Abstract
Studies into stance-taking in scholarly publications remain inconclusive. Using software programs that employ predetermined lists of items to analyze data from large corpora fails to account for the role played by context in stance-taking and limits the possibility of discovering new items. Academic writers’ experience and knowledge, as well as their attitudes towards their subject matter and readers have also tended to be ignored. This paper reports on the development and application of two instruments for identifying hedging devices and features of writer-reader relationship that adopt a broader, context-based approach to the analysis of these aspects of stance. We suggest that these tools enrich our understanding of stance-taking, thus making an innovative and valuable contribution to the field of academic discourse analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, P. (2010). Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: Inductive learning for second language writers using a stance corpus. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, USA, 2010. Retrieved July 23, 2011, from ProQuest® Dissertations & Theses database (Document ID 2177610501).
Clyne, M. (1991). The socio-cultural dimension: the dilemma of the German-speaking scholar. In H. Schröder (Ed.), Subject-oriented texts: Languages for special purposes and text theory. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Crismore, A., & Vande Kopple, W. J. (1997). Hedges and readers: Effects on attitudes and learning. In R. Markkanen & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 83–114). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Dahl, T. (2008). Contributing to the academic conversation: A study of new knowledge claims in economics and linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(7), 1184–1201.
Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. [Electronic version]. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 361–386.
Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (1998b). Exploring corporate rhetoric metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224–245.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2001a). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18, 549–574.
Hyland, K. (2001b). Humble servants of the discipline? Self mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207–226.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Languge Writing, 12, 133–151.
Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1–23.
Hyland, K., & Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific writing. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 42, pp. 297–338). Maryland: The American Society for Information Science and Technology.
Lakoff, R. (1972). Language in context. Language, 48(4), 907–927.
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458–508.
Lewin, B. A. (2005). Hedging: An exploratory study of authors’ and readers’ identification of ‘toning down’ in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 163–178.
Luukka, M-R., & Markkanen, R. (1997). Impersonalization as a form of hedging (Vol. 24). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Martin–Martin, P. (2003). Personal attribution in English and Spanish scientific texts. Barcelona English Language and Literature Studies 12, retrieved on November 5, 2009 at http://www.publicacions.ub.es/revistes/bells12/PDF/art09.pdf.
Martin–Martin, P. (2008). The mitigation of scientific claims in research papers: A comparative study. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 133–152.
Meyer, P. G. (1997). Hedging strategies in written academic discourse: Strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In R. Markkanen & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 83–114). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Millan, E. (2008). Epistemic and approximative meaning revisited: The use of hedges, boosters and approximators when writing research in different disciplines. In S. Burgess & P. Martin–Martin (Eds.), English as an additional language in research publication and communication. Bern: Peter Lang.
Namsaraev, V. (1997). Hedging in Russian academic writing in sociological texts. In R. Markkanen & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 83–114). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Nikula, T. (1997). Interlanguage view on hedging. In R. Markkanen & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 83–114). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Llyod (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Ass.
Salager-Meyer, F. (2000). Procrustes recipe: hedging and positivism. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 175–187.
Skorczynska, H. (2005). The role of metaphorical markers in the polarisation of scientific business discourse: A preliminary study. In J. Campo, I. Ferrando & B. Fortuño (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 147–156). Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.
Vázquez, I., & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond mood and modality: Epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles. A cross-disciplinary study. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 171–190.
Wills, W. (1997). Hedging in expert language review. In R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, (pp. 134–147). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Wishnoff, J. (2000). L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second Language Studies, 19(1), 119–148.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mohd Noor, M., Mulder, J., Thompson, C. (2014). A Context-Based Approach to the Identification of Hedging Devices and Features of Writer-Reader Relationship in Academic Publications. In: Łyda, A., Warchał, K. (eds) Occupying Niches: Interculturality, Cross-culturality and Aculturality in Academic Research. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02526-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02526-1_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02525-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02526-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)