Olumsuzluğun Üstdilsel Kullanımına Dair

Yıl 2013, Sayı: 26, 91 - 106, 01.06.2013

M. Selcen Çürük

Öz

Olumsuzluğun, tümce/sözcenin anlamına odaklanan doğruluk-işlevsel kullanımı yanında, dile getirilen ifadenin daha ziyade yapısını esas alan üstdilsel kullanımı da söz konusudur. Olumsuzluğun üstdilsel kullanımı, -umumiyetle daha önce dile getirilen- tümce/sözcenin ya tamamının ya da bir kısmının tekrar edilerek olumsuzlanması ile gerçekleştirilir. Üstdilsel olumsuzlukta olumsuzlanan, tümce/sözcenin mantıksal yapısına uymayan herhangi bir dilsel birimi olabileceği gibi, dilsel birimlerin telaffuzu, yazımı ya da üslup olabilir. Olumsuzluğun üstdilsel kullanımında konuşur, genellikle kendinden önce dile getirilen ifadeyi düzeltmek amacıyla onu olumsuzlar. Bu çalışmada olumsuzluğun üstdilsel kullanımı ve bu kullanımın Türkiye Türkçesindeki görünümleri üzerinde durulmuştur

Anahtar Kelimeler

olumsuzluk, betimleyici olumsuzluk, üstdilsel olumsuzluk, söylemedimbilimsel işlev

On the Metalinguistic Usage of Negation

Öz

In addition to the truth-functional usage of the negation that focuses on the meaning of the sentence/utterance, there is also a metalinguistic usage based more on the structure of the uttered expression. The metalinguistic usage of negation is actualized with the negation by repetition of all or part of the -in general previously uttered- sentence/utterance. What is negated via metalinguistic negation can be any linguistic unit that is not in accordance with the logical structure of the sentence/utterance as well as the pronunciation and writing of the linguistic units and style. In metalinguistic usage, the reciter generally negates a previously uttered expression in order to correct it. This study focuses on the metalinguistic usage of negation and the appearance of this usage in the Turkish used in Turkey

Anahtar Kelimeler

negation, descriptive negation, metalinguistic negation, discourse-pragmatic function

Kaynakça

• BURTON-ROBERTS N. (1989). On Horn’s dilemma: Presupposition and negation. Journal of Linguistics 25, 95-125.
• CARSTON R. (1996 [1994]). Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics 25, 309-330.
• ………, (1998). Negation, `presupposition' and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Journal of Linguistics, 34 (2) 309-350. http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/robyn/pdf/negationsemprag.pdf Erişim: 22.10. 2013
• ……….., (2002). The pragmatics of negation, thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell, 265-319.
• DUCROT O. (1972). “Dire et ne pas dire”. Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.
• …….., (1973). La preuve et le dire. Paris: Maison Mame.
• FOOLEN, Ad (1991). “Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity: Some comments on a proposal by Laurence Horn”. Pragmatics 1, 217-237.
• GRICE, H. P. (1975 [1967]). “Logic and conversation”. (Ed.:Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press, 41-58.
• GRICE, H.P. (1978). “Further notes on logic and conversation”. (Ed.: P. Cole) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9: Pragmatics, 113-128. New York: Academic.
• HIDALGO DOWNING, L. (2000). Negation, text world, and discourse: The pragmatics of fiction. Stanford: Ablex.
• HORN, L. R. (1978). “Some aspects of negation”, Universals of Human Language, Vol. 4: Syntax (Ed.: J. H. Greenberg), Stanford: Stanford University Press., 127-210.
• ………, (1985). “Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity”, Language, 61: 121-174.
• ………., (1989). A natural history of negation. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
• HORN, Laurence R., Yasuhiko KATO (Ed.) (2000). Negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspective. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.
• HUANG, Y. (2012). The oxford dictionary of pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
• IWATA, S. 1998. Some extensions of the echoic analysis of metalinguistic negation. Lingua, 105, 49-65.
• KIRAN, Z. (2002). Dilbilime giriş (Dilbilgisinden dilbilime). Ankara: Seçkin Yay.
• LEECH, G. 1995. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
• MANSUR, M. N. (2012). Bertrand Russell’s theory of definite descriptions: An examination university of Calgary, department of philosophy. Calgary/Alberta.
• McCAWLEY (1991). “Contrastive negation and metalinguistic negation”. Chicago Linguistic Society 27: The Parasession on Negation, 189-206.
• NOH, E.-J. (2000). Metarepresentation: A relevance-theory approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• PARKINSON, G. H. R. (Ed.) (1988). An encyclopaedia of philosophy. Routledge.
• REIMER M. - A. BEZUIDENHOUT (Ed.) (2004). Descriptions and beyond, Oxford University Press.
• RUSSELL, B. (1905). “On denoting”. Mind, Vol. 14, No: 56, 479-493.
• http://revueltaredaccion.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/russell_on_denoting.pdf Erişim: 21.11.2013
• SPERBER, D. & D. WİLSON (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
• SPERBER, D. & D. WİLSON (1981). “Irony and the use-mention distinction”. Radical Pragmatics. (Ed.: P. Cole), New York: Academic Press: 295-318.
• SPERBER, D. & D. Wilson (2002). “Truthfulness and relevance”, Mind, 111: 583-632
• VAN DER SANDT, R., (1991). “Denial”. Chicago Linguistic Society 27: The Parasession on Negation, 331-344.
• WILSON, D. & D. SPERBER (1992). “On verbal irony”, Lingua, 87: 53-76.
• WILSON, D. (2006). “The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence?”, Lingua 116: 1722-1743.
• YOSHIMURA, A. (2002). “A Cognitive-pragmatic approach to metalinguistic negation”. Proceedings of the Sophia Symposium on Negation. Sophia: Sophia Linguistic Institute for International Communication, 113-132.