Yazım kuralından ideolojiye: dA ve -DA üzerine bir dil ideolojisi incelemesi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, dil ideolojisini dil kullanıcılarının dili toplumsal normlara uygun biçimde meşrulaştırma süreci olarak ele almakta ve bu ideolojilerin çevrim içi bağlamda nasıl görünür hale geldiğini Türkçedeki dA ve -DA biçimbirimlerinin yazımı üzerinden incelemektedir. Çalışma, bireylerin bu biçimbirimlere yönelik sunduğu görüşleri, yalnızca yazım doğruluğuna ilişkin değil, aynı zamanda toplumsal aidiyet, öğrenim düzeyi ve kimlikler arası sınır çizme pratikleri bağlamında değerlendirmektedir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, yazım kurallarını ideolojik araçlar olarak kullanarak “biz” ve “öteki” ayrımını kuran baskın grubun söylemlerine odaklanmaktadır. Eckert’ın belirtisel alan kuramsal çerçevesinde Ekşi Sözlük verisi üzerinden yürütülen incelemede, bireylerin yazım kurallarını öğrenim odaklı ideolojilerle ilişkilendirdiği ve Cumhuriyet reformlarıyla şekillenen dil ideolojilerini sürdürdüğü ortaya konmaktadır.

Keywords

• Dil İdeolojisi
• Belirtisel Alan
• Yazım Kuralları
• Kimlik
• Duruş

Supporting Institution

Çalışmayı destekleyen kurum bulunmamaktadır.

Ethical Statement

Bu makalenin yazarları, çalışmalarında kullandıkları materyal ve yöntemlerin etik kurul izni gerektirmediğini beyan etmektedir.

From orthographic norm to ideology: an analysis of language ideology on dA and -DA

Abstract

This study conceptualises language ideology as the process through which language users legitimise language in line with social norms, and examines how such ideologies become visible in online contexts through the orthographic usage of the Turkish morpheme dA and -DA. It analyses individuals’ evaluations of these morphemes not only in terms of orthographic correctness, but also within the frameworks of social belonging, educational attainment, and identity boundary practices. The study particularly focuses on the discourse of the dominant group that employs orthographic norms as ideological tools to construct a “self” versus “other” dichotomy. Drawing on Eckert’s indexical field framework, the analysis conducted on Ekşi Sözlük data demonstrates how users associate orthographic norms with education-oriented ideologies and reproduce language ideologies shaped by Republican reforms in Türkiye. Keywords: Language Ideology; Indexicality; Indexical Field; Orthographic Norms; Identity; Stance

Keywords

• Language Ideology
• Indexical Field
• Orthographic Norms
• Identity
• Stance

References

1. Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge University Press.
2. Amerikan Psikoloji Derneği (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7. Bs.). American Psikoloji Derneği.
3. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. M. Holquist (Yay. haz.) (C. Emerson ve M. Holquist, Çev.). University of Texas Press.
4. Beltrama, A. (2020). Social meaning in semantics and pragmatics. Language and Linguistic Compass, 14, e12398. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12398
5. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge University Press.
6. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. J. B. Thompson (Yay. haz.) G. Raymond ve M. Adamson, Çev.). Harvard University Press.
7. Bucholtz, M., ve Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. A. Duranti (Yay. haz.), A companion to linguistic anthropology içinde (ss. 369-394). Blackwell.
8. Bucholtz, M., ve Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 585-614. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407

9. Cannadine, D. (1998). Class in Britain. Palgrave.
10. Cüceloğlu, D., ve Slobin, D. (1980). Effects of Turkish Language Reform on person perception. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 11(3), 297–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022180113005
11. Çavuşoğlu, Ç. (2019). Standard language ideologies: The case of Cypriot Turkish in Turkish schools in London. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 42(9), 811-826. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1687711
12. Çolak, Y. (2004). Language policy and official ideology in Early Republican Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies, 40(6), 67-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/0026320042000282883
13. Doğançay-Aktuna, S. (2004). Language planning in Turkey: Yesterday and today. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 165, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2004.008
14. Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. R. Englebretson (Yay. haz.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction içinde (ss. 139-182). John Benjamins.
15. Eastman, C. M. (1983). Language planning: An introduction. Chandler and Sharp Publishers.
16. Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field.. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453-476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.x
17. Eckert, P. (2018). Meaning and linguistic variation. Cambridge University Press.
18. Erdoğan-Öztürk, Y. (2024). Exploring the intersections of language ideologies and affect: The case of multilingual ‘returnee’ women in Turkey.” European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 117-142. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2023-0050
19. Erdoğan-Öztürk, Y., ve Sağın-Şimşek, Ç. (2023). Language ideologies and stancetaking in refugee identity negotiations: Exploring multilingual refugees’ narratives of language use in Turkey. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 46(3), 833-847. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2216662
20. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman.
21. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
22. Göksel, A., ve Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
23. Gal, S. (2006). Migration, minorities and multilingualism: Language ideologies in Europe. C. Mar-Molinero ve P. Stevenson (Yay. haz.), Language ideologies, policies and practices – Language and globalization içinde (ss. 13-27). Springer.
24. Irvine, J. T. (1989). When talk isn’t cheap: Language and political economy. American Ethnologist, 16(2), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1989.16.2.02a00040
25. Irvine, J. T., ve Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. P. V. Kroskrity (Yay. haz.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities içinde (ss. 35-83). School of American Research Press.
26. Jaffe, A. (Yay. haz.) (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Oxford University Press.
27. Johnstone, B. (2009). Stance, style, and the linguistic individual. A. Jaffe (Yay. haz.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives içinde (ss. 29-52). Oxford University Press.
28. Keyder, Ç. (2017). Türkiye’de devlet ve sınıflar (21. Bs.). İletişim Yayınları.
29. Kiesling, S. F. (2017). YouTube yinzers: Stancetaking and the performance of ‘Pittsburghese’. R. Bassiouney ve S. Elnoshokaty (Yay. haz.), Identity and dialect performance içinde (ss. 247-264). Routledge.
30. Kroskrity, P. V. Language ideologies. A. Duranti (Yay. haz.), A companion to linguistic anthropology içinde (ss. 496-517). Wiley.
31. Langlotz, A. (2015). Creating social minds: The role of language in socialisation and development. De Gruyter Mouton.
32. Lytra, V. (2015). Language and language ideologies among Turkish-speaking young people in Athens and London. J. Nortier ve B. A. Svendsen (Yay. haz.), Language, youth and identity in the 21st century: Linguistic practices across urban spaces içinde (ss. 183-204). Cambridge University Press.
33. Lytra, Vally, vd. (2008). Language practices, language ideologies and identity construction in London Turkish complementary schools. V. Lytra ve J. N. Jorgensen (Yay. haz.), Multilingualism and identities across contexts: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on Turkish-speaking youth in Europe içinde (ss. 15-43). University of Copenhagen Press.
34. Mardin, Ş. (2017). Türkiye’de toplum ve siyaset (23. Bs.). İletişim Yayınları.
35. Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardisation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5, 530-555. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00163
36. Peirce, C. S. (1932). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce: Elements of logic (2. Cilt). Harvard University Press.
37. Piller, I. (2015). Language ideologies. K. Tracy, C. Ilie ve T. Sandel (Yay. haz.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction içinde (ss. 1-10). John Wiley & Sons.
38. Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. K. Basso ve H. Selby (Yay. haz.), Meaning in anthropology içinde (ss. 11-55). University of New Mexico Press.
39. Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. P. Clyne, W. Hanks ve C. Hofbauer (Yay. haz.), The elements içinde (ss. 193-248). Chicago Linguistic Society.
40. Silverstein, M. (1985). Language and the culture of gender: At the intersection of structure, usage, and ideology. E. Mertz ve R. J. Parmentier (Yay. haz.), Semiotic mediation içinde (ss. 219-259). Academic Press.
41. Silverstein, M. (1998). Contemporary transformations of local linguistic communities. Annual Review of Anthropology, 27, 401-426. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.27.1.401
42. Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication, 23(3-4), 193-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2
43. Smith, E. R., ve Mackie, D. M. (2000). Social psychology (2. Bs). Psychology Press.
44. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006
45. Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. SAGE.
46. Van Dijk, T. A. (2011). Discourse and ideology. T. A. Van Dijk (Yay. haz.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction içinde (ss. 379-407). SAGE.
47. Wodak, R. (2009). The semiotics of racism: A critical Discourse-Historical analysis. J. Renkema (Yay. haz.), Discourse, of course içinde (ss. 311-326). John Benjamins.
48. Wodak, R. (2001). The Discourse-Historical Approach. R. Wodak ve M. Meyer (Yay. haz.), Methods of critical discourse analysis içinde (ss. 63-94). SAGE.
49. Woolard, K. A. (2020). Language ideology. J. Stanlaw (Yay. haz.), The international encyclopedia of linguistic anthropology içinde (ss. 1-21). John Wiley & Sons.
50. Woolard, K. A., ve Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55-82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415
51. Yağlı, E. (2024). ‘Using the ‘proper one’: Language ideology in the context of Kemalism and neo-Ottomanism. New Perspectives on Turkey, 71, 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/npt.2024.6
52. Yağlı, E. (2025). “Bu çalışmayı ‘publish’ edelim”: Plaza değişkesi bağlamında gerçekleşen dil ideolojileri. Türkbilig, 2025(49), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.59257/turkbilig.1528199
53. Yüce, C. B. (2019). Identity construction through language: The case of the Turkish Language Reform. The Journal of the Multicultural Society, 9(2), 100-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.14431/omnes.2019.07.9.2.100