Analyzing Nouns and Verbs Marked With Self-Mention Suffixes in Graduate Theses

Öz

Self-mention is considered as the most powerful tool to project authorial presence in academic writing. Although some research has been done on self-mention, there is still little investigated in Turkish academic writers’ self-mention use. Descriptive in nature, the study aims to discover the lexical items marked with first person pronoun suffixes, with a focus on nouns and verbs. Data in this study is drawn from a corpus of master and doctorate theses written in the field of teaching Turkish as a foreign language. The results suggest that writers make use of more nouns than verbs to code their authorial identity, even though verbs display a greater variety. While nouns marked with a self-mention suffix dominate verbs in abstract, introduction, methodology and discussion, conclusion and suggestion chapters, verbs suffixed by a self-mention stand out in literature and results chapters. The study ends with a discussion of top frequent noun and verbs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Self-mention
• Authorial presence
• Metadiscourse
• Academic Writing

Kaynakça

1. Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 288- 297. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.20 10.07.019.
2. Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English (Vol. 24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
3. Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc (Version 4.0.11) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
4. Basal, A. (2006). Use of first person pronouns: a corpus based study of journal articles. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.
5. Can, T. ve 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100796
6. Çandarlı, D., Bayyurt, Y. ve 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.10.001
7. Cavalieri, S. (2011). The role of metadiscourse in counsels’ questions. In A. Wagner and L. Cheng (Eds.), Exploring courtroom discourse. The language of power and control (pp. 79 110). USA: Ashgate.
8. Crismore, A. (1984). The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. J. Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 279-296.

9. 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.
10. Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline?. Journal of pragmatics, 36 (10), 1807-1825. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
11. Frels, R., Onwuegbuzie, A., Slate, J. (2010). Editorial: A Typology of Verbs for Scholarly Writing. RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS Mid-South Educational Research Association. 17.
12. Gray, B. (2015). Linguistic Variation in Research Articles: When discipline tells only part of the story . John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.71
13. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
14. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.
15. Harwood, N. (2005a). ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted … In this article I aim to do just that’. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(8), 1207-1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012
16. Harwood, N. (2005b). ‘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(3), 343-375. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami012
17. Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
18. Hyland, K. (2001). Humble Servants of the Discipline? Self-Mention in Research Articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20 (3), 207-226.
19. Hyland, K. (2002a). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56(4), 351-358. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.4.351
20. Hyland, K. (2002b). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 22.
21. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of second language writing, 13(2), 133-151.
22. Hyland, K. (2005a). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173-192. DOI: 10.1177/1461445605050365.
23. Hyland, K. (2005b). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
24. Hyland, K. (2010) "Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing." Nordic Journal of English Studies 9 (2), 125-143. http://ojs.ub.gu.se/ojs/index.php/ njes/article/view/417.
25. Hyland (2011). Academic discourse. In K. Kyland and B. Paltridge (Eds.), The Continuum companion to discourse analysis (pp. 171-184). London: Continuum.
26. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
27. 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, 49, 26-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.10.003
28. Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
29. Jiang, F. (Kevin). (2017). Metadiscursive nouns in disciplinary writing. (Doctoral Thesis). University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR.
30. Jiang, F. (Kevin), & Hyland, K. (2016). Nouns and Academic Interactions: A Neglected Feature of Metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics, amw023. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw023
31. Jiang, F. (Kevin), & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.11.001
32. Kafes, H. (2017). Akademik Yazılarda Yazarı İşaret Eden Sözcük Kullanımı. International Journal of Language Academy, 5(16), 165-180. https://doi.org/10.18033/ijla.3532
33. Kan, M. O. (2017). Türkiye’de Akademik Yazma Alanında Yapılan Lisansüstü Tezler. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 12.
34. Karahan, P. (2013). Self-mention in Scientific Articles Written by Turkish and Non-Turkish Authors. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 305-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.068
35. Khedri, M. (2016). Are we visible? An interdisciplinary data-based study of self-mention in research articles. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 52(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0017
36. Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M.-H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612471476
37. Kuo, C.-H. (1999). The Use of Personal Pronouns: Role Relationships in Scientific Journal Articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00058-6
38. Lafuente Millán, E. (2010). 'Extending this claim, we propose ...' The writer's presence in research articles from different disciplines. Iberica. 20. 35-56.
39. Lores Sanz, R. (2011). The study of authorial voice: Using a Spanish–English corpus to explore linguistic transference. Corpora, 6(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2011.0002
40. Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic discourse: Problems of a linguistic and cultural minority. The competent intercultural communicator, 157-174. Retrieved from http://www.afinla.fi/sites/afinla.fi/files/1993Mauranen.pdf.
41. McGrath, L. (2016). Self-mentions in anthropology and history research articles: Variation between and within disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 86-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.11.004
42. Milne, E.D. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: a contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Regreso al metadiscurso: estudio contrastivo de la persuasión en el discurso professional,11, 29-52.
43. Milne, E.D. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 40 (1), 95-113. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
44. Mur Dueñas, P. (2007). ‘I/we focus on…’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 143-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.05.002
45. Mur Duenas, P. (2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross cultural corpus driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20 (1), 50- 72. DOI: 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00228.x. O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and Practical Guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 160940691989922. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
46. Sheldon, E. (2009). From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28(4), 251-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.001
47. Starfield, S ve Ravelli, L. J. (2006). “The writing of this thesis was a process that I could not explore with the positivistic detachment of the classical sociologist”: Self and structure in New Humanities research theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(3), 222-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.07.004
48. Şen, E. (2019). Bilimsel makale özetlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilernin incelenmesi. [Unpublished Doctoral Thesis]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İzmir.
49. Şen, E. (2020). Makale Özetlerinde “Ben” ve “Biz”: Bir Üstsöylem Çözümlemesi. International Journal of Language Academy, 31(31), 62-72. https://doi.org/10.29228/ijla.39695
50. Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S23-S39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5
51. Tarcan Dağ, Ö. (2019). Sosyal bilimler alanında yazılan Türkçe bilimsel metinlerde kullanılan üstsöylem belirleyicileri. [Unpublished Doctoral Thesis]. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
52. Toumi, N. (2009). A Model for the Investigation of Reflexive Metadiscourse in Research Articles. Language studies working papers, Vol (1), 64-73. http://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/english-language-and literature/ell_language_Toumi_vol_1.pdf
53. Vande Kopple, W. (1985) 'Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse'. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
54. Walková, M. (2019). A three-dimensional model of personal self-mention in research papers. English for Specific Purposes, 53, 60-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.09.003
55. Yağız, O. and Demir, C. (2015). A comparative study of boosting in academic texts: A contrastive rhetoric. International Journal of English Linguistic, 5 (4), 12-28. Doi: 10.5539/ijel.v5n4p12.
56. Yuvayapan, F. (2019). Doktora Tezlerinde Üstsöylem İsimleri: Anadili İngilizce ve Anadili İngilizce Olmayan Yazarların Karşılaştırılması. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 74-87. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.458121