Evidence for ‘like’ as a Focus Marker

Lee, Kent

doi:10.30961/lr.2021.57.1.1

Lang. Res. 57(1):1-29

pISSN: 0254-4474, eISSN: 2586-7113

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30961/lr.2021.57.1.1

Article

Evidence for ‘like’ as a Focus Marker

Kent Lee ¹ ^, ^†

Author Information & Copyright ▼

¹Pukyong National University

^†Corresponding Author: Kent Lee Assistant Professor Department of English Language and Literature Pukyong National University Yongso-ro 45, Nam-gu, Busan 48512, South Korea E-mail: kentlee7@gmail.com

ⓒ Copyright 2021 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Aug 18, 2020 ; Revised: Jan 11, 2021 ; Accepted: Feb 16, 2021

Published Online: Apr 30, 2021

ABSTRACT

Several functions have been proposed for the colloquial discourse particle like. This paper examines possible evidence for like as a focus marker. While this hypothesis seems plausible, it has been posited with insufficient definition or detail regarding the type of focus involved. It is also not clear how this aligns with other likely functions proposed for this discourse particle: for example, as a hedge marker or an approximator. This paper reports on a preliminary empirical study with small sets of conversational data of spoken colloquial American English. Its syntactic patterns and pragmatic usage suggest that like is used in a manner comparable to that of additive focus markers, exemplifiers, and other discourse markers. In such cases, it can function as an additive focus marker of indirect contrast, in addition to its well attested use as a hedge marker. Sentence-initial it’s like may have similar properties. Analyzing like as an additive marker allows for reconciliation of its various proposed functions by treating it as a multifunctional marker. The findings also indicate many avenues for further research.

Keywords: discourse particle; discourse marker; like; hedge marker; focus; focus marker; pragmatics

References

Andersen, G. (1997). They like wanna see like how we talk and all that: The use of like as a discourse marker in London teenage speech. In M. Ljung (Ed.), Corpus-Based Studies in English: Papers from the 17th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, (pp. 37-48) .

Andersen, G. (2000). The role of the pragmatic marker like in utterance interpretation. In G. Andersen & T. Fretheim (Eds.), Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude (pp. 17-38) Amsterdam: John Benjamins .

Arnold, J. E., Fagnano, M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2003). Disfluencies signal theee, um, new information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(1), 25-36 .

Brinton, L. J. (1990). The development of discourse markers in English. Historical Linguistics and Philology, 6, 45-71 .

Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions (Vol. 19). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter .

Brinton, L. J. (2008). The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press .

Brown, P., Levinson, S. C., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press .

Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .

Degand, L., & Pander Maat, H. (2003). A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale. LOT Occasional Series, 1, 175-199 .

10.

Ferrara, K., & Bell, B. (1995). Sociolinguistic variation and discourse function of constructed dialogue introducers: The case of be+ like. American Speech, 70(3), 265-290 .

11.

Féry, C. (2017). Intonation and prosodic structure. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press .

12.

Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press .

13.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Intonation and grammar in British English. Den Haag: Mouton .

14.

Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

15.

James, A. R. (1983). Compromisers in English: A cross-disciplinary approach to their interpersonal significance. Journal of Pragmatics, 7(2), 191-206 .

16.

Kadmon, N. (2001). Formal pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers .

17.

König, E. (2016). The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. New York, NY: Routledge .

18.

Ladd, D. R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press .

19.

Miller, J., & Weinert, R. (1995). The function of LIKE in dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics, 23(4), 365-393 .

20.

Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (2016). Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com .

21.

Romaine, S., & Lange, D. (1991). The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech, 66(3), 227-279 .

22.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers (Issue 5). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press .

23.

Schourup, L. (1983). Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. Working Papers in Linguistics. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University .

24.

Selkirk, E. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550-569). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Ltd .

25.

Siegel, M. E. (2002). Like: The discourse particle and semantics. Journal of Semantics, 19(1), 35-71 .

26.

Sohn, S.-O. (2015). The emergence of utterance-final particles in Korean. In S. Hancil, A. Haselow, & M. Post (Eds.), Final particles (pp. 181-196). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter .

27.

Szwedek, A. J. (1986). A linguistic analysis of sentence stress. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag .

28.

Underhill, R. (1988). Like is, like, focus. American Speech, 63(3), 234-246 .

29.

van Deemter, K. (1999). Contrastive stress, contrariety, and focus. Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, 3-17 .

30.

Weinert, R., & Miller, J. (1996). Cleft constructions in spoken language. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(2), 173-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00079-4 .

31.

Werth, P. (2016). Focus, coherence and emphasis. New York, NY: Routledge .