اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات24
تعداد شماره‌ها859
تعداد مقالات7,631
تعداد مشاهده مقاله13,515,818
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله11,638,167
Hashemi, Mohammad R., Shirzadi, Danial. (1395). The Use of Hedging in Discussion Sections of Applied Linguistics Research Articles with Varied Research Methods. , 35(1), 31-56. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2016.3729
Mohammad R. Hashemi; Danial Shirzadi. "The Use of Hedging in Discussion Sections of Applied Linguistics Research Articles with Varied Research Methods". , 35, 1, 1395, 31-56. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2016.3729
Hashemi, Mohammad R., Shirzadi, Danial. (1395). 'The Use of Hedging in Discussion Sections of Applied Linguistics Research Articles with Varied Research Methods', , 35(1), pp. 31-56. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2016.3729
Hashemi, Mohammad R., Shirzadi, Danial. The Use of Hedging in Discussion Sections of Applied Linguistics Research Articles with Varied Research Methods. , 1395; 35(1): 31-56. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2016.3729

The Use of Hedging in Discussion Sections of Applied Linguistics Research Articles with Varied Research Methods

Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills)
مقاله 2، دوره 35، شماره 1، مرداد 2016، صفحه 31-56    اصل مقاله (170.95 K)
نوع مقاله: Research Paper
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/jtls.2016.3729
نویسندگان
Mohammad R. Hashemi* 1؛ Danial Shirzadi2
1Department of Foreign Languages Kharazmi University
2Kharazmi University
چکیده
The discourse of the discussion in research articles is regarded to be of considerable significance—as in this section the findings are interpreted in light of previous research and the authors’ argumentations are put forward as a major contribution (see Hyland, 1999). For this reason, the content and structure of the discussion section have been explored in several studies; however, little attention has been focused on a comparative analysis of how hedges are used in the discussion sections of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. To address this gap, the present study explored the use of hedges in 150 applied linguistics articles (50 qualitative, 50 quantitative, and 50 mixed methods studies). To this end, the study investigated forms and pragmatic functions of the hedges in the discussion sections, utilizing Varttala’s (2001) and Hyland’s (1998) models. The data were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively through use of rigorous coding and memoing strategies. The results of the study indicated that hedging forms in the discussion sections of quantitative applied linguistics articles had the highest frequency, followed by mixed methods studies and qualitative articles, respectively. Also, full verbs, auxiliaries, and adverbs were the most frequent categories of hedging; moreover, the results of Chi square test proved the significance of observed differences. The findings demonstrated that mixed methods studies tended to show similarities with quantitative articles regarding the use of hedging strategies. The results are interpreted in relation to the nature of each research method.
کلیدواژه‌ها
discussion؛ hedges؛ hedging form؛ hedging function؛ research methods
مراجع

Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse   Studies, 4, 139–145.

Alibabaee, A., & Shahzamani, M. (2013). Enhancing Iranian EFL learners' awareness of hedging through explicit teaching. The Iranian EFL Journal, 9(3), 9-23.

Atai, M., & Sadr, L. (2008). A cross-cultural genre study on hedging devices in discussion section of applied linguistics research articles. Teaching English language and literature, 7(2), 1-22.

Behnam, B., Naeimi, A., & Darvishzade, A. (2012). A comparative genre analysis of hedging expressions in research articles: Is fuzziness forever wicked. English Language and Literature Studies, 2(2), 20-38.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987) Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.    

Cherry, R. (1988). Politeness in written persuasion. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 63-81.

Clemen, G. (1997). The concept of hedging: origins, approaches, and definitions. In R. Markkanen, & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 235-249). Berlin: Werner Hildebrand.

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.

Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical aspects. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-289.

Crystal, D., & Davy, D. (1975).  Advanced Conversational English. London: Longman.

Egbert, J. (2007). Quality analysis of journals in TESOL and applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 157–171.

Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141-152). USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Exploration in standardized communication situations and patterned speech (pp. 157-185).The Hague: Mouton Publishers.

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, 2795–2809.

Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic textbooks and EAP.  English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256.

Hyland, K. (1995). The author in the text: hedging scientific writing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, 33-42.

Hyland, K. (1996a). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454.

Hyland, K. (1996b). Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum. System, 24(4), 477-490.

Hyland, K. (1996c). Talking to the academy: forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13, 251–281.

Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18, 349–382.

Hyland, K. (1998c). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.

Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3–26.

Jung, U. O. H. (2004). Paris in London revisited or the foreign language teacher’s topmost journals. System, 32, 357–361.

Lakoff, G. (1973) Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458-508

Meyer, P. (1997). Hedging strategies in written academic discourse: Strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In R. Markkanen & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic text (pp. 21-41). New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Montgomery, M. (1982). Study skills for colleges and universities in Africa. Essex: Longman Group

Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.

Nivales, M. (2011). Hedging in college research papers: Implications for language instruction. Asian EFL Journal, 52, 35-45.

Perkins, M. (1983). Modal express low in English. London: Frances Pinter

Prince, E.F., Frader, J., & Bosk, J.C. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In R.J. Di Prieto (Ed.), Linguistics and the Professions (pp. 83-97). New York: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.

Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328-350

Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170.

Salager-Meyer, F. (1997). I think that perhaps you should: A study of hedges in written scientific discourse. In T. Miller (ed.), Functional approaches to written texts: Classroom applications (pp. 127–143). Washington DC: United States Information Agency.

Sionis, C. (1995). Communication strategies in the writing of scientific research articles by non-native users of English. English for Specific Purposes, 14(2), 99-113.

Skelton, J. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal. 42(1), 37-43.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J., & Feak, C. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

Tahririan, M. N. & Shahzamani, M. (2009). Hedging in English and Persian editorials: A contrastive study. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 199-221.

Varttala, T. A. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse: Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. Unpublished Ph. D dissertation, University of Tampereen Yliopisto, Finland. Retrieved from https://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/67148/951-44-5195-3.pdf?sequence=1

 Vold, E. T. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: a cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 61 - 87.

Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338-353

Yang, A., Zheng, S., & Ge, G. (2015). Epistemic modality in English-medium medical research articles: A systemic functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes. 38, 1–10.

 

   

آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 3,446
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 6,560


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب