Abstract
Eklenti
soruları edimbilimsel anlamları açısından çok işlevlidir. Doğal konuşma
verisine dayalı yapılan bu çalışma Türkçe eklenti sorularını betimlemeyi ve
sınıflamayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmanın bütüncesini oluşturan veri METU sözlü
bütünce ve toplam 20 saatlik günlük konuşmaya dayalı veriden elde edilmiştir.
Veri incelenirken Türkçe eklenti soruları sınıflanmış ve bu sınıflamayı
yapılırken anadil konuşucularının değerlendirmeleri için Kappa testi uygulanmıştır. Türkçe eklenti soruları
için elde edilen sınıflamada belirlenen işlevler genel olarak Holmes ve Axelson
tarafından belirlenen işlevlerle bezerlik göstermekle birlikte bazı işlevler,
daha önce alanyazında diğer dillerde ortaya çıkarılan eklenti sorularından
farklılık göstermektedir. Alay etme ve haklılık gösteren eklenti soruları
Türkçede gözlemlenirken, bu işlevler İngilizce ve İtalyanca gibi diğer dillerde
gözlemlenmemiştir.
Keywords
References
- Algeo, J. (2006). British or American English? A Handbook of word and grammar patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Axelsson, Karin. (2011). Tag Questions in Fiction Dialogue. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Gothenburg.
- Bazanella, Carla. Fornoa, Ursola. (1995). Segnali discorsiui elinguaggio femminile; Evidenze da un corpus. In: Marcato G. (ed.) Donna e Linguaggio CLEUP. Padova. 73-84
- Bublitz, W. (1979). Tag questions, transformational grammar and pragmatics. Papersand Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 9 ,5 - 22.
- Göksel and Kerslake. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
- Holmes, J. (1983). The functions of tag questions. English Language Research Journal,3 ,40-65.
- Hutchby, I. Wooffitt, R. (1999). Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge. UK.
- Jefferson, Gail. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an Introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-23). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Kornfilt, Jaklin. (1997). Turkish. Routledge.
- Marianne, Mithun. (2012). Tags: Cross-linguistic diversity and commonality. Journal of Pragmatics 44 2165-2182
- Roesle, A. (2001). Tag Questions in British and American English: a matter of gender, regional dialect and pragmatics. M.A Thesis.
- Sacks et al. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (4). 696-735.
- Tomaselli and Gatt. (2015). Italian tag questions and their conversational functions. Journal of Pragmatics 84. Pp. 54-82
- Tottie and Hoffmann. (2006). Tag Questions in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics. Vol: 34 No: 4 283-311
Abstract
Tag
Questions are considerably multifunctional in terms of their pragmatic
meanings. This study, adopting a descriptive framework, aims to identify and
categorize the pragmatic functions of tag questions in Turkish, based on
naturally occuring data. It is a corpus based study and draws upon a
comprehensive data, driven from spontaneous speech. METU spoken corpus and 20
hours of natural conversation are used as data. Kappa is used for data analysis
in order to find out inter-rater agreement for the taxonomy of Turkish tag
questions. The resulting typology for Turkish tag questions is mainly similar
to those suggested by Holmes’ (1995) and Tottie and Hoffmann’s (2006) typology.
However, there are also different pragmatic functions of Turkish tag questions other
than those proposed in the literature. Whereas
mocking and justification tags are observed in Turkish, these functions have
not been proposed in languages such as English and Italian.
Keywords
References
- Algeo, J. (2006). British or American English? A Handbook of word and grammar patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Axelsson, Karin. (2011). Tag Questions in Fiction Dialogue. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Gothenburg.
- Bazanella, Carla. Fornoa, Ursola. (1995). Segnali discorsiui elinguaggio femminile; Evidenze da un corpus. In: Marcato G. (ed.) Donna e Linguaggio CLEUP. Padova. 73-84
- Bublitz, W. (1979). Tag questions, transformational grammar and pragmatics. Papersand Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 9 ,5 - 22.
- Göksel and Kerslake. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
- Holmes, J. (1983). The functions of tag questions. English Language Research Journal,3 ,40-65.
- Hutchby, I. Wooffitt, R. (1999). Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge. UK.
- Jefferson, Gail. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an Introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-23). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Kornfilt, Jaklin. (1997). Turkish. Routledge.
- Marianne, Mithun. (2012). Tags: Cross-linguistic diversity and commonality. Journal of Pragmatics 44 2165-2182
- Roesle, A. (2001). Tag Questions in British and American English: a matter of gender, regional dialect and pragmatics. M.A Thesis.
- Sacks et al. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (4). 696-735.
- Tomaselli and Gatt. (2015). Italian tag questions and their conversational functions. Journal of Pragmatics 84. Pp. 54-82
- Tottie and Hoffmann. (2006). Tag Questions in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics. Vol: 34 No: 4 283-311
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Research Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | December 28, 2018 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2018Volume: 29 Issue: 2 |
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) International License.
Journal DOI: 10.18492/dad