Konuşma Çözümlemesi Yöntemi

Year 2015, Volume: 12 Issue: 2, 1 - 43, 07.12.2015

Olcay Sert Ufuk Balaman Nilüfer Can Daşkın , Safinaz Büyükgüzel Hatice Ergül

Abstract

Bu makale, sosyal bilimlerin bir çok alanında yaygın bir şekilde kullanılan Konuşma Çözümlemesi (KÇ) yöntemini ve bazı çalışma alanlarını tanıtmaktadır. KÇ yöntemi, etkileşime getirdiği mikro-analitik ve dizisel bakış açısı ile toplumbilim, insanbilim, ruhbilim, (uygulamalı) dilbilim gibi disiplinler içerisinde kendisine önemli bir yer edinmiştir. Bu disiplinler arası bağ, KÇ yönteminin toplumsal etkileşimin olduğu her alanda kullanılabilmesini sağlamış; sınıf etkileşimi, hasta-doktor etkileşimi, mahkeme konuşmaları gibi bir çok araştırma konusunun oluşumunda önemli rol oynamıştır. Makalenin ana amacı, kapsamlı bir derleme ile KÇ’nin ilkelerini, veri toplama süreçlerini, dizi düzeni ve onarım gibi çözümleme ulamlarını tanıtmaktır. İkinci amaç ise, ses ve görüntü verisinden elde edilmiş Türkçe doğal konuşma örneklerinin çözümlemelerini  kullanarak, KÇ’nin uygulamalarını mikro-analitik ve dizisel olarak göstermektir. Bu çözümlemeler, günlük konuşmaların dinamiklerinin ortaya çıkarılmasına ek olarak, KÇ yönteminin Türkiye’de hasta-doktor etkileşimi, dil sınıflarındaki etkileşim ve öğretmen yetiştirme gibi alanlara önemli katkı sağlama potansiyeline sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Budunyöntembilimsel KÇ’nin Türkçe terimlerini belirleyecek bu kapsamlı derleme çalışması, Türkiye’de genel olarak toplum bilimleri alanında çalışan araştırmacılara yeni araştırma alanları açmayı, alanda yöntemsel bir değişim ve gelişime yön vermeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Konuşma Çözümlemesi, etkileşimde konuşma, dizisel düzen, uygulamalı dilbilim, mesleki etkileşim

Keywords

Konuşma Çözümlemesi, etkileşimde konuşma, dizisel düzen, uygulamalı dilbilim, mesleki etkileşim

References

• Ainsworth-Vaughn, N. (2003). 23 The discourse of medical encounters. D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen ve H. E Hamilton (Ed.) The handbook of discourse analysis (s. 453-469). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Atkinson, J. M. ve Heritage, J. (Ed.) (1984). Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Beach , W. A. (2009). A natural history of family cancer: Interactional resources for managing illness. Cresskill, NJ : Hampton Press .
• Beach , W. A. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of patient-provider interactions: Raising and responding to concerns about life, illness and disease. Cresskill, NJ : Hampton Press .
• Beach, W.A. (2013). Conversation analysis and communication. J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers, (Ed.) The handbook of conversation analysis (s. 674-687). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Bernsten, S. G. (2002). Using conversation analysis to evaluate pre-sequences in invitation, offer and request dialogues in ESL textbooks. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
• Brouwer, C. ve J. Wagner. (2004), Developmental issues in second language conversation, Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 29–47.
• Büyükgüzel, S. (2015). "Les stratégies d'évitement dans l'interview politique: les ressources interactionnelles en langue étrangère". Devam etmekte olan Doktora Tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
• Can-Daşkın, N. 2015. Shaping learner contributions in an EFL classroom: Implications for L2 classroom interactional competence. Classroom Discourse. 6(1), 33-56.
• Carroll, D. (2005). Learning through interactive talk: A school-based mentor teacher studygroup as a context for professional learning. Teacher and Teacher Education, 21. 457-473.
• Cengiz, Ö. (2013). Türk annelerin çocuklarına kitap okurken kullandıkları dil. Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi/ Journal of Faculty of Letters, 30(1). 97-114.
• Chui, K. (1996). Organization of repair in Chinese conversation. Text,16. 343–372.
• Clayman, S. E. (2013). Turn-constructional units and the transition-relevance place. J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers, (Ed.) The handbook of conversation analysis (s. 150-166). West Suusex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Clayman, S. E. (2013). Conversation analysis in the news interview. J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers, (Ed.) The handbook of conversation analysis (s. 630-656). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Clemente, I. (2013). Conversation analysis and anthropology. J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers, (Ed.) The handbook of conversation analysis (s. 688-670). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Drew, P. (2013). Turn design. J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers, (Ed.) The handbook of conversation analysis (s. 131-149). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Drew, P., Chatwin, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Conversation analysis: a method for research into interactions between patients and health‐care professionals. Health Expectations, 4(1), 58-70.
• Elçin, M., Turan, S., Sert, O. ve Bozbıyık, M. (2015). Simülasyon hasta-doktor etkileşimi çevriyazı veritabanı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Tıp Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı, Ankara.
• Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2013). Learning to become a CLIL teacher: Teaching, reflection and professional development, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3). 334-353.
• Escobar Urmeneta, C. ve N. Evnitskaya. (2014). ‘Do you know Actimel?’ The adaptive nature of dialogic teacher-led discussions in the CLIL science classroom: a case study. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2). 165-180.
• Eskildsen, S. W. (2011). The L2 inventory in action: Conversation analysis and usage-based linguistics in SLA. G. Pallotti ve J. Wagner (Ed.), L2 learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (s. 327–364). Honolulu: University of Hawai`i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
• Eskildsen, S. W. (2012). L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62. 335–372.
• Fox, B., Hayashi, M., and Jasperson, R. (1996). A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff ve S.A. Thompson (Ed.) Interaction and grammar (s.185–237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Fox, B. A., Thompson S. A., Ford E. A. ve Couper-Kuhlen, A.. (2013). Conversation analysis and linguistics. J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers, (Ed.) The handbook of conversation analysis (s. 726-740). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Frankel R. M. (1983) The laying on of hands: Aspects of the organization of gaze, touch, and talk in a medical encounter. S. Fisher ve A. D. Todd (Ed.) The social organization of doctor–patient communication (s. 19-54). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
• Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35(5). 553-574.
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
• Gill, V. T. ve Maynard , D. W. ( 2006 ). Explaining illness: Patients’ proposals and physicians ’ responses. J. Heritage ve D. W. Maynard (Ed.), Communication in medical care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients (s. 115 – 150). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
• Gülich, E. & Mondada, L. (2001). Konversationsanalyse. analyse conversationnelle. In Holtus, G., Metzeltin, M. ve Schmitt, Ch. (Ed.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. (s. 196-250). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
• Hakulinen, A. ve Selting, M. (2005). Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Hall, G. (2001). Relationships in a professional development school: Teachers and academics learning together through their talk. ATEA Conference-Teacher Education: Change of Heart, Mind and Action. Melbourne 24-26 September 2001, 1-9.
• Halonen , M. (2006). Life stories used as evidence for the diagnosis of addiction in group therapy. Discourse & Society , 17(3). 283-298 .
• Hauser, E. (2011). On the danger of exogenous theory in CA-for-SLA: A response to Hellermann and Cole (2009). Applied linguistics, 32(3). 348-352.
• Hauser, E. (2013), Stability and change in one adult's second language English negation. Language Learning, 63(3). 463-498.
• Hayashi, M. (2013). Turn allocation and turn sharing. J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers, (Ed.) The handbook of conversation analysis (s. 167-190). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Hellermann, J. (2008), Social actions for classroom language learning, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• Hellermann, J. ve E. Cole. (2009). Practices for social interaction in the language-learning classroom: Disengagements from dyadic task interaction. Applied Linguistics 30(2). 186–215.
• Hellermann, J. ve S. Pekarek Doehler. (2010). On the contingent nature of language- learning-tasks. Classroom Discourse, 1(1). 25-45.
• Hepburn, A. & Bolden, G. B. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers, (Ed.) The handbook of conversation analysis (s. 57-76). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. J. M. Atkinson ve J. Heritage (Ed.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (s. 299-345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1). 1-29.
• Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: sequence organisation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1). 30-52.
• Heritage, J. ve Stivers, T. (2013). Conversation Analysis and Sociology. J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers, (Ed.) The handbook of conversation analysis (s. 659-673). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• HUMAN -Hacettepe University Micro Analysis Network- (2014, 20 Mayıs). Turkish CA. [Blog paylaşımı]. http://microanalysisnetwork.wordpress.com/turkish-ca/ adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2. Baskı.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Jacknick, C. M. (2011). “But this is writing”: post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 5(1). 39-54. http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_5_1/jacknick.pdf
• Jacknick, C.M. ve S. Thornbury. (2013). The task at hand: Noticing as a mind-body-world phenomenon. Noticing and Second Language Acquisition: Studies in Honor of Richard Schmidt, 309.
• Jakonen, T. ve Morton, T. (2015). Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 36(1). 73-94.
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. G. H. Lerner (Ed.) Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (s. 13-23). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Jenks, C. J. (2011). Transcribing talk and interaction: Issues in the representation of communication data. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
• Jenks, C. J. (2013). Working with transcripts: an abridged review of issues in transcription. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(4). 251-261.
• Kasper, G. ve Wagner, J. (2014). Conversation analysis in applied Linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34. 171-212.
• Kääntä, L. (2014). From noticing to initiating correction: students’ epistemic displays in instructional interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 66. 86-105.
• Kim, K.-H. (1999). Other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation: Types and functions. Discourse and Cognition, 6. 141–168.
• Kim, K.-H. (2001). Confirming intersubjectivity through retroactive elaboration: Organization of phrasal units in other-ınitiated repair sequences in Korean conversation. M. Selting ve E. Couper-Kuhlen (Ed.), Studies in interactional linguistics (s. 345–372). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Komter, M. (2013). Conversation analysis and communication. J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers, (Ed.) The handbook of conversation analysis (s. 612-619). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Koole, T. (2010). Displays of epistemic access: Student responses to teacher explanations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2). 183-209.
• Lave, J. ve Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lazaraton, A. ve Ishihara, N. (2005). Understanding second language teacher practice using microanalysis and self-reflection: A collaborative case study. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4). 529-542.
• Lee, Y. ve Hellermann, J. (2014). Tracing developmental changes through conversation analysis: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4). 763-788.
• Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers, (Ed.) The handbook of conversation analysis (s. 103-130). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. New Jersey: Routledge.
• Markee, N. (2008), Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29. 404-427.
• Markee, N. (2013). Emic and etic in qualitative research. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.
• Markee, N. ve Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 88. 491–500.
• Markee, N. ve Kunitz, S. (2013). Doing planning and task performance in second language acquisition: an ethnomethodological respecification. Language Learning. 63(4). 629-664.
• Maynard, D. W. ve Clayman, S. E. (2003). Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. L. T. Reynolds, ve J. H. Nancy (Ed.), The handbook of symbolic interactionism (s. 173-202). Oxford: Rowman Altamira.
• McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(2). 183-213.
• Mehan, H. (1979), ‘What time is it Denise?’ Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 28(4). 285-94.
• Moerman, M. (1977). The preference for self-correction in a thai conversational corpus. Language, 53. 872–882.
• Montgomery, M. (2011). The accountability interview, politics and change in UK public service broadcasting . M. Ekström & M. Patrona (Ed.), Talking politics in broadcast media: Cross-cultural perspectives (s. 33-55). Amsterdam : John Benjamins .
• Mondada, L. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to data collection. . J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers, (Ed.) The handbook of conversation analysis (s. 32-56). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: on language, learning and documenting learning in conversation analytic SLA research. Seedhouse, P., S. Walsh and C. Jenks (Ed.), Conceptualising learning in applied linguistics (s. 105-126) Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Pekarek Doehler, S. (2013). Social-interactional approaches to SLA: a state of the art and some future perspectives. Language, Interaction and Acquisition. 4(2), 134-160.
• Peräkylä, A. (1997). Conversation analysis: A new model of research in doctor-patient communication. Journal of the Royal society of Medicine, 90(4). 205.
• Peräkylä, A. (2013). Conversation Analysis and Psychoteraphy. . J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers, (Ed.) The handbook of conversation analysis (s. 551-574). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Pilnick, A., Hindmarsh, J. ve Gill, V. T. (2009). Beyond ‘doctor and patient’: developments in the study of healthcare interactions. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(6). 787-802.
• Pochon-Berger, E. (2011). A participant’s perspective on tasks: from task instruction, through pre-task planning, to task accomplishment. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language,.5(1). 71-90.
• http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_5_1/pochon-berger.pdf
• Pomerantz, A. (1984). Pursuing a response. J. M. Atkinson ve J. Heritage (Ed.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (s. 152-163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pomerantz. A. & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. . J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers, (Ed.) The handbook of conversation analysis (s. 210-228). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Potter, J. ve Edwards, D. (2013). Conversation analysis and psychology. . J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers, (Ed.) The handbook of conversation analysis (s. 701-725). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Sandlund, E. ve P. Sundqvist. (2011). Managing task-related trouble in L2 oral proficiency tests: contrasting interaction data and rater assessment’, Novitas-ROYAL http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_5_1/sandlund_sundqvist.pdf on Youth and Language), 5(1). 91-120,
• Sacks, H. (1967). The search for help: No one to turn to. E. Schneidman (Ed.), Essays in self - destruction (s. 203-223). New York: Science House.
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. ve Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language. 696-735.
• Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6). 1075-1095.
• Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. J. M. Atkinson ve J. Heritage (Ed.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (s. 28-52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schegloff, E. A., (1979). The relevance of repair for syntax-for-conversation. T. Givon (Ed.), Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic.
• Schegloff, E. A., (1987). Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics, 25(1). 201-18.
• Schegloff, E. A., (1997). Third turn repair. G. R. Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin ve J. Baugh (eds), Towards a social science of language: Papers in honour of William Labov (s. 31-40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Schegloff, E. A., (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97, (5), 1295-1345.
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson, (Eds.). Interaction and grammar (pp. 52-133).Cambridge University Press.Schegloff, E. A., (2000). When "others" initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21(2). 205-43.
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. ve Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language, 53. 361-82.
• Schegloff, E.A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S. ve Olsher, D. (2002). Conversation analysis and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 22. 3-31.
• Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8. 289-327.
• Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden: Blackwell.
• Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38(4). 165-187.
• Seedhouse, P., ve Walsh, S. (2010). Learning a second language through classroom interaction. P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, ve C. Jenks (Ed.), Conceptualising learning in applied linguistics (s. 127-46). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Selting, M. (1988). The role of intonation in the organization of repair and problem handling sequences in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12. 293–322.
• Sert, O. (2008). Televizyon izlerken gerçekleşen günlük konuşmalar çevriyazın veritabanı.
• Sert, O. (2009). Teachers’ code-switching in managerial mode at beginner level Turkish as an Additional Language (TAL) classes. LangUE 2009, June 11-12, 2009. University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
• Sert, O. (2011), A micro-analytic investigation of claims of insufficient knowledge in EAL Classrooms, Thesis (PhD), Newcastle University, UK.
• Sert, O. (2013). ‘Epistemic Status Check’ as an interactional phenomenon in instructed learning settings’. Journal of Pragmatics, 45(1). 13-28.
• Sert, O. (2014a). Children agency in action: challenging teachers’ pronunciation in an EFL preschool context. American Association for Applied Linguistics Konferansında sunulmuş bildiri, 22-25 Mart, 2014, Portland, ABD.
• Sert, O. (2014b). Hasta-Hekim etkileşiminde ve Tıp eğitiminde Konuşma Çözümlemesi yöntemi. Tıp Eğitimi ve Bilişimi Anabilim Dalı Eğitim Semineri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• http://www.medinfo.hacettepe.edu.tr/images/olcaysert.wmv
• Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Sert, O. ve Seedhouse, P. (2011). Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language). 5 (1). 1-14.
• http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_5_1/sert_seedhouse.pdf
• Sert, O. ve S. Walsh. (2013). The interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge in English language classrooms. Language and Education, 27(6). 542-565.
• Siegel, A. (2013). Social epistemics for analyzing longitudinal language learner development. DOI: 10.1111/ijal.12052. Journal of Applied Linguistics.
• Sidnell, J. (2001). Conversational turn-taking in a Caribbean English Creaole. Journal of Pragmatics. 33(8). 1263-1290. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: an introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Sinclair, J. ve M. Coulthard. (1975), Towards an Analysis of Discourse, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sneijder, P. (2014). The embedding of reported speech in a rhetorical structure by prosecutors and defense lawyers in Dutch trials. Text & Talk, 34(4), 467-490.
• Stivers, T. (2013). Sequence organization. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 191-209). West Sussex: Blackwell.
• Stokoe, E. (2011). Simulated interaction and communication skills training: The “Conversation Analytic Role-play Method.” C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Changing institutional practices (s. 119–139). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Strong, M. ve Baron, W. (2004). An analysis of mentoring conversations with beginning teachers: suggestions and responses. Teaching and Teacher Education. 20. 47-57.
• Svensson, M. S., Luff, P., & Heath, C. (2009). Embedding instruction in practice: contingency and collaboration during surgical training. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(6). 889-906.
• Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1). 3-23.
• Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. New York: Routledge.
• Walsh, S. (2011), Exploring classroom discourse. Language in action. Oxon: Routledge. Walsh, S. Novitas-ROYAL http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_6_1/Walsh.pdf interactional Language), 6(1). (Research on Youth and 1-14.
• Walsh, S. (2013), Classroom discourse and teacher development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A single case analysis. Language Learning, 59(4). 796-824.
• Waring, H. (2013). ‘How was your weekend?’: Developing the interactional competence in managing routine inquiries. Language Awareness, 22(1). 1-16.
• Webb, H. (2009). ‘I’ve put weight on cos I’ve bin inactive, cos I’ve’ad me knee done’: Moral work in the obesity clinic. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(6). 854-871.
• Weathersbee, T., ve Maynard, D. W. (2009). Dialling for donations: practices and actions in the telephone solicitation of human tissues. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(6). 803-816.
• Wong, J. (2002). Applying Conversation Analysis in applied linguistics: Evaluating dialogue in English as a second language textbooks. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40. 37-60.
• Young, R.F. (2008). Language and interaction: A Resource Book. Oxon: Routledge.
• Yurtdaş, G. T., Atakan, M. ve Tezerişir, A. (2011). Sözel etkileşimlerde cinsiyet ile söz kesme ve çakışma arasındaki ilişki. Psikoloji Çalışmaları Dergisi. 31, 105-117.
• Zhang, W. (1998). Repair in Chinese conversation. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, University of Hong Kong. EK
• Çevriyazı Simgeleri ve Anlamları (Jefferson’a [2004] dayanarak hazırlanmıştır.) Simge Adı Anlamı [ ] Örtüşme
• Örtüşmenin başlangıç [ ve bitiş ] noktalarını belirtir. = Mandallama
• Sözcenin boşluk bırakmadan bir önceki sözceyi
• takip etmesini belirtir. (.) Anlık duraklama
• 2 saniye ve altındaki anlık duraklamaları belirtir.
• Parantez içerisinde nokta yerine sayı belirtilmesiyle
• de duraklamanın tam olarak uzunluğu ifade edilir. . ↓ Düşen tonlama
• Tonlamanın ya da sesin düşüşünü belirtir. ? ↑ Yükselen tonlama
• Tonlamanın ya da sesin yükselişini belirtir. - Kesme
• Konuşmanın ani bir şekilde kesilmesini belirtir. > < Hızlı konuşma
• Büyüktür simgesi ile küçüktür simgesi arasındaki
• çeviriler konuşmanın normalden daha hızlı
• gerçekleştiğini belirtir. < > Yavaş konuşma
• Küçüktür simgesi ile büyüktür simgesi arasındaki
• çeviriler konuşmanın normalden daha yavaş
• gerçekleştiğini belirtir. ° ° Düşük ses
• Derece simgeleri arasında çevrilen konuşmalar
• yumuşak, kısık veya düşük bir ses kullanıldığını belirtir. ABC Yüksek ses
• Büyük harflerle çevrilen konuşma bölümleri
• normalden oldukça yüksek bir ses kullanıldığını belirtir. abc Vurgu
• Çevirinin altı çizili bölümleri konuşmada vurgu
• yapılan bölümleri belirtir. ::: Uzatma
• Her bir iki nokta üst üste ilgili sesin 0.2 saniyelik
• uzatılmasını belirtir. hhh Nefes verme
• h harfleri duyulabilir nefes verme sesini belirtir ve
• sesin devam ettiği oranda harf sayısı artabilir. .hh Nefes alma
• Noktayı takip eden h harfi duyulabilir nefes alma
• sesini belirtir ve sesin devam ettiği oranda harf sayısı artabilir. ( ) Anlaşılması konuşma anlayamadığı içerisinde belirtilir. bölümleri parantez (( )) Çevriyazı yorumları oluşturan kişinin yorum eklemesini gerektiren konuşma bölümlerini belirtir. SÖZLÜKÇE
• Türkçeleştirilmiş Konuşma Çözümlemesi Terimleri (alfabetik olarak
• sıralanmıştır.) Özgün Adı Türkçesi Özgün Adı Türkçesi social action sosyal eylem intersubjectivity öznelerarasılık
• social interaction sosyal etkileşim
• known-information question sorusu task-oriented görev-odaklı
• learning behavior tracking takibi repair konum onarımı markedness belirtisellik token işaret marker belirtici transcription çevriyazı meaning-and-fluency
• anlam-ve-akıcılık transition
• relevance place nokta (GUN)
• *CA-for-SLA (conversation analysis for second language acquisition
• **KÇ-İDE (ikinci dil ediniminde konuşma çözümlemesi)