The Comparison of Evaluative That Clauses in Turkish L2 Novice and Expert Writers' Abstracts

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 29, 99 - 114, 30.11.2021

Hatice Altun

https://doi.org/10.54316/dilarastirmalari.1012755

Öz

How authors adopt a stance and connect with their readers has gotten a lot of attention in the literature and is now a significant part of many ESP courses. What Hyland and Tse (2005b) call ‘evaluative that’ is a primarily underappreciated interpersonal trait. By placing a complement clause within a superordinate sentence, this form allows authors to build authorial stance and explicitly evaluate their own or others' work. It is an important way of giving authorial feedback and assessment when comparing the use of the structure in student and expert abstracts in applied linguistics. The current work explores two corpora comprising 40 abstracts from masters theses and dissertations by Turkish L2 graduate students in the U.S., and 70 abstracts by published research studies in two applied linguistics journals. It was discovered that evaluative that is less commonly used in these abstracts by the novice Turkish L2 graduate students than the published scholars. Although both groups used the structure similarly to a large extent, novice writers presented some peculiar traits concerning the specific uses of the structure. The results of the study give hints about the authorial voice of the expert and L2 novice writers by looking at what writers decided to assess, the viewpoints they adopted, the source they ascribed the stance to, and how they presented their judgments.

Anahtar Kelimeler

evaluative that, novice L2 Turkish writers, authorial stance, Turkish paratactic assertions through embedded ki-clauses

Türkçe Anadilli Deneyimsiz ve Uzman Yazarların Makale Özetlerinde Tutum Belirleyici Ki-Cümleciklerinin Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Yazarların nasıl bir duruş benimsedikleri ve okuyucularıyla nasıl bağlantı kurdukları literatürde ilgi görmüştür ve artık birçok ESP müfredatının da önemli bir parçasıdır. Hyland ve Tse'nin (2005b) ‘değerlendirici that’ olarak adlandırdıkları yapı, literatürde kişilerarası bir özellik olarak yeterince çalışılmamıştır. Bu form, bir üst cümlenin içine tamamlayıcı bir alt cümle yerleştirerek, yazarların bir duruş takınmasına ve kendilerinin veya başkalarının çalışmalarını açıkça değerlendirmelerine olanak tanır. Uygulamalı dilbilim alanında öğrenci ve uzman yazarların hazırladığı özetlerde bu yapının kullanımını, yazara ait geri bildirim ve değerlendirme vermenin önemli bir yolu olarak görülür. Bu çalışmada, ABD'de L2 Türk yüksek lisans ve doktora öğrencileri tarafından yazılan tezlerden ve uygulamalı bir dilbilim dergisinde yayınlanmış araştırma çalışmalarından elde edilen 110 özet kısmından oluşan iki derlem incelenmiştir. Bu özetlerde yetkin akademisyenlere göre deneyimsiz Türk yazarlar tarafından daha az kullanıldığı gözlemlenmiştir. Sonuçlar, iki grubun yapıyı çoğunlukla benzer olarak kullandığını ama deneyimsiz yazarların yapıyı nasıl farklılaşarak kullandığını göstermiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçları, yazarların neyi değerlendirmeye karar verdiklerine, benimsedikleri bakış açılarına, duruşu yükledikleri kaynağa ve yargılarını nasıl sunduklarına bakarak, uzman ve deneyimsiz yazarların yazarlık tutumu hakkında ipuçları vermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

değerlendirici bu ‘that’, İngilizce yazan deneyimsiz Türk yazarlar, yazar duruşu, gömülü ki-cümleler aracılığıyla Türkçe parataktik iddialar

Kaynakça

• AiÌkhenvalÊd, A. I. U. (2018). The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Aksu-Koc, A. (2016). The interface of evidentials and epistemics in Turkish. In M. Güven, D. Akar., B. Öztürk, & M. Kelepir (Eds.), Exploring the Turkish Landscape: Essays in honor of Eser Erguvanli-Taylan (pp. 143-156): John Benjamins.
• Arslan, S., De Kok, D., & Bastiaanse, R. (2017). Processing grammatical evidentiality and time reference in Turkish heritage and monolingual speakers. Bilingualism (Cambridge, England), 20(3), 457-472. doi:10.1017/S136672891500084X
• Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers (Vol. 23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
• Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes, 11, 1-34.
• Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 9(1), 93-124. doi:doi:10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
• Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.
• Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (1998). Comparing native and learner perspectives on English grammar: A study of complement clauses. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer UK: Longman: Harlow.
• Çakır, H. (2016). Native and non-native writers’ use of stance adverbs in English research article abstracts Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6(2), 85–96. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2016.62008
• Can, C., & Yuvayapan, F. (2018). Stance-taking through metadiscourse in doctoral dissertations 1. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching,, 6(1), 128-142.
• Can, T., & Cangır, H. (2019). A corpus-assisted comparative analysis of self-mention markers in doctoral dissertations of literary studies written in Turkey and the UK. Journal of English for academic purposes, 42, 100796. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100796
• Çandarlı, D. (2012). A Cross-Cultural Investigation of English and Turkish Research Article Abstracts in Educational Sciences. Kalbų studijos, 20(20), 12. doi:10.5755/j01.sal.0.20.1770
• 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:10.1016/j.jeap.2015.10.001
• Chafe, W. L. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W.L. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: TheLinguistic Coding of Epistemology (pp. 261-272). N.J.:Ablex,: Norwood.
• Charles, M. (2006). The Construction of Stance in Reporting Clauses: A Cross-disciplinary Study of Theses. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 492-518. doi:10.1093/applin/aml021
• Charles, M. (2007). ‘Argument or evidence? disciplinary variation in the use of the noun that pattern in stance construction English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 203–218.
• Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E. (2010). Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. Berlin : New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
• Gençer Baloğlu, Z. (2020). Japonca ve Türkçede Görünüş (Aspekt): Eski Türkçe ve Hakasça ile Mukayeseli. Ankara: TDK
• Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Germany: Routledge.
• Guentchéva, Z. (2018). Epistemic modalities and evidentiality in cross-linguistic perspective (First edition. ed.). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
• Herriman, J. (2000). The functions of extraposition in English texts. Functions of Language, 7(2), 203-230. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.7.2.03her
• Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). “It is interesting to note that…”: a comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for specific purposes (New York, N.Y.), 21(4), 367-383. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00016-3
• Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2001). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (New Edition ed.). Place of publication not identified: Oxford University Press Incorporated.
• Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34.
• Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. doi:10.1177/1461445605050365
• Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). We Believe That … ’: Changes in an Academic Stance Marker Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38(2), 139-161. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2018.1400498
• Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005a). Evaluative that constructions: signalling stance in research abstracts’. Functions of Language, 12(1), 39-63.
• Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005b). Hooking the reader: a corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for specific purposes (New York, N.Y.), 24(2), 123-139. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002
• Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2012). ‘She has received many honours’: Identity construction in article bio statements. Journal of English for academic purposes, 11(2), 155-165. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2012.01.001
• Işık-Taş, E. E. (2018). Authorial identity in Turkish language and English language research articles in Sociology: The role of publication context in academic writers' discourse choices. English for specific purposes (New York, N.Y.), 49, 26-38. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2017.10.003
• Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2015). 'The fact that': Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 529-550. doi:10.1177/1461445615590719
• Kesici, E. (2013). Ki- Clauses in Turkish Coyote Papers, University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona), 21.
• Kim, C., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Disciplinary differences in the use of evaluative that: Expression of stance via that-clauses in business and medicine. Journal of English for academic purposes, 41, 100775. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100775
• Kubotaa, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13.
• Lou, B. (2014). A Corpus-Based Study of Evaluative That-Clause in Abstracts of Chinese Learners' Doctoral Dissertations. International journal of computer-assisted language learning and teaching, 4(3), 68-79. doi:10.4018/ijcallt.2014070105
• Matsuda, P. K., & Tardy, C. M. (2006). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 235-249.
• Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1989). Language has a heart. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 9(1), 7-26. doi:doi:10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.7
• Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Swales, J. (2002). Integrated and fragmented worlds: EAP materials and corpus linguistics. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 150-164). Harlow: Pearson.
• Tarone, E., Dwyer, S., Gillette, S., & Icke, V. (1998). On the use of the passive and active voice in astrophysics journal papers: With extensions to other languages and other fields. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 113-132.
• Taşçı, S., & Öztürk, Y. (2021). Post-predicate that-caluses controlled by verbs in native and non-native academic writing: A corpus-based study. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 4(1), 18-33. doi:https://doi.org/10.29140ajal.v4n1.486
• Thompson, G., & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 365-382.
• Wang, Y., & Chen, H. (2012). The stance study of evaluative that clauses in English abstracts of Chinese master theses International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(5), 11.
• Wu, S. (1995). Transfer in Chinese students' academic English writing: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
• Yang, W., & Narrog, H. (2018). Evidentiality in Japanese (1 ed.): Oxford University Press.
• Yıldız, Ġ., & Aksan, M. (2013). Türkçe bilimsel metinlerde eylemler: Derlem temelli bir inceleme. Paper presented at the 27. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı, Kemer, Antalya, Türkiye.