Hedging Negative Comments In Academic Writing:a Comparative Study Between EFL Learners And Expert Writers

This paper reports a comparative study of how Chinese advanced English learners (MA students majoring in English) and mature writers hedge their negative comments in academic writing. It attempts to examine whether there are some pragmatically related problems in the use of hedging negative comments in academic writing among Chinese MA students (English majors) through both quantitative and qualitative analysis so as to reveal their pragmatic development in academic communication.Two different corpora were built:one was made up of30articles from well-known linguistic journals, and the other contained30MA theses from CNKI in the field of linguistics completed by postgraduate students (English majors) from several universities all over China. In accordance with Face Theory, negative comments were classified into two general groups:direct negative comments (bald on record) and hedged negative comments (with either positive or negative redressive action). Furthermore, the strategies and linguistic forms of hedging were differentiated. Based on the detailed classification, the frequency of different categories was calculated in both mature writers’ articles and Chinese MA theses. Then semi-structured interviews were carried out. Moreover, pragmatic failures in MA theses were also examined. The major findings are as follows. First, mature writers tend to hedge their negative comments on previous studies more frequently and employ more strategies for negative politeness than Chinese advanced EFL learners, which suggests that Chinese advanced EFL learners pay little attention to hedging negative comments to show politeness in academic writing and that western cultures value negative politeness more while Chinese cultures put positive politeness in priority. Both pragmalinguistic failures and sociopragmatic failures occur in MA theses, which suggests that Chinese advanced EFL learners’ pragmatic competence and awareness need to be further raised.Second, the finding that expert writers and MA students resort to clusters of hedges when hedging negative comments indicates that Chinese advanced EFL learners also realize the pragmatic role that hedging plays in academic wiring as expert writers do. Although there are no significant differences of the types and numbers of hedges used in negative comments between expert writers’ articles and Chinese MA theses, mature writers employ more linguistic forms of hedges than Chinese advanced EFL learners do.Third, two kinds of factors which might explain the differences between experts writers’ articles and Chinese MA theses are analyzed----pragmalinguistic factors (specifically, the inadequate language knowledge of EFL learners) and sociopragmatic factors (specifically, culturally different understanding of politeness in Chinese and Western cultures).These findings could be both theoretically and practically significant for future research on teaching academic writing, Face Theory and Speech Act Theory. Theoretically, this paper extends the study of Face Theory into academic writing. Practically, the study provides guidance for EFL teaching and learning. First, it is necessary for EFL teachers to introduce hedging to help students organize successful academic writing. Second, it is helpful to develop appropriate use of different forms of hedging in EFL students’ writing.