Research Article
Year 2023,
Issue: 56, 421 - 434, 22.05.2023
Abstract
Son yıllarda özet, özetleme, özet oluşturma, özet yazma stratejisi gibi kavramlar ön plana çıkmakta, okuyucuları metnin tamamını okumaya ikna etme açısından önemli bir rol oynamakta ve başlı başına bir tür olarak kabul edilmektedir. Alanyazına bakıldığında bu tür metinlerle ilgili yazarların iddialarını ön plana çıkarma, bilgileri tutarlı bir biçimde sunma açısından incelenen çalışmaların daha az yer aldığı görülmektedir. Bu bağlamda, adların retorik işlevlerini ortaya çıkarmak ve üstsöylem modeli ile eşleştirmek için var olan üstsöylemsel adlar etkin bir role sahiptir. Nitel olarak yapılandırılan bu çalışmada, dilbilim alanında yazılmış araştırma makalesi özet metinlerinde kullanılan üstsöylemsel adların alıcı odaklı etkileşimli işlevleri ele alınmıştır. Bu kapsamda dilbilim araştırmaları dergilerinde yayımlanan 432 araştırma makalesinden 56 Türkçe araştırma makalesi özet metni incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın sonucu, en sık kullanılan üstsöylemsel ad ulamının metin adları, en sık kullanılan sözcük-dilbilgisel örüntünün “ad+AD(s)I” yapısı olduğunu ve bu adların yazar savlarını tutarlı bir biçimde yönetmek için Türkçe araştırma makale özetlerinde sıklıkla kullanıldığını göstermektedir.
References
- Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
- Ädel, A., ve Mauranen, A. (2010). “Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives”. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9/2, 1-11.
- Akşehirli, S. (2012). “Türkçe'de Ad+Ad(S)I Biçimindeki Ad Bileşiklerinin Sözlükselleşmesi”. 26. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Yayınları. ss. 21-31.
- Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
- Bhatia, V. K. (2013). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Routledge, New York.
- Bondi, M. ve Lorés Sanz, R. (2014). Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change. Peter Lang, Berlin.
- Chafe, W., ve Nichols, J. (1986). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. NJ: Ablex Publishing, Orwood.
- Charles, M. (2003). ‘This mystery…’: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2/4, 313-326.
- Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What is it and How is it used in School and Non-school Social Science Texts. University of Illinois, Illinois.
- Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. Peter Lang, New York.
- Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., ve 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.
- Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3. Baskı, Arnold, London.
- Halliday, M.A.K. (1998). “Things and Relations: Regrammaticing experience as technical knowledge”. J.R. Martin ve R. Veel (haz.). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge, s. 185–235 içinde.
- Hyland, K. (1998a). Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 30, 437-455.
- Hyland, K. 2004. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. University of Michigan Press.
- Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.
- Hyland, K. ve Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: a Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics. 25/2, 156-177.
- Hyland, K., ve Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24/2, 123-139.
- Jiang F. K. ve Hyland K. (2015). ‘The fact that’: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies. 17/5, 529-550. Doi: 10.1177/1461445615590719.
- Jiang F. K. ve Hyland K. (2016). Nouns and academic interactions: a neglected feature of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics, 1-25. Doi: 10.1093/applin/amw023.
- Jiang, F. K. ve Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive nouns: interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. Elsevier, 46, 1-14.
- Jiang, F. K. ve Hyland, K. (2021). ‘The goal of this analysis . . .’: Changing patterns of metadiscursive nouns in disciplinary writing. Lingua, 252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.103017 .
- Jiang, K. (2022). Metadiscoursive Nouns. Interaction and persuasion in disiplinary writing. Taylor ve Francis Group, Routledge.
- Karasar, N. (2016). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi: Kavramlar, İlkeler, Teknikler, 31. Baskı. Nobel Yayıncılık, Ankara.
- Luzon Marco, M. J. (1999). Procedural vocabulary: Lexical signaling of cenceptual relations in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 20/1, 1-21.
- Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A textlinguistic study. Peter Lang, Frankfurt.
- Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10/2, 231-250.
- Salager-Meyer, F. (1997). I think that perhaps you should: A study of hedges in written scientific discourse. In Miller T. (ed.) Functional approaches to written text: classroom applications, 105-118. English Language Programs United States Information Agency, Washington, D. C.
- Sinclair, J. (1993). Written discourse structure. In J. Sinclair, M. Hoey, & G. Fox (Eds.), Techniques of description: Spoken and written discourse (pp. 6-31). Routledge, London.
- Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in Research Article Abstracts in the Narrative and Hard Sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2/4, 327-341.
- Swales, J. M. (1993). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, 3. Baskı. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader. Applied Linguistics. 22/1, 58-78.
- Thompson, G. (2008). Book Review: AUTHOR, Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Language in Society, 37/1, 138-141.
- Türkkan, B. (2009). “İlköğretim Düzeyinde Okutulan Türkçe Tarih Metinlerinde Adlaştırma Temel Alınarak Sözbilimsel Kipin Saptanması”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Cilt: 11, Sayı:4, Sayfa: 91-103.
- Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication. 36/1, 82-93.
- Widdowson, H.G. (1983), Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Year 2023,
Issue: 56, 421 - 434, 22.05.2023
Abstract
In recent years, the concepts of summary, summarization, summary creation, summary writing strategies have come to the fore, play an important role in persuading the readers to read the entire text and are considered as a genre in its own right. When the literature is examined, it is seen that there are fewer studies in terms of highlighting the claims of the authors about these types of texts and presenting the information in a consistent manner. In this context, metadiscursive nouns have an active role in revealing the rhetorical functions of nouns and matching them with the metadiscourse model. In this qualitatively structured study, receiver-oriented interactional functions of metadiscursive nouns used in abstract texts of research articles written in the field of linguistics are discussed. In this context, the summary texts of 56 Turkish research articles from 432 research articles published in linguistics research journals were examined. The result of the study shows that the most frequently used metadiscursive noun category is text nouns, the most frequently used lexical-grammatical pattern is “noun+NOUN(s)I” structure, and these nouns are frequently used in Turkish research article summaries to manage author arguments in a consistent manner.
References
- Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
- Ädel, A., ve Mauranen, A. (2010). “Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives”. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9/2, 1-11.
- Akşehirli, S. (2012). “Türkçe'de Ad+Ad(S)I Biçimindeki Ad Bileşiklerinin Sözlükselleşmesi”. 26. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Yayınları. ss. 21-31.
- Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
- Bhatia, V. K. (2013). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Routledge, New York.
- Bondi, M. ve Lorés Sanz, R. (2014). Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change. Peter Lang, Berlin.
- Chafe, W., ve Nichols, J. (1986). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. NJ: Ablex Publishing, Orwood.
- Charles, M. (2003). ‘This mystery…’: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2/4, 313-326.
- Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What is it and How is it used in School and Non-school Social Science Texts. University of Illinois, Illinois.
- Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. Peter Lang, New York.
- Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., ve 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.
- Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3. Baskı, Arnold, London.
- Halliday, M.A.K. (1998). “Things and Relations: Regrammaticing experience as technical knowledge”. J.R. Martin ve R. Veel (haz.). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge, s. 185–235 içinde.
- Hyland, K. (1998a). Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 30, 437-455.
- Hyland, K. 2004. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. University of Michigan Press.
- Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.
- Hyland, K. ve Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: a Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics. 25/2, 156-177.
- Hyland, K., ve Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24/2, 123-139.
- Jiang F. K. ve Hyland K. (2015). ‘The fact that’: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies. 17/5, 529-550. Doi: 10.1177/1461445615590719.
- Jiang F. K. ve Hyland K. (2016). Nouns and academic interactions: a neglected feature of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics, 1-25. Doi: 10.1093/applin/amw023.
- Jiang, F. K. ve Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive nouns: interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. Elsevier, 46, 1-14.
- Jiang, F. K. ve Hyland, K. (2021). ‘The goal of this analysis . . .’: Changing patterns of metadiscursive nouns in disciplinary writing. Lingua, 252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.103017 .
- Jiang, K. (2022). Metadiscoursive Nouns. Interaction and persuasion in disiplinary writing. Taylor ve Francis Group, Routledge.
- Karasar, N. (2016). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi: Kavramlar, İlkeler, Teknikler, 31. Baskı. Nobel Yayıncılık, Ankara.
- Luzon Marco, M. J. (1999). Procedural vocabulary: Lexical signaling of cenceptual relations in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 20/1, 1-21.
- Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A textlinguistic study. Peter Lang, Frankfurt.
- Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10/2, 231-250.
- Salager-Meyer, F. (1997). I think that perhaps you should: A study of hedges in written scientific discourse. In Miller T. (ed.) Functional approaches to written text: classroom applications, 105-118. English Language Programs United States Information Agency, Washington, D. C.
- Sinclair, J. (1993). Written discourse structure. In J. Sinclair, M. Hoey, & G. Fox (Eds.), Techniques of description: Spoken and written discourse (pp. 6-31). Routledge, London.
- Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in Research Article Abstracts in the Narrative and Hard Sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2/4, 327-341.
- Swales, J. M. (1993). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, 3. Baskı. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader. Applied Linguistics. 22/1, 58-78.
- Thompson, G. (2008). Book Review: AUTHOR, Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Language in Society, 37/1, 138-141.
- Türkkan, B. (2009). “İlköğretim Düzeyinde Okutulan Türkçe Tarih Metinlerinde Adlaştırma Temel Alınarak Sözbilimsel Kipin Saptanması”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Cilt: 11, Sayı:4, Sayfa: 91-103.
- Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication. 36/1, 82-93.
- Widdowson, H.G. (1983), Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
There are 37 citations in total.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Language Studies |
| Journal Section | Articles |
| Authors | |
| Early Pub Date | May 10, 2023 |
| Publication Date | May 22, 2023 |
| Acceptance Date | May 4, 2023 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2023 Issue: 56 |
