Dalarna University's logo and link to the university's website

The pragmatic usage of each Discourse markers has been analyzed on its pragmaticand semantic meaning on various contexts.  Some research seeks for clarifying only the major usage for the purpose of languagelearning, such as the usage in dictionary. At the other hand, some claims Pragmaticmarkers have a number of different functions depending on the context, questioningwhether they have one meaning or many meanings.  According to Schiffrin (1987), there are two types of discourse markers in Americandiscourse. One of those is the semantic-relevant usage, which focuses on the logicalaspect of markers, such as”because”, “so” or “but”. The other one is the markers suchas “well” or “oh”, which are relatively supposed not to be logical and rather their mainfocus is on the emotional or turn-management effect.  Especially as for the discourse marker “oh”, though it belong to the latter type,Schiffrin (1987) notifies all of 6 main usages from pragmatic (strong emotional state)to semantic are based on the information management task, regardless of detailedclassification inside it.  Except the usage of each marker, this research also focuses on the perspective of“genre discourse analysis”, as a scale to examine discourse markers. Genre is aperspective to analyse discourse, and the definition of which is suggested by Bensonand Greaves (1981), as “the type of activity in which the discourse operates its content,idea and institutional focus”.  This research sets the “occupational meeting “on Japanese and American as the typeof activity, and aims to find the difference of “concept of meeting” and thus “theconceptualisation of Japanese politeness reflected in the “wakimae” principle, byinvesting the pragmatic usage of “oh” American and Japanese speakers choose.As the methodology, based on 500 turns from the speech setting of “meeting” and“casual conversation” on both of American and Japanese corpus, the marker to show“surprise” are extracted respectively and further divided to 6 usage along theSchiffrin’s categorization and then cross-examined.  Consequently the result is found as next:1. “Strong emotional state” such as showing the surprise or fear, the most pragmaticusage is frequently found in American corpus and the frequency doesn’t showany difference when the setting changed from the casual conversation to themeeting. Whereas it was rare to find same usage in Japanese especially inmeeting.2. The most pragmatic usage, which just collocates with feedback to answer, isfound frequently in Japanese especially in the meeting.3. The usage that focus on information management aspect as “repair” or “requestof clarification” increase in American meeting, compared to that in casualconversation, In contrast, the opposite tendency is found in Japanese counterparts.  In conclusion, negotiations of debating aspect are mainly cantered in Americanmeetings, in which the exchanges of the difference in information they have obtainedare focused. However in Japanese, the main issue are replaced by wakimae(discretion),which require the participants to choose certain formality of the conversational settings.