Communicative Functions of Code Glosses in Academic Discourse

Abstract

A considerable amount of research has already established that academic writing is an interactive accomplishment, the success of which largely depends on appropriate writer-reader relationship. Yet, the nature of this relationship has been the subject of few studies. Also scarce are the studies on how academic writers address the needs of their readers and so, through elaboration, manage their interactions with them. Drawing on a corpus of 68 research articles (RAs) from the field of applied linguistics, this study explores how experienced writers (EWs) and novice writers (NWs) elaborate their ideas in their RAs to address their readers’ needs, and in so doing, manage their relations with them. Analysis of the corpus revealed that reformulation and exemplification, complex features of academic writing, serve important rhetorical functions. The results also show that these two groups of writers manage writer-reader relationship differently, differing in the type, number, (un)even distribution, and use of code glosses. These results are discussed, and pedagogical implications are offered.

Keywords

• Academic discourse
• academic writing
• code glosses
• reformulation
• exemplification

Akademik Söylemde Kod Belirleyicileri

Abstract

Birçok araştırma, akademik yazın başarısının büyük ölçüde yazar-okuyucu etkileşimine bağlı olduğunu vurgulamaktadır. Ancak, bu etkileşim az sayıda çalışmanın konusu olmuştur. Ayrıca, akademik yazarların okuyucularının ihtiyaçlarına hitap edebilmek için metinlerini ayrıntılandırma yoluyla okurlarıyla olan etkileşimlerini nasıl yönettiklerine dair çalışmalar da azdır. Uygulamalı dilbilim alanından 68 araştırma makaleden oluşan bir derleme dayanan bu çalışma, deneyimli ve deneyimsiz akademik yazarların okuyucularının ihtiyaçlarına hitap edebilmek için metinlerini nasıl detaylandırdıklarını araştırmaktadır. Elden edilen verilerin analizi, akademik yazının kompleks özellikleri olduğunu ve farklı bir şekilde ifade etme ve örneklemenin önemli retorik işlevlere hizmet ettiğini ortaya çıkarmıştır. Sonuçlar ayrıca, bu iki yazar grubunun yazar-okuyucu ilişkisini farklı şekilde, tür, sayı, dağılım ve kod açıklamalarının kullanımı açısından farklı şekilde yönettiklerini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Akademik söylem
• akademik yazı
• kod yorumları
• açıklama
• örneklendirme

References

1. 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, 6, 1669-1679.
2. Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 288-297. doi.org/ 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019
3. Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia. John Benjamins
4. Akbaş, E. & Hardman, J. (2018). Strengthening or weakening claims in academic knowledge construction: a Comparative study of hedges and boosters in postgraduate academic writing. Educational Sciences-Theory & Practice, 18, 831-859. doi.org/ 10.12738/estp.2018.4.0260
5. 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, 35-45. doi.org/0.26634/jelt.2.3.1964
6. Alotaibi, H. (2018). Metadiscourse in dissertation acknowledgments: exploration of gender differences in EFL texts. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 899–916. doi.org/ 10.12738/estp.2018.4.0247
7. Anderson, J. R. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co.
8. Andresen, M., & Zinsmeister, H. (2018). Stylistic differences between closely related disciplines: metadiscourse in German linguistics and literary studies. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 883-898. doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0042

9. Anthony, L. (2006). Antlab. Retrieved from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/
10. Anthony, L. (2011). Antlab. Retrieved from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/
11. Bastürkmen, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and masters’ dissertations in language teaching. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 241-251. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.07.001
12. Biber, D., S. Johansson, Leech, G., Conrad S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
13. Bitchener, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 4–18. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.10.002
14. Blanchard, K., & Root, C. (2004). Ready to Write More. From Paragraph to Essay. Pearson Education, Inc.
15. Bransford, J. D. (1979). Human Cognition: Learning, Understanding and Remembering. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
16. Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41-56. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.008
17. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Pegem Akademi, Ankara.
18. Bychkovska, T., & Lee, J. J. (2017). At the same time: lexical bundles in L1 and L2 university student argumentative writing. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 30, 38-52. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.008
19. Çakır, H. (2016). Native and non-native writers’ use of stance adverbs in English research article abstracts. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6, 85–96. doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2016.62008
20. 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. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.10.001
21. Çapar, M. & Deniz Turan, Ü. (2020). Interactional metadiscourse in research articles written by Turkish and native speakers. AJESI, Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 10(1): 324-358. doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.682042
22. Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7(2): 113-127. doi.org/10.1093/applin/7.2.113
23. Crismore, A, Markkanen, R., Steffensen, M. S., 1993. Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish University students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71. doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
24. Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as a Rhetorical Act. New York, Peter Publishers.
25. Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp.118-136). Newburg Park, CA: Sage.
26. Cuenca, M. J. (2003). Two ways to reformulate: a contrastive analysis of reformulation Markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35: 1069–93. doi.org//10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00004-3
27. Cuenca, M. J., & Bach, C. (2007). Contrasting the form and use of reformulation markers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 149–175. doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075347
28. Dafouz, M. E. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: a contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 11, 29–52.
29. Dafouz, M. 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(1), 95–113. doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
30. Dahl, T, (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807–1825. doi.org/ 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
31. Davison, A., & Kantor, R. N. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: a case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, XVII/2, 187-209.
32. Del Saz Rubio, M. M. (2003). An analysis of English discourse markers of reformulation. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Valencia: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat de València.
33. Del Saz Rubio, M. M. (2006). An overview of Spanish discourse markers of reformulation. Odisea, 7, 89-101. doi.org/10.25115/odisea.v0i7.144
34. Ebrahimi, S. J. (2018). The role of metadiscourse markers in comprehending texts of reading comprehension books published in Iran and Oxford University Press. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 7(3), 90-96.
35. Flowerdew, J., & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 435-458.
36. Freeman, D. (2001). Second language teacher education. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 72-79). Cambridge University Press.
37. Gosden, H. (1992). Discourse functions of theme in scientific research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 123-139. doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(05)80010-9
38. Habibie, P. (2019). To be native or not to be native: that is not the question. In P. Habibie and K. Hyland (Eds.), Novice Writers and Scholarly Publication, Authors, Mentors, Gatekeepers. Switzerland, Palgrave Macmillan.
39. Halliday, M. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
40. Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In Connor, U. & Kaplan, R. B. (Eds). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. (pp. 141-152). Reading: Addison-Wesley.
41. Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: a comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795-2809. doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
42. Hunston, S. (1993). Evaluation and Ideology in Scientific Writing. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register Analysis: Theory and Practice (pp. 57–73). London: Pinter.
43. Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation: An Introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp.1–27). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
44. Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349–382. doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
45. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
46. Hyland, K. (2002) Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112. doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
47. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151. doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
48. Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Continuum.
49. Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
50. Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28/2: 266–285. doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm011
51. Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary Identities: Individuality and Community in Academic Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52. Hyland, K. (2019). Participation in Publishing: the demoralizing discourse of disadvantage. In P. Habibie and K. Hyland (Eds.), Novice Writers and Scholarly Publication, Authors, Mentors, Gatekeepers. Switzerland, Palgrave Macmillan.
53. Hyland, K., & P. Tse. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25/2: 156–77.
54. Jalififar, A. R., & Shooshtari, Z. G. (2011). Metadiscourse awareness and ESAP comprehension. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2), spring, 53-74. doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2011.10850342
55. Kachru, Yamuna (2009) Academic writing in world Englishes: The Asian context. In Kumiko Murata and Jennifer Jenkins (eds.), Global Englishes in Asian Contexts (pp. 111–30). Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
56. Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.006
57. Kellogg, R.T. (2008). Training writing skills: a cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1-26. doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1
58. Khoshsima, H., Talati-Baghsiahi, Em., Zare-Behtash, E. & Safaie-Qalati, M. (2018). Interactional metadiscourse in the writings of novice vs. established members of academic community. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 22, 63-86.
59. Koutsantoni, D. (2006). Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1). 19-36. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.11.002
60. Kuhi, D., Asadollahfan, H., & Anbarian, K. D. (2014). The effect of metadiscourse use on Iranian EFL learners’ lecture comprehension. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1026–1035. doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.513
61. Lautamatti, L. (1978). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. In V. Kohonen and N. E. Enkvist (eds), Text Linguistics, cognitive learning, and language teaching. Turku: University of Turku Publications, 71-104.
62. Lee, D., & Chen, S. (2009). Making a bigger deal of the smaller words: Function words and other key items in research writing by Chinese learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 149-165. doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.004
63. 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, October 39-54. doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009
64. Lee, J.J., Hitchcock, C. & Casal, J.E. (2018). Citation practices of L2 university students in first year writing: form, function, and stance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33,1-11. doi.org/0000-0003-2197-1431
65. Lloyd, C. V. (1990). The elaboration of concepts in three Biology textbooks: facilitating student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 10, 1019-1032. doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660271009
66. Loi, C. K., & Lim, J. M.-H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15, 129-146. doi.org/ 10.1177/1461445612471476
67. Martin, J. R., & White, P.R.R. (2005). Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave.
68. Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP Rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish–English Economics Texts. English for Specific Purposes 12, 3–22. doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I
69. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
70. Moreno, A. I. (1997). Genre constraints across languages: Causal metatext in Spanish and English. English for Specific Purposes 16,3, 161-179. doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00023-3
71. Mu, C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J., Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20, 13-148. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003
72. Mur Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3068–3079. doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
73. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, l-35. doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1
74. Oh, Sun-Young (2001). Two types of modification and EFL reading comprehension: simplified versus elaboration. TESOL QUARTERLY, 35, 1, Spring. 69-96. doi.org/10.2307/3587860
75. Önder-Özdemir, N., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: a Cross-cultural study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59–63. doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011
76. Reder, L. M. (1980). The role of elaboration in the comprehension and retention of prose: a critical review. Review of Educational Research, 50(1), 5–53. doi.org/10.3102/00346543050001005
77. Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master’s theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 55-67. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.005
78. Siepmann, D. (2005). Discourse Markers across Languages: A Contrastive Study of Second-Level Discourse Markers in Native and Non-Native Text with Implications for General and Pedagogic Lexicography. Routledge, London & New York.
79. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis in Academic Writing and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. (1994). Academic Writing for Graduate Students. Ann Arbor, the University of Michigan Press.
81. Swales, J. M., Ahmad, U., Chang, Yu-Ying, Chavez, D., Dressen_Hammouda, D., & Seymour, R. (1998). Consider This...”: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics, 19, 97-121. doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.97
82. Thetela, P. (1997). Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 16: 101–118. doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00022-1
83. Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58–78. doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58
84. Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: the management of interaction in written discourse. Text, 15(1), 103-127. doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.103
85. Thompson, P., & Tribble, C. (2001). Looking at citations: using corpora in English for academic purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3), 91-105.
86. Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93. doi.org/10.2307/357609
87. Yano, Y., Long, M. H., & Ross, S. (1994). The effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 44, 189–219. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01100.x
88. Yüksel, H. G. & Kavanoz, S. (2018). Dimension of experience: metadiscourse in the texts of novice non-native, novice native and expert native speaker. Advances in Language Land Literary Studies 9(3), 104-112.
89. Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2010). A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non-humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4, 42-50. doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n1p42
90. Zarrati, Z., Kambiar, R. M. K., & Maasum T. N. R. TG M. (2014). Effect of metadiscourse on reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 20(3): 27-38. doi.org/10.17576/3L-2014-2003-03
91. Zhao, J. (2017). Native speaker advantage in academic writing? Conjunctive realizations in EAP writing by four groups of writers. Ampersand 4, 47-57. doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2017.07.001