Stance-Taking through Metadiscourse in Doctoral Dissertations

Abstract

The authorial stance in academic genres is conveyed with the use of linguistic conventions of disciplines, one of which is metadiscourse. The aim of this study was to compare the use of interactional metadiscourse features (IMDMs) by native academic authors of English (NAAEs) and Turkish-speaking academic authors of English (TAAEs) for the construal of their stance in their doctoral dissertations. In a corpus of 120 doctoral dissertations, IMDMs were analyzed according to Hyland's (2005) taxonomy by using Wordsmith Tools 6.0. Log likelihood statistics was conducted to see whether there was a statistically significant difference between these two groups in their use of IMDMs in terms of frequency and variety. A statistically significant underuse of IMDMs by Turkish-speaking academic authors of English regarding the overall use of 5 subcategories of IMDMs was found.

An Investigation of Metadiscourse Features in Applied Linguistics Academic Research Articles and Master’s Dissertations

“…Since metadiscourse items such as transitions are effective in developing coherence and interconnectivity between sentences (Duke, 1983), this might be another possible reason for greater employment of transitions by student academic writers (Agustinos & Arsyad, 2018). This finding is congruent with those of Can and Yuvayapan (2018) and Djahimo (2018), according to whom the use of transitions was high in the academic writing pieces of student writers.…”

Correlation between Metadiscourse, Lexical Complexity, Readability and Writing Performance in EFL University Students’ Research-based Essays

“…The use of metadiscourse markers in written texts has gained increasing attention from researchers (Hyland & Tse, 2004;Jones, 2011;Katelyn, 2017;Kim & Lim, 2013;Lin, 2005;Vasheghani Farahani, 2018). In Turkey too there have been several studies focused on the use of metadiscourse markers across different text types and genres (Akbas, 2012;Akbas & Hatipoğlu, 2018;Bal-Gezegin, 2016;Can & Yuvayapan, 2018;Demir, 2017;Ozdemir & Longo, 2014;Yüksel & Kavanoz, 2018;Yuvayapan, 2019). A majority of the research studies focused on metadiscourse in different parts of scientific texts such as the abstract, conclusion, and discussion (Akbas, 2012;Mansouri, Najafabadi, & Boroujeni, 2016;Ozdemir & Longo, 2014).…”

Interactive metadiscourse markers in Turkish research article abstracts: a diachronic analysis

“…Over the last decades, Turkish researchers have been concerned about the use of metadiscourse markers in academic texts (Fidan, 2002;Uzun, 2002;Zeyrek, 2002;Bayyurt, 2010;Akbaş, 2012;Algı, 2012;Çapar, 2014;Özdemir & Longo, 2014;Atmaca, 2016;Bal-Gezegin, 2016;Kan, 2016;Duruk, 2017;Can & Yuvayapan, 2018;Köroğlu, 2018;Dağ Tarcan, 2019;Şen, 2019). Özdemir and Longo (2014) analyzed 52 MA theses abstract sections written in English by Turkish and USA postgraduate students in the field of English Language Teaching in regard to the metadiscourse use according to Hyland's (2005) taxonomy.…”

“…Furthermore, it has been revealed that nouns are less frequently used to form hedging features while modals-followed by passivization-is mostly applied hedging type. Can and Yuvayapan (2018) analyzed 120 PhD dissertations written by native academic authors of English and Turkish-speaking academic authors of English in terms of the use of interactional metadiscourse markers within the framework of Hyland's taxonomy. The study revealed that native academic authors of English overused all of the metadiscourse markers.…”

“…Despite widespread interest and research among applied linguists to explore metadiscourse use, Keramati and colleagues (2019) called upon "very little is known of how metadiscourse resources have evolved over time in response to the historically developing practices of academic communities". Over the past several decades, Turkish researchers have paid much attention on the use of metadiscourse markers in academic texts (Uzun, 2002;Zeyrek, 2002;Fidan, 2002;Bayyurt, 2010;Akbaş, 2012;Algı, 2012;Çapar, 2014;Bayyurt, 2015;Atmaca, 2016;Kan, 2016;Dağ Tarcan, 2017;Can &Yuvayapan, 2018;Hatipoğlu & Algı, 2018;Köroğlu, 2018). Considering the studies carried out by Turkish researchers, there is need to conduct more studies in the context of describing metadiscourse markers in Turkish scientific texts in a diachronic way.…”