|
چکیده
|
An important element in writing research articles, particularly in hummanities and social sciences is the use of hedging devices. Lakoff (1973) defines hedging devices as “words whose job it is to make things more or less fuzzy” (p. 195). The present study aimed at comparing and contrasting the frequency and type of hedging devices used in the Discussion sections of research articles in Humanities and Engineering, each with four disciplines, namely, Educational Sciences, Business Administration, TEFL and Law within Humanities; and Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Power Engineering, and Electronic Engineering within Engineering. To do so, a corpus of 160 research articles (20 articles for each field) were randomly selected and the hedging devices in thier discussion sections were identified according to Salager-Meyer’s (1994) taxonomy. Regarding the type and frequency of hedging devices used in the Discussion sections of these articles, the results of chi-square analyses revealed that there were statistically significant differences between: (a) articles written in Engineering and those written in the Humanities, (b) Educational Sciences and Law, (c) Business Administration and Law, (d) TEFL and Law, (e) Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering, (f) Civil Engineering and Power Engineering, and (g) Civil Engineering and Electronic Engineering. The results and implications of the study are discussed in more detail in the paper.
|