Rhetorical Impact through Hedging Devices in the ‘Results and Discussion’ Part of a Civil Engineering Research Article

Minoo Khamesian

Abstract


It is common knowledge that hedging devices as a rhetorical technique common in all persuasive writing are considerably important in scientific discourse, for they are tools which facilitate presenting claims or arguments in a polite, acceptable and respectful manner. In addition, they are discoursal resources available to a scientific writer’s propositions to express uncertainty, skepticism, and open-mindedness.

Research articles are an important means of communication between different members of a discourse community, and will be convincing to a certain extent only when authors are able to employ rhetorical conventions, such as hedging devices, persuasively. However, hedging is a problematic aspect in EAP learning since rarely are the learners able to hedge their statements appropriately, engineering students not being an exception.

Therefore, this article tends to linguistically analyze the function of rhetorical impact of using hedging devices in the results and discussion part of a civil engineering research article published in the Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building & Housing) to conclude that a greater and more systematic attention should be given to hedging devices considering their importance in EAP. The implication is that students, especially the Non Native English Speakers, be taught how to recognize and effectively use hedging devices in their writing as they do not seem to be familiar with hedges and therefore find it particularly difficult to hedge their statements appropriately.

Keywords: hedging devices, discourse community, linguostylistic analysis, Civil Engineering Research Articles


Full Text:

PDF

References


Hanania, E. A. S., & Akhtar, K. (1985). Verb form and Rhetorical Function in Science Writing. A Study of MS Theses in Biology, Chemistry and Physic. English for Specific Purposes, 4, 49-58.

Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP Textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 239-256.

Hyland K., (1995). The Author in the Text: Hedging Scientific Writing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language, 18.

Hyland, K., (1995). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Hyland, K. (2005). Prudence, Precision, and Politeness: Hedges in Academic Writing. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis Lingüístics, 5, 99-112.

Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, Interaction and the Construction of Knowledge: Representing Self and others in Research Writing. Institute of Education. University of London.

Hyland, K. (2009). Writing in the Disciplines: Research Evidence for Specificity. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 1(1), 5-22.

Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatic of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10,1- 35.

Skelton, J. (1988). Comments in academic articles. Grunwell, P. (Ed.), Applied linguistics in society, London: CILT/BAAL, 98-108.

Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring Variation According to Discipline and Intended Audience. Electronic Dissertationhttp://acta.uta.fa.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2010-2021 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.