Abstract
A number of linguistic devices used by writers to reify interaction between themselves and their intended audiences. This obviously includes explicit use of particular stance and engagement markers in different contexts depending on the language or the cultural background of writers. For instance, a great deal of research reveals that the custom of Anglo-Saxon academic writing style puts an emphasis on the interactive nature of their texts. Other cultures and languages might represent distinct way of organising and embodying interaction in their texts. However, there are some contradictory views claiming that the nature of academic discourse is pretty much global (Widdowson 1979) or different cultural values are attached to the oveall academic discourse and its structures by different cultures (Kaplan 1966). Considering them in mind, an explatory study looking at writers from same cultural background was carried out. This small-scale study investigates interactional metadiscourse in the rhetorically forceful section of dissertations written by Turkish writers in Turkish and English. Corpora in each language were created by choosing a representative sample of two sets of ten discussion sections from MA dissertations in education, and each corpus was explored in terms of interpersonality using Hyland and Tse’s (2004) framework. The analysis demonstrates that there were some similarities and statistically significant differences between the two corpora in terms of the employment of interactional metadiscourse. One of the most striking differences was the use of Self Mentions. That category was not found in the native Turkish students’ texts. It seemed that native Turkish writers did not clearly point their authorial identity in order to produce a more objective discourse no matter how much their discussions were based on their subjective evaluations on the findings of their research. In contrast, Turkish writers of English enhanced their authorial involvement with the greater use of Self Mentions to highlight their personal intrusion and contribution to overall discourse. The differences were attributable to the language in which the students wrote, however, most of the pronounced similarities in the study were due the fact that the Turkish writers were following their native language and culture at some points even when they were writing in English. That confirms the idea claimed by Kaplan (1966) which is about the tendency of L2 student writer’s trace of their cultural conventions and rhetorical strategies of their native tongue, and contradicts with Widdowson (1979).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288–297.
Basal, A. (2006). Use of first person pronouns: A corpus based study of journal articles. Unpublished MA thesis, Cukurova University, Adana.
Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian native speakers. Studies about Languages (Kalbų Studijos), 5, 60–67.
Butler, C. (1990). Qualifications in science: Modal meanings in scientific texts. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 70–137). Newbury Park: Sage.
Can, H. (2006). An analysis of freshman year university students’ argumantative essays. Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 118–136). Newbury Park: Sage.
Dahl, T. (2009). The linguistic representation of rhetorical function: A study of how economists present their knowledge claims. Written Communication, 26(4), 370–391.
Dueñas, P. M. (2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 50–72.
Enginarlar, H. (1990). A contrastive analysis of writing in Turkish and English of Turkish high school students. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
Erduyan, I. (2004). Development of topical structure in college level students’ essays: The case of monolingual Turks, monolingual Americans, and bilingual Turks. Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
Fidan, O. (2002). Türkçe Bilimsel Metinlerde Üstsöylem Belirleyicileri. Unpublished MA thesis, Ankara University, Ankara.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141–152). Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437–455.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring writing in interaction. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16(1–2), 1–20.
Keller, E. (1979). Gambits: Conversational stretegy signals. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 219–238.
Leech, G. N. (1971). Meaning and the English verb. London: Longman.
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 72–103.
Oktar, L. (1991). Contrastive analysis of specific rhetorical relations in English and Turkish expository paragraph writing. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ege University, Izmir.
Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 367–381.
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: Organisational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction, 50, 199–236.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tessuto, G. (2008). Writer identity in the introduction section of academic law research articles: Exploring metadiscourse strategies. Linguistica e Filologia, 27, 39–58.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58–78.
Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text—Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 15(1), 103–128.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse about metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93.
Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Glenview: Scott Foresman.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Akbas, E. (2014). Are They Discussing in the Same Way? Interactional Metadiscourse in Turkish Writers’ Texts. In: Łyda, A., Warchał, K. (eds) Occupying Niches: Interculturality, Cross-culturality and Aculturality in Academic Research. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02526-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02526-1_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02525-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02526-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)