Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 14:6 (2023) ► pp.908–943

A socio-pragmatic analysis of the Turkish discourse markers of ‘şey’, ‘yani’, and ‘işte’ based on educational level of speakers

ORCID logo | National Defence University Turkish Air Force Academy
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.
Keywords: Pragmatics, discourse markers, speech conditions, educational level, Turkish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Different perspectives in DM studies and variables influencing DM production
    • 2.2Studies of ‘şey’, ‘yani’, and ‘işte’
    • 2.3Other Turkish DM studies
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Data collection and analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Frequencies
      • 4.1.1Frequency of ‘şey’
      • 4.1.2Frequency of ‘yani’
      • 4.1.3Frequency of ‘işte’
    • 4.2Functions of the DMs
      • 4.2.1Functions of ‘Şey’
        • (1)A marker referring to a general phenomenon or mutual knowledge
        • (2)Planning/thought-organizing marker
        • (3)Topic introducing-topic raising function
        • (4)A marker of self-repair following a false start or a hesitation (incomplete word)
        • (5) Filler (When used as a filler, ‘şey’ means ‘thing’ in most cases.)
      • 4.2.2Functions of ‘yani’
        • (1)A marker of expansion
        • (2)An emphatic marker/a highlighter/ a focus marker
        • (3)A boundary marker
        • (4)A marker of self-repair
        • (5)A point-raising marker
      • 4.2.3Functions of ‘işte’
        • (1)A marker of shared knowledge or a referral to assumed knowledge
        • (2)A boundary marker
        • (3)An emphatic marker
        • (4)A marker marking the speaker’s unwillingness to give a detailed answer
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Summary & conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
Published online: 6 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.20011.alt
References (44)
References
Aksan, Mustafa, and Yeşim Aksan. 2018. “Linguistic Corpora: A View from Turkish.” In Studies in Turkish Natural Language Processing, ed. by Kemal Oflazer and Murat Saraçlar, 291–315. Berlin: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altıparmak, Ayşe. 2022. “An analysis of Turkish interactional discourse markers ‘şey’, ‘yani’, and ‘işte’.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 51(4): 729–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Pragmatics 311: 1339–1351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla. 1990. “Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian.” Journal of Pragmatics 141: 629–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Française 2(154): 78–93.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English. Berlin and New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.” In Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, ed. by Esther N. Goody, 56–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. “Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow.” In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, ed. by Russell S. Tomlin, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer. 2000. “The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like .” Journal of Sociolinguistics 41: 60–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Susanna Cumming, and Danae Paolino. 1993. “Outline of Discourse Transcription.” In Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, ed. by Jane A. Edwards and Martin D. Lampert, 45–89. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1999. “New generalizations and explanations in language and gender research.” Language in Society 281: 185–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt. 1986. “Some Pragmatic Expressions in English Conversation.” In English in Speech and Writing: A Symposium, ed. by Gunnel Tottie and Ingegerd Bäklund, 131–147. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
. 1992. “Female and male usage of pragmatic expressions in same-sex and mixedsex interaction.” Language Variation and Change 41: 217–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foolen, Ad. 1996. “Pragmatic Particles.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert, and Chris Bulcaen, 1–24. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2005. Guidelines for Research in Discourse Markers. Boston: Boston University.Google Scholar
Furman, Reyhan, and Aslı Özyürek. 2007. “Development of interactional discourse markers: Insights from Turkish children’s and adults’ oral narratives.” Journal of Pragmatics 391: 1742–1757. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gabarró-Lopez, Silvia. 2020. “Are discourse markers related to age and educational background? A comparative account between two sign languages.” Journal of Pragmatics 1561: 68–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1955. “On face-work.” Psychiatry 18(3): 213–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1970. “Language Structure and Language Functions.” In New Horizons in Linguistics, ed. by John Lyons, 140–165. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
1977. Explorations in the Functions of Language. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.Google Scholar
1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
1979. “Modes of Meaning and Modes of Expression: Types of Grammatical Structure, and their Determination by Different Semantic Functions.” In Function 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
Holmes, Janet. 1986. “Functions of you know in women’s and men’s speech.” Language in Society 151: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet, Allan Bell, and Mary Teresa Boyce. 1991. Variation 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
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]. In Proceedings of the 8th Turkish Linguistics Conference, 24–37. Istanbul: Istanbul University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1983. “Monitoring and self-repair in speech.” Cognition 141: 41–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, Ronald. 2002. “You know, it depends.” Journal of Pragmatics 341: 749–767. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Studies 4 (53) No.1: 213–220.Google Scholar
Müller, Simone. 2005. Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola. 1981. You Know: A Discourse-Functional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özbek, Nurdan, 1995. Discourse Markers in Turkish and English: A Comparative Study. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Nottingham: Nottingham University.
. 2000. “Yani, İşte, Şey, Ya: Interactional Markers of Turkish.” In Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages, ed. by Aslı Göksel and Celia Kerslake, 393–401. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Perera, Kaushalya. 2021. “Interviewing academic elites: A discourse analysis of shifting power relations.” Qualitative Research 21(2): 215–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Povolná, Renata. 2008. “Why are there so many labels for discourse markers?” Discourse and Interaction 1/11: 115–124.Google Scholar
Ruhi, Şükriye. 2009. “The Pragmatics of Yani as a Parenthetical Marker in Turkish: Evidence from the METU Turkish Corpus.” In Working Papers in Corpus-Based Linguistics and Language Education 31: 285–298.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Interactional markers in Turkish: A corpus-based perspective.” Journal of Linguistics and Literature 10(2): 1–7.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Forum 481: 177–186.Google Scholar
Schwalbe, Michael L., and Michelle Wolkomir. 2002. “Interviewing Men.” In Handbook of Interview Research, ed. by Jaber F. Gubrium and James A. Holstein, 203–19. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
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 & Communication 15(1): 63–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenger-Trayner, Etienne, and Beverly Wenger-Trayner. 2015. An Introduction to Communities of Practice: A Brief Overview of the Concept and Its Uses. Available from authors at [URL]
Yılmaz, Erkan. 1994. Descriptive and Comparative Study of the Discourse Markers ‘Well’ in English and ‘Şey’ in Turkish (Unpublished Master’s Thesis), Colchester: Essex University.Google Scholar
. 2004. A Pragmatic Analysis of Turkish Discourse Particles: Yani, İşte and Şey. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Ankara: Middle East Technical University.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

V., Jothi Prakash & Arul Antran Vijay S.
2024. A novel socio-pragmatic framework for sentiment analysis in Dravidian–English code-switched texts. Knowledge-Based Systems 300 ► pp. 112248 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.