Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 4, 74 - 92, 15.12.2018

Cüneyt Demir

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Adams-Smith, D. E. (1984). Medical discourse: aspects of author's comment. The ESP Journal, 3,25-36.
  • 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.
  • Biook, B., & Mohseni, F. (2014). The Use of Hedginh in Research Articles. Journal of Current Research in Science, 2(4):474-477.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody, Questions and politeness (pp. 56-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2004). Righting English that's gone Dutch. Kemper Conseil Publishing.
  • Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 361–386.
  • Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching Academic ESL Writing. New York: Routledge.
  • Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP. English for Specific Purposes, 3:239-256.
  • Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the Academy: Forms of Hedging in Science Research Articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251-281.
  • Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. The Journal of Business Communication, 35:224-245.
  • Hyland, K. (1998b). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Hyland, K. (1998c). Boosting, hedging, and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349-382.
  • Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.
  • 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.
  • Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. New York: Continuum.
  • Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205.
  • Iida, E. (2007). Hedges in Japanese English and American English Medical Research Articles. Montreal: McGill University.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458-508.
  • Leech, G. (2004). Meaning and the English verb (3rd edition). Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2): 149-170.
  • 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.
  • Sanjaya, N. S. (2013). Hedging and Boosting in English and Indonesian Research Articles (PhD Dissertation). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University.
  • Schreiber, J., & Asner-Self, K. (2011). Educational Research: The Interrelationship of Questions, Sampling, Design, and Analysis. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Skelton, J. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT journal, 42(1), 37-43.
  • Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
  • 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.
  • Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20:83-102.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 4, 74 - 92, 15.12.2018

Cüneyt Demir

Öz

























































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

 ardgelen@hotmail.com

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)

 

 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hedging; academic writing; metadiscourse; downtoner; mitigation

Kaynakça

  • Adams-Smith, D. E. (1984). Medical discourse: aspects of author's comment. The ESP Journal, 3,25-36.
  • 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.
  • Biook, B., & Mohseni, F. (2014). The Use of Hedginh in Research Articles. Journal of Current Research in Science, 2(4):474-477.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody, Questions and politeness (pp. 56-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2004). Righting English that's gone Dutch. Kemper Conseil Publishing.
  • Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 361–386.
  • Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching Academic ESL Writing. New York: Routledge.
  • Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP. English for Specific Purposes, 3:239-256.
  • Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the Academy: Forms of Hedging in Science Research Articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251-281.
  • Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. The Journal of Business Communication, 35:224-245.
  • Hyland, K. (1998b). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Hyland, K. (1998c). Boosting, hedging, and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349-382.
  • Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.
  • 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.
  • Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. New York: Continuum.
  • Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205.
  • Iida, E. (2007). Hedges in Japanese English and American English Medical Research Articles. Montreal: McGill University.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458-508.
  • Leech, G. (2004). Meaning and the English verb (3rd edition). Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2): 149-170.
  • 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.
  • Sanjaya, N. S. (2013). Hedging and Boosting in English and Indonesian Research Articles (PhD Dissertation). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University.
  • Schreiber, J., & Asner-Self, K. (2011). Educational Research: The Interrelationship of Questions, Sampling, Design, and Analysis. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Skelton, J. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT journal, 42(1), 37-43.
  • Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
  • 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.
  • Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20:83-102.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
Toplam 42 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Cüneyt Demir

Yayımlanma Tarihi 15 Aralık 2018
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2018 Cilt: 14 Sayı: 4

Kaynak Göster

APA Demir, C. (2018). Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(4), 74-92.
AMA Demir C. Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. Aralık 2018;14(4):74-92.
Chicago Demir, Cüneyt. “Hedging and Academic Writing: An Analysis of Lexical Hedges”. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 14, sy. 4 (Aralık 2018): 74-92.
EndNote Demir C (01 Aralık 2018) Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 14 4 74–92.
IEEE C. Demir, “Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges”, Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, c. 14, sy. 4, ss. 74–92, 2018.
ISNAD Demir, Cüneyt. “Hedging and Academic Writing: An Analysis of Lexical Hedges”. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 14/4 (Aralık 2018), 74-92.
JAMA Demir C. Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2018;14:74–92.
MLA Demir, Cüneyt. “Hedging and Academic Writing: An Analysis of Lexical Hedges”. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, c. 14, sy. 4, 2018, ss. 74-92.
Vancouver Demir C. Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2018;14(4):74-92.