The Prosody of the Czech Discourse Marker ‘Jasně': An Analysis of Forms and Functions

Abstract

Words like yeah, okay and (al)right are fairly unspecific in their lexical semantics, and not least for this reason there is a general tendency for them to occur with highly varied and expressive prosodic patterns across languages. Here we examine in depth the prosodic forms that express eight pragmatic functions of the Czech discourse marker jasně, including resignation, reassurance, surprise, indifference or impatience. Using a collection of 172 tokens from a corpus of scripted dialogues by 30 native speakers, we performed acoustic analyses, applied classification algorithms and solicited judgments from native listeners in a perceptual experiment. There appeared to be multi-parametric differences between jasně realizations in terms of their F0, timing and intensity patterns, which gave rise to generally consistent form-function mappings. For example, resignation seems to be realized with a falling intonation contour, relatively slow tempo, long wordinitial consonant and a short word-final vowel. Although the most significant prosodic parameters used for clustering analysis involved segment durations, all pragmatic functions were expressed by patterns of multiple features.

Investigating the Interaction Between Prosody and Pragmatics Quantitatively: A Case Study of the Chinese Discourse Marker ni zhidao (“You Know”)

“…“Different positions are responsible for subtle changes in meaning or function.” ( Hansen, 1997 : 156) Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the prosodic cues of ni zhidao can reliably be used to classify its pragmatic functions. As has been proved in previous studies, systematic prosodic variation is functionally extrinsically motivated ( Volín et al, 2016 ). Prosodic patterns are basically composed of different functional layers ( Xu, 2004 ).…”

“…Research on discourse markers generally presents five representative perspectives: (1) Coherence model (e.g., Schiffrin, 1987 , 1994 , 2003 ; Chen, 2002 ; He and Mo, 2002 ) explores the role of discourse markers in displaying the semantic coherence between discourse segments and the discourse coherence mode; (2) Relevance model (e.g., Blakemore, 1987 , 2002 , 2011 ; Ran, 2002 ; Shan, 2014a ; Li et al, 2018 ) focuses on relevant inference, studying how speakers use discourse markers to guide or restrict listeners to find relevance between discourse segments; (3) Syntactic-pragmatic model (e.g., Fraser, 1987 , 1999 , 2009 , 2015 ; Akar and Öztürk, 2020 ) examines the syntactic features and pragmatic functions of discourse markers, arguing that the function of discourse markers is to guide the listener to correctly interpret the logical relationship between the preceding and following discourse segments; (4) Grammaticalization/pragmaticalization model (e.g., Fang, 2005 ; Wu, 2005 ; Maschler, 2009 ; Dong, 2010 ; Li, 2014 ; Fedriani and Sanso, 2017 ; Tanno, 2018 ; Rhee, 2020 ) probes into the evolution of discourse markers and the contributing factors behind this; (5) Prosody-pragmatics model (e.g., Hirschberg, 2002 ; Matzen, 2004 ; Braga and Marques, 2004 ; Wichmann et al, 2010 ; Beňuš, 2012 ; Abuczki, 2014 ; Cabarrão et al, 2015 ; Gonen et al, 2015 ; Volín et al, 2016 ) draws on prosody as an objective factor to identify and characterize discourse markers or as an immediate and readily accessible feature to reveal the functions of discourse markers and how people comprehend them. Some of these studies have shifted from the traditional syntactic-semantic perspective to the pragmatic-cognitive or even prosodic dimension.…”

“…Although claiming that the prosody of discourse markers performs some pragmatic functions, studies in this respect (e.g., Schegloff, 1982 ; Ward and Tsukahara, 2000 ; Ward, 2006 ; Gravano and Hirschberg, 2009 ; Buschmeier et al, 2011 ; Nadeu and Prieto, 2011 ; Nebot, 2021 ) fail to substantiate this prosody-pragmatics interaction with quantitative, acoustic-prosodic evidence. Realizing this neglect and failure, some linguists (e.g., Matzen, 2004 ; Braga and Marques, 2004 ; Wichmann et al, 2010 ; Volín et al, 2016 ; Didirková et al, 2018 ) have investigated what an analysis of prosody can reveal about the pragmatics of discourse markers. However, they neither investigated the prosody-pragmatics interaction of discourse markers statistically nor modeled this interaction and then used the model to predict pragmatic functions.…”

“…The crucial functional load of discourse markers is carried by their varying prosodic patterns ( Gravano et al, 2007 ; Lai, 2009 ). Prosodic parameters interact intricately to convey various communicative functions, and multi-parametric variations in F 0 , timing, and intensity result in basically consistent form-function mappings ( Volín et al, 2016 ). The prosodic elements are integrated to produce tailored discourse markers serving specifically intended communicative functions ( Ward, 2006 ).…”

The Prosody of Discourse Markers alors and et in French. A Speech Production Study

“…Similar results can be found in [7], who report that only 34% of the discourse markers studied form a separate intonation unit, and that this is never the case for sentential tokens. A different result can be found in [10], who show that the Czech DM jasně (of course) has a stable prosodic realisation regardless of its different discursive functions.…”