PDF Mendeley EndNote BibTex Cite

Günlük İletişimde Dil – Davranış İlişkisi

Year 2009, Volume , Issue 21, 515 - 518, 01.02.2009

Abstract

Günlük iletişimlerde meydana gelen iletişim kazalarında hep yanlışanlaşılmaktan şikâyet ederiz. Ancak “Acaba kendimizi yanlışmıifade ettik?” diye pek düşünmeyiz. İletişimde temel bir kural vardır: Ne kadar konuşursanız konuşun, söylediğiniz karşıtarafın algıladığıyla sınırlıdır. Dolayısıyla iletişimde temel unsur alıcıya mesajıamaca uygun olarak gönderebilmektir. Bu noktadan hareketle sağlıklıbir iletişimde dilin sadece sentaktik veya semantik boyutuyla yetinmek doğru bir yaklaşım değildir. Sağlıklıbir iletişim için bu iki hususu tamamlayacak olan pragmatik boyutu da göz ardıetmemek gerekir. Bu husus aynıkültür mensuplarının iletişiminde daha az zorluk çıkarırken, hedef dil mensuplarıyla kurduğumuz iletişimlerde daha büyük sıkıntılarımeydana getirmektedir. İletişimi en basit şekilde şöyle tanımlamak mümkündür: İletişim, göndericinin uygun bir kanal aracılığıyla alıcıya mesajınıulaştırmasıdır. Ancak iletişimi pragmatik açıdan irdelediğimizde, karşımıza çok daha karmaşık bir yapıçıkmaktadır. Yani, Keller’in 1994, s. 104 de ifade ettiği gibi iletişim, bir başkasına, açık bir şekilde, bir bildirim yapmak amacıyla gerçekleştirilen her türlü davranıştır. Tanımda yer alan “davranış” kavramıbizzat “ifade” kavramıyla örtüşmektedir. Çünkü bir kişi herhangi bir ifadede bulunduğu anda, aynızamanda bir davranışbiçimini de sergilemişolur Hufeisen-Neuner, 2003:107 . Bu sebeptendir ki, dil ve davranışkavramlarınıbirbirlerinden ayrıdüşünmek imkânsızdır. Keller’in yukarıda yer verilen tanımının devamı şöyledir: “İletişim, beraber yaşadığımız insanlarıbelli işaretler vasıtasıyla, belli bir amaca yönelik olarak etkilemek; bu etkilemeyi yapmak isterken de, karşıtarafın etkilenmeye değer bir sebebi fark edebilmesidir.” Tanımın bu kısmınıirdelediğimizde, iletişimin özünde alıcıyıbir amaca yönelik olarak etkilemek gerektiği hususu ön plana çıkmaktadır. Zaten “iletişim kazaları” da critical incidents amaca uygun olarak etkilemenin başarısız olduğu durumlarda karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Ancak hemen şunu da eklemek gerekir ki, farklıkültür mensuplarıarasında yaşanan iletişim kazaları, aynıkültür mensuplarıarasında da yaşanmaktadır. Bir başka ifadeyle, iletişim kazalarıhem interkültürel hem de intarkültürel boyutta yaşanabilir.

References

  • DANIELS, K. (1985): Idiomatische Kompetenz in der Zielsprache Deutsch.Yayınlandığı yer: Wirkendes Deutsch 35, s. 145-157.
  • HAJAJ, M (1987): Mustaphas Geschichten aus dem Morgen- und Abendland. Wuppertal.
  • HERINGER, H.-J. (2004): Interkulturelle Kommunikation. A. Francke Verlag. Tübingen u. Basel.
  • HOLLY, W. (2001): Einführung in die Pragmalinguistik. Langenscheidt. Berlin.
  • HUFEISEN, B. - NEUNER, G. (2003): Angewandte Linguistik für den fremdsprachlichen Deutschunterricht. Langenscheidt. Berlin.
  • KELLER, R. (1994): Sprachwandel. Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. Tübingen.
  • KILIÇ, V. (2002): Dilin İşlevleri ve İletişim. Papatya. İstanbul.
  • LÜGER, H.-H. (1993): Routinen und Rituale in der Alltagskommunikation. Langenscheidt. Berlin.
  • SELÇUK, A. (2005): Kültürlerarası İletişim Açısından Gündelik İletişim Davranışlar. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13, 1-17.

Speech Act In Everyday Life

Year 2009, Volume , Issue 21, 515 - 518, 01.02.2009

Abstract

We often complain about the communicative inefficiency in daily communication. However, we don’t ask the question, “Have we expressed ourselves wrong?” There is a crucial principle in communication: No matter how much you speak, your speech is limited with the listener’s skill of understanding. Therefore, the major factor in communication is to give the right message to the receiver. Taking this point into consideration, it is not right to delimit the language to syntactic and semantic dimensions in a healthy communication. The pragmatic dimension, which complements these two dimensions, should not be ignored. It may cause less difficulty in communication of the members of the same culture; however, it becomes the source of more significant inconvenience in our communication with the target language speakers. Communication can basically be defined as follows: Communication is the sender’s transmission of his message through a suitable channel to the receiver. However, researching communication from a pragmatic perspective points to a more complex structure. As stated by Keller 1994, p. 104 , communication is every behavior that is performed to send an explicit notice to another person. The notion “behavior” corresponds to the term “expression” because when a person expresses something, he at the same time displays a behavior Hufeisen-Neuner 2003, p. 107 . That is why it is not likely to dissociate the notions of “language” and behavior. The rest of Keller’s definition given above is as follows: “Communication is influencing the people in our environment by means of certain signs, and for certain purposes; it is also the other party’s realization of a reason that is worth being aware of during our attempt to influence. Scrutinizing this part of the definition features communication requires, at its heart, influencing the receiver purposefully. Thus, critical incidents are confronted in situations where this purposeful influencing fails. Suppose that the sender directs his question “Şekeri uzatabilir misiniz?” Could you please pass me the sugar? to the receiver in an intra-cultural environment. Regarding this expressing only through a grammatical view will lead to failure in communication. For instance, if the hearer of this question answers “Evet, uzatabilirim” Yes, I can pass and does not give the sugar to the sender in this communication, the sender will be disappointed. Therefore, the question “Şekeri uzatabilir misiniz?” Could you please pass me the sugar? is not a real question but just a polite request. In fact, no individual involved in a communication can stay completely out of implications. In other words, we are quite experienced in implicature. From this point of view, it will be a pertinent mark to reemphasize that language and behavior are inseparable. We give clues about our character just beginning from the moment we send our message to the “receiver.” That is why, we can judge people for being “rude” or “polite” even depending on their expressions. Another critical issue is that gestures and mimes are as effective as verbal expressions. Sometimes a communication is likely to lead to failure because of inconvenient gestures and mime. We have to be aware that we communicate with the person who is trying to communicate with us even when we give no response to him. Namely, it is impossible not to communicate. For instance, we communicate even if we do not reply a person who greets us. No doubt, no one can claim that this is a healthy communication. Just at this point, it is also worth reminding that it is a necessity to take issues such as keeping silent or indifferent into account in communication. It should not be forgotten that such covert behaviors may vary according to the societies. However, it should be stated that such critical incidents are the densest between the members of diverse cultures. For instance, an immigrant worker was about to get in a fight with his interlocutor when he heard the German idiom “Du hast aber Schwein gehabt” because the immigrant worker misinterpreted the word “schwein = domuz “ pig in the idiom and felt offended. However, the German idiom “Du hast aber Schwein gehabt” means “Amma da şanslısın” You are very lucky in Turkish. The immigrant worker is unaware of the fact that “schwein = domuz” pig is a motif that brings good luck. Not surprisingly, this example underlines the statement “I have never seen any communication problems resulting from grammatical reasons but I have witnessed many conflicts resulting from insufficient cultural knowledge.” Therefore, we need to have enough knowledge of the foreign culture while we are purposefully influencing the member of the foreign culture through our behavior expression . The same situation is also valid for the German expression “Gute Fahrt”. At first sight, it is easy to recognize the type of a mistake to be made in using this pattern for a member of the Turkish culture. When we literally translate this pattern into Turkish we attain the Turkish wish “iyi yolculuklar” Have a good trip ”. So, what is wrong with using the pattern “Gute Fahrt” “iyi yolculuklar.” In Turkish a person can wish good trip to a person who departs as well to a person who is involved in the same trip with him. However, in German, a person can naturally wish “Gute Fahrt = iyi yolculuklar” Have a good trip to a person who is departing but he is not likely to direct the pattern “Gute Fahrt” to anybody traveling in the same vehicle with him because this pattern is used in German only as a farewell expression. Therefore, saying “Gute Fahrt” to a person who is traveling in the same vehicle with you will evoke on the receiver “I will not come with you”, and thus it will be inconvenient. In this respect, “Gute Fahrt” is not compatible with its Turkish translation “iyi yolculuklar.” That is why, anyone who communicates with a member of the foreign culture needs to be aware these issues. Otherwise, critical incidents will be inevitable. In conclusion, approaching the speech environments only in terms of syntactic and semantic perspectives will not be enough for a purposeful communication. One of the most significant elements of communication is the pragmatic dimension. The difficulties in communication become observable with the pragmatic dimension of the language. This point becomes more significant in communication with members of the foreign culture

References

  • DANIELS, K. (1985): Idiomatische Kompetenz in der Zielsprache Deutsch.Yayınlandığı yer: Wirkendes Deutsch 35, s. 145-157.
  • HAJAJ, M (1987): Mustaphas Geschichten aus dem Morgen- und Abendland. Wuppertal.
  • HERINGER, H.-J. (2004): Interkulturelle Kommunikation. A. Francke Verlag. Tübingen u. Basel.
  • HOLLY, W. (2001): Einführung in die Pragmalinguistik. Langenscheidt. Berlin.
  • HUFEISEN, B. - NEUNER, G. (2003): Angewandte Linguistik für den fremdsprachlichen Deutschunterricht. Langenscheidt. Berlin.
  • KELLER, R. (1994): Sprachwandel. Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. Tübingen.
  • KILIÇ, V. (2002): Dilin İşlevleri ve İletişim. Papatya. İstanbul.
  • LÜGER, H.-H. (1993): Routinen und Rituale in der Alltagskommunikation. Langenscheidt. Berlin.
  • SELÇUK, A. (2005): Kültürlerarası İletişim Açısından Gündelik İletişim Davranışlar. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13, 1-17.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Erdinç YÜCEL This is me
Selçuk Üniversitesi

Publication Date February 1, 2009
Application Date
Acceptance Date
Published in Issue Year 2009, Volume , Issue 21

Cite

APA Yücel, E. (2009). Günlük İletişimde Dil – Davranış İlişkisi . Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi , (21) , 515-518 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/susbed/issue/61797/924437

24108  24107

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative 4.0 International License