The Teller/Receiver-Oriented Functions of Ondan Sonra As A Discourse Marker in Conversational Narratives

Öz

Discourse markers that are largely used in everyday talk carry out various functions in conversations. One of the conversational genres in which discourse markers are highly used is conversational narrative. Conversational narratives are the interactional productions of (the) teller(s) and listener(s), and also they are the textual reflections of the events that are experienced in past time and told in a sequence in the time of storytelling. In this stoytelling which comprises of a sequence of events, both tellers and listeners use discourse markers for different purposes. This study aims to demonstrate the functions of ondan sonra as a discourse marker in Turkish conversational narratives. To this end, this study grounds on Conversation Analysis (Jefferson, 1978; Sacks et al., 1974) and Narrative Analysis (Labov and Waletzky, 1967; Labov 1972, 1997). The analysis which is carried out in the interface of these two study fields focuses on the narrative, conversational and interpersonal functions of ondan sonra in conversational storytelling. The data of the study includes 100 single and 12 complex conversational narratives gathered from 11 recordings of natural conversations in family gatherings whose participants are native speakers of standard Turkish. The findings show that ondan sonra has various teller- and receiver-oriented functions in addition to the function of ‘continuity marker used in order to sequence the events’ as Özbek (1998a) suggested. The teller-oriented functions for narrative structure are sequencing the events in an temporal order, connecting the bound narratives to the first one, initiating the category of Complicating Action and initiating the category of Resolution. For conversational organisation, the teller-oriented functions are taking the turn and holding the floor, and for interpersonal interaction the only teller-oriented function is attracting the attention of the receivers to a specific point. In addition to them, the analysis shows that receivers use ondan sonra in order to initiate a turn and show their interest to the storytelling in conversational narratives. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Conversational narratives,discourse markers,ondan sonra

Bir Söylem Belirleyicisi Olarak Ondan Sonranın Etkileşimsel Anlatılardaki Anlatıcı ve Dinleyici Odaklı İşlevleri

Öz

Günlük konuşmalar içinde sıkça karşılaşılan söylem belirleyicileri (discourse markers) konuşma içinde çeşitli işlevsel roller yüklenirler. Söylem belirleyicilerinin yoğun bir şekilde kullanıldığı günlük konuşma birimlerinden biri de etkileşimsel anlatılardır. Etkileşimsel anlatılar, anlatıcı(lar) ve dinleyici(ler) tarafından gerçekleştirilen etkileşimsel üretimlerdir ve ayrıca geçmiş yaşantıda deneyimlenen olayların günlük konuşmalar esnasında sıralı olarak anlatılmaları ile ortaya çıkan metinsel yansımalarıdır. Bu olaysal sıra içindeki öyküleştirme süresince, gerek anlatıcı(lar) gerek dinleyici(ler) farklı amaçlar ile söylem belirleyicilerine başvurmaktadırlar. Bu çalışma bir söylem belirleyicisi olarak ondan sonranın konuşma içinde gerçekleşen etkileşimsel anlatılardaki işlevlerini göstermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu çerçevede, çalışma yöntembilimsel olarak Konuşma Çözümlemesi (Jefferson, 1978; Sacks ve diğ., 1974) ve Anlatı Çözümlemesi (Labov ve Waletzky, 1967; Labov, 1972, 1997) alanlarından katkı almakta ve bu iki alan arayüzünde yürütülen çözümleme ondan sonranın etkileşimsel öykülemelerdeki anlatı yapısı, konuşma düzeni ve kişilerarası etkileşim içindeki işlevleri üzerine odaklanmaktadır. Çalışmanın verisi, Türkçe anadili ve ölçünlü dil konuşucularının günlük aile içi konuşmalarından toplanmış 100 basit ve 12 karmaşık etkileşimsel anlatıyı kapsayan 11 farklı ses kayıdından oluşmaktadır. Çalışmanın sonucunda, ondan sonranın, Özbek (1998a) tarafından belirlenen ‘olayların sıralanması işlevini yürüten devamlılık belirleyicisi’ işlevine ek olarak, etkileşimsel anlatılarda anlatıcı ve dinleyici odaklı olmak üzere çeşitli işlevler yüklendiği gözlemlenmiştir. Anlatıcı odaklı işlevler, anlatı yapısı için olayları sıralamak, bağımlı anlatıların önceki anlatı ile ilişkilendirilmesini sağlamak, ve anlatının Karmaşık Olaylar Dizisi ve Çözüm birimlerinin başladığına işaret etmek; konuşma düzeni için konuşma sırasını almak ve başlatmak, ve sırayı tutmak; kişilerarası etkileşim için ise dinleyicilerin ilgisini belirli bir noktaya çekmek şeklinde belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, dinleyicilerin etkileşimsel öykülemeler sırasında, sıra alıp başlatma ve anlatıcıya anlatıya olan ilgilerini göstermek amacıyla ondan sonrayı kullandıkları bulgulanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Etkileşimsel anlatılar,söylem belirleyicileri,ondan sonra

Kaynakça

1. Bell, D. (1998). Cancellative discourse markers: A core/periphery approach. Pragmatics, 8 (4), 515-541.
2. Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). ‘You gotta know how to tell a story’: Telling, tales, and tellers in American and Israeli narrative events at table. Language in Society, 22, 361-402.
3. Coates, J. (2003). Men talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
4. Erdoğan, Y. (2013). Interactional functions of ‘şey’ in Turkish: Evidence from spoken Turkish corpus. Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 10 (2), 33-52.
5. Ervin-Tripp S. & Küntay, A. (1997). The occasioning and structure of conversational stories. In T. Givon (Ed.), Conversation: Cognitive, communicative and social perspectives. (pp. 133-166). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
6. Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383-395.
7. Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6 (2), 167-190.
8. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers?. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952.

9. Furman, R. & Özyürek, A. (2006). The use of discourse markers in adult and child Turkish oral narratives: Şey, yani and işte. In S. Yağcioglu & A. Cem Değer (Eds.), Advances in Turkish Linguistics. (pp. 467-480). Izmir: Dokuz Eylül University Press.
10. Georgakopoulou, A. (1995). Women, men, and conversational narrative performances: Aspects of gender in Greek storytelling. Anthropological Linguistics, 37 (4), 460-487.
11. Georgakopoulou, Α. (1997). Narrative performances. A study of Modern Greek storytelling. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
12. Georgakopoulou, A. (2004). Reflections on language-centred approaches on Modern Greek ‘society’ and ‘culture’. ΚΑΜΠΟΣ: Cambridge Papers in Modern Greek, 12, 45-68.
13. Georgakopoulou, A. (2007). Small stories, interaction and identities. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
14. González, M. (2004). Pragmatic markers in oral narrative: The case of English and Catalan. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
15. Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and organization of participation. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. (pp. 225-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Goodwin, C. (1986). Audience diversity, participation and interpretation. Text, 6 (3), 283-316.
17. Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
18. Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
19. Hymes, D. & Cazden, C. (1980). Narrative thinking and story-telling right: A folklorist’s clue to a critique of education. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Language in education: Ethnolinguistic essays. (pp. 126-138). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
20. Ilgın, L. & Büyükkantarcıoğlu, N. (1994). Türkçe’de “yani” sözcüğünün kullanımı üzerine bir inceleme. VIII. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri. (pp. 24-38). İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi.
21. Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. (pp. 219-248). New York: Academic Press.
22. Jefferson, G. (2004a). Glossary of transcript symbols with an Introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. (pp. 13-23). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
23. Jefferson, G. (2004b). A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation (1975). In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. (pp. 43-59). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
24. Jucker, A. H. & Ziv, Y. (1998). Discourse markers. Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
25. Kökpınar-Kaya, E. (2013). A case study on the ethical considerations of the methodology of Conversation Analysis. In. I. Özyıldırım, S. N. Büyükkantarcıoğlu, E. Yarar & E. Alpaslan (Eds.), 40. Yıl Yazıları. (pp. 187-208). Ankara: Hacettepe University Press.
26. Kökpınar-Kaya, E. (2014). An analysis on conversational narratives in Turkish. (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
27. Kuru Gönen, S. I. (2011). A neo-humean analysis of Turkish discourse markers 'ama' and 'fakat'. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15 (1), 253-278.
28. Küntay, A. (2002). Occasions for providing resolutions (or not) in Turkish preschool conversations. Narrative Inquiry, 11, 411-450.
29. Küntay, A. (2004). Lists as alternative discourse structures to narratives in preschool children’s conversation. Discourse Processes, 38, 95-118.
30. Küntay, A & Şenay, İ. (2003). Narratives beget narratives: Rounds of stories in Turkish preschool conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 559-587.
31. Küntay, A. & Nakamura, K. (2004). Linguistic strategies serving evaluative functions: A comparison between Japanese and Turkish narratives. In S.Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative, Volume 2: Typological and contextual perspectives. (pp. 329-258). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
33. Labov, W. (1984). Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In J. Baugh & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Language in Use. (pp. 28-53). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
34. Labov, W. (1997). Some further steps in narrative analysis. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 395-415.
35. Labov, W. & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse. New York: Academic Press.
36. Labov, W. & Waletzky, J. (1967). Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts. (pp. 12-44). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
37. Lenk, U. (1998). Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation. Journal Pragmatics, 30, 245-257.
38. Mandelbaum, J. (1987). Recipient-driven storytelling in conversation. (Doctoral dissertation). Austin, TX, USA: University of Texas.
39. Milroy, L. (1987). Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell.
40. Norrick, N. R. (1997). Twice-Told Tales: Collaborative narration of familiar stories. Language in Society, 26, 199-220.
41. Norrick, N. R. (1998). Retelling stories in spontaneous conversation. Discourse Processes, 25, 75-97.
42. Norrick, N. R. (2000). Conversational narrative. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins Publishing Company.
43. Norrick, N. R. (2001). Discourse markers in oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 849-878.
44. Norrick, N. R. (2003). Remembering and forgetfulness in conversational narrative. Discourse Processes, 36, 47-76.
45. Norrick, N. R. (2005). Interactional remembering in conversational narrative. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1819-1844.
46. Ochs, E., & Capps, L. (2001). Living narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47. Oktar, L. & Cem-Değer, A. (2004). Turkish 'İŞTE' as trace and signal of discourse structure. In K. İmer & G. Doğan (eds.), Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics (pp. 121-134). Gazimağusa: Eastern Mediterranean University Press.
48. Özbek, N. (1995). Discourse markers in Turkish and English: A comparative study. (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). Nottingham University, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
49. Özbek, N. (1998a). Türkçe'de söylem belirleyicileri. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 9, 37-47.
50. Özbek, N. (1998b). Yani, işte, şey, ya: Interactional markers of Turkish. In A. Göksel and C. Kerslake (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Interactional Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 393-401). Lincoln College, Oxford, United Kingdom.
51. Polanyi, L. (1979) So what’s the point? Semiotica, 25, 207-241.
52. Polanyi, L. (1985a). Conversational storytelling. In Van Dijk, T. (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Vol. 3. (pp. 183-201). Discourse and dialogue. London: Academic Press.
53. Polanyi, L. (1985b). Telling the American Story. Norwood: Ablex.
54. Polanyi, L. (1989). Telling the American story: a structural and cultural analysis of conversational storytelling. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
55. Polanyi, L & Martin, L. (1991). On the formal treatment of discourse particles: The case of mocho la in narrative discourse. In L. Polanyi & M. Steedman (Eds.), Workshop on Grammatical Foundations of Prosody and Discourse . University of California, Santa Cruz.
56. Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 367-381.
57. Richardson, L. (1990). Narrative and sociology. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 19, 116–135.
58. Ruhi, Ş. (2009). The pragmatics of yani as a parenthetical marker in Turkish: Evidence from the METU Turkish Corpus. Working Papers in Corpus-based Linguistics and Language Education, 3, 285-298.
59. Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. N. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction. (pp. 280-293). New York: Free Press.
60. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
61. Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1981. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
62. Schegloff, E. A. (1986) The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111-151.
63. Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Narrative analysis: Thirty years later. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 97-106.
64. Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29 (1), 1-63.
65. Schiffrin, D. (1981). Tense variation in narrative. Language, 57 (1), 45-62.
66. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
67. Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua 107, 227-265.
68. Tannen, D. (2005). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Revised Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
69. Uçar, A. (2005). Söylem belirleyicisi olarak işte’nin ezgi örüntüleri. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 2 (1), 35-50.
70. van Dijk, T. (1979). Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 447-456.
71. Wolfson, N. (1982). CHP. The conversational historical present in American English narrative. Topics in sociolinguistics, 1. Dordrecht: Foris.
72. Yılmaz, E. (1994). Descriptive and comparative study of the discourse markers ‘well’ in English and ‘şey’ in Turkish. (Unpublished M.A. Dissertation). University of Essex, Essex, United Kingdom.
73. Yılmaz, E. (2004). A pragmatic analysis of Turkish discourse particles: Yani, işte and şey. (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.