A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE ...

a feature of discourse markers which allows them to operate on different planes of
discourse. Multifunctional here does not mean a dichotomy of monofunctional vs.
multifunctional, i.e. whether an individual item has one function (e.g. as a hedge) or
many (e.g. as a hedge, aspectual marker, and discourse sequencer); rather, it indicates that
when the English contrastive marker but is used, for example, the speaker may not only
be textually creating coherence by contrasting upcoming discourse with prior discourse
within the Ideational Structure (“idea units”), but may also be functioning interactively
within the Action Structure to allow the speaker “to make a point in reaction to
interruptions, distractions, challenges and disagreements” (Schiffrin 1987:164). In other
words, a discourse marker is not merely signal some textual or interpersonal function in
relation to some propositional content, but also simultaneously allows a speaker to
express some social, cognitive, interactional, and/or cultural content. Recall that the
English discourse marker but (as we already saw above) did not just do the mechanical
work of contrasting idea units or propositions, but also allowed the speaker (Freda) to
simultaneously establish her turn at talk (Exchange Structure), establish her nonalignment
with the interlocutor’s proposition (Participation Framework), and to provide a rebuttal
(Action Structure). 32 It is this multifunctional feature on different planes of discoure
32
Not accounting for such social, interactional, or cultural aspects of discourse markers may be the reason
why RT accounts of discourse markers have not been totally successful in accounting for the differences
between the coherence relations of the discourse markers nevertheless, although, however, whereas, and
yet. As Blakemore points out, these coherence relations “are not captured in an analysis which links them
to a contrastive or adversative relation” (Blakemore 2004:235). In other words, to say that they mark a
contrastive or adversative relation is not sufficient to explain why one contrastive marker would be used
over another. While I provide no analysis here which would account for the subtle differences between
these contrastive markers (an analysis which would require the examination of actual language data and not
made-up examples), I venture to say that such differences might be accounted for if viewed not just in light
of their mechanical “contrastive” or “adversative” function (which RT theorists appear to do), but also in
light of what social, interactive, and cultural motivations speakers might have in using them.
58