臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

規避詞在學術論文中主要用以表達作者對其論述內容的不確定性，以及作者對其論述內容真實性或精確性的謹慎態度。同時，規避詞也使作者得以減低對其論述內容可靠性的責任，進而避免其他研究者的反駁。然而，儘管中外學者大量探討規避詞在英文學術寫作中的使用情形，現有中文規避詞的研究卻僅限於口語言談中的使用。基於此，本研究欲探討規避詞在中文學術論文中的使用情形，包括其表現型態與比例分布、在不同學術領域中使用的異同、以及比較其在學術論文和口與言談中的異同。
本研究探討的學術領域為生物學、商學、及歷史與文學，用以代表自然科學、社會科學、及純人文研究。每個學術領域的語料皆包含三十篇於2000-2008期間出版的知名學術期刊論文。研究發現中文學術論文中使用的規避詞以字(詞)彙類為大宗，其中副詞為使用得最為頻繁的詞類，助動詞及動詞其次。然而，學術論文作者最常使用的規避詞卻是「可能」、「應該」、及「可以」三個助動詞。
本研究亦發現不同學術領域的作者偏好不同類型的規避詞。生物學學者經常使用規避詞來修飾測量數據的正確性，以及修飾其研究的可試驗性，避免無實驗根據的論述。此外，生物學學者使用的規避詞種類最為狹隘，應是為了保持語言使用的簡潔所致。商學學者則經常利用規避詞來修飾研究假設的正確性及作者對其研究建議的確定性。儘管過去的研究僅指出規避詞的使用在科學領域及社會人文科學領域有明顯不同，本研究發現歷史與文學學者偏好使用的規避詞與商學學者的大有不同。由於歷史與文學學術論文中的論述主要為作者對文獻的詮釋，歷史與文學學者經常使用第一人稱指稱詞及具主觀性的規避詞來表達作者對其論述的主觀態度及判斷。此外，歷史與文學學者亦較常使用常見於口與言談中的規避詞，如感官詞、疑問詞、及表達作者立場的副詞等，顯示歷史與文學中的論述與口語言談的語體較為類似。因此，若要對規避詞在不同學術領域中使用的異同有完整的了解，對於純人文領域的探討是不可或缺的。
儘管規避詞在口語言談中及學術論文中皆經常可見，其使用的動機卻不盡相同。在注重人際互動的口語言談中，「禮貌」扮演著舉足輕重的角色。而在學術論文中，表達論述內容的真實性及正確性的程度才是使用規避詞最重要的目的。

Hedges in academic texts enable authors to express uncertainty and indicate the authors’ cautiousness and responsibility for degrees of reliability of their claims. Meanwhile, hedges also decrease their responsibility for the truth of the claims to prevent negation. Although there are some studies about Chinese spoken hedges, hedges in academic texts do not draw attention from the research community. Therefore, this study aims to investigate Chinese writers’ use of hedges in Chinese academic research papers. We explore the linguistic realizations of hedges in Chinese academic texts and the similarities and differences of hedges used among three different academic fields and between Chinese academic texts and spoken discourse.
The three academic fields selected are biology, business, and history & literature, representing natural science, social science, and pure humanity. Our corpus comprises 30 research papers from three well-known Chinese academic journals published from 2000 to 2008 in each of the three fields.
Our results showed that academic writers rely greatly on lexical hedges, accounting for nearly 90% of all hedging devices, to qualify their argument. Among all grammatical categories, adverbs occur most frequently, followed by auxiliaries and verbs while the auxiliaries keneng 可能 ‘may’, ying(gai) 應(該) ‘should’, and ke(yi) 可(以) ‘can’ are the most frequently used hedges.
Disciplinary difference in our corpus is observed in the types of hedges used instead of the frequency of hedges. We found that biology writers generally rely on a much more restricted set of hedges whereas writers of history & literature make use of the greatest variety of hedges. In biology, writers frequently hedge the precision of numerical expressions because their studies frequently involve measurement in the experimental process. They also often hedge the testability of their studies to avoid make speculation without any experimental evidence.
In business, the disciplinary convention requires that writers make predictions or hypotheses based on previous researches and test whether their findings is in accordance with the hypotheses. As a result, they frequently qualify their proposed predictions and research suggestions.
Although previous studies do not report distinction of the use of hedges between social science and pure humanities, we do observe differences in the types of hedges used between history & literature and business. Since claims in history & literature are mostly based on the authors’ interpretation of the available literature, writers of history & literature most frequently use hedges indicting subjective attitude and personal reference to express their subjective judgment of the information. The comparison between hedges in Chinese academic texts and spoken discourse suggests that writers of history & literature have styles that are closer to the spoken register. In our corpus, writers of history & literature use more sensory verbs and nouns, stance adverbs, and question words, which are typically observed in spoken discourse. Therefore, more studies in pure humanity are required if we want to have a complete understanding of disciplinary difference in the use of hedges.
Although hedges can be used to indicate language users’ uncertainty in both academic and spoken discourses, the motivations for speakers and academic writers to use the same hedging devices may not be the same. In spoken language, politeness may play a more influential role in the use of hedges due to the interpersonal nature of conversation whereas in academic texts, avoiding negation and presenting statements with appropriate degree of certainty are more important.

Table of Contents

Chinese Abstract i
English Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iv
Table of Contents v
Lists of Tables ix

1 Introduction 1
1.1. Motivation and goals 1
1.2. Method 4
1.2.1. The data 4
1.2.2. Data analysis 6
2 Literature Review 9
2.1. The linguistic concept of hedges 9
2.2. The functions of hedges in academic context 14
2.2.1. Avoiding negation and saving face 15
2.2.2. Expressing researchers’ appropriate cautiousness 16
2.2.3. Summary 18
2.3. Categorization of hedges 19
2.4. Linguistic realization of hedges in academic context 25
2.4.1. Epistemic modal lexical items 25
2.4.2. Vague quantifiers 27
2.4.3. Hedging constructions and strategies 28
2.4.3.1.Conditionals 28
2.4.3.2.Questions 29
2.4.3.3.Source attribution 29
2.4.3.4.Personal attribution 30
2.4.3.5.Impersonal constructions 31
2.4.3.6.Sentences addressing limitations of the current study 31
2.5. Disciplinary variation in the use of hedges 33
2.6. Studies of Chinese hedges 36
2.7. Reasons for not comparing detailed proportion of hedges with English studies 46
2.8. Summary 48
3. Results and Discussion 50
3.1. Overall distribution of hedges 50
3.2. Lexical hedges 50
3.2.1. Auxiliaries 56
3.2.1.1.Keneng 可能 ‘may’ 57
3.2.1.2.Ke(yi) 可(以) ‘can’ 59
3.2.1.3.Ying(gai/dang) 應(該/當) ‘should’ 60
3.2.1.4.Hui 會 ‘will’ 63
3.2.1.5.Neng(gou) 能(夠) ‘can’ 64
3.2.1.6.Summary 66
3.2.2. Verbs 67
3.2.2.1.Judgmental verbs 70
3.2.2.1.1.Speculative verbs 70
3.2.2.1.2.Assertive verbs 72
3.2.2.1.3.Tentative verbs 75
3.2.2.2.Evidential verbs 79
3.2.2.2.1.Quotative verbs 79
3.2.2.2.2.Sensory verbs 80
3.2.2.3.Verbs of attempt 82
3.2.2.4.Non-factive reporting verbs 85
3.2.2.5.Verbs of focus 87
3.2.2.6.Summary 88
3.2.3. Adverbs 90
3.2.3.1.Stance adverbs 92
3.2.3.2.Adverbs of indefinite degree 97
3.2.3.3.Adverbs of indefinite frequency 104
3.2.3.4.Adverbs of approximation 107
3.2.3.5.Summary 111
3.2.4. Adjectives 112
3.2.4.1.Stance adjectives 114
3.2.4.2.Adjectives of indefinite degree 116
3.2.4.3.Adjectives of indefinite frequency 118
3.2.4.4.Adjectives of approximation 124
3.2.4.5.Summary 124
3.2.5. Nouns 125
3.2.5.1.Judgmental nouns 127
3.2.5.1.1.Speculative nouns 127
3.2.5.1.2.Assertive verbs 129
3.2.5.1.3.Tentative nouns 130
3.2.5.2.Sensory nouns 132
3.2.5.3.Non-factive reporting nouns 133
3.2.5.4.Nouns of indefinite degree 135
3.2.5.5.Nouns of frequency 135
3.2.5.6.Nouns of approximation 136
3.2.5.7.Question words 138
3.2.5.8.Summary 140
3.2.6. Summary 142
3.3. Structural categories and qualifying chunks 145
3.3.1. Structural categories 146
3.3.1.1.Conditionals 146
3.3.1.2.Questions 148
3.3.1.3.Double negation 150
3.3.2. Qualifying chunks 150
3.3.2.1.Source attribution 150
3.3.2.2.Personal attribution 155
3.3.2.3.Impersonal attribution 160
3.3.2.4.Addressing limitations of the current study 161
3.3.3. Summary 165
3.4. Some methodological issues 168
3.5. A preliminary comparison of the overall frequency of hedges between Chinese and English research papers 170
4. Comparison of the uses of hedges between Chinese academic texts and spoken discourse 173
4.1. Lexical hedges between academic texts and spoken discourse 173
4.1.1. Auxiliaries 175
4.1.2. Verbs 177
4.1.3. Adverbs 180
4.1.4. Nouns 183
4.1.5. Summary 185
4.2. Structural categories and qualifying chunks between academic texts and spoken discourse 188
4.2.1. Conditionals 188
4.2.2. Questions 188
4.2.3. Double negation 189
4.2.4. Reduplication 190
4.2.5. Source attribution 190
4.2.6. Personal attribution 191
4.2.7. Impersonal attribution 191
4.2.8. Addressing limitations of study 192
4.2.9. Summary 192
5. Conclusion 196
6. References 206

Abdi, Reza. 2002. Interpersonal metadiscourse: an indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.
Becher, Tony. 1989. Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes, England: The society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Bezerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping written knowledge: the genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Wisconsin, USA: The university of Wisconsin Press.
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conard, Susan, and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Foreword by Quirk, Randolph. New York: Longman.
Biq, Yung-O. 1990. Question words as hedges in conversational Chinese: A Q and R exercise. In Bouton, L. and Kachru, Y. (eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, Monograph Series 1. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Biq, Yung-O. 2007. Lexicalization of phrases involving the distal demonstrative na in spoken Mandarin. In Xing, Janet Zhiqun (ed.), Proceedings of the 18th annual meeting of the north American conference on Chinese linguistics, 24-41. Los Angeles, California: Graduate Student In Linguistics, University of South California.
Blagojevic, Savka. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic prose: a contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian native speakers. Studies about Languages, 5, 60-67.
Bloch, Joel and Chi, Lan. 1995. A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In Belcher, Diane and Braine, George (eds.), Academic writing in a second language: essays on research and pedagogy, 231-274. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Bloor, Meriel and Bloor Thomas. 1991. Cultural expectations and socio-pragmatic failure in academic writing. In Adams Penny, Heaton Brian, and Howarth Peter (eds.), Socio-cultural issues in English for academic purpose, 1-12. London: Macmillan.
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, James Dean. 2005. Understanding research in second language learning: a teacher’s guide to statistics and research design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, Christopher. 1990. Qualifications in science: modal meanings in scientific texts. In Nash, Walter (ed.), The writing scholar: studies in academic discourse, 137-170. California: Sage Publications.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.), Spoken and written language: exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe, Wallace and Nichols, Johanna (eds.), Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology, 261-272. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Channell, Joanna. 1990. Precise and vague quantities in writing on economics. In Nash, Walter (ed.), The writing scholar: studies in academic discourse, 95-117. California: Sage Publications.
Channell, Joanna. 1994. Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chen, Li Yin. 2006. A comparative study of authority in English and Chinese writing: analyzing grammatical subjects and modal verbs in academic discourse. Unpublished MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Chen, Yi-Ting. 2008. A corpus-based study of hedges in Mandarin spoken discourse. Unpublished MA thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chen, Yuan-Shan, Chun-Yin Doris Chen and Miao-Hsia Chang (forthcoming). The effects of instruction on Chinese university students' productions of complaint behaviors in American English. Taiwan Journal of TESOL 7(1).
Chien, Hui-Ling. 2003. The understanding of and attitude toward hedging devices in English medical journals by Taiwanese medical professionals. Unpublished MA thesis, National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
Coates, Jennifer. 1995. The expressions of root and epistemic possibility in English. In Bybee, Joan and Fleischman, Suzanne (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Connor, Ulla. 1996. Contrastive rhetoric: cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crismore, Avon and Vande Kopple, William J. 1988. Readers’ learning from prose: the effects of hedges. Written communication, 5, 184-202.
Crismore, Avon and Farnsworth, Rodney. 1990. Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In Nash, Walter (ed.), The writing scholar: studies in academic discourse, 118-136. California: Sage Publications.
Crismore, Avon, Markkanen, Raija, and Steffensen, Margeret S. 1993. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
Crismore, Avon and Vande Kopple, William J. 1997. The effects of hedges and gender on the attitudes of readers in the United States toward material in a science textbook. In Duszak, Anna (ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Croft, William and Cruse D. Alon. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crompton, Peter. 1997. Hedging in academic writing: some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purpose, 16(4), 271-287.
Dubois, Betty Lou. 1987. “Something on the order of around forty to forty-four”: imprecise numerical expressions in biomedical slide talks. Language in Society, 16, 527-541.
Faghih, Esmail and Rahimpour, Sepideh. 2009. Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written texts: metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 92-107.
Fraser, Bruce. 1975. Hedged Performatives. In Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol.3, Speech acts, 187-210. New York: Academic Press.
Gilbert, Nigel G. and Mulkay, Michael. 1984. Opening Pandora’s box: a sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guo, Jiansheng. 1995. The interactional basis of the Mandarin modal neng ‘can’. In Bybee, Joan and Fleischman, Suzanne (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Haliday, Michael K. 1989. Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hernández Guerra, Concepción and Hernández Guerra, Juan M. 2008. Discoursive analysis and pragmatic metadiscourse in four sub-areas of economics research articles. IBÉRICA, 16, 81-108.
Hildyard, Angela and Olson, David R. 1982. On the comprehension and memory of oral and vs. written language. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.), Spoken and written language : exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Hinkel, Eli. 1997. Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 361-389.
Hinkel, Eli. 2002. Second language writers’ text: linguistics and rhetorical features. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hinkel, Eli. 2004. Teaching academic ESL writing: practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Holmes, Janet. 1988. Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 22-44.
Hsieh, Chia-ling. 2002. Modal verbs in Chinese. Unpublished PhD dissertation, National Tsing Hua University, Xinzhu, Taiwan.
Hsieh, Fuhui and Huang Shuanfan. 2004. Grammar, construction, and social action: a study of the qishi construction. Language and Linguistics, 6(4), 599-643.
Hsieh, Chia-Ling. 2005. Modal verbs and modal adverbs in Chinese: an investigation into the semantic source. UST Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 31-58.
Hsieh, Chia-ling. 2006. Hanyu qingtaici de yuyi jieding: yuliaoku wei ben de yanjiu.　Chinese Language Studies, 21, 45-63.
Huang, Yu-chun. 1999. A semantic study of modal verbs in Chinese. Unpublished MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Huang, Cheng-Wen. 2003. Shiyong xiandai hanyu yufa. Beijing: Zhishi Chubanshe.
Huebler, Axel. 1983. Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hughes, Rebecca. 1996. English in speech and writing: investigating language and literature. New York: Routledge.
Hyland, Ken. 1994. Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purpose, 13(3), 239-256.
Hyland, Ken. 1996. Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454.
Hyland, Kenneth and Milton, John. 1997. Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. In Sampson, Geoffrey and McCathy, Diana (eds.), Corpus linguistics: readings in a widening discipline, 371-386. New York: Continuum.
Hyland, Ken. 1998a. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hyland, Ken. 1998b. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349-382.
Hyland, Ken. 1998c. Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
Hyland, Ken. 1999. Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In Candlin, Christopher N. and Hyland, Ken. (eds.), Writing: text, process, and practices, 99-121. London: Longman.
Hyland, Ken. 2000. Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, Ken and Tse, Polly. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25(2): 156-177.
Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. New York: Continuum.
Hyland, Ken. 2008a. Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1-23.
Hyland, Ken. 2008b. Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543-562.
Jucker, Andreas H., Smith, Sara W., and Lüdge, Tanja. 2003. Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1737-1769.
Koutsantoni, Dimitra. 2006. Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purpose, 5, 19-36.
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2006. Stance taking in conversation: from subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies. 26(6), 699–731.
Lafuente, Enrique, Lorés, Rosa, Mur, María Pilar, and Ignacio, Vázquez. 2006. How to explore academic writing from metadiscourse as an integrated framework of interpersonal meaning: three perspectives of analysis. In Pérez-Llantada, Carmen, Plo, Ramón, and Claus-Peter Neumann (eds.), Actas del V Congreso Internacional AELFE. (Proceedings of the 5th international AELFE conference), 197-208. Zaragoza, Spain: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza.
Lakoff, George. 1973. Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical logics, 2(4), 458-508.
Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper and Row.
Lau, Hieng-hiong. 1999. Hedging expressions as signals of evidence in academic journal discourse. In Dai, Wei-yang and Chen, Peng-hsiang (eds.), The proceedings of the 8th international symposium on English teaching, 431-440. Taipei: Crane Publishing Corporation.
Lau, Hieng-hiong. 2001. Xueshu qikan lunwen de qingtai biaoda: Taiwan boshisheng de “jinyan shenxing”. In Dai, Wei-Yang and Chen, Peng-Xiang et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the eighteenth conference on English teaching and learning in the Republic of China. Taipei: Crane Publishing Corporation.
Lau, Hieng-hiong. 2007. Renji yiyi de tixian: yingwen xueshu lunwen zhong de hudong fuhao. In Wang, Xu and Xu, Fu-Mei (eds.), Shehui yuyanxue yu gongneng yufa lunwenji. Taipei: Crane Publishing Corporation.
Lewin, Beverly A. 2005. Hedging: an exploratory study of authors’ and readers’ identification of “toning down” in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purpose, 4, 163-178.
Li, Renzhi. 2004. Modality in English and Chinese: a typological perspective. Boca Raton, Florida: Dissertation.com.
Li, Tzu-ching. 1998. A Study of hedging expressions in academic journal articles. Unpublished MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Lin, Qing-shan. 2000. Xinli yu jiaoyu tongjixue. Taipei: Taiwan Donghua Shuju Gufen Youxian Gongsi.　
Lin, Huey Hannah. 2005. Contextualizing linguistic politeness in Chinese-a socio-pragmatic approach with examples from persuasive sales talk in Taiwan Mandarin. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, USA.
Liu, Yi-chun. 2006. Euphemistic speech of Mandarin in Taiwan─ pragmatic strategies and linguistic structure. Unpublished MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Liu, Yue-hua, Pan, Wen-yu, and Gu, Wei. 2007. Shiyong xiandai hanyu yufa. Taipei: Shida Shuyuan.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Markkanen, Raija and Schröder, Hartmut. 1997. Hedging: a challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In Markkanen, Raija and Schröder, Hartmut (eds.), Hedging and discourse: approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 3-18. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
Mauranen, Anna. 1997. Hedging in language reviser’s hands. In Markkanen, Raija and Schröder, Hartmut (eds.), Hedging and discourse: approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 115-133. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
Mauranen, Anna. 2004. “They’re a little bit different”…observations on hedges in academic talk. In Aijmer, Karin and Stenström, Anna-Brita (eds.), Discourse patterns in spoken and written corpora, 173–197. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Meyer, Paul Georg. 1997. Hedging strategies in written academic discourse: strengthening in argument by weakening the claim. In Markkanen, Raija and Schröder, Hartmut (eds.), Hedging and discourse: approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 21-41. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
Myers, Greg. 1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.
Nickerson, Catherine. 2002. Taking an interdisciplinary approach in the analysis of multinational business discourse. In Candlin, Christopher N. (ed.), Research and practice in professional discourse. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.
Palmer, Frank Robert. 1979. Modality and the English modals. New York: Longman.
Palmer, Frank Robert. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peng, Li-zhen. 2007. Xiandai hanyu qingtai yanjiu. Beijing: China Social Science Press.
Perkins, Michael R. 1983. Modal expressions in English. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Prince, Ellen F., Frader Joel, and Bosk, Charles. 1982. On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In Di Pietro, Robert J. (ed.), Linguistics and the professions, 83-97. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Qi, Hu-yang. 2002. Yuqici yu yuqi xitong. Hefei: Anhui Education Publisher.
Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purpose, 13(2), 149-170.
Skelton, John. 1988. The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal, 42(1), 37-43.
Simpson, Paul. 1990. Modality in Literary-critical discourse. In Nash, Walter (ed.), The writing scholar: studies in academic discourse, 63-94. California: Sage Publications.
Stubbs, Michael .1986. A matter of prolonged fieldwork: notes toward a model grammar of English. Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 1-25.
Swales, John M. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tang, Ting-chi. 2000. Hanyu de qingtai fuci: yuyi neihan yu jufa gongneng. Zhongyang Yanjiuyuan Lishi Yuyan Yanjiu Jikan, 71(1), 199-219.
Taylor, Gordon and Chen, Tingguang. 1991. Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied linguistics, 12(3), 319-336.
Vande Kopple, William J. 1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
Varttala, Teppo. 1999. Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine. English for Specific Purpose, 18(2), 177-200.
Varttala, Teppo. 2001. Hedging in scientific oriented discourse: exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tampereen Yliopisto, Finland.
Vassileva, Irena. 2001. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purpose, 20, 83-102.
Wang, Li. 2002. Zhongguo xiandai yufa. Hong Kong: Chung Hua Book Corporation.
Wang, Peihan Caroline. 2005. A functional comparison between actually and qishi in spoken discourse. Unpublished MA thesis, Providence University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina. 2004. Stance in talk: a conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Yu, Szu-I. 2007. Semantics of modal verbs in Chinese: a dialectal perspective. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Zhang, Ya-jun. 2002. Fuci yu xianding miaozhuang gongneng. Hefei: Anhui Education Publishing Corporation.
Zhu, Yongsheng. 1996. Modality and modulation in Chinese. In Berry Margaret, Bulter Cristopher, Fawcett Robin, and Hung Guowen (eds.), Meaning and form: systematic functional interpretations, 183-210. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.