SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 21 Sayı: 1

Discourse Functions of "Bilmem" in Turkish

Türkçede “Bilmem” İfadesinin Söylem İşlevleri

Hasan Özuğurlu(MERSİN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İNSAN VE TOPLUMBİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ, İNGİLİZ DİLBİLİMİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-4494-1465
Pages
1–22
Publication Date
2025-06-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was found that bilmem served the functions of avoiding explicit disagreements and commitment, marking uncertainty, complaining, checking the background knowledge of the listener, directing their attention, speaking of hypotheticals, dismissing excuses and counter-arguments.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Pragmatic markers are units of talk that serve a number of purposes in a conversation such as marking the illocutionary force, the commentary on the basic message and its relation to the wider discourse.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study focuses on the Turkish pragmatic marker bilmem (lit.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was found that bilmem served the functions of avoiding explicit disagreements and commitment, marking uncertainty, complaining, checking the background knowledge of the listener, directing their attention, speaking of hypotheticals, dismissing excuses and counter-arguments.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:edimsel belirleyiciler · derlem · söylem belirleyicileri

Abstract

Pragmatic markers are units of talk that serve a number of purposes in a conversation such as marking the illocutionary force, the commentary on the basic message and its relation to the wider discourse. This study focuses on the Turkish pragmatic marker bilmem (lit. I don’t know) and its functions in a conversation. The word was examined through the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). It was found that bilmem served the functions of avoiding explicit disagreements and commitment, marking uncertainty, complaining, checking the background knowledge of the listener, directing their attention, speaking of hypotheticals, dismissing excuses and counter-arguments. It is also used as filler and in place of vb. (etc.) and exact numbers.

Özet

Edimsel belirleyiciler bir konuşmada eyleyici güç, temel iletinin ve onun söylemin geneli ile ilişkisi üzerine yorum yapma gibi birtakım işlevleri olan konuşma birimleridir. Bu çalışmanın konusu Türkçe bir edimsel belirleyici olan bilmem sözcüğüdür. Bu çalışmada bilmem sözcüğü Türkçe Ulusal Derlemi yardımıyla çözümlenmiş ve sözcüğün net anlaşmazlıklardan kaçınma, kararsızlığı işaretleme, konuşma arasındaki boşlukları doldurma, şikayetlenme, dinleyicinin arkaplan bilgisini ölçme, dinleyicinin dikkatini belli bir yere çekme, olasılıklardan bahsetme ve mazeretleri ve karşı argümanları reddetme işlevlerine sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Bilmem aynı zamanda vb. ve tamı tamına sayı vermek yerine de kullanılır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özuğurlu, H. (2025). Discourse Functions of "Bilmem" in Turkish. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 1, 1–22. https://ajindex.com/articles/1583195

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (27)

  1. Adıgüzel, M. F. (2015). Semantic and pragmatic analysis of the Turkish discourse particle hele: A corpus-driven study in lexical profiling. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 12(1), 63-92. 37-60.
  2. Adıgüzel, M. F. (2023). The functional spectrum of the Turkish pragmatic marker Ya. Journal of Pragmatics, 212, 58-71.
  3. Baş, M. (2021). Pragmatic functions of ‘pardon’in Turkish corpus. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1), 60-75.
  4. Aksan, Y. et al. (2012). Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). In Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012). İstanbul. Turkiye. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/ lrec2012/papers.html
  5. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
  6. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face interaction. Aldine.
  7. Corcu, D. (2006). Analysis of discourse particles in relation to the information structure of texts & dialogues: examples from Turkish. In Tenth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (10-ICAL).
  8. Çetin, B., & Uzdu Yıldız, F., (2021). Awareness of Turkish discourse markers: “İşte”. International Journal of Eurasian Education and Culture, 6(14), 2254-2289.
  9. Diessel, H. & Michael T. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language 81, 1-25.
  10. Diani, G. (2004). The discourse functions of I don’t know in English Conversation. Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora. In Ajimer & Stenström (Eds.), Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora (pp. 157-171). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  11. Enfield, N.J. (2003). The definition of what-d'you-call-it: semantics and pragmatics of recognitional deixis, Journal of Pragmatics, 35(1), 101-117
  12. Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6, 167-190.
  13. Güler, H. I., & Betil, E. T. (2017). Sözlü türkçe derlemi ve türkçe ulusal derleminde (u)lan'ın edimbilimsel bir incelemesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 14(2). 37-60.
  14. Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
  15. Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? — the diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology: in honour of John Sinclair (pp. 157–176). Benjamins.
  16. McEnery, T. & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
  17. Partington, A. (1998). Patterns and meanings. Benjamins.
  18. Ruhi, Ş. (2013). The interactional functions of tamam in spoken Turkish Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 10(2), 9-32. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.
  19. Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.
  20. Sinclair, J. M. 1998. The lexical item. In E. Weigand (Ed.), Contrastive Lexical Semantics. Benjamins. 1-24.
  21. Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles. Functions of Language, 2(1), 23–55.
  22. Stubbs M. (2002). Words and phrases: corpus studies of lexical semantics (Repr). Blackwell.
  23. Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Benjamins.
  24. Tsui, A. (1991). The pragmatic functions of I don’t know. Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 11(4), 607-622.
  25. Yılmaz, E. (2004). A pragmatic analysis of Turkish discourse particle: Yani, İşte and Şey [Unpublished Doctoral Thesis]. Ankara, ODTÜ
  26. Uçar, A. (2005). Söylem belirleyicisi olarak işte’nin ezgi örüntüleri. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 2(1), 51-62.
  27. Ruhi, Ş. (2013). The interactional functions of tamam in spoken Turkish Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 10(2), 9-32.