The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-7983.htm Hedging in nursing and education academic articles Hedging in nursing and education Ghaleb Rabab’ah Department of Linguistics, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan Abstract 195 Received 7 March 2013 Revised 19 August 2013 Purpose – The study aims to investigate how and why hedges are used in nursing and education academic research articles and find out whether there are differences between the two disciplines in Accepted 3 September 2013 using hedges and their subcategories. Design/methodology/approach – The realization of hedges in 50 academic articles representing both disciplines, namely education and nursing, was scrutinized and analyzed. Findings – The study reveals that there are significant differences between the nursing and education writers’ use of hedging in the total use of hedging devices and their subcategories, in favor of the education discipline. This indicates that writers of education articles use hedges more frequently than the writers of nursing articles. In support of previous literature, it concludes that hedging devices are used as communicative strategies to qualify writers’ commitment, reduce the force of the researchers’ statements, express probability, save the writers’ face, persuade readers, and avoid any possible rejection of their statements. Research limitations/implications – The study was limited to 50 research articles representing both disciplines: education (non-scientific genre) and nursing (scientific genre), and certain hedging devices and their subcategories. Practical implications – The study recommends that a clear awareness of the pragmatic effect of hedges and the ability to recognize them in texts is crucial to the acquisition of rhetorical competence in any discipline. Originality/value – Despite the significance of hedging and the extensive research conducted on hedging, no studies have been conducted on nursing and education academic research articles to see how and why hedges are used in these two disciplines. The results can add to the existing literature that this rhetorical strategy is used differently in different disciplines and make an important contribution to the understanding of the practical reasoning and persuasion in nursing and education. Keywords Education, Nursing, Academic writing, Scientific discourse, Hedging, Modality, Rhetorical strategies Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction This study sought to discover how frequently different categories of hedging are used in nursing articles as a scientific discipline and education articles as a non-scientific discipline, and whether there are any differences in the writers’ use of hedging devices. Over the past two decades, interest has been growing in genre-based language studies. Each genre has distinctive features, and such features can be linguistic, paralinguistic, contextual, and pragmatic. One of the essential features of academic writing is hedging, and this study can be traced back to a paper introduced by Lakoff (1972) titled “Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts”. Lakoff claimed that the concepts of natural languages (NL) can be fuzzy and vague. He rejected the idea of contemporary logicians that NL concepts are either true or false. Lakoff’s interest was not centered upon how hedges are employed pragmatically; instead, he concerned Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues Vol. 6 No. 3/4, 2013 pp. 195-215 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1753-7983 DOI 10.1108/EBS-03-2013-0006 EBS 6,3/4 196 himself with the logical properties of words such as quite, greatly, rather, so, too and phrases such as generally speaking and how such words and phrases can render concepts more or less fuzzy. According to Lakoff (1972, p. 195), hedging refers to “words whose job is to make things more or less fuzzy”. Since the introduction of this term, hedging has been pursued in speech acts theory, and has been embraced by language pragmatists and academic discourse analysts (Zuck and Zuck, 1986; Brown and Levinson, 1987; Hyland, 1996, 1998; Varttala, 2001; Vass, 2004; Chavez, 2004; Lewin, 2005; Ayodabo, 2007; Fraser, 2007; Vazques and Giner, 2008; Donesch-Jezo, 2010; Hu and Cao, 2011). Hyland (1996, p. 251) defines hedges as follows: Hedging refers to linguistic strategies which qualify categorical commitment, expressing possibility rather than certainty. In scientific writing hedging is central to effective argument and the rhetorical means of gaining reader acceptance of claims, allowing writers to convey their attitude to the truth of their statements and anticipate possible objections. Because they allow writers to express claims with precision, caution and modesty, hedges are a significant resource for academics. Similarly, Fraser (2007, p. 201) associates hedging with all means that lead to lack of a full commitment: Hedging is a rhetorical strategy. By including a particular term, choosing a particular structure, or imposing a specific prosodic form on the utterance, the speaker signals a lack of a full commitment either to the full category membership of a term or expression in the utterance (content mitigation), or to the intended illocutionary force of the utterance (force mitigation). Simply put, it is attenuation of the full value which the utterance would have, absent the hedging. Applied linguists have classified hedges into different categories. For example, in an empirical study of medical discourse, Prince et al. (1982) categorized words and phrases that make things “fuzzier” into two main categories: approximators, which express fuzziness or vagueness within the propositional content itself and therefore constitute a semantic phenomenon; and shields, which introduce fuzziness in the relation between the propositional content and the speaker and therefore address the problem from a pragmatic point of view (Prince et al., 1982, p. 86). Within shields, they identified two subclasses: plausibility shields, which involve the speaker’s degree of uncertainty (e.g. “I do not see that you have anything to lose by [. . .]”), and attribution shields, which attribute the idea expressed to someone different from the speaker (“According to her estimates, [. . .]”) (Prince et al., 1982, p. 89). Taweel et al. (2011, p. 186) illustrate shields in the following examples: . I think there will be no near end to this war. . I believe that this is not a fair war. Approximators are illustrated in the following examples: . Some of the leaders are not truth tellers. . To some extent, this is not true (Taweel et al., 2011, p. 187). Hyland (1998) suggested three types of hedging: content-oriented hedges, writer-oriented hedges, and reader-oriented hedges. Content-oriented hedges refer to items that: [. . .] mitigate the relationship between the propositional content and the nonlinguistic representation of representing reality; they hedge the correspondence between what the writer says about the world and what the world is thought to be like (Hyland, 1998, p. 162). Writer-oriented hedges are regarded as strategies that intend to “shield the writer from the possible consequences of negotiability by limiting personal commitment” (Hyland, 1998, p. 170). Hyland (1996, p. 443) suggests that writer-oriented hedges “diminish the author’s presence in the text rather than increase precision of claims”. For example, impersonal constructions such as the passive voice are used to avoid straightforward references to the author. Reader-oriented hedges are concerned with the relationship between the author and the audience; these hedges “confirm the attention writers give to the interactional effects of their statements” and “solicit collusion by addressing the reader as an intelligent colleague capable of participating in the discourse with an open mind” (Hyland, 1996, p. 446). 2. Functions of hedges It has been agreed that hedges serve a number of functions (Myers, 1989; Swales and Feak, 1994; Namsaraev, 1997; Hyland, 1998; Varttala, 2001; Hyland, 2003; Cabanes, 2007). According to Swales and Feak (1994), hedging is used to maintain objectivity, which is usually linked to the credibility of the writer where inappropriate use of hedging might spoil a piece of writing. Hyland (1998, p. 3) maintains that the use of hedging “indicates an unwillingness to make an explicit and complete commitment to the truth of the propositions”, and that one of its main functions is to “contribute to a relationship by alerting readers to the writer’s perspective towards both propositional information and to the readers themselves” (p. 5). Varttala (2001) suggests that hedging is utilized to report and account for results, make inferences from evidence, convince readers, and set-up interpersonal ties between readers and writers. Varttala’s theory starts from semantic considerations to state that the use of hedges can either increase or decrease the fuzziness of our conceptualizations of reality. These semantic features of hedging may, in turn, render the strategy useful in pragmatic terms because they can make hedging fulfill several interpersonal functions depending on the type of communicative situation. The most common of these functions is linguistic politeness, although this use is not the only one. In dealing with hedging as a typical feature of academic writing, Hyland (2003) also considers it a mechanism that can be used to manage attitude, proposition, and information within a piece of writing. This approach involves using tentative language to distinguish between facts and claims when writers are not perfectly certain about the facts they convey (e.g. “it appears likely that” or “arguably”). Some researchers consider hedging a politeness strategy. In his discussion of the use of politeness in scientific writing, Myers (1989, p. 12) groups all such linguistic devices under negative politeness and hedging with less focus on the description of the linguistic devices themselves than on their aim or drive. He considers hedging a politeness strategy when it marks a claim, or any other statement, as being provisional pending acceptance in the literature or acceptance by the community (the readers). Myers supports Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory that hedging can be realized by some linguistic devices, such as modal verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs. According to Namsaraev (1997), hedging can be used to minimize face-threatening acts, modify the illocutionary force of an utterance, and protect the propositional components of an utterance/text. Curnick (2000) considers the use of hedging to be a positive or Hedging in nursing and education 197 EBS 6,3/4 198 negative politeness strategy with which the author tries to convey modesty or indicate that he/she lacks full knowledge on a subject. Hedging is also used for rationalization to establish a relationship between readers and writers or speakers and listeners. It can also be used to secure a certain level of acceptability of the claim in society; as the claim attains popular acceptance, it can then be reported without hedging. Similarly, Myers (1989) argues that any claim made in academic writing is a face-threatening act for other researchers in the same field because it impinges on their “freedom of act”. Hedging strategies help to tone down, mitigate or modulate statements so that the audience believe that they are nevertheless able to judge for themselves and that the author is awaiting their acceptance. In the same vein, Vass (2004) states that hedges are used to prevent possible conflict, respond to expectations, soften the illocutionary force, and create an impression. Cabanes (2007) also proposes that hedging is used to show deference, politeness, authorial self-protection and the author’s consideration of the degree of precision deemed necessary in his/her text. Consistent with Myers (1989), Namsaraev (1997), Cabanes (2007) and Martin-Martin (2008, p. 133) suggests that “the use of politeness strategies (e.g. hedges) is frequent in a bid to mitigate face threatening acts (FTAs) involved in the social interactions between writers and readers”. Cabanes (2007, p. 141) views hedging strategies as a means to: [. . .] help to tone down, mitigate or modulate the statements so that the audience feel that they are still able to judge for themselves and that the author is pending their acceptance. Jalilifar and Shooshtari (2011) consider hedging a strategy for preserving status that seeks to make the inappropriate speech act more appropriate. This point indicates that hedging is an activity that softens face threatening, as readers are given alternatives and may consider their own interpretations. It is a type of politeness towards readers. Hedging is thus perceived as the device by which writers can convey their beliefs and subjective viewpoints about scientific claims. In her contrastive study, Salager-Meyer (1994) confirms that the main functions of hedges are to protect the writers against reactions that their propositions might provoke and to reflect their modesty and deference towards the target audience. Salager-Meyer (2011) restates that a hedge is a strategy that describes a proposition or is one of the lexico-syntactic elements that are utilized to modify a proposition. However, she agrees with Banks (1994) that this exclusive association of hedges with evasiveness and politeness must not obscure the important functions of this communicative strategy, referring to the use of certain indeterminate expressions that express vagueness or lack of precision without necessarily showing confusion or uncertainty. 3. Hedging in academic writing Several studies have been conducted to examine the use of hedging as a natural phenomenon in academic writing in different genres and disciplines, including linguistics (Hyland, 1998; Hinkel, 2005; Hu and Cao, 2011; Abdollahzadeh, 2011), politics (Taweel et al., 2011), science (Maria, 1996; Cabanes, 2007; Varttala, 2001), biology (Hyland, 2003, 2004), and medicine (Falahati, 2004; ElMalik and Nesi, 2008; Martin-Martin, 2008). In one line of research, some researchers examined how the use of hedges varies in different languages. In a comparative study examining the use of hedging devices in 649 academic article abstracts of Chinese and English applied linguists, Hu and Cao (2011) found that hedges were used more in abstracts in the English articles than in the Chinese articles. Similarly, in examining a sample of 60 conclusion sections of applied linguistics articles written by Anglo-American and Iranian writers, Abdollahzadeh (2011) found that there was a remarkable tendency by writers from both groups to hedge their propositions and that there were similarities and differences in their use of hedges. Hinkel (2005) compared the frequencies of using hedging devices among native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) of English in 745 academic essays. Findings indicated that NNS use hedging devices in an extremely limited way when compared with NS; however, in oral conversations, NNS use hedging devices more often than NS. Mojica (2005) investigated Filipino writers’ ways of showing commitment in their English academic papers. The study concluded that modals and probabilities are preferred forms of hedging. In a comparison of hedging in English and Spanish architecture project descriptions, Cabanes (2007) concluded that hedging is used to serve three functions: to express politeness toward the audience, to protect the writer from claims that may be wrong, and to imply the degree of precision that the writer chooses for his/her text. Martin-Martin (2008) examined the occurrence and frequency of hedging in 40 research articles in the field of clinical and health psychology that are written in English and Spanish. Although there are similarities between the two languages regarding the distribution of hedging devices, the findings suggest that English research articles are marked with more hedging devices than the Spanish articles and that they “involve more protection to the author’s face” (Martin-Martin, 2008, p. 133). Some researchers were concerned with the use of hedges in different genres/disciplines and by different language users. Their findings suggest that hedges are used differently in different disciplines. For example, Hyland (2003) examined approximately 27 articles on molecular biology published between 1990 and 1995. The study revealed that modality is a significant way to express hedging. In another study, Hyland (2004) examined the metadiscourse features of seven biology articles. The study revealed that scientists use hedging for two purposes: to address the intended reader and to convey their personal attitudes toward their claims. Falahati (2004) examined the distribution and functions of hedging devices in academic writing in three disciplines (medicine, chemistry, and psychology) in the introduction and discussion sections of studies in English and Farsi. This study found that the English research articles use hedges more than the Farsi articles. The English psychology and Farsi medical research articles were found to represent the disciplines that use hedging the most frequently. These findings are in line with Salager-Meyer (2011). The writer attributed this variation to the language and the general nature of the disciplines. Hyland (2005) investigated the use of boosters and hedges in mass communication research articles and concluded that boosters are used more often than hedges. He also discovered that mass communication writers are more confident about their claims than writers about biology. Ignacio and Diana (2008) studied hedging in three types of research articles: marketing, biology and mechanical engineering. Their study revealed that hedging is used differently in these three study areas. In their study, based on data obtained from contemporary British English, Gries and David (2009) found that hedges are also used differently in different genres. Most recently, Tabrizi (2011) compared 30 scientific (biology) and 30 humanistic (ELT) journal articles to identify the frequency of hedges used in both disciplines. The results showed that the humanistic texts used hedges more frequently than the scientific texts. Comparing 20 medical Hedging in nursing and education 199 EBS 6,3/4 200 articles written by Sudanese and British writers, ElMalik and Nesi (2008) found that Sudanese and British writers differ in their use of hedging; in particular, hedges occurred more often in the British articles than in the Sudanese articles. These findings corroborate those of Salager-Meyer (1994). Amir et al. (2012), in their study about gender differences in the language use of Malaysian teen bloggers, found that females use more lexical hedges because these devices are used by women as a weakening tool since it expresses uncertainty and is also a way to soften an utterance. This supports Lakoff’s theory (1972) as female bloggers use it more frequently (n ¼ 340) than male bloggers do (n ¼ 141). The use of lexical hedges in female bloggers’ language reveals that: [. . .] they tend to write spontaneously whereas the male bloggers tend to think before they write. Female bloggers use hedges as fillers, as when the communicator stalls, perhaps to ponder or think about the subject discussed. The male bloggers’ frequency for lexical hedges is low because their postings are informative and definite and specific. Therefore, the need to use this feature is also low (Amir et al., 2012, p. 120). In their recent research, Mirzapour and Mahand (2012) compared and contrasted the frequency of hedges and boosters used in abstract, introduction, and conclusion sections of library and information (LI) and computer science (CS) research articles written by English native and non-native writers. 20 research articles are selected from leading Iranian journals and international journals in two disciplines. The research articles are analyzed according to Holmes’ (1988) lexical devices classification, focusing on hedges and boosters. Their findings show that the overall distribution of hedges and boosters in library and information articles is higher than in computer science articles. Moreover, there are significant differences between native and non-native writers’ use of hedges and boosters. Research shows that hedging is less apparent in scientific texts than in humanistic (non-scientific) texts because there is more certainty in scientific texts. As opposed to non-scientific texts (e.g. social and humanistic), scientific texts are better regarded as socially constructed “rhetorical artifacts” (Hyland, 1998, p. 16). Ignacio and Diana (2008) suggest that writers of social texts may wish to be more cautious about their uncertain claims, so they convey their claims using more tentative language. Through hedging, academic contexts show whether the writers are certain or doubtful about their statements and the extent of the writers’ certainty regarding their claims. In his study, Salager-Meyer (2011) found that social texts are mostly associated with hedging devices such as the passive voice and probabilities. Despite the significance of hedging and the extensive research conducted on hedging, little is known about how hedges are expressed and how they function in different disciplines or genres (Hyland, 2005; Tabrizi, 2011). A considerable amount of research has been conducted on scientific texts in the fields of medicine, biology, computer science and engineering (Hyland, 2003, 2004; Falahati, 2004; Hyland, 2005; ElMalik and Nesi, 2008; Martin-Martin, 2008; Mirzapour and Mahand, 2012) and humanistic texts in applied linguistics and ELT articles (Ignacio and Diana, 2008; Salager-Meyer, 2011; Hu and Cao, 2011); however, no studies have been conducted on nursing and education academic research articles to see how and why hedges are used in these two disciplines. Moreover, as far as the literature review is concerned, it was only Salager-Meyer (1994) who analyzed the frequency of hedging devices in the different sections of medical research articles (IMRAD). It is, therefore, the aim of the present research to investigate hedging in nursing articles as a scientific discipline and in education articles as a non-scientific discipline. Using Jalilifar’s (2007) taxonomy of hedges, this study sought to discover how frequently different categories of hedging are used in 25 nursing articles as a scientific discipline and 25 education articles as a non-scientific discipline, and whether there are any significant differences in the writers’ use of hedging devices. The present research also tries to identify hedging devices in the entire articles rather than simply in their abstracts or discussion sections. Therefore, the findings of this research can shed light on similarities and differences in the use of hedging in the fields of nursing and education, which have not been studied, and make an important contribution to the understanding of why and how these hedging devices are used in these two disciplines. Hedging in nursing and education 201 4. Method 4.1 Aim and corpus This study sought to discover how frequently different categories of hedging are used in nursing articles as a scientific discipline and education articles as a non-scientific discipline, and whether there are any differences in the writers’ use of hedging devices. It also aims to find out if there are any differences in the writers’ use of their subcategories. To identify the hedging devices used in both types of articles (nursing and education), 25 scholarly articles published between 2009 and 2011 were randomly selected to represent each discipline, which had almost equal page number. The education articles were taken from EBSCO host database (Appendix 1), whereas the nursing articles were selected from Mosby’s Index – Elsevier (Appendix 2). The study was more specifically trying to answer the following question: are there any significant differences between the nursing and education writers’ use of hedging? 4.2 Data analysis A total of 50 academic articles representing both disciplines (nursing and education) were analyzed, adopting Jalilifar’s (2007) taxonomy of hedging words (Table I). Since hedges are a mental phenomenon, the individual hedges were scrutinized in the corpus. This research is descriptive in nature. The frequency of the nine categories and their hedging words were found in the 50 selected articles on nursing and education. Category Hedging words 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Seem, tend, appear, doubt, believe, think, indicate, suggest Assume May, might, can, could, will, would, must Often, sometimes, usually, always, never, frequently Certainly, definitely, clearly, probably, possibly, perhaps, conceivably Certain, definite, clear, probable, possible, conceivable Assumption, possibility, probability It could be the case that [. . .], it might be suggested that [. . .], there is every hope that [. . .], hope It may be possible to obtain [. . .], it is important to develop [. . .], it is useful to study [. . .] Introductory verbs Certain lexical verbs Certain modal verbs Adverbs of frequency Modal adverbs Modal adjectives Modal nouns That-clauses 9. To-clause þ adjective Source: Jalilifar (2007) Table I. Jalilifar’s taxonomy of hedging words EBS 6,3/4 The frequency of all the hedging devices in the entire articles was determined and analyzed. Different forms of the same verb were also sought. For example, the verb “appear” and all its different forms (e.g. appear, appears, appeared, appearing) were searched for, analyzed and compared in the selected articles. t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to answer the questions of the study. 202 5. Results 5.1 Overall frequency of each hedging category Table II presents the overall frequency and percentages of each hedging category in each group (nursing and education). It shows that the education articles recorded the highest number of hedging devices (2,737), accounting for 65 percent of the total number of hedges used in both types of articles. However, the nursing texts yielded fewer hedging devices (1,476), accounting for 35 percent. These results indicate that the writers in both disciplines, scientific and non-scientific (i.e. nursing and education, respectively), use hedging as a rhetorical strategy in their writing when they are uncertain about their statements or propositions, and when they want to protect their face. They also indicate that the writers of non-scientific disciplines (education) are more uncertain about their claims because they consider everything to be probable. The descriptive statistics in Table III show that the education articles received higher mean scores than the nursing articles in the total use of hedging and their subcategories. This indicates that the writers of the education articles use more hedging devices than the writers of the nursing articles. The table also reveals that modal verbs and introductory verbs recorded the highest mean scores in both disciplines, 33.28 and 24.06 percent, respectively. However, the nursing articles recorded the highest frequency of modal verbs, introductory verbs, modal adverbs, adverbs of frequency, and modal adjectives. The least recorded hedges were lexical verbs, that clauses, adjective þ to-that and modal nouns, respectively. To answer the question of the study: are there any significant differences between the nursing and education writers’ use of hedging? One-way ANOVA was used to analyze the data. The results of the one-way ANOVA reveal that there were statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the nursing and education articles in favor of the education articles, indicating that the writers of the education articles used more hedging devices than the writers of the nursing articles in the analyzed sample. Table II. The overall frequency of each hedging device category for each discipline Hedging device category Discipline Nursing Education Freq. % Freq. % Total Percentage 1. Introductory verbs 2. Lexical verbs 3. Modal verbs 4. Adverbs of frequency 5. Modal adverbs 6. Modal adjectives 7. Modal nouns 8. That-clauses 9. To-that þ adjective Total 429 8 685 105 111 97 18 11 22 1,476 1,203 35 1,664 307 406 364 97 55 92 4,223 28.5 0.8 39.4 7.3 9.6 8.6 2.3 1.3 2.2 100 35.7 22.9 41 34.2 27.3 26.6 18.6 20 24 35 774 27 979 202 295 267 79 44 70 2,737 64.3 77.1 59 65.8 72.7 73.4 81.4 80 76 65 Hedging device category Discipline n Mean SD F Sig. Introductory verbs Nursing Education Total Nursing Education Total Nursing Education Total Nursing Education Total Nursing Education Total Nursing Education Total Nursing Education Total Nursing Education Total Nursing Education Total Nursing Education Total 25 25 50 25 25 50 25 25 50 25 25 50 25 25 50 25 25 50 25 25 50 25 25 50 25 25 50 25 25 50 17.16 30.96 24.06 0.32 1.08 0.70 27.40 39.16 33.28 4.20 8.08 6.14 4.44 11.80 8.12 3.88 10.68 7.28 0.72 3.16 1.94 0.44 1.76 1.10 0.48 2.80 1.64 59.04 109.48 84.26 3.05 3.94 7.79 0.48 0.28 0.54 3.10 4.00 6.91 1.53 1.75 2.55 1.39 2.57 4.24 1.20 1.82 3.76 0.68 0.75 1.42 0.51 0.72 0.91 0.59 0.76 1.35 5.43 8.30 26.40 192 0.00 48 0.00 Lexical verbs Modal verbs Frequency adverbs Modal adverbs Modal adjectives Modal nouns That-clause Adjective þ to-clause Total Hedging in nursing and education 203 135 0.00 70 0.00 159 0.00 243 0.00 146 0.00 56 0.00 145 0.00 647 0.00 Table III. Results of the descriptive analysis of the nursing and education articles 5.2 Frequency and percentages of hedging subcategories 5.2.1 Introductory verbs. Table IV presents the eight introductory verbs and their frequency in both disciplines: scientific (nursing) and non-scientific (education). The verbs with all their possible forms were extracted. The analysis of the total number of verbs found in the articles reveals that the education articles contained more introductory verbs than the nursing articles. The only justification for this result is that Types of articles Introductory verbs Seem Tend Appear Think Indicate Suggest Total Nursing Education Total 8 15 86 39 145 136 429 28 61 132 98 242 213 774 36 76 218 137 387 349 1,203 Table IV. Frequency of introductory verbs EBS 6,3/4 204 such verbs, e.g. seem, tend, appear, think, indicate and suggest, show uncertainty about what has been stated. The most noticeable feature in Table V is that appear, indicate and suggest were the most frequently used verbs in both disciplines. Such hedges are exemplified in the following statements taken from the corpus of the study: . The scores reveal that the six-year-olds are better in word-initial position, and least successful in word-final position, as they seem to be sensitive to the Turkish final devoicing rule, thus unable to distinguish [ þ voice]/[2 voice] distinctions in word-final position (education, 17). . In addition, 72 percent of respondents indicated that they deal with bullying behaviors through avoidance techniques and do not know if their school has a support system for bullying (nursing, 20). . The study further suggests the possibility that phonetic deafness and incorrect phonetic input are some of the potential factors responsible for the underachievement of the adult L2 learners (education, 17). 5.2.2 Certain lexical verbs. This category includes only one verb: “assume”. This verb was used more frequently in the education articles (27) than in the nursing articles (8). When writers say, “We assume that [. . .]” or “It is assumed that [. . .]”, they free themselves of any commitment to their claims. In this research, the writers of both types of articles used this verb in the following examples: . These sites are less common and tend to be diagnosed when the disease is more advanced, as patients may falsely assume that lesions cannot be skin cancer in areas not exposed to the sun (nursing, 16). . It may be possible to assume that his oral skills for daily communication may have increased, but these were not tested through other English proficiency tests including speaking and writing (education, 23). 5.2.3 Certain modal verbs. Table V shows the third hedging category, which is associated with probability or possibility. It consists of seven modal verbs: will, would, may, might, can, could and must. Each verb was searched separately. Again, the education articles, as a non-scientific discipline, yielded many more modals (979) than the nursing articles (685). More significant differences were also found. For example, the occurrence of the modal verb may was recorded in 143 instances in the nursing articles, but 227 instances in the education articles. Additionally, the modal verb can Type of articles Modal verbs Table V. Frequency of certain modal verbs Will Would May Might Can Could Total Nursing Education Total 71 82 143 128 118 143 685 110 169 227 116 253 104 979 181 251 370 244 371 247 1,664 registered 118 instances in the nursing articles but 227 instances in the education articles. However, it was noticed that “might” and “could” recorded more instances in the nursing articles. Modal verbs were used intensively because they indicate probability and uncertainty, which are distinctive features of non-scientific discipline. Writers of academic articles, whether their writing is scientific or non-scientific, resort to hedges to protect themselves against readers’ reactions and to reflect their modesty, as suggested by Salager-Meyer (1994). The following examples were found in the analyzed texts: . The proposed strategies outlined in Table I represent a compendium of measures that can be used individually or in concert to assist nurses in addressing stress related reactions that may impact personal and professional performance situations and create healthy work environments for nurses at all levels of the organization (nursing, 15). . Richards (2001) suggests that in some situations, textbooks may provide the basis for the content of the lessons and the kind of language practice the students take part in (education, 16). . Empirical evidence has shown that, in producing the target language, language learners may notice their linguistic problems/gaps, which could trigger their attention to relevant input and lead them to establish a more durable memory trace (education, 11). Hedging in nursing and education 205 5.2.4 Adverbs of frequency. Table VI reveals that education articles’ writers used 202 adverbs of frequency, which amounts to almost twice those found in the nursing articles (111). Furthermore, all adverbs of frequency are used more often in the education articles than in the nursing articles. For example, often was used 31 times in the nursing articles, while it was used 61 times in the education articles. Sometimes also occurred only nine times in the nursing articles, but it was used 37 times in the education articles. This evidence supports previous research that humanistic texts in the non-scientific discipline contain more hedging devices. The following examples have been used: . Organizational leaders often adopt one or more strategies without recognizing that an employee may derive benefit from the simultaneous or serial use of multiple interventions based on the nature and severity of the stress experienced (nursing, 15). . Even if he sometimes mentioned that he wanted to raise his communicative ability, Yong did not specify speaking-oriented L2 learning actions because his L2 beliefs were not affirmed in his SA experience and, as a result, did not provoke Yong to sustain his motive for SA participation (education, 23). Types of articles Nursing Education Total Often Sometimes 31 61 92 9 37 46 Adverbs of frequency Usually Always Never 21 32 53 16 30 46 9 18 27 Frequently Total 19 24 43 105 202 307 Table VI. Frequency of adverbs of frequency EBS 6,3/4 206 . These approaches are intended to guide instruction to ensure that children receive core, strategic, and sometimes intensive (education, 4). 5.2.5 Modal adverbs. Table VII shows that only three modal adverbs are more frequently used in the education articles (295) than in the nursing articles (111), namely, probably, possibly and perhaps. For example, probably was used 48 times in the nursing articles, while it was used 105 times in the education articles. The second most frequently used modal adverb was possibly, which yielded a total of 145 instances in both disciplines: nursing (42) and education (97). However, “conceivably” did not register any instances in both disciplines. Modal adverbs can be observed in the following examples taken from the corpus of the study: . She was probably able to ambulate, but I am not sure (nursing, 5). . In reality, the controversy over the association between cohesion and writing quality may probably stem from either the methodological flaws or restricted foci of the foregoing investigations (education, 24). 5.2.6 Modal adjectives. Modal adjectives include probable, possible and conceivable. As shown in Table VIII, the education articles yielded more modal adjectives than the nursing articles. Additionally, individual modal adjectives recorded different frequencies. For example, possible was the most frequent hedging device used in the education and nursing articles, although the nursing articles recorded fewer devices than the education articles did, 62 and 187, respectively. Conceivable was the least frequently used hedging device among all. The use of such adjectives is shown as in the following examples: . If a suspicious lesion is identified that warrants biopsy, the entire lesion should be removed whenever possible (nursing, 16). Types of articles Modal adverb Table VII. Frequency of modal adverbs Nursing Education Total Probably Possibly Perhaps Conceivably Total 48 42 21 0 111 105 97 93 0 295 153 139 114 0 406 Modal adjectives Nursing Education Total 29 62 6 97 72 187 8 267 101 249 14 364 Types of articles Table VIII. Frequency of modal adjectives Probable Possible Conceivable Total . What he obtained from the nine months of SA was a small improvement in the TOEIC score, which would have been possible by studying TOEIC in Korea (education, 23). 5.2.7 Modal nouns. There were only three modal nouns: assumption, possibility, and probability. The results shown in Table IX reveal that assumption and possibility were more frequently used in the education articles (79 instances). These nouns can be illustrated in the following examples: . The study further suggests the possibility that phonetic deafness and incorrect phonetic input are some of the potential factors responsible for the underachievement of the adult L2 learners (education, 17). . It becomes essential that faculty address and inform nursing students of the very distinct possibility that they may encounter unhealthy work environments (nursing, 6). Hedging in nursing and education 207 5.2.8 That-clause. That-clause included three that-clause types, as shown in Table X: it could be the case that, It might be suggested that, and There is every hope that in addition to the noun hope. In general, the education articles recorded a higher frequency of these hedging devices. It could be the case that and There is every hope that are not used in the nursing articles at all, whereas It might be suggested that [. . .] occurred five times in the nursing articles and 11 times in the education articles. However, the most noticeable feature was that the noun hope was used frequently in the education articles (33). This finding supports the conclusion that non-scientific discipline writers employ more hedging devices than scientific discipline writers to mitigate their claims. The following examples are taken from the analyzed articles: . Suggested interventions for incivility include adopting and enforcing zero-tolerance policies, fostering supportive and respectful student and faculty relationships, and providing faculty with the education and support that they need to handle incivility (nursing, 20). Types of articles Modal nouns Nursing Education Total Assumption Possibility probability Total 2 7 9 18 13 34 32 79 15 41 41 97 Types of articles It could be the case that That-clauses It might be suggested that There is every hope that Nursing Education 0 0 5 11 0 0 Table IX. Frequency of modal nouns Hope Total 6 33 11 44 Table X. Frequency of that-clauses EBS 6,3/4 208 . Once men enjoy spiritual happiness, they can sense the hope of life. When they are on the edge of losing hope, spiritual happiness can give you the hope to overcome all the difficulties and to live as usual (education, 24). 5.2.9 Adjective þ to-clause. Table XI indicates that all three types of clauses are used more frequently in the education articles (70) than in nursing (22). For example, “it is important to develop” occurred nine times in the nursing articles and 31 times in the education articles. Here, are some examples taken from the corpus of the study: . The implantable loop recorder (ILR) is a subcutaneous monitoring device that is useful for the diagnosis of syncope, particularly when the episodes are infrequent and conventional noninvasive cardiac testing is negative or inconclusive (nursing, 24). . It is important for the teacher to know when and why to use echo and use it sparingly as it can become a habit with very little function quickly (education, 12). . It may be possible to assume that his oral skills for daily communication may have increased, but these were not tested through other English proficiency tests including speaking and writing (education, 23). 6. Discussion and conclusion The present research aimed to examine the use of hedging devices in two academic disciplines, namely, nursing and education, which have not been investigated so far. The results show that all writers favor the use of these devices as rhetorical strategies. However, the analysis indicated that there were significant differences between the education and nursing writers’ use of hedging devices in favor of the education writers. This means that the education writers resorted to various hedging devices in the nine categories more frequently than the nursing writers, with the number of occurrences recorded as 2,737 and 1,476 for education and nursing articles, respectively. This finding is consistent with previous research results reporting that hedging is used differently in different disciplines (Ignacio and Diana, 2008; Hyland, 2005; Salager-Meyer, 2011; Mirzapour and Mahand, 2012; Amir et al., 2012). This finding also supports the results of previous studies that social/humanistic texts as a non-scientific genre register more hedging devices than scientific texts (Ignacio and Diana, 2008). Among the nine categories of hedging, the study revealed that there were significant differences between all the subcategories of hedging devices. It was noticed that the use of modal verbs is the preferred method of hedging. This result supports Mojica (2005) that modals and probabilities are the most frequently used hedging devices. As expected, the use of modal verbs does not indicate politeness but rather conveys a lack of precision. The use of probabilities primarily in education articles as a non-scientific discipline is also supported by Salager-Meyer (2011). Table XI. Frequency of adjective þ to-clause Types of articles Nursing Education It may be possible to obtain 10 24 Adjective þ to-clause It is important to develop It is useful to study 9 31 3 25 Total 22 80 The findings of the present research are justifiable. The first justification could be the nature of the social sciences (e.g. education). Education text writers cannot discuss their findings or propositions with certainty because they are dealing with human behaviors and it is impossible to firmly guarantee a result in this context. Thus, they prefer not to make firm predictions or draw firm conclusions. They resort to hedging devices to “tone down, mitigate or modulate the statements so that the audience feel that they are still able to judge for themselves and that the author is pending their acceptance” (Cabanes, 2007, p. 141). However, although they hedged in many instances, writers of nursing articles as a scientific discipline preferred to state their positions with much more confidence because there is not as much room for probabilities in science. For example, if a study is conducted in medicine, there is no place for sentences such as “This medicine might be helpful for skin cancer” or “This drug may treat your sore throat”. Clearly, such doubts would result in the failure of patients’ use of these drugs because the lack of certainty regarding their effectiveness associates their use with the potential for health risks. However, when dealing with social sciences (e.g. education), researchers cannot be sure about their results on behaviors because the social sciences attempt to explain and account for different behavioral patterns that are complex and varied depending on many variables. Such variables may include the sample, data collection procedure, data analysis tool, etc. Therefore, words such as seem, may, might, etc. are used more frequently in education as a non-scientific discipline. These findings are supported by Hyland (2005, 2003), Ignacio and Diana (2008) and Tabrizi (2011). The findings of the present study present pedagogical implications. They suggest that academic writers should be aware of such differences in the use of hedging devices in both disciplines so that they can use them as communicative strategies to qualify their commitment, reduce the force of their statements, express probability, save their face, persuade readers, and avoid any possible rejection of their statements. This will result in improving the clarity of future writing of professors, graduate students, and practitioners. Learners should also understand the writer’s true stance related to the topic being discussed. They should also know how certain the writers are about their ideas. A clear awareness of the pragmatic effect of hedges and the ability to recognize them in texts is crucial to the acquisition of rhetorical competence in any discipline. Novice humanities and social science writers should also be aware of the fact that hedging devices have a pragmatic effect and that they are to be used when they present or discuss the results of their research papers. References Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011), “Poring over the findings: interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers”, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 43, pp. 288-297. Amir, Z., Abidin, H., Darus, S. and Ismail, K. (2012), “Gender differences in the use of Malaysian teen bloggers”, GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 105-124. Ayodabo, J.O. (2007), “Hedging: the pragmatics of politeness in English”, Lagos Papers in English Studies, Vol. 1, pp. 257-270. Banks, D. (1994), “Hedges and how to trim them”, in Brekke, M., Andersen, O., Dahl, T. and Myking, J. (Eds), Applications and Implications of Current LSP Research, Vol. 2, pp. 578-592. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987), Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hedging in nursing and education 209 EBS 6,3/4 210 Cabanes, P. (2007), “A contrastive analysis of hedging in English and Spanish architecture project descriptions”, Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 20, pp. 139-158. Chavez, D. (2004), “The language of uncertainty in a new illness: hedging and modality in the biomedical discourse of sever acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)”, doctoral dissertation, University of Mahidol, Bangkok. Curnick, L. (2000), “The use and distribution of hedging in scientific discourse: using modals as models”, The ESPecialist, Vol. 21, pp. 1-28. Donesch-Jezo, E. (2010), “Teaching academic discourse writing in ESP courses for medical students and professionals”, US-China Foreign Language, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 32-39. ElMalik, A.T. and Nesi, H. (2008), “Publishing research in a second language: the case of Sudanese contributors to international medical journals”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Vol. 7, pp. 87-96. Falahati, R. (2004), “A contrastive study of hedging in English and Farsi academic discourse”, MA thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria. Fraser, B. (2007), “Hedging in political discourse”, paper presented at the Bush 2007 Press Conferences, available at: www.bu.edu/sed/files/2010/10/2010-Hedging-in-PoliticalDisciourse-The-2007-Bush-Press-Conferences.pdf Gries, S. and David, C. (2009), This is Kind of/Sort of Interesting: Variation in Hedging in English, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA. Hinkel, E. (2005), “Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing”, Applied Language Learning, Vol. 15, pp. 29-53. Holmes, J. (1988), “Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks”, Applied Linguistics, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 20-44. Hu, G. and Cao, F. (2011), “Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: a comparative study of English and Chinese-medium journals”, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 43, pp. 2795-2809. Hyland, K. (1996), “Talking to academy: forms of hedging in science research articles”, Written Communication, Vol. 13, pp. 251-281. Hyland, K. (1998), Hedging in Scientific Research Articles, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Hyland, K. (2003), Second Language Writing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hyland, K. (2004), Genre and Second Language Writing, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. Hyland, K. (2005), Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing, Continuum Discourse Series, New York, NY. Ignacio, V. and Diana, G. (2008), “Beyond mood and modality: epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles: a cross-disciplinary study”, Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, Vol. 21, pp. 171-190. Jalilifar, A. and Shooshtari, Z. (2011), “Metadiscourse awareness and ESAP comprehension”, Journal of College Reading and Learning, Vol. 41 No. 2, available at: www.readperiodicals. com/201104/2332273171.html#b Jalilifar, A.R. (2007), “Hedging as a pragmatic strategy: variations across disciplines and cultures”, TELL, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 43-69. Lakoff, G. (1972), “Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts”, Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, Vol. 8, pp. 183-228. Lewin, B. (2005), “Hedging: an explanatory study of authors’ and readers’ identification of ‘Toning down’ in scientific texts”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Vol. 4, pp. 163-178. Maria, S. (1996), “Student reactions to tentative language (hedging) in genres of environmental science writing”, PhD dissertation, Ohio University, Athens. Martin-Martin, P. (2008), “The mitigation of scientific claims in research papers: a comparative study”, International Journal of English Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 133-152. Mirzapour, F. and Mahand, M. (2012), “Hedges and boosters in native and non-native library and information and computer science research articles”, 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of Language Studies, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 119-128. Mojica, L. (2005), “Filipino authors’ ways of showing detachment/commitment in their English academic papers”, in Dayag, D. and Quakenbush, J.S. (Eds), Linguistics and Language Education in the Philippines and Beyond: A Festschrift in Honor of Ma, Linguistic Society of the Philippines, Manila, pp. 511-525. Myers, G. (1989), “The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles”, Applied Linguistics, Vol. 10, pp. 1-35. Namsaraev, V. (1997), “Hedging in Russian academic writing in sociological texts”, in Markkanen, R. and Schroder, H. (Eds), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 64-81. Prince, E., Bosk, C. and Frader, J. (1982), “On hedging in physician-physician discourse”, in di Pietro, J. (Ed.), Linguistics and the Professions, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 83-97. Salager-Meyer, F. (1994), “Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse”, English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 49-70. Salager-Meyer, F. (2011), “Scientific discourse and contrastive linguistics: hedging”, European Science Editing Journal, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 35-37. Swales, J. and Feak, C. (1994), Academic Writing for Graduate Students, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Tabrizi, A. (2011), Hedging in Scientific and Humanistic Texts: The Comparison Between Biology and ELT Texts, LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken. Taweel, A., Saidat, E., Hussein, A. and Saidat, A. (2011), “Hedging in political discourse”, The Linguistics Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 169-196. Varttala, T.A. (2001), “Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse: exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience”, PhD dissertation, University of Tarnpereen Yliopisto, Finland, available at: http://acta.uta.fi//pdf/95 1-44-5 195-3.pdf Vass, H. (2004), “Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genres”, IBERICA, Vol. 7, pp. 125-141. Vazques, L. and Giner, D. (2008), “Beyond mood and modality: epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles: a cross-disciplinary study”, Revista de Studios es, Vol. 21, pp. 171-190. Zuck, J.G. and Zuck, L.V. (1986), “Hedging in news writing”, in Cornu, A.M., Van Parjis, J., Delahaye, M. and Baten, L. (Eds), Beads or Bracelets? How Do We Approach LSP, Selected Papers from the Fifth European Symposium on LSP, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 172-180. Further reading Bazerman, C. (1988), Shaping Written Knowledge, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Hyland, K. (2002), “Directives: argument and engagement in academic writing”, Applied Linguistics, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 215-239. Mulkay, M. (1979), Science and the Sociology of Knowledge, Allen & Unwin, London. Hedging in nursing and education 211 EBS 6,3/4 212 Appendix 1. Education articles selected from EBSCO HOST database (1) Ander, S. and Yıldırım, Ö. (2010), “Lexical errors in elementary level EFL learners’ compositions”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 5299-5303. (2) Arıkan, P. and Taraf, H. (2010), “Contextualizing young learners’ English lessons with cartoons: focus on grammar and vocabulary”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 5212-521. (3) Bagdasaryan, S. (2012), “Social work education and title IV-E program participation as predictors of entry-level knowledge among public child welfare workers”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 1590-1597. (4) Buysse, V., Castro, D. and Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2010), “Effects of a professional development program on classroom practices and outcomes for Latino dual language learners”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 194-206. (5) Coleman, J.A. and Furnborough, C. (2010), “Learner characteristics and learning outcomes on a distance Spanish course for beginners”, System, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 14-29. (6) Conger, D. (2009), “Testing, time limits, and English learners: does age of school entry affect how quickly students can learn English?”, Social Science Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 383-396. (7) De Costa, P.I. (2011), “Using language ideology and positioning to broaden the SLA learner beliefs landscape: the case of an ESL learner from China”, System, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 347-358. (8) Demircioğlu, S. (2010), “Teaching English vocabulary to young learners via drama”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 439-443. (9) Huang, L.-S. (2010). “Do different modalities of reflection matter? An exploration of adult second-languagelearners’ reported strategy use and oral language production”, System, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 245-261. (10) Hu, G. (2011), “Metalinguistic knowledge, metalanguage, and their relationship in L2 learners”, System, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 63-77. (11) Huang, K.-M. (2011), “Motivating lessons: a classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of content-based instruction on EFL young learners’ motivated behaviours and classroom verbal interaction”, System, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 186-201. (12) Inceçay, G. (2010), “The role of teacher talk in young learners’ language process”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 277-281. (13) Johnston, J.H. (2009), “The preparation of child health nurses in sexual health education: an exploratory study”, Nurse Education Today, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 845-849. (14) Kayama, M. and Haight, W. (2012), “Cultural sensitivity in the delivery of disability services to children: a case study of Japanese education and socialization”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 266-275. (15) Kim, J.-Y. (2012), “A study on learners’ perceptional typology and relationships among the learner’s types, characteristics, and academic achievement in a blended e-education environment”, Computers & Education, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 304-315. (16) Kırkgöz, Y. (2009), “Evaluating the English textbooks for young learners of English at Turkish primary education”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 79-83. (17) Komurcu, B. and Yildiz, Y. (2011), “An assessment of the auditory speech perceptual skills of young Turkish learners of English: perceptual assimilation model”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 15, pp. 3511-3515. (18) Lipscomb, S.T. and Pears, K.C. (2011), “Patterns and predictors of early care and education for children in foster care”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 33 No. 11, pp. 2303-2311. (19) Mark, B. (2011), “An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL learners”, System, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 202-214. (20) Saigh, K. and Schmitt, N. (2012), “Difficulties with vocabulary word form: the case of Arabic ESL learners”, System, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 24-36. (21) Sarıçoban, A. and Kuç, A. (2010), “Teaching problematic consonants in English to young learners”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 943-947. (22) Turgut, Y. and İrgin, P. (2009), “Young learners’ language learning via computer games”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 760-764. (23) Yang, J.-S. and Kim, T.-Y. (2011), “Socio-cultural analysis of second language learner beliefs: a qualitative case study of two study-abroad ESL learners”, System, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 325-334. (24) Yang, W. and Sun, Y. (2012), “The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels”, Linguistics and Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 31-48. (25) Yıldırım, R. and Doğan, Y. (2010), “Young learner English teacher profile from students’ perspective”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1615-1619. Appendix 2. Nursing articles selected from Mosby’s Index (Elsevier) (1) Bavis, M., Smith, M. and Siomos, M. (2009), “Genital herpes: diagnosis, treatment, and counseling in the adolescent patient”, Journal for Nurse Practitioners, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 415-420. (2) Cunha, B., Syed, U., Mickail, N. and Strollo, S. (2010), “Rapid clinical diagnosis in fatal swine influenza (H1N1) pneumonia in an adult with negative rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs): diagnostic swine influenza triad”, Heart & Lung, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 78-86. (3) Clark, C. and Springer, P. (2012), “Nurse residents’ first-hand accounts on transition to practice”, Nursing Outlook, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. e2-e8. (4) Cohen, S.M. (2012), “Diagnosis and management of vocal cord dysfunction”, Journal for Nurse Practitioners, Vol. 6 No. 9, pp. 675-682. (5) Conley, M.D., Burket, T., Schumacher, S.D., DeRosa, S. and Schirm, V. (2012), “Implementing geriatric models of care: a role of the gerontological clinical nurse specialist – part I”, Geriatric Nursing, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 229-234. (6) Decker, J.L. and Shellenbarger, T. (2012), “Strategies for nursing faculty to promote a healthy work environment for nursing students”, Teaching and Learning in Nursing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 56-61. (7) Gallo, V.J. (2011), “Incivility in nursing education: a review of the literature”, Teaching and Learning in Nursing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 62-66. (8) Harris, K., Chalhoub, M., Maroun, R., Abi-Fadel, F. and Zhao, F. (2011), “Lipoid pneumonia: a challenging diagnosis”, Heart & Lung: Journal of Clinical Care, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 580-584. (9) Hernandez, J., Secrest, J., Hill, L. and McClarty, S.J. (2009), “Scientific advances in the genetic understanding and diagnosis of malignant hyperthermia”, Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 19-34. Hedging in nursing and education 213 EBS 6,3/4 214 (10) Jarrell, K., Alpers, R. and Wotring, R. (2011), “Is knowledge deficit helpful or hindering nursing diagnosis?”, Teaching and Learning in Nursing, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 89-91. (11) Kleposki, R.W. (2010), “The current concepts and treatment of benign and malignant bone tumors in children: presentation, diagnosis, and treatment”, International Journal of Orthopaedic and Trauma Nursing, Vol. 14 No. 4, p. 225. (12) Lakeman, R. (2012), “What is good mental health nursing? A survey of Irish nurses”, Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 225-231. (13) Lo, S., Stuenkel, D. and Rodriguez, L. (2009), “The impact of diagnosis-specific discharge instructions on patient satisfaction”, Journal of Perianesthesia, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 156-162 (From Mosby’s Index – Copyright 2012 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved). (14) Mandali, S.L. and Ratcliff, L. (2010), “Peripheral bone mineral density measurement as a screening tool for diagnosis of osteoporosis risk”, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 110 No. 9 Suppl, p. A117. (15) Marshall, J. and Zolnierek, C. (2012), “Supporting nurses through critical practice incidents: the nurse advocate role”, Nurse Leader, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 34-36. (16) Matzke, T., Bean, A. and Ackerman, T. (2009), “Avoiding delayed diagnosis of malignant melanoma”, Journal for Nurse Practitioners, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 42-46. (17) Minthorn, C. and Lunney, M. (2012), “Participant action research with bedside nurses to identify NANDA-international, nursing interventions classification, and nursing outcomes classification categories for hospitalized persons with diabetes”, Applied Nursing Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 75-80. (18) Mohammadpour, A., Yekta, Z., Nasrabadi, A. and Mohraz, M. (2012), “Coming to terms with a diagnosis of HIV in Iran: a phenomenological study”, Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 249-259. (19) Murphy, M. and Fitzpatrick, J. (2011), “Illness intrusiveness of a hepatitis c diagnosis: a pilot study and the implications for practice”, The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 46-50. (20) Orsolini-Hain, L. (2012), “The institute of medicine’s future of nursing report: what are the implications for associate degree nursing education?”, Teaching and Learning in Nursing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 74-77. (21) Pereira, G.S., de Souza, S., Caetano, K., Martins, R., Gir, E., Minamisava, R. Gomes, J. and Teles, S. (2011), “Late HIV diagnosis and survival within 1 year following the first positive HIV test in a limited-resource region”, The Journal of the Association of Nurses AIDS Care – JANAC, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 313-319. (22) Shellenbarger, T. and Edwards, T. (2012), “Nurse educator simulation: preparing faculty for clinical nurse educator roles”, Clinical Simulation in Nursing, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. e249-e255. (23) Smith, S.D. (2011), “Taking hold of a tenuous future: couples experiences of continuing pregnancy following diagnosis of a serious or lethal fetal anomaly Smith Sd”, Women and Birth, Vol. 24, Suppl. 1, p. S4. (24) Thanavaro, J. and Thanavaro, S. (2009), “The benefit of implantable loop recorders in the diagnosis of recurrent syncope”, Journal for Nurse Practitioners, Vol. 5 No. 8, pp. 607-612. (25) Walker, A., Pongsing, Y., Nail, L., Pedhiwala, N., Leo, M., Price, J., Lee, K. and Gedaly-Duff, V. (2011), “Sleep-wake patterns of school-age children and adolescents before diagnosis and during induction chemotherapy for acute lymphocytic leukemia”, Journal of Pediatric Nursing, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. e37-e44. About the author Ghaleb Rabab’ah holds a PhD in linguistics from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, England. He is currently an Associate Professor of linguistics at the University of Jordan. His research interests include psycholinguistic aspects of second language, and language learning and teaching. He has published many research papers on linguistics, TESL, and CALL in international journals, such as Journal of Pragmatics, Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, and International Journal of Language Studies. He has served as a Reviewer in several international journals. Ghaleb Rabab’ah can be contacted at: ghalebrababah@gmail.com To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints Hedging in nursing and education 215