BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

-

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 9 - 32, 14.11.2013

Öz

The paper presents a corpus-driven, qualitative investigation of the interactional marker (IM) tamam, in the Spoken Turkish Corpus (STC). The study observes that the lexical meaning of tamam as the ‘completion’ of a previous verbal of non-verbal social activity spills over into its pragmatic meaning. The last section of study briefly compares tamam and peki. It finds that tokens of tamam far outnumber the occurrence of peki in STC, and interprets this finding within changing cultures of politeness and the epistemic values of the IMs. The paper concludes that epistemic meaning can acquire deontic and procedural meaning, which is a hallmark of IMs.

Kaynakça

  • Arndt, H. & Janney, R. W. (1991). Verbal, prosodic, and kinesic emotive contrasts in speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 15, 52 l-549.
  • Atabay, N., Kutluk, İ., Özel, S. (1983). Sözcük türleri. Ankara: TDK.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cheng, W., Greaves, C., Sinclair, J. M. & Warren, M. (2008). Uncovering the extent of the phraseological tendency: Towards a systematic analysis of concgrams. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 236-252.
  • Culpeper, J. (2011a). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Culpeper, J. (2011b). "It's not what you said, it's how you said it!" Prosody and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Ed.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp. 57-83). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge.
  • Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Ma., London: Harvard University Press.
  • Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “yeah”; and “mm hm”. Paper in Linguistics, 17(2), 197-216.
  • Kerslake, C. (1992). The role of connectives in discourse construction in Turkish. In A. Konrot (Ed.), Modern studies in Turkish (pp. 77-104). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Koshik, I. (2002). A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1851-1877.
  • Ruhi, Ş. (2011). Sözlüksel ve edimbilimsel anlamı sözlü derlemden izlemek. Paper presented at Doğan Aksan Çalıştayı, 3 October 2011.
  • Ruhi, Ş. (in press). Corpus linguistic approaches to (im)politeness: Corpus metadata features and annotation parameters in spoken corpora. In D. Z. Kádár, N. T. Enikő & K. Bibok (Eds.). Politeness: Interfaces. London: Equinox. Ruhi, Ş., Eryılmaz, K. & Acar, M. G. C. (2012, May). A platform for creating multimodal and multilingual spoken corpora for Turkic languages: Insights from the Spoken Turkish Corpus. Paper presented at the First Workshop on Language Resources and Technologies for Turkic Languages, LREC 2012, İstanbul, 57-63. Retrieved from http://www.lrec-conf.org/ proceedings/ lrec2012/workshops/02.Turkic%20Languages%20Proceedings.pdf
  • Schmidt, T. & Wörner, K. (2009). EXMARALDA – creating, analysing and sharing spoken language corpora for pragmatic research. Pragmatics, 19, 565-582.
  • Sinclair, J. McH. (2004). Trust the text. London: Routledge.
  • Spoken Turkish Corpus http://stc.org.tr Tannen, D. & Kakava, C. (1992). Power and solidarity in modern Greek conversation: Disagreeing to agree. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 10(1), 11-34.
  • Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Türkçe Sözlük. TDK Yayınları, Ankara, 199 Online version at http://tdkterim.gov.tr/bts/ Yılmaz, E. (2004). A pragmatic analysis of Turkish discourse particles: Yani, işte and şey (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). METU, Ankara.

The Interactional Functions of tamam in Spoken Turkish

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 9 - 32, 14.11.2013

Öz

The paper presents a corpus-driven, qualitative investigation of the interactional marker (IM) tamam, in the Spoken Turkish Corpus (STC). The study observes that the lexical meaning of tamam as the ‘completion’ of a previous verbal of non-verbal social activity spills over into its pragmatic meaning. The last section of study briefly compares tamam and peki. It finds that tokens of tamam far outnumber the occurrence of peki in STC, and interprets this finding within changing cultures of politeness and the epistemic values of the IMs. The paper concludes that epistemic meaning can acquire deontic and procedural meaning, which is a hallmark of IMs.

 

Key words: Affective meaning, Agreement, Disagreement, Interactional marker, peki, Spoken Turkish Corpus, tamam, Topic closure

Kaynakça

  • Arndt, H. & Janney, R. W. (1991). Verbal, prosodic, and kinesic emotive contrasts in speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 15, 52 l-549.
  • Atabay, N., Kutluk, İ., Özel, S. (1983). Sözcük türleri. Ankara: TDK.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cheng, W., Greaves, C., Sinclair, J. M. & Warren, M. (2008). Uncovering the extent of the phraseological tendency: Towards a systematic analysis of concgrams. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 236-252.
  • Culpeper, J. (2011a). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Culpeper, J. (2011b). "It's not what you said, it's how you said it!" Prosody and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Ed.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp. 57-83). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge.
  • Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Ma., London: Harvard University Press.
  • Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “yeah”; and “mm hm”. Paper in Linguistics, 17(2), 197-216.
  • Kerslake, C. (1992). The role of connectives in discourse construction in Turkish. In A. Konrot (Ed.), Modern studies in Turkish (pp. 77-104). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Koshik, I. (2002). A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1851-1877.
  • Ruhi, Ş. (2011). Sözlüksel ve edimbilimsel anlamı sözlü derlemden izlemek. Paper presented at Doğan Aksan Çalıştayı, 3 October 2011.
  • Ruhi, Ş. (in press). Corpus linguistic approaches to (im)politeness: Corpus metadata features and annotation parameters in spoken corpora. In D. Z. Kádár, N. T. Enikő & K. Bibok (Eds.). Politeness: Interfaces. London: Equinox. Ruhi, Ş., Eryılmaz, K. & Acar, M. G. C. (2012, May). A platform for creating multimodal and multilingual spoken corpora for Turkic languages: Insights from the Spoken Turkish Corpus. Paper presented at the First Workshop on Language Resources and Technologies for Turkic Languages, LREC 2012, İstanbul, 57-63. Retrieved from http://www.lrec-conf.org/ proceedings/ lrec2012/workshops/02.Turkic%20Languages%20Proceedings.pdf
  • Schmidt, T. & Wörner, K. (2009). EXMARALDA – creating, analysing and sharing spoken language corpora for pragmatic research. Pragmatics, 19, 565-582.
  • Sinclair, J. McH. (2004). Trust the text. London: Routledge.
  • Spoken Turkish Corpus http://stc.org.tr Tannen, D. & Kakava, C. (1992). Power and solidarity in modern Greek conversation: Disagreeing to agree. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 10(1), 11-34.
  • Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Türkçe Sözlük. TDK Yayınları, Ankara, 199 Online version at http://tdkterim.gov.tr/bts/ Yılmaz, E. (2004). A pragmatic analysis of Turkish discourse particles: Yani, işte and şey (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). METU, Ankara.
Toplam 18 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Şükriye Ruhi Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 14 Kasım 2013
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2013 Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Ruhi, Ş. (2013). The Interactional Functions of tamam in Spoken Turkish. Dil Ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 10(2), 9-32.