Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-28T18:22:12Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
Leila Cristina da Silva.pdf: 313607 bytes, checksum: 773990615eb011e538b50af40e2d8971 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2010-10-28 / One of the factors that negatively interfere in text productions which are considered unsatisfying is the unfamiliarity, by writers, with the oral modality lexicogrammar which differs from that of the written modality and the fact that specific genres of speech require specific language choices. As a result and based on the fact that the oral modality is acquired before the written modality, it is not surprising that several features of the oral text end up permeating the written text, marking it with oral nuances. One of such features concerns the discourse markers (DMs). By the way, there is much controversy about the meaning of the expression discourse markers . Thus, to Taboada (2006), the first difficulty concerning the DMs is exactly defining what they are and what to call them. Hempel e Degand (2008) have studied such markers which they name frame marker or organization metadiscourse marker, based upon the textual metadiscourse classification (HYLAND; TSE, 2004: 169). Thompson and Thetela (1995), examining the interpersonal metafunction (HALLIDAY, 1994), propose to divide such metafunction into three functions: (a) personal, the writer´s stance; (b) interactional, the carrying of relations between reader and writer and (c) interactive, having tools that lead the reader through the text, thus considered as an interpersonal element. Halliday, however, would consider it part of the textual metafunction. The objective of this dissertation is examining the occurrences of organization textual discourse markers (TDMs) and interpersonal discourse markers (IDMs) in Portuguese in oral and written texts, according to Dafouz-Milne (2008), based on the classification of Hyland e and Tse (2004). Therefore, it must answer the following questions: (1) what are the TDMs and IDMs that mostly occur in the oral and written modalities? (2) How can these occurrences help to understand the syntax characteristics of these modalities? The corpus of this research is composed by an interview made by Projeto Nurc and by an opinion article published by Folha de São Paulo. The research is supported by Systemic Functional Linguistics, an approach that tries develop a theory about language as a social process and a methodology that allows a detailed description systematic description of the linguistic patterns / One of the factors that negatively interfere in text productions which are considered
unsatisfying is the unfamiliarity, by writers, with the oral modality lexicogrammar
which differs from that of the written modality and the fact that specific genres of
speech require specific language choices. As a result and based on the fact that the
oral modality is acquired before the written modality, it is not surprising that several
features of the oral text end up permeating the written text, marking it with oral
nuances. One of such features concerns the discourse markers (DMs). By the way,
there is much controversy about the meaning of the expression discourse markers .
Thus, to Taboada (2006), the first difficulty concerning the DMs is exactly defining
what they are and what to call them. Hempel e Degand (2008) have studied such
markers which they name frame marker or organization metadiscourse marker,
based upon the textual metadiscourse classification (HYLAND; TSE, 2004: 169).
Thompson and Thetela (1995), examining the interpersonal metafunction (HALLIDAY,
1994), propose to divide such metafunction into three functions: (a) personal, the
writer´s stance; (b) interactional, the carrying of relations between reader and writer
and (c) interactive, having tools that lead the reader through the text, thus considered
as an interpersonal element. Halliday, however, would consider it part of the textual
metafunction. The objective of this dissertation is examining the occurrences of
organization textual discourse markers (TDMs) and interpersonal discourse markers
(IDMs) in Portuguese in oral and written texts, according to Dafouz-Milne (2008),
based on the classification of Hyland e and Tse (2004). Therefore, it must answer the
following questions: (1) what are the TDMs and IDMs that mostly occur in the oral
and written modalities? (2) How can these occurrences help to understand the syntax
characteristics of these modalities? The corpus of this research is composed by an
interview made by Projeto Nurc and by an opinion article published by Folha de São
Paulo. The research is supported by Systemic Functional Linguistics, an approach
that tries develop a theory about language as a social process and a methodology
that allows a detailed description systematic description of the linguistic patterns
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:leto:handle/13478 |
| Date | 28 October 2010 |
| Creators | Silva, Leila Cristina da |
| Contributors | Ikeda, Sumiko Nishitani |
| Publisher | Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Linguística Aplicada e Estudos da Linguagem, PUC-SP, BR, Lingüística |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SP, instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, instacron:PUC_SP |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds