SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitim Kuram ve Uygulama Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1

A Conversation Analytic Study on the Functions of the Discourse Marker “You know” in a Video-Mediated Task-Based Context

Ece Dilber Karayel(University of Turkish Aeronautical Association)0000-0001-9645-7213
Eda Üstünel(MUĞLA SITKI KOÇMAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2137-1671
Pages
77–103
Publication Date
2026-04-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

By grounding the analysis in participants’ observable orientations, the study demonstrates how a recurrent discourse marker is adapted to the contingencies of video-mediated, task-based interaction.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Discourse markers (DMs), also referred to as markers or particles, are integral resources in talk-in-interaction, understood as the context-sensitive and sequential organization of language through which participants collaboratively accomplish social actions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Adopting a Conversation Analytic (CA) approach, the study draws on a dataset of video-recorded dyadic interactions involving 30 EFL participants from Türkiye and Tunisia, engaged in collaborative tasks in a video-mediated task-based context.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By grounding the analysis in participants’ observable orientations, the study demonstrates how a recurrent discourse marker is adapted to the contingencies of video-mediated, task-based interaction.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Discourse markers · Video-mediated interaction · Task-based interaction

Abstract

Discourse markers (DMs), also referred to as markers or particles, are integral resources in talk-in-interaction, understood as the context-sensitive and sequential organization of language through which participants collaboratively accomplish social actions. Adopting a Conversation Analytic (CA) approach, the study draws on a dataset of video-recorded dyadic interactions involving 30 EFL participants from Türkiye and Tunisia, engaged in collaborative tasks in a video-mediated task-based context. The analysis focuses on a subset of analytically selected cases in which participants demonstrably orient to “you know” in the unfolding sequence of talk. The data gathered from the participants were transcribed and analyzed using Jefferson Transcription Conventions (2004), Mondada Multimodal Conventions (2016) and Balaman and Sert’s transcrition conventions for on-screen activity (2017); thereby ensuring that the multimodal interactions were as accurately depicted as possible. The findings show that “you know” is recurrently deployed across a range of sequential environments. Across these environments, its interactional contribution is not fixed but emerges from its sequential positioning and from participants’ displayed orientations in subsequent turns and embodied conduct. In particular, “you know” is consistently associated with the management of recipiency and the maintenance of progressivity in interaction. By grounding the analysis in participants’ observable orientations, the study demonstrates how a recurrent discourse marker is adapted to the contingencies of video-mediated, task-based interaction.

Özet

Discourse markers (DMs), also referred to as markers or particles, are integral resources in talk-in-interaction, understood as the context-sensitive and sequential organization of language through which participants collaboratively accomplish social actions. Adopting a Conversation Analytic (CA) approach, the study draws on a dataset of video-recorded dyadic interactions involving 30 EFL participants from Türkiye and Tunisia, engaged in collaborative tasks in a video-mediated task-based context. The analysis focuses on a subset of analytically selected cases in which participants demonstrably orient to “you know” in the unfolding sequence of talk. The data gathered from the participants were transcribed and analyzed using Jefferson Transcription Conventions (2004), Mondada Multimodal Conventions (2016) and Balaman and Sert’s transcrition conventions for on-screen activity (2017); thereby ensuring that the multimodal interactions were as accurately depicted as possible. The findings show that “you know” is recurrently deployed across a range of sequential environments. Across these environments, its interactional contribution is not fixed but emerges from its sequential positioning and from participants’ displayed orientations in subsequent turns and embodied conduct. In particular, “you know” is consistently associated with the management of recipiency and the maintenance of progressivity in interaction. By grounding the analysis in participants’ observable orientations, the study demonstrates how a recurrent discourse marker is adapted to the contingencies of video-mediated, task-based interaction.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karayel, E. D., Üstünel, E. (2026). A Conversation Analytic Study on the Functions of the Discourse Marker “You know” in a Video-Mediated Task-Based Context. Eğitim Kuram ve Uygulama Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1, 77–103. https://doi.org/10.38089/ekuad.2026.256

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (38)

  1. Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. John Benjamins.
  2. Altıparmak, A. (2022). An analysis of Turkish interactional discourse markers şey, yani, and işte. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 51(4), 729–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09840-4
  3. Balaman, U., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2022). Navigating the complex social ecology of screen-based activity in video-mediated interaction. Pragmatics, 32(1), 54–79. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20023.bal
  4. Balaman, U., & Sert, O. (2017). Development of L2 interactional resources for online collaborative task accomplishment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(7), 601–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1334667
  5. Beeching, K. (2016). Pragmatic markers in British English: Meaning in social interaction. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139151213
  6. Brinton, L. (2010). 10. Discourse Markers. In A. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (Ed.), Historical Pragmatics (pp. 285-314). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214284.5.285
  7. Clayman, S. E., & Raymond, C. W. (2021). You know as invoking alignment: A generic resource for emerging problems of understanding and affiliation. Journal of Pragmatics, 182, 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.02.011
  8. Degand, L., Cornillie, G., & Pietrandrea, P. (2013). General introduction: Discourse markers and modal particles. In L. Degand, G. Cornillie, & P. Pietrandrea (Eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description (pp. 1–18). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.234.01deg
  9. Diskin-Holdaway, D. (2021). You know and like among migrants in Ireland and Australia. World Englishes, 40(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12541
  10. Due, B. L., & Licoppe, C. (2020). Video-mediated interaction: Introduction to a special issue. Social Interaction: Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i3.123836
  11. Fernández Polo, F. (2021). Backchannels in video-mediated ELF conversations: a case study. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 10(1), 113-140. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2021-2055
  12. Fox Tree, J. E., & Schrock, J. C. (2002). Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 727–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00027-9
  13. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5
  14. Furman, R., & Özyürek, A. (2006). The use of discourse markers in adult and child Turkish oral narratives: Şey, yani and işte. In S. Yağcıoğlu & A. Demir Değer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 467–480). Dokuz Eylül University Press.
  15. González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6
  16. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X
  17. Hakulinen, A. (2001). On some uses of the discourse particle. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 171–198). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.09hak
  18. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
  19. Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2018). Introduction: Analyzing turn-initial particles. In J. Heritage & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Between turn and sequence (pp. 1–22). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.01her
  20. Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Multilingual Matters.
  21. Hellermann, J., & Vergun, A. (2007). The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 157–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.008
  22. Jefferson, G. (1984). On the organization of laughter. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 346–369). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.021
  23. Jucker, A. H., & Ziv, Y. (1998). Discourse markers. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57
  24. Lerner, G. H. (1996). On the semi-permeable character of grammatical units. In Ochs et al. (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005
  25. Markee, N. (2005). Conversation analysis. Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
  26. Mondada, L. (2016). Conventions for multimodal transcription. University of Basel. Retrieved fromhttps://franzoesistik.philhist.unibas.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/franzoesistik/home/Personen/Mondada/Unterordner/Mondada_conv_multimodality.pdf
  27. Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
  28. Mondada, L., & Svinhufvud, K. (2014). Visual repair in video-mediated interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 1–29. Doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.001
  29. Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis. SAGE.
  30. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Blackwell.
  31. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243
  32. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.2307/413107
  33. 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 (pp. 71–93). Georgetown University Press.
  34. Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. A. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437–485). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.16sch
  35. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208
  36. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.
  37. Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123
  38. Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–392. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179