The present study, drawing on the Hierarchy Model which claims that anaphoric encoding and discourse organization are closely correlated, aims to explore the distribution of pronouns and zero anaphora as anaphoric patterns for the third-person human referents in Turkish spoken discourse and the relationship between this anaphoric distribuiton and the rhetorical structure of discourse. Within this framework, the present study carries out the Rhetorical Structure Analysis on the database which comprises five spoken texts recorded from a television program. The findings of the analysis indicate that the hierarchical structure of discourse determines the choice of a particular anaphoric form.
Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and Accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24, 65-67.
---(1990). Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.
Chafe, W. (haz.) (1980). The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
---(1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Du Bois, J. (1980). Beyond Definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. W. Chafe (haz.),The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, 203-274. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fox, B. (1987). Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Enç, M. (1986). Topic Switching and Pronominal Subjects in Turkish. D. Slobin ve K.Zimmer (haz.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics, 195-208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Givön, T. (1983). Topic Continuity in Discourse: An Introduction. T. Givön (Haz.), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study, 1-42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. . (1985). Iconicity, Isomorphism and Non-Arbitrary Coding in Syntax. J. Haiman(haz.), Iconicity in Syntax, 187-219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
(haz.) (1990). Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. 2 Vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive Status and the form of Referring Expressions in Discourse. Language, 69, 274-307.
Huang, Y. (2000). Anaphora: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kibrik, A. A. (1996). Anaphora in Russian narrative prose: A cognitive calculative account.B. Fox (haz.) (1996), Studies in Anaphora, 255-303. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization. Text, 8(3), 243-281.
Mann, W. C, Mathiessen, C. M. 1. M. & Thompson, S. A. (1982). Rhetorical Structures Report. MS. B. Fox (1987), Discourse Structure and Anaphora, 3. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press içinde.
Mann, W. C, Mathiessen, C. M. I. M. & Thompson, S. A. (1992). Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis. W. C. Mann ve S. A. Thompson (haz.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analysis of a Fund-Raising Text, 39-78.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and Unplanned Discourse. T. Givön (haz.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, 51-78. London: Academic Press.
Oktar, L. & Yağcıoğlu, S. (1997). Türkçede Söylem Yapısı ve Artgönderim, VIII. Uluslararası Türk Dilbilimi Konferansı Bildirileri, 7 -9 Ağustos 1996, 331 -345. Ankara.
Tomlin, R.S. (1987). Linguistic Reflections of Cognitive Events. R. S. Tomlin (haz.) (1987),Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, 455-479. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Zhang, B. (1987).Zero anaphora in Mandarin Chinese. M. M. T. Henderson (haz.) (1987),Mid-American Linguistic Conference Papers, 346-358. Lawrence: Department of Linguistics, University of Cansas.