Relationship Between Dialect Features and Local Sub Groups

Öz

The main purpose in this study is to determine the spatial pattern of some characteristic vocal tones that are used in rural areas, which are not used in today’s common spoken language and written language, and also to establish whether local sub-groups by using these vocal tones. Data were collected from villages in Eskişehir locality in JuneSeptember 2013 by face-to-face interview method, after which the interview data were transcribed. In these texts, palate n (/ŋ/), wheezing ha (/x/) and open e (/ä/) in vocal tones were detected. According to the results; /ŋ/ vocal tone and /x/ vocal tone show global positive spatial correlation, /ä/ vocal tone is distributed randomly over the whole region. /ŋ/ vocal tone is spoken by Manavs, Yoruks and Turkmens which has also been proven by statistical methods. The spoken of /x/ vocal tone is significant for Yoruks and Turkmens. Turkmens use the /x/ vocal tone more than Yoruks. /ä/ vocal tone is more spoken by Balkan immigrants. This study is one of the first studies quantitative research method was used to understand the relationship with characteristic vocal tones and local constituents. This study provides a new quantitative research methods perspective to researchers studying on the issue of dialect features, dialectology and geolinguistics.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Geolinguistic
• dialectology
• spatial autocorrelation
• spatial regression
• Eskişehir
• Turkey

Ağız Özellikleri ile Yerel Alt Gruplar Arasındaki İlişki

Öz

Bu çalışmada temel amaç, yerel ağızlarda kullanılan, günümüz ortak konuşma dili ve yazı dilinde kullanılmayan bazı karakteristik seslerin mekânsal örüntüsünün ve ayrıca bu sesleri kullanan yerel alt grupların belirlenmesidir. Veriler 2013 yılı Haziran ayında Eskişehir ilinin köylerinde yüz yüze görüşme yöntemi ile toplanmış, ardından görüşme verileri yazıya aktarılmıştır. Metinlerde karakteristik olarak damak n’si (/ŋ/), hırıltılı ha (/x/) ve açık e (/ä/) seslerinin geçtiği tespit edilmiştir. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre; /ŋ/ ve /x/ sesleri küresel pozitif mekânsal korelasyon göstermektedir, /ä/ sesi tüm bölgede rastgele dağılmaktadır. /ŋ/ sesinin Manav, Yörük ve Türkmenler tarafından kullanıldığı istatistiksel yöntemlerle de kanıtlanmıştır. /x/ sesi Yörükler ve Türkmenler için önemli bulunmuştur. /x/ sesini Türkmenler, Yörüklerden daha fazla kullanmaktadır. /ä/ sesi Balkan göçmenleri tarafından daha fazla kullanılmaktadır. Bu araştırma, karakteristik sesleri ve bunların yerel bileşenlerle olan ilişkisini anlamak için yapılmış ilk nicel araştırmadır. Bu çalışma geolinguistik ve ağız araştırmaları konusunda çalışan araştırmacılara yeni bir nicel araştırma yöntemi ve perspektifi sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Geolinguistik
• diyalektoloji
• mekânsal otokorelasyon
• mekansal regresyon
• Eskişehir
• Türkiye

Kaynakça

1. Anselin, L. (1995). Local indicators of spatial association- LISA. Geographical Analysis, 27(2), 93-115.
2. Bent, T., Atagı, E., Akbik , A., & Bonifield, E. (2016). Classification of regional dialects, international dialects, and nonnative accents. Journal of Phonetics, 58, 104-117. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2016.08.004.
3. Boz, E. (2006). Afyonkarahisar merkez ağzı (Dialect of Afyonkarahisar province center). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
4. Boz, E. & Günay Aktaş, S. (2017). Eskişehir ili dil atlası (Language atlas of Eskişehir province). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
5. Boz, E., Bozkurt, F. & Doğru, F. (2018). Corpus-based research on terminology of Turkish Lexicography (CBRT-TURKLEX). Lexikos, 28, 428-439.
6. Burns, L., See, L., Heppenstall, A. & Birkin, M. (2018). Developing an individual-level geodemographic classification. Appl. Spatial Analysis, 11, 417-437. doi:10.1007/s12061-017-9233-7.
7. Caferoğlu, A. (1994). Anadolu dialektolojisi üzerine malzeme (Materials on Anatolian dialectology). Ankara: Türk Coğrafya Kurumu.
8. Dai, Q., Ye, X., Wei, Y. D., Ning, Y. & Dai, S. (2018). Geography, ethnicity and regional inequality in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 11, 557-580. doi:10.1007/s12061-017-9229-3.

9. Domosh, M., Neunmann, R., Price, P. & Jordan-Bychkov, T. (2009). The Human mosaic: A cultural approach to human geography. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
10. Dubert, F. (2012). Developing a database for dialectometric studies: The ALGa phonetic data. Dialectometrical analysis of 230 working maps. International Society for Dialectology and Geolinguistics, 19(1), 23-61. doi:10.1515/dig.2011.002.
11. Ercilasun, A. B. (1983). Kars ili ağızları: Ses bilgisi (Dialects of Kars province: Phonetics). Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi.
12. Eyyuboğlu, B. B. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde mekânsal istatistik ve coğrafi bilgi sistemleri: kuramdan uygulamaya (Spatial statistics and geographic information systems in social sciences: From theory to application). Doctoral Dissertation, Eskisehir: Anadolu University, The Graduate School of Sciences.
13. Fukushima, C. (2010). Comparing linguistic maps from different surveys. Dialectologia, 4, 13-22.
14. Gemalmaz, E. (1978). Erzurum ili ağızları (Dialects of Erzurum province). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.
15. Goodchild, M. F., Anselin, L., Appelbaum, R. P. & Harthorn, B. H. (2000). Toward spatially integrated social science. International Regional Science Review, 23(2), 139-159.
16. Gregory, D., Haggett, P., Smith, D. M. & Stoddart, D. R. (2009). The dictionary of human geography. Singapore: Willey-Bleckwell.
17. Grieve, J. (2011). The use of spatial outocorrelation statistics for the analysis of regional linguistic variation. Retrieved from: http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/conferences/qitl-4/ grieve-jack-34/PDF/grieve.pdf.
18. Gülensoy, T. (1988). Kütahya ve yöresi ağızları (Dialect of Kütahya province and its vicinity). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.
19. Gülsevin, G. (2002). Uşak ili ağızları (Uşak province dialects). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.
20. Günay Aktaş, S. & Boz, E. (2015). Süt parası karşılığında Eskişehir’e gelin göçü (Bride migration to Eskişehir in exchange for the money of breast milk). Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi (The Journal of International Social Research), 8(40), 476-485.
21. Günay Aktaş, S., Boz, E. & İlbaş, S. (2015). Geolinguistics: A case of Balkan immigrant dialect maps in Eskişehir. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences), 15(4), 1-6.
22. Günay Aktaş, S., Genç Kumtepe, E., Mert Kantar, Y., Ulukan, I. C., Aydın, S., Aksoy, T. & Er, F. (2017). Improving gender equality in higher education in Turkey. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 12, 167-189. doi:10.1007/s12061-017-9235-5.
23. Hoch, S., & Hayes, J. J. (2010). Geolinguistics: The incorporation of geographic information systems and science. The Geographical Bulletin, 51, 23-36.
24. Jalaluddin, N. H., Ahmad, Z., Radzi, H., & Omar, M. (2015). Lexicon variation and distribution of Malay dialect in Perak: A GIS approach. Iman, 3(3), 69-77. doi:10.17576/IMAN-2015-0303-07.
25. Korkmaz, Z. (1994a). Bartın ve yöresi ağızları (Dialect of Bartın province and its vicinity). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.
26. Korkmaz, Z. (1994b). Nevşehir ve yöresi ağızları (Dialect of Nevşehir province and its vicinity). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.
27. Lee, J., & Kretzschmar, W. A. (1993). Spatial analysis of linguistic data with GIS functions. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 7(6), 541-560.
28. Luo, W., Hartmann, J., Li, J. & Sysamouth, V. (2000). GIS mapping and analysis of Tai linguistic and settlement patterns in Southern China. International Journal of Geographic Information Sciences, 6(2), 129-136.
29. Maguire, W. (2012). Mapping the existing phonology of English dialects. Journal of the International Society for Dialectology and Geolinguistics, 20(1), 84-107. doi:10.1515/dialect-2012-0006.
30. Olariu, F. T. & Olariu, V. (2014). The Romanian linguistic cartography in the digitizing era: the electronic atlases. Journal of the International Society for Dialectology and Geolinguistics, 22(1), 75-90. doi:10.1515/dialect-2014-0005.
31. Özçelik, S. (1997). Urfa merkez ağzı (Dialect of Urfa province center). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.
32. Radzi, H., Jalaluddin, N. H., Ahmad, Z., Hamzah, S. N., Yusoff, Y. M., & Sanit, N. (2014). Geo-linguistics study on lexical and phonology dialect variations in North Perak, Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 152-158.
33. Ring, H. (2016). Mapmaking for language documentation and description. Language Documentation & Conservation, 10, 188-242.
34. Sapiro, P. (2018). Back to the future: Applying a current geodemographic classification to historic data to produce trend-based population projections. Appl. Spatial Analysis, 11, 121–146. doi:10.1007/s12061-016-9209-z.
35. Suwilai, P. & Naraset, P. (1996). Language and ethnicity on the Korat Plateau. Thailand: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development. http://hdl.handle.net/2433/187673.
36. Teerarojanarat, S. & Tingsabadh, K. (2008). A GIS-based approach for dialect boundary studies. Dialectologia, 6, 55-75.
37. Teerarojanarat, T. & Tingsabadh, K. (2011). Using GIS for linguistic study: a case of dialect change in the Northeastern Region of Thailand. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 21, 362-371.
38. Templin, T., Seidl, A., Wickström, B., & Feichting, G. (2016). Optimal language policy for the preservation of a minority language. Mathematical Social Sciences, 81, 8-21.
39. Tunçel, H. (2000). Türkiye’de ismi değiştirilen köyler (Renamed villages in Turkey). Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (Fırat University Journal of Social Science), 10(2), 23-34.
40. UNESCO. (2018). Topic: Protection and preservation of originary languages and dialects in a globalized world. 11 Kasım 2018 tarihinde https://upaep.mx/micrositios/upamun/unesco.pdf