³Ï³Ý-
ѳÕáñ¹³Ïó³Ï³Ý áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛáõÝ

лï¨Û³É Ñá¹í³ÍáõÙ ùÝÝíáõÙ »Ý ¹ÇëÏáõñëÇ Ý»ñÑ³Ï³Ï³Ý ¨ å³ï׳ é³Ï³Ý óáõ-
óÇãÝ»ñÇ ·áñͳé³Ï³Ý-ѳÕáñ¹³Ïó³Ï³Ý áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ»ï ϳåí³Í ÑÇÙ-
Ý³Ï³Ý ËݹÇñÝ»ñÁ: ²Ûë »ñÏáõ ïÇåÇ óáõóÇãÝ»ñÁ ɳÛÝ ÏÇñ³éáõÃÛáõÝ áõÝ»Ý ³Ý·É»-
ñ»Ý  ï»ùëï³ÛÇÝ ¨ ѳÕáñ¹³Ïó³Ï³Ý ¹ÇëÏáõñëáõÙ: Ðá¹í³ÍáõÙ Ýñ³Ýó ·áñͳé³-
ϳÝ-ѳÕáñ¹³Ïó³Ï³Ý μÝáõÛÃÝ áõëáõÙݳëÇñí»É ¿` ÑÇÙù áõݻݳÉáí ·»Õ³ñí»ëï³-
Ï³Ý ·ñ³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ù»ç û·ï³·áñÍí³Í ٻݳËáëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ¨ »ñÏËáëáõÃÛáõÝ-
Ý»ñÁ: ì»ñçÇÝÝ»ñë Ñݳñ³íáñáõÃÛáõÝ »Ý ï³ÉÇë ÛáõñáíÇ å³ñ½³ μ³ Ý»Éáõ Ý»ñѳϳ-
Ï³Ý ¨ å³ï׳ é³Ï³Ý óáõóÇãÝ»ñÇ Ï³ñևáñáõÃÛáõÝÁ ¹ÇëÏáõñëÇ Ï³½Ù³Ï»åÙ³Ý
·áñÍáõÙ: »° å³ï׳ é³Ï³Ý, û° Ý»ñÑ³Ï³Ï³Ý óáõóÇãÝ»ñÇÝ μÝáñáß ÙÇ ß³ñù ѳï-
ϳÝÇßÝ»ñ μ³ó³Ñ³ÛïíáõÙ »Ý ѳٳï»ùëïÇ ÁÝÓ»é³Í Ñݳñ³íáñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ
ßÝáñÑÇí: гٳï»ùëïÇó Ù»Í Ï³Ëí³ÍáõÃÛ³Ý ¹»åùáõÙ óáõóÇãÝ»ñÁ ã»Ý Çñ³Ï³-
ݳóÝáõ٠ɳÛÝ Ñ³Õáñ¹³Ïó³Ï³Ý ·áñͳéáõÛÃ, ÇÝãå»ë ûñÇÝ³Ï Ù»Ý³ËáõëáõÃÛáõÝ-
Ý»ñáõÙ, ³ÛÝÇÝã »ñÏËáëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ¹»åùáõ٠ѳÕáñ¹³Ïó³Ï³Ý ·áñͳéáõÛÃÇ ¹»ñÁ
ٻͳÝáõÙ ¿: 

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

67