1887
Volume 14, Issue 6
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper analyzes the influence of the educational level of speakers on speakers’ preferences of the Turkish discourse markers (DMs) şey ‘uh’, yani ‘I mean’, and işte ‘you know’. 56 participants from age groups 33–50 and over 50 participated in the study. Speech data from each participant in two speech corpora (planned vs. spontaneous) were gathered via face-to-face interviews. Although various trends have been observed in two speech conditions in terms of the educational level of the speakers in the current data, the frequency rates of these markers were mostly higher in the speech of (especially male) participants with a lower educational level, compared to those of participants with a higher educational level. Educational-level related differences were also observed in further analyses of the functions of the three DMs under focus.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20011.alt
2023-04-06
2024-06-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aksan, Mustafa, and Yeşim Aksan
    2018 “Linguistic Corpora: A View from Turkish.” InStudies in Turkish Natural Language Processing, ed. byKemal Oflazer and Murat Saraçlar, 291–315. Berlin: Springer Verlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑90165‑7_14
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90165-7_14 [Google Scholar]
  2. Altıparmak, Ayşe
    2022 “An analysis of Turkish interactional discourse markers ‘şey’, ‘yani’, and ‘işte’.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research51(4): 729–762. 10.1007/s10936‑022‑09840‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09840-4 [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersen, Elaine S., Maquela Brizuela, Beatrice DuPuy, and Laura Gonnerman
    1999 “Cross-linguistic evidence for the early acquisition of discourse markers as register variables.” Journal of Pragmatics311: 1339–1351. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00108‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00108-8 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bazzanella, Carla
    1990 “Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian.” Journal of Pragmatics141: 629–647. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90034‑B
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90034-B [Google Scholar]
  5. Beeching, Kate
    2007 “La co-variation des marqueurs discursifs bon, c’est-à-dire, enfin, hein, quand même, quoi, et si vous voulez : Une question d’identité?” [The co-variation of the discursive markers bon, c’est-a-dire, enfin, hein, quand meme, quoi, and si vous voulez: A question of identity?] Langue Française2(154): 78–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brinton, Laurel J.
    1996Pragmatic Markers in English. Berlin and New York: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110907582
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907582 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1978 “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.” InQuestions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, ed. byEsther N. Goody, 56–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chafe, Wallace
    1987 “Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow.” InCoherence and Grounding in Discourse, ed. byRussell S. Tomlin, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.11.03cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.03cha [Google Scholar]
  9. Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer
    2000 “The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like.” Journal of Sociolinguistics41: 60–80. 10.1111/1467‑9481.00103
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00103 [Google Scholar]
  10. Du Bois, John W., Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Susanna Cumming, and Danae Paolino
    1993 “Outline of Discourse Transcription.” InTalking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, ed. byJane A. Edwards and Martin D. Lampert, 45–89. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Eckert, Penelope, and Sally McConnell-Ginet
    1999 “New generalizations and explanations in language and gender research.” Language in Society281: 185–201. 10.1017/S0047404599002031
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404599002031 [Google Scholar]
  12. Erman, Britt
    1986 “Some Pragmatic Expressions in English Conversation.” InEnglish in Speech and Writing: A Symposium, ed. byGunnel Tottie and Ingegerd Bäklund, 131–147. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 1992 “Female and male usage of pragmatic expressions in same-sex and mixedsex interaction.” Language Variation and Change41: 217–234. 10.1017/S0954394500000764
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000764 [Google Scholar]
  14. Foolen, Ad
    1996 “Pragmatic Particles.” InHandbook of Pragmatics, ed. byJef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert, and Chris Bulcaen, 1–24. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hop.2.pra3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.2.pra3 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fraser, Bruce
    2005Guidelines for Research in Discourse Markers. Boston: Boston University.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Furman, Reyhan, and Aslı Özyürek
    2007 “Development of interactional discourse markers: Insights from Turkish children’s and adults’ oral narratives.” Journal of Pragmatics391: 1742–1757. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.01.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gabarró-Lopez, Silvia
    2020 “Are discourse markers related to age and educational background? A comparative account between two sign languages.” Journal of Pragmatics1561: 68–82. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.019 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goffman, Erving
    1955 “On face-work.” Psychiatry18(3): 213–231. 10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008 [Google Scholar]
  19. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1970 “Language Structure and Language Functions.” InNew Horizons in Linguistics, ed. byJohn Lyons, 140–165. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1977Explorations in the Functions of Language. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1978Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1979 “Modes of Meaning and Modes of Expression: Types of Grammatical Structure, and their Determination by Different Semantic Functions.” InFunction and Context in Linguistic Analysis: Essays Offered to William Haas, ed.D. J. Allerton, Edward Carney, and David Holdcroft, 57–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Holmes, Janet
    1986 “Functions of you know in women’s and men’s speech.” Language in Society151: 1–22. 10.1017/S0047404500011623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500011623 [Google Scholar]
  24. Holmes, Janet, Allan Bell, and Mary Teresa Boyce
    1991Variation and Change in New Zealand English: A Social Dialect Investigation. (Project Report to the Social Sciences Committee of the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology). Wellington: Victoria University.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Ilgın, Leyla, and Nalan Büyükkantarcıoğlu
    1994 “Türkçe’de “Yani” Sözcüğünün Kullanımı Üzerine Bir İnceleme.” [A Study on the Use of the Word “Yani” in Turkish]. InProceedings of the 8th Turkish Linguistics Conference, 24–37. Istanbul: Istanbul University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Leech, Geoffrey
    1983Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Levelt, Willem J. M.
    1983 “Monitoring and self-repair in speech.” Cognition141: 41–104. 10.1016/0010‑0277(83)90026‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4 [Google Scholar]
  28. Macaulay, Ronald
    2002 “You know, it depends.” Journal of Pragmatics341: 749–767. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00005‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00005-4 [Google Scholar]
  29. Matei, Mădălina
    2011 “The influence of age and gender on the selection of discourse markers in casual conversations.” Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov Series IV: Philology and Cultural Studies4 (53) No.1: 213–220.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Müller, Simone
    2005Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.138
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.138 [Google Scholar]
  31. Östman, Jan-Ola
    1981You Know: A Discourse-Functional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.ii.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.ii.7 [Google Scholar]
  32. Özbek, Nurdan
    1995 Discourse Markers in Turkish and English: A Comparative Study. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Nottingham: Nottingham University.
  33. 2000 “Yani, İşte, Şey, Ya: Interactional Markers of Turkish.” InStudies on Turkish and Turkic Languages, ed. byAslı Göksel and Celia Kerslake, 393–401. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Perera, Kaushalya
    2021 “Interviewing academic elites: A discourse analysis of shifting power relations.” Qualitative Research21(2): 215–233. 10.1177/1468794120924208
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120924208 [Google Scholar]
  35. Povolná, Renata
    2008 “Why are there so many labels for discourse markers?” Discourse and Interaction1/11: 115–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ruhi, Şükriye
    2009 “The Pragmatics of Yani as a Parenthetical Marker in Turkish: Evidence from the METU Turkish Corpus.” InWorking Papers in Corpus-Based Linguistics and Language Education31: 285–298.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2013 “Interactional markers in Turkish: A corpus-based perspective.” Journal of Linguistics and Literature10(2): 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  39. Schleef, Erik
    2004 “Gender, power, discipline, and context: On the sociolinguistic variation of okay, right, like, and you know in English academic discourse.” Texas Linguistic Forum481: 177–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Schwalbe, Michael L., and Michelle Wolkomir
    2002 “Interviewing Men.” InHandbook of Interview Research, ed. byJaber F. Gubrium and James A. Holstein, 203–19. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Stubbe, Maria, and Janet Holmes
    1995 “You know, eh and other ‘exasperating expressions’: an analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English.” Language & Communication15(1): 63–88. 10.1016/0271‑5309(94)00016‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(94)00016-6 [Google Scholar]
  42. Wenger-Trayner, Etienne, and Beverly Wenger-Trayner
    2015An Introduction to Communities of Practice: A Brief Overview of the Concept and Its Uses. Available from authors athttps://www.wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Yılmaz, Erkan
    1994Descriptive and Comparative Study of the Discourse Markers ‘Well’ in English and ‘Şey’ in Turkish (Unpublished Master’s Thesis), Colchester: Essex University.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2004 A Pragmatic Analysis of Turkish Discourse Particles: Yani, İşte and Şey. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Ankara: Middle East Technical University.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20011.alt
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20011.alt
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): discourse markers; educational level; Pragmatics; speech conditions; Turkish
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error