Abstract
Edimsel
belirleyiciler sözlü iletişimde işlevsel anlamda görev yapan, söylem içerisinde
bilgi akışını sağlamanın yanı sıra konu değiştirme, bağdaşıklık, konuşma sırası
alma stratejisi, onarım vb. gibi farklı işlevlere sahip olan sözcüklerdir. Türkçede
söylem belirleyicilerini edimbilim ve konuşma çözümlemesi çerçevesinde ele alan
çalışmalar yaygınken, Türkçede olumsuzlama işaretleyicilerinin söylemsel ve
işlevsel özelliğine değinen çalışmalar sınırlıdır. (Gezegin, 2012). Bu
araştırma Türkçede bu zamana kadar durum bağlamı ve edimsel yorumlama kavramlarına
değinmeden sadece olumsuzlama işlevi dikkate alınarak incelenen dilbilimsel
birimlerden yok ve hayır’ı edimsel belirleyiciler olarak kabul
edip, bu iki edimsel belirleyicinin söylemsel işlevlerini ortaya çıkarmayı
amaçlamaktadır. Bu bağlamda, konuşma çözümlemesi ve işlevsel-edimbilim
yaklaşımı çerçevesinde bu edimsel belirleyicilerin temsil gücü yüksek bir
derlem veritabanı olan Sözlü Türkçe Derlemi (STD) aracılığıyla nicel ve nitel
yönlerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, konu değiştirme,
bağdaşıklık, konuşma sırası alma stratejisi, metinsel bağlamda onarım gibi
işlevlerin olduğu Metinsel-Bağlamsal alan ve söz-eylem, dayanışma, nezaket
stratejisi gibi işlevlerin olduğu Etkileşimsel-Anlatımsal alan olmak üzere iki
işlevsel alan göz önüne alınarak derlemden yapılan inceleme hayır ve yok edimsel belirleyicilerinin çok işlevli iletişimsel görevleri
yerine getirdiğini göstermiştir.
References
- Aijmer, K. (1986). Why is Actually So Popular In Spoken English? In G. Tottie & I. Backlund (Eds.), English in Speech and Writing (pp. 119-129). a Symposium. Uppsala: Studia Anglistica Uppsaliensia.
- Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Bazzanella, C. (1990). Phatic Connectives as Interactional Cues in Contemporary Spoken Italian. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 639-47.
- Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Brinton, L, J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin And New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
- Crystal, D. ve Davy, D. (1975). Advanced Conversational English. London: Longman.
- Edmondson, W. (1981). Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis. London: Longman.
- Emeksiz, Z. (2006). Discourse Functions of Negative Markers in Turkish. 13th Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
- Fischer, K. (2000). Discourse Particles, Turn-Taking, and The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Revue De Sémantique Et Pragmatique 8, 111-137.
- Fraser, B. (2006). Towards a Theory of Discourse Markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 189–204). Netherlands: Elsevier.
- Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
- Gezegin, B. B. (2013). How Do We Say no in Turkish?: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Hayır and Cık in Turkish. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 10:2, 53-73.Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). Introduction to Functional Grammar, (2nd Edition). London: Edward Arnold.
- Korkmaz, Z. (2003). Türkiye Türkçesi Grameri Şekil Bilgisi. Ankara: Tdk Yayınları.
- Lenk, U. (1998). Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Markee, N. (2000). Conversation Analysis. New Jersey: Routledge.
- Östman, J. O. (2006). Constructions in Cross-Language Research: Verbs as Pragmatic Particles. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 237–257). Netherlands: Elsevier.
- Özmen, M. (1997). Türkçede Değil Kelimesi Ve Kullanımları. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı Belleten 1995 (pp. 315-368). Ankara: Tdk Yayınları.
- Ruhi, Ş., Eröz-Tuğa, B., Hatipoğlu, Ç., Işık-Güler, H., Acar, M., Güneş C., Eryılmaz, K., Can, H., Karakaş, Ö., & Çokal Karadaş, D. (2010). Sustaining A Corpus for Spoken Turkish Discourse: Accessibility and Corpus Management Issues. Language Resources: From Storyboard to Sustainability and Lr Lifecycle Management, Lrec May 17-24, 2010, Malta (pp. 44-48). Retrieved From http://lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/workshops/w20.pdf#page=52.
- Roulet, E. (1980). Interactional Markers in Dialogue. Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 224-233.
- Ruhi, Ş. (2012). The Interactional Functions of tamam in Spoken Turkish. Journal of Linguistics and Literature 10:2, 9-37.
- Sacks H. & Schegloff E., A. (1973). Opening up Closings. Semiotica 8 (4), 289–327.
- Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., ve Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
- Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
- Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., ve Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation, Language, 53, 361-82.
- Schegloff, E. (1987). Some Sources of Misunderstanding in Talk-in-Interaction. Linguistics, 25 (1), 201-218.
- Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair After Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97, 1295-1345.
- Schiffrin, D. (1985). Conversational Coherence: The Role of Well. Language 61(3), 640-667.
- Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
- Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse Markers. Lingua 107, 227-265.
- Siegel, M. E. A. (2002). Like: The Discourse Particle and Semantics. Journal of Semantics 19 (1), 35-71.
- Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Spoken Turkish Corpus http://stc.org.tr/
- Traugott, E. (1982). From Propositional to Textual and Expressive Meanings: Some Semantic-Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization. In W. P. A. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel Y. (Eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics (pp. 245-271). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
- Taylan, E. (1986). Some Aspects of Negation in Turkish. In A. Aksu-Koç & E. Erguvanlı-Taylan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference (pp. 159-179). İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
- Tura, S. (1981). A Study on Negation in Turkish. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Metu, Ankara.
Abstract
Pragmatic markers (PM) are linguistic items in
“talk-in-interaction” performing not only functions peculiar to that
grammatical category but also various pragmatic functions such as topic shift,
coherence, turn taking strategy, repair and etc. within the context of
communication. Even though pragmatic markers in Turkish have also been the
focus of some recent studies, negation markers on the propositional level hayır and its correspondent yok have not been investigated in spoken
Turkish discourse within the framework of pragmatics and conversation analysis
yet. The present study draws on hayır
and yok as pragmatic markers in
Turkish which have, thus far, been examined by paying attention to the only
negation function without considering the notions of context of situation and pragmatic interpretation. In this sense, this study aims at
identifying qualitative and quantitative aspects of hayır and yok as
pragmatic markers in Turkish spoken conversational discourse through a
representative corpus-database, the Spoken Turkish Corpus (STC) within the
analytic framework of conversation analysis and functional-pragmatic approach.
Hereby, detailed analysis on these PMs from the STC showed that hayır and yok as pragmatic markers carry a complex conversational workload,
and namely appear to have both textual and interactional uses, most of the time
simultaneously.
References
- Aijmer, K. (1986). Why is Actually So Popular In Spoken English? In G. Tottie & I. Backlund (Eds.), English in Speech and Writing (pp. 119-129). a Symposium. Uppsala: Studia Anglistica Uppsaliensia.
- Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Bazzanella, C. (1990). Phatic Connectives as Interactional Cues in Contemporary Spoken Italian. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 639-47.
- Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Brinton, L, J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin And New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
- Crystal, D. ve Davy, D. (1975). Advanced Conversational English. London: Longman.
- Edmondson, W. (1981). Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis. London: Longman.
- Emeksiz, Z. (2006). Discourse Functions of Negative Markers in Turkish. 13th Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
- Fischer, K. (2000). Discourse Particles, Turn-Taking, and The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Revue De Sémantique Et Pragmatique 8, 111-137.
- Fraser, B. (2006). Towards a Theory of Discourse Markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 189–204). Netherlands: Elsevier.
- Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
- Gezegin, B. B. (2013). How Do We Say no in Turkish?: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Hayır and Cık in Turkish. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 10:2, 53-73.Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). Introduction to Functional Grammar, (2nd Edition). London: Edward Arnold.
- Korkmaz, Z. (2003). Türkiye Türkçesi Grameri Şekil Bilgisi. Ankara: Tdk Yayınları.
- Lenk, U. (1998). Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Markee, N. (2000). Conversation Analysis. New Jersey: Routledge.
- Östman, J. O. (2006). Constructions in Cross-Language Research: Verbs as Pragmatic Particles. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 237–257). Netherlands: Elsevier.
- Özmen, M. (1997). Türkçede Değil Kelimesi Ve Kullanımları. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı Belleten 1995 (pp. 315-368). Ankara: Tdk Yayınları.
- Ruhi, Ş., Eröz-Tuğa, B., Hatipoğlu, Ç., Işık-Güler, H., Acar, M., Güneş C., Eryılmaz, K., Can, H., Karakaş, Ö., & Çokal Karadaş, D. (2010). Sustaining A Corpus for Spoken Turkish Discourse: Accessibility and Corpus Management Issues. Language Resources: From Storyboard to Sustainability and Lr Lifecycle Management, Lrec May 17-24, 2010, Malta (pp. 44-48). Retrieved From http://lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/workshops/w20.pdf#page=52.
- Roulet, E. (1980). Interactional Markers in Dialogue. Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 224-233.
- Ruhi, Ş. (2012). The Interactional Functions of tamam in Spoken Turkish. Journal of Linguistics and Literature 10:2, 9-37.
- Sacks H. & Schegloff E., A. (1973). Opening up Closings. Semiotica 8 (4), 289–327.
- Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., ve Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
- Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
- Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., ve Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation, Language, 53, 361-82.
- Schegloff, E. (1987). Some Sources of Misunderstanding in Talk-in-Interaction. Linguistics, 25 (1), 201-218.
- Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair After Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97, 1295-1345.
- Schiffrin, D. (1985). Conversational Coherence: The Role of Well. Language 61(3), 640-667.
- Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
- Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse Markers. Lingua 107, 227-265.
- Siegel, M. E. A. (2002). Like: The Discourse Particle and Semantics. Journal of Semantics 19 (1), 35-71.
- Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Spoken Turkish Corpus http://stc.org.tr/
- Traugott, E. (1982). From Propositional to Textual and Expressive Meanings: Some Semantic-Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization. In W. P. A. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel Y. (Eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics (pp. 245-271). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
- Taylan, E. (1986). Some Aspects of Negation in Turkish. In A. Aksu-Koç & E. Erguvanlı-Taylan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference (pp. 159-179). İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
- Tura, S. (1981). A Study on Negation in Turkish. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Metu, Ankara.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Makaleler |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | July 15, 2018 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2018 Volume: 15 Issue: 2 |
