A Comparative Study Of Hedges In The Introduction Of Research Articles Written By Native And Non-native English Researchers

Hedging is an important rhetorical strategy in English academic writing, for it could make the authors’ statements more tentative, without being categorical.Therefore, it could help authors to get rid of the unnecessary criticism. This research is a comparative study of lexical hedges in the introduction of research articles written by native English researchers and Chinese researchers, due to the fact that hedging is mainly expressed by lexical forms.Hyland(1998a) defines hedging as any linguistic means which are used to convey either “(1)a lack of complete commitment to the truth value of an accompanying proposition, or(2) a desire not to express that commitment categorically.” Varttala(2001) categorizes hedging devices into two forms: the lexical hedging devices and the non-lexical hedging devices. The lexical hedging devices are mainly divided into five categories, namely modal auxiliaries, full verbs, adverbs,adjectives, and nouns. As for the fact that most of hedging devices are in lexical forms,based on Hyland’s(1998a) definition and Varttala’s(2001) classification of lexical hedging devices, this study analyzes two self-compiled corpora, whose sources are from two international journals, namely Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics(CJAL)and English for Specific Purposes(ESP), by using a combination of qualitative and quantitative method. There are mainly two research questions:(1) What are the similarities and differences in the usage of lexical hedges in the introduction of researcher articles written by native English researchers and Chinese researchers?(2)What are the potential factors that lead to the similarities and differences of lexical hedges in the introduction of researcher articles written by native English researchers and Chinese researchers?The statistic tool Ant Conc3.2.4 is applied to get the frequency and distribution,with manually to rule out the unqualified ones, for hedging is heavily context-dependent. Based on the data analysis, the author offered the following findings which show some similarities between native English researchers and Chinese researchers:(1) Lexical hedging devices are frequently used in the two corpora, with all the five categories being used.(2) The frequency of full verbs usage is the highest, while that of modal auxiliaries usage the lowest in the two corpora. The differences are as follows:(1) Native English researchers outnumber Chinese researchers in the usage of lexical hedges both in number and type.(2) From the highest to the lowest frequency of lexical hedging usage, the line followed by the native English researchers is different from that by Chinese researchers. The possible reasons for these phenomena are as follows:(1) Under the influence of different cultures, the native English researchers and Chinese researchers hold different opinions in the usage of rhetorical strategy, ways to show politeness, attitude to science, even the established relationship between writer and reader.(2) Chinese researchers do not get involved into the English atmosphere, and thus they are lacking of the English proficiency due to the fact that lexical hedging devices have been payed little attention in China. Then the author offers some suggestions, including raising awareness of hedges, improving the pragmatic competence and eyeing higher frequency hedging items, and hopes that they will give some help for Chinese English learners to improve their abilities in using lexical hedging devices in academic writing.