Discourse Markers in Informal Hijazi Saudi Conversations Linguistic Analysis Paper

User Generated

Znepb10

Writing

Description

I want you to write a proposal about a linguistic analysis of the syntactic and semantic properties of discourse markers in informal Hijazi-Saudi conversations.

I will upload two files:

1- The professor's instructions of the proposal.

2- A dissertation of the same topic.


* Follow the professor's instructions.

I want to write about the same idea of the uploaded dissertation but I don't want any plagiarism from it at all.

* please, add any further and new information about the topic from new publications.


* Use the Harvard style in referencing

* Give me a plagiarism report.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Research proposal (in an essay style). The research proposal should comprise the following sections: 1. a provisional title for your study, followed by your student number; 2. a brief review of the literature relevant to your study. The review should be focussed and contain enough background information to provide a context for your study in light of key previous studies that have been done on the topic; 3. a statement of the purpose of your study. This is often accompanied by a research question (or questions) or a hypothesis (or set of hypotheses) that must follow logically from and clearly refer back to the literature review. This section usually requires no more than a couple of paragraphs and usually occurs immediately before the Methods section; 4. a description of the methods you intend to employ, including (where applicable) a description of the participants (particularly whether children or NHS patients, personnel or data will be involved), the data collection procedures you will employ (e.g., standardized tests, questionnaires, experimental tasks), an estimate of the time required of each participant, and a description of how you will ensure reliable measurement (e.g., inter-, intra-observer agreement). In addition, where applicable explicitly state your independent and dependent variables (or, in the case of correlation and regression, the predictor and outcome variables) and any subject selection criteria, including exclusionary criteria. You should also describe the experimental design and statistical procedures (if any) you intend to use (e.g., paired t-tests, 2x2 ANOVA, multiple regression); 5. a detailed description on how you intend to find your participants, where applicable. For example, how many participants do you intend to use in your study? How will you approach them? When will you require them to be available? Are they likely to be available during this time? The following are not included in the word count but should be included: 6. 7. 8. a list of references cited in your proposal. a draft application for ethics approval as an appendix. N.b the complete application requires discussion with the supervisor and supervisors have not yet been assigned. Therefore this document should concern what is likely to go in the application. a timeline for supervision. In addition, please flag up any resources you will need to complete your study (e.g., test forms, videotapes, travel, etc.) ABSTRACT The aim of this project is to describe and account for the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic characteristics of discourse markers in Saudi Arabic. Using data obtained from naturally-occurring, unstructured and informal conversations, this project describes the frequencies, the syntactic positions and the semantic and pragmatic functions of seven discourse markers in Saudi Arabic as used by four participants in two recorded conversations. These markers are: 'by God', eeh 'yeah', bass •but’, Yaani •it means/ I mean', tayyeb •0k/ well/ so', alheen 'now' and shesmah 'what is he/it called?'. Analysis of the data reveals that the identified discourse markers occurred with some frequency, averaging one marker per 13.23 words. The results also show that wallah, eeh and tayyeb appeared primarily in utterance-initial positions. Bass, alheen and yaani were largely used utterance-medially. Shesmah was employed almost exclusively in utterance-final positions. Finally, a detailed investigation of the semantic and pragmatic properties of these markers indicate that they are used to perform a vast array of communicative functions in addition to the propositional, non-discourse-marker meanings they have. 1- CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Numerous studies in linguistics have indicated that, cross-linguistically, there are certain lexical items that appear to be grammatically independent and empty of meaning. These lexical items have become known in the literature as discourse markers (Shourup, 1985; SchiiTrin, 1987; Fraser, 1988; Fraser, 1990, Fraser, 1999). These lexical items, as it turns out, are not completely devoid of meaning. They have been found to fulfill a vast array of semantic and pragmatic functions which contribute to the coherence and the relevance of the sentence, paragraph or discourse in which they occur (Andersen, Brizuela, DuPuy & Gonnerman, 1999; Schiffrin, 1987; Han, Dong & Xue, 2010; Louwerse, 2003; Lenk 1995; Lenk 1998; Hoyle 1994; Muller, 2005). Some of the uses of discourse markers include, but are not limited to, the following: to initiate discourse, to make a boundary in response, to serve as a filler, to serve as a delaying tactic, to foreground or background information, to change topics, to hedge or backchannel and many others (Brinton, 1990; Muller, 2005; I-enk, 1998; Schiffrin, 1987; Ferrara, 1997) . Despite the existence of extensive literature on discourse markers, especially in Western languages, they continue to defy precise characterization (Groen, Noyes & Verstraten, 2010). Several syntactic and semantic properties have been proposed to explain the characteristics and functions of discourse markers cross-linguistically, yet research in non-Western languages continues to prove that these properties are not without exceptions (Maschler, 2002; Maschler, 2009; Stede & Schmitz, 2000). Some discourse markers in different languages of the world tend to serve some semantic and pragmatic functions that can be considered language-specific (Maschler, 2002, 2009). This study aims at examining and describing the use of discourse marker in Saudi Arabia. The goal behind this examination is to arrive at a satisfactory explanation of semantic and pragmatic functions of the discourse markers in question. Due to the descriptive nature of this project. the focus will be on a limited set of discourse markers. These markers include "wallah" (by God), ':eeh" (yes, yeah),”bass” (but), "alheen" (now), ".shesmah" (what is it / 'he called?), "yaani" (I mean•' it means), and "tayyeb" (well, 'OK). Two of the questions that this study tries to address are: I) What are the syntactic properties of these discourse markers. 2) What types of semantic and pragmatic functions do these discourse makers serve? To answer these questions, I hypothesize that the discourse markers eeh (yes/yeah). Wallah (hy God), and tayyeb (well,OK) Will appear frequently in utterance-initial positions. “Bass” (but), yaani (it means/ I mean): and alheen (now), on the other hand, will appear quite frequently in utterance- medial positions. Shesmah (what is it\he called?) will be found almost exclusively in utterance- final positions (more on what is meant by utterance is discussed in the following paragraph). I also hypothesize that these markers will serve a variety of semantic and pragmatic functions in discourse, most of which are already attested in the literature. These questions and hypotheses will be elaborated on in the objectives section Due to the extreme difficulty and inherent impracticality of determining the syntactic positions of lexical items in spoken discourse using such terms as '-clause" "phrase" and "sentence", terms that pertain mainly to written discourse, I adopt the concept of 'utterance' as a way to segment the conversational exchanges in the recorded conversations. The following excerpt from Harris (1951) illustrates the definition of an utterance and how it is different from similar terms such as a sentence (p.14): " An utterance is any stretch of talk, by one person, before and after which there is silence on the part of the person. The utterance is, in general, not identical with the 'sentence' (as that word is commonly used), since a great many utterances, in English for example, consist of single words phrases, 'incomplete sentences’, etc. many utterances are composed of parts which are linguistically equivalent to whole utterances occurring elsewhere. For example, we may have Sorry. Can't do it. I'm busy reading Kafka, as an utterance, and sorry. I'm busy reading Kafka Or Sorry. Or can't do it. as an independent utterance". The primary goal of this project is to identify the discourse markers mentioned above in natural conversational data in Saudi Arabic. To this effect, naturally occurring conversations involving 4 native speakers Of Saudi Arabic Will be tape-recorded and transcribed. Each conversation will involve only two speakers. Analysis of the data will aim at examining the identified discourse markers in various contexts. The quantitative analysis of the data will measure the frequency and distribution of these discourse markers in question in the recorded conversations. This quantitative analysis of the data should reveal some of the general syntactic, semantic and pragmatic functions or these discourse markers. Due to the expected high frequency of these markers and the impracticality of examining each context in which one or more discourse markers are used, only a number of selected examples of these markers Will be analyzed qualitatively in an attempt to identify the environments in which the chosen discourse particles occur and to determine the precise functions of these discourse markers in some contexts within the recorded data. The importance of this project derives from the fact that discourse markers in nonWestern languages in general, and Arabic in particular, are understudied (A1Kohlani, 2010). This project will contribute to our limited knowledge of discourse markers in Arabic. No research has been done on discourse markers in Saudi Arabic and this study has the potential to offer us insights into the nature of discourse markers in Saudi Arabic and some of the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic functions they fulfill in discourse. More on the importance of this study is discussed in the Significance of the Research section. 2- Chapter Two: Objectives & Hypotheses: 2. 1- Objectives: The main goal of this study is to add some substantial knowledge to the study of discourse markers by exploring and accounting for the uses and functions of the aforementioned markers in a relatively understudied language variety: Saudi Arabic. Due to the limitations of this project, I will only examine a limited set of discourse markers. To narrow down the scope of this study, expressions such as eeh (yes/yeah), wallah (by God), bass (but), yaani (l mean/ it means), alheen (now), shesmah (what is it/he called?) and 'ayyeb (well/ 0K) have been selected to be the primary focus of this project. These seven markers belong to different grammatical categories and serve various standard semantic meanings in addition to their uses as discourse particles. This study expands on the discussion of the syntax and semantics of discourse markers by looking the exact syntactic and semantic characteristics or the aforementioned markers in Saudi Arabic. To achieve these goals, this study tries to provide some satisfactory and well-informed answers to the following questions: 1-What is the exact frequency of occurrence of the identified seven discourse markers in the recorded conversations? 2-What are the syntactic positions of these discourse marker* in the utterances in which they occur? 3-What are the semantic/ pragmatic functions that can be assigned to these discourse markers based on the analysis of the contexts in which they appear? 4-Are these functions in line with the findings of previous research or do these functions reveal some language-specific uses? To answer these and other questions about the exact attributes of discourse markers in Saudi Arabic, a number of hypotheses have been proposed. These hypotheses are listed below: 2.2- Hypotheses: I hypothesize that: 1 - The selected discourse markers Will occur quite frequently in the recorded data. In other words, I expect an average of one discourse marker, of the seven discourses markers identified in the introduction, per 10 words. 2-Eeh (yes/yeah), Wallah (by God), and rayyeb (well, oK) Will appear more frequently in utterance-initial positions. Bass (but), yaani (I mean/ it means), and alheen (now) Will be used more frequently utterance-medially. Shesmah (What is it, he called?) Will appear almost exclusively in utterance-final positions. 3-the seven discourse markers identified in this study will serve a variety of semantic and pragmatic functions, most of which are already attested in the literature. 3-Chapter Three: Background Information: Arabic is considered the mother tongue of Over 300 million people in Over 23 different countries in the Middle East (see figure l). Native speakers of Arabic realize the distinction between at least three different types of Arabic: Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), and the regional and the colloquial varieties spoken across the Arab World. Both Classical Arabic and MSA are considered types of allugah alfusha, which roughly means "literary Arabic" whereas the different spoken varieties of Arabic are termed allugah alammyiah colloquial Arabic" (Dakwar, 2005). Classical Arabic or Quranic Arabic is the language of the Quran (the holy book of Muslims) and it is used to refer to the variety of Arabic spoken in the 7th through the 9th centuries (Hussain,2009). Although no longer used in everyday speech, Classical Arabic is partially preserved due to the fact that it is the type of language used in Friday sermons and in prayers, since the Quran as well as the sayings Of Prophet Mohammed were written in Classical Arabic. Throughout the centuries, many changes have happened to Classical Arabic, changes that ultimately led to the rise of what is known now as Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) (Hussain,2009). MSA is nowadays recognized as the standard variety of Arabic throughout the Arabic-speaking world. Acquired mainly through formal education in schools and universities, MSA is the variety of Arabic used in the media and formal education. It is also the variety of Arabic in which books, articles, magazines and newspapers are written and in which formal discourse is carried out (Holes, 1995). Altoma (1969) labels MSA as "a mainly written, literary and formal language that displays a high degree of uniformity, and functions as the official standard language in all Arab countries" (from Dakwar,2005 p.75). Spoken Arabic varieties are the varieties used for everyday communication. As mentioned above, the different varieties of Spoken Arabic are all described as examples of allugah alammyiah "colloquial Arabic". These Spoken Arabic varieties differ from one country to another and even from one region to another within the same country (Holes, 1995). These differences manifest themselves in terms of the phonology, morphology, syntax and, most importantly, vocabulary of these dialects (Watson, 2002). In some cases, these differences are so huge that they render a certain variety of Arabic unintelligible to the speakers or another. Saudi Arabic will be the main focus of my investigation in this project. Saudi Arabic is used to refer to the different dialects spoken in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is not surprising to know that a tremendous amount of linguistic diversity exists within the thirteen provinces of which the kingdom is comprised (see figure 2). While these different dialects do exhibit certain differences in terms of phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics, they share enough similarities that distinguish them from other Spoken dialects of Arabic such as Kuwaiti Arabic, Iraqi Arabic, and Egyptian Arabic, just to mention a few. In other words. these dialects constitute What is known as spoken Saudi Arabic. For purposes of this project, the data will be obtained via recording natural conversations involving native speakers of Najdi Arabic. Najdi Arabic is the main spoken dialect used for daily conversations in Riyadh, which is the capital of Saudi Arabia. In fact, it can be claimed that Najdi Arabic is spoken all across the whole Province of Riyadh. not just the city of Riyadh (see figure 3). Several reasons led me to choose this dialect. 'The Najdi dialect, like the different dialects of Saudi Arabic, continues to be understudied (A1-Sweel, 1987). The high prestige associated with speaking the Najdi dialect was another reason for me as the author to focus on this particular variety of Saudi Arabic. This is not surprising since Najdi Arabic is the variety spoken by the Royal Family. It is also the spoken dialect used in some of the most famous Saudi TV shows such as Tash Ma Tash. In addition to all of the aforementioned reasons, I realized that having strong intuitions about the dialect in question as well as being quite familiar with the participants and their speech styles will lead to a more accurate analysis and interpretation of the data gathered. I consider myself a native speaker Of Najdi Arabic since I was born and raised in Riyadh. 4- Chapter Four: Significance of the Research: The study of the use of discourse markers in Saudi Arabic is important to the relevant research community for a number of reasons. The study of discourse markers, as many linguists have pointed out, is a relatively new enterprise (Urgelles-Coll, 2011). While these discourse particles began to come to the attention of linguists over three decades ago, the bulk of research on the use of discourse markers started in the late 1980s, particularly after the publication of Schiffrin's Discourse Markers (1987). It is hoped that the results of this study Will add some knowledge to the existing literature about the use of discourse markers in Arabic which can be described as severely lacking at best compared to English. As is mentioned before, discourse markers are understudied in the Arabic linguistic literature. Research on the communicative functions of discourse markers is lacking in Arabic in general, and is non-existent in several dialects of Arabic, very few studies have investigated the roles these discourse connectives play in spoken and written discourse in Arabic. In her 2010 dissertation, Alkohlani claims that only three studies in Arabic have examined the role these lexical items play in Arabic discourse (2010. p.8). In the case of Saudi Arabic, which is the focus of this study, research on discourse markers seems to be non-existent. To the best Of my knowledge, no research has been done on the usage and functions of discourse markers in any dialect of Saudi Arabic. Therefore, this study will be carried out to fill in the existing gap by looking at the syntactic and semantic characteristics of these markers in naturally-occurring conversations in Saudi Arabic. The results, I hope, will add to our understanding of the properties and functions of discourse markers from a non-Western linguistic perspective. Moreover, this project attempts to add some genuine knowledge to the existing literature about the communicative uses and functions of discourse markers from a cross-linguistic perspective by studying these particles in a non-Western language. While human languages seem to agree on the use of discourse markers. they differ in terms of what discourse markers are used, what their usage frequency is and how they are distributed (Verdonik et al 2007; Stede & Schmitz, 2000). This can be attributed to the fact that these markers serve different communicative functions in different human languages (Stede & Schmitz, 2000). This study Will reveal some of these functions in Spoken Saudi Arabic. The results of this study should also benefit linguists dealing with Arabic discourse analysis. In addition to what has been mentioned, the results of this study should be helpful for learners of Arabic as a second language. As is the case with many other lexical items, the use of discourse markers falls below the level of consciousness for native speakers. The misuse or these particles normally leads to discourse deemed unnatural and non-native-like by native speakers (Alkohlani, 2010). By examining the exact properties of these items, teachers and learners Of Arabic as a foreign language should be able to comprehend some of the native-like uses of these markers in spoken Saudi Arabic. This knowledge will lead them to become more proficient in the language and to be able produce more coherent, natural, and native-like discourse. Translators and interpreters are also among those who could benefit from the findings of this study. Having good command of two Or more languages is an indispensable skill for successful translators and interpreters. An essential part of good translation is the ability to convey the accurate meaning of the translated discourse from one language to another Without sacrificing the naturalness of the translated discourse (Alkohlani, 2010). This is not easy, especially when the translator or interpreter is not a native speaker of one or both of the languages he is dealing with. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to add some genuine contribution to the study of discourse markers in Saudi Arabic by analyzing and explaining how a number of these markers are used in natural conversations in Saudi Arabic. Unlike other lexical items, discourse markers in any given language usually lack precise and literal counterparts in other languages (Stede, & Schmitz, 2000). This can be attributed to the fact that these markers are usually multifunctional and serve different pragmatic meanings in different contexts, in addition to their standard semantic meanings. It is through the understanding of the exact functions of discourse markers that translators and interpreters will be able to choose the right equivalent in the target language since one-to-one correspondence does not always exist among discourse markers employed in different languages, even those languages which are related genetically such as German and English (Stede &Schmitz, 2000). As Stede & Schmitz put it, • 'a lexeme-based translation, even if possible, is quite likely to do harm to the stylistic color of the utterance" (2000, p. 130). The findings of this study should be of help to interpreters and translators working With Arabic in general, and Saudi Arabic in particular. Finally, another thing that distinguishes this study from similar studies is the method of data collection. Several studies have explored the use of discourse markers in written texts (Alkohlani, 2010; Bestgen, 2000; Fleischman, 2004). Even though numerous studies on discourse markers were conducted on spoken language, a good number of them were not collected by recording natural conversations. Many studies have examined the use of discourse markers by looking at spoken corpus data (Lenk, 1998; Ferrara, 1997). In the case of Arabic, the few studies that exist have mainly looked at the use of discourse markers in written texts (A1-Batal, 1990; Alkohlani, 2010). For purposes of this study, the data was obtained from naturally-occurring conversations. This method of data collection gave participants the freedom to ask and answer questions, offer comments and follow ups, narrate stories, overlap, interrupt and so on. This, in turn, led the participants to utilize several discourse markers which normally abound in these different modes of conversational exchanges. More about the advantages of the data collection method employed in this project is offered in the Methodology section. 5- Chapter Five: Literature Review: Discourse markers are cross-linguistic expressions that are utilized in everyday speech and writing. As is the case with many other expressions, the use of discourse markers is subconscious, i.e. they are considered below the level of consciousness for native speakers of any given language (Jucker & Zev, 1998). Due to the semantic and pragmatic functions they serve in discourse, the use of discourse markers continues to attract the attention of linguists (Schifrin, 1987; Ferrara, 1997; Lcnk, 1998 and many Others). Discourse markers seem to be the most common term used to refer to the expressions that are the focus of this project. A great variety of terms have been suggested to refer to the same expressions. These terms include: discourse particles, discourse connectives, discourse signals, discourse operators, cue phrases, pragmatic particles, pragmatic connectives and formulaic expressions (Brinton, 1996; Alkohlani, 2010; Fraser, 1999; Schourup, 1999; Blakemore, 1992; Blakemore, 2002; Craig & Sanusi, 2000). One of the reasons for the vast array of terms for these particles is the fact that, despite the extensive literature on discourse markers, they continue to defy precise characterization (Greon et al„ 2010). Linguists don't agree completely on what constitutes discourse markers and what communicative roles they play in discourse. This kind of disagreement has led researchers from different disciplines of linguistics to examine these lexical items form different perspectives and their findings, undoubtedly, have led to more enrichment of the field. Some of these findings will be illustrated in this literature review. The study of discourse markers can still be considered a relatively young enterprise despite the number of books and articles written on the topic (Urgelles-Coll, 2011 Studies investigating the communicative roles discourse markers play in speech and writing were scarce at the beginning. These studies expanded exponentially after the publication of Shiffrin's Discourse Markers in 1987. Moreover, most of these studies were carried out in Western societies and on Western languages, especially English. Due to the large number of works have looked at discourse markers from various angles, several different definitions have been proposed. Among the most cited definitions of discourse markers is the one suggested by Schiffrin (1987). In her book Discourse Markers, Schiffrin proposes the following definition: "[discourse markers are] sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of talk". In this definition, Schiffrin avoids using such terms as sentence, proposition, speech act or utterance. Rather, she opts to use a more general term: units of talk. While this definition may seem relatively short and lacking specifics given the current disagreement over what constitutes a discourse marker or what its syntactic and semantic properties are, it certainly is appropriate for the data she discusses in her book as it gives more room to the author's subjective analysis. Redeker (1991), On the Other hand, suggests a more detailed definition of discourse particles. She defines discourse markers as " word or phrase — for instance a conjunction, adverbial, comment clause, interjection — that is uttered with the primary function Of bringing to the listener's attention a particular kind of linkage of the upcoming utterance with the immediate discourse context" (p. 1168, cited in Lenk,1998, p. 246). Redeker mainly applies this definition to spoken discourse markers, as her use or the word "uttered" in the definition clearly suggests. She also chooses not to discuss the syntactic features of these markers but rather define them in terms of their functional features. Part of the difficulty in characterizing discourse markers stems from the fact that the expressions, words and phrases, which can be used as discourse markers have standard semantic meanings (Stede, 20). For instance, "anyway" can be used both as an adverb and as a discourse marker as the following two examples show (Ferrara, 1997. p. 355): a. r: I couldn't go to the party. b. P: cause I was on codeine. c. Q: My mom wouldn't let me anyway We had a flashlight ourselves, so we didn't think we needed any: but he had a flashlight: and led us up the little trail up the little hill there. And we were getting up pretty close to the place where our camps were. And we were coming in around the back Side. little trail that goes up there was around the back side of the two camps. Anyway, he got up their kind of between where our cabins were and all at once he yelled 'Get back! Get back!'. As the above examples indicate, anyway functions differently in these two examples. In the first instance, anyway is an adverb. In the second example, the speaker uses anyway to end a digression and return to a previous topic. It came as no surprise that linguists were interested in finding out the properties of words that can be used as discourse markers and how these properties are similar to or different from their original or standard semantic meanings (Stede & Schmitz 2(HH))_ To that end, they turned their attention to the phonological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic characteristics of discourse markers in an attempt to pin down the exact characteristics and functions Of these expressions. 6. I - Methodology: As stated above, several different ways of collecting instances of discourse markers exist. These methods have been used quite frequently in previous studies and each has yielded different results. These results have led to the enrichment of the field and have informed subsequent research which looked at discourse markers from different angles and provided us with valuable insights into discourse markers' usage. For purposes of this project, I deemed it both preferable and necessary to collect natural conversational data for the reasons discussed below. This study mainly focuses on naturally-occurring conversational data. This is because numerous discourse markers tend to occur almost exclusively in spoken language (Der, 2010; Muller, 2005; Shourup, 1999). Some lingtnsts have even clanned that discourse markers are "restricted to spoken language" (Erman, 1986, p.131; Erman, 2001, p. 1339, cited in Muller, 2005, Analysis Of conversational data, however, is not the only way to obtain instances of discourse markers in spoken language. Many studies, for instance, have looked at the use of discourse markers by examining corpora (Fagard, 2010; Fung, 2007). This method is advantageous in some interesting ways. allows linguists 10 obtain a huge amount of data in a relatively short period of time, without worrying about the tedious task of recording and transcribing the collected spoken data. It also gives researchers the opportunity to examine the use of discourse markers in one or more genres quite easily as several databases give researchers the choice of searching for any expression in any genre. This method of data collection, however, is not Without limits. Spoken data drawn from such corpora Stop short of providing researchers with everything they need. Little is known about the dialects used or essential information about the interlocutors such as their age, gender and socio-economic status Also. conversational details such as tone, pitch, stress and intonation are not always documented in corpus-based data. For purposes of this project, data was collected from natural conversations. One reason for this choice was the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no corpus data of Saudi Arabic, either spoken or written. Unlike previous studies, especially those conducted in Western societies, the frequent discourse markers used in Saudi Arabic have not been identified yet. The seven discourse markers, which constitute the main focus of this project, were chosen based on the author's intuitions and the results of similar studies conducted on other varieties of Arabic (Alkholani, 2010; Ghobrial, 1993). Thus, the aim of this project is to explore Saudi Arabic spoken discourse markers by analyzing two natural conversations and describing the contexts in which (eeh, Walla", tayyeb, yaani, bass, alheen, and shesmah) are used and what semantic/pragmatic functions they serve. The main goal of this project is to collect natural conversational data and analyze it thoroughly. The data examined in this study was drawn from naturally-occurring conversations involving 4 native speakers of Saudi Arabic. Two one-hour conversations were tape-recorded and transcribed. Each conversation im,olved two native speakers of a variety of Saudi Arabic, namely Najdi Arabic. To ensure that the data collected was representative of the target population, I tried to control for several variables. First, the participants were all males and were roughly of the same age group (late 20s to early 30s). Second, since the overall goal of this study was to examine the use of discourse markers in Najdi Arabic, the subjects asked to take part in this study were all born and raised in the Province of Riyadh. The subjects were roughly of the same socio-economic and educational status. All of the participants can he best described as middle-class people. Three Of them were graduate students studying at an American University, whereas the fourth participant was an undergraduate student attending the same university at the time the study was conducted. (See table 2).
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

LINGUISTICS ANALYSIS 1

LINGUISTICS ANALYSIS FOR DISCOURSE MARKERS IN INFORMAL HIJAZISAUDI CONVERSATIONS

Student Number

Name

Class
Tutor
Institutional Affiliation
Location
Date

LINGUISTICS ANALYSIS 2

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND LITERATURE REVIEW .............. 4
CHAPTER TWO: OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES .............................................................. 7
Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 7
Hypothesis ................................................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER FOUR: SAMPLE SIZE ............................................................................................. 10
References ..................................................................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 12
WORK PLAN ............................................................................................................................... 13

LINGUISTICS ANALYSIS 3

Abstract
According to this research study, the aim is to analyze the syntactic, semantic, and
pragmatic features of discourse makers in Saudi Arabic. From the data obtained through
naturally-occurring unstructured conversations, this research study describes the frequencies,
pragmatic and semantic functions, as well as the syntactic positions of discourse makers in Saudi
Arabic. According to the analysis of the data, the selected discourse makers have been found to
occur with some frequencies. Therefore, the average will be approximately 13.23 words.
Detailed investigation of the semantic and pragmatic features of these discourse makers proves
their performance in wide communicative functions.

LINGUISTICS ANALYSIS 4

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Discourse Markers denote the expressions that cut across various languages, which are
always included in day-to-day communication, in terms of speech and writing. The use of
markers discourse is termed as sub-conscious just like with other several expressions for the
native speakers of a particular language. The discourse markers have been attracting the attention
of various linguists from various walks of life simply because they entail the semantic and
pragmatic functions in linguistics. Apart from discourse markers, linguistics has several other
expressions that are used to refer to it, and therefore, this will be the major focus of this research
proposal. Therefore, among the various expressions that have the same meaning as linguistics
have been used in this research study, and they include; discourse particles, discourse
connectives, discourse operators, discourse signals, cue phrases, pragmatic connectives,
pragmatic particles, as well as the formulaic expressions (Ulyanova, 2015; Petrochenko, 2015).
This is because they defy more precise characterization irrespective of the extensive literature on
discourse markers.
The linguists are always in disagreements on the components of discourse markers, as
well as their roles in communication. Such disagreement has compelled the re...


Anonymous
Goes above and beyond expectations!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags