Article published in:
On Diversity and Complexity of Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia
Edited by Pirkko Suihkonen and Lindsay J. Whaley
[Studies in Language Companion Series 164] 2014
► pp. 251–274

On the distribution of the contrastive-concessive discourse connectives ama ‘but/yet’ and fakat ‘but’ in written Turkish

| Middle East Technical University
This chapter analyzes the similarities and differences between two contrastive-concessive discourse connectives in written Turkish, namely ama ‘but/yet’ and fakat ‘but’. The analysis is mainly based on Turkish Discourse Bank, a corpus annotated for discourse connectives and the discourse units they relate. A modular approach to discourse is adopted in the study, where the connectives are analyzed considering the characteristics of their arguments, their position in the sentence, the senses they convey, and how they are distributed across genres. The analyses are carried out quantitatively and qualitatively. One of the major findings of the study is that ama signals concession and pragmatic interpretations more readily than fakat does, suggesting that ama has a better ability to access inferences in discourse. The study also finds that while ama is the preferred discourse connective of fiction, fakat is the preferred discourse connective of more formal genres (e.g. research papers, monographs).
Keywords: concession, contrast, corpus, discourse, discourse connectives, discourse relations, Turkish
Published online: 17 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.164.09zey
References

References

Aksan, Yeşim, Aksan, Mustafa, Koltuksuz, Ahmet, Sezer, Taner, Mersinli, Ühmit & Demirhan, Umut Ufuk, Yilmazer, Hakan, Atasoy, Gülsüm, Öz, Seda, Yildiz, Ipek & Kurtoglu, Özlem
2012 Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2012). Istanbul, Turkey, 3223-3227, European Language Resources Association (ELRA).<http://​www​.lrec​-conf​.org​/proceedings​/lrec2012​/pdf​/991​_Paper​.pdf> (30 November 2013).
Aktaş, Berfin, Bozsahin, Cem & Zeyrek, Deniz
2010 Discourse relation configurations in Turkish and an annotation environment. In Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW-IV), Uppsala, Sweden, 202–206. Uppsala: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). <http://​aclweb​.org​/anthology/​/W​/W10​/W10​-1832​.pdf> (30 November 2013).
Asher, Nicholas
1993 Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bell, David M.
2010 Nevertheless, still and yet: Concessive cancellative discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 42(7): 1912–1927. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Demirşahin, Işın, Sevdik-Çallı, Ayışığı, Balaban, Hale Ögel, Çakıcı, Ruken & Zeyrek, Deniz
2012 Turkish Discourse Bank: Ongoing developments. In The 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012) - First Workshop on Language Resources and Technologies for Turkic Languages, 15–19, European Language Resources Association (ELRA). <http://​www​.lrec​-conf​.org​/proceedings​/lrec2012​/workshops​/02​.Turkic%20Languages%20Proceedings​.pdf> (30 November 2013).
Doğan, Gürkan
1994 Ama bağlacına edimbilimsel bir bakış (A pragmatic approach to the connective ama). Dilbilim Araştırmaları/Journal of Linguistic Research 1994: 195–205.Google Scholar
Fisher, Ronald, A.
1922 On the interpretation of χ2 from contingency tables, and the calculation of P. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 85(1): 87–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forbes-Riley, Katherine, Webber, Bonnie & Joshi, Aravind
2005 Computing discourse semantics: The predicate-argument semantics of discourse connectives in D-LTAG. Journal of Semantics 23(1): 55–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia
2005 Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood & Hasan, Ruqaiya
1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R.
1985 On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Jasinskaja, Katja
2010 Corrective contrast in Russian, in contrast. In Russian in Contrast, Atle Grønn & Irena Marijanovic (eds). Special issue of Oslo Studies in Language 2(2): 433–466.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew
2002 Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
1971 If’s, and’s and but’s about conjunction. Studies in Linguistic Semantics 3: 114–149.Google Scholar
Lee, Alan, Rashmi Prasad, Aravind Joshi, Nikhil Dinesh & Bonnie Webber
2006 Complexity of dependencies in discourse: Are dependencies in discourse more complex than in syntax? In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories 2006, 79–90. Prague: Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics. <http://​ufal​.mff​.cuni​.cz​/tlt2006​/pdf​/133​.pdf> (30 November 2013).Google Scholar
Mann, William C. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1988 Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3): 243–281.Google Scholar
Martin, James Robert
1992 English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prasad, Rashmi, Dinesh, Nikhil, Lee, Alan, Miltsakaki, Eleni, Robaldo, Livio, Joshi, Aravind & Webber, Bonnie
2008 The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), Marakech, Morocco , 2961-2968. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). <http://​www​.lrec​-conf​.org​/proceedings​/lrec2008​/pdf​/754​_paper​.pdf> (30 November 2013).
Prasad, Rashmi, Miltsakaki, Eleni, Dinesh, Nikhil, Lee, Alan, Joshi, Aravind, Robaldo, Livio & Webber, Bonnie
2007 The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 annotation manual. <http://​www​.seas​.upenn​.edu​/~pdtb​/PDTBAPI​/pdtb​-annotation​-manual​.pdf> (30 November 2013).
Redeker, Gisela & Egg, Markus
2006 Says who? On the treatment of speech attributions in discourse structure. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Constraints in Discourse (CID 2006) July 7–9 2006, Maynooth, Ireland, 140-146. National University of Ireland. http://​www​.constraints​-in​-discourse​.de​/cid06​/cid06​.pdf (30 November 2013).
Robaldo, Livio, Miltsakaki, Eleni & Bianchini, Alessia
2010 Corpus-based semantics of concession: Where do expectations come from? In Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2010) . Valletta, Malta, 3593–3600. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). <http://​www​.lrec​-conf​.org​/proceedings​/lrec2010​/pdf​/140​_Paper​.pdf> (30 November 2013).
Ruhi, Şükriye
1998 Restrictions on the Interchangeability of Discourse Connectives: A Study on AMA and FAKAT. The Mainz Meeting: Proceedings on the 7th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics [Turcologica 32], 135–153, Wiesbaden: Harrosowitz.
Say, Bilge, Zeyrek, Deniz, Oflazer, Kemal & Özge, Umut
2002 Development of a corpus and a Treebank for present-day written Turkish. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference of Turkish Linguistics, Eastern Mediterranean University, 183–192, Gazimağusa, Cyprus, Mersin: Eastern Mediterranean University.
Sweetser, Eve
1991 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Şirin, Utku, Çakıcı, Ruken & Zeyrek, Deniz
2012 METU Turkish Discourse Bank Browser. In Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012). Istanbul. Turkey, 2808–2812. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). <http://​www​.lrec​-conf​.org​/proceedings​/lrec2012​/pdf​/788​_Paper​.pdf> (30 November 2013).Google Scholar
Umbach, Carla
2005 Contrast and information structure: A focus-based analysis of but . Linguistics 43(1): 207–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
2005 Two types of coordination in clause combining. Lingua 115(4): 611–626. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Webber, Bonnie
2004 D-LTAG: Extending lexicalized TAG to discourse. Cognitive Science 28(5): 751–779. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Webber, Bonnie, Egg, Markus & Valia, Kordoni
2011 Discourse structure and language technology. Natural Language Engineering 1(1): 1–54.Google Scholar
Zeevat, Henk
2012 Objection marking and additivity. Lingua 122(15): 1886–1898. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeyrek, Deniz, Demirşahin, Işın, Sevdik-Çallı, Ayışığı, Balaban, Hale Ögel, Yalçınkaya, İhsan & Turan, Ümit Deniz
2010 The annotation scheme of the Turkish Discourse Bank and an evaluation of inconsistent annotations. In Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW-IV), Uppsala, Sweden, 282–289. Uppsala: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). <http://​aclweb​.org​/anthology/​/W​/W10​/W10​-1844​.pdf> (30 November 2013).
Zeyrek, Deniz, Turan, Ümit Deniz, Demirşahin, Işın & Çakıcı, Ruken
2012 Differential properties of three discourse connectives in Turkish: A corpus-based analysis of fakat, yoksa, ayrıca . In Constraints in Discourse 3: Representing and Inferring Discourse Structure [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 223), Anton Benz, Manfred Stede & Peter Kühnlein (eds), 183–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeyrek, Deniz, Turan, Ümit Deniz, Bozşahin, Cem, Çakıcı, Ruken, Sevdik-Çallı, Ayışığı, Demirşahin, Işın, Aktaş, Berfin, Yalçınkaya, İhsan & Balaban, Hale Ögel
2009 Annotating subordinators in the Turkish Discourse Bank. In Proceedings of the Third Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW-III), Suntec, Singapore, 44–47. Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). <http://​aclweb​.org​/anthology/​/W​/W09​/W09​-3006​.pdf> (30 November 2013). CrossrefGoogle Scholar