SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 1

Politeness in Young (Between 4.3 - 5.7) Children's Speech in Turkish

Türk Çocukların (4.3 – 5.7) Konuşmalarındaki Nezaket İfadeleri

Gamze ALMACIOĞLU
Pages
1–24
Publication Date
2020-01-15
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)

Indeed, the results are used to express the link between children's acquisition of pragmatic competence and crucial social, cultural and educational implications.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Having the knowledge of a language is not limited to acquire the phonology, morphology and syntax of that language.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It means that language acquisition does not only include linguistic competence, at the same time, it includes pragmatic competence (Ya-ting, 2008).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Indeed, the results are used to express the link between children's acquisition of pragmatic competence and crucial social, cultural and educational implications.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:edimbilim · çocukdili · dilbilimselkibarlık

Abstract

Having the knowledge of a language is not limited to acquire the phonology, morphology and syntax of that language. Being a competent language user, children must acquire how to use the grammars of a language to communicate appropriately in a great variety of communicative situations. It means that language acquisition does not only include linguistic competence, at the same time, it includes pragmatic competence (Ya-ting, 2008). Thus pragmatic competence has an important place in the children’s language acquisition process. This paper is related to children’s pragmatic development which brings together linguistic pragmatics and child development. Turkish children’s language in play was analysed and the results were presented, focusing on the use of politeness phenomena. The results of the study are compared with the previous ones made in different languages. By contrast with the results of these studies, the present study found no significant differences in boys’ and girls’ use of mitigation. The girls and the boys often used an assertive, unmitigated style at the same level in their play, however, in other studies; girls appear to be politer than boys when they play. This article re-emphasized the need for language and gender research on children to be thoroughly contextualized and the importance of considering the socio-cultural context in research on children’s language. Indeed, the results are used to express the link between children's acquisition of pragmatic competence and crucial social, cultural and educational implications.

Özet

Bir dilin bilgisine sahip olmak, o dilin ses-bilgisi, biçim-bilgisi ve sözdizimini edinmekle sınırlı değildir. Yetkin bir dil kullanıcısı olan çocuklar, bir dilin gramerini, çok çeşitli iletişimsel durumlarda, uygun şekilde iletişim kurmak için nasıl kullanacaklarını öğrenmelidirler. Bu, dil ediniminin yalnızca dilsel yeterliliği içermemesi, aynı zamanda pragmatik yeterliliği de içermesi anlamına gelir (Ya-ting, 2008). Dolayısıyla pragmatik yetkinlik, çocukların dil edinim sürecinde önemli bir yere sahiptir. Bu makale, “dilbilimsel pragmatik” ile “çocuk gelişimi”ni birlikte içeren “çocukların dil bilgisel pragmatik gelişimi” ile ilgilidir. Mevcut çalışmada, sonuçlar, Türk çocukların oyun esnasında kullandıkları dil analiz edilerek ve nezaket olgularının kullanımı göz önünde bulundurularak sunuldu. Çalışmanın sonuçları, daha önce farklı dillerde yapılmış olan çalışmalarla da karşılaştırıldı. Bu çalışmaların sonuçlarının aksine, mevcut çalışmada, erkek ve kız çocuklarının yumuşatma (mitigation) kullanımlarında anlamlı bir farklılık bulunamadı. Diğer çalışmalarda, genellikle, oyun esnasında kızlar erkeklerden daha kibarken bu çalışmada, kızlar ve erkekler aynı seviyelerde iddialı ve sert bir stil kullandılar. Bu makale, çocuklar üzerine yapılan dil ve cinsiyet araştırmalarının kapsamlı bir şekilde bağlamsallaştırılmasının gerekliliğini ve çocuk-dili araştırmalarında sosyo-kültürel yapıyı göz önüne almanın önemini yeniden vurgulamaktadır. Nitekim, sonuçlar, çocukların pragmatik yeterlilik kazanımı ile önemli sosyal, kültürel ve eğitimsel etkiler arasındaki bağı ifade etmek için kullanılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALMACIOĞLU, G. (2020). Politeness in Young (Between 4.3 - 5.7) Children's Speech in Turkish. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 1, 1–24. https://ajindex.com/articles/828294

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Andersen, G. (1990). Focused attention in three dimensional spaces. Perception and Psychology, 47, 112-120.
  2. Austin, A.M.B., Salehi, M. & Leffler, A. (1987). Gender and Developmental Differences in Children’s Conversations. Sex Roles, 16, 497-510.
  3. Bates, E. (1976). Language and Contexts: The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
  4. Bates, E. & Silvern, L. (1977). Social adjustment and politeness in pre-schoolers. Journal of Communication, 27, 104-111.
  5. Ben-Ari, E. (1997). Body Projects in Japanese Childcare: Culture, Organization and Emotions in a Preschool. Curzon. Bergvall, V. L., Bing, J. M., Freed & Alice F. (1996). Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice. London: Longman. Berman, R. & Slobin, D. (Eds.). (1994). Relative Events in Narrative: A Cross-linguistic Developmental Study. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Blum-Kulka, S. & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (2002). Talking to adults: The contribution of multiparty discourse to language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 355. Bock, J. K. & Hornsby, M. E. (1977). How children ask and tell: a speech act analysis of children’s requests. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 13, 72-82.
  6. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Burdelski, M. (2010). Socializing politeness routines: Action, other-orientation, and embodiment in a Japanese preschool. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1606–1621. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.007. Cahill, S. (1986). Language practices and self-definition: the case of gender identity acquisition. The Sociological Quarterly, 27 (3), 295- 311. Clancy, Patricia M. (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In Schieffelin, B.B., Ochs, E. (Eds.), Language Socialization across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 213–250.
  8. Cook, Haruko M. (1997). The role of the masu form in caregiver–child conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 695–718.
  9. Cook-Gumperz, J., Szymanski, M. (2001). Classroom ‘‘families’’: cooperating or competing—girls’ and boys’ interactional styles in a bilingual classroom. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34 (1), 107–130.
  10. Corsaro, William A. (1997). The Sociology of Childhood. Pine Forge, Thousand Oaks, CA. DeHart, G. B. (1996). Gender and mitigation in 4-year-olds’ pretend play talk with siblings. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29 (1), 81-96.
  11. Dimitracopoulou, I. (1990). Conversational Competence and