Journals / Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 2

Frame Markers in Master Thesis Abstracts Written in English and Turkish

İngilizce ve Türkçe Dillerinde Yazılmış Yüksek Lisans Tez Özlerinde Kullanılan Çerçeve Belirleyicileri

Pages
994–1011
Publication Date
2019-10-30
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 are hoped to create awareness among native and non-native postgraduate students in thesis abstract organization via FMs and incorporating FM teaching into academic writing courses to help students structure their discourse better.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This corpus-based research aims to identify frame markers (FMs) in master thesis abstracts written in English by English native and non-native postgraduate students and in Turkish by Turkish native students in terms of frequency and functions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To this end, 60 master thesis abstracts were compiled in a corpus.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings are hoped to create awareness among native and non-native postgraduate students in thesis abstract organization via FMs and incorporating FM teaching into academic writing courses to help students structure their discourse better.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2005 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Çerçeve belirleyicileri · Yüksek lisans tez özleri · Derlem temelli araştırma

Abstract

This corpus-based research aims to identify frame markers (FMs) in master thesis abstracts written in English by English native and non-native postgraduate students and in Turkish by Turkish native students in terms of frequency and functions. To this end, 60 master thesis abstracts were compiled in a corpus. Data were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively via AntConc.3.2.4 based on Hyland (2005)’s taxonomy of functions (sequencing, labelling stage, topic shift and announcing goal). Findings of the study yielded significant variation among three groups. Non-native English abstracts included the highest numbers of FMs and most diverse types whereas native English abstracts included the least numbers and very few types. Considering FM categories, items used to announce the goal of the writer abounded in number and types in all groups whereas items for indicating topic shifts almost did not occur. Only native speakers of Turkish employed FMs for the function of labelling stages to indicate the discourse act at the end paragraph of their abstracts. These findings are hoped to create awareness among native and non-native postgraduate students in thesis abstract organization via FMs and incorporating FM teaching into academic writing courses to help students structure their discourse better.

Özet

Bu derlem-temelli araştırmanın amacı, anadili İngilizce olan öğrencilerin, anadili Türkçe olan öğrencilerin ve İngilizce’yi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen Türk öğrencilerin yüksek lisans tezi özlerinde çerçeve belirleyicilerini kullanım sıklığı ve işlevleri açısından incelemektir. 60 özden oluşturulan bir derlemde, çerçeve belirleyicileri Hyland (2005)’in modeline göre AntConc aracılığıyla nicel ve nitel araştırma yöntemleri kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Çalışma bulguları, üç grup öğrencinin çerçeve belirleyicilerini kullanımlarında farklılık olduğunu göstermiştir. İngilizce’yi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilerin çerçeve belirleyicilerini diğer gruplardan çok daha fazla sıklıkta ve çok çeşitli türde kullandıkları görülmüştür. Ayrıca, metin aşamalarına gönderimde bulunulan belirleyiciler arasında özellikle özün son paragrafına gelindiğini belirten belirleyiciler, yalnızca anadili Türkçe olan öğrencilerin Türkçe tez özlerinde görülmüştür. Analizlerden elde edilen sonuçlar doğrultusunda, bu araştırma, lisansüstü öğrencilerin anadillerinde ve öğrendikleri yabancı dilde yazdıkları akademik metinlerde çerçeve belirleyicilerini kullanımlarına yönelik ve dilsel ifadelerin diller arası farklılıklarına ilişkin farkındalık uyandırmayı hedeflemektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BELLİ, S. A. (2019). Frame Markers in Master Thesis Abstracts Written in English and Turkish. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 2, 994–1011. https://ajindex.com/articles/6070

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Aertselaer, J. N-V. (2008). Arguing in English and Spanish: A corpus study of stance. Cambridge ESOL: Research Notes, 33, 28-33. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeesol.org/rs_notes/rs_nts33.pdf
  2. Akbaş, E. (2012a). Exploring metadiscourse in master’s dissertation abstracts: Cultural and linguistic variations across postgraduate writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(1), 12-26.
  3. Akbaş, E. (2012b). Interactional metadiscourse in Turkish postgraduates’ academic texts: A comparative study of how they introduce and conclude. İ-Manager’s Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(3), 35-45.
  4. Alavinia, P., & Zarza, S. (2011). Metadiscourse markers revisited in EFL context: The case of Iranian academic learners’ perception of written texts. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 3(2), 51-84.
  5. Anwardeen, N. H., Luyee, E. O., Gabriel, J. I., & Kalajahi, S. A. (2013). An analysis: The usage of metadiscourse in argumentative writing by Malaysian tertiary level of students. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 83-96.
  6. Barber, J. P., & Walczak, K. K. (2009). Conscience and critic: Peer debriefing strategies in grounded theory research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association San Diego, California. Burneikaitė, N. (2008). Metadiscourse in Linguistics master’s theses in English L1 and L2. KALBOTYRA, 59(3), 38- 47. Burneikaitė, N. (2009). Metadiscoursal connectors in Linguistics MA theses in English L1 & L2. KALBOTYRA, 61(3), 36-50.
  7. Bruce, I. (2010). Textual and discoursal resources used in the essay genre in sociology and English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 153-166.
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What it is and how it is used in school and non-school-social science texts. Technical Report, 273. 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. Farjami, H. (2013). A corpus-based study of the lexical make-up of applied linguistics article abstracts. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 5(2), 27-50.
  10. Fu, X. (2012). The use of interactiona