A Corpus-Based Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of Hedging Strategies in Linguistics and Engineering Doctoral Dissertation Introductions
Abstract
Hedging strategies are essential rhetorical tools in academic writing, enabling authors to express caution, manage interpersonal relationships, and conform to disciplinary conventions. This study examined the use of hedging strategies in the Introduction sections of doctoral dissertations (DDs) in Linguistics (Ling) and Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EEE) through a cross-disciplinary lens. Using a corpus-based, mixed-method approach, the research analyzed a specialized corpus of 50 DDs from leading US universities (2019–2023), comprising approximately 165,000 words. The analysis integrated Hyland’s (1998) poly-pragmatic model of hedging and Varttala’s (1999) lexical categorization, focusing on content-oriented and reader-oriented hedges. Corpus tools and log-likelihood tests were used to identify hedges and examine cross-disciplinary differences. Results revealed that Ling dissertations exhibited higher hedge frequency and lexical diversity, reflecting their interpretative nature, while EEE prioritized precision and objectivity. Key findings indicated that Ling employed diverse reader-oriented hedges for engagement, whereas EEE favored content-oriented hedges for technical precision. These distinctions highlight the discipline-sensitive variation in hedge frequency, functional orientation, and epistemic stance. The study contributes to a deeper understanding of disciplinary writing practices, with implications for teaching and improving scholarly communication. By tailoring hedging strategies to field-specific expectations, students and researchers can enhance clarity, credibility, and audience engagement in their academic work.
Keywords: hedging strategies; cross-disciplinary; doctoral dissertations; academic writing; EAP
ABSTRAK
Strategi hedging merupakan alat retorik yang penting dalam penulisan akademik untuk membolehkan penulis menulis dengan berhati-hati, mengurus hubungan interpersonal, dan mematuhi konvensyen disiplin. Kajian ini meneliti penggunaan strategi hedging di bahagian Pengenalan disertasi kedoktoran bagi bidang Linguistik (Ling) dan Kejuruteraan Elektrik dan Elektronik (EEE) melalui lensa merentas disiplin. Dengan menggunakan pendekatan kaedah campuran berasaskan korpus, penyelidikan ini menganalisis sebuah korpus khusus yang terdiri daripada 50 buah disertasi kedoktoran dari universiti-universiti terkemuka di Amerika Syarikat (2019–2023), yang merangkumi kira-kira 165,000 patah perkataan. Analisis ini menggunakan model hedging poli-pragmatik Hyland (1998) dan pengkategorian leksikal Varttala (1999), dengan memberikan tumpuan kepada strategi hedging berorientasikan kandungan dan strategi hedging berorientasikan pembaca. Alat korpus dan ujian kebolehjadian log (log-likelihood) telah digunakan untuk mengenal pasti unsur hedging dan meneliti perbezaan merentas disiplin. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahawa disertasi Ling menunjukkan kekerapan hedging dan kepelbagaian leksikal yang lebih tinggi, yang mencerminkan sifat interpretatifnya, manakala disertasi EEE lebih mengutamakan ketepatan dan objektiviti. Dapatan utama menunjukkan bahawa Ling menggunakan pelbagai hedging berorientasikan pembaca untuk tujuan keterlibatan, manakala EEE lebih menggemari hedging berorientasikan kandungan untuk ketepatan teknikal. Perbezaan ini menonjolkan variasi yang sensitif terhadap disiplin dari segi kekerapan hedging, orientasi fungsi, dan pendirian epistemik. Kajian ini menyumbang kepada pemahaman yang lebih mendalam tentang amalan penulisan disiplin, yang membawa implikasi terhadap pengajaran dan peningkatan komunikasi ilmiah. Dengan menyesuaikan strategi hedging mengikut sesuatu bidang, pelajar dan penyelidik dapat meningkatkan kejelasan, kredibiliti, dan keterlibatan pembaca dalam penulisan akademik mereka.
Kata Kunci: strategi hedging; rentas disiplin; disertasi doctoral; penulisan akademik; EAP
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2019). A cross-cultural study of hedging in discussion sections by junior and senior academic writers. Ibérica, (38), 177-202.
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), 2249630. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2249630
Afshar, H. S., Moradi, M., & Hamzavi, R. (2014). Frequency and type of hedging devices used in the research articles of humanities, basic sciences and agriculture. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 70-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.290
Ahmed, W. K., & Maros, M. (2017). Using hedges as relational work by Arab EFL students in student-supervisor consultations. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 17(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2017-1701-06
Akoto, O. Y., & Afful, J. B. A. (2020). Variations in metadiscourse use in English language introduction and literature review thesis chapters. Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching, 4(2), 390-408. https://doi.org/10.30743/ll.v4i2.2601
Al-Zarieni, M. M., & Alkhresheh, M. M. (2024). Hedges and boosters in the abstract sections of master thesis at Yarmouk University. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 7(1), 199-207. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2024.7.1.18
Anthony, L. (2024). AntConc (Version 4.3.1) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/AntConc
Asfina, R., Kadarisman, A. E., & Astuti, U. P. (2018). Hedges used by Indonesian ELT students in written and spoken discourses. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 650-658. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i3.9815
Aziz, S., & Riaz, F. (2024). Interacting with the audience: Metadiscourse markers in top ten impact factor journal article abstracts in applied linguistics. Journal of Applied Linguistics and TESOL (JALT), 7(4), 45-78.
Barbara, S. W. Y., Afzaal, M., & Aldayel, H. S. (2024). A corpus-based comparison of linguistic markers of stance and genre in the academic writing of novice and advanced engineering learners. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02757-4
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001
Boginskaya, O. A. (2023). Russian lexical and syntactic hedges in dissertation reviews. Russian Language Studies, 21(1), 18-32. https://doi.org/10.22363/2618-8163-2023-21-1-18-32
Boginskaya, O. (2024). A contrastive analysis of metadiscourse patterns in academic texts by non-native authors. Lengua y Habla, (28), 280-297.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.Deng, Z., Ali, A. M., & Zin, Z. B. M. (2024). Features of hedging strategies performed by the Federal Reserve Chair in Press Conferences. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 14(11),
-3495. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1411.17
Deng, Z., Ali, A. M., & Zin, Z. B. M. (2025). Investigating methodological trends of hedging strategies in academic discourse: A systematic literature review. World Journal of English Language, 15(5), 322-334. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v15n5p322
Di Marco, C., & Mercer, R. E. (2004). Hedging in scientific articles as a means of classifying citations. Working Notes of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text: Theories and Applications, 50-54.
Dontcheva‐Navratilova, O. (2024). Hedges and boosters in L2 (Czech) Master’s theses and published research articles: A contrastive analysis. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12602
Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(99)00026-5
Ekoç-Özçelik, A. (2023). Hedges and boosters in research article abstracts of Turkish and Chinese scholars. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 150-162. https://doi.org/10.31464/jlere.1057023
Farnia, M., & Gerami, S. (2021). Comparative study of interactional metadiscourse markers in the discussion section of soft and hard science research articles: Hedges and boosters in focus. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures, 13(2), 263-280. https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.13.2.5
Flowerdew, J. (2016). English for specific academic purposes (ESAP) writing: Making the case. Writing & Pedagogy, 8(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v8i1.30051
Ghahraman, V., Karlsson, M., Kazemi, A., Saeedi, S., & Elhami, A. (2023). On the functions of hedging in research articles (RAs): A study on RA discussions. International Journal of Language Studies, 17(1), 165-187.
Hashemi, M. R., & Shirzadi, D. (2016). The use of hedging in discussion sections of applied linguistics research articles with varied research methods. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 35(1), 31-56. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2016.3729
Hinkel, E. (2004). Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 5-29. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr132oa
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centred approach. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733031
Huddleston, R. (1971). A comparative tautology. Linguistic Inquiry, 2(2), 252-254.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAF textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90004-3
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.14264/1d271a5
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(02)00035-8
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.6719
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2012). Undergraduate understandings: Stance and voice in final year reports. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 134-150). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_9
Karunakaran, T., & Hong, A. L. (2025). Metadiscourse and persuasion in expert-written online product reviews. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 25(2), 544–563. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2025-2502-13
Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M. H. (2015). Hedging in academic writing-a pedagogically-motivated qualitative study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 600-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.200
Kozubíková Šandová, J. (2020). Cross-cultural differences in the use of rhetorical strategies in academic texts. An English and Czech contrastive study. Linguistica Silesiana, 41, 177-195. https://doi.org/10.24425/linsi.2020.133271
Laghari, T. (2022). Softening the propositional claims: Investigation of appropriate use of hedging strategies in academic writing. Global Language Review, 7(2), 429-441. https://doi.org/10.31703/glr.2022(vii-ii).35
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458-508. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00262952
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lenardič, J., & Fišer, D. (2021). Hedging modal adverbs in Slovenian academic discourse. Slovenščina 2.0: Empirične, aplikativne in interdisciplinarne raziskave, 9(1), 145-180. https://doi.org/10.4312/slo2.0.2021.1.145-180
Livytska, I. (2019). The use of hedging in research articles on applied linguistics. Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 7(1), 35-53. https://doi.org/10.2478/jolace-2019-0003
Loi, C. K., & Lim, J. M. H. (2019). Hedging in the discussion sections of English and Malay educational research articles. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 19(1), 36-61. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-1901-03
Malášková, M. (2012). Hedges as writer protective devices in applied linguistics and literary criticism research articles. Discourse and Interaction, 5(1), 31-47. https://doi.org/10.5817/di2012-1-31
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089
Mirzapour, F. (2016). Gender differences in the use of hedges and first-person pronouns in research articles of applied linguistics and chemistry. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(6), 166-173. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.6p.166
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1
Nguyen, T. A. (2018). The use of hedging devices in applied linguistics academic discourse: The case of reading in a foreign language and English language teaching research articles. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 34(5), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4298
Nikula, T. (1997). Interlanguage view on hedging. In R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 188-207). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807332.188
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
Petchkij, W. (2023). Paraphrasing of hedged statements by Thai and non-Thai EFL medical science graduate students. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 67, 33-65. https://doi.org/10.58837/chula.pasaa.67.1.2
Przybyl, H., Karakanta, A., Menzel, K., & Teich, E. (2022). Exploring linguistic variation in mediated discourse: Translation vs. interpreting. In M. Kajzer-Wietrzny, A. Ferraresi, I. Ivaska, & S. Bernardini (Eds.), Mediated discourse at the European Parliament: Empirical investigations (pp. 191-218). Language
Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6977050
Qiu, X., Wang, Y. A., Dartey, E. A., & Kim, M. (2024). Interactional metadiscourse in expert and student disciplinary writing: Exploring intrageneric and functional variation. English for Specific Purposes, 73, 124-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.10.007
Rabab’ah, G., Jaser, H., & Altakhaineh, A. R. M. (2022). The use of hedging devices by female Saudi EFL learners. The International Journal of Humanities Education, 20(1), 81-96. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-0063/cgp/v20i01/81-96
Rayson, P., Berridge, D., & Francis, B. (2004). Extending the Cochran rule for the comparison of word frequencies between corpora. In G. Purnelle, C. Fairon, & A. Dister (Eds.), Le poids des mots (pp. 926-936). Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2
Salager-Meyer, F. (2011). Scientific discourse and contrastive linguistics: hedging. European Science Editing, 37(2), 35-37.
Scott, M. (2016). WordSmith Tools Version 7. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software. Retrieved from http://lexically.net/wordsmith/
Siregar, M. I. (2023). A rhetorical analysis of the conclusion section of research articles published in international and Indonesian applied linguistics journals. In Proceedings of the International Conference on English Language and Teaching (ICOELT 2022) (pp. 307-315). Atlantis Press.
https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-166-1_43
Suratno, A., & Aydawati, E. N. (2025). Hedging strategies in non-science theses: A corpus-based analysis of discussion sections. ETERNAL (English Teaching Journal), 16(1), 37-52. https://doi.org/10.26877/eternal.v16i1.1059
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(92)90009-y
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524827
Takimoto, M. (2015). A corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i1.836
Taleshian, M. G., Zahmatkesh, H., Nasrollahi Mouziraji, A., & Nasrollahi Mouziraji, A. (2024). Exploring introduction sections in pharmacology: A corpus-based comparison of research articles and textbooks. Journal of English for Specific Purposes Praxis, 1(2), 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.22034/jespp.2024.217586
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(S1), 33-49. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.903302
Varga, M. (2020). Hedging functions of extraposed that-clauses in English and declarative subject da-clauses in Croatian academic writing. ExELL (Explorations in English Language and Linguistics), 8(2), 83-109. https://doi.org/10.2478/exell-2021-0001
Varttala, T. (1999). Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 177-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(98)00007-6
Vass, H. (2017). Lexical verb hedging in legal discourse: The case of law journal articles and Supreme Court majority and dissenting opinions. English for Specific Purposes, 48, 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.07.001
Vold, E. T. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 61-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00106.x
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), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211005454
Xu, C., & Li, D. (2022). Exploring genre variation and simplification in interpreted language from comparable and intermodal perspectives. Babel, 68(5), 742-770. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00289.cui
Yu, Q., & Wen, R. (2022). A corpus-based quantitative study on the interpersonal functions of hedges in Chinese and German academic discourse. Heliyon, 8(9), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10698
Zainuddin, S. Z., Damiano-Nittoli, A. C., & Zainal, A. Z. (2019). Hedging functions in Malaysian doctoral candidature defense sessions. Sage Open, 9(4), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019894275
Zarza, S., & Tan, H. (2016). Patterns of schematic structure and strategic features in newspaper editorials: A comparative study of American and Malaysian editorials. Discourse & Communication, 10(6), 635-657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481316674754
Zhang, J., Lee, G. I., & Chan, M. Y. (2023). Systematic literature review of crosslinguistic analysis of stance markers in EFL learners’ academic writing in English. World Journal of English Language, 14(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v14n1p19
Zhao, B. (2023). A Pragmatic Analysis of Hedges in Silent Spring under the Perspective of Adaptation Theory. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 6(4), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2023.6.4.10
Zhao, W. (2025). Reconstructing stance in EFL doctoral thesis writing through generative artificial intelligence. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-06249-x
Zou, H., & Hyland, K. (2019). Reworking research: Interactions in academic articles and blogs. Discourse Studies, 21(6), 713-733. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619866983
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
eISSN : 2550-2131
ISSN : 1675-8021