Using hedges in research articles of applied linguistics: Native and non-native patterns
List of Authors
  • Sahragard, Rahman

Keyword
  • Hedging, shield, approximator, emotionally-charged hedges, research article

Abstract
  • Students and researchers need to be able to master hedging as one of the most significant resources for academics in order to be recognised as members of a scientific community and get their papers published in journals whose language of publication is English. This paper presents the results of reviewing 100 English language research articles (RAs) in applied linguistics, discussing the importance, frequency and distribution of hedging categories in different sections of RAs (namely Abstract, Introduction, Method, and Results) authored by native (NESs) and non-native speakers (NNESs) through employing Salager– Mayer’s (1994) classification. The analysis of Chi–square was conducted and the observed value of Chi-square (x2=5049.7≥ x 2 obs= 3.84, df =1) showed that NESs and NNESs differed significantly in using hedges in their RAs. The findings indicated that in all sections but Introduction, non–native speakers outperformed their native counterparts in employing different hedging categories. NESs had hedged 48.7 times more than expected in the Introduction part while the frequency of hedges in other sections was lower than the expected rate; however, this rate was not the same for NNEs. Accordingly, the Introduction part may be considered as one of the major sections on which NNESs need to be given instructions to hedge as much as expected. NNESs must move beyond the view that the Introduction section of RAs is merely a detached and factual section which should be reported directly without reviewing the literature embedded therein.

Reference
  • 1. Arjmand, J. & Fathi, J. (2011). A comparative study of the Use of Hedging in the introduction and Discussion sections of English medical articles written by English native speakers and Iranians. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
    2. Bloor, M. & Bloor, T. (1993). How Economics Modify Propositions. In W. Henderson, T. DudleyEvans, & R. Backhouse (Eds.), Economics and language (153-169). London: Routledge.
    3. Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    4. Byron, D. K. & Heeman, P. A. (1997) Discourse marker use in task–oriented spoken dialogue. Retrieved February 22, 2012, from http://www.isca-speech.org/archive.
    5. Coates, J. (1987). Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of Philological Society, 85, 100-131.
    6. Conner, U. & Mbaye, A. (2002). Discourse approaches to writing assessment. Annual review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 263-278.
    7. Crystal, D. (1995). In search of English: A traveler’s guide. ELT Journal, 49, 107-121.
    8. Dueñas, P.M. (2009). Designing EAP materials based on intercultural corpus analysis: The case of logical markers in research articles. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 9, 125–136.
    9. Dastjerdi, H. V. & Shirzad, M. (2010). The impact of explicit instruction of metadiscourse markers on EFL learners' writing performance. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2(2), 155–175.
    10. Holmes, J. (1998). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9 (1), 22-45.
    11. Hyland, K. (1994|). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13 (3), 239-256.
    12. Hyland, K. (1995). The author in the text: hedging scientific writing. Linguistics and Language teaching, 18, 33-42.
    13. Hyland, K. (1996).Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum. System, 24 (4), 477-490.
    14. Hyland, K. (1996b). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454.
    15. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins publishing Company.
    16. Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters, and lexical invisibility: noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9 (4), 179-197.
    17. Jucker, A. H. (1993). The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 435–452.
    18. Markkanen, R & Schröder, H. (1988). Hedging as a translation problem in scientific texts. In C. Lauren & M. Nordman (Eds.) Special Language: From human thinking to thinking machines (pp. 171-180). Clevedon: Roultedge.
    19. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-30.
    20. Paltridge, B. (1993). Writing up research: A systematic functional perspective. System, 21(2), 175- 192.
    21. Paltridge, B & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: a handbook for supervisors. New York: Routledge.
    22. Parkinson, J. (2011). The Discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for specific purposes, 30,164-175.
    23. Prince, E. F., Frader, R. J. & Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician- physician discourse. In J. di Prieto (Ed.), Linguistics and the Professional (pp. 83-97). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing corporation.
    24. Rounds, P. (1981). On hedging in social science written texts. University of Michigan (Mimeo).
    25. Rounds, P. (1982). Hedging in Written Academic Discourse: Precision and Flexibility. University of Michigan (Mimeo).
    26. Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedging and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2). 149-170.
    27. Selinker, L. (1979). On the use of informants in discourse analysis and language for specialized purposes. IRAL. 27(3). 1-25.
    28. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    29. Schourup, L.C. (1982). Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York: Garland.
    30. Skelton, j. (1988). Care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal, 42, 37-43.
    31. Swales, J. (1987). Utilizing the literatures in teaching the research papers. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 41-66.
    32. Taylor, G. & Tingguang, C. (1991). Linguistic, cultural and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied Linguistics, 12(3), 319-336.
    33. Trimble, L. (1985). English for Science and Technology: A Discourse Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    34. Warschauer, M. & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 1-24.
    35. Warschauer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 511-535.
    36. West, K. (1980). That-nominal constructions in traditional rhetorical divisions of scientific research papers. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 483-488.
    37. Weigle,S.C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    38. Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Discourse Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
    39. Wishnoff, J.R. (2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second Language Studies, 19(1), 119-148.
    40. Yang, Y. (2003). A Contrastive Study of Hedges in English and Chinese Academic Discourse. Unpublished MA Thesis, Jilin Universitry, Changchun, China.
    41. Zuck, j. G. & Zuck, L. V. (1987). Hedging in newswriting. In A. M. Cornu, J. Vanparijs, & M. Delahaye (Eds.), Beads or bracelets: how do we approach LSP? (172 – 181).Belgium: Oxford University Press.