Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi

1304-6594 2149-0856

Mersin University

Properties of Evet ‘Yes’ in Spoken Turkish: Evidence From The Spoken Turkish Corpus

Sözlü Türkçede Evet'in Görünümleri: Sözlü Türkçe Derlemi’nden Bulgular

Özcan

Güner

Merin Üniversitesi Aksan

Yeşim

Merin Üniversitesi

07 15 2017

14 2 15 35 06 18 2017 09 11 2017

2004

Journal of Linguistics and Literature

In this study,evetandhı-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 ofevetandhı-hı˙in the light of data and the quantitative results from Spoken Turkish Corpus (STC).Instances of the interactional markersevetandhı-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 betweenevetandhı-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 andhı-hı˙provide the means of distinguishing their evaluative dimensions. As a final point, the functions ofevetandhı-hı˙have changed according to their intonation patterns.

Bu çalışmada,etkileşimsel belirleyici olarak görev yapan evetve hı-hı˙’yı edimbilim ve konuşmaçözümlemesi kapsamında incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın amacı, bu belirleyicilerinSözlü Türkçe Derlemi (STD) ışığında belirlenen etkileşimsel özelliklerini veişlevlerini nicel sonuçlarıyla birlikte edimbilimsel katkıları da göz önündebulundurularak 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 belirleyiciarasında işlev bakımından nitel ve nicel farklılıklar ortaya çıkmıştır. Buişlevlerin sınıflandırılması sürecinde devam ettirme, doğrulama, katılma,konudan sapma-konuyu kapatma, cevap verme gibi işlevler evet ve hı-hı˙’nınetkileşim içerisindeki yerlerine göre incelenmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda işlevselözelliklerinin yanı sıra, kullanım alanlarındaki görünüm farklılıkları dadeğerlendirme boyutunu belirlemeyi sağlamıştır. Son olarak, ezgi bakımındanincelenen evet ve hı-hı˙’nın ezgi örüntülerininişlevlerine göre değiştiği görülmüştür.

Edimbilim Etkileşim Belirleyicisi evet Konuşma Çözümlemesi hı-hı˙ Sözlü Türkçe Derlemi.Conversation Analysis Interactional Marker Pragmatics

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.