Türkçedeki nezaket ve stil farklılıkları: İngilizce öğretmen adayları örneği

Abstract

Kibar olmak veya kibar bir kişi olarak algılanmak, farklı dilleri öğrenirken ve farklı kültürleri deneyimlerken zor bir görevdir çünkü bireyin bir toplumun sosyal ve kültürel değerlerini de öğrenmesi gerektiğinden bir dilin gramerini veya kelime bilgisini öğrenmek, kibar bir kişi olarak algılanmak için yeterli olmayabilir. Ayrıca, bireyin anadilini konuşurken kullandığı nezaket stratejileri ve stilleri bağlamsal olarak değişebilir. Bu çalışma, Türk dilinde ortaya çıkan nezaket stratejileri ve stil farklılıklarını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, dört vakadan oluşan bir söylem tamamlama testi hazırlanmış ve 32 İngilizce öğretmen adayına uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, katılımcıların büyük ölçüde, samimi stili kullanırken olumlu kibarlık stratejileri kullandıklarını, danışma ve resmi tarzları kullanırken genellikle olumsuz kibarlık stratejilerini tercih ettiklerini göstermiştir. Ayrıca, katılımcıların aile geçmişinin kibarlık stratejilerini farklı tarzlarda kullanma şekilleri üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisinin olmadığı bulunmuştur. Ancak, katılımcıların cinsiyet ve yaşlarının hitap seçimini etkilediği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

• Nezaket,stil,Türk dili,söylem tamamlama testi

Politeness and style differences in the Turkish language: the case of pre-service English language teachers

Abstract

Being polite or perceived as a polite person is a difficult task when learning different languages and experiencing different cultures because learning grammar or vocabulary of a language is not enough to be perceived as a polite person since one should learn social and cultural values of the community as well. Moreover, politeness strategies and styles utilized while one is speaking his or her mother tongue can vary in a contextual manner. This study aims at examining politeness strategies and style differences the Turkish language. In accordance with this aim, a discourse completion test with four cases was prepared and administered to 32 pre-service English language teachers. The findings indicated that the participants, to a large extent, used positive politeness strategies while using the intimate style whereas they generally preferred negative politeness strategies while using the consultative and the formal styles. Additionally, it was found out that the family background of the participants has no meaningful influence on the way they use politeness strategies in different styles. However, it is concluded that gender and age of the participants affect their choice of the address forms.

Keywords

• Politeness,style,Turkish language,discourse completion test

References

1. Açıkalın, I. (1995). A Linguistic Analysis of Turkish Medical Language and Doctor Patient Communication (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from The Council of Higher Education Thesis Centre.
2. Billmyer, K. & Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 517-552.
3. Brown, P. (2015). Politeness and language. In The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences (IESBS), (2nd ed.) (pp. 326-330). Elsevier.
4. Brown, P., Levinson, S. C., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
5. Burns, L., Marra, M., & Holmes, J. (2001). Women's humour in the workplace: a quantitative analysis. Australian Journal of Communication, 28(1), 83.
6. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed). Boston, MA: Pearson.
8. De Ayala, S. P. (2001). FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting needs?—Politeness in question time. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 143-169.

9. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2010). Data collection methods in speech act performance. Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues, 26, 41.
10. Fukada, A., & Asato, N. (2004). Universal politeness theory: application to the use of Japanese honorifics. Journal of pragmatics, 36(11), 1991-2002.
11. Goldsmith, D. J. (2007). Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory. In B. Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.). Explaining communication: contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 219-236). Mahwah NJ, Erlbaum.
12. Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua-journal of cross-cultural and interlanguage communication, 8(2-3), 223-248.
13. Holmes, J. (2013). An introduction to sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge.
14. Hudson, M. E. (2011). Student honorifics usage in conversations with professors. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(15), 3689-3706.
15. Johnson, D. I., Roloff, M. E., & Riffee, M. A. (2004). Politeness theory and refusals of requests: Face threat as a function of expressed obstacles. Communication Studies, 55(2), 227-238.
16. Kahraman, S. (2013). The Effects of Teaching Negative Politeness Strategies on Oral Communication Skills of Prospective EFL Teachers (Master of Arts Thesis). Retrieved from The Council of Higher Education Thesis Centre.
17. Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures, 316-341.
18. Kedveš, A. (2013). Face threatening acts and politeness strategies in summer school application calls. Jezikoslovlje, 14(2-3), 431-444.
19. Kitamura, N. (2000). Adapting Brown and Levinson’s ‘politeness’ theory to the analysis of casual conversation. In Proceedings of ALS2k, the 2000 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society (pp. 1-8).
20. Kocaman, A. (1992). Preliminaries to the study of stylistic scales in Turkish. Dilbilim 20. Yıl Yazıları 183-190.
21. Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 1(1), 9-33.
22. Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of pragmatics, 21(5), 451-486.
23. Marti, L. (2006). Indirectness and politeness in Turkish–German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(11), 1836-1869.
24. Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of pragmatics, 12(4), 403-426.
25. Morand, D. A., & Ocker, R. J. (2003, January). Politeness theory and computer-mediated communication: A sociolinguistic approach to analyzing relational messages. In System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 10-pp).
26. Nakane, I. (2006). Silence and politeness in intercultural communication in university seminars. Journal of pragmatics, 38(11), 1811-1835.
27. Navaey, A. A., & Bakšić, S. (2018). Politeness strategies in Turkish and Persian: compliments, good wishes and giving deference. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(5), 1-16.
28. Önalan, O., & Çakır, A. (2018). A comparative study on speech acts: formal complaints by native speakers and Turkish learners of English. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 239-259.
29. Ruhi, Ş., & Işık-Güler, H. (2007). Conceptualizing face and relational work in (im) politeness: Revelations from politeness lexemes and idioms in Turkish. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 681-711.
30. Nurani, L. M. (2009). Methodological issue in pragmatic research: Is discourse completion test a reliable data collection instrument? Jurnal Sosioteknologi, 8(17), 667-678.
31. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. Bristol, PA: Falmer.
32. Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An Introduction to sociolinguistic (5th Edition). Australia: Blackwell.
33. Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An introduction to sociolinguistics. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
34. Westbrook, L. (2007). Chat reference communication patterns and implications: applying politeness theory. Journal of Documentation, 63(5), 638-658.
35. Wilson, S. R., Kim, M. S., & Meischke, H. (1991). Evaluating Brown and Levinson's politeness theory: a revised analysis of directives and face. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 25(1-4), 215-252.
36. Wolfram, W., & Schilling-Estes, N. (1998). American English: Dialects and Variation (Language in Society). Malden, MA: Blackwell.