Toplumsal Cinsiyet Temelli Ödünleme Kullanımı: Türkçe Sözlü Söyleme Dayalı Bulgular

Öz

Ödünleyici ilişkiler alanyazında şaşırma, karşıt beklenti, iki tümce arasında uyumsuzluk, çatışma ya da uygunsuzluk olarak tanımlanmıştır. Ödünleme çeşitli dilsel kaynaklar kullanılarak açık biçimde işaretlenebildiği gibi, örtük olarak da gerçekleştirilebilmekte ve bağlamsal bilgiye dayalı olarak dinleyici tarafından algılanabilmektedir. Önceki çalışmalarda ödünlemenin karşıtlığın gösterilmesi, olası yanlış anlaşılmaların önlenmesi, düzeltme/onarım, uzlaşma ve konu yönetimi işlevleriyle kullanıldığı ortaya konmuştur. Diğer taraftan, dil kullanımı ve cinsiyet ile ilgili geleneksel bakış açısı, kadınların ortak paydada buluşma, anlaşmazlıktan kaçınma ve kibar dil kullanma eğiliminde olduğunu savlamaktadır. Ödünlemenin söylemsel işlevleri dikkate alındığında, kadınların ödünlemeyi erkeklerden daha sık kullandığı öngörülebilmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu çalışmanın amacı Türkçe sözlü söylemde (i) ödünlenmenin işaretlenmesi ve ödünleyici dilsel kaynakların kullanımında ve (ii) ödünlemenin işlevlerinde (varsa) cinsiyet farklılıklarının Etkileşimsel Dilbilim çerçevesinde belirlenmesidir. Çalışmanın veri tabanı altı saatlik Türkçe gündelik söylem kayıtlarından elde edilen çevriyazı metinlerinden oluşmaktadır. Bulgularımız, ödünlemenin en çok açık biçimde gerçekleştirildiğini (83.5%), ancak cinsiyetler arasında anlamlı bir fark olmadığını göstermiştir. Türkçe sözlü söylemde en sık kullanılan ödünleyici dilsel kaynağın ama olduğu saptanmıştır (33.7%). Ödünlemenin işlevleri açısından ise, veri tabanımızda ödünlemenin en çok karşıtlığın gösterilmesi (49.4%) amacıyla kullanıldığı, ancak cinsiyetler açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark olmadığı ortaya konmuştur. Çalışmamızda ödünlemenin işaretlenmesi ve işlevleri bakımından cinsiyete dayalı bir farklılık saptanmamıştır. Bu bulgular, dil kullanımının konuşucuların cinsiyetine göre değil, söylem bağlamına göre biçimlendiği ortaya koyması bakımından cinsiyet ve konuşma biçemleri ile ilgili güncel görüşü desteklemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ödünleme
• Sözlü Söylem
• Etkileşimsel Dilbilim
• Söylem Çözümlemesi
• Toplumsal Cinsiyet

Gender-Based Use of Concession: Insights from Turkish Spoken Discourse

Abstract

Concessive relations have been defined in terms of concepts such as surprise, counter-expectation, incompatibility or conflict between clauses in literature. Concession can be marked explicitly by a range of linguistic resources or expressed implicitly and perceived by the hearer based on contextual cues. In previous studies, various functions of concession including expressing a contrast, preventing potential misunderstandings, correction/repair, alignment and topic management have been reported. Traditional view on gender and language allege that women tend to seek common ground, avoid disagreement and be polite. The current view, on the other hand, claim that discourse context is determinant on such tendencies. Considering the discursive functions of concession, it can thus be presumed that women opt for concession more frequently than man do. Therefore, the aim of this study is twofold: to determine (if any) gender-based differences (i) in the marking and use of concessive resources and (ii) in the functions of concession in Turkish spoken discourse within the framework of Interactional Linguistics. The database of the study consists of the transcriptions of six-hour daily Turkish conversations. Findings have revealed that concession is mostly marked explicitly (83.5%) with no significant difference between genders and the most commonly used concessive marker is ama (but) by both genders (33.7%). As for the functions, the concessions are mostly used to express a contrast (49.4%) with no significant difference between male and female speakers. These findings support the view that it is not the gender of the speakers but the discourse context that shapes the language use.

Keywords

• Concession
• Spoken Discourse
• Interactional Linguistics
• Discourse Analysis
• Gender

References

1. Akar, D. & Martı, L. (2015). Söylem Çözümlemesi. In F., N.Seggie&Y, Bayyurt (Eds.). Nitel Araştırma, Yöntem, Teknik, Analiz ve Yaklaşımları (pp. 242-252). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
2. Aksan, M. & Demirhan, U. (2018). Gerçi şunu da söylemeliyim… Türkçede Geçersizleştirme. In Y. Aksan, M. Aksan (Haz.), Türkçede Yapı ve İşlev. Şükriye Ruhi Armağanı. (pp.171-200). Ankara: BilgeSu.
3. Antaki, C., & Wetherell, M. (1999). Show concessions. Discourse studies, 1(1), 7-27.
4. Aydın, D. & Ercan, G., S. (2020). Türkçe sözlü söylemde ödünleme ve işlevleri. In A. Uçar, P. İbe Akcan & F. Çetintaş Yıldırım (Eds.) Dilbilimde Güncel Tartışmalar (pp. 47-56). Ankara: Dilbilim Derneği Yayınları.
5. Barth, D. (2000). That’s true, although not really, but still”: expressing concession in spoken English. In E. Couper Kuhlen, & B. Kortmann (Eds.). Cause-condition-concession-contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (Vol. 33). Topics in English Linguistics, 33, (pp.411-438). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
6. Barth-Weingarten, D. (2003). Concession in spoken English: On the realisation of a discourse-pragmatic relation (Vol. 28). Gunter Narr Verlag.
7. Bergvall, V. L. (1999). Toward a comprehensive theory of language and gender. Language in society, 273-293.
8. Blumenthal-Draume& Kortman (2017). Book of Abstracts. 50th Annual Meetings of the Societas Linguistica Europeaea. 10-13 September 2017. University of Zurich, Switzerland.

9. Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London: Sage.
10. Cameron, D., & Coates, J. (1985). Some problems in the sociolinguistic explanation of sex differences. Language & Communication, 5(3), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(85)90006-0.
11. Chafe, W. (1998). Language and the Flow of Thought. In M. Tomasello, (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language (pp. 87-114). New York& London: Psychology Press.
12. Chafe, W., & Tannen, D. (1987). The relation between written and spoken language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 16(1), 383-407. DOI: 16.100187.002123.
13. Chen, G. (2000). The grammaticalization of concessive markers in Early Modern English. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach and D. Stein (Eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English (pp. 85-110). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
14. Coates, J. (1998). Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
15. Coates, J. (2013). Women, men and everyday talk. Hampshire/New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
16. Conley, J. M., O'Barr, W. M., & Lind, E. A. (1978). The power of language: Presentational style in the courtroom. Duke Lj, 1375.
17. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2017). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Thompson, S. A. (2000). Concessive patterns in conversation. In: Couper Kuhlen, E., & Kortmann, B. (Eds.). Cause-condition-concession-contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (Vol. 33). Topics in English Linguistics, 33, 381-410. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
19. Crevels, M. (2000). Concessives on different semantic levels: A typological perspective. In E. Couper Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.). Cause-condition-concession-contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (Vol. 33). Topics in English Linguistics, 33, 313-340. Berlin/New York:Walter de Gruyter.
20. Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2013). Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Ercan, G., S. (2003). Gazete köşe yazılarında dil kullanımı: Kaçınmalar ve cinsiyet değişkeni. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Dokuz Eylül University. İzmir.
22. Fishman, P. M. (1980). Conversational insecurity. Language. 127-132
23. Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London/New York: Routledge.
24. González, M. D. L. Á. G., & Taboada, M. (2021). Concession strategies in online newspaper comments. Journal of Pragmatics, 174, 96-116.
25. Grote, B., Lenke, N., & Stede, M. (1997). Ma (r) king concessions in English and German. Discourse processes, 24(1), 87-117.
26. Günthner, S. (2000). From concessive connector to discourse marker: The use of obwohl in everyday German interaction. In Couper Kuhlen, E., & Kortmann, B. (Eds.). Cause-condition-concession-contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (Vol. 33). Topics in English Linguistics, 33, 439-469. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
27. Günthner, S. (2016). Concessive patterns in interaction: uses of zwar… aber (‘true… but’)-constructions in everyday spoken German. Language Sciences, 58, 144-162.
28. Haakana, M., & Kurhila, S. (2009). Other-correction in everyday interaction: some comparative aspects. Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions, 152-179.
29. Haspelmath, M. & König, E. (1998). Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe. In J. Auwera, (in collaboration with D. P. Ó. Baoill) (Eds.). Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe (pp.563– 640). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
30. Heine, B. (2002). On the role of context in grammaticalization. Typological studies in language, 49, 83-102.
31. Hellinger, M. & Bussmann, H. (2003). Gender Across Languages: The Linguistic Representation of Women and Men. In M. Hellinger & H. Bussman (Eds.). (pp.1-21). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
32. Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Holmes, J. (1984). Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo, 27(1), 47-62.
34. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London and New York: Longman.
35. Holmes, J. (2001). A corpus-based view of gender in New Zealand English. Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men, 1, 115-136.
36. Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered talk at work: Constructing gender identity through workplace discourse (Vol. 3). Malden/Oxford/Victoria: Blackwell Publishing.
37. Holmes, J., & Schnurr, S. (2005). Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 121-149.
38. Iten, C. (2005). Linguistic Meaning, Truth Conditions and Relevance. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
39. Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 191, 222.
40. Jenks, C. J. (2011). Transcribing talk and interaction: Issues in the representation of communication data. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
41. Kern, F., & Selting, M. (2013). Conversation analysis and interactional linguistics. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. (pp.1-5) Blackwell Publishing.
42. Koivisto, A. (2012). Discourse patterns for turn-final conjunctions. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(10), 1254-1272.
43. König, E. (1985). On the history of concessive connectives in English. Diachronic and synchronic evidence. Lingua, 66(1), 1-19.
44. König, E. (1986). “Conditionals, Concessive Conditionals and Concessives: Areas of Contrast, Overlap and Neutralization.” In E. Traugott, A. Meulen, J. Snitzer Reilly and C. A.
45. Ferguson (Eds.), On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.
47. Lindström, J. (2009). Interactional linguistics. In S. Dhondt, J. Östman, J. Verschueren. (Eds.), The pragmatics of interaction, 4, 96. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
48. Lindström, J. K., & Londen, A. M. (2013). Concession and reassertion: On a dialogic discourse pattern in conversation. Text & Talk, 33(3), 331-352.
49. Lindström, J. K., & Londen, A. M. (2014). Insertion Concessive: An interactional practice as a discourse grammatical construction. Constructions. 1-3.
50. Litosseliti, L. (2006). Gender and language theory and practice. Oxford: Routledge.
51. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1987). Rhetorical structure theory: Description and construction of text structures. In Natural language generation (pp. 85-95). Dordrecht: Springer.
52. Menz, A. (2016). Concessive conditionals in Turkish. In L. Johanson (Eds.), Turkic Languages, 20(1), (pp. 90-103). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
53. Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness (No. 17). Cambridge University Press.
54. Mizokami, Y. (2001). Does ‘Women's Language’ Really Exist? A Critical Assessment of Sex Difference Research in Sociolinguistics'. Multicultural Studies, 1, 141-59.
55. Mondorf, B. (2002). Gender differences in English syntax. Journal of English Linguistics, 30(2), 158-180.
56. Mulac, A., Wiemann, J. M., Widenmann, S. J., & Gibson, T. W. (1988). Male/female language differences and effects in same‐sex and mixed‐sex dyads: The gender‐linked language effect. Communications Monographs, 55(4), 315-335.
57. Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45(3), 211-236.
58. Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 11(11), 335. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59. Pfänder, S. (2016). Fragmented adverbial clauses as resources for negotiating alignment: concessive repair patterns in French talk-in-interaction. Language Sciences, 58, 95-110.
60. Pianese, G. (2006). Spoken Discourse: Types. Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. In J. Mey& K. Brown. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
61. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In John M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, (pp.57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62. Prabhakaran, V., & Rambow, O. (2017). Dialog structure through the lens of gender, gender environment, and power. Journal for Dialogue & Discourse, 8(2) (2017) 21-55.
63. Robaldo, L., & Miltsakaki, E. (2014). Corpus-driven semantics of concession: Where do expectations come from? Dialogue & Discourse, 5(1), 1-36.
64. Robaldo, L., Miltsakaki, E., & Hobbs, J. R. (2008). Refining the meaning of sense labels in PDTB: “concession”. In Semantics in Text Processing. STEP 2008 Conference Proceedings (pp. 207-219). Venice: Association for Computational Linguistics.
65. Rühlemann, C. (2020). Visual Linguistics with R: A practical introduction to quantitative Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
66. Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2001). Studies in interactional linguistics (Vol. 10). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
67. Sert, O., Balaman, U., Daşkın, N. C., Büyükgüzel, S., & Ergül, H. (2015). Konuşma Çözümlemesi Yöntemi. Mersin University Journal of Linguistics & Literature/Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 12(2).
68. Stede, M., & Umbach, C. (1998). DiMLex: A lexicon of discourse markers for text generation and understanding. In 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Volume 2 (pp. 1238-1242).
69. Szczyrbak, M. (2014). Tu pełna zgoda, ale... Investigating Concessive marking in spoken Polish. Studies in Polish Linguistics, 9(4), 245-263.
70. Taboada, M., & Gómez-González, M. (2012). Discourse markers and coherence relations: Comparison across markers, languages and modalities. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 6(1-3), 17-41.
71. Tannen (1991). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow.
72. Tannen (1993). Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.
73. Tannen (1994). The relativity of linguistic strategies: rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In D. Tannen (Ed.) Gender and Discourse. Oxfrod: Oxford University Press.
74. Thompson, S. A. (1987). 'Concessive' as a discourse relation in expository written English. In: A Festschrift for Ilse Lehiste. Joseph, Brian D. & Arnold M. Zwicky (Eds.). Working Papers in Linguistics 35. Ohio: The Ohio State University.
75. Vergaro, C. (2014). “Struggle Though I May…”: A Note on the Inverted Though Concessive Construction in English. English Studies, 95(5), 557-576.
76. Verhagen, A. (2000). Concession implies causality, though in some other space. In E. Couper Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.). Cause-condition-concession-contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (Vol. 33). Topics in English Linguistics, 33, (pp.361-380). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
77. Weatherall, A. (2002). Gender, language and discourse. New York: Routledge.
78. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1983). Small Insults: a Study of Interruption in Cross-sex Conversations between unacquainted Persons”. In N. Henley, C. Kramarae, B. Thorne (Eds), Language, Gender and Society. Rowley, MA, Newbury House.
79. Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. London: Sage.
80. Xu, X., Chen, Q., Panther, K. U., & Wu, Y. (2018). Influence of concessive and causal conjunctions on pragmatic processing: Online measures from eye movements and self-paced reading. Discourse Processes, 55(4), 387-409.
81. Zeyrek, D. (2017). Söylem yapısı ve Türkçe Söylem Bankasından bazı bulgular. In: N. Büyükkantarcıoğlu, I. Özyildirim & E. Yarar (Eds.). 45. Yıl Yazıları. (pp.395-409). Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları.
82. Zeyrek-Bozşahin & Soycan, (2018). Türkçe Söylem Bankasında Söylem Bağıntılarının Metin Türlerine göre Değerlendirilmesi. In Y. Aksan, M. Aksan (Haz.), Türkçede Yapı ve İşlev. Şükriye Ruhi Armağanı. (pp.131-170). Ankara: BilgeSu.
83. Zimmerman, D. & C. West (1975) “Sex roles, interruption and silences in conversation”. Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.