Summary
#e paper discusses the meta-communicative features of pragmatic markers. Communication 
is approached from the Bakhtinian concept of dialogism, which is seen as a two-way process 
between interlocutors in speech. 
In this view, the word is seen as a dialogical item that exists and gains meaning only in the 
context in which it is used. Pragmatic markers are dialogically fecund in their use. #ey play an 
important role in the communicative process thanks not only to their dialogical value but also 
to their meta-status. #ey are meta-communicative, meta-linguistic and meta-pragmatic linking 
words that express our divergent viewpoints and positions in communication. 
 
Key words: communication, pragmatic markers, Bakhtin
 Povzetek
Članek obravnava meta-komunikativne značilnosti pragmatičnih označevalcev. Sporazumevanje 
razumemo z vidika Bakhtinovega koncepta dialogizma, ki ga razume kot dvosmerni process 
med udeleženci v sporazumevanju in govorom. Tako je beseda zgolj dialoška enota, ki obstaja 
in dobi pomen samo v kontekstu, v katerem se pojavi. Pragmatični označevalci so z vidika 
rabe dialoško plodoviti. V sporazumevalnem procesu igrajo pomembno vlogo tako zaradi 
svoje dialoške vrednosti kot tudi zaradi svojega meta-statusa. So meta-sporazumevalne, meta-
jezikovne in meta-pragmatične vezalne/vezne beside, ki izražajo naše različne poglede  in položaje 
v sporazumevanju.
 
Ključne beside: jezikoslovje, besediloslovje, intonacija
 DOI: 10.4312/elope.5.1-2.89-98

Communication, as one of the most complex and sophisticated means that humanity has 
invented, helps us to profoundly explore human nature. It is a linguistic performance which 
enables people’s perception of their feelings and attitudes, their interpersonal relations in society 
and reality in general. It is so vital a process that one cannot conceive of a society in the absence 
of this.
Certainly there are different ways through which interlocutors are capable of communicating with 
one another. For instance, they most often use gestures, facial expressions, intonation and other non-
linguistic means to accompany the communicative process. Most of the time, however, interlocutors 
rely on language itself to accomplish their interactions, and other, non-linguistic, means are only 
complementary to it. #erefore, while studying non-linguistic means is fascinating work, research 
into language aspects which facilitate communication is of primary importance.
Communicative acts that speakers produce in their linguistic interactions use the linguistic code 
and its elements as the main “substance”. However, these acts or the communicative process 
as a whole are so dynamic, and at the same time so sensitive to the linguistic environment 
(context), that they are liable to be affected by some apparently invisible factors such as social, 
historical, spatial, interpersonal, functional, and discursive ones. From this perspective, in this 
paper we shall discuss how communication in general and certain linguistic items in particular, 
commonly known as pragmatic markers, are influenced by and related to the theory of dialogism 
as developed and elaborated by Mikhail Bakhtin in the 1920s and 1930s. 
#e majority of Bakhtin’s theory is a reaction to, a direct antithesis of, Saussure’s language-
speech model, according to which dichotomy language is the basic and the only dominant 
system enabling the individual communicative process. Saussure describes language as an 
objective abstract system of laws governing all the phonetic, grammatical and lexical forms, and 
interlocutors should regard this system as a closed circle dominated by fixed and undisputed 
rules. In addition, speech is so unsystematic that it cannot be studied efficiently. Saussure and 
other structuralists disregard the social view of language and ignore language as a fundamentally 
social phenomenon.
Bakhtin, whose dialogical theory considers verbal interaction a dialogue, neither denies the 
importance of semiotics and linguistic code nor that of systematic language description and 
the concepts of structuralism. What he champions is the indispensability of the dialogical and 
social communicative context of language, without which language would be practically empty, 
a means with little communicative values, simply a monological frozen system. Bakhtin (1986, 
118) observes that

#e subject of linguistics is only the material, only the means of speech communication, 
and not speech communication itself, not utterances in their essence, and not the 
relationships among them (dialogic)…. Linguistics studies only the relationships 
among elements within the language systems, not the relationships among utterances 
and not the relations of utterances to reality and to the speaker.
#us, dialogism is a general framework for the perception of language with communicative 
values based on concrete language use and verbal interactions in social discourse, while its 
counter-theory, monologism as represented in the Saussurean view, deals exclusively with 
language representation in the individual, based on the language system, structure, rules and 
the linguistic code as part of semiotics as a science. 
 Various terms have been used by scholars in the literature to label those linking words or devices 
(e.g. therefore, so, although, but, etc.) which mark relations of cohesion and coherence in 
discourse. Halliday and Hasan (1976) and Sweetser (1990) use the term conjunctions, Schiffrin 
(1987) and Fraser (1996) use the term marker (the preferred term here) and, Van Dijk (1979) 
uses the label connectives. Although the terms differ and slightly different definitions have been 
given for them, they refer to the same linking devices, which, broadly speaking, have been divided 
into two types, according to the relation that they signal in discourse: semantic and pragmatic.
Relations between propositions in discourse are enabled through semantic markers, which only 
connect two related denoted facts; no speaker’s intentions are conveyed through them, as in 
Example 1. On the other hand, pragmatic markers signal the relation of two related speech acts 
and are not part of the proposition of the sentence when they “convey the speaker’s potential 
communicative intentions” (Fraser 1996). #us, while semantic markers are linguistic devices 
used to fulfill cohesive relations in discourse, pragmatic markers are metalinguistic devices, 
which operate exactly the same way as do the former, but are “equipped” with pragmatic and 
communicative values, as in Example 2 and 3. 
 
(1) He got tired of being turned away from bars and souvenir shops, so he left them back at 
the inn. (1996 News AssocPress) COCA
(2)  Now I think Saddam does have still a loyal army and a very repressive security service, so it 
is not   out of the question that he can end this problem. [open opposition to the regime] 
(1991 SPOK PBS_Newshour) COCA
(3)  I don’t see Gorbachev interest to keep those troops there. So it is a question of time before 
those troops are going to go. (1990 SPOK PBS_ Newshour) COCA
#e classification of pragmatic markers is a very difficult task, for they make up an open 
class in which various parts of speech and structures may be included. However, among 
the common markers are: conjunctions, interjections, adverbials, performative expressions, 
complex expressions and particles

#e aim of the paper is to discuss the meta features of pragmatic markers as seen in the dialogical 
sphere. In our empirical and qualitative study, we wish to draw attention to these units that, among 
other functions such as enabling cohesion or coherence in discourse, dialogise communication 
because of the meta status they enjoy. We believe that this meta status consists in the fact that 
they appear not only as linguistic, pragmatic or communicative devices, but they go one step 
further by representing the existence of other voices in the discourse; by doing so pragmatic 
markers dialogise implicitly or explicitly by communicating economically with additional and 
possible world views. #e hypothesis is that most pragmatic markers in communication work in 
the dialogical plan by forwarding the author’s thesis, argument, intention, viewpoint and so on, 
as opposed to those of other present or absent interlocutors. For instance in Example 4, 
(4) Tenet was too good a guy to lie intentionally, but unfortunately, his loyalty to the 
president and his inner circle was greater than his loyalty to his agency’s analysis and, 
ultimately, his loyalty to the truth and his responsibility to have that truth heard. 
(FLM S_brdcast_discussn) BNC
Is the author simply attempting to state that Tenet remained faithful to President Bush Sr.’s 
line and hid the details of the agency analysis by presenting it simply as a fact? Is this fact 
subordinate to his making the truth heard? Does the author try to persuade the audience? Or 
is he implying other divergent viewpoints in the text? Do we have key words that make the 
author’s voice and that of the others heard in the passage? After all, is he communicating with 
someone? #ese are some of the questions that need to be answered.
 As a basis for our study, we have explored two sources for our qualitative research, the 385-
million-word Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and the 100-million-word 
British National Corpus (BNC), both freely available online.
1
 #ere is enough information 
in the examples included in the paper to provide the appropriate contextual environment for 
our analysis. 
 Our research is mainly a qualitative study rather than a quantitative one. #is means that our 
purpose has been to highlight the most important pragmatic markers, which are pragmatically 
and communicatively relevant in people’s interactive processes. It was discovered that they 
have a role to play in the communication between interlocutors. We would like to begin our 
data discussion with performative verbs. 
 

(5) I don’t think that he would be where he is today without her support and her help 
and her dedication to him. But also, like I said, I think they worked together and 
they were supportive of each other and that’s why they’re where they are today. (1990 
SPOK ABC_2020) COCA
#e discussion is about Mrs. Barbara Bush’s contribution to President Bush Sr.’s performance 
in his career as a president. #e speaker is both linguistically and pragmatically communicating 
with others by not only expressing his own opinion about her support for her husband him but 
also demonstrating his linguistic diversity and position in society. Evidence of his diversity is the 
unstated presence of additional possible voices which characterize the linguistic communicative 
process. #e use of two pragmatic markers I don ’t think and I think is clearly indicative of the fact 
that the author is either recognizing other voices in the discussion or he is attempting to influence 
or persuade the audience, who may hold a different viewpoint. It should be noted that the first 
marker is not negating the proposition which follows it, but is simply accepting the fact that there 
may be other standpoints regarding the proposition. And I think is obviously pointing to persuasive 
reasons; otherwise the proposition alone (they worked together and they were supportive of each 
other) would merely be a fact, which in our context, is not necessarily so. Similarly, in Example 6,
(6) Well, I believe that everyone who lives in this world cannot but be impressed by 
the developments that have taken place in the Soviet bloc, in the eastern European 
countries. No doubt that this development might open a new era in global relations. 
But, I ask myself in which direction the danger of wars, years of wars, has been 
reduced, towards the Middle East, or towards NATO countries? To me, it’s clear that 
if at all, there is a reduction of danger, is vis-à-vis NATO and European countries. 
(1990 SPOK ABC_Nightline) COCA
there would be no need for the speaker (George Bush Sr.) to defend his stance by making a 
strong assertion, using no doubt that and it’s clear that, were it not for the fact that he expects his 
standpoint to meet with doubt. Pragmatically speaking, the voice of the author in the passage 
is dialogizing the communication and, as a result, is admitting that there is no unification as to 
his position about the opening of a new area in global relation and danger reduction. A longer 
extract, would have to provide more meta-pragmatic and meta-communicative discussions, 
which would rely mostly on pragmatic markers and their meta status.
Very similar to the meta pragma-communicative function of performative verbs discussed in 
Examples 5 and 6 are the adverbs of strong assertions. Common examples in our research, 
both in written and spoken texts, were surely, certainly and definitely, as in Example 7. 
(7) Some institutions allow student and faculty involvement in social and political causes 
to excuse them from their educational responsibilities. Certainly, students should 
become interested in the social and political questions facing a free people, but they 
deserve to be taught that moral fervor is no substitute for diligent and systematic 
learning. (1990 ACAD AcademicQs) COCA

#e presence of communicative voices is also common among conjunctions and connectors, 
which are frequently used elements in texts. #eir typology is rich, from conditions, concessions, 
results and so on. #ese pragmatic markers carry many pragmatic and communicative nuances, 
which we wish to highlight in our discussion.
Pragmatic markers in conditional clauses and sentences convey different dialogizing nuances 
and not only the condition to be fulfilled for an event to take place. #eir frequent use in 
communication presupposes the unstated alternative possibility of an experience or occurence 
affirmed in the proposition of the clause, which the conditional pragmatic markers introduce. 
In Example 8,
(8)  She was silent for a moment. “Look,” I said. “#e best thing for all of us is for me just 
to go back to London. If there is a solution to all this, that’s where I’ll find it. (A0F) 
W_fict_prose BNC
the recognition of two possibilities as a solution, positive or negative, is to be deduced indirectly 
from the text. #e silent interlocutor is being presented with two potential and exclusive 
alternatives, for which he should arrive at relevance values of the marker if in order to perceive 
the entire dialogically dominated meta-communicative features of the discourse.  
Similarly, Example 9,
(9) By recognising that a number of subjects have a valid and useful contribution to 
make, some elements may be given less weighty consideration than others and the 
interrelationships may become lost. Unless there is a truly successful arrangement for 
the coordination of this teaching in schools, the current confusion will persist into the 
next generation. (APE W_ac_polit_law_edu) BNC
unless does not, of course, negate the propositional content of the sentence; rather it dialogizes 
the communication by inviting the interlocutor (again absent) to follow the procedural and 
not the conceptual communicative meaning the message contains. #e pragmatic marker 
unless voices the pre-premise for the conclusion in the second clause. It also does not exclude 
the possibility that truly successful arrangements might not be made because thought of, as 
irrelevant by other standpoint holders. #e author does acknowledge the indirect participation 
of others in his communicative process.  
Concessive pragmatic markers, numerous in our database, concede or contrast situations 
introduced progressively or retrogressively. Anyway in Example 10,  
(10)  My own landlord did, in fairness, give me veiled offers of money (bribes) to move elsewhere 
but in all honesty I simply wasn’t streetwise enough to figure out what exactly he had in 
mind. Also -- and I’m quite prepared to admit this -- because of all the problems I was 
having trying to find work, just at that moment I really didn’t want the bother of hunting 
for a new home. #at, if need be, could be sorted out at a later date. Anyway, there was 
hardly an atmosphere of trust between the two of us so the idea of me “dealing” with him 
was not a comfortable one. (A0F W_fict_prose) BNC

is a pragmatically and communicatively powerful marker, which acts in two dimensions. 
In the first, it coherently structures the communication and in the second, anyway conveys 
elements of doubt about the preceding statements the interlocutor has made. #e uncertainty 
and hesitation implicitly refer to the dialogical communicative situation, which allows for 
additional voices to be heard once the other interlocutor’s perception is taken into account.
Another very frequent pragmatic marker of concession is however, which behaves slightly 
differently from anyway, but still contributes to the dialogical process of communication. 
Example 11 includes two instances of it.
   
(11) One of the most powerful forms of non-verbal communication is dress. #e usual 
dress for Japanese businessmen is a dark suit, a white shirt and dark tie. However, 
most Japanese businessmen acquainted with foreigners have come to expect a certain 
variety within reasonable limits in the dress of foreign businessmen. It is not, therefore, 
expected that one should imitate the Japanese mode of dress. However, one should avoid 
extremes in dress which may cause uneasiness. For example, loud clothing will create 
the disturbing feeling among the Japanese businessmen that the foreigner has perhaps 
failed to take them as seriously as he might have, by failing to observe that the common 
practice in dress in Japan is some degree of formality. (K94 W_commerce) BNC
#e producer of the text is certainly in the informative realm of a monological process, 
through which the main purpose is to simply inform the audience about dressing as a powerful 
form of non-verbal communication. However, the passage is so detailed in its description and 
informativeness that the other interlocutor, for whom the fact possibly is unknown, is invited 
to assess the situation and to respond positively with the dominant voice in the discourse. 
#e role of however in both cases is to add further information in the sentences they head and 
to pragmatically contribute to the interpretation of the same sentences as contradicting the 
previous ones. Here the reader or the interlocutor is involved in the cognitive process, in which 
he should make his evaluations and silently make his voice matter. Again, once we talk about 
people perception we are in the dialogical sphere of communication.
#e pragmatic marker so appeared to be the most important pragmatic marker in the result/
consequence category. Example 12:
(12) It’s really with regard to the advertising of tobacco products and I think we all agree that 
we do have a responsibility to protect children. And what we do from research is that 
children who smoke are more likely to smoke the brands that are heavily advertised and 
we also know that advertising reinforces smoking, it makes, makes people think that 
smoking is okay. So I think these are two very, very valid reasons why we ought to ban all 
forms of tobacco advertising. (FLM S_brdcast_discussn) BNC
#e pragmatic marker so introduces the conclusion of the passage and it is supported by 
some premises. Here the speaker’s intention is to convince the audience through rhetorical 

means and to express and forward his standpoint. Once involved in this persuasive process 
and expression of standpoint, we inevitably expect dialogised feedback from the interlocutor. 
Willingly, the speaker is dialogising his communicative act with the marker so.
 
Quite interestingly, pragmatic markers as dialogical elements almost always work together and 
in combination in discourse. #ey harmonize communication to perfection as in Example 13, 
in which they intensely dialogize the communicative environment. 
(13) Many experts I’ve talked to and now, as we’ve seen, law enforcement officials, say 
that educating people about the dangers of drugs is maybe the best way to combat the 
problem and treat it as a medical problem, a health problem, not a criminal problem. 
Tobacco, according to the Public Health Service, is addictive and legal and kills over 
300,000 Americans each year, but it’s very unlikely to be outlawed because that could 
make things worse. However, it is now becoming socially unacceptable. People are 
being educated away from tobacco, so education is doing what prohibition is not able 
to do. And that same approach might well be applied to what is now illegal drug use. 
(1990 SPOK ABC_2020) COCA
 
Example 13 is a typical argumentative passage extracted from a TV programme, in which 
the interlocutors are discussing the progress made by the Bush administration in the fight 
against illegal drug use. #e speaker highlights the administration’s inefficiency in reducing the 
number of drug users and preventing drug dealing. He is continuously engaged in a dialogue 
with the other interlocutor, who reports on successful law enforcement and positive results 
obtained. At the same time, the speaker is attempting to persuade the audience to share his 
viewpoint. #erefore, the dialogical realm of the discourse acts in a parallel and simultaneous 
way with two targeted interlocutors.
#e conclusion, which is introduced retrogressively, is supported directly by various 
subconclusions and premises throughout the extract, which would hardly stand in logical 
and coherent relation, were it not for the pragmatic markers (but, because, however, so, and). 
Fortunately, there are these markers that specifically refer to standpoints and argumentation 
by making the discourse even more socialized, externalized and functionalized
2
 as well. Also, 
they clarify the three most important properties of the argumentation, the structure, meaning 
and the speaker’s intentions in argumentation. Van Eemeren et al. (1996, 13) notes that “the 
fewer the number of verbal pointers, the more it will be necessary to make use of verbal and 
nonverbal contextual clues”.
#e mere fact that the pragmatic markers discussed above appear as textual devices in the 
surface structure of the discourse does not mean that they would act the same way in the 
underlying structure. It is precisely here that they dialogise the argumentation and, in doing 
so, the different voices (expectations, responses, evaluations etc) become concrete and could 
be heard. #e marker but, does not only show contrast between the two utterances it relates 
 

(tobacco being addictive and its unlikelihood to be outlawed), but also “resonates” the speaker’s 
voice with other ones, although not directly present in the text. #e same thing could be said for 
the because that has two purposes: to introduce the premise and to clearly express the speaker’s 
strong doubt that outlawing tobacco is the right choice. However socializes the unacceptability 
of smoking, and so opens a “conflict” between education and prohibition supporters. Lastly, and 
functionalizes and externalizes the conclusion the speaker wishes the other to reach as well. 
 Communication is not simply the use of the language abstract system, nor a process which is 
fulfilled in isolation. It is most complex and comprises a number of metalinguistic factors in the 
social dimension, where linguistic interaction is accomplished. By nature, the communicative 
process is socialized and externalized in a dialogical fashion. A single voice could only be heard 
if it is combined with a complex choir of divergent voices in communication. It is deeply and 
fundamentally cooperative in linguistic interactions and in the presence of opposing voices, 
whether stated or absent in discourse.
It was also noticed that the linguistic message of communication is not the only purpose in 
the communicative process, which necessarily seeks a parallel referential value for the social 
and contextual phenomena resting outside the linguistic communicative acts themselves. 
Pragmatic markers, through their metalinguistic function, bridge the external and internal 
linguistic world of the interlocutors in the communication. #ey dialogise communication 
by expressing our divergent standpoints, evaluations and responses, which emit a high level of 
resonance in the dialogical sphere and a complex deictic value. #e empirical study revealed 
that communication is dialogised, among other means, through the strategic maneuvering and 
use of pragmatic markers, which, to different extents, proved to be metalinguistically, meta-
pragmatically and meta-communicatively indispensable devices. Dialogised communication 
through pragmatic markers demonstrate various and rich nuances of discussion, depending 
greatly on social and functional features.