4.5 Article

Two Types of Concession: Evidence From Discourse Markers

Journal

SAGE OPEN
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/21582440211045059

Keywords

compatibility; extrinsic concession; intrinsic concession; Jordanian Arabic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the use of concessive discourse markers in Jordanian Arabic, identifying two types of concession: extrinsic concession and intrinsic concession. Intrinsic concession occurs when a speaker has a manifest intention, while extrinsic concession occurs when a speaker has a latent intention. Certain discourse markers in JA are preferred over others for each type of concession.
This study investigates the use of concessive discourse markers (DMs) in Jordanian Arabic (JA), particularly relying on a corpus analysis of naturally occurring data. It argues that there are mainly two types of concession in JA: extrinsic concession and intrinsic concession. The two types of concession are shown to differ from each other with respect to Kratzer's compatibility of propositions. Intrinsic concession occurs when a speaker has a manifest intention/meaning that does not cause hearers to question its occurrence. This type is realized when one discourse segment is not compatible (i.e., does not normally happen at the same time) with another discourse segment (e.g., somebody is so rich, but he/she lives in a very poor house). Extrinsic concession, on the other hand, occurs when a speaker has a latent intention/meaning that normally causes hearers to question its occurrence. This type of concession emerges when discourse segments are compatible with each other (i.e., may normally happen at the same time), in which case the made-up concession is enforced by the speaker (e.g., somebody is poor, but he/she lives in a poor house). The study shows that certain discourse markers in JA are preferred over others in each type.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available