SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2005 / Sayı: 0

Türkçe Karşılıklı Konuşma Söyleminde Ezgi Birimlerinin Yapısı

Özge CENGİZ
Ayşen DEĞER CEM
Pages
1–11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings of the analysis reveal that the most frequent syntactic structure appearing in intonation units in Turkish conversational discourse is the (elliptical) clause and the mean length of intonation units in Turkish conversational discourse is 3 words.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study which departs from discourse grammar approach attempts to deal with intonation units in Turkish conversational discourse.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The corpus of the study consists of transcriptions of 5 naturally-occured dyads which are divided into intonation units by using both an auditory method and a speech analysis program.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings of the analysis reveal that the most frequent syntactic structure appearing in intonation units in Turkish conversational discourse is the (elliptical) clause and the mean length of intonation units in Turkish conversational discourse is 3 words.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study which departs from discourse grammar approach attempts to deal with intonation units in Turkish conversational discourse. The linguistic unit of analysis proposed for the analysis of conversation within the framework of discourse grammar is the 'intonation unit' which both reflects the speaker's physiological requirements and requirements of some basic functional segmentations in discourse. This study aims to find the answers to the questions: (i) what is the syntactic structure of intonation units in Turkish conversational discourse? (ii) what is the mean length of intonation units in Turkish conversational discourse? The corpus of the study consists of transcriptions of 5 naturally-occured dyads which are divided into intonation units by using both an auditory method and a speech analysis program. The findings of the analysis reveal that the most frequent syntactic structure appearing in intonation units in Turkish conversational discourse is the (elliptical) clause and the mean length of intonation units in Turkish conversational discourse is 3 words.

🔖

Cite This Article

CENGİZ, Ö., CEM, A. D. (2005). Türkçe Karşılıklı Konuşma Söyleminde Ezgi Birimlerinin Yapısı. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı: 0, 1–11. https://ajindex.com/articles/161789

References (8)

  1. Aksan, Y. (1995). Functional universals and some aspects of sentence topic in Turkish.(Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi): Hacettepe Üniversitesi
  2. Altenberg, B. (1990). Predicting text segmentation into tone units. J. Svartvik (haz.), The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English. Lund: Lund University Press içinde, s.275-286
  3. Auer, P. (1990). Einige umgangssrachiche phanomene des Türkishchen und ihre erklârung aus 'natürlichen' prinzipen. N. Boretzky, W. Enninger, T. Stolz (haz.), Spielarten der Natürlichkeit-Spielarten der Ökonomie. Beitrâge zum 5. Essener Kolloquium über "Grammatikalisierung: Natürlichkeit und Systemökonomie" vom 6.10.8.10.1988 an der Universitât Essen
  4. Band, 2. Halbband. Bochum: Brokmeyer içinde, s. 271-297
  5. Chafe, W. (1980). The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative. W.Chafe (haz.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex içinde, s. 9-50,
  6. Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. T. Russel (haz.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amstedam: Benjamins içinde, s. 21-51
  7. Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 7.Croft, W. (1995). Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics, 33, s.839-882
  8. Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 9.Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.Demircan, Ö. (2000). Türkçenin Ezgisi. Istanbul: YTÜ Basım-Yayın Merkezi. 11.Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S. ve Paolino, D. (1993). Outline of discourse transcription. J. A. Edwards ve M. D. Lampert (haz.), Talking Data:Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers içinde, s. 45-89. 12.Ekenel, H. K., Arslan, L. M. ve Özsoy, A. S. (2002). Türkçede ezginin çözümlenmesi ve modellenmesi. G. König, Büyükkantarcıoğlu ve F. Karahan (haz.),XF/. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayını içinde, s. 299-307. 13.Ergenç, İ. (1989). Türkiye Türkçesinin Görevsel Sesbilimi. Ankara: Engin Yayınevi. 14.Erguvanlı, E. E. (1984). The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press. 15.Erkü, F. (1982). Topic, comment, and word order in Turkish. Minnesota Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of