Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=PNFkKC2E4BGjavKvW5_rhP0AjhFcZq3Lqlb5vd4fVUY&_path=id%3D258322%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Den%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
 
BibTex RIS Cite

İkinci Tekil Şahıs Adılı SEN'in Toplumsal Anlamlarının İncelenmesi

Year 2008, Dilbilim Araştırmaları 2008, 15 - 30, 11.07.2016

Çiler Hatipoğlu

Abstract

Bu çalışma, üniversite öğrencilerinin ikinci tekil şahıs adılı SEN’i ne zaman ve kime hitap ederken kullandıklarını incelemekte ve kullanılan ikinci şahıs adılının araştırmaya katılanlar için hangi toplumsal ve anlatımsal anlamları taşıdığını bulmaya çalışmaktadır. Çalışmada ayrıca, Brown ve Gilman’ın (1960) ortaya koydukları “Güç ve Dayanışma” modelinin Türkçe’de gözlenen SEN kullanım çeşitlerini ve bunların taşıdıkları anlamları açıklayıp açıklayamadığını da araştırmaktadır. Çalışmada kullanılan veriler anket yardımı ile ana dili Türkçe olan, farklı coğrafi bölgelerden ve değişik toplumsal durum ve sınıfl ara ait 191 (95 Kadın, 96 Erkek) üniversite öğrencisinden toplanmıştır. Araştırma, ikinci tekil şahıs adılı SEN’in Türkçe’de iki işlevinin olduğunu göstermektedir. Birincisi, Brown ve Gilman’ın (1960) ön gördüğü gibi, karşımızdaki bireylere onları kendimize yakın bulduğumuzu ve onlarla dayanışma içinde olduğumuzu göstermek için kullanılmaktadır. İkinci işlevine ise bazı bireyleri kendimizden uzak tutmak istediğimizde başvurulmaktadır. Bunun yanında, sonuçlar ‘Güç ve Dayanışma’ modelinin SEN’in Türkçe’de tüm anlamlarını tam anlamıyla açıklayamadığını göstermektedir.

Keywords

ikinci tekil şahıs adılları SEN toplumsal ve anlatımsal anlamlar dayanışma antagonizm mesafe ve yakınlık kan bağı yaş konuşulabilirlik

References

  • Balpınar, Z. (1996). The use of pronouns of power and solidarity in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 288-293.
  • Bayyurt, Y. (1992). The Analysis of Determining Factors Affecting People’s Choice of Address Forms in Turkish. MA Thesis, Lancaster University, UK.
  • Bayyurt, Y. (1996). The Dynamics of Turkish TV Talk Shows: A Pragmatic Study of the Interaction Patterns of the Participants of TV Talk Shows. PhD Thesis, Lancaster University, UK.
  • Bayyurt, Y. & Bayraktaroğlu, A. (2001). The use of pronouns and terms of address in Turkish service encounters. In Arın Bayraktaroğlu and Maria Sifi ano (Eds.), Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish (pp. 209-240). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Paolo Giglioli (Ed.), Language and Social Context: Selected Readings (pp. 252-282). New York: Penguin Books.
  • Casson, R. W. & Özertuğu, B. (1976). Respect and address in a Turkish village: A quantitative sociolinguistic account. American Ethnology, 3 (4), 587-602.
  • Horasan, G. (1987). Forms of Address in Turkey. MA Thesis, Lancaster University, UK.
  • Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (1996). Cross-cultural psychology and development. In Janak Pandey, Durganand Sinha and Dharm P. S. Bhawuk (Eds.), Asian Contributions to Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 42-49). New Delhi: Sage.
  • König, G. (1990). Türkçe’de Sen/Siz adıllarının ikinci tekil şahıs için kullanımına toplumbilimsel bir yaklaşım. In A. Sumru Özsoy & Hikmet Sebüktekin (Eds.), IV. Dilbilim Sempozyumu Bildirileri (pp. 175-184). İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Little, C. B. & Gelles, R. J. (1975). The social psychological implications of form of address. Sociometry, 38 (4), 573-586.
  • Mills, C. (1988). In the social register: Pronoun choice in Norwegian and English. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 13, 82-94.
  • Musumeci, D. (1991). Ciao, professoressa! A study of forms of address in Italian and its implications for the language classroom. Italica, 68 (4), 434-456.
  • Ostermann, A. C. (2003). Localizing power and solidarity: Pronoun alternation at an all-female police station and a feminist crisis intervention centre in Brazil. Language in Society, 32, 351-381.
  • Parkinson, D. B. (1985). Constructing the social context of communication: Terms of address in Egyptian Arabic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Sole, Y. R. (1978). Sociocultural determiners of symmetrical and asymmetrical address forms in Spanish. Hispanica, 61 (4), 940-949.
  • Winchatz, M. R. (1997). Social meanings in talk: An ethnographic analysis of the German pronouns du and Sie. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington.
  • Winchatz, M. R. (2001). Social meanings in German interactions: An ethnographic analysis of the second-person pronoun Sie. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34 (3), 337-369.
  • Zeyrek, D. (2001). Politeness in Turkish and its linguistic manifestation: A socio-cultural perspective. In Arın Bayraktaroğlu and Maria Sifi ano (Eds.), Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish (pp. 43-73). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Analysis of the Social Meanings of the Second Person Pronoun SEN in Turkish

Year 2008, Dilbilim Araştırmaları 2008, 15 - 30, 11.07.2016

Çiler Hatipoğlu

Abstract

This study, fi rst, identifi es the groups of interlocutors that university students address with the familiar second person pronoun SEN and uncovers the social meanings that are most frequently associated with SEN by this group of subjects. Then, it examines whether or not Brown and Gilman’s (1960) ‘Power and Solidarity’ model is able to explain all of the social meanings associated with the pronoun SEN in Turkish.
Data in this study were collected through a questionnaire from 191 (Female=95, Male=96) METU undergraduate students all of whom were native speakers of Turkish. The informants in the study were from different geographical regions in Turkey and had different social backgrounds.
Results of the study reveal that, the second person pronoun SEN has a double function in Turkish. While on the one hand, as Brown and Gilman (1960) predicted, it is used to refer to interlocutors belonging to our inner circle; on the other hand, it is used to keep some interactants at bay. The findings also show that Brown and Gilman’s (1960) model of ‘Power and Solidarity’ fails to explain all of the social meanings associated with the pronoun SEN in Turkish.

Keywords

second person pronouns SEN social meaning solidarity antagonism distance and closeness blood relations age conversableness

References

  • Balpınar, Z. (1996). The use of pronouns of power and solidarity in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 288-293.
  • Bayyurt, Y. (1992). The Analysis of Determining Factors Affecting People’s Choice of Address Forms in Turkish. MA Thesis, Lancaster University, UK.
  • Bayyurt, Y. (1996). The Dynamics of Turkish TV Talk Shows: A Pragmatic Study of the Interaction Patterns of the Participants of TV Talk Shows. PhD Thesis, Lancaster University, UK.
  • Bayyurt, Y. & Bayraktaroğlu, A. (2001). The use of pronouns and terms of address in Turkish service encounters. In Arın Bayraktaroğlu and Maria Sifi ano (Eds.), Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish (pp. 209-240). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Paolo Giglioli (Ed.), Language and Social Context: Selected Readings (pp. 252-282). New York: Penguin Books.
  • Casson, R. W. & Özertuğu, B. (1976). Respect and address in a Turkish village: A quantitative sociolinguistic account. American Ethnology, 3 (4), 587-602.
  • Horasan, G. (1987). Forms of Address in Turkey. MA Thesis, Lancaster University, UK.
  • Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (1996). Cross-cultural psychology and development. In Janak Pandey, Durganand Sinha and Dharm P. S. Bhawuk (Eds.), Asian Contributions to Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 42-49). New Delhi: Sage.
  • König, G. (1990). Türkçe’de Sen/Siz adıllarının ikinci tekil şahıs için kullanımına toplumbilimsel bir yaklaşım. In A. Sumru Özsoy & Hikmet Sebüktekin (Eds.), IV. Dilbilim Sempozyumu Bildirileri (pp. 175-184). İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Little, C. B. & Gelles, R. J. (1975). The social psychological implications of form of address. Sociometry, 38 (4), 573-586.
  • Mills, C. (1988). In the social register: Pronoun choice in Norwegian and English. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 13, 82-94.
  • Musumeci, D. (1991). Ciao, professoressa! A study of forms of address in Italian and its implications for the language classroom. Italica, 68 (4), 434-456.
  • Ostermann, A. C. (2003). Localizing power and solidarity: Pronoun alternation at an all-female police station and a feminist crisis intervention centre in Brazil. Language in Society, 32, 351-381.
  • Parkinson, D. B. (1985). Constructing the social context of communication: Terms of address in Egyptian Arabic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Sole, Y. R. (1978). Sociocultural determiners of symmetrical and asymmetrical address forms in Spanish. Hispanica, 61 (4), 940-949.
  • Winchatz, M. R. (1997). Social meanings in talk: An ethnographic analysis of the German pronouns du and Sie. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington.
  • Winchatz, M. R. (2001). Social meanings in German interactions: An ethnographic analysis of the second-person pronoun Sie. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34 (3), 337-369.
  • Zeyrek, D. (2001). Politeness in Turkish and its linguistic manifestation: A socio-cultural perspective. In Arın Bayraktaroğlu and Maria Sifi ano (Eds.), Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish (pp. 43-73). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
There are 18 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Çiler Hatipoğlu

Publication Date July 11, 2016
Published in Issue Year 2008 Dilbilim Araştırmaları 2008

Cite

APA Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2016). İkinci Tekil Şahıs Adılı SEN’in Toplumsal Anlamlarının İncelenmesi. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 19, 15-30.

88x31.png

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) International License.


Journal DOI: 10.18492/dad