~ ,~~ Pergamon Language Sciences, Vol. 18. Nos 3-4, pp. 863-881.

1996
Copyright ¢, 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. ,all rights reserved
0388-0001./96 $15.00 + 0.00

S0388-0001 (96)00052-6

ENGLISH AND SPANISH CONTRASTIVE DISCOURSE MARKERS

B. Fraser and M. Malamud-Makowski

School of Education, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215

ABSTRACT

Discourse markers are briefly introduced. Then, using the concepts of denial and
contrast, with modifications, English and Spanish contrastive discourse markers are
first analyzed and then contrasted. It was found that they correspond remarkably
closely in what they signal about the interpretation of the utterance they introduce.

KEYWORDS

Discourse markers; pragmatics; procedural meaning; contrastive.

INTRODUCTION

Discourse markers are the expressions in bold in the following sentences. ~

(1) a) A: I like him. B: So, you think you'll ask him out then.
b) John can't go. And Mary can't go either.
c) A: Did you like it? B: Well, not really.
d) But when do you think he will really get here?
e) I think it will fly. Anyway, let's give it a chance.
f) Now, where ~ r e we?

1. See Schiffrin (1987), Blakemore (1987), and Fraser (1990; 1992; 1995b) for a detailed
presentation of various approaches to discourse markers. We would like to thank Betty Birner,
Brendan Gillon, and Juana Madn-Arrese for their comments on the presentation in Brighton.

863
864 B. FRASER and M. MALAMUD-MAKOWSKI

They are expressions which signal a relationship across rather than within utter-
ances, and contribute to the coherence of the discourse. They are usually in initial
position, although medial and final position are possible for many of them, and they
signal how the utterance following, (U2), is to be interpreted, given the first
utterance, (U1). For example, in (2a),

(2) a) John stayed at home. So Mary couldn't go out.

b) John stayed at home. After all, Mary couldn't go out.
c) John stayed at home. In spite of this, Mary couldn't go out.

the discourse marker so signals that U2 is to be interpreted as a consequence

following from U 1, while the marker in (2b), after all, signals that U2 is justification
for the claim made in U 1 , while in (2c), the in spite of this signals that U2 is the case
even given the content of U1.

The meaning of a discourse marker is procedural rather than representational,

which means that it provides instructions to the hearer about how to interpret U2
rather than designating a specific concept. Each marker has a core meaning which
is general (for example, so simply signals that U2 is a consequence of U1) and any
further refinements of the relationship between U 2 and U1 arise because of the
interaction of the two utterances and the discourse marker. This can be seen from
the following examples.

(3) a) A: Susan is married. B: So, she is no longer available I guess.

b) John was tired. So, he left early.
c) Attorney: And how long were you part of the crew?
Witness: Five years. Attorney: So, you were employed for roughly 5 years?
d) Teenage son: The Celtics have a game today. Father: So?
e) Son: My clothes are still wet. Mother: So, put the dryer on for 30 minutes.
f) Grandmother to granddaughter: So tell me about this wonderful young man
you're seeing.

It is important to note that the relationship between U2 and U 1 which the discourse
marker signals must potentially exist between U2 and U1, independent of the
marker. Thus presence of a discourse marker serves to select one of the possible
relationships between U2 and U 1 , to display this relationship, but not to create it.

Discourse markers fall into several classes, although these groupings are by no
means definitive. There are activity markers, such as back to my onginal point,
incidentally, and to interrupt, which signal a change in discourse structure; there are
elaborative markers, such as besides, more importantly, and similarly, which signal
a augmentation of U1; there are inferential markers, such as accordingly, so, and
thus, which signal an inference of U2, given U1; and there are contrastive markers
such as in fact, however, and in comparison, which signal contrast between U2 and
U 1. It is with this last class of discourse markers that we are concerned in this
 ENGLISH AND SPANISH CONTRASTIVE DISCOURSE MARKERS 865

paper. Specifically, we will present an analysis of contrastive discourse markers in

English, and then compare them with the same class in Spanish. 2

CONTRASTIVE DISCOURSE MARKERS IN ENGLISH

The notion of contrast in English, and presumably other languages, is not well de-
fined. Definitions of contrast in the literature range across the semantic, logical,
pragmatic, functional, and discourse domains, and some of these definitions overlap
and intersect. Given this uncertainty over what seems to be a basic notion, it is
hardly surprising that there is no agreement on what constitutes the class of
contrastive discourse markers, if in fact a class exists. Rather than spend time,
perhaps fruitlessly, in search of a suitable definition, we will simply analyze a group
of discourse markers which intuitively fall within the rubric of "contrastive. '~ Included
within this definition are strongly contrastive markers like in contrast and converse~y,
and less emphatic markers like on the other hand and in fact. The reader will have
to be the judge if our net has too fine or too coarse a mesh. Here is our proposed
list of English contrastive discourse markers. 4

(4) all the same; be that as it may; but; conversely; despite (doing) this/that; even
so; however; in comparison (with/to this/that); in contrast (with/to this/that); in fact; in
reality; in spite of (doing) this/that; instead (of (doing) this/that); nevertheless;
nonetheless; on the other hand; on the contrary; rather (than (doing) this/that);
regardless (of this/that); still; though; yet

They can be divided up into the following groups with several subgroups:

(5) la. but

lb. however; though
2. all the same; be that as it may; despite (doing) this/that; even so; in spite of
(doing) this/that; nevertheless; nonetheless; regardless (of this/that); still; yet
3. on the other hand
4. instead (of (doing) this/that); rather (than (doing) this/that)
5. in fact; in reality
6a in contrast (with/to this/that)
6b. in comparison (with/to this/that)
6c. on the contrary
6d. conversely

2 Ideally, we would present separate analyses of both English and Spanish contrastive discourse
markers with independent grounding, and then compare them. Space does not permit this, and thus
we have taken an abbreviated tack.
3 Our intuition was reinforced by the fact that, except for a few examples, whenever one of our
contrastive discourse markers occurred, but, which is without a doubt the quintessential contrastive
discourse marker, could substitute for it. See Bell (1994) for an earlier analysis of these markers.
4 We omitted contrariwise and notwi~t~tanding from consideration because they occur so
infrequently. We also omitted at anyrate, in any event, and anyway, electing to treat them as activity
discourse markers.
866 B. FRASER and M. MALAMUD-MAKOWSKI

These groups generally reflect increasing complexity of the meaning. However, we

shall see that these markers divide up along one of two lines: whether they signal a
denial of U 1 , or whether they signal a contrast between U2 and U 1 . (Cf. Fraser,
1995a for a detailed analysis of English contrastive discourse markers, Malamud-
Mokowski, forthcoming, for an analysis of Spanish contrastive markers.)

but, however, thou(lh

but. But is by far the most general of the contrastive discourse markers and might
be thought of as having the relationship signaling the weakest contrast. It certainly
has the least constraints on its occurrence: it can occur in some slots where no
other contrastive discourse marker is permitted, and can occur in nearly every
context in which another marker can occur. 5 The relationship that but embraces has
undergone intensive scrutiny (Lakoff, 1971; Blakemore, 1987:125-141 ), with claims
of "denial of expectation" and "semantic contrast" being the most frequent. But we
believe the relationship is more general than this. Let us look at some examples.

(6) a) I can go at 4 p.m. tomorrow. But l can't go if you insist on coming along.
(I can go at 4 p.m. tomorrow)
b) Harry left late for the party. But he got there on time.
(He would not arrive on time.)
c) A: It's still cold in here. B: But I already shut the window.
(Do something about it.)
d) A: OK, let's go. B: But, I can't find my shoes.
(I assume you are ready.)
e) A: I promise to give you a rose garden. B: But I'm allergic to flowers.
(I assume you are not allergic to flowers.)
f) Wally managed to get a settlement. But he didn't even try this time.
(To manage conventionally implicates that you have to try)
g) They accused her of being a supporter of a third party. But I don't think that
position is all that bad.
(To accuse of something conventionally implicates that the something is bad)
h) You may win or lose at tennis. But you really ought to play.
(Because of the problematic nature of tennis, it is not worth playing.)
i) A: Do you love me? B: Yes. But I won't take out the garbage.
(If you love me, you will take out the garbage.)
j) Come over tonight. But not too early.
(You usually come early.)

In these cases, where but is functioning as a discourse marker, not a conjunction,

but signals that U 2 should be interpreted as a denial of a proposition which, in the
speaker's view, follows from U1.6 There need be no guarantee that the hearer is

5 There are some uses of but which are excluded, namely, when it means merely (He has but a
dollar), and when it means except (He gave away all his toys but the stuffed mongoose).
6 Blakemore (1987) at one point takes a similar view with respect to however. We have placed a
candidate proposition in parentheses beneath each example.
 ENGLISH AND SPANISH CONTRASTIVE DISCOURSE MARKERS 867

committed to the proposition being denied, only that the speaker feels that it is
worth denying explicitly. The way the denied proposition relates to context may
vary. It may be explicit propositional content of U 1 , as in (6a); it may be implied by
the first utterance, as in (6b-e), it may be as the result of a conventional implicature,
as in (6f-g), or it may be associated with the context which includes the first ut-
terance in some other, less defined way, as in (6h-j). Note that in these examples of
but as a discourse marker, there is no denial of expectation and/or semantic
contrast, counter to the literature. Notice also that there is no restriction on the
mood the first sentence may take: declarative in (6a), performative in (6e),
imperative in (6d), and interrogative in (6i) 7.

Now from the fact that but is so ubiquitous, it does not follow that it may occur be-
tween any two utterances. Leaving aside the fact that unlike moods (declarative,
performative, imperative, and interrogative) do not, in general, occur in sequence
joined by a discourse marker, for reasons we won't go into here, there are many
cases where but does not appear to fit. Consider the following.

(7) a) Paula is not a doctor. *But, she has no medical skills at all.
b) John is quite a sportsman. *But Henry is relatively gentle.
c) Don't go. *But, stay a little longer.

We submit that the reason these examples are unacceptable is that we are unable
to find a suitable proposition arising from the prior context that U2 denies. If there
were a proposition which did flow from the prior context, and if the second utterance
denied it, then we would expect the but to be acceptable. The point here is that
there has to be some proposition arising from the prior context--explicit, implicit, or
assumed--that the speaker can deny with the utterance introduced by but.

But may or may not have a pause after it, while most of the other contrastive dis-
course markers have an obligatory pause. Unlike the other contrastive discourse
markers, but can occur in the same utterance with nearly all of them. For example:

(8) a) There were going to be girls at the party. But, despite that, John came.
b) He wanted to go to Graceland. But, he agreed to go to Disney World instead.
c) I like cheese. But, on the other hand, I probably shouldn't eat it.
d) Harry can't see very well. But, in contrast, he can hear perfectly.
e) He said that the Red Sox lost. But, in fact, they won.

However is the only contrastive discourse marker which apparently will not co-occur
with but at all, and it can be seen from the examples above that some markers are
"more comfortable" at the end of the utterance than in the initial position, contiguous
with but. Whether this is idiosyncratic, stylistic, or motivated by the degree of
contrast in the marker awaits future work. 8

7 We are treating the performative as a mood in this paper for ease of exposition.
8 But can precede virtually every discourse marker with the exception of so, thus, and a few others.
868 B. FRASER and M. MALAMUD-MAKOWSKI

however; though. 9 However is virtually indistinguishable from but in utterance-

initial position and signals, similarly, that U 2 should be interpreted as a denial of a
prior proposition. The sole difference we can find is that in some cases, where but is
used by a new speaker, however is unacceptable. This is reflected in the following
examples.

(9) a) A:lt's still cold in here. B: *However/But, I already shut the window.
b) A: OK, let's go. B: *However/But, I can't find my shoes.
c). A: I promise to give you a rose garden. B: *However/But, you know I'm
allergic
to flowers.
d) A: I want to know the time. B: *However/But, you have a watch yourself.
c) A: James is not in his office. B: *However/But, I just saw him there.
d) A: We will know the results on Friday. B: *However/But, will we really know?

There is, in addition, a subtle distinction between the two markers. Whereas but
provides a simple denial of a first utterance proposition, however brings a sense of
"concession" to the relationship. This is hard to single out, but we feel it shows in
the following.

(10) a) She's not a lawyer. B u t / H o w e v e r she's a pretty good advocate

b) You look lovely tonight. B u t / H o w e v e r don't get your hopes up, the
competition
is fierce.

In these cases, the but seems to identify a matter-of-fact denial, while the however
conveys a kind of reluctance. 1°

all the same; be that as it may; despite (doinQ) this/that; even so; in spite of
(doing) this/that; nevertheless; nonetheless; regardless (of this/that): still: yet

By far the largest group of contrastive discourse markers is the group containing
nevertheless and despite this/that. Their relationship is more restrictive than that of
but and however, and the marker signals that U 2 must be interpreted as a denial of
a proposition associated with U 1, either explicitly or implied, but not a proposition
associated with the context. Moreover, there is a sense that this denial is
unexpected, given the content of the first utterance. This property is reflected by the

9 The use of however in "He can do it however he wants to" is not included as a discourse marker.
lO Howeveris different than but in that it can be located in both utterance-medial and utterance-final
position, as can most other discourse markers. There doesn't appear to be a difference in the
relationship displayed as a function of position in the utterance, but the focus is different as the
following examples show.
a) I think we should go. However, I want to talk to Jane first.
b) I think we should go. I want to talk to Jane first, however.
c) John left. However, he didn't take a shower.
d) John left. *He, however, didn't take a shower.
 ENGLIStI AND SPANIStt CONTRASTIVE DISCOURSE MARKERS 869

anaphoric reference in several of these markers: (this/that) point notwithstanding,

regardless (of this~that), in~despite this~that). Notice how in the following examples,

(11) a) John started late. Nevertheless, he got home on time.

(He will arrive late.)
b) John has always been a good history student. In spite of this, he is flunking
American History this semester.
(He has passed all history courses.)
c) I have been on many planes in my life. Still, I have never gone first class.
(The chances are that l have gone first class on at least one flight.)

there is a clear, direct connection to the proposition in the first utterance, while in
the examples in (12), which are acceptable with but,

(12) a) Boston used to be a terrific city. *Despite this/But, it is the auto-theft capital
today.
b) They said the Red Sox won. *Nevertheless/But, they lost.
c) I once thought that capitalism was the best way. *In spite of this/But, I've
changed my mind.
d) Mary had chili for dinner. *Still/But, Harry had egg drop soup.
e) His mother is a genius. *Regardless of that/But, his father is an idiot.
f) A: Do you love me? B: Yes. *Still/But I won't take out the garbage.
g) Sue spoken Italian. *Regardless/But, Rachel spoke Spanish.

there is apparently no relation between what U 2 denies, and a proposition related to

U I. Hence the unacceptability.

There are two additional restrictions on U 1 for this group. First, the content of U2
cannot be the negation of the explicit U1 proposition.

(13) a) l can go at 4 p.m. tomorrow. *Nevertheless/But/However, I can't go if you

insist on .coming along.
b) He shouldn't go with the fever. *Despite that/But/However, he should go
if he feels better.

Second, the mood of the first utterance cannot be imperative and usually not
performative, although some performatives indicating expression of belief seem
acceptable.

(14) a) Sit down. *In spite of this/But, don't say anything.

b) Don't go away. *NeverthelesslBut, be quiet.
c) Don't throw that away. *Still/But, don't put it in that drawer.
d) I apologize for saying that. *Regardless/But I really meant it.
e) I acknowledge I didn't do the right thing. In spite of that/But, I should be
given another chance.
870 B. FRASER and M. MALAMUD-MAKOWSKI

on the other hand

Unlike the contrastive discourse markers already discussed in which a proposition

associated with U 2 was denied, on the o t h e r h a n d signals that the U2 should be
interpreted as contrasting with the explicit proposition of U 1, and as constituting an
alternative proposition within some superordinate topic. ~ We can see this in the
following examples.

(15) a) I like cheese. On the other hand, I probably shouldn't eat it.
b) I apologize for scolding you in front of your friends. On the other hand, you
deserved it.
c) They were giving terrible reports about the party. On the other hand, they
were really quite humorous.
d) Linguistics has always interested me. On the other hand, I need a job when
I get out of graduate school.
e) Who is here? On the other hand, who isn't here? ~2
f) We could leave. On the other hand, we could stay.

The mood of the first utterance does not matter: it may be declarative, performative,
imperative or interrogative. But it is only the explicit propositional content of the first
utterance that may be contrasted, not an implied proposition or one flowing from the
prior context. These restrictions can be seen by considering cases which do not
permit on the o t h e r h a n d to occur, either because it is impossible to adduce a
common topic or a contrast with the explicit proposition.

(16) a) She said the Red Sox won. *On the other hand/But, they didn't.
b) ! used to think capitalism was the best way. *On the other hand/But, I've
changed my mind.
c) You told me I would like this book. *On the other hand/But, i'm falling
asleep.
d) I want to leave now. *On the other hand/But, I will stay with you until help
comes.
e) We didn't hurry. *On the other hand/But, we will still be on time.

instead (of doing this/that); rather (than doing this/that)

The contrastive discourse markers i n s t e a d and r a t h e r signal that U 2 must be inter-

preted as contrasting with the explicit proposition of U1, and as constituting a
corrective alternative, which was or will be taken. ~3 Consider the following
examples.

11 Obviously on the one hand can precede the first utterance, but it appears to make no difference in
the interpretation and we will leave it out of the example.
12 When on the one hand occurs in front of the first utterance, but seems more awkward preceding
on the other hand.
13The expressions instead of and rather than function as prepositions, not discourse markers, and
are not considered.
 ENGLIStI AND SPANISIt CONTRASTIVE DISCOURSE MARKERS 871

(17) a) He won't take the train. Instead (of that), he will take the bus.
b) She didn't even try to pass the exam. Rather (than doing that), she went to
the movies.
c) Jack didn't take it. Instead (of doing that), he left it lying there.
d) Mary isn't crazy. Rather (than that), she is just a little drunk.
e) I don't believe a word he said. I prefer, instead, to believe he was sick at the
time.
f) Don't get up. Instead, conserve your energy and just lie there.

Notice that the first utterance must be negative (with an exception, noted below),
thereby precluding a performative.

Some interesting aspects of these two markers lie in a subtle difference when the
modals might, should, and could followed by have are in the first utterance. First,
rather is precluded from being the discourse marker. Second, the first sentence
does not have to be negative although the import of the first sentence is negative.

(18) a) She should have taken it. Instead/* Rather she left it lying there.
b) Jack could have thrown the rope and saved the boy. Instead/*Rather, he
just looked on.
c) The storm might have hit us badly. Instead/* Rather, it went out to sea.

And third, there need be no negation or special modal in the first utterance when
one of the three modals (might, could, should) occurs in the second utterance. For
example, ~4

(19) a) Mark criticized the progress we were making. Instead, he should have kept
quiet.
b) They praised his achievements for all to hear. Instead, they might have been
more subtle about it.

in fact; in reality

The next contrastive discourse marker is in fact (in reality), which signals that U 2 is
to be interpreted as a denial of the explicit proposition asserted with U 1, with the
added condition that the assertion of U1 is not the direct responsibility of the
speaker of U2. The examples in (20) reflect the use of the marker.

(20) a) Mark said that the stock market went up today. In fact, it wasn't even open.
(In fact, Mark was wrong. It wasn't even open.)
b) I thought the rock I found was granite. In fact, the entire quarry was quartz.
c) We thought the law would meet with considerable opposition. In fact, it
passed easily.

14 Note that when one of these modals is present and negated, the second utterance must have the
same modal: "He couldn't have taken his medicine. Instead, he must have taken a placebo."
872 B. FRASER and M. MALAMUD-MAKOWSKI

d) A. The paint is purple. B. In fact, it's mauve.

As a denial of a belief, rather than a contrast, in fact can only follow a declarative
utterance which expresses a belief, not an imperative or interrogative, which
express desire, or a performative, which expresses an action. ~5 This can be seen
from the following examples in (21).

(21) a) Get a pencil and paper. *In fact/But, get an eraser (too).
b) Sit down. *In fact/But, don't get too comfortable.
c) I promise to come. *In fact/But, I promise to come on time [with denial
interpretation]
d) A: I acknowledge that John is the best speaker. B: *In fact/But, he is the
worst.

in contrast (to/with this/that); in comparison (to/with); on/to the contrary;

conversely

in/by contrast (to/with this/that). We come now to the last group of English
contrastive discourse markers, those with the strongest sense of contrast
associated with them. The first, in contrast (and its related forms), signals that U 2
must be interpreted as a contrast with the explicit proposition of U 1. The following
are representative examples.

(22) a) John can't see very well. In contrast, he can hear perfectly.
b) A: The U.S. is a democracy. B: In contrast, Great Britain is a monarchy.
c) John believes that the earth is round. In contrast, Shirley believes that it is
oval.
d) Mary is short. In contrast, John is tall.

The contrast does not have to be of any special sort, but there must be a discernible
contrast with the explicit proposition of U 1 , not one that is implicated, as in (23a-c),
and it has to be an expression of belief asserted through a declarative structure, as
shown above, not an expression of desire, as in (23d), or a performative, (23e-f). ~6

(23) a) We have arrived. *In contrast/But, we are late.

b) John can't see very well. *In contrast/But, he doesn't need glasses.
c) The U.S. is a democracy. *In contrast/But, it doesn't work very well these
days.
d) Get the supplies. *In contrast/But, don't load them into the truck yet.
e) I apologize for omitting your name from the list. *In contrast/But, I don't
apologize for not introducing you to the President.

15 There is a use of in fact as in "Mark said that the stock market went up. (And) in fact, it went up,"
but in such cases, there must be emphatic stress on some constituent of the second utterance (e.g.
WEN'l) or the inclusion of emphatic DID.
16 The performative verbs expressing belief (e.g., claim, admit, acknowledge) are arguably possible
with in contrast, as in "1 admit my mistake. In contrast, I don't admit saying anything about it."
 ENGLIStt AND SPANIStt CONTRASTIVE DISCOURSE MARKERS 873

f) I blame John for the mess in the living room. *In contrast/But, I blame you
for the mess in the yard.

in comparison (with/to}. A more restricted version of in contrast is in comparison,

which signals that U2 must be interpreted as a contrast along a discernible
continuum with the explicit proposition of U1. Not just any contrast, but two points
on a continuum. The following examples reflect the use of this discourse marker.

(24) a) John is 6'3". In comparison/In contrast, Jill is 5'2".

b) It rained terribly hard yesterday, In comparison/In contrast, it hardly rained
at all today.
c) I got a 98 on my math test. In comparison/In contrast, I only got a 89 in
English.

The examples in (25) work for in contrast but not for in comparison, because it is
difficult to find a continuum on which to place the contrast.

(25) a) I have CDs. *In comparison/In contrast, John has toy trucks.
b) Jake drives a Mercedes. *In comparison/In contrast, Harry drives a
Corvette.
c) Jack got a 98 on his math test. *In comparison/In contrast, John got a 89 in
English.

Notice that (25c) is unacceptable with two subjects, two types of exams, but if the
"John" is replaced by "he" and refers to "Jack," the sequence is acceptable, since
we are comparing Jack's grades.

o n / t o the contrary.On the contrary signals that U2 must be interpreted as a denial

of the explicit proposition of U1, not a contrast, and, moreover, it must be treated as
a correction of Ul'S content. As such, it is much like in fact, and it usually involves
the speaker expressing a denial of the prior speaker's statement, as in (26a-c), or
cases where the speaker is reporting other people's positions, as in (26d). 1T

(26) a) A: Harry is tall. B: On the contrary, he is really quite short.

b) A: We have arrived. B: On the contrary, we are lost.
c) A: Bill left early. B: On the contrary, he left late.
d) Decartes thought ideas were innate. Hume, on the contrary, thought they
were learned.

There is no requirement of opposition in this denial, since we find examples like the
following.

(27) a) A: Bill weighs 198 pounds. B: On the contrary, he weighs well over 220.
b) A: That rug is mostly blue. B: On the contrary, it's almost all green.

17 Note that the marker but does not occur in these examples.
874 B. FRASER and M. MALAMUD-MAKOWSKI

Notice also that in contrast (and therefore in comparison) do not occur where on the
contrary occurs (except for (26d), which is a problem), and vice-versa. The reason
appears to be that in contrast introduces a proposition which is compared with U1,
whereas on the contrary introduces a proposition which denies U I. One is
incompatible with the other.

conversely. The final marker of English we consider is conversely, which like on

the other hand, demands a higher order topic. This marker signals that the U2 must
be interpreted not just as a contrast with U 1, but as the opposite of the explicit
proposition of U1 .~e Thus, we find the following examples acceptable.

(28) a) Fred would rather drive than walk. Conversely, Frank would rather walk
than drive.
b) Don't stay at home. Conversely, don't always go out.
c) It may rain. Conversely, it may not.

Notice that on the contrary and conversely are not usually interchangeable. That is,
where one may occur, the other may not. We submit that this is because in the for-
mer case, the speaker is contrasting U2 with U1 and thereby making a correction of
U 1, whereas in the latter case, the speaker is making two assertions which are
opposite but non-problematic.

SPANISH CONTRASTIVE DISCOURSE MARKERS

The contrastive discourse markers of Spanish appear to pattern remarkably closely

with those of English. They fall naturally into the same 6 classes, but there are some
critical differences which will be discussed as we go along. We analyze the Spanish
contrastive discourse markers much the same as we did for English, but where the
conditions on the markers are the same, we sometimes note this but do not provide
examples. To begin, we list the Spanish contrastive discourse markers.

(29) a la inversa (conversely); a pesar de eso (despite that); al reves (conversely)

a~n asi (even so); en cambio (in contrast, on the other hand); en comparaci6n (in
comparison); en contraste (in contrast); en lugar de eso (instead); en realidad (in
fact); en vez (instead; in spite of that); m~s bien (rather); no obstante (nevertheless);
pero (but); por el contrario (on the contrary); por otro lado/por otra parte (on the
other hand); sin embargo (however)

They divide up into the following groups.

(30) 1. pero, sin embargo, no obstante

2. a pesar de eso; a~n asi
3. por otro lado; por otra parte
4. en lugar de eso; en vez; m&s bien
5. en realidad

18 Like on the other hand, this marker occurs in interrogative slots, for example "Who is here? Con-
versely, who is not here?"
 ENGLISH AND SPANISH CONTRASTIVE DISCOURSE MARKERS 875

6a. en cambio; en contraste

6b. en comparacibn
6c. por el contrario
6d. a la inversa; al rev~s

pero (but), sin embargo (however) and no obstante (nevertheless)

There is no doubt that pero, similar to but in English, is the contrastive discourse
marker par excellence. Not only can it be used in a wider range of contexts than the
others, but, as one would expect, it appears more often than any other discourse
marker in naturally occurring data. There are no mood restrictions on it, occurring
after declarative, performative, imperative and interrogative, as in English. It can
also occur with the other contrastive discourse markers, for example:

(31) a) Harry no ve bien. Pero, en cambio, oye perfectamente.

(Harry does not see well. But, in contrast, he hears perfectly.)
b) Dijo que los Red Sox perdieron. Pero, en realidad, ganaron.
(He said that the Red Sox had lost. But, in fact, they had won.
c) No habia estudiado. Pero sin embargo aprobb el examen.
(He had not studied. *But, however he passed the exam.)

Note that whereas in English but does not co-occur with however, this is not the
case for Spanish, although some speakers find the sequence redundant.

Even though pero can be used in most contrastive contexts, there are two restric-
tions on its use. First, like English, it is syntactically limited in that it can only appear
in sentence-initial position. Second, sometimes another meaning relation needs to
be signalled as well. In this case, a discourse marker that can signal both will be
strongly preferred; otherwise, there is a risk that the second meaning relation will
not be inferred by the hearer. This is what happens in the following example:

(32) No vino. Por otra parte, ni siquiera Ilam6.

(He didn't come. On the other hand, he didn't even call.)

where/:)or otra parte (or its equivalent por otro/ado) is used and pero does not
seem acceptable, because the sense of 'addition' is lost.

i)ero vs. sin embargo/no obstante. Sin embargo and no obstante can be used in
almost all the contexts that pero can, but there are a few differences. Pero signals a
weaker kind of contrast than sin embargo and no obstante (which is seldom used in
conversation), as reflected in the following examples with quizd and ademds, which
are unacceptable with sin embargo.

(33) a) Los dos problemas son graves y deben ser solucionados. Pero quiz& sea
mds importante averiguar cual es la causa.
(Both problems are serious and must be solved. But perhaps it would be
more important to find out what the cause is.)
876 B. FRASER and M. MALAMUD-MAKOWSKI

b) Preparb la torta de cumplea5os. Pero ademds trajo un regalo.

(He made the birthday cake. But, he brought a gift too.)

sin embargo vs. no obstante. Sin embargo and no obstante are acceptable in the
same contexts. The only differences in use are clue to stylistic matters. This is a
departure from English for nevertheless (no obstante) has a restriction on the
proposition as well as the mood of U 1. Moreover, there is an even stronger
preference for sin embargo both in the spoken and in the written language, in order
to avoid repetition of the same sound. When the marker is immediately followed by
no (not), as in (34a-b), or nunca (never), as in (34c), most speakers would use sin
embargo.

(34) a) Lo intentamos. Sin embargol?No obstante no tuvimos ~xito.

(We tried. However, we did not succeed.)
b) Te quiero. Sin embargol?No obstante, no voy a sacar la basura.
(I love you. However, I will not take out the garbage.)
c) Juan se cash con Maria. Sin embargol?No obstante, nunca la beso.
(Juan married Maria. However, he never kissed her.)

When native speakers were asked why they chose sin embargo over no obstante,
they said that they did so because sin embargo does not start with an "n". And when
asked if no obstante could be acceptable as well, they responded that it was not
incorrect, but it just sounded too repetitive.

a pesar de eso (in spite of that; despite that); adn asi (even so) ~9

These, like the group just discussed, signal denial of U 1, where the denial is unex-
pected, given U 1. Like English, it must deny a proposition which is the content of
the first utterance or implied by it, not a proposition that comes from the context. For
example, while in (35) there is a distinction between the intellectual characteristics
of two people, and therefore pero can be used, there is nothing about one person
being intelligent that would make the hearer expect another person to be intelligent
as well. Since what the second utterance conveys is not unexpected, the discourse
markers in this group cannot be used.

(35) Su madre es inteligente. *A pesar de eso, su padre es un idiota.

(Her mother is intelligent. *Despite this, her father is an idiot.)

And like its corresponding marker of English, it has mood restrictions of not
occurring with an imperative in the first sentence. But unlike English, performatives,
which express belief, often are acceptable. For example:

(36) Reconozco que no hice Io correcto. A pesar de eso, me deberfan dar otra
oportunidad.

19We were not able to find any Spanish expressions which were the equivalent of regardless, still,
and yet when used as contrastive discourse markers.
 ENGLISH AND SPANISH CONTRASTIVE DISCOURSE MARKERS 877

(I acknowledge I didn't do the right thing. In spite of that, I should be given

another chance.

por otro lado; por otra parte (on the other hand)

The relationship conveyed by the discourse markers in this group often have an
expansion function, since U2, contrary to English on the other hand, not only
contrasts but adds something to what has been said in the prior discourse.

(37) Quiero ir a Nueva York pero no tengo dinero. Por otra parte, tampoco conzco
a nadie con quien quedarme.
(I want to go to New York but I don't have any money. On the other hand, I
don't know anybody I could stay with either.)

This relationship is sometimes emphasized by the use of another linguistic element

such as tambi~n (also) or adern~s (besides).

en lugar de eso (instead); en vez (instead); mas bien (rather)

Like their English counterparts, en lugar de eso and en vez signal that the explicit
proposition of U l is denied and, at the same time, corrects U2. Like the English
equivalents, in order for these markers to be acceptable, U1 must be explicitly
negated: that is, it must contain the word "no", as shown in (38).

(38) a) No va a tomar el tren. En lugar de esolen vez tomar~ el autobes.

(He won't take the train. Instead, he will take the bus.)

The meaning of m~Js bien is very similar to that of en lugar de eso and en vez. M~Js
bien also signals a denial of U1, and even though there is also a sense of
replacement between the first and the second utterance, the relationship in Spanish
can be better described as "correction". The proposition in U2 corrects what was
stated in the first one. 2o

(39) No le molestaba su compafiia. M~is bien le causaba gracia su forma de actuar.

(She was not bothered by his company. Rather, she found his behavior quite
funny.)

2°This is analogous to the phenomenon that has been observed for the coordinating conjunctions
pero and sino. Pero is normally used as a coordinating conjunction but when the first clause of the
sentence is negated, and the second clause has information that in some way "corrects" or "replaces"
what was said in the first, sino must be used, instead of pero. For example:
i) No es china, *perol$ino japonesa.
(She is not Chinese, but Japanese.)
ii) No es china, pero/*sino habla chino.
(She is not Chinese, but she speaks Chinese.)

LSC 1813-4--K
878 B. FRASER and M. MALAMUD-MAKOWSKI

The exceptions to the negation requirement are the same in Spanish: only en lugar
de eso and en vez (but not m~Js bien) are acceptable when there is no negative in
the first utterance, as long as a construction equivalent to "should/might/could +
have +past participle" appears in either utterance.

(40) a) Deberia haberlo Ilevado. En lugar de esolen vez/*m~s bien, Io dejb.

(He should have taken it. Instead/*Rather, he left it.)
b) Lo dej6. En lugar de esolen vez/*mSs bien, deberia haberlo Ilevado.
(He left it. Instead/*Rather, he should have taken it.)

en realidad (in fact, in reality)

This discourse marker is exactly the same as in English, the utterance U2 denying
the explicit proposition of U 1, with the same contraints for mood and responsibility
of the assertion being denied.

a la inversa (conversely); al rev6s (conversely): en cambio (in contrast); en

comparaci6n (in comparison); ;)or el contrario (on the contrary)

en cambio (in contrast). Within this group, en cambio is the marker accepted in
most contexts. This is because it signals that the alternative offered in the current
message is different from the one in the previous message, whereas en
comparaci6n or a la inversa require more specific relationships between the
utterances or, in the case of pot e~ contrano, denial. The alternatives for en cambio
must belong to a common domain, although the degree of belonging differs across
speakers.

(41) a) Mi auto es rojo. En cambio, el suyo es azul.

(My car is red. In contrast, his is blue.)
b. Juan es alto. En cambio, Maria es baja.
(Juan is tall. In contrast, Maria is short.)

en comparaci6n (in comparison). Like English, en comparacidn is used to signal

a comparison as a special type of contrast when the contrast is between two points
on the continuum. The following examples show the use of en comparacidn:

(42) a) Juan pesa 55 kilos. En comparacidn, su hermano, que pesa 70, parece
gordo.
(Juan weighs 55 kilos. In comparison, his brother, who weighs 70, looks
fat.)
b. Su madre es inteligente. En comparaci6n, su padre es un idiota.
(Her mother is intelligent. In comparison, her father is an idiot.)
c. Me saqu6 98 en el examen de matemdtica. En comparaci6n, me saqud un
80 en geografia.
(I got a 98 in the math test. In comparison, I got an 80 in Geography.)
 ENGLISH AND SPANISH CONTRASTIVE DISCOURSE MARKERS 879

In these examples, the common domain for the propositions in the first and second
utterance can be easily identified" weight for (42a) and intellectual abilities for (42b).
This is not the case in (43), where the common domain is "colors", which are not
usually thought of as points on a chromatic scale. Therefore, U2 and U 1 can be
contrasted using en cambio, but not en comparaci6n.

(43) Mi auto es rojo. En cambio/*en comparaci6n, el suyo es azul.

(My car is red. In contras~in compadson, his is blue.)

por el contrario (on the contrary). Por el contrario requires that the alternatives
be conflicting with each other, hence U2 denies U1 and is often intended as a
correction of U 1 , similar to English.

(44) a) El gerente general propone que se suban los precios para aumentar
las ganancias. La comisibn directiva, por el contrario, recomienda bajar los
precios, con el fin de aumentar las ventas y asi aumentar tambi6n las
ganancias.
(The general manager proposes price increases to increase revenues. The
board of directors, on the contrary, recommends price cuts so as to
increase sales and, in this way, to increase revenues also.
b. A: Lleg6 temprano. B: Por el contrario, Ileg6 tardisimo.
(A: He arrived early. B: On the contrary, he was very late.)

Like en cambio, por el contrario introduces an alternative to what was stated in the
first utterance. But unlike en cambio, por el contrario has the additional requirement
that the alternatives conflict with each other, sometime being opposite and usually
corrective.

a la inversa, al rev6s (conversely). AI revds and a la inversa are used to signal

that the proposition of the second utterance and the explicit proposition of the first
utterance are opposites Or contradictory. For example in (45), "crecimiento" (growth)
and "atenuacibn" (reduction) are the opposite elements.

(45) La pregunta es si la tendencia al feroz crecimiento del d~ficit continuar& o si,

a la inversa/al rev6slpor el contrario, hay signos de atenuacibn en el futuro.
(The question is whether the tendency towards severe deficit growth is going to
continue, or if, conversely, there are signs of reduction in the future.)

Notice that in the example above por e~ contrano can be used as well, because the
alternatives given conflict with each other. Since por el contrario does not have such
a strict meaning of 'exact opposites', it is also acceptable in situations that are not
as extreme, where a la inversa and al rev~s cannot be used. To illustrate, compare
example (45), above, with the following one:

(46) En las familias norteamericanas el hijo mayor es el que da el ejemplo. *A la

inversa/*ai rev6$1por el contrariolen cambio, en Io de los Jones fue diferente
(In U.S. families the oldest child traditionally breaks the way. *Convemelylon
the contrary, in the Jones home it was different.)
880 B. FRASER and M. MALAMUD-MAKOWSKI

In (45), there were opposite elements ('growth' and 'reduction'). In contrast, in (46),
the current message simply says that what was stated in the previous message did
not happen. The alternatives presented (i. the oldest child breaking the way, and ii.
the oldest child not breaking the way) are different, so en cambio can be used.
Furthermore, they are conflicting, that is, they cannot co-occur, so por el contrano
can also be used here. But the current message does not say that the opposite
happened (i.e., for example, that in the Jones family it was the youngest child that
broke the way), so a la inversa and al rev~s are not acceptable.

To conclude, we can see that there are fewer contexts in which these markers can
be used compared to those where pero is allowed. However, like English, there are
cases in which a marker from this group is acceptable, but pero is not. In the last
two sections (6c and 6d), the alternative given in the second utterance can be
interpreted as correcting or replacing the one given in the first utterance. If, in
addition, the first utterance is negative, then use of pero is not allowed. Consider
the following example:

(47) No es muy alto. Por el contrario/*pero es muy bajo.

(He is not very tall. On the contrary/* But he is very short.)

The two alternatives here are "tall" and "short". They are conflicting (one cannot be
tall and short at the same time), so we can use por el contrario. Also, "tall" and
"short" are opposites, so we can use a la inversa and al rev~s. Furthermore, the
second utterance in a sense "corrects" what was said in the first one, which is
negative. Therefore, pero cannot be used here. This was also observed for en lugar
de eso, en vez and m~s bien earlier.

DISCUSSION

At least to the level to which we analyzed the contrast discourse markers of English
and Spanish, they seem remarkably alike, aside from some subtle differences,
which may or may not be a function of the authors. We summarize our findings in
the table below.

Contrastive DM Effect of U2 on U 1
but/however Denial of a proposition arising from the
pero/sin embargo previous discourse
despite that Denial of a U l proposition either explicit
a pesar de eso or implied
on the other hand Contrast with explicit U1 proposition U2
por otro lado alternative to U 1
instead/rather Denial of explicit U1 proposition; U2 re-
en lugar de eso; mas bien places U 1
in fact Denial of explicit U1 proposition; U2 cor-
en realidad rects U 1
in contrast Contrast with explicit U1 proposition.
en cambio; en contraste
 ENGLISH AND SPANISH CONTRASTIVE DISCOURSE MARKERS 881

in comparison Contrast along specific continuum

en comparison
on the contrary Denial of explicit U2 proposition; U2
por el contrario corrective of UI
conversely Contrast; U2 is opposite Uq
a la inversa: al rev&s

This is one of the first, if not the first attempt to take a group of discourse markers in
two languages and compare them. We are aware of the tentative nature of our
grouping and the general rather than detailed comparison. Moreover, we realize
that our judgments on the two languages may not reflect the norm, if a norm in fact
exists. Nevertheless, we offer this as a start, and encourage others to follow and
improve on our work.

REFERENCES

Bell, D. (1994). Cancelative Discourse Markers. Unpublished PhD Dissertation,

Boston University.

Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14:383-

95.

Fraser, B. (1992). Types of English discourse markers. Ada Linguistica Hungarica

38: 19-33.

Fraser, B. (1995a). Discourse markers: an update. Submitted.

Fraser, B. (1995b). Contrastive discourse markers in English. Submitted.

Lakoff, R. (1972). Ifs and’s and but’s about conjunction. In Studies in Linguistic
Semantics (C.J. Fillmore & D.T. Langendoen, eds.) Holt, Reinhart, and Winston,
New York.

Malamud-Mokowski, M. (1996). Discourse Markers in Spanish. Unpublished PhD

Dissertation, Boston University.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.