Stance taking and passive voice in Turkish

Zeynep Erk Emeksiz

Abstract


This study aims at describing the functions of passive voice and how authors reflect their stance through those functions in Turkish academic discourse. Depending on the findings of a corpus based research, this study makes a counterpoint to functionalist views on the ground that passivization does not necessarily result in promoting agents in discourse, and it may not reflect the preference and perspective of writers when used under structural constraints. This study proposes a source-based pattern for the use of passive voice in academic discourse. The distribution of the passive clauses show that writers use passive clauses for different purposes depending on the source of information in epistemic sense. When the source is the writers, they make use of passive voice in four contexts: referring to a phase of their research, guiding the readers to some part of the text, making claims, predictions and suggestions. The writers prefer the passive voice in two contexts when the source is the others: Citing the contemporary work and reporting generic assumptions and shared knowledge. 


Keywords


Epistemic stance; passive voice; agency; scientific discourse; Turkish

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aikhenvald, A. (2004).Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baratta, A.M. (2009). Revealing stance through passive voice. Journal of pragmatics, 41 (7).

Biber, D. And E. Finegan. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9 (1)

Charles, M. (2006). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross disciplinary study of thesis. Applied Linguistics 27 (3)

Cornelis, L. (1997). Passive and perspective. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Dik, S. C. (1989). The Theory of Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.

Erguvanlı, T. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. University of California Publications in Linguistics.

Fabb, N. (1997) Linguistics and Literature. Oxford: Blackwell.

Givon, T. (2001). Syntax. Volume 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Company.

Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. (2nd ed.). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University Press.

Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Pique, J, Posteguillo, S and V. Andreu-Beso. (2001). A pragmatic analysis framework for the description of modality usage in academic english contexts. ELIA 2.

Poudat, C. and Loiseau, S. (2005). Authorial presence in academic genres. In Tognini-Bonelli, E. (Ed.) Strategies in academic discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Tarone, Elaine. (1981). Some Thoughts on the Notion of Communication Strategy. TESOL Quarterly 15 (3)

Tomlin, R. S. (1997). Mapping conceptual representations into linguistic representations: The role of attention in grammar. .In J. Nuyts and E. peterson (Eds.). Language and conceptualization (pp. 167-189)

Wilkinson, A. M. (1992). Jargon and passive voice: prescriptions and proscriptions for scientific writing’. Journal of technical writing and communication, vol. 22


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies
ISSN 1305-578X (Online)
Copyright © 2005-2022 by Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies