Journals / Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

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

Pages
150–162
Publication Date
2023-04-29
DOI
—
🏛️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

ÖZÇELİK, 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://ajindex.com/articles/926875

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  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).
  7. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. 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 Linguistic