Academic journal article Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri

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

Academic journal article Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri

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

Article excerpt

Studies in the field of literature (Ädel, 2006; Estaji & Vafaeimehr, 2015; Hyland, 2004; Hyland & Tse, 2004; Khedri, Ebrahimi, & Heng, 2013) indicate that the use of metadiscourse is a basic element of academic writing. Harris, who first introduced the term "metadiscourse," defined it as an author's or speaker's way of explaining their language use in order to ensure its proper perception by the receiver. For Vande Kopple (1985), metadiscourse is a linguistic element that does not add propositional information but indicates an author's presence. Crismore (1989) also developed the theme of metadiscourse, describing it as an author's entering his own discourse, clearly or implicitly, but not in such a way as to inform the reader about the writer. Metadiscourse, which is an integral part of a text composed of sentences that cluster in a certain train of logic (Coçkun, 2011, p. 881), contributes to forms of understanding and helps authors to compose reader-friendly texts, which is crucial for academic writing (Mirshamsi & Allami, 2013, p. 23). These definitions and explanations show that metadiscourse is related to the relation between authors, who compose texts, and readers, who analyze them.

The concept of metadiscourse, which is related to academic writing, assumes an important place in the field along academic studies of different languages, cultures, and disciplines. Comparative metadiscourse studies of the entire body of literature are focused on the comparison of social studies (Pooresfahani, Khajavy, & Vahidnia, 2012; Zarei & Mansoori, 2011); however, in a limited number of studies, such analysis has been focused on the comparison of fields related to the social sciences and the physical sciences (Estaji & Vafaeimehr, 2015). This study is intended to contribute to metadiscourse studies of the body of literature on the basis of the Turkish language along with an examination of articles in Turkish language education and literature. Further, as the knowledge of metadiscourse is required for master's degree students, this study may be a source for those intending to pursue academic writing.

Metadiscourse Markers

The first model of metadiscourse in the literature was presented by Vande Kopple (1985). Thereafter, many models (Ädel, 2006; Bunton, 1999; Crismore, 1989; Hyland & Tse, 2004; Vande Kopple, 2002) of metadiscourse in literature have been suggested. Hyland and Tse's (2004) model is one of those that have been taken as a basis and accepted by numerous studies of the literature. In this model, metadiscourse markers are divided into two basic categories: interactive and interactional.

The interactive aspect shows the ways in which the author edits the reader's attention, rhetorical expectation, possible knowledge, and processing ability, such that the reader is conscious of it (Hyland, 2005, p. 49). The author's purpose is to develop and restrict the text in accordance with the reader's needs and to edit arguments in such a way that the reader is able to evaluate the author's conscious aim and interpretation (Hyland, 2005, p. 49). Interactive metadiscourse markers are composed of transitions, frame markers, endophoric markers, evidentials, and code glosses.

The interactional aspect demonstrates the way in which the author manages the interaction; in this aspect, the author's aim is explaining his or her own point of view and integrating the reader into the text (Hyland, 2005, p. 49). Further, interactional markers determine the level of subjectivity in a text (Hyland, 2005, p. 52). Interactional markers, as taken by articles and explained below, are composed of hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers, and self-mentions.

Hedges. Because the presented knowledge shows the thought, or rather the reality, hedges indicate the subjectivity of the condition; therefore, they demonstrate that the condition is open to debate (Hyland, 2005, p. 52). In hedges, words such as "belki (perhaps)," "olasi (possible)," "mümkün (probable)," "yaklaçik (about)," "çaliçilmak (be worked)," "düçünülmek (be thought)," and "gözükmek (seem)" and morphemes such as "-Ablllr (can be)" are used. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.