Local Coherence and Subject Continuity: An Analysis Within the Centering Theory

Öz

Writing, which include complex processes influenced by many factors, are the least supported linguistic skills in the social context outside the learning environment compared to other learning areas. For this reason, practices in schools are important in the development of writing skills. As these practices aim to ensure that students gain awareness of the functioning of the language system and produce texts that are compatible with the discourse features shaped in line with communicative purposes, students are taught how to make choices compatible with the text type. Therefore, theories and approaches that describe how to make necessary choices to improve writing skills are one of the most important components of teaching effective writing skills. In terms of teaching writing, centering theory is essential as it provides descriptions for the discourse-compatible choices and the establishment of coherence relations needed for text production. Therefore, the aim of the study is to discuss why the centering theory should be taken into account in the practices for the development of writing skills based on the literature, and to describe how the traces of local text coherence and subject continuity are used in conjunction with the principles and concepts set forth by the centering theory

Anahtar Kelimeler

• writting skills
• coherence
• local coherence
• centering theory

Local Coherence and Subject Continuity: An Analysis Within the Centering Theory

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 okullarda yapılan uygulamalar önemlidir. Bu uygulamalar yoluyla öğrencilerin, dil sisteminin işleyişine ilişkin farkındalık kazanması ve iletişimsel amaçlar doğrultusunda şekillenen söylem özellikleriyle uyumlu metinler üretmesi hedeflendiğinden; metin türüyle yapıyla uyumlu seçimlerin nasıl yapılacağı öğretilmeye çalışılmaktadır. Bu bağlamda yazma eylemi için gerekli seçimlerin nasıl yapılacağına dair betimlemeler yapan kuram ve yaklaşımlar yazma öğretiminin önemli bileşenlerinden birisidir. Yazma öğretimi açısından ele alındığında merkezleme kuramı, metin üretimi için ihtiyaç duyulan söylem uyumlu seçimler ile tutarlılık ilişkilerinin kurulumuna dönük betimlemeler sağlaması bakımından son derece önemlidir. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın amacı merkezleme kuramının yazma becerisinin gelişimine dönük uygulamalarda neden dikkate alınması gerektiğini alan yazıdan hareketle tartışmak ve yerel metin tutarlılığı ile konu sürekliliğine ilişkin izlerin nasıl kullanıldığının merkezle kuramının ortaya koyduğu ilke ve kavramlar doğrultusunda betimlemektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• yazma becerisi
• tutarlılık
• yerel tutarlılık
• merkezleme kuramı

Kaynakça

1. Asher, N., and Lascardies, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press.
2. Barzilay, R., and Lapata, M. (2008). Modeling local coherence: An entity-based approach. Computational Linguistics, 34(1), 1-34. doi:10.1162/coli.2008.34.1.1
3. Beaugrande, R., and Dressler, W. (2013). Introduction to text linguistics. Routledge.
4. Berman, A. R. (2004). Introduction: Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 105-124. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.08.003
5. Bialystok, E. (1987). Influences of bilingualism on metalinmguistic development. Second Language Research, 3(2), 154-166. doi:10.1177/026765838700300205
6. Bialystok, E. (2001). Metalinguistic aspect of bilingual processing. Annual Rewiev of Applied Linguistic, 21, 169-182. doi:10.1017/S0267190501000101
7. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., and Demirel, F. (2018). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
8. Carreiras, M., Carriedo, N., Alonso, M. A., and Fernandes, A. (1997). The role of verb tense and verb aspect in the foregrounding of ınformation during reading. Memory and Cognition, 25(4), 438-446. doi:10.3758/BF03201120

9. Carther, R., and McCarth, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of english. Cambridge University Press.
10. Chenovet, N., and Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in l1 and l2. Written Communication, 18, 80-98. doi:10.1177/0741088301018001004
11. Dijk, T., and Kintsch, W. ( 1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.
12. Fletcher, C., Hummel, J. E., and Marolek, C. J. (1990). Causality and the allocation of attention during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, F16(2), 233 - 240. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.16.2.233
13. Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., Ehrlich, M. E., and Carreiras, M. (1995). Representations and processes in the ınterpretation of pronouns: New evidence from spanish and french. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(1), 41-62. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1003
14. Givòn, T. (1987). Beyond foreground and background. In S. T. Russell (Ed.), Coherence and graunding in discourse (pp. 175-188). John benjamins Publishing Company.
15. Goldman, R. S., and Rakestraw, J. A. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaninf from text. In K. Mosental, and P. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (v. 3, pp. 311-335). Routledge.
16. Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., and Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-347. doi:10,1027/s15516709cog1703_1
17. Graesser, A. C., Millis, K., and Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163-189. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.163
18. Graham, S., Hebert, M., and 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. doi:10.1086/681964
19. Grosz, B. J., and Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attentions, ıntentions and structure of discourse. Computational Linsguistics, 12, 175-204.
20. Grosz, B., Joshi, A., and Weinstain, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203-225.
21. Hayes, J. R. (2006). New directions in writing theory. In. C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (s. 28-40). Guilford Press.
22. Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369-388. doi:10.1177/0741088312451260
23. Hobbs, J. R. (1993). Intention, ınformation, and structure in discourse: A firdt draft in burning ıssues in discourse. NATAO Advanced Research Workshop , (pp. 41-66). Maratea / Italy.
24. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Harvard University Press.
25. Kaygısız, Ç., Ayabakan-İpek, M., and Kaya, E. (2020). Ortaokul 7. sınıf öğrenci metinlerinde konu sürekliliği: merkezleme kuramı çerçevesinde bir çözümleme. In G. L. Uzun, E. Arıca-Akkök and Ö. Dağ-Tarcan (Eds.), Türkçenin eğitimi-öğretiminde kuramsal ve uygulamalı çalışmalar (v. 11, pp. 63-73). Ankara Üniversitesi TÖMER.
26. Kintsch, W. (1991). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-ıntegration model. In G. Denhiere and J. P. Rossi (Eds.), Text and text processing (pp. 107-153). North - Holland.
27. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28. Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-ıntegration model of text comprehension and its ımplications for ınstruction. In R. Ruddell and N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th. ed., pp. 1270-1328). International Reading Assoc.
29. Kintsch, W. (2013). Revisiting the construction-ıntegration model of text comprehension and ıts ımplications for ınstruction. In E. A. Donna, J. U. Norman and B. R. Robert (Eds.) , Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th. ed., pp. 807-839). International Reading Associations.
30. Mann, W. C., and Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243-281.
31. McCutchen, D. (2006). Cognitive factors in the development of children's writing. C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, and J. Fitzgerald içinde, Handbook of writing research (pp. 115–130). The Guilford Press.
32. McKoon, G., and Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99(3), 440-446. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.440
33. Miles, M., and Hubermas, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: SAGE Publication Inc.
34. Miltsakaki, E., and Kukich, K. (2000). The role of centering theory's rough-shift in the teaching and evaluation of wring skills. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 408-415). Hong-Kong: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/1075218.1075270
35. Moser, M., and Moore, J. D. (1996). Toward a synthesis of two accounts of discourse structure. Computational Lingusitics, 22(3), 409-419.
36. O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., and Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1200-1210. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1200
37. Poesio, M., Stevenson, R., Eugenio, B., and Hitzeman, J. (2004). Centering: A parametric theory and ıts ınstantions. Computational Linguistics, 30(3), 309-363. doi:0.1080/01638539209544815
38. Rumelhart, D., and McClelland, J. L. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Foundation. MIT Press.
39. Speer, N. K., and Zacks, J. M. (2005). Temporal changes as event boundairies: Processing and momory consequences of narrative time shifts. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 125-140. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.009
40. Stillar, G. F. (1998). Analyzing everyday texts: Discourse, rheotoric and social perpectives. SAFE Publication Inc.
41. Trapman, M., Gelderen, A., Schooten, E., and 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, 893-926. doi:10.1007/s11145-018-9818-9
42. Turan, Ü. D. (2002). Tümce konusuna merkezleme kuramı çerçevesinde bir yaklaşım. In. G. L. Uzun and E. Huber (Eds.), Türkçede bilgi yapısı ve bilimsel metinler (pp. 91-106). Die Blaue Eule.
43. Vallduvi, E. (1992). The ınformation component, outstanding dissertation in linguistics. Garland Publishing.
44. Zwaan, R. A., and Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162-185. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162