‘Tiny but Mighty’ Conversational Elements: Explicating Non-lexical Backchannels in Spoken Turkish

Kadriye Aytaç Demirçivi; Hale Işık Güler

doi:10.18492/dad.1316698

TR EN

‘Küçük ama Güçlü’ Konuşma Unsurları: Sözlü Türkçede Sözcüksel Olmayan Geribildirimler

Öz

Bu çalışmada sözcüksel olmayan geribildirimlerin Sözlü Türkçe Derlemi verisindeki işlevleri ve veride farklı cinsiyet ve yaş birleşimlerinden doğal olarak oluşan gruplarda geribildirimlerin kullanımındaki farklılıklar incelenmektedir. Veri incelemesinde döngüsel bir yöntem kullanılarak sözcüksel olmayan 2231 geribildirim için iki temel işlev ve sekizi ilk kez bu çalışmada tanımlanan 16 alt işlev belirlenmiştir. Bulgular kadınlar ve genç konuşmacıların daha fazla olduğu gruplarda geribildirimlerin temel işlevlerinin ‘onaylamak’ olduğunu, erkekler ile orta yaşlı ve ileri yaşlı konuşmacıların daha fazla olduğu gruplarda ise geribildirimlerin temel olarak ‘konuyu devam ettirmek’ için kullanıldığını ortaya koymaktadır. Belirtilen istatiksel eğilimlere rağmen araştırma sonuçları konuşmacıların daha fazla ortak yanları bulunduğunda ve konuşulan konuyla daha ilgili olduklarında, cinsiyet ve yaş değişkenlerinden bağımsız olarak, iş birliği içinde anlam inşa etmek için çok işlevli sözcüksel olmayan geri bildirimleri sıklıkla kullandıklarını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

‘Tiny but Mighty’ Conversational Elements: Explicating Non-lexical Backchannels in Spoken Turkish

Abstract

This paper analyzes the functions of non-lexical backchannels in the Spoken Turkish Corpus and the differences in their use in naturally formed combinatory groups of gender and age (young-middle aged-elderly). Adopting a cyclic approach in the analysis of the 2231 non-lexical backchannels from the study corpus, two main and 16 sub-functions, eight of which are unique to this study and exhibit original dimensions have been identified. Results reveal that groups with female speakers and young speakers tend to use backchannels more for ‘approving the other speaker’, whereas groups with male speakers, middle-aged and elderly speakers tend to use backchannels more for ‘continuation of the conversation’. Despite these statistical tendencies, the findings suggest that when people have more in common and more interest in the given conversational topic, they use multifunctional non-lexical backchannels to construct meaning more cooperatively, regardless of gender and age-related variables.

Keywords

Thanks

Bu çalışma 'Backchannels in Spoken Turkish' başlıklı doktora tezimden üretilmiştir. Süreçteki desteği, yardımları ve geribildirimleri için danışmanım Doç. Dr. Hale Işık-Güler hocama teşekkürlerimi sunarım.

References

Aare, K., Włodarczak, M., & Heldner, M. (2014). Backchannels and breathing. Pro-ceedings of FONETIK 2014 Stockholm (pp. 47–52). Stockholm, Sweden.
Adolphs, S., & Carter, R. (2013). Spoken corpus linguistics: From monomodal to multimodal. New York: Routledge.
Altunay, S., & Aksan, Y. (2018). Hayır and yok as pragmatic markers in Turkish: Findings from Spoken Turkish Corpus. Mersin University Journal of Linguis-tics and Literature, 15(2), 23–43.
Aytaç-Demirçivi, K. (2021). Backchannels in spoken Turkish. [Unpublished doc-toral dissertation]. Middle East Technical University.
Bal-Gezegin, B. (2013). How do we say NO in Turkish? A corpus based analysis of hayir and cik in Turkish. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 10(2), 53–73.
Bavelas, J.B., Coates, L. & Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52, 566–580.
Baydal, D., & Kızıltan, N. (2021). Interactional functions of aynen in Turkish: Evidence from Spoken Turkish Corpus. 20th International Conference on Turk-ish Linguistics, Eskişehir, Turkey.
Benus, S., Gravano, A., & Hirschberg, J. (2007). The prosody of backchannels in American English. Proceedings of ICPhS (pp. 1065–1068).

Clancy, P. M., Thompson, S. A., Suzuki, R., & Tao, H. (1996). The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(3), 355–387.
Coates, J. (1989). Gossip revisited: language in all-female groups. In J. Coates, and D. Cameron (Eds.). Women in their speech communities (pp. 94–121). London: Longman.
Coates, J. (1991). Women’s cooperative talk: a new kind of conversational duet? In C. Uhlig,and R. Zimmerman (Eds.). Proceedings of the Anglistentag 1990 Mar-burg (pp. 296–311). Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen.
Cutrone, P. (2005). A case study examining backchannels in conversations between Japanese-British dyads. Multilingua, 24(3), 237–274.
Cutrone, P. (2014). A cross-cultural examination of the backchannel behavior of Japanese and Americans: Considerations for Japanese EFL learners. Intercul-tural Pragmatics 11(1), 83–120.
Duncan, S., & Niederehe, G. (1974). On signalling that it’s your turn to speak. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(3), 234–247.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: Lan-guage and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropolo-gy, 21(1), 461–490.
Efeoğlu-Özcan, E. (2022). The Corpus of Turkish Youth Language (COTY): The compilation and interactional dynamics of a spoken corpus. [Unpublished Doc-toral Dissertation], Middle East Technical University.
Fishman, P. (1980). Conversational insecurity. In Giles, Howard, Robinson, W.P. and Smith, Philip M. (Eds.). Language: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp. 127–132). Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Fishman, P. (1983). Interaction: The work women do. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender, and society (pp. 89–101). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: response tokens and listener stance. Am-sterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Hawkley, L. C., Williams, K. D., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2011). Responses to ostracism across adulthood. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(2), 234–243.
Heinz, B. (2003). Back channel responses as strategic responses in bilingual speak-ers’ conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1113–1142.
Hirschmann, L. (1974, July). Analysis of supportive and assertive behaviour in conversations [Paper presentation]. Linguistic Society of America Meeting, USA.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.
Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on systematic deployment of the acknowledgment to-kens ‘yeah’ and ‘mm hm’. Papers in Linguistics, 17(2), 197–216.
Kraaz, M., & T. Bernaisch (2020): “Backchannels and the pragmatics of South Asian Englishes”, World Englishes 41(2), 224–243.
Lee, K. (2020). Backchannels as a cooperative strategy in ELF communications. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 20, 257–281.
Maynard, S. K. (1986). On back-channel behavior in Japanese and English casual conversation. Linguistics, 24(6), 1079–1108.
Maynard, S. K. (1997). Analyzing interactional management in native/non-native English conversation: A case of listener response. International Review of Ap-plied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 35(1), 37–60.
Oreström, B. (1983). Turn-taking in English conversation. Gleerup: LiberFörlag Lund.
Özcan, G. (2015). A corpus-driven analysis of evet 'yes' and hı-hı in Turkish: Evidence from the Spoken Turkish Corpus [Unpublished MA thesis]. Mersin Uni-versity, Turkey.
Pipek, V. (2007). On backchannels in English conversation (Diploma Thesis). Brno, Czechia: Masaryk University.
Ruede, R., Muller, M., Stuker, S., & Waibel, A. (2017). Enhancing backchannel pre-diction using word embeddings. Proceedings of Interspeech (pp. 879–883).
Ruhi, Ş. (2013). The interactional functions of tamam in Spoken Turkish. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 10(2), 9–32.
Ruhi, Ş., Hatipoğlu, Ç., Işık-Güler, H., & Eröz-Tuğa, B. (2010). A guideline for transcribing conversations for the construction of Spoken Turkish Corpora using EXMARaLDA and HIAT. Setmer Yayıncılık.
Ruhi, Ş., Işık-Güler, H., Hatipoğlu, Ç., Eröz-Tuğa, B., and Çokal-Karadaş, D. (2010) Achieving Representativeness Through the Parameters of Spoken Language and Discursive Features: The Case of the Spoken Turkish Corpus. In Moskowich-Spiegel Fandiño et al. (Eds.), Language Windowing through Corpora. Visuali-zación del lenguaje a través de corpus. Part II (pp.789-799). Universidade da Coruña.
Saft, S. (2007). Exploring aizuchi as resources in Japanese social interaction: The case of a political discussion program. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(7), 1290–1312.
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Ana-lyzing discourse: text and talk (pp. 71–93). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Strodtbeck, F., & Mann, R. (1956). Sex role differentiation in jury deliberations. Sociometry, 19, 3–11.
Tottie, G. (1991). Conversational style in British and American English: The case of backchannels. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English corpus linguis-tics: studies in honour of Jan Svartvik (pp. 254–271). London: Longman.
White, S. (1989). Backchannels across cultures: A study of Americans and Japa-nese. Language in Society, 18(1), 59–76.
Yngve, V. H. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. In M. A. Campbell (Ed.), Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Socie-ty (pp. 567–577). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Linguistic Performance Science

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Kadriye Aytaç Demirçivi ^*
0000-0002-9568-0496
Türkiye

Hale Işık Güler
0000-0002-6859-9377
Türkiye

Publication Date

December 29, 2023

Submission Date

June 19, 2023

Acceptance Date

October 25, 2023

Published in Issue

Year 2023 Volume: 34 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1316698

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA99LB53UD

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Aytaç Demirçivi, K., & Işık Güler, H. (2023). ‘Tiny but Mighty’ Conversational Elements: Explicating Non-lexical Backchannels in Spoken Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 34(2), 217-254. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1316698

Cited By

DERLEM DİLBİLİM İLE GENÇLİK DİLİNE BAKIŞ: TÜRKÇE İÇİN İHTİYAÇLAR VE GELİŞİM ALANLARI

Dil Dergisi

https://doi.org/10.33690/dilder.1548981