Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals

Hu, Guangwei; Cao, Fangli

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007

Cited by 289 publications

(224 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

177

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While some studies prefered to study organizational distributions of boosting, some others prefered to study whether there could be any differences in boosting in terms of researh design of the papers. In that sense, empirical and non-empirical academic articles were gleaned and examined by Hu and Cao (2011). Another study (Dobakhti, 2013) divided its data not as empirical and non-empirical but as qualitative and quantitative.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Study of Boosting in Academic Texts: A Contrastive Rhetoric

Yağız

Demir²

2015

IJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Boosting, an authorial commitment, and hedging, a authorial mitigating, are two issues interconnected one another with a gaining importance in the last decades (for detail see Gillaerts & Velde, 2010). However, boosting has remained as an issue needing to be studied from different aspects; for instance, cross-linguistic, cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural or comparative while hedging gains a great deal of attention from researchers. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the corpora in terms of statistical inclusion of certainty markers in the research articles written in English by Turkish, Japanese and Anglophonic authors, and then to explain the results obtained through statistical tests in the sense of linguistic and cultural factors. A corpus of total 60 research articles written by 20 Anglophonic authors, 20 Japanese authors, and 20 Turkish authors of English constituted the data for the present study. The data were scanned by researchers of the present study. Having completed the scanning, the words functioning as boosters were categorized in line with the taxonomy created for the present study. Then, the total certainty markers for each group of scholars were calculated and analyzed through ANOVA test. The test results provided whether there were any statistically significant differences among the groups in terms of including boosters in the research papers. Furthermore, the present study formed a boosting list as a result of dictionary scanning, which may be a reference for further studies, and the most and the least used boosters of authors were gathered in the tables.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Study of Boosting in Academic Texts: A Contrastive Rhetoric

Yağız

Demir²

2015

IJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many researchers have investigated RA or its sections for different linguistic features in one discipline or across different disciplines focusing on elements such as theme (Ebrahimi, Chan & Ain 2014, Lores 2004, first person pronoun (Harwood 2005), metadiscourse markers (Gillaerts & Van de Velde 2010, Hu & Cao 2011, Khedri et. al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice and Use of Context Frames to Augment the Writing of Result and Discussion Section of Research Articles across Four Disciplines

Ebrahimi

Chan²,

Tan³

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study focuses on the use and discourse functions of context frame markers in the result Gosden's (1992) taxonomy. Findings showed disciplinary differences in relation to the realisation of the context frame types, frequencies, and associated discourse functions. These differences in terms of types, frequencies, and discourse functions of context frames are imposed by the nature of the rhetorical section of result and discussion, the nature of the discipline, and both the nature of rhetorical section of result and discussion and the discipline, respectively. Findings suggest that context frames are an important means which the writer uses to deliver claims and arguments in results and discussion. As a result of the dictums imposed by the generic RA section and the nature of the discipline, marked disciplinary differences are found in the writing endeavour.

show abstract

“…Hu andCao (2011) andYang (2013), for example, claimed that the use of hedges by Chinese scholars was a function of their Chinese national culture. Moreover, such culture-related explanation quite often made reference to the three cultural dimensions proposed by Hofstede et al (2010), namely power distance, individualism and uncertainty avoidance.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the considerable number of studies which have examined the use of hedges in research articles in English and other languages notwithstanding, it is quite surprising to note that, with the exception of Hu andCao (2011), Yang (2013) and Itakura (2013), how these devices are used in research articles written in Asian languages has been left unexplored. In particular, studies of hedges deployed in research articles written in Indonesian are non-existent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the Effects of Sociocultural Context and Disciplines on the Use of Hedges in Research Articles

Sanjaya

2015

Indonesian J. Appl. Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines whether sociocultural context and discipline substantially affect usage of hedges in research articles. The corpus for the study consists of 104 research articles from two languages (English and Indonesian) with the disciplines of applied linguistics and chemistry. The analysis reveals that there is a statistically significant effect of sociocultural context in research articles from applied linguistics only. Interaction effect between sociocultural context and discipline is also observed. However, there is no statistically significant effect of the disciplines. It seems that both factors are not the major factors influencing usage of hedges in research articles. One intrapersonal factor, namely the cultural models embraced by the individual authors in regard to hedging usage, is proposed as a significant factor which determines the degree of uncertainty of research articles.

show abstract

Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals

Cited by 289 publications

References 55 publications

A Comparative Study of Boosting in Academic Texts: A Contrastive Rhetoric

A Comparative Study of Boosting in Academic Texts: A Contrastive Rhetoric

Choice and Use of Context Frames to Augment the Writing of Result and Discussion Section of Research Articles across Four Disciplines

Revisiting the Effects of Sociocultural Context and Disciplines on the Use of Hedges in Research Articles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About