Boosting, an authorial commitment, and hedging, a authorial mitigating, are two issues interconnected one another with a gaining importance in the last decades (for detail see Gillaerts & Velde, 2010). However, boosting has remained as an issue needing to be studied from different aspects; for instance, cross-linguistic, cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural or comparative while hedging gains a great deal of attention from researchers. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the corpora in terms of statistical inclusion of certainty markers in the research articles written in English by Turkish, Japanese and Anglophonic authors, and then to explain the results obtained through statistical tests in the sense of linguistic and cultural factors. A corpus of total 60 research articles written by 20 Anglophonic authors, 20 Japanese authors, and 20 Turkish authors of English constituted the data for the present study. The data were scanned by researchers of the present study. Having completed the scanning, the words functioning as boosters were categorized in line with the taxonomy created for the present study. Then, the total certainty markers for each group of scholars were calculated and analyzed through ANOVA test. The test results provided whether there were any statistically significant differences among the groups in terms of including boosters in the research papers. Furthermore, the present study formed a boosting list as a result of dictionary scanning, which may be a reference for further studies, and the most and the least used boosters of authors were gathered in the tables.
Awareness of language or language competency has greatly changed from the focus of language itself as form and structure to language use as pragmatics. Accordingly, it is widely accepted that different cultures structure discourse in different ways. Moreover, studies have shown that this holds for discourse genres traditionally considered as highly standardized in their rituals and formulas. Taking inspiration from such studies, this paper employs a corpus-based approach to examine variations of the apology and thanking strategies used in English and Italian. First the apology itself as a form of social action is closely analyzed and then thanking. This study also pays special attention on analyzing and contrasting apology and thanking strategies in American English and in Italian in terms of Marion Owen's remedial strategies (Owen, 1983), and Olshtain & Cohen's semantic formulas in the apology speech act set (Olshtain & Cohen, 1983). The purpose of the study is not only to compare apology and thanking speech acts but to also learn their contextual use. The findings suggest that the status and role of the situation affect the speakers' choice of apology and thanking strategies, and semantic formulas are of great importance.
Bu araştırmanın amacı öğretmenlerin görüşlerine göre okul müdürlerinin karizmatik liderlik özelliklerinin okulların kurumsal itibarına etkisini incelemektir. Araştırmada ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın evrenini 2017 yılı bahar döneminde Kahramanmaraş ili Onikişubat ilçe merkezinde görev yapan 4576 öğretmen oluşturmaktadır. Örneklemi ise evrenden basit tesadüfî örneklem yöntemi ile seçilen 582 öğretmen oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada verilerin toplanması aşamasında Kişisel Bilgi Formu ile Conger ve Kanungo (1994) tarafından geliştirilen Karizmatik Liderlik Ölçeği ve Karaköse (2006) tarafından geliştirilen Kurumsal İtibar Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada verilerin analizinde Bağımsız Gruplar t testi, Tek Yönlü Varyans Analizi, LSD testi, Games Howell Testi, Pearson Korelasyon Analizi ve Regresyon Analizi uygulanmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda okul müdürlerinin karizmatik liderlik özellikleri ile okulların kurumsal itibarı arasında anlamlı bir ilişki gözlenmiş, okul müdürlerinin karizmatik liderlik özelliklerinin okulların kurumsal itibarının bir yordayıcısı olduğu görülmüştür.
Writing in English has always been a formidable obstacle for learners; accordingly, many studies aimed to find not band-aid but complete solutions for learners to improve their writing proficiency. One of these solutions, largely thought to reduce language errors, is error correction. However, instructors seem to be alternating between different corrective feedbacks with the purpose of determining the most efficient one for their students. Previous research largely compared peer feedback and teacher correction and ignored self-editing. In this sense, this study investigated three error correction methods, namely self-editing, peer review, and teacher corrections. To achieve this, three student groups were created and each group, composed of 10 students, was tested with one method. Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U tests were employed for analyses and the results yielded significant differences in terms of all methods concerning comparisons of pre- and post-tests. On the other hand, the test to determine inter-group differences found significant results for the method of teacher correction. Furthermore, the most frequent linguistic errors in students’ writing were revealed. This research contributes to teaching pedagogy by comforting instructors regarding the efficiency of teacher correction and suggests instructors focus on particularly spelling, punctuation, and article to prompt writing development.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.