Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Büyük Veri ve Derlem Anlambilim Açısından Aşk Kavramı: Anlam, Gönderim ve Metafor

Year 2019, Volume: 39 Issue: 1, 151 - 178, 28.06.2019

Abstract

Farklı disiplinlerde aşk üzerine çalışmalar yapılmakla birlikte aşk soyut bir kavram olduğu için tanımlanması oldukça güçtür. Disiplinlerarası aşk çalışmalarına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlayan bu çalışma, aşkın Türkçe’de ne anlama geldiğini ve dilde kullanımını bilgisayarlı dilbilim ve derlem yöntemleriyle analiz ederek aşk kavramının ilkörneğini ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma kuramsal olarak İlkörnek Kuramı ile Derlem Anlambilim kuramlarını kullanıp Derlem ve Büyük Veri analiz yöntemlerinden yararlanmaktadır. İlkörnek kuramına göre ilkörnek bir sınıfın belli başlı özelliklerini taşımaktadır. Şeyler beyinde kategorize edilirken ilkörneklere benzerliklerine göre sınıflandırılırlar. Kategoriler arasında geçişler çok kesin değildir. Bazı şeyler ilkörneğe daha çok benzeyip kavramı daha çok temsil ederken, bazıları daha az benzeyip kavramı daha az temsil etmektedirler. Derlem anlambilim kuramına göre ise, bir sözcüğün anlamı, sözcüğün çekimli hallerini de kapsayan sözcüğün özüne, bu sözcükle beraber kullanılan diğer sözcüklere, sözcüğün içinde bulunduğu dilbilgisel yapılara, konuşucuların bilgi, tavır ve tutumları ile dış dünya bilgisine ve metin / konuşma türüne dayanmaktadır. Çalışmanın verisi Türkçe Ulusal Derlemi’nden aşk sözcüğünün geçtiği 2,500 satır, 10,671 farklı sözcük ve toplam 27,855 sözcükten ve Twitter’dan 85,980 kısa mesaj (tweet) 130,016 farklı sözcük ve toplam 1,280,736 sözcükten oluşmaktadır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre aşk, NITELIK, NICELIK, ZAMAN, YER, GERÇEKLIK, ZIHIN, BEDEN, DIL, INANÇ, ŞEY, KIŞI, BITKI ve TAŞIT ilkörnekleriyle bağlantılı bir kavram olup bu ilkörneklerle ilgili kavramlarla birlikte sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır. Aşk hem pozitif hem negatif duygu ifadeleriyle birlikte kullanılmaktadır. Ayrıca, aşk yakın ilişki ve bağlanma ile ilgili sözcüklerle ifade edildiği gibi gerçek olmayan bir bağlanmayı, nesne veya gruba bağlanmayı ve bağlanmasız ilişkileri de içermektedir. Dolayısıyla, aşkın anlamı bağlama göre değişken olup dilin resmi ve gündelik kullanımlarına göre de çeşitlilik göstermektedir. Bu nedenlerle, hem gözlem / görüşme yapılan çalışmalarda hem de deneysel çalışmalarda bu kavramların kullanımına dikkat etmek, geliştirilen ölçüm araçlarındaki tanımlar ve katılımcıların kullandığı kavramlar arasındaki farklılıkların araştırma sonuçlarını etkileyebileceği göz ardı edilmemelidir.

References

  • Aksan, Y. ve Aksan, M. (2010). A corpus-based analysis of conceptual love metaphors. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference 20-23 July 2009, University of Liverpool.
  • Aksan, Y. ve Kantar, D. (2008a). No wellness feels better than this sickness: Love metaphors from a crosslinguistic perspective. Metaphor and Symbol, 23, 262-291. doi: 10.1080/10926480802426795
  • Aksan, Y. ve Kantar, D. (2008b). When love is a journey in English and in Turkey. P. Cap ve J. Nijakowska (Ed.), Current trends in pragmatics içinde (ss. 93-109). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.
  • Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Koltuksuz, A., Sezer, T., Mersinli, Ü., Demirhan, U. U., … ve Kurtoğlu, Ö. (2012). Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012). İstanbul, Turkiye. Erişim adresi: http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/papers.html. Erişim tarihi: 1 Aralık 2018.
  • Anthony, L. (2018). AntConc (Version 3.5.7) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Erişim adresi: http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software. Erişim tarihi: 1 Aralık 2018.
  • Baş, M. (2015). Conceptualization of emotion through body part idioms in Turkish: A cognitive linguistic study (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Brezina, V., McEnery, T. ve Wattam, S. (2015). Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(2), 139-173. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.20.2.01bre
  • British Psychological Society (2017). Ethics guidelines for internet-mediated research. INF206/04.2017. Leicester: Author. Erişim adresi: https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/ethics-guidelinesinternet-mediated-research-2017. Erişim tarihi: 1 Aralık 2018.
  • Cheung, M. W. L. ve Jak, S. (2016). Analyzing Big Data in psychology: A split/analyze/meta-analyze approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 738. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00738
  • Eichstaedt, J. C., Schwartz, H. A., Kern, M. L., Park, G., Jha, S., Agrawal, M., … ve Seligman, M. E. P. (2015). Psychological language on Twitter predicts county-level heart disease mortality. Psychological Science, 26(2), 159-169. doi: 10.1177/0956797614557867
  • Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6(3/4), 169-200. doi: 10.1080/02699939208411068
  • Felmlee, D. ve Sprecher, S. (2006). Love: Psychological and sociological perspectives. J. E. Stets ve J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociology of emotions içinde (ss. 389-409). New York: Springer Press.
  • Foster, I., Ghani, R., Jarmin, R. S., Kreuter, F. ve Lane, J. (2017). Big Data in social science: A practical guide to methods and tools. New York, NY: CRC Press.
  • Glynn, D. ve Robinson, J. A. (Ed.) (2014). Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Goldstone, R. L., Kersten, A. ve Carvalho, P. (2017). Categorization and concepts. J. T. Wixted ve S. Thompson-Schill (Ed.), The Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience içinde (4. baskı, 3. cilt: Language and Thought). New York: Wiley.
  • Gries, S. T. (2010). Useful statistics for corpus linguistics. A. Sánchez ve M. Almela (Ed.), A mosaic of corpus linguistics: Selected approaches içinde (ss. 269-291). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  • Gries, S. T. (2015). Quantitative designs and statistical techniques. D. Biber ve R. Reppen (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics içinde (ss. 50-71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Jankowiak, W. R. ve Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love. Ethonology, 31(2), 149-155. doi: 10.2307/3773618
  • Kövecses, Z. (1991). A linguist’s quest for love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8(1), 77-97. doi: 10.1177/0265407591081004
  • Kövecses, Z. (2008). Metaphor and emotion. R. W. Jr. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought içinde (ss. 380-396). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lakoff, G. ve Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lee, J. A. (1988). Love-styles. R. J. Sternberg ve M. L. Barnes (Ed.), The psychology of love içinde (ss. 38-67). New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Lee, S. W. S. ve Schwarz, N. (2014). Framing love: When it hurts to think we were made for each other. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 61-67. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.007
  • Meyers, S. A. ve Berscheid, E. (1997). The language of love: The difference a preposition makes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 347-362. doi: 10.1177/0146167297234002
  • Murstein, B. I. (1977). A taxonomy of love. Erişim adresi: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED149258. Erişim tarihi: 1 Aralık 2018.
  • Murstein, B. I. (1988). A taxonomy of love. R. J. Sternberg ve M. L. Barnes (Ed.), The psychology of love içinde (ss. 13-37). New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Murty, D. (2018). Twitter: Social communication in the twitter age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2015). Big data interoperability framework: Volume 1, definitions. Erişim adresi: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1500-1.pdf. Erişim tarihi: 06 Mart 2019. doi: 10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-1
  • Oakes, M. (1998) Statistics for corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Regan, P. C. (2011). Close relationships. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Regan, P. C. (2016). The mating game: A primer on love, sex, and marriage. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Regan, P. C., Kocan, E. R. ve Whitlock, T. (1998). Aint love grand! A prototype analysis of the concept of romantic love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(3), 411-420. doi: 10.1177/0265407598153006
  • Rempel, J. K. ve Burris, C. T. (2005). Let me count the ways: An integrative theory of love and hate. Personal Relationships, 12(2), 297-313. doi: 10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00116.x
  • Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. E. Rosch ve B. B. Floyd (Ed.), Cognition and categorization içinde (ss. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
  • Rosch, E. (1999). Reclaiming concepts. The Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(11-12), 61-77.
  • Rosch, E. ve Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573-605. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
  • Schröder, U. A. (2009). Preferential metaphorical conceptualizations in everyday discourse about love in the Brazilian and German speech communities. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(2), 105-120. doi: 10.1080/10926480902830862
  • Shaver, P. R., Morgan, H. J. ve Wu, S. (1996). Is love a “basic” emotion? Personal Relationships, 3, 83-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00105.x
  • Shaver, P. R., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D. ve O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1061-1086.
  • Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Sinclair, J. (2000). Collins Cobuild English Dictionary for Advanced Learners: Major New Edition (3. Baskı). Collins ELT.
  • Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus, and discourse. London: Routledge.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (2006). A dublex theory of love. R. J. Sternberg ve K. Weis (Ed.), The new psychology of love içinde (ss. 184-199). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language, 2(1), 23–55. doi: 10.1075/fol.2.1.03st
  • Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Stubbs, M. (2009). The search for units of meaning: Sinclair on empirical semantics. Applied Linguistics 30(1), 115–137. doi: 10.1093/applin/amn052
  • Tissari, H. (2001). Metaphors we love by: On the cognitive metaphors of Love from the 15th century to the present. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 36, 217-242.
  • Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlükler. (t.y.). Erişim adresi: http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=645. Erişim tarihi: 01 Aralık 2017.
  • Williams, M. L., Burnap, P. ve Sloan, L. (2017). Towards an ethical framework for publishing Twitter data in social research: Taking into account users’ views, online context and algorithmic estimation. Sociology, 51(6), 1149–1168. doi: 10.1177/0038038517708140

The Concept of Love From the Perspectives of Big Data and Corpus Semantics: Meaning, Reference, and Metaphor

Year 2019, Volume: 39 Issue: 1, 151 - 178, 28.06.2019

Abstract

While love has been investigated by scholars in various disciplines, defining this abstract and evasive concept is a daunting task. In order to contribute to the multidisciplinary studies on love, this study investigates the meaning of love and its uses in everyday life in Turkish to provide its prototypes, using computational linguistics and corpus-based methods. The study follows the Prototype Theory and Corpus Semantics and applies corpus and Big Data methods. The data consisted of formal and colloquial dictionaries published by the Turkish Language Association; 2,500 lines, 10,671 types, and 27,855 tokens from the Turkish National Corpus; and, 85,980 short messages (tweets), 130,016 types, and 1,280,736 tokens from Twitter. The results showed that the love concepts were related to prototypes such as QUALITY, QUANTITY, TIME, PLACE, REALITY, MIND, BODY, LANGUAGE, BELIEF, THING, PERSON, PLANT, and VEHICLE. The results also showed that love in Turkish was not only related to positive emotions such as compassion and fun but also negative emotions such as pain and hate. Therefore, love was associated with both positive and negative emotion concepts. There were differences between the definitions of love, including idiomatic expressions in the formal dictionaries and the language used in daily life, because love was used not only in relation to intimate relationships or attachment but also in the context of pain, hate, illness, etc. Love was related to close relationships including both real and imaginary attachment. The meaning of love also differed depending on the context and with regard to (in)formal use of the language.

References

  • Aksan, Y. ve Aksan, M. (2010). A corpus-based analysis of conceptual love metaphors. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference 20-23 July 2009, University of Liverpool.
  • Aksan, Y. ve Kantar, D. (2008a). No wellness feels better than this sickness: Love metaphors from a crosslinguistic perspective. Metaphor and Symbol, 23, 262-291. doi: 10.1080/10926480802426795
  • Aksan, Y. ve Kantar, D. (2008b). When love is a journey in English and in Turkey. P. Cap ve J. Nijakowska (Ed.), Current trends in pragmatics içinde (ss. 93-109). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.
  • Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Koltuksuz, A., Sezer, T., Mersinli, Ü., Demirhan, U. U., … ve Kurtoğlu, Ö. (2012). Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012). İstanbul, Turkiye. Erişim adresi: http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/papers.html. Erişim tarihi: 1 Aralık 2018.
  • Anthony, L. (2018). AntConc (Version 3.5.7) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Erişim adresi: http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software. Erişim tarihi: 1 Aralık 2018.
  • Baş, M. (2015). Conceptualization of emotion through body part idioms in Turkish: A cognitive linguistic study (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Brezina, V., McEnery, T. ve Wattam, S. (2015). Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(2), 139-173. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.20.2.01bre
  • British Psychological Society (2017). Ethics guidelines for internet-mediated research. INF206/04.2017. Leicester: Author. Erişim adresi: https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/ethics-guidelinesinternet-mediated-research-2017. Erişim tarihi: 1 Aralık 2018.
  • Cheung, M. W. L. ve Jak, S. (2016). Analyzing Big Data in psychology: A split/analyze/meta-analyze approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 738. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00738
  • Eichstaedt, J. C., Schwartz, H. A., Kern, M. L., Park, G., Jha, S., Agrawal, M., … ve Seligman, M. E. P. (2015). Psychological language on Twitter predicts county-level heart disease mortality. Psychological Science, 26(2), 159-169. doi: 10.1177/0956797614557867
  • Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6(3/4), 169-200. doi: 10.1080/02699939208411068
  • Felmlee, D. ve Sprecher, S. (2006). Love: Psychological and sociological perspectives. J. E. Stets ve J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociology of emotions içinde (ss. 389-409). New York: Springer Press.
  • Foster, I., Ghani, R., Jarmin, R. S., Kreuter, F. ve Lane, J. (2017). Big Data in social science: A practical guide to methods and tools. New York, NY: CRC Press.
  • Glynn, D. ve Robinson, J. A. (Ed.) (2014). Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Goldstone, R. L., Kersten, A. ve Carvalho, P. (2017). Categorization and concepts. J. T. Wixted ve S. Thompson-Schill (Ed.), The Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience içinde (4. baskı, 3. cilt: Language and Thought). New York: Wiley.
  • Gries, S. T. (2010). Useful statistics for corpus linguistics. A. Sánchez ve M. Almela (Ed.), A mosaic of corpus linguistics: Selected approaches içinde (ss. 269-291). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  • Gries, S. T. (2015). Quantitative designs and statistical techniques. D. Biber ve R. Reppen (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics içinde (ss. 50-71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Jankowiak, W. R. ve Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love. Ethonology, 31(2), 149-155. doi: 10.2307/3773618
  • Kövecses, Z. (1991). A linguist’s quest for love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8(1), 77-97. doi: 10.1177/0265407591081004
  • Kövecses, Z. (2008). Metaphor and emotion. R. W. Jr. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought içinde (ss. 380-396). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lakoff, G. ve Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lee, J. A. (1988). Love-styles. R. J. Sternberg ve M. L. Barnes (Ed.), The psychology of love içinde (ss. 38-67). New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Lee, S. W. S. ve Schwarz, N. (2014). Framing love: When it hurts to think we were made for each other. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 61-67. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.007
  • Meyers, S. A. ve Berscheid, E. (1997). The language of love: The difference a preposition makes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 347-362. doi: 10.1177/0146167297234002
  • Murstein, B. I. (1977). A taxonomy of love. Erişim adresi: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED149258. Erişim tarihi: 1 Aralık 2018.
  • Murstein, B. I. (1988). A taxonomy of love. R. J. Sternberg ve M. L. Barnes (Ed.), The psychology of love içinde (ss. 13-37). New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Murty, D. (2018). Twitter: Social communication in the twitter age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2015). Big data interoperability framework: Volume 1, definitions. Erişim adresi: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1500-1.pdf. Erişim tarihi: 06 Mart 2019. doi: 10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-1
  • Oakes, M. (1998) Statistics for corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Regan, P. C. (2011). Close relationships. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Regan, P. C. (2016). The mating game: A primer on love, sex, and marriage. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Regan, P. C., Kocan, E. R. ve Whitlock, T. (1998). Aint love grand! A prototype analysis of the concept of romantic love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(3), 411-420. doi: 10.1177/0265407598153006
  • Rempel, J. K. ve Burris, C. T. (2005). Let me count the ways: An integrative theory of love and hate. Personal Relationships, 12(2), 297-313. doi: 10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00116.x
  • Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. E. Rosch ve B. B. Floyd (Ed.), Cognition and categorization içinde (ss. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
  • Rosch, E. (1999). Reclaiming concepts. The Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(11-12), 61-77.
  • Rosch, E. ve Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573-605. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
  • Schröder, U. A. (2009). Preferential metaphorical conceptualizations in everyday discourse about love in the Brazilian and German speech communities. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(2), 105-120. doi: 10.1080/10926480902830862
  • Shaver, P. R., Morgan, H. J. ve Wu, S. (1996). Is love a “basic” emotion? Personal Relationships, 3, 83-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00105.x
  • Shaver, P. R., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D. ve O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1061-1086.
  • Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Sinclair, J. (2000). Collins Cobuild English Dictionary for Advanced Learners: Major New Edition (3. Baskı). Collins ELT.
  • Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus, and discourse. London: Routledge.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (2006). A dublex theory of love. R. J. Sternberg ve K. Weis (Ed.), The new psychology of love içinde (ss. 184-199). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language, 2(1), 23–55. doi: 10.1075/fol.2.1.03st
  • Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Stubbs, M. (2009). The search for units of meaning: Sinclair on empirical semantics. Applied Linguistics 30(1), 115–137. doi: 10.1093/applin/amn052
  • Tissari, H. (2001). Metaphors we love by: On the cognitive metaphors of Love from the 15th century to the present. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 36, 217-242.
  • Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlükler. (t.y.). Erişim adresi: http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=645. Erişim tarihi: 01 Aralık 2017.
  • Williams, M. L., Burnap, P. ve Sloan, L. (2017). Towards an ethical framework for publishing Twitter data in social research: Taking into account users’ views, online context and algorithmic estimation. Sociology, 51(6), 1149–1168. doi: 10.1177/0038038517708140
There are 49 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Engin Arık

Beril T. Arık This is me

Publication Date June 28, 2019
Submission Date January 30, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 39 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Arık, E., & T. Arık, B. (2019). The Concept of Love From the Perspectives of Big Data and Corpus Semantics: Meaning, Reference, and Metaphor. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 39(1), 151-178.
AMA Arık E, T. Arık B. The Concept of Love From the Perspectives of Big Data and Corpus Semantics: Meaning, Reference, and Metaphor. Psikoloji Çalışmaları. June 2019;39(1):151-178.
Chicago Arık, Engin, and Beril T. Arık. “The Concept of Love From the Perspectives of Big Data and Corpus Semantics: Meaning, Reference, and Metaphor”. Psikoloji Çalışmaları 39, no. 1 (June 2019): 151-78.
EndNote Arık E, T. Arık B (June 1, 2019) The Concept of Love From the Perspectives of Big Data and Corpus Semantics: Meaning, Reference, and Metaphor. Psikoloji Çalışmaları 39 1 151–178.
IEEE E. Arık and B. T. Arık, “The Concept of Love From the Perspectives of Big Data and Corpus Semantics: Meaning, Reference, and Metaphor”, Psikoloji Çalışmaları, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 151–178, 2019.
ISNAD Arık, Engin - T. Arık, Beril. “The Concept of Love From the Perspectives of Big Data and Corpus Semantics: Meaning, Reference, and Metaphor”. Psikoloji Çalışmaları 39/1 (June 2019), 151-178.
JAMA Arık E, T. Arık B. The Concept of Love From the Perspectives of Big Data and Corpus Semantics: Meaning, Reference, and Metaphor. Psikoloji Çalışmaları. 2019;39:151–178.
MLA Arık, Engin and Beril T. Arık. “The Concept of Love From the Perspectives of Big Data and Corpus Semantics: Meaning, Reference, and Metaphor”. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, vol. 39, no. 1, 2019, pp. 151-78.
Vancouver Arık E, T. Arık B. The Concept of Love From the Perspectives of Big Data and Corpus Semantics: Meaning, Reference, and Metaphor. Psikoloji Çalışmaları. 2019;39(1):151-78.

Psikoloji Çalışmaları / Studies In Psychology / ISSN- 1304-4680