Discourse particles have received a considerable amount of scholarly attention in linguistic research. Although their use in specific text types has been discussed, few studies have actually attempted to look at the effect of text type on their use. Therefore, how the use of discourse particles is related to the situational context in which they are produced remains a largely unexplored area. In this article, the use of one of the most frequently occurring yet often overlooked discourse particles, so, in a number of monologic and dialogic texts is examined. Drawing on data from a spoken corpus of Hong Kong English, the present study shows that the frequency rates and functions of so as a discourse particle vary according to the text type in which it occurs. Findings from the study thus argue that the full range of functions realized by so as a discourse particle cannot be determined without taking into account the wide range of communicative events in which the particle is used. This highlights the fact that contextual cues are indispensable in the interpretation of the pragmatic meanings of discourse particles.
Aijmer, K. (2002) English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2.
Andersen, G. (1998) `The Pragmatic Marker Like from a Relevance-Theoretic Perspective', in A.H. Jucker and Y. Ziv (eds) Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, pp. 147-70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3.
Bazzanella, C. (1990) `Phatic Connectives as Interactional Cues in Contemporary Spoken Italian', Journal of Pragmatics14: 629-47.
4.
Biber, D. (1988) Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
6.
Blakemore, D. (1988) `So as a Constraint on Relevance', in R.M. Kempson (ed.) Mental Representations. The Interface between Language and Reality, pp. 183-95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
8.
Cheng, W., Greaves, C. and Warren, M. (2005) `The Creation of Prosodically Transcribed Intercultural Corpus: The Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English (Prosodic)', International Computer Archive of Modern English (ICAME) Journal29: 5-26.
9.
Cheng, W., Greaves, C. and Warren, M. (2008) A Corpus-Driven Study of Discourse Intonation: The Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English (Prosodic). Amsterdam : John Benjamins.
10.
Cobuild (2002) Collins Cobuild Advanced Learner's English Dictionary. London: HarperCollins.
11.
Firth, J. (1957) Papers in Linguistics. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
12.
Fox Tree, J.E. (2006) `Placing Like in Telling Stories', Discourse Studies8(6): 723-43.
13.
Fraser, B. (1999) `What are Discourse Markers?', Journal of Pragmatics31: 931-52.
14.
Greasley, P. (1994) `An Investigation into the Use of the Particle Well: Commentaries on a Game of Snooker', Journal of Pragmatics22: 477-94.
15.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. London : Longman.
16.
Holmes, J. (1984) `Hedging Your Bets and Sitting on the Fence: Some Evidence for Hedges as Support Structure', Te Reo27: 47-62.
17.
Jefferson, G. (1983) `On a Failed Hypothesis: ``Conjunctionals'' as Overlap-vulnerable', Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature28: 29-33.
18.
Jucker, A.H. (1993) `The Discourse Marker Well: A Relevance Theoretical Account', Journal of Pragmatics19: 435-52.
19.
Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (2002) A Communicative Grammar of English. Harlow: Longman.
20.
Lenk, U. (1995) `Discourse Markers and Conversational Coherence' , in B. Warvik, S.-K. Tanskanen and R. Hiltunen (eds) Anglicana Turkuensia 14: Organization in Discourse. Proceedings from the Turku Conference, pp. 341-52. Turku: University of Turku.
21.
Lenk, U. (1998) Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
22.
Mukherjee, J. (2001) Form and Function of Parasyntactic Presentation Structures. A Corpus-Based Study of Talk Units in Spoken English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
23.
Müller, S. (2005) Discourse Markers in Native and Non-Native English Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
24.
Östman, J.-O. (1982) `The Symbiotic Relationship between Pragmatic Particles and Impromptu Speech', in N.E. Enkvist (ed.) Impromptu Speech: A Symposium, pp. 147-77. Åbo: The Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation.
25.
Prodromou, L. (2003) `In Search of the Successful User of English', Modern English Teacher12(2): 5-14.
26.
Redeker, G. (1990) `Ideational and Pragmatic Markers of Discourse Structure', Journal of Pragmatics14: 367-81.
27.
Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
28.
Schourup, L. (1999) `Tutorial Overview: Discourse Markers', Lingua107: 227-65.
29.
Silverstein, M. (1992) `The Indeterminacy of Contextualisation: When is Enough Enough?', in P. Auer and A. di Luzio (eds) The Contextualization of Language, pp. 55-76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
30.
Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse. London: Oxford University Press.
31.
Sinclair, J. and Mauranen, A. (2006) Linear Unit Grammar: Integrating Speech and Writing . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
32.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
33.
Stenström, A.-B. (1990) `Lexical Items Peculiar to Spoken Discourse', in J. Svartvik (ed.) The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research, pp. 137-75. Lund : Lund University Press.
van Dijk, T.A. (2006) `Discourse, Context and Cognition', Discourse Studies8: 159-77.
36.
Warren, M. (2006) Features of Naturalness in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37.
Watts, R.J. (1989) `Taking the Pitcher to the ``Well'': Native Speakers' Perception of Their Use of Discourse Markers in Conversation', Journal of Pragmatics13: 203-37.
