Hedging in the Results and Discussion Section of English Applied Linguistics Research Articles by Vietnamese and Foreign Writers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1301.14Keywords:
applied linguistics, Hedge, non-native English writer, results and discussion, soft scienceAbstract
Hedging in academic writing in general and in research article (RA) in specific has a vital role in enabling writers to minimize their opposing claims and negotiate the meaning. Nevertheless, hedging can be different from one discipline to another and from culture to another. This study, therefore, aims at examining the deployment of hedges in the Results and Discussion (R-D) section of English Applied Linguistics (AL) RAs by Vietnamese writers and their foreign counterparts. Two corpora consisting of 30 RAs written by Vietnamese writers and the other 30 ones by foreign writers were collected. The results revealed that both Vietnamese and foreign writers deployed hedges in the R-D section of English AL RAs at a similar frequency. Moreover, they shared common senses of utilizing the hedges’ types and functions in the R-D section of English AL RAs. This study has confirmed that the norms and practices of the AL, a soft science, were common among non-native English writers regardless of their culture-bound.
References
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Wisconsin: Wisconsin University Press.
Basturkmen, H. (2012). A Genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research article in dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purpose, 11, 134-144.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problem. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287.
Farrokhi, F., & Emami, S. (2008). Hedges and boosters in academic writing: Native vs. non-native research articles in applied linguistics and engineering. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 62-98.
Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading. Applied Language Learning, 15(1&2), 29-53.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54
Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667145
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1-23.
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, 8, 183-228.
Musa, A. (2014). Hedging in academic writing: A pragmatic analysis of English and Chemistry Masters’ theses in Ghanaian University. English for Specific Purposes World, 42(15), 1-26.
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i2.1494
Nguyen, A. T. (2018). The use of hedging devices in Applied Linguistics academic discourse: the case of reading in a foreign language and English language teaching research articles. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 34(5), 12-24. doi:10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4298
Nguyen, Q. N., & Nguyen, L. T. U. (2015). Types of hedges used by American and Vietnamese celebrity, VNU Journal of Science: Foreign Studies, 2(32), 32-41.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in Medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes. 13(2), 149-171.
Spacey, J. (2020, July 29). 7 Characteristics of Soft Science. Simplicable. Retrieved from: https://simplicable.com/en/soft-science on 12 January 2021.
Tiersma, P. (2008). The nature of legal language. In J. Gibbons & M. T. Turell (Eds.), Dimensions of forensic linguistics (pp. 7–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tran, Q.T., & Duong, M. T. (2013). Hedging: a comparative study of research article results and discussion section in Applied Linguistics and Chemical Engineering. English for Specific Purposes World, 14(41), 1-13.
Varttala, T. A. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse: Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tampere Yliopisto, Finland.
Yagiz, O., & Demir, C. (2015). A comparative study of boosting in academic texts: A contrastive rhetoric. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5(4), 12-28. doi:10.5539/ ijel. v5n4p12
