The Use of Epistemic Modality Markers as Hedges in Scientific Research Texts

Öz

Bilgisel kiplik bir ifadede sunulan bilgiye ilişkin yazarın özgüven düzeyini yansıtır. Yazarın sözcük seçimlerinin bilginin artarımında önemli rol oynadığı bilimsel araştırmalar, pekiştirici veya önermenin kesinliğini azaltan ifadeler olarak kiplik belirticilerinin dikkatle seçimini gerektirir. Bu bağlamda, mevcut çalışma Türk araştırmacıların doktora tezleri, yüksek lisans tezleri ve araştırma makaleleri gibi akademik metinlerde bilgisel kiplik belirticilerini önermenin kesinliğini azaltan ifadeler olarak kullanımını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu bütünce çalışmasında, İngiliz Dilbilimi, İngilizce Öğretmenliği ve İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı alanlarında yayınlanmış olan 30 akademik yayının (10 doktora tezi, 10 yüksek lisans tezi ve 10 araştırma makalesi) giriş ve sonuç kısımlarından oluşan iki bütünce araştırma sorularını cevaplamak amacıyla veri olarak kullanılmıştır.Verilerin bütünce analizi, "may" ve "can" kiplik fiillerinin yayınların giriş kısımlarında sıklıkla kullanıldığını ortaya koymuştur ki bu da yazarların yayınların sonuç kısımlarında daha az tereddütlü iken giriş bölümlerinde daha fazla tereddüt taşıdıklarını göstermektedir. Bunun yanında, Türk araştırmacıların kiplik fiilerini diğer bilgisel kiplik belirticilerine kıyasla daha sık kullandıkları sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Epistemic modality
• hedges
• hedging
• scientific genre

Kaynakça

1. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman Publications Group.
2. Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
3. Coates, J. (1983). The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
4. Farrokhi, F.,& Emami, S. (2008). Hedges and Boosters in Academic Writing: Native vs. Non-Native Research Articles in Applied Linguistics and Engineering. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 1(2), 62-98.
5. Falahati, R. (2006). The use of hedging across different disciplines and rhetorical sections of research articles. [Papers from the 22nd Northwest Linguistics Conference] (www.sfu.ca/gradlings/NWLC-Proceedings.htm).
6. Halliday, M. (1970). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English, Foundations of Language 6, 322–361. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474211970.ch-005
7. Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication, 10, 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-s
8. Hoye, L. (1997). Adverbs and Modality in English. London: Longman.

9. Hu, G. & Cao, F. (2011), “Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: a comparative study of English and Chinese-medium journals”, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 43, pp. 2795-2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
10. Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks, English for Specific Purposes 13, 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90004-3
11. Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433–453. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433
12. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
13. Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
14. Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 Students' writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6 (2), 183-205.
15. Kranich, S. (2009). To hedge or not to hedge: the use of epistemic modal expressions in popular science in English texts, English–German translations, and German original texts. Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies. Volume 31, Issue 1, pp. 77–99.
16. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. London: Cambridge University Press.
17. Markkanen, R.& Schröder, H. (1987). “Hedging and Its Linguistic Realizations in German, English and Finnish Philosophical Texts: A Case Study.” In Erikoiskielet ja käännösteoria. Vakki-seminaari VII. Vöyri 31.1.-1.2.1987, 47-57. Vaasa: Vaasan korkeakoulu.
18. Mauranen, A. (1997). Hedging and modality in language revisers’ hands. In H. Markkanen, H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon, de Gruyter, Berlin (1997), pp. 115–133.
19. Myers, G. (1989). “The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles.” Applied Linguistics 10: 1 35. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1
20. Nuyts, J. (2005a). The modal confusion: on terminology and the concepts behind it. Modality: studies in form and function, ed. by Alex Klinge and Henrik Høeg Muller, 149–86. London: Equinox.
21. Palmer, F.R. (1990). Modality and the English Modals. 2nd Edition, London: Longman. Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and Modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Rounds, P. (1982). Hedging in Written Academic Discourse: Precision and Flexibility. The University of Michigan. Mimeo.
23. Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2
24. Takimoto, M. (2015). A corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 95-105.
25. Traugott, E. C. (2011). Modality from a historical perspective. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5, pp. 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00280.x
26. Van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V. A. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology. Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 79–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79
27. Varttala, T. (2001). Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(98)00007-6
28. Vazques, I. & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond mood and modality: epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles. A cross-disciplinary study. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 171-190.