KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Dil Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 175 Sayı: 2

DERLEM DİLBİLİM İLE GENÇLİK DİLİNE BAKIŞ: TÜRKÇE İÇİN İHTİYAÇLAR VE GELİŞİM ALANLARI

YOUTH LANGUAGE THROUGH CORPUS LINGUISTICS: GAPS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR TURKISH

Esranur Efeoğlu Özcan(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9627-4628
Hale Işık Güler(ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6859-9377
Sayfa
92–115
Yayın Tarihi
2024-12-31
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bu makalenin Türkçe gençlik diline dair daha fazla dilbilimsel araştırma yürütülmesine dair motivasyon oluşturarak Türkçe gençlik dilini araştırmak ve tartışmak için hesap verebilir ve tutarlı metodolojileri benimseyen sistematik çalışmaların önünü açması hedeflenmektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Gençlerin dil pratikleri; hem akademi hem de toplum tarafından sıklıkla mercek altına alınan bir olgu olmasına rağmen, Türkçe konuşan gençler tarafından kullanılan çağdaş sözlü Türkçenin sistematik ve tutarlı araştırma yöntemleri ile incelendiği dilbilimsel araştırmalar yok denecek kadar azdır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu makale, öncelikle gençlik diline odaklanan güncel dilbilim tartışma ve paradigmaları araştırmacıların dikkatine sunmakta, ardından da Türkçe alan yazında gençlik diline dair mevcut araştırmaları eleştirel bir bakış ile irdelemektedir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bu makalenin Türkçe gençlik diline dair daha fazla dilbilimsel araştırma yürütülmesine dair motivasyon oluşturarak Türkçe gençlik dilini araştırmak ve tartışmak için hesap verebilir ve tutarlı metodolojileri benimseyen sistematik çalışmaların önünü açması hedeflenmektedir.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:: Gençlik dili · Derlem dilbilim · Sözlü derlem

Özet

Gençlerin dil pratikleri; hem akademi hem de toplum tarafından sıklıkla mercek altına alınan bir olgu olmasına rağmen, Türkçe konuşan gençler tarafından kullanılan çağdaş sözlü Türkçenin sistematik ve tutarlı araştırma yöntemleri ile incelendiği dilbilimsel araştırmalar yok denecek kadar azdır. Bu makale, öncelikle gençlik diline odaklanan güncel dilbilim tartışma ve paradigmaları araştırmacıların dikkatine sunmakta, ardından da Türkçe alan yazında gençlik diline dair mevcut araştırmaları eleştirel bir bakış ile irdelemektedir. Son olarak da Türkçe gençlik dili araştırmalarında sürdürülebilir, hesap verebilir, birikimli çalışmalara katkıda bulunmak için öncül bir çalışma olarak oluşturulan Türkçe Gençlik Dili Derlemi (CoTY) (Corpus of Turkish Youth Language) tanıtılarak, derlem araçlarının çağdaş sözlü Türkçe gençlik dilinin çoklu etkileşimsel yönlerini incelemek için sunduğu olanaklar tartışılmaktadır. Bu makalenin Türkçe gençlik diline dair daha fazla dilbilimsel araştırma yürütülmesine dair motivasyon oluşturarak Türkçe gençlik dilini araştırmak ve tartışmak için hesap verebilir ve tutarlı metodolojileri benimseyen sistematik çalışmaların önünü açması hedeflenmektedir.

Abstract

Linguistic practices of young people are often scrutinized by both academia and society. Yet, linguistic studies that systematically and consistently examining the contemporary spoken Turkish used by Turkish youth are quite scarce. This article firstly provides an account of current linguistic debates and paradigms on youth language, then it offers a critical review of existing research on Turkish youth language. Finally, it presents the Corpus of Turkish Youth Language (CoTY) which was constructed to contribute to sustainable, accountable, and cumulative studies in linguistic research on Turkish youth language, and discusses the affordances the corpus tools offer for examining multiple interactional facets of contemporary spoken Turkish youth language. It is aimed that this article will motivate further research and pave the way for systematic studies adopting accountable and consistent methodologies to investigate and discuss Turkish youth language.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Özcan, E. E., Güler, H. I. (2024). DERLEM DİLBİLİM İLE GENÇLİK DİLİNE BAKIŞ: TÜRKÇE İÇİN İHTİYAÇLAR VE GELİŞİM ALANLARI. Dil Dergisi, Cilt: 175 Sayı: 2, 92–115. https://doi.org/10.33690/dilder.1548981

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (118)

  1. Aarsæther, F., Marzo, S., Nistov, I., & Ceuleers, E. (2015). Indexing locality: contemporary urban vernaculars in Belgium and Norway. J. Nortier & B. A. Svendsen (Yay. haz.), Language, Youth and Identity in the 21st Century: Linguistic Practices across Urban Spaces içinde (ss. 249-270), Cambridge University Press.
  2. Abele-Brehm, A. E., Gollwitzer, M., Steinberg, U., & Schönbrodt, F. D. (2019). Attitudes Toward Open Science and Public Data Sharing: A Survey Among Members of the German Psychological Society. Social Psychology, 50(4), 252–60.
  3. Açıkalın, I. (1991). Türk gençlerinin yaşıtları arasında kullandıkları konuşma biçimleri. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2, 75–78.
  4. Adıgüzel, M. F. (2015). Semantic and pragmatic analysis of the Turkish discourse particle hele: A corpus-driven study in lexical profiling. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 12(1), 63-92.
  5. Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Koltuksuz, A., Sezer, T., Mersinli, Ü., Demirhan, U. U., Yılmazer, H., Atasoy, G., Öz, S., Yıldız, İ., Kurtoğlu, Ö. (2012). “Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC)”. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12). Istanbul, Türkiye: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), (ss. 3223–3227). http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/pdf/991_Paper.pdf.
  6. Altıparmak, A. (2022) An analysis of Turkish interactional discourse markers ‘ŞEY’, ‘YANİ’, and ‘İŞTE’. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 51, 729–762.
  7. Androutsopoulos, J. (2015). Negotiating authenticities in mediatized times, Discourse, Context & Media, 8, 74–77.
  8. Ataman, E., Çağlar, O. C., & Kırkıcı, B. (2021). Dilbilim Araştırmalarında Açık Bilim. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 32(2), 149-175.
  9. Aytaç Demirçivi, K., & Işık Güler, H. (2023). ‘Tiny but Mighty’ Conversational Elements: Explicating Non-lexical Backchannels in Spoken Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 34(2), 217-254.
  10. Bal-Gezegin, B. (2013). How do we say no in Turkish? A corpus-based analysis of hayır and cık in Turkish. Mersin University Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 10(2), 53-73.
  11. Banguoğlu, T. (2011). Türkçenin grameri. Türk Dil Kurumu.
  12. Başaran, B. (2013). Laughter as a face management device in Turkish: Evidence from Turkish Spoken Corpus. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 10(2), 75-100.
  13. Berez-Kroeker, A. L., Gawne, L., Kelly, B. F., & Heston, T. (2017). A survey of current reproducibility practices in linguistics journals, 2003–2012. https://sites.google.com/a/hawaii.edu/data-citation/survey.
  14. Bodén, P. (2004). A New Variety of Swedish? S. Cassidy, F. Cox, R. Mannell ve S. Palethorpe (Yay. haz.), Proceedings of the Tenth Australian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology içinde (ss. 475-480). Sydney: Macquarie University.
  15. Bodén, P. (2010). Pronunciation in Swedish multiethnolect. P. Quist & B. A. Svendsen (Yay. haz.), Multilingual Urban Practices in Urban Scandinavia içinde (ss. 65-78), Multilingual Matters.
  16. Canbulat, M., Güven, Ö., & Çağlar, M. Ç. (2017). Youth language variation according to the levels of education. International Journal of Language Academy, 5(9), 31–38.
  17. Cheshire, J. (1982). Linguistic variation and social function. S. Romaine (Yay. haz.), Sociolinguistic variation in speech communities içinde (ss. 153-166). Edward Arnold.
  18. Cheshire, J., Kerswill, P., Fox, S., & Torgersen, E. (2011). Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of Multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(2), 151-96.
  19. Cheshire, J., Nortier, J., & Adger, D. (2015) Emerging multiethnolects in Europe. Occasional Papers Advancing Linguistics, 33, 1–27.
  20. Clyne, M. (2000). Lingua franca and ethnolects in Europe and beyond. Sociolinguistica, 14, 83–89. Cutting, J. (2011). Spoken discourse, K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Yay. haz.), Bloomsbury companion to discourse analysis içinde (ss.155-170). Bloomsbury.
  21. Çokol, E. (2020). The language of Generation Z in the axis of generation conflicts. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching, (8)2, 404-419.
  22. Deppermann, A. (2007). Playing with the voice of the other: Stylised Kanaksprak in conversation among German adolescents. P. Auer (Yay. haz.), Style and Social Identities. Alternative Approaches to Linguistic Heterogeneity içinde (ss. 325-360), Walter de Gruyter.
  23. Dimmendaal, G. J. (2011). Historical linguistics and the comparative study of African languages. John Benjamins.
  24. Doran, M. (2007). Alternating French, alternative identities: situating language in la banlieu. Contemporary French and Francophone Studies,11, 497-508.
  25. Doran, M. (2010). The Value of Verlan: Understanding Street Language in the French Suburbs. Paper presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium 18, 3-5 September 2010, Southampton.
  26. Dovchin, S., Pennycook, A., & Sultana, S. (2018). Popular culture, voice and linguistic diversity: Young adults on- and offline. Palgrave Macmillan.
  27. Drange, E.-M. (2002). Teenage slang in Norway. L. E. Breivik & A. Hasselgren (Yay. haz.),, From the COLT’s mouth …and others’: Language corpora studies in honour of Anna-Brita Stenström içinde (ss. 71-80). Brill.
  28. Drange, E. M. (2009). Anglicisms in the informal speech of Norwegian and Chilean adolescents. A. B. Stenström, & A. M. Jørgensen (Yay. haz.), Youngspeak in a multilingual perspective içinde (ss. 161-75). John Benjamins.
  29. Drummond, R. (2016). (Mis)interpreting urban youth language: white kids sounding black? Journal of Youth Studies, 20(5), 640–660.
  30. Drummond, R. (2018). Maybe it’s a grime [t]ing. TH-stopping in urban British youth. Language in Society, 47(2), 171-96.
  31. Eckert, P. (1988). Adolescent social structure and the spread of linguistic change. Language in Society, 17(2), 183-207.
  32. Eckert, P. (2000). Language variation and social practice. Blackwell.
  33. Efeoğlu-Özcan, E. (2022). The corpus of Turkish Youth Language (CoTY): The compilation and interactional dynamics of a spoken corpus [Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi]. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye.
  34. Elyıldırım, S., & Er, S. (2016). Masculine features in the speech of Turkish female teenagers. Border Crossing, 6(2), 354-62.
  35. Erdoğan, Y. (2013). "Interactional functions of “şey” in Turkish: Evidence from Spoken Turkish Corpus (STC)", Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 10(2), 33-52.
  36. Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open science: One term, five schools of thought. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing (ss. 17–47). Springer Open.
  37. Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
  38. Greckhamer, T., & Çilesiz, S. (2014). Rigor, transparency, evidence, and representation in discourse analysis: Challenges and recommendations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 422–43.
  39. Günel Türe, B. (2024). Türkçedeki eylemlerin anlamsal değişimlerinin sıklık temelli incelenmesi: Gençlik dilinden bir kesit. [Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye.
  40. Harissi, M., Otsuji, E., Pennycook, A. (2012). The performative fixing and unfixing of subjectivities, Applied Linguistics, (33)5, 524–543.
  41. Ilbury, C. (2020). Beyond the offline: Social media and the social meaning of variation in East London [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Queen Mary University of London.
  42. Ilbury, C. (2022). Discourses of social media amongst youth: An ethnographic perspective. Discourse, Context, and Media, 48.
  43. Jørgensen, A. M. (2008). A matter of politeness? A contrastive study of phatic talk in teenage conversation. Special Issue of Pragmatics, 18(4), 635–657.
  44. Jørgensen, A. M. (2010). Love Ya Hate Ya: The sociolinguistic study of youth language and youth identities. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  45. Jørgensen, A. M. (2013). Spanish teenage language and the COLAm-corpus. Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies, 3(1), 151-66.
  46. Kallmeyer, W., & Keim, I. (2003). Linguistic variation and the construction ofsocial identity in a German-Turkish setting: a case study of an immigrant youth group in Mannheim, Germany. In J. Androutsopoulos and A. Georgakopoulou (eds.), Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 29–46.
  47. Kaşgarî, M. (1073). Divan-i Lugati't-Türk.
  48. Kathawalla, U. K., Silverstein, P., & Syed, M. (2021). Easing Into Open Science: A Guide for Graduate Students and Their Advisors. Psychology, 7(1), 18684.
  49. Keim, I. (2008). Linguistic Variation, Style of Communication, and Social Identity: Case Study of a Migrant Youth Group in Mannheim, Germany. J. N. Jørgensen & V. Lytra (Yay. haz.), Multilingualism and Identities across Contexts içinde (178-226). Copenhagen Studies on Bilingualism.
  50. Kırık, A. M. (2012). Sosyal medyada gençlerin dili kullanımı ve yozlaşma problemi. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Language and Communication: Research Trends and Challenges içinde (ss. 1017-1030). İzmir Üniversitesi, Türkiye.
  51. Korkmaz, Z. (2003). Türkiye Türkçesinin Grameri. TDK Yayınları.
  52. Kotsinas, U. B. (1998). Immigrant children’s Swedish: A new variety? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9, 129-140.
  53. Labov, W. (1966). Social stratification of English in New York City. Center for Applied Linguistics.
  54. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.
  55. Labov, W. (1974). Language change as a form of communication. A. Silverstein (Yay. haz.), Human communication içinde (ss. 221-256). Erlbaum.
  56. Lewis, G. L. (2000). Turkish Grammar. Oxford University Press.
  57. Love, R., & Stenström, A-B. (2023). Corpus-pragmatic perspectives on the contemporary weakening of fuck: The case of teenage British English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 216, 167-181.
  58. Lytra, V. (2015). Language practices and language ideologies among Turkish-speaking young people in Athens and London. In J. Nortier ve B. A. Svendsen (Yay. haz.), Language, youth and identity in the 21st century içinde, (ss. 183–204). Cambridge University Press.
  59. Madsen, L. M. (2008). Fighters and outsiders. Linguistic practices, social identities and social relationships among urban youth in a martial arts club. [Yayınlanmamş doktora tezi] University of Copenhagen.
  60. Madsen, L. M. (2015). Fighters, girls and other identities: Sociolinguistics in a martial arts club, Multilingual Matters.
  61. Marzo, S., & Ceuleers, E. (2011). The use of Citétaal among adolescents in Limburg. The role of space appropriation in language variation and change. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32, 451–460.
  62. McEnery, T. (2005/2012). Corpus Linguistics. Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford.
  63. McEnery, T., & Brookes, G. (2024). Corpus linguistics and the social sciences. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.
  64. Mısır, H. (2023). Vlog as a Multimodal Translanguaging Space: Insights From A Turkish Social Media Influencer Corpus (SMIC) [Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye.
  65. Mısır, H., & Işık-Güler, H. (2024). Translanguaging dynamics in the digital landscape: insights from a social media corpus. Language Awareness,
  66. Moore, E. (2004). Sociolinguistic style: A multidimensional resource for shared identity creation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 49, 375–396. Nassenstein, N. (2022). Democratic Republic of the Congo - Lingala ya Bayankee/Yanké. P. Kerswill, & H. Wiese (Yay. haz.), Urban Contact Dialects and Language Change, Insights from the Global North and South içinde (ss. 28-46). Routledge.
  67. Neyzi, L. (2001). Object or Subject? The Paradox of « Youth » in Turkey. Autrepart, 18, 101-117.
  68. Nortier, J. (2001). Murks en Straattaal. Promotheus.
  69. Nortier, J. (2016). Characterizing urban youth speech styles in Utrecht and on the Internet. Journal of Language Contact, 9(1), 159–181.
  70. Nortier, J., & Dorleijn, M. (2008). A Moroccan accent in Dutch: A sociocultural style restricted to the Moroccan community? International Journal of Bilingualism, 12, 125-142.
  71. Núñez-Pertejo, P., & Palacios-Martínez, I. (2018). Intensifiers in MLE: New trends and developments. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 17(2), 116-55.
  72. O’Keeffe, A., & Adolphs, S. (2008). Response tokens in British and Irish discourse: Corpus, context and variational pragmatics. K. P. Schneider & A. Barron (Yay. haz.), Variational Pragmatics içinde (ss. 69–98). John Benjamins.
  73. Özcan F. H., Madsen, L. M., Keçik, İ., Jørgensen, J. N. (2015). Verbal teasing among young people in Køge and Eskişehir. J. Nortier, & B.A. Svendsen (Yay. haz.), Language, Youth and Identity in the 21st Century: Linguistic Practices across Urban Spaces içinde (ss. 231-246). Cambridge University Press.
  74. Özcan, G., & Aksan, Y. (2017). Sözlü Türkçede evet’in görünümleri: Sözlü Türkçe Derlemi’nden bulgular. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 14(2), 15-35. Öztürk Dağabakan, F. (2017). Youth language in Turkish and German social media. International Journal of Language Academy, (5)4, 113-127.
  75. Palacios Martínez, I. M. (2011). The language of British teenagers. A preliminary study of its main grammatical features. Atlantis, 33(1), 105-126.
  76. Palacios Martínez, I. M., & Núñez Pertejo, P. (2012). He’s absolutely massive. It’s a super day. Madonna, she is a wicked singer. Youth language and intensification: A corpus-based study. Text & Talk, 32(6), 773–96.
  77. Partington, A. (1993). Corpus Evidence of language change: The case of intensifiers. M. Baker, G. Francis, & A. Tognini-Bonelli (Yay. haz.), Text and Technology. In honour of John Sinclair içinde (ss. 177-92). John Benjamins.
  78. Quist, P. (2008). Sociolinguistic approaches to multiethnolect: Language variety and stylistic practice. International Journal of Bilingualism, 12 (1–2). 43–61.
  79. Quist, P., & Møller, J. (2003). Research on youth language in Denmark. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 159, 45-55.
  80. Rampton, B. (2015). Contemporary urban vernaculars. J. Nortier, & B. A. Svendsen (Yay. haz.), Language, youth and identity in the 21st century. Linguistic practices across urban spaces içinde (ss. 25–44). Cambridge University Press.
  81. Rehbein, I., Schalowski, S., & Wiese, H. (2014). The KiezDeutsch Korpus (KiDKo) Release 1.0. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 367-375). European Language Resources Association.
  82. Rehbein, J., Schmidt, T., Meyer, B., Watzke, F., & Herkenrath, A. (2004). Handbuch für das computergestützte Transkribieren nach HIAT. In Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit, Folge B (s. 56).
  83. Roels, L., & Enghels, R. (2020). Age-based variation and patterns of recent language change: A case-study of morphological and lexical intensifiers in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 170, 125-38.
  84. Roels, L., De Latte, F., & Enghels, R. (2021). Monitoring 21st-Century real-time language change in Spanish youth speech. Languages, 6(4), 162.
  85. Roulet, E. (1980). Interactional markers in dialogue. Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 224-33.
  86. Ruhi, Ş. (2013). Interactional markers in Turkish: A corpus based perspective. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, (10)2, 1-7.
  87. Ruhi, Ş., Hatipoğlu, Ç., Eröz-Tuğa, B., Işık-Güler, H., Acar, G., Eryılmaz, K., Can, H., Karakaş, Ö. & Çokal-Karadaş, D. (2010a). Sustaining a Corpus for Spoken Turkish Discourse: Accessibility and Corpus Management Issues. Language Resources: From Storyboard to Sustainability and LR Lifecycle Management (LREC), p.44-48.
  88. Ruhi, Ş., Hatipoğlu, Ç., Işık-Güler, H., & Eröz-Tuğa, B. (2010b). A guideline for transcribing conversations for the construction of Spoken Turkish Corpora using EXMARaLDA and HIAT. Setmer Yayıncılık.
  89. Schmidt, T., & Wörner, K. (2014). EXMARaLDA. T. Schmidt (Yay. haz.), Handbook on Corpus Phonology içinde (ss. 402-19). Oxford University Press.
  90. Schneider, C. Brittan, D., Hodel, T., Hess, D., & Linder, A. (2021). JuBe - Jugendsprache Schweiz Korpus (1.0) [Veri seti]. Zenodo.
  91. Sierra, S. (2016). Intertextual media references as resources for managing frames, epistemics, and identity in conversation among friends. [Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi] Georgetown University.
  92. Sierra, S. (2021). Millennials Talking Media. Oxford University Press.
  93. Slabbert, S. (1994). A re-evaluation of Tsotsitaal. South African Journal for Linguistics (12)1, 31-41. Smith-Hefner, N. J. (2007). Youth language, Gaul sociability, and the new Indonesian middle class. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 17(2). 184–203.
  94. Stenström, A. B. (2007). The Spanish discourse markers o sea and pues and their English correspondences. K. Aijmer ve A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Yay. haz.), Pragmatic markers in contrast içinde, Elsevier.
  95. Stenström, A. B. (2014). Teenage talk: From general characteristics to the use of pragmatic markers in a contrastive perspective. Palgrave Macmillan.
  96. Stenström, A. B., Andersen, G., & Hasund, K. (2002). Trends in Teenage Talk. John Benjamins.
  97. Stenström, A. B., & Jørgensen, A. M. (2008). A question of politeness? A contrastive study of phatic language in teenage conversation. Pragmatics, 18(4), 636-57.
  98. Svendsen, B. A. & Røyneland, U. (2008). Multiethnolectical facts and functions in Oslo, Norway. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1(2), 63-84.
  99. Syed, M. (2019). The Open Science Movement is For All of Us [Preprint]. PsyArXiv.
  100. Şafak, Z., & Bilginsoy, M. (2019). Kırklareli merkez örnekleminde Z kuşağı gençlerinin sosyal medyadaki yeni kelimeleri kullanım alışkanlıkları üzerine nicel bir yaklaşım. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (5), 125-136.
  101. Şimşek, Y., & Weisse, H. (2022). Germany: Kiezdeutsch. P. Kerswill & H. Wiesse (Yay. haz.), Urban Contact Dialects and Language Change: Insights from the Global North and South içinde (ss. 300-321). Routledge.
  102. Tagliamonte, S., & Roberts, R. (2005). So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech, 80(3), 280–300.
  103. Tekdemir Yurttaş, G. (2012). Repetitions in Turkish: Talk among friends. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, (13)2, Art. 22.
  104. Toğrol, B. (2012). Qualifiers used in the daily language of adolescent Turkish boys. Studies in Psychology, 7(0), 82-88.
  105. Toksöz, S., & Toksöz, İ. (2024). Türkiye'deki üç farklı kuşağın dil eğilimi üzerine yapılmış bir durum çalışması. Kültür Araştırmaları Dergisi, 21, 167-84.
  106. Tropea, C. (2022). 2 The emergence of Bahasa Gaul: A comparative study of Yogyakarta and Jakarta youth. C. Groff, A. Hollington, E. Hurst-Harosh, N. Nassenstein, J. Nortier, H. Pasch & N. Yannuar (Yay. haz.), Global Perspectives on Youth Language Practices içinde (ss. 31-48). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
  107. Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge University Press.
  108. Trudgill, P. (1983). Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society. Penguin Books.
  109. Türk Dil Kurumu. (n.d.). Genç. https://sozluk.gov.tr Sözlük içinde. 1 Haziran 2024 tarihinde erişim sağlandı, https://sozluk.gov.tr/
  110. Uzdu Yıldız, F. (2021). Use of euphemisms in youth language. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(2), 1117–1128.
  111. Üstüner, A. (2003). Türkçede Pekiştirme. Fırat Üniversitesi Basımevi.
  112. Vaughan, J., & Carter, A. (2022). “We mix it up”: Indigenous youth language practices in Arnhem Land. C. Groff, A. Hollington, E. Hurst-Harosh, N. Nassenstein, J. Nortier, H. Pasch & N. Yannuar (Yay. haz.), Global Perspectives on Youth Language Practices içinde (ss. 315-336). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
  113. Wiese, H. (2009). Grammatical innovation in multiethnic urban Europe: New linguistic practices among adolescents. Lingua, 119, 782–806.
  114. Yaman, Ö. M. (2010). Türkiye gençlik araştırmaları bibliyografyası 1923-2010. Gençlik ve Spor Genel Müdürlüğü Gençlik Hizmetleri Daire Başkanlığı Kültür Yayınları.
  115. Yaman, Ö. M. (2013). A bibliographic assessment on studies of sociology of youth in Turkey. Alternatif Politika, 5(2), 114-38.
  116. Berez-Kroeker, A. L., Gawne, L., Kelly, B. F., & Heston, T. (2017). A survey of current reproducibility practices in linguistics journals, 2003–2012. https://sites.google.com/a/hawaii.edu/data-citation/survey.
  117. Bodén, P. (2004). A New Variety of Swedish? S. Cassidy, F. Cox, R. Mannell ve S. Palethorpe (Yay. haz.), Proceedings of the Tenth Australian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology içinde (ss. 475-480). Sydney: Macquarie University.
  118. Doran, M. (2007). Alternating French, alternative identities: situating language in la banlieu. Contemporary French and Francophone Studies,11, 497-508.