“Dil, entegrasyonun anahtarıdır” bir efsane mi? Göç bağlamında konuşmacının meşruiyeti ve tanınmanın politikası

Abstract

Bu makale, eleştirel toplumdilbilim çerçevesinden, dil yeterliliğinin entegrasyonu doğrudan sağladığı yönündeki yaygın varsayımı sorgular. Makale, gündelik değerlendirmelerde belirleyici olanın “konuşmacının meşruiyeti” olduğunu; yani konuşmacının ve kullandıkları dil çeşitlerinin ne ölçüde güvenilir, kabul edilebilir ve dinlenmeye değer görüldüğünü savunur. Üniversite öğrencileriyle yapılan odak grup görüşmelerine dayanan çalışma, göçmenler ve mültecilerle karşılaşmaların dil, kategorileştirme ve toplumsal değerlendirme üzerinden nasıl anlatıldığını ve yorumlandığını inceler. Anlatı çözümlemesi yaklaşımıyla, katılımcıların kendi hikâye dünyaları içinde dil ile göç arasındaki ilişkiyi nasıl anlamlandırdıkları izlenir. Bulgular, anlatılar boyunca dilin etnisite, mülteci statüsü ve ırksallaştırılmış ayrıcalık gibi diğer toplumsal kategorilerle sürekli olarak iç içe geçtiğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca baskın dili konuşmanın göçmenler için toplumsal tanınmayı garanti etmediğini; meşruiyetin aksan, dilsel değişkeler ve bunlarla ilişkilendirilen toplumsal kimliklere dair değerlendirmeler üzerinden müzakere edildiğini ortaya koyar. Bu nedenle makale, dil-entegrasyon ilişkisinin, yalnızca dilsel yeterlilik üzerinden değil, konuşmanın meşruiyeti ve tanınmanın politikası üzerinden daha iyi anlaşılabileceğini ileri sürer. Sonuç olarak, toplumsal kabul ve uyumu ortak bir dil konuşmaya indirgemeye çalışan yaklaşımların, kimin meşru biçimde “dinlenmeye değer” görüldüğünü ve kimin çeperde bırakıldığını belirleyen toplumsal koşulları ve pratiklerini gözden kaçırma riski taşıdığını vurgular.

Keywords

• toplumdilbilim
• dil ve göç
• dilsel entegrasyon
• anlatı çözümlemesi
• dil kullanımı

Ethical Statement

29 Mayıs Üniversitesi Etik Kurulu tarafından 02.01.2024 tarihli ve 2024/01-9 sayılı Etik Kurul onayı alınmıştır. Katılımcılar araştırma hakkında bilgilendirilmiş ve katılımcılardan aydınlatılmış onam alınmıştır.

Is “Language as the Key to Integration” A Myth? Legitimate Speakership and the Politics of Recognition in Migration Context

Abstract

Drawing on critical sociolinguistics, this article questions the widespread assumption that language competence straightforwardly results in integration. It argues that what matters in everyday evaluations is legitimate speakership, namely whether speakers and their varieties are recognised as credible, acceptable, and worthy of being heard. Drawing on focus group discussions with university students, the article examines how encounters with migrants and refugees are narrated and interpreted through language, categorisation, and social evaluation. A narrative analytic approach is used to trace how participants make sense of the relationship between language and migration within their story worlds. The findings show that, across narratives, language is repeatedly intertwined with other social categories such as ethnicity, refugee status, and racialised privilege. They further show that speaking the dominant language does not guarantee social recognition for migrants, as legitimacy is negotiated through evaluations of accent, variety, and the social identities associated with them. The article therefore argues that the language-integration nexus is better understood through the politics of legitimate speakership rather than linguistic ability alone. It concludes that approaches reducing social acceptance and cohesion to a shared language risk overlooking the social conditions and gatekeeping practices that shape who is heard as legitimate and who is kept at the margins.

Keywords

• sociolinguistics
• language and migration
• linguistic integration
• narrative analysis
• language use

Ethical Statement

Ethical Statement: Ethics Committee approval was obtained from Istanbul 29 Mayıs University Ethics Committee (2 January 2024; Reference number: 2024/01-9). Participants were informed about the study, and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

References

1. Akçapar, S. K., & Şimşek, D. (2018). The politics of Syrian refugees in Turkey: A question of inclusion and exclusion through citizenship. Social Inclusion, 6(1), 176-187. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v6i1.1323
2. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (2nd ed.). Verso.
3. Allan, K. (2013). Skilling the self: The communicability of immigrants as flexible labour. In A. Duchêne, M. Moyer & C. Roberts (Eds.), Language, migration and social inequalities. A critical sociolinguistic perspective on institutions and work (pp. 56 -78). Multilingual Matters.
4. Altıparmak, M., & Saygı, H. (2025). Türkiye’deki Suriyeli öğrenciler ve Arapça: Dil politikaları, informel destek eğitimleri ve dilsel kimlik arayışları. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(1), 99-125 https://doi.org/10.31464/jlere.1565640
5. Bamberg, M. (1997). Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1-4), 335-342. https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.42pos
6. Bamberg, M. (2011). Who am I? Narration and its contribution to self and identity. Theory & Psychology, 21(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354309355852
7. Bamberg, M., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text & Talk, 28(3), 377-396.
8. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh University Press.

9. Blommaert, J. & Verschueren, J. (1998). Debating diversity: Analysing the discourse of tolerance. Routledge. Bass, L. E. (2014). African immigrant families in another France. Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Başer, B., & Öztürk, A. E. (2022). From exit to voice: Reflections on exile through the accounts of Turkey’s intelligentsia. Middle East Critique, 31(4), 401-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2022.2132193
11. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Polity Press.
12. Busch, B., & Spitzmüller, J. (2021). Indexical borders: The sociolinguistic scales of the shibboleth. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 272, 127-152. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2020-0095
13. Çiçek, M. T. (2012). Erken Cumhuriyet dönemi ders kitapları çerçevesinde Türk ulus kimliği inşası ve “Arap İhaneti”. Divan: Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi, (32), 169-188.
14. Danış, D., & Bayraktar, D. (2010). Away from Iraq: Post 2003 Iraqi migration to neighbouring countries and to Turkey. (Report No: 20). Orsam.
15. Diken, B. (2004). From refugee camps to gated communities: Biopolitics and the end of the city. Citizenship Studies, 8(1), 83-106.
16. Esser, H. (2006). Migration, language and integration (AKI Research Review No. 4). https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2006/iv06-akibilanz4b.pdf
17. European Commission. (2020, November 24). Action plan on integration and inclusion 2021-2027 (COM 758). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52020DC0758
18. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285-300.
19. Flubacher, M., Coray, R., & Duchêne, A. (2016). Language, integration, and investment: The regulation of diversity in the context of unemployment. Multilingua, 35(6), 675-696. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2015-0075
20. Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh University Press.
21. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Penguin.
22. Hanks, W. F. (2000). Indexicality. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(1-2), 124-126. Heller, M. (2003). Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 473-492.
23. Heller, M. (2008). Language and the nation-state: Challenges to sociolinguistic theory and practice. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 504-524.
24. İzgi, R., & Saygı, H. (2025). Dil, kimlik ve göç: İmam hatip öğrencilerinin Arapça algılarına yönelik söylem analizi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 42(3), 372-390. https://doi.org/10.32600/huefd.1566229
25. Jaspers, J. (2009). Inleiding [Introduction]. In J. Jaspers (Ed.), De klank van de stad: Stedelijke meertaligheid en interculturele communicatie (pp. 7-32). Acco.
26. Jolly, C., Lainé, F., & Breem, Y. (2012, February). L’emploi et les métiers des immigrés (Document de travail No. 2012-01). Centre d’analyse stratégique. https://strategie.archives- spm.fr/cas/en/system/files/2012-03-13-emploietimmigration-dt.pdf
27. Kandiyoti, D., & Emanet, Z. (2017). Education as battleground: The capture of minds in Turkey. Globalizations, 14(6), 869-876. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2017.1325170
28. Karakaş, İ. (2025, April 15). TİHEK, Bursa'da sadece Arapça tabelalara yasak getirilmesini “ayrımcılık” saydı [TİHEK deemed banning only Arabic shop signs in Bursa discriminatory]. Anadolu Ajansı. Karakaş, İ. (2025, April 15). https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/gundem/tihek-bursada- sadece-arapca-tabelalara-yasak-getirilmesini-ayrimcilik-saydi/3538574
29. Kasımoğlu, A., & Taşdan, M. (2025). Public attitudes toward Syrian refugees in the context of gender and marital status: An empirical analysis based on a Turkish sample. Erzurum Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23, 69-79. https://doi.org/10.29157/etusbed.1711707
30. Küçükcan, T. (2010). Arab image in Turkey (SETA Research Report No. 1). SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research.
31. Lewis, G. (1999). Turkish language reform: A catastrophic success. Oxford University Press. McNamara, T. (2005). 21st century shibboleth. Language Policy, 4(4), 351-370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-005-2886-0
32. Morgül, K., Savaşkan, O., & Mutlu, B. (2021). Attitudes toward Syrian refugees in Istanbul: Partisanship, xenophobia, threat perceptions, and social contact. TÜSES (The Social, Economic, and Political Research Foundation of Turkey). https://tr.boell.org/en/2021/06/10/attitudes-toward-syrian-refugees-istanbul
33. Norton-Pierce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9-31. Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning. Longman.
34. Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (Eds.). (1983). Acquiring conversational competence. Routledge.
35. Özdemirkol, M. (2025). Tabela Yasakları: Görüntü Kirliliği İddiasıyla Suriyelilerin Karşılaştığı Bir Ayrımcılık. Liberal Düşünce, 30(117), 95-118.
36. Paulston, C. B. (1980). Bilingual education: Theories and issues. Newbury House Publishers Inc.
37. Phillipson, R., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1995). Linguicide and linguicism. In R. Phillipson & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Papers in European language policy (pp. 83-91). Roskilde Universitet.
38. Piller, I. (2012). Multilingualism and social exclusion. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 281- 297). Routledge.
39. Piller, I. (2015). Language ideologies. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp. 917-927). Wiley Blackwell.
40. Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice: An introduction to applied sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press.
41. Roberts, C. (2013). The gatekeeping of babel: Job interviews and the linguistic penalty. In A. Duchêne, M. Moyer, & C. Roberts (Eds.), Language, migration and social inequalities: A critical sociolinguistic perspective on institutions and work (pp. 81-94). Multilingual Matters.
42. Ruedin, D. (2011). Conceptualizing the integration of immigrants and other groups (COMPAS Working Paper No. 89). University of Oxford, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society. https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/WP-2011-089- Ruedin_Conceptualizing_Integration_Immigrants.pdf
43. Saygı, H. (2025). Risky communications and precarity in London’s shared housing: Speaking home. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-99040-3
44. Saygı, H. (2023). A linguistic ethnography of the sense of belonging: Iraqi Turkmen women refugees in Turkey. Language & Communication, 88, 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2022.10.002
45. Saygı, H. & Erduyan, I. (2023). Local linguistic ideologies and Iraqi Turkmens' experience of forced migration to Turkey: A folk linguistic perspective. Language Policy, 22. 289-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-023-09657-4 Saygı, H. (2020). Dilbilimsel Etnografik Açıdan Anadolu’da Kadınlığın Müzakeresi ve İnşası. In D. Danış & K. Biehl (Eds.), Toplumsal cinsiyet perspektifinden Türkiye’de göç araştırmaları (pp. 101-121). Sabancı Üniversitesi Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve Kadın Çalışmaları Mükemmeliyet Merkezi ve Göç Araştırmaları Derneği.
46. Sert, D. Ş., & Danış, D. (2021). Framing Syrians in Turkey: State control and no crisis discourse. International Migration, 59(1), 197-214. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12753
47. Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication, 23(3-4), 193-229.
48. Thurlow, C., & Jaworski, A. (2017). Introducing elite discourse: The rhetorics of status, privilege, and power. Social Semiotics, 27(3), 243-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2017.1301789
49. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR]. (2025). Republic of Türkiye. Retrieved December 17, 2025, from https://www.unhcr.org/countries/republic-tuerkiye
50. Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Ablex Publishing Corporation.