Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The aim of this paper is to analyse, from a socio pragmatic standpoint, two pairs of discourse markers in the context of language contact: Ro. oricum and Eng. anyway in Romanian spoken in Romania, and Ro. oricum and Ru. p o lyubomu in the Romanian variety spoken in the Republic of Moldova. The study focuses on the pragmatic values that anyway and po lyubomu have both in Romanian and in their source language, values that are compared with the pragmatic functions of thei r Rom anian counterpart oricum . The study aimed to determine whether po lyubomu and anyway , as borrowed discourse markers, convey the same pragmatic functions in the recipient language as they do in their source language. Moreover, we tried to explain why Roma nian speakers (bilingual or monolingual), both in Moldova and in Romania, choose borrowed discourse markers over their Romanian counterpart. It is often stated that discourse markers are susceptible to borrowing because they are peripheral, optional, multi functional, oral. Borrowed markers contrast with their linguistic environment being more salient than native markers. The use of anyway in Romanian is an element of code switching phenomenon and might be explained in terms of conversational strategies , whi le Ru. po lyubomu is a borrowed element undergoing formal and functional adaptation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2023 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: