Türkçede Davet Söz Eylemi Stratejileri

Year 2024, Volume: 21 Issue: 5, 274 - 286, 15.10.2024

Hülya Ünsal Şakiroğlu , Işıl Özyıldırım

https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.1518494

Abstract

Bu çalışma, temel olarak insanların dili kullandıklarında aslında bir tür eylem gerçekleştirdiklerini öne süren edimbilimdeki söz edim/eylem kuramını temel alarak Türkçedeki davet söz eylemine ilişkin stratejileri incelemektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı ana dili Türkçe olan kişilerin davet söz edimine/eylemine yönelik kullandıkları stratejileri araştırmaktır. Bu amaca ulaşmak için Türkçe konuşanların davet ederken kullandıkları stratejileri belirlemek amacıyla çevrimiçi bir Yazılı Söylem Tamamlama Testi (YSTT) kullanılmıştır. Bir diğer veri toplama tekniği olarak birkaç farklı Türk televizyon dizisi serisinden birçok bölüm izlenerek dökümü çıkartılmıştır. Söylem tamamlama testinden ve dizilerden elde edilen veriler, öncelikle konuşma çözümlemesi ile daha sonra ise Suzuki (2009) tarafından kategorize edilen çerçeve kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmanın bulguları, Türkçede kullanılan davet söz ediminin kendine özgü kalıplara sahip olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Türkçede doğrudan davetler (%84.90) dolaylı olanlardan (%15.09) daha sık tercih edilmektedir. Ayrıca, en belirgin ana davet eylemi türü bildirim cümleleri olup (%40.33), hazırlık eylemleri arasından en sık kullanılan strateji ‘dinleyicinin planını sorma’ olmuştur (%17.64). Türkçe davetlerde an yaygın destekleyici hamle ise yüzde 48.44 ile etkinliğin tanımlanması olarak kendini göstermektedir.

Keywords

söz eylem teorisi, davet söz eylemi, davet stratejileri, Türkçe, TV dizileri

The Strategies of Invitation Speech Act in Turkish

Abstract

This study examines the strategies on invitation speech act in Turkish based on the speech act theory in pragmatics which fundamentally positions that when people use language they actually perform a kind of action. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the strategies employed on invitation speech act by native speakers of Turkish. To accomplish the goal, an online Written Discourse Completion Task (DCT) was employed with an aim to delineate the strategies Turkish speakers use while inviting. Another method was examining several different Turkish television series. Following the implication of the quantitative technique of conversation analysis, the utterances in data from invitation acts were analyzed in terms of the patterns of the semantic formulas categorized in the taxonomy by Suzuki (2009). The findings of the study revealed that invitation acts used in Turkish have their unique patterns. Direct invitations (84.90%) were more frequent than indirect ones (15.09%). Moreover, the most predominant type of head act was declarative (40.33%) and query on hearer’s plan (17.64%) had the highest frequency among preparatory acts. The most common supportive move was description of event by 48.44% of Turkish invitations.

Keywords

speech acts, invitation speech act, invitation strategies, Turkish, TV series

References

• Al-Darraji, H., Foo, T., Ismail, S., & Abdulah, E. S. (2013). Cultural values underlying speech act of inviting: The case of Iraqi EFL speakers. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 4(8), 1052.
• Alfalig, H. (2016). Invitation in Saudi Arabic: A socio-pragmatic analysis [Master’s thesis, Ball State University].
• Al-Ghamdi, N., & Alrefaee, Y. (2020). The role of social status in the realization of refusal speech act: A cross-cultural study. The Asian ESP Journal.
• Al-Khatib, M. A. (2006). The pragmatics of invitation making and acceptance in Jordanian society. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 5(2), 272–294.
• Al-Marrani, Y. M. A., & Sazalie, A. (2010). Polite request strategies by male speakers of Yemeni Arabic in male-male interaction and male-female interaction. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 30(30), 63–80.
• Asmali, M. (2012). The apology and refusal strategies of Turkish, Polish and Latvian prospective English teachers [Master’s thesis, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü].
• Austin, J. L. (1962). Meaning and speech acts. How to Do.
• Bella, S. (2009). Invitations and politeness in Greek: The age variable. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 5(2).
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–311). Cambridge University Press.
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.
• Çapar, M. (2019). İngilizce’yi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen Türk öğrenciler nasıl ‘hayır ’der? International Journal of Language Academy, 2(4), 262–282.
• Cheng, W. (2012). Speech acts, facework and politeness: Relationship-building across cultures. In The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 164–179). Routledge.
• Choraih, M. A. (2022). The speech act of invitation: A contrastive analysis of Moroccan Arabic and American English. Journal of Social Sciences Advancement, 3(2), 53–64.
• Çiftçi, H. (2016). Refusal strategies in Turkish and English: A cross-cultural study. ELT Research Journal, 5(1).
• Demirkol, T. (2015). Pragmatic development of Turkish Efl learners in terms of speech acts: Refusals, requests, and suggestions.
• Fahrurrozi, M. R. (2015). A pragmatic analysis of speech act of requests expressed by the characters in Office Space. Sastra Inggris-Quill, 4(3), 207–214.
• Fernández-Guerra, A. (2008). Requests in TV series and in naturally occurring discourse: A comparison. In Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context (pp. 11–126).
• Ghazzoul, N. (2019). Linguistic and pragmatic failure of Arab learners in direct polite requests and invitations: A cross-cultural study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(2), 223–230.
• Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face interaction.
• Goffman, E. (1981). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harper and Row.
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Brill.
• Gungormezler, T. (2016). An investigation of the refusal speech act of Turkish learners of English.
• Han, T., & Burgucu-Tazegül, A. (2016). Realization of speech acts of refusals and pragmatic competence by Turkish EFL learners. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 16(1), 161–178.
• Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In Studies in Social Interaction.
• Kiaer, J., Driggs, D., Brown, L., & Choi, N. (2022). Ideologies in second language learning: The case of Korean address terms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 1–21.
• Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p’s and q’s. In Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 9(1), 292–305.
• Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Group Ltd.
• Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
• Lu, D. (2001). Cultural features in speech acts: A Sino-American comparison. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 14(3), 214–223.
• Lubecka, A. (2000). Requests, invitations, apologies, and compliments in American English and Polish: A cross-cultural communication perspective. Księg. Akademicka.
• Marti, L. (2006). Indirectness and politeness in Turkish–German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(11), 1836–1869.
• Mohammed, A. A.-M. (2020). Investigating the use of the speech act of invitation by Iraqi EFL non-departmental students. Journal of University of Babylon for Humanities, 28(6), 13–26.
• Nadar, F. X. (2009). Pragmatik & penelitian pragmatik. Graha Ilmu.
• Ogiermann, E., & Bella, S. (2020). An interlanguage study of request perspective: Evidence from German, Greek, Polish and Russian learners of English. Contrastive Pragmatics, 1(2), 180–209.
• Sacks, H. (1992). 1995 Lectures on Conversation. Ed. G. Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). Linguistic society of America. Language, 50(1), 696–735.
• Sadler, R. W., & Eröz, B. (2002). “I refuse you!” An examination of English refusals by native speakers of English, Lao, and Turkish. Journal of Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, 9, 53–80.
• Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4).
• Sifianou, M. (1999). Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-cultural perspective. OUP Oxford.
• Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures, 11, 46.
• Suzuki, T. (2009). How do American university students “invite” others?: A corpus-based study of linguistic strategies for the speech act of “invitations”.
• Treanor, D. J. (2015). Writing strategies in English and Chinese email invitations: A crosscultural speech act study [Doctoral dissertation, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan].
• Vahid Dastjerdi, H., & Nasri, N. (2012). Congratulation speech acts across cultures: The case of English, Persian, and Arabic. Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation, 1(2), 97–116.
• Vlasyan, G. R., & Kozhukhova, I. V. (2019). Formal and informal Russian invitation: Context and politeness strategies. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23(4), 994–1013.
• Wijaya, F. R., & Helmie, J. (2019). An analysis of directive speech acts in The Fault in Our Stars movie script. Jurnal JOEPALLT (Journal of English Pedagogy, Linguistics, Literature, and Teaching, 7(1), 1–16.
• Yazdanfar, S., & Bonyadi, A. (2016). Request strategies in everyday interactions of Persian and English speakers. SAGE Open, 6(4), 2158244016679473.
• Yu, G., & Wu, Y. (2017). Inviting in Mandarin: Anticipating the likelihood of the success of an invitation. Journal of Pragmatics, 125, 130–148.