\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={The use of Translation in Linguistic Studies: The Case of But},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2014-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2014)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2014-01-15}
\title{The use of Translation in Linguistic Studies: The Case of But}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Dr. Rashwan Ramadan  Salih}

             \affil[1]{  Salahaddin University - Hawler}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 10 December 2013 Accepted: 2 January 2014 Published: 15 January 2014}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


This study demonstrates an innovative tool of utilizing translation to study linguistic phenomena; connectives (cf. Moeschler, 1989; Degand, 2009;). Based on the Relevance Theoretic Framework and polysemy approach, this paper not only consolidates the polysemy of English but (cf. Wilson and Sperber, 2004; Fischer, 2006) and rejects the ambiguity account by Anscombre, and Ducrot (1977) and Hall (2004) but it also establishes a paradigm of correspondences to but in Kurdish. Data for this study has been built from 50 opinion articles from English and Kurdish online newspapers. Then, all the occurrences of but and its equivalents in Kurdish are examined and translated, in order to build the paradigm of correspondences. The study proves that there are four different interpretations of a general procedure encoded by but, namely; contrary to expectations, contrast, correction and dismissal, and that these procedural meanings are translated into Kurdish as: ke?i, be?am, be pêçewanewe and be?kû respectively.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{discourse analysis, relevance theory, connectives, translation.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{I. Introduction}]{I. Introduction}\par
n between the two possible ways of dealing with the multi-functionality of connectives; monosemy and homonymy, there is the polysemy approach which assumes that 'there are different distinct readings of a connective and that these different senses are related'  {\ref (Fischer 2006: 13)}. It is this latter position that I will follow in this paper with respect to the analysis of but and its Kurdish equivalences. The current study explores the various meanings encoded by the connective but in English such as 'contrary to expectations', 'contrast', 'correction' and 'dismissal'  {\ref (Lakoff 1971} {\ref , Blakemore 1987;}\hyperref[b2]{2002} {\ref , Hall 2007} {\ref , Horn 1989}\hyperref[b1]{, Bell 1998}\hyperref[b10]{and Iten 2005)}. It is an attempt to prove that but is not an ambiguous connective and to argue the ambiguity account of but claimed by \hyperref[b0]{Anscombre and Ducrot (1977)} and Horn  {\ref (1989)}. Based on the Relevance Theory's (RT) procedural meaning, the paper gives a unified account of the meaning encoded by but. Then it argues that but encodes a general procedure that can be implemented in four different situations to generate four different meanings. This is proven by its translation into Kurdish. Thus, but is not ambiguous but it is rather a linguistic expression with a general sense. The argument is supported by data from Kurdish language. The data show that there are four different linguistic expressions Author: English Linguistics at the College of Languages in Salahaddin University-Hawler. e-mail: rashwan.salih@yahoo.com that can translate but in Kurdish. These are ke?i, be pêçewanewe, be?kû and be?am which represent the four different procedural meanings of 'contrary to expectations', 'contrast', 'correction' and cancellation' respectively. 
\section[{II. The Retical Background}]{II. The Retical Background}\par
The English connective but has been dealt with widely by several researchers such as Lakoff  {\ref (1977)}, Fraser (1995),  {\ref Blakemore (1987}\hyperref[b2]{Blakemore ( , 2002))},  {\ref Iten (2000)} and  {\ref Hall (2007)} and it has been given various labels such as 'discourse marker', 'connective', 'pragmatic marker' and 'cohesive device' . I will be drawing on the existing accounts of but and show how translation can disambiguate the polysemy of connectives especially the case of but in light of the Relevance Theory (RT).\par
According to Wilson and Sperber, the relevance theory is 'an inferential theory of communication, which aims at explaining how the audience infers the communicator's intended meaning.  {\ref ' (1995: 176)}. In this sense, human cognition is thought to be directed towards the maximization of relevance between two inputs, in a way that the information an input carries a relation with information already stored in the cognitive system to strengthen an existing assumption or to contradict and eliminate an assumption, and 'the higher cognitive effects the input has, the more relevant it is' (Ibid: 177). Thus, relevance can be thought of as a positive function of effects achieved, and a negative function of effort incurred. That is, the relevance needs to be achieved with minimum efforts. This is in line with Wilson and Sperber's claim that 'use of an obvious stimulus may create precise and predictable expectations of relevance not raised by other stimuli.'  {\ref (Wilson and Sperber, 2004: 617)}. For instance, successful communication is a matter of the reader recognizing the writer's communicative intentions, typically by utilizing suitable connectives in order to help the reader get to the point faster.\par
The meanings associate with the connectives are context-dependent, i.e, connectives should not be examined in isolation. For instance, it is very difficult to answer a question like: What does but mean? Whereas it is easier to answer a question such as: How but is used? However, according to Schiffrin connectives are 'independent of sentential structure' and that 'the structure and meaning of arguments can be preserved even without markers  {\ref ' (1987:32)}. She claims that 'discourse markers' -here named connective-could have semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic roles simultaneously but they are not 'structural or semantic components in the sentence' (ibid: 190). Nonetheless, this multi-functionality is different based on the categories of the DM group. For example, conjunctions have pragmatic effects that are closely associated with the type of meaning they signal, such as the case of but which reflects a difference between two text segments S1 and S2. This difference could be contrary to expectation, contrast, correction or cancellation proposed previously in the text.  {\ref Blakemore (1987)} analyses but and regards it as a linguistic expression that does not contribute to the content of the sentence. Adopting the RT framework, she focuses on two different specific relations, namely 'denial' and 'contrast'. Blakemore argues, that but means 'and + something else'. I will attempt to explain the 'something else' through translating but into Kurdish.\par
The different procedures; denial of expectation (S2 denies an expectation forwarded in S1), contrast (S2 contrasts a state of affair or an action in S1), correction (S2 corrects a proposition in S1) and dismissal (S2 cancels what has been mentioned in S1), as shown in Figure  {\ref 1}, in which but plays a role as a connective, have been translated into four Kurdish adversative connectives; ke?i, be?am, be pêçewanewe and be?kû. 
\section[{III. Translation and Linguistics}]{III. Translation and Linguistics}\par
As far as translation and linguistics are concerned, the assumption is that translation data contain texts that are intended to express the same meanings and have identical or at least very similar textual functions in English and Kurdish. Dyvik was one of the first to argue in favour of the use of translation data to establish the precise semantic values of words, as he suggests that 'by successively using the source and target language as a starting-point, we can establish paradigms of correspondences: the translations can be arranged as a paradigm where each target item corresponds to a different meaning of the source item' (1998: 12). Then, Simon-Vandenbergen states that 'translations of pragmatic markers can serve as a heuristic for discovering contextual dimensions or for making more fine-grained divisions in these dimensions, because the translations force one to account for the contextual factors that lead to particular choices.  {\ref ' (2006: 111)}. These different meanings would pose a challenge for translators when translating a polysemous connective such as but into Kurdish, because there is very few linguistic research in terms of Kurdish connectives and there is no recognised list of connectives from which to select an equivalent connective to but. This issue is dealt with in detail in sections (4-1, 4-2, 4-3 and 4-4). 
\section[{IV. Data and Methodology}]{IV. Data and Methodology}\par
This paper adopts both qualitative and quantitative approaches towards the analysis of but and its equivalences in Kurdish. The data comprise of translation of all occurrences of but in 30 English newspaper opinion articles along with all the equivalents' occurrences in 30 Kurdish newspaper opinion articles. All these occurrences fall into four main contexts. The idea behind this is to build a corpus in order to find out the possible meanings of but in Kurdish. However, using translation corpora as base for analysis seems to be biased, because of the diversity of results and according to Degande 'not only is there a problem of context and typological differences, one should also be careful not to generalize individual instances of language use' (2009: 178). Nonetheless, in terms of the correspondence paradigms, it is possible to obtain solid results in assigning certain meanings to words, especially connectives. Aijimer et al argue that 'such semantic fields can be established by checking back and forth  {\ref ' (2006: 111)}. Thus, the correspondence paradigm is built by double checking the equivalences, i.e, through translation and back translation we can assign correspondence values to the functional equivalences. For instance, if but in English is translated by be?kû and keçi in Kurdish, then using Kurdish as a source language, we should be able to check for the translation of be?kû and keçi in English, which will become the target language. Such an analysis, Aijmer et al state would allow us 'to show how the pragmatic marker X is related to other pragmatic markers, or to other linguistic items such as modal particles or response words, in the same language' (Ibid.: 112).\par
Also, Dyvik states, in favour of this approach, that 'translators have no theoretic concern in mind, evaluate the interpretational possibilities of linguistic expressions [?], and then try to recreate the same interpretational possibilities in a target text serving a comparable purpose in another language' (1998: 7). Finally, a translation approach to examine linguistic phenomena seems to meet the criteria for most of the demands of contemporary linguistics, as Noël states that 'it is corpus-based, it is contrastive and thus has typological relevance [...], it is task-based, in as much as it treats translation data as a collection of informants' judgments about the meanings of the linguistic forms in the source text' (2003: 759). Thus, I will adopt Degand's approach which she calls 'mirror analysis' which takes 'back-and-forth translation as a way of establishing semantic field of equivalents in one language or across languages' (2009: 179). This will help me establish what is the most suitable Kurdish equivalent for English but, subject to relevant context, and also what semantic values can be linked to each connective. 
\section[{V. But in Translation}]{V. But in Translation}\par
This paper proves that there are four distinct Kurdish connectives corresponding to these four implementations of the general procedure encoded by but which are: keçî, be?kû, be pêçewanewe and be?am.\par
These findings are in line with Simon-Vandenbergen's claims that 'translations of connectives can serve as a heuristic for discovering contextual dimensions or for making more fine-grained divisions in these dimensions, because the translations force one to account for the contextual factors that lead to particular choices.  {\ref ' (2006: 111)}. This paper seeks to answer questions such as: Is the English connective but polysemous? What can translation add to linguistic studies? How are the Kurdish equivalences for the English connective but accounted for in relevance-theoretic approach?\par
Figure  {\ref 1} : Procedural meanings of but One way of accounting for the functions of but and its meanings is to analyse it as encoding a procedural meaning rather than as a concept or conceptual representation. According to Hall the 'function of but is to guide the hearer to the intended interpretation of the utterance' (2007: 200). The type of the implementation of but constrains the type of implicatures to be communicated in the text. I agree with Hall concerning the assignment of an umbrella meaning of but as 'contrast', because the other meanings seem to be more complicated and that all of the other three meanings of but have some degree of contrastive meaning apart from their main procedural meaning. So, based on the general procedure encoded by but as:\par
Treat the proposition communicated by the but-clause as contrasting with the assumption explicitly or implicitly communicated by the utterance of the preceding clause.  {\ref (Iten,2005: 147)} The next sections are going to examine the different implementations of this general procedure of but and will translate each implementation into Kurdish in order to disambiguate but and establish the Kurdish Almost all existing studies on but recognize its 'contrary of expectation' use at least (cf. Lakoff 1971, Blackmore 2002,  {\ref Hall 2007}). Depending on the RT framework, Blakemore states that but means denial, because 'it encodes a constraint that triggers an inferential route involving contradicting and eliminating an assumption' (2002: 95). However, this claim is not entirely true and it does not apply to diverse uses of but (See sections 4-1, 4-3, and 4-4). The S1 message in 1 implies that 'the rebels' heroic actions were the cause of overthrowing the tyrant'. So, the reader expects the writer to elaborate on that. However, this expectation is denied in S2, as it is contrary to the expectations to see that 'Nato had overthrown the tyrant'. This sense of leser dese ?at ladawe, ke?i le ?astîda serkawt?ni mili?yakan tenha behoy hêr?e asmanyekani Nato bû. 
\section[{ke?i (but)}]{ke?i (but)}\par
According to Tofiq's (2002) claim there is no difference between ke?i and other adversative connectives. However, he had studied the 'conjunction particles', as he labels them, in a rather general sense and does not give detailed accounts for each connective. The data from opinion articles suggest that ke?i signals a different relation from other adversative connectives such as be?am, be pêcewanewe depending on the different procedures implemented in the text. The Kurdish connective corresponding to the 'contrary to expectations' meaning of but is ke?i as shown in 2. None of the other adversative connectives can substitute ke?i in a procedure such as in 2. 2. Eger anjûmen azadbûaye deitûani le bûdjey emsa ? (4 ta 5) hezar ganj dabmezrênêt, ke?i ?êgri bo drûstk?rawe. (Online 2) if council-of governorate free was-it would-able-it in budget-of this-year (4 to 5) thousand youth employwould-it on budget-of development-of regions-the, but obstacle for it made-has-been If the provincial council was independent, they could employ 4 to 5 thousand youths on the regional development budget. But there were obstacles.\par
Thus, the implementation of the general procedure for keçi is: what follows keçi denies and replaces an assumption or expectation communicated by what precedes it. 
\section[{b) 'Contrastive' but}]{b) 'Contrastive' but}\par
According to Schwenter, 'contrast' is different from the other subtypes of adversative relations, as it guides the reader to find 'incompatibility between P and Q' (2000: 260), and indicates the writer's viewpoint as the only relevant one. Looking at the relation signaled in 3a, it is not about denial of / contrary to expectations. However, by using but, the writer guides the reader in S2 is also signaled by be pêçewanewe in 3b. be pêçewanewe (but)   According to Tofiq, be pêçewanewe is the typical 'conjunction particle' that signals contrast between two sentences (2002: 230). His claim is based on the fact that the word is a prepositional phrase consistinf of (be = with, pêçewanewe = contrast).\par
However, I believe there should be solid reasons why it is considered as a connective and that it signals a contrastive relation. The data from Kurdish opinion articles suggest that be pêçewanewe operates in a procedure where S2 contrasts S1 by presenting incompatibility between two view points as in 4. 
\section[{Serçawekani opozisyon prupagandei ewe dekan ke sarokayati heremi Kurdistan basi le jyabûnewei}]{Serçawekani opozisyon prupagandei ewe dekan ke sarokayati heremi Kurdistan basi le jyabûnewei}\par
Kurdistan k?rdûe le Êraqda. Be pêçewanewe le çendîn boneda seroki harem jexti leser yek parçeî Êraq k?rdotewe. (Online 4)\par
Source-of opposition propaganda this make-they that presidency of region Kurdistan talk about separation-of Kurdistan has-done in Iraq. But in many occasions president-of region Kurdistan insisted on one-piece-of Iraq have-done-he.\par
The opposition sources argue that the Kurdistan Region presidency intends to detach Kurdistan from Iraq. But, in several occasions, the Kurdistan Region's president has insisted on a unified Iraq. In 4, be pêçewanewe signals an incompatibility between two viewpoints; opposing unity' and 'supporting unity'. This incompatibility is a sense of contrast as it can be stressed contrastively with the presence of negation. Thus, there is a contrastive relation between S1 and S2 in 4, and it is explicated by using be pêçewanewe. So, the implementation for this Kurdish connective will be: what follows be pêçewanewe contrasts a proposition communicated by what precedes it. 
\section[{c) 'Correction' but}]{c) 'Correction' but}\par
Correction relations are recognised in the procedure such as: S1 is a misconception or a misunderstanding and is corrected by the correct information in S2. Hall claims that the correction may be in the conceptual content of the assumption in S1 and/or 'some aspect of the linguistic form used to express it' (2007: 201). The connectives that signal correction relation and replace the previous proposition in discourse with another include: but, in English and be?kû, in Kurdish. The English connective but can also signal correction relation as a subtype of adversative relations. For instance, the procedure implemented in 5a is; what follows but (S2) corrects an assumption put forward in what precedes it (S1). That is S1 is a false assumption and S2 is a correction of this false assumption with the help of but. Regarding the procedure in 29a, S2 'Hockey has hattrick' corrects a proposition in S1 (Only football has hattrick'. Contrary to Fraser's claim that but 'cannot signal a corrective contrast  {\ref ' (2005: 18}) between S1 and S2, it is observed in the translation data that but does signal correction between two text segments and as such it is translated into Kurdish as be?kû. Kurdish be?kû operates in a similar procedure to the one of 'correction but' as in 5b: 5. b) Lem ?o?gareda, le hemû jore yariek yarizan detwanê sê go?i leser yakt ?r tomar b?kat, nek tenha le yari topi pê be?kû le hoki?. 
\section[{be?kû (but)}]{be?kû (but)}\par
The Kurdish connective corresponding to 'correction' but is be?kû. The adversative relation signalled by be?kû is specifically correction. That is, S1\par
presents an assumption which is ordinarily false and S2, with the help of be?kû, corrects that false assumption, such as in 6:\par
6. Her ?tek bedîhatbêt bo Kûrd xer w sedeqe nebûe.\par
Be?kû beri mandûbûni xoyane deidûrnewe. (Online 
\section[{6)}]{6)}\par
Any think-a achieved for Kurds charity was-not-it. But product hard work-of theirs-was-it harvest-itthey.\par
All achievements of the Kurds are not given by charity. But the Kurds are harvesting their hard work.\par
Be?kû has been studied in Shwani's (2003) work. He states that 'be?kû is a conjunction particle that has the function of signalling contrast between two sentences  {\ref ' (2003: 99)}. According to the data in this study, however, be?kû signals a correction of a previous statement. That is, the procedure in which be?kû operates is as such (S2 corrects a misunderstanding in S1). For instance, S2 in 6 which is introduced by be?kû is forms a correction to a misunderstood situation. Thus, the implementation of the general procedure is also applicable to be?kû be?am (but)  The procedure in which belam is used is similar to the one where 'dismissal' but is used. S1 is cancelled and dismissed by a more important statement in S2. For instance, be?am in 8 introduces a positive statement 'the region is now trouble free' which dismisses a negative statement put forward in S1 'catastrophic events happened'.\par
Those events were catastrophic, but now our region enjoys tranquility.\par
Considering the procedural meaning of be?am in 8, it is obvious that implementation of the general procedure in 8 is: what follows be?am cancels an assumption communicated by what precedes it. Thus, be?am is the most suitable Kurdish equivalent for dismissal but. 
\section[{VI.}]{VI.} 
\section[{Conclusions}]{Conclusions}\par
The claims about the 'ambiguity' of the English connective but is not entirely true  {\ref (Anscombre and Ducrot, 1977: 26)}. Depending on the relevance-theoretic approach and according to the different translation options, this paper concludes that but is a polysemous connective and that it has four distinct, yet interrelated, procedural meanings. These meanings shall not cause any ambiguity in translating into Kurdish, because each meaning fits into a specific interpretation of the general procedure. However, having no detailed research about Kurdish connectives would pose a challenge to translators, as they need to be aware of the textual functions of each connective and the contexts in which they are used in order to have a flawless final product in their translation. Based on the RT's procedural account, there are four distinct interpretations of the general procedure associated with but, namely; denial, contrast, correction and cancellation, which are translated into that events very unpleasant were-they, but now situation-of region-the-our very quiet-is-it.\par
Kurdish as ke?i, be pêçewanewe, be ?kû and be?am espectively as shown in Figure 2. \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png}
\caption{\label{fig_1}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-4.png}
\caption{\label{fig_2}}\end{figure}
  \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
adversative relation. Bach (1999) claims that the\\
different interpretations of but have proven but to be\\
ambiguous. However, these different readings of but\\
should not be considered as ambiguous, because each\\
interpretation can be attributed to different procedures.\\
7. a) Our troops will be stuck in the front line of a\\
strategy that has an end date but has no clear end\\
game. (Online 7)\\
7. b)\\
d) 'Dismissal' but\\
The type implementation to be received in the\\
case of dismissal or cancellation is: what follows but\\
(S2) cancels and dismisses the importance of what\\
precedes it (S1). This type of relation is typically\\
signaled by but in English and the Kurdish equivalence\\
is be?am.\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: Consider but in the procedure implemented in 7a, in which S2 cancels or dismisses the importance of the topic forwarded in S1. The proposition expressed by S1 in 7a and indirectly contradicted and dismissed by S2, and]} 
\caption{\label{tab_1}}\end{figure}
 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[ Argumentation]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		\textit{},  	 	 		\textit{Argumentation}  		3  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Dyvik ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		\textit{A translational basis for semantics},  		 			H Dyvik 		.  		1998.  	 
\bibitem[Halliday (ed.) ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		\textit{An Introduction to Functional Grammar},  		 			M A K Halliday 		.  		Christian M. M. Matthiessen. London: Arnold (ed.)  		2004.  	 	 (3rd ed.) 
\bibitem[Fischer ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		\textit{Approaches to Discourse Particles},  		 			K Fischer 		.  		2006. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  	 
\bibitem[Blakemore ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		 			D Blakemore 		.  		\textit{Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers},  				 (Cambridge)  		2002. Cambridge University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Bell ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘Cancellative discourse markers: a core/periphery approach’.  		 			M Bell 		.  	 	 		\textit{Pragmatics}  		1998. 8  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Oksefjell (ed.)]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		\textit{Corpora and Cross-linguistic Research: Theory, Method, and Case Studies},  				 			Stig Johansson \& Signe Oksefjell 		 (ed.)  		 (Amsterdam/Atlanta; Rodopi)  		p. .  	 
\bibitem[Degand ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘Describing polysemous discourse markers: what does translation add to the picture?’.  		 			L Degand 		.  	 	 		\textit{Studies in Linguistics offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen},  				 			Stef Slembrouck,  			Miriam Taverniers,  			Mieke Van Herreweghe 		 (ed.)  		 (Gent)  		2009. Academia Press. p. .  	 	 (From will to well) 
\bibitem[Anscombre and Ducrot ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Deux mais en Francais’.  		 			C Anscombre 		,  		 			O Ducrot 		.  	 	 		\textit{Lingua}  		1977. 43 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Iten ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		\textit{Linguistic Meaning, Truth Conditions and Relevance},  		 			C Iten 		.  		2005. Basingstoke: Palgrave.  	 
\bibitem[Moeschler ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		\textit{Pragmatic Connectives, Argumentative Coherence, and Relevance},  		 			J Moeschler 		.  		1989.  	 
\bibitem[Brinton ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		\textit{Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions},  		 			L J Brinton 		.  		1996. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.  	 
\bibitem[References Références Referencias]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		\textit{References Références Referencias},  		 	 
\bibitem[Wilson and Sperber ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Relevance theory’.  		 			Wilson 		,  		 			D Sperber 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Handbook of Pragmatics},  				 			L R Horn,  			G Ward 		 (ed.)  		 (Oxford)  		2004. 2004. Blackwell. Internet Sources. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sperber and Wilson ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		\textit{Relevance: Communication and Cognition},  		 			D Sperber 		,  		 			D Wilson 		.  		1995. Oxford: Blackwell.  	 
\bibitem[Hall ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘The meaning of but: a relevance theoretic analysis’.  		 			A Hall 		.  	 	 		\textit{UCL Working Papers in Linguistics}  		2004. 16 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Noël ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Translations as evidence of semantics: an illustration’.  		 			D Noël 		.  	 	 		\textit{Linguistics}  		2003. 41 p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
