Hedging devices in medical research articles written by native and non-native (Iraqi)‎ authors

Abstract EN

Scientific authors might probably be explicit, exact and precise in their writings to avoid openness to criticism and to seek acceptance by the equivalent community.

They endeavor cautiousness, accuracy, and modesty in presenting their claims.

The current study demonstrates the differences in using hedging devices in medical research articles written by native authors and non-native (Iraqi) writers.

Varttala's (2001) taxonomy of hedging has been adapted to identify the types and forms of hedging in the Introductory section of 40 selected medical research articles written by native and non-native (Iraqi) writers, followed by Chi-square test and Critical Chi-square value to find if there are significant differences between the two groups of authors.

Findings have revealed significant differences in using hedging devices between native medical authors and non-native (Iraqi) writers.

However, both authors tend to use “Modal auxiliaries” hedging devices more than other hedging devices in writing.

The study recommends more national studies to help novice Iraqi medical authors specifically medicine students to use hedging accurately in their writing, and to be aware that using such devices can improve the quality of writing in order to allow their publication be acknowledged nationally and internationally.