INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMATICS IN TURKISH

Abstract

This study aims to investigate interlanguage pragmatics in Turkish. For this purpose, a discourse completion questionnaire including four request situations wasgiven to 33 learners of Turkish at a university in Istanbul, Turkey as well as 45Turkish native speakers in two different programs at the same institution. The datawere then coded into request strategies. The length of requests and the number ofstrategies employed were also coded. The request strategies were analyzed usingthe chi-square test while the length and the number of strategies were analyzedusing the independent samples t-test. Results indicate that the two groups differedin head act strategies and downgrader strategies only in situation 3 while they differed in situation 2 through 4 in using supportive moves. In the length of therequests, number of supportive moves and the number of downgraders, the groupsdiffered in only one situation. This shows that although differences are observed,there is no drastic difference between native-Turkish speaking students and learners of Turkish as a second language. This shows that even after one academic yearin the target speech community, learners tend to choose strategies similar to thenative speakers of the target language. The effect of sojourn in the target community could be further researched by comparing learners of Turkish in the targetspeech community to those that learn Turkish outside of the target speech community after the same amount of time spent learning Turkish

Keywords

• Interlanguage pragmatics
• requests
• Turkish
• study abroad

Interlanguage pragmatics in Turkish

Öz

Bu çalışmada Türkçede aradil edimini araştırmak amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla, dörtdurumdan oluşan bir söylem tamamlama testi İstanbul’da bulunan bir üniversitedeyabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğrenen 33 yabancı öğrenciye verilmiştir. Yine aynıüniversitedeki iki programda kayıtlı 45 Türk öğrencinin verileri de kullanılmıştır.Elde edilen veriler kodlanarak rica stratejilerine ayrılmıştır ve bu stratejiler ki-karetestiyle incelenmiştir. Bunun yanında her rica için kullanılan kelime sayısı ve strateji sayıları da kodlanarak bağımsız örneklem t-testiyle incelenmiştir. Sonuçlara göreiki grup arasında rica ana eylem stratejisinde ve derece düşürücü stratejilerde yalnızca 3. durumda anlamlı farklılık gözlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte, destekleme stratejilerinde ikinci, üçüncü ve dördüncü durumlarda anlamlı farklılık gözlenmiştir.Kullanılan ricaların uzunluklarına ve kullanılan strateji sayılarına görekarşılaştırıldıklarında, iki grup arasında birer durumda anlamlı farklılık tespitedilmiştir. Bu durum, her ne kadar anlamlı farklılıklar gözlemlenmiş olsa da ikigrup arasındaki farklılığın büyük olmadığını göstermektedir. Aynı zamanda, budurum, hedef dilin konuşulduğu toplumda geçirilen yalnızca bir akademik yılsonunda, dili öğrenenlerin ana dil konuşucularına benzer stratejileri seçebildiklerini göstermektedir. Hedef dilin konuşulduğu toplumda bir süre kalmanın dilgelişimine etkisi hedef dili konuşulduğu toplumda öğrenenlerle o toplum dışındaöğrenenleri kıyaslamayla daha derinlemesine araştırılabilir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Aradil edimi
• rica
• Türkçe
• yurtdışında eğitim

References

1. Austin, J. L.(1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploting the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49(4), 677-713.
3. Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Philadelphia, PA, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
4. Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59.
5. Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B. & Gherson, R. (1985). The language of requesting in Israeli society. In J. P.
6. Forgas (Ed.), Language and Social Situations (pp. 113-139). New York, NY: Springer- Verlag
7. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
8. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Byon, A. S. (2004). Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: Pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1673-1704.
10. Byon, A. S. (2006). The role of linguistic indirectness and honorifics in achieving linguistic politeness in Korean requests. Journal of Politeness Research, 2, 247-276.
11. Cohen, A. (2004). Assessing Speech Acts in a Second Language. In D. Boxer & A. Cohen (Eds.), Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning (pp. 302-327). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
12. Cohen, A. D. & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of socio-cultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113-134.
13. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. (2009). Pragmatic variation across Spanish(es): Requesting in Mexican, Costa Rican, and Dominican Spanish. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 473-515.
14. Fukushima, S. (1996). Request strategies in British English and Japanese. Language Sciences, 18(3-4), 671-188.
15. García, C. (1993). Making a request and responding to it: A case study of Peruvian Spanish speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(2), 127-152.
16. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
17. Hong, W. (1996). An empirical study of Chinese request strategies. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 122, 127-138.
18. Hudson, T., Detmer, E. and Brown, J. D. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross- cultural pragmatics. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
19. Kanik, M. (2010). Does Instruction in L2 Have an Impact on L1 Pragmalinguistic Use? In D. Köksal, İ. H. Erten, E.Z. Topkaya & A. Yavuz (Eds.), The 6th International ELT Research Conference Proceedings: Current Trends in SLA Research and Language Teaching. Canakkale: Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University.
20. Kasper, G. & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. SSLA, 13, 215-247.
21. Kasper, G. & Rose, K. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81-104.
22. Kasper, G. & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. SSLA, 18, 149-169.
23. Marti, L. (2006). Indirectness and politeness in Turkish-German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1836-1869.
24. Rose, K. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. SSLA, 22, 27-67.
25. Rue, Y. J., Zhang, G. & Shin, K. (2007). Request strategies in Korean. Proceedings of the 5th Biannual
26. Korean Studies Association of Australasia Conference,112-119. Retrieved from http://www.ksaa.net/proceedings/KSAA05-2007.pdf.
27. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL and EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL- EJ, 8(2), Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej30/a3.html