A Pragmatic Analysis of Discourse Particles in Filipino Computer Mediated Communication

May Antonette Palacio, Leah Gustilo


As the English language continues to evolve through time, many of its structures and functions changed, which made it even realizable that the smallest unit in a discourse can play a crucial role in communication.  Hence, this present study is an attempt to investigate the phenomenon and further delve into the discourse-pragmatic functions of discourse particles (DPs) in digital genres, particularly on Facebook, since DPs are commonly used by Filipino youths when posting and commenting online. Thirty tertiary-level students from different universities in Metro Manila, Philippines, were selected to participate in the present study. Using both qualitative and quasi-quantitative methods, results revealed a surprising number and interesting types of combined English and Filipino Relational DPs having several micro functions. Generally, they serve as a device that can let the interlocutors convey their emotions, relationships, and attitudes towards the receiver of their message. Discourse particles have crucial and prominent implications in the way Filipinos, particularly the youth, express their message, gain understanding of the received message, and establish speaker-receiver relationships and attitude on Facebook.


DOI: http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2016-1603-01



discourse particles; internet language; young talk; CMC; pragmatics

Full Text:



Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus. Retrieved February 9, 2015 from https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HoFuj7zd1-0C&oi=fnd&pg=PP17&dq=Aijmer,+K.+(2002).+English+Discourse+Particles.+Evidence+from+a+Corpus+ebook&ots=cupyOoQgD5&sig=_HVYAjKSyGc2YpdFMWbzbVCeHVQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Andersen, E., Brizuela, M., DuPuy B., & Gonnerman, L. (1999). Cross-linguistic Evidence for the Early Acquisition of Discourse Markers as Register Variables. Journal of Pragmatics. 31(10), 1339-1351.

Andersen, G. (2001). Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation: A Relevance-theoretic Approach to the Language of Adolescents. Retrieved January 27, 2015 from https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=g4Evb2uSkcoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Pragmatic+Markers+and+Sociolinguistic+Variation:+A+relevance-theoretic++approach+to+the+language+of+adolescents+e+book&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAGoVChMIrJTPufr1yAIVSZGUCh3c3gWf#v=onepage&q&f=false

Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Retrieved February 2, 2015 from https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=Z3GuHQxwgo0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Relevance+and+linguistic+meaning:+The+semantics+and+pragmatics+of+discourse+markers&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAGoVChMIhqec9Pr1yAIVybKUCh1mVQmf#v=onepage&q=Relevance%20and%20linguistic%20meaning%3A%20The%20semantics%20and%20pragmatics%20of%20discourse%20markers&f=false

Bodomo, A. (2009). Computer-Mediated Communication for Linguistics and Literacy: Technology and Natural Language Education, USA: IGI Global.

Bolden, G. (2006). Discourse markers. The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. 4, 1-7.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1978). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. In E.N. Goody (Ed.) . Questions and Politeness Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56- 310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dino, C. & Gustilo, L. (2015). Digitalk: An Exploration of the Linguistic Features of CMC. International Journal of Languages, Literature, and Linguistics. 1(1), 51-55.

Fischer, K. (1998). Validating Semantic Analyses of Discourse Particles. Journal of Pragmatics. 29, 111-127.

Fischer, K. (2000). Discourse Particles, Turn-taking, and the Semantics-pragmatics Interface. Retrieved March 4, 2015 from https://nats-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~fischer/rspfischer.pdf

Fox Tree, J. E. & Schrock, J. C. (2002). Basic Meanings of you Know and I Mean. Journal of Pragmatics. 34, 727-747.

Fraser, B. (1999). What Are Discourse Markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–52.

Fung, L. & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse Markers and Spoken English: Native and Learner use in Pedagogical Settings. Applied Linguistics. 28(3), 410-439.

Giora, R. (1997). Discourse coherence and theory of relevance: Stumbling blocks in search of a unified theory. Journal of Pragmatics. 27, 17-34.

Giora, R. (1998). Discourse Coherence is an Independent Notion: A Reply to Deirdre Wilson. Journal of Pragmatics. 29, 75-86

Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan. R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Heidar, D. & Biria, R. (2011). Sociopragmatic Functions of Discourse Markers in International Law Texts. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 1(11), 1479-1487. doi:10.4304/tpls.1.11.1479-148.

Heritage, J. (1998). Oh‐prefaced Responses to Inquiry. Language in Society. 27(3), 291‐334.doi:10.1017/S0047404598003017.

Idris Hayati & Ghani Rozina Abdul. (2012) Construction of Knowledge on Facebook. 3L: Language Linguistics Literature®, Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies. 18(3). pp. 61 – 72.

Jones, C. & Carter, R. (2014). Teaching Spoken Discourse Markers Explicitly: A Comparison of III and PPP. International Journal of English Studies. 14, 37-54.

Knott, A. and Dale, R. (1994). Using Linguistic Phenomena to Motivate a Set of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes. 18(1), 35-62.

Lee, S. K., Lee, K. S., Azizah, Y., & Wong, F. F. (2010). The English Language and its Impact on Identities of Multilingual Malaysian Undergraduates. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. 10(1). pp. 87-101.

Lewis, D. (2006). Discourse Markers in English: A Discourse-pragmatic View. Retrieved March 4, 2015 from https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.bu.edu%2Fbfraser%2FPragmatically%2520Oriented%2FLewis%2520-%2520DM%2520in%2520E%2520-%2520A%2520Prag.%2520View.doc&ei=ZTT3VK2ZD6i1mwXlyYHwAg&usg=AFQjCNGTnhJ6muZL-


Louwerse, M. M., & Heather, M. H. (2003). Toward a Taxonomy of a Set of Discourse Markers in Dialogue: A Theoretical and Computational Linguistic Account. Discourse Processes. 35(3), 243-281.

Low E. L., & Deterding, D. (2003). A corpus-based description of particles in spoken Singapore English. In D. Deterding, Low Ee Ling & A. Brown (Eds.). English in Singapore: Research on Grammar (pp. 58-66). Singapore: McGraw Hill.

Maynard, S. (1992). Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Morales, M. (2013). Examining the Usage of “Actually” and “in Fact” in Philippine English through a Corpus-based Analysis. Philippine ESL Journal. 10, 88-124.

Moreno, A. (2001). Native Speaker – non-native Speaker Interaction: The Use of Discourse Markers. ELIA. 2, 129-142.

Ostman, J.O. 1982. “The Symbiotic Relationship between Pragmatic Particles and Impromptu Speech” in N. Enksvst (Ed.). Impromptu Speech: A Symposium (pp. 147-177). Abo: AboAkademi.

Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and Pragmatic Markers of Discourse Structure. Journal of Pragmatics. 14, 367-381.

Redeker, G. (2000). Discourse Markers as Attentional Cues at Discourse Transitions. Retrieved March 8, 2015 from http://odur.let.rug.nl/redeker/DiscourseMarkers.pdf

Schegloff, E. & Lerner, H. 2009. Beginning to Respond: Well‐prefaced Responses to wh‐questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 42(2), 91‐115.

Scheler, G. & Fischer, K. (1996). The Many Functions of Discourse Particles: A Computational Model of Pragmatic Interpretation. Retrieved February 12, 2015 from https://nats-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~fischer/cogsci.final.pdf

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Siegel, M. (2002). Like: The Discourse Particle and Semantics. Journal of Semantics. 19 (1), 35-71.

Siti Nurbaya Mohd. Nor (2012). Discourse Markers in Turn-initial Positions in Interruptive Speech in a Malaysian Radio Discourse. Multilingua. 31, 113-133.

Stede, M. & Schmitz, B. (2000). Discourse Particles and Discourse Functions. Machine Translation. 15, 125–147.

Stewart, J. (2016). Facebook has 50 minutes of your time each day. It wants more. The New York Times. Retrieved July 27, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/business/facebook-bends-the-rules-of-audience-engagement-to-its-advantage.html?_r=0

Tan-de Ramos, J. (2010). A Comparative Study of the Discourse Marker Types in the Body Section of the Research Papers of DLSU Students. TESOL Journal. 2, 62-73.

Tay, Li Chia, Chan, Mei Yuit, Yap, Ngee Thai, & Wong Bee Eng. (2012). Use of discourse particles in Facebook wall posts among Chinese Malaysian youth. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th Malaysia International Conference on Languages, Literatures, and Cultures: Universiti Putra Malaysia, 2012.

Trihartanti Ratna Padmi & Damayanti Dianita. (2014). The Use of ‘Oh’ and ‘Well’ as Discourse Markers in Conversation of Bandung State Polytechnic Students. Language Education and Acquisition Research Network (LEARN) Journal. 7(1), 22-44.

Trillo, R. 1997. “Your Attention, Please: Pragmatic Mechanisms to Obtain the Addressee’s Attention in English and Spanish Conversations”. Journal of Pragmatics. 28, 205-221.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1979). Pragmatic Connectives. Journal of Pragmatics. 3, 447-456.

Waltereit, R. (2002). Imperatives, Interruption in Conversation, and the Rise of Discourse Markers: A Study of Italian Guarda. Linguistics. 40(5), 987-1010.

Walrod, M. (2006). The Marker is the Message the Influence of Discourse Markers andParticles on Textual Meaning. Retrieved March 29, 2016 from http://www-01.sil.org/asia/Philippines/ical/papers/walrod-Marker%20is%20Message.pdf.

Wang, Y. (2011). A Discourse-pragmatic Functional Study of the Discourse Markers Japanese ano and Chinese nage. Intercultural Communication Studies. 20, 42-61.

Wichmann, A. & Chanet, C. (2009). Discourse Markers: A Challenge for Linguists and Teachers. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française. 29, 23-40.


  • There are currently no refbacks.




eISSN : 2550-2131

ISSN : 1675-8021