| تعداد نشریات | 24 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 929 |
| تعداد مقالات | 8,346 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 16,802,326 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 14,116,899 |
Anaphors in Casual and Controlled Talk groups of Iranian EFL Learners | ||
| Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly | ||
| شناسنامه علمی شماره، دوره 28، شماره 1، مهر 2009، صفحه 75-97 اصل مقاله (193.87 K) | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/jtls.2012.203 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Hossein Shokouhi* 1؛ Iman Imari2 | ||
| 1Associate Professor of (Applied) Linguistics | ||
| 2M.A. in TEFL | ||
| چکیده | ||
| By relying mainly on the accessibility approach to anaphora, this article intends to analyze the types, distributions and retrieval of anaphors in two forms of spoken discourse: casual and controlled talk. For the specific purposes of the study, twenty sophomore Iranian students were randomly selected to conduct the talks. The subjects were divided into two groups of casual and controlled talk. According to the settings and adopted topics, the overall casual talk group was further divided into two groups of dorm and academic talk. In the end, it was observed that as the talk situations vary, types, frequencies, distances, retrieval qualities and thematic structure (patterning) of anaphors undergo dramatic changes too. Further analyses of the obtained data show that the number of pronominal anaphors is by far more than NP anaphors in dorm casual talk whereas in academic casual talk the number of NP anaphors exceeds that of the former talk groups. However, the distribution of anaphors in the performance of controlled talk groups has shown to be more moderate with regard to the types of anaphors used in it. Overall, the distributional patterns of various anaphoric devices in different talk situations are considered to be a function of the speakers’ evaluation of the cognitive states of the listeners/addressees. Average distances and frequencies of the different types of zero, pronominal, and NP anaphors have also been shown to undergo dramatic changes as talk situations vary. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| 1. Anaphora 2. Casual Talk 3. Controlled Talk 4. Distribution 5. Topic 6. EFL Learners 7. Distance 8. Discourse | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
Bean, D. L. (2004). Acquisition and application of contextual role knowledge for co-reference resolution. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Utah.
Bosch, P. (1983). Agreement and anaphora: A study of the role of pronouns in syntax and discourse. London: Academic Press.
Bosch, P. (1988). Representing and accessing focused referents. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3 (2), 207-231.
Brown, K. and Miller, J. (1991). Syntax. London: Routledge.
Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Button, G. and Casey, N. (1994). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of social interaction: Studies in conversation analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 167-195.
Chafe, W. (1972). Discourse structure and human knowledge. in Carrol, J. B. & Freedle, R. O. (eds.), Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge. Washington, D.C.: V. H. Winston & Sons, 41-69.
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 25-56.
Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constrains on information flow. In Tomlin, R. S. (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 21-52.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, Holland: Cinnaminson.
Duranti, A. (1984). Referential and social meaning of subject pronouns in Italian. Text, 4 (2), 277-311.
Duranti, A. and Ochs, E. (1979). Left dislocation in italian conversation. in Givon, T. (ed.), Discourse and syntax. New York, 377-416.
Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter.
Epstein, R. (2002). the definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents. Cognitive Linguistics. 12 (3), 333-378.
Fox, B. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational english. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Givon, T. (1983). Introduction. In T. Givon (ed.) Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grosz, B. and Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12 (2), 175-204.
Hendricks, O. W. (1976). Grammar of style and styles of grammar. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.
Kang, J. (2004). Telling a coherent story in a foreign language: analysis of korean efl learners’ referential strategies in oral narrative discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 36 (12), 1975-1990.
Karlz E. (2005). A memory based learning approach to pronominal anaphora resolution in german newspaper texts. M.A. Thesis. Turbingen: University of Turbingen.
Netz, H. Kuzar, R. (2007). Three marked theme constructions in spoken english. Journal of Pragmatics, 39 (4) 305-335.
Nouwen, R. (2003). Models for plural anaphora. http://www.gplsi.dlsi. ua.com.
Ochs, E. Keenan, E. and Schieffelin, B. (1976). Foregrounding referents: A reconsideration of left dislocation in discourse. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 240–257.
Palomar, M. and Martinez-Barco, P. (2001). Computational approach to anaphora resolution in spanish dialogue. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 15 (2), 263-287.
Poesio, M. and Dieugino, B. (2001). Discourse structure and anaphoric accessibility. Paper presented at the ESSLLI workshop on information structure, discourse structure and discourse semantics, Copenhagen, Denmark, 129-143.
Seliger, H. W. and Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shokouhi, H. (2000). Conversational Strategies Using Full NP Anaphors. In S. Botley & McEnery, A. M. (eds.), Corpus-based and computational approaches to anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 95-106.
Shokouhi, H. and Kipka, P. (2003). A Discourse study of Persian Ra. Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics, 113 (10), 953-966.
Shokouhi, H. and Kamyab, G. (2004). Analyzing discourse: Multivariant perspectives. Ahvaz: Shahid Chamran University Press.
Tomlin, R. S. (1987). Linguistic reflection of cognitive events. In Tomlin, R. S. (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 455-480.
Tomlin, R. S. (1990). Functionalism in second language acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition, 12 (2), 155-177.
Tomlin, R. S. (1994). Functional grammars, pedagogical grammars, and communicative language teaching. In Odlin, T. (ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 140-178.
Tomlin, R. S. and Pu, M. M. (1991). The management of reference in mandarin discourse. Cognitive Linguistics, 1 (1), 65-93. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 3,689 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 2,455 |
||