A Comparative Genre Analysis of Hedging Expressions in Research Articles: Is Fuzziness Forever Wicked?

  • Behnam B
  • Naeimi A
  • Darvishzade A
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
41Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Scientific writers might not inevitably be exact, precise and explicit in expression, eschewing vulnerability to criticism and seeking acceptability form academia. The present study aimed at investigating the frequency, form and function of the multi-objective linguistic and rhetorical device of hedging in the discussion sections of 100 qualitative and quantitative research articles where appropriate expression of scientific claims is highly welcome. As such, the taxonomy proposed by Hyland (1996) was applied in order to identify and classify the various hedge words, followed by an independent-samples t-test to compare the total number of hedging devices. The results revealed a statistically significant difference between qualitative and quantitative research articles with respect to both frequency and form of the employed hedge words, bearing important implications for educational researchers and practitioners in applying appropriate hedging strategies in the academic publishing of scientific texts. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

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). https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v2n2p20

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free