CORPUS RESEARCH ON HEDGES IN LINGUISTICS AND EFL JOURNAL PAPERS

There has been a considerable increase in the number of studies on hedges that can help authors to reduce commitment and negotiate the meaning between the reader and the writer. This study examines hedging devices based on corpus-based analysis of 750 research articles (4,831,500 running words) extr...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Shih-Ping Wang, Khunkhenova Tatiana
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Press 2017-02-01
Series:International Journal of Education
Subjects:
Online Access:http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/ije/article/view/3717
id doaj-894ad19677a94ba6af8809d2d0f96b06
record_format Article
spelling doaj-894ad19677a94ba6af8809d2d0f96b062020-11-25T01:44:05ZengUniversitas Pendidikan Indonesia PressInternational Journal of Education1978-13422442-47302017-02-0191455210.17509/ije.v9i1.37172919CORPUS RESEARCH ON HEDGES IN LINGUISTICS AND EFL JOURNAL PAPERSShih-Ping Wang0Khunkhenova Tatiana1National Taiwan University of S & TNational Taiwan University of S & TThere has been a considerable increase in the number of studies on hedges that can help authors to reduce commitment and negotiate the meaning between the reader and the writer. This study examines hedging devices based on corpus-based analysis of 750 research articles (4,831,500 running words) extracted from 15 leading journals in the areas of linguistics and EFL. Wordsmith Tools 5.0 was used for identifying hedging devices. The frameworks of both Hyland (1998a, 2005) and Varttala (1998) were integrated to identify the functions of hedging devices. The results reveal that modal auxiliary hedging (44.9%) is found more than the other types, while the noun category is the least used (2.17%). However, the use of different syntactic features (personal or impersonal) when combined with epistemic lexical terms appeared to influence different interpretations of lexical hedging mainly regarding the politeness strategy. Additionally, it is the authors' responsibility to hedge their own propositions. Learners should know the rules of hedges to distinguish real facts and findings from researchers' biased views and conclusions, and to use these markers accurately in their own works. The current study is practical for EFL learners as it discusses many types of hedges for familiarizing students with the appropriate use of hedging.http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/ije/article/view/3717Hedging, hedges, EFL teaching and learning, corpus-based analysis
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Shih-Ping Wang
Khunkhenova Tatiana
spellingShingle Shih-Ping Wang
Khunkhenova Tatiana
CORPUS RESEARCH ON HEDGES IN LINGUISTICS AND EFL JOURNAL PAPERS
International Journal of Education
Hedging, hedges, EFL teaching and learning, corpus-based analysis
author_facet Shih-Ping Wang
Khunkhenova Tatiana
author_sort Shih-Ping Wang
title CORPUS RESEARCH ON HEDGES IN LINGUISTICS AND EFL JOURNAL PAPERS
title_short CORPUS RESEARCH ON HEDGES IN LINGUISTICS AND EFL JOURNAL PAPERS
title_full CORPUS RESEARCH ON HEDGES IN LINGUISTICS AND EFL JOURNAL PAPERS
title_fullStr CORPUS RESEARCH ON HEDGES IN LINGUISTICS AND EFL JOURNAL PAPERS
title_full_unstemmed CORPUS RESEARCH ON HEDGES IN LINGUISTICS AND EFL JOURNAL PAPERS
title_sort corpus research on hedges in linguistics and efl journal papers
publisher Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Press
series International Journal of Education
issn 1978-1342
2442-4730
publishDate 2017-02-01
description There has been a considerable increase in the number of studies on hedges that can help authors to reduce commitment and negotiate the meaning between the reader and the writer. This study examines hedging devices based on corpus-based analysis of 750 research articles (4,831,500 running words) extracted from 15 leading journals in the areas of linguistics and EFL. Wordsmith Tools 5.0 was used for identifying hedging devices. The frameworks of both Hyland (1998a, 2005) and Varttala (1998) were integrated to identify the functions of hedging devices. The results reveal that modal auxiliary hedging (44.9%) is found more than the other types, while the noun category is the least used (2.17%). However, the use of different syntactic features (personal or impersonal) when combined with epistemic lexical terms appeared to influence different interpretations of lexical hedging mainly regarding the politeness strategy. Additionally, it is the authors' responsibility to hedge their own propositions. Learners should know the rules of hedges to distinguish real facts and findings from researchers' biased views and conclusions, and to use these markers accurately in their own works. The current study is practical for EFL learners as it discusses many types of hedges for familiarizing students with the appropriate use of hedging.
topic Hedging, hedges, EFL teaching and learning, corpus-based analysis
url http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/ije/article/view/3717
work_keys_str_mv AT shihpingwang corpusresearchonhedgesinlinguisticsandefljournalpapers
AT khunkhenovatatiana corpusresearchonhedgesinlinguisticsandefljournalpapers
_version_ 1725030099097485312