Research Article
PDF Zotero Mendeley EndNote BibTex Cite

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

Year 2019, Volume 15, Issue 1, 74 - 87, 25.03.2019
https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.458121

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.

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.

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

Year 2019, Volume 15, Issue 1, 74 - 87, 25.03.2019
https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.458121

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.

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.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Education, Scientific Disciplines
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Fatma YUVAYAPAN (Primary Author)
KAHRAMANMARAŞ SÜTÇÜ İMAM ÜNİVERSİTESİ
0000-0002-7924-0933
Türkiye

Publication Date March 25, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019, Volume 15, Issue 1

Cite

APA 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 . DOI: 10.17244/eku.458121