Gender, meta-discourse and stylistic appropriateness in English writing

Year 2019, Issue: 16, 148 - 159, 21.09.2019

Cüneyt Demir

https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.616912

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Academic writing is important for writers to
persuade readers on their claims, which is why the literature is full of
studies aiming to improve academic writing and making suggestions regarding how
the writing style should be. However, the missing point as to this important
issue is that they largely investigate the issue of writing in terms of
linguistic, and overlook the extralinguistic factors, or merely investigate a
single issue without considering its ensuing ramifications; for example, gender
effect on discourse. On the other hand, this study investigates gender effect
together with its possible impact on the change of discourse and the style of
writing which is crucial to have an impact on the audience. Also, this study
aims to draw attention on extralinguistic factors affecting academic writing.
This study showed that academic writing is not independent of the effect of
gender because the discourse style of a female and male author seems to be
different from each other. Furthermore, apart from the effect of gender,
extralinguistic factors like social and intrapersonal parameters play an
important role in determining the discourse of the author, and accordingly the
writing style. This study calls further studies in order to reveal rhetoric
differences and the effect of gender on more specific linguistic components.

Keywords

Gender, discourse, academic writing, style

Akademik yazımda cinsiyet, söylem ve tarz

Abstract

Akademik yazım kabiliyeti, yazarın yazdıkları
konusunda okuyucuları ikna etmede oldukça önemlidir. Bundan dolayı, literatür
akademik yazımın nasıl geliştirilebileceği ve nasıl olması gerektiği konusunda
çalışmalarla doludur. Oysaki çoğu çalışma akademik yazım konusunu dil bilgisel
konuda ele almakta ve dil bilgisel olmayan diğer konuları göz ardı etmektedir
ya da konuyu muhtemel etkilenebilecek diğer açıları düşünmeden tek bir açıdan
ele almaktadır. Bu çalışma cinsiyetin söylem üzerindeki etkisini ve dolayısıyla
yazma sitili nasıl değiştirebileceğini incelemekte ve dil bilgisel etkenler
olmayan cinsiyet, sosyal ve kişilik faktörlerinin yazma sitili üzerindeki
etkisini araştırmış ve bunların ne düzeyde etkili olduklarını ortaya
çalışmıştır. Literatür, kadın ve erkek arasında söylem farklılıkları olduğunu
ortaya koyduğun cinsiyetin yazımda söylem üzerinde etkili olduğunu
söyleyebiliriz. Ayrıca, sosyal ve kişisel parametrelerin de yazarın söylem
şeklini etkilediği anlaşılmaktadır. Retorik farklılıklarını cinsiyet kavramı
üzerinden veya dil bilgisel olmayan etkenler üzerinden araştırmak isteyen
yazarlar daha spesifik konuları incelemeleri faydalı olacaktır.

Keywords

Cinsiyet, söylem, akademik yazım, tarz

References

• Aboulalaei, M. H. (2013). Exploring the Differences Between Iranian Women and Men Academic Article Writings According to Mood and Modality. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 18(5):668-674, doi:10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.18.5.11757. Allison, D., Cooley, L., Lewkowicz, J., & Nunan, D. (1998). Dissertation writing in action: The development of a dissertation writing support program for ESL graduate research students. English for Specific Purposes, 17(2), 199-217. Argentina, M. V. (2013). Some Tips For Teaching L2 Academic Writing. Humanising Language Teaching, 15. Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bailey, S. (2006). Academic Writing (2nd edition). Oxon: Routledge. Bailey, S. (2011). Academic Writing (3rd edition). Oxon: Routledge. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. Rose, & G. Kasper, Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 13–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41-56. Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3:291-304, doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.003. Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang. Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash, The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse (pp. 118-36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 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. Dixon, J. A., & Foster, D. H. (1997). Gender and Hedging: From Sex Differences to Situated Practice. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research, 26(1): 89-107, doi:10.1023/A:1025064205478. Fuertes-Olivera, P., Velasco-Sacristan, M., Arribas-Bano, A., & Samaniego Fernandez, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291-1307. Fulwiler, T. (2002). College Writing (3rd Edition). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc. Hauser, G. (1986). Introduction to Rhetorical Theory. New York: Harper. Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 275-301. Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching Academic ESL Writing. New York: Routledge. Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 181–209. Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and Boosters in Women's and Men's Speech. Language & Communication, 3:185-205, doi:10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-S. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London: Longman. Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-55. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13: 133-51. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. New York: Continuum. Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In K. Hyland, & M. Bondi, Academic Discourse across Disciplines (pp. 16-45). Berlin: Peter Lang. Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: or, minding your p's and q's. In C. C. al., Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292-305). Chicago: Linguistic Society. Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Mauranen, A. (2001). Descriptions or explanations? Some methodological issues in Contrastive Rhetoric. In M. Hewings, Academic Writing in Context: Implications and Applications (pp. 43-54). Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press. McCormick, D., & Whittington, M. S. (2000). Assessing academıc challenges for their Contribution to cognitive development. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(3):114-122. Meyer-Salager, F. (2008). Scientific Publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2):121-132. Monippally, M., & Pawar, B. S. (2010). Academic writing; a guide for management students and researchers. New Delhi: Response. Munby, J. (1978). Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norrick, N. R. (2001). Discourse markers in oral narratives. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 849-78. Ong, W. (1983). Foreword. In W. B. Homer, The Present State of Scholarship in Historical and Contemporary Rhetoric (pp. 1-9). Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. Richards, J. C., & Miller, S. K. (2005). Doing Academic Writing in Education. New Jersey: Taylor & Francis. Rubio, M. M. (2011). pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 258-271. Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: organisational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction, 50:199-236. Shi, L. (2002). How Western-trained Chinese TESOL professionals publish in their home environment. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 625-634. Smyth, T. R. (1996). Writing in psychology: A student guide. New York: Wiley. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Taavitsainen, I. (1999). Metadiscursive practices and the evolution of early English medical writing (1375-1550). In J. M. Kirk, Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing English (pp. 191-207). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Van, J. C. (2015, 5 18). Retrieved from http://www.public.asu.edu: http://www.public.asu.edu/~jvanasu/rhet-triangle.htm Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93. Vasilieva, I. (2004). Gender-specific Use of Boosting and Hedging Adverbs in English Computer-related Texts- A Corpus-based Study. International Conference on Language, Politeness and Gender (pp. 2-5). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki. Weida, S., & Stolley, K. (2013, 03 11). Using Rhetorical Strategies for Persuasion. Retrieved from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/04/ Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Boston: Scott Foresman. Yağız, O. (2009). The Academic Writing of Turkish Graduate Students in Social Sciences: Approaches, Processes, Needs and Challenges (PhD dissertation). tez.yok.gov.tr: 241779.