A Textual Analysis of Turkish Advice Letters in the Construction of a Persuasive Agony Aunt

Suhan Akıncı Oktay

doi:10.26466/opusjsr.1202283

TR EN

Öz

Popüler kültür temsilcisi olarak, öğüt mektuplarının gazetelerde Güzin abla tarafından yazılmaya devam edilmesi toplumun ihtiyaçlarının göstergesi olabilir. Günlük hayatta yaygın olmasına rağmen, öğüt ‘kompleks ve ilginç’ bir söz eylemdir (Hyland and Hyland 2012) çünkü bazen diğer söz eylemler (örneğin rica, özür ve teşekkür) gibi bir cümlede bitmeyebilir (Trosborg 1995). 100 öğüt mektubundan elde edilen verilere dayanarak öğüt mektuplarının metinsel meta söylem analizi yapılarak, Güzin ablanın argümanlarının nasıl ortaya koyulduğu tartışılmaktadır. Bulgular, 1) öğüt mektuplarında metinsel belirteçlerin kullanımında farklılıklar gözlemlendiğini ortaya koymaktadır. 2) öğüt arayanları ikna etmek için mantıksal belirteçler son derece önemlidir. Öğüt isteyenlere öğüt verirken mantıklı bir temel sağlamak için karşıtlık bağlacı ve ekleyici bağlaçlar gereklidir. Makale, öğüt verirken öğüt arayanları ve potansiyel okuyucuları ikna etmek için metinsel işaretlerin gerekli olduğunu belirterek sona ermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Advice letters; logos; logical markers; additives; adversatives; writer-responsible texts; reader-responsible texts; textual parameters , Öğüt mektupları , logos , mantıksal belirteçler , yazar sorumlu metinler , okur sorumlu metinler , metinsel parametreler

A Textual Analysis of Turkish Advice Letters in the Construction of a Persuasive Agony Aunt

Abstract

As a representative form of popular culture, the continuation of advice letters written by the agony aunts in newspapers can demonstrate society's needs. Despite its commonality in everyday life, advice can be termed as a ‘complex and interesting speech act’ (Hyland and Hyland 2012) since sometimes it does not end in one sentence like other speech acts (e.g., requesting, apologies and thanking) (Trosborg 1995). Based on data from a collection of 100 advice letters written by the Turkish agony aunt gathered from the years 2020-2021, a textual meta discursivee analysis of advice letters is conducted to evaluate the types and frequencies of textual markers to find out how the agony aunt utilizes these textual elements to put forward her arguments. The findings reveal that 1) logical markers are extremely essential for persuading advice seekers and 2) adversatives and additives are necessary for providing a logical basis when advising advice seekers. The paper concludes by indicating that textual markers are essential for persuading advice seekers and potential readers when giving advice.

Keywords

Advice Letters , Logos , Logical Markers , Additives , Adversatives , Writer-Responsible Texts , Reader-Responsible Texts , Textual Markers

Kaynakça

References
Abdi, R., Rizi, M. T., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1669-1679.
Abal, Sema. 2016. Receptive and productive knowledge of discourse markers: A case study of ELT prospective teachers (Master’s Thesis). Ankara: Gazi University MA Thesis, Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12602/188057
Ädel, A. (2018). Variation in metadiscursive ‘you’ across genres: From research articles to teacher feedback. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 777–796. http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0037
Altunay, Dilek. 2009. Use of connectives in written discourse: A study at an ELT department in Turkey. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi dissertation
Aysu, Semahat. 2017. The use of discourse markers in the writings of Turkish students of English as a foreign language: A corpus based study. Journal of Higher Education and Science. 7 (1), 132-138. DOI: 10.5961/jhes.2017.191
Babaie, S., & Shahrokhi, M. (2015). A cross-cultural study of offering advice speech acts by Iranian EFL learners and English native speakers: Pragmatic transfer in focus. English Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n6p133
Baca, E. (2011). Pragmatic competence: The case of advice in second language acquisition (SLA) abroad [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Arizona State University.
Bahaziq, Afnan. 2016. Cohesive devices in written discourse: a discourse analysis of a student’s essay writing. English Language Teaching, 9, 112-119. DOI:10.5539/elt.v9n7p112
Bates, Figueras. 2020. Mitigation in discourse: Social, cognitive and affective motivations when exchanging advice. Journal of Pragmatics. 119-133. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.008

Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4]. Cambridge: CUP.
Bunton, David.1999. The use of higher level metatext in Ph.D. theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41-56. Crismore, Avon 1989. Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang.
Crismore, Avon. & Rodney Farnsworth. 1990. Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In Walter Nash (Ed.), The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse. 118-36. Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.
Çakır, Sarı Hamide.2020. Türkçe öğretmenlerinin söylem belirleyicileri kullanımı. Dil Dergisi. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi. 75-90. https://doi.org/10.33690/dilder.648838
Corcu, Demet 2006. Analysis of Discourse Particles in Relation to the Information Structure of Texts & Dialogues: Examples from Turkish. Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. 1-7. https://semanticsarchieve.net. (accessed 9.8.2022)
Dafouz, Emma Milne. 2008. ‘The Pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A Cross-linguistic Study of Newspaper Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 40. 95-113. Doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
Dağ Tarcan, Özlem.2019. Sosyal bilimler alanında yazılan Türkçe bilimsel metinlerde kullanılan üstsöylem belirleyicileri. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi dissertation
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825.
DeCapua, A., & Findlay-Dunham, J. (2007). The pragmatics of advice giving: Cross-cultural perspectives. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(3), 319-42. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.016
DeCapua, A., & Findlay-Dunham, J. (1993). Strategies in the discourse of advice. Journal of Pragmatics, 20(4), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90014-G
Duenos, Pilar Mur.2007. ’Same genre, same discipline; however, there are differences: a cross-cultural analysis of logical markers in academic writing’. In Christopher Williams and Denise Milizia (eds.).4. 37-53.ESP Across Cultures. Foggia: Italy
Doğan, Gürkan. 1994. Ama Bağlacına Edimbilimsel Bir Bakış. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 195-205.
Dumlao, Remart Padua Wilang, Jeffrey Dawala Wilang. 2019. Variations in the use of discourse markers by L1 and L2 English users. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 202-209. doi: 10.17509/ijal.v9i1.15206
Esmer, Elçin.2018. Türkçeyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrenciler tarafından üretilen ikna metinlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin kullanımı. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(3), 216-228.DOI: 10.31464/jlere.292927.
Ercan, Songül Gülsüm.2019. Ama (But)’ as a disclaimer and its functions in Turkish Daily Discourse.
Viliyan Krystev, Recep Efe, Emin Atasoy (eds.) Theory and Practice in Social Sciences. 308-317. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press.
Göksel, Aslı & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
Güçlü, Ruhan. 2020. Interactive metadiscourse markers in Turkish research article abstracts: a diachronic analysis. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı-BELLETEN, 70 (Aralık), 211-238.
Feng, H. (2015). Understanding cultural variations in advising Americans and Chinese. Communication Research, 42(8),1143–1167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213486668
Fuertes-Olivera Pedro, Marisol Velasco- Sacristan, Ascension Arribas-Bano & Eva Samaniego-Fernandez. 2001. PA. Persuasion and advertising in English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol.33. 1291-1307. 1291-1307 DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80026-6.
Hendley, William Clark.1977. Dear Abby, Miss Lonelyhearts, and the eighteenth century: The origins of the newspaper advice column. Journal of Popular Culture. 11(2):345-352.
Hinds, John (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In Ulla Connor & Robert B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 Text (141-152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hyland, Ken .1998 Exploring corporate rhetoric: metadiscourse in the CEO's letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224-45.
Hyland, Ken.2005a. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, Ken and Tse, Polly. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156—77.
Hyland Ken.1999.Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In Christopher Candlin & Ken Hyland (eds.), Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices. London: Longman: 99-121.
Hyland, Ken. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.
Hyland Ken & Fiona Hyland.2012. You could make this clearer: Teachers’ advice on ESL academic writing. In Holger Limberg and Miriam A. Locher (eds.) [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 221], Advice in Discourse. 53-71. Amsterdam& Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ho, Victor. 2016. Discourse of persuasion: A preliminary study of the use of metadiscourse in policy documents. Text&Talk. 36(1). 1-21. DOI 10. 1515/text-2016-0001
Ho, Victor. 2018. Using metadiscourse in making persuasive attempts through workplace request emails. Journal of Pragmatics. 134. 70-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.06.015
Ho, Victor & Cissy Li. 2018. The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students’ timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 33. 53-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001
Ho, Victor. 2020. Do hotels enhance and challenge rapport with customers with the same degree of commitment? Journal of Pragmatics.166. 70-83.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.002
Hudson, Thom 1990. The discourse of advice giving in English- I wouldn’t feed until spring no matter what you do’. Language and Communication. 10(4): 285-297.
Kaplan, Robert. 1966. Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education. Language Learning. V. 16. N.1. p.1-20.
Kurtul, Kamil. 2011. Türkçe ve İngilizcedeki Bağlaçların Yazılı Metinlerde Kullanımı, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü dissertation
Norrick, Neal.2001. On the Conversational Performance of Narrative Jokes: Toward an Account of Timing. Humor, 14, 255-274. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2001.003
Trosborg Anna.1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hatipoğlu, Çiler & Sedef Algı. 2017. Contextual and pragmatic functions of modal epistemic hedges in argumentative paragraphs in Turkish. In Çiler Hatipoğlu, Erdem Akbaş and Yasemin Bayyurt (Eds.). Metadiscourse in written genres. Uncovering textual and Interactional aspects of texts. (pp. 67-84). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Halliday Michael Alexander Kirkwood & Ruqaiya Hasan.1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hinkel, Eli. 1994. Appropriateness of advice as L2 Solidarity Strategy. 1-29.
Hinkel, Eli. 1997. Appropriateness of advice: DCT and Multiple Choice Data. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 18. No.1. OUP.1-26.
Hosni, H. R. (2020). Advice giving in Egyptian Arabic and American English: A cross-linguistic, cross-cultural study. Journal of Pragmatics, 155, 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.11.001
Leech, Geoffrey. 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: OUP.
Lewis, Geoffrey. 2000. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: OUP.
Locher, Miriam. 2006. Advice Online. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Locher, Miriam.2013. Internet advice: Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Kimoga, Joseph. 2010. Remorseless apology: Analysing a political letter. Journal of Pragmatics. 42(8) 2181-2188.
Mauranen, Anna.1993a. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Finnish-English Economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.
Mauranen, Anna.1993b. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt: Peter Lang
Nida, Camalia Fatih (2020). Comparative study of speech act advice-giving in Indonesian culture and American culture found in Television series. CaLLs, 6(2), 238-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.30872/calls.v6i2.4731
Neff-van Aertselaer, J. & Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). Argumentative patterns in different languages: An analysis of metadiscourse markers in English and Spanish texts. In M. Pütz, & J. Neff-van Aertselaer (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 87–102). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Overstreet, Maryann & George Yule.2001. Formulaic Disclaimers. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 33(1). 45-60. https:doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00125-3
Özdamar, Betül. 2020. Discourse structure and Discourse markers in the Argumentative Essays of English and Turkish Language Teaching Students. Ankara: Hacettepe University MA thesis
Philips, Angela. 2008. Advice Columnists. In Bob Franklin (eds.). Analysing Print Journalism. Pulling newspapers apart: Analysing Print Journalism. 97-105. London&New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203630709 (accessed 10.8.2022)
Richard, Erin & Michael McFadden 2016. Saving Face: Reactions to cultural norm violations in business request emails. Journal of Business Psychology. 31(2). 307-321.
Reza Abdi, Manoochehr Tavangar Rizi & Mansoor Tavakoli. 2010. The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A Framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 42. 1669-1679.
Sarıkaya, Zeliha Zeynep. 2020. Sosyal bilimler ve Fen bilimleri alanlarındaki makalelerde kullanılan bilim dilinin incelenmesi. The Journal of Turkic Language and Literature Surveys (TULLIS). 5( 2). 233-241.
Schiffrin, Deborah.1987. Discourse Markers. Contextual Coordinates of Talk.[Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 5] Cambridge: CUP.
Şen, Ekin.2019. Bilimsel makale özetlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin incelenmesi. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül University dissertation
Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tavakoli, M., & Tavakoli, A. (2010). A cross-cultural study of advice and social pressure. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 1533–1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.321
Uluçay, Çiğdem & Çiler Hatipoğlu. 2016. Causal markers in Turkish Cause Paragraphs. In Çiler Hatipoğlu, Erdem Akbaş, Yasemin Bayyurt (eds.) Metadiscourse in written genres: Uncovering textual and interpersonal aspects of texts. 172-190. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Yang, Na. 2021. Engaging readers across participants: A cross-interactant analysis of metadiscourse in letters of advice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Pragmatics.186. 181-193.
Yin, Zihan. 2015. The Use of Cohesive Devices in News Language: Overuse, Underuse or Misuse? RELC Journal, 46(3), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688215597578
Vande Kopple, William.1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1). 82-93.
Venuti, Lawrence. 2000. The Translation Studies Reader. London& New York: Routledge.
Yılmaz, Tuba. 2022. The Complexity of Pragmatic Competence: A Comparative Analysis of Native English Speakers: and Turkish ESL Students’ Advice-giving Strategies. Journal of Language Education. 8 (2) 2022. 305-324.
Zeyrek, Deniz, Ümit Deniz Turan, Işın Demirşahin & Ruket Çakıcı. 2012.
Differential properties of three discourse connectives in Turkish: A Corpus-based Analysis of Fakat, Yoksa, Ayrıca. In Anton Benz, Manfred Stede & Peter Kühnlein (eds.), Constraints in Discourse 3 [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 223], 183-206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.223.08zey.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

-

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Suhan Akıncı Oktay ^*
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi

31 Mart 2023

Gönderilme Tarihi

10 Kasım 2022

Kabul Tarihi

21 Mart 2023

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2023 Cilt: 20 Sayı: 52

DOI

https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.1202283

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA63KH72WB

APA

Akıncı Oktay, S. (2023). A Textual Analysis of Turkish Advice Letters in the Construction of a Persuasive Agony Aunt. OPUS Journal of Society Research, 20(52), 191-206. https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.1202283

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

A Textual Analysis of Turkish Advice Letters in the Construction of a Persuasive Agony Aunt

Abstract

Keywords

Kaynakça

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Konular

Bölüm

Yazarlar

Yayımlanma Tarihi

Gönderilme Tarihi

Kabul Tarihi

Yayımlandığı Sayı

DOI

IZ

Kaynak Göster