Bu ve Bunlar Sözcüklerinin Akademik Yazında Adıl ve Belirteç Olarak Kullanımı

Abstract

Bütünce temelli  bu çalışmada uygulamalı dilbilim alanında Amerikalı yazarlar tarafından yazılan akademik makaleler ile tecrübesiz Türk akademisyenlerin yaptığı yüksek lisans tezlerinde bu ve bunlar sözcüklerinin cümle başında adıl ve belirteç olarak kullanımları incelenmiştir. Akademik yazım kılavuzlarının yönergelerinin önerilenin aksine genel olarak her iki gruptaki yazarların  bu sözcükleri cümle başında hem adıl hem de belirteç kullandıkları bulunmuştur. Bu bulgular iìgili alınyazın doğrultusunda sunulmuştur.  Bu çalışma sonunda elde edilen bulgular ışığında ikinci dilde yazanlar ve bu alanda eğitim verenlerin bu yapılar ile ilgili farkındalıklarının artmasına ve buna bağlı olarak daha anlaşılır metinler ortaya çıkmasına katkı sağlanması beklenmektedir. 

Keywords

• Akademik yazın,Bu ve Bunlar,Adıl,Belirteç

Sentence-Initial This and These in Academic Prose

Abstract

This corpus-based exploratory study investigates the use of sentence-initial this and these as pronouns and determiners in a corpus of research articles by American writers and MA theses by novice Turkish academic writers in the field of Applied Linguistics. The study reveals that authors use sentence-initial this and these both as pronouns (unattended) and determiners (attended). Contrary to expectations, prescriptions of style manuals and guide-books, overall both groups used sentence-initial this and these as pronouns and determiners, yet with lower ratios than previous studies. The findings indicate a close relationship between the writers’ educational background, their field of study, and their employment of SI this and these as pronouns. The findings are discussed with reference to the relevant literature. The knowledge gained from this study can increase our awareness of the uses and purposes of these structures in academic prose.

Keywords

• (Un)attended sentence initial this and these,pronoun,determiner,academic writing

References

1. Amaral, M. P. (1985). On the categories of textual cohesion and text complexity. Letras De Hoje, 18, 60, 29–40.
2. Aktas, R. N., & Cortes, V. (2008). Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 3–14.
3. American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
4. Anderson, A., Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. J. (1983). The accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of episode shifts in narrative text. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35, 427–440.
5. Anthony, L. (2006). Developing a freeware, multiplatform corpus analysis toolkit for the technical writing classroom. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49, 3, 275–286.

6. Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc (Version 3.2.2). Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Retrieved from http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp

7. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson.
8. Boettger, R. K. & Wulff, S. (2014). The naked truth about the naked this: investigating grammatical prescriptivism in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 23, 115–140.

9. Charles, M. (2003). ‘This mystery...’: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 313–326.
10. Crossly, S. A., D. Rose, D.F., Danekes, C., Rose, W. Rose, & McNamara, D. E. (2016). That noun phrase may be beneficial and this may not be: discourse cohesion in reading and writing. Springer Science Business Media Dordrecht.
11. Ehrlich, K., & Rayner, K. (1983). Pronouns assignment and semantic integration during reading: Eye- movements and immediacy of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 75–87.

12. Faigley, L. (2006). The brief penguin handbook (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.

13. Geisler, C., Kaufer, D., & Steinberg, E. (1985). The unattended anaphoric “this”: When should writers use it? Written Communication, 2, 2, 129–155.
14. Gray, B. (2010). On the use of demonstrative pronouns and determiners as cohesive devices: A focus on sentence-initial this/these in academic prose. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 167-183.
15. Gray, B. & Cortes, V. (2011). Perception vs. evidence: An analysis of this and these in academic prose. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 31–43
16. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

17. Hudson, S. B., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Dell, G. S. (1986). The effect of discourse center on the local coherence of a discourse. In Proceedings of the eighth annual conference of the cognitive science society, (pp. 96–101). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

18. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses. London: Longman.
19. Johnson-Sheehan, R. (2005). Technical communication today. New York: Pearson.

20. Kossowska, A. (2004). The anaphora-cataphora switch using pronouns, determinatives, and adverbs. Studia Linguistica, 23, 29–48.

21. Lunsford, A. A. (2003). The St. Martins handbook (5th ed.). Boston: Bedford St. Martins.

22. Markel, M. (2004). Technical communication (7th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.

23. McCulley, G. A. (1985). Writing quality, coherence, and cohesion. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 3, 269–282.

24. Moskovit, L. (1983). When is broad reference clear? College Composition and Communication, 34, 4, 454–469.

25. Pfeiffer, W. S., & Adkins, K. E. (2010). Technical communication: A practical approach (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Longman.

26. Raman, M., & Sharma, S. (2005). Technical communication: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press India.

27. Riordan, D. G. (2005). Technical report writing today (9th ed.). New York, NY: Houghton-Mifflin.
28. Roberts, P. (1952). Pronominal ‘this’: a quantitative analysis. American Speech, 27, 171-178.
29. Steinberg, E., Kaufer, D., & Geisler, C. (1984). Response to Leonard Moskovit, “When is broad reference clear? College Composition and Communication, 35, 4, 478–486.

30. Strunk, W., & White, E. B. (2000). The elements of style (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

31. Swales, J. (2005). Attended and unattended “this” in academic writing: A long and unfinished story. ESP Malaysia, 11, 1–15.

32. Swales, John M. & Christine B. Feak. (2000). English in today’s research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

33. Swales, John & Christine B. Feak. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

34. Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32, 2, 189–204.

35. Woolever, K. R. (2005). Writing for the technical professions (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
36. Wulff, S., Romer, U., & Swales, J. (2012). Attended/unattended this in academic student writing: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8, 1, 129–157.