Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

Differences in linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance

Journal Name:

  • Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2012

Key Words:

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The research presented in this paper aimed to investigate the linguistic and discourse characteristics of narratives produced by student-teachers in an ELT department. Thirty-four students from the ELT Department of Inonu University participated in the study. Each was asked to write two stories about an experience in which they were made angry (in English) and an experience in which they made someone angry (in Turkish). A total of 68 narrative texts were collected. Using concordance software the number of types and tokens and the type-token ratio were calculated; and each sentence in the text was rated as simple, coordinate, complex and coordinate+complex by the researcher to reveal the syntactic richness. The analyses suggest that although the participants’ Turkish texts are richer than the English ones in terms of lexical richness, there is high parallelism between the texts in terms of syntactic richness. We believe that relatively poor vocabulary in the target language is the main reason for participants to prefer writing in their native language.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-differences-linguistic-and-discourse-features-narrative-writing-performance.pdf
  • 2
40-47
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Allman, B. (2005). Vocabulary Size and Accuracy of Monolingual and Bilingual Preschool Children. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, and J. MacSwan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 58-77). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Crossley, S. A. & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009), 119–135.
Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Decarrico, J. S. (2001). Vocabulary Learning and Teaching. In Marianne Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English As a Second or Foreign Language. (pp.285-299). USA: Heinle & Heinle.
Dewaele, J-M. (2005). Investigating the psychological and emotional dimensions in instructed language learning: Obstacles and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal 89 (3), 367–380.
Dewaele, J-M., & Pavlenko, A. (2002). Emotion vocabulary in interlanguage. Language Learning 52 (2), 263–322.
Dewaele, J-M., & Pavlenko, A. (2003). Productivity and lexical diversity in native and non-native speech: A study of cross-cultural effects. In V. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 120–141).Clevedon, OH: Multilingual Matters.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research 8 (1), 5–29
Hinkel, E. (2009). The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009), 667-683.
Genç, B., Büyükkarcı, K. ve Göksu, A. (2012). Differences in linguistic and discourse features of narrative
writing performance. Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi, 1(2), 40-47.
47
Ho, J.W.Y. (2009). The language of anger in Chinese and English narratives. International Journal of Bilingualism 13 (4),481-500.
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011), 148-161.
Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London:Routledge.
Laufer, B. (2003). The Influence of L2 on L1 Collocational Knowledge and on L1 Lexical Diversity in Free Written Expression. In V. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 19–31).Clevedon, OH: Multilingual Matters.
Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peters, P. (2004). The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com