İngilizce ve Türkçe Dillerinde Yazılmış Yüksek Lisans Tez Özlerinde Kullanılan Çerçeve Belirleyicileri

Abstract

Bu derlem-temelli araştırmanın amacı, anadili İngilizce olan öğrencilerin, anadili Türkçe olan öğrencilerin ve İngilizce’yi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen Türk öğrencilerin yüksek lisans tezi özlerinde çerçeve belirleyicilerini kullanım sıklığı ve işlevleri açısından incelemektir. 60 özden oluşturulan bir derlemde, çerçeve belirleyicileri Hyland (2005)’in modeline göre AntConc aracılığıyla nicel ve nitel araştırma yöntemleri kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Çalışma bulguları, üç grup öğrencinin çerçeve belirleyicilerini kullanımlarında farklılık olduğunu göstermiştir. İngilizce’yi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilerin çerçeve belirleyicilerini diğer gruplardan çok daha fazla sıklıkta ve çok çeşitli türde kullandıkları görülmüştür. Ayrıca, metin aşamalarına gönderimde bulunulan belirleyiciler arasında özellikle özün son paragrafına gelindiğini belirten belirleyiciler, yalnızca anadili Türkçe olan öğrencilerin Türkçe tez özlerinde görülmüştür. Analizlerden elde edilen sonuçlar doğrultusunda, bu araştırma, lisansüstü öğrencilerin anadillerinde ve öğrendikleri yabancı dilde yazdıkları akademik metinlerde çerçeve belirleyicilerini kullanımlarına yönelik ve dilsel ifadelerin diller arası farklılıklarına ilişkin farkındalık uyandırmayı hedeflemektedir.

Keywords

• Çerçeve belirleyicileri,Yüksek lisans tez özleri,Derlem temelli araştırma,Anadili İngilizce olan ve Anadili İngilizce olmayan lisansüstü öğrenciler,Akademik yazı

Frame Markers in Master Thesis Abstracts Written in English and Turkish

Abstract

This corpus-based research aims to identify frame markers (FMs) in master thesis abstracts written in English by English native and non-native postgraduate students and in Turkish by Turkish native students in terms of frequency and functions. To this end, 60 master thesis abstracts were compiled in a corpus. Data were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively via AntConc.3.2.4 based on Hyland (2005)’s taxonomy of functions (sequencing, labelling stage, topic shift and announcing goal). Findings of the study yielded significant variation among three groups. Non-native English abstracts included the highest numbers of FMs and most diverse types whereas native English abstracts included the least numbers and very few types. Considering FM categories, items used to announce the goal of the writer abounded in number and types in all groups whereas items for indicating topic shifts almost did not occur. Only native speakers of Turkish employed FMs for the function of labelling stages to indicate the discourse act at the end paragraph of their abstracts. These findings are hoped to create awareness among native and non-native postgraduate students in thesis abstract organization via FMs and incorporating FM teaching into academic writing courses to help students structure their discourse better.

Keywords

• English native and non-native postgraduate students,Frame markers,Master thesis abstracts,Corpus-based research,English native and non-native postgraduate students,Academic writing

References

1. Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2. Aertselaer, J. N-V. (2008). Arguing in English and Spanish: A corpus study of stance. Cambridge ESOL: Research Notes, 33, 28-33. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeesol.org/rs_notes/rs_nts33.pdf
3. Akbaş, E. (2012a). Exploring metadiscourse in master’s dissertation abstracts: Cultural and linguistic variations across postgraduate writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(1), 12-26.
4. Akbaş, E. (2012b). Interactional metadiscourse in Turkish postgraduates’ academic texts: A comparative study of how they introduce and conclude. İ-Manager’s Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(3), 35-45.
5. Alavinia, P., & Zarza, S. (2011). Metadiscourse markers revisited in EFL context: The case of Iranian academic learners’ perception of written texts. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 3(2), 51-84.
6. Anwardeen, N. H., Luyee, E. O., Gabriel, J. I., & Kalajahi, S. A. (2013). An analysis: The usage of metadiscourse in argumentative writing by Malaysian tertiary level of students. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 83-96.
7. Barber, J. P., & Walczak, K. K. (2009). Conscience and critic: Peer debriefing strategies in grounded theory research. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association San Diego, California.
8. Burneikaitė, N. (2008). Metadiscourse in Linguistics master’s theses in English L1 and L2. KALBOTYRA, 59(3), 38- 47.

9. Burneikaitė, N. (2009). Metadiscoursal connectors in Linguistics MA theses in English L1 & L2. KALBOTYRA, 61(3), 36-50.
10. Bruce, I. (2010). Textual and discoursal resources used in the essay genre in sociology and English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 153-166.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
12. Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What it is and how it is used in school and non-school-social science texts. Technical Report, 273.
13. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95-113.
14. Farjami, H. (2013). A corpus-based study of the lexical make-up of applied linguistics article abstracts. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 5(2), 27-50.
15. Fu, X. (2012). The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Studies, 14(4), 399-417.
16. García-Calvo, J. (2002). Uses of metadiscourse in a research abstracts for scientific events. Revista Letras Curitiba, 57, 195–209.
17. Graetz, N. (1982). Teaching EFL students to extract structural information from abstracts. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Language for 'Special Purposes (Eindhoven, The Netherlands, August 2-4).
18. Hempel, S., & Degand, L. (2006). The use of sequencers in academic writing: A comparative study of French and English. In International Symposium: Discourse and Document.
19. Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Huckin, T. (2006). Abstracting from abstracts. In M. Hewings (Eds.), Academic Writing in Context (pp. 93-103). London: Continuum.
21. Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
22. Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in Introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.
23. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
24. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
25. Hyland, K. (2009a). Academic Discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum.
26. Hyland, K. (2009b). Writing in the disciplines: Research evidence for specificity. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 1(1), 5-22.
27. Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143.
28. Karimi, K., Maleki, M., & Farnia, M. (2017). Metadiscourse markers in the abstract sections of Persian and English law articles. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Research, 5(18), 69-83.
29. Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M. H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129-146.
30. Koester, A. (2010). Building small specialised corpora. In O’Keeffe, A. & McCarthy, M. (Eds.) The Routledge handbook of Corpus Linguistics (pp. 66-79). Abingdon: Routledge.
31. Lee, S. H. (2006). The use of interpersonal resources in argumentative/persuasive essays by East-Asian ESL and Australian tertiary students. Unpublished PhD dissertation: University of Sydney, Australia.
32. Lee, J. J., & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46, 39-54.
33. Li, T., & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), pp.345-356.
34. Lorés, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organization. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 280–302.
35. Marandi, S. (2003). Metadiscourse in Persian/English master’s theses: A contrastive study. IJAL, 6(2), 23-42.
36. Martin-Martin, P. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 25–43.
37. Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic discourse: Problems of a linguistic and cultural minority. The Competent Intercultural Communicator, 51, 157-174.
38. Mei, W. S. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 254-271.
39. Mirshamsi, A., & Allami, H. (2013). Metadiscourse markers in the discussion/conclusion section of Persian and English master's theses. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 5(3), 23-40.
40. Mur-Duen ̃as, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3068-3079.
41. Özdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59-63.
42. Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
43. Pooresfahani, A. F., Khajavy, G. H., & Vahidnia, F. (2012). A contrastive study of metadiscourse elements in research articles written by Iranian Applied Linguistics and Engineering writers in English. English Linguistics Research, 1(1), 88-96.
44. Pho P. D (2008) Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10, 231–250.
45. Ren, H., & Li, Y. (2011). A comparison study on the rhetorical moves of abstracts in published research articles and master’s foreign-language theses. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 162-166.
46. Rustipa, K. (2014). Metadiscourse in Indonesian EFL learners’ persuasive texts: A case study at English Department, UNISBANK. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4(1), 44-52.
47. Santos, M. B. D. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text, 16, 481-499.
48. Shokouhi, H., & Talati Baghsiahi, A. (2009). Metadiscourse functions in English and Persian sociology articles: A study in contrastive rhetoric. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 45(4), 549-568.
49. Sukma, B. P., & Sujatna, E. T. S. (2014). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers in opinion articles: A study of texts written by Indonesian writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(2), 16-21.
50. Thompson, P. (2013). Thesis and dissertation writing. In B. Paltridge, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 283-299). West Essex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
51. Ülker Eser, M. (2012). A comparative analysis of thesis guidelines and master thesis abstracts written in English at universities
in Turkey and in the USA. Unpublished MA Thesis. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
52. Wang, L., & Zhang, Y. (2016). An analysis of metadiscourse in the abstracts of English academic papers. Global Journal of Human-social Science: (G) Linguistics & Education, 16(9).
53. Valero-Garcės, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 15(4), 279-294.
54. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.