Doğu Karadeniz’de Lazcanın Kuşaklar Arası Aktarımı: Gençler Üzerine Nitel Bir Sosyodilbilimsel Araştırma

Öz

Bu araştırma, Doğu Karadeniz bölgesinde yaşayan gençler arasında Lazca kullanımının mevcut durumunu, gençlerin dile yönelik tutumlarını ve dilin kuşaklar arası aktarım süreçlerini kapsamlı bir biçimde incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmanın örneklemini, 18-30 yaş aralığında, kendilerini Laz olarak tanımlayan ve ailelerinde Lazca konuşulan 20 genç birey oluşturmaktadır. Amaçlı örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilen katılımcılarla yarı yapılandırılmış derinlemesine görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Görüşmeler; Lazcanın günlük yaşamda kullanım sıklığı, dil yeterliliği, sosyal çevrenin etkisi, dil kaybına yönelik algılar ve gelecekteki aktarım süreçleri olmak üzere dört temel eksen etrafında şekillendirilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler tematik analiz yöntemiyle değerlendirilmiş, tekrar eden örüntüler ve anlamlı temalar belirlenmiştir. Bulgular, gençlerin Lazca’yı güçlü bir kültürel kimlik ve aidiyet unsuru olarak gördüklerini, ancak eğitim, kentleşme, sosyal çevre ve modern yaşam koşulları nedeniyle Lazcanın günlük kullanım alanlarının daraldığını göstermektedir. Araştırma ayrıca, dil kaybının yalnızca bireysel tercihlerden değil, toplumsal, kültürel ve yapısal süreçlerden kaynaklandığını ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç olarak çalışma, Lazcanın sürdürülebilirliği için eğitim politikaları, dijital içerik üretimi, kültürel faaliyetler ve kamusal görünürlüğü artırıcı stratejilerin önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Lazca
• Gençler
• Dil Kaybı
• Azınlık Dilleri
• Tematik Analiz.

Intergenerational Transmission of Laz in the Eastern Black Sea Region: A Qualitative Sociolinguistic Study of Youth

Öz

This study aims to comprehensively examine the current state of Laz language use among young people living in the Eastern Black Sea region, their attitudes toward the language, and the processes of intergenerational transmission. The sample consists of 20 young individuals aged 18-30 who identify as Laz and come from families where Laz is spoken. Participants were selected through purposive sampling, and semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted. The interviews were organized around four main themes: the frequency of Laz use in daily life, language proficiency, the influence of social environment, perceptions of language loss, and future transmission processes. The collected data were analyzed using thematic analysis, through which recurring patterns and significant themes were identified. The findings indicate that young people perceive Laz as a strong marker of cultural identity and belonging; however, the daily use of the language has significantly narrowed due to education, urbanization, social environment, and modern living conditions. The study also reveals that language loss is shaped not only by individual choices but also by broader social, cultural, and structural dynamics. In conclusion, the research emphasizes the importance of educational policies, digital content production, cultural initiatives, and strategies aimed at increasing public visibility to ensure the sustainability of the Laz language.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Laz Language
• Youth
• Language Loss
• Minority Languages
• Thematic Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Yayımlanmış Eserler
2. Aslan, S. (2007). "Citizen, Speak Turkish!": A nation in the making. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 13(2), 245-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537110701293500
3. Austin, P. K., & Sallabank, J. (2011). The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975981
4. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Multilingual Matters.
5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
6. Braund, D. (1994). Georgia in antiquity: A history of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia, 550 BC-AD 562. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198144731.001.0001
7. Bucaklişi, İ. A., Şafak Buyuklişi, O., Aleksiva, İ., Uzunhasanoğlu, H., Sarı, E., & Hocalıoğlu, F. (2011). Laz kültürü üzerine notlar. Lazika Yayın Kollektifi.
8. Comrie, B. (2009). The world's major languages. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203301524

9. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
10. Crystal, D. (2000). Language death. Cambridge University Press.
11. Dorian, N. C. (1981). Language death: The life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic dialect. Cambridge University Press.
12. Dumézil, G. (1937). Contes lazes (Travaux et mémoires de l'Institut d'ethnologie, XXVII). Institut d'Ethnologie.
13. Edwards, J. (2009). Language and identity: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809842
14. Evans, N. (2009). Dying words: Endangered languages and what they have to tell us. Wiley-Blackwell.
15. Feurstein, W. (1983). Die lasen: Ethnische minderheit am schwarzen meer. Reimer Verlag.
16. Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Multilingual Matters.
17. Gal, S. (1979). Language shift: Social determinants of linguistic change in bilingual Austria. Academic Press.
18. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
19. Heller, M. (2011). Paths to post-nationalism: A critical ethnography of language and identity. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746866.001.0001
20. Hewitt, B. G. (1995). Georgian: A structural reference grammar. John Benjamins.
21. Hinton, L. (2013). Bringing our languages home: Language revitalization for families. Heyday.
22. Hornberger, N. H., & King, K. A. (1996). Language revitalisation in the Andes: Can the schools reverse language shift? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17(6), 427-441. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434639608666294
23. Kaya, A., & Tarhanlı, T. (2005). Türkiye'de çoğunluk ve azınlık politikaları: AB sürecinde yurttaşlık tartışmaları. Tesev Yayınları.
24. Kojima, G., & Bucaklişi, İ. A. (2003). Lazca gramer. Çiviyazıları Yayınları.
25. Kutscher, S. (2008). The language of the Laz in Turkey: Contact-induced change or gradual language loss? Turkic Languages, 12(1), 82-102.
26. May, S. (2012). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language. Routledge.
27. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
28. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage.
29. Pavlenko, A. (2008). Multilingualism in post-Soviet countries. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.27710835
30. Sallabank, J. (2013). Attitudes to endangered languages: Identities and policies. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139344166
31. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education—or worldwide diversity and human rights? Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410605191
32. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615245
33. UNESCO. (2010). Atlas of the world’s languages in danger. UNESCO Publishing.
34. Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6699.001.0001
35. Woolard, K. A. (1998). Language ideology as a field of inquiry. İçinde B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard & P. V. Kroskrity (Ed.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (ss. 3-47). Oxford University Press.
36. İnternet Kaynakları
37. Council of Europe. (2011). European charter for regional or minority languages. https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-charter-regional-or-minority-languages
38. ECRI. (2011). ECRI report on Turkey (fourth monitoring cycle). https://rm.coe.int/fourth-report-on-turkey/16808b5c7e