Yıl 2018, Cilt , Sayı 13, Sayfalar 1 - 14 2018-12-30

Hedges and boosters in plenary speakers’ conference abstracts vs. novice researchers’ conference abstracts
Açılış konuşmasını yapan akademisyenlerle yeni araştırmacıların konferans özlerinde kullandıkları kaçınmalar ve güçlendiriciler

Arzu EKOÇ [1]

12 44

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. 

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.

  • 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.
Birincil Dil en
Konular Sosyal
Dergi Bölümü MAKALELER
Yazarlar

Orcid: 0000-0002-2106-368X
Yazar: Arzu EKOÇ (Sorumlu Yazar)
Kurum: YILDIZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, YABANCI DİLLER YÜKSEKOKULU, TEMEL İNGİLİZCE BÖLÜMÜ
Ülke: Turkey


Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { rumelide504248, journal = {RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi}, issn = {2148-7782}, eissn = {2148-9599}, address = {Yakup YILMAZ}, year = {2018}, volume = {}, pages = {1 - 14}, doi = {10.29000/rumelide.504248}, title = {Hedges and boosters in plenary speakers’ conference abstracts vs. novice researchers’ conference abstracts}, key = {cite}, author = {EKOÇ, Arzu} }
APA EKOÇ, A . (2018). Hedges and boosters in plenary speakers’ conference abstracts vs. novice researchers’ conference abstracts. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (13), 1-14. DOI: 10.29000/rumelide.504248
MLA EKOÇ, A . "Hedges and boosters in plenary speakers’ conference abstracts vs. novice researchers’ conference abstracts". RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi (2018): 1-14 <http://dergipark.gov.tr/rumelide/issue/41765/504248>
Chicago EKOÇ, A . "Hedges and boosters in plenary speakers’ conference abstracts vs. novice researchers’ conference abstracts". RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi (2018): 1-14
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Hedges and boosters in plenary speakers’ conference abstracts vs. novice researchers’ conference abstracts AU - Arzu EKOÇ Y1 - 2018 PY - 2018 N1 - doi: 10.29000/rumelide.504248 DO - 10.29000/rumelide.504248 T2 - RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 1 EP - 14 VL - IS - 13 SN - 2148-7782-2148-9599 M3 - doi: 10.29000/rumelide.504248 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.504248 Y2 - 2018 ER -
EndNote %0 RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi Hedges and boosters in plenary speakers’ conference abstracts vs. novice researchers’ conference abstracts %A Arzu EKOÇ %T Hedges and boosters in plenary speakers’ conference abstracts vs. novice researchers’ conference abstracts %D 2018 %J RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi %P 2148-7782-2148-9599 %V %N 13 %R doi: 10.29000/rumelide.504248 %U 10.29000/rumelide.504248
ISNAD EKOÇ, Arzu . "Açılış konuşmasını yapan akademisyenlerle yeni araştırmacıların konferans özlerinde kullandıkları kaçınmalar ve güçlendiriciler". RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi / 13 (Aralık 2018): 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.504248