Metadiscursive Nouns in Doctoral Dissertations: A Comparison of Native and Nonnative Speakers of English

Year 2019, , 74 - 87, 25.03.2019

Fatma Yuvayapan

https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.458121

Cited By: 2

Abstract

In today's academic world, speaking to readers and
creating a credible authorial self in academic texts by means of linguistic
devices are essential to become a competent member of an academic discipline.
Among these linguistic devices, metadiscourse receives a prominent place.
Studies have suggested the key role of metadiscourse in achieving a persuasive
academic claim-making. Surprisingly, far too little attention has been paid to
the role of nouns in this process. Considering this gap, this study explicated
the use of metadiscursive nouns in doctoral dissertations written by American
academic writers of English and Turkish-speaking academics of English in a
corpus of 60 doctoral dissertations by using the taxonomy of metadiscursive
nouns suggested by Jiang and Hyland (2016). Specifically, it focused on how
these nouns were employed by native and nonnative academic writers of English
to signal their authorial stance in their doctoral dissertations. The frequency
analysis was performed through Wordsmith Tool 6.0. Log likelihood statistic was
applied to find out whether there was a statistical difference between these
two groups of academic authors regarding the use of metadiscursive nouns. The
results showed that both groups of academic writers displayed similarities on
the overall use of metadiscoursive nouns. In terms of categorical use, similar
employment of metadiscursive nouns was also observed between the two corpora.
Entity was the most frequently applied category, which was followed by
attribute and relation. The frequency counts of these linguistic devices
revealed their prominent role in establishing interaction in academic genres by
offering writers a way of organizing their texts and mitigating their stance.
Hence, they might be integrated to the curricula of academic writing courses.

Keywords

Academic writing, Doctoral dissertations, Metadiscursive nouns

Doktora Tezlerinde Üstsöylem İsimleri: Anadili İngilizce ve Anadili İngilizce Olmayan Yazarların Karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Günümüz
akademik dünyasında, çeşitli dilsel ögeler kullanarak okuyucularla iletişim
kurmak ve akademik yazılarda kabul edilir bir yazar duruşu sağlamak, akademik
disiplinlerde etkin bir üye olmak için gereklidir. Bu dilsel ögeler arasında
üstsöylem ögeleri önemli bir yere sahiptir. Araştırmalar üstsöylem ögelerinin
ikna edici sav desteklemedeki anahtar rolünü ortaya koymuştur. Fakat isimlerin
bu süreçteki rolü çok az incelenmiştir. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışmada üstsöylem
isimlerinin rolü Amerikalı akademik yazarlar ve Türk akademik yazarlar
tarafından yazılan 60 doktora tezinden oluşan bir derlemde Jiang ve Hyland
(2016) tarafından oluşturulan bir taksonomi kullanılarak incelenmiştir.
Özellikle, üstsöylem isimlerinin anadili İngilizce olan ve anadili İngilizce
olmayan yazarlar tarafından yazar duruşunu sağlamak amacıyla nasıl kullanıldığı
araştırılmıştır. Analiz Wordsmith Tool 6.0. programı kullanılarak yapılmıştır.
Log-likelihood analizi de bu iki grup yazar arasında üstsöylem ögelerinin
kullanımına yönelik istatiksel fark olup olmadığı bulmak amacıyla yapılmıştır.
Sonuçlar bu iki grup yazar arasında üstsöylem isimlerinin genel kullanımında
fark olmadığını göstermiştir. Kategorik açıdan da benzer kullanımlar
görülmüştür. Tüzellik kategorisi en çok kullanılan kategoridir ve bu kategoriyi
atıf yapma ve ilişki kurma kategorileri takip etmiştir. Bu dilbilimsel ögelerin
derlemdeki sıklıkla kullanımı, onların akademik yazım türlerinde organizasyonu
ve yazar duruşunu oluşturarak iletişimi sağlamaktaki önemli rolünü ortaya
göstermiştir. Bu nedenle, bu ögeler akademik yazım derslerinin müfredatlarına
eklenebilir.

Keywords

Akademik yazım, Doktora tezleri, Üstsöylem isimleri

References

• 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.Abdi, R., Rizi, M. T., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(2010), 1669-1679. Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.Adel, A. (2010). Just to give you a kind of a map of where we are going. A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69-97.Ağçam, R. (2014). A corpus-based study on author stance in academic English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Institute of Social Sciences. Çukurova University, Adana-Turkey.Arrese, J. I. M. (2015). Epistemicity and stance: A cross-linguistic study of epistemic stance strategies in journalistic discourse in English and Spanish. Discourse Studies, 17(2), 210-225. doi: 10.1177/1461445614564523Baker, P., Hardie, A., & Mc Enery, T. (2006). A glossary of corpus linguistics. Edinburg: Edinburg.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.Biber, C. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-116.Bondi, M. (2010). Metadiscoursive practices in introductions: Phraseology and semantic sequences across genres. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 99-123. Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in Ph.D theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41-56.Burneikaite, N. (2008). Metadiscourse in linguistics master’s theses in English L1 and L2. Kalbotyra, 59(3), 38-48.Can, C. (2012). Uluslararası Türk öğrenci İngilizcesi derleminde tutum belirteçleri. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 1, 39-53.Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31.Charles, M. (2003). “This mystery…” A corpus-based study of the nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 313-326.Charles, M. (2006). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 492-518. doi:10.1093/applin/aml021Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2013). Authorial presence in academic discourse functions of author-reference pronouns. Linguistica Pragensia, 1, 9-30.Flowerdew, J. (2003). Signaling nouns. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 329-346.Flowerdew, J. (2015). Revisiting metadiscourse: Conceptual and methodological issues concerning signaling nouns. Iberica, 29, 15-34.Ghadessy, M., Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (2001). Introduction. In M. Ghadessy, A. Henry & R. L. Roseberry (Eds.), Small corpus studies and ELT (p. xvii-xxii). Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing.Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice (pp.15-33). Hampshire: Palgrave, Macmillan.Halabisaz, B., Pazhakh, A., & Shakibafar, M. (2014) Hedging in thesis abstracts on applied linguistics across Persian and English. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 7(1), 211- 218.Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256.Hyland, K. (1995). The author in the text: Hedging in specific writing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, 33-42.Hyland, K. (1998a). Boosting, hedging, and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, 18(3), 349-382. Hyland, K. (1998b). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(1998), 437-455.Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99-121). London: Longman.Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.Hyland, K. (2005a). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.Hyland, K. (2005b). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143. Hyland, K. (2011). Disciplines and discourses: Social interactions in the construction of knowledge. In D. Starke-Meyerring, A. Paré, N. Artemeva, M. Horne & L. Yousoubova (Eds.), Writing in the knowledge society (pp. 193-214). West Lafayette: Parlor Press and The WAC Clearinghouse. Ivanic, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1-2), 3-33.Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2015). “The fact that”: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 529-550. Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2016). Nouns in academic interactions: A neglected feature of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics, 2016, 1-25. doi.10.1093/applin/amw023 doi:10.1093/applin/amw023Jiang and Hyland (2017). Metadiscoursive nouns. Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 1-14.Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(2005), 1325-1353.Kondowe, W. (2014). Hedging and boosting as interactional metadiscourse in literature doctoral dissertation abstracts. International Journal of language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(3), 214-221.Gillaerts, P. G., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2010), 128-139.Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic discourse. Problems of a linguistic and cultural minority. AFinLA, 51, 157-174.Mayes, P. (2015). Becoming an ‘autonomous writer’: Epistemic stance displays and membership categorization in the writing conference. Discourse Studies, 17(6), 752-769. doi: 10.1177/1461445615602375McNamara, D. S. (2013). The epistemic stance between the author and reader: A driving force in the cohesion of text and writing. Discourse studies, 15(5), 579-595.Mur-Duenas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2011), 3068-3079.Özdemir, N. Ö., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141(2014), 59-63. doi.10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011Rezaei Zadeh, Z., Baharlooei, R., & Simin, S. (2015). Interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in conclusion sections of English master theses. Language Learning, 4(4), 81-92.Salas, M. D. (2015). Reflexive metadiscourse in research articles in Spanish: Variation across three disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 77(2015), 20-40.Schmid, H. J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Vande Kopple, W. J. V. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College composition and communication, 82-93.Yavari, M., & Kashani, A. F. (2013). Gender-based study of metadiscourse in research articles’ rhetorical sections. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2(2), 77-88.