Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Kamusal söylemde olumlu benlik temsili: İnkâr stratejilerinin eleştirel söylem analizine Ekşi Sözlük’ten örnekler

Year 2022, Issue: 29, 877 - 888, 21.08.2022
https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1164903

Abstract

Günümüz toplumunda ırksal ve etnik önyargılar / kaygılar çeşitli şekillerde ortaya çıkabilir. Çoğunluk grubun üyeleri, etnik bakış açılarını farklı biçimlerde ifade ederek kamusal söylemi büyük oranda şekillendirebilir. Bu grubun üyeleri azınlıklara, göçmenlere, mültecilere ve/ya kendi gurubuna ait olmayan diğer insanlara karşı olumsuz duygularını söylemlerinde gösterebilir, gizleyebilir ve/ya inkâr edebilirler. Bu bağlamda, çalışmamız Türkiye'deki Ermeni azınlıklarına ilişkin kamusal söylemde dile getirilen olumsuz etnik tutumların, önyargıların ve/ya endişelerin inkârını tanımlayıp incelemeye çalışmaktadır. Araştırma çerçevesinde Türkiye'deki Ermeni azınlık grubuna mensup gazeteci-yazar Hrant Dink'in 2007 yılında uğradığı suikasttan kısa bir süre sonra, 2007-2008 yılları arasında Türkiye'nin en büyük ortak çevrimiçi topluluklarından biri olan Ekşi Sözlük'te "Ermenilerden özür diliyorum" ve "Hepimiz Ermeniyiz" başlıkları altında yapılan paylaşımlarda (yorumlarda) ne tür inkâr stratejilerinin bulunabileceğini inceleyeceğiz. Bu doğrultuda, ideoloji ve ideolojik süreçlerin dilsel sistem ve süreçler olarak kendilerini nasıl ortaya koyduklarını göstermeyi amaçlayan Eleştirel Söylem Analizi ve Teun van Dijk'in inkâr stratejileri kapsamında örnek girdileri tartışacağız. Ardından, bu girdilerde en sık kullanıldığı gözlemlenen inkâr stratejilerine ilişkin analizimizi sunacağız. Metinde kullanılan inkâr yöntemlerini inceleyip ırksal veya etnik önyargıların ve kaygıların (makro düzeyde) metinde sözcük seçimi, cümle yapısı, hiyerarşi ve bağlam (mikro düzeyde) aracılığıyla nasıl ifade edildiğini belirleyeceğiz. Bu sayede metindeki mikro düzeydeki yapılar aracılığıyla makro düzeydeki hedefleri görebileceğiz.

References

  • Akçam, T. (2006). A shameful act: The Armenian genocide and the question of Turkish responsibility. New York: Metropolitan Books.
  • Atnur, İ. E. (1991). Tehcirden dönen Rum ve Ermenilerin iskanı meselesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi, Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü, Erzurum, Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, 1991.
  • Atnur, İ. E. (1994). Osmanlı hükümetleri ve tehcir edilen Rum ve Ermenilerin yeniden iskanı meselesi. Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, Cilt 4, Sayı 14.
  • Atnur, İ. E. (2005). Türkiye’de Ermeni kadınları ve çocukları meselesi (1915–1923). Ankara: Babil Yayıncılık.
  • Baker, M.R. (2015). The Armenian genocide and its denial: a review of recent scholarship. New Perspectives on Turkey, 53, 197–212. DOI: doi.org/10.1017/npt.2015.23
  • Brown, P. and S. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The Universities. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 133-168.
  • Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction: Discourse Studies 2 (A Multidisciplinary Introduction) (pp. 258-284). London: Sage.
  • Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Guerin, B. (2003). Combating prejudice and racism: New interventions from a functional analysis of racist language. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 13: 29–45.
  • Lewy, G. (2005). The Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.
  • Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 14-31). London: Sage.
  • Van Dijk, T.A. (1984). Prejudice in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Van Dijk, T.A. (1987a). Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Van Dijk, T.A. (1987b). Elite discourse and racism. In I. Zavala, T.A. van Dijk, and M. Diaz-Diocaretz (eds) Approaches to Discourse , Poetics and Psychiatry, pp. 81-122. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Van Dijk, T.A. (1988a). News analysis: Case studies of international and national news in the press. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Van Dijk, T.A. (1988b). News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlb.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the press. London: Routledge.
  • Van Dijk T.A. (1992a). Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society 3(1): 87–118.
  • Van Dijk, T.A. (1992b). Elite discourse and the reproduction of racism. In J. Stanfield and R.M. Dennis (eds) Methods in Race and Ethnic Relations Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage (in press). 87-118.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1993a). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society. vol. 4(2): 249-283. SAGE (London. Newbury Park and New Delhi).
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1993b). Elite Discourse and Racism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Political discourse and racism: Describing others in western parliaments. In Stephen Harold Riggins (ed.) The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse, pp. 31–64. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Van Dijk, T.A. (2000). New(s) racism: A discourse analytic approach. In: Cottle S (ed.) Ethnic Minorities and the Media. Buckingham and Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press, pp. 33–49.
  • Van Dijk, T. (2004). Communicating Ideologies. New York, Academic Press.
  • Wodak, R. (2000). Does sociolinguistics need social theory? New perspectives in critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 2 (3), 123- 147.
  • Wodak, R. (2002) “Aspects of Critical Discourse Analysis”. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 36, pp. 5-31.
  • Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2016). Critical Discourse Studies: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology. Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (Ed.). Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (1- 22). London: Sage.
  • http://sozluk.sourtimes.org...........................
  • http://sozluk.sourtimes.org/show.asp?t=hrant+dink+suikasti&kw=&a=&all=&v=&p=1
  • http://sozluk.sourtimes.org....................................
  • http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekşi_Sözlük................
  • https://eksisozluk.com/eksi-sozluk-nefret-soylemi-denetim-projesi--2875131

Positive self-representation in public discourse: A critical discourse analysis of denial strategies in Ekşi Sözlük

Year 2022, Issue: 29, 877 - 888, 21.08.2022
https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1164903

Abstract

In today's society, racial and ethnic biases / concerns can be shown in a variety of ways. Members of the majority group primarily shape public discourse by expressing their ethnic perspectives in various ways. They may show, hide, and/or deny negative feelings against minorities, immigrants, refugees, and/or the others. In this regard, the present study attempts to examine and explore denial of unfavorable ethnic attitudes, biases, and worries voiced in public discourse regarding Turkey's Armenian minority. Within the framework of the study, I will investigate what kind of denial strategies may be found in the posts (comments) under the headings "Ermenilerden özür diliyorum" [I apologize to Armenians] and "Hepimiz Ermeniyiz" [We are all Armenians] posted on Ekşi Sözlük "Sour Dictionary" (one of the largest collaborative online communities in Turkey) between 2007-2008 years, shortly after the assassination of Hrant Dink (a journalist and member of the Armenian minority group living in Turkey) in 2007. Accordingly, I will discuss the sample entries within the scope of Critical Discourse Analysis and Teun van Dijk's denial strategies, which aim to show how ideology and ideological processes reveal themselves as linguistic systems. Then I will present my analysis of the most frequently used denial strategies observed in these entries. I will examine the denial methods used in the text and determine how racial or ethnic biases and concerns (at the macro level) are expressed in the text through word choice, sentence structure, hierarchy, and context (micro level). In this way, we will be able to see macro-level goals in the text through micro-level structures.

References

  • Akçam, T. (2006). A shameful act: The Armenian genocide and the question of Turkish responsibility. New York: Metropolitan Books.
  • Atnur, İ. E. (1991). Tehcirden dönen Rum ve Ermenilerin iskanı meselesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi, Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü, Erzurum, Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, 1991.
  • Atnur, İ. E. (1994). Osmanlı hükümetleri ve tehcir edilen Rum ve Ermenilerin yeniden iskanı meselesi. Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, Cilt 4, Sayı 14.
  • Atnur, İ. E. (2005). Türkiye’de Ermeni kadınları ve çocukları meselesi (1915–1923). Ankara: Babil Yayıncılık.
  • Baker, M.R. (2015). The Armenian genocide and its denial: a review of recent scholarship. New Perspectives on Turkey, 53, 197–212. DOI: doi.org/10.1017/npt.2015.23
  • Brown, P. and S. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The Universities. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 133-168.
  • Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction: Discourse Studies 2 (A Multidisciplinary Introduction) (pp. 258-284). London: Sage.
  • Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Guerin, B. (2003). Combating prejudice and racism: New interventions from a functional analysis of racist language. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 13: 29–45.
  • Lewy, G. (2005). The Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.
  • Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 14-31). London: Sage.
  • Van Dijk, T.A. (1984). Prejudice in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Van Dijk, T.A. (1987a). Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Van Dijk, T.A. (1987b). Elite discourse and racism. In I. Zavala, T.A. van Dijk, and M. Diaz-Diocaretz (eds) Approaches to Discourse , Poetics and Psychiatry, pp. 81-122. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Van Dijk, T.A. (1988a). News analysis: Case studies of international and national news in the press. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Van Dijk, T.A. (1988b). News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlb.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the press. London: Routledge.
  • Van Dijk T.A. (1992a). Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society 3(1): 87–118.
  • Van Dijk, T.A. (1992b). Elite discourse and the reproduction of racism. In J. Stanfield and R.M. Dennis (eds) Methods in Race and Ethnic Relations Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage (in press). 87-118.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1993a). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society. vol. 4(2): 249-283. SAGE (London. Newbury Park and New Delhi).
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1993b). Elite Discourse and Racism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Political discourse and racism: Describing others in western parliaments. In Stephen Harold Riggins (ed.) The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse, pp. 31–64. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Van Dijk, T.A. (2000). New(s) racism: A discourse analytic approach. In: Cottle S (ed.) Ethnic Minorities and the Media. Buckingham and Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press, pp. 33–49.
  • Van Dijk, T. (2004). Communicating Ideologies. New York, Academic Press.
  • Wodak, R. (2000). Does sociolinguistics need social theory? New perspectives in critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 2 (3), 123- 147.
  • Wodak, R. (2002) “Aspects of Critical Discourse Analysis”. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 36, pp. 5-31.
  • Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2016). Critical Discourse Studies: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology. Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (Ed.). Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (1- 22). London: Sage.
  • http://sozluk.sourtimes.org...........................
  • http://sozluk.sourtimes.org/show.asp?t=hrant+dink+suikasti&kw=&a=&all=&v=&p=1
  • http://sozluk.sourtimes.org....................................
  • http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekşi_Sözlük................
  • https://eksisozluk.com/eksi-sozluk-nefret-soylemi-denetim-projesi--2875131
There are 33 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Linguistics
Journal Section World languages, cultures and litertures
Authors

Semra Baturay Meral This is me 0000-0002-2231-361X

Publication Date August 21, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Issue: 29

Cite

APA Baturay Meral, S. (2022). Positive self-representation in public discourse: A critical discourse analysis of denial strategies in Ekşi Sözlük. RumeliDE Dil Ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi(29), 877-888. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1164903