Cover not available
Article In:
The Speech Act(ion) of Commenting in Social Media and Beyond
Edited by Robert Külpmann and Rita Finkbeiner
[Pragmatics & Cognition 31:2] 2024
► pp. 391–420

The functions of “I think” in TED Talks and their Turkish translations

A corpus-based study

ORCID logo | Kırıkkale University
This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the pragmatic marker “I think” and its translation into Turkish, specifically focusing on its use in TED Talks. Using a corpus-based approach, the research investigates the various functions and Turkish equivalents of “I think”, revealing significant insights into its role as a commenting speech action. Grounded in speech act theory, particularly expositive illocutionary acts, the study emphasizes the illocutionary pluralism of “I think” in managing discourse, expressing speaker attitudes, and engaging interlocutors. The findings highlight the high frequency and critical role of “I think” in spoken English, its function as a commenting speech action in maintaining discourse coherence, and the rather unexpected translation choices in Turkish, such as bence ‘in my opinion’ and sanırım ‘I suppose/I assume’. This study contributes to pragmatics by enhancing our understanding of the illocutionary pluralism of “I think” vis-à-vis its translation strategies.
Keywords: pragmatic markers, commenting speech action, expositive illocutionary acts, illocutionary pluralism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1The functions and classifications of “I think” as a pragmatic marker
    • 2.2The translation of pragmatic markers, with a focus on “I think”
    • 2.3The translation of “I think” in Turkish
  • 3.Understanding “I think” as a commenting speech action
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Corpus description
    • 4.2Annotation method
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Functions of “I think” in English TED Talks
    • 5.2Translation equivalents of “I think” in Turkish
    • 5.3The functions of “I think” and their equivalents in Turkish
      • 5.3.1Booster function
      • 5.3.2Shield function
      • 5.3.3Structural function
      • 5.3.4Approximator function
      • 5.3.5Untranslated instances of “I think”
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Reconsidering “I think” as a commenting speech action
    • 6.2Turkish translations and commenting speech action
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (66)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I THINK: An English modal particle. In Toril Swan & Olaf J. Westvik (eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives, 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin & Bengt Altenberg. 2002. Zero translations and cross-linguistic equivalence: Evidence from the English-Swedish parallel corpus. In Leiv Egil Breivik & Angela Hasselgren (eds.), From the colt’s mouth — and others’: Language corpora studies in honour of Anna-Brita Stenström, 19–41. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. 2006. Introduction. In Karin Aijmer & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.), Pragmatic markers in contrast, 1–10. Amsterdam: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin, Ad Foolen & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. 2006. Pragmatic markers in translation: A methodological proposal. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 101–114. London: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 2007. Translating discourse particles: A case of complex translation. In Gunilla Anderman & Margaret Rogers (eds.), Incorporating corpora: The linguist and the translator, 95–116. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L. 1975. How to do things with words (2nd edn.). Edited by James O. Urmson & Marina Sbisà. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateson, Gregory. 1972. A theory of play and fantasy. In Gregory Bateson (ed.), Steps to an ecology of mind, 177–193. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla, Cristiana Bosco, Alessandro Garcea, Barbara Gili Fivela, Johann Miecznikowskii & Francesca Tini Brunozzi. 2007. Italian allora, French alors: Functions, convergences, and divergences. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 61. 9–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan (eds.). 2021. Grammar of spoken and written English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breindl, Eva & Jonas Schreiber. 2021. Metakommunikative Konnektoren als Konstruktionsfamilie. In Anne-Françoise Ehrhard-Macris & Gilbert Magnus (eds.), Text und Kommentieren im Deutschen, 49–67. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 2006. Metapragmatics. In Jacob L. Mey (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, 82–88. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cartoni, Bruno, Sandrine Zufferey & Thomas Meyer. 2013. Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives by looking at their translation: The translation-spotting technique. Dialogue & Discourse 41. 65–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Çeltek, Aytaç, Deniz Zeyrek, Zeynep Başer & Özgür Şen Bartan. 2024. What happens to and in and-parentheticals in Turkish translations? In Fatma Hülya Özcan Önder, Tuncay Karalık, Bayram Çibik, İlknur Civan Biçer & Samet Deniz (eds.), Selected essays on Turkish linguistics: The Anadolu meeting (Turcologica 127), 135–148. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz-Verlag.Google Scholar
Chaume, Frederic. 2004. Discourse markers in audiovisual translating. Meta 49(4). 843–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine, Ágnes Abuczki, Nijolė Burkšaitienė, Péter Furkó, Anna Nedoluzhko, Sigita Rackevičienė, Giedrė Valūnaitė Oleškevičienė & Šárka Zikánová. 2019. Functions and translations of discourse markers in TED Talks: A parallel corpus study of underspecification in five languages. Journal of Pragmatics 1421. 139–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, Maria-Josep. 2022. Translating discourse markers: Implicitation and explicitation strategies. In Maria-Josep Cuenca & Liesbeth Degand (eds.), Discourse markers in interaction: From production to comprehension, 215–246. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth. 2009. On describing polysemous discourse markers: What does translation add to the picture? In Stef Slembrouck, Miriam Taverniers & Mieke van Herreweghe (eds.), From will to well. Studies in linguistics offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, 173–184. Ghent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole & Anne Wichmann. 2010. The multifunctionality of epistemic parentheticals in discourse: Prosodic cues to the semantic-pragmatic boundary. Functions of Language 17(1). 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doğan, Gürkan & Ahmet Kocaman. 1999. Sözcede kişisel tutum ve belirteçler [Personal attitude and adverbs in utterance]. Dilbilim Araştırmaları [Journal of Linguistic Research] 101. 64–79.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dupont, Maïté & Sandrine Zufferey. 2017. Methodological issues in the use of directional parallel corpora: A case study of English and French concessive connectives. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(2). 270–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebeling, Oksefjell S. 2008. I think in Portuguese. Ilha do Desterro: A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies 521. 103–126.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita & Marjut Johansson. 2010. Cognitive verbs in context: A contrastive analysis of English and French argumentative discourse. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 151. 240–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2008. “And I think that is a very straightforward way of dealing with it”: The communicative function of cognitive verbs in political discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 27(4). 384–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “I think this is I mean perhaps this is too erm too tough a view of the world but I often think…”: Redundancy as a contextualization device. Language Sciences 331. 255–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finegan, Edward. 1995. Subjectivity and subjectivisation in language: An introduction. In Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce & Marta Malamud-Makowski. 1996. English and Spanish contrastive discourse markers. Language Sciences 181. 863–881. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furkó, Bálint Péter. 2014. Perspectives on the translation of discourse markers. A case study of the translation of reformulation markers from English into Hungarian. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica 6(2).181–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González, Montserrat. 2012. Pragmatic markers in translation. In Jenny Brumme & Anna Espunya (eds.), The translation of fictive dialogue, 217–232. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Gunther Kaltenböck. 2021. From clause to discourse marker: On the development of comment clauses. Language Sciences 871. 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoek, Jet, Sandrine Zufferey, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J. M. Sanders. 2017. Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics 1211. 113–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1990. Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language and Communication 10(3). 185–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hu, Jian. 2023. A constructional approach to interpersonal metaphor of modality. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Feng Jiang. 2016. Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication 33(3). 251–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra. 2009. Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance. In Alexandra Jaffe (ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives, 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Casey Rebecca. 2023. Some varieties of illocutionary pluralism. In Laura Caponetto & Paolo Labinaz (eds.), Sbisà on speech as action, 121–141. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1993. The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19(5). 435–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2010. Pragmatic functions of parenthetical I think . In Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch & Stefan Schneider (eds.), New approaches to hedging, 237–266. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerimoğlu, Caner. 2010. On the epistemic modality markers in Turkey Turkish: Uncertainty. Turkish Studies 5/41. 434–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koponen, Maarit, Umut Sulubacak, Kaisa Vitikainen & Jörg Tiedemann. 2020. MT for subtitling: User evaluation of post-editing productivity. In André Martins, Helena Moniz, Sara Fumega, Bruno Martins, Fernando Batista, Luisa Coheur, Carla Parra, Isabel Trancoso, Marco Turchi, Arianna Bisazza, Joss Moorkens, Ana Guerberof & Mary Nurminen (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, 115–124. Retrieved from 2020.eamt-1.13.pdf ([URL])
Landis, J. Richard & Gary G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1). 159–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Läubli, Samuel, Mark Fishel, Gary Massey, Maureen Ehrensberger & Martin Volk. 2013. Assessing post-editing efficiency in a realistic translation environment. Proceedings of MT Summit XIV Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice, 83–91.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mattsson, Jenny. 2009. The subtitling of discourse particles: A corpus-based study of well, you know, I mean, and like, and their Swedish translations in ten American films. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg PhD dissertation. [URL]
Morozova, Milana A. 2020. Discourse markers in English and European Portuguese translations: Establishing functional equivalents and types of omission. Filologia e Linguística Portuguesa 221. 103–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muhammed, Layth. 2020. The translation of English comment clauses in Shakespeare’s Othello into Arabic. Al-Ustath Journal for Human and Social Sciences 59(2). 41–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petkova-Kessanlis, Mikaela. 2021. Zur Realisierung des Handlungsmusters fachliches KOMMENTIEREN. In Anne-Françoise Ehrhard-Macris & Gilbert Magnus (eds.), Text und Kommentieren im Deutschen, 211–239. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F., Joel Frader & Charles Bosk. 1982. On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In Robert J. di Pietro (ed.), Linguistics and the professions, 83–97. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 2001. Illocutionary force and degrees of strength in language use. Journal of Pragmatics 33(12). 1791–1814. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. How to read Austin. Pragmatics 17(3). 461–473.Google Scholar
. 2013. Some remarks about speech act pluralism. In Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo & Marco Carapezza (eds.), Perspectives on pragmatics and philosophy, 227–244. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. Speech acts and other topics in pragmatics. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider-Mizony, Odile. 2021. Kommentar als Anschlusskommunikation, Informationserweiterung, oder didaktische Intention? In Anne-Françoise Ehrhard-Macris & Gilbert Magnus (eds.), Text und Kommentieren im Deutschen, 17–30. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Skelton, J. 1988. Comments in academic articles. In Pamela Grunwell (ed.), Applied linguistics in society, 98–108. London: CILT/British Association of Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Stede, Manfred & Birte Schmitz. 1997. Discourse particles and routine formulas in spoken language translation. In Steven Krauwer, Doug Arnold, Walter Kasper, Manny Rayner & Harold Somer (eds.), Spoken language translation: Proceedings of a workshop sponsored by the association of computational linguistics and by the European network in language and speech, 3–9. In Proceedings of the ACL/EACL workshop “Spoken language translation”, 12 July 1997, Madrid, Spain, 3–9.Google Scholar
. 2000. Discourse particles and discourse functions. Machine Translation 15(1/2). 125–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Susan Hunston. 2000. Evaluation: An introduction. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Anthony Mulac. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (vol. 21), 313–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turan, Ümit Deniz, Özkan Aslan & Ezgi Corga. 2014. Sentence-initial verbs: A corpus-based study. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 147–154.Google Scholar
Vieira, Nunes Lucas, Elisa Alonso & Lindsay Bywood. 2019. Post-editing in practice: Process, product and networks. The Journal of Specialised Translation 311. 2–13. [URL]