Hedges in English and Arabic Metadiscourse Utility in Academic Writing: A Contrastive Analysis

This current study has increased the amount of studies on metadiscourse features in English and Arabic, as well as cultural groupings, by examining the usage of hedging in linguistic research articles published in English and Arabic. The technique was qualitative, with a corpus of 40 articles from six linguistics journals used. This study aimed to identify similarities and differences in the use of hedges in native English and native Arabic linguistics research publications. Hyland's taxonomy of metadiscourse markers was used to analyze the language categories. The contrastive analysis of English and Arabic in this article was a systematic investigation of language pairs to uncover differences and similarities. Arabic articles are not more dominant than English articles in the Hidges structure. The result showed that hedges in English is greater than in Arabic research articles. From those findings, it might have a substantial influence on the teaching and learning of Arabic as a foreign language in English context.

[1]  Kok‐Sing Tang.  The interconnections among metadiscourse, metalanguage, and metacognition: Manifestation and application in classroom discourse , 2021, Linguistics and Education.

[2]  Liming Deng,et al.  Exploring the interactive and interactional metadiscourse in doctoral dissertation writing: a diachronic study , 2021, Scientometrics.

[3]  Jian-E Peng,et al.  Metadiscourse and Voice Construction in Discussion Sections in BA Theses by Chinese University Students Majoring in English , 2021, SAGE Open.

[4]  Hedges in English and Arabic: A Contrastive Study , 2021, İlköğretim Online.

[5]  Hyung-Jo Yoon.  Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse , 2020, Reading and Writing.

[6]  S. Marandi,et al.  Rhetoric-specific features of interactive metadiscourse in introduction moves: A case of discipline awareness , 2019, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies.

[7]  Reza Biria,et al.  Exploring Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Discussion Sections of Social and Medical Science Articles , 2017 .

[8]  Ying Wang.  The Idiom Principle and L1 Influence: A contrastive learner-corpus study of delexical verb + noun collocations , 2016 .

[9]  M. Kan.  The Use of Interactional Metadiscourse: A Comparison of Articles on Turkish Education and Literature , 2016 .

[10]  Roslina Abdul Aziz,et al.  The Use of Interactional Metadiscourse in the Construction of Gender Identities among Malaysian ESL Learners , 2016 .

[11]  H. Allami,et al.  Metadiscourse Markers in the Discussion/Conclusion Section of Persian and English Master's Theses , 2013 .

[12]  Seyed Ali Rezvani Kalajahi,et al.  An Analysis: The Usage of Metadiscourse in Argumentative Writing by Malaysian Tertiary Level of Students , 2013 .

[13]  A. Aldahesh.  On idiomaticity in English and Arabic: A cross -linguistic study , 2013 .

[14]  P. Mur-Dueñas.  An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in S , 2011 .

[15]  A. Sultan.  A contrastive study of metadiscourse in English and Arabic linguistics research articles , 2011 .

[16]  Donna Lardiere,et al.  Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition , 2009 .

[17]  Ken Hyland.  Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing , 2005 .

[18]  K. Hyland,et al.  Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal , 2004 .

[19]  R. Abdi.  Interpersonal metadiscourse: an indicator of interaction and identity , 2002 .

[20]  Ken Hyland,et al.  Talking to Students: Metadiscourse in IntroductoryCoursebooks , 1999 .

[21]  P. Beauvais.  A Speech Act Theory of Metadiscourse , 1989 .

[22]  Avon Crismore.  The Rhetoric of Textbooks: Metadiscourse , 1984 .

[23]  T. Krzeszowski.  QUANTITATIVE CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS , 1981 .

[24]  B. Spolsky.  Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, Interlanguage, and Other Useful Fads* , 1979 .

[25]  John W. Oller,et al.  THE CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESIS AND SPELLING ERRORS , 1970 .

[26]  R. L. Whitman.  CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS: PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES , 1970 .

[27]  Chunhong Liu,et al.  Paradigmatic variation in hedging and boosting: A comparative study of discussions in narrative inquiry and grounded theory research , 2021 .

[28]  Onur Uludag.  EJAL Article template , 2020 .

[29]  M. A. Kayed,et al.  A Comparative Study of Hedges and Boosters in English and Jordanian Arabic: Economic Newspaper Articles as a Case Study , 2019, Theory and Practice in Language Studies.

[30]  Z. Pilus,et al.  Metadiscourse in the academic writing of local and international students at a university in Malaysia , 2018 .

[31]  Rana Abid Thyab.  Mother-Tongue Interference in the Acquisition of English Articles by L1 Arabic Students , 2016 .

[32]  Ana Moreno,et al.  Genre Constraints Across Languages: Causal Metatext in Spanish and English RAs. , 1997 .

[33]  Rami W. Hamdallah,et al.  A contrastive analysis of selected English and Arabic prepositions with pedagogical implications , 1993 .

[34]  Elham Al-Saleemi,et al.  A contrastive study of the verb systems of English and Arabic , 1987 .

[35]  J. Wyatt.  CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS VIA THE CHOMSKYAN VERB PHRASE FORMULA , 1966 .