Hedging and attitude markers in Spanish and English scientific medical writing
Hedging, a sociopragmatic phenomenon that allows authors to maintain their presence in discourse, is a rather difficult strategy for non-natives scholars. In this paper, we present two studies: the first analyses hedging from cross-linguistic (Spanish and English L2) and cross-generic (Research Paper and Case Report) approaches in a corpus of 30 Medical full-texts from highly indexed research journals. Our results indicate that Spanish authors hedge more when writing in English L2 but less than an English native. The second focus on attitude markers (Affect, Judgement and Appreciation) following Appraisal Theory (Martin and White 2005) to detect cross-cultural differences in 60 Medical Book Reviews. The outcome shows that Spanish reviewers blend categories and seem more positive and direct in their assessments.
2002 “Packed Houses and Intimate Gatherings: Audience and Rhetorical Structure.”
In Academic Discourse
, ed. by John Flowerdew
, 196–215. London: Longman.
1996 Contrastive Rhetoric. Cross-cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Day, Robert A
1998 How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2005 “An Integration of Corpus-based and Genre-based Approaches to Text Analysis in EAP/ESP: Countering Criticisms Against Corpus-based Methodologies.” English for Specific Purposes
Fortanet, Inma, Juan C. Palmer, and Santiago Posteguillo
2001 “Hedging Devices in Technical and Academic English.”
In Discourse Analysis and Terminology in Languages for Specific Purposes
, ed. by Juan C. Palmer
, Santiago Posteguillo
, and Inma Fortanet
Castelló: Publicaciones de la Universitat Jaume I.
2000 “Praise and Criticism: Interactions in Book Reviews.”
In Disciplinary Discourses. Social Interactions in Academic Writing
, ed. by Ken Hyland
, 41–62. Harlow: Longman.
2002 Writing: Teaching and Researching
. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Lafuente Millán, Enrique
2009 “Epistemic and Approximative Meaning Revisited: The Use of Hedges, Boosters and Approximators When Writing.”
In English as an Additional Language in Research Publication and Communication
, ed. by Sally Burgess
, and Pedro Martín-Martín
, 65–82. Bern: Peter Lang.
2005 The Rhetoric of the Abstracts in English and Spanish Scientific Discourse
. Bern: Peter Lang.
Martin, James R
2005 “Invocación de actitudes: el juego de la gradación de la valoración en el discurso.” Revista Signos
38 (58): 195–220.
Martin, James R, and David Rose
2003 Working with Discourse. Meaning Beyond the Clause
. London, New York: Continuum.
Martin, James R., and Peter R.R. White
2005 The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English
. London: Palgrave.
1999 How to be an Alien
. London: Penguin.
Morales, Oscar, Daniel Cassany, Sonia Oliver, Carolina González, and Ernesto Marín
2009 “¿Es la escritura académica odontológica hispanoamericana un discurso matizado? Estudio de la atenuación en artículos de investigación.” Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos
Moreno, Ana I
1997 “Genre Constraints Across Languages: Causal Metatext in Spanish and English RAs.” English for Specific Purposes
46 (3): 161–179.
2008 “A Study of Critical Attitude Across English and Spanish Academic Book Reviews.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes
7 (1): 15–26.
2004 Análisis contrastivo Español/Inglés de la atenuación retórica en el discurso médico. El artículo de investigación y el caso clínico
. Tesis Doctoral. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. Disponible en línea URL: [URL]
2006 “A Corpus-Based Study of Hedging in Spanish Medical Discourse: Analysing Genre Pattern in Spanish Language Biomedical Research Articles.”
In Corpus Linguistics. Applications for the Study of English
, ed. by Ana M. Hornero
, María J. Luzón
, and Silvia Murillo
, 365–384. Bern: Peter Lang.
2000 Making Sense of Discourse Analysis
. Brisbane (Australia): AEE Publishing.
Piqué-Angordans, Jordi, and Santiago Posteguillo
2006 “Peer Positive and Negative Assessment in Medical English Written Genres.”
In Advances in Medical Discourse Analysis: Oral and Written Contexts
, ed. by Maurizio Gotti
, and Françoise Salager-Meyer
, 383–406. Bern: Peter Lang.
Prince, Ellen, Charles Bosk, and Joele Frader
1982 “On Hedging in Physician-Physician Discourse.”
In Linguistics and the Professions
, ed. by Robert J. Di Pietro
, 83–97. Noordwood, NJ: Ablex.
.“Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical English Written Discourse.” English for Specific Purposes
13 (2): 140–170.
Salager-Meyer, Françoise, María A. Alcaraz Ariza, and Nahirana Zambrano
2003 “The Scimitar, the Dagger and the Glove: Intercultural Differences in the Rhetoric of Criticism in Spanish, French and English Medical Discourse.” English for Specific Purposes
22 (3): 223–247.
Salager-Meyer, Françoise, and María A. Alcaraz Ariza
2004 “Negative Appraisals in Academic Book Reviews: A Cross-linguistic Approach.”
In Intercultural Aspects of Specialized Communication
, ed. by Christopher N. Candlin
, and Maurizio Gotti
, 149–172. Berne: Peter Lang.
Swales, John M
2004 Research Genres: Explorations and Applications
. Cambridge: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.
Taboada, Maite, and Marta Carretero
2013 “Contrastive Analyses of Evaluation in Text: Key Issues in the Design of an Annotation System for Attitude Applicable to Consumer Reviews in English and Spanish.”
In Contrastive Discourse Analysis. Functional and Corpus Perspectives
, ed. by Maite Taboada
, Susana Doval Suárez
, and Elsa González Álvarez
, 262–281. London: Equinox.
1996 “Contrastive Rhetoric in ESP: A Cross-linguistic Analysis of Finite Verb Profiles in English and Spanish Medical Abstracts.” UNESCO-ALSED LSP Newsletter
20 (2): 22–36.
1999 “Remarks on the Communicative Functions of Hedging in Popular Scientific and Specialist Research Articles on Medicine.” English for Specific Purposes
18 (2): 177–200.
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 september 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.