A study on metadiscoursive interaction in the doctoral dissertations of the native speakers of English and the Turkish speakers of English

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3, 396 - 404, 15.09.2018

Zehra Köroğlu

Öz

Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt.
A study on metadiscoursive interaction in the doctoral dissertations of the native speakers of English and the Turkish speakers of English
This study has been conducted to evaluate the transition marker (TM) usage in the doctoral dissertations written by the native speakers (NSs) of English and the Turkish speakers (TSs) of English. The purpose is to compare the TM usage in the introduction, results and discussion, and conclusion sections by both groups’ randomly selected PhD dissertations in the field of ELT between the years 2010 and 2014. The WordSmith Tools 5.0 software is used in order to analyze the data. TMs were analyzed in terms of percentages, frequencies per 1,000 words and they were interpreted by calculating the log-likelihood (LL) value whether there was a significant difference in their usage. The results indicated that the frequencies, and frequencies per 1,000 words of the TM usage in the sections which were investigated of the doctoral dissertations of each group were different.
Information about Author(s)*
Author 1
Author (Last name, First name)	Köroğlu,Zehra
Affiliated institution (University)	Çağ University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank	English Language Teaching
Corresponding author (Yes/No) Write only one corresponding author.	Yes
Author 2
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 3
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 4
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)

Anahtar Kelimeler

metadiscoursive interaction; corpus; corpus-based; transition markers (tms); doctoral dissertations; Turkish speakers (TSS) of English; native speakers (NSS) of English

Kaynakça

• Ali, S., Kalajahi, R., & Abdullah, N. (2012). Discourse connectors: An overview of the history, definition and classification of the term. World Applied Sciences Journal, 19(11), 1659-1673.
• Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in Ph.D. theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41-56.
• Buysse, L. (2011). The business of pragmatics. The case of discourse markers in the speech of students of business English and English linguistics. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 161, 10-30.
• Charteris, B. J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Hants: Palgrave-MacMillan.
• Cooper, P., & Branthwaite, A. (1977). Qualitative Technology: New Perspectives on Measurement and Meaning through Qualitative Research. 20th Market Research Society Annual Conference, March, 79-92.
• Granger, S. (1998). Learner English on computer. London & New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
• Greenbaum, S., & Quirk, R. (1993). A student’s grammar of the English language. Essex: Longman.
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
• Hart, S. (1987). The use of the survey in industrial market research. Journal of Marketing Management, 3(1), 25-38.
• Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Intarapraw, P., & Steffensen, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272.
• Jaggi, S. (2003). Descriptive statistics and exploratory data analysis. Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute. Retrieved May 24, 2015, from http://iasri.res.in/ebook/EB_SMAR/ebook_pdf%20files/Manual%20II/1-DescriptiveStatistics.pdf
• Kennedy, G. (1998). An introduction to corpus linguistics. London: Longman.
• Kilimci, A. (2001). Automatic extraction of the lexical profile of EFL learners through corpus query techniques. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 37–47.
• Kilimci, A. (2002). Constructional and functional tendencies of prepositions in the written discourse of advanced Turkish learners of English. In 11th International Conference on Turkish LinguisticsICTL. Cyprus: The Eastern Mediterranean University.
• Kilimci, A. (2003). Stance and attitude in advanced Turkish learners’ written discourse. In The 38th Linguistics Colloquium: Language and Language-Processing. Piliscsaba, Hungary.
• Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1994). A communicative grammar of English (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
• Rahimi, M. (2011). Discourse markers in argumentative and expository writing of Iranian EFL learners. World Journal of English Language, 1(2), 68-78.
• Rayson, P., & Garside, R. (2000). Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. In proceedings of the workshop on Comparing Corpora, held in conjunction with the 38th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2000). 1-8 October 2000 (pp. 1-6), Hong Kong.
• Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sinclair, J. (1994). Corpus typology: A framework for classification. EAGLES Document, 1-18.
• Swan, M. (2005). Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Virtanen, T. (1998). Developing a linguistic corpus for philanthropic fundraising texts. Paper presented at The Indiana Center for Intercultural Communication and Center on Philanthropy Roundtable. Indianapolis, Indiana University-Purdue University.
• Wikipedia. (2015). Text Corpus. Retrieved October 23, 2015 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_corpus