BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

SEMANTIC PROSODIC ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH TEXTS PRODUCED BY TURKISH STUDENTS

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 37 - 50, 27.01.2015

FATMA Has ELÇİN Esmer

Öz

This study aims to reveal the use of semantic prosodic words which are decided before happen, cause, bring about, create, effect, provide and two new phrases because of and thanks to in 606 paragraphs by the students of Mersin University ELT Department. The other aims are to find out whether SP types of words have any differences in terms of gender, grade, group and text types, and decide text coherence and cohesion. A special corpus is designed. With Antconc 3.3, all of target words are analyzed with naked eye as Xiao and McEnery (2006) did, and how frequent each type of SP is used in percentages as Stubbs (1995) did. The study shows if there are more than one equivalent of a word in another language, the knowledge of SP may help choosing the best one. Also, appropriate semantic prosodic use may help to produce coherent and cohesive texts.

 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Semantic prosody collocation text coherence-cohesion learner corpus.

Kaynakça

  • REFERENCES (KAYNAKLAR)
  • Ahmadian, M., Yazdani, H., & Darabi, A. (2011). Assessing English learners’ knowledge of semantic prosody through a corpus-driven design of semantic prosody test. Canadian Center of Science and Education. doi:10.5539/elt.v4n4p288.
  • Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc (Windows, Macintosh OS X, and Linux) Readme Text. Retrieved from
  • http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software/README_AntConc3.2.4.pdf in May 2014.
  • Antonacci, P. A., & O’Caalghan, C. M. (2012). Promoting literacy development. SAGE Publications. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/40627_4.pdf
  • Bednarek, M. (2008). Semantic preference and semantic prosody re-examined. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4(2), pp: 119- 139. doi: 10.1515/CLLT.2008.006
  • Berber Sardinha, T. (2000). Semantic prosodies in English and Portuguese: A contrastive study. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa, 9(1), pp:93–109.
  • Carmen, M., Cubillo, C., Belles-Furtuno, B., Gea-Valor, L. M. (2010). Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
  • Ebeling, S. E. (2013). Semantic prosody in a cross- linguistic perspective. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 13: Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English: Focus on Non-Native Englishes. Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/13/ebeling/ on 30.05.2013
  • Eker, S. (2005). Çağdaş Türk Dili. Ankara: Grafiker Yayınları.
  • Erkuş, A. (2009). Davranış bilimleri için bilimsel araştırma süreci. Ankara / İstanbul: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Gabrielatos, C. (1994). Collocations: Pedagogical implications, and their treatment in pedagogical materials. Unpublished essay. Research Center for English and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge. Retrieved from http://www.gabrielatos.com/Collocation.pdf
  • Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. NewYork: Routledge.
  • Guo, X., et al. (2010). Acquisition of conscious and unconscious knowledge of semantic prosody. Elseiver, Consciousness and Cognition, 20. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2010.06.015.
  • Gyllstad, H. (2007). Testing English collocations: Developing receptive tests for use with advanced Swedish learners. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Lund University, Sweden.
  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. UK: Pearson Education Limited.
  • Hunston, S. (2007). Semantic prosody revisited. Words, grammar, text: Revisiting the work of John Sinclair. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12,pp: 249– 268.
  • İrgin, P. (2011). Listening strategies used by Turkish students learning English as a foreign language: The development of listening strategy inventory. Unpublished Master Thesis. Mersin University, Mersin.
  • Louw, B. (2008). Contextual prosodic theory: bringing semantic prosodies to life. Texto Janvier, 8(1),pp: 1-58.Retrieved from http://www.revue-texto.net/docannexe/file/124/louw_prosodie.pdf
  • Louw, B., & Chateau, C. (2010). Semantic prosody for the 21st century: Are prosodies smoothed in academic contexts? A contextual prosodic theoretical perspective. JADT 2010: 10th International Conference of Statistical Analysis of Textual Data.
  • McCarten, J. (2007). Teaching vocabulary. Lessons from the corpus, Lessons for the classroom. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
  • McDonough, S. (2002). Applied Linguistics in Language Education. London: Arnold Publishers.
  • Meyer, C. F. (2004). English corpus linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Milojkoviç, M. (2013). Is corpus stylistics bent on self-improvement? The role of reference corpora 20 years after the advent of semantic prosody. Journal of Literary Semantics, 42(1), pp:59-78. doi: 10.1515/jls-2013-0002.
  • Ministry of National Education. (2008). İngilizce öğretmeni özel alan yeterlikleri. Retrieved from otmg.meb.gov.tr/alaningilizce.html in December, 2011.
  • Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nation, P., & Carter, R. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition. Assocation Internationale de Linguistique Applique (AILA) Review. Retrieved from http://www.aila.info/download/publications/review/AILA06.pdf#page=10 in March, 2014
  • Nelson, M. (2006). Semantic associations in business English: A corpus-based analysis. Elseiver, English for Specific Purposes, 25, pp: 217- 234. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.008
  • Öztürk, M. (2006). Vocabulary teaching. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil Dergisi, 133,pp: 20-28. doi: 10.1501/Dilder_0000000060
  • Parikh, P. (2001). The Use of Language. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.
  • Redhouse English- Turkish, Turkish English Dictionary. (2012). İstanbul: SEV Matbaacılık ve Yayıncılık Eğitim Ticaret A. Ş.
  • Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sadeghi, K. (2009). Collocational differences between L1 and L2: Implications for EFL learners and teachers. TESL Canada Journal, 26(2), pp: 100- 124.
  • Sadeghi, K., & Panahifar, F. (2013). A corpus- based analysis of collocational errors in the Iranian EFL learners’ oral production. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 69(4),pp: 53- 78.
  • Sahillioglu, F., Sahinkayasi, Y., & Sahinkayasi, H. (2012). Effectiveness of two corpus tools on Turkish students’ learning English Grammar. e-journal of New World Sciences Academy NWSA Education Sciences, Volume:7, Number:1, 1C0488, pp: 230-240. Retrieved from http://www.newwsa.com/download/gecici_makale_dosyalari/NWSA-5762-2656-5.pdf
  • Semin, G. R. (1998). Cognition, language and communication. In Fussell, S. R., & Kreuz, R. J. (Eds.). Social and Cognitive Psychological Approaches to Interpersonal Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://www.cratylus.org/people/uploadedFiles/1118485714114-9752.pdf in February, 2014.
  • Shei, C.-C., & Pain, H. (2000). An ESL writer’s collocational aid. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2),pp: 167-182.
  • Shejbalova, D. (2006). Methods and approaches in vocabulary teaching and their influence on students’ acquisition. Unpublished final work. Masaryk University, Czech Republic. Retrieved from http://is.muni.cz/th/104917/pedf_b_a2/bakalarska_prace.pdf
  • Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). Semantic prosody. Corpus Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-10791/corp_sempros.pdf in May, 2012.
  • Stewart, D. (2010). Semantic prosody: A critical evaluation. New York: Routledge Publishing.
  • Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and Semantic Profiles: On the Cause of the Trouble with Quantitative Studies. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). What teachers have always wanted to know – and how corpora can help. In Sinclair, J. M. (Ed.). How to use corpora in language teaching (p. 39- 61). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Xia, J. (2010). Communicative language teaching in vocabulary teaching and learning in a Swedish comprehensive class. D-essay in English Didactics.
  • Xiao, R. Z., & Mcenery, T. (2006). Collocation, semantic prosody, and near synonymy: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Applied Linguistics 27(1),pp: 103–129. doi:10.1093/applin/ami045
  • Walker, C. (2011). How a corpus-based study of the factors which influence collocation can help in the teaching of business English. Elseiver, English for Specific Purposes, 30,pp: 101- 112. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2010.12.003
  • Wei, N. (2002). Research methods in the studies of semantic prosody. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 34(4), pp: 300-307.
  • Wei, N. (2002). Research methods in the studies of semantic prosody. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 34(4),pp: 300-307.
  • Wu, Y. (2009). The application of CLT in college English vocabulary teaching. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 4(3), pp:128-131.
  • Yang, S. (2011). Corpus-based English near synonym distinction in learner autonomy mode. Psychology Research, 02,pp: 52-55. doi: 10. 5503/J. PR. 2011.02.012
  • Yu, P., & Cai, J. (2009). Semantic prosody: a new perspective on lexicography. US- China Foreign Language, 7(1),pp: 20-25.
  • Zethsen, K. K. (2006). Semantic prosody: Creating awareness about a versatile tool. Tidsskrift for Sprogforskning, 4(1-2),pp. 275- 294.
  • Zhang, C. (2010a). An overview of corpus-based studies of semantic prosody. Asian Social Science, 6(6),pp: 190- 194.
  • Zhang, C. (2010b). A comparative corpus-based study of semantic prosody. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(4),pp: 451-456. doi: 10.4304/jltr.1.4.451-456
  • Zhang, W. (2009). Perspectives: Semantic prosody and ESL/ EFL vocabulary pedagogy. TESL Canada Journal, 26(2), pp: 1-12.

-

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 37 - 50, 27.01.2015

FATMA Has ELÇİN Esmer

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı alanyazında daha once yapılan çalışmalarda anlamsal bürün görünümleri ıspatlanmış happen, cause, bring about, create, effect, provide, ve bunlara ek olarak because of ve thanks to gibi iki yeni yapının 2012- 2013 akademik yılında Mersin Üniversitesi İngilizce Öğretmenliği bölümü öğrencileri tarafından yazılan 606 İngilizce sorgulamaktır. Çalışmanın diğer amaçları cinsiyet, sınıf, grup ve metin türü değişkenlerine göre anlamsal bürün kullanımının ve bununla metin bağdaşıklık-tutarlılık oranının betimlenmesidir. Katılımcılar konulara göre neden-etki, anlatı ve düşünce paragrafı türlerinde metinler üretmiş ve metinler bilgisayar ortamına aktarılarak çalışma için özel bir derlem oluşturulmuştur. AntConc 3.3 yazılımı yardımıyla tüm eşdizimler Xiao ve McEnery’nin (2006) yaptığı gibi manuel incelenmiştir. Ardından anlamsal bürün sınıflaması Stubbs (1995)’ın çalışmasında yaptığı gibi yüzdelik ifadelerle belirtilmiştir. Çalışma diğer dilde birden fazla anlamı olan kelimelerin doğru ifadelerle kullanımında bürün bilgisinin yararlı olabileceğini göstermiştir. Ayrıca bağdaşıklığı ve tutarlığı artıracağı yönündedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Anlamsal Bürün Eşdizim Metin Bağdaşıklığı

Kaynakça

  • REFERENCES (KAYNAKLAR)
  • Ahmadian, M., Yazdani, H., & Darabi, A. (2011). Assessing English learners’ knowledge of semantic prosody through a corpus-driven design of semantic prosody test. Canadian Center of Science and Education. doi:10.5539/elt.v4n4p288.
  • Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc (Windows, Macintosh OS X, and Linux) Readme Text. Retrieved from
  • http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software/README_AntConc3.2.4.pdf in May 2014.
  • Antonacci, P. A., & O’Caalghan, C. M. (2012). Promoting literacy development. SAGE Publications. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/40627_4.pdf
  • Bednarek, M. (2008). Semantic preference and semantic prosody re-examined. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4(2), pp: 119- 139. doi: 10.1515/CLLT.2008.006
  • Berber Sardinha, T. (2000). Semantic prosodies in English and Portuguese: A contrastive study. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa, 9(1), pp:93–109.
  • Carmen, M., Cubillo, C., Belles-Furtuno, B., Gea-Valor, L. M. (2010). Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
  • Ebeling, S. E. (2013). Semantic prosody in a cross- linguistic perspective. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 13: Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English: Focus on Non-Native Englishes. Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/13/ebeling/ on 30.05.2013
  • Eker, S. (2005). Çağdaş Türk Dili. Ankara: Grafiker Yayınları.
  • Erkuş, A. (2009). Davranış bilimleri için bilimsel araştırma süreci. Ankara / İstanbul: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Gabrielatos, C. (1994). Collocations: Pedagogical implications, and their treatment in pedagogical materials. Unpublished essay. Research Center for English and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge. Retrieved from http://www.gabrielatos.com/Collocation.pdf
  • Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. NewYork: Routledge.
  • Guo, X., et al. (2010). Acquisition of conscious and unconscious knowledge of semantic prosody. Elseiver, Consciousness and Cognition, 20. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2010.06.015.
  • Gyllstad, H. (2007). Testing English collocations: Developing receptive tests for use with advanced Swedish learners. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Lund University, Sweden.
  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. UK: Pearson Education Limited.
  • Hunston, S. (2007). Semantic prosody revisited. Words, grammar, text: Revisiting the work of John Sinclair. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12,pp: 249– 268.
  • İrgin, P. (2011). Listening strategies used by Turkish students learning English as a foreign language: The development of listening strategy inventory. Unpublished Master Thesis. Mersin University, Mersin.
  • Louw, B. (2008). Contextual prosodic theory: bringing semantic prosodies to life. Texto Janvier, 8(1),pp: 1-58.Retrieved from http://www.revue-texto.net/docannexe/file/124/louw_prosodie.pdf
  • Louw, B., & Chateau, C. (2010). Semantic prosody for the 21st century: Are prosodies smoothed in academic contexts? A contextual prosodic theoretical perspective. JADT 2010: 10th International Conference of Statistical Analysis of Textual Data.
  • McCarten, J. (2007). Teaching vocabulary. Lessons from the corpus, Lessons for the classroom. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
  • McDonough, S. (2002). Applied Linguistics in Language Education. London: Arnold Publishers.
  • Meyer, C. F. (2004). English corpus linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Milojkoviç, M. (2013). Is corpus stylistics bent on self-improvement? The role of reference corpora 20 years after the advent of semantic prosody. Journal of Literary Semantics, 42(1), pp:59-78. doi: 10.1515/jls-2013-0002.
  • Ministry of National Education. (2008). İngilizce öğretmeni özel alan yeterlikleri. Retrieved from otmg.meb.gov.tr/alaningilizce.html in December, 2011.
  • Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nation, P., & Carter, R. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition. Assocation Internationale de Linguistique Applique (AILA) Review. Retrieved from http://www.aila.info/download/publications/review/AILA06.pdf#page=10 in March, 2014
  • Nelson, M. (2006). Semantic associations in business English: A corpus-based analysis. Elseiver, English for Specific Purposes, 25, pp: 217- 234. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.008
  • Öztürk, M. (2006). Vocabulary teaching. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil Dergisi, 133,pp: 20-28. doi: 10.1501/Dilder_0000000060
  • Parikh, P. (2001). The Use of Language. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.
  • Redhouse English- Turkish, Turkish English Dictionary. (2012). İstanbul: SEV Matbaacılık ve Yayıncılık Eğitim Ticaret A. Ş.
  • Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sadeghi, K. (2009). Collocational differences between L1 and L2: Implications for EFL learners and teachers. TESL Canada Journal, 26(2), pp: 100- 124.
  • Sadeghi, K., & Panahifar, F. (2013). A corpus- based analysis of collocational errors in the Iranian EFL learners’ oral production. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 69(4),pp: 53- 78.
  • Sahillioglu, F., Sahinkayasi, Y., & Sahinkayasi, H. (2012). Effectiveness of two corpus tools on Turkish students’ learning English Grammar. e-journal of New World Sciences Academy NWSA Education Sciences, Volume:7, Number:1, 1C0488, pp: 230-240. Retrieved from http://www.newwsa.com/download/gecici_makale_dosyalari/NWSA-5762-2656-5.pdf
  • Semin, G. R. (1998). Cognition, language and communication. In Fussell, S. R., & Kreuz, R. J. (Eds.). Social and Cognitive Psychological Approaches to Interpersonal Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://www.cratylus.org/people/uploadedFiles/1118485714114-9752.pdf in February, 2014.
  • Shei, C.-C., & Pain, H. (2000). An ESL writer’s collocational aid. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2),pp: 167-182.
  • Shejbalova, D. (2006). Methods and approaches in vocabulary teaching and their influence on students’ acquisition. Unpublished final work. Masaryk University, Czech Republic. Retrieved from http://is.muni.cz/th/104917/pedf_b_a2/bakalarska_prace.pdf
  • Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). Semantic prosody. Corpus Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-10791/corp_sempros.pdf in May, 2012.
  • Stewart, D. (2010). Semantic prosody: A critical evaluation. New York: Routledge Publishing.
  • Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and Semantic Profiles: On the Cause of the Trouble with Quantitative Studies. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). What teachers have always wanted to know – and how corpora can help. In Sinclair, J. M. (Ed.). How to use corpora in language teaching (p. 39- 61). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Xia, J. (2010). Communicative language teaching in vocabulary teaching and learning in a Swedish comprehensive class. D-essay in English Didactics.
  • Xiao, R. Z., & Mcenery, T. (2006). Collocation, semantic prosody, and near synonymy: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Applied Linguistics 27(1),pp: 103–129. doi:10.1093/applin/ami045
  • Walker, C. (2011). How a corpus-based study of the factors which influence collocation can help in the teaching of business English. Elseiver, English for Specific Purposes, 30,pp: 101- 112. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2010.12.003
  • Wei, N. (2002). Research methods in the studies of semantic prosody. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 34(4), pp: 300-307.
  • Wei, N. (2002). Research methods in the studies of semantic prosody. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 34(4),pp: 300-307.
  • Wu, Y. (2009). The application of CLT in college English vocabulary teaching. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 4(3), pp:128-131.
  • Yang, S. (2011). Corpus-based English near synonym distinction in learner autonomy mode. Psychology Research, 02,pp: 52-55. doi: 10. 5503/J. PR. 2011.02.012
  • Yu, P., & Cai, J. (2009). Semantic prosody: a new perspective on lexicography. US- China Foreign Language, 7(1),pp: 20-25.
  • Zethsen, K. K. (2006). Semantic prosody: Creating awareness about a versatile tool. Tidsskrift for Sprogforskning, 4(1-2),pp. 275- 294.
  • Zhang, C. (2010a). An overview of corpus-based studies of semantic prosody. Asian Social Science, 6(6),pp: 190- 194.
  • Zhang, C. (2010b). A comparative corpus-based study of semantic prosody. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(4),pp: 451-456. doi: 10.4304/jltr.1.4.451-456
  • Zhang, W. (2009). Perspectives: Semantic prosody and ESL/ EFL vocabulary pedagogy. TESL Canada Journal, 26(2), pp: 1-12.
Toplam 55 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Dilbilim
Yazarlar

FATMA Has Bu kişi benim

ELÇİN Esmer

Yayımlanma Tarihi 27 Ocak 2015
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2015 Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Has, F., & Esmer, E. (2015). SEMANTIC PROSODIC ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH TEXTS PRODUCED BY TURKISH STUDENTS. Humanities Sciences, 10(1), 37-50. https://doi.org/10.12739/NWSA.2015.10.1.4C0192
AMA Has F, Esmer E. SEMANTIC PROSODIC ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH TEXTS PRODUCED BY TURKISH STUDENTS. Humanities Sciences. Ocak 2015;10(1):37-50. doi:10.12739/NWSA.2015.10.1.4C0192
Chicago Has, FATMA, ve ELÇİN Esmer. “SEMANTIC PROSODIC ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH TEXTS PRODUCED BY TURKISH STUDENTS”. Humanities Sciences 10, sy. 1 (Ocak 2015): 37-50. https://doi.org/10.12739/NWSA.2015.10.1.4C0192.
EndNote Has F, Esmer E (01 Ocak 2015) SEMANTIC PROSODIC ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH TEXTS PRODUCED BY TURKISH STUDENTS. Humanities Sciences 10 1 37–50.
IEEE F. Has ve E. Esmer, “SEMANTIC PROSODIC ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH TEXTS PRODUCED BY TURKISH STUDENTS”, Humanities Sciences, c. 10, sy. 1, ss. 37–50, 2015, doi: 10.12739/NWSA.2015.10.1.4C0192.
ISNAD Has, FATMA - Esmer, ELÇİN. “SEMANTIC PROSODIC ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH TEXTS PRODUCED BY TURKISH STUDENTS”. Humanities Sciences 10/1 (Ocak 2015), 37-50. https://doi.org/10.12739/NWSA.2015.10.1.4C0192.
JAMA Has F, Esmer E. SEMANTIC PROSODIC ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH TEXTS PRODUCED BY TURKISH STUDENTS. Humanities Sciences. 2015;10:37–50.
MLA Has, FATMA ve ELÇİN Esmer. “SEMANTIC PROSODIC ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH TEXTS PRODUCED BY TURKISH STUDENTS”. Humanities Sciences, c. 10, sy. 1, 2015, ss. 37-50, doi:10.12739/NWSA.2015.10.1.4C0192.
Vancouver Has F, Esmer E. SEMANTIC PROSODIC ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH TEXTS PRODUCED BY TURKISH STUDENTS. Humanities Sciences. 2015;10(1):37-50.