Journals / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2020 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

Naturally occurring requests in Turkish: A case from an academic context

Pages
285–311
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Moreover, it could contribute to the efforts towards handling themethodological concerns in pragmatics research about the extent to which elicited data can represent whatpeople actually say in natural conversation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In terms of their directness and modification strategies, this study investigated how undergraduatespeakers of Turkish formulate their naturally occurring requests in an academic context, in which theyrequest things from an academic in his office.
📊
Key Findings & Data:After a 4-year data collection period, the researcher analyzed395 of the requests (hand-recorded as immediate field notes) made to him.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Moreover, it could contribute to the efforts towards handling themethodological concerns in pragmatics research about the extent to which elicited data can represent whatpeople actually say in natural conversation.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In terms of their directness and modification strategies, this study investigated how undergraduatespeakers of Turkish formulate their naturally occurring requests in an academic context, in which theyrequest things from an academic in his office. After a 4-year data collection period, the researcher analyzed395 of the requests (hand-recorded as immediate field notes) made to him. The findings on levels ofdirectness revealed that the strongest tendency is towards conventionally indirect strategies, while thefemale tendency towards them is even clearer. The dominance of conventional indirectness is in parallelalso with the degree of imposition of the requests. ‘Zero marking’ is what dominates the findings on internalmodification strategies, while some preferences, such as unfinished sentences, could suggest language orcontext-specific results. In light of these descriptive findings on a part of everyday language in academia,the study could in practical terms help learners and teachers of Turkish and Turkish learners/teachers ofEnglish or any other language as well. Moreover, it could contribute to the efforts towards handling themethodological concerns in pragmatics research about the extent to which elicited data can represent whatpeople actually say in natural conversation.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çetinavcı, U. R. (2022). Naturally occurring requests in Turkish: A case from an academic context. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 285–311. https://ajindex.com/articles/506986

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Aitchison, J. (1992). Linguistics. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Aksan, M., & Mersinli, Ü. (2015). Retrieving and analyzing requestive forms: Evidence from the Turkish National Corpus. In S. Ruhi & Y. Aksan (Eds.), Exploring (im)politeness in specialized and general corpora: converging methodologies and analytic procedures (pp. 169- 215). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Alemi, M., & Razzaghi, S. (2013). Politeness markers in English for business purposes textbook. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2(4), 109-123. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2012.191
  2. Aslan, S. (2005). Türkiye Türkçesinde sezdirmeye dayalı rica stratejileri. Modern Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1, 114-126.
  3. Bayyurt, Y., & Bayraktaroğlu, A. (2001). The use of pronouns and terms of address in Turkish service encounters. In A. Bayraktaroğlu & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Linguistic politeness across boundaries. The case of Greek and Turkish (pp. 209-240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.88.09bay
  4. Beck, J. (2015). So What? What it means when people leave the word “so” dangling at the end of a sentence. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/20 15. Beebe, L., & Cumming, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp.65-86). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bella, S. (2012). Pragmatic development in a foreign language: A study of Greek FL requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1917-1947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.014
  5. Billmyer, K., & Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 517-552. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.4.517
  6. Boyacı, A. (2011). Erasmus exchange students' comparative views on classroom management in Turkey and in their country (Anadolu University case). Education and Science, 36(159), 270- 282. Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5
  7. Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality and indirectness. In S. BlumKulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics. Requests and apologies (pp. 37-70).
  8. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, S., & O