A Study of Discourse Markers in Akbar Radi’s The Blue Eyelet

Informed by Schiffrin’s theoretical model, this study investigates the functions of discourse markers in Akbar Radi’s play, The Blue Eyelet. In the first stage, we identify the discourse markers employed in the dialogues and examine their roles in shaping character voice, establishing discourse coherence, and organizing dramatic action. Textual analysis reveals that both the frequency and the types of discourse markers used by the characters follow a meaningful distribution and that their selection aligns closely with character traits, interactional contexts, and the dramatic tensions of the play. In the second stage, to assess the degree of alignment between the theoretical analysis and readers’ interpretations, we designed a questionnaire consisting of fifteen selected dialogues, which was completed by fifty readers. Statistical results (81.16%) indicate that readers, even without theoretical awareness, were able to recognize the discourse functions of these markers in their interpretation of the text, and that their understanding was largely consistent with the theoretical analysis. Furthermore, the responses show that discourse functionality in the play is not limited to Schiffrin’s eleven canonical markers; additional linguistic units may also function discursively depending on contextual factors, readers’ background knowledge, and other pragmatic conditions. These findings highlight the importance of studying discourse markers in the analysis of literary texts—particularly dramatic works—and underscore that familiarity with these elements can provide valuable tools for literary criticism, close reading, and dramaturgy.
 
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
In recent years, the role of language and discursive mechanisms in literary criticism has received increasing attention. In this light, discourse markers have procured a special place as small but highly functional units, because in addition to creating coherence and organizing propositions, they play a decisive role in shaping power relations, discursive identities, and action-oriented strategies of characters. This is especially important in plays that are in accordance with speech and linguistic action. Despite the extensive research in the field of discourse analysis, the use of discourse markers in the literary and dramaturgical reading of Persian plays has been largely ignored. By outlining five levels of continuity and the communicative roles of characters, Schiffrin’s theoretical framework (1987) allows for a more detailed analysis of speech contexts – an analysis that can highlight character differences, dramatic tensions, and interaction mechanisms in the play. Adopting a descriptive-analytical approach and focusing on Akbar Radi’s The Blue Eyelet, the present study attempts to show how discourse markers help construct dramatic action, explain generational and class differences, and shape the tone and identity of characters. Also, comparing theoretical analysis with readers’ perceptions reinforces the importance of studying discourse markers in the analysis of literary texts—particularly dramatic works—and underscores that familiarity with these elements can provide valuable tools for literary criticism, close reading, and dramaturgy.
2. Methodology
Adopting a descriptive-analytical approach, the present article explores Schiffrin’s theoretical foundations in the text and employs the SPSS software to show the data frequency chart.
3. Theoretical Framework
The analysis of discourse markers is in accordance with two theoretical approaches: coherence-based theory and relevance-based theory. Coherence theory emphasises the text and its structure, while relevance theory focuses on the process of comprehension and the role of symbols in guiding meaning in the mind of the audience. This difference of view provides a suitable theoretical basis for analyzing the discourse markers in the play.
4. Discussion and Analysis
In the first stage, we identified the discourse markers employed in the dialogues and examine their roles in shaping character voice, establishing discourse coherence, and organizing dramatic action. Textual analysis reveals that both the frequency and the types of discourse markers used by the characters follow a meaningful distribution and that their selection aligns closely with character traits, interactional contexts, and the dramatic tensions of the play. In the second stage, to assess the degree of alignment between the theoretical analysis and readers’ interpretations, we designed a questionnaire consisting of fifteen selected dialogues, which was completed by fifty readers. In this questionnaire, there was no direct reference to the discourse markers used in the dialogues, so that readers could judge without prejudice and solely based on their perception of the speech situation. Statistical results (81.16%) indicate that readers, even without theoretical awareness, are able to recognise the discourse functions of these markers in their interpretation of the text, and that their understanding is largely consistent with the theoretical analysis.
5. Conclusion
Informed by Schiffrin’s theoretical model, this study investigates the functions of discourse markers in Akbar Radi’s play, The Blue Eyelet. The discursive analysis shows that the discourse markers play a structural role not only at the level of providing coherence to the speech but also at the level of shaping the dramatic action, identifying the characters, and depicting generational conflicts. The meaningful distribution of markers among the characters—especially the high frequency of markers such as “and,” “but,” “now,” “then,” “therefore,” and “well”—shows that Radi consciously uses these elements to construct a dramatic world and enhance speech realism. The overlap between the rhetorical function of the markers and the personality traits of the characters also confirms that the markers form the semantic architecture of the work. Comparing the theoretical analysis with the data obtained from the questionnaire also strengthens this perception. Statistical results (81.16%) indicate that readers, even without theoretical awareness, are able to recognise the discourse functions of these markers in their interpretation of the text, and that their understanding was largely consistent with the theoretical analysis. Furthermore, the present research reveals that discourse functionality in the play is not limited to Schiffrin’s eleven canonical markers; additional linguistic units may also function discursively depending on contextual factors, readers’ background knowledge, and other pragmatic conditions. These findings highlight the importance of studying discourse markers in the analysis of literary texts—particularly dramatic works—and underscore that familiarity with these elements can provide valuable tools for literary criticism, close reading, and dramaturgy.
Bibliography
Blackmore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blackmore, D. 2002. Relevance and Linguistics. NP: Cambridge University Press.
Blass, R. 1990. Relevance Relations in Discourse. NP: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, B. 1999. “What Are Discourse Markers?” Journal of Pragmatics. (31): 931-952. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5
Giora, R. 1998. “Discourse Coherence Is an Independent Notion: A Reply to Deirdre Wilson.” Journal of Pragmatics. (29): 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00045-3
Halliday, M. A. 1976. Cohesion in the English Language Series. London: Routledge.
Radi, A. 1390 [2011]. Rooye Sahneh-e Abi. Tehran: Qatreh. [In Persian].
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.