Journals / Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2008 / Sayı: 0

Informational Redundant Utterances in Academic Discourse

Akademik Metinlerde Eski Bilgi Sözceleri

Pages
1–14
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)

Results also show that IRUs interact with the local and global levels of discourse structure in interseting ways.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates Informationally Redundant Utterances (IRU) in Turkish academic texts written within the field of linguistics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:IRUs are used to compensate readers’ cognitive limitations, such as the inability to automatically infer some logical conclusions derived from entailments, presuppositions and implicatures.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results also show that IRUs interact with the local and global levels of discourse structure in interseting ways.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study investigates Informationally Redundant Utterances (IRU) in Turkish academic texts written within the field of linguistics. IRUs are used to compensate readers’ cognitive limitations, such as the inability to automatically infer some logical conclusions derived from entailments, presuppositions and implicatures. Writers, therefore, do not take it for granted that the logical conclusions will be drawn online by their readers; instead they present the logical conclusions explicitly with IRUs to provide reader-friendly essays. Likewise, they use IRUs which they think are not salient enough for the readers to immediately retrieve from the memory: Thus, they use IRUs to bring old information to the readers’ focus of attention. Results also show that IRUs interact with the local and global levels of discourse structure in interseting ways.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, dilbilim alanında yazılmış olan Türkçe akademik metinlerdeki Eski Bilgi Sözceleri incelenmiştir. Eski Bilgi Sözcelerinin, okuyucunun bilişsel ve bellek kısıtlılıklarından kaynaklanan güçlükleri aşmasını ve okuma eylemini kolaylaştırmasını sağlayan unsurlar olduğu gözlemlenmiştir: Eski Bilgi Sözceleri, daha önce sözü edilen bir ifadenin yeniden anımsatılması amacıyla kullanılabileceği gibi bir önermede örtük olan ve çıkarım gerektiren önermelerin açıkça belirtilmesi sonucu ortaya çıkar. Ayrıca, Eski Bilgi Sözceleri, yerel ve küresel metin yapısı ile etkileşim içindedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TURAN, Ü. D. (2008). Informational Redundant Utterances in Academic Discourse. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı: 0, 1–14. https://ajindex.com/articles/159603

References (15)

  1. Abbott, C. & Eubanks, P. (2005). How Academics and Practitioners Evaluate Technical Texts: A Focus Group Study Journal of Business and Technical Communication; 19/2: 171-218.
  2. Blakemore, D. (2007) ‘Or’-parentheticals, ‘that is ’-parentheticals and the pragmatics of reformulation. Journal of Linguistics 43/2: 311–339.
  3. Cacioppo, J.T & Petty, R. E. (1989) Effects of Message Repetition on Argument Processing, Recall, and Persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 10/1: 3-12.
  4. Carston, R. (2006) A Note on Pragmatic Principles of Least Effort. http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/publications/WPL/05papers/carston.pdf
  5. Cuenca, M. J. & Bach, C. (2007) Contrasting the form and use of reformulation markers. Discourse Studies 9/2: 149–175
  6. Grice, H. P. (1975), Logic and Conversation. Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan, (Editors). Syntax and Semantics: 3, Academic Press: 41-58
  7. Grosz, B. J. & Sidner, C. L. (1986)
  8. Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12/3: 175-204.
  9. Gülıch, E. (2003) Conversational techniques used in transferring knowledge between medical experts and non-experts. Discourse Studies 5/2: 235–263
  10. Horn, L. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Deborah Schiffrin. (Editor), Meaning, Form and Use in Context (GURT '84), Washington: Georgetown University Pres: 11-42.
  11. Horn, L. (1993) Economy and Redundancy in a Dualistic Model of Natural Language. Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, 33-72 http://www.yale.edu/linguist/faculty/doc/horn_sky.pdf
  12. Horn, L. (2004). Implicature. Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward. (Editors), 3-28 Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman. Hyland, K. (2005) Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education 16/4: 363–377
  13. Hyland, K. (2007) Applying a Gloss: Exemplifying and Reformulating in Academic Discourse. Applied Linguistics 28/2: 266–285 Prince; E. (1981) Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. Peter Cole,(Editor) Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Pres. 223-256. Prince; E. (1992) The ZPG letter: subjects, definiteness, and information-status. Sandra Thompson & William Mann. (Editors). Discourse description: diverse analyses of a fund raising text. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 295-325.
  14. Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1977) Opening up closings. Semiotica. 8: 289-327.
  15. Schiffrin, D. (1987)