Adversative Discourse Markers in Kurdish Literary Texts

Discourse Markers are one of an uninvestigated aspect of language in old and modern Kurdish linguistics, that has not been given due attention, neither by native nor non-native researchers. On this ground, it is hoped that the present study sheds light on this almost entirely ignored aspect of the language and this study is meant to be a systematic treatment of this group of lexical items known as Discourse Markers (henceforth, DMs), more specifically one category of them; Adversative DMs. DMs are words, phrases and even clauses that enhance discourse coherence and are found in all languages, as tapped on by researches and investigations. Numerous terminologies are utilized to refer to such group of markers by different researchers in English and other languages, such as ‘Discourse Particles, Cue Phrases, Small Words, Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Connectives... and even they are defined differently. It is postulated that DMs are meaningless and lay outside the domain of sentence structure. Likewise, lexical expressions that have different grammatical functions such as ‘and, also, but, or, simultaneously, at the same moment ...etc, can also function as DMs to connect the previous utterance with the upcoming discourse segment. The current investigation endeavors to answer certain specific questions: first, the extents to which DMs are operated in literary texts; second, discourse functions DMs implement. Thirdly, the word categories DMs are derived from, and to which extent Halliday and Hassan (1976)’s framework is applicable to Kurdish DMs? For achieving the aims, the researchers analyzed one of the contemporary novels of a famous novelist entitled ‘Xezlenûs w Bâxekâni Xejâł”. By applying Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) framework and also by taking insights from Fraser (2009), DMs are categorized into different classes. One of which is Adversative DMs, which are the concern of the present study. For obtaining the frequency of each marker, the data are scrutinized manually, since there are no corpus analysis tools that can facilitate such measurements. The study concludes that Adversative DMs are frequently used in selected Kurdish literary texts and that they are similar to those found in English in terms of derived grammatical categories, taxonomy, and they have different characteristics in terms of form, position and discourse functions. Withal, it has been arrived that Adversative DMs are of different kinds analogous to those investigated in English by Halliday and Hassan (1976).


Introduction
One of the vital constituents of the spoken and written discourse is a certain group of words and phrases such as 'but, whereas, rather, in fact, however, yet, on the contrary, etc.' that serve to have grammatical functions, despite their discourse utilities.They are considered the salt and flavor of utterance.Such lexical items are labeled differently since they are up-to-date subject under investigation and each researcher studies them from a different perspective.They are studied in English, French, Germanic, Arabic, Persian, Finnish and some other languages under different terms and in different contexts whether spoken or written, but in Kurdish they are left almost untouched.Hence, the researchers endeavor to study these markers within the written context, namely within one of the contemporary novels.

Discourse Markers
DMs are of important in both semantic and pragmatic aspects of language as recent investigations expose.Blakemore (2002), for instance, in the introduction of his book outlines the significance of these markers, reporting that; "They are regarded as central to semantics because they raise problems for standard theories of meaning, and to pragmatics because they seem to play a role in the way discourse is understood".However, defining the term DMs is not as straightforward, since it is one of the recent fields under investigations presently that researchers and scholars study them from distinctive perspectives and approaches.Thus, there is not a single term for such a group of lexical elements that function on discourse level, even the definitions are not unified, and each researcher defines them from a different standpoint.Not only that, but also deciding on what lexical element (s) is a DM and what is not a DM is dissimilar and each scholar studies a group of lexical elements and considers them as these markers.
In the 1970 s linguists described DMs as mysterious elements in language, for instance Langocre (1976;468) refers to DMs, as a group of 'mystery particles', which were in free variation; according to him the word-class, distribution and meaning, of DMs are opaque.Therefore, they are described as "simply salt-and-peppered through a text to give it flavor".Schiffrin (1987: 31) whose work is considered one of the comprehensive works on DMs and embraces a coherence approach to the study of these markers defines them as 'sequentially dependent elements, which bracket units of talk'.On the other hand, Fraser (1999) and Andersen (2001: 39) pursue a pragmatic approach and recognize DMs as a class of short, recurrent linguistic items that generally have little lexical import but serve significant pragmatic functions in conversation.On behalf of Blakemore (2002: 151) who adopts a structural approach, states that "discourse, like a sentence, exhibits hierarchical structure" and that "discourse markers or connectives are defined in terms of the role they play in 'marking' these structural relations between segments, and the key to their analysis lies in the classification of the kinds of relations that exist between text segments".From the functional perspective, Castro (2009: 59) and Ford and Thompson (1996) describe them as a set of elements, which help participants negotiate the boundaries of conversational actions.Whereas Mosegaard Hansen (1998: 73) defines them as "non-propositional linguistic items whose primary function is connective, and whose scope is variable", From what has been reviewed above, it can concluded that DMs are certain linguistic elements formally diverse, i.e., from different parts of speech but functionally analogous that beckon text coherence, and attain text relevance through which different pragmatic functions of the text or discourse can be achieved , such as managing and initiating the discourse

Classifications of Adversative DMs in Kurdish
In order to isolate the DMs of adversative in the novel, the researchers depend on Halliday and Hasan (1976) framework.Since the classification does not cover conditions or certain criteria to recognize DMs; henceforward, Frasers' (2009) model is utilized for that purpose.Fraser proposes that (2009: 297) DMs must meet three requirements: 1) A DM is a lexical expression, for example, but, so, and in addition.
2) In a sequence of discourse segments S1-S2, a DM must occur as a part of the second discourse segment, S2.
3) A DM does not contribute to the semantic meaning of the segment but signals a specific semantic relationship, which holds between the interpretations of the two Illocutionary Act segments, S1 and S2.
However, sorting out Kurdish DMs depending on the proposed model is not an easy task.Since there are certain DMs that can be classified under two sub-categories, for instance 'heštâ' (however) is categorized as 'a' and 'b' sub-types of Adversative DMs.Correspondingly and depending on the two models, the following sub-categories are identified as adversative DMs in Kurdish.Dismissal, open-ended: (anyhow, at any rate, in any case.

Adversative DMs
Adversative denotes contrary to the fact.Adversative DMs are the second group of markers within the taxonomy of Halliday and Hasan (1976).This kind of relation can be conveyed by a number of markers categorized by Halliday and Hasan (1976) as: simple, complex, emphatic, contrastive, etc., and meaning, cohesion can be found on both planes of talk, external and internal (i.e.,) the expectation may be derived from the content of what is being said, or from the communication process, the speaker-hearer situation.Fraser (2009) labels most of the adversative DMs as 'contrastive'.He (ibid) relies upon Hallidayan (1976) framework in his classifications; though, his taxonomy includes a smaller number of DMs and he (ibid) does not discriminate between internal and external meanings.
Adversative DMs, which are chosen from the Kurdish novel then investigated and analyzed turn out to be from different parts of speech, such as correlative conjunctions (bałâm), prepositional phrases (le hemân kâtdâ), adverbials (hetâ) and even from grade particles such as 'héštâ', and prepositions 'le péš', complex preposition.
In pinpointing the markers, difficulties arose in identifying the appropriate translation and even the function of each marker, since no proper study is conducted in this concern, for instance 'héštâ' is translated as both 'yet' and 'still', but no studies differentiate between them, while in English numerous studies are accomplished in this area.Meanwhile, 'but' is studied on the syntactic level, whereas its real meaning within the context is left untreated, which can be diverse as those found in English.Even in detecting the parts of speech of the markers difficulties ascend, as there is no such a dictionary that embraces all the lexical items of the language.Therefore, the researchers draw insights from the small number of studies (if found) on the lexical items, and take insights from findings on these markers on English DMs and apply them to Kurdish DMs (if applicable).

Adversative Proper
In spite of is the meaning that is implied by this group of markers, as reported by Halliday and Hasan (1976), Adversative meaning can be expressed internally or externally.In its simplest form, adversative proper in Kurdish can be articulated as follows: 1.4.1 Simple Adversative
It is still new.
You haven't finished yet.(The Sharazoor Dictionary, 2000: 594) On the other hand, In English, study results on this topicreport different outcomes concerning this marker, for instance Ranger (2015: 163) in his study on yet and since, characterizes 'yet' as locating an occurrence on the offline position (IE) on a notional domain of discourse with a preconstructed position (I or E) on the same domain, whereas 'still' locates an occurrence at notional domain, contains with a preconstructed position on the same domain" (Ranger, 2015: 163).Ranger's investigation is done through TEPO theory; however, in the current study, details are not provided of the theory.
Ranger (2015: 163) concludes that 'yet' and 'still' have three DM values; concessive 'yet, concessive 'still', and conclusive 'still', but what seems vague is that he does not refer to the contrastive meaning of these markers.Fraser (2009) and Fraser (2010) classify 'yet' as a 'contrastive DM, by "contrastive" he means the relationship between "the S2 they introduce and a foregoing S1, although in some cases they signal more than simple contrast", (Fraser, 1998: 301), whereas in the Hallidayan (1976) framework, 'yet' is one of the simple adversative relation, as he affirms that " An external Adversative relation is expressed in its simple form by the word 'yet' occurring initially in the sentence", (Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 250).So, the condition for English 'yet' to be considered as an Adversative device is Initiality within the sentence.
In (6), it can be deduced that heštâ is a DM in terms of position, meaning and discourse function and entails the 'opposite' meaning that can be a counterpart to 'bałâm, (but).Applying Ranger's (2015) conclusions to 'heštâ', the first two extracts can be considered as 'concessive' DM functioning on 'argument' level (as Ranger, 2015 refers to it), whereas the excerpt (5) can be regarded as aspectual one.And in the last example (6) 'héštâ' is an Adversative DM, as stated in Halliday and Hassan (1976).
Being so, the frequency of 'héštâ' as an Adversative DM in the novel is only once, which is, (%0. 1) of the whole of the Adversative DMs, though the researchers single out a large tokens in the novel as DM first, depending on their positions within the segments, but when applied Ranger (2015) meaning, and from insights of Halliday and Hasan (1976), it has been resolved that only one instance is Adversative DM, and the pattern is as follows: S1, DM S2.
Hence, it is observed that 'heštâ' does not befall initially in the sentence as the condition, which is constrained for English 'yet' to be a DM.

Eger čî / ger čî (though)
Eger čî and ger čî are two other elements that bear Adversative meaning in Kurdish and generally glossed as although and though.Ger čî is the phonologically reduced form of eger čî, similar to although.In English (al) though is considered as a DM if it "occurs after the full stop in writing", (Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 250).
On the syntactic level, Shwani (2003) provides certain information about eger čî and situates it within the list of subordinate particles.In terms of form, it is not counted within the group of simple particles, which has an independent structure and conveys a specific meaning; and in terms of position, (like any other relative particle), it occurs initially within the main clause in complex sentence structure.The main clause usually occupies the first position within complex sentences, though sometimes it exchanges its position with the subordinate clause, but this does not affect the entire meaning of the sentence.
Probing all the (63) samples according to this formula, only one of the occurrences of 'eger čî' can be considered as a DM, which is the extract NO ( 9), thus the percentage would be (% 0.2).Therefore, all the remaining (62) instances are considered as coordinators and function on the syntactic level, rather than on the discourse level.

Tenhâ, tenjâ (only)
The third linguistic element within Adversative proper is tenhâ, which is translated as 'only' in English.It occurs in different positions within the novel, however again only those instances are identified which are considered to be DMs by applying (Fraser 2009) 's conditions.The novelist does not only implement tenhâ but also the Arabic equivalent expression 'bes', as his peculiar style of writing.The Arabic term is used (6) times and each time it is followed by Xwâ, which means 'Alla only', or 'only Alla' , for instance: 13) čunke feqet roh leberêk lem hikâjata hâlî debét ke le 3ešiq bfâmét, bes xwâš dezânet …âxo estâ to le 3ašiq te deeait jân nâ? Bes xwâ dazânet..xwâ (Ali, 2014: 90) On the grammatical status of 'tenhâ ', Mahwi (2011: 244-246) offers some explanations and tags it as 'focus or grade particle'.These particles are free in terms of their positions to some extent on the sentence level and every occasion they convey a new semantic domain, for instance: 14) tenhâ Ârâm dwéné čû bo šânogerjeke.(Only Aram went).15) Ârâm tenhâ dwéné čû bo šânogerjeke.(Only yesterday, but not another day), (Mahwi, 2011: 246).
Accordingly and as reported by Fattah (ibid: 199) all the instances which are like the above in meaning, position and even semantic effect can be considered as a specifier, not a DM.
In the above discourse segment, bes functions as a DM whereas tenjâ is a specifier, which specifies the meaning of the following word Xûâ.Even depending on Fattah (1997) the sequencing order of specifiers, bes can be considered as a DM, as he organizes the sequence of specifiers as follows; Distributive+ demonstrative + qualifier + head Among the specifiers, he demonstrates her (just) and tenhâ (only); nevertheless, he (ibid) does not report on the occurrence of two specifiers in cluster or sequence.

Bełâm, welē, bełkû (but)
Bełâm is the stereotyped linguistic element to express different meanings in utterance, among which is 'contrast'.Literature on Kurdish grammar comprises certain treatments of 'bełâm' as one of the commonly used words in both spoken and written forms.Ibrahim (1986: 25) indexes bełâm as a simple syntactic particle that junctions two sentences.Bełâm is designated as one of the relative particles that glues or combines two simple independent sentences, but does not belong to either of them.Semantically, it balances simple sentences, Shwani (2002: 88).As for Mahwi (2011: 238) bełâm is a non-inflectable coordinate conjunction that links identical sentences or parts of sentences, as in; 19) Ârâm péwista kâr bikât bełâm tâqeti nje.
Whereas McCarus (1958: 186) marks bełâm as a member of conjunctional class, just like 'we' (and).Correspondingly, in generative grammar, bełâm' is treated as a coordinate conjunction that functions as " linker between words, phrases or clauses" and that the clauses they link are ' sequentially fixed', Fattah 91997: 186).Bełâm is like 'w' and 'yân' restricted to initial position in the clause and does not permit to be preceded by another coordinate conjunction, as: *žin bełâm pjâw.
Nonetheless, in Kurdish literature a comprehensive account on its semantic and pragmatic aspects cannot be found.On the discourse level, Salih (2014) considers it as 'connective marker; though, he (2014) takes insights from Halliday and Hasan (1976), but he considers such a treatment of Adversative relation as ambiguous if applied to Kurdish; therefore, he recommends another 'less ambiguous' treatment of 'bełâm' depending on Blakemore (1987) procedural meaning.
In English, a number of researchers such as Blakemore (1987) and Blakemore (2002), Schifirin (1987), Fraser (2009) and Fraser (1998) and Halliday and Hasan (1976) reviewed the function of 'but' from its different perspectives.Halliday and Hasan (1976: 250) identify two types of 'but'; 'but' which contains 'and', and the other is 'contrastive 'but', which is applied to Kurdish 'but' in this study.
It is worth notice that in Kurdish bełâm is a complicated linguistic element with different implications, and sometimes in one context, it can have two interpretations.In terms of frequency, bełâm is another DM which is most widely used, though according to Hallidayan (1976) framework it has two types in terms its category as a DM, yet its use and meaning bear more than two types; therefore, insights from Fraser (2009) would be adapted, since it is more elaborative, especially for identifying the contrastive meaning of but.Halliday and Hasan (1976) have a detail discussion on its contrast meaning without providing detailed treatment, but Fraser (2009) offers a comprehensive and detailed exposition that differentiates between direct and indirect (implied) contrast.
It is reveled that most of the instances of bełâm from the novel are predominantly implied contrast that may be due to the nature of the novel, which is an imaginative one.But the taxonomy of Halliday and Hasan (1976) would be applied as the basic framework.As for Blakemore (1987) isolates four uses of 'but' which are 'denial of expectation', 'contrast', 'correction' and 'cancellation'.Fraser (1998) and Fraser (2009) have a detailed treatment of 'but'.For Fraser (1998) and ( 2009) and all his works on DMs, he (ibid) categorizes 'but' as Contrastive.For every use of 'but' there is a relevant contrast between the segments of the S1-but-S2 sequence, Fraser (2009: 308).For him (ibid) the segments contrasted are not always identical, sometimes the contrast is direct, (i.e.,) the segments being contrasted have one semantically contrasted sets (SC Sc) and sometimes two and the segments contrasted are either declarative, imperative or parallel in structure.On the other hand, in indirect contrast both the segments contrasted or involved include an implied comparison, such as; 20) A. My father is a professor.B. But your father is NOT a professor (Direct).21) A. The king is dead.B. But there is no king.(Indirect) (Fraser, 2009).
On the discourse level, there are uses of 'but' which do not function as DM, but reflect pragmatic function such as that for 'topic change' as in; 22) A. It is unbelievable.B. But John got married.(Fraser, 2009).
What is more, 'but' can also be used in contexts followed by 'of course', which Fraser (2009) (Fraser, 2009).
In such a case as the above one, 'but' may or may not function as a DM.
As its reflected in the frequency of uses, the contrast use is more than of 'but' containing 'and'.
As follows, a number of instances would be chosen from the novel and the type of 'bełâm' would be decided upon with an interpretation; In the novel, bełâm is sometimes is used in a meaning that contains 'and', 24) detewêt hendê nâbînâ legał xot berït bo sefereke?Min gûtm bełê, bełâm seférakei min seferêkiî xejâłje (Ali, 2014: 26).
In the above extract, bałâm is not used in a sense that the speaker wants to add a contrastive information to the interlocutor, rather the speaker agrees to take some blind people with him to the journey, but he adds information to the type of the journey, which is not like any journey (this is expressed by but, bełâm) and it is also an imaginative one, too.
In the above excerpt, the novelist reports on one of his characters, Said Bajo.Ali (2014:58) negotiates the state of the mind of this father that he is happy to be a known figure in the party, but (and) this is not the whole pleasure, since his daughter cannot achieve what his family wishes, since she is not successful in her study.
The last example can be decoded in two ways; first, to show two aspects of those three women who were married but their marriage does not bring them happiness (as an additional meaning).Or as contrast, that despite of being married; they were not happy.
Or the contrast between the two segments is implied as Fraser (2009) terms it.Schiffrin (1987: 156) filters the meaning of implied contrast in her own way stating that "the semantic content does not always explain why two units stand in a contrastive relationship" and that "many contrasts are inferable only because a particular proposition violates speaker/hearer expectation-expectation which are grounded not in prior propositions in the discourse, but…in background knowledge about the world".Similarly, Blakemore (2002:104) argues that "the assumption which the speaker cancels through his use of but is not always one which may be derived inferentially from the preceding segment.It is simply an assumption derived from the hearer's encyclopedic knowledge," Halliday and Hasan (1976) and Schifirin (1987: 170) suggest that in its contrast sense, 'bełâm' (but) means 'legeł ewešdâ' (however or despite that) and legeł ewešdâ alternates bełâm, but not vice-versa.33) Mâcidi gûł solâv min čûmete cengewe w mirovm kûštwe, bełâm bûke šùšešem firoštwe... ( Ali, 2014: 232).
These different uses and senses of bełâm (but) expose the statement as why they are known as problematic.Though, it has meaning which is mainly of contrast, but the meaning is not a semantic one, but rather a pragmatic one; since the context identifies different interpretation of bełâm, whether it is Adversative proper, contrast, topic shift, speakers' return function or else.In terms of position, bełâm mostly appears medially,

S1, DM S2 S1.DM S2
There is only one sample from the data that the author initiates a section with 'bełam', however, it is connected to a discourse segment which is not ended formerly in the previous.The section starts with; 47) bełâm , ei melâ Gherîbi Hâcer či be ser hât? (Ali, 2014: 86).
The researchers also consider this use of bełâm for topic shift, because the last words of the section states that "kameki tir tewâwi čîrokakatân bo degermawa…kemeki tir.(Ali, 2014: 86).
As it is uncovered, welê is analogous to bełâm in terms of meaning and even position.It appears twice in the novel, which is (%0.2) of the whole of Adversative DMs.

Bełkû (but)
Contrastive meaning is also verbalized by another reciprocal lexical expressions to bełâm, such as bełkû..This lexical item is of frequent use in the novel in different positions in contrastive meaning, which arrives (27) times, with the percentage (%3).
Accordingly, bełkû can be alternated by bełâm with the same effective contrastive meaning in the above instances.
Thus, it can be grasped that there are more than one allomorph for bełâm in Kurdish that bears a 'contrastive meaning.This diverse meaning may result in semantic ambiguity, similar to but in English, which is claimed to be ambiguous by Abraham (1979), yet this claim is confronted by (Hussein, ND: 2) who sustains that "but is not ambiguous, but it is sense-general linguistic expression" he (Ibid:2) backs up his argument by toting up data from standard Arabic as there are four different non-synonymous linguistic expressions in Arabic 'lakinna, bainama, bal and lakin' representing the four different meanings of 'denial of expectation', 'contrast', 'correction' and 'cancellation' respectively.
As a matter of fact, (Husseni, ND) gets insight from the relevance theory of Blakemore (1987), who detects four meanings of but, as Salih (2014) also does.Though, in this study, the instances of 'but' convey the four dissimilar meanings; however, there are instances that can not be dealt with by Relevance Theory.Additionally, Blakemore (2002), herself, in her latest study of 'but', states that her "definition of the procedure encoded by but requires modification", furthermore her approach is a cognitive one.Blakemore (2002;108) relates but to a specific cognitive effect that "but encodes the information that the relevance of the segment it introduces lies in the cognitive effect of contraction and elimination".Therefore, the researchers get insights from the pragmatic view of Halliday and Hassan (1987), Fraser (2009) and Schifirin (1987), who deal with but in more detail and what is more distinguishable of these works is that, the data are mostly from real conversation and from daily discourse rather than noncontextualized sentences.Since contrastive meaning is not so straightforward and mostly inferred from the context, it is not easy to pick a theory from English and apply it to the lexical items in Kurdish.Blakemore (2002) asserts the fact that, "Contrasts are not always determined by the linguistically encoded meanings of the words used", but rather it "must be derived inferentially on the basis of contextual assumptions", (Blakemore, 2002: 99).Therefore, distinct meanings of bełâm are identified which are: a) but containing and.

c)
Other cases that seem to be vague.
Additionally, there are two synonymous lexical items used in the novel with the same sense and pragmatic effect contrast, which are wale and bełkû.These DMs also have the same position of bełâm, which is the middle position between the two discourse segments; S1 and S2.

Contrastive
Avowal; le rastîdâ (in fact), râsjekei (to tell the truth), be râst Adversative relation in Kurdish can be spoken by a number of items such as le râstîdâ, râstjakei, râstît pe błêm which are counterparts to English in fact, as a matter of, to tell (you) the fact.These expressions are within the internal use of Adversative relative meanings within Halliday and Hasan (1976: 253)'s framework.They imply that "as against what the current state of the communication process would lead us to expect, the fact of the matter is…", rather than 'in spite of the facts', (Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 254).Biber and Finegan (1988) label in fact and actually as stance adverbs.For them (1988: 1) stance adverbial are adverbials that show "some aspect of speakers' (or writers') attitudes towards their messages, as a frame of reference for the messages, an attitude toward or judgment of their contents, or an indication of the degree of commitment towards their truthfulness", (ibid: 1988: 2).
The discourse functions of such adverbials are "often at variance with their literal meaning" (ibid, 1988: 17), such as solidarity, shared familiarity, emphasis, rather than actuality (as indicates in British spoken and written corpora, ibid, 1988: 30).
In the above extracts, the italicized convey a contrastive meaning and denote that " as against what the current state of the communication process would lead us to expect, the fact of the matter is…".Hence, they are DMs of adversative type.They are utilized (33) times, (6.2%) within the following loci; S1, DM S2

S1. DM S2
Accordingly, they occupy the middle position, after comma or full stop and the meaning they indicate is that, prepares the reader for an idea opposite the preceding one.

Correction
The general meaning of this sort of adversative relation is 'contrary to expectation' but the specific meaning is 'as against what just has been said', and "one formulation is rejected in favor of what you have been told' or 'in favor of another".(Halliday & Hassan, 1987: 254), The selected lexical elements in this group in the novel are as follows: a. Correction of Meaning

Kečî (instead)
Keči is the item that conveys 'correction of meaning' within the Adversative meaning.In The Sharazoor's (2000) dictionary, it is listed as a conjunction.Keči is studied within the grammatical scaffold in Kurdish language.
Fraser (ND) pins a number of uses of 'instead' that can be applied to the above examples from the novel and the result is that they can be considered as DMs; S1 specifies a state or action that was not done while S2 specifies a state or action that was done as an alternative.
(There are other constraints such as the subjects of S1 and S2 be the same unless there is a negative pronoun as the subject of S1).
He (ibid: 1) identifies a number of limitations for each use as, (A) The main verb of S1 to be explicitly negated or should have negative pronoun, such as (nobody, nothing) Negative adverbs such as (few, hardly ever, rarely, seldom, never…) (C) Negative message may be implied in S1.
A second use occurs when S1 specifies a state or action that did occur and S2 specifies another action, which serves as an alternate for the S1 action.(Fraser, ND: 1-2).It can be observed that the same conditions are met within the extracts from the Kurdish novel regarding the use of 'kečî' (instead).kečî is almost seen in the middle, and the procedures take the following forms: S1, DM S2

S1. DM S2
The frequency of this DM in the novel is (6) times, in percentage (1.13%).
In the above examples, if bełkû were substituted by bełâm, the resultative meaning would not be the same.
Consequently, in such contexts the meaning of bełkû is not bełâm for contrast, but rather expresses 'correction' meaning.
On the syntactic level, Ibrahim (1986: 43) tackles bełkû stating that, it is "one of the commonly used elements in Kurdish, used to join two simple sentences".Bełkû is explained by grammarians, like McCarus (1958).He sets down bełkû as a conjunction and glosses it as 'perhaps'.This is an indication that bełkû can also be used for possibility; however, he (ibid, 1958: 100) does not comment on any 'contrastive' or 'correction' use of this element.In the novel, bełkû is utilized in this sense as the following example reveals; 65) be râi min tâ kâteki tir dâi pošinewa, bełkû bîreki wrd trî lé bkainawa (Ali, 2014: 32).Shwani (2000:113) also confirms on the use of bełkû as a conjunction relating 'suspect' subordinate clause.66) bełkû hezârân kesiš hebûn le câde râwestâbûn.
It is worth mentioning that bełkû is usually used in the middle position, though in examples above, Shwani (ibid) uses it initially, but here, the first part of the conversation is ignored, since the study is not grammatical, and does not mean to have pragmatic interpretation.Fraser (2006) in his study on rather and instead, reports on the uses of 'rather' as a DM and the conditions for its utilization, as mentioned in the previous section in 'kečî'.Applying the same conditions to the data from the novel, it is found out that bełkû is a DM.In all the three other instances, S1 is negative.Similarly in: 68) wesfî xânuekân xojân nâkât, bełkû bâseki xajâlłi le żjâni awâne dekât ke le newîdâ dežîn (Ali, 2014: 80).
It can be predicted from the data that, a) when S1 is positive 'but' has a contrastive meaning(, i.e.,) means bałâm, but, b) when S1 is negative whether explicitly or implicitly, bełkû reveals correction sense.
Bełkû is used in correction sense (49) times, that is (9.3 %), and it occupies middle position.

Be pečewânewe (on the contrary)
The prepositional phrase be pečewânewe, which is translated as 'on the contrary' bears 'correction' meaning.In English ' on the contrary' signals that the speaker of S2 considers S1 to be an incorrect representation of the same action, state or property attributed to an aspect of that segment, and offers S2 as the correct representation", Fraser (2009: 88).be pečewânewa appears in the novels so frequently in two different forms, different positions and functions, the segments of S1 and S2 are contrastable.The following are a handful of the its occurrences; 70) pét sejr nabetke błem ewei minî gejânde ew birwâje , ewe bû ke min w to le jek dečîn, be pečewânewe, min w to sed der sed cjâwâzîn (Ali, 2014: 558).
As indicated, the first instance can be considered as a DM, while there are (11) other cases are not DMs; hence, the percentage of utilizing this marker is (0.1 %).This DM occurs in the middle and the procedure is: S1, DM S2

Dismissive
Dismissive simply denotes 'let's leave that aside and turn to something else', Halliday and Hasan (1976: 255).
There are a number of listed DMs that express dismissal in English, such as however, anyhow, in any rate, any way, etc.In the Kurdish novel, there are a number lexical expressions convey this meaning, except for 'her čende' (any way), which functions as a DM.

Be her hâł (any way)
Be her hâł is the adverb in terms of its syntactic function and the English translation is 'anyhow or anyway'.Marif (2004: 24) labels such adverbs that are composed of a group of words without containing any verb in its component as 'syntactic adverb'.
In order to study the statues of this expression as a DM, the following occurrences which are (5) instances; as be her hâł would be investigated to decide their being as a DM.
Be her hâł occupies middle position within the discourse segments, whether after a comma or after a full stop, but it does not occur initially or finally, as a DM.S1, DM S2 S1.DM S2 Coll (2009: 141) in her study on 'any way, describes this DM as a 'marker of digression'.Digression is a "deviation from the main point, central theme or topic, or purpose of discourse" that can be conscious or unconscious.The same notion of 'digression' is applicable to the segments in the Kurdish novel, as the discourse topic deviates from one topic into another.It can also be observed that be her hâł connects more than one discourse segments.This is the case for English 'any way ' as Ferrara (1997: 355) points out that any way "connects more than two'.The percentage of use of this marker is (0.94%) as revealed in the table bellow: a. Adversative relations 'proper' ('in spite of external and internal) Simple: héštâ (yet), eger čî/ ger čï (though), tenhâ (only).
treats as certain cases, but without exposing any clarification for them; therefore he (2009) only states 'I have no adequate analysis'.Such as' 23) It is done.B. But of course it' done

Table 1 .
Adversative DMS in the Novel Figure 2. Frequency of adversative DMs in the Novel