Açılış konuşmasını yapan akademisyenlerle yeni araştırmacıların konferans özlerinde kullandıkları kaçınmalar ve güçlendiriciler

Year 2018, Issue: 13, 1 - 14, 30.12.2018

Arzu Ekoç

https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.504248

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Konferans özleri, akademik çalışmaların önemli
bir parçasıdır. Katılımcılar, hangi oturuma katılacakları kararını genellikle
konferans özlerine bakarak vermektedir. Ancak, konferanslar için öz yazımı,
makale ve tez özlerine göre literatürde nispeten daha az ilgi görmüştür. Sınırlı
kelime sayısıyla bir bildirinin özünü vermek beceri gerektirmektedir. Bir
araştırmacı, öz yazarken, yazdığı şeyin önemini vurgulamaya, yeniliğini ortaya
koymaya ve inandırıcılığını sağlamaya çalışmaktadır. Akademik konferanslarda
tecrübeli, alanın öncülerinden bir iki akademisyen açılış konuşmasını yapar.
İleriki oturumlarda ise genellikle akademik kariyerinin başında olan
araştırmacılar bildirilerini sunmaktadır. Yeni araştırmacıların gönderdikleri
özler, bilimsel komiteler tarafından incelenirken, açılış konuşmasını yapan
akademisyenlerin özleri bu değerlendirme sürecinden muaftır. Tecrübeli ya da
yeni araştırmacı olsun, akademisyenler, sözcüksel kaçınmalardan ve
güçlendiricilerden yararlanmaktadır. Bu öğeler ortaya konulan savlara
duydukları güvenin derecesini ve okurlara karşı tutumlarını ortaya koymaktadır.
Bu küçük ölçekli çalışmada, 10 açılış konuşması yapan akademisyenin, 10 yeni
araştırmacının konferans özleri incelenmiş ve kaçınma, güçlendirme stratejileri
kullanım sıklıkları açısından herhangi bir farklılık olup olmadığı incelenmeye
çalışılmıştır.

Keywords

kaçınmalar, güçlendiriciler, açılış konuşmacıları, yeni araştırmacılar

Hedges and boosters in plenary speakers’ conference abstracts vs. novice researchers’ conference abstracts

Abstract

Conference abstracts are essential components of
academic studies as potential participants decide to attend the session based
on what they get from the content of the abstracts. However, conference
abstract writing has received relatively less attention compared to research
article and thesis abstracts. Representing and summarizing the whole
presentation in a limited space requires competence.  In writing a conference abstract, one should
take an academic speaking position by claiming significance, credibility and
novelty. In academic conferences, there are two or three invited plenary
speakers who are very experienced, full -fledged academics and in the
concurrent sessions, many novice researchers who are often at the very
beginning of their academic studies. Novice researchers’ abstracts are being
assessed by scientific committees while plenary speakers’ abstracts are exempt
from this review process. Academics, whether they are experienced or novice,
make use of lexical hedging  and boosting
strategies that show their degree of confidence in the truth of their
statements but also reveal their opinions and attitudes to the reader. In this
small scale study, 10 plenary speakers’ conference abstracts and 10 novice
researchers’ conference abstracts are chosen randomly from different
conferences and the aim is to analyze if there is any variation between plenary
speakers’ conference abstracts and novice researchers’ conference abstracts in
the use of hedging and boosting strategies with regard to frequency counts on
lexical bases. 

Keywords

hedges, boosters, abstracts, plenary speakers, novice researchers

References

• Afshar, H. S. and Bagherieh, M. (2014). The Use of Hedging Devices in English and Persian Abstracts of Persian Literature and Civil Engineering MA/MS Theses of Iranian Writers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1820 – 1827. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.611 Andrade, C. (2011). How to write a good abstract for a scientific paper or conference presentation. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 53(2), 172-175. Atmaca, Ç. (2016). Comparison of hedges in M.A. theses and Ph. D. dissertations in ELT. ZfWT, 8 (2), 309-325. Beyea, S. C. and Nicoll, L. H. (1998). Writing and submitting an abstract. AORN Journal, 67 (1), 273-274. Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2016). Cross-Cultural Variation in the Use of Hedges and Boosters in Academic Discourse. Prague Journal of English Studies, 5 (1), 163-184. DOI: 10.1515/pjes-2016-0009 Ekoc, A. (2010). Analyzing Turkish MA Students’ Use of Lexical Hedging Strategies in Theses Abstracts. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13, 1, 49-62. El-Dakhs, D. A. S. (2018). Why are abstracts in PhD theses and research articles different? A genre-specific perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 48-60. DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.09.005 Gillaerts, P. and Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004 Hamamcı, Z. (2007). The use of hedges in research articles by Turkish interlanguage speakers of English and native English speakers in the field of social sciences (Unpublished MA thesis). Adana: Cukurova University. Harris, M. J. (2006). Three steps to teaching abstract and critique writing. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17 (2), 136-146. Hu, G. and Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795–2809. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007 Hyland, K. (2000a). Hedges, Boosters and Lexical Invisibility: Noticing Modifiers in Academic Texts. Language Awareness, 9 (4), 179-197. DOI: 10.1080/09658410008667145 Hyland, K. (2000b). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman. Hyland K (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133–151. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001 Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7 (2), 173-192. DOI: 10.1177/1461445605050365 Kim, L. C. and Lim, J. M. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15 (2), 129-146. DOI: 10.1177/1461445612471476 Montesi, M. and Urdiciain, B. G. (2005). Abstracts: problems classified from the user perspective. Journal of Information Science, 31 (6), 515–526. DOI: 10.1177/0165551505057014 Onder-Ozdemir, N. & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011 Pearce, P. and Ferguson, L. A. (2017). How to write abstracts for manuscripts, presentations, and grants: Maximizing information in a 30‐s sound bite world. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 29 (8), 452-460. DOI: 10.1002/2327-6924.12486 Plakhotnik, M. S. (2017). Writer’s Forum—Tips to Understanding and Writing Manuscript Abstracts. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 29 (3), 51-55. Salager-Meyer, F. (1990). Discoursal Flaws in Medical English Abstracts: A genre analysis per research and text type. Text, 10 (4). Samaie, M., Khosravian, F., and Boghayeri, M. (2014). The Frequency and Types of Hedges in Research Article Introductions by Persian and English Native Authors. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1678 – 1685. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.593 Samraj, B. (2002). Disciplinary variation in abstracts: The case of Wildlife Behaviour and Conservation Biology (pp. 40-57). In J. Flowerdew (Ed.) Academic Discourse, Pearson Education. Söğüt, S. (2014). Employment of stance adverbials as hedges and boosters in argumentative essays of native American and non-native Turkish university students (Unpublished MA thesis). Eskişehir: Anadolu University. Supasiraprapa, S. and de Costa, P. I. (2017). Metadiscourse and Identity Construction in Teaching Philosophy Statements: A Critical Case Study of Two MATESOL Students. TESOL Quarterly, 51 (4), 868-896. DOI: 10.1002/tesq.360 Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M. and Feak, C. B. (2000). English in Today’s Research World A Writing Guide. Michigan Series in English for academic and professional purposes. Ufnalska, S. B. and Hartley, J. (2009). How can we evaluate the quality of abstracts?. European Science Editing, 35 (3), 69-71. Vázquez, I. and Giner, D. (2009). Writing with Conviction: The Use of Boosters in Modelling Persuasion in Academic Discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 22, 219-237. Yagız, O. and Demir, C. (2014). Hedging strategies in academic discourse: A comparative analysis of Turkish writers and native writers of English. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 260-268. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.085 Yakhontova, T. (2002). Selling or telling? The issue of cultural variation in research genres. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.) Academic Discourse, Pearson Education.