171
1.
One of the speakers speak the language of the others.
2. A language other than the native languages of the speakers is used to
communicate.
3. Speakers of different languages use their own native languages to
communicate.
Among these modes of communication, the last one will be examined
referring to the notion Receptive Multilingualism or Lingua Receptiva.
In the
analyzed data, mode of communication was expected to be Lingua Receptiva
(LaRa) among the native speakers of two closely-related languages, Turkish and
Azerbaijani. Negotiation of meaning in the production of language is the subject
of the present study. In order to create a natural environment for negotiation of
meaning, Taboo –a modified version of a guessing game- is selected and modified
in accordance with the scope of the study. Language game in the negotiation of
meaning can be used with respect to the language production and testing.
Although it is beyond the scope of this study, Speaker-Hearer roles were
encountered in terms of their strategy development in Lingua Receptiva
environment. In foreign language environment, this strategy development patterns
can be studied in the negotiation of meaning in interlocutor’s all linguistic
repertoire. Therefore, there is an obvious need for further studies focusing on the
strategy development of interlocutors in such constellations.
In correlation with the linguistic repertoire, Lingua Franca might be used as
a communicative strategy for negotiation of meaning. In the present study, even
though both Turkish and Azerbaijani interlocutors successfully communicated by
making use of their respective native languages, they made use English lexical
items (such as monster, yes, Christmas, OK, difference, etc.) as Lingua Franca. It
is apprehended that languages known by the interlocutors were activated along
with different modes of communication where negotiation of meaning is crucial.
172
Therefore, there is an obvious need for further studies focusing on the Lingua
Franca in such constellations.
As Romaniuk (2010) suggests, in the mode of Lingua Franca communication,
learners of foreign languages such as English can make use of the strategies of
hearer’s Lingua Receptiva (Rehbein et al., 2008) instead of ‘let-it-pass strategy’
(Zeevaert & Ten Thije, 2007) in cases of problematic understanding”. That is to
say, in Lingua Franca mode of communication, when a learner faces
communication breakdown, miscommunication causing non-understanding, s/he
might signal her/his mental condition so as to ask for clarification and further
negotiation.
Furthermore, Braunmuller’s (2006) idea of “learning by doing” is referred by
Beerkens (2010) in her research on receptive multilingualism in the Dutch-
German border area. The rationale behind this idea implies the fact that the more
people negotiate the meaning, the better they understand the message conveyed by
the speaker in the constellation. In second or foreign language teaching, as stated
previously, negotiation of meaning through communication plays a vital role as in
Lingua Receptiva constellation. Therefore, the concept of ‘learning by doing’
through communication can be applied in foreign language teaching.
5.3. Limitations of the Study
This study is a case study conducted with 6 students, 4 of whom are Turkish
native speakers while the rest are Azerbaijani native speakers. Azerbaijani
students were exposed to Turkish by means of Turkish TV series through satellite
channels while Turkish students had no or very limited contact with Azerbaijani
language. Therefore, receptive knowledge of the Turkish and Azerbaijani
participants may not be symmetrical.
The length of the data, video-recordings of the Turkish-Azerbaijani LaRa
communication analyzed in this study, is approximately two hours, which limits
the generalizing the results for the other Turkish-Azerbaijani LaRa constellations.
173
Interjections are analyzed in terms of their functions in Turkish-Azerbaijani
LaRa in this study. However, there are other linguistic and extralinguistic factors
which contribute to understanding in LaRa communication other than
interjections. Those factors are beyond the scope of this study.
174
REFERENCES
Akar, D. (1988). Some Syntactic Properties of Turkish Interjections. Studies on
Turkish Linguistics. Ankara: METU Yayınları, pp. 265-274.
Ameka, F. (1992). Interjections: the universal yet neglected part of speech.
Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 101-118.
Arat, R. R. (1953). Türk Şivelerinin Tasnifi. Türkiyat Mecmuası X, 59-138.
Ataş, U. & Akkuş, M. (2012). Creativity in a Multilingual Daily Talk: A Case of
Turkish-Iraqi Turkmen. Paper presented at 16th International Conference
on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 241)-
2012, Middle East Technical University,
Ankara, 18-21 September 2012. Ankara, Turkey.
Babur, E., Sağın-Şimşek, Ç. & Rehbein, J. (2007). İşlevsel Edimbilim
Yöntemiyle Dilsel Araçların İncelenmesi II: Ünlemler ve Dilin
Yönlendirme Alanı. In Ayhan Sezer et. al. (Eds.) Abstract at Abstract
Book of t e XXI. Ulusal Dilblim Kurultayı (pp. 109-110)-
2007, Mersin
University, Mersin, Turkey, 10-11 May 2007. Mersin: Mersin University.
Bahtina, D. & ten Thije, J. D. (in press). Receptive Multilingualism. In Carol A.
Chapelle (Ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. John Wiley and
Sons.
Balcı, T. (2003). Edat Bağlamında Sözcük Türlerine Yeni Bir Yaklaşım. Dil
Dergisi, 122, 7-16.
Banguoğlu, T. (1986). Türkçenin Grameri. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi
Barotchi, M. (2001). Lingua Franca. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Concise Encyclopedia
of Sociolinguistics (pp. 503-504) . Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Beerkens, R. (2010). Receptive Multilingualism as a Language Mode in Dutch-
German Border Area. Münster, New York: Waxmann.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |