National Research University Higher School of Economics Chubarova, Y., & Rezepova, N. (2016).

Discourse Elements in English Academic

Journal of Language & Education Volume 2, Issue 1, 2016 Discourse. Journal of Language and Education, 2(1), 56-64. doi:10.17323/2411-
7390-2016-2-1-56-64

Discourse Elements in English

Academic Discourse
Yulia Chubarova
Ogarev Mordovia State University
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yulia Chubarova, Ogarev Mordovia State
University, Bolshevistskaya Str. 68, Saransk, Russian Federation, 430005. E-mail: [email protected]

Natalia Rezepova
Plekhanov Russian University of Economics

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Natalia Rezepova, Plekhanov Russian
University of Economics, Stremyanny lane, 36, Moscow, Russian Federation, 117997.
E-mail: [email protected]

This paper presents a study of discourse elements in spoken academic discourse – a lecture – and
identifies their specificities. The study seeks to identify discourse elements in a wide body of research
material; to study structural, functional and pragmatic features of discourse elements in terms of the
implementation of the intentions of the speaker; to identify from the auditory analysis any prosodic
features of discourse elements. Discourse elements are specifically defined from the point of view
of their pragmatics: the intention of the speaker influences the language of the lecture and the way
in which ideas are connected with words. The study on discourse elements included several stages.
Research material consisted of audio recordings of Philology lectures to students studying English as a
foreign language by three native speakers of English (General American standard of pronunciation), all
of whom are professors at American colleges and universities. In total, 6 lectures were recorded; they
formed a wide body of research material lasting 7 hours 33 minutes. This wide body of research material
consisted of 2 306 linguistic facts, i.e. discourse elements in context. From these, 150 fragments
containing various discourse elements were then chosen to form a narrow body of research material
lasting 40 minutes. The phonetic research consisted of auditory analysis: dividing the fragments of
discourses into syntagms; defining the boundaries of syntagms; specifying pitch movement, tone level
and type of scale; using perceptual gradations of each prosodic feature, etc. Prosodic marking was
carried out in accordance with the method of notation adopted at the Department of English Phonetics
at Moscow State Teacher Training University (1997). Scaling enabled the classification and sorting
of all the studied elements (discourse elements). The authors used the following types of scales:
nominative, ordinal and interval. Structural analysis proved that discourse elements have different
structure and may be one-word elements and predicative phrases S+P incorporated into the structure
of the academic discourse. All discourse elements can be divided into two large groups – connecting
elements (connectors) and pragmatic elements.
The results of the research show that the studied elements differ structurally and can perform various
functions. The functions of the discourse elements, their structure, intentions of the speaker and also
their position in the phrase determine their prosodic features

Keywords: discourse, institutional discourse, lecture, discourse elements, structure, function, frequency
of use, prosodic features

Discourse as a text in a real communicative «frame model» (Minsky, 1969; Fillmore, 1976, 1982),
situation can be interpreted in different ways. It can arranging perception about various ways of behavior
be regarded as a «mental model» (Johnson-Laird, in typical situations; as a «script model» (Shank, 1975;
2001), representing a generalized summary of our Schank, Abelson, 1977), presuming development,
knowledge and understanding of the world; as a shifts and adjustments of those typical situations.

This article is published under the Creative

56 Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
 DISCOURSE ELEMENTS IN ENGLISH ACADEMIC DISCOURSE

To study the communicative aspects of discourse, their native language the lecturer has to take into
we use a «situational model» elaborated and offered consideration the linguistic and cultural competence
by Teun Van Dijk (2008, 2009), which combines the of the listeners, their ability to understand him/her.
principles of social categories analysis to define our That is why the contact with the students and the need
understanding and behavior within a social context to create a free and easy atmosphere in the classroom
with personal subjective knowledge (evaluation, are very important for the linguistic, communicative
opinions, patterns), as well as a social-semiotic and pragmatic organization of the discourse.
approach of Michael Halliday (2003) and his discourse Discourse must have a coherent text and explicit
model, interlocking empirical, logical, interpersonal textual references. A substantial number of studies
and contextual levels of analysis. (Grosz, Sidner, 1986; Mann, Thompson, 1988; Martin,
In this work we have applied a sociolinguistic 1992; Foltz, Kintsch, & Landauer, 1998; Marcu,
approach towards an understanding of discourse. 2000; Budayev, 2009) examine the principles of inner
This implies that discourse is communication organization of the discourse and text. By discourse
between people belonging to a particular social group. elements many linguists mean those elements that
According to Vladimir Karasik (2002), this status- play a very important role in the organization and
oriented discourse can have an institutional character. structure of the discourse. Anna Prokhorova (2007)
There are many different kinds of institutional points out that besides their cohesive functions they
discourse in our community, such as scientific, mass may also have some pragmatic aspects. Most discourse
media, political, religious, pedagogical, medical, elements can express the opinion of the speaker, the
military, etc. relationship between the speaker and the listener,
Valeria Chernyavskaya (2006) highlights the social logical links between the ideas. They also can be
context of discourse in arguing that modern discourse studied from the point of view of pragmatics. The
analysis is focused on the character and level of intention of the speaker can influence the language
influence of various extra-linguistic factors on the of the lecture and the way in which the ideas are
language of the discourse. Discourse analysis has to connected with words.
answer the question of how the author, the receiver of English academic discourse has a wide range
the message, the field of communication, the channel, of discourse signals optimizing the process of its
the intention of the speaker and so determine perception and aimed at the recipient. It should be
discourse organization and its language. noted that oral discourse, unlike the written one,
makes the speaker facilitate perception of the material
by various means of speech connectors, including
Materials and Methods discourse elements.

Definition of Academic Discourse Definition of Discourse Elements

By spoken academic discourse in this work we mean Connecting elements have different names in
a kind of scientific and institutional discourse whose academic literature. In particular, Randolph Quirk
purpose is to inform students. For our research we (1955) names expressions, such as sort of, you see, you
have chosen the lecture as one of the basic monologic know, I mean, well, etc., as intimacy signals, which allow
genres of scientific discourse: academic discourse the listener to feel more at ease, to be closer to the
is a homogeneous lecture devoted to one topic. The interlocutor. There are also other terms for connecting
peculiarity of the studied academic discourse is that elements of discourse, such as “linking signals”,
it has a special addressee that consists of students “fillers in”, “discourse markers”, “temporizers”. There
who study English as a foreign language, with the have been few attempts to describe and classify these
attendant difficulties caused by listening to a foreign elements and most have not been continued. As a
language, which means listening to and understanding result, there is not any well-established scientific
a foreign speech, implying a number of psychological term. The terminological inconsistency is caused
challenges. One of them is the irreversibility of the by a multiplicity of approaches to the study of the
process of perception of speech, which requires a great connecting elements. Moreover, these terms are used
deal of attention from the listeners. to refer to a different set of units, which is determined
In addition, the lecturer needs to be able to navigate by the specific objectives of the researcher.
the communicative situation, feel the addressee, and Most linguists think that discourse connectors are
anticipate their reaction in preparing lectures and the elements that play an important role in organizing
directing educational interaction. This is particularly the content and structure of the discourse in addition to
important, as the recipients are students who are their semantic and pragmatic aspects. Their pragmatic
learning English as a foreign language. Since it is not essence is to ensure the correct understanding of the

57
 YULIA CHUBAROVA, NATALIA REZEPOVA

discourse. Therefore, the most preferable term, in our features of discourse elements, in terms of
opinion, is the term discourse elements proposed by the implementation of the intentions of the
Deborah Schiffrin (1994). speaker.
By discourse elements we mean segments of 3. To find during the auditory analysis prosodic
speech that connect at least two phrases. They also features of discourse elements.
reflect the intention of the speaker and his/her To meet these objectives, we used complex methods
reaction towards what he/she is saying. The research of research, which included: functional and semantic,
found that the group of these elements has, firstly, formal and structural, pragmatic and auditory types of
no fixed boundaries, and secondly, has elements that analyses, questioning of a native speaker, a statistical
may be presented by different parts of speech. In our method for data analysis of linguistic material, scaling
article the group of discourse elements is presented and linguistic interpretation of the results.
by adverbs (so, now, thus, therefore, anyway, finally,
however, though, further, similarly, perhaps, maybe, Phonetic Research
probably, certainly, (un)fortunately, naturally, evidently,
surely, obviously, actually, etc.), interjections (well, oh), The phonetic research consisted of auditory
numerals (first, second), performative verbs (I think, I’m analysis of all fragments of discourses. Recorded
sure, I suppose, I guess, I agree, I say, I hope, I expect, I fragments were presented to two auditors. At the
mean, I assume, I believe, I remember, I forget, I recall, I preparatory stage, the fragments were given to the
daresay, etc.), set expressions (first of all, for example, auditor, a native speaker, without any special phonetic
on the one hand, on the other hand, in addition, at the training but with a philological education. He was to
same time, in other words, in terms of, in general, that listen to the material, fill in the questionnaire and do
sort of thing(s), of course, no doubt, as you know, if you the following tasks:
remember, you know, as I said, as I mentioned before, 1. Determine whether the recorded speech
etc.), syntactical constructions (Let’s start with …, Let’s belongs to the standard of General American
move on to …, Do you have any questions?, etc.). pronunciation or not.
The lecture as a genre of academic discourse 2. Point out whether the speech belongs to an
abounds in these discourse elements. Since a lecture educated native speaker or not.
may be quite long in time, it demands various elements 3. Specify what style the recorded speech is of:
in its connection, division and organization. This informational, academic, publicist, oratorical
helps explain the great number of discourse elements or conversational.
in it. It is also the result of spontaneity, oral speech The native speaker easily answered the questions,
and improvisation. with the results of the analysis as follows. The speech
belonged to academic style, was of General American
Research Material and Methodology standard of pronunciation and belonging to an
educated native speaker.
The research material for our study was audio The second auditor was a Russian phonetician,
recordings of lectures to students who studied English fluent in English, phonetically trained and experienced
as a foreign language, with lectures in Philology in the analysis of the intonation of oral speech. The
given by three native speakers of English (General main objective of the auditor was the analysis of
American standard of pronunciation). Native speakers the intonation patterns of the selected fragments of
are professors at American colleges and universities. discourses and determination of prosodic features
In total 6 lectures were recorded; they formed a wide of discourse elements. The analysis was conducted
body of research material lasting 7 hours 33 minutes, in terms of scales, terminal tones and pauses. The
consisting of 2306 linguistic facts, i.e. discourse auditor was asked to:
elements in context. Later 150 fragments containing 1. divide the fragments of discourses to syntagms,
various discourse elements were chosen and formed define the boundaries of syntagms;
a narrow body of research material lasting 40 minutes. 2. specify pitch movement, tone level and type of
The research on the material was conducted in scale, focusing on prosodic features of particular
the following way. First, all the academic discourses discourse elements;
– lectures – were recorded, then transposed into 3. determine the duration and functional type of
their written variants, and finally discourse elements pauses, and tempo.
were identified. The following aims of the analysis of We used the following perceptual gradations of
academic discourse were formulated: each prosodic feature:
1. To identify discourse elements in the wide 1. Tone level: low, medium, high.
body of research material. 2. Terminal tones:
2. To study structural, functional and pragmatic - Low Fall, Mid Fall, High Fall;

58
 DISCOURSE ELEMENTS IN ENGLISH ACADEMIC DISCOURSE

- Low Rise, Mid Rise, High Rise; Table 1

- Fall-Rise; Structure of discourse elements
- Rise-Fall; Discourse elements
- Rise-Fall-Rise;
One-word Combina- Phrases: Incorporated
- Low Level, Mid Level, High Level. elements: tions of I suppose, I phrases:
3. Duration of a pause: very short, short, average, anyway, first, meaningful think, I say, do you fol-
long. second, next, words with all right, I low me?, do
4. Type of a pause: syntactical, emphatic, however, now, auxiliary would add, you know
then, well, words: I mean, the this term?,
hesitation, rhetorical.
so, probably, in general, in idea is, I’m have you any
5. Tempo of speech: slow, average, fast. perhaps, etc. other words, sure. I have a thoughts
6. Loudness: decreased, normal, increased. in terms of, in feeling, inter- about that?,
Prosodic marking was done in accordance with addition, in a esting enough, let’s look at
the method of notation adopted at the Department of way, in fact, you know, etc. the concrete
of course, etc. example, let’s
English Phonetics at Moscow State Teacher Training
move on to
University (1997). the next tech-
nique, look at
the sentence,
Results and Discussion you have
to be care-
ful here, etc.
Scaling

All discourse elements in the research were

scaled, enabling us to classify and sort all the studied We found that the structure of discourse elements
elements, which was very necessary given the huge is also of great importance so that in terms of structure
amount of material. All quantitative data obtained was we paid attention to the following features:
analyzed in accordance with the recommendations of 1. if discourse elements are used separately
Konstantin Belousov and Natalia Blaznova (2005). (they form a separate syntagm) or not used
Scaling is a form of fixing some features of the studied separately (they are the part of a syntagm) (see
objects by ordering them in a certain numerical Fig. 1);
system. All the elements have a certain point, or bar
graph index, which reflects the position of the feature
on the scale. The scales are based, for example, on
the principle of increasing or decreasing the degree of
35% separate 65%
manifestation of the observed feature. In our case, this
feature is the frequency of use of various discourse 65% non separate 35%
elements. We used the following types of scales:
nominative, ordinal and interval.

Nominative Scaling

With the help of nominative scale we classified Figure 1. Separate/Non-separate discourse elements.
discourse elements in terms of special features
2. the position of a discourse element in a phrase
and principles they may have. The first feature is
(at the beginning, in the middle, at the end)
the function they may have. All the elements were
(see Fig. 2).
classified according to the functions in the discourse.
The second feature is their structural characteristic.
Structural analysis has demonstrated that discourse 6%
elements have different structure and may be one-
Initial position 63%
word elements (so, now, thus, therefore, anyway, etc.)
and predicative phrases (S+P) incorporated into the 31%
Middle position 31%
structure of the academic discourse (if you remember,
as I mentioned before, do you have any questions?, etc.). 63%
Final position 6%
Thus we found four groups of discourse elements:
one-word elements, combinations of meaningful
words with auxiliary words, phrases and incorporated
phrases. This is shown in Table 1.
Figure 2. Position of a discourse element is a phrase.

59
 YULIA CHUBAROVA, NATALIA REZEPOVA

Connectors and Pragmatic Elements and the students.

As an example of discourse elements that function
Discourse elements have special peculiarities in in academic discourse let us look at the following
spoken discourse. The lecturer tries to make discourse fragment:
easier and more comprehensible for the students since If a writer writes poetry or screenplays as
the students can only listen to the speaker. well as fiction that gives me a different idea
Discourse elements include not only elements that what to expect than if a writer limits himself
organize the discourse structurally but also elements to one genre. You follow me? In other words,
that express the opinion of the speaker and are er some writers do write in all three genres,
intended to establish some contact with the audience. they write essays, they write poetry, they
That is why we have divided them into two big groups write fiction, they write scripts for dramas
– connecting elements (connectors) and pragmatic and for television programs. Er my feeling is
elements (see Fig. 3). often the more genres they write the perhaps
The first group consists of elements that indicate the better qualified writers they are. Let me
linear connections in discourse, i.e. contextual give an example, historically. Henry James
connections. The second group consists of elements is a famous 19th century-early 20th century
that realize the opposition lecturer-students and thus American writer.
has elements that either express the opinion of the The group of pragmatic elements is presented by
lecturer or are directed towards the audience and aim a direct question to the audience, You follow me? This
to create a collaborative setting between the speaker element is very informal and shows the desire of the

Discourse
Elements
1 group 2 group
Connectors Pragmatic elements

Structural connectors Logical connectors 1. Attitudinal elements:

I think, I ‘m sure, I suppose, I guess, in
1. Starters: 1. Starters: my opinion, I agree, I say, I hope, I ex-
first of all, let’s start with..., first of all, let’s start with..., pect, I mean, I assume, I believe, I re-
let’s begin with.. let’s begin with.. member, in my view, I forget, I recall, I
have a feeling, I daresay
2. Topic shifters: 2. Elaborating elements:
let’s move on to..., let’s turn in other words, in particu- 2. Elaborating elements:
to..., now, OK, well, right, lar, in terms of, literally, in other words, in particular, in terms of,
anyway namely, especially, that literally, namely, especially, that is, by
is, by that I mean, I mean, that I mean, I mean, particularly, that/
3. Temporal elements: particularly, that/it means, it means, I would say, as/what we call,
first, second, third, at first, I would say, as/what we what is called, (so) we say, let me say,
gradually, eventually, imme- call, what is called, (so) we here, the reason I say, the reason is…
diately, on the one hand, on say, let me say, here, the
the other hand, further (on) reason I say, the reason is… 3. Emphatic elements:
it’s interesting, interesting enough, the
3. Implicative elements: irony is
4. Referential elements:
so, you see, in general, gen-
I’ve mentioned, I mentioned
erally, on average, all I’m
before, as I said, like I said 4. “Sending back” elements:
saying, all/what I’m get-
as you know, we know, know, if you re-
ting/driving at, therefore,
5. Finishers: member, historically
the idea is
so, let’s stop, let’s finish, well
4. Metastatements: 5. Elements of appeal:
for example, for instance, you know, let’s move on, let’s see, think
from the point of view, they about it, believe me
(will) say, from somebody’s
point of view 6. Questions:
Do you follow me?
Do you have any questions?

Figure 3. Discourse elements

60
 DISCOURSE ELEMENTS IN ENGLISH ACADEMIC DISCOURSE

lecturer to get into contact with the audience and see 21. Maybe 1,0
how well they understand him. The discourse element, 22. At the same time 0,9
in other words, is one of the most frequently used and 23. First of all 0,9
has the status of an elaborating element in this context.
24. Do you follow me? 0,8
It belongs to the group of logical connectors. It is also
necessary to note that the speech of the lecturer is 25. It is/was interesting 0,8
very logical and consistent. With the help of discourse 26. No 0,7
element, let me give you an example, historically, the 27. Of course 0,7
lecturer wants to illustrate his opinion. This element 28. Any questions? / Do you have any 0.7
also belongs to the group of logical connectors. The questions? / Anybody ask questions
fact that the professor uses such elements shows that about …? /Are there any questions
discourse has institutional character and that it is very you might have? / Let me ask if any
important to him that his lecture is well understood by questions you had about …?
the students.. 29. Right 0,6
30. Particularly 0,5
Ordinal Scaling 31. Let’s turn to… / Let’s look at… / Let 0,5
me get to … / Let’s do smth. / Let’s try
With the help of an ordinal scale discourse smth.
elements were classified as “more frequently used” 32. In fact 0,4
and “less frequently used”. In this scale it does matter
33. I hope 0,4
in what order the cells in the scale are put. Using this
34. I don't know 0,4
particular scale we managed to arrive at conclusions
about varieties of discourse elements and frequency of 35. Actually 0,4
their use as shown in Table 2. 36. I'm not sure 0,4
Table 2 37. Again 0,4
Frequency of use of discourse elements 38. Primarily 0,3
Frequency of 39. Generally 0,3
use of use of
№ Discourse element 40. Usually 0,3
the discourse
element (%) 41. And so forth 0,3
1. So 15,3 42. Fortunately/unfortunately 0,3

2. Now 7,1 43. Apparently 0,3

3. I think 5,3 44. (As) I understand 0,3

4. Ok 3,4 45. In a way 0,3

5. In other words 3,1 46. (As) I say 0,3

6. In terms of 2,8 47. Have you heard that term/word? / Do 0.3

you know that term? / Do you know
7. You know 2,7 what the word … means? / Is that term
8. For example 2,5 you heard/know? / Is that the word
you’re clear on?
9. Well 2,4
48. I’ll give you the example. / Let me give 0,3
10. I mean 2,0 you an example.
11. (And) also 1,6 49. Have you heard of … ? 0,3
12. Anyway 1,6 50. (So) we say 0,2
13. Probably 1,5 51. I'm sure 0,2
14. That/it means 1,5 52. That doesn't mean 0,2
15. As/what we call 1,4 53. I guess 0,2
16. That sort of thing 1,4 54. By that I mean 0,2
17. I know 1,3 55. What is called 0,2
18. Yes/yeah 1,3 56. I believe 0,2
19. I/we would say 1,1 57. I will say 0,2
20. What/all I'm getting/driving at… 1,0 58. On the other hand 0,2

61
 YULIA CHUBAROVA, NATALIA REZEPOVA

59. The idea is … 0,2 6. You know 43 45 12

60. At this/some/one point 0,2 7. For example 32 56 12
61. On the one hand 0,2 8. Well 91 9 -
62. They say 0,2 9. I mean 61 39 -
63. I don't think 0,2 10. (And) also 65 35 -
64. Finally 0,2 11. Anyway 89 6 6
65. That’s a pattern. / These are patterns. 0,2 12. Probably 9 85 6
/ That’s another pattern.
13. That/it means 71 29 -
We also conducted statistic analysis of language 14. As/what we call 24 73 3
material in terms of average statistic figures (discourse 15. That sort of thing - 23 77
elements). As the result of this analysis we found
16. I know 54 36 11
the most frequently used discourse elements are:
so, now, I think, OK, in other words, in terms of, you 17. Yes/yeah 83 17 -
know, for example, well, I mean, (and) also, anyway, 18. I/we would say 12 72 16
probably, that/it means. The results of this analysis 19. What/all I'm getting/driving 87 9 4
allow us to conclude that there are a special number at…
of discourse elements that are regularly used in this 20. Maybe 45 50 5
kind of discourse and that they vary in their functions. 21. At the same time 71 24 5
However the most commonly used are the elements
22. First of all 65 35 -
that express result or consequence; shift the topic;
clarify the opinion of the speaker (so, now, I think, OK, 23. It is/was interesting 77 15 8
in other words, in terms of, you know, for example, well, I 24. No 31 62 8
mean, (and) also, anyway, probably, that/it means). The 25. Of course 41 53 6
use of such discourse elements can be explained by the
26. Right - 100 -
desire of the lecturer to make students understand his
ideas and concepts. This pragmatic goal is essential 27. Particularly - 92 8
for the professor especially taking into consideration 28. In fact 45 55 -
he/she is delivering a lecture to non-native speakers 29. I hope 86 - 14
of English. 30. I don't know - 57 43
Interval Scaling 31. Actually 40 60 -

Interval scales enabled us not only to classify 32. I'm not sure 57 14 29
discourse elements but also to numerically express 33. Again - 78 22
and compare them. Thus we received the data about 34. Primarily - 75 25
the number of discourse elements and predominance 35. Generally 33 50 17
of their prosodic characteristics. The analysis and
36. Usually 63 25 13
interpretation of the data collected proved our
hypothesis that the prosodic variations of discourse 37. Say 29 71 -
elements are determined by the intention of the 38. And so forth - 17 83
speaker, the complexity of the structure of the 39. Fortunately/unfortunately 57 43 -
elements, their position in the sentence and in the
40. Apparently 29 57 14
phrase (Table 3).
41. (As) I understand 33 50 17
Table 3 42. In a way 17 67 17
Position of a discourse element in the phrase 43. (As) I say 57 43 -
Position (%) 44. (So) we say 20 60 20
№ Discourse element
Initial Middle Final 45. I'm sure - 80 20
1. So 98 2 - 46. That doesn't mean 60 40 -
2. Now 98 2 - 47. I guess 20 80 -
3. I think 46 51 3 48. By that I mean 100 - -
4. In other words 100 - - 49. What is called 40 60 -
5. In terms of 16 83 2 50. I believe 40 60 -

62
 DISCOURSE ELEMENTS IN ENGLISH ACADEMIC DISCOURSE

51. I will say 80 20 - Discourse elements in the final position appear

52. On the other hand 100 - - quite seldomly (6%). They are normally used here to
53. The idea is … 75 25 - attract the attention of the listeners and emphasize
the idea mentioned. In this position you can find
54. At this/some/one point 50 25 25
elements such as: sort/type of thing, and so forth, I
55. On the one hand 100 - - don’t know, I’m not sure. They usually form a separate
56. They say - 80 20 intonation group (92%) with Low/Medium-Fall (45,
57. I don't think 75 25 - 5%) and Medium Level (20%) terminal tones; average
58. Finally - 100 -
tempo and loudness. For example,

The quantitative study showed that discourse

elements are often used at the beginning of the phrase
(63%). They include discourse elements such as: so, The analysis of the prosodic characteristics of the
now, in other words, well, anyway, yes/yeah, what/all incorporated phrases lets us say that these elements are
I’m getting/driving at, I mean, (and) also, that/it means, usually marked by high, increasing loudness and slow
I know. The lecturer uses such elements in the initial tempo. The terminal tone depends on their structure
position to make contact with the students, to attract and the emotional level of the lecturer. Sometimes
some attention to particular ideas and also to use this they are marked by rhetorical pauses. It all allows us
time to figure out what to say next. Such elements to mark them out in the context and also optimize the
normally form a separate syntagm (69%); the terminal interpretation of the lecture. For example,
tone is Medium Level; tempo and loudness are average.
For example,

31% of discourse elements are used in the middle Conclusion

of the phrase. The most often used elements in this
position are: I think, in terms of, you know, for example,
probably, as/what we say, I/we would say, maybe. Used The process of interaction between the lecturer
in this position they may be ordinary remarks or and the students and its result are considered in
additions to the main phrase. Or they can be fillers of this research as a kind of institutional discourse,
pauses of hesitation. The speaker casually expresses particularly academic discourse. There are many
his/her opinion towards the mentioned facts. He/she discourse elements in this kind of discourse that
may use such elements to make the lecture livelier and make it institutional. They also provide cohesion and
let it sound more natural. All these factors determine realize one of the principles of lectures, that is, a focus
prosodic realization of the elements. The intonation on the audience; in our case it is a student audience
is normally the same as the one in the preceding that studies English as a foreign language. The specific
syntagm. Very often these elements do not form a addressee determines special choice of discourse
separate syntagm (I think, in terms of, probably, maybe). elements and their frequency of use.
For example, The studied elements differ structurally and can
perform different functions. The most common
function is delimitation and at the same time
integration of the fragments of the discourse. Another
function can be connected with expressing the personal
Sometimes discourse elements in this position can opinion of the lecture and his/her judgements. That
form a separate intonation group (44%), separated is why we have divided discourse elements in our
with pauses and realized with a particular terminal research into two big groups that are subdivided into
tone. Very often it is Medium Level (44,4%) and Low- smaller groups.
Rise (39, 8%). The tempo and loudness are average. The functions of the discourse elements, their
For example, structure, intentions of the speaker and also their
position in the phase determine their prosodic features.
They are normally marked out in the discourse and
thus help the students to comprehend the lecture

63
 YULIA CHUBAROVA, NATALIA REZEPOVA

better. These findings contribute to our understanding deduction. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5, 434-442.
of discourse elements representation and their Karasik, V. I. (2002). Language circle: Personality,
functioning in academic discourse considering specific concepts, discourse. Volgograd, Russia: Peremena.
features of student audience. The obtained results Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical
open perspectives for further research on  this issue. structure theory: Toward a functional theory of
Interesting and promising, in our opinion, seems a text organization. Interdisciplinary Journal for the
further study of discourse elements, their functional Study of Discourse, 8(3), 243–281.
characteristics and prosodic features on the material Marcu, D. (2000). The theory and practice of discourse
of different kinds of discourse, as well as different parsing and summarization. Cambridge, MA: MIT
varieties of English. Press.
Martin, J. (1992). English text. System and structure.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamin
References Publishers.
Minsky, M. (1969). Semantic information processing.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Belousov, K. I., & Blaznova, N. A. (2005). Introduction Prokhorova, A. A. (2007). Prosodicheskoe oformlenie
to experimental linguistics. Moscow, Russia: Flinta, diskursivnyh svjazej v ustnom monologicheskom
Nauka. tekste (teoretiko-jeksperimental’noe issledovanie)
Budayev, E. V. (2009). The missing link in discourse- [Prosodic features of discourse connectors in spoken
analysis: T. van Dijk’s contextual models. Political monologic text (theoretical and experimental
Linguistics, 28, 153-155. research)] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation),
Chernyavskaya, V. E. (2006). Discourse of power and Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University, Yaroslavl,
power of discourse: Problems of speech influence. Russia.
Moscow, Russia: Flinta. Quirk, R. (1955). Studies in communication. London,
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature UK: Pitman.
of language. In Annals of the New York Academy of Shank, R. C. (1975). SAM (Script Applier Mechanism) –
Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development A story understander. Research Report, 43, 151-157.
of Language and Speech (Vol. 280, pp. 20-32). New Schank, R. C., & Abelson R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans,
York, NY: The New York Academy of Sciences. goals, and understanding:  An inquiry into human
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In  Linguistics knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
in the Morning Calm (pp. 111-137). Seoul, South Erlbaum Associates.
Korea: Hanshin Publishing Co. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford,
Foltz, P. W., Kintsch, W., & Landauer, T. (1998). The UK: Oxford University Press.
measurement of textual coherence with latent Sokolova, M. A. (1997). Prakticheskaja fonetika
semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2-3), anglijskogo jazyka [Practical phonetics of the
285-307. English language]. Moscow, Russia: Vlados.
Grosz, B., & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intention, van Dijk, T. (2008). Discourse and context: A
and the structure of discourse. Computational sociocognitive approach. New York, NY: Cambridge
Linguistics, 12(3), 175-204. University Press. 
Halliday, M. A. K. (2003). On language and linguistics. van Dijk, T. (2009). Society and discourse: How social
London, UK: Continuum International Publishing. contexts influence text and talk. New York, NY:
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2001). Mental models and Cambridge University Press.

64