İnceleme Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

ROMEYKANIN ETNODİLBİLİMSEL CANLILIK KURAMI ÇERÇEVESİNDE İNCELENMESİ

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 64 Sayı: 2, 1661 - 1691
https://doi.org/10.33171/dtcfjournal.2024.64.2.30

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye sınırları içerisinde dil çeşitliliğinin göreceli olarak yüksek olduğu Doğu Karadeniz dil ekolojisi görünümü içerisinde konuşulmakta olan Platon’un kendi çağında konuştuğu dilin arkaik özelliklerini koruduğu düşünülen Romeykanın etnodilbilimsel canlılık durumunun ortaya konulmasını amaçlamaktadır. Etnodilbilimsel canlılık kuramı, dil topluluklarının dillerinin canlılığını koruma ve devam ettirme olasılığını değerlendirmenin bir yöntemi olarak geliştirilmiştir. Romeykanın dilsel canlılığını ilgili alanyazında ilk defa ortaya çıkartmayı amaçlayan bu çalışmanın temel araştırma sorusu şu şekilde belirlenmiştir:- Romeykanın etnodilbilimsel canlılık kuramı çerçevesinde güncel görünümü nasıldır? Bu kapsamda Trabzon’un Tonya, Çaykara, Of, Köprübaşı ve Sürmene ilçelerinde gerçekleştirilen alan araştırmalarında farklı yaş, toplumsal konum ve meslek grubundan toplam 107 katılımcıya Türkçeye uyarlanmış olan Öznel Etnodilbilimsel Canlılık Anketi uygulanmıştır. Yüz yüze ve odak grup görüşmeleri aracılığıyla nitel araştırma aşamasında ankete verilen yanıtlar derinlemesine irdelenerek bu görüşmelerden elde edilen veriler tematik analize tabi tutulmuştur. Nitel araştırmaya söz konusu ekolojiden katılımcılar (n=12) dâhil olmuştur. Elde edilen bulgular, kuşaklar arasındaki farkın (veya cinsiyet, meslek gibi diğer toplumsal değişkenler dikkate alındığında) Romeykanın etnodilbilimsel canlılığı bağlamında istatistiki olarak önemli olmadığını ancak Türkçe ve Romeykanın her birinin öznel canlılığı dikkate alındığında bu iki dilin canlılık algısının istatistiki olarak anlamlı olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Yüz yüze ve odak grup görüşmeleri sonucunda elde edilmiş olan çalışma bulgularının da istatistik verilerini desteklediği saptanmıştır. Bu durum dahi Doğu Karadeniz’de farklı toplumdilbilimsel etkenlerin dillerin toplumsal kullanım alanlarının genişlemesine veya daralmasına neden olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Bu çalışma bu toplumdilbilimsel değişmenin dinamiksel yapısına küresel örneklerle karşılaştırmalı bir lensle bakarak sui generis bir bağlamdan bir katkı sunmaktadır.

Etik Beyan

Çalışmanın araştırma kısmı Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü Etik Kurulu’nun 24.05.2022 tarih ve E-18457941-050.99-50722 sayılı Kararı ile alınan izin doğrultusunda gerçekleştirilmiştir.

Destekleyen Kurum

TÜBİTAK

Proje Numarası

TÜBİTAK Kariyer Geliştirme Programı (3501) kapsamında desteklenmiş olan 221K226 nolu proje

Teşekkür

Bu makaleden elde edilen bulgular, çalışmanın yazarının TÜBİTAK 3501 Kariyer Geliştirme Programı kapsamında 221K226 numaralı proje desteğiyle elde edilmiştir. TÜBİTAK’a proje desteği için proje yürütücüsü Doç. Dr. Mehmet AKKUŞ teşekkürlerini sunar.

Kaynakça

  • Akkuş, M. (2021). COVID-19 Pandemisi (Karasalgın) ve Tehlike Altındaki Türk Lehçeleri: Küresel Karasalgın, Dilkırımı (linguicide) Tetikler mi?. Tehlikedeki Diller Dergisi, 11(18), 158-174.
  • Akkuş, M. ve Ahmadi, S. (baskıda). ‘Charming yet challenging’: Ethnolinguistic vitality of Khalaj. Turkic Languages.
  • Akkuş, M. ve Sağın Şimşek, Ç. (2022). The zone of ethnolinguistic social networking (ZonES) in Khalaj Turkic: A model for language endangerment. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 33(2), 221-245.
  • Allard, R. ve Landry, R. (1986). Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality viewed as a belief system. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7, 1-12.
  • Atkinson, D. (2000). Minoritisation, identity and ethnolinguistic vitality in Catalonia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(3), 185-197.
  • Austin, P. K. (2016). Language documentation 20 years on. L. Filipović ve M. Pütz (Editörler). Endangered Languages and Languages in Danger içinde (s. 147-170). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Avdan, N. (2010). Effects of Turkish Policies on Minority Languages: The Lazuri Context. Unpublished paper submitted at Linköping University in 2010 Spring.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1992). Language and Symbolic Power. Polity Press.
  • Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H. ve Rosenthal, D. (1981). Notes on the construction of a ‘subjective vitality questionnaire’ for ethnolinguistic groups. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2(2), 145-155.
  • Bourhis, R. Y., Sachdev, I., Ehala, M. ve Giles, H. (2019). Assessing 40 years of group vitality research and future directions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(4), 409-422.
  • Dragojevic, M., Gasiorek, J. ve Vincze, L. (2018). Vitality, language use, and life satisfaction: A study of bilingual Hungarian adolescents living in Romania. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(4), 431-450.
  • Dubé-Simard, L. (1983). Genesis of social categorisation, threat to identity and perception of social injustice: Their role in intergroup communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2(2-3-4), 183-205.
  • Ehala, M. ve Zabrodskaja, A. (2011). The impact of inter-ethnic discordance on subjective vitality perceptions. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(2), 121–136.
  • Gibbons, J. ve Ashcroft, L. (1995). Multiculturalism and language shift: A subjective vitality questionnaire study of Sydney Italians. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 16(4), 281-99.
  • Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y. ve Taylor, D. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. H. Giles (Ed.). Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations içinde (s. 307-348). Academic Press.
  • Giles, H., Rosenthal, D. ve Young, L. (1985). Perceived ethnolinguistic vitality: the Anglo‐and Greek‐Australian setting. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 6(3-4), 253-269.
  • İnalcık, H. (2009). Devlet-i Aliyye-Osmanlı Devleti Üzerine Araştırmalar I. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları. İnalcık, H. ve Quataert, D. (1994). An economic and social history of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914. Cambridge University Press.
  • Landry, R. ve Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49.
  • McNamara, T.F. (1987). Language and social identity: Israelis abroad. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6(3-4), 215-28.
  • Milroy, L. ve Milroy, J. (1992). Social network and social class: Toward an integrated sociolinguistic model. Language in Society, 1-26.
  • Moseley, C. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. 3rd ed. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlas Erişim tarihi: 20 Şubat 2020.
  • Mufwene, S. S. (2017). Language vitality: The weak theoretical underpinnings of what can be an exciting research area. Language, 93(4), 202-223.
  • Nevskaya, İ. ve Erdal, M. (2016). “Giriş”. Eker, S. ve Çevik Şavk, Ü. (Yay. haz.). Tehlikedeki Türk Dilleri I içinde (s. xvi). Ankara/Astana: Uluslararası Türk Akademisi ve Hoca Ahmet Yesevi Uluslararası Türk-Kazak Üniversitesi. Phinney, J. S. 1990. Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 499-514.
  • Sachdev, I., Bourhis, R. Y., Phang, S. ve D'Eye, J. (1987). Language attitudes and vitality perceptions: Intergenerational effects among Chinese Canadian communities. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6(3-4), 287-307.
  • Salminen, T. (2007). Endangered languages in Europe. Brezinger, M. (Yay. haz.). Language Diversity Endangered içinde (s. 205-232). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Simonian, H. H. (2007). The Hemshin: History, society and identity in the Highlands of Northeast Turkey. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Smith, B. K., Ehala, M. ve Giles, H. (2018). Vitality Theory. Nussbaum, J. F. (Yay. haz.). Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication içinde (s. 122-130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Sitaridou, I. (2013). Greek-speaking enclaves in Pontus today: The documentation and revitalization of Romeyka. Jones, M. R. ve Ogilve, S. (Yay. haz.). Keeping Languages Alive. Language Endangerment: Documentation, Pedagogy and Revitalization içinde (s. 98-114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • UNESCO. (2012). Language vitality and endangerment. International expert meeting on UNESCO programme safeguarding of endangered languages. Paris: UNESCO.
  • Vincze, L. ve Henning-Lindblom, A. (2016). Swedish, Finnish and bilingual? Multiple ethnolinguistic identities in relation to ethnolinguistic vitality in Finland. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(4), 488-498.
  • Virtanen, Ö. E. (2003). Recent Changes in Turkey’s Language Legislation. Mercator Working Papers. Barcelona: Escarre International Centre for Ethnic Minorities and Nations.
  • Yağmur, K. (2009). Language use and ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish compared with the Dutch in the Netherlands. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30(3), 219-233.
  • Yagmur, K. ve Akinci, M.-A. (2003). Language use, choice, maintenance, and ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish speakers in France: intergenerational differences. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 164, 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2003.050
  • Yağmur, K., Bot, K. D. ve Korzilius, H. (1999). Language attrition, language shift and ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 20(1), 51-69.
  • Yagmur, K. ve Ehala, M. (2011). Tradition and innovation in the ethnolinguistic vitality theory. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(2), 101-110.
  • Yagmur, K. ve Kroon, S. (2006). Objective and subjective data on Altai and Kazakh ethnolinguistic vitality in the Russian Federation Republic of Altai. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 27(3), 241-58.
  • Yağmur, K. ve Kroon, S. (2003). Ethnolinguistic vitality perceptions and language revitalisation in Bashkortostan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24(4), 319-336.
  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Investigation of Romeika within the framework of Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theory

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 64 Sayı: 2, 1661 - 1691
https://doi.org/10.33171/dtcfjournal.2024.64.2.30

Öz

This study aims to reveal the ethnolinguistic vitality status of Romeika, a language spoken within the Eastern Black Sea language ecology where linguistic diversity is relatively high within the borders of Türkiye, and it is believed to preserve archaic features of the language spoken by Plato in his own time. Ethnolinguistic vitality theory has been developed as a method to assess the likelihood of language communities maintaining the vitality of their languages. The primary research question of this study, which aims to present for the first time in the relevant literature the linguistic vitality of Romeika, is as follows: What is the current status of Romeika within the framework of ethnolinguistic vitality theory? In this context, the Subjective Ethnolinguistic Vitality Questionnaire, adapted into Turkish, was administered to a total of 107 participants from different age groups, social positions, and occupational groups in the districts of Tonya, Çaykara, Of, Köprübaşı, and Sürmene in Trabzon through field research. The responses to the survey were thoroughly analyzed through face-to-face and focus group interviews during the qualitative research phase, and the data obtained from these interviews were subjected to thematic analysis. Participants (n=12) from the mentioned ecology were included in the qualitative research. The findings suggest that the difference between generations (or other social variables such as gender and occupation) is not statistically significant in the context of Romeika’s ethnolinguistic vitality. However, when the subjective vitality of Turkish and Romeika is considered, the vitality perception of these two languages is statistically significant. The study findings obtained through face-to-face and focus group interviews also support the statistical data. This suggests that various sociolinguistic factors in the Eastern Black Sea region contribute to the expansion or contraction of the social domains of languages. By comparing the dynamic structure of this sociolinguistic change with global examples, this study contributes from a sui generis context with a comparative lens.

Proje Numarası

TÜBİTAK Kariyer Geliştirme Programı (3501) kapsamında desteklenmiş olan 221K226 nolu proje

Kaynakça

  • Akkuş, M. (2021). COVID-19 Pandemisi (Karasalgın) ve Tehlike Altındaki Türk Lehçeleri: Küresel Karasalgın, Dilkırımı (linguicide) Tetikler mi?. Tehlikedeki Diller Dergisi, 11(18), 158-174.
  • Akkuş, M. ve Ahmadi, S. (baskıda). ‘Charming yet challenging’: Ethnolinguistic vitality of Khalaj. Turkic Languages.
  • Akkuş, M. ve Sağın Şimşek, Ç. (2022). The zone of ethnolinguistic social networking (ZonES) in Khalaj Turkic: A model for language endangerment. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 33(2), 221-245.
  • Allard, R. ve Landry, R. (1986). Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality viewed as a belief system. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7, 1-12.
  • Atkinson, D. (2000). Minoritisation, identity and ethnolinguistic vitality in Catalonia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(3), 185-197.
  • Austin, P. K. (2016). Language documentation 20 years on. L. Filipović ve M. Pütz (Editörler). Endangered Languages and Languages in Danger içinde (s. 147-170). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Avdan, N. (2010). Effects of Turkish Policies on Minority Languages: The Lazuri Context. Unpublished paper submitted at Linköping University in 2010 Spring.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1992). Language and Symbolic Power. Polity Press.
  • Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H. ve Rosenthal, D. (1981). Notes on the construction of a ‘subjective vitality questionnaire’ for ethnolinguistic groups. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2(2), 145-155.
  • Bourhis, R. Y., Sachdev, I., Ehala, M. ve Giles, H. (2019). Assessing 40 years of group vitality research and future directions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(4), 409-422.
  • Dragojevic, M., Gasiorek, J. ve Vincze, L. (2018). Vitality, language use, and life satisfaction: A study of bilingual Hungarian adolescents living in Romania. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(4), 431-450.
  • Dubé-Simard, L. (1983). Genesis of social categorisation, threat to identity and perception of social injustice: Their role in intergroup communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2(2-3-4), 183-205.
  • Ehala, M. ve Zabrodskaja, A. (2011). The impact of inter-ethnic discordance on subjective vitality perceptions. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(2), 121–136.
  • Gibbons, J. ve Ashcroft, L. (1995). Multiculturalism and language shift: A subjective vitality questionnaire study of Sydney Italians. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 16(4), 281-99.
  • Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y. ve Taylor, D. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. H. Giles (Ed.). Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations içinde (s. 307-348). Academic Press.
  • Giles, H., Rosenthal, D. ve Young, L. (1985). Perceived ethnolinguistic vitality: the Anglo‐and Greek‐Australian setting. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 6(3-4), 253-269.
  • İnalcık, H. (2009). Devlet-i Aliyye-Osmanlı Devleti Üzerine Araştırmalar I. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları. İnalcık, H. ve Quataert, D. (1994). An economic and social history of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914. Cambridge University Press.
  • Landry, R. ve Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49.
  • McNamara, T.F. (1987). Language and social identity: Israelis abroad. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6(3-4), 215-28.
  • Milroy, L. ve Milroy, J. (1992). Social network and social class: Toward an integrated sociolinguistic model. Language in Society, 1-26.
  • Moseley, C. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. 3rd ed. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlas Erişim tarihi: 20 Şubat 2020.
  • Mufwene, S. S. (2017). Language vitality: The weak theoretical underpinnings of what can be an exciting research area. Language, 93(4), 202-223.
  • Nevskaya, İ. ve Erdal, M. (2016). “Giriş”. Eker, S. ve Çevik Şavk, Ü. (Yay. haz.). Tehlikedeki Türk Dilleri I içinde (s. xvi). Ankara/Astana: Uluslararası Türk Akademisi ve Hoca Ahmet Yesevi Uluslararası Türk-Kazak Üniversitesi. Phinney, J. S. 1990. Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 499-514.
  • Sachdev, I., Bourhis, R. Y., Phang, S. ve D'Eye, J. (1987). Language attitudes and vitality perceptions: Intergenerational effects among Chinese Canadian communities. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6(3-4), 287-307.
  • Salminen, T. (2007). Endangered languages in Europe. Brezinger, M. (Yay. haz.). Language Diversity Endangered içinde (s. 205-232). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Simonian, H. H. (2007). The Hemshin: History, society and identity in the Highlands of Northeast Turkey. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Smith, B. K., Ehala, M. ve Giles, H. (2018). Vitality Theory. Nussbaum, J. F. (Yay. haz.). Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication içinde (s. 122-130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Sitaridou, I. (2013). Greek-speaking enclaves in Pontus today: The documentation and revitalization of Romeyka. Jones, M. R. ve Ogilve, S. (Yay. haz.). Keeping Languages Alive. Language Endangerment: Documentation, Pedagogy and Revitalization içinde (s. 98-114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • UNESCO. (2012). Language vitality and endangerment. International expert meeting on UNESCO programme safeguarding of endangered languages. Paris: UNESCO.
  • Vincze, L. ve Henning-Lindblom, A. (2016). Swedish, Finnish and bilingual? Multiple ethnolinguistic identities in relation to ethnolinguistic vitality in Finland. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(4), 488-498.
  • Virtanen, Ö. E. (2003). Recent Changes in Turkey’s Language Legislation. Mercator Working Papers. Barcelona: Escarre International Centre for Ethnic Minorities and Nations.
  • Yağmur, K. (2009). Language use and ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish compared with the Dutch in the Netherlands. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30(3), 219-233.
  • Yagmur, K. ve Akinci, M.-A. (2003). Language use, choice, maintenance, and ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish speakers in France: intergenerational differences. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 164, 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2003.050
  • Yağmur, K., Bot, K. D. ve Korzilius, H. (1999). Language attrition, language shift and ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 20(1), 51-69.
  • Yagmur, K. ve Ehala, M. (2011). Tradition and innovation in the ethnolinguistic vitality theory. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(2), 101-110.
  • Yagmur, K. ve Kroon, S. (2006). Objective and subjective data on Altai and Kazakh ethnolinguistic vitality in the Russian Federation Republic of Altai. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 27(3), 241-58.
  • Yağmur, K. ve Kroon, S. (2003). Ethnolinguistic vitality perceptions and language revitalisation in Bashkortostan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24(4), 319-336.
  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Toplam 38 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Toplumsal Dilbilim
Bölüm İnceleme makalesi
Yazarlar

Mehmet Akkuş 0000-0002-9604-1418

Proje Numarası TÜBİTAK Kariyer Geliştirme Programı (3501) kapsamında desteklenmiş olan 221K226 nolu proje
Erken Görünüm Tarihi 18 Aralık 2024
Yayımlanma Tarihi
Gönderilme Tarihi 10 Temmuz 2024
Kabul Tarihi 21 Ağustos 2024
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2024 Cilt: 64 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Akkuş, M. (2024). ROMEYKANIN ETNODİLBİLİMSEL CANLILIK KURAMI ÇERÇEVESİNDE İNCELENMESİ. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil Ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 64(2), 1661-1691. https://doi.org/10.33171/dtcfjournal.2024.64.2.30

Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi - dtcfdergisi@ankara.edu.tr

Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.   22455