This study examined the employment of uncertainty marking in discussion sections
written by three groups of writers: masters dissertations written in English by Iranian and
English graduate students of applied linguistics, and research article discussions by
professional writers of applied linguistics. The focus was on the employment ...
This study examined the employment of uncertainty marking in discussion sections
written by three groups of writers: masters dissertations written in English by Iranian and
English graduate students of applied linguistics, and research article discussions by
professional writers of applied linguistics. The focus was on the employment of hedging
devices and degree of conviction promoted in their claims. The results showed that for
all writer groups epistemic modals had the highest frequency of use in the discussion
sections followed by epistemic adverbials/adjectivals/nouns (EAAN), and verbal hedges
respectively. Graduate writers (English and Iranian) mostly used modal verbs to express
conviction; hence, produced a larger proportion of modals compared to professional
writers. Professional writers; however, produced more accuracy and reader-based hedges
such as EANN, evidential, and judgmental verbs. Further, they used a more unique and
diverse range of hedging devices. Except for modals, Iranian graduates’ discussions were
less hedged compared to those by English graduates and professional writers. Certain
epistemic modals (i.e. can, could) were more frequently used by this group. Certain
conversational hedges (e.g., guess, feel) were used mostly by English graduates.
Pedagogical applications and implications for junior researchers about developing
appropriate stance and engagement strategies in writing discussion sections will be proposed and discussed.
