Hedges as writer protective devices in applied linguistics and literary criticism research articles

Martina Malášková

doi:10.5817/DI2012-1-31

Hedges as writer protective devices in applied linguistics and literary criticism research articles

Vol.5,No.1(2012)

Martina Malášková

https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2012-1-31

PDF

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that hedges form an indispensable part of academic writing in general and research articles (RAs) in particular. There has been a lot of research done attempting to describe and classify this language device, address its complex nature and understand its functions in different types of texts. This paper presents the results of a small-scale comparative study carried out on a corpus of research articles in two scientific fields – applied linguistics and literary criticism. The analysis was based on a revised classification of Hyland (1998) and Dontcheva-Navratilova (2009) and with special regard to the role they play in reader-writer interaction. The aim of the investigation was to determine which features in the text function as writer-protective, i.e. hedging writer commitment to the propositional content of the message, and to what extent these features differ in the examined texts. The results of the study show that there are significant differences in both the variety and frequency of use of hedges in applied linguistics and literary criticism research articles, which suggests that there is a connection between particular types of hedges and differences in the type of argumentation and interaction with the intended readership in the two respective communities.

Keywords:
academic writing; applied linguistics; hedges; literary criticism; research articles

References

Bazerman, C. (1988) Shaping Written Knowledge. Wisconsin: The University of
Wisconsin Press.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978) Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burrough-Boenish, J. (2002) Hedging. Dissertation Thesis. NL: Lot Publications.

Channell, J. M. (1980) ‘More on approximations: A reply to Wachtel.’ Journal of
Pragmatics 4/5, 461-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90071-5

Coates, J. (1983) The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.

Coulthard, M. (1994) ‘On analysing and evaluating text.’ In: Coulthard, M. (ed.) Advances
in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge. 1-11.

Crompton, P. (1997) ‘Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems.’ English
for Specific Purposes16/4, 271-287.

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2009) ‘Evaluation in non-native writer’s academic discourse:
Stance devices.’ In: Hanušová, S. et al. Research in English Language Teacher
Education. Brno: Masaryk University. 33-42.

Fahnenstock, J. and Secor, M. (1988) ‘The stases in scientific and literary argument.’
Written Communication 5/4, 427-443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088388005004002

Holmes, J. (1990) ‘Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech.’ Language
& Communication 10/3, 185-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-S

Hyland, K. (2010) ‘Community and individuality: Performing identity in applied
linguistics’ Written Communication 27/2, 159 – 188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309357846

Hyland, K.(2005) ‘Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.’
Discourse Studies 7/2, 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365

Hyland, K. (2004) Disciplinary Discourses. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K. (1998) Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.

Hübler, A. (1983) Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

Ifantidou, E. (2005) ‘The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse.’ Journal of
Pragmatics 37/9, 1325-1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.006

Lakoff, G. (1972) ‘Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.’
Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 1972,
183-228. Reprinted in: Journal of Philosophical Logic. 1973, 2/4, 458-508.

Markkanen, R. and Schröder, H. (1997) ‘Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and
discourse analysis.’ In: Markkanen, R. and Schröder, H. (eds) Hedging and Discourse:
Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts.New York:
Walter de Gruyter. 3-18.

Myers, G. (1989) ‘The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles.’Applied
Linguistics10/1, 1-35.

Nikula, T. (1997) ‘Interlanguageview on hedging.’ In: Markkanen, R. and Schröder, H.
(eds) Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon
in Academic Texts. New York: Walter de Gruyter. 188-207.

Salager-Meyer, F. (1997) ‘I think that perhaps you should: A study of hedges in written
scientific discourse.’ In: Miller, T. (ed.) Functional Approaches to Written Text:
Classroom Applications. Washington DC: USIA. 105-118.

Swales, J. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Šteflová, A. (2005) The Role of Hedging in the Structure of Mathematical Discourse.
(Doctoral dissertation). Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

Thompson, G. and Thetela, P. (1995) ‘The sound of one hand clapping: The management
of interaction in written discourse.’ Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of
Discourse15/1, 103-127.

Zapletalová, G. (2009) Academic Discourse and the Genre of Research Article. Banská
Bystrica: Univerzita Mateja Bela v Banskej Bystrici and Filozofická fakulta Ostravské
univerzity v Ostravě.

Metrics