Book Review Discourse Meaning: The view from Turkish. 2020. Zeyrek, D., and Özge U. (Eds.). De Gruyter Mouton. 284 pages. ISBN 978-3-11-067892-5

Gülsüm Atasoy

doi:10.18492/dad.825015

Book Review

Kitap Tanıtımı: Discourse Meaning: The view from Turkish. 2020. Zeyrek, D., and Özge U. (Eds.). De Gruyter Mouton. 284 pages. ISBN 978-3-11-067892-5

Year 2020, Volume: 31 Issue: 2, 313 - 322, 30.12.2020

Gülsüm Atasoy

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.825015

Abstract

This is a book review of the Book Review Discourse Meaning: The view from Turkish. 2020. Zeyrek, D., and Özge U. (Eds.). De Gruyter Mouton. 284 pages. ISBN 978-3-11-067892-5, which includes two parts, 1) the overview of the book; 2) the evaluation of the book. These are followed by the references.
This volume, “Discourse meaning from the view of Turkish” edited by Zeyrek and Özge, contributes to the field by providing various topics, perspectives and methodologies. The volume is not only an invaluable reference for researchers, instructors, graduate students, that is, principally for those interested in discourse analysis and those who would like to investigate further into these issues, but also an illuminating source in the field of discourse analysis, its teaching, and the use of corpora in discourse studies.

Keywords

söylem anlamı , söylem yapısı , Türkçe söylem

References

Büyükkantarcıoğlu, N. (2006). An analysis of Turkish interjections in the context of reactive idea framing. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi [Hacettepe University Journal of Faculty of Letters] 23 (1). 19–32.
Dede, M. (1986). Definiteness and referentiality in Turkish verbal sentences. In Dan I. Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics, 147–164. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Enç, M. (1986). Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In Dan Isaac Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics, 195–209. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1986). Pronominal versus zero representation of anaphora in Turkish. In Dan Isaac Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics, 209–233. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Erk-Emeksiz, Z. (2010). Negation in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları/Journal of Linguistic Research 2. 1–16.
Göksel, A. & Özsoy, S. (2003). dA: A focus/topic associated clitic in Turkish. Lingua 11. 1143–1167.
İşsever, S. (2003). Information structure in Turkish: the word order–prosody interface. Lingua 113 (11). 1025–1053.
Küntay, A. (2002.) Development of the expression of indefiniteness: presenting new referents in Turkish picture-series stories. Discourse Processes 33. 77–101.
Oktar, L. (1997). Söylemsel artgönderim örüntülerinde iletişimsel etkenler [Communicative factors in coreference patterns in discourse]. Dilbilim Araştırmaları/Journal of Linguistic Research 8. 127–132.
Özge, U, Özge, D. & von Heusinger, K. (2016). Strong indefinites in Turkish: Salience structure and referential persistence. In Anka Holler & Katja Suckow (eds.), Empirical perspectives on anaphora resolution, 167–191. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Ruhi, Ş. (2003). Interactional markers in Turkish: A corpus-based perspective. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi [Journal of Linguistics and Literature] 10 (2). 1–7.
Tura, S. S. (1981). “Yes, he hasn’t,” and a few other not’s in Turkish. In Danny K. Alford, Karen Ann Nunold, Monica A. Macaulay & Jenny Walter (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 317–327. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Tura, S. S. (1986). Definiteness and referentiality in Turkish non-verbal sentences. In Dan I. Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics, 165–194. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Turan, Ü., Zeyrek, D. & Bozşahin, C. (2012). Söylem ve bağdaşıklık ilişkileri [Discourse and dependency relations]. Dilbilim Araştırmaları/Journal of Linguistic Research 2012/II. 41–67.
Uzun, L. (2018). Neden bağlaycılarının öznellik ile ilişkisi Türkçe yazılı derlem tabanlı bir tartışma [A corpus-based study on the relationship of causal connectives with subjectivity in Turkish]. In Yeşim Aksan & Mustafa Aksan (eds.), Türkçe’de yapı ve işlev: Şükriye Ruhi armağanı [Structure and function in Turkish: In memory of Şükriye Ruhi], 145–170. Ankara: BilgeSu Yayıncılık.
Uzun, L. & Huber, E. (eds.). (2002). Türkçe’de bilgi yapısı ve bilimsel metinler [Information structure in Turkish and academic texts]. Essen: Verlag Die Blaue Eule. Yıldırım, S., Kılıçaslan, Y. & Aykaç., R. E. (2004). A computational model for anaphora resolution in Turkish via centering theory: an initial approach. In International Conference on Computational Intelligence, 124–128.
Yüksel, Ö. & Bozsahin, C. (2002). Contextually appropriate reference generation. Natural Language Engineering 8 (1). 69–89. Zeyrek, D. (2019). Discourse structure: The view from shared arguments in Turkish Discourse Bank. In Sumru Özsoy (ed.), Word order in Turkish, 287–306. Dordrecht: Springer.
Zeyrek, D. (2014). On the distribution of contrastive-concessive discourse connectives ama (but/yet) and fakat (but) in written Turkish. In Pirkko Suihkonen & Lindsay J. Whaley (eds.), On diversity and complexity of languages spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia, 251–273. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.