The Use of Hedging in Research Articles on Applied Linguistics

Open access

Abstract

This paper is devoted to the analysis of the use of hedging in a corpus of articles from applied linguistics, and in this sense, it is complementary to the previous research of academic persuasion in research articles (Hinkel, 1997; Hyland, 1996, 2004). This study examined the types and frequency of hedges employed by the authors of academic research articles (RAs) in the field of applied linguistics. A corpus consists of 20 research articles, randomly selected from the Open Access Journals on Educational linguistics (5 RAs), Psycholinguistics (5 RAs), Sociolinguistics (5 RAs) and Pragmatics (5 RAs) The data were manually coded according to Hyland’s taxonomy of hedges and hedging devices (Hyland, 1996) and then formatted to calculate the frequency and type of hedges in RAs on Applied Linguistics. Results of the study indicate that reader-oriented hedges constitute the main pragmatic type of hedges in RAs in the field of applied linguistics, recognizing the need for reader’s ratification of the author’s claims and politeness conventions of academic discourse per se. Combination of qualitative and quantitative methods applied to computer readable data proved that hedges in RAs on Applied Linguistics are topic dependent, showing differences in typology, frequency and distribution even within one discipline.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Bereiter C. & Scardamalia M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. NJ:Erlbaum.

  • 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.

  • Blagojevic S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian native speakers. Kalbu Studijos (Studies about Languages) 5 from http://www.kalbos.It/txt/5/08/htm.

  • Çakır H. (2016). Native and Non-Native Writers’ Use of Stance Adverbs in English Research Article Abstracts Open Journal of Modern Linguistics 2016 6 85-96 http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2016.62008.

  • Clark R. & Ivanic R. (1997). The politics of writing. London UK: Routledge.

  • Clyne M. (1991). The sociolinguistic dimension: The dilemma of the German-speaking scholar. In H. Schroder (Eds) Subject-oriented texts: Languages for special purposes and text theory (pp. 49-68). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.

  • 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.

  • Crompton P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: some theorethical problems. English for Specific Purposes 16(4) 271-287. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/478555/Hedging_in_academic_writing_Some_theoretical_problems.

  • Ernst T. B. (1984). Towards an integrated theory of adverb position in English. Indiana Linguistics Club.

  • Grabe W. & Kaplan R. B. (1997) Theory and practice of writing: an applied linguistic perspective. Harlow: Pearson Education.

  • Hinkel E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 27 361-386.

  • Hinkel E. (2005). Hedging inflating and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning 15(1) 29-53.

  • Holmes J. (1984). Modifying İllocutionary Force. Journal of Pragmatics 8 345-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6.

  • 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. (2017) Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics 113 16-29 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007.

  • 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.

  • Kreutz H. & Harres A. (1997). Some observations on the distribution and function of hedging in German and English academic writing. In Duszuk A. (Ed.) Culture and styles in academic discourse. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin pp.181-202.

  • Lakoff G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers 8 183-228.

  • Lewin B. (1998) Hedging: Form and Function in Scientific Research Texts. Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes. Vol. 9. Filologia pp. 89-108.

  • Markkanen R. & Schroder H. (1997). Hedging: a challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In Markkanen R. Schroder H. (Eds.) Hedging and discourse: approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts pp. 3-20. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Matsuda P.K. (2015) Identity in written discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 35 140-159. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000178.

  • Mauranen A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 12 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I.

  • McCutchen D. (2011). From novice to expert: implications of language skills and writing-relevant knowledge for memory during the development of writing skill. Journal of writing research 3(1) 51-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2011.03.01.3.

  • Meyer P. (1997). Hedging strategies in written academic discourse: Strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In Markkanen R. Schroder H. (Eds.) Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts pp.21-41. Berlin New York: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Myers G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics 10 pp.1-35.

  • Nelson N. & Castello M. (2012) Academic writing and authorial voice. doi: 10.1108/S1572-6304(2012)0000024007.

  • Prince E. Frader J. & Bosk C. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In R. D. Pietro (Eds.) Linguistics and the professions Hillsdale NJ: Ablex.

  • Rounds P. (1982). Hedging in written academic discourse: Precision and flexibility. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan. Mimeo.

  • Salager-Meyer F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes 13(2) 149–170.

  • Salager-Meyer F. (1997). I think that perhaps you should: A study of hedges in written scientific discourse. In T. Miller (ed.) Functional approaches to written texts: Classroom applications (pp. 127–143). Washington DC: United States Information Agency.

  • Salager-Meyer F. (1998). Language is not a physical object. English for Specific Purposes 17 295-303.

  • Skelton J. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal. 42(1) 37-43. doi: 10.1093/elt/42.1.37.

  • Vassileva I. (1997). Hedging in English and Bulgarian academic writing culture and style in academic discourse. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin.

  • Vassileva I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing English for Specific Purposes 20(1) 83-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0.

  • Vazquez I. & Giner D. (2009). Writing with conviction: the use of boosters in modeling persuasion in academic discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 22 (2009) 219-237. https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2009.22.14.

  • Ventola E. (1997). Modalization: Probability – an Exploration into its Role in Academic Writing. In Duszak A. (Ed.) Culture and Styles in Academic Discourse. Mounton de Gruyter: Berlin pp.157-180.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 78 78 15
PDF Downloads 84 84 22