Öğüt vermenin metasöylemsel boyutları: Güzin abla köşesinde Kaçınmacı ve vurgulayıcılar yapılar

Öğüt vermenin kültürden kültüre değişen bir durum olduğu bilinen bir gerçektir. Bazı kültürler öğüt vermeden kaçınırken, Türk kültürü gibi bazı kültürler öğütü yakınlık göstergesi olarak algılarlar. Böylece, öğütün bu doğasını önlemek amacıyla metasöylemsel öğeler kullanılarak dille bağlantılı önlemler alınır. Öğütü dilin metasöylemsel özelliklerini anlamak için başlangıç noktası alarak, bu çalışma öğüt vermedeki eğilimleri araştırmayı hedeflemektedir. Veriler nitelik ve nicelik bakımından incelenecek, ve araştırma kaçınmacı ve vurgulayıcı yapıların kullanımındaki örnekleri ortaya çıkartacaktır. Buna ek olarak,metapragma öğelerin kullanım bağlamları ayırtedilip, öğüt verme eyleminde kaçınmacı ve vurgulayıcı yapı tercihlerini orataya koyulacaktır. Araştırmanın bulguları söz eylemlerde kaçınmacı ve vurgulayıcı yapıların kullanımı ve bunların yorumları o söz eyleme özel olarak değerlendirilmeli ve kültürlerin öğüt vermede kullandıkları yapılar bu çalışmada ortaya konulacaktır.

The metadiscursive aspects of advice giving: Hedging and boosting in an agony aunt’s column

It is a well-known fact that advice-giving practices may differ from culture to culture. While some societies suchas British culture refrain from giving advice, others such as Turkish may prefer to give advice perceiving it as anindication of solidarity. Thus, precautions for preventing this nature of advice is taken by language itself in asystematic way through the employment of metadiscoursive elements. Thus, taking advice as a starting point forunderstanding metadiscursive aspects of language, this study will observe the tendencies in advice-giving in digitaldiscourse through hedges and boosters. The data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively, and patterns inthe employment of hedges and boosters were uncovered. In addition, contexts in which the use of metapragmaticitems were identified and contrasted to find out the functions of hedge and booster preferences in advice-giving.The findings of the study indicate the use of hedges and boosters in speech acts and their interpretation should beevaluated in terms of the use of that specific speech act and the tendencies cultures use in advice-giving isuncovered through this study.© 2020 JLLS and the Authors - Published by JLLS.

PDF

___

Bayyurt, Y. (2010). Author positioning in academic writing. In Zyngier, S. & Viana, V. (Eds),Avaliaçoes e perspectivas: mapeando os estudos empiricos na area deHumanas (Appraisals and perspectives: mapping empirical studies in the Humanities) 163-184. Rio de Janeiro: The Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
Brown, P.and S. Levinson . (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: CUP.
Bayraktaroğlu, A. (2001). Advice-giving in Turkish. Superiority or Solidarity. Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. 177-208. Ed. by. Arın Bayraktaroğlu and Maria Sifianou. John Benjamins.
Channel, J. (1994). Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Doyuran, Z. (2009). Conciliation of Knowledge through Hedging in Turkish Scientific Articles. Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi. Journal of Faculty of Letters, 26(1), 85-99.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hedge (2020) In Collins Dictionary retrived from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english
Hinkel, E. (1994). Native nonnative speakers’ pragmatic interpretations of English texts. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 353-376.
Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 360-386.
Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, Inflating, and Persuading in L2 Academic Writing. Applied Language Learning. 15(1&2), 29-53.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble-servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for specific purposes. 207-226.
Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring Corporate Rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224-245.
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2012). ‘You could make this clearer’: Teachers’ advice on ESL academic writing. Ed. By. Holger Limberg and Miriam Locher. Advice in Discourse. 53-71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kussmaul, P. (1997). Text-type conventions and translating. Text Typology and Translation. Ed. Anna Trosborg. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Lancaster, Z & Aull, L. (2014). Linguistic Markers of Stance in Early and Advanced Academic Writing: A Corpus-based Comparison. Written Communication. 1-33. Sage.https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0741088314527055.
Locher, M. (2006). Internet Advice. Advice Online. Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. 339-362. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fussy concepts. The 8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: 183-228.Sage.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.
Morrow, P. R. (2012). Online advice in Japanese: Giving advice in an Internet discussion forum. Advice in Discourse. Ed. by. Holger Limberg and M.A. Locher. 255-279.Amsterdam: John Benjamins Company.
Oliver, R. T. (1972). Communication and culture in ancient India and China. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). ‘Face, (Im)politeness and Rapport’. Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness. London: Continuum.
Spencer-Oatey, H. & Ruhi, Ş. (2007). Identity, face and (im)politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 635– 638.
Taylor, I. (1995). Writing and literacy in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yarar, E. (2001). Akademik Söylemde Belirteçlerin Olasılık ve Belirsizlik İşlevleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi. 1(1).128-138.