ÜSTSÖYLEM VE CİNSİYET: TÜRKÇE YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZLERİNİN SONUÇ BÖLÜMLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR İNCELEME

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkçe yüksek lisans tezlerinin sonuç bölümlerinde kullanılan bilgi odaklı etkileşimli (ing. interactive) ve alıcı odaklı etkileşimli (ing. interactional) üstsöylem belirleyicilerini cinsiyete dayalı farklılıklar bağlamında incelemektedir. Hyland’ın (2005) Kişilerarası Üstsöylem Modeli temel alınarak ve Türkçeye özgü geliştirilmiş eklektik bir sınıflandırma ile desteklenerek yürütülen bu araştırmada, tarih, sosyoloji, Türk dili ve edebiyatı ile felsefe alanlarına ait 40 yüksek lisans tezi (20 kadın, 20 erkek yazar) çözümlenmiştir. Nicel bulgular, hem kadın hem erkek yazarların bilgi odaklı etkileşimli ve alıcı odaklı etkileşimli üstsöylem belirleyicilerini benzer biçimlerde kullandıklarını göstermektedir. Mantıksal bağlayıcılar (ing. transitions), çerçeve belirleyiciler (ing. frame markers) ve açımlayıcılar (ing. code glosses), en sık kullanılan bilgi odaklı etkileşimli öğeler olarak öne çıkarken; vurgulayıcılar (ing. boosters), kaçınmalar (ing. hedges) ve tutum belirleyicileri (ing. attitude markers) ise alıcı odaklı etkileşimli ulamda baskındır. Özellikle, erkek yazarların metinlerinde vurgulayıcılara daha fazla yer verdiği; kadın yazarların ise çerçeve belirleyiciler ve açımlayıcılara daha çok başvurduğu görülmüştür. Bu alt ulamlardaki farklılıkların log-olabilirlik testi ile istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu belirlenmiştir. Nitel bulgular, üstsöylem stratejilerinin esasen yazın türüne özgü yapısal beklentiler ve akademik yazım normları tarafından şekillendirildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bununla birlikte, kadınların okura yönelik ve açıklayıcı öğelere daha çok yer vermesi; erkeklerin ise kesin ve iddialı anlatımı tercih etmesi gibi bazı ince cinsiyet temelli eğilimler, toplumsal kimliğin retorik tercihler üzerinde belli ölçüde etkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, bu bulgular akademik yazımda tür, dilsel yapı ve toplumsal kimlik arasındaki dinamik etkileşimi gözler önüne sermektedir. Türün getirdiği beklentiler yazarlarda yüksek düzeyde bir biçemsel birlikteliği teşvik ederken, cinsiyetin üstsöylemsel tercihler üzerinde ince ama fark edilir bir etkisi olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu bulgular, Türkçe Akademik Amaçlı Programlar (TAP) için pedagojik açıdan önem taşımakta; öğrencilerin hem retorik konvansiyonlar hem de kimlik konumlandırması konusunda farkındalık kazanmalarının gerekliliğini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Üstsöylem
• Cinsiyet farkları
• Türk akademik yazımı
• Yüksek lisans tezi sonuç bölümleri
• Alıcı odaklı etkileşimli ve bilgi odaklı etkileşimli belirleyiciler

METADISCOURSE AND GENDER: AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONCLUSION SECTIONS OF TURKISH MA THESES

Abstract

This study investigates the use of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in the conclusion sections of Turkish master’s theses, with a specific focus on gender-based variation. Drawing on Hyland’s (2005) interpersonal model and supported by an eclectic taxonomy adapted to Turkish, the research analyzes a balanced corpus of 40 MA theses (20 female, 20 male authors) from the fields of History, Sociology, Turkish Language and Literature, and Philosophy. Quantitative analysis reveals that both male and female authors frequently used both interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in similar ways. Transitions, frame markers, and code glosses were the most frequently used interactive elements, while boosters, hedges, and attitude markers dominated the interactional category. Notably, boosters appeared slightly more in male-authored texts, while frame markers and code glosses were more prominent in female-authored ones. Statistical analysis using the log-likelihood test confirmed significant gender-based variation in these subcategories. Qualitative analysis indicates that metadiscourse strategies are primarily shaped by genre-specific conventions and academic writing norms, rather than gender alone. However, subtle gendered tendencies, such as women’s greater use of reader-oriented and clarifying devices and men’s preference for assertive expressions, suggest that social identity influences rhetorical choices to some extent. Overall, the findings highlight the dynamic interaction between academic genre, linguistic structure, and social identity. The study concludes that while genre expectations foster a high degree of stylistic uniformity, gender continues to inform metadiscursive choices in academic writing subtly. These insights hold pedagogical relevance for Turkish for Academic Purposes (TAP) programs, emphasizing the need to raise student awareness about both rhetorical conventions and identity positioning in scholarly discourse.

Keywords

• Metadiscourse
• Gender differences
• Turkish academic writing
• Master’s thesis conclusions
• Interactional and interactive markers

Kaynakça

1. Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins.
2. Ağçam, R. (2014). A corpus-based study on epistemic adjectives in academic English. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(12), 1230-1236.
3. Algı, 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.
4. Alotaibi, H. S. (2018). Metadiscourse in dissertation acknowledgements: Exploration of gender differences in EFL texts. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 899–916.
5. Atasever-Belli, S. (2019). Frame markers in master thesis abstracts written in English and Turkish. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 48(2), 994-1011.
6. Azher, M., Jahangir, H., & Mahmood, R. (2023). Constructing gender through metadiscourse: A corpus-based interdisciplinary study of research dissertations of Pakistani M.Phil graduates. Corporum: Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 6(II).
7. Bal-Gezegin, B. (2016). A corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse in academic book. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 713-718.
8. Bawarshi, A., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. Parlor Press.

9. Bayraktaroğlu, A. (2000). Politeness and interactional imbalance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 145(1), 23–50.
10. Bayyurt, Y. (2010). Author positioning in academic writing. In S. Zyngier & V. Viana (Eds.), Appraisals and perspectives: Mapping empirical studies in the Humanities (pp. 163-184). The Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
11. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. University of Wisconsin Press.
12. Cameron, D. (1998). The feminist critique of language: A reader. Routledge.
13. Corcu, D. (2003). A linguistic analysis of necessity as a part of the modal system in Turkish [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Mersin University.
14. Corcu, D. (2005). Semantic Structure of the Necessity Marker –mAlI. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 16, 33-45.
15. Corcu, D. (2006). On semantic structure of the necessity/obligation mood coding items [Conference presentation]. XX. Turkish National Linguistics Conference, Maltepe University, Turkey.
16. Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 91-112.
17. 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.
18. Crismore, A (2004). Pronouns and metadiscourse as interpersonal rhetorical devices in fundraising letters: A corpus linguistic analysis. In U. Connor & T.A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professional: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp.307-330). Amsterdam.
19. Çakır, H. (2011). Türkçe ve İngilizce bilimsel makale özetlerinde bilgiyi kurgulama ve yazar kimliğini kodlama biçimleri (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Dokuz Eylül University.
20. Dağ Tarcan, Ö. (2019). Sosyal bilimler alanında yazılan Türkçe bilimsel metinlerde kullanılan üstsöylem belirleyicileri [Doctoral dissertation]. Ankara University.
21. Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807–1825.
22. Doyuran, Z. (2009). Conciliation of knowledge through hedging in Turkish scientific articles. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 26 (1), 85-99.
23. Ekoç, A. (2010). Analyzing Turkish MA students’ use of lexical hedging strategies in theses abstracts. HAYEF Journal of Education, 7(1), 49-62.
24. Erk-Emeksiz, Z. (2008). Türkçe’de kiplik anlamının belirsizliği ve anlamsal roller. Dil Dergisi, 141, 55-66.
25. Erk-Emeksiz, Z. (2009). Deontic modality in Turkish:Pragmatic and semantic constraints. MITWP, 58, 79-85.
26. Eröz, B., & Akar, D. (2020). Gender and persuasive strategies in Turkish parliamentary discourse. Discourse & Society, 31(6), 607–625.
27. Esmer, E. (2017). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers in Turkish election rally speeches delivered by pro-Turkish and pro-Kurdish leaders. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 367-384.
28. Esmer, E. (2018). Türkçeyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrenciler tarafından üretilen ikna metinlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin kullanımı. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(3), 216-228.
29. Falahati, R. (2006). The use of hedging across different disciplines and rhetorical sections of research articles. Proceedings of the 22nd North West Linguistics Conference (NWLC), 99–112.
30. Farahanynia, M., & Nourzadeh, S. (2023). Authorial and gender identity in published research articles and students’ academic writing in applied linguistics. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 15(2).
31. Francis, G., Robson, J., & Read, M. (2001). Gender differences in business writing: The role of gender in linguistic features. Journal of Business Communication, 38(4), 289–314.
32. 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). Peter Lang.
33. Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128–139.
34. Güçlü, R. (2022). A Diachronic and Gender-Based Analysis of Turkish MA Theses: The Use of Metadiscourse Markers. [Published Master’s thesis]. Hacettepe University.
35. Güçlü, R., & Özyıldırım, I. (2025). A diachronic corpus analysis of interactive and interactional markers in Turkish MA Theses’ conclusions. Turkish Studies-Educational Sciences, 20(1).
36. Güven, M. (2001). Türkçe’de -Abil eki ve kiplik belirteçleri üzerine. Proceedings of the XV. Linguistics Conference, (pp. 79-87). Yıldız Teknik University Press.
37. Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2010). (Im)politeness, gender and context: Some evidence from Turkish. Pragmatics, 20(4), 505–528.
38. Hatipoğlu, C., & Algı, S. (2017). Contextual and pragmatics functions of modal epistemic hedges in argumentative paragraphs in Turkish. In C. Hatipoglu, E. Akbas, & Y. Bayyurt (Eds.), Metadiscourse in written genres: Uncovering textual and interactional aspects of texts (pp. 85–108). Peter Lang.
39. Hatipoğlu, Ç., & Algı, S. (2018). Catch a tiger by the toe: Modal hedges in EFL argumentative paragraphs. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 957-982.
40. Herbert, R. K. (1990). Sex-based differences in compliment behavior. Language in Society, 19(2), 201–224.
41. Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication, 10(3), 185–205.
42. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. Longman.
43. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.
44. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
45. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
46. Hyland, K., & Bondi, M. (Eds.). (2006). Academic discourse across disciplines (Vol. 42). Peter Lang.
47. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2016a). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 3, 251–271.
48. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018a). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18–30.
49. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.
50. Işık-Güler, H. (2009). (Im)politeness and gender in Turkish: Evidence from e-mails. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(12), 2639–2656.
51. Işık-Taş, E. (2008). A corpus-based analysis of genre-specific discourse of research: The research article and the PhD thesis in ELT (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University.
52. Javid, C. Z., Farooq, M. U., & Umer, M. (2013). An investigation of Saudi EFL learners’ writing problems: A case study along gender lines. Kashmir Journal of Language Research, 16(1), 55–71.
53. Johnson, S., & Roen, D. (1992). Complimenting and involvement in peer reviews: Gender variation. Language in Society, 21(1), 27–57.
54. Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. Routledge.
55. Kan, M. O. (2016). The use of interactional metadiscourse: a comparison of articles on Turkish education and literature. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16, 1639-1648.
56. Karahan, P. (2013). Self-mention in scientific articles written by Turkish and non-Turkish authors. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 305-322.
57. Kerimoğlu, C. (2010). On the epistemic modality markers in Turkey Turkish: Uncertainty. International Periodicals for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 5(4), 434-478.
58. Kerimoğlu, C. & Aksu, C. (2015). -DIr biçimbiriminin sözlü söylemdeki kiplik alanları ve kullanımları. Dil Araştırmaları, 17, 73-94.
59. Köroğlu, Z. (2019). A corpus-based analysis: The types of transition markers in the MA theses of the native speakers of English and the Turkish speakers of English. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 496-507.
60. Kuhi, D., Behnam, B., & Taki, S. (2012). Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguistics research articles. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 115–142.
61. Kurt, B. (2022). Türkçe eğitimi alanındaki yüksek lisans ve doktora tezlerinin sonuç bölümünde tutum belirleyici kullanımının yazar temelli analizi. İçinde VI. Uluslararası Türklerin Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Sempozyumu tam metin bildiri kitabı (ss. 1573–1584). Türklerin Dünyası Enstitüsü.
62. Kuo, C. H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121–138.
63. Lautamatti, L. (1978). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. AFinLAn vuosikirja, 71-104.
64. Marandi, S. S. (2003). Contrastive rhetoric in Persian and English: Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tehran].
65. Merghmi, K., & Hoadjli, A. C. (2024). The use of interactional metadiscourse markers in the discussion section of master’s theses written in English by Algerian students: An investigation of gender variation. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages & Literatures, 16(1).
66. Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. Routledge.
67. Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170.
68. Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: Organizational and evaluative bracket in discourse. Sociological inquiry: Language and Social Interaction, 50 (3–4), 199–236.
69. Sebzecioğlu, T. (2004). Türkçede kip kategorisi ve –yor biçimbiriminin kipsel değeri. Dil Dergisi, (124), 18-33.
70. Serholt, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in academic writing: A gender-based study of the use of epistemic modality in articles written by students at the University of Gothenburg [Master’s thesis, University of Gothenburg].
71. Seyyedrezaie, Z. S., & Vahedi, S. (2017). A comparative study of stance markers in Persian and English academic research articles: Male vs. female writers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(8), 646–652.
72. Soyşekerci, G., Öztürk, E. A., & İşeri, K. (2022). Lisansüstü tezlerin sonuç bölümlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicileri. Çukurova Üniversitesi Türkoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 766-794.
73. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
74. Şen, E. (2019). Bilimsel makale özetlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin incelenmesi (Published Doctoral dissertation). Dokuz Eylül University.
75. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. William Morrow.
76. Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2006b). Gender and discipline: Exploring metadiscourse variation in academic book reviews. In K. Hyland & M., Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 177–202). Peter Lang.
77. Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2008). “Robot reviewers”: Gender and academic identity. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 180–193.
78. Underhill, R. (1986). Turkish. In D. I. Slobin, & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 8-21). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
79. Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition & Communication, 36 (1), 82-93.
80. Waskita, D. (2008). Differences in men’s and women’s ESL academic writing at the University of Melbourne (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bandung Institute of Technology.
81. Yavari, M., & Fard Kashani, A. (2013). Gender-based study of metadiscourse in research articles’ rhetorical sections. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(2), 77–88.
82. Yeganeh, M. T., & Ghoreyshi, S. M. (2015). Gender differences in the use of hedges and boosters in academic writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(5), 686–691.
83. Zaki, M. (2022). The metadiscourse of Arabic academic abstracts: A corpus-based study. Register in Context of Language, 10(2).