Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Year 2019, , 241 - 271, 26.12.2019

Derya Cokal

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.455594

Abstract

References

  • Blagoeva, R. (2004). Demonstrative reference as a cohesive device in advanced learner writing: a corpus-based study. Language and Computers, 49(1), 297-307.
  • Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(2), 137–67.
  • Brown-Schmidt, S., Byron, D. K., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2005). Beyond salience: interpretation of personal and demonstrative pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 292–313.
  • Carston, R. (2002). Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning, and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language, 17(1-2), 127-148.
  • Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 107–126.
  • Cornish, F. (2001). ‘Modal’ that as determiner and pronoun: The primacy of the cognitive- interactive dimension. English Language and Linguistics, 5(2), 297-315.
  • Cornish, F. (2008). How indexicals function in texts: Discourse, text, and one neo-Gricean account of indexical reference. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 997–1018.
  • Çokal, D. (2005). A contrastive analysis of the pronominal usages of this and that in academic written discourse. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Çokal, D., Sturt, P., & Ferreira, F. (2016). The processing of it and this in written narrative discourse. Discourse Processes, 272-289.
  • Çokal, D., Sturt, P., & Ferreira, F. (2014). Deixis: This and that in written narrative discourse. Discourse Processes, 51, 201 – 229.
  • Çokal, D., Sturt, P. & Ferreira, F. (2018). L2 referent representation in processing and production. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of Cognitive Science Society.
  • Çokal, D. (2012). The Online and Offline Processing of This, That, and It by native speakers of English and by Turkish non-native speakers of English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University. Ankara.
  • Cunnings. I. (2017). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(4), 659-678.
  • Cunnings. I., Fotiadou, G., & Tsimpli, I. (2017). Anaphora resolution and reanalysis during L2 sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 621-652.
  • Ellert, M. (2013). Resolving ambiguous pronouns in a second language: A visual-world eye-tracking study with Dutch learners of German. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 51(2), 171– 197.
  • Diessel, H. (2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 463-489.
  • Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. SSLA, 27, 305–352.
  • Foster-Cohen, S. H. (2000). Review of Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995: Relevance Communication and Cognition. (2nd ed.) Oxford: Blackwell. Second Language Research, 16(1), 77–92.
  • Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1994). Language Transfer in Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Grosz, B., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175-204.
  • Gundel, J., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1988). On the generation and interpretation of demonstrative expressions. International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1, 216 – 221.
  • Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (2004). Demonstrative Pronouns in natural discourse. Paper presented at the Fifth Discourse Anaphora and Anaphora Resolution Colloquium, Sao Miguel, Portugal, Sept. 23-24, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.sfu.ca/~hedberg/GHZ_DAARC2004Final.pdf
  • Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics Vol.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 244-277.
  • Marcu, D. (2000). The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Matsuda, P. K., Canagarajah, A. S., Harklau, L., Hyland, K., & Warschauer, M. (2003). Changing currents in second language writing research: A colloquium. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 151–179.
  • Moeschler, J. (2004). Intercultural pragmatics: a cognitive approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1, 49-70. Retrieved from https://www.degruyter.com/journals/intcultpragm /pdf/moeschler.pdf
  • Murphy, T. (2001). The emergence of texture: an analysis of the functions of the nominal demonstratives in an English interlanguage corpus. Language Learning & Technology, 5 (3), 152-173.
  • Niimura, T., & Hayashi, B. (1996). Contrastive analysis of English and Japanese demonstratives from the perspective of L1 and L2 acquisition. Language Sciences, 18 (3-4), 811-834.
  • Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 501–528.
  • Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 333–357.
  • Ruhi, Ş. (1990). Kalem sürçmeleri ve düzeltmeler [Slips of the pen and editing]. In IV. Dilbilim Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 17-18 Mayıs 1990, A. S. Özsoy and H. Sebüktekin (eds.), 103-120. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
  • Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Strauss, S. (2002). This, that and it in spoken American English: a demonstrative system of gradient focus. Language Science, 24, 131-152.
  • Streb, J., Rösler, F., & Hennighausen, E. (1999). Event-related responses to pronoun and proper name anaphors in parallel and nonparallel discourse structures. Brain and Language, 70, 273–286.
  • Taboada, M., & Mann, W. (2005). Applications of rhetorical structure theory. Discourse Studies, 8(4), 567–588.
  • Webber, B. L. (1988). Discourse deixis: reference to discourse segments. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Buffalo, New York: 113–122.
  • Webber, B. L. (1991). Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6(2), 107-135.
  • Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Retrieved from http://sperber.club.fr/form.htm
  • Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2002). Relevance theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 249-287.
  • Wilson, F. (2009). Processing at the syntax-discourse interface in second language acquisition. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Discourse Deixis and Anaphora in L2 Writing

Year 2019, , 241 - 271, 26.12.2019

Derya Cokal

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.455594

Abstract

This
study investigates the use of it, this,
and that by L1 Turkish learners of
English in academic writings from two perspectives: Rhetorical Structure Theory (Marcu, 2000) and Relevance Theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1986/95). The study
examines the expressions as interface phenomena concerning the attentional state
and the intentional structure of discourse and shows deictics contribute
different higher-level explicatures to relations between discourse units. The
L2 data analyses reveal (1) it is
used as a discourse deictic at lower levels of proficiency; (2) this is
the default demonstrative for reference establishment and maintenance; (3)
learners tend to use demonstratives in rhetorical relations that are atypical
of written academic discourse; and (4) learners demonstrate non-optimal
processing of pointing acts. In addition, to implications of results,
suggestions for further research and instruction are proposed.










Keywords

interlanguage demonstratives rhetorical questions second language writing discourse deixis basic-level explicature high-level explicature

References

  • Blagoeva, R. (2004). Demonstrative reference as a cohesive device in advanced learner writing: a corpus-based study. Language and Computers, 49(1), 297-307.
  • Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(2), 137–67.
  • Brown-Schmidt, S., Byron, D. K., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2005). Beyond salience: interpretation of personal and demonstrative pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 292–313.
  • Carston, R. (2002). Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning, and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language, 17(1-2), 127-148.
  • Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 107–126.
  • Cornish, F. (2001). ‘Modal’ that as determiner and pronoun: The primacy of the cognitive- interactive dimension. English Language and Linguistics, 5(2), 297-315.
  • Cornish, F. (2008). How indexicals function in texts: Discourse, text, and one neo-Gricean account of indexical reference. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 997–1018.
  • Çokal, D. (2005). A contrastive analysis of the pronominal usages of this and that in academic written discourse. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Çokal, D., Sturt, P., & Ferreira, F. (2016). The processing of it and this in written narrative discourse. Discourse Processes, 272-289.
  • Çokal, D., Sturt, P., & Ferreira, F. (2014). Deixis: This and that in written narrative discourse. Discourse Processes, 51, 201 – 229.
  • Çokal, D., Sturt, P. & Ferreira, F. (2018). L2 referent representation in processing and production. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of Cognitive Science Society.
  • Çokal, D. (2012). The Online and Offline Processing of This, That, and It by native speakers of English and by Turkish non-native speakers of English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University. Ankara.
  • Cunnings. I. (2017). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(4), 659-678.
  • Cunnings. I., Fotiadou, G., & Tsimpli, I. (2017). Anaphora resolution and reanalysis during L2 sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 621-652.
  • Ellert, M. (2013). Resolving ambiguous pronouns in a second language: A visual-world eye-tracking study with Dutch learners of German. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 51(2), 171– 197.
  • Diessel, H. (2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 463-489.
  • Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. SSLA, 27, 305–352.
  • Foster-Cohen, S. H. (2000). Review of Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995: Relevance Communication and Cognition. (2nd ed.) Oxford: Blackwell. Second Language Research, 16(1), 77–92.
  • Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1994). Language Transfer in Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Grosz, B., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175-204.
  • Gundel, J., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1988). On the generation and interpretation of demonstrative expressions. International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1, 216 – 221.
  • Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (2004). Demonstrative Pronouns in natural discourse. Paper presented at the Fifth Discourse Anaphora and Anaphora Resolution Colloquium, Sao Miguel, Portugal, Sept. 23-24, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.sfu.ca/~hedberg/GHZ_DAARC2004Final.pdf
  • Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics Vol.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 244-277.
  • Marcu, D. (2000). The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Matsuda, P. K., Canagarajah, A. S., Harklau, L., Hyland, K., & Warschauer, M. (2003). Changing currents in second language writing research: A colloquium. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 151–179.
  • Moeschler, J. (2004). Intercultural pragmatics: a cognitive approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1, 49-70. Retrieved from https://www.degruyter.com/journals/intcultpragm /pdf/moeschler.pdf
  • Murphy, T. (2001). The emergence of texture: an analysis of the functions of the nominal demonstratives in an English interlanguage corpus. Language Learning & Technology, 5 (3), 152-173.
  • Niimura, T., & Hayashi, B. (1996). Contrastive analysis of English and Japanese demonstratives from the perspective of L1 and L2 acquisition. Language Sciences, 18 (3-4), 811-834.
  • Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 501–528.
  • Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 333–357.
  • Ruhi, Ş. (1990). Kalem sürçmeleri ve düzeltmeler [Slips of the pen and editing]. In IV. Dilbilim Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 17-18 Mayıs 1990, A. S. Özsoy and H. Sebüktekin (eds.), 103-120. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
  • Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Strauss, S. (2002). This, that and it in spoken American English: a demonstrative system of gradient focus. Language Science, 24, 131-152.
  • Streb, J., Rösler, F., & Hennighausen, E. (1999). Event-related responses to pronoun and proper name anaphors in parallel and nonparallel discourse structures. Brain and Language, 70, 273–286.
  • Taboada, M., & Mann, W. (2005). Applications of rhetorical structure theory. Discourse Studies, 8(4), 567–588.
  • Webber, B. L. (1988). Discourse deixis: reference to discourse segments. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Buffalo, New York: 113–122.
  • Webber, B. L. (1991). Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6(2), 107-135.
  • Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Retrieved from http://sperber.club.fr/form.htm
  • Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2002). Relevance theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 249-287.
  • Wilson, F. (2009). Processing at the syntax-discourse interface in second language acquisition. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
There are 45 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Derya Cokal

Publication Date December 26, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019

Cite

APA Cokal, D. (2019). Discourse Deixis and Anaphora in L2 Writing. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 30(2), 241-271. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.455594

88x31.png

Bu eser


Dergi DOI:10.18492/dad