Discourse Markers in Informal Hijazi Saudi Conversations Linguistic Analysis Paper I want you to write a proposal about a linguistic analysis of the syntac

Discourse Markers in Informal Hijazi Saudi Conversations Linguistic Analysis Paper I want you to write a proposal about a linguistic analysis of the syntactic and semantic properties of discourse markers in informal Hijazi-Saudi conversations.

I will upload two files:

1- The professor’s instructions of the proposal.

2- A dissertation of the same topic.

* Follow the professor’s instructions.

I want to write about the same idea of the uploaded dissertation but I don’t want any plagiarism from it at all.

* please, add any further and new information about the topic from new publications.

* Use the Harvard style in referencing

* Give me a plagiarism report. Research proposal (in an essay style).
The research proposal should comprise the following sections:
1. a provisional title for your study, followed by your student number;
2. a brief review of the literature relevant to your study. The review should be focussed and
contain enough background information to provide a context for your study in light of
key previous studies that have been done on the topic;
3. a statement of the purpose of your study. This is often accompanied by a research
question (or questions) or a hypothesis (or set of hypotheses) that must follow logically
from and clearly refer back to the literature review. This section usually requires no more
than a couple of paragraphs and usually occurs immediately before the Methods section;
4. a description of the methods you intend to employ, including (where applicable) a
description of the participants (particularly whether children or NHS patients, personnel
or data will be involved), the data collection procedures you will employ (e.g.,
standardized tests, questionnaires, experimental tasks), an estimate of the time required
of each participant, and a description of how you will ensure reliable measurement (e.g.,
inter-, intra-observer agreement). In addition, where applicable explicitly state your
independent and dependent variables (or, in the case of correlation and regression, the
predictor and outcome variables) and any subject selection criteria, including
exclusionary criteria. You should also describe the experimental design and statistical
procedures (if any) you intend to use (e.g., paired t-tests, 2×2 ANOVA, multiple
regression);
5. a detailed description on how you intend to find your participants, where applicable. For
example, how many participants do you intend to use in your study? How will you
approach them? When will you require them to be available? Are they likely to be
available during this time?
The following are not included in the word count but should be included:
6.
7.
8.
a list of references cited in your proposal.
a draft application for ethics approval as an appendix. N.b the complete application
requires discussion with the supervisor and supervisors have not yet been assigned.
Therefore this document should concern what is likely to go in the application.
a timeline for supervision.
In addition, please flag up any resources you will need to complete your study (e.g., test
forms, videotapes, travel, etc.)
ABSTRACT
The aim of this project is to describe and account for the syntactic, semantic and
pragmatic characteristics of discourse markers in Saudi Arabic. Using data obtained from
naturally-occurring, unstructured and informal conversations, this project describes the
frequencies, the syntactic positions and the semantic and pragmatic functions of seven
discourse markers in Saudi Arabic as used by four participants in two recorded conversations.
These markers are: ‘by God’, eeh ‘yeah’, bass •but’, Yaani •it means/ I mean’, tayyeb •0k/ well/
so’, alheen ‘now’ and shesmah ‘what is he/it called?’.
Analysis of the data reveals that the identified discourse markers occurred with some
frequency, averaging one marker per 13.23 words. The results also show that wallah, eeh and
tayyeb appeared primarily in utterance-initial positions. Bass, alheen and yaani were largely
used utterance-medially. Shesmah was employed almost exclusively in utterance-final
positions.
Finally, a detailed investigation of the semantic and pragmatic properties of these markers
indicate that they are used to perform a vast array of communicative functions in addition to
the propositional, non-discourse-marker meanings they have.
1- CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Numerous studies in linguistics have indicated that, cross-linguistically, there are certain
lexical items that appear to be grammatically independent and empty of meaning. These lexical
items have become known in the literature as discourse markers (Shourup, 1985; SchiiTrin,
1987; Fraser, 1988; Fraser, 1990, Fraser, 1999). These lexical items, as it turns out, are not
completely devoid of meaning. They have been found to fulfill a vast array of semantic and
pragmatic functions which contribute to the coherence and the relevance of the sentence,
paragraph or discourse in which they occur (Andersen, Brizuela, DuPuy & Gonnerman, 1999;
Schiffrin, 1987; Han, Dong & Xue, 2010; Louwerse, 2003; Lenk 1995; Lenk 1998; Hoyle
1994; Muller, 2005).
Some of the uses of discourse markers include, but are not limited to, the following: to initiate
discourse, to make a boundary in response, to serve as a filler, to serve as a delaying tactic, to
foreground or background information, to change topics, to hedge or backchannel and many
others (Brinton, 1990; Muller, 2005; I-enk, 1998; Schiffrin, 1987; Ferrara, 1997) . Despite the
existence of extensive literature on discourse markers, especially in Western languages, they
continue to defy precise characterization (Groen, Noyes & Verstraten, 2010). Several syntactic
and semantic properties have been proposed to explain the characteristics and functions of
discourse markers cross-linguistically, yet research in non-Western languages continues to
prove that these properties are not without exceptions (Maschler, 2002; Maschler, 2009; Stede
& Schmitz, 2000). Some discourse markers in different languages of the world tend to serve
some semantic and pragmatic functions that can be considered language-specific (Maschler,
2002, 2009).
This study aims at examining and describing the use of discourse marker in Saudi Arabia. The
goal behind this examination is to arrive at a satisfactory explanation of semantic and pragmatic
functions of the discourse markers in question. Due to the descriptive nature of this project. the
focus will be on a limited set of discourse markers. These markers include “wallah” (by God),
‘:eeh” (yes, yeah),”bass” (but), “alheen” (now), “.shesmah” (what is it / ‘he called?), “yaani” (I
mean•’ it means), and “tayyeb” (well, ‘OK). Two of the questions that this study tries to address
are: I) What are the syntactic properties of these discourse markers. 2) What types of semantic
and pragmatic functions do these discourse makers serve? To answer these questions, I
hypothesize that the discourse markers eeh (yes/yeah). Wallah (hy God), and tayyeb (well,OK)
Will appear frequently in utterance-initial positions. “Bass” (but), yaani (it means/ I mean):
and alheen (now), on the other hand, will appear quite frequently in utterance- medial positions.
Shesmah (what is ithe called?) will be found almost exclusively in utterance- final positions
(more on what is meant by utterance is discussed in the following paragraph). I also
hypothesize that these markers will serve a variety of semantic and pragmatic functions in
discourse, most of which are already attested in the literature. These questions and hypotheses
will be elaborated on in the objectives section Due to the extreme difficulty and inherent
impracticality of determining the syntactic positions of lexical items in spoken discourse using
such terms as ‘-clause” “phrase” and “sentence”, terms that pertain mainly to written discourse,
I adopt the concept of ‘utterance’ as a way to segment the conversational exchanges in the
recorded conversations. The following excerpt from Harris (1951) illustrates the definition of
an utterance and how it is different from similar terms such as a sentence (p.14):
” An utterance is any stretch of talk, by one person, before and after which there is silence on
the part of the person. The utterance is, in general, not identical with the ‘sentence’ (as that word
is commonly used), since a great many utterances, in English for example, consist of single
words phrases, ‘incomplete sentences’, etc. many utterances are composed of parts which are
linguistically equivalent to whole utterances occurring elsewhere. For example, we may have
Sorry. Can’t do it. I’m busy reading Kafka, as an utterance, and sorry. I’m busy reading Kafka
Or Sorry. Or can’t do it. as an independent utterance”.
The primary goal of this project is to identify the discourse markers mentioned above in natural
conversational data in Saudi Arabic. To this effect, naturally occurring conversations involving
4 native speakers Of Saudi Arabic Will be tape-recorded and transcribed. Each conversation
will involve only two speakers. Analysis of the data will aim at examining the identified
discourse markers in various contexts. The quantitative analysis of the data will measure the
frequency and distribution of these discourse markers in question in the recorded
conversations. This quantitative analysis of the data should reveal some of the general
syntactic, semantic and pragmatic functions or these discourse markers. Due to the expected
high frequency of these markers and the impracticality of examining each context in which one
or more discourse markers are used, only a number of selected examples of these markers Will
be analyzed qualitatively in an attempt to identify the environments in which the chosen
discourse particles occur and to determine the precise functions of these discourse markers in
some contexts within the recorded data.
The importance of this project derives from the fact that discourse markers in nonWestern languages in general, and Arabic in particular, are understudied (A1Kohlani, 2010).
This project will contribute to our limited knowledge of discourse markers in Arabic. No
research has been done on discourse markers in Saudi Arabic and this study has the potential
to offer us insights into the nature of discourse markers in Saudi Arabic and some of the
syntactic, semantic and pragmatic functions they fulfill in discourse. More on the importance
of this study is discussed in the Significance of the Research section.
2- Chapter Two: Objectives & Hypotheses:
2. 1- Objectives:
The main goal of this study is to add some substantial knowledge to the study of discourse
markers by exploring and accounting for the uses and functions of the aforementioned markers
in a relatively understudied language variety: Saudi Arabic. Due to the limitations of this
project, I will only examine a limited set of discourse markers. To narrow down the scope of
this study, expressions such as eeh (yes/yeah), wallah (by God), bass (but), yaani (l mean/ it
means), alheen (now), shesmah (what is it/he called?) and ‘ayyeb (well/ 0K) have been selected
to be the primary focus of this project. These seven markers belong to different grammatical
categories and serve various standard semantic meanings in addition to their uses as discourse
particles. This study expands on the discussion of the syntax and semantics of discourse
markers by looking the exact syntactic and semantic characteristics or the aforementioned
markers in Saudi Arabic.
To achieve these goals, this study tries to provide some satisfactory and well-informed answers
to the following questions:
1-What is the exact frequency of occurrence of the identified seven discourse markers in the
recorded conversations?
2-What are the syntactic positions of these discourse marker* in the utterances in which they
occur?
3-What are the semantic/ pragmatic functions that can be assigned to these discourse markers
based on the analysis of the contexts in which they appear?
4-Are these functions in line with the findings of previous research or do these functions reveal
some language-specific uses?
To answer these and other questions about the exact attributes of discourse markers in Saudi
Arabic, a number of hypotheses have been proposed. These hypotheses are listed below:
2.2- Hypotheses:
I hypothesize that:
1 – The selected discourse markers Will occur quite frequently in the recorded data. In other
words, I expect an average of one discourse marker, of the seven discourses markers identified
in the introduction, per 10 words.
2-Eeh (yes/yeah), Wallah (by God), and rayyeb (well, oK) Will appear more frequently in
utterance-initial positions. Bass (but), yaani (I mean/ it means), and alheen (now) Will be used
more frequently utterance-medially. Shesmah (What is it, he called?) Will appear almost
exclusively in utterance-final positions.
3-the seven discourse markers identified in this study will serve a variety of semantic and
pragmatic functions, most of which are already attested in the literature.
3-Chapter Three: Background Information:
Arabic is considered the mother tongue of Over 300 million people in Over 23 different
countries in the Middle East (see figure l). Native speakers of Arabic realize the distinction
between at least three different types of Arabic: Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), and
the regional and the colloquial varieties spoken across the Arab World. Both Classical Arabic
and MSA are considered types of allugah alfusha, which roughly means “literary Arabic”
whereas the different spoken varieties of Arabic are termed allugah alammyiah colloquial
Arabic” (Dakwar, 2005).
Classical Arabic or Quranic Arabic is the language of the Quran (the holy book of Muslims)
and it is used to refer to the variety of Arabic spoken in the 7th through the 9th centuries
(Hussain,2009). Although no longer used in everyday speech, Classical Arabic is partially
preserved due to the fact that it is the type of language used in Friday sermons and in prayers,
since the Quran as well as the sayings Of Prophet Mohammed were written in Classical Arabic.
Throughout the centuries, many changes have happened to Classical Arabic, changes that
ultimately led to the rise of what is known now as Modern Standard Arabic (MSA)
(Hussain,2009). MSA is nowadays recognized as the standard variety of Arabic throughout the
Arabic-speaking world. Acquired mainly through formal education in schools and universities,
MSA is the variety of Arabic used in the media and formal education. It is also the variety of
Arabic in which books, articles, magazines and newspapers are written and in which formal
discourse is carried out (Holes, 1995). Altoma (1969) labels MSA as “a mainly written, literary
and formal language that displays a high degree of uniformity, and functions as the official
standard language in all Arab countries” (from Dakwar,2005 p.75).
Spoken Arabic varieties are the varieties used for everyday communication. As
mentioned above, the different varieties of Spoken Arabic are all described as examples of
allugah alammyiah “colloquial Arabic”. These Spoken Arabic varieties differ from one country
to another and even from one region to another within the same country (Holes, 1995). These
differences manifest themselves in terms of the phonology, morphology, syntax and, most
importantly, vocabulary of these dialects (Watson, 2002). In some cases, these differences are
so huge that they render a certain variety of Arabic unintelligible to the speakers or another.
Saudi Arabic will be the main focus of my investigation in this project.
Saudi Arabic is used to refer to the different dialects spoken in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. It is not surprising to know that a tremendous amount of linguistic diversity exists
within the thirteen provinces of which the kingdom is comprised (see figure 2). While these
different dialects do exhibit certain differences in terms of phonology, morphology, syntax and
semantics, they share enough similarities that distinguish them from other Spoken dialects of
Arabic such as Kuwaiti Arabic, Iraqi Arabic, and Egyptian Arabic, just to mention a few. In
other words. these dialects constitute What is known as spoken Saudi Arabic.
For purposes of this project, the data will be obtained via recording natural conversations
involving native speakers of Najdi Arabic. Najdi Arabic is the main spoken dialect used for
daily conversations in Riyadh, which is the capital of Saudi Arabia. In fact, it can be claimed
that Najdi Arabic is spoken all across the whole Province of Riyadh. not just the city of Riyadh
(see figure 3). Several reasons led me to choose this dialect. ‘The Najdi dialect, like the different
dialects of Saudi Arabic, continues to be understudied (A1-Sweel, 1987). The high prestige
associated with speaking the Najdi dialect was another reason for me as the author to focus on
this particular variety of Saudi Arabic. This is not surprising since Najdi Arabic is the variety
spoken by the Royal Family. It is also the spoken dialect used in some of the most famous
Saudi TV shows such as Tash Ma Tash.
In addition to all of the aforementioned reasons, I realized that having strong intuitions about
the dialect in question as well as being quite familiar with the participants and their speech
styles will lead to a more accurate analysis and interpretation of the data gathered. I consider
myself a native speaker Of Najdi Arabic since I was born and raised in Riyadh.
4- Chapter Four: Significance of the Research:
The study of the use of discourse markers in Saudi Arabic is important to the relevant research
community for a number of reasons. The study of discourse markers, as many linguists have
pointed out, is a relatively new enterprise (Urgelles-Coll, 2011). While these discourse particles
began to come to the attention of linguists over three decades ago, the bulk of research on the
use of discourse markers started in the late 1980s, particularly after the publication of
Schiffrin’s Discourse Markers (1987). It is hoped that the results of this study Will add some
knowledge to the existing literature about the use of discourse markers in Arabic which can be
described as severely lacking at best compared to English.
As is mentioned before, discourse markers are understudied in the Arabic linguistic literature.
Research on the communicative functions of discourse markers is lacking in Arabic in general,
and is non-existent in several dialects of Arabic, very few studies have investigated the roles
these discourse connectives play in spoken and written discourse in Arabic. In her 2010
dissertation, Alkohlani claims that only three studies in Arabic have examined the role these
lexical items play in Arabic discourse (2010. p.8). In the case of Saudi Arabic, which is the
focus of this study, research on discourse markers seems to be non-existent. To the best Of my
knowledge, no research has been done on the usage and functions of discourse markers in any
dialect of Saudi Arabic. Therefore, this study will be carried out to fill in the existing gap by
looking at the syntactic and semantic characteristics of these markers in naturally-occurring
conversations in Saudi Arabic. The results, I hope, will add to our understanding of the
properties and functions of discourse markers from a non-Western linguistic perspective.
Moreover, this project attempts to add some genuine knowledge to the existing literature about
the communicative uses and functions of discourse markers from a cross-linguistic perspective
by studying these particles in a non-Western language. While human languages seem to agree
on the use of discourse markers. they differ in terms of what discourse markers are used, what
their usage frequency is and how they are distributed (Verdonik et al 2007; Stede & Schmitz,
2000). This can be attributed to the fact that these markers serve different communicative
functions in different human languages (Stede & Schmitz, 2000). This study Will reveal some
of these functions in Spoken Saudi Arabic. The results of this study should also benefit linguists
dealing with Arabic discourse analysis.
In addition to what has been mentioned, the results of this study should be helpful for
learners of Arabic as a second language. As is the case with many other lexical items, the use
of discourse markers falls below the level of consciousness for native speakers. The misuse or
these particles normally leads to discourse deemed unnatural and non-native-like by native
speakers (Alkohlani, 2010). By examinin…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment