Sembolik/retoriksel bir eylem olarak dil'in anlam inşasındaki aracılık işlevi

Bu çalışma, Kenneth Burke’nin iletişim esnasındaki güdüleri açıklayan sembolik eylem/ dramatizasyon kuramı çerçevesinde dilin anlam inşasındaki aracılık işlevini incelemektedir. Sembolik eylem kuramı dili, belirli bir durum karşısında bir nedene bağlanabilen, koşullara uygun gerçekleştirilen bir eylem biçimi olarak kabul eder. Dil gerçekliğin nesnel olarak algılandığı, durumların tanımlandığı tarafsız, saydam bir ayna olmaktan çok, bir eylem formu, sembolik bir eylem biçimidir. İnsanlar, dünyayı rasyonalize etmek ve anlamak için olduğu kadar birbirleriyle iletişim kurmak için de dili kullanırlar. Bu nedenle dil, tasarladığımız ve algıladığımız hakikati inşa eder. Sembolik eylem, dil oyunlarını sarmalayan dilsel pratiklere durum tanımlaması üzerinden anlam vermek, bu anlamlar temelinde amaç, araç ve sonuçlarını gözeterek karşı dil oyunları üzerinden dil pratikleri sergilemektir. Sembolik eylem kuramı insanın güdülerine dayalı simgeselliğini gösteren eylem ile dürtü ve içgüdülerine bağlı hayvansallığını yansıtan hareket arasında kesin bir ayrım yapar. İnsanı sembol inşa eden ve kullanan bir varlık olarak tanımlar. Bu yaklaşıma göre insan; sembolik düşünür, yorumlar ve eylemler gerçekleştirir. Semboller, anlamlandırma araçları olarak gerçekliğin tanımlanması ve inşasında çok önemli bir işlev üstlenirler. Sembolik eylem kuramına göre dil, aynı zamanda retoriksel bir eylem biçimidir. Çünkü bütün sembolik eylemler, kendilerine özgü bir retorikle gerçekleştirilir. Burke retoriği tutumları biçimlendirmek ve eylemleri etkilemek amacıyla dilin kullanımı olarak tanımlar. Burke için dil insanların dünyaya inceleme ve anlama tarzı, retorik ise insanların birbirleriyle iletişim kurma tarzını anlatır. Sembolik eylemlerin retoriği, iknadan çok özdeşlik oluşturmaya odaklanır. Özdeşleşme, dil pratikleri gerçekleştiren ve bu pratikleri anlamlandırmaya çalışan kişiler arasındaki ortak buluşma zeminidir. Özdeşleşme olmadan ikna olmaz. Sembolik eylemlerin retoriği dramatizasyon olarak adlandırılan beş aşamalı bir çözümleme yöntemiyle okunur. Burke; eylem, sahne, aktör, araç ve amaç’tan oluşan bu beş unsurun her iletişim durumunda bulunduğunu ileri sürer.

Mediating function of language as symbolic/rhetorical action in meaning construction

This article analyzes mediating function of language in meaning construction according to the symbolic action theory of Kenneth Burke called as dramatism, which isolates motive in communication. According to symbolic action theory language is a strategic, motivated response to a specific situation. It views language as a form of action or as a mode of symbolic action rather than a impartial mirror through which events are objectively perceived, situations are defined. Humans have invented language to rationalize and understand the world, as well as to communicate with each other. Hence language constructs our truth. Symbolic action theory distinguishes clearly action from motion. Action is the symbolic side of human beings, which bases on human motives. On the other hand motion reflects the animal side of human beings, which bases on instincts and drives. Action means give meaning to language practices in language games, playing counter language acts based on this meanings, keeping in mind purposes, agencies and consequences of linguistically realized symbolic actions. Symbolic action theory defines the human as symbol-using animal. Humans imagine, give meaning and act symbolically. Symbols are instruments of meaning construction, which play an important role in the definition and construction of reality. Language is also a form of rhetoric. Because all symbolic actions are realized through a partical rherotic.Burke defined rhetoric as the use of language to form attitudes and influence action. For Burke, language is how humans view and understand the world, and rhetoric is how we communicate with each other. Rhetoric of symbolic actions must be focused on identification rather than persuasion. Identification is the common ground that exists between the speaker and audience. Without identification there is no persuasion. Burke’s symbolic action theory involves the idea of dramatism, or more specifically, the dramatistic pentad, through which rhetoric of symbolic actions is analyzed. The five elements of the dramatistic pentad (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), Burke argues, are present in every communication situation

PDF

___

Benoit W L (2000) Beyond Genre Theory: The Genesis of Rhetorical Action. Communication Monographs, 67 (2), 178-192.
Altuntek N S (2006) Kültür ve Zihin: Goodenough, Lévi-Strauss ve Geertz, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Derg, 23 (2), 45- 60.
Anderson A R (2005) Enacted Metaphor: The Theatricality of the Entrepreneurial Process, International Small Business Journal, 23(6): 587–603.
Anderson D (2004) Questioning the Motives of Habituated Action: Burke and Bourdieu on Practice, Philosophy and Rhetoric, 37 (3), 255- 274.
Appelrouth S ve Edles L D (2004) Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory. Text and Readings, Pine Forge Press Thousand Oaks, CA.
Axley S R (1984) Managerial and Organizational Communication in Terms of the Conduit Metaphor, The Academy of Management Review, 9 (3), 428-437.
Bellebaum A (1991) Soziologische Grundbegriffe, Kohlhammer, Stuttgar, Berlin, Köln.
Bentz V M ve Kenny W (1997) Body-as World: Kenneth Burke’s Answer to the Postmodernist Charges Against Sociology, Sociological Theory, 15 (1), 81-96.
Blau H (1954), Kenneth Burke: Tradition and the Individual Critic, American Quarterly, 6 (4), 323-336.
Booth,W C (1974) Kenneth Burke’s Way of Knowing, Critical Inquiry, 1 (1), 1-22.
Brock B L (1985) Epistemology and Ontology in Kenneth Burke's Dramatism, Communication Quarterly, 33 (2), 94-104.
Burke K (1966) Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Burke K (1968) Counter-Statement, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Burke K (1969a) A Grammar of Motives, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Burke K (1969b) A Rhetoric of Motives, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Burke K (1984) Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Burke K (1989a) The Nature of Human Action, Joseph R. Gusfield (eds), Kenneth Burke on Symbols and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, pp. 53-55.
Burke K (1989b) The Human Actor: Definition of Man, Joseph R. Gusfield (eds), Kenneth Burke on Symbols and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, pp. 56-74.
Burke K (1989c) Symbolic Action, Joseph R. Gusfield (eds), Kenneth Burke on Symbols and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, pp. 77-85.
Burke K (1989d) Types of Meaning, Joseph R. Gusfield (eds), Kenneth Burke on Symbols and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, pp. 86-106.
Burke K (1989e) The Symbol as Formative, Joseph R. Gusfield (eds), Kenneth Burke on Symbols and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, pp.107-113.
Burke K (1989f) Language as Action: Terministic Screens, Joseph R. Gusfield (eds), Kenneth Burke on Symbols and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, pp. 114-125.
Burke K (1989g), Motives as Action, Joseph R. Gusfield (eds), Kenneth Burke on Symbols and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, pp. 126-131.
Burke K (1989h) Dramatistic Method, Joseph R. Gusfield (eds), Kenneth Burke on Symbols and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, pp. 135-138.
Burke K (1989ı) Rhetorical Analysis, Joseph R. Gusfield (eds), Kenneth Burke on Symbols and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, pp. 211-231.
Burke K (1978) (Nonsymbolic) Motion/ (Symbolic) Action, Critical Inquiry, 4 (4), 809-838.
Can Y (2005) Toplumsal Yapı ve Değişme Kuramlarının Paradigma Temelli Bir Sınıflandırma Denemesi, C.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Derg, 29 (1), 1-11.
Cassirer E (2005) İnsan Üstüne Bir Deneme. Devlet Efsanesi, Necla Arat (çev.), Say Yayınları, İstanbul.
Cohen A P (1995) Topluluğun Simgesel Kuruluşu, Mehmet Küçük (çev.),Dost Kitabevi, Ankara.
Crable B (2000) Defending Dramatism as Ontological and Literal, Communication Quarterly, 48 (3), 323-342.
Crable B (2003) Symbolizing Motion: Burke’s Dialectic and Rhetoric of the Body, Rhetoric Review, 22 (2), 121-137.
Duncan H D (1984) Introduction, Kenneth Burke, Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, pp. xiii-xliv.
El-Zein A H (1977) Beyond Ideology and Theology: The Search for the Anthropology of Islam, Annual Review of Anthropology, 6, 227-254.
Eliasoph N ve Lichterman P (2003) Culture in Interaction, American Journal of Sociology, 108 (4), 735-794.
Fay B (2001) Çağdaş Sosyal Bilimler Felsefesi. Çokkültürlü Bir Yaklaşım, Ayrıntı Yayınları, İstanbul.
Foss S K, Foss K A ve Trapp R (1985) Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric, Prospect Heights, Waveland, IL.
Geertz C (1973) The Interpretation of Culture, Basic Books, New York.
Gusfield J R (1989) (eds) Kenneth Burke on Symbols and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London.
Habermas J (2001) İletişimsel Eylem Kuramı, Mustafa Tüzel (çev), Kabalcı Yayınevi, İstanbul.
Henderson G (1989) Logology and Theology: Kenneth Burke and the Rhetoric of Religion. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 1 (1), 20-39.
Keesing R M (1974) Theories of Culture, Annual Review of Anthropology, 3, 73-97.
Kiss G (1989) Evolution soziologischer Grundbegriffe. Zum Wandel ihrer Semantik, Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart.
Kneupper C W (1985) The Relation of Agency to Act in Dramatism: A Comment on “Burke’s Act”, College English, 47 (3), 305-308.
Korte H ve Schäfers B (1993) (eds) Einführung in Hauptbegriffe der Soziologie, Leske + Budrich, Opladen.
Marshall G (2003) Sosyoloji Sözlüğü, Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları, Ankara.
Martin B ve Varney W (2003) Nonviolence and Communication, Journal of Peace Research, 40 (2), 213–232.
Mikl-Horke G (1992) Soziologie. Historischer Kontext und soziologische Theorie-Entwürfe, R. Oldenbourg Verlag, München, Wien.
Morgan G ve Smircich L (1980) The Case for Qualitative Research, The Academy of Management Review, 5 (4), 491-500.
Overington M A (1977) Kenneth Burke and the Method of Dramatism, Theory and Society, 4 (1), 131-156.
Özakpınar Y (2002) İnsan Düşüncesinin Boyutları, Ötüken Kitabevi, İstanbul.
Pala Ş (2003) Simgesel Anlam Ağına Takılı İki Meslek Erbabı: Gazeteci ve Antropolog, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Derg 20 (1), 210-228.
Ritzer G (2000) Sociological Theory. McGraw Hill, New York.
Sheard C M (1993) Kairos and Kenneth Burke's Psychology of Political and Social Communication. College English, 55 (3), 291- 310.
Sinha P N ve Jackson B (2006) A Burkean Inquiry into Leader–Follower Identification Motives, Culture and Organization, 12 (3), 233–247.
Walzer M (1967) On the Role of Symbolism in the Political Thought, Political Science Quarterly, 82 (2), 191-204.
Watson K A (1973) A Rhetorical and Sociolinguistic Model for the Analysis of Narrative, American Anthropologist, New Series, 75 (1), 243-264.
Weber M (1980) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen.
Wiswede G (1991) Soziologie. Ein Lehrbuch für den wirtschafts- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Bereich, Verlag Moderne Industrie, Landsberg/Lech.
Zelizer B (2004) Taking Journalism Seriously: News and the Academy, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA