A Cross-cultural Analysis of the Use of Hedging Devices in Scientific Research Articles

Abstract

Abstract-Hedging is a significant aspect of academic writing and it is an important resource for L2 writers (Hyland, 1994). Hence, this study set out to compare the frequency of hedges employed in different sections of research papers written by non-native English speaking authors (NNESA) and native English speaking authors (NESA). To this end, 40 research articles written by the two groups of authors was analyzed based on the taxonomy of hedges proposed by Salagar-Meyer (1994). The results showed that generally NESA utilized more hedges compared to NNESA and there is a significant difference between these authors use of hedging devices. The results can have implications for L2 teachers in that they should take measures to familiarize their students with the hedging devices and show them how to use hedges appropriately.

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

“…The study's findings showed a lower rate of hedges and boosters in RAs written by Czech linguists, which indicates that "the tendency towards symbiosis in the small Czech linguistics community is still significant and tends to affect their rhetorical choices even when they write English medium-texts." Other cross-cultural studies on hedges, such as those of Vázquez Orta and Giner (2008), Hu and Cao (2011), Jalilifar 2011, and Rezanejad et al (2015), also point out that the way in which writers use hedges tends to be affected by several factors "comprising the social and cultural background of the writer, the epistemological and literacy tradition he/she is associated with, and the genre and disciplinary conventions" (Dontcheva-Navratilova 2016). In a similar attempt, the cross-cultural and cross-generic study by Lorés-Sanz et al 2010on interpersonality in written academic discourse, with a focus on the Spanish and English research article corpus, showed that the frequency of the use of hedges was "especially higher in the English subcorpus when compared with the Spanish subcorpus".…”

“…A number of researchers have attempted to present and revise different taxonomies of hedges, such as Hyland (1998aHyland ( , 2000, Salager-Meyer (1994), Vande Kopple (2002), and Crompton (1997), among others. It is remarkable that the two taxonomies of Hyland (1998a) and Salager-Meyer (1994) are widely used in various studies of hedges (for example, Rezanejad et al (2015), Bonyadi et al (2012), Vázquez Orta and Giner (2008), Tran and Duong (2013)) due to their influence and sufficiency.…”

“…Hedges, as an interpersonal meta-discourse device, have gained much attention from researchers in both spoken and written discourse, such as in Hyland (1998aHyland ( , 2002, Hyland and Tse (2004), Salager-Meyer (1994), Gillaerts and Velde (2010), and Rezanejad et al (2015). Hyland (1998a) considered hedges a crucial means of "presenting new claims for ratification and are among the primary features which shape the research article as the principal vehicle for new knowledge".…”

“…These conventions guarantee that the writers' works are acknowledged by the readers and accepted by their colleagues in their discourse community. Drawing attention to the socio-cultural factors affecting writers' written discourses, a large amount of cross-cultural research focuses on different aspects of the interpersonal dimensions of academic interactions, including authorial reference, as in the studies of Hyland (2002) and Vassileva (2001); hedges and boosters, as in the works of Vázquez Orta and Giner (2008), Dontcheva-Navratilova (2016), Hu and Cao (2011), Rezanejad et al (2015), and Bonyadi et al (2012); and inflating and persuading, as in Hinkel (2005) research. These studies' findings indicate that the ways that academic writers use interpersonal meta-discourse are influenced by several factors "comprising the social and cultural background of the writer, the epistemological and literacy tradition he/she is associated with, and the genre and disciplinary conventions" (Dontcheva-Navratilova 2016), along with the beliefs, attitudes, and expectations of the intended readers.…”

“…Additionally, the result and discussion sections in RAs are considered important parts where writers present and discuss their findings, express their views, and answer the research questions. These parts are "usually feature [d] with the frequent use of hedges" (Rezanejad et al 2015). Therefore, this study focused on examining cultural variation in the use of hedges in the results and discussion sections of academic research articles (RAs) written by Vietnamese and native English-speaking authors, analyzing the variation in the frequency and the types of hedges through the rhetorical structure of RAs to isolate the ways in which Vietnamese and native English-speaking writers express different degrees of "commitment" to their claims in order to "provide more open room for the possibilities of interpretation" (Salager-Meyer 1994), as well as to show their respect and politeness to their colleagues and readers (Bonyadi et al 2012).…”