A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE ...

To further compound an already complex situation, there is also some disagreement
in the literature on which particular linguistic expressions qualify as discourse markers,
and which do not. For example, while Schiffrin (1987, 2001:66) characterizes
expressions such as y’know as a discourse marker, Fraser (1990:392) does not. While
Schourup (1985) includes interjections such as aha as a discourse marker, Fraser
(1990:391), does not. These disagreements stem, no doubt, from the fact that the study of
discourse markers is relatively new. There were only scattered studies on these elements
in the 1980s, when serious study of discourse markers in English began (Fraser
1990:384). Since then, a vast amount of literature, including cross-linguistic studies, has
appeared leading Fraser to conclude that “the study of discourse markers has turned into a
growth industry in linguistics, with dozens of articles, both theoretical and descriptive,
appearing yearly” (Fraser 1998:301). While earlier scholarly works have produced
various definitions for discourse markers (see Goldberg 1980, Schourup 1985, Blakemore
1987, Schiffrin 1987, Fraser 1990, Redeker 1990:372, et al.), the vast majority of
literature on discourse markers to date relies heavily on the characterization made by
Schiffrin for English discourse markers (Schiffrin 1987), and most papers on the topic of
discourse markers appear to cite her initial characterization. Because her framework
provides, in my opinion, the most comprehensively descriptive view of the behavior of
discourse markers, I will both utilize and expand her initial characterization to include
findings from languages other than English, including Ojibwe. Even at the time of her
initial characterization, Schiffrin admitted that she did not have the benefit of cross-
linguistic data to inform her definition for discourse markers. In the following sections, I
hope to tighten up this definition based upon such cross-linguistic evidence.
17