Hedges In English Academic Abstracts:a Contrastive Study Of Native English Researchers And Chinese Researchers

In academic writing, hedges are important resources for writers to make their claims less absolute and assertive, shielding them from criticisms and also expressing deference towards readers’ alternative opinions. In a collection of90research article (RA) abstracts, this study examines the lexical hedges, the main realization of hedging devices. By adopting Varttala’s (2001) definition and taxonomy of hedges, both qualitative and quantitative analyses are conducted on the hedges in RA abstracts, with the aim of addressing two main research questions:1) What are the similarities and differences in the use of hedges between native English researchers and Chinese researchers in their English academic abstracts?2) What are the possible reasons for the different use of hedges between native English researchers and Chinese researchers in their research article abstracts?The statistic tool Antconc3.2.4is employed to figure out the frequency and distribution of hedges in the corpora, with unqualified hedging forms ruled out manually. The results of the analysis reveal some similarities in the use of hedges between native English researchers and Chinese researchers:1) Hedges are frequently used in both corpora.2) Modal auxiliaries are least commonly used in the two corpora. More importantly, there are significant differences between the two groups of researchers in their use of hedges. Firstly, as regards both the raw numbers and the total occurrences of hedges, native English researchers surpass Chinese researchers. Secondly, in terms of the most preferable type of hedges, native English researchers prefer epistemic verbs while Chinese researchers prefer epistemic adjectives. Thirdly, native researchers are more in favor of using those hedges expressing possibilities than their Chinese counterparts. Fourthly, in terms of the raw numbers and the occurrences, adjective items are the only type that Chinese researchers use more than native English researchers. The different patterning of hedges produces distinct authorial voices:native English researchers seem to be prudent and tentative, whereas Chinese researchers appear assertive and confident. Reasons for the differences are discussed in terms of the following aspects:1) cultural factors, including culturally preferred rhetorical practices, epistemological beliefs about science, culture-rooted politeness, and culture-based writer-reader relationships;2) Language-based factors, including lack of instruction on hedging use, Chinese researchers’ lack of proficiency in English, and native language transfer. Suggestions are offered about how to teach hedges, for the purpose of contributing to Chinese English learners’ acquisition of hedges and boosting their ability in academic abstract writing.