Paradigmatic variation in hedging and boosting: A comparative study of discussions in narrative inquiry and grounded theory research

Liu, Chunhong; Tseng, Ming-Yu

doi:10.1016/j.esp.2020.08.002

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, for the majority of scholars participating in the study methodological norms seem to be a significant factor to consider while writing research texts. This conclusion is in line with the results of some recent studies that include methodological paradigm into their focus (Cao & Hu, 2014;Hu & Cao, 2015;Kaufhold & McGrath, 2019;Liu & Tseng, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Many participants intuitively formulated the norms of epistemic stance expression in qualitative and quantitative writing, although these norms do not seem to be described in the writing guides 4 . The difference between the participants' perception of methodological norms of epistemic stance expressions based on their experience of reading and writing research texts and the results of some studies (Hu & Cao, 2015;Liu & Tseng, 2021) is a promising field that can be addressed in further studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Her study also points to some similarities in research papers written in the same methodological paradigm but belonging to different disciplines. In the last decade, there have appeared some studies analysing certain linguistic features of research texts written in different paradigms (see, e.g., Cao & Hu, 2014;Hu & Cao, 2015 on the use of metadiscourse) or even comparing texts adopting different approaches within one paradigm (Liu & Tseng, 2021 on the use of hedges and boosters).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

“I’m Applying Mathematical Methods to Social Sciences” : Norms in Disciplinary Writing and Methodological Paradigms

Shchemeleva¹

2021

The Journal of AsiaTEFL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In contemporary academia L2 speakers of English are actively involved in producing research texts in English. Hence, for EAP and ESP researchers it is important to study how L2 speakers write their research and to uncover factors influencing their linguistic and discursive choices. The paper reports on the analysis of 18 interviews with L2 scholars working in the broad domain of social sciences and humanities, some of whom are multidisciplinary researchers. Based on the discussion of epistemic stance expression, the study explores the norms influencing L2 scholars' research writing practices. The results show that along with disciplinary norms, the norms of writing in a certain methodological paradigm seem to be a significant factor shaping research writing. Another important factor influencing linguistic features of research text is journal requirements. The results have pedagogical implications since they reveal the influences that should be taken into consideration by research writing course designers and instructors

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“I’m Applying Mathematical Methods to Social Sciences” : Norms in Disciplinary Writing and Methodological Paradigms

Shchemeleva¹

2021

The Journal of AsiaTEFL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Coates (2013) states that hedges such as I think, You know, I'm sure, Sort of, Perhaps is a form of linguistics used to express uncertainty when speaking. Epistemic stance adverbials, including hedges, are related to the certainty, reliability, and limitation of propositional contents (Liu and Tseng, 2021). The new form that falls into the hedges classification is like, which is usually used by young English speakers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hedges Function in Masculine and Feminine Feature’s Language: A Pragmatics Analysis

Azizah

2021

jopr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to criticize the gender language features proposed by Coates (2013) proposed in Lakoff's theory (1975) by investigating speeches expressed by two different genders in interviews. The method used in this research is the descriptive qualitative method. Data were analyzed based on the theory of Coates (2013) to find language features based on gender and use the taxonomy of the hedging strategy proposed by Martin-Martin (2008). The results of the research show that male-female language features can be used by the opposite gender by looking at the perspective of the use of hedges and strategies in the concept of speech expressed by gender (male, female).Keywords: feature language; gender; hedges; hedging

show abstract

“…Each scale of uncertainty takes into account varying numbers of levels of uncertainty as well as other properties of uncertainty including perspective [20]. The main area of study for uncertainty in NLP is in assessment of uncertainty expressed in research articles [12]. However, uncertainty and commitment is useful in understanding social constructs and phenomena such as expressions of social power [14], relationship between speakers [9], and deception [5] in informal text as well.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainty to Avoid Entrapment: Comparing Internet Stings to Real Victim Conversations

Ringenberg

Seigfried‐Spellar

Rayz

2021

Explainable AI and Other Applications of Fuzzy Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uncertainty can be viewed as a mechanism by which researchers can examine speaker commitment in both bona-fide and deceptive communication. We apply the examination of varying levels of uncertainty in text to the online grooming domain. Within online grooming literature, researchers use data sets consisting of real victims, vigilantes, and law enforcement officers. However, psychology researchers question whether internet stings involving law enforcement officers (LEO) and vigilantes can be used to approximate the grooming process of children. In this paper, we examine differences between the three groups within the stages of the grooming process. We approach the problem through the lens of uncertainty language. We find the use of uncertain language differs the most between victims, vigilantes, and LEO in the meeting, sexual, and risk assessment stages.

show abstract

Paradigmatic variation in hedging and boosting: A comparative study of discussions in narrative inquiry and grounded theory research

Cited by 12 publications

References 48 publications

“I’m Applying Mathematical Methods to Social Sciences” : Norms in Disciplinary Writing and Methodological Paradigms

“I’m Applying Mathematical Methods to Social Sciences” : Norms in Disciplinary Writing and Methodological Paradigms

Hedges Function in Masculine and Feminine Feature’s Language: A Pragmatics Analysis

Uncertainty to Avoid Entrapment: Comparing Internet Stings to Real Victim Conversations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About