Demokrasi Kavramına İlişkin Türkçe ve Amerikan İngilizcesi Metinlerde Karşılaştırmalı Eleştirel Metafor Çözümlemesi

Öz

Sosyo-politik bir kavram olarak ‘demokrasi’, ilk ortaya çıktığı çağlardan bu yana farklı toplumlarda farklı evrimsel süreçler geçirmiş ve uygulanmıştır. Bu sebeple, evrensel bir kavram gibi görünse de farklı bilişsel ve kültürel şemalar tarafından şekillenebilmektedir. Bu çalışma, bir derlem içerisinde ‘demokrasi’ kavramının metaforik kullanımlarından yola çıkarak Türkçe ve Amerikan İngilizcesinde bu kavrama ilişkin kavramsallaşmaları incelemeyi ve bu kavramsal yapının iki dilde farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığını ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmanın veri tabanı TUDv3.0, TS Columns, COCA ve NOW derlemlerinden seçilmiş 4000 örnekten oluşmaktadır. Demokrasi kavramı ile ilişkili metaforların tespiti, yorumlaması ve açıklanmasında Eleştirel Metafor Çözümlemesi (Charteris-Black, 2004) ve Metafor Tespit Yöntemi (Pragglejaz Grup, 2007) temel alınmıştır. Sonuçlar, her iki dilde de fiziksel nesne, çatışma, canlı organizma, hedef-seyahat ve yapı-bina kaynak alanlarının en fazla sıklığa sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Diller arası karşılaştırma, demokrasi kavramıyla eşleşen kaynak alanların her iki dilde benzerlik gösterse de sayısal dağılımlarının farklılaşabildiğini ve tipik olarak tercih edilen metaforların farklılık gösterdiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kavramsal Metafor,Demokrasi,Derlem,Türkçe,Amerikan İngilizcesi

A Comparative Critical Metaphor Analysis in Turkish and American English Texts Related to the Concept of Democracy

Öz

As a sociopolitical concept, ‘democracy’ has passed through different evolutionary processes and practiced differently in diverse societies since it was first introduced. Therefore, although it seems to be a universal concept, it can be shaped by different cognitive and cultural schemas. By setting out from the metaphoric usages of ‘democracy’ in a corpus, this study aims to investigate the conceptualizations of this concept in Turkish and American English, and to reveal whether this conceptual structure differs in these two languages. Database of the study consists of 4000 samples taken from TNCv3.0, TS Columns, COCA, and NOW. Critical Metaphor Analysis (Charteris-Black, 2004) and Metaphor Identification Procedure (Pragglejaz, 2007) were based on in the identification, explanation and interpretation of metaphors. Findings demonstrate that physical object, conflict, living organism, destination-journey and construction-building are the most frequently employed source domains in both languages. The cross-linguistic comparison manifests that although the source domains that map with democracy show similarities, their quantitative distributions and the typically preferred metaphors might vary in the two languages.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Conceptual Metaphor,Democracy,Corpus,Turkish,American English

Kaynakça

1. Aksan, Y. ve diğ. (2012). Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). İçinde Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012). İstanbul. Turkey. http://www.lrecconf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/pa pers.html
2. Ansah, G. N. (2017). Cultural Conceptualisations of DEMOCRACY and Political Discourse Practices in Ghana. F. Sharifian (Haz.) içinde, Advances in Cultural Linguistics (ss. 369-387). Singapore: Springer.
3. Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
4. Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Charteris-Black, J. (2018). Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. (2. Basım). London: Palgrave.Collins Cobuild Advanced English Dictionary. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english
6. Efeoğlu, E. (2015). The metaphorical (re)construction of Turkey in political discourse: A corpus-driven critical metaphor analysis. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
7. Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
8. Hellín-García, M. J. (2013). Legitimization and delegitimization strategies on terrorism: A corpus-based analysis of building metaphors. Pragmatics, 23(2), 301-330.

9. Kövecses, Z. (1994). Tocqueville's Passionate "Beast": A Linguistic Analysis of The Concept of American Democracy. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 9(2), 113-133.
10. Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. (2. Basım). New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Lakoff, G. (1991). “Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify the war in the Gulf.” Peace Research, 23, 25-32.
12. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. A. Ortony (Haz.) içinde, Metaphor and Thought (2. Basım) (ss. 202–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How Liberals and Conservatives think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate: The essential guide for progressives. Canada: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
15. Lakoff, G. (2009). The political mind: A cognitive scientist’s guide to your brain and its politics. New York: Penguin Books.
16. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. London: The University of Chicago Press.
17. Malan, S. (2008). Conceptual metaphors in South African political speeches (1994 - 2001). Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, 38, 73-106.
18. Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
19. Musolff, A. (2006). Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 23-38.
20. Musolff, A. (2010). Metaphor, nation and the holocaust. The concept of the body politic. London: Routledge.
21. Musolff, A. (2018). Nations as persons: Collective identities in conflict. B. Bös, S. Kleinke, S. Mollin & N. Hernández
 (Haz.) içinde, The Discursive Construction of Identities On- and Offline: Personal - Group - Collective (ss. 249-266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
22. News on the Web (NOW). https://corpus.byu.edu/now/
23. Nicolae, A. O. (2014). Metaphorical perspectives on democracy in the UK and Romania. I. Boldea (Haz.) içinde, Globalization and intercultural dialogue: Multidisciplinary perspectives (ss. 386-396). Tîrgu-Mureş: Arhipelag XXI Press.
24. Oxford English Dictionary. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/
25. Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1-39.
26. Talmy, L. (1988). Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-100.
27. TS Columns Corpus. http://cqpweb.tscorpus.com/cqpweb/colu mns_v2/
28. Türkçe Ulusal Derlemi (TUDv3.0). http://www.tnc.org.tr
29. Türk Dil Kurumu, Çevrimiçi Türkçe Sözlük. http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?opt ion=com_bts&view=bts