Öz
In this study, evet and hı-hı˙ which serve as interactional markers have been analyzed in terms of pragmatics and conversation analysis. The aim of the study is to unfold the interactional features and functions of evet and hı-hı˙ in the light of data and the quantitative results from Spoken Turkish Corpus (STC). Instances of the interactional markers evet and hı-hı˙ obtained from 280.000 word- STC are analyzed in terms of their functions and domains as well as their intonational features. In this regard, on the basis of functions, quantitative and qualitative differences appear between evet and hı-hı˙, and their functions such as continuation, approval, agreement, divergence and responding are examined according to their positions in the interaction. In the conclusion, in additon to functional features, differences in the intances of domains of evet and hı-hı˙ provide the means of distinguishing their evaluative dimensions. As a final point, the functions of evet and hı-hı˙ have changed according to their intonation patterns.
Kaynakça
- Adolphs, S. and Carter, R. (2013). Spoken corpus linguistics: From monomodal to multimodal. New York: Routledge.
- Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Aitchison, J. 1999. Linguistics. London: Hodder Headline Plc.
- Baker, P. and Ellece, S. (2011). Key terms in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.
- Brazil, D. (1997). The communicative role of intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Büyükkantarcıoğlu, N. (2006). An analysis of Turkish interjections in the context of reactive idea framing. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 23:1, 19-32. Çubukçu, H. (2005). Karşılıklı konuşmada destekleyici geri bildirim. XVIII. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri. Ankara, 289-304.
- Demircan, Ö. (2000). Türkçenin ezgisi. İstanbul: Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi.
- Eggins, S. & Slade, D. (1997). Analyzing casual conversation. London: Equinox.
- Foster, M. E. & Oberlander, J. (2007). Corpus-based generation of head and eyebrow motion for an embodied conversational agent. Proceedings of the International Language Resources and Evaluation Conference 41: 3/4, 305-323.
- Fraser, B. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31, 931-952.
- Gardner, R. (1998). Between speaking and listening: The vocalisation of understandings. Applied Linguistics, 19, 204-224.
- Gezegin, B. B. (2013). How do we say no in Turkish?: A corpus-based analysis of hayır and cık in Turkish. Journal of Linguistics and Literature 10:2, 53-73.
- Gonzalez, M. (2004). Pragmatic markers in oral narrative. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. McCarthy, M. (2003). Talking back: “small” interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36 (1), 33-63.
- McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. New York: Longman.
- Hoey, M., Mahlberg, M., Stubbs, M. & Teubert, W. (2007). Text, discourse ad corpora: Theory and analysis. London: Continuum.
- Hoffman, S., Evert. S., Smith, N., Lee, D., and Prytz, Y.B. (2008). §Corpus linguistics with BNCweb - A practical guide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
- Knight, D. (2011). Multimodality and active listenership: A corpus approach. London: Continuum.
- Lerner, G. H. (1989). Notes on overlap management in conversation: the case of delayed completion. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53, 167-177. Lerner, G. H. (2004). Conversation analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Mazeland, H. (2006). Conversation analysis. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 3, 153-162. Myers, G. E. & Myers, T. T. (1973). The dynamics of human communication: A laboratory approach. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
- O’Keeffe, A. & Adolphs, S. (2008). Using a corpus to look at variational pragmatics: Response tokens in British and Irish discourse. Schneider, K. P. & Barron, A. (Eds.). In Variational pragmatics, (pp. 69-98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis. London: Continuum.
- Ruhi, Ş. (2013). Interactional markers in Turkish: A corpus-based perspective. Journal of Linguistics and Literature 10:2, 1-7.
- Ruhi, Ş. (2013). The interactional functions of tamam in spoken Turkish. Journal of Linguistics and Literature 10:2, 9-37.
- Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 696-735.
- Sacks, H. (1992a). Lectures on Conversation, vol: I, (Ed.). Gail Jefferson, introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Sacks, H. (1992b). Lectures on Conversation, vol. II, (Ed.). Gail Jefferson, introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Schegloff, E. A. and Sacks, H. 1973. Opening Up Closings. Semiotica 8: 289–327.
- Schiffrin, Deborah (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. and Hamilton, H. E. (Eds.) (2001). The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Sinclair, J. M. (1996). The search for the units of meaning. Textus 9 (1), 75–106.
- Stenström, A. B. (1994). An introduction to spoken interaction. New York: Longman. Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative methods. Functions of Language 2(1): 1–33.
Öz
Bu çalışmada,
etkileşimsel belirleyici olarak görev yapan evet
ve hı-hı˙’yı edimbilim ve konuşma
çözümlemesi kapsamında incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın amacı, bu belirleyicilerin
Sözlü Türkçe Derlemi (STD) ışığında belirlenen etkileşimsel özelliklerini ve
işlevlerini nicel sonuçlarıyla birlikte edimbilimsel katkıları da göz önünde
bulundurularak ortaya çıkarmaktır.
Yaklaşık 280.000 sözcükten oluşan Sözlü Türkçe Derlemi’nden elde edilen evet ve hı-hı˙’nın görünümleri işlevleri ve kullanım alanlarının yanı sıra,
ezgise,l olarak da incelenmiştir. Bu bağlamda, iki etkileşimsel belirleyici
arasında işlev bakımından nitel ve nicel farklılıklar ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu
işlevlerin sınıflandırılması sürecinde devam ettirme, doğrulama, katılma,
konudan sapma-konuyu kapatma, cevap verme gibi işlevler evet ve hı-hı˙’nın
etkileşim içerisindeki yerlerine göre incelenmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda işlevsel
özelliklerinin yanı sıra, kullanım alanlarındaki görünüm farklılıkları da
değerlendirme boyutunu belirlemeyi sağlamıştır. Son olarak, ezgi bakımından
incelenen evet ve hı-hı˙’nın ezgi örüntülerinin
işlevlerine göre değiştiği görülmüştür.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Edimbilim Etkileşim Belirleyicisi evet Konuşma Çözümlemesi hı-hı˙ Sözlü Türkçe Derlemi.Conversation Analysis Interactional Marker Pragmatics
Kaynakça
- Adolphs, S. and Carter, R. (2013). Spoken corpus linguistics: From monomodal to multimodal. New York: Routledge.
- Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Aitchison, J. 1999. Linguistics. London: Hodder Headline Plc.
- Baker, P. and Ellece, S. (2011). Key terms in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.
- Brazil, D. (1997). The communicative role of intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Büyükkantarcıoğlu, N. (2006). An analysis of Turkish interjections in the context of reactive idea framing. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 23:1, 19-32. Çubukçu, H. (2005). Karşılıklı konuşmada destekleyici geri bildirim. XVIII. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri. Ankara, 289-304.
- Demircan, Ö. (2000). Türkçenin ezgisi. İstanbul: Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi.
- Eggins, S. & Slade, D. (1997). Analyzing casual conversation. London: Equinox.
- Foster, M. E. & Oberlander, J. (2007). Corpus-based generation of head and eyebrow motion for an embodied conversational agent. Proceedings of the International Language Resources and Evaluation Conference 41: 3/4, 305-323.
- Fraser, B. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31, 931-952.
- Gardner, R. (1998). Between speaking and listening: The vocalisation of understandings. Applied Linguistics, 19, 204-224.
- Gezegin, B. B. (2013). How do we say no in Turkish?: A corpus-based analysis of hayır and cık in Turkish. Journal of Linguistics and Literature 10:2, 53-73.
- Gonzalez, M. (2004). Pragmatic markers in oral narrative. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. McCarthy, M. (2003). Talking back: “small” interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36 (1), 33-63.
- McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. New York: Longman.
- Hoey, M., Mahlberg, M., Stubbs, M. & Teubert, W. (2007). Text, discourse ad corpora: Theory and analysis. London: Continuum.
- Hoffman, S., Evert. S., Smith, N., Lee, D., and Prytz, Y.B. (2008). §Corpus linguistics with BNCweb - A practical guide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
- Knight, D. (2011). Multimodality and active listenership: A corpus approach. London: Continuum.
- Lerner, G. H. (1989). Notes on overlap management in conversation: the case of delayed completion. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53, 167-177. Lerner, G. H. (2004). Conversation analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Mazeland, H. (2006). Conversation analysis. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 3, 153-162. Myers, G. E. & Myers, T. T. (1973). The dynamics of human communication: A laboratory approach. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
- O’Keeffe, A. & Adolphs, S. (2008). Using a corpus to look at variational pragmatics: Response tokens in British and Irish discourse. Schneider, K. P. & Barron, A. (Eds.). In Variational pragmatics, (pp. 69-98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis. London: Continuum.
- Ruhi, Ş. (2013). Interactional markers in Turkish: A corpus-based perspective. Journal of Linguistics and Literature 10:2, 1-7.
- Ruhi, Ş. (2013). The interactional functions of tamam in spoken Turkish. Journal of Linguistics and Literature 10:2, 9-37.
- Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 696-735.
- Sacks, H. (1992a). Lectures on Conversation, vol: I, (Ed.). Gail Jefferson, introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Sacks, H. (1992b). Lectures on Conversation, vol. II, (Ed.). Gail Jefferson, introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Schegloff, E. A. and Sacks, H. 1973. Opening Up Closings. Semiotica 8: 289–327.
- Schiffrin, Deborah (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. and Hamilton, H. E. (Eds.) (2001). The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Sinclair, J. M. (1996). The search for the units of meaning. Textus 9 (1), 75–106.
- Stenström, A. B. (1994). An introduction to spoken interaction. New York: Longman. Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative methods. Functions of Language 2(1): 1–33.
Ayrıntılar
| Bölüm | Makaleler |
|---|---|
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 15 Temmuz 2017 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2017 Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2 |
