Dissertation
BibTex RIS Cite

Halkla İlişkiler Faaliyetlerinde Kullanılan Dil: T.C. Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı Örneği

Year 2018, Volume: 5 Issue: 4, 713 - 732, 30.07.2018

Ayşe Gül Soncu Mustafa Cankut Kurt

https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.420509

Abstract

Bu çalışmada halkla ilişkiler faaliyetlerinde kullanılan dilin özellikleri ve unsurlarının
ortaya konulması, bu dilin çeşitli yaklaşımlar açısından incelenmesi ve bu doğrultuda
halkla ilişkiler faaliyetlerde kullanılan dilin genel karakteristiğinin tespit edilmesi
amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmanın amacına ulaşabilmesi ve sorulara cevap verilebilmesi
için halkla ilişkiler faaliyetlerinde kullanılan dil; retorik, söylem ve argümantasyon
kuramı yaklaşımları bağlamında ele alınmıştır. Araştırma bölümünde ise literatür
ışığında halkla ilişkilerde dil kullanımının incelenmesi için örnek olarak seçilen
T.C. Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı’na ait farklı halkla ilişkiler metninin analizi
yapılmıştır.

Keywords

Halkla İlişkiler Dil Retorik Söylem Argümantasyon

References

  • Anık, C. (2010). Logos Olarak İletişimi Tartışmak. İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi, 30, VII-XXIII.
  • Aristoteles (2015). Retorik. Çev. Mehmet H. Doğan Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  • Brockriede W. ve Ehninger D. (1960) Toulmin on argument: An interpretation and application, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 46:1, 44-53, DOI:10.1080/00335636009382390
  • Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Conrad, C., ve Lair, D. J. (2004). Corporate rhetoric as organizational discourse. The Sage handbook of organizational discourse, 79-103.
  • Haase, F. A. (2009). Towards a theory for professional communications. Discourse and communication elements in contemporary marketing and PR strategies. Punto Cero, 14, 75-89.)
  • Heath, R. L. (2001). Handbook of public relations. Sage.
  • Heath, R. L. (2009). The rhetorical tradition: Wrange in the Marketplace Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II, 17-47.
  • Heath, R. L. ve Frandsen, F. (2008). Rhetorical perspective and public relations: Meaning matters. Public relations research, 349-364.
  • Heller M. (2016) Foucault, Discourse, and the Birth of British Public Relations. Enterprise & Society, 17(03), 651-677).
  • Hill, J. W. (1958). Corporate public relations: Arm of modern management. New York: Harper& Brothers Publishers.
  • http://www.aile.gov.tr/basin-aciklamalari/20062016 Erişim Tarihi: 11.04.2017.
  • http://www.koruyucuaile.gov.tr/data/561cf9d9369dc58a0067a3bf/ Koruyucuailenedirbro%C5%9Fur_uzun.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 12.04.2017.
  • Karbach, J. (1987). Using Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation. Journal of Teaching Writing, 6(1), 81-91.
  • Kneupper, C. W. (1978). Teaching argument: An introduction to the Toulmin model. College Composition and Communication, 29(3), 237-241.
  • L’Etang, J. (2008). Public relations, persuasion and propaganda: Truth, knowledge, spirituality and mystique. Public Relations Research, 251-269.
  • L’Etang, J.ve Pieczka, M. (1996). Critical perspectives in public relations. London: International Thomson Business Press
  • Locker, K. O. ve Keene, M. L. (1983). Using Toulmin logic in business and technical writing classes. Technical and business communication in two-year programs, 103-110.
  • Mackey, (2013). A sophistic rhetorical approach to public relations. PRism, 10(1), 1-14.
  • Peter G. ve Wilson C. R. (2013) The Toulmin Model of Argumetation http://www. navigatingaccounting.com/exercise/exercises-critical-thinking-usingtoulmin-model Erişim Tarihi: 17.01.2017
  • Pieczka, M. (2006). Paradigms, System Theory and Public Relations. Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice, 333.
  • Ramage, J. ve Bean, J. (1998). Writing arguments (4th edition). MA: Allyn & Bacon. Skerlep, Andrej (2002),”Re-evaluating the role of rhetoric in public relations theory and in strategies of corporate discourse”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 6 Iss 2 pp. 176 - 187).
  • Toth, E. L. (2009). The case for pluralistic studies of public relations: Rhetorical, critical, and systems perspectives. Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II, 48-60
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1989). Structures of discourse and structures of power. Annals of the International Communication Association, 12(1), 18-59.
  • Waterfield, R. (2000). The first philosophers: the presocratics and sophists. Oxford Paperbacks.
  • Weaver, C. K., Motion, J., & Roper, J. (2006). From propaganda to discourse (and back again): Truth, power, the public interest and public relations. Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice, 7-21.

The Use of Language in Public Relations Activities: The Example pf T.C. Ministry of Family and Social Policies

Year 2018, Volume: 5 Issue: 4, 713 - 732, 30.07.2018

Ayşe Gül Soncu Mustafa Cankut Kurt

https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.420509

Abstract

In this study, the features, elements and the various approaches to the language in
public relations activities are examined. In this direction, it is aimed to identify the
general characteristics of the use of language in public relation. For this purpose
and the answering research questions; use of language in public relations activities
investigated in the aspect of rhetoric, semiotics, discourse and the argumentation
theory. And in the research different public relations text of T.C. Ministry of Family
And Social Policies analyzed for determining the Ministry’s use of language in public
relations activities.

Keywords

Public Relations Language Rhetoric Discourse Argumentation

References

  • Anık, C. (2010). Logos Olarak İletişimi Tartışmak. İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi, 30, VII-XXIII.
  • Aristoteles (2015). Retorik. Çev. Mehmet H. Doğan Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  • Brockriede W. ve Ehninger D. (1960) Toulmin on argument: An interpretation and application, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 46:1, 44-53, DOI:10.1080/00335636009382390
  • Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Conrad, C., ve Lair, D. J. (2004). Corporate rhetoric as organizational discourse. The Sage handbook of organizational discourse, 79-103.
  • Haase, F. A. (2009). Towards a theory for professional communications. Discourse and communication elements in contemporary marketing and PR strategies. Punto Cero, 14, 75-89.)
  • Heath, R. L. (2001). Handbook of public relations. Sage.
  • Heath, R. L. (2009). The rhetorical tradition: Wrange in the Marketplace Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II, 17-47.
  • Heath, R. L. ve Frandsen, F. (2008). Rhetorical perspective and public relations: Meaning matters. Public relations research, 349-364.
  • Heller M. (2016) Foucault, Discourse, and the Birth of British Public Relations. Enterprise & Society, 17(03), 651-677).
  • Hill, J. W. (1958). Corporate public relations: Arm of modern management. New York: Harper& Brothers Publishers.
  • http://www.aile.gov.tr/basin-aciklamalari/20062016 Erişim Tarihi: 11.04.2017.
  • http://www.koruyucuaile.gov.tr/data/561cf9d9369dc58a0067a3bf/ Koruyucuailenedirbro%C5%9Fur_uzun.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 12.04.2017.
  • Karbach, J. (1987). Using Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation. Journal of Teaching Writing, 6(1), 81-91.
  • Kneupper, C. W. (1978). Teaching argument: An introduction to the Toulmin model. College Composition and Communication, 29(3), 237-241.
  • L’Etang, J. (2008). Public relations, persuasion and propaganda: Truth, knowledge, spirituality and mystique. Public Relations Research, 251-269.
  • L’Etang, J.ve Pieczka, M. (1996). Critical perspectives in public relations. London: International Thomson Business Press
  • Locker, K. O. ve Keene, M. L. (1983). Using Toulmin logic in business and technical writing classes. Technical and business communication in two-year programs, 103-110.
  • Mackey, (2013). A sophistic rhetorical approach to public relations. PRism, 10(1), 1-14.
  • Peter G. ve Wilson C. R. (2013) The Toulmin Model of Argumetation http://www. navigatingaccounting.com/exercise/exercises-critical-thinking-usingtoulmin-model Erişim Tarihi: 17.01.2017
  • Pieczka, M. (2006). Paradigms, System Theory and Public Relations. Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice, 333.
  • Ramage, J. ve Bean, J. (1998). Writing arguments (4th edition). MA: Allyn & Bacon. Skerlep, Andrej (2002),”Re-evaluating the role of rhetoric in public relations theory and in strategies of corporate discourse”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 6 Iss 2 pp. 176 - 187).
  • Toth, E. L. (2009). The case for pluralistic studies of public relations: Rhetorical, critical, and systems perspectives. Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II, 48-60
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1989). Structures of discourse and structures of power. Annals of the International Communication Association, 12(1), 18-59.
  • Waterfield, R. (2000). The first philosophers: the presocratics and sophists. Oxford Paperbacks.
  • Weaver, C. K., Motion, J., & Roper, J. (2006). From propaganda to discourse (and back again): Truth, power, the public interest and public relations. Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice, 7-21.
There are 25 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Thesis Abstracts
Authors

Ayşe Gül Soncu

Mustafa Cankut Kurt 0000-0002-5542-9934

Publication Date July 30, 2018
Submission Date May 2, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2018 Volume: 5 Issue: 4

Cite

APA Soncu, A. G., & Kurt, M. C. (2018). Halkla İlişkiler Faaliyetlerinde Kullanılan Dil: T.C. Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı Örneği. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 5(4), 713-732. https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.420509
 Download Cover Image
Creative Commons Lisansı  Bu dergi Creative Commons Alıntı-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.