İngilizceyi Yabancı Dil Olarak Öğrenen Türk Öğrencilerin Kompozisyonlarında Söylem Belirleyicileri Kullanımları: Derlem Temelli Bir Çalışma

Year 2017, Issue: 1, 132 - 138, 01.04.2017

Semahat Aysu

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’deki Namık Kemal Üniversitesi’nde hazırlık okuyan başlangıç seviyede bulunan 104 öğrencinin söylem belirleyici kullanımlarını araştırmaktır. 2013-2014 akademik yılı vize sınavlarının bir parçası olarak öğrencilerden 80-100 kelimelik bir paragraf yazmaları istenildi. Bu kompozisyonlar kullanılarak küçük ölçüde bir derlem oluşturuldu. Derlem, bir bilgisayar programı olan Ant Conc 3.2.4. kullanılarak söylem belirleyicilerin çeşit ve sıklığını bulmak için analiz edildi. Başlangıç seviyede bulunan öğrenciler tarafından 180 tane söylem belirleyicinin kullanıldığı belirlendi. Ve ‘and’ 98 defa kullanılmıştır, ama ‘but’ 51 kez bulunmuştur, çünkü ‘because’ 18 defa yazılmıştır ve diğer söylem belirleyiciler sonra ‘then’, bu yüzden ‘so’, bunun yanı sıra ‘also’, de, da ‘too’ ve hâlâ ‘still’ ise sırasıyla 7, 2, 2, 1, 1 şeklinde kullanılmıştır. Dahası, Fraser 1999 tarafından yapılan söylem belirleyici sınıflandırmasına göre 180 söylem belirleyici dört kategoriye ayrılmıştır. Bunlardan 101’i detay veren söylem belirleyici, 52’i karşılaştırma sağlayan söylem belirleyici, 18’i neden gösteren söylem belirleyici ve dokuzu çıkarımsal söylem belirleyici olarak bulunmuştur

Keywords

Derlem temelli çalışma, Söylem belirleyiciler, Türk öğrencilerin kompozisyonları, Yabancı dil, İngilizce

The Use of Discourse Markers in the Writings of Turkish Students of English as a Foreign Language: A Corpus Based Study

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the discourse markers used by 104 elementary-level prep class students studying at Namık Kemal University in Turkey. Students were required to write a paragraph with 80-100 words as part of their mid-term exam in the academic year of 2013-2014. A small-size corpus was constructed by using these writings. The corpus was analyzed via a software program called as AntConc 3.2.4. in order to find out the types and frequency of discourse markers. It was revealed that 180 discourse markers were used by elementary-level students: ‘and’ was used 98 times, but occurred 51 times, ‘because’ was written 18 times and other discourse markers of ‘then’, ‘so’, ‘also’, ‘too’ and ‘still’ were used 7, 2, 2, 1, 1 times respectively. Furthermore, according to Fraser’s 1999 taxonomy of discourse markers, 180 discourse markers were grouped into four categories. It was found out that 101 markers were elaborative markers, 52 were contrastive markers, 18 were causative markers and 9 were inferential markers

Keywords

Corpus based study, Discourse markers, Writings of Turkish students, Foreign language, English

References

• Altenberg, B. & Tapper, M. (1998). The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners’ written English. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer. (pp. 80-93). New York: Routledge.
• Bell, D. M. (2010). Cancellative discourse markers: A core/ periphery approach. Pragmatics, 8(4), 515-54.
• Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: grammatical- ization and discourse functions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
• Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Feng, L. (2010). Discourse markers in English writing. The Journal of International Social Research, 3(11), 299-305.
• Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952.
• Gardner, D. (2007). Validating the construct of word in applied corpus-based vocabulary research: a critical survey. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 241-265.
• Grant, L. E. (2010). A corpus comparison of the use of I don’t know by British and New Zealand speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2282-2296.
• Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976).Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
• Heidar, D.M. & Biria, R. (2011). Sociopragmatic functions of discourse markers in international law texts. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(11), 1479-1487.
• Jalilifar, A. (2008). Discourse markers in composition writings: The case of Iranian learners of English as a foreign language. English Language Teaching, 1(2), 114-122.
• Lahuerta Martinez, A.C. (2004). Discourse markers in the expository writing of Spanish university students. Iberica, 8, 63-80.
• McEnery, T. & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus linguistics: an introduction. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.
• Norrish, J. (1983). Language learners and their errors. London: The Macmillan Press.
• Özhan, D.& Zeyrek, D. (2012). A comparative analysis on the use of but, however and although in the university students’ argumentative essays: A corpus-based study on Turkish learners of English and American native speakers. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). METU, Ankara.
• Consequently, they will not be confined to the same markers
• and will learn the differences among the genres.
• Sadeghi, B. & Kargar, A.( 2014). The effect of explicit instruction of discourse markers on EFL learners’ writing ability. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 1(1), 328-338.
• Urgelles-Coll, M. (2010). The syntax and semantic of discourse markers. London: Continuum International Publishing.
• Wang, Y. & Guo, M. (2014). A short analysis of discourse coherence. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(2), 460-465.
• Witte, S. P. & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32(2), 189- 204.
• Zarei, F. (2013). Discourse markers in English. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Science, 4(1), 107-117.
• Rahimi, M. (2011). Discourse markers in argumentative and expository writing of Iranian EFL learners. World Journal of English Language, 1(2), 68-78.