A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Address Forms in Turkish High School EFL Textbook Dialogues

Ahmet Can UYAR, (Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi, Yabancı Diller Yüksekokulu, Sivas, Türkiye)
Nalan KIZILTAN (Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Yabancı Diller Eğitimi Bölümü, Samsun, Türkiye)
Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi
4 1
Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 38 Sayı: 4 Sayfa Aralığı: 439 - 453 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.16986/HUJE.2023.506 İndeks Tarihi: 31-10-2023

A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Address Forms in Turkish High School EFL Textbook Dialogues

Öz:
This study investigated the address forms in high school EFL textbook dialogues with reference to the scales of sociopragmatic politeness. In total, 148 address forms were collected from 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grade EFL textbooks used in Türkiye. Utilizing the instrument developed, the collected data were quantitatively analyzed and cross tabulated. According to the results, the genders of the speakers, gender pairs, vertical distance, horizontal distance, and rights/obligations scales were found to be reflected in the address forms. On the other hand, the address forms were found to be statistically independent from the genders of the hearers and the cost/benefit scales. Based on the findings, the overall representation of the address forms was discussed, and several suggestions were made accordingly to enhance the functionality of the textbooks to reflect sociopragmatic components of addressing.
Anahtar Kelime: Address forms sociopragmatics pragmatic competence foreign language education textbooks

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Acton, E. K. (2011). On gender differences in the distribution of um and uh. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 17(2), 1-9.
  • Akdağ, E., Baydar Ertopçu, F., Uyanık Bektaş, K., Umur Özadalı, S., & Kaya, T. (2019). Silver lining 11 student’s Book. Ankara: MEB.
  • Aksoyalp, Y., & Toprak, T. E. (2015). Incorporating pragmatics in English language teaching: To what extent do EFL course books address speech acts? International Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature, 4(2), 125-133.
  • Antonova, Y. S., & Travina, I. I. (2014). Study of addressing (vocative) as linguistic pragmatic category (in the context of secondary school). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 154, 374-380.
  • Bababayli, I., & Kızıltan, N. (2020). A comparative sociopragmatic analysis of the dialogues in Turkish and Azerbaijani B1-B2 EFL textbooks. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(3), 1500-1522. Doi: 10.17263/jlls.803869
  • Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 7, pp. 21–39). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Division of English as an International Language.
  • Blitvich, P., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2021). Analysing identity. In M. Haugh, D. Kádár, & M. Terkourafi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics, pp. 293-314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108954105.017
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, R., & Ford, M. (1961). Address in American English. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 375–385. doi:10.1037/h0042862
  • Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 253-276). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
  • Bulut, E., Baydar Ertopçu, F., Umur Özadalı, S., & Şentürk, S. (2019). Teenwise 9 student’s book. Ankara: MEB.
  • Burt, S. M. (2015). ‘There’s not a lot of negotiation”: Address terms in an academic department. In M. Terkourafi (Ed.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on im/politeness (pp. 71-90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Chen, Y. (2010). Cultural differences in Chinese and American address forms. Asian Culture and History, 2(2), 82-85.
  • Çimen, F., Taşkıran Tiğin, B., Çokçalışkan, A., Özyıldırım, N., & Özdemir, M. (2019). Count me in 12 student’s book. Ankara: MEB.
  • Clyne, M., Norrby, C., & Warren, J. (2009). Language and human relations: Styles of address in contemporary language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.
  • Çubukçu, F., & Atay, S. (2017). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe ve İngilizce ders kitaplarının edimsel yeti gelişimi açısından karşılaştırılması / A comparison of Turkish and English textbooks as a foreign language in terms of pragmatic competence development. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1), 8-20.
  • Delahaie, J. (2015). Sociopragmatic competence in FFL language teaching: Towards a principled approach to teaching discourse markers in FFL. In K. Beeching and H. Woodfield (Eds.), Researching sociopragmatic variability (pp. 253-275). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Dunkling, L. (1990). A dictionary of epithets and terms of address. New York: Routledge.
  • Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2008). Internal and external mitigation in interlanguage request production: The case of Greek learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 111–38.
  • Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two learners’ requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 1-23.
  • Files, J. A., Mayer, A. P., Ko, M. G., Friedrich, P., Jenkins, M., Bryan, M. J., Vegunta, S., Wittich, C. M., Lyle, M. A., Melikian, R., Duston, T., Chang, Y. H., & Hayes, S. N. (2017). Speaker introductions at internal medicine grand rounds: Forms of address reveal gender bias. Journal of women's health (2002), 26(5), 413–419. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2016.6044
  • Formentelli, M. (2009). Address strategies in a British academic setting. Pragmatics, 19(2), 179-196.
  • Formentelli, M. (2018). Strategies of address in English lingua franca (ELF) academic interactions. Linguistics and Literature Studies 6(6), 298-306.
  • Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93-109. doi:10.1515/ijsl.1981.27.93
  • Gagne, C. (2018). Indirectness and entitlement in product requests in British service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 133, 1– 14. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.015
  • Genç Karataş, Ç. (2018). Ortaöğretim İngilizce 10 ders kitabı. Ankara: Gizem Yayıncılık.
  • Grant, N. (1987). Making the most of your textbook. London: Longman.
  • Gündüz, N. (2016). Sociopragmatic elements and possible failure in EFL teaching. Dil Dergisi, 167(1), 49-65.
  • Hendriks, B. (2008). Dutch English requests: A study of request performance by Dutch learners of English. In M. Pütz and J. Neff- van Aertselaer (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics: Intercultural and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 335-354). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Holmes, J. (2018). Sociolinguistics vs. pragmatics. In C. Ilie and N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Pragmatics and its interfaces (pp. 11-32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Jakupčević, E., & Ćavar Portolan, M. (2021). An analysis of pragmatic content in EFL textbooks for young learners in Croatia. Language Teaching Research, 00(0), 1-24.
  • Jones, M. A., Kitetu, C., & Sunderland, J. (1997). Discourse roles, gender and language textbook dialogues: Who learns what from
  • John and Sally? Gender and Education, 9(4), 469–490. doi:10.1080/09540259721204
  • Kiesling, S. F. (2004). “Dude.” American Speech, 79(3), 281-305.
  • Kramer, C. (1975). Sex-related differences in address systems. Anthropological Linguistics, 17(5), 198–210.
  • Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.
  • Leech, G. (1999). The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In H. Hasselgard and S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 107-120). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  • Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Leitner, M., & Jucker, A. (2021). Historical sociopragmatics. In M. Haugh, D. Kádár, and M. Terkourafi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics, pp. 687-709). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108954105.035
  • Limberg, H. (2015). Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 700– 718. doi:10.1177/1362168815590695
  • Lundell, F. F., & Erman, B. (2012). High level requests: A study of long residency L2 users of English and French and native speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 756–75.
  • Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In W. Bublitz and N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Foundations of pragmatics (pp. 77-106). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
  • Mendes de Oliveira, M. (2017). Sociopragmatic failure revisited: The case of intercultural communication between Brazilians and Americans. RBLA, Belo Horizonte, 17(2), 307-334.
  • Nu, T., Anh, T., & Murray, J. (2020). Pragmatic content in EFL textbooks: An investigation into Vietnamese national teaching materials. TESL-EJ, 24(3), 1-28.
  • Özcan, F. H. (2016). Choice of address terms in conversational setting. International Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 982- 1002. doi:10.14687/ijhs.v13i1.3489
  • Pham, T. M. T., & Yeh, A. (2020). Politeness of Vietnamese students in writing request email in English: A course-based and socio- pragmatic study. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 2(2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v2i2.202
  • Ren, W., & Han, Z. (2016). The representation of pragmatic knowledge in recent ELT textbooks. ELT Journal, 70(4), 424-434.
  • Rendle-Short, J. (2007). “Catherine, you’re wasting your time”: Address terms within the Australian political interview. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(9), 1503–1525. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.006
  • Rose, K. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 27–67.
  • Rose, K. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(11), 2345-2364.
  • Rubin, R. (1981). Ideal traits and terms of address for male and female college professors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 966–974.
  • Saleem, T., Anjum, U., & Tahir, S. (2021). The sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic strategies in L2 pragmatic competence: A case of Pakistani ESL learners. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 50(2), 185–206. doi:10.1080/17475759.2021.1877176
  • Spencer-Oatey, H. (2004). Rapport management: a framework for analysis. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 11-46). London: Continuum.
  • Takiff, H. A., Sanchez, D. T., & Stewart, T. L. (2001). What’s in a name? The status implications of students’ terms of address for male and female professors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 134-144.
  • Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow.
  • Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. New York: Routledge.
  • Tottie, G. (2011). Uh and um as sociolinguistic markers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16, 173– 197.
  • Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Ulum, Ö. G. (2015). Pragmatic elements in EFL course books. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Science, INOVED Special Issue, 93-106.
  • Van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Weber, R.P. (1990). Basic content analysis. London: Sage Publications.
  • Webster, J. (1988). Forms of address for correspondence and conversation. London: Templar Publishing.
  • Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (1991). Politeness and forms of address. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10(3), 145–168. doi:10.1177/0261927x91103001
  • Yang, X. (2010). Address forms of English: Rules and variations. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(5), 743-745.
APA Uyar A, KIZILTAN N (2023). A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Address Forms in Turkish High School EFL Textbook Dialogues. , 439 - 453. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.506
Chicago Uyar Ahmet Can,KIZILTAN Nalan A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Address Forms in Turkish High School EFL Textbook Dialogues. (2023): 439 - 453. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.506
MLA Uyar Ahmet Can,KIZILTAN Nalan A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Address Forms in Turkish High School EFL Textbook Dialogues. , 2023, ss.439 - 453. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.506
AMA Uyar A,KIZILTAN N A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Address Forms in Turkish High School EFL Textbook Dialogues. . 2023; 439 - 453. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.506
Vancouver Uyar A,KIZILTAN N A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Address Forms in Turkish High School EFL Textbook Dialogues. . 2023; 439 - 453. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.506
IEEE Uyar A,KIZILTAN N "A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Address Forms in Turkish High School EFL Textbook Dialogues." , ss.439 - 453, 2023. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.506
ISNAD Uyar, Ahmet Can - KIZILTAN, Nalan. "A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Address Forms in Turkish High School EFL Textbook Dialogues". (2023), 439-453. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2023.506
APA Uyar A, KIZILTAN N (2023). A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Address Forms in Turkish High School EFL Textbook Dialogues. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(4), 439 - 453. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.506
Chicago Uyar Ahmet Can,KIZILTAN Nalan A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Address Forms in Turkish High School EFL Textbook Dialogues. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 38, no.4 (2023): 439 - 453. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.506
MLA Uyar Ahmet Can,KIZILTAN Nalan A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Address Forms in Turkish High School EFL Textbook Dialogues. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.38, no.4, 2023, ss.439 - 453. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.506
AMA Uyar A,KIZILTAN N A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Address Forms in Turkish High School EFL Textbook Dialogues. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2023; 38(4): 439 - 453. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.506
Vancouver Uyar A,KIZILTAN N A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Address Forms in Turkish High School EFL Textbook Dialogues. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2023; 38(4): 439 - 453. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.506
IEEE Uyar A,KIZILTAN N "A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Address Forms in Turkish High School EFL Textbook Dialogues." Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38, ss.439 - 453, 2023. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.506
ISNAD Uyar, Ahmet Can - KIZILTAN, Nalan. "A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Address Forms in Turkish High School EFL Textbook Dialogues". Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 38/4 (2023), 439-453. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2023.506
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
24-04-2024 9:35

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları