HESITATION AND TURN-TAKING IN SCIENTIFIC WRITING: IMPLICIT STRATEGIES IN ACADEMIC
Keywords:
Academic writing, scientific communication, hesitation, turn-taking, hedging, cautious language, modal verbs, intertextuality, discourse analysis, IMRaD format, citations, rhetorical strategy, objectivityAbstract
Scientific writing is primarily characterized by its pursuit of clarity, objectivity, and precision. Overt markers of spontaneous spoken communication, such as hesitation (filled pauses, silent pauses) and rapid turn-taking, are absent in formal written discourse. However, the functions of these phenomena are transformed into complex rhetorical strategies. "Hesitation" in writing manifests as academic caution, or hedging, which involves the use of modality to mitigate the assertiveness of claims. "Turn-taking" is realized through intertextuality—a structured dialogue with existing literature via citation practices and the use of discourse markers within formats like the IMRaD structure. This paper explores how these implicit mechanisms govern communication in the scientific arena, ensuring the ongoing nature of scientific dialogue while maintaining the required levels of objectivity and precision.
References
1. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192.
3. Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458–508.
4. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
5. Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170.
6. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
