Aspect of Complaint and Apology Performatives in Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 41 Sayı: 41, 1 - 16, 01.01.2017

Nihat Bayat

Öz

The aim of this study is to
define the strategies used by Turkish language learners for complaining and
apologizing. The participants of this descriptive research consist of two
different groups. The first one is 29 foreign students attending to TÖMER for
learning Turkish at a university in Turkey. The second one implicated in the
research to define the complaint and apology strategies in Turkish is 25 native
students in Turkish language department at the same university. In the present
case, the participants of the study are 59 people. The instrument for the data
is a discourse completion test consisting of eight items including four
complaint and four apology contexts. The participants wrote an answer for each
situation in accord with the contexts. In the analysis process, the statements
were linked to one strategy in terms of their contents. The analysis was made
by two experts. The conformity percentage is .91. In the results of the study,
it is understood that there is a significant difference between the groups in
complaint strategies used, but a similarity in apology strategies taken by the
participants. Correspondingly, it is recommended that cultural and pragmatic
dimensions should be take account more at lectures in teaching Turkish as a
foreign language. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Speech act, complaint, apology, foreign language teaching

Türkçenin Yabancı Dil Olarak Öğretiminde Şikayet ve Özür Edimine İlişkin Görünümler

Öz

Bu araştırmada Türkçeyi
yabancı dil olarak öğrenenlerin şikayet etme ve özür dileme edimlerine ilişkin
başvurdukları stratejilerin belirlenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Betimsel modelde
yapılan araştırmanın katılımcıları iki farklı gruptan oluşmaktadır. Birinci
grup, TÖMER biriminde Türkçeyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen 30 kişilik
yabancılardan oluşmaktadır. İkinci grup ise anadilinde şikayet ve özür
edimlerinde kullanılan stratejileri belirlemek için araştırmaya dahil edilen 25
kişilik Türkçe eğitimi bölümü öğrencileridir. Buna göre katılımcılar 60 kişiden
oluşmaktadır. Araştırmanın verileri sekiz maddeden oluşan söylem tamamlama
testiyle toplanmıştır. Testte şikayet etme ve özür dileme edimlerine ilişkin
dörder madde bulunmaktadır. Katılımcılar testte verilen durumlara bağlı olarak
ilgili bağlam içinde şikayet etme ve özür dileme edimlerini yansıtan bir ifade
yazmıştır. Çözümleme sürecinde yazılan ifadeler içeriğiyle ilişkili olarak
belli bir stratejiyle ilişkilendirilmiştir. İçerik çözümlemesi iki farklı
değerlendirmeci tarafından yapılmıştır. Değerlendirmeciler arası uyum .91 olarak
hesaplanmıştır. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre şikayet edimi için kullanılan
stratejiler bakımından anadili konuşucularıyla yabancı öğrenciler arasında
önemli farklıların, ancak özür dileme edimi stratejileri açısından da
benzerliklerin bulunduğu saptanmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlar çerçevesinde Türkçenin
yabancı dil olarak öğretiminde kültürel ve edimsel boyutlara önem verilmesi
önerilmiştir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Söz edimi, şikayet, özür, yabancı dil olarak öğretimi

Kaynakça

• Austin, J.L. (2009). Söylemek ve yapmak. Çev: R. Levent Aysever. İstanbul: Metis.
• Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Barnlund, D. C., & Yoshioka, M. (1990). Apologies: Japanese and American styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14(2), 193-206.
• Bergman ML, Kasper G (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In Interlanguage Pragmatics. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 82–107.
• Blum-Kulka S, Kasper G (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics Speech Act Realization. In Interlanguage pragmatics. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.) Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 59–63.
• Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-212.
• Boxer, D. (1993) Social distance and speech behavior: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(2), 103-125.
• Butler, C. D. (2001). The role of context in the apology speech act: A socio-constructivist analysis of the interpretations of native English-speaking college students. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas.
• Canale, M. (1983). “From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy”. In Language and Communication. Richards, J. and Schmidt, R (eds.).. London:Longman.
• Canale, M., and Swain, M. (1983). “From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy”. In. Language and Communication. Richards, J & Shmitdh.,R (eds.). London:Longman, 1983, pp 6-7.
• Deutschmann, M. (2003). Apologising in British English., Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Umea Universiteit, Unmea.
• Fraser B (1981). On apologizing. In Conversational Routine: Exploration in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. Mouton, Coulmas, Florian (Ed.), The Hague, pp. 259–271.
• Harlow, H.L. (1990). “Do They Mean What They Say? Sociopragmatic Competence and Second Language Learenrs. Modern Language Journal, 74(1), 328-9.
• Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education: Speech acts and speech events, (pp.140-147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Holmes J (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. Longman, London.
• Holmes, J. (1993). New Zealand women are good to talk to: An analysis of politeness strategies in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 20(2), 91-116.
• Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19(2), 155-199. Hymes, D.H. (1972) “On Communicative Competence” In: J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds) Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 269-293.
• Majeed, A. ve Janjua, F. (2014). Apology strategies and gender: A Pragmatic study of apology speech acts in Urdu language. Merit Research Journal of Education and Review, 2(3), 54-61.
• Mey, J. (2001) Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Moon, K. (2001). Speech act study: differences between native and nonnative speakers' complaint strategies. The American University. Retrieved from www.Science-directjournal. Com
• Murphy, B. &. Neu, J. (1996). My grade's too low: The speech act set of complaining. In Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in Second Language, S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), 191-216, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Noisiri, W. 2002. Speech Act of Complaint: Pragmatics Study of Complaint Behaviour between Males and Females in Thai. University of Sussex, 1-18.
• Olshtain, E. and Weinbach, L. (1993) Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In Interlanguage Pragmatics. Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 108-122.
• Olshtain, E. and Weinbach, L. (1987). “Complaints: A Study of Speech Act Behavior Among Native and Nonnative Speakers of Hebrew”. In J. Verschueren and Bertucelli- Papi(Eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective (PP. 195-208) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Olshtain, E. and A. D. Cohen. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson and E. Judd (Eds.) Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 18-35.
• Owen, M. (1983). Apologies and remedial interchanges: A study of language use in social interaction. New York: Mouton.
• Rivers, W. (1973). From Linguistic to Communicative Competence. TESOL Quarterly, 7 (1), 25-34. Sauer, M. (2001). Complaints: A Cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies and linguistic forms. Paper presented at AAAL Conference, Vancouver, Canada.
• Searle, J.R. (2000). Söz edimleri. Çev: R. Levent Aysever. Ankara: Ayraç Yayınevi.
• Suszczynska, M. (1999). Apologizing in English, Polish and Hungarian: Different languages, different strategies. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(8), 1053-1065.
• Takahashi, S. (1996). “Pragmatic Transferability”. Studies in ELT. 18/2, 189-222.
• Tanck, S. (2002). Speech act sets of refusal and complaint: A comparison of native and non-native English speakers' production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 65-81.
• Taylor, I. And Taylor, M.M. (1990). Psycholinguistics:Learning and Using Language. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics. 4 (2), 91-112.
• Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 147-167.
• Tuncel R. (2011). Apologizing and speech act realizations of Turkish Efl learners. International Conference on Management, Economics and Social Sciences (ICMESS'2011), Bangkok Dec.
• Wannaruk, A. (2005). Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. Paper presented at the13th Annual KOTESOL International Conference, October 15-16, Seoul, Korea.
• Yamagashira, H. (2001). Pragmatic transfer in Japanese ESL refusals. Pragmatic Transfer, 31, 259-275.
• Yule, G. (2010) The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.