Hedging in the Discussion Sections of English and Malay Educational Research Articles
Abstract
Academic writers resort to hedging as one of the interpersonal metadiscourse categories needed to present their findings cautiously in the hope that their research contribution can be accepted by the academic community. Such acceptance, to a great extent, depends on how propositions and claims are presented to the academic community. The purpose of the present study was to compare and contrast the hedges used in the Discussion sections of educational research articles in English with those in Malay. To provide additional insights, information was elicited from both English and Malay specialist informants on their perceptions of hedging in research article writing. This study contributes to an understanding on the use of hedges throughout the Discussion sections of the research articles from the two languages and possible contextual and socio-cultural factors which may have influenced their use. The corpus of the present study is made up of the Discussion sections of English and Malay research articles published between 2012 and 2017. The analytical framework of this study is based on Hyland’s (1996) four hedging functions, which are writer-oriented, attribute-oriented, reliability-oriented, and reader-oriented. Our analysis shows that overall, hedges are found in more English than Malay discussions. The greater number of hedges in the English data is in principle expected as English is a remarkably hedging culture. A closer examination reveals that English writers tend to subtly bring the value of the writer’s contribution to the fore, tone down the force of the arguments, and bring forth the tentative nature of the conclusion drawn on the issue examined. The findings provide pedagogical implications in an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classroom.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Ahmad, U. K. (1997). Scientific Research Articles in Malay: A Situated Discourse Analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Algi, S. (2012). Hedges and Boosters in L1 and L2 Argumentative Essays: Implications for Teaching L2 Academic Writing. Unpublished Master thesis submitted to Middle East Technical University.
Ali, S. A., Chua, C. M. & Siti Jamilah Bidin (2012), Hedges and boosters in the Yemeni EFL undergraduates’ persuasive essay: An empirical study. The Internet Journal of Language, Culture and Society. Vol. 34, 1-12.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing Genre; Language We Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
Bloor, M. & Bloor, T. (1993). How economists modify propositions. In Henderson, W., Dudley-Evans, T., Backhouse, R. (Eds.), Economics and Language (pp. 53-169). Routledge, London/New York.
Bonyadi, A., Gholami, J. & Nasiri, S. (2012). A contrastive study of hedging in environmental sciences research articles. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Vol. 3(6), 1186-1193.
Brooke, J. (2016). Differences in hedging in L1 and L2 English essays across two genres. Unpublished Master thesis, Michigan State University, USA.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, P. & Schleppegrell, M. (2011). Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol. 10, 140-151.
Crompton, P. (1997). ‘Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems.’ English for Specific Purposes. Vol. 16(4), 271-287.
Darl, T. (2008). Contributing to the academic conversation: A study of new knowledge claims in economics and linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 40, 1184-1201.
Deng, Y.-C. & Liu, R.-Q. (1989). 语言与⽂化. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版.
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2016). Cross-Cultural Variation in the Use of Hedges and Boosters in Academic Discourse. Prague Journal of English Studies. Vol. 5(1), 163-184.
Doyuran, Z. (2009). Conciliation of knowledge through Hedging in Turkish Scientific Articles. Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi/Journal of Faculty of Letters. Vol. 26(1), 85-99.
Duszak, A. (1994). Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 21(3), 291-313.
Elheky M. A. (2018) Hedging in scientific and social texts: A comparative analysis of business and social texts. Scholar Journal of Applied Sciences and Research. Vol. 1(7), 94-103.
Falahati, R. (2004). A contrastive study of hedging in English and Farsi academic discourse. Unpublished MA thesis. Tehran: University of Tehran, Department of Linguistics.
Hashemi, M. R. & Shirzadi, D. (2016). The use of hedging in discussion sections of applied linguistics research articles with varied research methods. International Journal of Academic Research and Development. Vol. 35(1), 31-56.
Hassani, Mohammad Taghi & Motahareh, Dastjani Farahani. (2014). A discourse analysis of gender differences in the use of hedging devices in applied linguistics research articles. English Language Teaching. Vol.1(1), 59-73.
Hinkel, E. (1995). The use of modal verbs as a reflection of cultural values. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 29(2), 325-343.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes. Vol. 13, 239-256.
Hyland, K. (1995). The author in the text: Hedging in scientific writing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching. Vol. 18, 33-42.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 17(4), 433-454.
Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT. Vol. 18(3), 349- 382.
Jalilifar, A. R. (2011). World of attitudes in research article discussion sections: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Technology & Education. Vol. 5(3), 177-186.
Jogthong, C. (2001). Research article introductions in Thai: Genre analysis of academic writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of West Virginia, Morgantown.
Joseph, R, & Lim, J. M. H. (2018). Background information in the Discussion sections of Forestry journals: A case study. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. Vol. 18(1), 198-216.
Kang, Y.-H. (2006). Analysis of English writing’s contrast and difference between Chinese and Western students. 学刊教外版. Vol. 12, 112–114.
Kwachka, P. & Basham, C. (1990). Literacy acts and cultural artifacts. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 14, 413-429.
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers. Vol. 8, 183-228.
Li, J.-Y. (2007). 汉语思维方式在英语写作中的语用分析.沈阳航空工业学院学报. Vol. 24(6), 55–57.
Li, Z. (2000). Improving students’ writing ability in a semantic coherence perspective. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages. Vol. 23(3), 51–54.
Li, T. & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol. 11, 345-356.
Lim, M. H. (2003). A genre-based study of research articles on human resource management. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Malaya.
Lim, J. M. H. (2014). Formulating research questions in experimental doctoral dissertations on Applied Linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 35, 66-88.
Liu, C. (2007). The empirical study on the use of metadiscourse in argumentative writing. Journal of Hebei Normal University of Science & Technology (Social Science). Vol. 6(1), 29-33.
Loi, C. K., Lim, J. M. H. & Wharton, S. (2016). Expressing an evaluative stance in English and Malay research article conclusions: International publications versus local publications. Journal of English for Academic Purpose. Vol. 21, 1-16.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes. Vol. 12(1), 3-22.
McCrae, R. R., Kurtz, J. E., Yamagata, S. & Terracciano, A. (2010). Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and Social Psychology Review. Vol. 15 (1), 28-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310366253
Milton, J. & Hyland, K. (1999). Assertions in students’ academic essays: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. In R. Berry, B. Asker, K. Hyland, & M. Lam (Eds.), Language Analysis, Description and Pedagogy (pp. 147-161). Hong Kong: HKUST.
Mirzapour, F. (2016). Gender differences in the use of hedges and first person pronouns in research articles of applied linguistics and chemistry. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature. Vol. 5(6), 166-173.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 10, 1-35.
Myers, G. (1992). ‘In this paper we report…’ speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 17, 295-313.
Nash, W. (ed.) (1990). The Writing Scholar Studies in Academic Discourse. Newbury Park, CA Sage Palmer, F 1990 Modality and the English Modals (2nd ed.) London Longman.
Nivales, M. L. M. (2011). Hedging in college research Papers: Implications for language instruction. Asian EFL Journal, Vol. 52, 35-45.
Nur Ainil Sulaiman, Khazriyati Salehuddin & Rozainee Khairuddin. (2018). Academic word list knowledge of Malaysian ESL undergraduates, GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. Vol. 18(4), 1-14. http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2018-1804-01
Powell, M. (1985). Purposive vagueness: An evaluation dimension of vague quantifying expressions. Journal of Linguistics. Vol. 21, 31-50.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes. Vol. 13, 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 Text: Classroom Applications. Washington, D.C: United States Information Agency.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics in G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 21-42). New York: Oxford University.
Shim, E. (2005). Explicit writing instruction in higher educational contexts: Genre analysis of research article introductions from the English Teaching and TESOL Quarterly Journals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Skelton, J. (1988). Comments in academic articles. In P. Grunwell (Eds.), Applied Linguistics in Society London: CILT/BAAL.
Taylor, G. & Chen, T. (1991). Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 12(3), 319-336.
Thi Thuy, T. N. (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. Vol. 7(70), 1-13.
Tran, T. Q. & Duong, T. M. (2013). Hedging: A comparative study of research article results and discussion section in applied linguistics and chemical engineering. English for Specific Purposes World. Vol. 14 (41), 2-13.
Varttala, T. A. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse: Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. Unpublished Ph. D dissertation. Finland: University of Tampereen Yliopisto.
Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes. Vol. 20, 83-102.
Wishnoff, J.R. (2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computed-mediated discourse. Second Language Studies. Vol. 19(1), 119-148.
Xu, H.-M., & Gong, S.-L. (2006). An investigation into the correlation between use of metadiscourse markers and writing quality. Modern Foreign Languages (Quarterly), 29(1), 54-61.
Yang, H. (2006). A comparative study of scientific hedging by Chinese writers and English writers. Language Education Papers. Vol. 3(3), 58-62.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-1901-03
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
eISSN : 2550-2131
ISSN : 1675-8021