Signals, such as discourse markers (DMs), are frequently utilized by speakers in utterances to direct the hearer through the process of interpretation (Foolen, 2011). Lexical expressions that are predominantly produced from conjunctions, adverbials, and prepositional phrases are referred to as DMs within the subclass of pragmatic markers (Fraser, 1996, 2009). Schiffrin (1987) defines DMs as sequentially dependent elements that bracket units of talk. The three monosyllabic DMs—so, and, but—have been chosen as the central focus in this study given their high frequency and keyness, as evidenced by spoken corpora (Rühlemann, 2019) such as British National Corpus 64 (BNC64) and British National Corpus 2014 (BNC2014), in which the three selected DMs rank first on the frequency list. Moreover, according to Fraser’s (2009) taxonomy, the three DMs belong to distinct groups; so is an inferential discourse marker (IDM); and is an elaborative discourse marker (EDM); but is a contrastive discourse marker (CDM).

Against this backdrop, the current study aims to explore media talk, specifically TV interviews. Media talk, as a particular genre, provides insights into the nature of mass communication and serves as a bridge between the media, public opinion, and public knowledge. Recently, media talk has begun to be studied as a phenomenon in its own right (Hutchby, 2006). Studies on media talk have been carried out focusing on the spoken discourse, such as radio talk shows (Hutchby, 2006; Tolson, 2006), television talk shows (Ilie, 2001; Lauerbach and Aijmer, 2007), quiz shows (Culpeper, 2005), and web page talk (Kopf, 2022). Created in the 20th century, TV interview, as a semi-institutionalized socio-cultural practice, has grown more popular and received consistently high ratings over the years (Ilie, 2001). This type of program frequently demonstrates stringent host-initiated queries, typically including face-threatening activities such as direct and unpleasant questions (Furkó and Abuczki, 2014). These features are attributable to the program’s discursive and linguistic qualities.

The characteristics of the program reveal the use of a set of pragmatic language realizations, such as the use of discourse markers (DMs) (Furkó and Abuczki, 2014). DMs can process pragmatic inferences by reducing the hearer’s processing effort (Aijmer and Simon-Vandenbergen, 2004; Furkó and Abuczki, 2014). DMs can function on the politeness level (Östman, 1981), phatic level (Aijmer, 2002), as a face mitigator (Crible, 2018), and for weakening the illocutionary force (Leech, 2014). In addition, the high frequency of DMs appearing in spoken genres makes their use a distinctive feature and a pivotal role in spoken English (Carter and McCarthy, 2006; Farahani and Ghane, 2022). TV interview is a type of oral interaction between the host and the guest that provides a good opportunity to examine DMs in spoken discourse (Oyeleye and Olutayo, 2012). As a result, an increasing number of studies have been dedicated to the investigation of DM in media discourse with DM function being the most explored area, such as the mapping of the DM functional spectrum in media discourse (Furkó, 2015), the examination of DM types and functions in mediatized interviews (Furkó and Abuczki, 2014), talk shows (Kang, 2018, 2019), and interview videos (Tsoy, 2022). Despite the widespread interest in DMs, other aspects such as frequencies, patterns, and positions have received less attention in the literature, particularly in the context of TV interviews. The current study, which is a part of an on-going large-scale comparative project examining DMs in media discourse, attempts to contribute to the existing literature by exploring from a quantitative perspective.

In the past, there has been a great deal of interest in the theoretical study of DMs, with much of that interest focusing on their definition, meaning, and functions. For instance, the majority of the studies tend to advocate for different interpretations of DMs, such as discourse connectives (Blakemore, 2002), discourse particles (Schourup, 1999), and connect a variety of theoretical models, like Redeker’s (1990) model and Schiffrin’s (1987) five distinct planes. The last few years have witnessed an increase in the number of empirical studies examining the role of DMs in various circumstances, such as mediatized institutional political interviews (Furkó and Abuczki, 2014), scientific papers (Rezanova and Kogut, 2015), Asian presidents’ addresses (Banguis-Bantawig, 2019), therapeutic interviews (Cepeda and Poblete, 2006), academic spoken English (Farahani and Ghane, 2022), and laboratory experiments (Holtgraves and Bonnefon, 2017). Another emerging trend in DM research is a growing interest in comparing the use of DMs in terms of functions and frequency between English native speakers (NSs) and non-native speakers (NNSs) from a variety of L1 backgrounds (Müller, 2005; Aijmer, 2011; Asik and Cephe, 2013; Al-khazraji, 2019; Şahin Kızıl, 2021).

Previous research on the three selected DMs has also examined their functions in structural relations, cohesive relations, and interactional relations, particularly their role in achieving discourse coherence. These studies use either natural data, such as sociolinguistic group interviews in which several people are invited to prompt one another to speak (Schiffrin, 1987), a film description experiment in which discourse markers are elicited from native American English speakers’ descriptions of films that they have seen to others without having watched (Redeker, 1990), or constructed examples created by the scholar for the purpose of examining DMs (Fraser, 1999, 2009). According to Huang (2019), corpus methodology is frequently used in DM research, which is supported by Schiffrin’s (1987) interview data, who also proposes that corpus is useful for analyzing discourse markers. Moreover, with the employment of corpus, Schirm (2012) examines Hungarian DM hát in semi-guided informal conversations and job interview dialogues; Furkó and Abuczki (2014) compare six DMs (I mean, of course, oh, well, I think, you know) in BBC and CNN political interviews; Huang (2019) and Buysse (2020) compare the use of DM well in a spoken learner corpus between NSs and NNSs.

Studies on DM so can be classified into two types. One is the investigation of the multifunctionality of the DM so in various contexts, and the other is primarily employing the comparative approach. The exploration of the function of the DM so has been conducted in learner corpora (Buysse, 2007; Algouzi, 2021), in naturally occurring face-to-face and telephone interactions (Bolden, 2008, 2009; Barske and Golato, 2010), in seminar talks (Rendle-Short, 2003), in video-mediated communication (Collet et al., 2021), and in English TV programs (Li and Xiang, 2020). On the other hand, comparative studies on the DM so have focused exclusively on comparing so with other DMs, while others have been particularly interested in comparing how the DM so is used by NSs and NNSs. Bolden (2006) compares the interactional role of the DM so and oh in a corpus of everyday face-to-face and telephone conversations. Nneka (2022) analyzes and compares the function and frequency of DM so and DM well in a small corpus of three presidential chats, showing that the two DMs can be used to effectively manage the discourse flow, with the DM so occurring more frequently than the DM well. Lam (2007) compares the frequency, functions, and positions of the DM so and the DM well between the Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English (HKCSE) and British National Corpus (BNC) and discovers that the function and frequency of so vary according to text genre. Algouzi (2021) analyzes the frequency of the functional distribution of the DM so in the LINDSEI-AR sub-corpus. Some comparative studies on the DM so in learner corpora are also reported in Müller’s (2005), Buysse’s (2012, 2014), and Liu’s (2017) studies. Studies examine the function of the DM and tend to rely on loosely extracted examples from multiple sources, such as examples retrieved from the spoken learner corpora (Heng, 2005), showing that the DM and can serve as an addition, a comparison, and a delaying device. Research on the DM but focuses on how it functions across a range of genres and literary forms, such as oral narratives (Norrick, 2001), a diachronic corpus of Northern English conversations (Hancil, 2018), and on comparisons between the DM but and its counterparts in other languages (Alsager et al., 2020; Khammee, 2022; Shirzadi et al., 2022).

TV interviews have been studied from the im/politeness, language, and ideological perspectives, such as how im/politeness models and strategies are used (Culpeper, 2005; Cook, 2014; Fedyna, 2016; Rabab’Ah et al., 2019; Damayanti and Mubarak, 2021; Sitorus et al., 2022) linguistic features (Ilie, 2001), the representation of ideologies and power relations (Bilal et al., 2012; Sharifi et al., 2017), the host’s role in managing discourse (Oyeleye and Olutayo, 2012), structural units (Kamil Ali, 2018), and guests’ non-serious responses (Sheikhan and Haugh, 2022), to name but a few. However, as previously stated, few studies have focused specifically on DMs in the context of TV interviews. Notable exceptions are Cook (2014), Fedyna (2016), and Kamil Ali (2018), who indirectly show the DM role and functions. There are a number of additional studies, which, however, focus on the qualitative analysis of the DM functions, seldom do they explore the frequency, patterns, and position from quantitative and comparative perspectives, exceptions can be found in the investigation of Korean DM position (Kim et al., 2021a,b), the examination of co-occurrences of Persian DM vae, equivalent to English DM and (Kazemian and Amouzadeh, 2022), the DM combination “and now” (Shirtz, 2021), the DM sequence “and so” and “so and” (Koops and Lohmann, 2022), and the frequency of “so” (Algouzi, 2021) and “just so” (Kaltenböck and Ten Wolde, 2022).

Discourse marker co-occurrence is pervasive and relatively frequent, but little work has been done on their ability to combine (Fraser, 2015), and it has been somewhat overlooked until recently (Cuenca and Crible, 2019). For example, Fraser (2010, 2013) examines the acceptability of CDM in examples drawn from COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English) and BNC (British National Corpus), as well as discussing general functions of the DM but. In addition, Fraser (2015) extends the scope by investigating the combination of CDM and IDM, showing acceptable cases for such combinations. Although Fraser’s studies on DM cluster are insightful, he did not provide satisfactory explanations for such co-occurrences, and he also failed to explore the combination of EDM with the other two types. In view of this, quite a number of underlying motivations for such combinations are explored, such as syntactic and functional criteria (Cuenca and Crible, 2019), multifunctionality for certain DM clusters (Crible and Degand, 2021; Shirtz, 2021; Koops and Lohmann, 2022). However, the co-occurrence of the three types of DMs is still overlooked. As a result, the current study intends to embark on this perspective and investigate the possibility of combing EDM, CDM, and IDM, but the investigation of reasons is beyond the scope of this study and will not be discussed further here. Apart from this, many comparative studies rely extensively on existing corpora (Müller, 2005; Lam, 2007; Liu, 2017; Hancil, 2018; Huang, 2019; Buysse, 2020; Algouzi, 2021; Koops and Lohmann, 2022) and rarely build their own. This study, guided by the two research questions below, will build three corpora based on TV interviews from China, the US, and the UK to conduct a quantitative analysis of the frequency, patterns, and positions of the three DMs. The examination and comparison of the use of the three DMs in the three corpora will shed light on DMs in greater detail.

The present study compares the frequency of the three selected DMs, their co-occurrences, and their positions in the three corpora by adopting a corpus-based approach and a quantitative method. The results, to some extent, offer some evidence for the comparability of the three corpora.

First, three DMs are the top three in each of the three corpora in terms of frequency, confirming previous research that they are frequently used in the spoken genre (Carter and McCarthy, 2006). The resemblance can be found between the present study and previous studies (Redeker, 1990; Asik and Cephe, 2013; Crible, 2018) and BNC64 and BNC2014 is that the DM and ranks first. However, there are slight differences in the ranking order. For instance, the ranking order of the Chinese Corpus (Table 2) and the US Corpus (Table 2) corresponds to Asik and Cephe’s and Redeker’s studies, as well as spoken BNC64—that is, the DM and ranks first, followed by the DM so and the DM but. Whereas the ranking order of the UK Corpus (Table 2) is consistent with Crible’s (2018) study and BNC64—which shows that the DM and ranks first, followed by the DM but and the DM so. When the frequency of the three DMs is compared across the three corpora, the DM so appears the most frequently in the Chinese Corpus (Table 5), the DM and occurs the most frequently in the US Corpus (Table 5), and the DM but has the highest frequency in the UK Corpus (Table 5). This indicates that inferential expressions associated with the DM so are most frequently used in the Chinese interview, elaborative expressions embedded with the DM and occur relatively more frequently in the American interview, and contrastive expressions with the DM but are used the most in the British interview. In line with previous studies (Lam, 2007; Liu, 2017), some DMs’ observed differences are statistically significant. For example, there is a statistically significant difference between the Chinese Corpus and the UK Corpus (Table 6) and between the US Corpus and the UK Corpus (Table 6) regarding the frequency of the DM so. The difference in the rate of the DM and between the Chinese Corpus and the US Corpus (Table 6) and between the US Corpus and the UK Corpus (Table 6) also achieves a high statistical significance. However, no statistically significant difference is observed in the frequency of DM but. Gender is one of the variables accounting for the frequency of DM use. For example, it is typically women’s language (Östman, 1981). However, the current study cannot draw such firm conclusions because the presented DM frequency is used by both men and women. The Chinese Corpus, for example, has one female host and two male guests; the US Corpus includes one female host, one male guest, and one female guest; and the UK Corpus consists of one male host and two male guests. As a result, further research is required to interpret this phenomenon.

Previous studies have reported that the DM cluster is a frequent phenomenon that is not random and has some discourse-functional motivation (Crible, 2018). Crible and Degand (2021) disentangle some linguistic features that constrain DM clusters and propose a reasonable rule that governs this integration. The three DMs in the present study can be combined to form six co-occurring strings: “and so,” “and but,” “so but,” “so and,” “but and,” “but so.” The results (Figure 5) show that four out of the six patterns occur among the three corpora. The combination “and so” occurs the most frequently in the US Corpus. Crible’s (2018) study on the frequency of English DM clusters echoes the same finding, revealing the possibility of the combination of EDM and IDM. In contrast to the current study, Lam’s (2007) research does not appear to demonstrate a clear preference for this combination in terms of DM collocations, which is contradictory. Another intriguing aspect is that Fraser’s (2015) study does not find evidence of the possibility of IDM and CDM working together (referred to here as “so but”), which is demonstrated in the present study. The results of the patterns reveal a solid tendency for the combination of different types of DMs. Koops and Lohmann’s (2022) general order principle can be used to explain this integration—different DM patterns achieve different effects. In other words, the earlier DM constrains the interpretation of the later one. The DM co-occurrence “and so” indicates that the upcoming utterance is a result or conclusion, while “so and” marks a topic shift. The one that should be placed first or second is determined by DM functions. The DM sequencing “and so” indicates that it is frequently used to start a new topic or turn, particularly in the US corpus. In addition, “and so” is regular use in American English (Koops and Lohmann, 2022), which explains the higher frequency of its appearance in American interview. These may be preliminary explanations for speakers’ preference in choosing the DM pattern. Overall, given the frequency of DM clusters in the present study, it does not show a high consistency with previous studies that DM co-occurrence is a frequent phenomenon, or at least it is not as frequent as claimed in previous studies, which may be attributed to the small data set.

Finally, the general positional distribution of the three DMs across the three corpora is quite similar—with the initial position having the highest proportion, followed by the medial position and the final position (Table 4). This is in line with Crible’s (2018) finding that utterance initial is the most typical use of DM followed by utterance medial and final. Moreover, a higher rate of their occurrence in discourse initial position also echoes previous studies (Fraser, 2009; Alsager et al., 2020). Despite the general consistency in the distribution pattern, there is a certain degree of disparity in the proportions of the DM and in the Chinese Corpus (48.75 vs. 51.25%) and the US Corpus (25.16 vs. 74.84%) and the DM but in the US Corpus (34.78 vs. 65.25%), in which the medial proportion is greater than that of the initial position. As shown in Figure 6, the positional distribution of the DM so is less flexible than that of the other two DMs, whose initial position is always the first. This finding, however, contradicts Lam’s (2007) study, which shows that the DM so in the utterance medial position constitutes a greater proportion. Moreover, they rarely occur in the utterance final position. Only the DM and appears four times (4.6%) in the final position in the UK Corpus (Figure 6). Thus, we may draw a preliminary conclusion that the DM positional distribution does not exhibit a high degree of positional freedom as reported in previous studies (Tanghe, 2016; Bordería and Fischer, 2021). The DM positional distribution can be attributed to different variables. Register plays a crucial role, specifically in the degree of interactivity: the more interactive the register, the more frequently it occurs in the initial position (Crible, 2018). Three interviews are all interactive, interpreting their higher proportion of the occurrence in the initial position. In addition, their rare appearance in the final position is also due to the limited number of tag questions in the three corpora (Crible, 2018). More thorough larger-scale research is required to better understand this phenomenon.

The present study examined and compared the frequency, patterns, and positional distribution of the three DMs in the three corpora. The study concluded that there are statistically significant differences and marginal variations within and between corpora in different aspects. The study differed most significantly from previous ones in terms of the data type and objectives. While previous studies concentrated more on qualitative analysis of DM functions in academic settings or only one of the above-mentioned aspects, this study attempted to investigate all three aspects in one single goal in media discourse from a quantitative perspective. The study revealed that DM so occurs most frequently in the Chinese Corpus; the US Corpus has the highest frequency of the DM and; and the UK Corpus has the highest frequency of DM but, which provides a basis for a more productive analysis of the types of DMs used in media talk. Do all IDMs, for example, appear frequently in Chinese media discourse? Or are there more EDMs in American interviews? Or are CDMs more likely to occur in British media discourse? The article found that the DM cluster “and so” is most frequently used in American interviews, confirming that this combination is typical use in American English. The higher frequency of DMs appearing in the initial position also confirmed that the more interactive the genre, the more likely DMs appear in the initial position.

Hence, the study contributes to the existing literature by filling the gap and adding more insights into the field of discourse markers. Apart from academe, the study also sheds light on the role of DMs in interviews, which may inspire hosts and guests to consider how to achieve the best bilateral communication by using certain DMs. Despite the foregoing insights, this study falls short of expectations and does have some limitations. The findings in the present study cannot be generalized due to the small data set. Although this study provides some preliminary explanations for the differences, it fails to account for more specific variables due to the small sample size and the scope of this study. This opens new avenues for the future research in encompassing both the large corpus and another genre in order to address this problem. It is intended that the results presented in this study would be of benefit not only to individuals who conduct interviews for the media and those who are interviewed for the media, but also to those who aspire to be successful doing DM research in media settings.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Both authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.