The contrıbutıon of Ca to the study of lıterary dıalogue

Konuşma Çözümlemesi (KÇ) ve edebi diyalog arasındaki ilişkiye dikkat çekmek için yazılmış olan bu kısa makale, şairliğin doğal konuşmanın bir olgusu olduğu gözlemini temel almaktadır. Yazınbilim alanındaki ilk çalışmalarda “edebi” olarak kabul edilen dilin, edebiyata has olan “yazınsal işlevin” (Jakobson 1960) kanıtı olduğu farzedilmiştir. Ancak, şiir dilinin sadece edebiyatın bir alanı değil dilin her yönünü kapsayan bir alan olduğunu önermek için kanıtlar bulunmaktadır. Bu durumda, edebi olmayan dilden (örneğin günlük dil) ayrı tutulabilecek bir edebi dilin olduğu düşüncesi şüphelidir. Bu çalışmada, konuşmada şiir dilinin varlığının edebiyatta diyalog çözümlemesi ile alakalı olduğu ve KÇ’nin bu alanda bir rolü olabileceği iddia edilmektedir. Bu savı ileri sürmek için, birinci bölümde yazınbilim genel alanı ve konuşma sunulacak ve ikinci bölümde konuşma ile edebiyatta diyaloğun ilişkisi tartışılacaktır. Bölüm 3.0 ilaveten araştırılması gereken belirli konuları saptamaktadır.

This short paper, which is intended for discussion and to generate interest in the relationship between CA and literary dialogue, is based on the general observation that poeticity seems to be a phenomenon of natural talk. Early studies of poetics assumed that language commonly regarded as “literary” was evidence of a “poetic function” (Jakobson 1960) that was specific to literature. There is evidence to suggest, however, that poeticity is an all-embracing aspect of language and not the province of literature alone. This casts doubt on the notion that there is such a phenomenon as “literary” language which can be distinguished from “non-literary”, i.e. ordinary, language. It is suggested here that the existence of poeticity in conversation has consequences for the analysis of dialogue in literature and that CA may have a role to play in this kind of study. To set up this argument, the general area of poetics and conversation will be sketched out in section 1.0 and the relationship between conversation and dialogue in literature discussed in section 2.0. Section 3.0 identifies particular issues which need to be explored further.

PDF

___

Bowles, H. (2009). Storytelling as interaction in “The Homecoming”. Language and Literature 18 (1), 45-60.

Bowles, H. (2010a). Storytelling and drama: exploring narrative episodes in plays. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bowles, H. (2010b). ‘Who do you think you are talking to?’ The construction of discourse identities in “The Birthday Party”. Textus XXIII, 53-82.

Carter, R. (2002). A Response to Neal R. Norrick. Connotations 11(2-3), 291-299.

Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (1995). Discourse and Creativity: Bridging the Gap Between Language and Literature. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics, 303-23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (1997). Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analysing Data. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, 161-82. London: Sage.

Herman, V. (1998). Turn management in drama. In J. Culpeper, M. Short and P. Verdonk (Eds), Exploring the Language of Drama, 19-33. London: Routledge.

Hutchby I. and Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Ivanchenko, I. (2007). An “interactive” approach to interpreting overlapping dialogue in Caryl Churchill’s “Top Girls” (Act 1). Language and Literature 16(1), 74-89.

Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok, and A. Thomas (Eds.), Style in Language, 350-77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Leech, G. (2008). Language in Literature. Harlow: Longman. Norrick, N. (2002). Poetics and conversation. Connotations 10(2-3), 243-267.

Norrick, N. (2000). Conversational Storytelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Person, R. (2009). “Oh” in Shakespeare. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10: 1, 84-107.

Sacks, H. (1971). Lecture Notes, March 11, 1971.

Seedhouse, P. (2004) The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.

Short, M. (1989). Discourse analysis and the analysis of drama. In R. Carter and P. Simpson (Eds), Language, discourse and literature, 139-170. London: Unwin.

Simpson, P. (1998). Studying discourses of incongruity. In J. Culpeper, M. Short and P. Verdonk (Eds.), Exploring the language of drama, 34-53. London: Routledge.

Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Van Peer, W. and Hakemulder, J. 2006. Foregrounding. In K.Brown (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition vol. 4, 546-51. Oxford: Elsevier. Tannen, D. (2007). Talking Voices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wales, K. (1994). Bloom passes through several walls: The stage directions in Circe. In A. Gison (Ed.), Reading Joyce’s Circe, 241-276. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Zimmerman, D. (1992). The interactional organisation of calls for emergency assistance. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (Eds), Talk at Work, 418-469. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.