The Construction of Knowledge Claims in Three Disciplines: An Exploration of Hedging and Boosting Strategies in Research Articles Written in English by Arab and Anglophone Writers
Abstract
Background. Academic writers utilize a variety of rhetorical methods to construct their knowledge claims through hedges and boosters. These two strategies may also be affected by disciplinary, cultural, or generic contexts.
Purpose. This mixed-methods contrastive research study explored how disciplinary and cultural contexts may affect the way Arab and Anglophone writers construct and modulate knowledge claims through hedges and boosters in the results and discussion sections of 90 English research articles in three disciplines: Journalism, Law, and Political Science.
Methods. Instances of hedges and boosters and their pragmatic functions in context were identified, employing Liu and Tseng’s (2021) framework. This framework provides a detailed functional interpretation of the use and variation of these devices along four continuums: authorial voice, reasoning, consensus-building, and information evaluation.
Results. The results showed interesting contrasts and similarities between both groups regarding the approaches they used to define their levels of commitment and detachment in their knowledge claims. The quantitative findings revealed significant differences in hedges but non-significant differences in boosters used by both groups. The qualitative analysis revealed that hedging and boosting functions in Arab and Anglophone writers’ RAs differed along the four continuums. Anglophone writers often used hedges in their writing to show humility, negotiate knowledge claims, and accommodate vagueness. These acts enabled them to sketch the realities emerging from their research. By contrast, the English-speaking Arab writers used fewer hedging strategies and demonstrated assertiveness, and assumed shared knowledge to enhance the realities constructed in their knowledge claims.
Implications. These findings can benefit ESP/EAP teachers, especially those teaching writing for publication purposes to raise postgraduate students’ awareness of epistemic modality markers. A custom-made ESP/EAP course tailored to the needs of learners based on Liu and Tseng’s (2021) hedging-boosting framework can be devised to develop communicative and academic strategies in English.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank the Deanship of scientific research at King Saud University for funding and supporting this research through the initiative of DSR Graduate Students Research Support (GSR).
Downloads
References
Akbas, E. (2014).Commitment-detachment and authorial presence in postgraduate academic writing: A comparative study of Turkish native speakers, Turkish speakers of English and English native speakers [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of York.
Akbas, E., & Hardman, J. (2018). Strengthening or weakening claims in academic knowledge construction: A comparative study of hedges and boosters in postgraduate academic writing. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(4), 831-859. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0260
Al-Mudhaffari, M., Hussin, S., & HoAbdullah, I. (2020).Interactional strategies in L2 writing: An exploration of hedging and boosting strategies in applied linguistics research articles.International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 20(1), 171-186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33806/ijaes2000.20.1.9
Atai, M., & Sadr, L. (2008). A cross-cultural genre study on hedging devices in discussion section of applied linguistics research articles. Teaching English Language, 2(7), 1-22.
Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1991). Cultural expectations and socio-pragmatic failure in academic writing. In P. Adams, B. Heaton, & P. Howarth (Eds.), Socio-cultural issues in English for academic purposes (pp. 1-12). Modern English Publications.
Bondi, M. (2008). Emphatics in academic discourse Integrating corpus and discourse tools. In A. Ädel, & R. Reppen (Eds.), Corpora and discourse: The challenges of different settings (pp. 31-55). John Benjamins.
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press.
Connor, U., Connor, U. M., & Long, M. H. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00007-0
Falahati, R. (2004). A contrastive study of hedging in English and Farsi academic discourse [Unpublished Master's thesis]. University of Victoria.
Farrokhi, F., & Emami, S. (2008). Hedges and boosters in academic writing: Native vs. non-native research articles in applied linguistics and engineering. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 62-98.
Fløttum, K. (2012). Variation of stance and voice across cultures. In Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 218-231). Palgrave Macmillan, London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_14
Gotti, M. (2012). Cross-cultural aspects of academic discourse. Brno Studies in English, 38(2), 59-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2012-2-4
Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L.-A. B. (2018). Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Cengage Learning.
Heiniluoma, M. (2008). Boosting future prospects or softening promises of success? The use of emphatics and hedging in the letter to shareholders sections of annual reports [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Turku.
Hinkel, E. (2003). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Routledge.
Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15(1/2), 29-53.
Hinkle, R. K., Martin, A. D., Shaub, J. D., & Tiller, E. H. (2012). A positive theory and empirical analysis of strategic word choice in district court opinions. Journal of Legal Analysis, 4(2), 407-444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/las014
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795-2809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles (vol. 54). John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. A&C Black.
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
Koutsantoni, D. (2005). Certainty across cultures: A comparison of the degree of certainty expressed by Greek and English speaking scientific authors.Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(2), 121-149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.2.121
Kranich, S. (2011). To hedge or not to hedge: The use of epistemic modal expressions in popular science in English texts, English-German translations, and German original texts. Text & Talk, 31(1), 77-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2011.004
Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice and using software. Sage.
Lewin, B. A. (2005). Hedging: An exploratory study of authors' and readers' identification of ‘toning down' in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(2), 163-178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.08.001
Liu, C., & Tseng, M.-Y. (2021). Paradigmatic variation in hedging and boosting: A comparative study of discussions in narrative inquiry and grounded theory research. English for Specific Purposes, 61, 1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.08.002
McLaren-Hankin, Y. (2008). ‘We expect to report on significant progress in our product pipeline in the coming year': hedging forward-looking statements in corporate press releases. Discourse Studies, 10(5), 635-654. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608094216
Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldaña, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage Publications.
Mirzapour, F., & Mahand, M. R. (2012). Hedges and boosters in native and non-native library and information and computer science research articles. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 18(2), 119 -128.
Peterlin, A. P. (2010). Hedging devices in Slovene-English translation: A corpus-based study. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 171-193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.222
Samaie, M., Khosravian, F., & Boghayeri, M. (2014). The frequency and types of hedges in research article introductions by Persian and English native authors. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(6), 1678-1685. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.593
Sanjaya, I. N. S., Sitawati, A. A. R., & Suciani, N. K. (2015).Comparing hedges used by English and Indonesian scholars in published research articles: A corpus-based study. Teflin Journal, 26(2), 209-227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v26i2/209-227
Šeškauskienė, I. (2008). Hedging in ESL: A case study of Lithuanian learners. Kalbų Studijos, (13), 71-76.
Silver, M. (2003). The stance of stance: A critical look at ways stance is expressed and modelled in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 359-374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00051-1
Stubbs, M. (1986). ‘A matter of prolonged field work': Notes towards a modal grammar of English. Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 1-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/7.1.1
Swales, J. M. (1990). Discourse analysis in professional contexts. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11, 103-114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500001987
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Issues and dilemmas in teaching research methods courses in social and behavioural sciences: US perspective.International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(1), 61-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570305055
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806292430
Thuy, T. N. T. (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), 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci704007
Varttala, T. (1999). Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 177-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00007-6
Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse. Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. Tampere University Press.
Vassileva, I. (2001).Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83-102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0
Vázquez Orta, I., & Giner, D. (2009). Writing with conviction: The use of boosters in modelling persuasion in academic discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 22, 219-237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2009.22.14
Wallace, B., & Ross, A. (2016). Beyond human error: Taxonomies and safety science. CRC Press.
Yagız, O., & Demir, C. (2014). Hedging strategies in academic discourse: A comparative analysis of Turkish writers and native writers of English. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 260-268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.085
Copyright (c) 2022 National Research University Higher School of Economics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the Copyright Notice.
