Author :
Abstract
Bu makale, metinlerde üstsöylemsel unsurlardan biri olan kişilerarası işlevlerin işletilmesinde bağlamsal faktörlerin önemli bir rol üstlendiği savı üzerine yapılandırılmıştır. Metinlerde üstsöylem, alanyazında çoğunlukla akademik söylemde yer alan türlerde geliştirilmiş olan modeller üzerinden incelenmiş ve bu çalışmalarda gerek tür gerek alan gerek kültür olsun çeşitli faktörlerin etkiside göz önünde bulundurulmuştur (Hyland & Tse, 2004; Hyland, 2005). Fakat, akademik olmayan türlerde üstsöylemin nasıl işletildiğine dair alanyazında neredeyse hiç çalışma yoktur. Bu bağlamda, geliştirilmiş olan üstsöylem modellerinden hareketle farklı türlerde analizler yapılması özellikle metinlerde kişilerarası işlevlerin nasıl yapılandırıldığına dair detaylı veri elde edilmesine ve bağlamsal faktörler konusunda farklı bakış açılarının sunulmasına yardımcı olacaktır. Buradan hareketle, bu çalışmanın amacı turizm acentalarının web siteleri gibi gibi akademik olmayan yazın türlerindeki leksiko-gramatik yapılandırmayı kişilerarası üstsöylem modellerinden faydalanarak (White 2003; Hyland, 2008) analiz etmektir. Çalışmanın derlemini Türkiye’de önde gelen turizm acentalarının web siteleri oluşturmaktadır. Nitel paradigmadan hareketle kişilerarası üst söylem modeli kullanılarak içerik analizinin takip edildiği bu çalışmada bulgular, acentaların web sitelerinde kullandıkları leksiko-gramatik yapılarda alan, dil ve tür bağlamsal faktörlerinin etkisi olduğunu göstermiştir.
Keywords
Abstract
This paper is moving on the idea suggesting that contextual factors play crucial role in the operation of interpersonal metadiscourse in texts. In the literature, meta-discourse studies have been generally based on the texts in academic discourses with a special attention to some certain factors such as field, genre, culture etc. (Hyland & Tse, 2004; Hyland, 2005). However, the number of studies that have focused on how meta-discourse functions are structured in non-academic genres. In fact, a study on different genres, specifically on the interpersonal meta-discourse in texts, through developed interpersonal metadiscourse models would deepen understanding about alternative meta-dsicourse categories and widen viewpoints about probable contextual variables. Accordingly, the main aim of this study is to analyse lexico-grammatical structure of non-academic genres such as tourism promotional websites through interpersonal meta-discourse model (White 2003; Hyland, 2008). Thus, the corpus of the study is the leading tourism promotional websites in Turkey. Following qualitative research paradigm via descriptive analysis by using the categories in the interpersonal metadiscourse model, the findings of the study show that contextual factors such as language, field, and genre play crucial role in structuring lexico-grammatical construction in tourism promotional websites.
Keywords
- Abdollahzadeh, E. (2003). “Interpersonal metadiscourse in ELT papers by Iranian and Anglo-American
- Abdollahzadeh, E. (2003). “Interpersonal metadiscourse in ELT papers by Iranian and Anglo-Americanacademic writers”. Paper presented at the International Conference on Multiculturalism in ELT Practice. Baskent University, Turkey.
- Bakhtin, M. (1986). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays in M. Holquist (ed.). Austin TX: University of Texas Press.
- Beke, R. (2005). “El metadiscurso interpersonal en artículos de investigación”. Signos 38, 57: 7-18.
- Blal, I. & M.C. Sturman (2014). “The differential effects of the quality and quantity of online reviews on hotel room sales”. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 55, 4: 365-375.
- Breeze, R., M. Gotti & C. Sancho (2014). Interpersonality in Legal Genres. Bern: Peter Lang.
- Chen, I.J. & K. Popovich (2003). “Understanding customer relationship management (CRM) - People, process and technology”. Business Process Management Journal 9, 5: 672-688.
- Cheng, A.Y. & N.R. Ab Hamid (2011). “The usability of hotel websites in managing tourist expectations: A customer relationship perspective” in IPEDR (vol.10), 43-47. IACSIT Press: Singapore.
- Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
- Crismore, A. & E. Abdollahzadeh (2010). “A review of recent metadiscourse studies: The Iranian context”. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9, 2: 195-218.
- Crismore, A., R. Markkanen & M. Steffensen (1993). “Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students”. Written Communication 10, 1: 39-71.
- Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). “The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in theconstruction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 40, 1: 95-113.
- Dahl, T. (2004). “Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline?” Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1807-1825.
- Dolón, R. (2014). “A corpus-based study of the discursive creation of a child consumer identity in officialtourist information websites vs. opinion forums” in L. Gil-Salom & C. Soler-Monreal, Dialogicity in Written Specialised Genres, 165- 188. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Edo-Marzá, N. (2012). “Páginas web privadas e institucionales: El uso de la adjetivación en un corpusinglés-español de promoción de destinos turísticos” in J. Sanmartín Sáez (ed.), Discurso turístico e Internet, 51-80. Madrid: Iberoamericana/Vervuert.
- Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Ferrari, L. (2004). “Modalidad y evaluación en artículos de investigación”. Actas del III Coloquio Nacional de Investigadores en Estudios del Discurso, ALED. Argentina.
- Giannoni, D. (2007). “Evaluative metaphors and disciplinary identity in English research articles”.Proceedings of the conference on Discourse and Identity in Specialized Communication. June 25- 26, Gargnano del Garda, Italy.
- Gotti, M. (2010). “Identity traits in written academic discourse across languages” in R. Lorés-Sanz, P. Mur- Dueñas & E. Lafuente-Millán (eds.), 49-60. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
- Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold
- Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239–256.
- Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Hyland, K. (2005). “Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse”. Discourse Studies 7, 2: 173-192.
- Hyland, K. (2008). “Disciplinary voices. Interactions in research writing”. English Text Construction 1, 1: 5- 22.
- Hyland, K. (2015). “Genre, discipline and identity”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20: 1-12.
- Hyland, K. & P. Tse (2004). “Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal”. Applied Linguistics 25, 2: 156-177.
- Junqueira, L. & V. Cortes (2014). “Metadiscourse in book reviews in English and Brazilian Portuguese: A corpus-based analysis”. Rhetoric, Professional Communication and Globalization 6: 88-109.
- Kim, W.G., H.J. Lim & R.A. Brymer (2015). “The effectiveness of managing social media on hotel performance”. International Journal of Hospitality Management 44: 165-171.
- Koskensalo, A. (2012). “Towards a better professional understanding of the hybrid genre ‘tourismwebsites’”. Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of the Asia Pacific Language for Special Purposes and Professional Communication Association. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
- Kuhia, D. & M. Mojood. (2014). “Metadiscourse in newspaper genre: A cross-linguistic study of English and Persian editorials”. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences 98: 1046-1055.
- Li, T. & S. Wharton (2012). “Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11: 345-356.
- Lorés-Sanz, R., P. Mur-Dueñas & E. Lafuente. (2010). Constructing Interpersonality: Multiple Perspectives on Written Academic Genres. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Publishings.
- Mapelli, G. (2008). “Las marcas de metadiscurso interpersonal de la sección ‘turismo’ de los sitios web delos ayuntamientos” in M.V. Calvi, G. Mapelli & J. Santos López (eds.), Lingue, Culture, Economia: Comunicazione e Pratiche Discorsive, 173-190. Milano: Franco Angeli.
- Mauranen, A. (1993). “Cultural differences in academic discourse – Problems of a linguistic and culturalminority” in L. Lofman, L. Kurki-Suonio, S. Pellinen & J. Lehtonen (eds.), The Competent Intercultural Communicator, 157-174. Publications de l’Association Finlandaise de Linguistique Apliquée 51.
- McDaniel-Mann, S. (2014). Interpersonality Strategies in International Student Handbooks Written byNative Speakers of English (NSE) and Non-native Speakers of English (NNSE). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Universitat de València.
- McMillan, J. & Schumacher, S. (2014). Research in Education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). the United State of America: Pearson.
- Mur-Dueñas, P. (2010). “Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross- cultural corpus-driven approach”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 20, 1: 50-72.
- Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thosand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.
- Pekar, V. & S. Ou (2008). “Discovery of subjective evaluations of product features in hotel reviews”. Journal of Vacation Marketing 14, 2: 145-155.
- Phillips, P., K. Zigan, M.M.S. Silva & R. Schegg (2015). “The interactive effects of online reviews on thedeterminants of Swiss hotel performance: A neural network analysis”. Tourism Management 50: 130-141.
- Pierini, P. (2009). “Adjectives in tourism English on the web. A corpus-based study”. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación (CLAC) 40: 93-116. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
- Sala, M. (2006). “Cultural and professional identities in international law”. Paper presented at theConference on Identity and Culture in English Domain-specific Discourse: Methodological Issues and Preliminary Studies. October 19-20, Naples, Italy.
- Suau-Jiménez, F. (2011). “La persuasión a través del metadiscurso interpersonal en el género página webinstitucional de promoción turística en inglés y español” in M.V. Calvi & G. Mapelli (eds.), La Lengua delTurismo: Géneros Discursivos y Terminología, 177-200. Bern: Peter Lang, Colección: Linguistic Insights 138.
- Suau-Jiménez, F. (2012a). “Páginas web institucionales de promoción turística: el uso metadiscursivointerpersonal en inglés y español” in J. Sanmartín Sáez (ed.), Discurso Turístico e Internet, 125-154. Madrid: Iberoamericana/ Vervuert.
- Suau-Jiménez, F. (2012b). “El turista 2.0 como receptor de la promoción turística: estrategias lingüísticas e importancia de su estudio”. PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural 6, 4: 143-154.
- Suau-Jiménez, F. (2014a). “Dialogic voices of writers and readers in traveler forums throughinterpersonality” in L. Gil Salom & C. Soler Monreal (eds.), Dialogicity in Written Specialised Genres, 137- 163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 5.
- Suau-Jiménez, F. (2014b). “El proceso pre- traductológico en textos de economía a través del análisismetadiscursivo interpersonal: Estudio piloto del corpus COMENEGO” in D. Gallego (ed.), Monográficos de la Revista Hermeneus, Colección Vertere 16: 149-168.
- Suau-Jiménez, F. & R. Dolón-Herrero (2007). “The importance of metadiscourse in the genre ‘Promotion ofTouristic Services and Products’: Differences in English and Spanish” in D. Galová (ed.), Languages forSpecific Purposes: Searching for Common Solutions, 71-79. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishings.
- Suau-Jiménez, F. & V. González-García (2013). “Voices and interpersonal markers in travelers’ forums inEnglish and Spanish”. Presentation at the 1st Service Encounters and Cross-Cultural Communication Symposium. Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain, 31 January – 1 February 2013.
- Uygurtürk, H. &Korkmaz, T. (2015). “Türkiye’deki A Grubu Seyahat Acentalarının Tercih Sıralamasının PROMETHEE Yöntemi ile Belirlenmesi”. Business and Economics Research Journal 6(2):141-155
- Valero-Garcés, C. (1996). “Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts”. English for Specific Purposes 15, 4: 279- 294.
- Vande Kopple, W.J. (1985). “Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication 36: 82-93.
- Vázquez, I. & D. Giner. (2009). “Writing with conviction: The use of boosters in modelling persuasión in academic discourses”. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 22: 219-23.
- White, P. (2003). “Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance”. Text 23, 2: 2594-2598.
- World Tourism Organization (2015). Tourism – An Economic and Social Phenomenon. URL: http://www2.unwto.org/content/why-tourism [20/06/2015]
- Yakhontova, T. (2006). “Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 153-167.
- Zarei, G.R. & S. Mansoori (2011). “Metadiscursive distinction between Persian and English: An analysis of computer engineering research articles”. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 2, 5: 1037-1042
