A cross-linguistic functional-pragmatic analysis of interjections a thesis submitted to
Yüklə 10,54 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- REACTIVE IDEA FRAMING TYPE FUNCTION STATE OR ACT PROPOSI TIONAL CONTENT
- CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 3.0. Presentation
- 3.1. Design of the Study
37 Table 7: Turkish Interjections in Reactive Idea Framing (Büyükkantarcıoğlu, 2006) REACTIVE IDEA FRAMING TYPE FUNCTION STATE OR ACT PROPOSI TIONAL CONTENT TYPE OF INTERJEC TION EXAMPLE contradictin g Indicating that the first ideas is not true objection disbelief invalidation putting doubts surprise warning regret dislike disagreement teasing fear impatience etc. I think... I don’t think... I doubt.... I say.... I feel that... cognitive emotive volitive -hadi be ! -atma! -yeme bizi! -olmadı!... counteractin g Reducing the validity of the first idea -yok deve ! -devenin nal›! -imkans›z ! -saçmalama!.... challenging Questioning the validity of the first idea -ciddi misin ? -ne diyorsun ? -yemin et ! -valla m›? .... evaluating Evaluating the quality or the validity of the first idea - olacak şey değil -müt iş ! -yaz›k ! - inan›lmaz!... contrasting Adding an opposite or different idea to the first one - bilakis ! - iç bile ! As can be seen in Table 7, Turkish interjections are categorized according to their reactive functions. Büyükkantarcıoğlu selected and analyzed secondary interjections in Turkish such as Hadi be!, Atma!, Yeme bizi! and Olmadı! . She investigated how those secondary interjections function in the discoursal context pragmatically on the side of hearer during idea framing process. Among the linguistic studies upon Turkish interjections, Akar (1988) investigated the Turkish interjections concerning their organizations within the sentence (organization of interjections in a sentence as sentence-initial, or sentence-final) by focusing on their syntactic functions. Particularly, she analyzed Turkish primary (Banguoğlu, 1986 regards them as real interjections) interjections ‘a , uf, ay, vay, ya, be, a and ayol!’ based on their positions in a sentence. 38 In another study Külebi (1990) examined emotive and intentional functions of interjections by highlighting the importance of contextual clues or constellative elements, concluding that pragmatic features of Turkish interjections would vary context-dependently. Dağdeviren (2003) investigated the pragmatic functions of identical interjections in different language constellations by analyzing natural data. Standardized orthography is an important factor in transcribing the interjections as arised by Işık-Güler & Eröz-Tuğa (2010). Last but not least, parallel to Dağdeviren’s study, Büyükkantarcıoğlu (2006) examined various pragmatic functions of Turkish interjections based on “a cognitive process called reactive idea framing” on the hearer’s side (p. 19). She investigated the reasons why classification and categorization of pragmatically multi-faceted Turkish interjections semantically would be a challenge for Turkish linguists. Functional pragmatic analysis of Turkish interjections was studied by Babur, Sağın Şimşek and Rehbein (2007) along with their functions concerning the incitement field in the natural language constellation based on Ehlich & Rehbein’s (Rehbein, 1977; Ehlich, 1986; Ehlich ve Rehbein, 1979) Functional Pragmatics method. Turkish primary interjections transcribed as their incitement field. According to the framework of Functional Pragmatics, there are five linguistic fields “belonging to functional areas determined by abstract, overarching purpose” (Redder, 2008:137). One of these five linguistic fields is the incitement field, consiting of interjections, harboring “devices by which the speaker, in an immediate way, makes the hearer do something. Its devices are called incitive procedures and they consist in –tonal- interjections…” (Redder, 2008:137). 39 CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 3.0. Presentation This chapter provides information about the description of the participants involved, data collection procedures and data collection instruments. An overall explanation of the design of the study is presented. Information about the participants and characteristics of setting are explicated. Then the transcription conventions and data analysis procedures utilized in this study are presented. 3.1. Design of the Study In this study, a particular linguistic element, forms and functions of interjections in an Azerbaijani-Turkish Lingua Receptiva (LaRa) communication are studied in order to find out the contribution of interjections as indicators of understanding. This study attempts to shed light on the mechanisms utilized in such language mode for the sake of comprehension with a functional-pragmatic approach (Ehlich & Rehbein, 1982) in order to investigate the forms and functions of interjections. As the occurrences of interjections in both Azerbaijani and Turkish are crucial for the purpose of the present study, a worldwide popular word guessing party game called Taboo was selected and modified in accordance with the scope of the study. The inspiration for making use of this task comes from the need for a structured task which allows both creating a communicative and natural Yüklə 10,54 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|