A cross-linguistic functional-pragmatic analysis of interjections a thesis submitted to
Yüklə 10,54 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- 5.2.1.3. Guessing
- 5.2.1.5. Partial Understanding
- 5.2.1.6. Non-Understanding
- 5.3.1. Forms of Interjections
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), 162 are “the means by which speakers signal and the listener interpret what the activity is, how semantic context is to be understood and how each sentence relates to what precedes or follows” (p. 131). These cues are used in order to facilitate understanding depending on the fact that these cues are relevant to the discourse. If not, it may, as Romaniuk (2010) states, “block hearer’s understanding of speaker’s utterances” (p. 33). In the analysis of interjections signaling guessing, duration of the interjections turns out to play a significant role so as to identify the function of the interjection with respect their signal category in the discourse. For instance, this high frequency might be related to the nature of the task. We need to highlight that such interjections might have emerged to the nature of the task. In other contexts, these frequencies might differ. Turkish interjection Aa signalling guessing has a monotonous intonation pattern different from the other interjections. It might indicate that recalling strategy is activated on the side of the hearer. As can be seen in the figure, there is no high pitch in the articulation of the interjection. Turkish interjection Aa signalling guessing also has distinctively long duration. Therefore, it seems that duration plays a significant role in the discourse. As guessing is a mental strategy, interjection signalling guessing has longer duration. As can be seen in the Figure, there is no high pitch in the articulation of the interjection. In the Figure 52, intensity and pitch analyses of Aa are presented below. Figure 52: Intensity and pitch analyses of Turkish interjection Aa signalling guessing 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. Yüklə 10,54 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|