Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP Textbooks

Pergamon

English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 239-256, 1994 Copyright 0 1994 The American University

Elsevier Science Ltd. Printed in the USA 0889-4906194 $6.00 + .OO

0889-4906(94)00014-x

Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP Textbooks

Kennyland

Abstract - Academic writing is rich in hedged propositions. By allowing writers to express their uncertainty concerning the factuakty of their statements or to indicate deference to their readers, epistemic devices are a significant charac- teristic of academic writing. While there is clear pedagogical justification for assisting learners to develop an awareness of the significance of hedging and the principles of its correct use, tentative language continues to be an important source of pragmatic failure in the writing of second language science students. This paper discusses the importance, functions, and expression of epistemic modality in scientific discourse in order to evaluate the treatment given to hedging devices in a range of EAP and EST writing textbooks. It is suggested that despite the interest hedging has attracted in the research literature, a number of widely used textbooks display an ignorance of empirical usage, and that pedagogic writing materials would benefit from revisions based on authentic data.

Interactions in Academic Writing

There is a popular belief that professional academic writing, particularly in the hard sciences, is a series of impersonal statements of fact which add up to the truth. Many textbooks and style guides advance the idea that academic discourse is simply objective and informational, written in an impersonal style with a minimum of overt references to the actions, choices, and judgments of the authors. This means that interactional features such as markers of epistemic modality are frequently presented as conventions of an academic culture in ESP and EAP courses.

It is now widely recognised however that any written text involves an in- teraction between writer and reader. Academic genres, like other forms of writing, require writers to consider the expected audience and anticipate their background knowledge, processing problems, and reactions to the text (Wid- dowson 1984: 220). Simultaneously, readers are trying to predict lines of thought, interrogate authors on their positions, and evaluate work for its use- fulness and importance to their own research (Bazerman 1985). Consequently, writers inevitably indicate their attitude in what they say. Stubbs (1986: l), for example, argues that “all sentences encode a point of view” and academic texts are no different in containing the author’s presence. Research from a variety of

Address correspondence to: Ken Hyland, International Pacific College, Private Bag 11021, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

239

240 K. Hyland

disciplines has revealed how academic discourse is both socially situated and structured to accomplish rhetorical objectives (e.g., Gilbert & Mulkay 1984; Latour & Woolgar 1979). Writing is a social act performed in a specific context for a particular audience (Bruffee 1986), and thus the impersonal style which appears to minimise the involvement of social actors also marks the interpre- tive viewpoint of the writer.

This is not surprising given the fact that one of the most important aspects of science is the weighing of evidence and drawing conclusions from data. As Nash observes:

The writer currently evaluates and criticises the information and the prop-

ositions he or she tries to set down as fully, accurately, and objectively as

possible. For centuries this dialectical processing of objective fact and subjective

evaluation has been the goal of academic writing and of the training that leads to

academic writing. (Nash 1990: 10)

Rather than being factual and impersonal, effective academic writing actually depends on interactional elements which supplement propositional information in the text and alert readers to the writer’s opinion. Significant among this interactive element are hedges.

Hedging in Academic Discourse

Academics are crucially concerned with varieties of cognition, and cognition is inevitably “hedged.” Hedging refers to words or phrases “whose job it is to make things fuzzier” (Lakoff 1972: 1951, implying that the writer is less than fully committed to the certainty of the referential information given. In other words, academic writing involves epistemic modality. Lyons’ definition of this concept is well known:

Any utterance in which the speaker explicitly qualifies his commitment to the

truth of the proposition expressed by the sentence he utters is an epistem-

ically modal or modalised sentence. (Lyons 1977: 797)

The epistemic system is therefore concerned with the display of confidence, or more usually lack of confidence, in the truth of propositional information. Typ- ically, hedging is expressed through use of modal auxiliary verbs such as may, might and could, adjectival, adverbial and nominal modal expressions (possible, perhaps, probability), modal lexical verbs (believe, assume), IF-clauses, question forms, passivisation, impersonal phrases, and time reference (e.g., Perkins 1983). These forms imply that statements contain personal beliefs based on plausible reasoning, for without them the implication is that the writer has knowledge, deduced from logical reasoning or empirical data, that the proposition conveyed is true. Such tentativeness avoids personal accountability for statements, reducing the author’s “degree of liability” (Huebler 1983: 18).

Because hedging conveys an assessment of the reliability of referential information, it represents an intrusion by the author in the speech event (Hall-

Hedging in Academic Writing 241

iday 1970: 335). It allows academics to take a rhetorical stance, to downplay their statements and anticipate audience responses by adjusting the degree of certainty they give to their claims. Epistemic modality is therefore crucial in academic discourse as it is a central rhetorical means of gaining communal adherence to knowledge claims. As Swales observes,

Research articles are rarely simple narratives of investigations. Instead they are complexly distanced reconstructions of research activities, at least part of this reconstructive process deriving from the need to anticipate and discountenance negative reactions to the knowledge claims being advanced. (Swales 1990: 175)

Scientific “truth” is as much a social as an intellectual category, and the need to convince one’s fellow scientists of the facticity of experimental results ex- plains the widespread use of hedges in science and academic discourse.

The preference for propositional qualification as a rhetorically strategic op- tion for academic writers has been explored by Myers (1985a, b). He argues that claim definition involves a tension: claims must be significant to be published or funded, but must follow earlier work to be science. In other words, the importance accorded a claim by the scientific community requires that it be both original and closely related to the concerns and methods of current research, achieving a balance between the profound, but hazardous, and the correct, but insignificant. Writers thus seek to gain acceptance for the most signiticant claims possible while placing those claims appropriately within the “evidential context” of the scientific literature. The use of hedges to temper the significance of statements and acknowledge the place of the work in the research literature therefore strengthens the effectiveness and credibility of argumentation.

Clearly then, hedges reflect a relation between a writer and readers, not only the degree of probability of a statement (e.g., Coates 1987; Holmes 1984; Myers 1989; Skelton 1988b). Writers must present themselves as servants of the discipline while asserting an individual contribution. They have to be cautious in how they define their relationship to the research community, and the use of hedges to express ideas is a crucial means of achieving a closer fit between their statements and the consensus of the discourse community. Because new work has to be thoughtfully placed into an existing literature, hedging is not simply a prudent insurance against overstating an assertion, but a rational interpersonal strategy. In persuasive writing, hedges are an important means of both supporting the writer’s position and building writer-reader relationships.

In sum, the use of hedging devices is important for two reasons: it allows claims to be made with due caution, modesty, and humility, and the status of such claims to be diplomatically negotiated when referring to the work of colleagues and competitors. The removal of hedges and qualification is a critical linguistic means of conferring greater certainty on propositions and is therefore central to the whole enterprise of science. Crismore and Farnsworth (1990: 135) go as far as to say that “hedging is the mark of a professional scientist, one

242 K. Hyland

who acknowledges the caution with which he or she does science and writes on science. ”

Evidence of Hedging in Academic Writing

Evidence for the use of hedging in academic discourse comes from a number of empirical studies. Skelton, for example, examined the expression of “com- mentative language” in 20 science and 20 humanities research articles (RAs), focusing on “the way in which we can express the extent to which we commit ourselves to particular propositions” (Skelton 1988b: 98). Skelton identifies four realisation categories of comment: (1) copulas other than be, (2) modal verbs, (3) adjectivals and adverbials which are clause initial, or (4) introduced by There is, It is, This is, and (5) lexical verbs. These examples are taken from a corpus of recent articles in molecular biology:

1. This would appear to be in significant conflict with . . . Thus the inhibitory influence of temperature seems to operate only on . . .

2. These results may have relevance to . . . It should be possible to test predictions . . It might be interesting to compare the . . .

3. Possibly, phosphorylation of ACC synthase . . . Interestingly, phosphorylation of ACC synthase has . . .

4. There is apparently a relationship between . It is relatively enriched in . . , This can presumably be rationalised within the . . .

5. Thus we pr@ose that this insert is . . . I believe that the overall orientation of . . . The authors report that the treatment of . . .

While his scheme is neither comprehensive nor categorically watertight, Skel- ton’s paper underlines the fact that such language of comment is functionally suasive and demonstrates the extent to which academic writing is tentative and hedged:

Comments are common in academic writing, and about equally common in arts and sciences they certainly appear to occur, overall, in between one third

and one half of all sentences. (Skelton 1988b: 103)

The significance of epistemic “comment,” relating “to probability, the truth or definiteness of the thesis” is supported by Adams Smith (1984: 28), who found one comment every 3.7 lines, which rose to one every 2.2 lines in Discussion sections. Similarly, writers’ perceptions of uncertainty, realised through modality markers, were found to constitute 7.6% of grammatical subjects in science RAs (Gosden 1993: 68).

This literature has also revealed the distributional variability of hedging in academic texts, the differences being attributable to variations in the commu-


nicative purpose of diierent sections. Hedges appear least in Methods, which is the least discursive section, and are most highly represented in Discussions, where claims are made and the significance of results argued. These distributional findings are summarised in Table 1.

While all these studies recognise a distinction between proposition and comment in academic writing, it is important to acknowledge differences between what is actually being measured. One difficulty is that grammatical forms are capable of fulfilling more than one function. Modal verbs account for about one word in every hundred in scientific articles (Butler 1990) and for 8.1% of all finite verbs (Hanania & Akhtar 1985), with can, may, and will being the most frequent. However, the degree of indeterminacy between the root and epistemic meanings of modal verbs means they may not only function to qualify commitment, but also serve to confer certainty or express necessity. But despite this functional variation, modals do appear to be the typical (54%) means of marking epistemic comment in medial RAs (Adams Smith 1984: 28>, and constitute 27% of lexical hedging devices in my corpus of 26 molecular biology articles. Indeed, modals are the most important means of allowing authors to:

make claims about what it is legitimate to conclude from the results, what may or must be the case, what phenomena are sometimes or generally observable and so on. (Butler 1990: 166)

A second difficulty relates to the fact that many indications of tentativeness cannot be isolated as classes of formal items such as modal verbs or adverb& and are therefore not easily quantifiable. Many instances of hedging take un- predictable forms, for example by referring to the uncertain status of information, the limitations of a model, or the absence of knowledge, and are not included in the frequency information given in the hedging literature. Never- theless, these studies suggest that hedging is a salient feature of academic discourse and that it exhibits a level of frequency much higher than many other linguistic features which have received considerably more attention. This con-

TABLE 1 Distribution of Modality in Scientific Discourse

Introduction Methods Results Discussion

Hypothesized & objectivized viewpoint (o/o) 6.8 1.0 6.1 13.6 (Gosden)

Modal verbs (o/o) 11.1 11.8 6.9 15.1 (Hanania & Akhtar)

Modal verbs 9.74 0.65 3.14 12.51 (Medals oer 1000 words) (Butler) ’

Epistemic comment (comment oer line) (Adam Smith)

Hedging comment (per 1000 words) (Skelton)

High 1:3

Low 1:21

Low n/a

High 1:2.2

High 9.7

Low Low + 4.39 +

Very high 19.33

K. Hyland

elusion is supported by data from computer studies of written corpora (Coates 1983; Holmes 1988; Kennedy 1987).

Hedging and L2 Writers

Hedging allows writers to manipulate both factivity and affect, inviting readers to draw inferences about the reasons for their use. Control over this feature of academic discourse is therefore an important communicative resource for L2 writers at any proficiency level, enabling them “to use language with subtlety, to mean precisely and with discrimination” (Skelton 1988b: 107). Their appropriate use is, moreover, central to developing an academic communicative competence as it assists writers in establishing “a relationship with the reader and . . . with the authorities in the field” (Richards & Skelton 1991: 34). A full understanding of such devices is thus critical to academic success and eventual members~p in a professional discourse co~u~ty.

Mastery of these forms is particularly important to L2 university students given their need to acquire appropriate strategies of academic argumentation, especially in honours or masters programmes where research papers are often required for term assignments (e.g., Braine 1989; Casanave & Hubbard 1992). The degree of indirectness and concession permitted in academic argumentation in different cultures however is a clearly identifiable source of cultural difference (Bloor & Bloor 19911, and proficiency in this pragmatic area appears to be notoriously difficult to achieve in a foreign language (e.g., Clyne 1987; Holmes 1982; Scarcella & Brunak 1981). Direct and unhedged writing is typical of even those students who have a good control over the grammar and lexis of English (e.g., Skelton 1988a), and a failure to modulate successfully has been noted as a feature of the work of L2 students at Western Universities (e.g., Bazerman 1988; Dudley-Evans 1992).

It appears, then, that the use of modality presents considerable problems for ~~istica~y unsop~sticated writers of academic texts and is an blent area of pragmatic failure in the work of second language speakers. Consequently, there is clear pedagogical justification for addressing hedging as an important linguistic function and for assisting learners to develop an awareness of the principles and mechanics of its correct use. The remainder of this paper therefore reports a study evaluating the adequacy of a wide range of ESP and EAP textbooks in dealing with the problem of providing learners with information on hedging devices.

Methodology

The study examines hedging in textbooks by focusing on the coverage of lexical items as markers of uncertainty and tentativeness. The evaluation is based on the number of exercises and quality of information devoted to relevant concepts and linguistic items. For purposes of comparison, it is helpful to categorise the devices used to express epistemic mitigation into distinct grammatical classes as modal verbs, lexical verbs, adverbs, nouns, and adjectives.

Hedging in Academic Writing

These markers have been broadly grouped under three headings. The categories are “no coverage,” referring to cases where the topic is not addressed, “minimal coverage, ” where little information, few examples, and less than three exercises are provided, and “fair to extensive coverage,” which includes cases which offer a more thorough coverage of examples and three or more exercises.

While a focus on lexical markers of hedging ignores such structural elements as tense, conditionals, question forms, or concessional clauses, lexical choices represent the most frequently used means of expressing doubt, tentativeness, and affect in native speaker usage and are the simplest devices for L2 learners to acquire. The modal verbs are particularly strongly represented in both spoken and written English (e.g., Coates 19831, but written corpora show there is equal justification for attending to other grammatical classes (e.g., Adams Smith 1984; Holmes 1988; Skelton 1988b). In fact, a computer frequency count of over 800,000 words in the JDEST’ corpus of science and technology and the academic written sections of the Brown and LOB corpora confirms the particular importance of lexical verbs and modal adjectives and adverbs in academic discourse.

Textbook Corpus

A corpus of 22 textbooks was chosen as representative of a range of writing materials intended for L2 students, from post-beginner to advanced level, engaged in or preparing for academic study or specialist science courses in English. The selection was devised to provide a wide cross-section of popular commercial texts produced in the leading ELT publishing countries over the last 20 years or so. Consequently, the texts contrast in a number of ways and vary widely in their styles, organisation, assumptions of proficiency, intended audiences, and pedagogic approaches. Taken together, they constitute many of the texts in use around the world today to teach academic writing skills.

Texts covering a wide time scale were selected to ensure that a variety of approaches were included in the survey. Commercial texts constitute the prin- ciple source of teaching ideas for many teachers (e.g., Richards 1993; Swales 1980), and while older books may no longer be used as core texts, many continue to figure in EAP courses as reference or resource materials. The constraints of inexperience, institutional pressures, and inadequate preparation time mean that resource banks of published texts from different eras are frequently drawn on for practice activities, language information, and teaching models; indeed, in many countries older textbooks are the only available re- sources. As a result, large numbers of students continue to be exposed to the

1 The JDEST corpus is a collection of English texts in 10 science and technology subjects, randomly selected

from theses, textbooks. academic works, popular science, and science digest articles published in the UK, USA, and other countries. It consists of 2,ooO units of about 500 words each in a total corpus of about 1 million words.

The “learned” samples from the Brown and LOB corpora contain published academic texts heterogeneous as to

genre and subject area.

246 K. Hyland

materials in this selection despite the rather outmoded pedagogical assumptions some reflect.

The texts therefore mirror many of the changes in ESP teaching in the last two decades and characterise the array of methods currently employed in the field. Older texts are predominantly organised around grammatical structures and parts of speech (e.g., Chaplen 1981; Ewer & Latorre 1969; Oshima & Hogue 1988) or scientific topic areas (Hutchinson & Waters 1984; Royds- Irmak 1975). Later materials follow a functional direction, focusing on “no- tions” such as “definition” and “cause and effect” (e.g., Jordan 1990; Mann & Mann 1989; Zimmerman 1989) or macro structures like “narration” and “ar- gument” (e.g., Neufeld 1987). In terms of writing methodologies, both process perspectives (e.g., Brown, Cohen & O’Day 1991; Kennedy & Smith 1986) and product-based approaches (Amaudet & Barrett 1984; Weissberg & Buker 1990) are represented, with some texts combining the two (Currie & Cray 1987; Neufeld 1987; Reid 1988). Only Weissberg and Buker (1990) is devoted exclusively to the needs of research students - this despite Swales’ (1987) emphasis on the importance of this to L2 students.

Results

In general, it appears that interest in modality in the research literature is not widely reflected in the pedagogic materials. While the EAP writing texts deal with the issue more comprehensively than the ESP materials, the overall picture indicates a need for greater and more systematic attention to be given this important interpersonal strategy. Tables 2 and 3 summarise the results in terms of the primary focus of the textbook and the adequacy of the coverage given to lexical expressions of epistemic modality.

Modal Verbs

Most of the textbook coverage is given to modal verbs, representing a well established and disseminated body of knowledge about their forms and meanings (e.g., Coates 1983; Lyons 1977; Palmer 1986, 1990; Perkins 1983). Perkins (1983: 104) observes that the modal auxiliaries “provide the least marked, and thus the most straightforward, means of expressing modality in English” with would, will, could, may, and might occurring most frequently in written discourse (Coates 1983: 23; Holmes 1988: 28-29).

Despite the applied linguistic preoccupation with modal verbs, only English for Science and Writing up Research deal with their epistemic use with more than a cursory exercise or explanation. Both discuss modal verbs as expressing an attitude of uncertainty, the former devoting several pages to means of expressing the unproven status of hypotheses (pp. 5457), and the latter listing the modals in terms of their degrees of tentativeness (82-84). This ranges from will as the most certain, through would, should, and may, to could as the most tentative, with an explanation of each and an example of their use. In addition, the authors offer the following advice:

Hedging in Academic Writing

TABLE 2

247

Occurrence of Modal Expressions in Selected ESP Textbooks

ESP Textbooks

English for Science Ziiexman (1989)

Basic English for Science Donovan (1978)

Reading & Thinking in English Books l-4 Moore (1980)

A Course in Intermediate Scientific English Chaplen (1981)

A Course in Basic Scientific English Ewer & Latorre (1969)

Beginning Scientific English Books l&2 Royds-Irmak (1975)

Inte$ace Hutchinson & Waters (1984)

A Handbook for Technical Communication Neufeld (1987)

Lexical Modal verbs adverbs

Modal adjectives

Modal nouns

(/

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

r/

X

X

X

X

(/

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Key: X no coverage; ti minimal coverage; (/ti fair to extensive coverage.

. the statement of value is usually written in a way that suggests an attitude of tentativeness or modesty on the part of the author. When reporting your own study, you should not sound too sure of the benefits, either practical or theoretical, of your work. It is conventional to sound more cautious. This is accom- plished in Stage V by using modal auxiliaries, principally mq. (Weissberg & Buker 1990: 82)

Unfortunately such an awareness of how hedges are used is rare. For the most part, modal expressions are simply introduced without system or comment and are summarily dealt with in a single exercise which fails to emphasise either their function or importance.

Generally, the range of modal verbs addressed and the information provided on their use is inadequate given the fact that modals are the most easily identified and widely used means of hedging in academic writing. Most texts limit their coverage to would, should, can, or may, and these often appear under a topic such as “conditionals” (Intevface: 15) or are concealed in a grammar exercise such as a passive transformation task (Intermediate Scientific English: 61; Beginning Scientific English 1: 93). Other textbooks simply point to their existence without incorporating them into a writing activity (Strictly Academic: 128; Basic Scientific English: 53; Approaches to Academic Writing: 83). Importantly, many texts fail to either maintain or clarify the crucial distinction between epistemic and root modality, thereby confusing possibility with necessity and neglecting the hedging function of modal verbs (e.g., Zn- termediate Scientific English: 60).

248 K. Hyland

TABLE 3 Occurrence of Modal Expressions in Selected EAP Textbooks

EAP Writing Textbooks

Academic Writing Course Jordan (1990)

Assignment Writing: Developing Communication Skills McEverdy & Wyatt (1990)

Writing up Research: Experimental Research Writing for Students qf English Weissberg & Buker (1990)

Approaches to Academic Reading and Writing Amaudet & Barrett (1984)

Think and Link Cooper (1979)

Strictly Academic Currie & Cray (1987)

Write Ideas: An Intermediate Course in Writing Skills Glendinning & Mantel1 (1983)

Writing Academic English Oshima & Hague (1983)

Plan, Write, Rewrite McEverdy & Smith (1990)

Introduction to Academic Writing Oshima & Hague (1988)

Academic Writing Kennedy & Smith (1986)

Essay Writing Mann & Mann (1989)

The Process of Composition Reid (1985)

Challenges: A Process Approach to Academic English Brown, Cohen, & O’Day (1991)

Modal verbs

Lexical verbs

Modal adverbs

Modal Modal adjectives nouns

(/

/

/

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

(/

ti

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Key: X no coverage; ti minimal coverage; /ti fair to extensive coverage,

Lexical Verbs

After modal verbs, the most common means of expressing epistemic modality in written discourse is through the use of lexical verbs, often referred to as “speech act” verbs (e.g., Brown 19921, as they are used to perfomz acts such as doubting and evaluating rather than merely to describe acts (cf. Perkins 1983: 94-99). Analysis of the JDEST, Brown, and LOB academic corpora reveals that the most frequent of these are seem, appear, suggest, indicate, assume, and believe (see also Holmes 1988: 31-32; Skelton 1988a, b).

Once again, the textbook coverage is patchy and only AMroaches, and Strictly Academic expose learners to more than a limited range of the most frequently occurring items. Strictly Academic asks students to complete sentences giving an appropriate source from a reading passage, then to list all the


“verbs of assertion” and consider which are “strong” and which “weak” (pp. 50-51). The best coverage is offered by AMroaches, which introduces reporting verbs in a reading sample and then discusses them with examples according to whether they express neutrality, connotation, opinion, or uncertainty. This is followed by a paraphrase exercise where students select a verb to convey the appropriate meaning (pp. 153-157). Writing up Research (p. 56) instructs students to use tentative report verbs in the past tense when citing the work of others, and then asks students to determine whether example statements are presented as facts or tentatively and to rewrite them expressing the op- posite attitude. There are also reading tasks which require students to circle tentative verbs and modal auxiliaries in a passage (pp. 57, 84, 193).

Once more, a number of texts present lexical verbs without giving adequate recognition to their important discourse function. Plan, Write, Rewrite informs students how to incorporate quotations into their writing (p. 78) and express their own ideas (p. 86) without mentioning the writer’s attitude to the material. Writing Academic English includes believe, think, and estimate when introduc- ing the rules governing the sequences of tenses in noun clauses (p. 142), while Write Ideas merely provides three examples in a substitution table as “useful language for making recommendations” (p. 119). Jordan’s Academic Writing Course does suggest that lexical verbs may be used to introduce conclusions (p. 67) or the writer’s point of view (p. 77), but offers only a limited list of phrases to do so. Only Writing up Research suggests that writers might use “tentative verbs” such as appear, seem, and suggest instead of modals to gen- eralise from results when presenting findings (pp. 56, 149) and to “emphasise the speculative nature” of statements (p. 171).

Adverbials, Nouns, and Adjectives

While less frequent than lexical and modal verbs, adjectives, adverbs and nouns are used quite extensively to express modality in written texts (Adams Smith 1984; Skelton 1988b). Holmes (1988: 27) suggests that these grammatical classes make up around 27% of the devices used to express epistemic modality in written discourse. Like lexical verbs, adverb& offer a wide range of means for expressing degrees of certainty, and these tend to receive some attention in the textbooks. Probably, possibly, apparently, and unlikely occur most frequently in the materials, with Academic Writing Course providing the most extensive list, including hardly, scarcely, practically, virtually, presumably, and slightly (pp. 54-55, 66).

Both Assignment Writing and Approaches distinguish adverbs of tentativeness from those expressing certainty, but only Academic Writing Course (p. 66) and Think and Link (p. 42) indicate the relationship between different items in terms of their scale of certainty. None of the textbooks give much attention to the epistemic uses of adjectives and nouns, despite their distribution in academic writing. The nouns assumption, claim, and evidence are the only examples cited, and the absence of high frequency items such as possibility and estimate are difficult to explain. Similarly, only a handful of adjectives are

250 K. Hyland

illustrated, and only Basic English for Science (pp. 101-1131, DevelDping Com- munication Skills (p. 90), and Academic Writing Course (p. 66) explicitly include adjectives as a strategy for expressing degrees of uncertainty.

Discussion

There is obviously a wide variation in the treatment of epistemic devices in ESP/EAP textbooks and in the assistance they give L2 academic writers in exploiting grammatical choices to hedge statements. While the coverage in some texts is impressive, the semantic distinctions between different expressions is not always clear, and a number of books in the sample, particularly those emphasising a process approach, fail to address the topic at all. Gener- ally, the presentation of hedges in published materials is not encouraging, with information scattered, explanations inadequate, practice material limited, and alternatives to modal verbs omitted. This failure to adequately represent the importance of hedges therefore inadvertently gives misleading information to students concerning the frequency of different devices.

Overall, the most comprehensive coverage is offered by some of the more advanced EAP textbooks. Jordan’s widely used Academic Writing Course, McEverdy and Wyatt’s Assignment Writing, Amaudet and Barrett’s Approaches to Academic Reading and Writing, and Weissberg and Buker’s Writing up Re- search lead the field. The first two are texts for upper-intermediate/advanced level pre-tertiary students, and each devotes a section to a range of epistemic devices, demonstrating their function to express tentativeness or certainty. McEverdy and Wyatt explicitly inform students that the use of tentative statements is “one of the distinguishing features of assignment writing” and list “important phrases and vocabulary” for completion exercises (pp. 85-93). Jordan provides a “scale of qualification” of quantity, frequency, and probability (p. 66) and lists a range of hedging devices, but provides no practice tasks. Unfortunately, there is little exploitation of extended writing activities.

The other two textbooks assume a higher level of English proficiency and are intended to support undergraduates and postgraduate research students. Both stress the importance of tentativeness in academic writing and give a clear indication of the means of accomplishing this, particularly in the areas of modal auxiliaries and lexical verbs. In addition, both texts not only discuss the modification of the facticity of statements but also stress the need for writers to express their views appropriately:

as a student writer, you too should make use of this kid of language in your writing. Otherwise the conclusions you draw or the support you offer will be

open to criticism from your professors and classmates as not being intellectually

honest in that you are not “leaving the door open” for other points of view.

(Arnaudet & Barrett 1984: 83)

Hedging a proposition as provisional, “leaving the door open” to alternatives, is a rare reminder to writers of the interactive nature of academic discourse


and the affective function of modality. Addressing the negative face requirements of readers assures them that the writer does not intend to infringe on their freedom to hold alternative opinions.

With some notable exceptions therefore, textbooks fail to meet one of the four major criteria proposed by Candlin and Breen (1979) for analysis of teaching materials:

Is the language of materials derived from a socio-linguistic analysis of the target

repertoire?

Viiually all frameworks for evaluating textbooks include an emphasis on authentic language (e.g., Richards 1993; Sheldon 1988), but there are clearly competing criteria for including items, not least of which are pedagogical con- siderations of appropriate level. Consequently, the absence of hedging information in texts such as Interface and Beginning Scientific English may not seem particularly serious as appropriate hedging strategies are likely to be introduced at a later stage of learning. However, the coherent treatments offered in sources such as English for Science and Basic English for Science demon- strate that such significant items can be matched to both needs and lower levels of linguistic skill. Hedges are sufficiently important to warrant their inclusion in even introductory level textbooks, and their acquisition is undoubtedly a process learners should be exposed to from the earliest stages.

Thus, despite the pragmatic and distributional importance of epistemic items and the emphasis ESP has placed on descriptive bases for materials, research interest in such rhetorical aspects of writing currently receives little recognition in coursebooks. Holmes (19881, for example, found that four popular ELT textbooks failed to reflect frequency data in providing learners with reliable information on modality. A particular difficulty is that ESP materials frequently draw features of discourse from contexts which are inappropriate to students writing dissertations or research papers. There is a heavy reliance on extracts from scientific textbooks (e.g., Amaudet & Barrett 1984; Chaplen 1981; Cur- rie & Cray 1987; Jordan 1990; McEverdy & Wyatt 1990), government scientific reports (e.g., Neufeld 1987), popular accounts (Mann & Mann 19901, or simplified texts (e.g., Oshima & Hogue 1981, 1988; Royds-Irmak 1975).

Most coursebooks therefore tend to under-represent the importance of hedging devices, as they are based on sources which offer more of a consensus view of a discipline than RAs, generally presenting statements as accredited facts (e.g., Fahnestock 1986; Latour & Woolgar 1979). While coursebook writers may therefore feel justified in their neglect of hedging, students find it difficult to orientate themselves to using epistemic strategies in their writing. As Myers (1992: 11) observes:

A student who knows only the way textbooks use hedges for uncertainty is unprepared for the ways articles use them in polite statements of claims.

Disturbingly, this neglect of modality in textbooks may be duplicated by teachers who rely on popular textbooks as sources for their own courses

252 K. Hyland

Textbooks are widely drawn on to provide harassed teachers with both inspi- ration and a sense that the relevant and important areas are being covered. In fact, there is a common assumption that any item in a textbook must be an important learning item and, conversely, that anything not included can be safely omitted from a course. So, while “textbooks and other commercial materials in many situations represent the hidden curriculum of the ESL course” (Richards 1993: l), such sources are often flawed from a linguistic and descriptive point of view. The shortcomings of textbooks can therefore have serious effects on students’ successful acquisition of essential communicative discourse features.

The only way out of this closed circle is a more careful consideration of formal written language itself, turning to corpus studies and applied discourse analysis research as sources of theoretical insight and instances of actual use of epistemic modality. Such an approach is particularly valuable given that the inadequacies of coverage and explanation which have emerged in this analysis appear to be principally due to poor selection procedures by authors. Clearly, no textbook can be globally comprehensive, but the high proportion of hedged propositions in academic writing, and the possibility of student misinterpreta- tion, means that information on this topic should be a high priority for inclusion.

Conclusion

Much of the debate concerning what is to be taught in the field of ESP has centered on needs analysis, an assessment of practical requirements, but this has a strictly limited use as it can only indicate the kinds of tasks students will have to perform and says very little about the nature of those tasks. As Dudley-Evans points out:

Materials writers need detailed analyses of the rhetorical and linguistic organi-

sation of the tasks if they are not to be over-reliant on their own intuition.

(Dudley-Evans 1988: 28)

This neglect of an important pragmatic area reflects the introspective nature of materials and the absence of empirically based information concerning the sociolinguistic rules of English speaking scientific discourse communities. To date, the attention devoted to hedging has been mainly theoretical, focusing on intuitive and decontextualised examples (e.g., Lyons 1977; Palmer 1986; Per- kins 1983), while frequency studies have either included a range of registers and modes (e.g., Holmes 1988) or restricted their descriptions to spoken discourse (e.g., Coates 1987) or to modal verbs (e.g., Coates 1983).

The appropriate use of hedging strategies is a significant resource for student writers and plays an important part in demonstrating competence in a specialist register. Materials writers therefore have a responsibility to help students acquire an awareness of the variations in such sociolinguistic rules of language use based on empirically validated data. The growing research interest in the syntactic and lexical choices used to express rhetorical purposes and the findings which emphasise the contribution of such choices to communica-


tive effectiveness need to be reflected in pedagogic materials. This requires a more comprehensive analysis of written academic sources to assist textbook writers and materials developers. In sum, this survey suggests that in the area of academic hedging, the pedagogy of ESP stands in need of revision based on an analysis of authentic data.

(Revised version received May 1994)

REFERENCES

Adams Smith, D. (1984). Medical discourse: Aspects of author’s comment. English for Specific P@oses, 3, 25-36.

Amaudet, M., & Barrett, M. (1984). Approaches to academic reading and writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bazerman, C. (1985). Physicists reading physics: Schema-laden purposes and purpose-laden schema. Written Communication, Z(l), 3-23.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1991). Cultural expectations and socio-pragmatic failure in academic writing. In P. Adams, B. Heaton, & P. Howarth (Eds.), Socio-cultural issues in English for Academic Purposes [Review of ELT, l(2)]. London: Modern English Publications.

Braine, G. (1989). Writing in science and technology: An analysis of assignments from ten undergraduate courses. English for Specific Purposes, 8, 3-15.

Brown, H., Cohen, D., & O’Day, J. (1991). Challenges: A process approach to academic English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Brown, K. (1992). Describing modality in English. In R. B. Brurnfit & C. Brumtit (Eds.), Applied linguistics and English language. Teaching Review of ELT Vol 2.

Bruffee, K. (1986). Social construction: Language and the authority of knowledge. A bibliographical essay. College English, 48, 773-779.

Butler, C. (1990). Qualifications in science: Modal meanings in scientific texts. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse. New- bury Park, CA: Sage.

Candlin, C. N., & Breen, M. P. (1979). Evaluating and designing language teaching materials. Practical Papers in English Language Education II. Lan- caster, UK: Lancaster University.

Casanave, C., & Hubbard, P. (1992). The writing assignments and writing problems of doctoral students: Faculty perceptions, pedagogical issues and needed research. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 33-49.

Chaplen, F. (1981). A course in intermediate scientific English. Walton-on- Thames, UK: Nelson.

Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organisation of academic texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 211-247.

Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Beckenham, UK: Croom Helm.

254 K. Hyland

Coates, J. (1987). Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society, 85, lOG131.

Cooper, J. (1979). Think and link: An advanced course in reading and writing. London: Edward Arnold.

Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Currie, P., & Cray, E. (1987). Strictly academic: A reading and writing text. New York: Newbury House.

Donovan, P. (1978). Basic English for science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Dudley-Evans, A. (1988). Recent developments in ESP: The trend to greater speciaksation. In M. L. Tickoo (Ed.), ESP: State of the Art. RELC Anthol- ogy Series 21, Regional Language Centre.

DudIey-Evans, A. (1992). Socialisation into the academic community: Linguis- tic and stylistic expectations of a PhD thesis as revealed by supervisor comments. Socio-cultural issues in English for Academic Paqboses. Review of ELT, I(2).

Ewer, J., & Latorre, G. (1969). A course in basic scientific English. Harlow, UK: Longman.

Fahnestock, J. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3(3), 275296.

Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s Box: A sociological analysis of scientific discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Glendinning, E., & Mantell, H. (1983). Write ideas: An intermediate course in writing skills. Harlow, UK: Longman.

Gosden, H. (1993). Discourse functions of subject in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics, 14(l), 5675.

HaIIiday, M. (1970). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language, 6, 322- 361.

Hanania, E., & Akhtar, K. (1985). Verb form and rhetorical function in science writing: A study of MS theses in biology, chemistry and physics. ESP Journal, 4, 49-58.

Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 13, 19-28.

Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying iIIocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 345-365.

Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 90).

Huebler, A. (1983). Pragmatics and bqond: Vol IV, 6. Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1984). Interface: English for technical communication. Harlow, UK: Longman.

Jordan, R. (1990). Academic writing course. London: Collins.


Kennedy, G. (1987). Expressing temporal frequency in academic English. TESOL Quarterly, 21(l), 69-86.

Kennedy, M., & Smith, H. (1986). Academic writing: Working with sources across the curriculum. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, 8, 183-228.

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics Vols 1 & 2. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mann, R., & Mann, P. (1990). Essay writing: Methods and models. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

McEverdy, M. R., & Smith, P. (1990). Plan, write and rewrite: How topre$are assignments. Melbourne: Nelson.

McEverdy, M., & Wyatt, P. (1990). Assignment writing: Developing communication skills. Melbourne: Nelson.

Moore, J. (1980). Reading and thinking in English. Oxford, UK: Oxford Uni- versity Press.

Myers, G. (1985a). Texts as knowledge claims: The social construction of two biology articles. Social Studies of Science, 25(4), 593-630.

Myers, G. (1985b). The social construction of two biologists’ proposals. Writ- ten Communication, Z(3), 219-245.

Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(l).

Myers, G. (1992). Textbooks and the sociology of scientific knowledge. En- glish for Specific Pqboses, 11, 3-17.

Nash, W. (1990). The stuff these people write. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Neufeld, J. (1987). A textbook for technical communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (1981). Writing academic English. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (1988). Introduction to academic writing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Palmer, F. (1990). Mod&i& and the English moaizls (2nd ed). London: Long- man.

Perkins, M. (1983). Modal ez$ressions in English. London: Frances Pinter. Reid, J. (1988). The process of composition (2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall. Richards, J. (1993). Beyond the textbook: The role of commercial materials in

language teaching. RELC Journal, 24(l), 1-14. Richards, K., & Skelton, J. (1991). How critical can you get? Socio-cultural

issues in English for Academic Purposes. Review of ELT.

256 K. Hyland

Royds-Irmak, D. (1975). Beginning scientific English (Books 1 & 2). Walton- on-Thames, UK: Nelson.

Scarcella, R., & Brunak, R. (1981). On speaking politely in a second language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 59-75.

Sheldon, L. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42(4), 237-246.

Skelton, J. (1988a). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal, 41(l), 3743.

Skelton, J. (1988b). Comments in academic articles. Amlied linguistics in society. London: CILTIBAAL.

Stubbs, M. (1986). ‘A matter of prolonged fieldwork’: Notes towards a modal grammar of English. Applied Linguistics, 7(l), l-25.

Swales, J. (1980). ESP: The textbook problem. ESP Journal, I(l), 11-23. Swales, J. (1987). Utilising the literatures in teaching the research paper.

TESOL Quarterly, 21(l), 41-68. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research: Experimental research

r@oti writing for students of English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Widdowson, H. (1984). Explorations in applied linguistics 2. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press. Zimmerman, F. (1989). English for science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Ken Hyland is Head of English as an International Language at Interna- tional Pacific College in New Zealand. He has an MA in Applied Linguistics and has taught EFL and ESP in Britain, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea. He has published in a number of international journals on TESOL and applied linguistic issues and is currently engaged in PhD research on modality in scientific discourse.

Documents

Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP Textbooks