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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.