Abstract:
The discourse of the discussion in research articles is regarded to be
of considerable significance—as in this section the findings are
interpreted in light of previous research and the authors’
argumentations are put forward as a major contribution (see Hyland,
1999). For this reason, the content and structure of the discussion
section have been explored in several studies; however, little attention
has been focused on a comparative analysis of how hedges are used in
the discussion sections of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods studies. To address this gap, the present study explored the
use of hedges in 150 applied linguistics articles (50 qualitative, 50
quantitative, and 50 mixed methods studies). To this end, the study
investigated forms and pragmatic functions of the hedges in the
discussion sections, utilizing Varttala’s (2001) and Hyland’s (1998)
models. The data were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively
through use of rigorous coding and memoing strategies. The results
of the study indicated that hedging forms in the discussion sections of
quantitative applied linguistics articles had the highest frequency,
followed by mixed methods studies and qualitative articles,
respectively. Also, full verbs, auxiliaries, and adverbs were the most
frequent categories of hedging; moreover, the results of Chi square
test proved the significance of observed differences. The findings
demonstrated that mixed methods studies tended to show similarities
with quantitative articles regarding the use of hedging strategies. The
results are interpreted in relation to the nature of each research
method.
Machine summary:
The results of the study indicated that hedging forms in the discussion sections of quantitative applied linguistics articles had the highest frequency, followed by mixed methods studies and qualitative articles, respectively.
On the basis of the above mentioned issues, this study aims at investigating forms and functions of hedges in the discussion sections of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research articles in applied linguistics journals.
2. Is there any significant difference among the categories of forms of hedges used in the discussion sections of these qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research articles in terms of their frequencies?
4. Is there any significant difference among the categories of functions of hedges used in the discussion sections of these qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research articles?
Chi-square tests were utilized to analyze the data to explore any difference among the subcategories of the forms and functions of hedging expressions (lexical and clausal) used in the applied linguistics discussion sections with three different research approaches (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies).
Table 1 Total Number of Hedging Forms in the Discussion Section of Applied Linguistics Research Articles Quantitative Qualitative Mixed method studies Frequency Per 1000 Frequency Per 1000 Frequency Per 1000 3,413 42.
As revealed in Table 3, the result of the chi square test showed that the observed differences in the frequencies of hedging forms used in the discussion sections of Applied Linguistics articles with three different types of methods (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods) were statistically significant: χ2 (14, N = 8681) = 27.