Abstract
Bir dizi çalışma akademik türler olarak tez, makale ve kitap incelemelerinin analizine odaklanmıştır, ancak akademik dergilerde son zamanlarda ortaya çıkan ve analiz edilmesi gereken başka türler de vardır. Bu türlerden biri de "disipliner diyaloglar" olarak adlandırılan ve araştırma raporlamaktan ziyade belirli bir konuyu tartışmak üzere uzmanlar tarafından yazılan görece kısa akademik metinlerdir. Bu çalışma, yazarların disipliner diyaloglardaki etkileşimlerine odaklanmaktadır. Çalışmanın verisini, Uygulamalı Dilbilim alanındaki bir dergide yayınlanan 37 disipliner diyalogdan oluşan özel bir derlem oluşturmaktadır. Analiz yöntemi olarak söylem analizi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, yazarlar tarafından diyalojik bir duruş oluşturmak için kullanılan, diğer akademisyenlere/çalışmalara atıfta bulunma, retorik sorular sorma, uzlaşma/anlaşmazlığı açıkça gösterme, kaçınma (yumuşatma) ifadeleri kullanma, değerlendirici ve yansıtıcı dil kullanma ve gelecekteki araştırma fikirlerini önerme gibi zengin bir dizi yazma stratejisini aydınlatmaktadır. Makale, bulguların pedagojik ve araştırma çıkarımlarıyla sona ermektedir.
References
- Atkinson, D. (2012). Disciplinary dialogues: Introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 283.
- Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text- Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 9(1), 93-124.
- Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New directions in discourse processing, 14, 147-175.
- Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.
- Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins.
- Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. Continuum.
- Hyland K. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction. 1(1), 5-22.
- Hyland, K. (2018). Sympathy for the devil? A Defense of EAP. Language Teaching, 51(3), 383- 399. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000101
- Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
- Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142-175). Oxford University Press.
- Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics. Routledge.
- Suarez-Tejerina, L. (2006). Modes of evaluation and rhetorical patterns: a contrastive study of English and Spanish book reviews [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Universidad de Leo´n, Spain.
- Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In G. Thompson, & S. Hunston (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 1-27). Oxford University Press.
- White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text & Talk, 23(2), 259-284.
Abstract
A number of studies have focused on the analyses of theses, articles, and book reviews as academic genres, yet there are also other genres that have recently appeared in academic journals and need to be analyzed. One of these genres is the so-called “disciplinary dialogues,” which are relatively short academic texts written by experts to discuss a specific issue rather than reporting research. This study focuses on authors’ interaction in disciplinary dialogues. The data for the study is a specialized corpus comprised of 37 disciplinary dialogues published in a journal in the Applied Linguistics field. Discourse analysis was employed. The findings illuminate a rich array of writing strategies employed by authors to establish a dialogic stance, such as referring to other scholars/studies, asking rhetorical questions, explicitly showing disagreement/agreement, using hedging devices, using evaluative and reflective language, and suggesting future research ideas. The paper ends with the pedagogical and research implications of the findings.
References
- Atkinson, D. (2012). Disciplinary dialogues: Introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 283.
- Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text- Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 9(1), 93-124.
- Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New directions in discourse processing, 14, 147-175.
- Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.
- Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins.
- Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. Continuum.
- Hyland K. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction. 1(1), 5-22.
- Hyland, K. (2018). Sympathy for the devil? A Defense of EAP. Language Teaching, 51(3), 383- 399. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000101
- Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
- Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142-175). Oxford University Press.
- Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics. Routledge.
- Suarez-Tejerina, L. (2006). Modes of evaluation and rhetorical patterns: a contrastive study of English and Spanish book reviews [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Universidad de Leo´n, Spain.
- Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In G. Thompson, & S. Hunston (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 1-27). Oxford University Press.
- White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text & Talk, 23(2), 259-284.
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | English As A Second Language |
| Journal Section | Original Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | April 22, 2024 |
| Submission Date | February 22, 2024 |
| Acceptance Date | March 15, 2024 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2024 Volume: 41 Issue: 1 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.