Cover not available
Part of
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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.164.09zey
References (33)
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).[URL] (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). [URL] (30 November 2013).
Asher, Nicholas. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, David M. 2010. Nevertheless, still and yet: Concessive cancellative discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 42(7): 1912–1927. DOI logoGoogle 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). [URL] (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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle 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. [URL] (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. DOI logoGoogle 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). [URL] (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. [URL] (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. <[URL]> (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). [URL] (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). [URL] (30 November 2013).Google Scholar
Umbach, Carla. 2005. Contrast and information structure: A focus-based analysis of but . Linguistics 43(1): 207–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2005. Two types of coordination in clause combining. Lingua 115(4): 611–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Webber, Bonnie. 2004. D-LTAG: Extending lexicalized TAG to discourse. Cognitive Science 28(5): 751–779. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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). [URL] (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. DOI logoGoogle 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). [URL] (30 November 2013). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

ATASOY, Gülsüm
2020. Book Review Discourse Meaning: The view from Turkish. 2020. Zeyrek, D., and Özge U. (Eds.). De Gruyter Mouton. 284 pages. ISBN 978-3-11-067892-5. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 31:2 ► pp. 313 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 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.