Abstract
Terms of address in Turkish spontaneous pet-, infant-, and child-directed speech were compared in terms of the proportion of diminutive and hypocoristic morphemes attached to various types of bases. The goal of the study was to see whether there was any difference in their distribution in different addressee groups that could be attributed to the asymmetrical communication in pet-directed speech. The results showed that, in Turkish, a language poor in diminutives and hypocoristics, the asymmetry is not observed in the distribution of diminutive and hypocoristic forms. It is observed, however, in the morphopragmatic expression of endearment in general that included the possessive morphology, which seemed to be an alternative form used instead of diminutives and hypocoristics or along with them.
Reference24 articles.
1. Balabekova, N. R., N. G. Shaymerdinova, G. M. Adambayeva. 2019. The means of expression and semantics of emotive verbs in Turkic languages. Opción 35:90-2, 187-202.
2. Bayyurt, Y. 1992. The analysis of determining factors affecting people's choice of address forms in Turkish. Unpublished MA Thesis. Lancaster University, UK.
3. Braun, F. 1988. Terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
4. Burnham, D., E. Francis, U. Vollmer-Conna, C. Kitamura, V. Averkiou, A. Olley, M. Nguyen, C. Paterson. 1998. Are you my little pussy-cat? Acoustic, phonetic and affective qualities of infant-and pet-directed speech. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 98), Sydney, Australia.
5. Burnham, D., C. Kitamura, U. Vollmer-Conna. 2002. What's new, pussycat? On talking to babies and animals. Science 296, 1435-1435, doi:10.1126/science.1069587.