An Inquiry into Connectives and Their Use in Written Discourse

Kamil Kurtul

Abstract


Problem Statement: To know a language means to be able to produce coherent verbal and written texts to convey one’s message to the addressee. Texture is a matter of meaning relations and this is what distinguishes a text from something that is not. The text should function as a unity with respect to its environment. An important aspect of discourse understanding and generation involves the recognition and processing of discourse relations and as such connective devices, also known as connectors, play a significant role in the formation and interpretation of the relations present in a text.
Method: In the present study connectives both in Turkish and English have been analyzed in terms of their structural properties through the written works of two groups of students studying at Hacettepe University in Ankara. The analysis is based on the same principles as the Penn Discourse TreeBank, which lists connective devices into three categories as coordinating, subordinating conjunctions and sentence adverbials. So as to analyze the reasons behind the mistakes of the participants, a Grammaticality Judgement Test has been designed and implemented.
Conclusion: The results indicate that there occurs L1 effect on both groups’ use of connectives in L2 regardless of their language backgrounds.

Full Text:

PDF

References


De Beaugrande A. & Dressler, W. (1988). Introduction to text tinguistics. London: Longman.

Göksel, A. & Karlaske, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London, New York: Routledge.

Grosz, B. J. & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, Vol.12, p.175-204.

Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, New York: Longman.

Huber, E. (2008). Dilbilime giriÅŸ. Ä°stanbul: Multilingual Publications.

Kıran, Z. & A. Kıran. (2006). Dilbilime giriş. Ankara: Seçkin Publications.

Kurtul, K. (2011). Türkçe ve İngilizce’deki bağlaçların yazılı metinlerde kullanımı. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Ankara University.

Atatürk, M. K. (2006). Nutuk. 14th Edition. İstanbul: Alfa Publications.

Onursal, İ. (2003). Türkçe metinlerde bağdaşıklık ve tutarlılık. In A. Kıran, E. Korkut, S. Ağıldere (Eds.) Contemporary linguistics, (pp. 121-132). İstanbul: Multilingual Publications.

Prasad, R., Miltsakaki, E., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., & Joshi, A. (2007). The Penn Discourse TreeBank annotation manual. University of Pennsylvania.

Sarıçoban A. & Aktaş D. (2011). A new intercomprehension model: Reservoir model. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 7 (2). 144-163.

Uzun-Subaşı L. (2006). Ögrencilerin yazılı anlatım sürecindeki metinlestirme sorunları. II. National Children and Youth Literature Papers, (pp. 693-701). Ankara University, Faculty of Educational Sciences.

Ülper, H. (2008). Bilişsel süreç modeline göre hazırlanan yazma ögretimi programının ögrenci basarısına etkisi. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation. Ankara University.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Text and context, explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.

Webber, B., Joshi, A., Stone, M. & Knott, A. (2003). Anaphora and discourse structure. Computational Linguistics, 29.

Yıldırım, Ç. F. (2010). Türkçe’de belirteç tümcecikleri: Sözbilimsel yapı çözümlemesi çerçevesinde bir sınıflandırma önerisi. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation. Ankara University.

Zeydan, S. (2008). The analysis of contrastive discourse connectives in Turkish. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. METU.

Zeyrek, D. Turan, Ü. D. & Demirsahin, I. (2008).


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies
ISSN 1305-578X (Online)
Copyright © 2005-2022 by Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies