Various studies have been made on different aspects of the Turkish and Japanese languages, but comparative studies between the two languages are still limited. The aim of this study is to describe the politeness strategy of these two languages from a cultural perspective within the paradigm of cognitive linguistics. Both Turkish and Japanese are agglutinative languages, and speakers of both languages prefer the subjective construal. So, if the typology of a language might be related to its perception, the conceptualization of ‘polite’ and the perception of politeness in that language may be alike.
IkegamiY (1991) ‘Do-Language’ and Become-Language’: two contrasting types of linguistic representation. In IkegamiY (ed) The Empire of Signs: Semiotic Essays on Japanese Culture. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 285–326.
4.
IkegamiY (2006) “〈主観的把握〉とは何か”, 言語5: 20–27.
5.
IkegamiY (2007) 日本語と日本語論. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo.
6.
IkegamiY (2008) Subjective construal as a ‘Fashion of Speaking’ in Japanese. In Gómez GonzálezMAMackenzieJLGonzález ÁlvarezEM (eds) Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 227–250.
TekmenA (2005b) “Türkçe ve Japoncada ‘Saygı Dili’ Kavramı Üzerine”. In Türk Dil Kurumu (ed) V. Uluslararası Türk Dili Kurultayı Bildirileri, v. 2, Ankara: TDK, 2827–2836.
16.
TekmenA (2007) “待遇表現の分類再考察”, ヨーロッパ日本語教師会:Newsletter of the AJE11: 125–133.
17.
TekmenA (2009) “日本語とトルコ語の待遇表現の実態”. In アジア圏の社会言語学アジア的視座が切り拓く待遇言語行動研究の展望, 社会言語科学会十周年記念シンポジウム予稿集. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 311–314.
18.
TekmenA. (2012) “トルコ語と日本語における主観的な把握と丁寧さ”. In YoshimuraD (ed) チュルク諸語研究のスコープ.Hiroshima: Kisuisha, 41–59.
19.
ObanaY (2000) Understanding Japanese: A Handbook for Learners and Teachers. Tokyo: Kurosio.
20.
WhorfBL (1956) Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings, ed. by CarrollJohn B.Cambridge MA: Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
