hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles.pdfVIP

下载本文档

132
0
约8.58万字
约 15页
2017-04-13 发布于江苏
举报
版权申诉

hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles.pdf

1、原创力文档（book118）网站文档一经付费（服务费），不意味着购买了该文档的版权，仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用，不得用于商业用途，未经授权，严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等，侵权必究。。
2、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传，本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺！文档内容仅供研究参考，付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费，意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险，本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务；查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档，您可以点击这里二次下载。
3、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等，请点击“版权申诉”（推荐），也可以打举报电话：400-050-0827(电话支持时间：9:00-18:30)。
4、该文档为VIP文档，如果想要下载，成为VIP会员后，下载免费。
5、成为VIP后，下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后，不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
6、成为VIP后，您将拥有八大权益，权益包括：VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
7、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传，每下载1次，网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等，对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档

hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles

Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals Guangwei Hu *, Feng Cao Department of English Language and Literature, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 NanyangWalk, Singapore 637616, Singapore 1. Introduction This study examines the use of hedges and boosters as metadiscourse markers in the genre of the academic article abstract from a comparative perspective. According to an often-quoted definition, metadiscourse consists of ‘‘the self- reflective expressions used to negotiate interactional meanings in a text, assisting the writer (or speaker) to express a viewpoint and engage with readers as members of a particular community’’ (Hyland, 2005a:37). As a repertoire of rhetorical resources deployed to manage the relations among the writer, the evolving text and the intended reader, metadiscourse has attracted increasing research attention in the past decade, especially from researchers of scientific and scholarlywriting (e.g., Abdi, 2002; Abdi et al., 2010; A?del, 2006; Dahl, 2004; Gillaerts and Van de Velde, 2010; Hyland, 2005a,b; Hyland and Tse, 2004; Lindeberg, 2004; Peterlin, 2005). This focus on metadiscourse has been motivated by the growing recognition that academic writers do not simply report their findings in an objective or impersonal way, but actively draw from a range of rhetorical strategies rooted in their own disciplines and socio-cultural milieus to organize arguments, provide evidence, and evaluate claims to convince their readers (Abdi et al., 2010; Bazerman, 1988; Crismore et al., 1993; Flowerdew, 1997; Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 2795–2809 A R T I C L E I N F O Article history: Received 30 June 2010 Received in revised form 27 January 2011 Accepted 15 April 2011 Available online 26 May 2011 Keywords: Academic writing Article abstract Booster Epistemological belief Hedge Metadiscourse Rhetorical convention A B S T R A C T Hedges an