Hedging in English Social Science Research Articles: A Corpus-Based Comparison of Native and Turkish EFL Writers

Zekeriya Hamamcı

doi:10.21093/ijeltal.v11i1.2589

Hedging in English Social Science Research Articles: A Corpus-Based Comparison of Native and Turkish EFL Writers

Zekeriya Hamamcı

Abstract

Hedging plays a central role in academic writing because it enables researchers to present claims with appropriate caution and to situate their arguments in relation to earlier scholarship. This study compares hedging in English-language social science research articles written by native speakers of English and by Turkish scholars writing in English as a foreign language. Adopting a corpus-based contrastive design, the study examines 90 published research articles with WordSmith Tools. The corpus comprises 37,243 words in the Turkish EFL subcorpus and 38,349 words in the native-speaker subcorpus, with texts drawn from economics, education, law, and literature. The analysis considers both the overall frequency of hedges and their distribution across two rhetorically important parts of the article: the Introduction and the Discussion/Conclusion. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in total hedge frequency between the two groups (p = .935). Native-speaker writers produced 866 hedges (4.38%), while Turkish EFL writers produced 868 (4.39%). The contrast emerges not in quantity, but in placement. Turkish writers used more hedging in Introductions, whereas native-speaker authors used more in Discussion and Conclusion sections, where interpretation and evaluation become more prominent. The findings indicate that both groups share a broad awareness of cautious academic positioning, yet differ in how they distribute that caution across the article. The study therefore suggests that research on hedging should consider rhetorical location alongside raw frequency. The results also point to the value of section-sensitive instruction in EAP and ESP writing classrooms.

Keywords

Academic Writing, EFL Academic Discourse, Epistemic Stance, Hedging, Research Articles

Full Text:

PDF

References

Adrian, D., & Fajri, M. S. A. (2023). Hedging practices in soft science research articles: A corpus-based analysis of Indonesian authors. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2249630

Akman, E., & Karahan, P. (2023). Hedges and boosters in academic texts: a comparative study on English language teaching and physiotherapy research articles. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat, (32), 1335-1349. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1252902

Al-Mudhaffari, M., Hussin, S., & HoAbdullah, I. (2020). Interactional strategies in L2 writing: An exploration of Hedging and Boosting Strategies in Applied Linguistics research articles. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 20(1), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.33806/ijaes2000.20.1.9

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education.

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

Güçlü, R. (2024). Hedging and boosting in Turkish MA theses’ conclusions. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 20(1), 17–54. https://izlik.org/JA82FY93KM

Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 Academic Writing. Applied Language Learning, 15(1-2), 29-53.

Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90004-3

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274.

Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458–508.

Mur-Dueñas, P. (2021). There may be differences: Analysing the use of hedges in English and Spanish research articles. Lingua, 260, 103131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103131

Nemickienė, Ž. (2015). Hedging as a Multifunctional Phenomenon of Research / Popular Research Articles. Respectus Philologicus, 28(33A), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.15388/RESPECTUS.2015.28.33A.10

Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00050-7

Poole, R., Gnann, A., & Hahn-Powell, G. (2019). Epistemic stance and the construction of knowledge in science writing: A diachronic corpus study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42, 100784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100784

Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual data in medical English academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2

Sun, X., & Hu, G. (2023). Direct and indirect data-driven learning: An experimental study of hedging in an EFL writing class. Language Teaching Research, 27(3), 660–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820954459

Söğüt, M., & Keçik, İ. (2020). Hedges and boosters in academic writing: A comparative study of Turkish writers and native writers of English. Konin Language Studies, 8(1), 75–95.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research Genres: Exploration and Applications. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827

Taymaz, N. (2021). A corpus-based comparison of use of hedges and boosters by Turkish ELT MA and PhD students. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(Special Issue 1), 33–49.

Tıkaç, S. (2013). Hedging in academic writing: The use of “can” in university students’ argumentative essays at an English-medium university in Turkey (Master’s thesis). Boğaziçi University

Tran, T. Q., & Tang, T. B. (2022). Hedging in the Results and Discussion Section of English Applied Linguistics Research Articles by Vietnamese and Foreign Writers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 13(1),119-124. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1301.14

Varttala, T. A. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse: Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tampere, Finland). http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/951-44-5195-3.pdf

Wang, J., & Zeng, L. (2021). Disciplinary recognized self-presence: Self-mention used with hedges and boosters in PhD students' research writing. SAGE Open, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211005454

Yalavaç, Ç. (2021). Boosting and hedging in Turkish research articles (Master’s thesis). Hacettepe University

Yao, M., Wei, Y., & Wang, H. Promoting research by reducing uncertainty in academic writing: a large-scale diachronic case study on hedging in Science research articles across 25 years. Scientometrics 128, 4541–4558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04759-6

Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21093/ijeltal.v11i1.2589

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.

IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics) by http://ijeltal.org is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.