“GİBİ” SÖYLEM BELİRLEYİCİSİNİN TÜRKÇE KONUŞMA DİLİNDEKİ İŞLEVSEL KULLANIMLARI

Öz

Bu çalışmada Türkçedeki “gibi” sözcüğünün bir söylem belirleyici olarak işlevsel kullanımlarında konuşmacı tercihlerinin yaş, cinsiyet ve konuşma durumu değişkenlerinden etkilenip etkilenmediği incelenmiştir. Yaş değişkeninin etkisini incelemek üzere anadili Türkçe olan konuşmacıların yer aldığı dört farklı yaş grubu (4-8, 18-23, 33-50, 50 ve üzeri) oluşturulmuştur. Çalışmada 84 katılımcı yer almıştır. Cinsiyet dağılımı her yaş grubu içinde eşit olacak şekilde planlanmıştır. Tüm katılımcılarla iki farklı konuşma durumunda (hazırlıklı/hazırlıksız) gerçekleştirilen ve en az 300 sözcükten oluşan yüz yüze görüşmeler kaydedilmiş ve çevriyazıya dönüştürülmüştür. Araştırmanın sonunda “gibi” söylem belirleyicisinin Türkçe konuşma dilinde yedi farklı işlevde kullanıldığı ve “konuşma esnasında önceden verilen eski bir bilgiyi tekrarlama veya bu bilgiye vurgu yapma” işlevinin en yaygın olarak 50 ve üzeri yaş grubunda gözlemlendiği görülmüştür. Cinsiyet değişkenine ilişkin olarak, hazırlıklı konuşma durumunda kadınların “gibi” söylem belirleyicisini “açıklama yapma/örnekleme veya açıklama/örnek isteme” işlevinde erkeklere kıyasla daha sıklıkla kullandıkları gözlemlenmiştir. Konuşma durumu değişkeninin konuşmacıların “gibi”nin işlevsel kullanım tercihlerini etkilemediği görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• edimbilim
• söylem belirleyiciler
• Türkçe konuşma
• gibi

THE FUNCTIONAL USES OF THE DISCOURSE MARKER “LIKE” IN TURKISH SPEECH

Öz

This study analyzes whether speaker preferences regarding the functional uses of the discourse marker gibi “like” in Turkish are affected by the variables of age, gender, and speech condition. Four different age groups (4-8, 18-23, 33-50, 50 and over) were comprised of the speakers whose native language was Turkish to examine the effect of the age variable. 84 participants took part in the study. Gender distribution was equal in each age group. Face-to-face interviews with at least 300 words were conducted in two different speech conditions (planned/spontaneous). The interviews were recorded and transcribed. As a result, gibi “like” as a discourse marker was used in seven different functions in Turkish speech. The function of “focusing to/ repeating what had already been said” was observed the most commonly in the age group of 50 and over in the spontaneous speech condition. Regarding the gender variable, in the planned speech condition, females used the discourse marker gibi “like” more frequently than men in the function of “explaining/exemplifying”. The speech condition variable did not affect the preferences of the speakers regarding the functional uses of gibi “like”.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• pragmatics
• discourse markers
• Turkish speech
• like

Kaynakça

1. Andersen, Gisle (1998). “The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretic perspective. “Andreas Jucker ve Yale Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory içinde (ss. 147-170). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2. Andersen, Gisle (2001). Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
3. Blyth, Carl Jr., Recktenwald, Sigrid ve Wang, Jenny (1990). I'm like, “say what?!”: A new quotative in American oral narrative. American Speech, 65, 215-227.
4. Brinton, Laurel J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English. Berlin and New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
5. Bu, Jiemin (2013). A study of the acquisition of discourse markers by Chinese learners of English. International Journal of English Studies, 13(1), 29-50.
6. Cuenca, Maria-Josep ve Marin, Maria-Josep (2012). Discourse markers and modality in spoken Catalan: The case of (es) clar. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(15), 2211-2225.
7. Crosby, Faye ve Nyquist Linda (1977). The female register: An empirical study of Lakoff’s hypotheses. Language in Society, 6, 313-322.
8. Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer (2000). The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(1), 60-80.

9. Dalkılıç, Leyla Çiğdem (2015). Kültürbilim çerçevesinde Rus dilinde 'gibi' bağlacı ile yapılan benzetmeler ve deyimlerin incelenmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 55(1), 343–362.
10. Diskin, Chloé (2017). The use of the discourse-pragmatic marker ‘like’ by native and non-native speakers of English in Ireland. Journal of Pragmatics, 120, 144-157.
11. Erman, Britt (1986). “Some pragmatic expressions in English conversation.” Gunnel Tottie ve Ingegerd Bäcklund (Eds.) English in speech and writing: A symposium içinde (ss. 131-147). Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 60. Stockholm: Almqvistve Wiksell International.
12. Erman, Britt (1992). Female and male usage of pragmatic expressions in same-sex and mixedsex interaction. Language Variation and Change, 4, 217-234.
13. Erman, Britt (2001). Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1337-1359.
14. Ferrara, Kathleen ve Bell, Barbara (1995). Sociolinguistic variation and discourse function of constructed dialogue introducers: The case of be+like. American Speech, 70(3), 265-290.
15. Fleischman, Suzanne (1999). Pragmatic markers in comparative perspective. Paper presented at PRAGMA 99. Tel Aviv, Israel
16. Fuller, Janet M. (2003a). Discourse markers use across speech contexts: A comparison of native and non-native speaker performance. Multilingua, 22, 185-208.
17. Fuller, Janet M. (2003b). The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 23-45.
18. Fuller, Janet M. (2003c). Use of discourse marker like in interviews. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(3)35, 365-377.
19. Güncel Türkçe Sözlük. http://www.tdk.org.tr/index.php?option=com_gts&view=gts. (Erişim Tarihi: 8 Ocak 2016).
20. Gündoğdu, Ayşe Eda (2019). Türkçede dilbilgisel birliktelik görünümlerinin betimlenmesi: “Gibi” ilgeci üzerine derlem temelli bir uygulama. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 1-11.
21. Hacieminoğlu, Necmettin (1992). Türk dilinde edatlar. İstanbul: MEB Yayınları.
22. Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
23. Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood (1975). Explorations in the functions of language. Language in Society, 4(2), 247-253.
24. Hellermann, John ve Vergun, Andrea (2007). Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 157-179.
25. Hirik, Seçil (2017). Gibi biçimbiriminin işlevsel dil bilgisi bakımından çok işlevli görünümü. Karadeniz Araştırmaları, 53, 205–222.
26. Holmes, Janet (1986). Functions of you know in women’s and men’s speech. Language in Society, 15, 1-22.
27. Jucker, Andreas H. ve Smith, Sara W. (1998). “And people just you know like ‘wow’: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies.” Andreas H. Jucker ve Yael Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers: Description and theory içinde (ss. 171–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
28. Kyratzis, Amy ve Ervin-Tripp, Susan (1999). The development of discourse markers in peer interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1321-1338.
29. Macaulay, Ronald (2002). You know, it depends. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 749-767.
30. Markó, Alexandra ve Dér, Csilla Ilona (2012). “Age-specific features of the use of discourse markers in Hungarian.” Proceedings of “Beyond Dichotomies” Cognitive Linguistics Conference içinde, 25-26 October, 2010. Budapest.
31. Maschler, Yael ve Schiffrin, Deborah (2015). “Discourse markers: language, meaning, and context.” Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton ve Deborah Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. 2nd edition içinde (ss.189-221). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley& Sons.
32. Matei, Madalina (2011). “The influence of age and gender on the selection of discourse markers in casual conversations.” Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov Series IV: Philology and Cultural Studies, 4 (53) No.1, 213-220.
33. Meehan, Teresa (1991). It's like, `what's happening in the evolution of like?': A theory of grammaticalization. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 37-51.
34. Montes, Rosa Graciela (1999). The development of discourse markers in Spanish: Interjections. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1289-1319.
35. Müller, Simone (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
36. Newman, Edwin (1974). Strictly speaking: will America be the death of English? Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
37. Östman, Jan-Ola (1981). You know: a discourse-functional approach [Vol. II: 7: Pragmatics & Beyond]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
38. Östman, Jan-Ola (1982). “The symbiotic relationship between pragmatic particles and impromptu speech.” Nile Erik Enkvist (Ed.), Impromptu speech: A symposium içinde (ss.147-177). Åbo: The Research Institute of the Åbo Åkademi Foundation.
39. Özbek, Nurdan (1998). Türkçede söylem belirleyicileri. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9, 37-47.
40. Polat, Brittany (2011). Investigating acquisition of discourse markers through a developmental learner corpus. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3745-3756.
41. Romaine, Suzanne ve Lange, Deborah (1991). The use of `like' as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech, 66, 227-279.
42. Schiffrin, Deborah (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Schleef, Erik (2004). Gender, power, discipline, and context: On the sociolinguistic variation of okay, right, like, and you know in English academic discourse. Texas Linguistic Forum, 48, 177-86.
44. Schourup, Lawrence C. (1983). Common discourse particles in English conversation. Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics, 28.
45. Sev, İ. Gülsel (2012). Türkiye Türkçesinde gibi edatıyla kurulan benzetmeli anlatımlar. Turkish Studies, (7)4, 499–512.
46. Sperber, Dan ve Deirdre, Wilson (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
47. Sperber, Dan ve Deirdre, Wilson (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
48. Streeck, Jürgen (2002). Grammars, words, and embodied meanings: on the uses and evolution of so and like. Journal of Communication, Sept., 581-96.
49. Stubbe, Maria ve Holmes, Janet (1995). You know, eh and other 'exasperating expressions': An analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English. Language & Communication, 15(1), 63-88.
50. Tagliamonte, Sali ve Hudson, Rachel (1999). Be like et al. beyond America: The quotative system in British and Canadian youth. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3, 147-172.
51. Underhill, Robert (1988). Like is like, focus. American Speech, 63, 234-246.
52. Zwicky, Arnold M. (1985). Clitics and particles. Language, 61, 283-305.