Pragmatic Analysis Of Hedges In Scientific Articles

Fuzziness is an inherent property of natural language. It is universal andinevitable in human communication. Since Eubulides, a philosopher in ancient Greeceproposed the Sorites Paradox which contained the idea of fuzziness, fuzziness inlanguage has attracted more and more attention. Since the publication of Fuzzy Setsby L. A Zadeh in 1965, the ideas in fuzzy mathematics have been applied to the studyof fuzzy language. As a part of fuzzy language, hedges play an important role in bothspoken and written communication. They dramatically benefit linguisticexpressiveness and increase communicative effects. Proper use of hedges can makeexpressions more flexible, polite, mild and effective. The concepts of hedge have beenin the linguistic literature since the term "hedge" was introduced by Lakoff (1972) todescribe "words whose job is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy". In English andChinese, there are various forms of lexis, syntax and discourse which can function ashedges. Hedging is one part of epistemic modality which indicates the speaker orwriter's lack of an explicit and complete commitment to the truth value of aproposition, as well as the speaker or writer's unwillingness to make the commitment.However, for a long time, the study of hedges in scientific articles has beenneglected probably because the methodology of natural science, with its demand forobjectivity, systematic investigation, and exact measurement, has several linguisticconsequences. There is an overriding concern for impersonal statement, logicalexposition, and precise description. Consequently it is always considered that seriousstyle, careful diction, objective content, sound evidence and logic reasoning are thecharacteristics of scientific articles, and that fuzzy devices must therefore be avoidedintentionally. This one-sided view has long restricted writer's bold use of hedges.Some scholars even exclude hedges from scientific articles (See Yu Qianhua, 2001).Fortunately, the recent research shows that despite the widely held belief thatprofessional scientific writing is a series of objective and logical statements of facts,hedges are still abundant and play a critical role in scientific writing. Hedges are important to scientists probably because even the most assured scientific propositionshave an inherently limited period of acceptance. Categorical assertions of truth inthese circumstances are decidedly hazardous. Scientific writing involves weighingevidence, drawing conclusions from data, and stating circumstances which allowthese conclusions to be accepted. Since fuzziness is ubiquitous in the universe and isalso the intrinsic attribute of language (both spoken and written languages), andscientific articles are expressed in a style of written language, it is justifiable thatfuzzy language can exist in them. It is frequently discovered that instead of saying "Iknow", members of academia should rather assume or suggest when they addressother scholars. Similarly, in the place of saying how things are, scholars shouldsometimes preferably say how things might be, or how things perhaps are. Hedgescan be treated as expressions of the so-called negative politeness introduced in thetheory that Brown and Levinson (1987) formulated or, more widely, as a means ofgaining ratification for claims from a powerful peer group. Such a feature reveals theneed of a scientist to integrate his or her research into the whole discipline. As a writer,therefore, the scientist must claim the significance and contribution of his or herresearch to the discipline on the one hand, but appear modest to both editors andexpected readers—his or her peer researchers—seeking their approval and acceptanceon the other. Hedges enable writers to express a perspective on the statements, topresent unproven claims with caution and to enter into a dialogue with their audience.It is therefore a substantial means by which scientists confirm their membership of thescientific community. Linguistically, the communicative purposes of a scientist-writercan be realized through the use of politeness Strategies, information structuring, andspecific lexico-grammatical structures.After reviewing the relevant studies at home and abroad, the author finds thatthe previous research is a little bit shallow and fragmentary, especially in the existingforms and functions of hedges in scientific articles. In addition, there has been nothorough analysis of hedging in scientific articles from the perspective of pragmatics,nor has there been any dialectic analysis of the functions of hedging in scientificarticles. All these aspects leave great room for further exploration. Based on the research of previous scholars, by collecting materials and analyzing them beforedrawing a conclusion, this thesis critically rectifies and complements the previousresearch with description and qualitative analysis as its major method, andCooperative Principle and Politeness Principle as its theoretical tool. The author hopesto open a new horizon in this field in an effective way.Research data of this thesis is selected from thirty scientific articles publishedat home and abroad, involving such fields as physics, chemistry, biology andcomputer science, which are well representative of natural science. Data in Chinesecomes from Science in China and the Development of Natural Science; English data ismostly collected from Journal of the American Chemical society and Hyland (1998).Some English data is from Computer English and Mechanics English compiled byZhong Fuqiang and Gao Chengxiu respectively. These two textbooks collect somescientific articles mostly in industry field. This thesis selects several fields instead ofone in order to justify the existence of hedges in scientific articles in a larger scope,which might implicate the validity of the conclusion in any other field of science.Based on Hyland's classification, this thesis explores the linguistic forms ofhedges in scientific articles, namely, lexical, syntactical and discourse forms. Atlexical level, modal auxiliaries such as must, could, would, should, may, etc. veryoften denote essentially subjective and less than categorical meanings. Epistemicverbs, adjectives, adverbs and nouns such as suggest, indicate, likely, perhaps,relatively, essentially, speculation, indication show that the degree of commitment tothe truth of a proposition is predicated on a reference to the uncertainty of humanevaluation, rather than one hundred percent assuredness. Some personal pronouns cansometimes act as hedges in scientific articles. First person plural form "we" isfrequently seen in scientific articles though its reference remains fuzzy. Third-personpronouns are mostly used to refer to other researchers when writers cite studies relatedto their research. But sometimes their reference is also fuzzy. The indefinite pronouns"one", "one's" and "ones" either refer to any researcher in general or refer to writersor both writers and readers. In practical analysis, all these lexical forms can besubsumed under the hedges in scientific articles. Syntactic means like passive voice (agent deletion), impersonal subjects and nominalization can servethe functions thatallow the facts or experiments to speak for the agents, thus they distance the agentsaway from their arguments and make the relation fuzzy. Discourse device is notrealized simply by words or syntax, but it is implicated by the semantic structure ofthe whole utterance. It hedges a conclusion or proposition through explaining,describing and introducing some kind of situation. By referring to experimentalweaknesses, limitations of the model, theory or method used, or inadequateknowledge, writers can qualify commitment by offering a measure of propositionaluncertainty.In addition to the classification of linguistic realization of hedges in scientificarticles, this thesis analyzes hedges in scientific articles from the perspective ofCooperative Principle and Politeness Principle. On the surface, the use of hedges is aviolation of the maxims in Cooperative Principle, for hedges can make statementsuncertain, indirect, lengthy and obscure. However, in practice, the addition of hedgesis often a cooperative strategy. In some cases, the speaker's violation of one maxim isjust for adhering to another maxim; in other cases, the speaker's intentional choice ofhedges is for the purpose of expressing personal attitudes towards a fact or increasingvividness and flexibility of the expressions. Therefore, on the whole, the appropriateadoption of hedges in scientific articles is an observance of Cooperative Principle.And then this thesis moves on to explore the relation of hedges and PolitenessPrinciple in general before it enters into the analysis of hedges in scientific articles aspolite strategies. From the angle of positive politeness strategies and negativepoliteness strategies respectively, this thesis launches a detailed explanation of therelation between hedges in scientific articles and politeness. Finally, this thesis arrivesat the conclusion that appropriate use of hedges in scientific articles is cooperative andcan achieve some other positive effects besides politeness such as achievingpreciseness, thoughtfulness and flexibility, protecting the writer by lightening theresponsibility and showing modesty as well as embodying the writer's respect for thereader, while' inappropriate use of hedges might cause negative effects such asmisunderstanding on the part of the reader or even derogating the writer's authority. In short, hedges are neither all bad nor all good in scientific articles; what really mattersis that they are used appropriately.