Journals / Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 2

Discursive Construction of the Significance in English and Turkish Psychology Theses: An Intercultural Rhetorical Analysis

Psikoloji Alanındaki Yüksek Lisans Tezlerinde Önem Vurgusunun Söylemsel Oluşumu: Bir Kültürlerarası Retorik Analizi

Pages
791–803
Publication Date
2021-05-24
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings indicate that, in discursive construction of the significance in the genre in question, for English textx socio-pragmatic factors, that is motive to be recognized internationally, tend to prevail in the rhetorical choices the writers do while structuring the discursive acts in the texts while for local ones cultural facts are overriding .

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Studies carried out on academic genres have shown that rhetorical actions scholars followed have seemingly varied to the contexts in which context-bound socio-discursive factors override.
📊
Key Findings & Data:On this basis, in this paper, the researcher intended to analyse comparatively rhetorical categories in the introductory parts of 30 master thesis written in Turkish and 30 master theses written in English by Turkish researchers, and 30 master theses by native speakers of English in the field of Psychology published between 2015-2020.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings indicate that, in discursive construction of the significance in the genre in question, for English textx socio-pragmatic factors, that is motive to be recognized internationally, tend to prevail in the rhetorical choices the writers do while structuring the discursive acts in the texts while for local ones cultural facts are overriding .
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2015-2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Significance · Psychology Theses · Intercultural Rhetoric

Abstract

Studies carried out on academic genres have shown that rhetorical actions scholars followed have seemingly varied to the contexts in which context-bound socio-discursive factors override. On this basis, in this paper, the researcher intended to analyse comparatively rhetorical categories in the introductory parts of 30 master thesis written in Turkish and 30 master theses written in English by Turkish researchers, and 30 master theses by native speakers of English in the field of Psychology published between 2015-2020. Move 3 -Occupying the Niche- in Swales CARS Model (2004) was sought within introductory parts in order to explore how authors in the same field but different contexts deal with publicizing the significance and value of their study. The analyses show that, despite small number of differences in frequency between two corpora, Move 3 is equally and frequently operated in introductory parts of psychology master theses by both Turkish academics and native speakers of English. As regards Turkish ones, on the other hand, the especially the frequency of those steps dealing with significance is quite less. These findings indicate that, in discursive construction of the significance in the genre in question, for English textx socio-pragmatic factors, that is motive to be recognized internationally, tend to prevail in the rhetorical choices the writers do while structuring the discursive acts in the texts while for local ones cultural facts are overriding .

Özet

Akademik türler üzerine yapılan çalışmalar, araştırmacıların metinlerinde uyguladıkları retorik eylemlerin bağlam odaklı sosyo-söylemsel etmenlerin baskın olduğu ortamlara göre değişim gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Bu noktadan hareketle, bu çalışmada, yazar 2015-2020 yılları arasında Psikoloji alanında Türk araştırmacılar ile anadili İngilizce olan yabancı araştırmacıların İngilizce yüksek lisans tezlerinin giriş bölümlerini karşıtsal çözümleme ile incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Swales’ın CARS Modelinde(2004) Aşama 3- Alanyazındaki Boşluğu Doldurma-’deki basamaklardan hareketle araştırmacıların tezlerinin giriş bölümlerinde çalışmalarının önem vurgusunu söylemsel olarak nasıl yapılandırdıklarına yönelik analizler yapılmıştır. Analiz sonuçları, Psikoloji alanındaki Türk araştırmacılar ile anadili İngilizce olan araştırmacıların İngilizce yüksek lisans tezlerinin giriş bölümlerinde Aşama 3’ün küçük frekans farklılıklarına rağmen eşit ve sıklıkla uygulandığını göstermiştir. Fakat, Türk araştırmacıların Türkçe tezlerinde Aşama’3’ün özelikkle önem vurgusu üzerine olan basamakların sıklığının oldukça düşük olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Bu bulgular ışığında, söz konusu akademik türde önem vurgusunun söylemsel oluşumunda İngilizce tezlerde sosyo-pragmatik faktörlerin, bir diğer ifadeyle uluslarası tanınırlık kazanma yönlendiriminin, Türkçe tezlerde ise kültürel faktörlerin yazarların metinlerindeki söylemsel eylemleri yapılandırmada etkili olduğu sonucuna varılabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GEÇİKLİ, M. (2021). Discursive Construction of the Significance in English and Turkish Psychology Theses: An Intercultural Rhetorical Analysis. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 2, 791–803. https://ajindex.com/articles/198496

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Adnan, Z. (2008). Discourse structure of Indonesian research article introductions in selected hard sciences. In S. Burgess & P. Martín (Eds.), English as an additional language in research publication and communication (pp. 39–63). Bern: Peter Lang. Afros, E., & Schryer, C. (2009). Promotional (meta)discourse in research articles in language and literary studies. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 58–68.
  2. Ahmad, U. (1997). Research article introductions in Malay: Rhetoric in an emerging research community. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles in academic discourse (pp. 273–303). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Allen, T.D. ve Rush M.C. (1998). The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Performance Judgments: A Field Study and A Laboratory Experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2): 247-260
  3. Anthony, L. (1999). Writing research article introductions in software engineering: How accurate is a standard model? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42, 38–46.
  4. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bhatia, V. K. (2005). Generic patterns in promotional discourse. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach (pp. 213–225). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Burgess, S. (2002). Packed houses and intimate gatherings: Audience and rhetorical structure. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 196–215). Harlow: Longman. Connor, U., & Moreno, A. (2005). Tertium comparationis: A vital component in contrastive rhetoric research. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. Eggington, W. Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp. 153–164).
  5. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational Research:Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill. Cronin, B., McKenzie, G., & Rubio, L. (1993). The norms of acknowledgement in four humanities and social sciences disciplines. Journal of Documentation, 49, 29–43.
  6. Duszak, A. (1994). Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 291–313.
  7. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London/New York: Longman. Fakhri, A. (2004). Rhetorical properties of Arabic research article introductions. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1119–1138.
  8. Fakhri, A. (2009). Rhetorical variation in