Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Politeness in Turkish Face-to-Face Service Encounters

Year 2021, Volume: 1 Issue: 2, 128 - 147, 27.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.47834/utoad.13

Abstract

Linguistic politeness which is related to how users behave in a specific context depending on sociocultural variables as part of little c culture has been investigated in a lot of studies due to the intertwined relationship between culture and language. One context in which politeness can be examined in various ways is service encounters allowing for transactional interactions, showing the ways native speakers use the language in those settings. This study investigated how the language used by shopkeepers differs in terms of politeness in face-to-face interaction across varied types of shops in Turkey. In this sense, opening/closing sequences, the way the shopkeepers address the customers and positive politeness and negative politeness strategies have been examined to explore the politeness strategies employed by the shopkeepers in service encounters. The participants of this qualitative case study were Turkish shopkeepers in 10 shops varying in terms of what they provide and the economic strength/prestige they possess as high and low. Data were collected by recording the language used by the units of analysis and observation. After transcribing the data, it was analyzed through discourse analysis by the researchers. The main findings of the study revealed that while there is no distinction in positive politeness strategies between the two types of shops, there are some differences in terms of opening and closing sequences in conversation, addressing customer and negative politeness strategies depending on the types of shops, showing that variation in politeness is evident in Turkish. Therefore, it can be argued that making learners of Turkish gain an awareness of these linguistic variations is important for them to communicate appropriately in these settings.

References

  • Bailey, B. (1997). Communication of respect in interethnic service encounters. Language in Society, 26(3), 327-356.
  • Bayyurt, Y., & Bayraktaroğlu, A. (2001). The use of pronouns and terms of address in Turkish service encounters. In A. Bayraktaroğlu & M. Sifinou (Eds.) Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries. The Case of Greek and Turkish, (pp.209–240). John Benjamins: Amsterdam.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • David, M. K., Ching Hei, K., & DeAlwis, C. (2012). Politeness strategies in openings and closings of service encounters in selected Malaysian government agencies. The Journal of the South East Asia Research Centre for Communication and Humanities, 4(2), 61-76.
  • Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2005). ‘Yes, tell me please, what time is the midday flight from Athens arriving?’ telephone service encounters and politeness. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(3), 253–273.
  • Gavruseva, L. (1995). Positioning and framing: Constructing interactional asymmetry in employer-employee discourse. Discourse Processes, 20(3), 325-345.
  • Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays of face to face behavior. New York, NY: Anchor.
  • Keaveney, S. (1995). Customer switching behavior in service industries: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 71-82.
  • Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2006). Politeness in small shops in France. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(1), 79-103.
  • Kong, K. C. C. (1998). Politeness of service encounters in Hong Kong. Pragmatics, 8(4), 555-575.
  • König, G. (1990). Türkçe’de Sen/Siz adıllarının ikinci tekil şahıs için kullanımına toplumbilimsel bir yaklaşım. (A sociolinguistic approach to the use of ‘Sen/Siz’ second person pronouns in Turkish). In IV. Dilbilim Sempozyumu Bildirileri. S. Özsoy & H. Sebüktekin (Eds.), (pp.175-184). Istanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınları.
  • Kramsh, C. (2013). Culture in foreign language teaching. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 1(1), 57-78.
  • Lakoff, R. (1977). What can you do with words: politeness, pragmatics and performatives. In A. Rogers, B. Wall & J. Murphy (Eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and Implicatures, (pp. 79-106). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
  • Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London, UK: Longman.
  • Marquez Reiter, R. & Bou-Franch, P. (2017). (Im)politeness in Service Encounters. In Culpeper, J. Culpeper, J. Haugh, Michael & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness (pp. 661–687). Palgrave Macmillan: UK.
  • Merritt, M. (1976). On questions following questions (in service encounters). Language in Society, (5)3, 315-357.
  • Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Nwoye, O. G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(4), 309-328.
  • Ryoo, H. K. (2005). Achieving friendly interactions: A study of service encounters between Korean shopkeepers and African-American customers. Discourse and Society, 16(1), 79-105.
  • Turan, Ü. D. (2011). Edimbilim II: Bilgi Değeri, Bilgi Yapısı ve Dilde Kibarlık ve Kabalık. In S. Özsoy and Z. Erk Ekmeksiz (Eds.) Genel Dilbilim II (p. 116-148).
  • Watts, R. J., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (1992). Politeness in Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Türkçe Yüz Yüze Hizmet Sunumlarında Kibarlık

Year 2021, Volume: 1 Issue: 2, 128 - 147, 27.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.47834/utoad.13

Abstract

Küçük k kültürünün de bir parçası olarak dil kullanıcılarının belli bir bağlamda sosyokültürel değişkenlere bağlı olarak dili nasıl kullandıklarıyla ilgili olan dilbilimsel kibarlık, dil ve kültür arasındaki ilişkiden dolayı çok sayıda çalışmada incelenmektedir. Dilde kibarlığın çeşitli yönlerden incelenebildiği bağlamlardan biri de alım satıma dayanan bildirişimlere izin veren hizmet sunumlarıdır. Bu çalışmada, mağaza çalışanlarının kullandıkları dilin Türkiye’deki çeşitli yönlerden değişen mağazalardaki yüz yüze bildirişimdeki kibarlık yönünden nasıl farklılık gösterdiği incelenmektedir. Bu bağlamda, hizmet sunumlarındaki mağaza/dükkân görevlileri tarafından kullanılan giriş ifadeleri, kapanış ifadeleri, çalışanların müşterilere seslenme ifadeleri, olumlu kibarlık ve olumsuz kibarlık stratejileri incelenmiştir. Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden durum çalışması olan araştırmanın katılımcıları sağladıkları hizmet ve ekonomik güç ve saygınlık yönünden yüksek ve düşük güç/saygınlık olarak çeşitlilik gösteren 10 mağazada/dükkânda çalışan mağaza görevlilerinden oluşmaktadır. Veri, doğal konuşma kaydı ve gözlem yoluyla elde edilmiştir. Konuşma kayıtları yazıya döküldükten sonra söylem çözümlemesi yoluyla araştırmacılar tarafından çözümlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular iki dükkân/mağaza türü arasında olumlu kibarlık stratejileri bakımından bir fark olmadığını ancak bildirişime giriş, bildirişimi sonlandırma ve müşterilere seslenme ifadeleri ve olumsuz incelik stratejileri yönünden farklılıklar olduğunu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu bulgulara dayanarak Türkçede dilbilimsel kibarlığın çeşitlilik gösterdiği ve bu nedenle bu tür bağlamlarda düzgün iletişim kurabilmek için yabancı/ikinci dil Türkçe öğrenicilerinin bu çeşitliliğe ilişkin farkındalık kazanmasının önemli olduğu ileri sürülebilir.

References

  • Bailey, B. (1997). Communication of respect in interethnic service encounters. Language in Society, 26(3), 327-356.
  • Bayyurt, Y., & Bayraktaroğlu, A. (2001). The use of pronouns and terms of address in Turkish service encounters. In A. Bayraktaroğlu & M. Sifinou (Eds.) Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries. The Case of Greek and Turkish, (pp.209–240). John Benjamins: Amsterdam.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • David, M. K., Ching Hei, K., & DeAlwis, C. (2012). Politeness strategies in openings and closings of service encounters in selected Malaysian government agencies. The Journal of the South East Asia Research Centre for Communication and Humanities, 4(2), 61-76.
  • Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2005). ‘Yes, tell me please, what time is the midday flight from Athens arriving?’ telephone service encounters and politeness. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(3), 253–273.
  • Gavruseva, L. (1995). Positioning and framing: Constructing interactional asymmetry in employer-employee discourse. Discourse Processes, 20(3), 325-345.
  • Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays of face to face behavior. New York, NY: Anchor.
  • Keaveney, S. (1995). Customer switching behavior in service industries: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 71-82.
  • Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2006). Politeness in small shops in France. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(1), 79-103.
  • Kong, K. C. C. (1998). Politeness of service encounters in Hong Kong. Pragmatics, 8(4), 555-575.
  • König, G. (1990). Türkçe’de Sen/Siz adıllarının ikinci tekil şahıs için kullanımına toplumbilimsel bir yaklaşım. (A sociolinguistic approach to the use of ‘Sen/Siz’ second person pronouns in Turkish). In IV. Dilbilim Sempozyumu Bildirileri. S. Özsoy & H. Sebüktekin (Eds.), (pp.175-184). Istanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınları.
  • Kramsh, C. (2013). Culture in foreign language teaching. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 1(1), 57-78.
  • Lakoff, R. (1977). What can you do with words: politeness, pragmatics and performatives. In A. Rogers, B. Wall & J. Murphy (Eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and Implicatures, (pp. 79-106). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
  • Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London, UK: Longman.
  • Marquez Reiter, R. & Bou-Franch, P. (2017). (Im)politeness in Service Encounters. In Culpeper, J. Culpeper, J. Haugh, Michael & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness (pp. 661–687). Palgrave Macmillan: UK.
  • Merritt, M. (1976). On questions following questions (in service encounters). Language in Society, (5)3, 315-357.
  • Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Nwoye, O. G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(4), 309-328.
  • Ryoo, H. K. (2005). Achieving friendly interactions: A study of service encounters between Korean shopkeepers and African-American customers. Discourse and Society, 16(1), 79-105.
  • Turan, Ü. D. (2011). Edimbilim II: Bilgi Değeri, Bilgi Yapısı ve Dilde Kibarlık ve Kabalık. In S. Özsoy and Z. Erk Ekmeksiz (Eds.) Genel Dilbilim II (p. 116-148).
  • Watts, R. J., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (1992). Politeness in Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
There are 21 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Turkish Education
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Şeyma Kökcü 0000-0002-0043-1076

Esma Kot Artunç This is me 0000-0001-9561-3122

Publication Date December 27, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 1 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Kökcü, Ş., & Kot Artunç, E. (2021). Politeness in Turkish Face-to-Face Service Encounters. Uluslararası Türkçe Öğretimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 128-147. https://doi.org/10.47834/utoad.13