Nghiên cứu về cách sử dụng và nhận thức về ngôn ngữ rào đón trong bài viết tranh luận của sinh viên khoa tiếng anh trường đại học ngoại ngữ đại học huế

HUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES FACULTY OF ENGLISH TRAN NGUYEN KHANH NGOC EFL STUDENTS' USE AND PERCEPTION OF HEDGING LANGUAGES IN ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAYS: A STUDY AT UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES, HUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATION THESIS SUPERVISOR: TRAN QUANG NGOC THUY, Ph.D Hue, Academic year: 2017 - 2021 i STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP This thesis is claimed to be my own work All the data and statistics mentioned in the study are guaranteed to be authentic and not plagiarized from others All references are duly cited Hue City, 22nd May 2021 Investigator Trần Nguyễn Khánh Ngọc ii ABSTRACT The focus of this study is on the use of hedges in argumentative essays of learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) In particular, it aims to discover the frequency of hedging tokens in general and the types of hedges in the corpus of EFL students’ argumentative essays Moreover, this research investigates EFL students’ perceptions of hedges and the representation of hedging elements in academic writing courses To achieve these aims, thirty EFL students’ argumentative essays at University of Foreign Languages, Hue University were collected and examined; five semi-structured interviews were conducted and analyzed thematically; and the textbook was manually scanned Investigations into the corpus reveal the high frequency of hedges in the corpus, and the diverse distribution of various hedging categories Textbook analysis implies that hedges are included with several functions Responses from the interviews indicate EFL students’ positive attitudes towards hedging language and the real teaching practice in academic writing courses involving hedges The results of this study offer pedagogical implications on the teaching and learning of academic writing iii TÓM TẮT Nghiên cứu tập trung vào việc sử dụng thành phần rào đón viết tranh luận người học Tiếng Anh Cụ thể, nghiên cứu tìm hiểu tần suất sử dụng thành phần rào đón nói chung loại thành phần rào đón khối ngữ liệu viết tranh luận Thêm vào đó, nghiên cứu phân tích nhận thức người học Tiếng Anh với hình thức rào đón biểu thành phần rào đón khóa học viết học thuật Với mục tiêu này, nghiên cứu thu thập xử lý liệu thành phần rào đón ba mươi viết tranh luận sinh viên Khoa Tiếng Anh Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ, Đại học Huế; thực xem xét năm vấn bán cấu trúc; đồng thời phân tích giáo trình khóa học Việc phân tích khối ngữ liệu cho thấy thành phần rào đón sử dụng thường xuyên đa dạng chủng loại Q trình phân tích giáo trình chứng minh thành phần rào đón sử dụng với nhiều cơng dụng Câu trả lời vấn thể thái độ tích cực sinh viên với thành phần rào đón, thực tiễn giảng dạy viết học thuật có liên quan đến yếu tố siêu ngơn ngữ Kết nghiên cứu đưa số kiến nghị phương pháp dạy học kỹ viết học thuật iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would love to express my deepest gratitude towards my supervisor, Mrs Tran Quang Ngoc Thuy for her wholehearted support and great understanding for me during the course of completing the thesis Without her valuable advice and constructive feedback, this paper would not have completed successfully Second, I would like to send my sincere thanks to Mrs Nguyen Thi Bao Trang, who permitted me to use the argumentative essays from her Hue University funded research as the corpus of my study But for her generosity, the data collection procedure would have been much more complicated Third, my special thanks goes the interviewees who spent their precious time participating in my research Their insightful ideas and contributions are highly useful for this study Fourth, I am indebted to my family members who have always given me their total support and great patience, especially during the time I concentrated on the thesis Fifth, I am deeply grateful for my dearest friends, Thuc Nhi, Anh Nhi, Duc Trung, Doan Thien, Gia Thong, Xuan Luan, Quang Giau and Viet Long for their endless support, great encouragement and substantial assistance throughout the research conducting process Sixth, my thanks go to all the people who have supported me to complete the research work directly or indirectly Last but not least, I would like to send my best regard to Faculty of English at University of Foreign Languages, Hue University for offering me the opportunity to conduct this graduate thesis, which is one of the milestones in my academic life I hope that the findings of this study can serve as a useful source for further research in the field v TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ii ABSTRACT iii TÓM TẮT iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v TABLE OF CONTENTS vi LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research background 41 1.2 Rationale 1.3 Research objectives and research questions 1.4 Research scope 1.5 Research significance 1.6 Structure CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Hedges 5 2.1.1 Approaches to hedges 2.1.2 Classification of hedges 2.1.3 Hedges in different types of discourse 10 2.1.4 L2 learners’ use of hedges 11 2.2 Hedges in academic writing 13 2.2.1 The inevitability of hedging language in academic writing 13 2.2.2 The functions of hedges in academic writing 14 2.2.3 The importance of balanced use of hedges in academic writing 16 vi 2.3 Hedges in argumentative writing 17 2.4 Research into hedges in Vietnam 18 2.5 Research gaps and research questions 18 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 20 3.1 Research design 20 3.2 Research participants 20 3.3 Research site 20 3.4 Data collection instruments 21 3.4.1 EFL argumentative essay 21 3.4.2 Semi-structured interview 21 3.5 Data sources 22 3.5.1 EFL argumentative essays 22 3.5.2 Interviews 22 3.5.3 Writing Textbook 23 3.6 Procedure 24 3.7 Data analysis 24 3.7.1 Essay analysis 24 3.7.2 Interview data analysis 25 3.7.3 Textbook analysis 26 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 27 4.1 The occurrence of hedges in EFL students’ argumentative essays 27 4.2 Frequency of types of hedges in EFL students’ argumentative essays 29 4.2.1 Quantifiers and Determiners 31 4.2.2 Modal and semi-modal verbs 33 4.2.3 Cognitive verbs 37 4.2.4 Epistemic verbs 39 4.2.5 Modal adjectives 40 vii 4.2.6 Modal adverbs 41 4.2.7 Modal nouns 42 4.2.8 Impersonal language 43 4.2.9 Hypothetical constructions 45 4.3 EFL learners’ perceptions of hedges 46 4.3.1 Attitudes towards hedges 46 4.3.2 Intentions when using hedges 47 4.3.3 Functions of hedges 48 4.3.4 Factors affecting the use of hedges 49 4.4 Hedges in academic writing course 4.4.1 Hedges in academic writing textbook 50 50 4.4.1.1 Hedges in instructions 50 4.4.1.2 Hedges in sample writing 52 4.4.2 Hedges in academic writing teaching practice CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 54 56 5.1 Conclusion 56 5.2 Pedagogical implications 57 5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for further research 58 REFERENCES 59 APPENDICES 69 Appendix 1: Argumentative essay topic 69 Appendix 2: Interview questions 69 viii LIST OF TABLES Table Classifications of hedges based on syntactic categories Table Descriptive analysis of the corpus 22 Table Basic information of interviewees 23 Table Basic information of the academic writing textbook sections for analysis 24 Table Operational classification of hedges 25 Table Average number of hedges used in EFL students’ argumentative essays 27 Table Frequency of hedging categories in EFL students’ argumentative essays 29 Table Types of determiners and quantifiers in EFL students’ argumentative essays 31 Table Types of modal and semi-modal verbs in EFL students’ argumentative essays 33 Table 10 Types of cognitive verbs in EFL students’ argumentative essays 37 Table 11 Types of epistemic verbs in EFL students’ argumentative essays 39 Table 12 Types of modal adjectives in EFL students’ argumentative essays 40 Table 13 Types of modal adverbs in EFL students’ argumentative essays 41 Table 14 Types of modal nouns in EFL students’ argumentative essays 42 Table 15 Types of impersonal language in EFL students’ argumentative essays 43 Table 16 Types of hypothetical constructions in EFL students’ argumentative essays 45 Table 17 Functions of hedges in academic writing textbook instructions 50 Table 18 Frequency of hedging categories in academic writing sample essays 53 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Types of hedges by Hyland (1996) Figure Number of hedges used in EFL students’ argumentative essays x 28 proposed certain hedging tokens as substitutions for stronger language (i.e can and may instead of must) when giving feedback on their essays, either in spoken forms to the whole class or in written forms to individual students Four out of five respondents approved of this moderate distribution of instructions on hedges in the academic writing course, expressing that in this way, they had sufficient time to absorb and internalize the language without feeling overwhelmed Student 2, however, would have preferred to be given a glossary of hedges and to have a separate lesson dedicated to these metadiscourse devices He went on to say that the misuse or underuse of hedges among EFL students might be attributed to the fact that students were not informed of all the functions of hedges, thus lacking the driving force to improve the appropriateness in their word choices, or even to embark on using hedges at all As an ELT student, he proposed that as a future teacher, he would dedicate a lesson in the academic writing course to ensure that students understand the notion of hedge thoroughly, and include practice sessions to encourage the internalization of language in them 55 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 5.1 Conclusion It is clear from the literature that metadiscourse devices in general and hedging markers in particular are of great importance in academic writing (Demir, 2018; Hinkel, 1997; Hyland, 1998, 2000; Lakoff, 1972; Salager-Meyer, 1994; Swales, 1990) A few studies into hedging behaviors in argumentative writing, a common writing task for EFL students (Mei, 2006), were conducted, yet none was carried out in the setting of Vietnam Therefore, this study was undertaken with an aim to discover Vietnamese EFL students’ use and perceptions of hedging language in their argumentative essays, as well as the coverage of hedging elements in academic writing courses by answering four research questions as follows: How frequently are hedges used in EFL students’ argumentative essays? What types of hedges are used in EFL students’ argumentative essays? How EFL students perceive their use of hedges in argumentative writing? How are hedges introduced to EFL students in academic writing courses? In an attempt to seek answers for these questions, the qualitative approach was chosen as the chief method of the study Thirty EFL students’ argumentative essays were collected for hedging tokens to be identified and classified, the textbook Successful Writing: Proficiency was analyzed and five semi-structured interviews were conducted The quantitative approach was also adopted to count the frequency of hedging categories in the corpus and in the textbook Data from these instruments offered answers to the research questions It could be concluded that hedges were used frequently in the corpus, and all EFL students’ argumentative essays included at least 10 hedging tokens Regarding hedging categories, quantifiers/determiners and modal verbs were the most common types Certain lexical hedges like some, can, many, most, more, may, will and to argue were more frequently used than others Syntactic units (it- clauses, passive voice and ifclauses) were also broadly represented 56 As to EFL students’ perceptions on cautious language, interview answers revealed that their attitudes were positive towards this metadiscourse device Most hedging tokens in the argumentative essays of the chosen interviewees were employed with some intentions, the majority of which were related to functions of hedge The interviews also indicated some factors influencing EFL students’ hedging behaviors, particularly language proficiency, classroom instructions and learning materials Textbook analysis revealed a wide range of hedges used for different functions One assumption put forward by data from this instrument was that there was a slight positive correlation between the textbook coverage of certain hedges and EFL students’ use of them Interview answers concerning the integration of hedging elements in the academic writing course suggested that hedges were introduced to students in small portions across various learning activities 5.2 Pedagogical implications The outcomes of this study offered some significant pedagogical implications on the teaching and learning of academic writing for EFL students The findings revealed EFL students’ high frequency of and favorable attitudes towards the use of hedges in their argumentative essays, yet in some cases, hedges were used instinctively rather than deliberately This probably leads to inappropriate use of hedges in their writing Therefore, EFL teachers need to provide students with careful instructions, and if possible, more frequent feedback sessions during academic writing courses Peer-feedback and scaffolds were also advisable in this case EFL teachers should also take into consideration the proficiency of students to adjust their classroom instructions accordingly While advanced learners could be introduced to various types of hedges without too much struggle, less proficient students should be familiarized with common categories first to prevent them from feeling overwhelmed, and thus discouraged from using hedges 57 Moreover, authenticity of learning materials emerged as a factor affecting EFL students’ hedging choices As a result, it is important that teachers select authentic, reliable sources of materials to ensure that students are exposed to appropriate texts linguistically and culturally 5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for further research It is plausible that a number of limitations may have influenced the results obtained First of all, due to the limited time, the study only managed to address the frequency of hedging language without examining the effectiveness and appropriateness of these linguistic devices in EFL students’ argumentative essays It should be admitted that high frequency of hedges is not equivalent to more favorable effects on the credibility of the writing In addition, since the corpus was obtained from a Writing course in the academic year of 2019 - 2020, the interview time was quite far from when the participants actually wrote the essays This could result in some misinformation in interview responses Another source of error may lie in the fact that compound hedges, which were abundant in the corpus, were not listed as a hedging category from the beginning of the study, leading to possible inaccuracies in the statistics gathered This research has given rise to many areas in need of further investigation First, the actual quality of hedging instances, including the effects of these tokens on the writing, common errors in EFL students’ essays and their consequences, should be examined Second, the correlation between hedging behaviors and learner proficiency, learning materials or classroom instructions should be investigated to offer more practical pedagogical implications on the learning and teaching of EFL academic writing Third, a genre-based approach might be taken to explore the effects of writing genres on the choice of hedges Another possible area for further research is closer investigations into each hedging category to discover subtle semantic and pragmatic differences between them 58 REFERENCES Akhtar, R., & Riaz, M (2019) Formality in Academic Writing: Investigating Stylistic Competence of Undergraduate EFL Learners Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities University of Wah, Wah Cantt, Al-Zubeiry, H A., & Al-Baha, K S A (2019) Metadiscourse devices in English scientific research articles written by native and non-native speakers of English International Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 46-61 Algi, S (2012) Hedges and boosters in L1 and L2 argumentative paragraphs: Implications for teaching L2 academic writing Unpublished master’s thesis) Middle East Technical University, Turkey Aull, L L., Bandarage, D., & Miller, M R (2017) Generality in student and expert epistemic stance: A corpus analysis of first-year, upper-level, and published academic writing Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 26, 29-41 Bayyurt, Y (2012) Hedging in Ll and L2 student writing Studia Uralo-altaica, 49, 123-132 Biber, D (2010) Corpus-based and corpus-driven analyses of language variation and use In The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E (2000) Longman grammar of spoken and written English Brown, P., Levinson, S C., & Levinson, S C (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol 4) Cambridge university press Burrough-Boenisch, J (2005) NS and NNS scientists’ amendments of Dutch scientific English and their impact on hedging English for specific purposes, 24(1), 25-39 59 Cabanes, P P (2007) A contrastive analysis of hedging in English and Spanish architecture project descriptions Revista espola de lingüística aplicada, (20), 139-158 Caffi, C (1999) On mitigation Journal of pragmatics, 31(7), 881-909 Chan, S H., & Tan, H (2017) Maybe, Perhaps, I Believe You Could-making Claims And The Use Of Hedges The English Teacher, Chang, C E., & Swales, J G (1999) A Pedagogical Note on Modified Internal Rate of Return Financial Practice & Education, 9(2), 132-137 Channell, J M (1983) Vague language: Some vague expressions in English (Doctoral dissertation, University of York) Coates, J (1983) The semantics of the modal auxiliaries Routledge Coffin, C., Curry, M J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., & Swann, J (2005) Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education Routledge Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B (2006) Qualitative research guidelines project Connor, U (1990) Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing Research in the Teaching of English, 67-87 Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R (1990) Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse, 118, 136 Crompton, P (1997) Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems English for specific purposes, 16(4), 271-287 Dafouz-Milne, E (2008) The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A 60 cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse Journal of pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113 Demir, C (2018) Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 14(4), 74-92 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J (2000) Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms Science education, 84(3), 287-312 Dubois, B L (1987) " Something on the Order of around Forty to Forty-Four": Imprecise Numerical Expressions in Biomedical Slide Talks Language in Society, 527-541 Dudley-Evans, T., St John, M J., & Saint John, M J (1998) Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach Cambridge university press Eldursi, S (2014) Formality and contextuality in blogs: A linguistic analysis Evans, V., & Gray, E (1997) Successful writing: proficiency Express Publishing Fraser, B (2010) Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging In New approaches to hedging (pp 15-34) Brill Ghoorchaei, B., & Tavakoli, M (2019) Self-assessment of Writing in a Portfolio Program: A Case of Iranian EFL Learners Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(2), 66-79 Gribanova, T I., & Gaidukova, T M (2019) Hedging in different types of discourse Training, Language and Culture, 3(2), 85-99 Hang, B T K (2017) Teachers’ Perceptions And Use Of English Hedges In Classroom For Developing Efl Learners’ Pragmatic Competence European Journal of English Language Teaching 61 Hatipoğlu, Ç., & Algi, S (2018) Catch a tiger by the toe: Modal hedges in EFL argumentative paragraphs Hewings, A., & Hewings, M (2004) Impersonalizing stance: A study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published academic writing Heylighen, F., & Dewaele, J M (2002) Variation in the contextuality of language: An empirical measure Foundations of science, 7(3), 293-340 Hinkel, E (1997) Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing Journal of pragmatics, 27(3), 361-386 Hinkel, E (2004) Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts Language teaching research, 8(1), 5-29 Hinkel, E (2005) Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing Applied Language Learning, 15(1/2), 29 Holmes, J (1984) Modifying illocutionary force Journal of pragmatics, 8(3), 345365 Holmes, J (1988) Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks Applied linguistics, 9(1), 21-44 Hosman, L A (1989) The evaluative consequences of hedges, hesitations, and intensifies: Powerful and powerless speech styles Human communication research, 15(3), 383-406 Hu, G., & Cao, F (2011) Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals Journal of pragmatics, 43(11), 2795-2809 Hyland, K (1990) A genre description of the argumentative essay RELC journal, 21(1), 66-78 62 Hyland, K (1994) Hedging in academic writing and EAF textbooks English for specific purposes, 13(3), 239-256 Hyland, K (1996) Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles Applied linguistics, 17(4), 433-454 Hyland, K (1998) Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge Text & Talk, 18(3), 349-382 Hyland, K (2000) Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts Language awareness, 9(4), 179-197 Hyland, K (2001) Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles Written communication, 18(4), 549-574 Hyland, K., & Milton, J (1997) Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing Journal of second language writing, 6(2), 183-205 Kader, M I B A., Begi, N., & Vaseghi, R (2013) A Corpus-Based Study of Malaysian ESL Learners' Use of Modals in Argumentative Compositions English Language Teaching, 6(9), 146-157 Keshet, E (2013) Focus on conditional conjunction Journal of semantics, 30(2), 211-256 Kim, L C., & Lim, J M H (2015) Hedging in academic writing-a pedagogicallymotivated qualitative study Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 600-607 Knight, D., Adolphs, S., & Carter, R (2013) Formality in digital discourse: a study of hedging in CANELC In Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2013 (pp 131-152) Springer, Dordrecht 63 Kondowe, W (2014) Hedging and boosting as interactional metadiscourse in literature doctoral dissertation abstracts International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(3), 214-221 Kong, K C C (2006) Linguistic resources as evaluators in English and Chinese research articles Kreutz, H., & Harres, A (2011) Some observations on the distribution and function of hedging in German and English academic writing In Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp 181-202) De Gruyter Mouton Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S (2009) Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing sage Lafi, A W (2011) Conventional Indirectness, Questions and Hedge as Negative Politeness Strategies Journal of Linguistics, 1-12 Lakoff, G (1973) Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458-508 Lê, T T X (2011) Phân tích giá trị ngữ dụng hành động rào đón số tình hội thoại Hue University Journal of Science: Social Sciences and Humanities, 66(3), 78 doi:10.26459/hujos-ssh.v66i3.3420 Leech, G N., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J (2002) A communicative grammar of English Pearson Education Lyons, J (1977) Semantics vol Cambridge University Press Cambridge London New York Melbourne Mauranen, A (1997) Hedging and modality in language revisers’ hands In Markkanen, R and Schröder, H (Eds), Hedging and Discourse Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon Berlin: de Gruyter (pp 115-133) 64 Mei, W S (2006) Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problematization in students’ argumentation RELC journal, 37(3), 329353 Milton, J C., & Hyland, K (1996) Assertions in students’ academic essays: A comparison of English NS and NNS student writers In Language analysis, description and pedagogy, proceedings of international conference organized by Language Centre, HKUST (1996), HKUST Min, S., Paek, J K., & Kang, Y (2019) Exploring the use of hedges and stance devices in relation to Korean EFL learners’ argumentative writing qualities English Teaching, 74(1), 3-23 Myers, G (1989) The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles Applied linguistics, 10(1), 1-35 Neff-van Aertselaer, J (2008) Contrasting English-Spanish interpersonal discourse phrases Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching, 85 Ngô, T H (2014) A study of the English quantifiers as hedges used in theses by MA students of English at the University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi = Nghiên cứu lượng từ tiếng Anh dùng phương tiện rào đón (che chắn) (Doctoral dissertation, ĐHNN) Ngơ, T M T (2012) Conditional Clauses Used as Hedging Devices in English and Vietnamese Equivalents: a Pragmatic Perspective= Mệnh đề điều kiện sử dụng làm phương tiện rào đón tiếng Anh tương đương chúng tiếng Việt: nghiên cứu bình diện dụng học (Doctoral dissertation, University of Languages and International Studies) 65 Nguyen, T T L (2018) Reflections on modified genre-based instructions to teach essay writing to Thai university students The Asian EFL Journal, 20 (9.1), 148174 Nowson, S., Oberlander, J., & Gill, A J (2005, July) Weblogs, genres and individual differences In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol 1666, p 1671) Palmer, F R (2001) Mood and modality Cambridge university press Pérez-Llantada, C (2010) The discourse functions of metadiscourse in published academic writing: Issues of culture and language Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 41-68 Perkins, M R (1983) Modal expressions in English (Vol 123) Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation Phạm, T T T (2008) Hedging devices in English and Vietnamese economic research articles (ERAs.) = Phương tiện rào đón báo nghiên cứu kinh tế tiếng Anh tiếng Việt Ph D Thesis Linguistics: 62 22 15 01 (Doctoral dissertation) Phan, T T T (2016) Ranh giới lịch bất lịch qua hành vi rào đón tiếng Việt Ho Chi Minh City University of Education – Journal of Science, 83(5), 5-10 Powell, M J (1985) Purposive vagueness: An evaluative dimension of vague quantifying expressions Journal of linguistics, 21(1), 31-50 Prince, E F., Frader, J., & Bosk, C (1982) On hedging in physician-physician discourse Linguistics and the Professions, 8(1), 83-97 66 Rubio, M M (2011) A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural Sciences English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 258-271 Salager-Meyer, F (1994) Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse English for specific purposes, 13(2), 149-170 Salager-Meyer, F (1995) I think that perhaps you should: A study of hedges in written scientific discourse Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications, 1, 127-143 Salager-Meyer, F., Ariza, M Á A., & Zambrano, N (2003) The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: Intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English medical discourse (1930–1995) English for Specific Purposes, 22(3), 223-247 Sanjaya, I S (2013) Hedging and boosting in english and indonesian research articles Seyler, D U (2011) Read, reason, write: An argument text and reader New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education Skelton, J (1988) The care and maintenance of hedges ELT journal, 42(1), 37-43 Swales, J (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings Cambridge University Press Swales, J M., & Feak, C B (1994) Academic writing for graduate students (pp 155-6) Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press Tran, H P (2016) Analyzing Modality Expressions as Hedges in English Discourse: A Corpus-based Approach International Journal on E-Learning Practices (IJELP) 67 Trần, T P T (2015) Đặc điểm thành phần rào đón phát ngơn hồi đáp hỏi trực tiếp tiếng Anh (đối chiếu với tiếng Việt) Tạp chí Ngơn ngữ & Đời sống, 233(3), 62-68 Trinh, Q L., & Truc, N T (2014) Enhancing Vietnamese learners' ability in writing argumentative essays Journal of Asia TEFL, 11(2) Uysal, H H (2014) A cross-cultural study of indirectness and hedging in the conference proposals of English NS and NNS scholars In Occupying Niches: Interculturality, Cross-culturality and Aculturality in Academic Research (pp 179-195) Springer, Cham Vassileva, I (2001) Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing English for specific purposes, 20(1), 83-102 Vázquez Orta, I., & Giner, D (2008) Beyond mood and modality: Epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles A cross-disciplinary study Wiener, H S., & Eisenberg, N (1987) Great writing: A reader for writers McGrawHill Humanities, Social Sciences & World Languages Wishnoff, J R (2000) Hedging your bets: L2 learners' acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse University of Hawaii Second Language Studies Paper 19 (1) Yagız, O., & Demir, C (2014) Hedging strategies in academic discourse: A comparative analysis of Turkish writers and native writers of English Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 260-268 Yule, G (1996) Pragmatics: Oxford University Press 68 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Argumentative essay topic Some people say that Facebook is a positive development that benefits humankind while some others say that it has negative effects on many aspects of life What is your opinion? Provide reasons and examples to support your position You have 45 minutes to plan and write your essay You should write about 250 words Appendix 2: Interview questions How you perceive your level of English proficiency? How many years have you been learning English? Which is your major, English Language Studies or English Language Teaching? Why did you use these bolded items? (The researcher analyzed the essays written by the interviewees and bolded hedging items.) Have you received instructions on the use of those items in academic writing courses? If yes, how? * The researcher introduced the term hedging to the interviewees How were you introduced to the use of hedges in your learning? (The researcher showed the interviewees the list of hedging types) Which of these hedging categories have you used? Why? Which hedging categories are the least and the most challenging for you? Wy? Do you think that we should use hedging language in the communication process? If yes, why and in which types of discourse? If not, why? 10 To what extent you think that the use of hedging is easy? 11 (For ELT students) How should hedges be introduced in academic writing courses? 69