Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges

Abstract

Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt.
Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges
Hedging is an important metadiscourse device that should be used for various motives particularly in academic writing because it acts as a face-saving strategy and represents the certainty of the scientists’ knowledge on the study field, but nevertheless it is not an obvious consideration for many non-native writers of English. Although the significance of hedging in academic writing is beyond argument, excessive use of it may create a counter-productive result. In other words while underuse of hedging may lead to overstatement, overuse of it may bring about suspicions on the credibility of the statements, therefore a moderate and balanced used of hedging is a necessary for the true credibility of the author on the reader. In this regard, the present study investigated academic texts of native writers and non-native writers of English with purposes of revealing the differences between them in terms of hedging strategies while composing an academic text; detecting lexical hedges used by native writers and non-native writers of English and diversity of these hedges through some analyses; creating a list of lexical hedges; and offering some suggestions regarding the use of lexical hedges in academic writing.
Information about Author(s)*
Author 1
Author (Last name, First name)	Demir, Cüneyt
Affiliated institution (University)	Siirt University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No) Write only one corresponding author.	Yes
Author 2
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 3
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 4
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)

Keywords

• Hedging; academic writing; metadiscourse; downtoner; mitigation

Kaynakça

1. Adams-Smith, D. E. (1984). Medical discourse: aspects of author's comment. The ESP Journal, 3,25-36.
2. Akbas, E. (2014). Are They Discussing in the Same Way? Interactional Metadiscourse in Turkish Writers’ Texts. In A. Łyda, & K. Warchał, Occupying Niches: Interculturality, Cross-culturality and Aculturality in Academic Research (pp. 119-133). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
3. Biook, B., & Mohseni, F. (2014). The Use of Hedginh in Research Articles. Journal of Current Research in Science, 2(4):474-477.
4. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody, Questions and politeness (pp. 56-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2004). Righting English that's gone Dutch. Kemper Conseil Publishing.
7. Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287.
8. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95-113.

9. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1997). On the writing of science and the science of writing: Hedging in science text and elsewhere. In R. Markkanen, & H. Schröder, Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts (pp. 151-167). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
10. Hamamcı, Z. (2007). The Use of Hedges in Research Articles by Turkish Interlanguage Speakers of English and Native English Speakers in the Field of Social Sciences (master's thesis). Adana, Turkey: The University of Çukurova.
11. Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 361–386.
12. Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching Academic ESL Writing. New York: Routledge.
13. Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP. English for Specific Purposes, 3:239-256.
14. Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the Academy: Forms of Hedging in Science Research Articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251-281.
15. Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. The Journal of Business Communication, 35:224-245.
16. Hyland, K. (1998b). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
17. Hyland, K. (1998c). Boosting, hedging, and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349-382.
18. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.
19. Hyland, K. (2001). Definitely a possible explanation: Epistemic modality in academic argument. In M. Gotti, & M. Dossena, Modality in Specialized Texts: Selected Papers of the 1st CERLIS Conference (pp. 291-310). Bergamo: P. Lang.
20. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. New York: Continuum.
21. Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205.
22. Iida, E. (2007). Hedges in Japanese English and American English Medical Research Articles. Montreal: McGill University.
23. Koutsantoni, D. (2004). Attitude, certainty and allusions to common knowledge in scientific research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3:163-182, doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2003.08.001.
24. Lafuente-Millan, E. (2014). Reader engagement across cultures, languages and contexts of publication in business research articles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24: 201-233, doi: 10.1111/ijal.12019.
25. Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458-508.
26. Leech, G. (2004). Meaning and the English verb (3rd edition). Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
27. Meyer, P. G. (1997). Hedging strategies in written academic discourse: Strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In R. Markkanen, & H. Schrôder, Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 21-41). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
28. Ozdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse Use in Thesis Abstracts: A Cross-cultural Study. WCLTA (pp. 59-63, doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011). Barcelona: Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 141.
29. Perez-Llantada, C. (2010). The discourse functions of metadiscourse in published academic writing: issues of culture and language. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9: 41-68.
30. Prince, E. F., Frader, J., & Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. R. J. Di Pietro içinde, Linguistics and the professions (s. 83-97). Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex.
31. Rubio, M. M. (2011). pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 258-271.
32. Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2): 149-170.
33. Salek, M. (2014). A Diagram of Interactive and Interactional Markers in Different Parts of English Research Articles. Journal of Language Sciences & Linguistics, 2(3):55-66.
34. Sanjaya, N. S. (2013). Hedging and Boosting in English and Indonesian Research Articles (PhD Dissertation). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University.
35. Schreiber, J., & Asner-Self, K. (2011). Educational Research: The Interrelationship of Questions, Sampling, Design, and Analysis. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
36. Skelton, J. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT journal, 42(1), 37-43.
37. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
38. Uysal, H. (2014). A Cross-cultural Study of Indirectness and Hedging in the Conference Proposals of English NS and NNS Scholars. Occupying Niches: Interculturality, Cross-culturality and Aculturality in Academic Research, 179-195.
39. Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20:83-102.
40. Vázquez, I., & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond mood and modality: Epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles. A cross-disciplinary study. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 171-190.
41. Yağız, O., & Demir, C. (2014). Hedging strategies in academic discourse: A comparative analysis of Turkish writers and native writers of English. 14th International Language, Literature and Stylistics Symposium (pp. 260-268). İzmir: Dokuz Eylul University.
42. Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50:23-36.