Bağdaşıklık Odaklı Retorik Yapılar: Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce Öğrenen Türk Öğrencilerin Üstsöyleminin Derlem Analizi

Öz

Bu derlem temelli çalışma, TICLE ve LOCNESS derlemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi yoluyla yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenen Türk öğrencilerin akademik yazımındaki üstsöylem kalıplarını araştırmaktadır. Sekiz işlevsel kategori boyunca hibrit otomatik tespit yöntemi kullanarak, çalışma Türk öğrenciler ve ana dili konuşucuları arasındaki sistematik farklılıkları ortaya çıkarmak için sıklık dağılımları, birlikte görülme kalıpları, uzunluk etkileri ve yazar düzeyinde çeşitliliği incelemektedir. Sonuçlar, Türk öğrencilerinin geçiş sözcükleri, kod açıklamaları, çerçeve belirteçleri ve katılım belirteçlerini önemli ölçüde daha fazla kullanarak açık metinsel organizasyon ve okuyucu katılımını öncelendiren "bağdaşıklık odaklı retorik yapılar" oluşturduklarını göstermektedir. Tersine, ana dili konuşucuları kişilerarası konumlandırmayı ayarlamak için çekimser ifadeler, güçlendiriciler ve öz-atıfları birleştiren entegre "duruş kümeleri" kullanmaktadır. Birlikte görülme analizi, Türk öğrencilerinin üstsöylemi organizasyonel merkezler etrafında düzenlerken duruş belirlemeyi çevresel olarak ele aldıklarını, ana dili konuşucularının ise duruş işlevlerini kapsamlı retorik stratejiler içinde entegre ettiklerini ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Bu bulgular, ikinci dil üstsöylem öğretiminde eksiklik temelli yaklaşımlara meydan okumaktadır. Etkili pedagoji, olgun akademik söylemi karakterize eden kişilerarası konumlandırmayı değiştirme temelli değil entegre öğretim yoluyla sistematik olarak geliştirirken Türk öğrencilerinin kanıtlanmış organizasyonel yeterliliklerini temel almalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• üstsöylem
• derlem dilbilimi
• yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenen Türk öğrenciler
• akademik yazma
• retorik gelişim

Cohesion-First Rhetorical Architectures: A Corpus Analysis of Turkish EFL Metadiscourse

Öz

This corpus-based study investigates metadiscourse patterns in Turkish EFL academic writing through comparative analysis of the Turkish International Corpus of Learner English (TICLE) and Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays (LOCNESS). Using hybrid automated detection across eight functional categories, the study examines frequency distributions, co-occurrence patterns, length effects, and writer-level diversity to reveal systematic differences between Turkish learners and native speakers. Results demonstrate that Turkish learners construct cohesion-first rhetorical architectures prioritizing explicit textual organization and reader engagement markers. Conversely, native speakers employ integrated stance clusters, comibining hedges, boosters, and self-mentions to calibrate interpersonal positioning. Co-occurrence analysis reveals that Turkish learners organize metadiscourse around organizational hubs while treating stance marking as peripheral, whereas native speakers integrate stance functions within comprehensive rhetorical strategies. These findings challenge deficit-based approaches to L2 metadiscourse instruction. Effective pedagogy should build on Turkish learners’ demonstrated organizational competencies while systematically developing the interpersonal positioning that characterizes mature academic discourse through integrated rather than replacement-based instruction.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• metadiscourse
• corpus linguistics
• Turkish EFL
• academic writing
• rhetorical development

Kaynakça

1. Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins.
2. Akbaş, E. (2014). Commitment-detachment and authorial presence in postgraduate academic writing: A comparative study of Turkish native speakers, Turkish speakers of English and English native speakers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of York.
3. Al-Rubaye, M. H. K. (2015). Metadiscourse in the academic writing of EFL and ESL Arabic-speaking Iraqi graduate students (Unpublished master’s thesis). Missouri State University.
4. Altenberg, B., & Tapper, M. (1998). The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners’ written English. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 80–93). Longman.
5. Ardhianti, M., Susilo, J., Nurjamin, A., & Prawoto, E. C. (2023). Hedges and boosters in student scientific articles within a pragmatic metadiscourse framework. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 11(4), 626–640.
6. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The development and use of cohesive devices in L2 writing and their relations to judgments of essay quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 1–16.
7. Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., & Meunier, F. (2009). The International Corpus of Learner English: Version 2. Presses universitaires de Louvain.
8. Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15(1–2), 29–53.

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, 43(11), 2795–2809.
10. Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112.
11. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151.
12. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
13. Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29.
14. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2024). Metadiscourse: The evolution of an approach to texts. Text & Talk, 44(3), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2021-0156
15. Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183–205.
16. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.
17. Hyland, K., Wang, W., & Jiang, F. K. (2022). Metadiscourse across languages and genres: An overview. Lingua, 265, Article 103205.
18. Jomaa, N. J., & Alia, M. M. (2019). Functional analyses of metadiscourse markers in L2 students’ academic writing. Arab World English Journal, 10(1), 361–381.
19. Kilimci, A., & Can, C. (2008). TICLE: Uluslararası Türk Öğrenici İngilizcesi Derlemi. In M. Sarıca, N. Sarıca, & A. Karaca (Eds.), XXII. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri (pp. 1–11). Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi.
20. Kirişçi, D. I., & Duruk, E. (2022). A comparative study of metadiscourse markers in the abstract sections of research articles written by Turkish and English researchers. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 10(4), 101–114.
21. Kurt, B., & Kafes, H. (2025). The role of disciplinary enculturation in stance-taking in L2 academic writing. Acta Psychologica, 260, 105720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105720
22. Milton, J., & Tsang, E. S. C. (1993). A corpus-based study of logical connectors in EFL students’ writing: Directions for future research. In R. Pemberton & E. S. C. Tsang (Eds.), Studies in lexis (pp. 215–246). The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
23. Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068–3079.
24. Pearson, J., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2023). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A systematic review. Lingua, 293, 103561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103561
25. Yee, S. W., Afzaal, M., & Aldayel, H. S. (2024). A corpus-based comparison of linguistic markers of stance and genre in the academic writing of novice and advanced engineering learners. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, 284. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02757-4