Хеджирование в точных и гуманитарных дисциплинах: корпусный анализ научных статей

Hedging devices play a crucial role in mitigating claims and reducing directness in academic writing. Their utilisation in scholarly discourse facilitates tentativeness and fosters effective communication. The present study investigates the use of hedging devices by Indonesian researchers in the soft sciences. The dataset comprises 2,511,423 words from 400 research articles authored by Indonesian scholars. The results demonstrate that Indonesian researchers in the field of soft sciences utilised hedges at a rate of 103.77 words per 10,000 words, which is comparatively lower when contrasted with the usage of hedges observed in articles published in internationally renowned journals authored by both native and non-native English speakers. Additionally, modal auxiliary verbs were identified as the most commonly employed category of hedging devices, with the modal verb can being the predominant hedging item across all types of hedges. The findings contribute to understanding hedging practices among non-native English speakers, particularly in the Indonesian academic context. This study concludes by suggesting a potential area for improvement in academic writing among Indonesian researchers, especially in the humanities and social sciences.

The present study aims to compare PhD dissertations, written by Turkish postgraduate students learning English as a foreign language, categorized based on the academic disciplines, in terms of the use of 4-word lexical bundles. To retrieve recurrent lexical bundles and to make their structural and functional analysis, various disciplines are grouped under two separate groups based on the academic fields such as hard and soft sciences. Also, English-major and non-English-major disciplines are compared to each other to see the variation in use of lexical bundles across disciplines. The findings reveal that ELT dissertations, representative of English-major disciplines, have three and four times as many lexical bundles as the dissertations written in the academic fields of soft and hard sciences, respectively. However, the academic fields produce almost the same number of lexical bundle types, suggesting that soft and hard sciences do not show variation in use of 4-word lexical bundles. With regard to the structural analysis of lexical bundles, it is found that lexical bundles most frequently appear in the syntactic categories of noun phrases and prepositional phrases. As for the functional distribution of lexical bundles, the findings indicate that the vast number of lexical bundles in each group function to be referential expressions

As a communicative strategy, hedging plays a central role in academic writing. Numerous different linguistic forms can be used to express this strategy. This article attempts to investigate modal auxiliary verbs as the principal means of expressing hedging in English academic discourse. For this purpose, a corpus of 75 primary empirical research articles from economics, linguistics, medicine, natural sciences and engineering was analyzed quantitatively with the help of corpus linguistic method. The results revealed that modal auxiliaries were used most frequently in linguistics and economics and least frequently in engineering and natural sciences while their use in medicine came in between. This seems to suggest that there is noticeable disciplinary variation in the degree of hedging through the use of modal auxiliaries in English research articles. Modal auxiliaries tend to be more common in soft sciences than in hard sciences whereas their use in health sciences in comparison with soft and hard sciences does not seem to show any significant difference.

As a communicative strategy, hedging plays a central role in academic writing. Numerous different linguistic forms can be used to express this strategy. This article attempts to investigate modal auxiliary verbs as the principal means of expressing hedging in English academic discourse. For this purpose, a corpus of 75 primary empirical research articles from economics, linguistics, medicine, natural sciences and engineering was analyzed quantitatively with the help of corpus linguistic method. The results revealed that modal auxiliaries were used most frequently in linguistics and economics and least frequently in engineering and natural sciences while their use in medicine came in between. This seems to suggest that there is noticeable disciplinary variation in the degree of hedging through the use of modal auxiliaries in English research articles. Modal auxiliaries tend to be more common in soft sciences than in hard sciences whereas their use in health sciences in comparison with soft and hard sciences does not seem to show any significant difference.

<table width="593" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="387"><p>This study aims to explain the comparison of the translation results of two translation machines, Google Translate and Bing Translator. The object of this research is the hedging words contained in one of the opinions in The Jakarta Post's online newspaper entitled Why Indonesians should write about Indonesia in English more often. The types of hedges that appear in the article and become the object of research are in four types, namely: lexical verb, modal auxiliary verb, compound hedges, and adverb of frequency. From the analysis conducted, the writer found that the translation of hedging words with two translation machines assisted different results of the translation are identical. The method used by the two translation machines is literal translation so that the form and meaning of the source text is equivalent to the form and meaning of the target text. The author believes that the artificial intelligence developed in those two translation machines has different abilities and can be proven by research with wider and more varied sentence objects.</p></td></tr></tbody></table>

Political manifestos state the objectives of political parties through diverse linguistic strategies. These linguistic strategies are paramount in the expression of varied intentions found in manifestos. Therefore, the research paper explored the use of modal and lexical verbs employed by politicians in conveying their political manifestos. The paper highlighted the use of modals to state various intentions, possibilities, promises, obligations and predictions. Data was collected through the 2015 and 2019 on-line manifestos of People Democratic Party (PDP) and All Progressives Congress (APC). The researchers also drew insights from the Systemic Functional Linguistics by analyzing the data functionally and structurally using the SPCA/MHQ formulas in Systematic Functional Linguistics. It was discovered that the political parties employed diverse modal auxiliary verbs to state their intentions, promises, obligations and possibilities. The findings also portrayed that the lexical verbs were utilized to state different resolutions and to make salient assertions. Therefore, the researchers discovered that the modal verbs had several semantic functions in the manifestos. It was concluded that, manifesto portrayed various types of claims, predictions, intentions, volitions, possibilities and obligations. They were employed by political parties to show political commitment and will.

This study reports on a corpus-based study of action nominalizations and their distribution in the thematic structure of introduction sections of research articles (RAs) across hard and soft sciences. Using the UAMCorpus Tool software, the corpus was tagged to locate the action nominalization instances. Manual text analysis was undertaken to exclude cases which did not comply with action nominalization criteria and to include instances of zero-derivation nominalizations. Action nominalizations were significantly more frequent in the introduction sections of hard science RAs (χ2= 39.850, P=.000). Results, however, did not show a significant difference in the lexical densities of the introduction sections of the two text groups. Moreover, the writers of RAs indicated a higher tendency to employ the action nominalizations in clause rhemes which may be attributed to the role of clause rhemes in the information structure of clauses. ESP writing instructors may use the findings of the present study to raise the awareness of the novices of the vital role of nominalization in facilitating their production of appropriate academic discourse.

Hedging Strategies in Academic Discourse: A Comparative Analysis of Turkish Writers and Native Writers of English

Better Living through Political Science:On Claudia Hauer's Strategic Humanism Konrad Weeda (bio) When my students and I spend a class or two on the Federalist toward the end of a year-long course on the history of political philosophy that began with Plato's Republic, a few passages elicit chuckles or smirks. One is Hamilton's remark in no. 9 that "the science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement." The other is Madison's mention in no. 37 of "the greatest adepts in political science."1 Hamilton's optimism could be what causes the smirk. But besides that, it would seem odd, say, to read an article in the science section of the New York Times reporting from the cutting edge of political science. The findings of political scientists fall closer in the space of discourse to the "takes" of pundits than to discoveries in the hard sciences. Madison's "adepts" are just as obscure as Hamilton's "improvement." If an adept in a science is someone with a distinct aptitude for it, do people ever talk about anyone as having an aptitude for political science? A precocious youngster might bring about an advance in computing in her garage; has this ever happened in the study of politics? Even in areas like the prediction of election results, where there have arguably been improvements, improvement seems to owe more to someone's facility with statistics than understanding of politics. But that is enough of explaining jokes where none were meant. If the humor of these passages wasn't the point, then they should lose nothing by being explained. The bulk of this essay will grapple with the consequences of this off-beat humor for teachers and students in the liberal arts. In the main, I want anyone else who is unsettled by a joke about improvements and adepts in political science to [End Page 87] know that we may take heart from Claudia Hauer's Strategic Humanism: Lessons on Leadership from the Ancient Greeks. The very slipperiness of improvement and aptitude in political science are what make "strategic humanism" so necessary, and Hauer's essays on it so refreshing. A tutor at St. John's College in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and professor in the Lyon Chair in Professional Ethics at the United States Air Force Academy, Hauer has written a book that aims in particular to broaden the perspective of people whose jobs require them to formulate military strategy and foreign policy, but which should be known more generally to students and teachers of classics and the liberal arts who are concerned with the public relevance of our disciplines. If I wanted to say that political science cannot really improve, I would say, with Hauer, that this is because human beings are complex wholes for whom theory and practice can never be the same. Theories may develop, but as human activity remains free, it will always get out ahead of theory. In the hard sciences, the matter to be theorized might lie beyond our understanding, but it doesn't get out ahead of it. Newtonian physics missed a great deal about the universe, and awaited improvement until the twentieth century, but its failure to describe the movements of the universe had nothing to do with anybody's decision to act differently. As long as practical reason remains, the human sciences should be on guard against the mindset of the hard sciences where improvements to theory are not liable to get tripped up by the unpredictability of action. In an era when political prognostications are taken with a block of salt but enthusiastically discussed all the same, the "adept in political science" might be a figure both absurd and ridiculous. Aptitude for practical politics is serious, even if the success it brings can be difficult to maintain. If the rewards of political talent are fickle and controversial, those with an aptitude for thinking or speaking about politics are even more dubious. This dramatic picture applies more to the pundit than the actual political scientist, who may not win even pyrrhic victories. Neither of them is like the practitioner of the hard sciences for...

The aim of this research is to find out the use of Noun Phrase (NP) in English and Indonesian language, and the similarity as well as the differences in constructing the elements used. This research was conducted based on the fact that the students in university level frequently make some interlingual errors that is the error done by adopting the grammatical pattern of mother tongue (L1) into the target language (L2) particularly in translating NP from English into Indonesian.Research method uses content analyses. Research data are analyzed by using contrastive analysis technique. The research data resource is taken from scientific text about medical science entitled ‘ Coronary Heart Disease’ and the result of its translation . The result of the research shows that there are a lot of similarities of NP usage in English and Indonesian. Such as: NP is constructed by the same elements, those are: head, determiner, modifier and prepositional phrase. The pattern of NP with pre-modifier quantitative adjective has the same form. There is the similarity of NP using prepositional phrase whether it is placed as pre- prepositional phrase or as post- prepositional phrase. The differences, in English, NP is commonly expanded to the fore side of the head; on the other hand, in Indonesian language, it is expanded to the back side of the head.

In its eagerness to become scientific, political science has in recent decades tended to lose contact with its ontological base. It has tended to treat political events and phenomena as natural events lending themselves to the same explanatory logic as is found in physics and the other hard sciences. This tendency may be understood in part as a phase in the scientific revolution, as a diffusion, in two steps, of ontological and methodological assumptions from the strikingly successful hard sciences: first to psychology and economics, and then from these bellwether human sciences to sociology, anthropology, political science, and even history. In adopting the agenda of hard science, the social sciences, and political science in particular, were encouraged by the neopositivist school of the philosophy of science which legitimated this assumption of ontological and meta-methodological homogeneity. More recently, some philosophers of science and some psychologists and economists have had second thoughts about the applicability to human subject matters of strategy used in hard science.

Generally speaking, (a) modal auxiliaries need to be distinguished from (b) non-auxiliary modal verbs (lexical modal verbs) and (c) non-verbal modal expressions (i.e. modal expressions belonging to a word class other than auxiliary verbs or lexical verbs).

This paper aims to describe the types of modality expressions in English and Indonesian folktales and to examine the extent to which these two groups of writers express modality differently. This study was conducted as descriptive qualitative research, focusing on the use of modalities in Indonesian and English folktales. A total of 30 folktales were collected from the United States, Britain, and Indonesia as the data sources. The data were analyzed based on the theories of Nuyts (2002) and Bybee (1994). The results show that native English writers tend to express deontic modality primarily through modal auxiliaries such as shall, should, can, could, must, and may. However, epistemic meanings are conveyed not only through modal auxiliaries but also through adjectives, adverbs, and lexical verbs, with lexical verbs being the most frequently used. In contrast, non-native writers used fewer varieties of modality expressions, including modal auxiliaries, adjectives, adverbs, lexical verbs, and multi-word units, often relying on the same types of expressions across the folktales. Unlike deontic modality, the folktales are rich in epistemic modality, as the writers used a wider range of expressions to convey these meanings.

The present study investigates hedge use in academic discourse of the applied linguistics (AL) field by describing the overall and move-specific distributions of hedges in the discussion section of RAs. With the discussions of 20 articles sampled from six leading journals in AL, the located hedging devices were classified into five categories: modal auxiliaries, lexical verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs. Combining the use of a concordancer (Antconc 3.1) and manual contextual analysis (to ensure both forms and functions as hedges), the frequencies and the category distributions of the overall and move-specific hedges were analyzed. Three major moves (stating various communicative functions) in the discussions proposed by Swales and Feak (2004)-consolidating the research space, indicating the limitations of the study, and recommendations for future research-were adopted as the focus for the move-specific analysis. The results shows that modal auxiliaries and lexical verbs were the most frequently used classes, and hedging devices were often employed as clusters in phrasal patterns. Further, the move of recommendations for future research was recognized as the most heavily hedged section. This implied that when the RA authors suggest the directions for future studies, they hedge their expressions most.

A lexical verb in the predicate position can be (and relatively often is) modified in meaning by a modal verb. The modal verb is in finite form and expresses grammatical meanings, while the lexical verb is in infinitive form and carries the main lexical meaning of the complex predicate as a whole: Všichni se můžeme bránit. (We can all defend ourselves.) It is a relatively common and stylistically neutral way of modal modification of the verb. However, two different modal meanings can also be combined within a single sentence. In such case, one modal verb appears in finite form, while the other is in infinitive: Všichni bychom se měli smět bránit. (We all should be allowed to defend ourselves.) The article focuses on the successive modal modification and on semantic and stylistic factors that can limit its actual use in speech. The article is based on the results of the corpus research.