Usage of Hedges in Thesis of Students Majoring in English
Keywords:
Hedging, academic writing, pedagogical implication, linguistic knowledge, pragmatic competence.Abstract
The present study focuses on the use of hedges in research articles written by students from the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education (FELTE) at Hanoi University of Languages and International Studies. The study examines thirty randomly selected thesis papers published between 2020 and 2022. The main objectives of the study are to analyze the taxonomy of hedge devices used by the students and identify the functions of these hedges in their papers. The analysis of the thesis papers reveals that students exhibit a preference for three types of hedging devices. Furthermore, the study finds that hedges are predominantly used in the conclusion and discussion sections of the sampled papers. The functions of the hedges used by the students primarily serve three purposes: expressing the writers' opinions with appropriate caution, reducing the likelihood of being criticized, and fostering a positive relationship between the writers and the readers. The research aims to shed light on raising students’ awareness of the usefulness of hedging devices in academic writing and improving their motivation to use hedges effectively. Some pedagogical implications of the study are discussed. Hopefully, other teachers will find this interesting and helpful for their own situations.
Classification number
Linguistics
Downloads
Published
References
Benesch, H. (2008). Buildings, change, futurity reading Seattle public library and Sendai mediateque.
Proceedings of Design Inquiries. Sweden: Stockholm.
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional discourse. In W. Nash (Eds.). The writing scholar: Studies in the language and conventions of academic discourse. Newbury Park: Sage Publication.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic
discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36: 1807–1825.
Drury, J. (2001). Extending usability inspection evaluation techniques for synchronous collaborative computing applications. University of Massachusetts. Lowell.
Fryer, D. L. (2012). Analysis of the generic discourse features of the English language medical research article: a systemic-functional approach. Functions of Language, 19(1): 5–37.
Gilbert, G. N., & Muikay, M. (1984). Opening the Pandora box: A sociological analysis of scientific discourse. Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (1995). The author in the text: Hedging scientific writing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and
Language Teaching, 18: 33–42.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Vol. 54. John Benjamins Publishing.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication,
18(4): 549–574.
Irvin, L. (2010). What is “academic” writing? In C. Lowe, & P. Zemliansky (Eds.). Writing spaces: Reading
and writing. New Jessey: Parlor Press.
Jalilifar, A., & Alavi-Nia, M. (2012). We are surprised: Wasn’t Iran disgraced there? A functional analysis of hedges and boosters in televised Iranian and American Presidential Debates. Discourse and Communication, 6(2): 135161.
Jiang, F. K & Hyland, K. (2016). Nouns and academic interactions: A Neglected feature of metadiscourse applied linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw023
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of
Philosophical Logic, 4(2): 458–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262952
Le, M. (2017). The use of hedges in English as a foreign language (EFL) academic writing by Vietnamese graduate students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36: 1–15.
Musa, A. (2014). Hedging in academic writing: A pragmatic analysis of English and chemistry masters’
theses in a Ghanaian university. English for Specific Purposes, 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. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i2.1494 Nguyen, T. (2010). The use of hedges in Vietnamese students’ academic writing. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(2): 123–140.
Nguyen Thi Thuy. (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, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7040070
Pham, L. (2020). The role of hedges in academic speaking among Vietnamese undergraduate students. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(2): 45–62.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1991). A genre-based and text-type analysis of hedging in written medical English discourse (1980–1990). Interface, 6: 3354.
Skelton, J. (1988). Comments in academic articles. In P. Grunwell (Ed.). Applied linguistics in society:
British studies in applied linguistics, 3: 98–108. London: Centre for International Language.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: essential tasks and skills (3rd
Ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied
Linguistics. 22 (1): 58–78.
Tran, H. (2014). Hedges in research articles written by Vietnamese scholars. English for Specific Purposes, 36: 52–65.
Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. Tampere University Press.
Kopple, W J. (2002). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 26: 82–93.
Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 55(1): 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008
