BibTex RIS Cite

DİL VE DİLBİLGİSİ EĞRETİLEMELERİNE İLİŞKİN GÖZLEMLER VE DÜŞÜNCE ÖRÜNTÜLERİ

Year 2015, Volume: 55 Issue: 2, 1 - 26, 01.01.2015

Dilek Peçenek

Abstract

Kavramsal Eğretileme Kuramına göre, düşünme süreçleri eğretilemeye dayanmaktadır. Kavramsal eğretileme bir deneyim alanının farklı bir deneyim alanıyla anlaşılmasını içerir. Buna göre, kavramsal eğretileme, kaynak alandan hedef alana bir eşleme olarak algılanmaktadır. Kavram sistemimiz eğretilemelerle yapılanmıştır; eğretilemelere dayalı olarak nesneleri deneyimlemekte ve eğretilemeler kullanarak nesneler hakkında konuşmaktayız. Eğretilemelerin düşünce alanlarını yapılandırmadaki ve iletmedeki rolü nedeniyle Eğretileme Çözümlemesi bireylerin kavramsallaştırma yollarını ve düşüncelerini ortaya çıkarmada etkili bir araştırma aracı olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bu çerçevede çalışmamızda, dilbilim ve yabancı dil-edebiyat eğitimi alan lisansüstü öğrencilerin dil ve dilbilgisi ile ilgili biliş ve düşünce örüntülerini eğretileme çözümlemesi ile ortaya çıkarabilmek amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmanın verileri deneysel eğretileme çıkartımı tekniği çerçevesinde geliştirilen eğretileme çıkartım sormacası ile elde edilmiştir. Dilsel eğretilemelerin çözümlenmesiyle bir bölümünü çalışma kapsamında uzlaşımsal olarak niteleyebileceğimiz dil ve dilbilgisi DİL ARAÇTIR, DİLBİLGİSİ CANLI VARLIKTIR… eğretilemelerine ulaşılmıştır. Belirlenen kavramsal eğretilemelere ve içerimlerine dayalı olarak dil ve dilbilgisi ile düşünce örüntüleri çıkarımlanmaya çalışılmıştır. Katılımcıların dili ve dilbilgisini somut kavramlarla ve bu kavramların özellikleriyle biçimselleştirdikleri görülmektedir.

Keywords

Kavramsal Eğretileme Dilsel Eğretileme Benzetme Dil Dilbilgisi Eğretileme Çözümlemesi Eğretileme Çıkartımı Düşünce Örüntüleri

References

  • AKSAN, Doğan. Anlambilim. Ankara: Engin. 1998.
  • ALAGÖZLÜ, Nuray. “Language and sex: metaphors of woman in Turkish proverbs and idioms and socio-cognitive structure.” Festschrift to commemorate the 80th Anniversary of Prof. Dr. Talat Tekin Articles on Turkology. International Journal of Central Asian Studies 13 (2009): 37-48.
  • BARCELOS, Ana, Maria, F. “Researching Beliefs about SLA: A Critical Review.” Beliefs about SLA: New Research Approaches. Ed. Paula Kalaja and Ana Maria F. Barcelos. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003. 7-33.
  • CAMERON, Lynne, ve LOW, Graham. “Metaphor.” Language Teaching 32 (1999): 77-96.
  • CAMERON, Lynne, ve MASLEN, Robert. Ed. Metaphor Analysis: Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities. London: Equinox. 2010.
  • CLAUSNER, Timothy C., ve Croft, William. “Domains and Image Schemas.” Cognitive Linguistics 10 (1999): 1-31.
  • CORTAZZI, Martin, ve JINN, Lixian. “Bridges to Learning: Metaphors of Teaching, Learning and Language.” Researching and Applying Metaphor. Ed. Lynne Cameron and Graham Low. Cambridge: Cambridge Applied Linguistics. 1991.149-176.
  • DE GUERRERO, María C. M., ve VILLAMIL, Olga, S. “Metaphorical Conceptualizations of ESL Teaching and Learning.” Language Teaching Research 6. 2 (2002): 95-120.
  • DEIGNAN, Alice. “The Cognitive View of Metaphor: Conceptual Metaphor Theory.” Metaphor Analysis. Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities. Ed. Lynne Cameron and Robert Maslen. London: Equinox. 2010. 44-56.
  • ELLIS, Rod. “Learner beliefs and language learning.” The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly 10. 4 (2008): 7-25.
  • ELLIS, Rod, ve BARKHUIZEN, Gary. Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005.
  • EVANS, Vyvyan, ve GREEN, Melanie. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates & Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2006.
  • FARJAMI, Hadi. “EFL Students Images and Metaphors of Grammar Learning.” Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics 15. 1 (2012): 19-41.
  • JOHNSON, Mark. The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 1987.
  • GRADY, Joseph. “THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited.” Cognitive Linguistics 8. 4 (1997): 267-290.
  • İMER, Kamile, KOCAMAN, Ahmet, ve ÖZSOY, Sumru A. Dilbilim Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi. 2011.
  • LAKOFF, George. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1990.
  • ----------------- “How Metaphor Structures Dreams: The Theory of Conceptual Metaphor Applied to Dream Analysis.” Dreaming 3. 2 (1993): 77-98.
  • LAKOFF, George, ve JOHNSON, Mark. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1980.
  • ---------------------------------------- Metaphors We Live By. 2. Baskı. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2003.
  • LAKOFF, George, ve TURNER, Mark. More Than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1989.
  • PAIVA, Vera, L., M., O. “What's in a Name? The Quest for New Metaphors for Second Language Acquisition.” Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada [Çevrim- içi: 53. 1 (2014): 145-162. ISSN 0103-1813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103- 18132014000100008].
  • PRAGGLEJAZ Group “MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol 22. 1 (2007): 1-39.
  • REDDY, Michael J. “The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language.” Metaphor and Thought. 2. Baskı. Ed. Andrew Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993.164–201
  • RICHARDS, Jack. C., Platt, John, ve Platt, Heidi. Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. 2. Baskı. Harlow: Longman. 1992.
  • SAUSSURE, F. Course in General Linguistics. Ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1966.
  • SEARGEANT, Philip. “Metaphors of Possession in the Conceptualization of Language.” Language & Communication 29 (2009): 383–393.
  • STEEN, Gerard, J. “Finding Metaphor in Discourse. Pragglejaz and Beyond.” Cultura, Lenguaje y Representación 5, (2007): 9-25. [Çevrim-içi: http://www.e-revistes. uji.es/index.php/clr/article/view/1348].
  • -------------------- “From Three Dimensions to Five Steps: The Value of Deliberate Metaphor.” Metaphorik.de 21 (2011): 83-110.
  • -------------------- “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor—Now New and Improved ” Ed. Metaphor and Metonymy Revisited Beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Ed. F. Gonzálvez-García, M. S. Pena Cervel, and L. Pérez Hernández. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2013. 27-66.
  • STEEN, Gerard, J. ve diğ. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2010.
  • Türk Dil Kurumu TDK Büyük Türkçe Sözlük. tdk.gov.tr
  • TV reklamı, Turkcell. 28.04.2015
  • VAN GEERT, Paul. “Dimensions of Change: A Semantic and Mathematical Analysis of Learning and Development.” Human Development 38 (1995): 322–331.
  • WAN, Wan, ve LOW, Graham. Elicited Metaphor Analysis in Educational Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2015.
  • ZAPATA, Gabriela, C., ve LACORTE, Manel. “Preservice and Inservice Instructors’ Metaphorical Constructions of Second Language Teachers.” Foreign Language Annals 40.3 (2007): 521-534.
  • WİTTGENSTEİN, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  • YILDIRIM, Ali, ve ŞİMŞEK, Hasan. Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin. 2005.

Observations on Language - Grammar Metaphors and Thinking Patterns

Year 2015, Volume: 55 Issue: 2, 1 - 26, 01.01.2015

Dilek Peçenek

Abstract

According to the Conceptual Metaphor Theory the thinking processes rely on metaphors. Conceptual metaphor includes a comprehension of one experience domain through different experience domains. Accordingly, conceptual metaphors are perceived as a mapping from one source domain to the target domain. We experience objects according to metaphors and we speak by utilizing metaphors. Namely, conceptual metaphors produce linguistic metaphors. Due to metaphors’ roles as structuring and conveying thinking domains, Metaphor Analysis is seen as an effective research tool that brings out individuals’ ways of conceptualization and their views. In this study metaphor analysis on language and grammar has been employed so as to find out the cognition and opinion patterns of graduate students studying linguistics and foreign language-literature. The data are gathered via metaphor elicitation survey developed within the frame of experimental metaphor elicitation technique, and are analyzed through content analysis. Accordingly, the salient language and grammar metaphors are attained on the basis of linguistic metaphors LANGUAGE IS A TOOL, GRAMMAR IS ANIMATE... . Depending on the specified conceptual metaphors and entailments, thinking proposals on language and grammar are tried to be inferred. It is seen that the participants embody language and grammar with the concrete concepts and their features.

Keywords

Conceptual Metaphor Linguistic Metaphor Simile Language Grammar Metaphor Analysis Metaphor Elicitation Thinking Patterns

References

  • AKSAN, Doğan. Anlambilim. Ankara: Engin. 1998.
  • ALAGÖZLÜ, Nuray. “Language and sex: metaphors of woman in Turkish proverbs and idioms and socio-cognitive structure.” Festschrift to commemorate the 80th Anniversary of Prof. Dr. Talat Tekin Articles on Turkology. International Journal of Central Asian Studies 13 (2009): 37-48.
  • BARCELOS, Ana, Maria, F. “Researching Beliefs about SLA: A Critical Review.” Beliefs about SLA: New Research Approaches. Ed. Paula Kalaja and Ana Maria F. Barcelos. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003. 7-33.
  • CAMERON, Lynne, ve LOW, Graham. “Metaphor.” Language Teaching 32 (1999): 77-96.
  • CAMERON, Lynne, ve MASLEN, Robert. Ed. Metaphor Analysis: Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities. London: Equinox. 2010.
  • CLAUSNER, Timothy C., ve Croft, William. “Domains and Image Schemas.” Cognitive Linguistics 10 (1999): 1-31.
  • CORTAZZI, Martin, ve JINN, Lixian. “Bridges to Learning: Metaphors of Teaching, Learning and Language.” Researching and Applying Metaphor. Ed. Lynne Cameron and Graham Low. Cambridge: Cambridge Applied Linguistics. 1991.149-176.
  • DE GUERRERO, María C. M., ve VILLAMIL, Olga, S. “Metaphorical Conceptualizations of ESL Teaching and Learning.” Language Teaching Research 6. 2 (2002): 95-120.
  • DEIGNAN, Alice. “The Cognitive View of Metaphor: Conceptual Metaphor Theory.” Metaphor Analysis. Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities. Ed. Lynne Cameron and Robert Maslen. London: Equinox. 2010. 44-56.
  • ELLIS, Rod. “Learner beliefs and language learning.” The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly 10. 4 (2008): 7-25.
  • ELLIS, Rod, ve BARKHUIZEN, Gary. Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005.
  • EVANS, Vyvyan, ve GREEN, Melanie. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates & Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2006.
  • FARJAMI, Hadi. “EFL Students Images and Metaphors of Grammar Learning.” Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics 15. 1 (2012): 19-41.
  • JOHNSON, Mark. The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 1987.
  • GRADY, Joseph. “THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited.” Cognitive Linguistics 8. 4 (1997): 267-290.
  • İMER, Kamile, KOCAMAN, Ahmet, ve ÖZSOY, Sumru A. Dilbilim Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi. 2011.
  • LAKOFF, George. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1990.
  • ----------------- “How Metaphor Structures Dreams: The Theory of Conceptual Metaphor Applied to Dream Analysis.” Dreaming 3. 2 (1993): 77-98.
  • LAKOFF, George, ve JOHNSON, Mark. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1980.
  • ---------------------------------------- Metaphors We Live By. 2. Baskı. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2003.
  • LAKOFF, George, ve TURNER, Mark. More Than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1989.
  • PAIVA, Vera, L., M., O. “What's in a Name? The Quest for New Metaphors for Second Language Acquisition.” Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada [Çevrim- içi: 53. 1 (2014): 145-162. ISSN 0103-1813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103- 18132014000100008].
  • PRAGGLEJAZ Group “MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol 22. 1 (2007): 1-39.
  • REDDY, Michael J. “The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language.” Metaphor and Thought. 2. Baskı. Ed. Andrew Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993.164–201
  • RICHARDS, Jack. C., Platt, John, ve Platt, Heidi. Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. 2. Baskı. Harlow: Longman. 1992.
  • SAUSSURE, F. Course in General Linguistics. Ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1966.
  • SEARGEANT, Philip. “Metaphors of Possession in the Conceptualization of Language.” Language & Communication 29 (2009): 383–393.
  • STEEN, Gerard, J. “Finding Metaphor in Discourse. Pragglejaz and Beyond.” Cultura, Lenguaje y Representación 5, (2007): 9-25. [Çevrim-içi: http://www.e-revistes. uji.es/index.php/clr/article/view/1348].
  • -------------------- “From Three Dimensions to Five Steps: The Value of Deliberate Metaphor.” Metaphorik.de 21 (2011): 83-110.
  • -------------------- “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor—Now New and Improved ” Ed. Metaphor and Metonymy Revisited Beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Ed. F. Gonzálvez-García, M. S. Pena Cervel, and L. Pérez Hernández. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2013. 27-66.
  • STEEN, Gerard, J. ve diğ. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2010.
  • Türk Dil Kurumu TDK Büyük Türkçe Sözlük. tdk.gov.tr
  • TV reklamı, Turkcell. 28.04.2015
  • VAN GEERT, Paul. “Dimensions of Change: A Semantic and Mathematical Analysis of Learning and Development.” Human Development 38 (1995): 322–331.
  • WAN, Wan, ve LOW, Graham. Elicited Metaphor Analysis in Educational Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2015.
  • ZAPATA, Gabriela, C., ve LACORTE, Manel. “Preservice and Inservice Instructors’ Metaphorical Constructions of Second Language Teachers.” Foreign Language Annals 40.3 (2007): 521-534.
  • WİTTGENSTEİN, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  • YILDIRIM, Ali, ve ŞİMŞEK, Hasan. Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin. 2005.
There are 38 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Dilek Peçenek This is me

Publication Date January 1, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2015 Volume: 55 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Peçenek, D. (2015). DİL VE DİLBİLGİSİ EĞRETİLEMELERİNE İLİŞKİN GÖZLEMLER VE DÜŞÜNCE ÖRÜNTÜLERİ. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil Ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 55(2), 1-26.

Ankara University Journal of the Faculty of Languages and History-Geography

This journal is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. 22455