Hedging in Academic Writings of EFL Students: ChemCorpus
The current study focuses on the use of hedging in ChemCorpus. The data for this study consisted of a collection of 52 academic papers by magister students majoring English at Chemnitz University of Technology. The data including 103329 words were analysed by using the AntConc software focusing on the copulas other than ‘be’. The study revealed that the most frequently used copula was ‘become’ in terms of base, present and past form. Additionally, the use of hedging was investigated considering gender differences and it was concluded that similar hedges were frequently used by both male and female students. Lastly, there appeared to be slight differences in terms of the distribution of the selected hedges for both groups.
Anthony, L. (2004). AntConc: A learner and classroom friendly, multi-platform corpus analysis toolkit. IWLeL 2004: An Interactive Workshop on Language e-Learning, 7-13.
Baker, P. (2010). Corpus methods in linguistics. In L. Litosseliti (Ed.). Research methods in linguistics (pp. 93-113). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge university press.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287.
Dixon, J. A., & Foster, D. H. (1997). Gender and hedging: from sex differences to situated practice. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research, 26(1), 89-107.
Hamamcı, Z. (2007). The use of hedges in research articles by Turkish interlanguage speakers of English and native English speakers in the field of social sciences. Unpublished master thesis. Adana: Çukurova University.
Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language and communication, 10(3), 185-205.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of philosophical logic, 2(4), 458-508.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper & Row Publisher.
Lindquist, H. (2009). Corpus linguistics and the description of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Meyer, P. G. (1997). Hedging strategies in written academic discourse: strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In R. Markkanen and H. Schröder (Eds.). Hedging and discourse: approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 21-41). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1-35).
Poos, D., & Simpson, R. (1996). Cross-disciplinary comparisons of hedging. In R. Reppen, S. M. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp. 3-23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 149-170.
Schmied, J. (2015). The ChemCorpus as a Reference Corpus for Comparative Studies in Academic Writing Retrieved from https://www.tu-chemnitz.de/phil/english/sections/ling/download/Usti150313.pdf.
Schmied, J., & Dheskali, V. (fc). Manual to accompany the Chemnitz Corpus of Academic Writing (ChemCorpus).
Serholt, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in academic writing: A study of gender differences in essays written by Swedish advanced learners of English. Retrieved from https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/29526
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.