The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Journal Archive

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 20

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.1-19
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Received 13 Jan 2020 Revised 01 Mar 2020 Accepted 15 Mar 2020

Signaling an Additory Marker: Implications of the Discourse Marker by the way for Discourse Analysis
Jungyull Lee
Chodang University

Copyright 2020 KASELL
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


The purpose of this article is to study the concept that the discourse marker (DM) by the way presents disparate pragmatic functions, which for interlocutors were discovered in the functions of additory, digressive, resumptive, and self-corrective markers. With reference to the matter of disproportion in the use of the DM by the way, the additory marker of by the way was preponderantly found in both monologic and interactive speech, in contrast to the other markers. From a pragmatic-analytic aspect, by the way signals expectation to carry on speakersʼ utterances, hold, or take the floor for longer in order to provide listeners with more information or in-depth details. Throughout the analysis, it is surmised that independent use of by the way never occurs in spoken discourse since the DM by the way does not seem to mark closure or abandonment of an ongoing theme in terms of obstructing or evading conditions. The findings show that there can be an intimate connection between the additory marker and independent use of the DM by the way.

Keywords: additory marker, by the way, discourse marker (DM), pragmatic function, independent use

1. Aijmer, K. 2016. Pragmatic markers as constructions. The case of anyway. In G. Kaltenböck, E. Keizer and A. Lohmann, eds., Outside the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents, 29-58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2. Ariel, M. 1994. Pragmatic operators. In R. Asher and J. Simpson, eds., The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 3250-3253. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
3. Bazanella, C. 1990. Phatic connectives as intonational cues in contemporary spoken Italian. Journal of Pragmatics 14(4), 629-647.
4. Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
5. Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
6. Erman, B. 1987. Pragmatic Expressions in English: A Study of ‘You Know’, ‘You See’, and ‘I Mean’ in Face-to-Face Conversation. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.
7. Fraser, B. 1987. Pragmatic formatives. In J. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-papi, eds., The Pragmatic Perspective, 179-194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8. Fraser, B. 1988. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38(4), 19-33.
9. Fraser, B. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14(3), 383-395.
10. Fraser, B. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2), 167-190.
11. Fraser, B. 1998. Contrastive discourse markers in English. In A. Jucker and Y. Ziv, eds., Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, 301-326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12. Fraser, B. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31(7), 931-952.
13. Fraser, B. 2013. Combinations of contrastive discourse markers in English. International Review of Pragmatics 5(2), 318-340.
14. Fraser, B. and M. Malamud-Mokowski. 1996. English and Spanish contrastive discourse markers. Language Sciences 18(3-4), 863-881.
15. Halliday, M. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
16. Lee, J. Y. 2019. Anyway as an unassociative stance marker in the American television talk show, Larry King Live. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 27(4), 67-77.
17. Östman, J. O. 1995. Pragmatic particles twenty years after. In B. Wårvik, S. K. Tanskanen and R. Hiltunen, eds., Organization in Discourse: Proceedings from the Turku Conference, 95-108. Finland: University of Turku.
18. Park, I. H. 2010. Marking an impasse: The use of anyway as a sequence-closing device. Journal of Pragmatics 42(12), 3283-3299.
19. Polanyi, L. and R. Scha. 1983. The syntax of discourse. Text 3(3), 261-270.
20. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
21. Redeker, G. 1990. Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 14(3), 367-381.
22. Redeker, G. 1991. Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics 29(6), 1139-1172.
23. Schegloff, E. A., G. Jefferson and H. Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2), 361-382.
24. Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Schorup. 1985. Common Discourse Particle in English Conversation: Like, Well, Y’know. New York: Garland.
26. Simpson, R., S. Briggs. J. Ovens and J. M. Swales. 2002. The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
27. Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
28. van Dijk, T. A. 1979. Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 3(5), 447-456.
29. Warner, R. 1985. Discourse Connectives in English. New York: Garland.
30. Zwicky, A. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61(2), 283-305.

Lee, Jungyull, ProfessorChodang UniversityDepartment of Culture Teaching, Chodang University380, Muan-ro, Muan-eup, Muan-gun, Jeollanam-do, 58530, Republic of KoreaTel: 061) 450-1227E-mail: