You are here

İNCELİK KARŞITLIĞI VE AYŞE KULİN’İN “GENİŞ ZAMANLAR” ÖYKÜSÜNÜN EDİMBİLİMSEL İNCELENMESİ

PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF IMPOLITENESS STRATEGIES IN “VAST PRESENT” BY AYŞE KULİN

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Politeness and impoliteness strategies of Politeness Theory have been used in a wide range of discourse analyses including literature. Politeness Theory put forth by Brown and Levinson in 1987 has been discussed and developed by many other pragmatists. Jonathan Culpepper (1996) classifies impoliteness strategies under five headings: bald on record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, sarcasm or mock impoliteness and witholding impoliteness. In later classifications he adds the terms off-record impoliteness, situational impoliteness, conventional or semiconventional impolite expressions and implicated impoliteness. This paper aims to analyse the impolite utterances in the communication of the female protagonist in “Vast Present” by Ayşe Kulin in terms of Culpepper’s classifications. The results of the analysis indicate that the woman character uses more positive and off-record strategies than negative and on-record strategies, and the factors that lead her to impolite speech acts are not anger or rage but fear, lack of control on what is happening and helplessness.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Edimbilimsel incelik kuramın incelik ve incelik karşıtı stratejileri edebi eserleri de içine alan çok geniş bir yelpazeyi kapsayan söylem çözümlemelerinde kullanılmaktadır. Brown ve Levinson tarafından ortaya konulan incelik kuramı (1987), zaman içerisinde çok sayıda edimbilimci tarafından ele alınmış ve geliştirilmiştir. Jonathan Culpepper (1996), incelik karşıtı stratejileri beş gurupta toplamıştır: doğrudan yapılan incelik karşıtlığı, olumlu incelik karşıtlığı, olumsuz incelik karşıtlığı, alaycı incelik ve beklenen inceliği göstermemek. Culpepper daha sonraki sınıflandırmalarında dolaylı incelik karşıtlığı, durumsal incelik karşıtlığı, kalıplaşmış veya yarı kalıplaşmış incelik karşıtlığı ifadeler ve sezdirilen incelik karşıtlığı gibi terimleri kullanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, Culpepper’in incelik karşıtlığı stratejileri sınıflandırması doğrultusunda Ayşe Kulin’in Geniş Zamanlar öykü kitabında yer alan aynı başlıklı öyküsündeki ana kişi olan kadının iletişiminde yer alan incelik karşıtı sözceler incelenmiştir. Yapılan inceleme sonucu, kadın karakterin olumlu ve sezdirilenl incelik karşıtı stratejileri olumsuz ve doğrudan yapılan stratejilere oranla daha sıklıkta kullandığı ve incelik karşıtı söz eylemlere yönelmesinin nedeninin öfke ve kızgınlık değil, korku, olayları denetleyememe ve çaresizlik olduğu saptanmıştır.
416-430

REFERENCES

References: 

AUSTIN, J. Paddy M. (1990) “Politeness revisited—the dark side”,
Alan Bell and Janet Holmes (eds), New Zealand Ways of Speaking English,
Clevedon and Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, s. 277-293
BEEBE, L. M. (1995) “Polite Fictions: Instrumental Rudeness as
Pragmatic Competence”, Linguistics and Education of Language Teachers:
Ethnolinguistic, Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Aspects, Georgetown
University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown:
Georgetown University Press. 154-168
BOUSEFIELD, D (2007) “Beginnings, middles and ends: A biopsy of
the dynamics of impolite exchanges”, Journal of Pragmatics 39:2185-2216
BOUSEFIELD, D. (2008) Impoliteness in Interaction, Amsterdam/
Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins
BROWN, P. (1980). How and why are women more polite: Some
evidence from a Mayan community. In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, & N.
Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 111-136).
New York: Praeger
BROWN, P., Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in
Language Use. Cambridge: CUP
CULPEPPER, J., Bousefield, D., Wichmann, A. (2003) “Impoliteness
revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects”, Journal of
Pragmatics 35: 1545-1579
CULPEPPER, J. (1996) “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness”,
Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349-367
CULPEPPER, J. (1998) (Im)politness in Drama. In: Culpepper, J.,
Short, M., Verdonk, P. (eds.). Studying Drama: From Text to Context, London:
Routledge
CULPEPPER, J. (2005) Impoliteness and entertainment in the
television quiz show: The Weakest Link, Journal of Politeness Research:
Language, Behaviour, Culture 1: 35-72
CULPEPPER, J. (2009) Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence
www.lancs.ac.uk/socs/englang/jculpeppertalk .4.2.2010
HOLMES, J. (1995) Women, Men and Politeness, London: Longman
HOLMES, J., Marra, M., Schnurr, S. (2008:196) “Impoliteness and
ethnicity: Māori and Pākehā discourse in New Zealand workplaces”, Journal of
Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 4 (2): 193-219.
KIENPOINTNER, M. (1997) “Varieties of Rudeness: Types and
Functions of Impolite Utterances”, Functions of Language 4 (2). 251-287
KULİN, A. (2005) Geniş Zamanlar, İstanbul: Everest Yayınları
Celal Bayar Üniversitesi
430
LACHENICHT, L. (1980) “Aggravating language: a study of abusive
and insulting language”, International Journal of Human Communication 13
(4): 607-688.
LOCHER, M., Watts, R. (2005) “Politeness theory and relational
work”, Journal of Politeness Research 1, 9-33
LAKOFF, R. (1973) “Language and Woman’s Place”, Language in
Society,Volume 2, No.1: 45-80
LAKOFF, R. (1989) “The Limits of Politeness : Therapeutic and
courtroom discourse”, Multilingua 8 (2-3): 101-129
MILLS, S. (2005), Gender and Politeness, Cambridge University Press
MILLS, S. (2005a) “Gender and Impoliteness”, Journal of Politeness
Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, Volume 1 (2): 263-280
TANNEN, D. (1990) You Just Don’t Understand, New York:
Ballantine Books
TERKOURAFİ, M. (2008) “Towards a unified theory of politeness,
impoliteness, and rudeness”, Derek Bousfield and Miriam Locher (eds)
Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and
Practice, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, s. 45-74.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com