SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2

-

How do we say NO in Turkish?: A corpus-based analysis of hayır and cık in Turkish

Betül Bal-Gezegin
Pages
53–73
Publication Date
2013-11-14
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)

The results show that there are similarities and differences in the use of hayır and cık in terms of their syntactic properties and pragmatic functions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to investigate the use of two pragmatic markers in Turkish language: hayır and cık.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To examine these markers recordings of naturally occurring conversations among people whose L1 is Turkish are obtained from Spoken Turkish Corpus (STC).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results show that there are similarities and differences in the use of hayır and cık in terms of their syntactic properties and pragmatic functions.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Edimbilimsel belirleyici · Türkçe · hayır

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the use of two pragmatic markers in Turkish language: hayır and cık. Hayır is a word meaning no, whereas cık stands as a representation of a sound uttered with the intention of saying no. These two markers, which can be traditionally accepted as no in English, are analyzed in terms of their distributions and pragmatic functions as pragmatic markers. To examine these markers recordings of naturally occurring conversations among people whose L1 is Turkish are obtained from Spoken Turkish Corpus (STC). The results show that there are similarities and differences in the use of hayır and cık in terms of their syntactic properties and pragmatic functions.

Özet

This study aims to investigate the use of two pragmatic markers in Turkish language: hayır and cık. Hayır is a word meaning no, whereas cık stands as a representation of a sound uttered with the intention of saying no. These two markers, which can be traditionally accepted as no in English, are analyzed in terms of their distributions and pragmatic functions as pragmatic markers. To examine these markers recordings of naturally occurring conversations among people whose L1 is Turkish are obtained from Spoken Turkish Corpus (STC). The results show that there are similarities and differences in the use of hayır and cık in terms of their syntactic properties and pragmatic functions. Keywords: Pragmatic markers, Turkish, hayır, cık, Pragmatic function, Spoken Turkish Corpus (STC)

🔖

Cite This Article

Bal-Gezegin, B. (2013). -. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2, 53–73. https://ajindex.com/articles/828348

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles. Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Aijmer, K. & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2004). A model and a methodology for the study of pragmatic markers: The semantic field of expectation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1781-1805. André, V. (2005). Oui-non: Une pratique discursive sous influence. Marges Linguistiques, 9, 195-213.
  2. Arndt, W. (1960). Modal particles in Russian and German. Word, 16, 323–336.
  3. Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum. Bazzanella, C. (1990). Phatic connective as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 629-647.
  4. Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell. Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Burridge, K. & Florey, M. (2002). ‘Yeah-no He’s a Good Kid’: A discourse analysis of Yeah-no in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 22, 149-171.
  6. Büyükkantarcıoğlu, N. (2006). An analysis of Turkish interjections in the context of reactive idea framing. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 23 (1), 19Crystal, D. (1988). Another look at well, you know … English Today 13, 47-49.
  7. Çubukçu, H. (2005). Karşılıklı konuşmada destekleyici geri bildirim. XVIII. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, (pp. 289-304).
  8. Ankara.
  9. Drummond, K. & Hopper, R. (1993). Some uses of yeah. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26, 203–212.
  10. Feng, G. (2006). A theory of conventional implicature and pragmatic markers in Chinese. Unpublished PhD Thesis, The University of Reading. Fischer, K. (2000). Discourse particles, turn-taking, and the semantics-pragmatics interface. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique, 8, 111-137.
  11. Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6 (2), 167-90.
  12. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952.
  13. Fuller, J. M. (2003). The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 23-45.
  14. Gülich, E. (1970). Makrosyntax der Gliederungssignale im gesprochenen Französisch. München. Horn, L. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61, 121-17
  15. Jefferson, G., (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘yeah’ and ‘mmhm’. Papers in Linguistics, 17