A cross-linguistic functional-pragmatic analysis of interjections a thesis submitted to
Yüklə 10,54 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- 5.3. Limitations of the Study
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. Yüklə 10,54 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|