Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.17064/iuifd.364939   IUP :10.17064/iuifd.364939    Tam Metin (PDF)

Türkiye’ye Özgü Kültürel Sembollerin Emojilere Dönüşümü: Dijital İletişimde Kültürel Sembollere Yönelik Bir Araştırma

Gülcan ŞenerGünay Motif Atar

Dijitalleşen iletişim ve hız çağında uzun uzun mesaj yazmak istemeyen, hatta okumaya bile üşenen, kısa ve öz olanı tercih eden günümüz insanı, sembollere yönelmiştir. Günümüz iletişim değil etkileşim çağıdır ve bu çağın dijital düşünen ve dijital konuşan bireylerinin duygu ve düşüncelerini ifade ettikleri yepyeni ortak bir dilleri olan emojiler vardır. Türkiye’de her beş kişiden dördünün iletişimlerinde emojiyi kullandığı düşünüldüğünde, Türkiye’ye özgü değerleri yansıtan semboller, emoji klavyesinde neden olmasın sorusu akla gelmektedir (“Türk insanı hangi emojileri kullanıyor?”, 2015). Kültürel semboller emoji dünyasında karşılığını bulamamaktadır. Türkiye’ye ait hangi kültürel simgelerin ‘emojileştirilmesinin’ istendiği sorunsalı çerçevesinde Türkiye’nin kültürel etkileşim sembollerini ortaya koymak amaçlanmıştır. Amaca dayalı örnekleme yöntemi ve 1001 katılımcı ile gerçekleştirilen çalışmada genel tarama modeli yaklaşımıyla, nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden anket ile veri toplanmıştır. Katılımcıların büyük bir çoğunluğu (%91,8’i) emoji klavyesinde yerel semboller görmenin hoşlarına gideceğini ifade etmiştir. Emoji klavyesinde en çok görmek istenilen ülkemize özgü kültürel semboller çay bardağı (%68,5), rakı (%58,8), Türk kahvesi fincanı/kahve falı (%55,9), nazar boncuğu (%51,3) ve simit (%45,9)’tir. Türkiye’de bu konuyla ilgili yapılmış bir çalışmaya rastlanmadığından, ülke özelliklerini bu özgün sembollerle global pazara sunması ülke tanıtımı ve markalaşma açısından oldukça değerlidir. 

DOI :10.17064/iuifd.364939   IUP :10.17064/iuifd.364939    Tam Metin (PDF)

The Transformation of Unique Turkish Cultural Symbols into Emoji: A Study of Cultural Symbols in Digital Communications

Gülcan ŞenerGünay Motif Atar

In this digitized age of speed and communication, the modern individual prefers short and concise messages, refrains from long messages, and even balks at the thought of reading lengthy texts. Our attention is now directed toward the use of symbols as shortcuts for text. Today we are experiencing the age of interaction rather than of communication, and the individuals of this age who think and talk digitally have a completely new common language in which to express themselves: emoji.In Turkey, four out of five people now use emoji in their communication (“Türk insanı hangi emojileri kullanıyor?”, 2015). Taking this into consideration, one may question the lack of symbols which accurately reflect Turkish values on emoji keyboards. Cultural symbols are rarely portrayed in the world of emoji. The goal of this study is to assess the demand for “emojification” of Turkish cultural symbols and determine the appropriate symbols to use in cultural interaction in Turkey. The data was gathered from a sample of 1001 participants through quantitative questionnaires, and was analyzed using a general scanning model. The majority of participants (91.8%) stated they 

would like localized symbols to be included on Turkish emoji keyboards. The most requested localized cultural symbols for Turkey were tea glasses (68.5%), raki (58.8%), Turkish coffee glasses/coffee-fortune-telling (55.9%), the evil eye talisman (51.3%), and simit (45.9%). As no previous research on this subject was found in Turkey, this study may prove valuable in allowing these symbols to represent national Turkish qualities to the global market and may also be important in the field of national representation and branding. 



GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


In this digitized age of speed and communication, the modern individual prefers short and concise messages, refrains from long messages, and even balks at the thought of reading lengthy texts. Our attention is now directed toward the use of symbols as shortcuts for text. Today we are experiencing the age of interaction rather than of communication, and the individuals of this age who think and talk digitally have a completely new common language in which to express themselves: emoji.

Emoji have become an essential part of our daily lives as a way of symbolizing emotions in our communication. These symbols, some of which are regarded as part of a global language, vary across countries in terms of meaning, use, and frequency. This is because the meanings conveyed by symbols reflect the shared values of an individual’s society; the meaning of the same emoji in one society may not be the same as it is in another (İnceoğlu, 2011).

The Theory of Interaction describes a ‘sociology of symbols’. Symbols make it possible for individuals to communicate, understand, and interact with each other in a society. The emergence of a variety of images during this period may result in an increase in the number of symbols. Because cultural identity is an essential element of both individuals and society, it is impossible to consider them independently of each other. Symbols and the meanings generated from them provide a continuity of interaction. “The most significant feature of the theory of symbolic interaction is assisting individuals in expressing themselves within their social environment” (Solomon, 1983, p. 320). Given the fact that a human has the ability to interact socially from the moment of birth, and that the most crucial problem of this digital age and the culture it generates is to create swifter interaction using symbols, we can surely predict that emoji will become even more commonplace. The potential of emoji to create a global language, along with their unlimited accessibility and popularity, make further academic discussions worthwhile.

Emoji are increasingly becoming a global language in daily digital communications. By reminding others of their existence using their own unique emoji, countries are beginning to make a distinctive contribution to digital communication. In fact, a set of country-themed emoji specific to Finland has been created and published with the support of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Finland now has 30 identity-specific images to use in digital communication. These include a couple relaxing in a sauna, an iconic Nokia cellphone, and a passionate heavy metal music fan (Uygun, 2015). 

In Turkey, four out of five people now use emoji in their communication (“Türk insanı hangi emojileri kullanıyor?”, 2015). Taking this into consideration, one may question the lack of symbols which accurately reflect Turkish values on emoji keyboards. Cultural symbols are rarely portrayed in the world of emoji. The goal of this study is to assess the demand for “emojification” of Turkish cultural symbols and determine the appropriate symbols to use in cultural interaction in Turkey. The data was gathered from a sample of 1001 participants through quantitative questionnaires, and was analyzed using a general scanning model. The majority of participants (91.8%) stated they would like localized symbols to be included on Turkish emoji keyboards. The most requested localized cultural symbols for Turkey were tea glasses (68.5%), raki (58.8%), Turkish coffee glasses/coffee-fortune-telling (55.9%), the evil eye talisman (51.3%), and simit (45.9%). As no previous research on this subject was found in Turkey, this study may prove valuable in allowing these symbols to represent national Turkish qualities to the global market and may also be important in the field of national representation and branding. People who are aware of emoji and frequently use them in daily texting or messaging were included in the sampling, and researchers made contact with 1001 participants via their Facebook networks, so they were able to contact a network of networks.

Gender distribution among the participants was 64.5% (646) females and 35.5% (355) males. The participants’ education levels showed that a clear majority of the participants was made up of undergraduates/graduates (58.1%) and postgraduates (37.5%). Students/graduates of secondary/high school (4.1%) and of primary school (0.3%) were among the minority. 

The cities with the highest rates of participation in emoji use are İstanbul (28.4%), Eskişehir (27.1%), Ankara (14.2%), İzmir (7.1%), Bursa (3.8%), and Antalya (2.6%). Participation by both national and international communities included 53 Turkish cities and 20 cities from other countries.

The distribution of participants by age group is as follows: the highest participation level (31.7%) was found among ages 25–31; next was 28.2% for ages 32–38; 14.3% for those aged 18–24, and finally 13.2% for ages 39–45. Participation in groups from ages 46–54 (8.7%), 55+ (3.8%) and under the age of 18 (0.2%) was significantly lower than the other age groups.

The majority of participants (91.8%) stated they would like local Turkish symbols to be included on emoji keyboards. The most requested localized cultural symbols for Turkey were tea glasses (68.5%), raki (58.8%), Turkish coffee glasses/coffeefortune-telling (55.9%), the evil eye talisman (51.3%), and simit (45.9%).

11.4% of participants indicated that their suggestions were not represented in the list by marking the ‘other’ choice. In the event that an ‘other’ answer was stated at least 5 times, it was included in the list. As a result, these additional 114 answers were added to the list, including: Bhosphorus Bridge (1.3%), Atatürk (1%), Maiden’s Tower (0.9%), Turkish delight (0.9%), prayer beads (0.8%), crests of sports clubs (0.6%) and Galata Tower (0.5%). Symbols mentioned fewer than 5 times were not included in the analysis.

It is unlikely that emoji can be created to represent everything in our culture. Global brands have the opportunity to instantly express themselves to other countries using emoji as a global language, and they can connect with the cultural spirits of other countries by taking a particular country’s local values into consideration, and therefore touch the feelings of its people. Because consumers react favorably to symbolic meaning more than functionality, this response meets both cultural and emotional needs.

It is impossible to think of a global brand that doesn’t successfully build a cultural interaction with the societies in which it does business. While cultural interchange arises from a number of local values and symbols in global markets, it also leads to a cultural convergence. It is obvious that a platform such as an emoji keyboard that addresses the global market and increases the number of characters available daily due to demand has been able to achieve growth owing to local symbols. Emoji use succeeds at converging cultures entertainingly and deliberately, and this simply reflects an extrapolation of our digital communication culture. “Globalization is a process that incorporates localities into its scope without destroying them” (Taylan & Arklan, 2008, p. 88). Since the emoji keyboard is on the way to transforming into another platform that can globalize local cultural symbols, its use provides an opportunity to create symbols of our own country in order to promote our Turkish values and symbols to other markets.

As no previous research on this subject was found in Turkish literature, this study may prove valuable in allowing these symbols to represent national Turkish qualities to the global market and may also be important in the field of national representation and branding.


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Akat, Ö. (2008). Uluslararası pazarlama karması ve yönetimi. (4th ed.). Bursa: Ekin Kitabevi. google scholar
  • Akdemir, A. M. (2004). Küreselleşme ve kültürel kimlik sorunu. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(1), 43-50. google scholar
  • Deneçli, C. (2013). Küresel markalar, yerellik ve kültürel göstergeler. The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication – TOJDAC, January, 3(1), 1-11. google scholar
  • Dijital çağın ortak dili emojiler. (2015, August 3). Digital Age. Retrieved from http://digitalage.com.tr/dijital-cagin-ortak-dili-emojiler/ Dua, T. (2015, April 15). The emojification of brand advertising. Digiday. Retrieved from http://digiday.com/brands/emojification-brand-advertising/ . google scholar
  • Elden, M., Ulukök, Ö., & Yeygel, S. (2005). Şimdi reklamlar. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
  • Güz, N., & Küçükerdoğan, R. (2005). Göstergeküreler, reklam ve “öteki” kavramı. Journal of İstanbul Kültür University, (1), 65-73. google scholar
  • Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. google scholar
  • İnceoğlu, M. (2011). Tutum algı iletişim. (6th ed.). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi. google scholar
  • Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. (19th ed.). Ankara: Nobel Yayınları. google scholar
  • Kendall, D. (2011), Sociology in our times: The essentials. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. google scholar
  • Kişi başına çay tüketimine göre ülkeler listesi. (2014). In Wikipedia. Retrived November, 20, 2016, from https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ki%C5%9Fi_ba%C5%9F%C4%B1na_%C3%A7ay_t%C3%BCketimine_g%C3%B6re_ %C3%BClkeler_listesi . google scholar
  • Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı (2015). Türk kahvesi kültürü ve geleneği. Retrieved from http://aregem.kulturturizm.gov.tr/TR,51000/turk-kahvesi-kulturu-ve-gelenegi.html. google scholar
  • Moir, A., & Jessel, D. (2002). Beyin ve cinsiyet: Erkeksi kadınlar-kadınsı erkekler. (T. Demirkan, Trans.). İstanbul: Pencere Yayınları. google scholar
  • Ocak, E. (2017). Görseller duygusal olarak harekete geçirmekte ya da mesajı iletmede çok daha başarılı. Digital Age, (August 2015), 65.Odabaşı, Y. (2006). Postmodern pazarlama. (2nd ed.). İstanbul: MediaCat Yayınları. google scholar
  • Odabaşı, Y. (2006). Postmodern pazarlama. (2nd ed). İstanbul: MediaCat Yayınları. google scholar
  • Odabaşı, Y., & Barış, G. (2013). Tüketici davranışı. (13th ed). İstanbul: MediaCat Yayınları. google scholar
  • Stark, L., & Crawford, K. (2015). The conservatism of emoji: Work, affect, and communication. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 205630511560485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2056305115604853 Solomon, M. R. (1983). The role of products as social stimuli: a symbolic ınteractionism perspective. The Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (3), 319-329. google scholar
  • Sutherland, M., & Sylvester, A. K. (2004). Reklam ve tüketici zihni (İ.B. Kalınyazgan, Trans.). İstanbul: MediaCat Yayınları. google scholar
  • Şahin, M. (2016). Onlar markaların yeni gözdesi. Marketing Türkiye (November), 146-150. google scholar
  • Talas, M., & Kaya, Y. (2007). Küreselleşmenin kültürel sonuçları. TÜBAR, XXII (Güz), 149-162. google scholar
  • Taylan, H. H., & Arklan, Ü. (2008). Medya ve kültür: kültürün medya aracılığıyla küreselleşmesi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10 (1), 85-96. Türk insanı hangi emojileri kullanıyor? (2015). Retrieved from https://www.fikrimuhim.com/Binary/Images/Upload/Report/DA_Emoji%20Arastirmasi.pdf Türklerin en çok kullandığı emoji’ler. (2015, August 5). Digital Age. Retrieved from http://digitalage.com.tr/turklerin-en-cok-kullandigi-emojiler/. google scholar
  • Uygun, O. (2015). Fark etmediğimiz ihtiyacımız. National Geographic, (December), 16. google scholar
  • Watkins, H. S., & Liu, R. (1996). Collectivism, individualism and in-group membership: implications for consumer complaining behaviors in multicultural contexts. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 8 (3–4), 69–87. google scholar
  • Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2006). Mass media research: An introduction. (8th ed.). Australia: Thomson/Wordsworth. google scholar
  • Yıldırım, M. (2015). Türkiye’de lovemark olmuş markalar emoji kullanımına ağırlık verebilirler. Digital Age, (August 2015), 68. google scholar
  • Yurdakul, N. B., Ker-Dinçer, M., & Köseoğlu, Ö. (2014). Küreselleşme sürecinde markaların pazarlama iletişimi stratejilerinin kilit noktası: yerel değerler (coca cola ve cola turka örneği üzerine bir değerlendirme). Retrieved from http://cim.anadolu.edu.tr/pdf/2004/1130847709.pdf . google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Şener, G., & Atar, G. (0001). Türkiye’ye Özgü Kültürel Sembollerin Emojilere Dönüşümü: Dijital İletişimde Kültürel Sembollere Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 0(53), 189-209. https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.364939


AMA

Şener G, Atar G. Türkiye’ye Özgü Kültürel Sembollerin Emojilere Dönüşümü: Dijital İletişimde Kültürel Sembollere Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences. 0001;0(53):189-209. https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.364939


ABNT

Şener, G.; Atar, G. Türkiye’ye Özgü Kültürel Sembollerin Emojilere Dönüşümü: Dijital İletişimde Kültürel Sembollere Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 53, p. 189-209, 0001.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Şener, Gülcan, and Günay Motif Atar. 0001. “Türkiye’ye Özgü Kültürel Sembollerin Emojilere Dönüşümü: Dijital İletişimde Kültürel Sembollere Yönelik Bir Araştırma.” Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences 0, no. 53: 189-209. https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.364939


Chicago: Humanities Style

Şener, Gülcan, and Günay Motif Atar. Türkiye’ye Özgü Kültürel Sembollerin Emojilere Dönüşümü: Dijital İletişimde Kültürel Sembollere Yönelik Bir Araştırma.” Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences 0, no. 53 (Dec. 2024): 189-209. https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.364939


Harvard: Australian Style

Şener, G & Atar, G 0001, 'Türkiye’ye Özgü Kültürel Sembollerin Emojilere Dönüşümü: Dijital İletişimde Kültürel Sembollere Yönelik Bir Araştırma', Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, vol. 0, no. 53, pp. 189-209, viewed 23 Dec. 2024, https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.364939


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Şener, G. and Atar, G. (0001) ‘Türkiye’ye Özgü Kültürel Sembollerin Emojilere Dönüşümü: Dijital İletişimde Kültürel Sembollere Yönelik Bir Araştırma’, Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 0(53), pp. 189-209. https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.364939 (23 Dec. 2024).


MLA

Şener, Gülcan, and Günay Motif Atar. Türkiye’ye Özgü Kültürel Sembollerin Emojilere Dönüşümü: Dijital İletişimde Kültürel Sembollere Yönelik Bir Araştırma.” Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, vol. 0, no. 53, 0001, pp. 189-209. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.364939


Vancouver

Şener G, Atar G. Türkiye’ye Özgü Kültürel Sembollerin Emojilere Dönüşümü: Dijital İletişimde Kültürel Sembollere Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences [Internet]. 23 Dec. 2024 [cited 23 Dec. 2024];0(53):189-209. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.364939 doi: 10.17064/iuifd.364939


ISNAD

Şener, Gülcan - Atar, Günay Motif. Türkiye’ye Özgü Kültürel Sembollerin Emojilere Dönüşümü: Dijital İletişimde Kültürel Sembollere Yönelik Bir Araştırma”. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences 0/53 (Dec. 2024): 189-209. https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.364939



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim18.01.2017
Kabul20.09.2017

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.