Ofis Saati Söyleminde Eğitmen Tarafından Yapılan Öneriler: Kip Eklerine Vurgu

Bu çalışma, söylem analizi yaklaşımını açısından ofis saati söylemindeki önericevap kısımlarını inceler. İlişkisel iş kuramsal çerçevesi genel olarak çalışmayı besler. Toplamda otuz sekiz ofis saati görüşmesi temel veriyi oluşturur ve katılımcılar Türkiye’nin kuzeydoğusundaki 2 üniversitedeki 3 uluslararası eğitmen ve bu eğitmenlerin 34 Türk öğrencisidir. Analiz, birlikte oluşturulan öneri-cevap kısımlarının çok fazla miktarda eğitmen tarafından yapılan öneriler bulundurduğunu gösterir. Kip ekleri (kipler ve yarı kipler) eğitmen tarafından yapılan önerilerde, onların bu tarz ofis saati görüşmelerindeki destek sağlayıcı gibi kurumsal rollerini gerçekleştirmelerini sağlayarak önem arz etmektedir. Bu kısımların daha yakından analizi ayrıca uluslararası eğitmenlerin kip ekleri ile öneride bulunurken bir çok işlevi yerine getirdiğini ortaya koyar (ör. çözüm olarak alternatif yollar sağlamak, ödevler/görevler/projelerin beklentileri veya gerekliliklerini vurgulamak, ilerideki bir hareketin sonuçlarını ifade etmek, veya ileride yapılacak bir hareketi önermek, vb.). Söylem analizi yaklaşımını benimseyen bu çalışma, özellikle kültürlerarası iletişimdeki gelecekteki araştırma çabaları için bir yol açabilir.

Instructor-initiated Suggestions in Office Hour Discourse: Emphasis on Modality

From a discourse analytic approach, this study examines suggestionresponseepisodes in office hour interactions. The theoretical framework of relationalwork broadly informs the study. A total of thirty-eight office hour interactionsconstitute the primary data source, and the participants are 3 international instructorsand their 34 Turkish students at two universities in the northwest of Turkey. Theanalysis demonstrates that the co-constructed suggestion-response episodes yield alarge amount of instructor-initiated suggestions. Modality (modals and semi-modals)is crucial in instructor-initiated suggestions functioning especially to fulfill theirinstitutional role as support provider in such office hour interactions. A closeranalysis of the episodes also reveals that the international instructors fulfill a varietyof functions (e.g., providing alternative ways as a solution; emphasizing expectationsor requirements for assignments tasks and projects; expressing outcomes of a futureaction; suggesting a future action, etc.) while making suggestions with modals andsemi-modals. Adopting a discourse analytic perspective, this study might pave theway for prospective research endeavors specifically in intercultural communication.

PDF

___

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Canada: Wadsworth, Cangage Learning.
Banerjee, J., & Carrell, P. L. (1988). Tuck in your shirt, you squid: Suggestions in ESL. Language Learning, 38(3), 313-364.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B.S. (1990). Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning, 40(4), 4670501.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B.S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279-304.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B.S. (1996). Input in an institutional setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 171-188.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bu, J. (2011). A study of pragmatic transfer in suggestion strategies by Chinese learners of English. Studies in Literature and Language, 3(2), 28-36.
Collins, P. (2009). Modals and quasi-modals in world Englishes. World Englishes, 28(3), 281- 292.
Dippold, D. (2009). Face and self-presentation in spoken L2 discourse: Renewing the research agenda in interlanguage pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(1), 1-28.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Du Bois, J. W., (1991). Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics, 1(71), 71-106.
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169-192.
Edwards, J. A. (2003). The transcription of discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. NJ: Blackwell Publishing.
Gee, J.P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Hinkel, E. (1994). Appropriateness of advice as L2 solidarity strategy. RELC Journal, 25(2), 71-93
Jiang, X. (2006). Suggestions: What should ESL students know? System, 34(1), 36-54.
Kádár, D. Z., & Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2010). Introduction: Politeness research in and across cultures. In D. Z. Kádár, & Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (Eds.), Politeness across cultures, (pp. 1-14). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawaii Press.
Koike, D.A. (1994). Negation in Spanish and English suggestions and requests: Mitigating effects? Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 513-526.
Koike, D.A. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In S. M. Gass, & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures, (pp. 257-281). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Li, E. S. (2010). Making suggestions: A contrastive study of young Hong Kong and Australian students. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 598-616.
Limberg, H. (2010). The interactional organization of academic talk: Office hour consultations. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Locher, M. A. (2006). Polite behavior within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua 25(3), 249–267.
Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1), 9–33.
Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice, (pp. 77–99). NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Martínez-Flor, A. (2005). A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: Towards a taxonomy for its use in FLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 18, 167-187.
Martínez-Flor, A. (2010). Suggestions: How social norms affect behavior. In A. Martínez- Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Matsumura, S. (2001). Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approach to second language socialization. Language Learning, 51, 635-679.
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics. NY: Academic Press.
Palmer, F.R. (1990). Modality and the English Modals. 2nd Edition, London: Longman.
Perkins, M. R. (1982). The core meanings of the English modals. Journal of Linguistics, 18(2), 245-273.
Reinhardt, J. (2010). Directives in office hour consultations: A corpus-informed investigation of learner and expert usage. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 94-107.
Sarangi, S., & Roberts, C. (1999). The dynamics of interactional and institutional orders in work-related settings. In S. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings (pp. 1-57). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Scollon, R., Scollon, S.W., & Jones, R. (2012). Intercultural communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Searle, J.R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1-23.
Tannen, D. (2005). Interactional sociolinguistics as a resource for intercultural pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(2), 205-208.
Thonus, T. (2002). Tutor and student assessment of academic writing tutorials: What is “success”? Assessing Writing, 8, 110-134.
Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, J. (2005). Writing center interaction: Institutional discourse and the role of peer tutors. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, & B.S. Hartford (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk (pp. 37-66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.