Intensification of Affirmativity:

Jungyull Lee

https://doi.org/10.24303/lakdoi.2019.27.1.63

Definitely as a Discourse Marker

in Spoken Conversation

Jungyull Lee

Intensification of Affirmativity: Definitely as a Discourse Marker in Spoken Conversation

(Chodang University)

Lee, Jungyull. (2019). Intensification of Affirmativity: Definitely as a discourse marker in spoken conversation. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 27(1), 63-80. From a pragmatic-analytic perspective, this study examines how definitely as a discourse marker (DM) functions in spoken conversation. Three corpora, namely the British National Corpus (BNC), the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE), and the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English (SBC) are used to investigate the multifarious pragmatic functions of definitely between interlocutors. It is practicable to use definitely as a DM in pre-front field and it frequently occurs in everyday language use. In light of the three corpora with respect to the DM definitely introduced in this study, there may be divergent types of definitely that occur in spoken conversation. Based on my dataset, definitely exhibits four types of pre-front use. For instance, definitely appears by itself and it also occurs with specific discourse particles such as oh, yeah, and yes and with negators such as no and not. Lastly, its repetitive pre-front use is also found. The analysis from a pragmatic perspective in regard to definitely as a DM proposes that definitely can play a great variety of pragmatic functions such as those of acting as a pre-closing device, or devices to express and solicit approval, consensus, eagerness, stimulation, gratification, floor-holding, topic-shift, intimacy, and bridging between interlocutors in spoken conversation. From perspectives of semantic and pragmatic analysis, definitely has an affirmative semantic connotation and it could strongly serve as an affirmative conversational response device.

Key Words: definitely, corpora, pre-front use, discourse marker (DM), pragmatic function, affirmative conversational response device

1. Introduction

The aim of this paper is to elucidate pragmatic functions of the discourse marker definitely (henceforth DM) and how it is used to attain heterogeneous pragmatic efficacy. Interlocutors frequently use definitely, and it is mainly discovered in spoken conversation. In regard to a pragmatic-analytic aspect of definitely, the type of usage in which definitely is utilized as a TCU (Turn Construction Unit) -- as the second pair part of an adjacency pair with ʻʻdefinitely!ʼʼ structured as a conversational response device -- predominantly occurs in spoken conversation. Definitely as a DM seems to have multifarious pragmatic functions between interlocutors. One of the examinations that has arisen in this study is the multi-functionality of definitely in pre-front field. The target of this paper is to delineate how definitely functions as the second pair part of an adjacency pair, and how it can fulfill momentous discourse functions in many and varied correlations. For the target of examining the use of definitely in spoken conversation, we address the following research inquiries:

1) I will return to this issue in regard to discourse markers in Section 2.

(ⅰ)	Are there any analyses with respect to disparate types of definitely in pre-front field?
(ⅱ)	From a perspective of pragmatic analysis, how does the DM definitely function between interlocutors in spoken conversation?
(ⅲ)	From a semantic-analytic perspective, does definitely have its own semantic preference?

In order to investigate these inquiries, we use corpus data based on three corpora: the British National Corpus (BNC), the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE), and the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English (SBC). The DM definitely largely occurs in spoken conversation. Thus, written data are excluded from this study. The goal of this paper is to explore the practical usages of definitely and how it fulfills diverse pragmatic functions in spoken conversation. In this respect, this linguistic issue needs to be further examined in future research. Following the aims of this study, this paper is arranged as follows: Section 2 of this paper presents a quick review of relevant previous studies. Section 3 deals with more detailed information pertaining to the data. Analysis of the use of the DM definitely in relation to a wide variety of pragmatic functions will be given in Section 4, along with the findings of a fundamental qualitative analysis. Section 5, finally, provides a summary discussion of the main aspects of this paper with respect to the research inquiries above.

2) See more information related to the three corpora in Section 3.

2. Previous Studies

In this section, some of the previous studies on definitions of DMs (Discourse Markers) are reviewed. In addition to this, the available works on definitely and characteristics of conversational response devices as the second pair part of an adjacency pair are reviewed. DMs have been examined by earlier researchers (Brinton 1996; Jucker, & Ziv 1998; Schiffrin 1987; Suh 2011). Burgeoning interest in spoken language has been leading to an increase in articles on DMs. DMs are lexemes or phrases which are principally employed to mark boundaries in spoken discourse between one subject and the next or to express plans and aims. They have been investigated phonologically, syntactically, semantically, pragmatically, and stylistically by some researchers. For instance, Schiffrin (1987: 328) describes linguistic properties of DMs as follows:

(ⅰ)	ʻʻThe expression has a range of prosodic contours, i.e., tonic stress, followed by a pause and phonological reduction.ʼʼ
(ⅱ)	ʻʻThe propositional content of the proposition remains the same when the expression is omitted.ʼʼ
(ⅲ)	ʻʻThe expression occurs either outside the syntactic structure or loosely attached to it and hence have no clear grammatical function.ʼʼ
(ⅳ)	ʻʻThe expression may be multifunctional, operating on the local (i.e., morphophonemic, syntactic, and semantic) and global (i.e., pragmatic) levels, simultaneously, as well as on different planes (textual and interpersonal) within the pragmatic components.ʼʼ

These are DMsʼ properties in regard to phonological, syntax, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives. According to Suh (2011), they are analogous to road signs or cues guiding our steps in textual elucidation and understanding; in other words, DMs are signposts in the expression of the interlocutorsʼ behaviors and sentiments. Drawing upon previous studies, DMs do not tend to have their own context-independent senses or roles. Therefore, Speech Act Theory, Conversational Analysis, Relevance Theory, or Rhetorical Structure can be more relevant to DMs than sentence-based formal syntax. According to Jucker, & Ziv (1998), DMs can pragmatically function as turn-taking, confirmation-seeking, topic-switching, hesitation-marking, fillers, repair-marking, and hedging devices, etc. Consider excerpt (1).

(1)	1 S1: 2 S2: → 3 4	but you just told me that you canʼt double-count them right but you_ right well she_ i think you just_ you can just_ you have the stats but then you have to take like four credits of a different class (MICASE)

In line 1 of excerpt (1), the student is confused about credits from S1’s class, and then the staff member S2 tries to explain precisely how many credits S1 takes from a different class. In line 3, she uses like as a DM, which plays the role of approximator. The DM like is perhaps the most general in terms of its empty, semantically bleached meaning and discourse-organizational function. That is, it can provide a leading clue which has an effect on processes of contextual comprehension and interpretation.

In terms of pre-front use in spoken conversation, Quirk et al. (1985) suggests that adverbial categories are relevant to adjuncts, which are lexemes utilized as modifiers; and disjuncts, which express information that is not considered essential to the sentence they appears in, but which are considered to give expression to the speaker’s or writer’s attitude towards, or descriptive statement of, the propositional content of the sentence. According to Quirk et al. (1985), disjuncts are more freestanding: they are syntactically more separated and have a scope that spans the sentence as a whole, while adjuncts have a more limited orientation. According to the view stated by Quirk et al., definitely would be a disjunct. Thus, definitely does not tend to be impeded by limitations. It is noteworthy that there is another crucial factor in elucidating the practicability of pre-front use of definitely. In this connection, Hopper (1987: 156-157) states that grammar is not to be understood as an essential element for conversation in the same form to both speaker and hearer: ʻʻthe notion of Emergent Grammar is meant to suggest that structure, or regularity, comes out of discourse and is shaped by discourse in an ongoing process.ʼʼ In terms of his statement, syntax can be abbreviated in the same discursive form between interlocutors. In addition to this, Quirk et al. (1985) also states that disjuncts can be accompanied by yes or no. Based on my dataset, definitely, however, seems to be accompanied by other discourse particles such as oh, yeah, and not as well. With regard to discourse particles, oh, yeah, and yes are generally appended in responses by listeners in everyday conversation. Yngve (1970) calls these turn-initial particles back-channel signals or backchannels. Heritage (2002) mentions that an oh-prefix plays a pragmatic role in agreement. As for these particles, McCarthy (2002) states backchannels function to indicate acknowledgement, understanding, agreement, and closure. In addition to these, yeah-plus lexemes play discursive (and pragmatic) roles to signal good-listenership more than to denote understanding, agreement, and closure. Schegloff (1982) makes a similar statement, observing that oh and yeah do not solely indicate comprehension and acknowledgment but also denote concurrence and social action (see more information with respect to definitely accompanied by these particular discourse particles in Section 4).

3) Emergent grammar is an approach to the study of syntax, originally proposed by Paul Hopper, which postulates that rules for grammar and syntactic structure emerge as language is used. It is distinguished from what Hopper calls the A Priori Grammar Postulate, which posits that grammar is a set of rules existing in the mind before anything else, and is exemplified by the school of generative grammar and the concept of Universal Grammar. Whereas Universal Grammar claims that features of grammar are innate, emergent grammar claims that the human language faculty has no innate grammar and that features of grammar are learned through experience; the term ʻemergentʼ in this context is synonymous with ʻnon-innate.ʼ

4) Gardner (1997, 1998) notes that they are relevant to the vocalization of comprehensions between interlocutors.

The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1995) defines the adverb definitely as ʻʻwith no chance of being wrong.ʼʼ The Macmillan English Dictionary (2002) defines definitely as ʻʻwithout any doubtʼʼ. The Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary (2001) states that definitely is employed to emphasize that something is the case, or to emphasize the strength of oneʼs intention or opinion, as in ʻʻIʼm definitely going to get in touch with these people.ʼʼ As for more technical meanings of definitely, it functions as an emphasizer with a strong emotional force. According to Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer (2007), definitely seems to select preferentially for strengtheners. In other words, it is a lexeme having the leading role of placing emphasis on one’s commitment to the validity of a given statement. As to its location in clauses. definitely displays a strong tendency to appear in medial and final positions. Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer (2007) also note that definitely does not function as a DM slot (pre-front use) and does not play a focalizing role to any great extent. In contrast to their findings, however, definitely is frequently found in pre-front field in this study (see Table 1 and 2). In this respect, this paper especially focuses on definitely as a DM in pre-front field without its dependent use. In addition to this, Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer (2007) state that definitely does not seem to be found to combine readily with modal auxiliaries, i.e., it generally appears more in factual, unmodalized clauses. Hoye (1997: 163) indicates that definitely ʻʻremains too lexically loaded to occur in the environment of epistemic MUSTʼʼ With regard to collocations of definitely, definitely combines well with auxiliaries such as must and will in order to express a high degree of speaker commitment or to emphasize the speaker’s certainty in terms of a predicted state of affairs or commitment. Definitely also strongly tends to appear with a first-person subject in medial pre-finite position. On the other hand, it does not appear in non-vague focalizing positions and does not produce expectations of a following but (Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer 2007). These previous studies of definitely elaborated on its lexical meanings, collocations, and positions, etc. There have been, however, few investigations that have focused on its multifarious pragmatic functions from the perspective of pragmatic analysis. Hence, this paper elaborates on discourse roles of definitely used on its own in pre-front field, as a DM.

3. The Data

Three divergent spoken corpora of British and American English are used in this paper. Specific reports of each corpus (BNC, MICASE, and SBC) are delineated as follows: First, the British National Corpus (BNC) (Leech, Rayson, & Wilson, 2001) is a 100-million-word structured collection of spoken and written texts. The corpus was compiled by a consortium of universities, publishers, and the British government in the 1990s to be representative of the spoken and written English used in Britain at the end of the 20th century. The spoken part consists of orthographic transcriptions of unscripted informal discourses and spoken language collected in disparate contexts, ranging from formal business or government meetings to radio shows and phone-ins. It is important to mention that this paper focuses on pragmatic functions of definitely in pre-front use in spoken conversation. Definitely in pre-front use never occurs in written conversation. Thus, only spoken data are included from this study. Based on the BNC, out of the 100 million lexemes in this corpus, a total of 26 cases of definitely in pre-front field were found.

5) The BNC is accessible at http://www.lextutor.ca/

6) The MICASE is accessible at

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/c/corpus/corpus?c=micase;page=simple

7) The SBC is accessible at http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/research/santa-barbara-corpus

Second, the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) (Simson, Briggs, Ovens, & Swales, 2002) is a compilation of approximately 1.8 million lexemes of recorded dialogue from the University of Michigan. The MICASE includes data from a wide variety of dialogic events, including seminars, lectures, advising sessions, and classroom discussions. A tremendous range of speech acts such as witticisms, definitions, expositions, private communication, and cerebral explanations can be examined. The MICASE contains dialogue events that range in length from 19 to 178 minutes, with word counts ranging from 2,805 lexemes to 30,328 lexemes. Out of the 1.8 million lexemes, a total of 35 cases of definitely as a DM in pre-front field were found.

Third, the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English (SBC) (Du Bois, Chafe, Meyer, Thompson, Englebretson & Martey, 2000-2005) is a correction of nearly 249,000 lexemes of transcribed dialogues from University of California, Santa Barbara. The corpus contains audio, timestamps, and transcriptions. It includes a great variety of persons from heterogeneous ages, careers, genders, local origins, ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. The distinct form of language use is face-to-face discourse. Moreover, the SBC includes highly diverse speech acts such as card games, classroom discussions, telephone conversations, homilies, food preparation, on-the-job-talk, story-telling, tour-guide spiels, town hall meetings, and more. Based on the 249,000 lexemes in the SBC, a total of 8 cases of definitely as a DM in pre-front field were identified. Table 1 presents the distribution of definitely as a DM across these three corpora:

Table 1. Frequency of definitely as a DM on the BNC, MICASE

	BNC	MICASE	SBC	Total
Definitely	26 (38%)	35 (51%)	8 (11%)	69 (100%)

, and SBC

Definitely as a DM can be used between interlocutors in spoken conversation. Based on the BNC, MICASE, and SBC, a total of 26, 35, and 8 cases of definitely in pre-front use as a DM were found respectively.

4. Analysis

This section attempts to deal with diverse pragmatic functions of definitely as a DM in pre-front field. Looking into different types of definitely in pre-front use in spoken conversation, definitely is observed to accompany particular linguistic devices. For example, definitely can be used per se; i.e., it can occur by itself, unaccompanied by any discourse particles. Definitely can also be accompanied by specific discourse particles such as oh, yeah, and yes and it can be combined with negators such as no and not. Lastly, the doublet of definitely in pre-front use can be employed in repetition. Table 2 displays the accompaniments of definitely with pre-front use (null), discourse particles, repetitions, and negators based on the three corpora of the BNC, MICASE, and SBC.

Table 2. Frequency of definitely by accompaniments on the BNC, MICASE, and SBC

Accompaniments	Pre-front use (Null)	Discourse particles	Repetitions	Negators	Total
BNC	11	13	0	2	26
MICASE	19	11	3	2	35
SBC	5	3	0	0	8
Total	35	27	3	4	69

Based on the three corpora, pre-front use (null) and discourse particles (oh, yeah, and yes) are utilized the most (e.g., 35 cases and 27 cases), while repetitions (definitely. definitely) and negators (no and not) are the least frequent (e.g., 3 cases  and 4 cases). A wide variety of pragmatic functions of these linguistic devices will be treated in depth in the following section of the paper.

4.1. Pre-front use (null)

Definitely as a turn-initial element can be freestanding. The set of response tokens of definitely to be examined repeatedly occur as a single-lexeme response. The DM definitely functions as a conversational response device, i.e., definitely can be a response to inquiries pertaining to an earlier statement. Looking into prior studies on response devices, Fries (1952) mentions that yes, hunh, unh, and good are listener responses. Yngve (1970) also states that yes, okay, and uh-huh are back-channel responses. As for these response devices, definitely can play a role in a conversational response device analogous to that of yes and okay. Excerpts (2) and (3) show that the interlocutors use definitely as conversational response devices following the prior statements of the interlocutors.

(2)	1 S2: 2 3 4 S1: → 5 S2: → 6 S1:	you can understand some things your uncle says you could, have some computer that would understand those same things and translate them into what the written thing was. and repeat them in a clearer voice. [yeah] definitely. (MICASE)

In excerpt (2), yeah in line 5 is used by S2, after which the turn reverts to the prior interlocutor S1. There can be the peril of being perceived as curt or less than satisfied between the two interlocutors. S1, however, uses definitely in line 6 as a conversational response device, which can signal unconditional agreement and can also furnish a fuller expression of gratification than yeah. What is more, pre-front use of definitely can be used for intensification.

(3)	1 A: 2 3 4 5 → 6 B:	Also it's kind of er even if you er sort of different people don't, I mean a lot of people don't discuss as much as we do. I've really, really, really realized that. Most people don't actually go into things as deeply as we do. We've er oh it's, it's all to do with this sort of special thing that we found. It is, it is true though. Definitely. (BNC)

As shown in excerpt (3) above, definitely in line 6 can perform functions analogous to formulaic indications of agreement (e.g., that’s + lexical items such as right, correct, and true). It is used as a conversational response device. Definitely, when placed turn-initially, is utilized to respond to a previous interlocutor, and it functions as an affirmative agreement, acknowledgment device, or back-channel signal on several levels concurrently. From a pragmatic-analytic perspective, the DM definitely seems to convey an affirmative response and behavior. As shown in excerpts (2) and (3), if the two interlocutors S1 and B had ceased after using definitely, there would have been no unaffirmative efficacy on the stream of correlation. Based on my dataset, turn-initial elements of definitely as a DM appear syntactically in pre-front field, and this DM plays a role in an affirmative linguistic response device in spoken conversation.

4.2. Discourse particles

Definitely accompanied by the three illustrative discourse particles of oh, yeah, and yes can occur in the second pair part. These discourse particles can be reinforced by definitely. The response devices do not seem to be transactionally crucial, but function as more than merely response features; definitely does not exclusively deal with acknowledgment and understanding but also serves as a correlational resource that allows for further affirmation of the other interlocutorʼs utterance. In addition to this, it can perform the function of promoting good relationships between interlocutors. Definitely can be accompanied by discourse particles such as oh, yeah, and yes and it can strengthen agreement and intimacy in spoken conversation. The following excerpt shows the type of definitely accompanied with oh.

(4)	1 Kathy: 2 Nathan: 3 4 Kathy: 5 → 6 Nathan:	... What did you want to do after this test. ... That's it, .. I guess. ... You gonna study some more tomorrow then, right? ... Oh definitely. (SBC)

In line 6 of excerpt (4), Nathan’s response device oh definitely intensifies his agreement with his addressee that promptly implicates an approbation of the addressee’s attitude. Kathy asks about Nathan’s plan after his test. He then displays astonishment in response and then uses definitely as an index of an intimate alignment. This discourse presents a social alignment indicated by oh definitely.

As for definitely as a DM in spoken conversation, definitely is observed to combine with yeah as well. Consider excerpt (5), where definitely occurs with yeah.

(5)	1 A: → 2 B: 3 A: → 4 B:	It just makes leaving that much harder. Yeah. It makes like doing anything that much harder. Yeah. Definitely. (BNC)

In line 2, the interlocutor B uses the discourse particle yeah in order to express fundamental alignment, and then the interlocutor A utters ʻʻIt makes like doing anything that much harder.ʼʼ In line 4, B lastly utters Yeah Definitely in order to express strong alignment. It is worth mentioning that interlocutors can expand beyond basic alignment to make the response more intimate, combining with definitely.

Moving onto the discourse particle yes, it can be accompanied by definitely. It is signified with yes connoting closure. Yes definitely can also function as a closure device. Consider excerpt (6).

(6)	1 A: 2 3 → 4 B:	I mean, we're led to believe that some of the people that you see sitting on the streets of Edinburgh begging are actually making a good living out of it! Yes! Definitely. (BNC)

In excerpt (6), the two interlocutors A and B talk about young and elderly people in Edinburgh. In line 4, B uses definitely with the discourse particle yes right after A’s opinion. Yes definitely functions as a closure device here. Based on the three corpora including the BNC, MICASE, and SBC, definitely with the three discourse particles of oh, yeah, and yes is commonly utilized. A subset of these particles generally occurs with premodification by definitely, which acts to strengthen the correlations between interlocutors.

As can be seen in excerpts (4)-(6) pertaining to their accompaniments, definitely as a DM is commonly signified with the three discourse particles. In addition, they function to present social intimacy. To sum up, the notion of social intimacy tends to require more than comprehension, concurrence, and acknowledgment.

4.3. Repetition

As for a discourse reactive token, repetition of definitely as a DM tends to be  quite commonplace. Definitely seems to occur in repetition, and it appears at points of obvious colloquial convergence. In this section, I attempt to analyze correlative pragmatic functions in regard to the repetition of definitely. Definitely seems to have the potential to be a TCU. It can imply that the next interlocutor agrees with the prior interlocutor. That is, repetition of definitely can be connected to the prior interlocutor as an affirmative response device. Consider excerpt (7).

(7)	1 SU-m: 2 S1: 3 SU-m: 4 S1: 5 SU-m: → 6 S1:	fascinated. fascinated in awe. yeah. that deserves a Starburst right there. (okay good.) definitely. definitely. how do you pronounce your name? (MICASE)

In line 6 of excerpt (7), the interlocutor S1 repeats definitely twice in response to the previous interlocutor SU-m. There could be some circumstances at this point that seem to account for why definitely as a TCU is being doubled. Repeated tokens perform the discourse functions of providing an enthusiastic or encouraging response. For instance, if the next interlocutor S1 in the second pair part had halted after using repetitive definitely, S1 would have had no contrary effects on the flow of interaction. Definitely can thus occur in doublets, promoting discourse convergence, and it can produce various pragmatic effects such as concurrence, acknowledgment, reinforcement of convergence, connection, satisfaction, clarification, confirmation, and sanguine social bonding. Thus, the repetitive use of definitely could be construed as an affirmative agreement in response to which it becomes highly inappropriate for interlocutors to make non-affirmative remarks at all. It can mainly show that the next interlocutor is expected to concur with the previous interlocutor. In the case of using reduplicated definitely between interlocutors, the doublet seems to occur often in spoken conversation. What is more, as shown in excerpt (7) above, S1 attempts to shift S1’s topic right after S1 agrees with SU-m, as in ʻʻdefinitely. definitely. how do you pronounce your name?ʼʼ in line 6. It is significant to state that reduplicative definitely seems to function as a topic-resuming device when interlocutors intend to go back a prior topic.

Repetition of definitely can be a method of claiming the floor, i.e., of asserting one’s right to make the next utterance. This use of definitely gains interlocutors more time in conversation as well. In addition, it can be a pattern of concentrating attention. Excerpt (8) demonstrates that repetition of definitely can play a discursive role in such a way as to obtain the floor.

(8)	1 S1: 2 3 4 5 6 7 SU-m: → 8 S1: 9 10	if you have any questions, (you_) thank you very much, this is the first group that's clapped you guys. so anyway i'm just gonna hang out over here so if you guys wanna come over here or you don't that's fine, um you can go, take a leak or, anything, over there if you want through those same buildings (over there.) you had a question? (can i have a) frisbee? yeah. definitely. definitely. so we're done, actually, if you guys, [R1: okay.] want this back. [SU-m: (where is) (xx)] um we're just gonna play (MICASE)

This conversation is about a freshman orientation tour. As can be seen in excerpt (8) above, S1 in line 8 assents with SU-mʼs shift of topic (from procedural clarification to asking about outdoor game equipment), then S1 attempts to reclaim the floor after using reduplication of definitely: ʻʻyeah. definitely. definitely. so weʼre done, actually, if you guys want this back. um weʼre just gonna playʼʼ. In other words, definitely can be mainly reiterated in the second pair part. It can play a pragmatic role as a strategy to retain the floor until the next interlocutor’s turn. Interlocutors can thus get more chances to engage in discourse after repeating definitely. In this way, this DM can act as a bridging device, as a method of utilizing agreeable disturbance between interlocutors. The preferred responses seem to elicit affirmative acknowledgment and concurrence rather than unaffirmative responses or disagreements when turn beginnings entail responses to the prior interlocutor. Although unaffirmative responses can also occur, they almost never appear from my dataset. These findings suggest that the affirmation-eliciting property of definitely functions as an interactive device and can strengthen the preference for acknowledgment, concurrence, and solidarity.

4.4. Negators

The preceding analysis suggests a couple of peculiarities of definitely in regards to its pragmatic roles in spoken conversation. First, it is frequently practicable to use definitely as a DM between interlocutors. Second, definitely can function as an affirmative response device. Throughout the observations, definitely seems to have an affirmative semantic connotation and it also has affirmative pragmatic roles. That is, it is less likely to be negated with no or not. Looking into previous studies, Pomerantz (1984: 70) states that, with respect to multiple constituents pertaining to discordance between interlocutors, ʻʻA substantial number of such disagreements are produced with stated disagreement components delayed or withheld from early positioning within turns and sequences.ʼʼ What is more, she mentions that disagreements can contain a negator such as no and not. Based on my dataset, definitely may be negated with a negator no, which universally has an unaffirmative connotation. Consider excerpt (9).

(9)	1 A: 2 3 B: 4 5 A: 6 B: 7 A: → 8 B:	By the time you had arrested him or put his trousers on. How many people were in the room? There would still have been er P C with the shield and P C with the shotgun. Giving you cover? That's right yes. Did you point the gun or shove a gun into the back of Mr head? No, definitely no. (BNC)

In line 7 of excerpt (9), the interlocutor A asks the other interlocutor B. ʻʻDid you point the gun or shove a gun into the back of Mr head?ʼʼ B, in line 8, says no to express basic disagreement, and then lastly uses definitely no to express strong disagreement. However, definitely with the negator not can be used as an affirmative response device if it is interpreted with reference to its global dialogical and sequential circumstance. This linguistic device does not seem to be an exceedingly frequent phenomenon. Consider excerpt (10).

(10)	1 A: 2 3 4 5 6 B: 7 8 A: → 9 B:	I mean th there's er no doubt that the microchips that erm takes away the erm the teletext information, stores it and then spits up whatever you ask for is er two or three P now I suppose and therefore the, the television manufacturer charges hundred pounds to put it in. Mm. It's er it's you're, you're, you're, you're quite erm hooked on it? Ah well yes I wouldn't like to be without it now. Definitely not. (BNC)

As can be seen in excerpt (10), the interlocutor A talks about the microchips, and puts a great amount of trusts in their reliability. The other interlocutor B produces definitely not in response to A’s utterance. B unhesitatingly uses definitely in line 9, which plays a role in the affirmative agreement. Note that if the negator not accompanied by definitely were decontextualized, it might be constructed as having an unaffirmative connotation without reference to its sequential circumstance. An interesting finding is that definitely not, however, can function as an affirmative response device if the circumstance is thoroughly considered. Throughout the analysis, definitely is accompanied by the negator not, and it appears in intensive contexts of concurrence. That is, it signals acknowledgment, not disapprobation. This section has examined on multifarious pragmatic roles of definitely as a DM in spoken conversation. It can play a great variety of discourse roles such as those of topic shift, bridging or it can indicate concurrence, gratification, motivation, inspiration, and intimacy. Thus, definitely seems to have an affirmative semantic connotation, and interlocutors express an affirmative agreement as an affirmative response device, to create an intimacy-building correlation and good rapport.

5. Conclusion

From a pragmatic-analytic perspective, this paper has focused on definitely as a DM. Definitely has frequently been used as a conversational response device between interlocutors in spoken conversation. This section summarizes the findings of the study pertaining to the three research questions proposed in Section 1. The first research question asks whether there are disparate types of definitely in pre-front field. Definitely shows the four heterogenous types of conversational response devices in its pre-front field. For instance, definitely can be used independently, by itself. It can be utilized with negators such as no and not as well as discourse particles such as oh, yeah, and yes. Lastly, the doublet of definitely can be used, in reduplication. The second research question deals with the issue of the discourse roles of definitely in spoken conversation. Throughout the analysis in regard to its pragmatic functions, it has been shown that definitely can play such roles as approval, consensus, eagerness, stimulation, gratification, floor-holding, topic-shift, pre-closing signal, intimacy, and bridging between interlocutors. The third question addresses the issue of the semantic preferences of definitely. The answer to the third question concerning its semantic-analytic perspective is that definitely has a strongly affirmative semantic preference.

Based on the findings we surmise that definitely frequently occurs in contexts of affirmative connections with interlocutors, expressing concurrence as a way of establishing an intimate interaction and promoting a better social relationship; i.e., semantically, definitely has an strong affirmative semantic connotation, and pragmatically, it can also be used as an affirmative conversational response device. On the basis of the results obtained in the current examination, the series of questions sought in this study could be extended in further research by investigating the practicality of definitely as a DM in various kinds of institutional talk for any analogousness or heterogeneousness with respect to the diverse functions found in spoken conversation. Feasible sources of data include various live and telephone interactions such as news interviews, talk shows, and corporate customer services.

References

Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English. Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C., Thompson, S. A., Englebretson, R., & Martey, N. (2000-2005). Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.

Fries, C. C. (1952). The structure of English. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Gardner, R. (1997). The listener and minimal responses in conversational interaction. Prospect, 12, 12-32.

Gardner, R. (1998). Between speaking and listening: The vocalization of understandings. Applied Linguistics, 19, 204-224.

Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 196-224). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139-157.

Hoye, L. (1997). Adverbs and modality in English. London: Longman.

Jucker, A., & Ziv, Y. (1998). Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English. London: Longman.

McCarthy, M. (2002). Good listenership made plain: British and American non-minimal response tokens in everyday conversation. In R. Reppen, S. M. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp. 49-71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., ＆ Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

Rundell, M. (2002). Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners. Oxford: Macmillan Publishers.

Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ʻuh huhʼ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71-93). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M., & Aijmer, K. (2007). The semantic field of modal certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J., ＆ Swales, J. M. (2002). The Michigan corpus of academic spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.

Sinclair, J. (2001). Collins COBUILD English language dictionary for advanced learners. London: Harper Collins.

Suh, K.-H. (2011). The social meanings of discourse markers in Valspeak: Like and totally. Journal of British and American Studies, 25, 157-186.

Summers, D. (1995). Longman dictionary of contemporary English. Harlow: Longman.

Yngve, V. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. In Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, IL.

Jungyull Lee

Assistant Professor

Department of Culture Teaching

Chodang University

380, Muan-ro, Muan-eup, Muan-gun, Jeollanam-do, 58530

Korea

Phone: +82-61-450-1227

Email: brianlee@cdu.ac.kr

Received on January 31, 2019

Revised version received on March 18, 2019

Accepted on March 28, 2019