An analysis of the discoursal uses and functions of ‘AND’ as a discourse marker in Hafiz and Goethe poetry: educational

Document Type : research article

Authors

1 Department of English language and literature, Faculty of literature and forging languages,

2 Assistant Professort of German, Arak University

Abstract

As a cumulative and elaborative discourse marker, and is the most frequent, crucial, creative, effective, and complex discourse monitoring element. This explorative investigation enjoys two scientific and research informing resources: analysis of key authors studies and interpretation of creative corpuses in Persian and German poetry. Applying Schiffrin’s (2006) model of discourse planes of talk to discover its patterns of use and functions, this article analyzed ‘and’ in Hafiz and Goethe poems. The results revealed that this marker had uses both in primary and secondary planes of discourse. The primary planes consisted of functions in ideational structure and plane of discourse establishing temporal, cause and effect, and topic relations. And the secondary planes included functions in the action and information structure of discourse dealing with command, narration, purpose, inference, justification, emphasis, balance, expansion, contradiction, and expectations. Unfortunately, these discoursal strategies and functions are not analyzed in grammar books and dictionaries. Moreover, as the results showed because of its pragmatic and indexical properties, this marker combined ideational, action, and information planes of discourse. The combination of and with other markers was another discoursal outcome of this study. Due to the exploration of new, different, and unique functions for this marker, some pedagogical and research implications in teaching languages, classroom strategies and its management, material development, and lexicography are discussed.

Keywords

References

Adeyemi, B. (2018). Discourse markers in writing and answering essay type questions. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Research, 17(7), 106-119.
Alsharifi, M. (2017). The frequently used discourse markers by Saudi EFL learners. Arab World                  English Journal, 4(2) 384-397.
Aijmir, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus, Amsterdam: Johan Benjamins
Aysu, S. (2017). The use of discourse marekers in the writing of Turkish students. Journal of Higher Education and Sciences, 7(1), 132-138.
Azadi, G. and E. Chalak. (2017). The frequency of Macro/Micro discourse markers in Iranian EFL learners' composition. International Journal of English and Education, 6(1), 20-40.
Boojari, S. (1398). A Comparative Study of the Frequency and Polyfunctionality of Discourse Markers       used in A Simple Favor by the American Author Darcey Bell and Betrayal by the British    Author  Martina Cole: with Pedagogical Implications, Unpublished MA Thesis, Arak             University, Arak, Iran.
Fisher, K. (2006). Approaches to Discourse Particles, Amstersam: Elsevier.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31 (7), 931-952.
Fraser, B. (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer, Approaches to Discourse   Particles (pp. 240-256). Oxford: Elsevier.
Fraser, B. (2009). An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics, 14(2), 1-28.
Furko, P. (2014). Perspectives on the Translation of Discourse Markers. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae,        Philologica,, 6(2), 181–196.
Gandomkar, L. (2018). A Comparative Study of the Frequencies and Functions of Discourse Markers in Research Genre, Unpublished MA Thesis, Arak University,  Arak, Iran.
Goethe, J. W (1981). Goethes Gedichte: Hrsg. und kommentiert von Erich Trunz, München 1981, S. 294-   303 und 245.
Grami, B. and H. Assar. (2017). Connective Va, Iran Namag, 1(4), 210-215.
Hajimia, H. (2018). A corpus based analysis of discourse markers in Malaysian online news paper articles. Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(1), 19-24.
Horn, A. & Hansson, P. (1999). Discourse markers and the segmentation of discourse. Lund University Working Papers, 47(5), 123-139.
Manan, A. & Raslee, A.  (20188). Explicit discourse marker instruction to improve coherence and cohesion. International Journal of Academic Research, 10(6), 60-81.
Mosgaard-Hansen, M. (2008). Particles at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and          Diachroni Issues, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Nejadansari, D. &. Mohammadi, A. M. (2014). The frequencies and functions of discourse markers in        the Iranian University EFL classroom discourse. International Journal of Research Studies in           Language Learning, 4(2), 1-18.
Redeker, G. (2006). Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse transitions. In K. Fischer,      Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 339-357). Amstersam: Elsevier.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (2001). ‘Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Context. In D. D. Schiffrin (Ed.), The     Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 54–75). Oxford: Blackwell.
Schiffrin, D. Tanen, N., Hamilton, T. (Ed.), (2001). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Oxford :            Blackwell.
Schiffrin, D. (2006). Discourse marker research and theory: revisiting and. In K. Fischer, Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 315-339). Amstersam: Elsevier. 
Scholman, M.  & Demberg, V. (2017).Examples and specifications that prove a point, Dialogue and Discourse, 8(2), 56-83.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A. & K. Aijmir. (2004). A model and amethodology for the study of pragmatic         markers: the semantic field of expectation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1781–1805.
Tavakoli, M. and H. Karimnia. (2017). Dominant and gender specifi tendencies in the use of dixcourse markers. World Journal of English Language, 7(2), 20-37.
Trillo, R. J. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of        English.  Journal of Pragmatics, 4(34), 769–784
Yang, S. (2012). Discourse markers: An area of confusion. PhilologicaUrcitana.Revista Semestral de           Iniciación a la Investigaciónen Filología, 7, 37-44.
Yule, J. (2011). The study of language, London: OUP.
Ziaghadam, F. and S. Simin. (2018). Speech-like pragmatic markers in essays by Iranian students and native English speakers. International Journal of Foriegn Language and Research, 6(21), 133-146.
 
حافظ، محمد. (1372) دیوان حافظ، تهران: اقبال
حسینی، سید حسن. (1379). مشت در نمای درشت. تهران: سروش
خطیب­رهبر، خلیل.( 1379). حروف اضافه و ربط، تهران: مهتاب
شریف­زاده، منصوره. (1382). جلوه­های عرفان در گوته و افظ از دید تطبیقی، فصلنامه پیمان، 26، صص:20-26
شفیعی کدکنی، محمدرضا. (1385). موسیقی شعر، تهران: آگاه
صیاد کوه، اکبر و رئیسی، آسیه. (1396) کارکردهای گسترده واو در گلستان سعدی. فصلنامه هنر زبان, 2(1), 5-32.
عمران­پور، محمدرضا,. (1384) ساخت های همپایه و نقش زیبایی شناختی آن در کلیله و دمنه. پژوهش زبان و ادبیات فارسی, 5(1), 121-146.
فقیه ملک مرزبان، نسرین,. (1387). شور عطف. فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی علوم انسانی دانشگاه الزهرا, 145-168.
محمدی، علی محمد. (1394). درآمدی بر مدیریت گفتمان، پژوهش­های زبان­شناختی در آموزش زبان، (1) 4، 34-52.
Journal of Foreign Language Research
Volume 10, Issue 2
July 2020
Pages 406-421

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics