İLTİFAT YANITLARININ FARKLI SÖYLEM DURUMLARINA GÖRE TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYETE BAĞLI FARKLILAŞMASI

Year 2021, Volume: 172 Issue: 1, 86 - 107, 31.01.2021

Melike Baş

https://doi.org/10.33690/dilder.814332

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı kız ve erkek üniversite öğrencilerinin farklı iltifat durumlarında verdikleri iltifat yanıtlarını incelemektir. Çalışmanın verisi yazılı söylem tamamlama anketi aracılığıyla toplanan dört farklı bağlamı içermektedir: görünüm, performans, karakter ve varlık. 100 lisans (50 kız ve 50 erkek) öğrencisi çalışmaya katılmıştır. İltifat yanıtlarının çözümlenmesinde Holmes (1988a, 1988b) tarafından ileri sürülen makro ve mikro kategoriler geliştirilerek uygulanmıştır. Her iki grubun söylem tamamlama anketi ile elde edilen yanıtları nitel ve nicel açıdan karşılaştırılmıştır. Bulgular, genel dağılımın makro düzeyde Kabul, Kaçınma ve Ret olarak sıralandığı ve mikro düzeyde Takdir ve Yön Değiştirme stratejilerinin daha çok tercih edildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Kız ve erkek öğrencilerin bazı yanıtları arasında anlamlı farklılıklar tespit edilmiştir. Makro ve mikro düzeyde her iki cinsiyette verilen yanıtlar iltifatın hangi bağlamda alındığına göre değişmektedir. Benzer durumlarda katılımcıların verdiği benzer cevaplar Türkçede iltifat yanıtlarına dair etnografik bir betimleme yapmamızı sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

İltifat yanıtları, Toplumsal cinsiyet, Nezaket, Kültürel model, Türkçe

VARIATIONS IN COMPLIMENT RESPONSES ACROSS GENDER IN DIFFERENT DISCOURSAL SETTINGS

Abstract

This study aims at investigating compliment responses of female and male Turkish university students in different compliment situations. The data were collected through a written discourse completion task under four situational settings: appearance, performance, character, and possession. 100 undergraduate students (50 males and 50 females) participated in the study. Holmes’s (1988a, 1988b) macro and micro categories were adapted and developed to analyze the compliment responses of the participants. The responses of both groups obtained from the discourse completion task were compared qualitatively and quantitatively. Results indicated that the general pattern for participants is Accept, Evade and Reject strategies at the macro level and Appreciation Token and Shift Credit at the micro level. Some statistically significant differences between the responses of females and males were identified. Both at the macro and micro levels, how females and males respond to the compliments vary with respect to the situational context they receive the compliment. Under specific situations participants tend to reply similarly which help us to come up with an ethnographic account of CRs.

Keywords

Compliment responses, Gender, Politeness, Cultural model, Turkish

References

• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bu, J. (2010). A study of pragmatic transfer in compliment response strategies by Chinese learners of English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(2), 121-129.
• Chen, R. (1993). Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 49-75.
• Chen, R. (2010). Compliment and compliment response research: A cross-cultural survey. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures. Handbooks of pragmatics, vol. 7, (pp. 79-101). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton.
• Danziger, R. (2018). Compliments and compliment responses in Israeli Hebrew: Hebrew University in Jerusalem students in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 124, 73-87.
• Dörtkulak, F. (2017). Compliments and compliment responses in Turkish and American English: A contrastive pragmatics study of a Facebook corpus. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, METU, Turkey.
• Durmuşoğlu, G. (1990). Türkçe’de iltifat ve hakaret olgusunun kullanımbilim açısından incelenmesi. [A pragmatic investigation of compliment and insult concepts in Turkish]. In S. Özsoy, & H. Sebüktekin (Ed.), Proceedings of 4th Linguistics Symposium (pp. 165-174). İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Publications.
• Farghal, M., & Al-Khatib, M. A. (2001). Jordanian college students’ responses to compliments: A pilot study. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1485-1502.
• Farghal, M., & Haggan, M. (2006). Compliment behaviour in bilingual Kuwaiti college students. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(1), 94-118.
• Furkó, B. P., & Dudás, E. (2012). Gender differences in complimenting strategies with special reference to the compliment response patterns of Hungarian undergraduate students. Argumentum, 8, 136-157.
• Golato, A. (2002). German compliment responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(5), 547-571.
• Golato, A. (2005). Compliments and compliment responses: Grammatical structure and sequential organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Herbert, R. K. (1990). Sex-based differences in compliment behaviour. Language in Society, 19 (2), 201-224.
• Heidari, M. A., Rezazadeh, M., & Rasekh, A. E. (2009). A contrastive study of compliment responses among male and female Iranian teenage EFL learners. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture 29, 18-31.
• Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
• Holmes, J. (1988a). Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English. Anthropological Linguistics 28(4), 485-508.
• Holmes, J. (1988b). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential positive politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics, 12 (3), 445-465.
• Holmes, J. (1993). New Zealand women are good to talk to: An analysis of politeness strategies in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 91-116.
• Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London: Longman.
• Holmes, J. (2000). Women, men and politeness: Agreeable and disagreeable responses. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The Discourse Reader (pp. 336-345). London/New York: Routledge.
• İstifçi, İ. (1998). An interlanguage study of compliment responses: A case of Turkish learners of English. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Anadolu University, Turkey.
• İstifçi, İ. (2017). Comparison of Chinese and Turkish EFL learners on the use of compliment responses. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 14-29.
• Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
• Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2001). Compliment responses among British and Spanish university students: A contrastive study. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 107-127.
• McCormick, K. M. (2001). Gender and language. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of sociolinguistics (pp. 336-344). Exeter: Pergamon.
• Mehl, M. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2003). The sounds of social life: A psychometric analysis of students' daily social environments and natural conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (4), 857-870.
• Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the cooperation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79-112). New York: Academic Press.
• Rubin, D. L., & Greene, K. (1992). Gender typical style in written language. Research in the Teaching of English, 26(1), 7-40.
• Ruhi, Ş. (2004). Accounting for compliment responses: A critique of the maxim approach in politeness theory. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 75-87.
• Ruhi, Ş. (2006). Politeness in compliment responses: A perspective from naturally occurring exchanges in Turkish. Pragmatics, 16 (1), 43-101.
• Ruhi, Ş., & Doğan, G. (2001). Relevance theory and compliments as phatic communication: The case of Turkish. In A. Bayraktaroğlu & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Linguistic politeness across boundaries: The case of Greek and Turkish (pp. 341-390). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Sharifian, F. (2005). The Persian cultural schema of shekasteh-nafsi: A study of compliment responses in Persian and Anglo-Australian speakers. Pragmatics & Cognition, 13 (2), 337-361.
• Sharifian, F. (2008). Cultural schemas in L1 and L2 compliment responses: A study of Persian-speaking learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 55-80.
• Sharifian, F., Chalak, A., & Dehkordi, Z. G. (2019). Investigating choice of compliment response strategies on social networking sites by different gender. Journal of New Advances in English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 159-176.
• Tang, C., & Zhang, G. Q. (2009). A contrastive study of compliment responses among Australian English and Mandarin Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 325-345.
• Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. London: Virago.
• Thomson, R., Murachver, T., & Green, J. (2001). Where is the gender in gendered language? Psychological Science, 12, 171-175.
• Wolfson, N. (1989). The social dynamics of native and nonnative variation in complimenting behavior. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 219-236). New York: Plenum.
• Zeyrek, D. (2001). Politeness in Turkish and its linguistic manifestations: A socio-cultural perspective. In A. Bayraktaroğlu & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Linguistic politeness across boundaries: The case of Greek and Turkish (pp. 43-73). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.