| This study aims at exploring the main pragmatic functions of pragmaticmarkers which occur in the first sentence of each turn in move sequence in Englishmulti-party conflict talk and comparing the pragmatic functions of the pragmaticmarkers in three different settings. The study adopts a corpus-based discourse-analyticapproach which is combined with quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis. Thespecialized corpus of English multi-party conflict talk was compiled out of the spokenpart of the British National Corpus. A specifically written computer program wasemployed for corpus processing and data collection. The power of Antconc isdemonstrated in retrieving all the instances of pragmatic markers and calculating theirfrequencies by means of concordancing. In detail, three research questions areanswered:(1) which are the top three high-frequent pragmatic markers which occur inthe first sentence of each turn in move sequence in multi-party conflict talk?(2) Whatfunctions do the three pragmatic markers perform respectively in different moves inmulti-party conflict talk?(3) What functions do the three pragmatic markers performrespectively in different settings in multi-party conflict talk?The research results show that the top three frequently used pragmatic markersare successively and, but, and well. From the perspective of conflict talk settings,pragmatic markers used in the setting of TV discussion occurred more frequently thanthose used in the settings of both public meeting and public enquiry for the reason thatpragmatic markers occurred more frequently in everyday utterance than in formaldiscourse. From the perspective of conflict talk sequence moves, the frequency ofpragmatic markers used in move3was the highest for the reason that argumentbetween the opposite parties grew more intensive with the development of the conflicttalk. In the move sequence of multi-party conflict talk, the pragmatic marker butalmost occurred in move2, move3, and the follow-up moves, and performed mainlythree functions: objection, turn-taking, and denial of expectation. Pragmatic markerwell functioned as an objection mitigator, a response marker, or a focusing marker.Well functioning as a focusing marker occurred mostly when speakers presented theirstandpoint in move1. The most special and essential function of well in multi-partyconflict talk was mitigating objection. Pragmatic marker and marked continuation,objection, as well as turn-taking. Combined with previous studies, this study discoversthat only in conflict talk could and mark the function of objection, which is similar tobut. The present study may contribute to the learning and teaching of spokenEnglish and the study of pragmatic markers. What’s more, it is beneficial forimproving English learners’ debate ability in English, and the study may help themuse pragmatic markers in conflict talk more native-like and argue more effectively. |
PDF Full Text Request