Rhetorical Structure Appearances in Memoir-Type Text

Öz

Writing skill, which includes many factors and complex processes, is the linguistic skill that receives the lowest amount of support in the out-of-school social context among learning areas. Therefore, practices conducted at schools for the development of writing skills are significant. Such practices are aimed toward students gaining awareness of the functioning of the language system and producing texts that are compatible with discourse features developed in line with communicative purposes. Therefore, theories and approaches that describe how to make choices that match specific text types are an important component of writing education. This study aims to determine the appearance of the units in memoir-type texts that allow tracking the coherence relations on the text surface with the establishment of rhetorical relations between sections of text using the tools of the rhetorical structure theory and review and discuss at an academic level why these tools should be taken into account in the processes of writing education.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Writing Education
• Rhetorical Structure Theory
• Discourse
• Text Type
• Memoir

Anı Türü Metinlerde Retorik Yapı Görünümleri

Öz

Birçok faktörün etkili olduğu ve karmaşık süreçler içeren yazma becerisi, diğer öğrenme alanlarıyla karşılaştırıldığında okul dışı toplumsal bağlamda en az desteklenen dilsel beceri konumundadır. Bu nedenle yazma becerisinin gelişiminde okulda yapılan uygulamalar önemlidir. Bu uygulamalar yoluyla öğrencilerin, dil sisteminin işleyişine ilişkin farkındalık kazanması ve iletişimsel amaçlar doğrultusunda şekillenen söylem özellikleriyle uyumlu metinler üretmesi hedeflenmektedir. Bu nedenle, metin türüyle uyumlu seçimlerin nasıl yapılacağına dair betimlemeler yapan kuram ve yaklaşımlar, yazma öğretiminin önemli bileşenlerinden birisidir. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın amacı metin katmanları arasındaki retorik ilişkilerin kurulumu ile tutarlılık izlerinin metin yüzeyinde izlenebilir olmasına olanak tanıyan birimlerin, anı türü metinlerdeki görünümlerinin Retorik Yapı Kuramının sağladığı araçlar ile belirlenmesi ve kuramın sağladığı araçların yazma öğretimine dönük süreçlerde neden dikkate alınması gerektiğinin akademik düzeyde ele alınıp tartışılmasıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yazma Öğretimi
• Retorik Yapı Kuramı
• Söylem
• Metin Türü
• Anı

Kaynakça

1. Bestgen, Y. (1998). Segmentation markers as trace and signal of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(6), 753–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00082-9
2. Berman, R. A. (2009) Language development in narrative context. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of child language (pp. 368–388). Cambridge University Press.
3. Bialystok, E. (1987). Influences of bilingualism on metalinguistic development. Second Language Research, 3(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765838700300205
4. Bialystok, E. (2001). Metalinguistic aspect of bilingual processing. Annual Rewiev of Applied Linguistic, 21, 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190501000101
5. Cavanagh, S. (1997). Content analysis: Concepts, methods, and applications. Nurse Research, 4(3), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.4.3.5.s2
6. Carther, R., & McCarth, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge University Press.
7. Chatman, S. (1990). Coming to terms: The rhetoric of narrative in fiction and films. Cornell University Press.
8. Creswell, J. W. (2020). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (M. Bütün, & S. B. Demir, Çev.; 5 bs.). Siyasal Kitabevi. Emmott, C. (1999). Narrative comprehension a discourse perspectives. Oxford University Press.

9. Gergakopoulou, A. (2011). Narrative. In Z. Jan, Ö. Jan-Ola, & V. Jef (Eds.), Discursive pragmatics (pp. 190–207). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
10. Graham, S., Hebert, M., & Harris, K. R. (2015). Research-based writing practices and the common core: Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. The Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 498–522. https://doi.org/10.1086/681964
11. Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse. Computational Discourse, 12(3), 175–204.
12. Grosz, B.J., A., & Weinstain, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203–225. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada324949
13. Hobbs, J. R. (1983). Why is discourse coherent? In F. Neubauer (Ed.), Coherence in natural language texts (pp. 26–69). Helmut Buske.
14. Hopper, P. J. (1997). When 'grammar' and discourse clash: The problem of source conflict. In J. H. Bybee (Ed.), Essays on language function and language types (pp. 231–247). John Benjamins Publishing Publishing Company.
15. Kaygısız, Ç. (2018). Okuma eğitiminde metinsel yapı farkındalığı: Bilgilendirici metin örneği. Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 13(4), 823–840. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.12868
16. Kellog, R. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive develeopment perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2008.01.01.1
17. Kibble, R. (1999, Jan, 1). Cb or not Cb? Centering Applied to NLG [Paper presentation]. ACL'99 Workshop on Discourse and Reference, College Park, United States of America.
18. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City. University of Pennsylvania Press.
19. Lakoff, R. T. (1981). Persuasive discourse and ordinary conversation. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Georgetown University Table on Languages and Linguistics (GURT) analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 25–42). Georgetown University Press.
20. Lascardies, A., & Asher, N. (1993). Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19(1), 1–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986208
21. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publishing Inc.
22. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. TEXT, 8(3), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1.1988.8.3.243
23. Matthiessen, C. (1995). Lexicogrammatical cartography: English system. International Language Sciences.
24. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE Publication Inc.
25. Moore, J. D., & Pollack, M. E. (1992). A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics, 18(4), 537–544.
26. Moore, j. D., & Wiemer-Hastings, P. (2003). Discourse in computational linguistics and artifical intelligence. In. A. C. Graeser, M. A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse process (pp. 439–487). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Moser, M., & Moore, J. D. (1996). Toward a synthesis of two accounts of discourse structure. Computational Linguistics, 22(3), 409–419.
28. Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Wilson, A. (2016). Writing conversation: Fostering metalinguistic dissussion about writing. Research Papers in Education, 31(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2016.1106694
29. Nicholas, N. (1994). Problems in the application of rhetoric structure theory to text generation [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Melbourne.
30. Presley, M., & Harris, R. K. (2006). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction. In P. A. Alexander, & H. W. Philip (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd dd., pp. 287–305). Routledge.
31. Reither, E. (1994). Has a consensus NL Generation Architecture appeared, and is it psycholinguistically plausible? Seventh International Natural Language Generation Workshop. Kennebunkport.
32. Ruhi, Ş. (2009). Söylem ve birey. In. A. Kocaman (Ed.), Söylem üzerine (3th. ed., pp. 16–26). ODTÜ Yayıncılık.
33. Smith, C. S. (1997). The parameter of aspect. Kluwer Academic Publisher.
34. Smith, C. S. (2003). Modes of discourse the local structure of texts. Cambridge University Press.
35. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. SAGE Publications Inc.
36. Taboada, M., & Mann, W. C. (2006). Rhetoric Structure Theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discouse Studies, 8(3), 423–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606061881
37. Tannen, D. (1982). Oral and literate strategies in spoken and written narratives. Language, 1(58), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/413530
38. Tomlin, R. S. (1987). Linguistic reflection of cognitive events. In. R. S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 455–479). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
39. Trapman, M., Gelderen, A., Schooten, E., & Hulstijn, J. (2018). Writing proficiency level and writing development of low-achieving adolescent: The role of linguistic knowledge, fluency and metacognitive knowledge. Reading and Writing, 31, 893–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9818-9
40. Turan, Ü. D., Zeyrek, D., & Bozşahin, C. (2012). Söylem ve bağdaşıklık ilişkileri. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 2, 41–65.
41. Uzun, L. (2011). Genel dilbilim II. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
42. van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 1). Academic Press.
43. van Dijk, T. A. (1992). Text and context explorations in the semanticcs and pragmatics of discourse (6th ed.). Longman Group.
44. Virtanen, T. (1990). On the definition of text and discourse. Folia Linguistica, 3-4(24), 447–455.
45. Yazıcı, N. (2004). Anlatı metinlerinde ön ve arka planı belirginleştiren dilsel görünümler: Türkçe üzerine gözlemler [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Ankara Üniversitesi.
46. Zacks, J. M. (1998). The cognitive neuroscience of discourse: Covered grounded and new directions. In M. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse processes (pp. 269–294). Routledge.