THE APPLICATION OF THE LABOVIAN NARRATIVE ANALYSIS TO A SHORT STORY IN AN EFL CLASS

Bir metni dilbilimsel olarak analiz etmenin amacı, öğrencinin dikkatini metnin dilbilimsel özelliklerine çekip bu konuda onda merak uyandırmaktır. Bir hikayenin dilbilimsel modeli konusunda çalışmak için, öncelikle “hikaye” kavramını tam olarak anlamamız gerekmektedir. Hikayeyi betimlerken, Labov and Waletzky (1967) geçmiş olayları aktarma ve zamansal uyum kavramlarını ön plana çıkarmaktadır. Yazarlara göre, hikayenin zamansal organizasyonu ve değerlendirmesi kavramlarını anlamak çok önemlidir. Toprak (1992), konuşma kategorilerinin kelime ve dilbilgisel özelliklerinin ve sunulmasının, dilbilimsel analizi şekillendirdiğini belirtmektedir. Hikayenin dilbilimsel yapısını inceleyen birçok dilbilimci bulunmaktadır. Bunlardan birisi olan Labov (1972), kişisel deneyimin sözlü anlatımının incelenmesinde kullanılmak üzere altı maddeden oluşan bir analiz yöntemi önermektedir: özet, oryantasyon, karıştıran eylem, koda, değerlendirme, ve sonuç veya tekrar çözüm. Bu çalışma, Labov’un hikaye analizi aşamalarının yabancı dil olarak İngilizce okuma derslerini zenginleştireceğini önermektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler:

hikaye analizi, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce, Labov, kısa hikaye

THE APPLICATION OF THE LABOVIAN NARRATIVE ANALYSIS TO A SHORT STORY IN AN EFL CLASS

The aim of the linguistic analysis of a text is to draw the student’s attention to and to raise his interest in the text’s linguistic properties. In order to study on a linguistic model to narrative, we should first fully grasp what “narrative” actually means. While defining narrative, Labov and Waletzky (1967) highlight the concepts of reporting past events and temporal juncture. To them, understanding of the temporal organization and evaluation of narrative are of crucial importance. Toprak (1992) points out that lexical and grammatical aspects and the representation of speech categories form a linguistic analysis. There are several linguists who study the linguistic structure of narrative. Among them is Labov (1972), who acknowledges a six-part analysis of the oral narrative of personal experience: abstract, orientation, complicating action, coda, evaluation, and result or resolution. The present study puts forward that Labov’s narrative analysis steps may facilitate reading lessons in EFL classes

Keywords:

narrative analysis, EFL, Labov, short story,

PDF

___

ATKINSON, P. (1995). Medical Talk and Medical Work: The Liturgy of the Clinic. London: Sage.
BABEL, A. M. (2010). Contact and contrast in valley Spanish. The University of Michigan.
BUTOR, M. (1969). Inventory. New York: Simon & Schuster.
DAVİES, A.(2005). A Glossary of Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press.
FABB, N. (2001). 18 Linguistics and Literature. In M.Aronoff and J. Rees-Miller. (Eds.) The Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
FLUDERNİK, M. (1996). Towards a Natural Narratology. London-New York.
HEATH, S. B. (1983). Ways with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
JACKSON, S. (1991). Charles. Creative Education.
JOHNSTONE, B. (2001). Discourse analysis and narrative. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (Eds). The handbook of Discourse Analysis. Blackwell Publishers.
LABOV, W. and Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative Analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
LABOV, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
LABOV, W. (1997). “Some Further Steps in Narrative Analysis”, The Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7: 395 – 415.
LABOV, W. (2006). “Narrative pre-construction”, Narrative Inquiry, 16(1): 37 – 45.
LABOV, W. (2011). Uncovering the event structure of narrative. In Deborah Tannen and James E. Alatis (Eds.). Round Table on Languages and Linguistics – Linguistics, Language, and the Real World: Discourse and Beyond, Georgetown University.
MACINTYRE, A. (1973). “Ideology, social science and revolution”, Comparative Politics, 5(3): 321 – 342.
MASUDA, H. (2002). “Narrative Representation Theory: The Macrostructure in I-Language”, Discourse Processes, 34(1): 1 – 36.
MISHLER, E. G. (1986). Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. President and Fellows of Harvard College, USA.
NUMANBAYRAKTAROGLU, S. (2010). Language, self and context: Socio-historical constitution and interactional actualization of the self through discourse genres; the case of Turkish heteroglossia. University of Chicago.
POLANYI, L. (1978). The American Story: Cultural constraints on the structure and meaning of stories in conversation. The University of Michigan.
POLANYI, L. (1981). “Telling the same story twice”, Text, 1: 315 – 336.
PRATT, M. L. (1977). Toward a Speech-Act Theory of Literature Discourse. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
SCHEGLOFF, E. A. (1997). “ “Narrative Analysis” Thirty Years Later”, Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7: 97 – 106.
SCHIFFRIN, D. (1981). “Tense variation in narrative”, Language, 57: 45 – 62.
STARK, J. A. (2010). “Content analysis of the fairy tale Cinderella - A longitudinal single-case study of narrative production: "From rags to riches"”, Aphasiology, 24(6-8): 709 – 724.
TANNEN, D. (1979). “What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations”, In Roy Freedle (Ed.). New directions in discourse processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp.137 – 181.
TOOLAN, M. J. (1988). Narrative: a critical linguistic introduction. London-New York.
TOPRAK, E. L. (1992). Teaching English Through a Short Story: A Study of Language-based Approaches to the Teaching of Literature to First Year Students of The Faculty of Sciences and Literature of The University of Gaziantep in Turkey. University of Nottingham.
TOPRAK, E. L. (1997). An Eclectic Approach to Narrative Comprehension Teaching with Special Reference to Turkish Universities. University of Kent, Canterbury.