Discursive Construction of the Significance in English and Turkish Psychology Theses: An Intercultural Rhetorical Analysis

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 2, 791 - 803, 24.05.2021

Merve Geçikli

Öz

Studies carried out on academic genres have shown that rhetorical actions scholars followed have seemingly varied to the contexts in which context-bound socio-discursive factors override. On this basis, in this paper, the researcher intended to analyse comparatively rhetorical categories in the introductory parts of 30 master thesis written in Turkish and 30 master theses written in English by Turkish researchers, and 30 master theses by native speakers of English in the field of Psychology published between 2015-2020. Move 3 -Occupying the Niche- in Swales CARS Model (2004) was sought within introductory parts in order to explore how authors in the same field but different contexts deal with publicizing the significance and value of their study. The analyses show that, despite small number of differences in frequency between two corpora, Move 3 is equally and frequently operated in introductory parts of psychology master theses by both Turkish academics and native speakers of English. As regards Turkish ones, on the other hand, the especially the frequency of those steps dealing with significance is quite less. These findings indicate that, in discursive construction of the significance in the genre in question, for English textx socio-pragmatic factors, that is motive to be recognized internationally, tend to prevail in the rhetorical choices the writers do while structuring the discursive acts in the texts while for local ones cultural facts are overriding .

Anahtar Kelimeler

Significance, Psychology Theses, Intercultural Rhetoric, Genre Analysis, Occupying the Niche

Destekleyen Kurum

-

Proje Numarası

-

Teşekkür

-

Psikoloji Alanındaki Yüksek Lisans Tezlerinde Önem Vurgusunun Söylemsel Oluşumu: Bir Kültürlerarası Retorik Analizi

Öz

Akademik türler üzerine yapılan çalışmalar, araştırmacıların metinlerinde uyguladıkları retorik eylemlerin bağlam odaklı sosyo-söylemsel etmenlerin baskın olduğu ortamlara göre değişim gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Bu noktadan hareketle, bu çalışmada, yazar 2015-2020 yılları arasında Psikoloji alanında Türk araştırmacılar ile anadili İngilizce olan yabancı araştırmacıların İngilizce yüksek lisans tezlerinin giriş bölümlerini karşıtsal çözümleme ile incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Swales’ın CARS Modelinde(2004) Aşama 3- Alanyazındaki Boşluğu Doldurma-’deki basamaklardan hareketle araştırmacıların tezlerinin giriş bölümlerinde çalışmalarının önem vurgusunu söylemsel olarak nasıl yapılandırdıklarına yönelik analizler yapılmıştır. Analiz sonuçları, Psikoloji alanındaki Türk araştırmacılar ile anadili İngilizce olan araştırmacıların İngilizce yüksek lisans tezlerinin giriş bölümlerinde Aşama 3’ün küçük frekans farklılıklarına rağmen eşit ve sıklıkla uygulandığını göstermiştir. Fakat, Türk araştırmacıların Türkçe tezlerinde Aşama’3’ün özelikkle önem vurgusu üzerine olan basamakların sıklığının oldukça düşük olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Bu bulgular ışığında, söz konusu akademik türde önem vurgusunun söylemsel oluşumunda İngilizce tezlerde sosyo-pragmatik faktörlerin, bir diğer ifadeyle uluslarası tanınırlık kazanma yönlendiriminin, Türkçe tezlerde ise kültürel faktörlerin yazarların metinlerindeki söylemsel eylemleri yapılandırmada etkili olduğu sonucuna varılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Önem Vurgusu, Psikoloji Yüksek Lisans Tezleri, Kültürlerarası Retorik, Tür Analizi, Alandaki Boşluğu Doldurma

Proje Numarası

-

Kaynakça

• Adnan, Z. (2008). Discourse structure of Indonesian research article introductions in selected hard sciences. In S. Burgess & P. Martín (Eds.), English as an additional language in research publication and communication (pp. 39–63). Bern: Peter Lang.
• Afros, E., & Schryer, C. (2009). Promotional (meta)discourse in research articles in language and literary studies. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 58–68.
• Ahmad, U. (1997). Research article introductions in Malay: Rhetoric in an emerging research community. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles in academic discourse (pp. 273–303). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Allen, T.D. ve Rush M.C. (1998). The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Performance Judgments: A Field Study and A Laboratory Experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2): 247-260
• Anthony, L. (1999). Writing research article introductions in software engineering: How accurate is a standard model? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42, 38–46.
• Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Bhatia, V. K. (2005). Generic patterns in promotional discourse. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach (pp. 213–225). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Burgess, S. (2002). Packed houses and intimate gatherings: Audience and rhetorical structure. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 196–215). Harlow: Longman.
• Connor, U., & Moreno, A. (2005). Tertium comparationis: A vital component in contrastive rhetoric research. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. Eggington, W.
• Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp. 153–164). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational Research:Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill.
• Cronin, B., McKenzie, G., & Rubio, L. (1993). The norms of acknowledgement in four humanities and social sciences disciplines. Journal of Documentation, 49, 29–43.
• Duszak, A. (1994). Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 291–313.
• Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London/New York: Longman.
• Fakhri, A. (2004). Rhetorical properties of Arabic research article introductions. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1119–1138.
• Fakhri, A. (2009). Rhetorical variation in Arabic academic discourse: Humanities versus law. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 306–324.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (8th ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.
• Fredrickson, K., & Swales, J. (1994). Competition and discourse community: Introductions from Nysvenska studies. In B. L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Nordberg (Eds.), Text and talk in professional contexts (pp. 9–21). Uppsala, Sweden: ASLA.
• Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K. (2011). Quantifying the burden of writing research articles in a second language: Data from Mexican scientists. Written Communication, 28, 403–416.
• Harwood, N. (2005a). ‘‘We do not seem to have a theory . . . The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap’’: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26, 343–375.
• Harwood, N. (2005b). ‘‘Nowhere has anyone attempted ... In this article I aim to do just that’’: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1207–1231.
• Hirano, E. (2009). Research article introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and English. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 240–250.
• Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse. Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Pearson Education.
• Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman
• Hyland, K. (2004). Graduates’ gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowledgements. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 303–324.
• Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London/New York: Continuum.
• Hyland, K. (2011). Projecting an academic identity in some reflective genres. Ibérica, 21, 9–30.
• Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 269–292.
• Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. London: Routledge.
• Lin, L. & Evans, S. (2012). Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 150-160.
• Loi, C. K. (2010). Research article introductions in Chinese and English: A comparative genre-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9,267–279.
• Martín, P. & Pérez, I. K. L. (2014). Convincing peers of the value of one’s research: A genre analysis of rhetorical promotion in academic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 1-13.
• Melander, B., Swales, J. M., & Frederickson, K. M. (1997). Journal abstracts from three academic fields in the United States and Sweden: National or disciplinary proclivities? In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 251–272). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Moreno, A. (2008). The importance of comparable corpora in cross-cultural studies. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 25–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Mur Dueñas, P. (2010). A contrastive analysis of research article introductions in English and Spanish. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 61, 119–133.
• Nwogu, K. (1997). The medical research papers: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 119–138.
• Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organisation of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 25–38.
• Perales-Escudero, M., & Swales, J. (2011). Tracing convergence and divergence in pairs of Spanish and English research article abstracts: The case of Ibérica. Ibérica, 21, 49–70.
• Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 139–160.
• Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 1–17.
• Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 1-17.
• Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 141-156.
• Samraj, B. (2013). Form and function of citations in discussion sections of master's theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(4), 299-310.
• Shehzad, W. (2010). Announcement of the principal findings and value addition in computer science research papers. Ibérica, 19, 97–118.
• Soler-Monreal, C; Carbonell-Olivares, M & Gil-Salom, L.(2011) A contrastive study of the rhetorical organization of English and Spanish PhD thesis introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 4-17
• Stoller, F. L., & Robinson, M. S. (2013). Chemistry journal articles: An interdisciplinary approach to move analysis with pedagogical aims. English for Specific Purposes, 32(1), 45-57.
• Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, UK: Aston University, The Languages Studies Unit.
• Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: A course for non-native speakers of English. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
• Taylor, G., & Chen, T. (1991). Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied Linguistics, 12, 319–336.
• Yakhontova, T. (2006). Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors. English for Academic Purposes, 5, 153–167.
• Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2004). Research articles in applied linguistics: Structures from a functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 264–279.