A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF THE SPEECH ACT OF APOLOGY BY TURKISH AND KURDISH SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH AND THE NATIVE SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH

Year 2021, Volume: 13 Issue: 2, 902 - 916, 30.08.2021

Ahmet Cebi , Mehmet Veysi Babayiğit

https://doi.org/10.26791/sarkiat.937046

Cited By: 3

Abstract

The communicative competence, first introduced by Hymes in 1960s, incorporates the knowledge of not only the syntactic rules , but also the abstract knowledge of the target language. Speech acts, as the basic units of communication are significant in the linguistics competence in a given language. The current research study explores the speech act of apology utilised by Turkish and Kurdish (non-western cultures) speakers of English and the native speakers of English (western culture) in order to find out the similarities and differences in the apology strategies they employ when English is used for the medium of communication. The research study revealed significant insights into the most frequently used apology strategies by all three groups: Turkish, Kurdish, and the native speakers. In the meantime, the strategies selected and utilised demonstrated that culture and cultural similarities or differences play a major role in the selection of the apology strategies in English for non-native speakers. Likewise, the level of second language proficiency is proven to be a clear indicator of the native like responses. The research findings have certain pedagogical implications in the process of developing the learners’ pragmatic knowledge and awareness. As the present study targets particular groups of participants, future studies are required to include different social groups incorporating variables such as age, gender, regional and occupational differences to provide a more comprehensive picture of the apology strategies used.

Keywords

speech act of apology, apology strategies, Turkish, Kurdish, native speaker, culture

ÖZÜR SÖYLEMİNİN TÜRK VE KÜRT İNGİLİZCE KULLANICILARI İLE ANADİLİ İNGİLİZCE OLANLAR TARAFINDAN KULLANIMINA DAIR KÜLTÜRLER ARASI BİR ÇALIŞMA

Abstract

İletişimsel yeterlilik; sözdizimsel kurallar ve hedef dil bilgisini içerir. İletişimin temel birimleri olan söz edimleri, belirli bir dilde dilbilimsel yetkinlik açısından önemlidir. Bu çalışma, İngilizce iletişim aracı olarak kullanıldığında; Türk ve Kürt (batılı kültüründen olmayanlar) İngilizce konuşanlar ile anadili İngilizce olan (batı kültüründen olanlar) konuşanların özür stratejilerindeki benzerlikleri ve farklılıkları bulmak için kullandıkları özür söz ediminlerini incelemektedir. Çalışmada, her üç grup tarafından da en sık kullanılan özür stratejileri hakkında önemli bilgiler bulunmuştur: Türk, Kürt ve anadili İngilizce olanlar. Seçilen ve kullanılan stratejiler, anadili İngilizce olmayanlar için İngilizce özür stratejilerinin seçiminde kültür ve kültürel benzerliklerin veya farklılıkların önemli bir rol oynadığını da göstermiştir. Ayrıca, ikinci dil yeterlilik düzeyinin de anadili benzeri yanıtların açık bir göstergesi olduğu kanıtlanmıştır. Araştırma bulguları, öğrencilerin edimbilim bilgisinde ve farkındalığında gelişmelere elde ettiğini de göstermiştir. Bu çalışmanın aksine, bazı ileri araştırmalar, kapsamlı bir analiz için yaş, cinsiyet, bölgesel ve mesleki farklılıklar gibi değişkenleri içeren farklı sosyal grupları içerebilir.

Keywords

Özür Söz Edimi, Özür stratejileri, Türk, Kürt, Anadil konuşmacısı, Kültür

References

• Al Ali, S. A. S. (2013). A cross-cultural study of the speech act of apology in Saudi and Australian females (Master’s Thesis). University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
• Alfattah, M. H. A. (2010). Apology strategies of Yemeni EFL university students. MJAL, 2(3), 223-249.
• Al-Zumor, A. W. Q. G. (2011). Apologies in Arabic and English: An inter-language and cross- cultural study. Journal of King Saud University - Languages and Translation, 23(1), 19-28.doi:10.1016/j.jksult.2010.02.001.
• Aydin, M. (2013). Cross cultural pragmatics: A study of apology speech acts by Turkish speakers, American English speakers and advance nonnative speakers of English in Turkey. Available from Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts (LLBA). (1530415515; 201405348). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1530415515?accountid=13886
• Bardovi-Harlig, K. , Rose, M., & Nickels, E. L. (2008). The use of conventional expressions of thanking, apologising, and refusing. In Bowles, M. et al. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2007 second language research forum (pp. 113- 130). Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville: MA.
• Bataineh, F. R. & Bataineh, F. R. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of apologies by native speakers of American English and Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 792-821.
• Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1984). Request and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realisation patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 3, 196-213.
• Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1998). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Request and apologies. Advances in discourse processes. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
• Chamani, F. & Zareipur, P. (2010). A cross cultural study of apologies in British English and Persian. Studies in Linguistics, 36, 133-153.
• Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113-131.
• Erçetin, N. G. (1995). Pragmatic transfer in the realisation of apologies: The case of Turkish EFL learners. An unpublished M.A. Thesis. Istanbul: Bogaziçi Üniversitesi.
• Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2004). Face-keeping strategies in reaction to complaints: English and Persian. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 14, 181–197.
• Farashaiyan, A., & Yazdi Amirkhiz, S.Y. (2011). A descriptive-comparative analysis of apology strategies: The case of Iranian EFL and Malaysian ESL university students. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 224-229.
• Garcia, C. (1989). Apologizing in English: Politeness strategies used by native and non-native speakers. Multilingua, 8, 3–20.
• Ghanbari, H., Gowhary, H., & Azizifar, A. (2015). Investigating apology strategy among Kurdish bilinguals: A case study in Ilam. Procedia- Social and Behavioural Sciences, 199, 204-210.
• Harlow, L. (1990). Do they mean what they say? Socio-pragmatic competence and second language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 328-351.
• Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society. 19(2), 155-199.
• Intachakra, S. (2004). Contrastive pragmatics and language teaching: Apologies and thanks in English and Thai. RELC Journal, 35(1), 37-62.
• Ishihara, N. (2007). Web-based curriculum for pragmatic instruction in Japanese as a foreign language: An explicit awareness-raising approach. Language Awareness,17(1), 21-40.
• Istifci, I. (2009). The use of apologies by EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 2(3), 15-25.
• Kasanga, L. A. & Lwanga-Lumu, J. (2007). Cross-cultural linguistic realisation of politeness: A study of apologies in English and Setswana. Journal of Politeness Research, 3, 65-92.
• Kasper, G. & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Michigan:Blackwell.
• Kondo, S. (1997). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English; longitudinal study on interlanguage apologies. Sophia Linguistica, 41, 265-284.
• Liebersohn, Y. Z., Neuman, Y., & Bekerman, Z. (2004). Oh baby, it’s hard for me to say I’m sorry: Public apologetic speech and cultural rhetorical resources. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 921-944.
• Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522-525.
• Olshtain, E. (1989). Apologies across languages. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, advances in discourse processes, (pp. 155–173). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18-35). Rawley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
• Ozyıldırım, I. (2010). The level of directness in Turkish apology forms in relation to the level of education. Hacettepe Universitesi, Edebiyat Fakultesi Dergisi 27 (1), 179-201.
• Prachanant, N. (2006). Pragmatic transfer in responses to complaints by Thai EFL learners in the hotel business (Doctoral Dissertation). Suranaree University of Technology.
• Reiter, R. M. (2000). Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A contrastive study of requests and apologies. Philadelphia: John Benjamins North America.
• Sadeghi, M. R. (2013). A cross-linguistic investigation of language apology speech act; A case of Persian and Kurdish children. Journal of Languages and Culture, 4(3), 30-38.
• Schmidt, R. W., & Richards, J. C. (1980). Speech acts and second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 129-157.
• Shardakova, M. (2005). Intercultural pragmatics in the speech of American L2 learners of Russian: Apologies offered by Americans in Russian. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2, 423-451.
• Tanaka, K. (1997). Developing pragmatic competence: A learners- as-researchers approach. TESOL Journal, 6(3),14-18.
• Tamanaha, M. (2003). Interlanguage speech act realisation of apologies and complaints: The performances of Japanese L2 speakers in comparison with Japanese L1 and English L1 speakers (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
• Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Tunçel, R. (1999). Speech act realisations of Turkish EFL learners: A study on apologizing and thanking. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Eskisehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi.
• Vollmer, H., & Olshtain, E. (1989). The language of apologies in German. In: Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, advances in discourse processes (p. 197–218). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Wolfson, N. (1983). Rules of speaking. In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds), Language and communication (pp. 127-55). New York: Longman.
• Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Mass.: N. H. Pub. Inc.