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

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 437 - 455, 27.10.2022

İbrahim Üstünalp , Elçin Esmer

https://doi.org/10.31464/jlere.1132280

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

• 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.
• Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English (Vol. 24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
• Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc (Version 4.0.11) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
• 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 [Unpublished master’s thesis].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.
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• Crismore, A. (1984). The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. J. Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 279-296.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Hyland, K. (2001). Humble Servants of the Discipline? Self-Mention in Research Articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20 (3), 207-226.
• Hyland, K. (2002a). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56(4), 351-358. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.4.351
• Hyland, K. (2002b). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 22.
• Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of second language writing, 13(2), 133-151.
• Hyland, K. (2005a). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173-192. DOI: 10.1177/1461445605050365.
• Hyland, K. (2005b). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
• 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.
• Hyland (2011). Academic discourse. In K. Kyland and B. Paltridge (Eds.), The Continuum companion to discourse analysis (pp. 171-184). London: Continuum.
• 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
• 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
• Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Jiang, F. (Kevin). (2017). Metadiscursive nouns in disciplinary writing. (Doctoral Thesis). University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Kan, M. O. (2017). Türkiye’de Akademik Yazma Alanında Yapılan Lisansüstü Tezler. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 12.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Lafuente Millán, E. (2010). 'Extending this claim, we propose ...' The writer's presence in research articles from different disciplines. Iberica. 20. 35-56.
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Şen, E. (2019). Bilimsel makale özetlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilernin incelenmesi. [Unpublished Doctoral Thesis]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İzmir.
• 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
• 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
• Tarcan Dağ, Ö. (2019). Sosyal bilimler alanında yazılan Türkçe bilimsel metinlerde kullanılan üstsöylem belirleyicileri. [Unpublished Doctoral Thesis]. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• 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
• Vande Kopple, W. (1985) 'Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse'. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
• 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
• 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.
• 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