ИСТИНА

Most studies on discourse markers (hereinafter – DM) explore their functioning in everyday speech and ordinary language. At the same time, contemporary linguistics investigates them from the discourse-specific point of view, distinguishing between political, media, etc. discourses [Simon-Vandenbergen 2000; Maschler, Dori-Hacohen 2012, etc.]. Although some researchers consider DM in poetic discourse [Dardano 2012; Schoonjans 2014], the issue of its functioning in contemporary poetry is still understudied. The functioning of DM in poetic discourse is of particular interest due to the fact that contemporary poetry interacts with ordinary discourse using colloquial syntax, conversational vocabulary, and pragmatic indices of everyday speech. Employing discourse markers, poetry involves them in the field of language experiment and exploits them in unusual ways. Deviation from the language convention manifested itself both through a violation of formal and functional-semantic characteristics. For example, using discourse markers, poets experiment with contextual degrammaticalization: Is a war at hand. Will it take our hands away. / On the other hand. Do we have hands for the taking (Eugene Ostashevsky); violation of causual relationships: dentro la fuori / interno intanto incon / che anche i fin / trano o intinti ascoltano / gendo come stan / chi e finalmente ondula (Nanni Balestrini); syntactic parceling: This. Thus. Toss. Tsk, tsk. One gets lost. Lust accounts meter (Ron Silliman), etc. Our paper aims to present a classification of DM in poetic discourse, which demonstrates the importance of pragmatics in contemporary poetry, as well as the specifics of DM functioning in the aspect of interaction between poetic and ordinary discourses. Research methodology includes discourse analysis, pragmatics, grammaticalization theory, linguistic poetics, and corpus analysis. A case study is the corpus of contemporary American and Italian poetic texts. Existing DM classifications depend on two main speaker’s intentions: the regulation of interaction and the organization of the utterance structure. The paper takes into account the theory of language functions by M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hasan, who distinguished three functions (ideational, interpersonal, and textual), two of which (interpersonal and textual) aim not to describe the propositional content but to organize the discourse and express speaker’s attitude [Halliday, Hasan 1976]. Another significant conception for our study is the theory of grammaticalization by E. Traugott, which claims that language tends to evolve from objectivity to subjectivity in the process of grammaticalization [Traugott 1995]. To analyze the pragmatics of poetic discourse, it is important to note such peculiarities as “I-I communication system,” i.e. self-communication [Lotman (1992 [1973])], self-referentiality and self-reflexivity [Eco 2002]. Considering these approaches, we identify three functional-semantic groups of discourse markers: 1) metatextual, 2) contextual, and 3) intra- / interpersonal. The presentation will compare poetic practices in English and Italian, which helps to reveal common trends in contemporary poetry in the field of pragmatics, as well as consider the features of DM functioning in poetry in different languages. References Dardano M. “Segnali discorsivi della prima poesia italiana”. Pragmatique historique et syntaxe. Frankfurt a. M., 2012 Eco U. La struttura assente. La ricerca semiotica e il metodo strutturale. Bompiani, 2002. Halliday M. A. K., Hasan R. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1976. Lotman Y. M. “O dvukh modelyakh kommunikatsii v sisteme kul’tury” [On the two models of communications in the system of culture]. Izbrannye stat’i v trekh tomakh. Tom. I (Stat’i po semiotike i topologii kul’tury), Tallinn: Aleksandra, 1992 [1973]. P. 76–89. Maschler Y., & Dori-Hacohen G. „From sequential to affective discourse marker: Hebrew nu on Israeli political phone-in radio programs”. Discourse Studies, 14(4), 2012. P. 419–455. Schoonjans S. „Zu den französischen Entsprechungen der deutschen Modalpartikeln ja und doch in literarischen Texten“ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen. Vol. 115, No. 4. 2014. P. 401-424. Simon-Vandenbergen A.-M. “The functions of I think in political discourse”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10. 2000. P. 41-63 Traugott E. C. “Subjectification in grammaticalisation”. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Ed. by D. Stein and S. Wright. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. P. 31–54.