i-manager Publications

Interactional Metadiscourse in Turkish Postgraduates’ Academic Texts: A Comparative Study of How They Introduce and Conclude

Erdem Akbas*

*Department of Education, University of York, United Kingdom.

Periodicity:July - September'2012
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.2.3.1964

Abstract

This study explores interactional metadiscourse resources in master’s dissertations (introductions and conclusions) of Turkish students written in Turkish and English. Interactional resources were identified according to Hyland and Tse’s (2004) framework by using WordSmith Tools (5.0). A statistically significant difference between two groups of writers was found in their introductions in terms of overall five subcategories whereas their uses of interactional metadiscourse in conclusions were statistically insignificant. Further analysis showed that Turkish writers of English predominantly used hedges, attitude markers and self-mentions. It is interesting to note that Turkish writers, while writing in their mother tongue, tended to build a strong relationship with their target readers in both of the sections by employing approximately twice engagement markers compared to their peers writing in English.

Keywords

Metadiscourse, Academic Writing, Corpus, Contrastive Rhetoric.

How to Cite this Article?

Akbas, E. (2012). Interactional Metadiscourse In Turkish Postgraduates' Academic Texts: A Comparative Study Of How They Introduce And Conclude. i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 2(3), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.2.3.1964

References

[1]. Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288-297. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019.

[2]. Akbas, E. (2012). Exploring Metadiscourse in Master's Dissertation Abstracts: Cultural and Linguistic Variations across Postgraduate Writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 1(1), 12-16. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.1p.12.

[3]. Beauvais, P. (1989). A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication, 6 (11), 11-29.

[4]. Burneikaite, N. (2008). Metadiscourse in linguistics master?s theses in English L1 and L2. Kalbotyra, 59 (3), 38-47.

[5]. Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing. Cambridge: CUP

[6]. Crismore, A. (1985). Metadiscourse in social studies texts (Technical Report No.336). Retrieved September 29, 2012 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED275986.pdf

[7]. Crismore, A. Markkanen, R. & Steffensen M.S. (1993). Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71.

[8]. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of Persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95-113.

[9]. Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of a national culture or of academic discipline. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95-113.

[10]. Hyland, K (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 437-455.

[11]. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.

[12]. Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1325-1353.

[13]. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education. Language Learning, 16(1-2), 1-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x

[14]. Kumpf, P.E. (2000). Visual metadiscourse: Designing the considerate text. Technical Communication Quarterly, 9(4), 401-424.

[15]. Marandi, S. (2003). Metadiscourse in Persian/English Master's Theses: A Contrastive Study. IJAL, 6(2), 23-42.

[16]. Rahman, M. (2004). Aiding the reader: The use of metalinguistic devices in scientific discourse. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 18, 29-48.

[17]. Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 58-78.

[18]. Vande Kopple, W.J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36 (1), 82-93.

If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Single Article

	North Americas,UK, Middle East,Europe		India	Rest of world
	USD	EUR	INR	USD-ROW
Online	15	15

ADD TO CART

Options for accessing this content:

If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.