Discursive Functions of Reported Speech In Turkish Op-Ed Articles
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20495463 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Özge Can (0000-0003-2864-2649, Dokuz Eylül University), Gülsüm Songül Ercan (0000-0002-5392-7008, Dokuz Eylül University) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 31 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 265-288 |
| Publication date | 2020-12-30 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1300-8552 • E-ISSN: 2587-0939 |
| Publisher | Journal of Linguistics Research (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.18492/dad.648589 |
| OpenAlex | W3117726154 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
Reported speech/quotations are used to insert other voices in texts, resulting in a form of intertextuality. With this characteristic, they are a form of intertextuality. Reporting can be through direct, indirect, strategic, transformed indirect and ostensible direct quotations and these involve ideological implications since they are closely related to evaluation and assessment. In this study, different types of reported speech and their discursive functions have been studied within the framework of Critical Discourse Analysis in the op-ed articles in nine different newspapers known to be the representatives of different political ideologies. According to the findings of the study, direct quotations are the most frequently used type of reported speech and they are followed by indirect quotations in all types of ideologies. Considering type and ideology relationship, it has been found that writers of secular ideology use direct, strategical and transformed indirect quotations more frequently than the others. On the other hand, indirect and ostensible direct quotations are used more frequently in Islamist ideology. Regarding their discursive functions, writers use quotations to realize different aims: tangibly supporting their arguments to make themselves more creditable, increase the reliability of their arguments, legitimize/validate their own statements; dramatizing events; evading responsibility by distancing themselves from the source of information; describing and disparaging the characteristics of the person they quote or report; bringing the opposing opinions to the attention of the readers; providing the background of a piece of information; describing the characteristics of the person quoted and praising them
Art · Critical discourse analysis · Direct speech · Distancing · Ideology · Indirect speech · Intertextuality · Linguistics · Literature · Media studies · Newspaper · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Educational Methods and Analysis · Families in Therapy and Culture · Islamic Thought and Society Studies · Law · Philosophy
| Citations per year | 0.25 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2022 - 2022 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |