The Analysis of the Discourse Markers in the Narratives Elicited from Persian-speaking Children
محورهای موضوعی : English Language Teaching (ELT)
1 - Department of English, Allameh Tabatabaee University,Tehran, Iran
کلید واژه: coherence, functions of discourse markers, narrative elements, retell story, produce story,
چکیده مقاله :
Discourse markers (DMs) are linguistic elements that index different relations and coherence between units of talk. Most research on the development of these forms has focused on conversations rather than narratives. This article examines age and medium effects on use of various discourse markers in pre-school children. Fifteen normal Iranian monolingual children, male and female, participated in this study. They were divided into three age groups (4-5, 5-6, 6-7). Two tests, story production and story re-production (retelling), based on two different story books were used to elicit the children's narratives. This study shows that the functions of DMs within the oral narrative context follow neither from their usual meanings nor from their usual discourse functions in other contexts. These markers just help to continue the narrative procedure. Narrative experts illustrate how DMs initiate and conclude narrative action, how they guide listeners to follow their interruption and sequence of narrative elements. The results showed no specific difference on the kind of DM being used regarding the age of the participants; furthermore, in terms of the number of utterances and also DMs, children overall behaved differently when they were asked to retell a story, comparing to the time when they were asked to produce a story.
نقش‌نماهای گفتمانی عناصر زبانی هستند که نشانگر روابط متفاوت و پیوستگی میان واحدهای گفتاری می‌باشند. بیشتر پژوهشها درباره رشد این صورتهای زبانی، اغلب متمرکز بر مکالمات است تا داستان گویی، از این رو، پژوهش پیش‌رو به بررسی تأثیر سن و ابزار استخراج داستان‌گویی بر کاربرد نقش‌نماهای گفتمانی در کودکان پیش‌مدرسه‌ای پرداخته است. پانزده کودک تک‌زبانه طبیعی فارسی‌زبان، دختر و پسر، در این پژوهش شرکت داشته‌اند که در سه گروه سنی 4-5، 5-6 و 6-7 طبقه‌بندی شده‌اند. در این پژوهش، دو آزمون بازگویی و تولید داستان بر اساس دوکتاب متفاوت داستان کودک به منظور استخراج داستانهای کودکان این مطالعه بکاررفتند. این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که عملکرد نقش‌نماهای گفتمانی در بافت داستانهای شفاهی، از معنا و نیز عملکرد گفتمانی معمول آنها در بافتهای دیگر پیروی نمی‌کند. در واقع، آنها تنها به ادامه روند داستان کمک‌می‌کنند. محققین در حوزه داستان‌گویی بر این باورند که این نقش‌نماها در آغاز و پایان داستان‌گویی، در سوق‌دادن شنونده به سوی تفسیر درست داستان و نیز دنبال نمودن عناصر داستان ، کمک بسزایی دارد. یافته‌های این پژوهش بیانگر آن بود که با توجه به عامل سن، هیچ تفاوت بسزایی در کاربرد این نقش نماها وجود ندارد. نکته قابل ذکر دیگر این است که تمامی کودکان در همه گروه های سنی عملکرد متفاوتی را در آزمون بازگویی داستان نسبت به آزمون تولید داستان با توجه به تعداد پاره‌گفتارها و نقش‌نماهای گفتمانی از خود نشان‌دادند.
Bennett-Kastor, T. (1986).Cohesion and predication in child narrative. Journal of Child Language, 13, 353-370.
Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bloom, L., Lahey, M., Hood, L., Lifter, K. &Fiess, K. (1980). Complex sentences: Acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantics relations they encode.Journalof Child Language, 7, 235-261
Chafe, W. (1980). The Pear Stories: cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Fraser, B. (1988). Type of English discourse marker.ActaLinguisticaHungarica, 38, 19-33.
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6, 167-190
Greenfield, P. & Dent, C. (1982).Pragmatic factors in children's phrasal coordination.Journal of Child Language. 9, 425-443
Halliday M.A.K. &Ruqaiya, H. (1967).Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Jansonius, K. &Roelofs, M. (2007).Semantisch en pragmatischeontwikkeling en semantisch en pragmatischestoornissenbijkinderen.Reader Seminar Op zoeknaarSemantisch Pragmatischestoornissen. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:Pro- education
Hatami, L. (2000). Mamali wants to be a doctor, Saviz publication
Jeremy, R. (1978). Use of coordinate sentences with the conjunction 'and5 for describing temporal and locative relations between events.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 7, 135-150.
Koike, K. (1996). The countermeasures against coastal hazards in Japan.GeoJournal 38(3), 301-312.
Labov, W. &Waltzky J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In June Helm, ed., (2001) Essays on the verbal and visual arts, 12-44.Seattel, WA: University of Washington Press.
Kyratzis, A. & Ervin-Tripp, S. (1999). The development of discourse markers in peer interaction.Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1321-1338.
Labove, W. (1972).Language in the inner city. Philadelphia, PA:University of Pennsylvania Press. (354) The transformation of experience in narrative syntax)
Lakoff, R. (1973). Questionable answerable question. In BrajKachru, Robert B. Lees, YakovMalkiel, A Angelina Pietrangeli and Sol Sporta, eds., Papers in honor of Henry and Renee Kahane, 453- 467. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Louwerse, M.M. & Mitchell H.H. (2003). Towards a taxonomy of a set of discourse markers in dialog: A theoretical and computational l linguistic account. Discourse Processes, 35(3), 199-239.
Merritt, D., & Liles, B. (1989). Narrative analysis: clinical applications of story generation and story retelling. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 438 - 447.
Minami, M. (1998). Politeness markers and psychological complements: Wrapping-up devices in Japanese oral personal narratives. Narrative Inquiry, 8(2), 351-371.
Miracle, W.C. (1991).Discourse markers in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbus: The Ohio State University
Norrick, N. R. (1998). Retelling stories in spontaneous conversation. Discourse processes, 25, 75-97.
Norrick, Neal R. (2001). On the Conversational Performance of Narrative Jokes: Toward an account of Timing. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research. 14(3), 255-274.
Östman, C. (1982). Nematocysts and taxonomy in Laomedea, Gonothyraea and Obelia(Hydrozoa, Campanulariidae).Zool. Scripta, 8, 5-12.
Peterson, C. (1986). Semantic and pragmatic uses of „but‟.Journal of Child Language 13,583-590.
Peterson, C. & McCabe, A. (1985).A naturalistic study of the production of causal connectives by children.Journal of Child Language 12, 145-159
Peterson, C. & McCabe, A. (1987). The structure of AND coordinations in children's narratives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 16(5), 467-490
Peterson, C. & McCabe, A. (1988).The connective and as discourse glue.First Language, 8, 19-28
Resalat, M. (2003).Tipiti, the little chick.Afra Publications.
Ripich, D. N., & Griffith, P. L. (1988). Narrative abilities of children with learning disabilities and nondisabled children: story structure, cohesion and propositions.Journal of LearningDisabilities, 21(3), 165-173.
Schiffrin D. (1987).Discourse Markers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Shapiro, L.R. & Hudson, J. A. (1991). Tell me a make-believe story: Coherence and cohesion in young children's picture-elicited narratives. Developmental Psychology 27(6), 960-974
Shapiro, L. R., & Hudson, J. A. (1997).Coherence and cohesion in children’s stories. In J.Costermans& M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausalrelationships: Studies in the production and comprehension of text (23–48). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Strömqvist, S., Nordqvist, Å.,&Wengelin, Å. (2003). Writing the frog story:Developmental and cross-modal perspectives. In S. Strömqvist& L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wierzbicka A. (2002). Australian cultural scripts-bloody revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1167–1209.
