In linguistics, a discourse marker is a word or phrase that marks a boundary in a discourse, typically as part of a dialogue. Discourse markers do not belong to the syntactic or semantic structure of an utterance.

Discourse markers are usually polyfunctional elements. Discourse markers can be understood in two ways. Firstly, as elements which serve to the union of utterances (in this sense they are equivalent to the term connective). Secondly, as elements which serve to a variety of conversational purposes .

Traditionally, some of the elements considered discourse markers were treated as "fillers" or "expletives", that is, elements whose function was that of not having any function at all. Nowadays they are assigned functions in different levels of analysis: topic changes, reformulations, discourse planning, stressing, hedging or backchanneling. Those functions can be classified into three broad groups: a) relationships among (parts of) utterances; b) relationships between the speaker and the message, and c) relationships between speaker and hearer.

Diachronic data show that discourse markers often come from different word classes, such as adverbs (well) or prepositional phrases (in fact). The process that leads from a free construction to a discourse marker can be traced back through grammaticalization studies.

Common discourse markers used in the English language include "you know", "actually", "basically", "like", "I mean" and "OK".

See also

• Filler (linguistics)
• Interjection
• Speech disfluency

Principles of Epistemology/Knowledge Building Discourse Markers: The term Discourse Markers was invented by a PhD Candidate Zahra Punja in 2004 November when she was busy trying to understand how to analyze medical discourse generated in online Knowledge Building Environments. Dr. Punja reviewed older articles on reading and writing and found elements from the literature that served the purpose of marking text and served the purpose of helping to identify Knowledge Building Discourse Markers. She was interested in inviting a system to help the worldwide knowledge building research team, especially the educators in medicine to understand what Knowledge Building looks like in practice. Scardamalia & Bereiter’s (1993) theory of Knowledge Building, in essence, is a theory of epistemology, and as such Scardamalia’s (2002) twelve Knowledge Building Principles are in essence, principles of epistemology. Given this realization, one can see how knowledge work is everyone’s business, and how remnants of knowledge building reside in all forms of discourses no matter they are defined. That is, understanding that “knowledge work is work with conceptual artifacts” (Bereiter, 2002, 69), whereby “knowledge workers create, improve, find new uses for, or otherwise add value to conceptual artifacts” (Bereiter, 2002, 181).

The interesting question is, why then, do medical educators resist knowledge building, if in essence, they can use knowledge building principles to advance their current practices and keep the model they have currently instituted? One argument is that, they do not see how this is possible for knowledge building to advance their current models and another argument is that they see knowledge building reduced to an educational model much the same way we see educational models like Problem Based Learning (Barrow’s), Presentation Based Curriculum and so forth. If we reduce knowledge work to an educational model, this provokes people into a defense-mechanism mode whereby they resist new ideas and defend old outdated one. A very unprogressive way to engage in innovation. In this paper, I will use Scardamalia’s Knowledge Building Principles (2002) to advance her own theory of Knowledge Building. I will also propose a new way of approaching Knowledge Building, that makes explicit the essence of knowledge work, which Bereiter also argues, is “everyone’s business” (Bereiter, 2002).

A common criticism prevalent amongst educators is that Knowledge Building is excessive abstract and therefore inapplicable to real-time contexts. While I agree that the language used by Scardamalia and Bereiter is quite poetic in nature, it also should be understood and appreciated that it has been purified to its most refined state over the decades of theory building and improvement. Nevertheless, the need to make this theory understandable to newcomers is ever present and required in order for people to partake fully in knowledge work. As such, in reviewing the literature on change and innovation, Fullan (2001) describes the unpredictable and frightening experience of change and proposes a set of strategies to overcome barriers to innovation. Likewise, Moore (1959) also has found that “simple elements are more readily transferable than complex ones and simple cultural forms are more transferable than complex cultural meanings” and subsequently suggests making the innovative idea “simple” and therefore more “easy to digest” (pp. 179-198). Lionberger (1960) too has found that, “the more complex a practice, the more change it requires in existing operations, the more slowly it will be adopted” (pg 104). As such, a simple way of understanding knowledge building theory is to understand that knowledge building is a poetic way of saying knowledge creation whereby knowledge is the product and knowledge creation, the process. If we are to debate the difference between process and product, it is well documented in the education literature that the product is an important part of the process, similar to the ideas of summative evaluation being part of the formative evaluation process. This idea is further extended by Scardamalia & Bereiter’s (1993) approach knowledge creation, whereby discoveries, inventions, and the like constituted as products are improvable and not fixed. As such, according to this definition, knowledge and knowledge creation is one and the same thing and as such, epistemology, the study of knowledge is no different than knowledge building, the study of knowledge creation. A way to effectively address this criticism is to attempt to further purify this process of knowledge work.

As such, in the paragraphs below I will provide an alternate approach to explain Knowledge Building by proposing a set of nine Principles of Epistemology (POE), using the word KNOWLEDGE as the mnemonic to remember them. The proposed nine Principles of Epistemology using the word KNOWLEDGE as the mnemonic are as follows: Knowledge advancing across communities and frontiers, New and original idea generation and development, Ongoing revisions and idea improvement, Written meta-cognitive reflections and explanations, Laudable initiatives undertaken by community members, Evidenced-based contributions, Democratic planning and decision-making, Generation of contextual understanding and solutions, and finally, Emergent assessment & self-governed monitoring. In essence, these proposed set of nine principles of epistemology aim to make Knowledge Building’s distinct properties easily recognizable and therefore easy to judge as desirable. In addition to this, I am also going to provide a set of what I call Discourse Markers to help practitioners identify specific incidences of knowledge work in their discourses, thereby focusing their attention on the important variables in Knowledge Building. As such, Discourse Markers like Biological Markers are designed to provide desirable literary techniques and identify desirable meta-structures present in the discourse analysis of ideal knowledge work. In the paragraphs to follow, I will explain each of the nine Principles of Epistemology and its respective Discourse Markers adapted from her decades of research on reading and writing.

The first principle of epistemology I am proposing is Knowledge Advancing across Communities and Frontiers which I would define as inter/intra community knowledge advancement or in other words sharing and advancing knowledge between and within communities and professions, within and across borders. This principle is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Idea Diversity, Symmetric Knowledge Advancement and Community Knowledge principles from her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) framework. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, I am proposing that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in - learners sharing their diverse interpretations or experience and evidence, communities building off each others advances, members between and within communities initiate new initiatives that advance the frontiers of their profession and members and communities co-authoring ideas, discoveries and inventions that are generated to further generate collective wealth as the Discourse Markers. These Discourse Markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in students enjoying planning as an activity, where personal biases are recognized, where there is an attempt to persuade or get reader to think, where learners are reconciling competing ideas and attempting to resolve opposing points. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided students grouping for basic orienting information, relating only to personal experiences and noting pros and cons. I believe that all the points Scardamalia has argued in her three knowledge building principles (2002) can be amalgamated under this one principle of epistemology.

The second principle of epistemology I am proposing is New and Original Idea Generation and Development which I would define as the development of a timeless and profound ideas that apply to many contexts and situations. This idea is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Rise Above principle from her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) framework. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, I am proposing that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in sophisticated theorizing whereby new ideas are developed from understanding difficult text and resisting opposing arguments or in other words, as well as a new perspective/way at looking at an old phenomenon, where an idea that solves problems unlike any idea before, as the Discourse Markers. These discourse markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in graphical literacy (theoretical model understanding and development), creative synthesis of diverse ideas, strong ideas that apply across time, space and context, advance toward becoming an expert on the topic in terms of knowledge gains and expert problem solving abilities, conceptual understanding, educationally valuable knowledge, a distinctive viewpoint on the topic as well as a significant contribution to knowledge base. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided students forming polemic, overstated, dogmatic and simplistic arguments, reproducing conventional wisdom, demonstrating typical personal reactions or familiar scenarios and showing evidence of minor or no contribution to their knowledge base. As such, I believe that all the points that Scardamalia has argued through the decades can be reorganized under this principle of epistemology.

The third principle of epistemology I am proposing is Ongoing Revisions and Idea Improvement which I would define as the process of purifying the text or as some philosophers have called it, engaging in the process of alchemy. This idea is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Improvable Ideas and Pervasive Knowledge Building principles from her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) theory. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, I am proposing that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in a continual revision of ideas and simultaneously engaging in elaborating-and-simplifying to get at the essence of an idea, as the discourse markers. These discourse markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in using goals as a criterion for selecting ideas, elaborating and reformulating goals, ability to sustain planning, critically examining past decisions and anticipating difficulties. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided students producing first drafts as final drafts, a lack of revisions or in other words, one time only development and production of an idea. As such, I believe that all the points Scardamalia has argued in her two knowledge building principles (2002) can be regrouped under this principle of epistemology.

The fourth principle of epistemology I am proposing is Written Metacognitive Reflections & Explanations which I would define as the process of making thinking explicit in a written form where it can be revised and scrutinized through peer review. This idea is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Knowledge Building Discourse principle from her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) theory. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, I am proposing that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in expert thinking and problem solving is made explicit in written form, and where the writing process reveals gaps in knowledge, as the relevant discourse markers. These discourse markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in producing attention-getting facts, ideas, expressions or points, especially in opening or closing sentences, demonstrating evidence of the beginnings of a dialectical process, understanding the function of planning cues (i.e. scaffolds), discourse having a distinctive manner of presentation, focus on a central idea or point, a definite line of thought (even if rambling) runs through text, an elaborated statement of position is provided, mature note-making as well as a reflective essay like character. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided students producing discourse that has a character of an encyclopedia article (i.e. monotone presentation of facts presented as unchanging, fixed, permanent, without reference sited, devoid of personality or individual expression), knowledge telling or egocentric self expression, vacuous statements such as “it depends”, “it’s good”, “it’s bad”, “they should” and “they shouldn’t” , a list structure as well as an unfocused collection of subtopics. As such, I believe that all the points Scardamalia has argued in this knowledge building principle (2002) can be reorganized under this new principle of epistemology.

The fifth principle of epistemology I am proposing is Laudable Initiatives Undertaken by Community Members which I would define as noteworthy or praiseworthy efforts generated at the grass-roots level by community members taking responsibility. This idea is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Community Responsibility and Epistemic Agency principles in her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) theory, as the members are not only taking charge and responsibility, but are initiating laudable initiatives. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, I am proposing that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in responsible and selfless communal behavior that is undertaken to advance ones’ own or better another community, as well as heroic efforts undertaken to resolve real world problems and crisis, as the discourse markers. These discourse markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in attempting to convey interestingness to the team, active pursuit of knowledge, and student generated questions which call for explanations. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided students giving factual explanations. As such, I believe that all the points Scardamalia has argued in her two knowledge building principles (2002) can be reorganized under this principle of epistemology.

The sixth principle of epistemology I am proposing is Evidenced-based Contributions which I would define as using research to substantiate contributions to the community. This idea is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Constructive Uses of Authority principle in her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) theory. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, I am proposing that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in citing authoritative sources to support arguments where contributions are shared to help advance community understanding as the discourse markers. These discourse markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in reading and working with difficult text, deeply comprehending difficult text, engaging in research and complex searching for causal or explanatory information to further their understanding of the problem, coming up with a satisfactory answer to a significant challenge requiring integration of complex and possibly divergent information from multiple reference sources as well as reflective use of information sources to answer questions one doesn’t know the answer to. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided students need to rely on unsupported statements of opinion. As such, I believe that these points Scardamalia has argued through the decades can be reorganized into this principle of epistemology.

The seventh principle of epistemology I am proposing is Democratic Planning and Decision-Making which I would define as all members from all levels of the hierarchy taking responsibility to advance the collective understanding. This idea is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Democratization of Knowledge principle in her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) theory. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, I am proposing that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in members on all levels of the hierarchy contributing to the higher level communal goals, as the discourse markers. These discourse markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in teachers and managers taking interest in pursuing student generated ideas and questions. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided executive level planning and decision making or solely by people outside the immediate context. As such, I believe that these ideas of Scardamalia can be reorganized under this new principle of epistemology.

The eighth principle of epistemology I am proposing is Generation of Contextual Understanding and Solutions which I would define as focusing on developing context-specific understanding of the problems affecting the context or situation or culture or people, as well as finding solutions to these real problems or issues. In Scardamalia’s original theory, deepening understanding appears, on a superficial level of understanding of the Knowledge Building theory, to have more significance or importance than finding solutions. This is however, untrue. The search for solutions and discovering solutions is motivated and generated by a deepened understanding of the problems and issues. This debate again is similar and consistent with Scardamalia & Bereiter’s Knowledge Building theory which emphasizes idea improvement at all levels. Furthermore, the process of deepening understanding is a process-driven activity and as given the fact that product is part of the process, the product in this case, the solution, is a necessary part of the equation. This idea is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Real Idea, Authentic Problems principle in her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) theory. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, I am proposing that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in learners initiating questions and problems that interest them, ideas emerging from real events that have real feelings and consequences that generate from them as well as where deepened understanding motivates the search and quest to solve real world problems, thereby helping to find desirable solutions for the context, as the relevant discourse markers. These discourse markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in demonstrating wonder (i.e. reflecting curiosity, puzzlement, skeptism, or a knowledge-based speculation) , knowledge-based (questions stimulated by events such as reading a text or based on an interest of the student and spontaneously emerges from an effort to understand the world, personal involvement/experience and feelings integrated with more objective information or interest in topic, and finally evidence of uncertainty, questioning or speculation demonstrated suggesting an effort to get at the truth of the matter or to resolve problems involved in the issue. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided the generation and focus on text-based (questions prompted by and about the text). As such, the discourse markers for this new emphasis on solution generation from deepened understanding should indicate the potential for or better evidence of an advance in learners initiating questions and problems that interest them, ideas emerging from real events that have real feelings and consequences that generate from them and where deepened understanding motivates the search and ability to successfully solve real world problems, and effectively overcomes the lack of understanding of the culture and its unique needs and the need for standardized protocols and procedures that do not and have not applied to local contexts. This I believe is what constitutes the ideas under this new principle of epistemology.

Finally, the ninth principle of epistemology I am proposing is Emergent Assessment & Self-Governed Monitoring which I would define simply as emergent assessment that is developed in context by the community members who engage in continuous self evaluation and monitoring and seek external evaluation by people outside their domain. This idea is an elaboration of Scardamalia’s Embedded and Transformative Assessment principle in her Knowledge Building Principles (2002) theory. Ideally, in order to measure this principle in action, I am proposing that there is evidence of the potential for or better an advance in members engaging in continual self and other internal and external assessment and evaluation, as the relevant discourse markers. These discourse markers are adapted from Scardamalia et al. (1984), Scardamalia et al. (1992) and Scardamalia (2002) whereby she argues that knowledge building leads to advances in increased ability to monitor and analyze thinking, and demonstrate recognition of problems at the planning level. In addition to this, throughout the decades Scardamalia has also stated that her knowledge building efforts have reduced or better avoided time-fixed standard assessment tools not aimed to measure critical thinking, problem solving or deepened understanding variables, instead focusing on the acquisition and temporary retention of content and outdated facts. Thus, I believe that these ideas should be reorganized under this new principle of epistemology which attempts to make this process of assessment more explicit.

In conclusion, this new approach to explaining knowledge building is aimed at making the abstract ideas of knowledge work more apparent and acceptable to resistant cultures. By making the ideas about knowledge building more explicit and easy to remember, knowledge workers can more easily partake in monitoring and regulating their own behavior, thereby maximizing their contribution to society. As Bereiter argues in his book “Education and Mind in a Knowledge Age”, knowledge work is “everyone’s business” if we want to become, what Druker calls “knowledge workers” in what Scardamalia calls a “knowledge society” for what Bereiter calls the “knowledge age”. In essence, if what we are trying to understand is knowledge and the process of creating it, in essence, we are all striving for the same thing. It’s no longer important to approach the debate on educational value in terms of the distinct properties of the problem-based learning, presentation-based curriculum, or guided discovery models. These are teacher centered arguments. Instead, we need to start spending time analyzing the student discourses that emerges from these models, in order to determine which model is of most value. We need to begin to engage in a cross-sectional analysis of the different discourses (student outcomes) that are emerging from these different educational approaches or models. As Bereiter (2002) argues, “We want to help students develop their distinctive ways of contributing to knowledge work, not sort themselves at an early age into knowledge workers and non-knowledge workers” (Bereiter, 2002, 249). It is only then, we can determine which model or approach is superior and should be formalized and instituted.

External links

• University of Pennsylvania - Annotation guidelines - Filler Type : Discourse Marker (DM)
• Project Spotlight - Dialogue Design Guide

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. USA.