Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Türkçe Yüksek Lisans Tezlerinin Sonuçlarında Kullanılan Kaçınmalar ve Güçlendiriciler

Year 2024, Volume: 20 Issue: 1, 17 - 54, 09.01.2024

Ruhan Güçlü

Abstract

Bu çalışma, yazarların Türkçe yüksek lisans tezlerinin sonuç bölümlerinde kaçınma ve güçlendiricileri nasıl yapılandırdıklarını ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla, bu çalışmanın bütüncesi, Hyland'ın (2005) Kişilerarası Üstsöylem Modeli'ni temel alarak sosyal ve beşeri bilimler alanındaki Türkçe yüksek lisans tezlerinin toplam seksen sonuç bölümünden oluşmaktadır. Çalışmanın çözümlemesi, yazarların büyültücüler, kesinlik belirten kiplik ekleri, vurgulayıcılar ve evrensel adıllar ile ifadelerini güçlendirdiklerini, adıllar, bilgisel sözlüksel eylemleri, bilgisel sıfatlar, bilgisel belirteç ve bilgisel kiplik ekleri ile de kaçınma ifadelerine başvurduklarını ortaya koymaktadır. Kaçınma ve güçlendiricilerin çeşitli kullanımları, özellikle üstsöylem işlevi taşıyan kiplik eklerinin sık kullanımı Türkçe dilinin sondan eklemeli doğasına atfedilebilir. Ayrıca, kaçınma ve güçlendiricilerin benzer sıklıktaki genel kullanımı, yazarların kendinden emin bir şekilde belirsiz dil kullanımını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu çalışmadan elde edilen içgörüler, üstsöylem kullanımı açısından Türkçe yüksek lisans tezlerinin sonuçları hakkındaki anlayışımıza kayda değer katkılar sağlamaktadır. Üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin öğretilebilir olduğunu göz önünde bulundurduğumuzda, bu çalışma üstsöylem birimlerinin dile özgü sözlükbilimsel gerçekleşmelerine ilişkin farkındalığa işaret ederek tez yazmak isteyen araştırmacılara, Türkçeyi yabancı dil olarak öğretenlere ve gelecekteki Türkçe üstsöylem çalışmalarına fayda sağlayacaktır.

Keywords

Kaçınmalar Güçlendiriciler Yüksek Lisans Tezlerinin Sonuç Bölümleri Sosyal Bilimler ve Beşeri Bilimler Üstsöylem

References

  • Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English (Vol. 24). John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69–97.
  • Ağçam, R. (2014). A corpus-based study on epistemic adjectives in academic English. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(12), 1230-1236.
  • Akbaş, E. (2012). 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.
  • Akbaş, E. (2014). Are they discussing in the same way? Interactional metadiscourse in Turkish writers’ texts. In A. Łyda and K. Warchał (Eds.), Occupying niches: Interculturality, cross-culturality and aculturality in academic research (pp. 119-133). Springer.
  • Algı, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in L1 and L2 argumentative paragraphs: Implications for teaching L2 academic writing [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
  • Bal-Gezegin, B. (2016). A corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse in academic book. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 713-718.
  • Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing the universality. Journal of Basic Writing, 5, 4-23.
  • Bayyurt, Y. (2010). Author positioning in academic writing. In S. Zyngier & V. Viana (Eds.), Appraisals and perspectives: Mapping empirical studies in the Humanities (pp.163-184). The Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
  • Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. SRHE and Open University Press.
  • Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203.
  • Can, H. (2006). An analysis of freshman year university students’ argumentative essays [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Boğaziçi University.
  • Cap, P., & Okulska, U. (2013). Analyzing genres in political communication: An introduction. In P. Cap & U. Okulska (Eds.), Analyzing genres in political communication (pp.1-26). Amsterdam.
  • Corcu, D. (2003). A linguistic analysis of necessity as a part of the modal system in Turkish [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Mersin University.
  • Corcu, D. (2005). Semantic Structure of the Necessity Marker –mAlI. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 16, 33-45.
  • Corcu, D. (2006). On semantic structure of the necessity/obligation mood coding items [Conference presentation]. XX. Turkish National Linguistics Conference, Maltepe University, Turkey.
  • Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
  • Çapar, M., & Turan, Ü. D. (2019). Interactional metadiscourse in research articles written by Turkish and native speakers. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 10(1), 324-358.
  • Dafouz-Milne, E. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. Complutense University of Madrid.
  • Dağ Tarcan, Ö. (2017). Türkçe bilimsel metinlerde etkileşimli üstsöylem belirleyicileri. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2), 176-184.
  • Dağ Tarcan, Ö. (2019). Sosyal bilimler alanında yazılan Türkçe bilimsel metinlerde kullanılan üstsöylem belirleyicileri [Doctoral dissertation]. Ankara University.
  • Doyuran, Z. (2009). Conciliation of knowledge through hedging in Turkish scientific articles. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 26 (1), 85-99.
  • Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (2018). Türkçe dilbilgisel kiplikte olasılık ve gereklilik. Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 15(2), 1-22.
  • Erk-Emeksiz, Z. (2008). Türkçe’de kiplik anlamının belirsizliği ve anlamsal roller. Dil Dergisi, 141, 55-66.
  • Esmer, E. (2017). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers in Turkish election rally speeches delivered by pro-Turkish and pro-Kurdish leaders. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 367-384.
  • Esmer, E. (2018). Türkçeyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrenciler tarafından üretilen ikna metinlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin kullanımı. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(3), 216-228.
  • Falahati, R. (2006). The use of hedging across different disciplines and rhetorical sections of research articles. In Proceedings of the 22nd Northwest Linguistics Conference, Burnaby, February, 18-19, 2006.
  • Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
  • Güven, M. (2001). Türkçe’de -Abil eki ve kiplik belirteçleri üzerine. Proceedings of the XV. Linguistics Conference, (pp. 79-87). Yıldız Teknik University Press.
  • Hatipoğlu, C., & Algı, S. (2017). Contextual and pragmatics functions of modal epistemic hedges in argumentative paragraphs in Turkish. In C. Hatipoglu, E. Akbas, & Y. Bayyurt (Eds.), Metadiscourse in written genres: Uncovering textual and interactional aspects of texts (pp. 85–108). Peter Lang.
  • Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, 18(3), 349-382.
  • Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
  • Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
  • Jalilifar, A. R. (2011). World of attitudes in research article discussion sections: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Technology & Education, 5(3), 177- 186.
  • Junqueiria, L., & Cortes, V. (2014). Metadiscourse in book reviews in English and Brazilian Portuguese: A corpus-based analysis. Journal of Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization, 6(1), 5.
  • Kan, M. O. (2016). The use of interactional metadiscourse: a comparison of articles on Turkish education and literature. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice,16, 1639-1648.
  • Karahan, P. (2013). Self-mention in scientific articles written by Turkish and non-Turkish authors. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 305-322.
  • Kerimoğlu, C. (2010). On the epistemic modality markers in Turkey Turkish: Uncertainty. International Periodicals for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 5(4),434-478.
  • Kerimoğlu, C. & Aksu, C. (2015). -DIr biçimbiriminin sözlü söylemdeki kiplik alanları ve kullanımları. Dil Araştırmaları, 17, 73-94.
  • Kondowe, W. (2014). Hedging and boosting as interactional metadiscourse in literature doctoral dissertation abstracts. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(3), 214-221.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1996). On some copular clitics in Turkish. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 6, 96-114.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish (Descriptive Grammars). Routledge.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2013). Turkish. Routledge.
  • Kuhi, D. (2014). Commodified discourses, commodifying discourses: In pursuit of a theoretical model on the constitutive functioning of academic discourse in marketization of higher education. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Discourse Analysis, 2(1), 39–62.
  • Kurt, B. (2022). Türkçe eğitimi alanındaki yüksek lisans ve doktora tezlerinin sonuç bölümünde tutum belirleyici kullanımının yazar temelli analizi. VI. Uluslararası Türklerin Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Sempozyumu, Türklerin Dünyası Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Kurudayıoğlu, M., & Çimen, L. (2020). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğrenen öğrencilerin akademik yazılarında etkileşimli üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin kullanımı. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 16(31), 3899-3923.
  • Letsoela, P.M. (2014). Interacting with readers: Metadiscourse features in national university of Lesotho undergraduate students’ academic writing. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(6), 138-153.
  • Marandi, S. (2003). Metadiscourse in Persian/English master's theses: A contrastive study. IJAL, 6(2), 23- 42.
  • Mirshamsi, A. S., & Allami, H. (2013). Metadiscourse markers in the discussion/conclusion section of Persian and English master's theses. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 32(3), 23-40.
  • Oktay, S. A. (2023). Textual analysis of Turkish advice letters in the construction of a persuasive agony aunt. OPUS Journal of Society Research, 20(52), 191-206.
  • Önel, M. A. (2020). Türkçe eğitimi alanında yapılmış yüksek lisans tezlerinde kişilerarası üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin betimlenmesi. [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  • Öztürk, E. A., & İşeri, K. (2023). Bilimsel makale özet metinlerinde üstsöylemsel adlar. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (56), 421-434.
  • Peacock, M. (2006). A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles. Corpora, 1(1), 61-84.
  • Sansa-Tura S. (1986). -DIR in Modern Turkish. In A. Aksu Koç, E. Erguvanlı-Taylan (Eds.), Proceedings of Turkish Linguistics Conference, (pp. 145-158).
  • Sebzecioğlu, T. (2004). Türkçede kip kategorisi ve –yor biçimbiriminin kipsel değeri. Dil Dergisi, (124), 18-33.
  • Soyşekerci, G., Öztürk, E. A., & İşeri, K. (2022). Lisansüstü tezlerin sonuç bölümlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicileri. Çukurova Üniversitesi Türkoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 766-794.
  • Şen, E. (2019). Bilimsel makale özetlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin incelenmesi (Published Doctoral dissertation). Dokuz Eylül University.
  • Şen, E., & İşeri, K. (2023). Makale özetleri ve alıcı odaklı etkileşimli üstsöylem belirleyicileri. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı-Belleten, (75), 33-60.
  • Şimşek, R., & Teymur, E. (2023). Akademik Türkçe içeriklerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilerin görünümleri. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(2), 393-403.
  • Triyoko, H., Wijana, I. D. P., & Baryadi, I. P. (2021). Hedges and boosters in Indonesian scientific articles. Register Journal, 14(1), 65-82.
  • Uba, S. Y. U. (2020). Metadiscourse in research article genre: A cross-linguistic study of English and Hausa. English Language Teaching, 13(2), 57-62.
  • Underhill, R. (1986). Turkish. In D. I. Slobin, & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp.8-21). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Üstünalp, İ., & Esmer, E. (2022). Analyzing nouns and verbs marked with self-mention suffixes in graduate theses. Journal of Language Education and Research, 8(2), 437-455.
  • Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Sentence topics, syntactic subjects, and domains in texts. Written Communication, 2(4), 339-357.
  • Yangın, M. T. (2020). Türkçede göreceli zaman: -DIydI/-mIştI. International Journal of Current Approaches in Language, Education and Social Sciences, 2(2), 509-527.
  • Zafar, S. (2021). A metadiscourse study of boosters and hedges in research Aaticle abstracts: Study of boosters and hedges in research article abstracts. CORPORUM: Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 4(1), 29-41.
  • Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2011). A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 42-50.
  • Zarrati, Z., Nambiar, R. M., & Maasum, T. N. R. T. M. (2014). The importance of text structure awareness in promoting strategic reading among EFL readers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 537-544.

Hedging and Boosting in Turkish MA Theses’ Conclusions

Year 2024, Volume: 20 Issue: 1, 17 - 54, 09.01.2024

Ruhan Güçlü

Abstract

This study aims to reveal how the authors of Turkish master’s theses construct hedges and boosters in the conclusion sections. To this end, the corpus of this study is comprised of a total of eighty conclusion sections of Turkish master’s theses in social sciences and humanities based on Hyland’s (2005) Interpersonal Model of Metadiscourse. The analysis of the study reveals that the authors boost their statements with the use of amplifiers, modal suffixes indicating certanity, emphatics, universal pronouns and hedge their statements with deploying pronouns, epistemic lexical verbs, epistemic adjectives, epistemic adverbs and epistemic modal suffixes. Various types of boosters and hedges, especially the frequent use of modal suffixes could be attributed to the agglutinative nature of Turkish language. Moreover, the overall use of hedges and boosters appeared with similar frequencies which resulted in confidently uncertain language use. The insights gained from this study make noteworthy contributions to our understanding of Turkish MA theses’ conclusions about metadiscourse use. As metadiscourse markers are teachable, this study will provide useful insights for researchers aspiring to write theses, teachers of Turkish as a foreign language and for future Turkish metadiscourse studies, pointing to the awareness of language-specific lexicogrammatical realizations of metadiscourse units.

Keywords

Hedges Boosters Master’s theses’ conclusion sections Social sciences and humanities Metadiscourse

References

  • Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English (Vol. 24). John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69–97.
  • Ağçam, R. (2014). A corpus-based study on epistemic adjectives in academic English. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(12), 1230-1236.
  • Akbaş, E. (2012). 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.
  • Akbaş, E. (2014). Are they discussing in the same way? Interactional metadiscourse in Turkish writers’ texts. In A. Łyda and K. Warchał (Eds.), Occupying niches: Interculturality, cross-culturality and aculturality in academic research (pp. 119-133). Springer.
  • Algı, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in L1 and L2 argumentative paragraphs: Implications for teaching L2 academic writing [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
  • Bal-Gezegin, B. (2016). A corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse in academic book. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 713-718.
  • Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing the universality. Journal of Basic Writing, 5, 4-23.
  • Bayyurt, Y. (2010). Author positioning in academic writing. In S. Zyngier & V. Viana (Eds.), Appraisals and perspectives: Mapping empirical studies in the Humanities (pp.163-184). The Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
  • Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. SRHE and Open University Press.
  • Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203.
  • Can, H. (2006). An analysis of freshman year university students’ argumentative essays [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Boğaziçi University.
  • Cap, P., & Okulska, U. (2013). Analyzing genres in political communication: An introduction. In P. Cap & U. Okulska (Eds.), Analyzing genres in political communication (pp.1-26). Amsterdam.
  • Corcu, D. (2003). A linguistic analysis of necessity as a part of the modal system in Turkish [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Mersin University.
  • Corcu, D. (2005). Semantic Structure of the Necessity Marker –mAlI. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 16, 33-45.
  • Corcu, D. (2006). On semantic structure of the necessity/obligation mood coding items [Conference presentation]. XX. Turkish National Linguistics Conference, Maltepe University, Turkey.
  • Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
  • Çapar, M., & Turan, Ü. D. (2019). Interactional metadiscourse in research articles written by Turkish and native speakers. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 10(1), 324-358.
  • Dafouz-Milne, E. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. Complutense University of Madrid.
  • Dağ Tarcan, Ö. (2017). Türkçe bilimsel metinlerde etkileşimli üstsöylem belirleyicileri. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2), 176-184.
  • Dağ Tarcan, Ö. (2019). Sosyal bilimler alanında yazılan Türkçe bilimsel metinlerde kullanılan üstsöylem belirleyicileri [Doctoral dissertation]. Ankara University.
  • Doyuran, Z. (2009). Conciliation of knowledge through hedging in Turkish scientific articles. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 26 (1), 85-99.
  • Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (2018). Türkçe dilbilgisel kiplikte olasılık ve gereklilik. Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 15(2), 1-22.
  • Erk-Emeksiz, Z. (2008). Türkçe’de kiplik anlamının belirsizliği ve anlamsal roller. Dil Dergisi, 141, 55-66.
  • Esmer, E. (2017). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers in Turkish election rally speeches delivered by pro-Turkish and pro-Kurdish leaders. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 367-384.
  • Esmer, E. (2018). Türkçeyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrenciler tarafından üretilen ikna metinlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin kullanımı. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(3), 216-228.
  • Falahati, R. (2006). The use of hedging across different disciplines and rhetorical sections of research articles. In Proceedings of the 22nd Northwest Linguistics Conference, Burnaby, February, 18-19, 2006.
  • Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
  • Güven, M. (2001). Türkçe’de -Abil eki ve kiplik belirteçleri üzerine. Proceedings of the XV. Linguistics Conference, (pp. 79-87). Yıldız Teknik University Press.
  • Hatipoğlu, C., & Algı, S. (2017). Contextual and pragmatics functions of modal epistemic hedges in argumentative paragraphs in Turkish. In C. Hatipoglu, E. Akbas, & Y. Bayyurt (Eds.), Metadiscourse in written genres: Uncovering textual and interactional aspects of texts (pp. 85–108). Peter Lang.
  • Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, 18(3), 349-382.
  • Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
  • Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
  • Jalilifar, A. R. (2011). World of attitudes in research article discussion sections: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Technology & Education, 5(3), 177- 186.
  • Junqueiria, L., & Cortes, V. (2014). Metadiscourse in book reviews in English and Brazilian Portuguese: A corpus-based analysis. Journal of Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization, 6(1), 5.
  • Kan, M. O. (2016). The use of interactional metadiscourse: a comparison of articles on Turkish education and literature. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice,16, 1639-1648.
  • Karahan, P. (2013). Self-mention in scientific articles written by Turkish and non-Turkish authors. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 305-322.
  • Kerimoğlu, C. (2010). On the epistemic modality markers in Turkey Turkish: Uncertainty. International Periodicals for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 5(4),434-478.
  • Kerimoğlu, C. & Aksu, C. (2015). -DIr biçimbiriminin sözlü söylemdeki kiplik alanları ve kullanımları. Dil Araştırmaları, 17, 73-94.
  • Kondowe, W. (2014). Hedging and boosting as interactional metadiscourse in literature doctoral dissertation abstracts. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(3), 214-221.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1996). On some copular clitics in Turkish. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 6, 96-114.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish (Descriptive Grammars). Routledge.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2013). Turkish. Routledge.
  • Kuhi, D. (2014). Commodified discourses, commodifying discourses: In pursuit of a theoretical model on the constitutive functioning of academic discourse in marketization of higher education. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Discourse Analysis, 2(1), 39–62.
  • Kurt, B. (2022). Türkçe eğitimi alanındaki yüksek lisans ve doktora tezlerinin sonuç bölümünde tutum belirleyici kullanımının yazar temelli analizi. VI. Uluslararası Türklerin Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Sempozyumu, Türklerin Dünyası Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Kurudayıoğlu, M., & Çimen, L. (2020). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğrenen öğrencilerin akademik yazılarında etkileşimli üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin kullanımı. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 16(31), 3899-3923.
  • Letsoela, P.M. (2014). Interacting with readers: Metadiscourse features in national university of Lesotho undergraduate students’ academic writing. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(6), 138-153.
  • Marandi, S. (2003). Metadiscourse in Persian/English master's theses: A contrastive study. IJAL, 6(2), 23- 42.
  • Mirshamsi, A. S., & Allami, H. (2013). Metadiscourse markers in the discussion/conclusion section of Persian and English master's theses. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 32(3), 23-40.
  • Oktay, S. A. (2023). Textual analysis of Turkish advice letters in the construction of a persuasive agony aunt. OPUS Journal of Society Research, 20(52), 191-206.
  • Önel, M. A. (2020). Türkçe eğitimi alanında yapılmış yüksek lisans tezlerinde kişilerarası üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin betimlenmesi. [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  • Öztürk, E. A., & İşeri, K. (2023). Bilimsel makale özet metinlerinde üstsöylemsel adlar. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (56), 421-434.
  • Peacock, M. (2006). A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles. Corpora, 1(1), 61-84.
  • Sansa-Tura S. (1986). -DIR in Modern Turkish. In A. Aksu Koç, E. Erguvanlı-Taylan (Eds.), Proceedings of Turkish Linguistics Conference, (pp. 145-158).
  • Sebzecioğlu, T. (2004). Türkçede kip kategorisi ve –yor biçimbiriminin kipsel değeri. Dil Dergisi, (124), 18-33.
  • Soyşekerci, G., Öztürk, E. A., & İşeri, K. (2022). Lisansüstü tezlerin sonuç bölümlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicileri. Çukurova Üniversitesi Türkoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 766-794.
  • Şen, E. (2019). Bilimsel makale özetlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin incelenmesi (Published Doctoral dissertation). Dokuz Eylül University.
  • Şen, E., & İşeri, K. (2023). Makale özetleri ve alıcı odaklı etkileşimli üstsöylem belirleyicileri. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı-Belleten, (75), 33-60.
  • Şimşek, R., & Teymur, E. (2023). Akademik Türkçe içeriklerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilerin görünümleri. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(2), 393-403.
  • Triyoko, H., Wijana, I. D. P., & Baryadi, I. P. (2021). Hedges and boosters in Indonesian scientific articles. Register Journal, 14(1), 65-82.
  • Uba, S. Y. U. (2020). Metadiscourse in research article genre: A cross-linguistic study of English and Hausa. English Language Teaching, 13(2), 57-62.
  • Underhill, R. (1986). Turkish. In D. I. Slobin, & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp.8-21). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Üstünalp, İ., & Esmer, E. (2022). Analyzing nouns and verbs marked with self-mention suffixes in graduate theses. Journal of Language Education and Research, 8(2), 437-455.
  • Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Sentence topics, syntactic subjects, and domains in texts. Written Communication, 2(4), 339-357.
  • Yangın, M. T. (2020). Türkçede göreceli zaman: -DIydI/-mIştI. International Journal of Current Approaches in Language, Education and Social Sciences, 2(2), 509-527.
  • Zafar, S. (2021). A metadiscourse study of boosters and hedges in research Aaticle abstracts: Study of boosters and hedges in research article abstracts. CORPORUM: Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 4(1), 29-41.
  • Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2011). A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 42-50.
  • Zarrati, Z., Nambiar, R. M., & Maasum, T. N. R. T. M. (2014). The importance of text structure awareness in promoting strategic reading among EFL readers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 537-544.
There are 68 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Discourse and Pragmatics
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Ruhan Güçlü 0000-0002-2748-8363

Publication Date January 9, 2024
Published in Issue Year 2024 Volume: 20 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Güçlü, R. (2024). Hedging and Boosting in Turkish MA Theses’ Conclusions. Dil Ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 20(1), 17-54.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License