Bireyler Arasında Çatışma İçerikli Konuşmaların Söylem Çözümlemesi
Çatışmalar, zıtlıklar, polemikler ve tartışmalar olarak adlandırabileceğimiz bireyler arası anlaşmazlığı gösteren konuşma olaylarını iletişim biçimleri arasında saymak olasıdır. Bir diğer deyişle, katılımcı (a) bu iletişim çeşidinin kuralları ve kendi amaçları doğrultusunda seçtiği dilbilimsel yapıları kullanmakta; (b) bu iletişim biçiminin dilsel ya da edimsel biçimlerini uygulamaktadır. Anlaşmazlık gösteren konuşmaları incelemeye yönelik olan bu çalışmada, çatışma içerikli söylemin nasıl sürdürüldüğüne ilişkin olarak çalışmanın yöntemi ve veri tabanı oluşturulmuştur. Çalışmanın veri tabanını “Çırak” (orijinal adı “The Apprentice”) adlı televizyon programından rastgele seçilmiş beş bölümden derlenen ve yazıya dökülen anlaşmazlık gösteren konuşmalar oluşturmaktadır. Bu konuşmalar, rekabetçi bir ortamda kullanılan dilin doğasına analitik bir yaklaşım temel alınarak, program içerisinde katılımcıların kişisel etkileri oluşturmak için kullandıkları (a) adım çeşitleri, (b) anlaşmazlık gösteren dilsel ifadelerin çeşitleri ve (c) katılımcıların takip ettikleri iletişimsel ilkeler açısından incelenmiştir.
Speech events showing disagreement such as controversies, polemics, conflicts and disputes are forms of communication. This view implies a set of more specific assumptions: (a) to contribute to this kind of speech event is to perform linguistic acts according to one’s goals and the rules governing this specific form of communication; (b) there is a typical linguistic or pragmatic form of this type of communication. This study investigates the conflict talk used in the Turkish adaptation of a TV game show “Çırak” (“the Apprentice”). The data consist of conversations including disagreement among participants, collected from 5 episodes of Turkish versions of the program. Based on an analytic approach to the nature of the language used in a competitive environment, it is revealed how participants in the show construct their personal impressions in terms of (a) types of moves, (b) types of linguistic expressions showing disagreement and (c) the communicative principles that the other participants seem to follow.
___
Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing: The social organization of accounts. Londra ve Thousand Oaks:Sage.Boggs, S. T. (1978). “The development of verbal disputing in part-Hawaiian children”. Language in Society, 7, s. 325-344.
Brenneis, D. (1988). “Language and disputing”. Annual Review of Anthropology, 17, s. 221-237.
Brenneis, D. Lein, L. (1977). “‘You fruithead’: A sociolinguistic approach to children’s dispute settlement”. S. Ervin-Trip, C. Mitchell-Kernan (haz.), Child discourse (s. 49-65). New York: Academic Press.
Brown, P., Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conley, J. M., O’Barr, W. M. (1990). “Rules versus relationships in small claims disputes”. A. D. Grimshaw (haz.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations in conversations (s. 178-196). Cambridge, Birleşik Krallık: Cambridge University Press.
Dersley, I., Wootton, A. J. (2001). “In the heat of the sequence: Interactional features receding walkouts from argumentative talk”. Language in Society, 30, s. 611-638.
Eder, D. (1990). “Serious and playful disputes: Variation in conflict talk among female adolescents”. A. D. Grimshaw (haz.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations in conversations içinde (s. 67-84). Cambridge, Birleşik Krallık: Cambridge University Press.
Eelen, Gino. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Eisenberg, A. R., Garvey, C. (1981). “Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts”. Discourse Processes, 4, s. 149-170.
Garcia, A. (1991). “Dispute resolution without disputing: How the interactional organization of hearings minimizes argument”. American Sociological Review, 56, s. 818-835.
Genishi, C., di Paolo, M. (1982). “Learning through argument in a preschool.” L. C. Wilkinson (haz.), Communicating in the classroom içinde (s. 49-68). New York: Academic Press.
Georgakopoulou, A. (2001). “Arguing about the future: On indirect disagreement in conversations”. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, s. 1881-1900.
Gloning, Thomas. (2005). “Early modern controversies and theories of controversy”. P. Barrotta (haz.) Controversies and Subjectivity. Philadelphia, PA, ABD: John Benjamins Publishing Company. s. 263-281.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Doubleday.
Goodwin, M. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Greatbatch, D., Dingwall, R. (1997). Argumentative talk in divorce mediation sessions. American Sociological Review, 62, 151-170.
Grimshaw. A. D. (1990). Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations in conversations. Cambridge, Birleşik Krallık: Cambridge University Press.
Gu, Y. (1990). “Politeness phenomenon in modern Chinese”. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, s. 237-257.
Heritage, J. (1984). “A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement”. J. M. Atkinson, J. Heritage (haz.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis içinde (s. 299-345). Cambridge, Birleşik Krallık: Cambridge University Press.
Holtgraves, T. (1997). “Yes, but…Positive politeness in conversation arguments”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, s. 222-239.
Hutchby, I. (1996). Confrontation Talk: Arguments, asymmetries, and power on talk radio. Matwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jacobs, S. , Jackson, S. (1981). “Argument as natural category: The routine grounds for arguing conversation”. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, s. 118-132.
Kallmeyer, W. , Keim, I. (1996). “Divergent perspectives and social style in conflict talk”. Folia Linguistica, 30, s. 271-298.
Kotthoff, H. (1993). “Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures”. Language in Society, 22, s. 193-216.
Kuo, S. (1992). “Formulaic opposition markers in Chinese conflict talk”. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics, s. 388-402.
Lee, D. A., Peck, J. (1995). “Troubled waters: Argument as sociability revised”. Language in Society, 24, s. 29-52.
Leung, Santoi. (2002). “Conflict Talk: A Discourse Analytical Perspective”. Working Papers in TESOL, Applied Linguistics, c. 2, No:3, s. 1-19.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). “Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese”. Journal of Pragmatics, s. 12, 403-426.
Muntigl, P., Turnbull, W. (1998). “Conversational structure and facework in arguing”. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, s. 225-256.
Nelson, C. K. (2001). “If it sounds too good to be true, it is: A Wittengensteinian approach to the conflict literature”. Language and Communication, 21, s. 1-22.
O’Donnell, K. (1990). “Difference and dominance: How labor and management talk conflict.” A. D. Grimshaw (haz.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations in conversations içinde (s. 210-240). Cambridge, Birleşik Krallık: Cambridge University Press.
Philips, S. U. (1983). “The social organization of questions and answers in courtroom discourse: A study of changes in pleas in an Arizona court”. Text, 3, s. 225-248.
Philips, S. U. (1990). “The judge as third party in American trial-court conflict talk”. A. D. Grimshaw (haz.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations in conversations içinde (s. 197-209). Cambridge, Birleşik Krallık: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes.” J. M. Atkinson, J. Heritage (haz.), Structure of social action: Studies in conversation analysis içinde (s. 57-101). Cambridge, Birleşik Krallık: Cambridge University Press.
Rees-Miller, J. (2000). “Power, severity, and context in disagreement”. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, s. 1087-1111.
Rips, L. J. (1998). “Reasoning and conversation”. Psychological Review, 105, s. 411-441.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. (1974). “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation”. Language, 50, s. 696-735.
Schiffrin, D. (1984). “Jewish argument as sociability”. Language in Society, 13, s. 311-335.
Schiffrin, D. (1985) “Everyday argument: The argument of diversity in talk”. T. A. Van Dijk (haz.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, c. 3. Londra:Academic Press. s. 35-46.
Tagaki, T. (1999). “‘Questions’ in argument sequences in Japanese”. Human Studies, 22, s. 397-423.
Tannen, D. (1990). “Silence as conflict management in fiction and drama: Pinter’s Betrayal and a short story, ‘Great Wits’”. A. D. Grimshaw (haz.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations in conversations içinde (s. 260-280). Cambridge, Birleşik Krallık: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. (1998). The Argument Culture. Londra, Birleşik Krallık: Virago Press. van Eemeren, F. H. , Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed toward solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht:Foris.
Vuchinich, S. (1990). “The sequential organization of closing in verbal family conflict”. A. D. Grimshaw (haz.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations in conversations içinde (s. 118-138). Cambridge, Birleşik Krallık: Cambridge University Press.
Weizman, E. (1997). “Building true understanding via apparent miscommunication: A case study”. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, s. 837-846.
Wood, L. A., Kroger, R. O. (1994). “The analysis of facework in discourse: Review and proposal”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, s. 248-277.
Xie, Chaoqun. (2003). “A critique of politeness theories: A review of Gino Eelen”. Journal of Pragmatics. 35, s. 811-818.
- ISSN: 1300-8552
- Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
- Başlangıç: 1990
- Yayıncı: Dilbilim Derneği