Interactive metadiscourse markers in Turkish research article abstracts: a diachronic analysis

Öz

Metadiscourse is an important linguistic resource which establishes the writer-reader relationship and makes a text reader-friendly. There is a scarcity of research which has analyzed the metadiscourse markers in a diachronic way. This study aims to explore the interactive markers such as transitions, frame markers, endophoric markers, evidentials, code glosses employed in Turkish research article abstracts published in Journal of Linguistics and Literature, Journal of Linguistics Research, Language Journal in 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 years and takes Hyland’s (2005) Interpersonal Model of Metadiscourse as the theoretical framework. The findings of this study illustrate that 2017-2018 writers guide the readers in their research article abstracts much more than 2008-2009 writers with the use of evidentials by which they refer to the other researchers’ ideas. This result reveals the diachronic evolution in the degree of writer-reader relationship from the perspective of social relations so that 2017-2018 writers are more inclined to declare being member of a specific discourse community with the use of evidentials. This research is expected to contribute to the understanding of Turkish academic discourse from a diachronic perspective and to provide useful implications in the fields such as foreign language teaching, corpus linguistics and text analysis.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Interactive metadiscourse markers
• research article abstracts
• evidentials
• diachronic analysis

Türkçe dil bilimi araştırma makalelerinin özetlerinde etkileşimli üst söylem belirleyicileri art zamanlı bir inceleme

Öz

Üst söylem, yazar-okuyucu ilişkisini kuran ve bir metni okur dostu yapan önemli bir dilsel kaynaktır. Üst söylem belirleyicilerini art zamanlı olarak inceleyen araştırmalar oldukça azdır. Bu çalışma, 2008- 2009 ve 2017-2018 yıllarında Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Dil Dergisi’nde yayımlanan araştırma makalelerinin Türkçe özetlerinde kullanılan bağlayıcılar, çerçeve belirleyiciler, metin içi belirleyiciler, tanıtlayıcılar, kod çözümleyiciler gibi etkileşimli belirleyicileri araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır ve Hyland’ın (2005) kişiler arası üst söylem modelini kuramsal çerçeve olarak ele almaktadır. Bu çalışmanın bulguları, 2017-2018 yazarlarının araştırma makalelerinin özetlerinde, diğer araştırmacıların fikirlerine atıfta bulundukları tanıtlayıcıları 2008-2009 yazarlarına göre daha fazla kullandıklarını ve böylece okuyuculara metin boyunca daha çok rehberlik ettiklerini göstermektedir. Bu sonuç, yazar-okuyucu ilişkisi derecesinin toplumsal ilişkiler açısından art zamanlı evrimini ortaya koymaktadır, şöyle ki 2017-2018 yazarları belirli bir söylem topluluğunun üyesi olduklarını tanıtlayıcı kullanımıyla daha fazla beyan etme eğilimindedir. Bu araştırmanın, Türk akademik söyleminin art zamanlı bir bakış açısıyla daha iyi anlaşılmasına katkı sağlaması ve yabancı dil öğretimi, bütünce dil bilimi ve metin çözümlemesi gibi alanlarda faydalı sonuçlar sağlaması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Etkileşimli üst söylem belirleyicileri
• araştırma makalesi özetleri
• tanıtlayıcılar
• art zamanlı inceleme

Kaynakça

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. Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.
3. Abdi, R. (2009). Projecting cultural identity through metadiscourse marking; A comparison of Persian and English research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 1(212), 1-15.
4. Abdi, R. (2012). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the differences across subsections. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 30(1), 1-16.
5. Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English (Vol. 24). John Benjamins Publishing.
6. Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1-11.
7. Akbas, 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), 35-44.
8. Algi, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in L1 and L2 argumentative paragraphs: Implications for teaching L2 academic writing. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University.

9. Alotaibi, H. (2015). Metadiscourse in Arabic and English research article abstracts. World Journal of English Language, 5(2), 1.
10. Atmaca, Ç. (2016). Comparison of hedges in MA theses and PhD Dissertations in ELT. Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken/Journal of World of Turks, 8(2), 309-325.
11. Bal-Gezegin, B. (2016). A Corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse in academic book. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 713-718.
12. Başaran, S. and Sofu, H. (2009). The process of writing research articles in English and getting published: A case study. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 8 (2), 371-384.
13. Bayyurt, Y. (2010). Author positioning in academic writing. In Zyngier, S. & Viana, V. (Eds), Appraisals and perspectives: Mapping empirical studies in the Humanities. 163-184. Rio de Janeiro: The Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
14. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
15. Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian native speakers. Kalbų Studijos, (5), 60-67.
16. Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41-56.
17. Burneikaitė, N. (2008). Metadiscourse in linguistics master’s theses in English L1 and L2. Kalbotyra, 59, 38-47.
18. Can, C., & Yuvayapan, F. (2018). Stance-Taking through metadiscourse in doctoral dissertations. Online Submission, 6(1), 128-142.
19. Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31.
20. Chambliss, M. J., & Garner, R. (1996). Do adults change their minds after reading persuasive text. Written Communication, 13(3), 291-313.
21. 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.
22. Crowhurst, M. (1990). Teaching and learning the writing of persuasive/ argumentative discourse. Canadian Journal of Education, 15(4), 348-359.
23. Dağ Tarcan, Ö. (2017). Türkçe bilimsel metinlerde etkileşimli üstsöylem belirleyicileri. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi,8(2).
24. Dağ Tarcan, Ö. (2019). Sosyal bilimler alanında yazılan Türkçe bilimsel metinlerde kullanılan üstsöylem belirleyicileri. (Published PhD thesis). Ankara Üniversitesi.
25. Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825.
26. Duruk, E. (2017). Analysis of metadiscourse markers in academic written discourse produced by Turkish researchers. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 1-9.
27. Fidan, Ö. (2002). Türkçe bilimsel metinlerde üstsöylem belirleyicileri. Unpublished PhD thesis, Ankara.
28. Gillaerts, P. (2014). Shifting metadiscourse: Looking for diachrony in the abstract genre. In M. Bondi, & R. Lores Sanz (Eds.), Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change (pp. 271-286). Bern: Peter Lang.
29. Hatipoglu, Ç., & Algi, S. (2018). Catch a tiger by the toe: Modal hedges in EFL argumentative paragraphs. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 957- 982.
30. Helali Oskouei, M.H. & Kuhi, D. (2014). The use of citations in academic writing: Analysis of introduction section of Iranian and native English master’s theses. Journal of Social Issues and Humanities, 2(3), 216–220.
31. Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454.
32. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles (Vol. 54). John Benjamins Publishing.
33. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
34. Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143.
35. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251-274.
36. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). Text-organizing metadiscourse: tracking changes in rhetorical persuasion. Journal of Historical Pragmatics.
37. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). Text-organizing metadiscourse: Tracking changes in rhetorical persuasion. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 21(1).
38. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
39. Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12-25.
40. Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(9), 1325-1353.
41. Kan, M. O. (2016). The use of interactional metadiscourse: A comparison of articles on Turkish education and literature. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16, 1639–1648.
42. Karimi, K., Maleki, M., & Farnia, M. (2017). Metadiscourse markers in the abstract sections of Persian and English law articles. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 5(18), 69-83.
43. Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124.
44. Keramati, S., Kuhi, D., & Saeidi, M. (2019). Cross-sectional diachronic corpus analysis of stance and engagement markers in three leading journals of applied linguistics. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 6(2), 1-25.
45. Khajavy, G. H., Asadpour, S. F., & Yousefi, A. (2012). A comparative analysis of interactive metadiscourse features in discussion section of research articles written in English and Persian. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), 147- 159.
46. 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.
47. Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M. H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129-146.
48. Kondowe, W. (2014). Hedging and boosting as interactional metadiscourse in literature doctoral dissertation abstracts. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(3), 214-221.
49. Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
50. Kopple, W. J. V. (2012). The importance of studying metadiscourse. Applied Research in English, 1(2).
51. Köroğlu, Z. (2019). A corpus-based analysis: The types of transition markers in the MA theses of native speakers of English and Turkish speakers of English. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 496-507.
52. Kuhi, D., & Dustsadigh, Z. (2012). A cross-cultural diachronic study on hedging devices diversity in chemistry research articles. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Foreign Language.
53. Kuhi, D., & Mousavi, Z. (2015). A diachronic study of interpersonality in research articles’ discussion section: The field of applied linguistics. International Journal of Research, 6.
54. Kuhi, D. (2017). Towards the development of a socially-informed, processoriented model of research in metadiscourse. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 10(20), 92-129.
55. 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, 39-54.
56. Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A textlinguistic study. Frankfort am Main: Peter Lang Publisher.
57. Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12(1), 3-22.
58. McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161-173.
59. Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068-3079.
60. Özdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59-63.
61. Petrić, B. (2007). Rhetorical functions of citations in high-and low-rated master’s theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 238–253.
62. Rashidi, N., & Alihosseini, F. (2012). A contrastive study of metadiscourse markers in research article abstracts across disciplines. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov, 5(4), 17-23.
63. Rezaei Keramati, S., Kuhi, D., & Saeidi, M. (2019). Cross-sectional diachronic corpus analysis of stance and engagement markers in three leading journals of applied linguistics. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 6(2), 25-1.
64. Salas, M. D. (2015). Reflexive metadiscourse in research articles in Spanish: Variation across three disciplines (Linguistics, Economics and Medicine). Journal of Pragmatics, 77, 20-40.
65. Salehi, B. M., & Biria, R. (2016). Exploring Gender Differences in Crossdisciplinary Discourse: Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in the Discussion Section of Research Articles. Language in India, 16(12).
66. Smith, P., Weingart, L., & Olekalns, M. (2005). Markov chain models of communication processes in negotiation. International Negotiation, 10(1), 97- 114.
67. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
68. Şen, E. (2019). Bilimsel makale özetlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin incelenmesi. (Published PhD dissertation). Dokuz Eylül University.
69. Tavanpour, N., Goudarzi, Z., & Farnia, M. (2016). Interactional metadiscourse markers in sports news in newspapers: A cross-cultural study of American and Iranian columnists. The Philologist, 1, 1-13.
70. Thomas, S. & Hawes, T. (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 129–148.
71. Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58–78.
72. Uzun, L. (2002). Dilbilim alanında Türkçe yazılan araştırma yazılarında metin dünyasına ilişkin düzenlemeler. L. Uzun ve E. Huber (Ed.), Türkçede bilgi yapısı ve bilimsel metinler içinde. Essen: Die Blaue Eule.
73. Yang, L. (2013). Evaluative functions of reporting evidentials in English research articles of Applied Linguistics. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 3(02), 119.
74. Yavari, M., & Kashani, A. F. (2013). Gender-based study of metadiscourse in research articles’ rhetorical sections. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(2), 77-88.
75. Yeganeh, M. T. & Ghoreishi, S. M. (2014). Exploring gender differences in the use of discourse markers in Iranian academic research articles. Global Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 4(1).
76. Zadeh, Z. R., Baharlooei, R., & Simin, S. (2015). Gender-Based study of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in conclusion sections of English master theses. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 47, 195-208.
77. Zareifard, R., & Alinezhad, B. (2014). A study of interactional metadiscourse markers and gender in the defense seminars of Persian speakers. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(1), 231-231.
78. Zeyrek, D. (2002). Psikoloji makalelerinde üstsöylem belirleyicileri. L. Uzun ve E. Huber (Ed.), Türkçede Bilgi Yapısı ve Bilimsel Metinler: Die Blue Eule, Essen.