Author :
Abstract
Yabancı bir dilde sosyodilbilimsel yeterliliğe ulaşmak dilbilimsel yeterliliğe ulaşmaktan daha zordur. Olstain & Weinbach (1993) sosyodilbilimsel yeterliliği kültürel ve edimbilimsel olarak uygun şekilde iletişim kurma becerisi olarak tanımlamıştır. Konuşucular anadillerinin edimbilimsel ve kültürel normlarını yabancı dillerine aktarırlarsa, kullandıkları dil sosyodilbilimsel açıdan uygun olmayabilir. Edimbilimsel yeterlilik doğru ve doğru olmayan olarak ölçülemez ancak edimbilimsel bozukluk, konuşmacının kendisini sosyal olarak uygun şekilde ifade edememesi durumu olarak tanımlanabilir, bu da konuşmacının dilbilgisel olarak yanlış tümce kullanması durumundan oldukça farklıdır (Thomas, 1983). Bu çalışmada yabancı dil olarak ileri seviyede Türkçe konuşan yetişkinlerin kullandığı nezaket yapılarının sosyodilbilimsel yeterlilik açısından incelenmesi ve değerlendirilmesi yapılmıştır. Katılımcılara bir anket verimiş ve belirli sosyal durumlarda kullanacakları yapıları yazmaları istenmiştir. Aynı anket anadil olarak Türkçe konuşan katılımcılara da sonuçları karşılaştırma açısından uygulanmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçları, yabancı dil olarak Türkçe konuşan katılımcıların fazla nazik olduklarını ve edimbilimsel açıklık yerine belli şekilde baskıcı olmamaya daha çok önem verdiklerini ortaya koymuştur. Kültürel ve sosyal olarak farklı olan bağlamlarda yabancı dil olarak Türkçe konuşan yetişkinlerin problemler yaşadığı gözlemlenmiştir, örneğin durumun gerektirdiği resmi/resmi olmayan hitap biçimi arasında yaptıkları seçimler sosyodilbilimsel olarak uygun olmayan yapıları tercih ettiklerini açıkça ortaya çıkarmıştır. Verilerin analizi sonucunda kültürel farklılıkların dil kullanımında etkisinin büyük olduğu ve sosyodilbilimsel yeterliliğinin dilbilimsel yeterlilikle bağlı olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.
Keywords
Abstract
Acquiring native-like sociolinguistic competence is more difficult to achieve than acquiring linguistic competence. Olstain & Weinbach (1993) define sociolinguistic competence as the ability to interact culturally as well as pragmatically appropriate ways. If non-native speakers transfer their native language pragmatics or cultural norms into the target language, their utterances may not achieve their goals due to sociolinguistic (in)appropriateness. Although we cannot judge pragmatic competence as correct or incorrect, we can clearly recognize pragmatic failure as a situation where a speaker cannot express himself in a socially appropriate manner; different from a situation where the speaker constructs a grammatically incorrect sentence (Thomas, 1983). The present paper investigates and evaluates sociolinguistic competence of non-native Turkish speakers. For this aim, the study analyzes the results of a questionnaire completed by adult speakers who already are advanced speakers of Turkish as a second/foreign language. The participants were asked to write what they would say in certain social situations. The same questionnaire was also given to native speakers of Turkish for comparison purposes. The analysis reveals that adult speakers learning Turkish tend to be too polite and give more importance to apparent non-coerciveness over pragmatic clarity. The culturally specific contexts which require knowledge of culture and social roles causes some problems for L2 speakers as illustrated by their sociolinguistically inappropriate choice of second person formal/ informal distinction in Turkish. The analysis reveals that cultural differences play a crucial role in language use and sociolinguistic competence does not always mirror linguistic competence.
Keywords
- Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, S. A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Designing and Devopling Useful Lanaguge Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Baumer, M. & Rendsburg, van H. (2011). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure in computer- mediated communication. Coolabah, No.5. Observatori: Centre d’Estudis Australians (Australian Studies Centre), Universitat de Barcelona.
- Beebe, L.M. & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in face threatening speech acts: Chastisement and disagreement. In M.R. Eisenstein (ed.). The Dynamic Interlanguage: Emprical Studies in Second Language Variation. 199-218. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
- Beebe, L.M., Takahashi, T. & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R.C. Scarcella, E.S. Anderson, and S.D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language. 55-94. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
- Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 145-160.
- Boxer, D., and Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: the case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49 (1), 44-58.
- Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity. American Anthropologist 4 (6): 24–39.
- Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. E. Goody (ed.) 56-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Brown, P. and S. Levinson. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
- Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of language proficiency. J.W. Oller (ed.). Issues in Language Testing Research. Rowley: MA. Newbury House.
- Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical basis of communicative approaches to second language learning and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1). 1-47.
- Canary, D. J., & Spitzbergs, B. H. (1989). A model of the perceived competence of conflict strategies. Human Communication Research 15. 630-649.
- Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27 (1), 33-56.
- Council of Europe. (2011). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment.
- Crozet, C., & Liddicoat, Anthony J. (1999). The challenge of intercultural language teaching: engaging with culture in the classroom. Lo Bianco, Joseph; Liddicoat, Anthony J.; Crozet, Chantal (Eds). Striving For the Third Place: Intercultural Competence through Language Education. Australian National Languages and Literacy Inst., Deakin.
- Dash, P. (2004). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. A Definitional Analysis with Implications from classroom teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 6(3). 1-17.
- Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J.W. (1986). ‘I very appreciate’: expresssions of gratitude by native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics 7(2): 167185.
- Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal. 59 (2). 199- 208.
- Fraser, B. (1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics. 14.
- Goffman, E. (1967). Interactions ritual: Essays in face to face behaviour. Aldine Transaction: New Brunswick & London.
- Grice, H.P. (1973). Philosophical logic. P.F. Strawson (ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Grice, H.P. (1989). Logic and conversation. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.
- Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua. 8:223-248.
- Ifantidou, E. (2010). Genres and pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics. 43(1- 43):327-346.
- Işık-Güler, H. (2008). Meta-pragmatics of (Im)politeness in Turkish: an explatory emic investigation. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Middle East Technical University, Turkey.
- Kasper, G. & Kellerman, E. (1997). Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Routledge, London & New York.
- Kasper, G., & Rose, K. L. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge University
- Kim, Min-Sun. (1994). Cross-cultural comparisons of perceived importance of conversational constraints. Human Communication Research, 21: 128-51.
- Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, Vol. 2, No. 1. 45-80.
- Lakoff, R. (1989). The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua, 8. 101-130.
- Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
- Leech, G. N. (2003). Towards an anatomy of politeness in communication. International Journal of Pragmatics XIV, 101-124.
- Lin, M. (2008). Pragmatic failure in intercultural communication and English Teaching in China. China Media Research, 4(3), 43-52.
- Nakajima, Y. (1997). Politeness strategies in the workplace: Which experiences help Japanese businessman to acquire American English native-like strategies? Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 13/1, 49-69.
- Nyguen, Minh Tih. (2011). Learning to communicate in a globalized world: to what extend do school textbooks facilitate the develeopment of intercultural pragmatic competence? RELC Journal 42(1), 17-30.
- Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (108122). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Pohl, G. (2004). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure and implications for language teaching. Second Language Learning & Teaching 4(2), 91-112.
- Riley, P. (1989). Well, don’t blame me! On the interpretation fo pragmatic errors. In W. Olesky (ed.). Contrastive Pragmatics. NY/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Shahrokhi, M. & Bidabadi, F S. 2013. An overview of politeness theories: Current status, future orientations. American Journal of Linguistics. 2(2): 17-27.
- Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im) politeness and rapport. Culturally speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness theory, 11- 47, H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.) London, New York: Continuum
- Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1990). Aspects of sociolinguistic performance on early and late immersion students. R. Scarcella, E. Andersen & S. Krashen (eds.) 41-50. Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language. Rowley: MA. Newbury House.
- Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics. 4(2), 91-112.
