Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Articles Written by Turkish and Native Speakers

Öz

This study investigates how Turkish non-native speakers and native speakers of English use metadiscourse markers in research articles. With this purpose, a total of 100 research articles on the field of teaching a foreign language were analyzed based on the taxonomy of Hyland and Tse (2004). 50 research articles written by Turkish academic writers and 50 research articles written by American academic writers were collected from prestigious journals. The taxonomy has mainly two components: Interactive and interactional resources. This study focuses on the interactional resources. A qualitative approach was applied. The results of the binomial test showed that there are significant differences in the use of interactional metadiscourse markers between the two groups. American academic writers (AAWs) used significantly more interactional metadiscourse markers (IMMs) in English research articles (ERAs) compared to Turkish academic writers (TAWs). The use of the subcategories of engagement markers were also significantly different specifically in terms of the use of self-mention and questions. This may suggest that the use of IMMs may show cultural preferences, which can be considered as stylistic difference and may not need further instructional intervention. Thus, academic writing courses are suggested to be included especially in MA and PhD programs. Models of academic texts can be used in courses and raising consciousness on both micro and macro aspects of academic discourse can be suggested.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Academic writing,research articles,interactional metadiscourse markers,EFL writing

Kaynakça

1. Algı, S. (2012).Hedges and boosters in L1 and L2 argumentative paragraphs: Implications for teaching L2 academic writing.Unpublished MA Thesis. Middle East Technical University, Turkey.
2. Başaran, S. and Sofu, H. (2009). The process of writing research articles in English and getting published: A case study. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8 (2), 371-384.
3. Benfield, J. R. and Feak, C. B. (2006). How authors can cope with the burden of English as an international language. Chest, 129, 1728-1730.
4. Benfield, J. R. and Howard, K. M. (2000).The language of science.European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 18, 642-648.
5. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English, Pearson Education Ltd.
6. Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian speakers. Studies about Linguistics, 5, 1–7.
7. Breivega, K., Dahl, D. and Flottum, K. (2002).Traces of self and others in research articles. A comparative pilot study of English, French, Norwegian research articles in medicine, economics and linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 218-239.
8. Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41-56.

9. Can, H. (2006). An analysis of freshman year university students’ argumentative essays. Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, Turkey.
10. Chambliss, M. J. and Garner, R. (1996). ‘Do adults change their minds after reading persuasive text?’ Journal of Written Communication, 13 (3), 291-313.
11. Chesterman, A. (1998). Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: J. Benjamin Publishing.
12. Clyne, M. (1987).Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 211-247.
13. Crawford, C. (2005). Adjusting a business lecture for an international audience: A case study. English for Specific Purposes 24, 183-199.
14. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson Education International: New Jersey.
15. Crismore, A. and Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 91-112.
16. Crismore A., Markkanen, R. and Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10 (1), 39–71.
17. Çapar, M. (2014). A Study on Metadiscourse Markers in Research Articles. Unpublished PhD thesis, Anadolu University: Eskişehir, Turkey.
18. Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807–1825.
19. Doyuran, Z. (2009). Conciliation of knowledge through Hedging in Turkish Scientific Articles. Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi/Journal of Faculty of Letters, 26(1), 85-99.
20. Eggington, W. (1987).Written academic discourse in Korean: Implications for effective communication. In U. Connor and R. Kaplan (eds.). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
21. Flottum, K., Dahl, T. and Kinn, T. (2006).Academic Voices.Across Languages and Disciplines.Amsterdam/Phildelphia: John Benjamins.
22. Flowerdew, J. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 123-145.
23. Fuertes-Olivera P. A., Velasco-Sacristan, M., Arribas-Bano, A. and Samaniego-Fernandez, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291-1307.
24. Geertz, C. (1988). Words and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford University Press, Palo, Alto, CA.
25. Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
26. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed). London: Edward Arnold.
27. Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15 (1), 29-53.
28. Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
29. Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary Discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin and K. Hyland (Eds.).Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices, 99-121. London: London Group.
30. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Longman, London.
31. Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20 (3), 207-226.
32. Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.
33. Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 156-177.
34. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. Continuum: London.
35. Ivanic, R. (1998).Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
36. Kafes, H. (2009). Authorial stance in academic English: native and non-native academic speaker writers’ use of stance devices (modal verbs) in research articles. Unpublished PhD thesis, Anadolu University: Eskişehir, Turkey.
37. Kan, M. O. (2016). The Use of Interactional Metadiscourse: A Comparison of Articles on Turkish Education and Literature. Educational Sciences: Theory &Practice. 16(5), 1639-1648.
38. Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16 (1-2), 1-20.
39. Kaplan, R., and Baldauf, R. B. (2005). Editing contributed scholarly articles from a language management perspective. Journal of SecondLanguage Writing, 14, 47-62.
40. Karasar, N. (1995). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. Ankara.
41. Karkkainen, E. (1990). Modality as a strategy in spoken interactions.MA thesis. Oulu: University of Oulu.
42. Kreutz, H.and Harres, A. (1997). Some observations on the distribution and function of hedging in German and English academic writing.A Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse.Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 104, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York (1997), pp. 181–201.
43. Kuhi, D. and Behnam, B. (2011). Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguists: A comparative study and preliminary framework. Written Communication, 28(1), 97-141.
44. Kuo, C. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes 18 (2), 121–138.
45. Liu, P. and Huang, X. (2017). A Study of Interactional Metadiscourse in English Abstracts of Chinese Economics Research Articles. Higher Education Studies,7(3), 25-41.
46. Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.
47. Mauranen, A. (2001). Desciptions or explanations?Some methodological issues in contrastive rhetoric. In Hewings, M. (Eds.).Academic writing in context. University of Birmingham Press: Birmingham. (43- 54).
48. Mina, K. G. and Biria, R. (2017). Exploring Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Discussion Sections of Social and Medical Science Articles. International Journal of Research in English Education. 2(4), 11-29.
49. Mur-Duenas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3068-3079.
50. Ramanathan, V. and Atkinson, D. (1999).Individualism, academic writing and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 45-75.
51. Rezzano, N. S. (2004). Modality and modal responsibility in research articles in English. In Fachinetti, R & Palmer, F. (eds.) English modality in perspective. Genre analysis and contrastive studies, 101-118.. Germany: Peter Lang GmbH.
52. Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 199-236.
53. Seibel, C. (1980). Subjective Modality. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 5, 15-20.
54. St. John, M. (1987). Writing processes of Spanish scientists publishing in English. English for Specific Purposes, 6, 113-120.
55. Suntara, W. and Chokthawikit, S. (2018). Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Article Abstracts: An Analysis from Public Health Journals. Language and Linguistics, 36,31-52.
56. Swales, J. (1990).Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: CUP.
57. Tang, R. and John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 23–39.
58. Valero-Garces, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 15 (4), 279-294.
59. Vande Kopple, W. T. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on Metadiscourse.College Composition and Communication, 36 (1), 82-93.
60. Van Dijk, T., Ting-Toomey, S., Smitherman, G. and Troutman, D. (1997).Discourse, ethnicity, culture, and racism. In van Dijk (Ed.).Discourse as social action. London: Sage Publications.
61. Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic English. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 83-102.
62. Vazquez, I. and Giner, D. (2009). Writing with conviction: The use of Boosters in Modelling Persuasion in Academic Discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 22, 219-237.
63. Ventola, E. (1997). Modalization: Probability-an exploration into its role in academic writing. In A. Duszak, Culture and styles of academic discourse.Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 104 (pp. 157-179). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
64. Vold, E. T. (2006). The choice and use of epistemic modality markers in linguistic and medical research articles. In Hyland, K. and Bondi, M. (eds.) Academic discourse across disciplines. Switzerland: Peter Lang, AG.
65. Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
66. Yıldırım, A. and Şimşek, H. (2005).Sosyal Bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin: Ankara.
67. Zarei, G. R. (2011). A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4 (1), 42-50.