ARTICLE

SOFTENING THE PROPOSITIONAL CLAIMS INVESTIGATION OF APPROPRIATE USE OF HEDGING STRATEGIES IN ACADEMIC WRITING

  1. HOME
  2. ARTICLE

35 Pages : 429-441

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/glr.2022(VII-II).35      10.31703/glr.2022(VII-II).35      Published : Jun 2022

Softening the Propositional Claims: Investigation of Appropriate Use of Hedging Strategies in Academic Writing

Abstract

    The current study examines the appropriate usage of hedging strategies in the discussion sections of doctoral dissertations in applied linguistics produced by American and Pakistani writers. To do this, a corpus of 50 discussion sections from doctoral dissertations completed between 2018 and 2020 has been compiled. The primary objective of the current study is to examine the hedging strategies utilized in the discussion part to soften the propositional assertions. Martin’s (2008) taxonomy of hedging strategies was utilized to categorize the various types of hedges found in the texts. A computer concordancing tool (AntConc 3.4) was used in order to analyze two corpora for quantification, which was further supplemented with manual analysis. The findings indicated that American writers utilized more hedging devices in their discussion sections, whereas Pakistani writers used fewer hedging tactics. The findings of this study have implications for academic writing and EFL writing instruction.

    Hedging Strategies, Discussion Section; Doctoral Dissertations; Academic Writing

    (1) Tania Laghari
    Assistant Professor, Department of English, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, Shaheed Benarzirabad, Sindh, Pakistan.
    (2) Tahreem Akhter
    Language Academy, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, University Teknologi Malaysia, Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, Kuala Lumpur.
    (3) Inayatullah Kakepoto
    Department of English, Quaid-e- Awam University of Engineering, Science & Technology, Nawabshah, Sindh, Pakistan.
Fulltext PDF

References

  • Alley, M. (1987). The Craft of Scientific Writing. New York: Springer.
  • Atkinson, D. (1998). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the royal society of London, 1675-1975. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
  • Benesch, H. (2008). Buildings, change, futurity – reading Seattle public library and Sendai mediateque. Proceedings of Design Inquiries, May. (27-30). Sweden: Stockholm.
  • Booth, V. (1985). Communication in science: Writing and speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bruffee, K. (1986). Social construction: Language and the authority of knowledge. A bibliographical essay. College English, 48(8), 773-779. https://www.jstor.org/stable/376723
  • Channell, J. (1994). Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Clyne, M. (1988). Cross-cultural responses to academic discourse patterns. Folia Linguistica, 22(4), 455--475. https://doi,org/10.15760/etd.5968
  • Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional discourse. In W. Nash (Eds.), The writing scholar: Studies in the language and conventions of academic discourse (118-136). Newbury Park: Sage Publication.
  • Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807–1825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
  • Drury, J. (2001). Extending usability inspection evaluation techniques for synchronous collaborative computing applications. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts. Lowell.
  • Falahati, R. (2004). A contrastive study of hedging in English and Farsi academic discourse. (Master’s Thesis, University of Victoria).
  • Fryer, D. L. (2012). Analysis of the generic discourse features of the English language medical research article: A systemic-functional approach . Functions of Language, 19 (1), 5-37. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.19.1.01fry
  • Fulmiler, S. (2002). Introduction: Genre analysis and world Englishes. New York: Arnold.
  • etkham, K. (2011). Hedging devices in applied linguistics research articles. Interdisciplinary Discourses in Language and Communication, 141-154. https://doi.org/10.1515/glot-2020- 2013
  • Gilbert, G. N., & Muikay, M. (1984). Opening the pandora box: A sociological analysis of scientific discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hedge, M. N. (1994). A coursebook on scientific and professional writing in speech language pathology. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
  • Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 14, 29–54.
  • Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese- medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795-2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
  • Hubler, A. (1983). Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Hyland, K. (1995). The Author in the text: Hedging scientific writing. Hong Kong papers in linguistics and language teaching, 18, 33-42.
  • Hyland, K. (1996). Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433
  • Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles (Vol. 54). John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written communication, 18(4), 549-574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005
  • Irvin, L. (2010). What is “academic” writing?. In C. Lowe, & P. Zemliansky (Eds.), Writing spaces: Reading and writing (03- 17). NJ: Parlor Press.
  • Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458-508. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262952
  • Lorés-Sanz, R., Mur-Dueñas, P., & Lafuente-Millán, E. (2010). Introduction. In R. LorésSanz, P. Mur-Dueñas, & E. Lafuente-Millán (Eds.), Constructing Interpersonality (2- 10). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Markkanen, R. & Schroder, H. (1997). Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In R. Markkanen, & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (3-18). Berlid New York: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Musa, A. (2014). Hedging in academic writing: A pragmatic analysis of English and Chemistry masters’ theses in a Ghanaian university. English for Specific Purposes, 42(15), 1-26. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1- 35. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1
  • Myers, G. (1996). Public understanding of science and forms of popularizations. In E. Ventola, & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing today and tomorrow, (33-44). Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
  • Nasiri, S. (2012). Utilization of hedging devices by American and Iranian researchers in the field of civil engineering. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), 124-133. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i2.1494
  • Nguyen Thi Thuy, T. (2018). A corpus-based study on cross-cultural divergence in the use of hedges in academic research articles written by Vietnamese and native English-speaking authors. Social Sciences, 7(4), https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7040070
  • Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
  • Salager-Meyer, F. (1991). A genre-based and text- type analysis of hedging in written medical English discourse (1980-1990). Interface, 6, 33- 54.
  • Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/08894906(94)90013-2
  • Vande, K. W. J. & Crismore, A. (1990). Readers' reactions to hedges in a science textbook. Linguistics and Education, 2, 303-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895898(05)80024-5
  • Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 83--102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S08894906(99)00029- 0
  • Varttala, T. (1999). Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine. English for specific purposes, 18(2), 177-200 https://doi.org/10.1016/S08894906(98)00007- 6
  • Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse. Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. Tampere University Press.
  • 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.
  • Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008
  • Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353 https://doi.org/10.1016/S00199958(65)90241- X
  • Zemach, D. E., & Rumisek, L. A. (2005). Academic writing from paragraph to essay. Oxford: Macmillan.
  • Zuck, J. G., & Zuck, L. V. (1986). Hedging in newswriting. In A.M. Cornu, J. Van Parjis, M. Delahaye & L. Baten (Eds), Beads or bracelets? How do we approach LSP, Selected papers from the Jifth European symposium on LSP (172-1 80). Oxford: OUP.

Cite this article

APA

    APA : Laghari, T., Akhter, T., & Kakepoto, I. (2022). Softening the Propositional Claims: Investigation of Appropriate Use of Hedging Strategies in Academic Writing. Global Language Review, VII(II), 429-441. https://doi.org/10.31703/glr.2022(VII-II).35

CHICAGO

    CHICAGO : Laghari, Tania, Tahreem Akhter, and Inayatullah Kakepoto. 2022. "Softening the Propositional Claims: Investigation of Appropriate Use of Hedging Strategies in Academic Writing." Global Language Review, VII (II): 429-441 doi: 10.31703/glr.2022(VII-II).35

HARVARD

    HARVARD : LAGHARI, T., AKHTER, T. & KAKEPOTO, I. 2022. Softening the Propositional Claims: Investigation of Appropriate Use of Hedging Strategies in Academic Writing. Global Language Review, VII, 429-441.

MHRA

    MHRA : Laghari, Tania, Tahreem Akhter, and Inayatullah Kakepoto. 2022. "Softening the Propositional Claims: Investigation of Appropriate Use of Hedging Strategies in Academic Writing." Global Language Review, VII: 429-441

MLA

    MLA : Laghari, Tania, Tahreem Akhter, and Inayatullah Kakepoto. "Softening the Propositional Claims: Investigation of Appropriate Use of Hedging Strategies in Academic Writing." Global Language Review, VII.II (2022): 429-441 Print.

OXFORD

    OXFORD : Laghari, Tania, Akhter, Tahreem, and Kakepoto, Inayatullah (2022), "Softening the Propositional Claims: Investigation of Appropriate Use of Hedging Strategies in Academic Writing", Global Language Review, VII (II), 429-441

TURABIAN

    TURABIAN : Laghari, Tania, Tahreem Akhter, and Inayatullah Kakepoto. "Softening the Propositional Claims: Investigation of Appropriate Use of Hedging Strategies in Academic Writing." Global Language Review VII, no. II (2022): 429-441. https://doi.org/10.31703/glr.2022(VII-II).35