Öz
This paper explores the linguistic forms preferred by Turkish speakers of English to address instructors in academic settings. Far from the norm-referenced approach which focuses on labeling non-native-like practices as failures, this study casts light on the underlying mechanisms of the identified address preferences from a variationist point of view. To this end, 140 Turkish speakers of English as a foreign language reported the address forms they preferred on a discourse completion task. Next, ten participants were semi-structurally interviewed to reveal the motives behind their preferences. The results yielded that Turkish language and culture were mirrored on L2 English address practices through code-switching and translating. Along with the finding that the participants repudiated the address norms of the Inner Circle varieties of English, it was discussed that this can be a sign of a developing system of addressing in Turkish English as a variety in the Expanding Circle.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Arik, B.T. (2020). English in Turkey: A sociolinguistic profile. World Englishes, 39(3), 514– 527. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12488
- Ataman, H. A. (2018). Türkiye Türkçesinde hitaplar [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ondokuz Mayıs University.
- Avadallah, A. M. & Uylaş, S. (2010). Fıkra türünün Arap ve Türk edebiyatlarındaki yeri. Turcology Research, 17(42), 147-174.
- Burt, S. M. (2015). There’s not a lot of negotiation. Address terms in an academic department. In M. Terkourafi (Ed.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on im/politeness (pp. 71-90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- Clyne, M., Norrby, C., & Warren, J. (2009). Language and human relations: Styles of address in contemporary language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Dickey, E. (1997). Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 255-274.
- Dunkling, L. (1990). A dictionary of epithets and terms of address. New York: Routledge.
- Formentelli, M. (2009). Address strategies in a British academic setting. Pragmatics, 19(2), 179-196.
- Formentelli, M. (2018). Strategies of address in English lingua franca (ELF) academic interactions. Linguistics and Literature Studies 6(6), 298-306.
- Formentelli, M., & Hajek, J. (2016). Address practices in academic interactions in a pluricentric language: Australian English, American English, and British English. Pragmatics, 26(4), 631-652.
- Hickey, R. (2013). Honor and respect: The official guide to names, titles, and forms of address. Columbia: The Protocol School of Washington.
- Holberg, A. (1994). Forms of address: A guide for business and social use. Houston: Rice University Press.
- Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. (2010). Learners’ pragmatics: potential causes of divergence. In N. Ishihara and A. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp. 75-96). Harlow, UK: Pearson.
- Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models for non-native Englishes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Kökpınar Kaya, E. (2012). An analysis of the addressing terms used in Turkish society in the interface of alienation and intimacy. Studia Uralo-Altaica, 49, 303–309.
- Lasan, I. (2021). Salience in EFL speakers’ perceptions of formality: (In)formal greetings and address forms combined with (in)formal nouns, verbs, and adjectives. Language Teaching Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211055086
- Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Lindqvist, N., & Soler, J. (2022). World Englishes in ELT textbooks in Swedish upper-secondary schools. World Englishes, 00, 1– 16. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12599
- Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2013). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. New York: Routledge.
- Mendes de Oliveira, M. (2017). Sociopragmatic failure revisited: the case of intercultural communication between Brazilians and Americans. RBLA, Belo Horizonte, 17(2), 307-334.
- Özcan, F. H. (2016). Choice of address terms in conversational setting. International Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 982-1002.
- Ronowicz, E. A. (1992). Intercultural problems in teaching forms of address to Polish learners of English as a second language. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 85-94.
- Rose, H., McKinley, J., & Baffoe-Djan, J. B. (2020). Data collection research methods in applied linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.
- Ubanako, V. N. (2021). Address forms among Anglophone students and lecturers in The University of Yaoundé 1: A socio-pragmatic approach. In E. L. Veyu and S. A. Mforteh (Eds.), Globalisation and transitional ideologies: Moving the margins through language and literature (pp. 328-344). Dallas, Texas: Ken Scholars.
- Webster, J. (1988). Forms of address for correspondence and conversation. London: Templar Publishing.
- Wright, S. (2009). Forms of address in the college classroom. In W. Ahrens, S. M. Embleton and A. Lapierre (Eds.), Names in multilingual, multicultural and multiethnic contact: Proceedings of the 23rd international congress of onomastic sciences. Toronto: York University.
Genişleyen Daire’de Öğretim Elemanlarına Hitap Biçimleri Üzerine: Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce Konuşan Türk Bireylerin Görüşleri
Öz
Bu çalışma, İngilizce konuşan Türk bireylerin İngilizce sözlü ve yazılı etkileşim sırasında öğretim elemanlarına yönelik kullandıkları hitap biçimlerini araştırmaktadır. İç Daire’de kullanılan İngilizceden farklı olan kullanımları hata olarak nitelendiren ölçün temelli yaklaşımdan uzak bir biçimde, bu çalışma aynı zamanda belirlenen hitap tercihlerinin altında yatan sebepleri değişkeci bir bakış açısıyla ele almaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, Türkiye’de bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim gören 140 İngilizce hazırlık sınıfı öğrencisi, bir Söylem Tamamlama Testi (STT) aracılığıyla verilen sözlü ve yazılı senaryolarda tercih ettikleri hitap ifadelerini bildirmişlerdir. Bu tercihlerin arkasındaki savları açığa çıkarmak amacıyla 10 katılımcı ile yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, katılımcıların hitap biçimlerini çoğunlukla dil değiştirme ve doğrudan çeviri yöntemleriyle Türkçe ve Türk kültürü etkisi altında kullandıkları ortaya çıkmıştır. Katılımcıların hitap biçimlerini İç Daire’deki İngilizce konuşanlarla aynı düzlemde kullanmayı tercih etmedikleri bulgusu ışığında, bu tercihlerin Genişleyen Daire’nin bir değişkesi olan Türk İngilizcesinde gelişen hitap sisteminin bir işaretçisi olabileceği tartışılmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Etik Beyan
Çalışmanın katılımcıları tamamen gönüllülük esasına dayalı olarak çalışmaya katılmışlardır. Çalışma öncesinde kendilerine çalışma hakkında bilgi verilmiş, gönüllülük esası gözetilmiş ve işleyişte etik ilkelere riayet edilmiştir.
Kaynakça
- Arik, B.T. (2020). English in Turkey: A sociolinguistic profile. World Englishes, 39(3), 514– 527. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12488
- Ataman, H. A. (2018). Türkiye Türkçesinde hitaplar [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ondokuz Mayıs University.
- Avadallah, A. M. & Uylaş, S. (2010). Fıkra türünün Arap ve Türk edebiyatlarındaki yeri. Turcology Research, 17(42), 147-174.
- Burt, S. M. (2015). There’s not a lot of negotiation. Address terms in an academic department. In M. Terkourafi (Ed.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on im/politeness (pp. 71-90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- Clyne, M., Norrby, C., & Warren, J. (2009). Language and human relations: Styles of address in contemporary language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Dickey, E. (1997). Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 255-274.
- Dunkling, L. (1990). A dictionary of epithets and terms of address. New York: Routledge.
- Formentelli, M. (2009). Address strategies in a British academic setting. Pragmatics, 19(2), 179-196.
- Formentelli, M. (2018). Strategies of address in English lingua franca (ELF) academic interactions. Linguistics and Literature Studies 6(6), 298-306.
- Formentelli, M., & Hajek, J. (2016). Address practices in academic interactions in a pluricentric language: Australian English, American English, and British English. Pragmatics, 26(4), 631-652.
- Hickey, R. (2013). Honor and respect: The official guide to names, titles, and forms of address. Columbia: The Protocol School of Washington.
- Holberg, A. (1994). Forms of address: A guide for business and social use. Houston: Rice University Press.
- Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. (2010). Learners’ pragmatics: potential causes of divergence. In N. Ishihara and A. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp. 75-96). Harlow, UK: Pearson.
- Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models for non-native Englishes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Kökpınar Kaya, E. (2012). An analysis of the addressing terms used in Turkish society in the interface of alienation and intimacy. Studia Uralo-Altaica, 49, 303–309.
- Lasan, I. (2021). Salience in EFL speakers’ perceptions of formality: (In)formal greetings and address forms combined with (in)formal nouns, verbs, and adjectives. Language Teaching Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211055086
- Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Lindqvist, N., & Soler, J. (2022). World Englishes in ELT textbooks in Swedish upper-secondary schools. World Englishes, 00, 1– 16. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12599
- Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2013). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. New York: Routledge.
- Mendes de Oliveira, M. (2017). Sociopragmatic failure revisited: the case of intercultural communication between Brazilians and Americans. RBLA, Belo Horizonte, 17(2), 307-334.
- Özcan, F. H. (2016). Choice of address terms in conversational setting. International Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 982-1002.
- Ronowicz, E. A. (1992). Intercultural problems in teaching forms of address to Polish learners of English as a second language. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 85-94.
- Rose, H., McKinley, J., & Baffoe-Djan, J. B. (2020). Data collection research methods in applied linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.
- Ubanako, V. N. (2021). Address forms among Anglophone students and lecturers in The University of Yaoundé 1: A socio-pragmatic approach. In E. L. Veyu and S. A. Mforteh (Eds.), Globalisation and transitional ideologies: Moving the margins through language and literature (pp. 328-344). Dallas, Texas: Ken Scholars.
- Webster, J. (1988). Forms of address for correspondence and conversation. London: Templar Publishing.
- Wright, S. (2009). Forms of address in the college classroom. In W. Ahrens, S. M. Embleton and A. Lapierre (Eds.), Names in multilingual, multicultural and multiethnic contact: Proceedings of the 23rd international congress of onomastic sciences. Toronto: York University.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | İngilizce |
|---|---|
| Konular | Dil Kullanım Bilimi, Dilsel Yapılar (Fonoloji, Morfoloji ve Sözdizimi dahil), Toplumsal Dilbilim, Dilbilim (Diğer) |
| Bölüm | Makaleler |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 30 Haziran 2024 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2024Cilt: 35 Sayı: 1 |
Bu eser
Dergi DOI:10.18492/dad