This article attempts to elaborate upon the notion that anyway seems to play specific discursive functions in the institutional talk, Donald Trump Speech relevant to monologues rather than any other institutional talk related to turn-sequences, taking heed of how its usage is connoted in disparate settings of his monologic speeches. Drawing upon the observation pertaining to the monologic speeches of anyway in spoken language, it was shown that the use of anyway indicates the four certain discursive functions including resumptive, transitive, incremental, and strengthening markers in order to acquire his vested rights, or receive his votes, and maintain his favorable reputation. As for the heterogeneous nature of anyway between monologues and turn-sequences, it may be presumed that monologic anyway does not tend to function to close or alter ongoing narratives or themes, whereas its anyway may be utilized to indicate that interlocutors have the intention of increasing supplementary information or thoughts and highlighting absolute contentions; in addition, this may be related to a contemptuous function.

This study analyzes the discourse marker (henceforth DM)1) actually in college English textbooks (henceforth CETs) which have been most commonly used in college general English curricula in Korea. Based upon seven discourse functions of the DM actually used by native speakers in everyday language use, I analyze whether they are well represented in the CETs. The findings showed that although six functions of this marker were adequately presented in the CETs, their frequencies were somewhat dissimilar to each other: their uses as an informative marker and a contradiction marker were observed the most frequently, whereas their use as a disagreement-prefacing marker was observed the least frequently. In addition, their use as a topic-shift marker did not appear in the CETs. In addition, the DM actually appeared differently, depending on the CETs’ level. For instance, the frequency of actually was quite low at the beginner level as compared to actually at the advanced level, which resulted in interpretations that advanced-level students may use the DM actually more than low-level students. It is expected that this study can deepen our understanding regarding discourse markers and broaden relevant research field for the future.