PERSUASIVE HEDGING STRATEGIES BETWEEN NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE AUTHORS OF ENGLISH JOURNAL ARTICLES | Aditama | LEKSEMA: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra

PERSUASIVE HEDGING STRATEGIES BETWEEN NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE AUTHORS OF ENGLISH JOURNAL ARTICLES

Madya Giri Aditama(1*)
(1) Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta
(*) Corresponding Author
DOI : 10.22515/ljbs.v3i2.1408

Abstract

Writing journal articles is the most scientific way to publish new research to public. Authors’ strategies to convince the readers are important to show their stance and viewpoint on the research. This study compares the strategies chosen by native and non-native English authors of journal articles in hedging their stances. The data were hedging strategies written in 50 randomly selected international journal articles, 25 of which were written by native English authors and 25 others by the non-natives. The result shows some differences in the use of hedges. Native authors show higher frequency in the use of writer-oriented hedges whereas non-native authors  had higher frequency in reader-oriented hedges. This study also finds authors’ styles to persuade the readers.

Keywords


journal article, native, strategies, hedges

References


Meadows, AJ (ed). 1979. The Scientific Journal. London: Aslib

Amarasinghe, Amala Dilani. 2012. “Facework Strategies of Sri Lankans Working in Australia”. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, (41) 2: 193-215, DOI: 10.1080/17475759. 2012.692333

Crystal, David. 1997. English as a Global Language. London: British Library

Dobs, Abby Mueller & PilarGarcés-Conejos Blitvich. 2013. “Impoliteness in Polylogal Interaction: Accounting for Face-threat Witnesses’ Responses”. Journal of Pragmatics, 53 : 112-130

Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Kılıçkaya, Ferit. 2010. “The Pragmatic Knowledge of Turkish EFL Students in Using Certain Request Strategies”. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimle r Dergisi, 9 (1): 185-201

Lakoff, G. Hedges. 1972. “A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts” in

P. Peranteau, J. Levi & G. Phares (eds.). Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 1972.

Mauko, Ida. 2014. The Native Speaker of English: A Clash of Conceptualizations. (Pro Gradu Thesis). Helsinki: University of Helsinki

McKinnon, Sean and Pilar Prieto. 2014. “The Role of Prosody and Gesture in the Perception of Mock Impoliteness”. Journal of Politeness Research 2014, 10 (2): 185-219. DOI 10.1515/pr-2014-0009

Pellby, Ellen Player. 2013. Hedging in Political Discourse: An Analysis of Hedging in an American City Council. (Bachelor Thesis).

Gavle: Gavle University

Stemler, Steve. 2001. “An Overview of Content Analysis”. Practical Assess-ment, Research & Evaluation, 7 (17) . Accessed July 9, 2015

Sundquist, Colleen Neary. 2013. “The Use of Hedges in the Speech of ESL Learners”. Elia, 13: 149-174

Takahashi, Satomi. 2014. “The Effects of Learner Profiles on Pragmalinguistic Awareness and Learning”. System 48 (2015) 48e61. DOI:10.1016/j.system. 2014.09.004

Wang, Xin. 2014. “A Cognitive Pragmatic Study of Rhetorical Questions”. English Language and Literature Studies, 4 (1)

Wijayanto, Agus. 2014. “Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1 Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. DOI: 10.1111/ijal.12081

Yates, Lynda & George Major. 2015. “Quick-Chatting, Smart Dogs, and How to Say Without Saying: Small Talk and Pragmatic Learning in the Community”. System 48 (2015) 141e152. DOI:10.1016/j.system.2014.09.011

Yue, Siwei & Xuefei Wang. 2014. Hedges Used in Business Emails: A Corpus Study on the Language Strategy of International Business Communication Online. Guangzhou: Guangdong University of Education.

Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press


Article Statistic

Abstract view : 40 times
PDF views : 58 times

Dimensions Metrics

How To Cite This :

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.