Bir hata meydana geldi.

Anasayfaya Dön

Year 2019, Volume 30 , Issue 2, Pages 241 - 271 2019-12-26

Discourse Deixis and Anaphora in L2 Writing

Derya COKAL [1]

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.

interlanguage demonstratives, rhetorical questions, second language writing, discourse deixis, basic-level explicature, high-level explicature
  • 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 (Unpublished master’s thesis).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
  • 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 /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
  • 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.
Primary Language en
Subjects Social
Journal Section Research Articles

Author: Derya COKAL
Institution: Institute of Neuroscience Newcastle University
Country: United Kingdom


Publication Date : December 26, 2019

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