Toplumsesbilgisel Açıdan Türkçede Perde Genişliğinin Konuşma Algısı ve Belirtisellik

Labov (1966) ile başlayan klasik değişkesel toplumdilbilimde toplumsal anlam, konuşmadaki dilsel değişkenlerin (Örn. Tümce ezgisi, sözcük, ek, altses görünümleri) geniş toplumsal ulamlarla (Örn. Cinsiyet, sınıf, bölge) eşleşmesi üzerinden açıklanmaktadır. Alanda son dönemde yapılan çalışmalar ise toplumsal anlamın dinamik ve bütünleşik bir bilgi birikimi olarak toplumda var olduğunu belirtmektedir (Agha, 2003; Eckert, 2008; Silverstein, 2003). ‘Belirtisel dizi’ (Silverstein, 2003) ve ‘belirtisel alan’ (Eckert, 2008) kavramlarıyla açıklanan bu ideolojik bilgi birikimi, kesin ve sabit olmayan, toplumsal yönelimler ve dönüşümler sonucu her zaman değişime açık olan dilsel birimleri içeren anlam kümeleri olarak verilmektedir. Toplumsesbilgisel ölçekteki bu çalışma, ezgideki en düşük ve en yüksek titreşim bölümleri arasındaki alanı ifade eden perde genişliğini değişken olarak ele alarak bu değişken üzerinden dinleyicilerin algısında anlam kümeleri olarak yer eden ‘belirtisel alanlara’ ulaşmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu odak ile çalışma, bireylerin ya da grupların nasıl konuştuklarına değil, üretimlerinin hangi anlamlar çerçevesinde algılandığına yoğunlaşmaktadır. Çalışmada üç aşamalı bir deney uygulanmıştır. (i) İlk aşamada ölçünlü dil kullanan konuşuculardan (N=8) mülakat ve harita yöntemleriyle ses kayıtları alınmıştır. (ii) Alınan bu ses kayıtları ikinci aşamada perde genişliği ve süre çerçevesinde güdümlenmiş ve dinleyici algısına sunulacak örnekçeler hazırlanmıştır. (iii) Belirlenen 12 örnekçe üçüncü ve son aşamada toplumdilbilimsel grup mülakatı (N=52) ve örtük eşleştirmeli anket (Lambert ve diğ., 1960) ile dinleyicilerin algısına sunulmuştur (Üç farklı oturumda N=224). Üniversite öğrencileriyle gerçekleştirilen ve her birinde dört katılımcının bulunduğu grup mülakatı ile elde edilen nitel bulgular örtük eşleştirmeli ankette katmansız bir gruba sunulmuş ve faktör analizi ve doğrusal/karma model ile gelen nicel bulgular üzerinden konuşma algısı verisinin üçgenlemesi yapılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda dil konuşucularının üretimlerinde gerçekleşen perde genişliğinin konuşma algısında ‘öğrenim durumu/eğitim düzeyi’ merkezli belirtisel alanlar oluşturduğu görülmektedir. ‘Öğrenim durumu/eğitim düzeyi’ merkezli belirtisel alanın içeriğinde baskınlık, öğrenim durumu temelli mesleğe sahip olma, ölçünlü dil kullanımı, güvenilirlik ve resmilik gibi anlamlar bulunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

toplumsesbilgisi, konuşma algısı, belirtisel alan, perde genişliği, Toplumdilbilim

The Perception of Pitch-width in Turkish and Indexicality in the Framework of Sociophonetics

In variationist sociolinguistics that emerged out of the works by Labov (1966), social meaning has been defined by linking linguistic variables (i.e. Prosody, word, affix, allophones) to broad social categories (i.e. Gender, class and region). However, the studies given lately assert that the social meaning is found in the society in dynamic and cumulative ways (Agha, 2003; Eckert, 2008; Silverstein, 2003). This ideologically accumulated knowledge, which is either called as ‘indexical order’ (Silverstein, 2003) or ‘indexical field’ (Eckert, 2008), has been described as collective social meanings which are not stable and fixed and thus bearing the probability of changing according to social movements. In this regard, this study, which resides in the field of sociophonetics, aims to uncover indexical fields that emerge in the perception of pitch-width, e.g., the range between the highest and the lowest pitch in speech. With this aim, the study focuses on the perception of speech, and not how people speak. A tripartite experimental design has been employed: (i) In the first stage, recordings were adopted by speakers through interviews and map-task (N=8) to form speech stimuli. (ii) Then, the speech stimuli were further manipulated in terms of pitch-width and duration to create tokens. (iii) In the last stage, the 12 tokens determined were presented to the perception of the listeners through sociolinguistic group interviews (N=52) and matched-guise survey (Lambert et al., 1960) (In three sessions, N=224). The qualitative findings yielded by the sociolinguistic group interviews which were conducted with university students were later presented to random population through matched-guise survey, and the quantitative results obtained from the survey were analysed by employing factor analysis and linear/mixed effect models. As a result, it has been found that the indexical fields on the pitch-width are determined by the perceived education level of the speakers. In the indexical interpretation of ‘education level’, there are such implications as dominance, having a job which requires distinct education level, using standard language, reliability and formality.

Keywords:

sociophonetics speech perception, indexical field, pitch-width, Sociolinguistics, pitch-width,

PDF

___

Agha, A. (2003). The social life of a cultural value. Language and Communication, 23, 231–273.
Baranowski, M. (2013). On the role of social factors in the loss of phonemic distinctions. English Language and Linguistics, 17: 271-295.
Bates, D.M., Maechler, M., ve Bolker, B. (2012/2017). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R Package.
Brown, G., Anderson, A. H., Shillcock, R. ve Yule, G. (1984). Teaching Talk: Strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell-Kibler, K. (2008). I’ll be the judge of that: Diversity in social perceptions of (ING). Language in Society, 37: 637–659.
Campbell-Kibler, K. (2009). The nature of sociolinguistic perception. Language Variation and Change, 21(1): 135-156.
Campbell-Kibler, K. (2010). The effect of speaker information on attitudes toward (ING). Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(2): 214-223.
Campbell-Kibler, K. (2011). Intersecting variables and perceived sexual orientation in men. American Speech, 86(1): 52-68.
Clopper, C. G. ve Pisoni, D. B. (2004). Some acoustic cues for the perceptual categorization of American English regional dialects. Journal of Phonetics, 32: 111-140.
D’Onofrio, A. (2015). Persona-based information shapes linguistic perception: Valley Girls and California vowels. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 19(2): 241–256.
Drager, K. (2005). From bad to bed: The relationship between perceived age and vowel perception in New Zealand English. Te Reo, 48: 55-68.
Drager, K. (2010). Sensitivity to grammatical and sociophonetic variability in perception. Laboratory Phonology, 1(1): 93-120.
Drager, K. (2011). Speaker age and vowel perception. Lang Speech, 54: 99-121.
Drager, K. (2013). Experimental methods in Sociolinguistics: Matched guise and identification tasks. In Holmes, J. and Hazen, K. (eds.). Research Methods in Sociolinguistics: A practical guide. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.
Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4): 453–476.
Eckert. P. (2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41: 87–100.
Foulkes, P., Scobbie, J. M. ve Watt, D. (2010). Sociophonetics. W. J. Hardcastle, J. Laver ve F. E. Gibbon (Ed.), Handbook of Phonetic Sciences içinde. (ss. 703-754). Oxford: Blackwell.
Fridland, V., Bartlett, K., ve Kreuz, R. (2004). Do you hear what I hear? Experimental measurement of the perceptual salience of acoustically manipulated vowel variants by Southern speakers in Memphis, TN. Language Variation and Change, 16(01): 1-16.
Hay, J., Nolan, A. ve Drager, K. (2006). From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech perception. The Linguistic Review, 23(3): 351-379.
Hay, J. Warren, P. ve Drager, K. (2006). Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics, 34(4): 458-484.
Hay, J., ve Drager, K. (2010). Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics, 48(4): 269–285.
Jakobson, R. (1957/1971). Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. R. Jakobson (Ed.). Selected writings Vol. II içinde. (ss. 130-147). The Hague: Mouton.
Johnson, K., Strand, E. A. ve D’Imperio, M. (1999). Auditory-visual integration of talker gender in vowel perception. Journal of Phonetics, 27: 359-384.
Johnstone, B., & Kiesling, S. F. (2008). Indexicality and experience: Exploring the meanings of /aw/monophthongization in Pittsburgh. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(1): 5-33.
Koops, C., Gentry, E. ve Pantos, A. (2008). The effect of perceived speaker age on the perception of PIN and PEN vowels in Houston, Texas. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Selected papers from NWAV, 36(14): 91-101.
Labov, W. (1966/2006). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Labov, W. (1963). The social motivation of sound change. Word, 19: 273-309.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania press.
Labov, W., Ash, S., Ravindranath, M., Weldon, T., Baranowski, M., ve Nagy, N. (2011). Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(4): 431-463.
Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C. ve Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60.
Levon, E. (2007). Sexuality in context: Variation and the sociolinguistic perception of identity. Language in Society, 36: 533-554.
Levon, E. (2014). Categories, stereotypes, and the linguistic perception of sexuality. Language in Society, 43(05): 539-566. MacFarlane, A. E., & Stuart-Smith, J. (2012). One of them sounds sort of Glasgow Uni-ish. Social judgements and fine phonetic variation in Glasgow. Lingua, 122(7): 764-778.
Munson, B. (2011). The influence of actual and imputed talker gender on fricative perception, revisited. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(5), 2631-2634.
Niedzielski, N. (1999). The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18: 62-85.
Ochs, E. (1990). Indexicality and socialization. J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder ve Herdt G. (Ed.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development içinde. (ss. 287-308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Preston, D. (1989). Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology 1. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Purnell, T., Idsardi, W., ve Baugh, J. (1999). Perceptual and phonetic experiments on American English dialect identification. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(1): 10-30.
Remez, R. E., Fellowes, J. M., & Rubin, P. E. (1997). Talker identification based on phonetic information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(3): 651.
Revelle, W. (2017). Package ‘psych’. R Package. Versiyon 1.7.4.21.
Scarborough, R., Brenier, J., Zhao, J., Hall-Lew, L. ve Dmitrieva, O. (2007). An Acoustic Study of Real and Imagined Foreigner-Directed Speech. 16th International Conference of the Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVI)’da sunulan bildiri. Saarbrücken: Almanya.
Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. K. H. Basso ve H. A. Selby (Ed.). Meaning in Anthropology içinde. (ss. 11-55). Albuqerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication, 23(3–4): 193–229.
Strand, E. (1999). Uncovering the role of gender stereotypes in speech perception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18: 86-99.
Strand, E. A. (2000). Gender stereotype effects in speech processing. Doktora tezi. Ohio State Üniversitesi, Columbus.
Strand, E. A. ve Johnson, K. (1996). Gradient and visual speaker normalization in the perception of fricatives. D. Gibbon (Ed.). Natural language processing and speech technology içinde. (ss. 14-26). Berlin: Mouton.
Staum Casasanto, L. (2008). Experimental investigations of sociolinguistic knowledge. Doktora Tezi. Stanford Üniversitesi, Palo Alto.
Wagner, S. E., & Hesson, A. (2014). Individual Sensitivity to the Frequency of Socially Meaningful Linguistic Cues Affects Language Attitudes. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(6): 651-666.