Curves of the spine
—Cedars-Sinai Health System.
| This is a work in progress: lots of writing, formatting, revising, proofing left to do! — David McMurrey |
A noticeable—and often annoying—characteristic of academic writing involves hedging and metadiscourse. As with just about everything else in this book, nothing is intrinsically wrong with these two writing strategies.
What’s wrong with either of those? Nothing—if used properly.
Hedging is a strategy in which you state conditions, qualifications, exceptions to an assertion you are making. Hedging is an admission that something out there might contradict your assertion; it is an up-front admission of doubt in your own assertion. Here are some examples:
Legitimate hedging: If it rains tomorrow, I won't paint the front door.
The if clause establishes a condition: raininess.
Legitimate hedging: In the middle ages, the world was thought to be flat.
This sets up a condition based on time, history.
Legitimate hedging: The rapid melting of ice at the North Pole may be a result of global warming.
Doubt is indicated by may—but only a small amount of doubt. Phrases like may, probably, in all likelihood suggest some degree of truthfulness, substantially more toward the truth than toward falsehood.
Hedging: Strategy in which you state conditions, qualifications, exceptions to an assertion—an admission that something might contradict your assertion.Legitimate hedging: American consumers usually run into financial problems because they misuse credit cards.
Here, hedging involves limiting the occurrence of a phenomenon. Words like usually, often, in most cases, rarely, frequently, infrequently are examples of this sort of hedging.
Legitimate hedging: In the context of technical communication, digits for criical values below 10 is standard.
The word context narrows the relevance of this statement to just one sphere of the professional world.
But let's look at some seriously neurotic hedging:
Problematic hedging: There seems to be some evidence to suggest that certain differences between Israeli and Arabic world views may be part of the problem, to some extent.
Have you ever seen anything so paranoid? Notice that words that refuse to commit: seems, some evidence, suggest, certain, may be, part of, to some extent. There is nothing wrong with avoiding an absolute, dogmatic assertion—but this is ridiculous!
Revision: Differences between Israeli and Arabic world views may be part of the problem.
Problematic hedging: Our research seems to suggest that there may be a causal connection between a certain level of exposure to high-power lines and some instances of leukemia.
Very much like the first example: research apparently never produces such clear-cut results that an absolute assertion can be made. But here the wordiness created by all the hedging suggests (yep!) that the writer has almost no faith in the results at all!
Revision: Our research indicates that exposure to high-power lines may be related to leukemia.
Problematic hedging: A certain number of parents and other groups have a tendency to argue that violent electronic games may be promoting a greater tendency toward violent behavior in some young people.
Is there no spine in this writer?
Revision: Some parents argue that violent electronic games promote violent behavior in young people.
Problematic hedging: One potential reason for United States' effort to engage in military action in Vietnam may have been the desire to establish a some sort of power base so that perhaps it might control that general region.
Just what we were trying to do? The potential and may are redundant—once is enough. The words may have been, some sort of, perhaps, and might are all hedging overkill.
Revision: United States may have engaged in military action in Vietnam in order to establish a power base there.
Problematic hedging: In the opinion of certain groups of parents, a return to something like "the basics" might improve students' general education to some degree.
The phrase certain groups does nothing. No does something like. might is inappropriate here because some parents really do believe this about "the basics." And this sentence has already been hedged off the planet so to some degree is wildly redundant.
Revision: Some parents believe that a return to "the basics" would improve students' education.
Legitimate hedging establishes the limits of the truthlessness of an assertion. The term hedging comes to us from gambling, specifically, the roulete table. However, it is heavily used in investment jargon. See the link to the Wikipedia article on hedging at the end of this chapter. There, it is described as a "risk-reduction" activity or strategy.
If you understand the idea of hedging, try your hand at this exercise:
Metadiscourse involves talking about what you're going to talk about—writing about what you're going to write about. Metadiscourse is a good thing at the beginning of a document or at the beginning of major sections within a document. Metadiscourse is a good thing in the preface or introduction of a book as well as the beginning of individual chapters in that book. The following is a simple example of metadiscourse:
Legitimate metadiscourse: The following is a summary of some of the design and testing that he and his students are doing, plus my assessment.
Good metadiscourse sets readers' expectations; it gives them a mental map of what the document is about to cover. In the preceding example, readers know that the writer will discuss (1) design, (2) testing, and then (3) assessments.
Metadiscourse: Strategy in which you indicate the topic and purpose of a document as well as the subtopics to be covered.However, metadiscourse can cause two kinds of problems:
Now, if you understand the concept of metadiscourse, practice stripping it out of sentence—always remembering that metadiscourse is a good thing when used properly. As always cover up the revisions, try your hand at revising, and then compare your revisions to the ones shown here.
Metadiscourse: This essay analyzes the use of fish imagery in Herman Melville's Moby-Dick.
When you strip away metadiscourse, you'll often find there is very little substance left, or—as this revision shows—what's left makes you want to say "oh really?" with much sarcasm.
Revision:
Herman Melville used fish imagery in Moby-Dick.
or
Herman Melville's Moby-Dick contains fish imagery.
Metadiscourse: This article reports research on the effects of sentence-combining practice on student writing.
This example leaves us hanging out in the void. What effect does sentence-combining practice have on student writing? Good, bad, no effect? If the writer never comes out and directly states what the effect is, we are left puzzling over the matter.
Revision: Sentence-combining practice may [?] have an effect on student writing.
Metadiscourse: The role of cultural differences in the conflict between India and Pakistan is the topic of this study.
Once again, we've got metadiscourse that withholds the assertion. True, at the beginning of the study, this is a good device: it makes us want to read on to see just what that role is. But if the writer never directly characterizes that role, we're a bunch of frustrated readers.
Revision: Cultural differences have some role in the conflict between India and Pakistan.
But, goodness, what a limp noodle of an assertion!
Metadiscourse: In my research, I analyze the mistaken assumption that the traditional study of grammar improves student writing.
Now here you have something you can really sink your revision teeth into. The metadiscourse version does indeed make an assertion. Readers would still want to hear that assertion—stated without the metadiscourse wrapper—at the end of the document.
Revision: The traditional study of grammar does not improve student writing.
Metadiscourse: The relationship between reading habits and writing ability will be explored in the following.
Back to obscurantist metadiscourse. Despite this gripe, remember that a statement like this at the beginning of a document could be a good thing. As a reader, you might say to yourself, "Okay, what is the relationship?", and be compelled to read on, having heard the notion that people who read a lot have better writing skills.
Revision: Reading habits and writing ability are related [in some way].
Another limp noodle.
Metadiscourse: In the following, we discuss the problems arising from the deregulation of banking in the first decade of the twenty-first century.
An easy one.
Revision: Problems arose from the deregulation of banking in the first decade of the twenty-first century.
Metadiscourse: My intention here is to address the reasons for the failure of the "war on drugs" in the last two decades of the twentieth century.
Stripping away metadiscourse from a sentence sometimes produces a flatfooted result.
Revision: The "war on drugs" in the last two decades of the twentieth century failed.
Metadiscourse: This research investigates the differences between the friendship behavior of males among other males and the friendship behavior of females among other females.
Yes, flatfooted indeed. Sometimes, the remainder makes you want to go "duh!"
Revision: Friendship behavior of males among other males differs from the friendship behavior of females among other females.
Metadiscourse: In this study, we look into the effect of violent video games on the behavior of young people who play those games.
Here's another one of those coy, tantalizing, teasing metadiscourse statements. Okay, we know the study will probably explore the causal relationship between violent behavior in kids and their exposure to violent video games. But what is the relationship? We have to read the study! Probably the conclusion will be that there is "some" relationship, although it cannot be proven in any rigorous way. Rats! The metadiscourse statement is a lot more exciting than the conclusion.
Revision: Violent video games have an effect on the behavior of young people who play those games.
Like what kind of effect?
Metadiscourse: The often-amusing similarities between dogs and their owners are explored in the following.
Have you noticed?
Revision: There are often-amusing similarities between dogs and their owners.
What you have done in the preceding ten examples is strip away metadiscourse from sentences and revealed the remaining assertions or the lack thereof. Other than being, at times, wordy, mechanical, or stuffy, there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the metadiscourse versions, which you so cruely hacked apart. Metadiscourse is a good thing when used properly. Write this on your wall!
If you understand the idea of metadiscourse, try your hand at this exercise:
Okay, put on your professor suit (tweed jacket with accessory pipe) and inject the following sentences with all manner of hedging and metadiscourse.
Original: Human behavior is not a product of instinct nor of any particular social, political or economic system but the result of ongoing battles between self-replicating systems of thought, battles in which human beings are mere pawns but over which they have, mercifully, some control.
Jam some metadiscourse into this one. Imagine that there is a book that makes this assertion.
Version with metadiscourse: This book sets out to show that human behavior is not a product of instinct nor of any particular social, political or economic system but the result of ongoing battles between self-replicating systems of thought, battles in which human beings are mere pawns but over which they have, mercifully, some control.
Original: Human behavior is not a product of instinct nor of any particular social, political or economic system but the result of ongoing battles between self-replicating systems of thought, battles in which human beings are mere pawns but over which they have, mercifully, some control.
Now, take this same assertion and dilute its strength with a bunch of wishy-washy hedging. Notice that this sentence already has some hedging: some control.
Version with hedging: To some degree, human behavior is not so much a product of instinct nor of any particular social, political or economic system but rather more the result perhaps of ongoing battles between self-replicating systems of thought, battles in which human beings are somewhat mere pawns but over which they have, mercifully, some control.
Original: Complex systems of belief are doctrines—which simply mean "something that is taught" (from Latin docere, to teach).
Add some metadiscourse to this one also. Imagine that this statement refers to something that is the focus of a book. Imagine also that the author is setting up the terminology he will use in the book.
Version with metadiscourse: The focus of this book will be complex systems of belief that I will call doctrines—which simply mean "something that is taught" (from Latin docere, to teach).
Original: Complex systems of belief are doctrines—which simply mean "something that is taught" (from Latin docere, to teach).
Once again, let's water this statement down with some annoying, limp-noodle hedging.
Version with hedging: In a certain sense, complex systems of belief are a lot like doctrines—which generally mean "something that is taught" (from Latin docere, to teach).
Original: Self-replicating systems are the basis of life on Earth.
Let's say that the author sets out to demonstrate this assertion in some article.
Version with metadiscourse: The following demonstrates that self-replicating systems are the basis of life on Earth.
But take it a bit further: hide the actual assertion.
Version with metadiscourse: The following explores the role of self-replicating systems in life on Earth.
Original: Self-replicating systems are the basis of life on Earth.
Now, let's water this assertion down!
Version with hedging: In many respects, self-replicating systems may perhaps be the basis of life on Earth.
Original: While compatibility problems in belief systems can raise questions, they do not automatically lead to abandonment of belief.
While metadiscourse typically tells what the text is about, another form highlights—draws attention—to a statement. Add some metadiscourse to this statement that urges readers to take this seriously.
Version with metadiscourse: It is important to realize that, while compatibility problems in belief systems can raise questions, they do not automatically lead to abandonment of belief.
Here, the metadiscourse is It is important to realize that. It jumps out at you and says "wake up, pay atention, take this seriously!"
Original: While compatibility problems in belief systems can raise questions, they do not automatically lead to abandonment of belief.
Come on, turn this assertion into a limp noodle!
Version with hedging: While compatibility problems in belief systems may perhaps raise questions in a general sense, there is some reason to believe that they may not automatically lead to abandonment of belief.
Original: Commercially constructed youth culture is the product of business interests intent on fostering and profiting from young people as a consumer market.
So that's what the problem is! Turn this one into one of those overview types of metadiscourse. Imagine that you have a report that covers these issues. Study this sentence for the assertions it contains: (1) business interests have commercially "constructed" youth culture and (2) business interests benefit from this fact.
Version with metadiscourse: The following report discusses (1) how business interests have turned youth culture into a consumer market and (2) how business interests benefit from that commercially constructed youth culture.
Original: Commercially constructed youth culture is the product of business interests intent on fostering and profiting from young people as a consumer market.
Let's take the spine out of this thing!
Version with hedging: It may be the case that, to some extent, commercially constructed youth culture is the product of business interests that seem to be intent on fostering and profiting from young people as a consumer market.
Okay, now that you've practiced clogging up strong assertive sentences with metadiscourse and hedging, try your hand at these exercises:
Links to these exercises are provided at the end of the sections where they are relevant. But here they all are in case you read the text straight through:
Return to the table of contents
Information and programs provided by admin@mcmassociates.io.