BOUZIDA Taous
Université d’Alger 2 Abou el Kacem Saâdallah
YASSINE Souryana
Université de Tizi Ouzou Mouloud Mammeri
Abstract
Discourse markers play an important role in the maintenance of coherence in discourse. In addition to their indicative roles of discourse coherence, discourse markers express different pragmatic functions. In Algeria, multilingual students may use ‘well’ and ‘bon’ interchangeably. The aim of this study is to analyse the pragmatic functions of ‘well’ and ‘bon’. Being pragmatic markers, ‘well’ and ‘bon’ are used to convey different pragmatic functions. Adopting a contrastive pragmatic perspective, the analysis of their pragmatic functions is done through translations from English to French or from French to English. the preliminary results show that multilingual students tend to use ‘well’ and ‘bon’ to convey the same pragmatic functions of exclamation, astonishment, and concession. However they do not equate ‘well’ and ‘bon’ to express some other pragmatic functions. The use of ‘well’ and ‘bon’ to communicate the same or different pragmatic functions gives us an idea of how multilingual students use English and French in everyday life settings.
Key words: pragmatic markers, translation, pragmatic function, multilingualism
Introduction
Human beings use certain strategies to maintain the flow of the conversation; these strategies can be verbal or Nonverbal. Among the verbal strategies, there is what is referred to as Discourse Markers (DMs). DMs play an important role as they bridge between what is already said and what is next. Therefore, the analysis of DMs is that one of discourse coherence as referred to by Schiffrin (1987): “The analysis of discourse markers is regarded as a part of the more general analysis of discourse coherence- how speakers and hearers jointly integrate forms, meanings, and actions to make overall sense out of what is said”(p, 49).
In their narrowed definitions, DMs might be conjunctions, adverbs or prepositional phrases that link between clauses and sentences so as to unify them,(Fraser, 1999). Yet, Redeker (2006) considers that DMs indicate relationships of coherence. More importantly,Furko (2007) investigated the functions conveyed by DMs in terms of their pragmatic characteristics. In other words, besides signalling coherence, DMs are said to express different pragmatic functions. DMs are; then referred to as Pragmatic Markers (PMs), (Aijmer and Vandenbergen, 2006). Aijmir (2015) states that PMs are “context-bound and multifunctional and have therefore been a challenge for linguists interested in semantics and pragmatics”(p,201). In other words, PMs convey pragmatic functions that have context specific meanings which are as varied as the situations created by speakers and hearers are.
Regarding the various possible meanings that a PM may have, Aijmer (2015) suggested that translation to another language may be an effective way in determining the functions of a PM. He stated: “One way in which these issues can be approached is by studying the ways in which pragmatic markers are translated into another language” (p, 201).Furthermore, Beeching (2010) demonstrated that the meaning of a PM is related to its propositional and hedging usage; such conclusion was derived from the analysis of ‘effectively’ and ‘finalement’.
This research paper investigates the different functions conveyed by ‘well’ and ‘bon’ in everyday life conversations of Algerian multilingual students of English. Moreover, it attempts to contrast the functions of ‘well’ and ‘bon’, through translation, to measure their correspondence. Thus, a contrastive pragmatic analysis of ‘well’ and ‘bon’ is required to answer the following research questions:
-
What are the pragmatic functions of ‘well’ and ‘bon’ used by multilingual Algerian students?
-
To what extent do the PM ‘bon’ replaces the PM ‘well’ in its pragmatic functions?
‘Well’ in the literature
Short words like so, right or well are constantly used in oral conversations; they are referred to as PMs. They convey different pragmatic functions as attributed to them by the speakers. That is, the use of ‘well’ in utterances is not determined by any semantic or grammatical rules, Schiffrin (1987). Many studies have been conducted to analyse the PM ‘well’; M. Li and Y. Xiao (2012), for instance, have identified four pragmatic functions of ‘well’; ‘well’ as A delay marker: some speakers use ‘well’ to gain time when they are not ready to answer; as A Repair marker: to indicate the intention to reformulate or to rearrange the speech; as A Frame marker: speakers tend toconverse about more than one topic, to make of their utterances coherent ones, they use ‘well’; as A Mitigation marker: ‘Well’ might be used to deny, refuse and object in a polite way; thus, it functions like a face saver device.
Moreover, Finell (1989) pointed out to the concessive qualities of ‘well’, stating that the hearer“Looks at the matter differently than the speaker does. Nevertheless, the speaker is willing to admit that the interlocutor has got a point in his / her argument or that the issue the interlocutor is presenting … is not totally out of the question” (p, 655). Furthermore, ‘well’ functions also asa response marker (Schiffrin, 1987) or an initiation marker (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson, 1974). Also; Schegloff and Sacks (1973) noticed that ‘well’ is commonly used by speakers to talk about an unexpected subject or to engage in an additional subject before closing the conversation, they referred to it as a pre-Closing tool. Then, ‘well’may cross interactional silence to maintain the flow of the conversation; hence, ‘well’ can serve as A pause filling device, (Jucker, 1997).
‘Bon’ in the literature
Depending on the speakers’ intentions,words like ‘bon’ may convey multiple meanings. ‘Bon’ has a multifunctional property that has been subject of various studiesas: Winther (1985), Hansen (1998), and Jayez (2004) summarised the characteristics of ‘bon’ as holding meta-discursive, discourse-structuring (marqueur de structuration),punctuation and delimitation role. He added that it might be used as acceptance marker and a moderation to introduce a formulation. Moreover, he highlightedthe proactive and retroactive nature of ‘bon’.
Multilingualism in Algeria
Multilingualism as a trend can be studied from different angles that may include disciplines such as education, sociology, or linguistics, (Cenoz, 2013). This study will try to contribute to the discipline through a contrastive pragmatic analysis of ‘well’ and ‘bon’ as used by multilingual Algerian students. The study is conducted in Tizi Ouzou; a multilingual community speaking: Berber, Arabic and French. Both Berber and Arabic are the official languages; yet, Berber is the mother tongue of the majority, not to say all, of the members of that community. Despite the fact that Frenchis a foreign language, it is ubiquitous in Tizi Ouzou, (Dourari, 2002). According to Akil (2012): “L’ancrage de cette langue dans la réalité algérienne remonte, certes, à la période colonial, mais est ravivé durant la période postcoloniale” (p, 63). That is, even if French is not recognized as an official language in Algeria, we cannot deny its importance in a society where Newspapers, TV programmes, advertisements, and many other contexts where French is used. Above all, French is used as means of instruction; that is, in Commission National des Programmes: Français (2006), it is stated that “Les nouveaux programmes auront pour visée principale l’utilisation du français comme moyen d’éducation” (p, 2). In addition to French, English is the second foreign language on the country as mentioned in Programme d’Anglais Deuxiéme Langue Etrangère (2005): “Intervenant au titre de deuxième langue étagère …” (p, 4). Hence, we can say that there are at least four languages spoken in Tizi Ouzou namely: Berber, Arabic, French and English.
Method
The aim of this study is to analyse the pragmatic functions conveyed by Algerian multilingual students of English in their use of the PMs ‘well’ and ‘bon’. Attempting to discover whether the pragmatic functions of ‘well’ can be conveyed by the PM ‘bon’, a contrastive pragmatic analysis is used to analyse the functions communicated by Algerian multilingual speakers who use ‘well’ and ‘bon’.
The participants of this study are students of English at Mouloud Mammeri University (University of Tizi Ouzou). The present study uses extracts from students’ everyday life conversations. These students are multilinguals who speak respectively: Berber, Arabic, French and English. The choice of using university students’ conversations aims at obtaining a maximum of useful utterances where ‘well’ and ‘bon’ are used. Their agreement was obtained before starting to record the conversations.
To investigate the topic and answer the research questions, conversations of multilingual Algerian students had been used. To determine the functions of ‘well’ and ‘bon’, the conversations used are in English and in French. Once the functions determined, the extracted sentences (sentences where the PMs ‘well’ and ‘bon’ are used) are translated to the other language (from English to French or from French to English). Finally, a comparison of the translations is provided.
Results
-
‘Well’, its functions and equivalents in French
Several sentences are extracted from the recorded conversations, analysed and then translated. The translations are based on the work of Beeching (2011) and Aijmer (2015). Once the function of ‘well’ is determined, it is translated to French accordingly. The first observation that can be made is that ‘well’ is frequently used by Algerian students of English.
-
Well expressing resignation
(1)… here we are … well, let’s go…
In sentence (1), well expresses the speakers’ resignation. That is, the speaker is not at ease with what she/he is about to do; yet, she/he is obliged to face the situation and do it.
(1’) … on y est … tant pis, on y va…
The sentence (1’) expresses resignation. The PM is omitted in this sentence. Because the translator used the omission strategy due to the difficulty found in translating the exact meaning of the sentence to French with the use of a MP.
-
Well expressing astonishment
…did you see her?
(2)…well, she is so beautiful!
The speaker in sentence (2) is surprised to see the beauty of that woman. Thus, ‘well’ expresses astonishment.
…l’as-tu vu?
(2’)…et bien, elle est très belle !
The translation of ‘well’ in sentence (2’) is ‘et bien’ which expresses exclamation or astonishment.
-
Well expressing concession
(3)…but well, he could inform you.
In sentence (3), ‘well’ expresses concession. The speaker is mitigated concerning the point discussed.
(3’)…mais bon, il pouvait t’informer
The translation of ‘but well’ in sentence (3’) is ‘mais bon’. It is noticed that students tend to use frequently the combination ‘but well’in their conversations.
-
Well as an attenuating device
(4)…your speech was not that good, well, it is only the first draft
The speaker, in sentence (4), criticised the hearer’s speech. Yet, he managed to express her/his criticism in a soft way by adding that it is only a first attempt.
(4’)…ton discoure n’était pas si bien que ça, bon ce n’est que le premier essaie.
‘Bon’ is used in sentence (4’) as the equivalent of ‘well’ to criticise politely the hearer’s speech.
-
Well as a pause-filling device
(5)…well, as I told you before, the ceremony will take place in Oran…
In sentence (5), the speaker used ‘well’ so as to mark a pause before carrying out the conversation, as well as to reformulate his talk. The aim is to maintain the flow of the conversation without any empty blanks.
(5’)…bon, comme je te l’ai déjà dit auparavant, la cérémonie se tiendra a Oran…
‘Bon’ is used in (5) to mark a pause and announcing to the hearer the reformulation of what has already been stated without losing the hearer’s attention.
-
Well expressing partial acceptance
(6)…well, in this case maybe I will land you my pc.
The speaker in (6) expresses his relative acceptance. That is, he agrees, to some extent, on the new arrangements negotiated together with the hearer.
(6’)…bon, dans ce cas la peut être que je vais te prêter mon pc.
The speaker, in (6’) expresses partial acceptance using ‘bon’.
-
‘Bon’, its functions and equivalents in English
The extracted sentences where the participants have used ‘bon’ are analysed and translated (the translation is based on the work of Beeching (2011). The following results are obtained:
-
‘Bon’ as a marker of stages
(11)…j’ai eu mon bac a 16ans, je suis allée a l’université et j’avais à résider dans une cité universitaire. Moi, qui avait 16 ans et qui n’est jamais parti loin de mes parents, je devais devenir responsable … ça me semblais être impossible a l’époque…bon j’essayais de m’habituer petit a petit …
In (11), the speaker narrates her story when she integrated the university. To differentiate between the different stages of the story she/he used ‘bon’.
(11’)… so I tried to get used to step by step…
There is no equivalent of ‘bon’ in the French translation; for the simple reason that there are no such words in English that permits to mark stages when narrating, Beeching (2011).
-
Bon as an attenuating device
(22)…je ne suis pas du tout contente du résultat, bon c’est tout ce que tu pouvais faire au même temps.
The speaker, in (22) expresses her non satisfaction in regard to the result obtained by the hearer. Yet, she did it in a polite way so as to attenuate the criticism.
(22’)…I am not happy with the results at all, well that is all what you could do at the same time.
In (22’), the speaker is criticising the hearer’s results in a polite way using ‘well’.
-
Bon expressing concession
(33)…je me suis bien préparé pourtant, mais bon les notes ce n’est pas du tout ce que je voulais.
The speaker expresses his disappointment concerning his marks. Despite the fact that he revised, he didn’t get a good mark.
(33’)…I have revised my lessons, but well I didn’t get the marks I wanted.
The translation of ‘mais bon’ in (33’) is ‘but well’. That is, the speaker expresses his desire to get a good mark as he prepared for it; however, the results did not reflect his efforts.
-
Bon used when hesitating
(44) je pensais sortir ce weekend … bon, pour m’amuser un peu quoi, bon après les examens il faut un peu de repos … bon j’aurais besoin de la voiture…mais bon pour quelques heures seulement.
In (44) the speaker hesitates when formulating his request. He starts by providing the reasons and the purpose for which he needs his father’s car. He finishes his talk by a concession in which he limits the time, during which he will be using the car, to a certain number of hours.
(44’) I was thinking to go out this weekend … well to have some fun, well after exams we need some rest…well I need the car … but for few hours only.
‘Well’ is the equivalent of ‘bon’ when it is used as a device to make a coherent speech while the speaker is hesitating about the best formula to adopt. ‘but’ is the equivalent of ‘mais bon’ that is used to present a concession as an attempt to persuade the father.
-
Bon as ‘mot de la fin’
(55) … bon je n’irai pas et la conversation est close.
‘Bon’ in used in (55) as ‘mot de la fin’ as named by Jayez (2004). That is, to put an end to the conversation, the speaker has used ‘bon’ to deliver a final decision of refusal.
(55’)… I will not go and that’s it.
There is no equivalent in English for ‘bon’ as a PM marker in French when it is used as ‘mot de la fin’. The omission strategy can be used to translate the PM.
-
Bon in exclamations
(66) … bon, tu ne vas pas non plus en mourir!
In (66) the speaker is astonished by the reaction of her friend when she knew that she is not going to Netherlands as planned.
(66’) … well, that won’t kill you anyway!
‘Well can be used as an equivalent of ‘bon’ when it is used in exclamations.
Discussion
Little words like ‘well’ and ‘bon’ are frequently used by the participants in their everyday life conversations whether at university, streets or at home. Their multifunctional utility makes it easy for students to handle them in many cases. Several functions have been identified in the use of ‘well’ and ‘bon’. On one hand, it is noticed that, the Algerian multilingual students tend to equate ‘well’ and ‘bon’ in diverse situations. For instance; they are equivalent when they express exclamations and astonishments. Besides, ‘well’ and ‘bon’ are equivalent when they are used as attenuating devices or to express concessions and speaker’s partial acceptance. Speakers may hesitate when they want to choose the best way to express their ideas or mark a pause before carrying out the conversation. Such hesitations and pauses might lead to a non-coherent utterance. Thus, ‘well’ and ‘bon’ help them to maintain the flow of the talk. On the other hand, the participants distinguished between ‘well” and ‘bon’ to convey different meanings. While ‘well’ is used to express speaker’s resignations, ‘bon’ is used as a ‘mot de la fin’ and to mark stages in the narrations.
The use of the MPs ‘well’ and ‘bon’ interchangeably to express the same pragmatic functions by multilingual speakers may suggest that their proficiency levels of English and French are relatively the same. Despite the fact that French is not recognised as an official language in Algeria; it is widely used. Hence, in a society where French is a second language, where students are exposed to it and have opportunities to use it either orally or written; this would justify their high level of proficiency. However, being first year students of English and having a relatively high level of proficiency in the foreign language would suggest that the participants practise their English and further research is necessary so as to determine how they practice their English.
Conclusion
The study is a contrastive pragmatic analysis of the MPs ‘well’ and ‘bon’. It is conducted in an Algerian multilingual community with university students of English. It extracted, analysed, translated and contrasted the pragmatic functions of ‘well’ and ‘bon’. The results of the study may contribute to the overall understanding of the phenomenon of multilingualism in Algeria as it provides real cases of the use of more than one language. In addition, it questions the matter of exposure and status of the language as presented in the field of multilingualism as factors of inhibition or reinforcement. The complexity of the linguistic situation in Algeria is an interesting area of investigation that offers diverse cases where languages meet, interact, clash and converse to try to make sense of the world.
References
Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A.M. (2003). The Discourse Particle well and its Equivalents in Swedish and Dutch. Linguistics, 41, 1123-1161.
Aijmer, K. and A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen. (2006). Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. Amsterdam, Elsevier.
Aijmer, K. (2015). Well in an English–Swedish and English–French Contrastive Perspective. In Beeching, K and Woodfield, H. Researching Sociopragmatic Variability: Perspective from Variational, Interlanguage and Contrastive pragmatics. Palgrave, Macmillan. Pp 201 – 229.
Akil, H.(2012). L’imaginaire Linguistique de Quelques Journalists Algeriens de la Press Ecrite Francophone.Unpublished magistère thesis. Tizi Ouzou: university Mouloud Mammeri.
Beeching, K. (2010). Semantic Change: Evidence from False Friends. Languages in Contrast, 10 (2), 139-165.
(2011). The Translation Equivalence of Bon, Enfin, Well and I mean. Linguistiques : Revue française de linguistique appliquée. Vol (XVI), 91 – 105.
Cenoz, J.(2013). Defining Multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 3-18.
Commission National des Programmes : Français (2006). Retrieved from www.education.gov.dz
DOURARI, A. (2002). Pratiques Langagières Effectives et Pratiques Postulées en Kabylie, A la Lumière des Evènements du ‘Printemps noir’ 2001. in, Revue Insaniyat N° 17-18, Mai- Décembre, Oran: CRASC, p.p. 17-35.
Finell, A. (1989). Well now and then (squib). Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 656-669
Fraser, B. (1990). An Approach to Discourse Markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383- 395.
Furko, P. (2007). The Pragmatic Marker – Discourse Marker Dichotomy Reconsidered- The Case of Well and Of course, Debrecen: Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadó.
Hansen, M.B.M. (1998). The Semantic Status of Discourse Markers. Lingua,104, 235-260.
Jayez, J. (2004). Bon : le mot de la fin. Communication à l’Université de Genève. Retrieved from <http://jjayez.pagesperso-orange.fr/publications-French.htm>.
Jucker, A. (1997). The Discourse Marker well in the History of English. English Literature and Linguistics, 1, 91-110
Li, M. and Xiao, Y. (2012). A comparative Study on the Use of the Discourse Marker well by Chinese Learners of English and Native English speakers. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2 (5), 65-71.
Programme d’Anglais Deuxiéme Langue Etrangère (2005). Retrieved from : www.education.gov.dz
Redeker, G. (2006). Discourse Markers as Attention Cues at Discourse Transitions, Approaches to Discourse Particles. K. Fischer, Ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Sacks, H and. Schegloff, E.A and Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematic for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A and. Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289-327.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Winther, A. (1985). Bon (bien, très bien) : Ponctuation Discursive et Ponctuation Métadiscursive. Langue Française, 65, 80-91.