RHETORICAL MOVES AND METADISCOURSE IN DICTIONARY USE ABSTRACTS: A GENRE-BASED COMPARISON ACROSS JOURNAL INDEX

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 4, 1799 - 1811, 31.12.2025

Cansu Gür , Merve Geçikli

https://doi.org/10.37999/udekad.1741899

Öz

This study explores how research article abstracts on dictionary use are structured and how they employ metadiscourse to communicate key information. The dataset includes 99 abstracts published between 2020 and 2024 in linguistics journals indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI), and the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), thus covering both high-impact and emerging journals. Using Hyland’s (2000) five-move model adapted by Behnam and Golpour (2014), the analysis revealed that Findings, Purpose, and Method moves dominated across both journal groups, though their distribution varied. ESCI abstracts employed Purpose and Method moves more frequently, whereas SSCI/AHCI abstracts gave greater prominence to Findings and Conclusions. Metadiscourse analysis showed further contrasts: SSCI/AHCI abstracts relied more on transitions, hedges, and self-mentions to project rhetorical sophistication, while ESCI abstracts favored frame markers and code glosses to enhance clarity and accessibility. These results indicate that journal index shapes both rhetorical structuring and metadiscursive choices, with SSCI/AHCI indexed outlets emphasizing disciplinary maturity and interpretive nuance, and emerging journals prioritizing explicitness and transparency. This study offers valuable insights into the rhetorical strategies of applied linguistics writing, especially in the context of dictionary use research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

genre analysis , rhetorical moves , dictionary use , research article , abstracts , metadiscourse

SÖZLÜK KULLANIMI ÖZETLERİNDE RETORİK YAPILAR VE ÜSTSÖYLEM ÖĞELERİ: DERGİ PRESTİJİNE GÖRE TÜR TEMELLİ BİR KARŞILAŞTIRMA

Öz

Bu çalışma, sözlük kullanımıyla ilgili araştırma makalesi özetlerinin nasıl yapılandırıldığını ve temel bilgileri iletmek için üstsöylemi nasıl kullandığını incelemektedir. Çalışmanın derlemi, Sosyal Bilimler Atıf Dizini (SSCI), Sanat ve Beşerî Bilimler Atıf Dizini (AHCI) ve Gelişmekte Olan Kaynaklar Atıf Dizini’nde (ESCI) indekslenen dilbilim dergilerinde 2020-2024 yılları arasında yayınlanmış 99 araştırma makalesinin özetlerinden oluşmaktadır. Behnam ve Golpour (2014) tarafından uyarlanan Hyland’ın (2000) beş aşama modeline göre yapılan analiz sonucunda, Bulgular, Amaç ve Yöntem aşamalarının her iki dergi grubunda da baskın olduğu, ancak dağılımlarının değiştiğini ortaya çıkmıştır. ESCI özetlerinde Amaç ve Yöntem aşamaları daha sık kullanırken, SSCI/AHCI özetleri Bulgular ve Sonuçlara daha fazla önem verildiği tespit edilmiştir. Öte yandan, üstsöylem analizi; SSCI/AHCI özetlerinde, retoriksel karmaşıklığı yansıtmak için geçişlere, geçiş cümleciklerine ve kendi kendine söz söylemeye daha fazla kullanıldığını, ESCI özetlerinde ise netliği ve erişilebilirliği artırmak için çerçeve işaretleyicilerini ve kod açıklamalarının daha çok tercih edildiğini göstermiştir. Bu sonuçlar, dergi prestijinin hem retorik yapılandırmayı hem de üst söylemsel tercihleri şekillendirdiğini, yüksek prestijli dergilerin disiplinler arası olgunluğa ve yorumlayıcı nüansa vurgu yaptığını, gelişme sürecinde olan dergilerin ise açıklığa ve şeffaflığa öncelik verdiğini göstermektedir. Bu bağlamda bu çalışma, özellikle sözlük kullanım araştırması bağlamında, uygulamalı dilbilim yazımının retorik stratejilerine dair faydalı bilgiler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

tür analizi , retorik aşamalar , sözlük kullanımı , araştırma makalesi , özetler , üstsöylem

Kaynakça

• Abarghooeinezhad, M., & Simin, S. (2015). A structural move analysis of abstracts in electronic engineering articles. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(4), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2015.1073
• Al-Shujairi, Y. B. J., Ya’u, M. S., & Buba, J. A. (2016). Role of moves, tenses, and metadiscourse in the abstract of an acceptable research article. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7 (2), 379–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n2s1p379
• Anwardeen, N. H., Luyee, E. O., Gabriel, J. I., & Kalajahi, S. A. R. (2013). An Analysis: The usage of metadiscourse in argumentative writing by Malaysian tertiary level of students. English Language Teaching, 6 (9), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n9p83
• Atkins, B. T. S., & Rundell, M. (2008). The Oxford guide to practical lexicography. Oxford University Press.
• Behnam, B., & Golpour, F. (2014). A genre analysis of English and Iranian research article abstracts in applied linguistics and mathematics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(5), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.5p.173
• Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. LoByunngman.
• Bhatia, V. K. (1997). Introduction: Genre analysis and world Englishes. World Englishes, 16(3), 313–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00066
• Darabad, A. M. (2016). Move analysis of research article abstracts: A cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Linguistics, 8(2), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v8i2.9379
• Geluso, J. & Feng, Hui-Hsien & Appel, R. (2025). The Unit of analysis in learner corpus research on formulaic language. Applied Corpus Linguistics. 5(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acorp.2025.100123.
• Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Pearson Education.
• Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Pearson Education.
• Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
• Kafes, H. (2017). The use of authorial self-mention words in academic writing. International Journal of Language Academy, 5(3), 165–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.18033/ijla.3532
• Liddy, E. (1990). Anaphora in natural language processing and information retrieval, Information Processing and Management, 26(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4573(90)90008-P
• Mohamed, A. F. B., & Bin Ab Rashid, R. (2017). The Metadiscourse markers in good undergraduate writers’ essays corpus. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(6), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n6p213
• Moradi, F. & Montazeri, M.R. (2024). Voices in methodology: analyzing self-mention markers in English and Persian psychology research articles. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2024.1336190
• 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
• Oneplee, J. (2008). Genre analysis of scientific abstracts: A comparative study of Science and Nature journals [Master’s thesis, Mahidol University].
• Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.004
• Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2002.10.001
• San, L. Y., & Tan, H. (2012). A comparative study of the rhetorical moves in abstracts of published research articles and students’ term papers in the field of computer and communication systems engineering. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 1(7), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.7p.40
• Santos, M. B. D. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text & Talk, 16(4), 481–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1996.16.4.481
• Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
• Tarp, S. (2008). Lexicography in the borderland between knowledge and non-knowledge: General lexicographical theory with particular focus on learner’s lexicography. Niemeyer.