The Use of Modal Auxiliaries as Hedging Devices in Chinese Research Articles
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6993/MJCS.202512_14(2).0004Keywords:
Modal Auxiliaries; Chinese Research Article; Frequency and Distribution; Hedging devices; Disciplinary differences.Abstract
This study investigates the use of six Chinese modal auxiliaries as hedging devices in academic abstracts. Drawing on a corpus of 40 abstracts—evenly sampled from Economics, Linguistics, Engineering, and Natural Sciences (10 per discipline). We analyzed the document-level frequencies, functional distributions, and disciplinary variations of the target modals. The primary finding is a generally sparse use of modalisation overall. The abstracts predominantly relied on 会 (hui), 可以 (keyi), and 能(够) (neng(gou)), while 可能 (keneng) and 应该 (yinggai) were rare or entirely absent in several disciplines. Cross-disciplinary contrasts at the abstract level were modest: Economics and Natural Sciences showed slightly broader type coverage, while Linguistics and Engineering were more restricted in the range of modals used. Functionally, these modal auxiliaries in abstracts more often served to create explanatory linkage between propositions than to express epistemic uncertainty. The implications of these patterns for understanding the rhetorical conventions of Chinese academic abstract writing are discussed.
