Hedging and Boosting Strategies in Turkish Academic Law Discourse

Öz

As interactional metadiscourse markers, hedges reduce the certainty of a statement, whereas boosters convey certainty in academic writing (Hyland, 2005). Although hedges and boosters have been extensively examined in Turkish research articles across various disciplines (e.g., Dağ Tarcan, 2020; Güçlü, 2024; Öztürk & İşeri, 2023; Şen & İşeri, 2023; Tarcan, 2020), legal discourse, which is widely perceived as prioritizing precision and clarity (Poscher, 2012), has not been sufficiently explored in Turkish academic writing in this respect. To this end, this study aims to investigate the use of hedges and boosters in Turkish research article abstracts in the field of law. A total of 100 Turkish legal research article abstracts published in peer-reviewed journals on DergiPark between 2019 and 2024 were collected through the document analysis method and analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative methods based on Hyland’s (2005) Interpersonal Metadiscourse Model. The findings indicate that hedges occurred most frequently in passives, followed by epistemic adjectives, pronouns, epistemic modal suffixes, epistemic adverbs, and epistemic nouns, while boosters were primarily realized through modal suffixes expressing certainty, emphatics, amplifiers, and universal pronouns. Additionally, log-likelihood analysis reveals that hedges are employed significantly more often than boosters in Turkish law research article abstracts. This finding supports Bhatia’s (1987) characterization of legal language as a multilayered structure shaped by varying social contexts. Moreover, the prominent hybrid metadiscursive structures not only convey normative knowledge but also reveal a writing practice oriented toward the construction of a cautious authoritative stance. In conclusion, this research is expected to enhance the understanding of metadiscourse use in Turkish by revealing both linguistic patterns and discourse strategies that are distinctive to the conventions of the legal genre.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• hedges
• boosters
• Turkish research articles
• abstract
• law

Türkçe Akademik Hukuk Söyleminde Kaçınma ve Vurgulayıcı Stratejileri

Öz

Alıcı odaklı etkileşimli üstsöylem belirleyicisi olarak, kaçınmalar bir ifadenin kesinliğini azaltırken; vurgulayıcılar akademik yazımda kesinliği ifade eder (Hyland, 2005). Kaçınma ve vurgulayıcılar, çeşitli bilim alanlarındaki Türkçe araştırma makalelerinde kapsamlı biçimde incelenmiş olsa da (Örn. Dağ Tarcan, 2020; Güçlü, 2024; Öztürk & İşeri, 2023; Şen & İşeri, 2023; Tarcan, 2020), kesinlik ve açıklığın ön planda tutulduğu yönünde genel bir kanaatin bulunduğu hukuk söylemi (Poscher, 2012), bu açıdan Türkçe araştırma makalelerinde yeterince incelenmemiştir. Bu çalışma, hukuk alanındaki Türkçe araştırma makalesi özetlerinde kaçınma ve vurgulayıcı kullanımını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, belge tarama modeli kullanılarak, 2019 ve 2024 yılları arasında DergiPark’ta yayımlanan hakemli dergilerdeki 100 adet Türkçe hukuk makalesi özeti üzerinden veri toplanmış ve Hyland (2005)’in Kişilerarası Üstsöylem Modeline dayalı olarak nitel ve nicel yöntemlerle incelenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, en sık kullanılanlardan en aza doğru sıralanacak şekilde, kaçınmaların edilgen yapılar, bilgisel sıfatlar, adıllar, bilgisel kip sonekleri, bilgisel belirteçler ve bilgisel adlar aracılığıyla kullanıldığını; vurgulayıcıların ise kesinlik bildiren kip sonekleri, vurgulular, kuvvetlendiriciler ve evrensel adıllarla ifade edildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, log-olasılık çözümlemesi, kaçınmaların vurgulayıcılara kıyasla anlamlı ölçüde daha sık kullanıldığını göstermektedir. Bu bulgu, Bhatia (1987)’nin, hukuki dili, farklı sosyal bağlamlara göre şekillenen çok katmanlı bir yapı olarak tanımlamasını desteklemektedir. Ayrıca, öne çıkan hibrit üstsöylem yapıları, yalnızca normatif bilgi sunmakla kalmayıp, aynı zamanda temkinli bir otorite inşa etmeyi de amaçlayan bir yazım biçimini sergilemektedir. Sonuç olarak, yalnızca dilsel eğilimleri değil, aynı zamanda hukuki yazıma özgü söylem stratejilerini de açığa çıkararak, Türkçede üstsöylem kullanımına dair daha derinlemesine bir anlayışa katkı sağlaması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• kaçınmalar
• vurgulayıcılar
• Türkçe araştırma makaleleri
• özet
• hukuk

Kaynakça

1. Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins.
2. Algı, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in L1 and L2 argumentative paragraphs: Implications for teaching L2 academic writing. (Master’s thesis). Accessed from Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. (https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp)
3. Bal-Gezegin, B. (2016). A corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse in academic book. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 713-718.
4. Bayyurt, Y. (2010). Author positioning in academic writing. In S. Zyngier & V. Viana (Eds.), Appraisals and perspectives: Mapping empirical studies in the Humanities (pp.163-184). The Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Bhatia, V. K. (1987). Language of the law. Language Teaching, 20 (4), 227–234.
5. Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41-56.
6. Burke, S. B. (2010). The construction of writer identity in the academic writing of Korean ESL students: A qualitative study of six Korean students in the U.S. (Publication No. 3433435) (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
7. Busch-Lauer, I. A. (1995). Abstracts in German medical journals: A linguistic analysis. Information Processing & Management, 31 (5), 769-776.
8. Can, H. (2006). An analysis of freshman year university students’ argumentative essays. (Master’s thesis). Accessed from Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. (https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp)

9. Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31.
10. Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16 (4), 271-287.
11. Dağ Tarcan, Ö. (2020). Türkçe akademik metinlerde kaçınsamalar ile vurgulayıcıların kullanımı ve akademik yazma. Dil Dergisi, 171 (2), 160–176.
12. Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (10), 1807–1825.
13. Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. & Özsoy, S. (1993). Türkçede bazı kiplik biçimlerinin öğretimi üzerine. In D. Zeyrek and Ş. Ruhi (Eds.), Proceedings of VII. National Linguistics Conference, (pp.1-13). METU Press.
14. Esmer, E. (2018). Türkçeyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrenciler tarafından üretilen ikna metinlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin kullanımı. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4 (3), 216-228.
15. Güçlü, R. (2020). Interactive metadiscourse markers in Turkish research article abstracts: A diachronic analysis. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı – Belleten [Yearbook of Turkic Studies], 70, 211–238.
16. Güçlü, R. (2024). Hedging and boosting in Turkish MA theses’ conclusions. Mersin University Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 20 (1), 17-54.
17. Halliday, M. A. (1978). Language as social semiotic (p. 136). Arnold: London.
18. Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). Routledge.
19. Hamamcı, Z. (2007). The use of hedges in research articles by Turkish interlanguage speakers of English and native English speakers in the field of social sciences. Unpublished master thesis. Adana: Çukurova University.
20. Hatipoğlu, C., & Algı, S. (2017). Contextual and pragmatics functions of modal epistemic hedges in argumentative paragraphs in Turkish. In C. Hatipoglu, E. Akbas, & Y. Bayyurt (Eds.), Metadiscourse in written genres: Uncovering textual and interactional aspects of texts (pp. 85–108). Peter Lang.
21. Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 13 (2), 9–28.
22. Holmes, J., & Wilson, N. (2022). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Routledge.
23. Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13 (3), 239–256.
24. Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, 18 (3), 349-382.
25. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
26. Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8 (2), 1–23.
27. Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 1-14.
28. Kan, M. O. (2016). The use of interactional metadiscourse: a comparison of articles on Turkish education and literature. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice,16, 1639-1648.
29. Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of philosophical logic, 2 (4), 458-508.
30. Martín-Martín, P. (2005). The rhetoric of the abstract in English and Spanish scientific discourse: A cross-cultural genre-analytic approach (Vol. 279). Peter Lang.
31. Mauranen, A. (1997). Hedging in language revisers’ hands. Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 115-133.
32. Mirshamsi, A. S., & Allami, H. (2013). Metadiscourse markers in the discussion/conclusion section of Persian and English master's theses. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 32 (3), 23-40.
33. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10 (1), 1–35.
34. Oakes, M. (2019). Statistics for corpus linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.
35. Oktay, S. A. (2020). The metadiscursive aspects of advice giving: Hedging and boosting in an agony aunt’s column. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16 (3), 1611-1620.
36. Öztürk, E. A., & İşeri, K. (2023). Bilimsel makale özet metinlerinde üstsöylemsel adlar. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (56), 421-434.
37. Poscher, R. (2012). Ambiguity and vagueness in legal interpretation. In L. Solan & P. Tiersma (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law (pp. 128–144). Oxford University Press.
38. Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13 (2), 149–170.
39. Sharndama, E. C., & Panamah, J. H. (2012). Hedging in professional legal texts. British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 4 (1), 41-46.
40. Şen, E. (2019). Bilimsel makale özetlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin incelenmesi. (Doctoral dissertation). Accessed from Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. (https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp)
41. Şen, E., & İşeri, K. (2023). Makale özetleri ve alıcı odaklı etkileşimli üstsöylem belirleyicileri. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı-Belleten, (75), 33-60.
42. Skelton, J. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal, 42 (1), 37–43. DOI: 10.1093/elt/42.1.37
43. Swales, J. (1993). Genre and engagement. Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire, 71 (3), 687–698.
44. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Sentence topics, syntactic subjects, and domains in texts. Written Communication, 2 (4), 339-357.
45. Vass, H. (2017). Lexical verb hedging in legal discourse: The case of law journal articles and Supreme Court majority and dissenting opinions. English for Specific Purposes, 48, 17-31.
46. Yangın, M. T. (2020). Türkçede Belirteçlerin Yansıttığı Işlevsel Başlar ve Kip-Görünüş-Zaman Ilişkisi. (Master’s thesis). Accessed from Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. (https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp)
47. Yalavaç, Ç. (2021). Boosting and hedging in Turkish research articles. (Master’s thesis). Accessed from Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. (https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp)