جۆری توێژینه‌وه‌: Original Article

نوسه‌ر

Department of English Language, College of languages and Human Sciences, University of Garmian, Kurdistan, Iraq

پوخته‌

Writing, in all its varied forms and purposes, is a complex process. It calls upon us to bring our left and right brain together to shape experience and feeling into something another person can read and understand. Written communication is an essential element of expression; the ability to articulate oneself through the written word provides one with the opportunity to share their knowledge in a meaningful and effective way. Therefore, developing written skills will enable students to learn how to compose ideas as well as organize their thoughts and arguments. Acquiring these skills will also prepare students for their future academic and professional endeavors. In an electronic world where verbal communication has become less frequently used, learning to write in a cohesive, structured manner allows individuals to convey their thoughts effectively. The need to present claims with precision caution and the use of appropriate uncertainty means, demands the use of hedges and boosters, in which they represent a significant for academics in anticipating their propositions to the readers. Despite its importance, however, little attention has been given to how hedges and boosters are expressed or the functions they serve in different texts.       
   The present study is a pragmatic analysis of the use of hedges and boosters in the students' academic research project. This study aims to reveal the tendency and preferences of fourth year students in the use of hedges and boosters in their research project. In addition, the present study is an attempt to investigate the spread and the frequency of hedging and boosting in the introduction and the discussion sections of the students' research projects.
   The data analysis of the present study is based on corpus of academic research project written by fourth year students from two departments of English- college of languages and human sciences and college of education- in Garmian University. The corpus constitutes (36) academic researches in which they were written on linguistics and literature. These academic researches were selected randomly from the academic years 2009-2010 till the end of 2017-2018.

وشه‌ بنچینه‌ییه‌كان

1            Behnam, B., Naeimi, A., and Darvishzade, A. (2012). A Comparative Genre Analysis of Hedging Expressions in Research Articles: Is Fuzziness Forever Wicked? English Language and Literature Studies, 2(2). Doi: 10.5539/ells.v2n2p20.

2            Behnam, B. and Khaliliaghdam, S. (2012). A Cross-Cultural Study on Hedging Devices in Kurdish Conversation. Acta Linguistica Asiatica, 2(1), 37-88.

3            Bitchener, J. and Basturkam, H. (2006). Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of English for Academic Puroses, 5,4-18.

4            Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5            Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the Organization of Academic Texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 211-247.

6            Coats, Jennifer. (1987). Epistemic Modality and Spoken Discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society, 85(1), 110-131.  

7            Crismore, A., and Vande Kopple, W. J. (1997). The effects of hedges and gender on the attitudes of readers in the united states toward material in a science textbook. In A. Dusak (Ed), Culture and styles of academic discourse, (pp. 223-247). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

8            Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in Academic Writing: Some Theoretical Problems. English for Specific Purposes, no. 16. 4.

9            Eggington, W. (1987). Written Academic Discourse in Korean: Implications for effective communication. In U. C. and R. Kaplan (Eds), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

10            Faber, B. (2003). Creating rhetorical stability in corporate university discourse: Discourse technologies and change. Written Communication, 20, 391-425.

11            Getkham, K. (2011). Hedging devices in applied linguistics research articles. Interdisciplinary discourses in language and communication, 141-154.

12            Hinds, J. (1987). Reader Versus Writer Responsibility: A New Typology. In U. C. and R. Kaplan (Eds), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

13            Hinkel, E. ( 1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 Academic Writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 361-386.

14            Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied language learning, 15(1/2), 29-53.

15            Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 13(2), 19-28.

16            Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and Boosters in Women's and Men's Speech. Language and Communication, 10, 185-205.

17            Holmes, J. (1995).Women and Men Politeness. London: Longman.

18            Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for specific purposes, 13(3), 239-256.

19            Hyland, K. (1995). The Author in the Text: Hedging Scientific Writing. Hong -KongPapers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18.

20            Hyland, K. (1998a). Boosting, Hedging, and the Negotiation of Academic Knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349-382.

21            Hyland, K. (1998b). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  

22            Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, Boosters and Lexical Invisibility: Noticing Modefiers in Academic Texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197.

23            Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

24            Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. NY: Continuum Discourse Series.

25            Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary Identities: Individuality Community in Academic Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

26            Jordan, R. (1997). English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

27            Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A Study of in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, 8, pp. 183-228.

28            Leech, J. (1983). Priciples of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman. 

29            Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30            Markkanen, R. and Schroder, H. (1997). Hedging: A Challenge for Pragmatic and Discourse Analysis. In R. Markkanen and H. Schroder (eds), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to to the analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts.berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 3-18.

31            Martinez, I. A. (2003). Aspects of theme in the method and discussion sections of biology journal articles in English. Journal of English for academic purposes, 2, 103-123.

32            Mirzapour, F., and Mahand, M. R. (2012). Hedges and boosters in native and non-native library and information and computer science research articles. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Lsanguages Studies, 18(2), 119-128.

33            Myers, G. (1989). The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles. Applied Linguistics, 10 (1)

34            Nikula, T. (1997). Interlanguage view on hedging. In R. Markkanen & H. Schroder (Eds.), hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, (pp. 188-208). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

35            Ostler, S. (1987). English in Parallels: A Comparison English and Arabic Prose. R. Kaplan (Eds), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

36            Prince, E., J. Frader and C. Bosk (1982). On Hedging in Physician- physician Discourse. Linguistics and the Professions. Proceeding of the Second Annual Delaware Symposium on Language Studies. Nowrwood, NJ: Ablex, 83- 97.

37            Robberecht, P. and Van Petegham, M. (1982). A functional Model for the Description of Modality. In Fifth International Conference on Contrastive Projects, Jyvaskyla, Finland.

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

39            Scarcella, R. and Brunak, R. (1981). On Speaking Politely in a Second Language. International journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 59-75.

40            Skelton,J. (1988). Comments in Academic Articles. In P. Grunwell (Eds),  Applied Linguistics in Society. London: CILT/BAAL.

41            Swales, J. (1990). Gener Anlysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

42            Swales, J. and Feak, C. (2004). Academic Writing of Graduation Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. Ann  Arbor: University of Michigan.

43            Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.

44            Varttala, T. (1999). Remarks in the Communicative Functions of Hedging in Popular Scientific and Specialist Research Articles on Medicine. English for Specific Purposes, 2: 177-200.

45            Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and Detachment in English and Bulgarian Academic Writing. English for Specific Purposes, 83- 102.  

46            Ventola, E. (1992). Writing Scientific English: Overcoming Cultural Problems. International journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 91-220.

47            Wishnoff, J. (2000). Hedging Your Bets: L2 Learners' Acquisition of Pragmatic Devices in Academic Writing and Computer-Mediated Discourse. Second Language Studies, 19(1), 119- 148.

Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatic, 50(1), 23-36