A Pragmatic Function-Position Analysis of Address Terms: Tendencies in Turkish

Öz

This study, with the broader aim of describing the addressing system in Turkish, analyzes the addressing terms as inseparable parts of communication, in terms of their sentential positions, pragmatic functions and function-position mapping properties on the database of Turkish National Corpus and presents the findings within a synthesis of broader literature on different languages. With that purpose in mind, three research questions will be answered. The first one is about the pragmatic functions of address terms in Turkish in the corpus data, the second one is about the interaction of these functions with their sentential positions and third one is about the extent to which the findings of the study and the findings in the literature for other languages. A specified sub-set from the Turkish National Corpus (TNCV3) (Aksan, 2012) was used as the database of pieces of natural language. The three major findings of the study are that Turkish address terms have ten basic functions, these functions occur in four different sentential positions, there are some tendencies in function-position mappings and that although there are Turkish specific aspects, correspondences with the studies especially in English are much more. With its Turkish specific findings, the study will hopefully contribute to the analyses of the addressing systems in languages as a whole.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Address terms
• Functions of address terms
• Positions of address terms
• Corpus linguistics
• Pragmatics

Kaynakça

1. Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Koltuksuz, A., Sezer, T., Mersinli, Ü., Demirhan, U. U., Yılmazer, H., Atasoy, G., Öz, S., Yıldız, İ. & Kurtoğlu, Ö. (2012). Construction of the Turkish national corpus (TNC). Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 3223–3227). European Language Resources Association.
2. Alkan Ataman, H. (2019). Kutadgu Bilig’de hitaplar ve göreceli seslenişler. Selçuk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (45), 287-306. https://doi.org/10.21563/sutad.636245
3. Alyılmaz, C. (1999). Ünlemlerin seslenmeleri kuvvetlendirici işlevleri. Türk Gramerinin Sorunları II. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları, 534-540.
4. Alyılmaz, S. (2015). Türkçenin söz diziminde seslenmeler ve seslenme öbekleri. Atatürk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi, 54, 31-50.
5. Ashdowne, R. (2002). The vocative’s calling. The syntax of address in Latin. In I. Hartmann & A. Willi (Eds.), Oxford university working papers in linguistics, philology, and phonetics (pp. 143–161). Oxford University.
6. Asprey, E., & Tagg, C. (2019). The pragmatic use of vocatives in private one-to-one digital communication. Internet Pragmatics, 2(1), 83–111. https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00024.asp
7. Balpınar, Z. (1996). The use of pronouns of power and solidarity in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 288-293.
8. Balyemez, S. (2016). Dil bilgisi üzerine açıklamalar. Pegem Akademi.

9. Bayyurt, Y. & Bayraktaroğlu, A. (2001). The use of pronouns and terms of address in Turkish service encounters. In A. Bayraktaroğlu & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Linguistic politeness: A Case of Greek and Turkish (pp. 209-240). John Benjamins.
10. Berger, L. (2021). Positioning and functions of nominal address in roman comedy. In A. M. M. Rodriguez (Eds.), Linguisticae Dissertationes. Current Perspectives on Latin Grammar, Lexicon and Pragmatics Selected Papers from the 20th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (pp. 605-620). Ediciones Clásicas.
11. Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure.John Benjamins.
12. Braun, F. (1988). Terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. Mouton De Gruyter.
13. Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). The Pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. A. (Ed.), Style in Language (pp. 253-276). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
14. Busse, B. (2006). Vocative constructions in the language of Shakespeare. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
15. Chao, Y. (1956). Chinese terms of address. Language, 32(1), 217-241.
16. Clayman, S., E. (2010). Address terms in the service of other actions: The case of news interview talk, Discourse & Communication, 4(2), 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481310364330
17. Clayman, S., E. (2012). Address terms in the organization of turns at talk: The case of pivotal turn extensions, Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1853–1867.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.001
18. Clayman, S., E. (2013). Agency in response: The role of prefatory address terms. Journal of Pragmatics 57, 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.001
19. Dağabakan, F., Ö. (2021). Türkçe ve Almanca dijital ortamlarda kadınların kullandıkları hitap ifadeleri. Diyalog Interkulturelle Zeitschrift Für Germanistik, 9(2), 591-610. https://doi.org/10.37583/diyalog.1030753
20. Daniel, M., & Spencer, A. (2009). The vocative–an outlier case. In A. Spencer & A. L. Malchukov (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (pp. 626-634).Oxford University Press
21. Davies, E., E. (1986). English vocatives: A look into their function and form. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 19, 91- 106.
22. Demirbaş, M. (2017). Türkiye Türkçesi ağızlarında seslenme sözleri. Uluslararası TürkçeEdebiyat Kültür Eğitim, 6(4), 2154-2181.
23. Dickey, E. (1997). Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 255- 274.
24. Doğru, F. (2018). Seslenme sözleri ve genel Türkçe sözlüklerdeki görünümü. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(1), 135-150. https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.458087
25. Draper, P. (2005). Patronizing speech to older patients: A literature review. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 15(3-4), 273-279.
26. Dunkling, L. (1990). A Dictionary of epithets and terms of address. Routeledge & World Publishing.
27. Eğit, Y. (1996). Günümüz Türkçesinde hitap biçimleri. In A. Konrot (Ed.), Modern studies in Turkish linguistics: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, 12-14 Ağustos 1992 (pp. 27-38). Anadolu Üniversitesi.
28. Erdal, M. (2016). N'aber lan? In Hauenschild, M. Kappler & Barbara, Kellner-Heinkele (Eds.), Eine hundertblättrige Tulpe – Bir Èadbarg lÁla. Festgabe für Claus Schönig (pp. 74-86). Klaus Schwarz.
29. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1972). Sociolinguistic rules: Alteration and co-occurrence. In J. Gumperez, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics (pp. 213-250). Basil Blackwell.
30. Garcez, P. M. (1992). English into Brazilian Portuguese: The problems of translating address in literary dialogue.lha do Desterro, 28, 155-165.
31. Göksel, A., & Pöchtrager, M. (2013). The vocative and its kin: Marking function through prosody. In Noel, A. H., Sonnenhauser B., Vocative! Addressing between system and performance (pp.87-108). De Gruyter Mouton.
32. Grząśko, A. (2015). On the semantic history of selected terms of endearment. Linguistics Beyond and Within, 104-118. https://doi.org/10.31743/lingbaw.5626
33. Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2008). Analysis of the social meanings of the second person pronoun ‘sen’ in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 15-29.
34. Heritage, J. (2013). Turn-initial position and some of its occupants. Journal of Pragmatics 57, 331–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.025
35. Heyd, T.(2014).Dude, alter! A tale of two vocatives. Pragmatics and Society, 5(2),271 295. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.5.2.05hey
36. Hill, V. (2014). Vocatives: How syntax meets with pragmatics. Brill.
37. Işık Güler, H, Eröz-Tuğa, B. (2017). Sözlü Türkçe Derlemi ve Türkçe Ulusal Derleminde (U)lan'ın edimbilimsel bir incelemesi. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 14(2), 37-60.
38. Jaworski, A., & Galasiński, D. (2000). Vocative Address Forms and Ideological Legitimization in Political Debates. Discourse Studies, 2(1), 35–53.
39. Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica 9, 47-96.
40. Jucker, A. H. & Taavitsainen, I. (2003). Introduction. In Taavitsainen, I., Jucker, A.H. (Eds.), Diachronic perspectives on address term systems (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 107)(pp.1-25). John Benjamins.
41. Karahan, L. (2009). Türkçede söz dizimi. Akçağ Yayıncılık.
42. Kaynarpınar, F. (2021). Approval markers in Turkish: A corpus-driven study. [Unpublished master thesis]. Mersin University.
43. Kaynarpınar, F. & Uçar, A. (2021). Türkçede etkileşim belirleyicisi olarak tabi. Paper presented at 20.Uluslararası Türk Dilbilim Kurultayı, Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
44. Keser, B., & Pachulia, L. (2021). Gürcüce-Türkçe nezaket ve hitap kullanımındaki benzerlikler ve farklılıklar. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(2), 155-170. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.872333
45. Kökpınar Kaya, E. (2012). An analysis of the addressing terms used in Turkish society in the interface of alienation and intimacy. Studia Uralo-Altaica, 49, 303–309.
46. König, G. (1990). Türkçe’de Sen/Siz adıllarının ikinci tekil şahıs için kullanımına toplumdilbilimsel bir yaklaşım. In A. S. Özsoy & H. Sebütekin (Eds.). IV. Dilbilim Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 17-18 Mayıs 1990, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi (pp. 175-184). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.
47. Kroger, R., O., Wood, L., A. & Kim, U. (1984). Are the rules of address universal? III: comparison of Chinese,Greek and Korean Usage. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 3, 273-284.
48. Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G., R. (1976). Tu, Vous, Usted: A Social-Psychological Study of Address Patterns. Newbury House.
49. Lambrecht, K. (1996). On the formal and functional relationship between topics and vocatives. Evidence from French. In A. Goldberg (Ed.). Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 267-288). CSLI Publications.
50. Leech, G. (1999). The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In H. Hasselgård and S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 107– 118). Rodopi.
51. Lerner, G. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32(2), 177-201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450332202X
52. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
53. McCarthy M, & O’Keeffe A (2003). “What’s in a name?” Vocatives in casual conversations and radio phone-in calls In Leistyna, P. & Meyer, C. (Eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use (pp. 153–185). Rodopi.
54. Mehmedoğlu, A. (2006). Türkiye Türkçesinde cümle ögelerine yeni bir bakış. Değişim.
55. Moro, A. (2003). Notes on vocative case. A case study in clause structure. In J. Quer & J. Schroten (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory (pp. 247– 261). John Benjamins.
56. Ngo, T. (2006). Translation of Vietnamese Terms of Address and Reference. Translation Journal,10(4), 1-5.
57. O'Keeffe A. (2006). Investigating media discourse. Routledge.
58. Oyetade, S., O. (1995). A sociolinguistic analysis of address terms in Yoruba. Language in Society, 24, 515-535.
59. Özcan, F., H. (2016). Choice of address terms in conversational setting. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 982-1002.
60. Özer, N. (2019). Adress terms in Turkish: A corpus-based analysis. [Unpublished master thesis]. Mersin University.
61. Özer, N. & İbe Akcan, P. (2022). Türkçede hitap ifadeleri: Anlam ve sözcük türü temelinde bir ulamma. Çukurova Üniversitesi Türkoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1),382-407. https://doi.org/10.32321/cutad.1000242
62. Özkan, M. & Sevinçli, V. (2008). Türkiye Türkçesi söz dizimi. 3F Yayınları.
63. Panhuis, D. (1986). The vocative is outside the sentence. Studies in language, 10(2), 443-447.
64. Parkinson, J. (2020). On the use of the address terms guys and mate in an educational context. Journal of Pragmatics, 161(3),81-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.03.003
65. Parlar, Z. (2022). Gündelik dilin yeni jokeri: Aynen. The Journal of Turkic Language and Literature Surveys (TULLIS), 7(1), 32-57. https://doi.org/10.30568/tullis.1090503
66. Pauletto, F., Aronsson, K., & Galeano, G. (2017). Endearment and address terms in family life: Children's and parents’ requests in Italian and Swedish dinnertime interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 109, 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.014
67. Prevost, S. (2011). A propos from verbal complement to discourse marker: A case of grammaticalization? Linguistics 49(2), 391–413. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.012
68. Rendle-Short, J. (2007). Catherine, you're wasting your time: Address terms within the Australian political interview. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 1503-1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.006
69. Rendle-Short, J. (2010), ‘Mate’ as a term of address in ordinary interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1201–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.013
70. Rieschild, V. R. (1998). Lebanese Arabic reverse role vocatives. Anthropological Linguistics, 40(4), 617–641.
71. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
72. Schooneveld, C.-van. (1986). Is the vocative a case? In J. Johansen & H. Sonne (Eds.), Pragmatics and linguistics (pp. 179-186). Odense: Odense University Press.
73. Shiina, M. (2007a). Positioning and functioning of vocatives: Casework in historical pragmatics (1). Bulletin of the Faculty of Letters Hosei Universtiy 55, 17-32.
74. Shiina, M. (2007b). Positioning and functioning of vocatives: Casework in historical pragmatics (2). Bulletin of the Faculty of Letters Hosei Universtiy 56, 29-48.
75. Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural descriptions. In K. H. Basso & H. A. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in anthropology (pp. 11-56). University of New Mexico Press.
76. Slocum, P. (2016). The syntax of address. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Stony Brook University.
77. Spolsky, B. (1998). Sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press.
78. Stone, G. (1977). Address in the Slavonic languages. The Slavonic and East European Review, 55(4), 491-505.
79. Tsakona, V. & Sifianou, M. (2019). Vocatives in service encounters: evidence from Greek. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 51(1), 60-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2019.1594578
80. Wierzbicka A. (2017). Terms of address in European languages: a study in crosslinguistic semantics and pragmatics. In K. Allan & C. A, KecskesI (Eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use (pp. 209–38). Springer International Publishing.
81. Wilson, J., A. & Zeitlyn, D. (1995). The distribution of person-referring expressions in natural conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(1), 61-92.
82. Wilson, N. (2010). Bros, boys and guys: Address term function and communities of practice in a New Zealand rugby team. New Zealand English Journal, (24), 34–54.
83. Yıldırım, N. (2022). Yunus Emre’nin eserlerinde seslenme ifadeleri. Dil Araştırmaları, 16(30), 93-114.
84. Yüceol Özezen, M. (2004). Türkiye Türkçesi günlük konuşma dilinde seslenme biçimleri üzerine gözlemler- genel sınıflandırma. V. Uluslararası Türk Dil Kurultayı Bildirileri II (20-26 Eylül 2004) (pp.2265-2276). Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
85. Zago, R. (2015). “That’s none of your business, Sy”: The pragmatics of vocatives in film dialogue. In M. Dynel and J. Chovanec (Eds.), Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions (pp.183-207). John Benjamins
86. Zwicky, A. (1974). Hey, whatsyourname! In M. La Galy, R. A. Fox, & A. Bruck (Eds.), Papers from the tenth regional meeting of the Chicago linguistics society (pp. 787–801). Chicago Linguistics Society.