SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

Hedges and Boosters in Research Article Abstracts of Turkish and Chinese Scholars

Arzu Ekoç Özçelik(YILDIZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2106-368X
Pages
150–162
Publication Date
2023-04-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results of this study showed that Turkish and Chinese academics didn’t show much statistical difference in their frequency of hedges, but they preferred to choose different hedging strategies in some instances.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the reviewed literature, many studies have compared the research articles written by L1 and L2 speakers of English.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this regard, comparing L2 speakers of English from two different linguistic backgrounds distinguishes this study from similar studies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results of this study showed that Turkish and Chinese academics didn’t show much statistical difference in their frequency of hedges, but they preferred to choose different hedging strategies in some instances.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:abstracts · academic writing · hedges

Abstract

In the reviewed literature, many studies have compared the research articles written by L1 and L2 speakers of English. In this regard, comparing L2 speakers of English from two different linguistic backgrounds distinguishes this study from similar studies. While writing research article abstract, writers need to calculate what weight to give to their arguments while showing credibility and authority at the same time. Given these reasons, the use of hedges and boosters in RA abstract is a worthwhile topic to be searched. The goal of this study is to investigate the hedging and boosting strategies in research article abstracts of Turkish and Chinese scholars. They were identified and analyzed in accordance with Hyland’s (2000) hedging and boosting list. The results of this study showed that Turkish and Chinese academics didn’t show much statistical difference in their frequency of hedges, but they preferred to choose different hedging strategies in some instances.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özçelik, A. E. (2023). Hedges and Boosters in Research Article Abstracts of Turkish and Chinese Scholars. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 150–162. https://doi.org/10.31464/jlere.1057023

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.
  2. Afshar, H.S., Adakereh, A. & MasoudRahimi. (2014). The impact of discipline and being native/non-native on the use of hedging devices. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 210-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.325
  3. Akbas, E. (2012). Exploring metadiscourse in master's dissertation abstracts: cultural and linguistic variations across postgraduate writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(1), 12-26. https://doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.1p.12
  4. Akbas, E. & Hardman, J. (2018). Strengthening or weakening claims in academic knowledge construction: A comparative study of hedges and boosters in postgraduate academic writing. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18 (4), 831-859. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0260
  5. Alia, M. M., Jomaa, N. J. ve Yunus, K. (2020). The use of metadiscourse markers in the academic writing of hard and soft domains. Journal of Humanities and Tourism Research, 10 (3), 627-644.
  6. Bayyurt, Yasemin & Sifakis, Nicos (2015). “ELF-aware in-service teacher education: a transformative perspective.” In Hugo Bowles & Alessia Cogo (Editors), International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca: Pedagogical Insights, (pp. 117-136). Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
  7. Ceyhan-Bingöl, Z. and Özkan, Y. (2019). EFL instructors' perceptions and practices on English as a lingua-franca (ELF). The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 19 (2), 86-102.
  8. Çapar, M. and Turan, Ü. D. (2020). Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Articles Written by Turkish and Native Speakers. AJESI - Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 10(1), 324-358. https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.682042
  9. Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00007-0
  10. Demir, C. (2018). Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(4), 74-92.
  11. Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2016). Cross-cultural variation in the use of hedges and boosters in academic discourse. Prague Journal of English Studies, 5(1), 163-184. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjes-2016-0009
  12. Ebrahimi, S. F. & Chan, S.H. (2015). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and economics: Functional analysis of the grammatical subject. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 35(4), 381-397. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2015.1070660
  13. Ekoç, A. (2010). Analyzing Turkish MA students' use of lexical hedging strategies in theses abstracts. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1), 49-62.
  14. Flowerdew, L. J. (2015). Adjusting pedagogically to an ELF world: An ESP perspective. In Y. Bayyurt and S. Akcan (Eds.), Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a lingua franca, (pp.13-35). De Gruyter.
  15. Gholamit, J. and Ilghamit, R. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in biological research articles and journal impact factor: Non-native writers vs. native writers. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 44(4), 349-360. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20961
  16. Gillaerts, P. and Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
  17. Gong, H., Liu, L. and Cao, F. (2021). A cross-linguistic study of interactional metadiscourse in English and Chinese research articles by the same Chinese scholars. Journal of Language, Identity and Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2021.1932504
  18. Hatipoğlu, Ç. and Algı, S. (2018). Catch a tiger by the toe: Modal hedges in EFL argumentative paragraphs. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 957-982. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0373
  19. Hu, G. and Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795-2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
  20. Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.
  21. Hyland, K. (2000a). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
  22. Hyland, K. (2000b). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9 (4), 179-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667145
  23. Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistic, 25 (2), 156-177.
  24. Hyland, K. (2005a). Digging up texts and transcripts: Confessions of a discourse analyst. In P. K. Matsuda and T. Silva (Eds.), Second Language Writing Research (pp.177-191). Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
  25. Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
  26. Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9 (2), 125-143.
  27. Kaya, F., & Yağız, O. (2020). Move analysis of research article abstracts in the field of ELT: A comparative study. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(1), 390-404. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712854
  28. Kurt-Taşpınar, H. (2017). Epistemic Modality in Academic Writing: A Discipline-Based Analysis. The Literacy Trek, 3 (1), 47-65.
  29. Li, T. and Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 345-356. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004
  30. Liu, P. and Huang, X. (2017). A study of interactional metadiscourse in English abstracts of Chinese economics research articles. Higher Education Studies, 7 (3), 25-41. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v7n3p25
  31. Lotfi, S. A. T., Sarkeshikian, S. A. H. & Saleh, E. (2019). A cross-cultural study of the use of metadiscourse markers in argumentative essays by Iranian and Chinese EFL students. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 6, (1601540), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2019.1601540
  32. Mu. C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J., and Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003
  33. Mkhitaryan, Y. & Tumanyan, S. (2015). On differences in the use of hedging in English and Armenian academic discourse. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 2506-2511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.324
  34. Nugroho, A. (2019). Exploring metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Journal of English Language and Culture, 9(2), 113-127.
  35. Onder-Ozdemir, N. & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011
  36. Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistic and educational technology: a study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10(2), 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607087010
  37. Piqué-Noguera, C. (2012). Writing business research article abstracts: A genre approach. Iberica, 24, 211-232.
  38. Saeeaw, S. & Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2014). Rhetorical variation across research article abstracts in environmental science and applied linguistics. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 81-93.
  39. Samaie, M., Khosravian, F. & Boghayeri, M. (2014). The frequency and types of hedges in research article introductions by Persian and English native authors. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1678-1685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.593
  40. Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of a bende set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2002.10.001
  41. Suntara, W. & Usaha, S. (2013). Research article abstracts in two related disciplines: Rhetorical variation between linguistics and applied linguistics. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n2p84
  42. Supatranont, P. (2012). Developing a writing template of research article abstracts: A corpus-based method. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 144-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.256
  43. Yagız, O. & Demir, C. (2014). Hedging strategies in academic discourse: A comparative analysis of Turkish writers and native writers of English. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 260-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.085