Tıp Alanındaki Araştırma Makalelerin Sonuç ve Tartışma Bölümlerindeki Bilgisellik İfadeleri Üzerine Keşifsel Bir Çalışma

Bu çalışma, bilgisellik ifadelerinin tıbbi söylemde nasıl işaret edildiğinin derlem-tabanlı bir incelemesidir. Özellikle, yazarlar tarafından önermelerine karşı kesinlik (belirsizlik) düzeylerini belirtmek amacıyla belirli kaynakların nasıl kullanıldığını keşfetmek için tıbbın anatomiden endokrinolojiye kadar değişen farklı alanlarından disipline özgü bir araştırma makaleleri derlemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmamızın derlemi toplamda yaklaşık 215.000 kelimeden oluşan 100 yayınlanmış tıbbi araştırma makalesinin sadece sonuçlar ve tartışma bölümlerini içermektedir. Derlem analizlerimizin sonuçları tıp alanındaki yazarlar tarafından ek-önerme kipliğini ifade etmek için çok sık kip belirteçleri kullanımı olduğunu gösterdi. Ayrıca tıp araştırmacılarının, okuyuculara aktarılan önermelere dair değerlendirmelerini kuvvetlendirmek için çok fazla sayıda güçlendirici kullanmadıkları sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Buna rağmen, güçlendiricilerin retorik kullanımlarının etkileşim ve inanılırlık uğruna daha yüksek güven düzeylerini sergilemek için stratejik olduğu tartışılmaktadır. Bulgular ve çıkarımlar, akademik amaçlarla İngilizcenin bir parçası olarak yazma öğretimi üzerine özel bir odak ile tartışılmıştır.

An exploratory study of epistemic stance in results and discussion sections of medical research articles

This study is a corpus-based investigation of how epistemic stance is signaled in medical discourse. In particular, we compiled a discipline-specific corpus of research articles from different fields of medicine ranging from anatomy to endocrinology to explore how particular resources are employed by authors to index their level of (un)certainty towards their propositions. The corpus of the study contained only the results and discussion sections of 100 published medical research articles, totaling approximately 215,000 words. The results of the corpus analyses showed that there was very frequent use of modal auxiliaries by the writers in the field of medicine to express their extra-propositional modality. It was also found that medical researchers did not employ a greater number of boosters to amplify their commitment to the propositions conveyed to the readers. However, the rhetorical uses of boosters were shown to be strategic to portray their higher level of confidence for the sake of credibility and interaction. The findings and implications are discussed with a particular focus on the teaching of writing as a part of English for academic purposes.

___

  • Akbaş, E. (2014). Commitment-detachment and authorial presence in postgraduate academic writing: A comparative study of Turkish native speakers, Turkish speakers of English and English native speakers [Doctoral dissertation, University of York]. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/7083
  • Akbaş, E., & Hardman, J. (2018). Strengthening or weakening claims in academic knowledge construction: A comparative study of hedges and boosters in postgraduate academic writing. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 831-859. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0260
  • Anthony, L. (2019). AntCorGen (Version 1.1.2) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
  • Anthony, L. (2020). AntConc (Version 3.5.9) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
  • Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
  • Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes 11, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538809544689
  • Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9, 93–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
  • Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Pearson Education.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
  • Chafe, W., & Nichols, J. (Eds.). (1986). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Ablex.
  • Çiftçi, H., & Akbaş, E. (2021). Stancetaking in spoken ELF discourse in academic settings: interpersonal functions of I don’t know as a face-maintaining strategy. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 484-502. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911499
  • Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2014). Stance markers. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 219-248). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.012
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science. In J. Webster (Ed.), Collected works of M. A. K. Halliday. Continuum.
  • Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford University Press.
  • Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text & Talk, 18(3), 349-382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
  • Hyland, K. (2012). Bundles in academic discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 150-169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000037
  • Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316650399
  • Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1989). Language has a heart. Text, 9, 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.7
  • Poole, R., Gnann, A., & Hahn-Powell, G. (2019). Epistemic stance and the construction of knowledge in science writing: A diachronic corpus study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42, 100784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100784
  • Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse. Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tampere]. https://trepo.tuni.fi/handle/10024/67148 Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for specific purposes, 20(1), 83-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889- 4906(99)00029-0 Vázquez, I. (2010). A contrastive analysis of the use of modal verbs in the expression of epistemic stance in Business Management research articles in English and Spanish. Ibérica, 19, 77-95.
  • White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23, 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.011
  • Yang, A., Zheng, S., & Ge, G. (2015). Epistemic modality in English-medium medical research articles: A systemic functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.10.00