A Systematic Review of Corpus-Based Studies on Academic Writing in the Turkish Context

Abstract

Academic writing is rested on a view of academic negotiation between writers and readers in which writers ultimately aim to gain credibility in their academic discipline. In doing so, they utilize a wide range of linguistic devices based on cultural and disciplinary norms to communicate with readers and convince the readers about the truth of their claims. Based on a review of corpus-based studies about linguistic devices in academic writing conducted by Turkish scholars in the field of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, the present systematic review aims to show a general understanding of these devices in the lens of Turkish scholars in these fields. The systematic review has been carried out by postgraduate dissertations, MA theses and research articles in the past decade. Based on the results, it is found that Turkish academic writers had a different style of taking stance in their L1 and they mostly attempt to follow the linguistic conventions of both global and cultural communities in their discipline while writing academic genres in English. 

Keywords

• systematic review
• corpus-based studies
• academic writing
• Turkish context

Türkiye Bağlamında Akademik Yazım üzerine Derlem-Temelli Çalışmaların Sistematik Değerlendirmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmada akademik yazım, yazarların akademik alanlarında inanılırlık kazanmayı amaçladıkları, yazarlar ve okuyucular arasındaki akademik uzlaşmaya dayanmaktadır. Bunu yaparken, okuyucularla iletişim kurmada ve okuyuculara iddialarının gerçekliklerini ikna etmede kültürel ve disiplinler arası normlara dayanan bir dizi dilbilimsel araçlardan faydalanmaktadırlar. Bu çalışmada, İngiliz Dili Eğitimi ve İngiliz Dilbilimi alanlarındaki Türk araştırmacılar tarafından yürütülen akademik yazım ile ilgili kültürlerarası derlem çalışmalarının incelemesi yapılmaktadır ve bu dilbilimsel araçların bu alanlardaki Türk akademisyenler tarafından nasıl algılandıklarının ortaya çıkarılması amaçlanmaktadır. Bunlar son on yıl içinde yapılan doktora ve yüksek lisans tezleri ve araştırma makaleleridir. Sonuçlara dayalı olarak, Türk akademik yazarların kendi anadillerinde farklı bir yazım şekli olduğu ve çoğunlukla İngilizce olarak akademik türde yazdıklarında hem küresel hem de kültürel grupların dilbilimsel kurallarını takip etme girişimleri olduğu bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• sistematik inceleme
• derlem çalışmaları
• akademik yazım
• Türkiye bağlamı

References

1. Abdi, R. (2009). Projecting cultural identity through metadiscourse marking: A comparison of Persian and English research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 1(212), 1-15.
2. Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
3. Ağçam, R. (2015). A corpus-based study on attitudinal stance in native and non-native academic writing. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education (IJHSSE), 2(8), 123-129.
4. Arrese, J. I. M. (2009). Effective vs. epistemic stance, and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse. A case study. Studies on English modality in honour of Frank Palmer. Linguistic Insights, 111, 23-131.
5. Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian native speakers. Studies about Linguistics, 5, 1-7.
6. Burke, S. B. (2010). The construction of writer identity in the academic writing of Korean ESL students: A qualitative study of six Korean students in the U.S. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana.
7. Burneikaite, N. (2008). Metadiscourse in linguistics master’s theses in English L1 and L2. Kalbotyra, 59(3), 38-48.
8. Biber, D., Johanston, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Edinburg: Pearson Education.Burke

9. Biber, D. (2004). Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5(1), 107-136.
10. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371-405.
11. Biber, C. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-116.
12. Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66(2014). 15-31.
13. Charles, M. (2003). ‘This mystery…’: a corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 313-326.
14. Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397-423.
15. Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.
16. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2000). Constructions with if, since, and because: Causality, epistemic stance, and clause order. Topics in English Linguistics, 33, 111-142.
17. Güngör, F. & Uysal, H. (2020). Lexical bundle use and cross-linguistic influence in academic texts. Lingua, 242, 1-21.
18. Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
19. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.
20. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
21. Hyland, K. (2008a). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4-21.
22. Hyland, K. (2008b). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 41-62.
23. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London: Cambridge University Press.
24. Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing”. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143.
25. Karabacak, E., & Qin, J. (2013). Comparison of lexical bundles used by Turkish, Chinese, and American university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 622-628.
26. Lafuente-Milan, E.L. (2010). ‘Extending this claim, we propose…’ The writer’s presence in research articles from different disciplines. Iberica, 20, 35-56.
27. Lu, X., & Deng, J. (2019). With the rapid development: A contrastive analysis of lexical bundles in dissertation abstracts by Chinese and L1 English doctoral students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 39, 21-36.
28. Meunier, F. (2002). The pedagogical value of native learner corpora in EFL grammar teaching. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 119-142). Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing.
29. Murray, M., & Moore, S. (2006). The handbook of academic writing. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
30. Muşlu, M. (2018). Use of stance lexical bundles by Turkish and Japanese EFL learners and native English speakers in academic writing. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 17(4), 1319-1337.
31. Özdemir, N. Ö., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141(2014), 59-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011
32. Pang, W. (2010). Lexical bundles and the construction of an academic voice: A pedagogical perspective. Asian EFL Journal, 47(1), 10-11.
33. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
34. Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (2008). Almost certainly and most definitely: Degree modifiers and epistemic stance. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(9), 1521-1542.
35. Yuvayapan, F. (2018b). Stance-taking and self-mentions: The influence of academic community. International Journal of Language Academy. 6(3), 263-276.
36. Ağçam, R. (2014). A Corpus-based Study on Author Stance in Academic English (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Çukurova University/Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.
37. Akbaş, E. (2012). Interactional Metadiscourse in Turkish Postgraduates' Academic Texts: A Comparative Study of How They Introduce and Conclude. Journal on English Language Teaching, 2(3), 35-44.
38. Akbaş, E. (2014). Are they discussing in the same way? Interactional metadiscourse in Turkish writers’ texts. In Occupying niches: Interculturality, cross-culturality and aculturality in academic research (pp. 119-133). Springer, Cham.
39. Algı, S. (2012). Hedges and Boosters in L1 and L2 Argumentative Paragraphs: Implications for Teaching L2 Academic Writing. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University/Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
40. Çakır, H. (2016). Native and non-native writers’ use of stance adverbs in English research article abstracts. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6(02), 85.
41. Çandarlı, D., Bayyurt, Y., & Martı, L. (2015). Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 192-202.
42. Çapar, M. (2014). A Study on Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Research Articles. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Anadolu University/Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
43. Ekoç, A. (2010). Analyzing Turkish MA students' use of lexical hedging strategies in theses abstracts. HAYEF Journal of Education, 7(1), 49-62.
44. Güngör, F. (2016). Crosslinguistic Analysis of Lexical Bundles in L1 English, L2 English, and L1 Turkish Research. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Gazi University/Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
45. Güngör, F., & Uysal, H. H. (2016). A comparative analysis of lexical bundles used by native and non-native Scholars. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 176-188.
46. Güngör, F. & Uysal, H. (2020). Lexical bundle use and cross-linguistic influence in academic texts. Lingua, 242, 1-21.
47. Işık-Taş, E. E. (2018). Authorial identity in Turkish language and English language research articles in Sociology: The role of publication context in academic writers' discourse choices. English for Specific Purposes, 49, 26-38.
48. Kafes, H. (2018). Stance in academic writing. European Journal of Education Studies. 4(2), 1-16.
49. Karabacak, E., & Qin, J. (2013). Comparison of lexical bundles used by Turkish, Chinese, and American university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 622-628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.101
50. Karahan, P. (2013). Self-mention in scientific articles written by Turkish and non-Turkish authors. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 305-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.068
51. Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of pragmatics, 43(12), 3068-3079.
52. Muşlu, M. (2018). Use of stance lexical bundles by Turkish and Japanese EFL learners and native English speakers in academic writing. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 17(4).
53. Özdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59-63.
54. Yuvayapan, F. (2018a). The Pragmatic Role of Interactional Markers in the Construal of Author Stance: A Cross-linguistic Study of PhD Dissertations. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Erciyes University/Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kayseri.
55. Yuvayapan, F. (2019). Metadiscursive nouns in doctoral dissertations: A comparison of native and nonnative speakers of English. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 15(1), 74-87.