Dialogizing discourse words: corpus data evidence

Authors

Keywords:

discourse words, dialogization, subjective modality, corpus

Abstract

This study examines the usage features of discourse words across different registers and styles. Discourse words are defined as units grouped by functional characteristics. Research relevance stems from the high frequency of discourse words in modern speech, yet their semantics remain inadequately described. The research material comprises data from the Russian National Corpus. The analysis focused on discourse words expressing certainty or uncertainty regarding the communicated message: konechno (“certainly”), bezuslovno (“undoubtedly”), ochevidno (“obviously”), navernoe (“probably”), veroyatno (“likely”), skoree vsego (“most likely”), etc. The research hypothesis posits that in modern texts, discourse words primarily perform dialogizing functions, making them more frequent in texts presupposing dialogicity. Results indicate that discourse words are maximally frequent in spoken language, and sufficiently frequent in social media texts, newspaper genres, and classic Russian literature. Discourse words exhibit low frequency in poetic speech. Their active use relates to their role in direct interaction between communicative situation participants. Discourse words become a text dialogization tool, performing pragmatic functions such as establishing contact between communication participants, shifting topics, and creating irony. In poetic texts, discourse words predominantly perform their primary function: expressing certainty or uncertainty regarding the communicated message. The most frequent units across all registers within this discourse word group are konechno (“certainly”), mozhet byt' (“perhaps”), navernoe (“probably”), and veroyatno (“likely”). The study also discusses the problem of grammatical homonymy in discourse words and the complexities of determining part-of-speech classification.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

V. A. Belov, Peter the Great Saint Petersburg Polytechnic University, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation

Dr. Sci. in Philology, Associate Professor
e-mail: belov.vadim.a@gmail.com

V. M. Belova, HSE University, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation

Cand. Sci. in Philology
e-mail: belova.valentina.m@gmail.com

E. S. Krupnova, Peter the Great Saint Petersburg Polytechnic University, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation

Assistant Professor, PhD student
e-mail: krupnalena@mail.ru

References

Alami, M. (2015). Pragmatic functions of discourse markers: a review of related literature. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 3(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3034.3121

Andersen, G., & Fretheim, T. (Eds.) (2000). Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.79

Baranov, A. N., Plungyan, V. A., & Rakhina, E. V. (1993). A guide to the discursive words of the Russian language. Moscow: Pomovsky and Partners Publ. (In Russian).

Belov, V. A., & Belova, V. M. (2025). Functional approach to Russian discourse markers description. Russian Language Studies, 23(2), 206–224. http://doi.org/10.22363/2618-8163-2025-23-2-206-224 (In Russian).

Bogdanova-Beglaryan, N. V. (2019). Alone in the field is not a warrior: about the “magnetism” of pragmatic markers in Russian oral speech. Socio- and Psycholinguistic Studies, 7, 14–19. (In Russian).

Bogdanova-Beglaryan, N. V., Blinova, O. V., Sherstinova, T. Yu., Zaides, K. D., & Popova, T. I. (2019). Annotation of pragmatic markers in the Russian speech corpus: problems, searches, solutions, results. Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Technologies, 18, 72–85. (In Russian).

Brinton, L. (2008). The comment clause in English syntactic origins and pragmatic developments. Cambridge: CUP. (Studies in English Language).

Fraser, B. (1996) Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra

Grishina, E. (2011). Дa ‘yes’ in dialogue in spoken Russian. Russ Linguist, 35, 169–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-011-9073-z

Grishina, E. A. (2008). The particle is: the variants used in casual speech. The toolkit of Russian studies: corpus approaches = Slavica Helsingiensia. Is. 34 (pp. 63–91). Helsinki: University of Helsinki. URL: http://docs.google.com/View?id=df52fjjj_9fntn6kxq (In Russian).

Hansen, M., & Rossari, C. (2005). The evolution of pragmatic markers: Introduction. Journal of historical pragmatics, 6(2), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.6.2.02mos

Jorgensen, J. (1996). The Functions of sarcastic irony in speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(5), 613–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00067-4

Kabakhidze, E. L. (2022) Discourse marker you know in political communication (on the basis of interviews with D. Trump from 2017 to 2020): functions, translation strategies. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 19. Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 4, 89–99. https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU-2074-1588-19-2022-4-89-99 (In Russian).

Kibrik, A. A., & Podleskaya, V. I. (2009). Discursive markers in the structure of oral narrative: the experience of corpus research. Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Technologies: based on the materials of the Annual International Conference “Dialog”, Bekasovo, 2009, May 27–31, Is. 8(15) (pp. 390–395). Bekasovo, Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities Publ. (In Russian).

Kobozeva, I. M. (2007). Polysemy of discursive words and the possibilities of its resolution in the context of a sentence (using the example of the word here). Computational Linguistics and intelligent technologies: proceedings of the international conference “Dialog 2007”, Bekasovo, 2007, May 30 – June 3 (pp. 250–256). Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities Publ. (In Russian).

Levinson S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Manaenko, G. N., & Manaenko, S. A. (2009). Discursive words in media texts: functioning and status. Aktualnye problemi filologii i pedagogicheskoi lingvistiki, 11, 135–140. (In Russian).

Matantseva, M. B., & Zyryanova, E. V. (2026). Discursive words in the focus of regional linguistics (based on the material of the Russian colloquial speech of Buryatia). Litera, 2, 128–144. https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8698.2026.2.78224 (In Russian).

Mishieva, E. M. (2015). Discursive markers in online youth communication (based on the English language): abstract of the dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Philological Sciences. Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University Publ. (In Russian).

Racheva, A. A. (2016). The use of markers here and there as a discursive choice of the speaker. Siberian Journal of Philology, 2, 164–176. https://doi.org/10.17223/18137083/55/18 (In Russian).

Sherstinova, T. Y. (2016). The most commonly used words in everyday Russian (in the gender aspect and depending on the conditions of communication). Computational Linguistics and Intelligent technologies: based on the materials of the annual international conference “Dialog 2016”, Moscow, June 1–4, 2016 (pp. 616–631). Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities Publ. (In Russian).

Traugott, E. C. (1982). From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. Perspectives on Historical Linguistics (pp. 245–271). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Zakharkiv, E. V. (2023). Discursive words in the latest Russian- and English-language poetry: dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Philology. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences Publ. (In Russian).

Published

2026-10-05

How to Cite

Belov В. А., Belova В. М., & Krupnova Е. С. (2026). Dialogizing discourse words: corpus data evidence . Verba, 1 (19), 19–31. Retrieved from https://www.verba.press/index.php/journal/article/view/177

Issue

Section

Modality in semantic aspect