Stance in scientific writing has been a major focus of attention. However, studies on stance in the research article abstracts have been relatively scarce in Turkey compared to those in other academic prose. Abstracts contain various sections in which information on the purpose, method, results, and conclusions of the study is presented to promote the study and to attract readers’ attention. In this respect, the abstract foregrounds the main findings and serves a promotional purpose (Hyland & Tse, 2005). By comparing abstracts written by Turkish and native writers of English, this paper tries to explore how academic writers from different scientific communities construct author’s stance in research article abstracts. In particular, the present study attempts to analyze lexico-grammatical features in research article abstracts focusing specifically on stance adverbs. Stance adverbs (clearly, probably, apparently) present the attitude or assessment of the speaker/writer with respect to the proposition (Biber, 2006). The corpus consists of 240 abstracts from the disciplines of sociology, psychology, linguistics, physics, chemistry and biology. The results revealed significant differences in the total number of stance adverbs. Native writers of English employed more stance adverbs in their abstracts than Turkish writers. Differences were also found of stance adverbs in soft and hard sciences. Academic writers in the soft sciences used more stance adverbs in their abstracts. Considering variations in scientific discourse across cultures and disciplines, the results of the study may have some pedagogical implications for academic writing courses.
Ahmad, U., & Mehrjooseresht, M. (2012). Stance Adverbials in Engineering Theses Abstracts. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 29-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.244
Akbas, E. (2012a). Exploring Meta-discourse in Master’s Dissertation Abstracts: Cultural and Linguistic Variations across Postgraduate Writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 1, 12-26.
Akbas, E. (2012b). Interactional Metadiscourse in Turkish Postgraduates’ Academic Texts: A Comparative Study of How They Introduce and Conclude. Journal of English Language Teaching, 2, 35-45.
Akbas, E. (2014). Are They Discussing in the Same Way? Interactional Metadiscourse in Turkish Writers’ Texts. In A. Lyda, & K. Warchal (Eds.), Occupying Niches: Interculturality, Cross-Culturality and Aculturality in Academic Research (pp. 119-133). London/Berlin: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02526-1_8
Bachschmidt, P. (1999). Construction de l’argumantation dans l’article de recherché en méchanique, differences entre discourse du francophone et de l’anglophone. Asp, 23-26, 197-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/asp.2418
Bayyurt, Y., & Akbas, E. (2014). Akademik metinlerde Kacinma ve Vurgulayici Ifadelerin Lisansüstü Ogrenciler Tarafindan Algilanmasi ve Kullanilmasi (Graduate Students’ Perception and Use of Hedges and Boosters in Academic Texts). Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayi Bildirileri. Ankara: Hacettepe üniversitesi Yayinlari.
Bazerman, C. (1985). Physicists Reading Physics—Schema-Laden Purposes and Purpose Laden Schema. Written Communication, 2, 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088385002001001
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge, the Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Inquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Milton Keynes: SRHE/Open University Press.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024
Biber, D. (2006). University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/scl.23
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial Stance Types in English. Discourse Processes, 11, 1-34. http://dx.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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Breivega, K. R., Dahl, T., & Flottum, K. (2002). Traces of Self and Others in Research Articles: A Comparative Pilot Study of English, French and Norwegian Research Articles in Medicine, Economics and Linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 12, 218-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.00032
Cakir, H. (2011). Türkce ve Ingilizce Bilimsel Makale Ozetlerinde Bilgiyi Kurgulama ve Yazar Kimligini Kodlama Bicimleri (Forms of Constructing Scientific Knowledge and Encoding Writer’s Stance in Turkish and English Research Article Abstracts). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Izmir: Dokuz Eylül University.
Cakir, H., & Fidan, O. (2015). A Contrastive Study of the Rhetorical Structure of Turkish and English Research Article Abstracts. In D. Zeyrek, C. Sagin Simsek, U. Atas, & J. Rehbein (Eds.), Ankara Papers in Turkish and Turkic Linguistics (pp. 367-378). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Cakir, H., & Kansu Yetkiner, N. (2012). Information Packaging in Scientific Discourse Across Disciplines and Languages: Explicitation Hypothesis in Translation Studies Revisited. Paper presented at the International Language, Literature and Stylistics Symposium, Edirne: Trakya University.
Candarli, D. (2012). A Cross-Cultural Investigation of English and Turkish Research Article Abstracts in Educational Sciences. Studies about Languages, 20, 12-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.20.1770
Chafe, W.L. (1986). Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing. In W. L. Chafe, & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology (pp. 261-272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chang, P., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2011). Taking an Effective Authorial Stance in Academic Writing: Making the Linguistic Resources Explicit for L2 Writers in the Social Sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 140-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.05.005
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial Marking of Stance in Speech and Writing. In S. Hunston, & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 56-73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cross, C., & Oppenheim, C. (2006). A Genre Analysis of Scientific Abstracts. Journal of Documentation, 62, 428-446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220410610700953
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual Metadiscourse in Research Articles: A Marker of National Culture or of Academic Discipline. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
Doyuran, Z. (2009). Conciliation of Knowledge through Hedging in Turkish Scientific Articles. Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi/ Journal of Faculty of Letters, 26, 85-99.
Duszak, A. (1994). Academic Discourse and Intellectual Styles. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 291-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90003-5
Ekoc, A. (2008). Analyzing Turkish MA Students’ Use of Lexical Hedging Strategies in Theses Abstracts. Unpublished MA Thesis, Istanbul: Istanbul University.
Emeksiz, E. Z. (2009). Passive Clauses in Turkish Academic Discourse. Communication and Argumentation in Public Sphere, 4.
Emeksiz, E. Z. (2015). Stance Taking and Passive Voice in Turkish Academic Discourse. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 11, 13-22.
Fidan, O., & Cakir, H. (2012). The Use of Verbs in Turkish and English Research Article Abstracts. Paper presented at the International Language, Literature and Stylistics Symposium, Edirne: Trakya University.
Fraser, B. (1980). Conversational Mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 4, 341-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic Markers. Pragmatics, 6, 167-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra
Galebiowski, Z. (2009). Prominent Messages in Education and Applied Linguistic Abstracts: How Do Authors Appeal to their Prospective Reader? Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 753-769. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.009
Getkham, K. (2016). Authorial Stance in Thai Students’ Doctoral Dissertation. English Language Education, 9, 80-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n3p80
Graetz, N. (1985). Teaching EFL Students to Extract Structural Information from Abstracts. In J. M. Ulign, & A. K. Pugh (Eds.), Reading for Professional Purposes: Methods and Materials in Teaching Languages (pp. 123-135). Leuven: Acco.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition. London: Cassell.
Hinkel, E. (2003). Adverbial Markers and Tone in L1 and L2 Students’ Writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1049-1068. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00133-9
Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying Illocutionary Force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 345-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6
Hoye, L. (1997). Adverbs and Modality in English. London: Longman.
Huber, E., & Uzun, L. S. (2000). Dilbilim alaninda Türkce yazilan bilimsel metinler üzerine gozlemler (Observations on Scientific Texts Written in Turkish in Linguistics). In S. Ozsoy, & E. E. Taylan (Eds.), 2000. XIII. Dilbilim Kurultayi Bildirileri (pp. 201-215). Istanbul: Bogazici üniversitesi Yayinlari.
Huckin, T. (2001). Abstracting from Abstracts. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic Writing in Context: Implications and Applications (pp. 93-103). Birmingham: The University of Birmingham Press.
Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and Organization in a Sample of Written Academic Discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp. 191-218). London: Routledge.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.) (2000). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without Conviction: Hedging in Science Research Articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54
Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary Discourses: Writer Stance in Research Articles. In H. Candlin, & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices (pp. 99-121). London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses. Social Interaction in Academic Writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the Reader: Addressee Features in Academic Writing. Written Communication, 18, 549-574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and Invisibility: Authorial Identity in Academic Writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
Hyland, K. (2004). Perspectives on Genre. In K. Hyland (Ed.), Genre and Second Language Writing (pp. 24-50). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the Reader: A Corpus Study of Evaluative That in Abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 123-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002
Jaffe, A. (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001
Kafes, H. (2009). Authorial Stance in Academic English: Native and Non-Native Academic Speaker Writers’ Use of Stance Devices (Modal Verbs) in Research Articles. Unpublished Dissertation, Eskisehir: Anadolu University.
Kafes, H. (2012). Cultural Traces on the Rhetorical Organization of Research Article Abstracts. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 3, 207-220.
Kavanoz, S., & Simsek, S. (2013). Egitim Bilimleri Arastirma Makalelerine Tür-Odakli Yaklasim: Karsilastirmali Cozümleme (A Genre-Based Approach to Research Articles in Educational Sciences: Comparative Analysis). Turkish Studies, 8, 693-710. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.5614
Lorés, R. (2004). On RA Abstracts: From Rhetorical Structure to Thematic Organisation. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 280-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.06.001
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation. New York: Palgrave.
Martín-Martín P. (2002). A Genre Analysis of English and Spanish Research Paper Abstracts in Experimental Social Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 25-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00033-3
Martín-Martín, P., & Burgess, S. (2004). The Rhetorical Management of Academic Criticism in Research Article Abstracts. Text, 24, 171-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text.2004.007
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP Rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Economic Texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I
Melander, B., Swales, J. M., & Fredrickson, K. M. (1997). Journal Abstracts from Three Academic Fields in the United States and Sweden: National or Disciplinary Proclivities? In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse (pp. 251-272). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048.251
Moreno, A. (2004). Retrospective Labelling in Premise-Conclusion Metatext: An English-Spanish Contrastive Study of Research Articles on Business and Economics. Journal of English Academic Purpose, 3, 321-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.005
Oktar, L. (1991). Contrastive Analysis of Specific Rhetorical Relations in English and Turkish Expository Paragraph Writing. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Izmir: Ege University.
Onder Ozdemir, N., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse Use in Thesis Abstracts: A Cross-Cultural Study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011
Reeves, C. (2005). The Language of Science. London: Routledge.
Régent. O. (1985). A Comparative Approach to the Learning of Specialized Written Discourse. In P. Riley (Ed.), Discourse and Learning: Paper in Applied Linguistics and Language Learning from the Centre de Recherches et d’Applications Pédagoques en Languages (pp. 105-120). New York: Longman.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1992). A Text-Type and Move Analysis Study of Verb Tense and Modality Distribution in Medical English Abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 93-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(05)80002-X
Samraj, B. (2002). Disciplinary Variation in Abstracts: The Case of Wildlife Behaviour and Conservation Biology. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 40-56). London: Pearson.
Santos, M. B. D. (1996). The Textual Organization of Research Paper Abstracts in Applied Linguistics. Text, 16, 481-499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1996.16.4.481
Silver, M. (2003). The Stance of Stance: A Critical Look at Ways Stance Is Expressed and Modeled in Academic Discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 359-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00051-1
Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in Research Article Ab-stracts in the Narrative and Hard Sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 327-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00049-3
Stubbs, M. (1986). “A Matter of Prolonged Fieldwork”: Notes towards a Modalgrammar of English. Applied Linguistics, 7, 1-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/7.1.1
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2004). Research Genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827
Tseronis, A. (2009). Qualifying Standpoints: Stance Adverbs as a Presentational Device for Managing the Burden Proof. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT.
ülker Eser, M. (2012). A Comparative Analysis of Thesis Guidelines and Master Thesis Abstracts Written in English at Univer-sities in Turkey and in the USA. Unpublished MA Thesis, Ankara: Middle East Technical University.
Uysal H. H., & Akpinar, K. D. (2008). Cross-Cultural Differences in Turkish, Japanese and Indian Scholars’ Conference Abstracts. The 8th International Language, Literature, and Stylistics Conference, Izmir.
Uysal, H. H. (2012). Argumentation across L1 and L2 Writing: Exploring Cultural Influences and Transfer Issues. VIAL- Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 133-159.
Uysal, H. H. (2014). A Cross-Cultural Study of Indirectness and Hedging in the Conference Proposals of English NS and NNS Scholars. In A. Lyda, & K. Warchal (Eds.), Occupying Niches: Interculturality, Cross-Culturality and Aculturality in Academic Research (pp. 179-195). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02526-1_12
Uzun, L., & Huber, E. (2002). Türkcede Bilgi Yapisi ve Bi-limsel Metinler (Thematic Structure in Turkish and Scientific Texts). Essen: Die Blaue Eule.
Van Bonn, S., & Swales, J. M. (2007). English and French Journal Abstracts in the Language Sciences: Three Exploratory Studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 93-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.04.001
Ventola, E. (1994). Abstracts as an Object of Linguistic Study. In S. Cmejrkova, F. Danes, & E. Havlova (Eds.), Writing vs. Speaking. Language, Text, Discourse, Communication (pp. 333-352). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Yagiz, O., & 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.
Yagiz, O., & Demir, C. (2015). A Comparative Study of Boosting in Academic Texts: A Contrastive Rhetoric. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5, 12-28.
Yakhontova, T. (2002). “Selling” or “Telling”? The Issue of Cultural Variation in Research Genres. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 216-232). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Yakhontova, T. (2006). Cultural and Disciplinary Variation in Academic Discourse: The Issue of Influencing Factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 153-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.03.002
Yarar, E. (2001). Bilimsel ara?tirma makalelerindeki 'giri? bolümleri'nin soylem yapilari. In XIV. Dilbilim Kurultayi Bildirileri (pp. 110-123). Adana: Cukurova üniversitesi Yayinlari.