160
şey Merkurun (One of that Mercury’s). Turkish interlocutor Serkan makes a guess
which turns out not to be correct either:
Samanyolu (The Milk Way).
PRAAT analysis of the interjection can be seen in the figure presented below.
Figure 51: Intensity and pitch analyses of Turkish interjection
Hı
(----) signalling
believing to understand
161
When this interjection is analyzed with PRAAT, it can be seen in the
figure that the pitch is the highest where the interlocutor continues the discourse
without confidence that understanding is correct. Phonological features of
ı are
identical to those of interjections signalling understanding. Because Turkish
interlocutor believes that he correctly receives and fully understands his
counterparts’ proposition. Therefore, it seems that there is an overlap between the
interjections signalling believing to understand and those of understanding.
ı as
an interjection signalling
believing to understand has a slightly rising intonation
pattern.
5.2.1.3. Guessing
With respect to the interjections signalling
guessing observed in the data, it
can be apprehended that one of the most frequent forms to be used by both
Turkish and Azerbaijani interlocutors was observed to be included in the signal
category of
guessing. Turkish interjections signalling
guessing are
Eem, Aa, Iıı
and
ıı (----)! Azerbaijani interjections, on the other hand, are as follows:
Eee, Aa
(----), Imm and
Mmm.
Table 18: Forms of
identical Turkish and Azerbaijani interjections signalling
guessing
Forms of identical Turkish and Azerbaijani interjections signalling guessing
used by Turkish and Azerbaijani native speakers
Signal Category
Turkish Interjections
Azerbaijani
Interjections
Interjections signalling
guessing
Aa!
Aa (----)!
There is one and only identical interjection form in Turkish and
Azerbaijani which is
Aa as can be seen in Table 18. It can also be apprehended
that this identical form of interjection helps the interlocutors better interpret or
understand the intended meaning of the speaker in the constellation along with the
contextual clues. Since
Lingua Receptiva is a mode of communication which
involves at least two (closely-related) languages, contextualization cues channels
the flow of the discourse. Contextualization cues, as defined by Gumperz (1982),
163
5.2.1.5. Partial Understanding
As can be seen from Table 14, while there is no occurrence of Azerbaijani
interjection signalling
partial understanding, there is one instance in which
Turkish interjection
Ee signalling
partial understanding is used by the
interlocutor. In the analyzed data, in this study, it might be apprehended that there
is apparent asymmetrical relationship. It is observed that there is
no instance in the
analyzed data with respect to the Azerbaijani interjections signalling
partial
understanding utilized by Azerbaijani interlocutors. This result shows that unlike
Turkish interlocutors, Azerbaijani interlocutors better understand their Turkish
counterparts.
5.2.1.6. Non-Understanding
With respect to the interjections signalling
non-understanding, it is
observed in the analyzed data that there is only one occurrence of Turkish
interjection
Iıı! Similar to Turkish interjection
Iıı, in Azerbaijani there is one and
only
Ee utilized by Azerbaijani interlocutors as the indicator of
non-
understanding.
5.3.1. Forms of Interjections
In Turkish and Azerbaijani languages, most of the forms of interjections
utilized by the Turkish and Azerbaijani interlocutors were observed to be the
insertion of Turkish
primary interjections. These primary interjections primarily
help the interlocutors maintain the discourse with their counterparts. The reason
might lie in the fact that the style of interlocutor’s counterpart is
straightforward,
in the sense that “speaker constructs his/her idea more purposefully, with a certain
line of argumentation by the very nature of the task” (Romaniuk, 2010: 139).
Accompanying the interjections, Turkish interlocutors word fewer utterances and
speak at a slower pace.