The pragmatic functions of the marker "sawa" in spoken Swahili

• Authors: Kibiki Magreth J.
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This study examines the pragmatic functions of the marker sawa in spoken Swahili. The data have been obtained from informal conversations made by Swahili speakers in informal social settings. These settings include “vijiwe vya kahawa” (setting of informal conversations created around people drinking coffee) and "vijiwe vya mamantilie” (setting of informal conversations created around women preparing and selling food on the streets). The analysis of the data, performed within the framework of the contextualization theory (Gumperz 1982), shows that, apart from its basic connotation of agreement, the marker sawa conveys other meanings, depending on these very contexts of communication, and therefore acquires also various pragmatic functions. The pragmatic functions identified in this work include: to show that the speaker agrees with what has been said but on a condition (I agree, but…), as a receipt marker, as a tag-positioned-comprehension check, as an answer to the question showing that the speaker has understood what has been said (Yes, I understand), as a continuer, as a negative releasing marker, and as a gap filler. Interestingly, the study shows also that intonation and other paralinguistic features (like gestures) play a role in determining the pragmatic functions of this marker. The article concludes that the pragmatic markers in spoken Swahili are rich in meanings and are used to show speakers’ attitudes and emotions, therefore manifesting a deep and meaningful interconnection between the language and its contextualized experience.

Keywords

EN

pragmatic markers; spoken Swahili; contextualization theory

• Publisher: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego
• Journal: Studies in African Languages and Cultures
• Year: 2019
• Issue: 53
• Pages: 29-56

Dates

published

2019-12-13

Contributors

author

Kibiki Magreth J.

• Dar es Salaam University
• Dar es Salaam University, Dar es Salaam University College of Education (DUCE)

References

• Adegbija, E & J. Bello. 2001. “The Semantics of ‘okay’ (‘OK’) in Nigerian English”. World Englishes. 20(1). 89–98.
• Alami, M. 2015. “Pragmatic Functions of Discourse Marker: A Review of Related Literature”. IJSELL full name of the journal. 3(3). 1-10.
• Alami, M. 2016. “An Investigation of Pragmatic Functions and Position of Prevalent Persian Discourse Markers Used in Casual Conversation among Tehran Speakers”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature 5(1). 250-263.
• Archakis, A. 2001. “On Discourse Markers: Evidence from Modern Greek”. Katika Journal of Pragmatics. 33(8). 1235-1261.
• Azi, Y. 2018. “Investigating Arabic Pragmatic Markers in Spoken Discourse”. International Journal of Linguistics. 10 (2). 48-72.
• BAKITA, 2017. Kamusi Kuu ya Kiswahili. 2nd Edition. Nairobi: Longhorn Publishers Limited.
• BAKIZA, 2010. Kamusi la Kiswahili Fasaha. Nairobi: Oxford University Press.
• Barske, T. 2009. “Same Token Different Actions: A Conversation Analytic Study of Social Roles, Embodied Actions and ‘ok’ in German Business Meetings”. Journal of Business Communication 46(1). 120-149.
• Bazanella, C. 1990. “Phatic Connectives as Intonational Cues in Contemporary Spoken Italian”. Journal of Pragmatics 14(4). 629-647.
• Beach, W. 1993. “Transitional Regularities for “Causal” ‘okay’ Usages”. Journal of Pragmatics 19. 325-352.
• Beach, W. 1995. “Preserving and Constraining Options: “Okays” and “Official” Priorities in Medical Interviews”. The Talk of the Clinic, ed. by G. H. Morris & R. J. Chenail. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. 259-290.
• Chen, Y. & A.W. He. 2001. “’Dui Bu Dui’ as Pragmatic Markers. Evidence from Chinese Classroom Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 1441-1465.
• Condon, S. 2001. “Discourse ‘ok’ Revisited: Default Processes in Verbal Interaction”. Journal of Pragmatics 33(4). 491-513.
• Condon, Sh. 1986. “The discourse functions of ‘OK’”. Semiotica 60. 73-101.
• Durán, M. E. & V. Unamuno. 2001. “The Discourse Marker ‘a ver’ (Catalan, aveure) in Teacher-Student interaction”. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 193-208.
• Filipi, A. & R. Wales. 2003. “Differential Uses of ‘okay’, ‘right’ and ‘alright’, and Their Function in Signaling Perspective Shift or Maintenance in a Map Task”. Semiotica 147. 429-455.
• Fraser, B. 1996. “Pragmatic Markers?”. Pragmatics 6 (2). 167-190.
• Fung, L. & R. Carter. 2007. “Discourse Markers and Spoken English: Native and Learner Use in Pedagogical Settings”. Applied Linguistics 28(3). 410-439.
• Gaines, P. 2011. “The Multifunctionality of Discourse Operator ‘okay’: Evidence From a Police Interview”. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 3291–3315.
• Gicharu, J.M. 2015. Kamusi Kuu ya Kiswahili. Nairobi: Longhorn Publishers Limited.
• Guthrie, A. M., 1997. “On The Systematic Deployment of ‘okay’ and ‘mmhmm’ in Academic Advising Sessions”. Pragmatics 7(3). 397–415.
• Habwe, J. H. 1999. Discourse Analysis of Swahili Political Speeches. PhD Thesis. University of Nairobi.
• Heisler, T. 1996. “’OK’ – A Dynamic Discourse Marker in Montreal French”. Sociolinguistics, ed. by J. Arnold, R. Blake, B. Davidson et al.
• Hockey, B. A., 1992. “Prosody and the Role of ‘okay and ‘uh-huh’ in Discourse”. ESCOL ’92: Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, ed. by M. Bernstein. The Ohio State University, Columbus: OH. 128–136.
• Hoek, J. 2013. Yeah no, I agree? The Interpretation of Yes and No in Dutch. Unpublished MA Thesis. Nijmegen University.
• Kovarsky, D. 1989. “On the Occurrence of ‘okay’ in Therapy”. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 5. 137-145.
• Levin, H. & D. Gray. 1983. “The Lecturer’s ‘OK’”. American Speech 58(3). 195-200.
• Maschler, Y., 2005. “Accepting while Shifting: The Discourse Marker ‘tov’ (‘okay, fine’, lit. ‘good’) in Israeli Hebrew Talk-In-Interaction”. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Symposium About Language and Society. 48:216-228.
• Merritt, M. 1978. “On the Use of ‘O.K’. in Service Encounters”. Sociolinguistic Working Paper 42. 1-22.
• Nasir, S. H. 2017. The Interpretation of Discourse Markers ya ‘yes’ and nggak ‘no’ in Indonesia. Unpublished MA Thesis. Radboud University.
• O’Neal, G. C. 2013. Teological and Dolichological Discourse Marking in Oral American Media: The Discourse Markers ‘so’ and ‘ok’. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of London.
• Pierrehumbert, J. & J. Hirschberg. 1990. “The Meaning of Intonational Contours in The Interpretation of Discourse”. Intentions in Communication, ed. by P. Cohen & J. Morgan. Boston: MIT Press. 134-178.
• Psathas, G. & T. Anderson. 1993. “The Practices of Transcription in Conversation Analysis”. Semiotica 78(1-2). 75-99.
• Rendle-Short, J., 2000. “When ‘okay’ is Okay in Computer Science Seminar Talk”. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 22(2). 19–33.
• Schegloff, E. A. 1973. “Opening up Closings”. Semiotica 1. 129-327.
• Schegloff, E. A. 1986. “The Routines as Achievement”. Human Studies 9. 111-151.
• Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP.
• Schleef, E. 2008. “The ‘‘lecturer’s OK’’ Revisited: Changing Discourse Conventions and the Influence of Academic Division”. American Speech 83(1). 62–84.
• Stede, M. & B. Schmitz. 2000. “Discourse Particles and Discourse Functions”. Katika Machine Translation 15. 125-147.
• Susan, D. A. 1999. The Pragmatics of Selected Discourse Markers in Swahili. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Illinois.
• TUKI, 2012. Kamusi ya Kiswahili Sanifu. 3rd Edition. Dar es Salaam. Oxford University Press.
• Wamitila, K.W. 2018. Kamusi Pevu ya Kiswahili, 2nd Edition. Nairobi: Vide~Muwa Publishers Limited.
• Wang, Y.-F., Tsai, P.-H. & D. Goodman. 2010. “Agreement, Acknowledgement and Alignment: The Discourse Pragmatic Functions of ‘hao’ and ‘dui’ in Taiwan Mandarin Conversation”. Discourse Studies 12(2). 241-267.
• Yilmaz, E. 2002. A Practical Analysis of Turkish Discourse Markers: ‘yan’, ‘iste’ and ‘sey’. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Middle East Technical University.