Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Türkçe Araştırma Makalesi Özlerinde Kendini Anma ve Tutum Belirleyiciler

Year 2022, Issue: 48, 226 - 234, 29.08.2022
https://doi.org/10.52642/susbed.1105972

Abstract

Üstsöylem belirleyicileri birçok farklı dilde detaylıca analiz edilmektedir. Bu çalışma da etkileşimsel boyutlu iki üstsöylem belirleyicisine odaklanmaktadır: Türkçe araştırma makalesi özlerindeki kendini anma ve tutum belirleyicileri. Çalışmada iki farklı bilimsel alan, sosyal ve doğal bilimler, araştıma makalesi özlerinde tutum belirleyicisi ve kendini anma kullanımları açısından karşılaştırılmaktadır. Cevaplanacak iki soru vardır. İlki özlerin alanyazında tanımlanan özellikleriyle ilgilidir. Araştırma makalesi özleri araştırmaların tarafsız özetleri olarak tanımlanmasından dolayı, kendini anma ve tutum belirleyicilere sık rastlanmaması beklenmektedir. Çünkü bu iki belirleyicinin yazarın çalışma konusu hakkındaki tutumunu yansıtmak ve okuyucuyla samimiyet seviyesini ayarlamak olmak üzere iki ana fonksiyonu bulunmaktadır. Bu sebeple, bu çalışma araştırma makalelerinin tarafsızlık açısından tanımlandıkları gibi olup olmadıklarını sorgular. Ayrıca, sosyal bilimler ve doğal bilimler arasında tutum belirleyici ve kendini anma kullanımları bakımından bir fark bulunup bulunmadığını araştırır. Türkçe özlerin özellikle kendini anma kullanımından kaçınarak tarafsız duruşunu koruduğu bulunmuştur. Fakat sosyal bilimlerin bu bağlamda daha esnek bir yaklaşım gösterip, doğal bilimlere oranla daha fazla tutum belirleyicisi ve kendini anma kullandığı da keşfedilmiştir.

References

  • Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: an indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139–145. doi: 10.1177/14614456020040020101
  • Alotaibi, H. (2015). Metadiscourse in Arabic and English Research Article Abstracts. World Journal of English Language, 5(2). doi: 10.5430/wjel.v5n2p1
  • American National Standards Institude (ANSI) (1979). The American National Standard for Writing Abstracts. New York: ANSI Punlications.
  • Dağ Tarcan, Ö. (2019). Sosyal Bilimler Alanında Yazılan Türkçe Bilimsel Metinlerde Kullanılan  Üstsöylem Belirleyicileri (dissertation).
  • 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: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
  • Gillaerts, P., & Velde, F. V. D. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128–139. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
  • 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(11), 2795–2809. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
  • Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143.
  • Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing (1st ed.). New York: Continuum.
  • Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455. doi: 10.1016/s0378-2166(98)00009-5
  • Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
  • Khedri, M., Heng, C. S., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse Studies, 15(3), 319– 331. doi: 10.1177/1461445613480588
  • McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica, 22(3), 276-282.
  • Ozdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse Use in Thesis Abstracts: A Cross-cultural Study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59–63. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011

Self-mentions and Attitude Markers in Turkish Research Article Abstracts

Year 2022, Issue: 48, 226 - 234, 29.08.2022
https://doi.org/10.52642/susbed.1105972

Abstract

Metadiscourse markers are analyzed in many different languages in detail. This study focuses on two interactional metadiscourse markers: attitude markers and self-mentions in Turkish RA abstracts. In the study, two different scientific area, namely social sciences and natural sciences are compared regarding the use of attitude markers and self-mentions in RA abstracts. There are two questions to answer. The first one is related to the features of abstracts defined in the literature. Since RA abstracts are defined as an objective summery of an article, it is expected not to encounter attitude markers and self-mentions frequently. Because these two markers have the two main functions of reflecting the writer’s attitude towards the topic of the study and to adjust the level of intimacy with the reader. Thus, this study questions whether RA abstracts are like how they are defined in terms of objectivity. Also, it searches whether there is any difference between social sciences and natural sciences related to the use of attitude markers and self-mentions. It is found that Turkish abstracts generally protect their objective stance by avoiding especially self-mentions. However, it is also discovered that social sciences show a more flexible attitude in this regard and use more attitude markers and self-mentions compared to natural sciences.

References

  • Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: an indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139–145. doi: 10.1177/14614456020040020101
  • Alotaibi, H. (2015). Metadiscourse in Arabic and English Research Article Abstracts. World Journal of English Language, 5(2). doi: 10.5430/wjel.v5n2p1
  • American National Standards Institude (ANSI) (1979). The American National Standard for Writing Abstracts. New York: ANSI Punlications.
  • Dağ Tarcan, Ö. (2019). Sosyal Bilimler Alanında Yazılan Türkçe Bilimsel Metinlerde Kullanılan  Üstsöylem Belirleyicileri (dissertation).
  • 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: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
  • Gillaerts, P., & Velde, F. V. D. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128–139. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
  • 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(11), 2795–2809. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
  • Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143.
  • Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing (1st ed.). New York: Continuum.
  • Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455. doi: 10.1016/s0378-2166(98)00009-5
  • Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
  • Khedri, M., Heng, C. S., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse Studies, 15(3), 319– 331. doi: 10.1177/1461445613480588
  • McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica, 22(3), 276-282.
  • Ozdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse Use in Thesis Abstracts: A Cross-cultural Study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59–63. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011
There are 14 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Buse Şen Erdoğan 0000-0002-7194-8777

Publication Date August 29, 2022
Submission Date April 20, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Issue: 48

Cite

APA Şen Erdoğan, B. (2022). Self-mentions and Attitude Markers in Turkish Research Article Abstracts. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi(48), 226-234. https://doi.org/10.52642/susbed.1105972

24108 28027 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License