Journals / Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2010 / Sayı: 1

The Pronominal bu-şu and this-that: Rhetorical Structure Theory

The pronominal bu-şu and this-that: Rhetorical structure theory

Pages
15–32
DOI
—
🏛️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)

The results show that bu-şu and this-that are sensitive to rhetorical relations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study presents a contrastive analysis of the pronominal uses of bu and şu and this and that in written academic discourse within the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann and Thompson, 1988; Marcu 2000).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The comparative analysis of these pronominals is done with respect to the rhetorical relations in which they are used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results show that bu-şu and this-that are sensitive to rhetorical relations.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study presents a contrastive analysis of the pronominal uses of bu and şu and this and that in written academic discourse within the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann and Thompson, 1988; Marcu 2000). The comparative analysis of these pronominals is done with respect to the rhetorical relations in which they are used. Data for this study were retrieved from journal articles on linguistics and education. The results show that bu-şu and this-that are sensitive to rhetorical relations. Although bu and this are used in similar rhetorical functions (i.e. interpretation, explanation and reason relations), in some occurrences they are used in different rhetorical relations (i.e textual organisation and hypothetical relations). On the other hand, şu is used differently from that and this in the establishment of rhetorical relations. Şu is used in the subtypes of elaboration relation (i.e. elaboration-set-member, elaboration part-whole), while that is not used in elaboration relations. That is used in antithesis, list and contrast relations, where occurrences of şu are not seen. While this is used in addition, interpretation, hypothetical, summarisation and concession relations, şu is not.

Özet

Bu çalışma, akademik yazılı söylemde adıl konumundaki bu ve şu ile this ve that’in karşılaştırmalı çözümlemesini yapmaktadır. Bu çözümlemenin gerçekleşmesi için bazı dilbilim ve eğitim dergileri taranmış ve bu dergilerde yer alan makalelerde adıl konumundaki bu, şu, this ve that verileri toplanarak küçük bir veri tabanı oluşturulmuştur. Bu kaşılaştırmalı çözümleme, söz konusu adılların söylemde kullanıldıkları retorik ilişkiler temel alınarak yapılmıştır. Bu-şu ve this-that’in içinde kullanıldıkları retorik ilişkiler, Mann ve Thompson tarafından ileri sürülen ve Marcu tarafından geliştirilen (2000) Retorik Yapı Kuramına göre incelenmiştir. Retorik Yapı Kuramı çerçevesinde bu-şu ile this-that’in kullanıldıkları retorik ilişkiler karşılaştırılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda bu ve şu’nun farklı retorik ilişkilerde kullanıldığı gözlenmiştir. Aynı şekilde, this ve that’in retorik ilişki dağılımı birbirinden farklıdır. Bu ve this bazı retorik ilişki kullanımlarında örtüşseler de aralarında farklar vardır. Şu’nun kullanıldığı retorik ilişki dağılımı this ve that’in kullanımlarından farklıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇOKAL, D. K. (2010). The Pronominal bu-şu and this-that: Rhetorical Structure Theory. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı: 1, 15–32. https://ajindex.com/articles/158062

References (15)

  1. Banguoğlu, T. (1974). Türkçenin Grameri. İstanbul:
  2. Baha Matbaası. Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell. Cornish, F. (2001). ‘Modal’ that as determiner and pronoun: The primacy of the cognitive-interactive dimension. English Language and Linguistics, 5(2) 297-315.
  3. Cornish, F. (2007). Indirect anaphora in English and French: Marginal rarity, or unmarked norm? Some psycholinguistic evidence. In M. Schwartz-Friesel, M. Consten, M. Knees, (Ed.) Anaphors in Text: Cognitive, formal, applied approaches to anaphoric reference (pp. 21-36). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Çokal, D. (2005). A contrastive analysis of the pronominal usages of this and that in academic written discourse. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Middle East Technical University. Çokal, D. and Ruhi, Ş. (2006). Discourse deixis in L2 English writing: Implications for Researching Interlanguage Demonstrative Systems. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the European Second Language Association, Antalya, Turkey, Sept. 13-16, 2006.
  4. Demircan. Ö. (2001) Çatı-Duyarsız Bir Söz Diziminde “GİZİL” ANLATIM. XV. Dilbilim Kurultay Bildirileri, 145-155. İstanbul:
  5. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi.
  6. Diessel, H. (2002).
  7. Demonstratives, Form, Function and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Diessel, H. (2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17 (4), 463-489.
  8. Ergin, M. (1972). Türk Dil Bilgisi. İstanbul: Istanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakultesi Yayınları.
  9. Gencan, T.N. (1971). Dilbilgisi. İstanbul:Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
  10. Gilmore, A. (2004). A comparison of textbook and authentic interactions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 363-374.
  11. Göksel, A. and Kerslake. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive Grammar. Oxon: Routledge. Grosz, B. and Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12 (3), 175-204.
  12. Grundy, P. (1995). Doing Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold. Hayasi, T. (1988). On Turkish Demonstratives. Tokyo University Linguistics Papers 1988,
  13. Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Letters, University of Tokyo, pp. 229-238.
  14. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London:Continuum. Küntay, C. A, R. and Özyürek, A. (2006). Learning to use demonstratives in conversation: What do language strategies reveal in Turkish?Journal of Child Language, 33, 303-320.
  15. Lenz, F. (2007). Reflexivity and Temporality in discourse deixis. In M. Schwartz-Friesel, M. Consten, M. Knees, (Ed.) Anap