SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri / 2016 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 5

The Use of Interactional Metadiscourse: A Comparison of Articles on Turkish Education and Literature

MUSTAFA ONUR KAN
Pages
1639–1648
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)

Further, it was found that hedges and boosters demonstrate a significant difference in studies on Turkish language education and literature; however, no significant difference in the uses of attitude markers, engagement markers, and self-mentions was observed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to determine the use of interactional metadiscourse in articles from the domains of Turkish language and literature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study employed a descriptive research model to examine 20 articles from the Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute (all articles were published between 2010 and 2015 and each has only a single author).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Further, it was found that hedges and boosters demonstrate a significant difference in studies on Turkish language education and literature; however, no significant difference in the uses of attitude markers, engagement markers, and self-mentions was observed.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study aims to determine the use of interactional metadiscourse in articles from the domains of Turkish language and literature. The study employed a descriptive research model to examine 20 articles from the Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute (all articles were published between 2010 and 2015 and each has only a single author). Of these randomly selected articles, 10 were on Turkish language education and 10 were concerned with Turkish literature. Hyland and Tse's metadiscourse model was adopted to examine markers of interactional metadiscourse in all fundamental parts of these articles. For the evaluation of the obtained data, the content analysis technique and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to determine whether the interactional metadiscourse demonstrates any significant differences regarding the domains of Turkish language education and literature. Experts were consulted to ensure the reliability of the research. As a result, this study revealed that there is more use of interactional metadiscourse markers in the field of Turkish language education than in the field of literature, and this difference is significant, according to the Mann-Whitney U test. Further, it was found that hedges and boosters demonstrate a significant difference in studies on Turkish language education and literature; however, no significant difference in the uses of attitude markers, engagement markers, and self-mentions was observed.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAN, M. O. (2016). The Use of Interactional Metadiscourse: A Comparison of Articles on Turkish Education and Literature. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 5, 1639–1648. https://ajindex.com/articles/346052

References (15)

  1. Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Pur- poses, 18, 41-56.
  2. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilim- sel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
  3. Coşkun, E. (2011). Türk ve göçmen öğrencilerin yazılı anlatımlarında metin bağdaşıklığı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11, 881-889.
  4. Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers.
  5. Estaji, M., & Vafaeimehr, R. (2015). A comparative analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers in the Introduction and Conclusion sections of mechanical and electrical engineering research papers. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 3(1), 37-56.
  6. Harris, R. A. (1991). Rhetoric of science. College English, 53(3), 282-307.
  7. Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
  8. Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341-367.
  9. Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226.
  10. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.
  11. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York, NY: Continuum. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 156-177.
  12. Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, S. J., & Heng, C. S. (2013). Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19(1), 65-74.
  13. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mirshamsi, A., & Allami, H. (2013). Metadiscourse markers in the discussion/conclusion section of Persian and English master's theses. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 5(3), 23-40.
  14. Pooresfahani, A. F., Khajavy, G. H., & Vahidnia, F. (2012). A contrastive study of metadiscourse elements in research articles written by Iranian applied linguistics and engineering writers in English. English Linguistics Research, 1(1), 88-96.
  15. Ünsal, Ö. (2008). A compa