SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2015 / Sayı: 2

Preschoolers' Use of Requests

Okul Öncesi Çocuklar(n Rica Kullanımı

Emel UÇAR
ÖZDEN AKYOL BAL
Pages
25–43
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results show that 1) children use head acts most frequently in their requests, 2) children mainly use direct requests, 3) children prefer to use the speaker oriented perspective more than the other request perspectives.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Request situations are of great value to observe multiple variables such as power, distance and imposition of the request on the hearer to get the desired object or action.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study investigates requests of Turkish monolingual preschoolers in terms of Blum-Kulka and Olshtain's (1984) categories.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results show that 1) children use head acts most frequently in their requests, 2) children mainly use direct requests, 3) children prefer to use the speaker oriented perspective more than the other request perspectives.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Request situations are of great value to observe multiple variables such as power, distance and imposition of the request on the hearer to get the desired object or action. This study investigates requests of Turkish monolingual preschoolers in terms of Blum-Kulka and Olshtain's (1984) categories. The aim is to find out the structures of head act and adjunct(s), the directness level of the strategy types and perspectives of the speakers (hearer oriented, speaker oriented, hearer and speaker oriented, and impersonal) used in requests. Data was gathered from 24 Turkish speaking children aged between 4;5 and 5;6, 13 of whom were girls and 11 were boys. To collect data, four situations were created considering power and level of imposition of the requests, namely Low Power-Low Imposition, Low Power-High Imposition, High Power-Low Imposition, and High Power-High Imposition. The results show that 1) children use head acts most frequently in their requests, 2) children mainly use direct requests, 3) children prefer to use the speaker oriented perspective more than the other request perspectives. A nonverbal category is added to Blum-Kulka and Olshtain's (1984) original request categories, which is observed to be peculiar to children. The results are interpreted cautiously since they display varieties for each situation due to the nature of the activities used to collect data.

Özet

Rica durumlar[ güç, yak[nl[k, istenen nesnenin veya i in dinleyiciye getirece i olas[ yük gibi çe itli de i kenleri gözlemlemek aç[s[ndan önemlidir. Bu çal[ ma, Blum-Kulka ve Olshtain'[n (1984) gruplar[na göre anadili Türkçe olan tek dilli anaokulu çocuklar[n[n rica yap[lar[n[ incelemi ; ricalardaki ana eylem ve eklem yap[lar[, strateji türlerinin aç[kl[k dereceleri ve konu mac[lar[n yakla [mlar[n[ (konu an odakl[, dinleyici odakl[, konu an ve dinleyici odakl[ ve ki isiz yakla [m) ortaya ç[karmay[ amaçlam[ t[r. Veri, ya lar[ 4;5 ile 5;6 aras[nda de i en 13 k[z, 11 erkek toplam 24 Türkçe konu an çocuktan toplanm[ t[r. Veri toplamak için güç ve de er ili kisi dü ünülerek dört durum olu turulmu tur. Bunlar, Dü ük Güç-Dü ük De er, Dü ük Güç-Yüksek De er, Yüksek Güç-Dü ük De er ve Yüksek GüçYüksek De er'dir. Sonuçlar 1) çocuklar[n ana eylem kullan[mlar[n[n çok s[k oldu unu, 2) birçok durumda çocuklar[n dolays[z rica yap[lar[n[ kulland[klar[n[, 3) çocuklar[n konu an odakl[ yakla [m[ di erlerinden daha çok kulland[klar[n[ göstermi tir. Blum-Kulka ve Olshtain'[n (1984) gruplar[na ek olarak, çocuklara özgü oldu u gözlemlenen 'sözsüz ileti im' grubu eklenmi tir. Bununla birlikte, etkinliklerin do as[ndan kaynaklanan çe itlilikler sonuçlar[n yorumlanmas[nda etkili olmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

UÇAR, E., BAL, Ö. A. (2015). Preschoolers' Use of Requests. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı: 2, 25–43. https://ajindex.com/articles/151855

References (14)

  1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. University Press,
  2. Oxford. Bahtiyar, S. and Küntay, A. C. (2009). Integration of communicative partner's visual perspective in patterns of referential requests. Journal of Child Language, 36(3), 529-555.
  3. Bayraktarolu, A. (2000). "Topic and sequence in a Turkish natural conversation". In Ç. Bal[m and C. Imber (Eds.), Essays in Honor of Professor Geoffrey Lewis (pp.57- 76). Istanbul: ISIS. Blum-Kulka, S. and Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: a cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5 (3), 196-213.
  4. Brown, P. and Levinson, C. L. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Camras, L. A., Pristo, T. M. and Brown, M. J. K. (1985). Directive Choice by Children and Adults: Affect, Situation and Linguistic Politeness. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 31, 19-31.
  6. Clark, E. V. (2003). First Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Dogancay-Aktuna, S., and Kamisli, S. (1996). Discourse of Power and Politeness: Through the Act of Disagreement. Paper presented at the Annual International Linguistics Conference, (August 5-8,
  8. Ankara, Turkey). Ervin-Tripp, S. (1977). Wait for me roller skate! In S. Ervin-Tripp and C. MitchellKernan (Eds.), Child discourse (pp. 165-188). New York: Academic Press.
  9. Fukushima, S. (1996). Request strategies in British English and Japanese. Language Sciences, 18 (3-4), 671-688.
  10. Gleason, J. B., Perlman, R. speaker. and Blank, E. (1984). What's the magic word: Learning language through politeness routines. Discourse Processes, 7, 493-502.
  11. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, N. speaker. Anchor Books. House, J. and Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 157-186).
  12. Mouton, The Hague. Huls, E. (1989). Directness, explicitness and orientation in Turkish family interaction. In K. Deprez (Ed.), Language and intergroup relations in Flanders and in the Netherlands. (pp. 145-164)
  13. Foris, Dordrecht. Marti, L. (2006). Indirectness and politeness in Turkish-German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1836-1869.
  14. McTear, M. (1985). Children's Conversations. New York: Basil Blackwell. Newcombe, N. and M. Zaslow (1981). "Do 21/2-Year-Olds Hint? A Study of Directive Forms in the Speech Of 21/2-Year-Old Children to Adults", Discourse Processes 4, 239-