英语论文网

way in which what is to follow is semanticallyconcerned to what has gone before” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 227). Various termshave been used to label them over the past few decades, such as discourse connectives(Blakemore 1987; 1992; 2002), discourse operators (Redeker 1991), cue phrases(Knott and Dale, 1994), pragmatic particles (Ostman, 1981), pragmatic markers (Fraser,1988, 1990; Schiffrin, 1987), pragmatic operators (Ariel, 1994), pragmatic particles(Ostman, 1995), semantic conjuncts (Quirk et al., 1985) (see Fraser, 1999). ‘Discoursemarkers’ is called in this thesis since this appellation is the most popular and widelyaccepted one in this area.In daily communication, speakers or writers may use some words or phrases suchas that is to say, in other words, for example, i.e. to reinterpret the previouspropositions to make them well understood, which is called reformulation by someresearchers in this field, and the markers used to initiate the process of reformulationare named RMs in this paper. Generally speaking, reformation is based on equivalentinterpretation of the initial proposition; that is, the former proposition is consistentwith that following those markers.

1.2 Significance of the Present Study
Up to now, although DMs in English have been widely explored in both spokenand written materials in western countries, it is still a controversial issue that how tolabel them. Terms vary along with the theoretical approaches used to describe them,which also reflect different frameworks of analysis used by authors. So it cannot beeasily decided which one is the best. On the other hand, because of their wide range offunctions and the difficult task to define them precisely, it is almost impossible to givean exhaustive list of DMs in a certain language. Except some representative DMs, it isstill a controversial thing for scholars that whether some items are DMs or not.Therefore, today much attention is paid on the limited representative ones and othermarkers which are less typical are always ignored. Different researchers define DMsbased on different theoretical perspectives and their lists of DMs are not always thesame to each other. What’s more, there is also dialectal and individual variation aboutDMs in English.

Chapter 2 Literature Review

This chapter consists of two sections. Section one gives a brief introduction toDMs: its classification and previous studies from different theoretical perspectives.Section two provides some information about RMs: studies from theoretical andempirical perspectives.

2.1 DMs
With the development of discourse analysis, pragmatics, cognitive linguistics, andsecond language acquisition, studies on DMs are productive during the past twentyyears, even it can be said to have been put in the limelight. However, still lots of issueshaven’t been solved, and it is still far less to reach a comprehensive system. Theclassification and theoretical studies of DMs will be presented in the following part.

2.1.1 Classification of DMs
The indeterminacy of DMs’ nature, inevitably, results in the blurredclassifications. Many researchers (e.g. Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Quirk et al, 1985;Redeker, 1990; Fraser, 1996, 1999) have proposed a variety of DMs taxonomies basedon DMs’ core meaning as a separate set of lexical items and/or their functions indiscourse coherence. Among them, Fraser’s本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。