Hedges in English for Academic Purposes: A Corpus-based study of Iranian EFL learners

Document Type: Research Paper


1 Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of English, Garmsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar, Iran


Hedges, as tools to express tentativeness and doubt, have been studied in plenty of research papers in the Iranian EFL research setting. However, their use in a learner corpus, portraying Iranian learner English, is in need of more research attention. With this end in view, this study aimed at investigating how Iranian EFL learners who have majored in English-related fields in Iran deployed hedges in their academic, expository essays. This study was conducted through running the corpus analysis software MonoConc Pro-Semester version 2.2 on the electronically compiled Iranian Corpus of Learner English, totaling 436,035 words. Automatic and manual analyses suggested that hedges comprised only 7.4% of the total metadiscourse in the Iranian Corpus of Learner English, with 0.68 occurrences per 1,000,000 words. In a comparable native corpus, a sub-corpus of the British Academic Written English, hedges were used with 1.43 occurrences per 1,000,000 words (21% of the total metadiscourse in the corpus). Log-likelihood statistical analysis confirmed statistically significant differences between the two corpora in terms of the use of hedges, with underuse of hedges in the Iranian academic, expository essays relative to the English natives’ essays. Implementations of the results for English academic writing instruction including genre-based, explicit teaching of hedges through data-driven techniques with the aid of tools such as AntConc software and corpora such as the BAWE are considered.


Abdi, M., & Behnam, B. (2014). Cross-cultural analysis of hedges in English and Persian medical journals. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 7(1), 92-107.
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288-297. https:/ /doi.org /10.1016/ j.pragma.2010.07.019
Ackermann, K., Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2011, July 20-22). An academic collocation list [Paper presentation]. Corpus Linguistics, Birmingham, UK.
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69-97.
Ahn, M., & Yap, F. H. (2015). Evidentiality in interaction: A pragmatic analysis of Korean hearsay evidential markers. International Journal sponsored by the “Foundations of Language”, 39(1), 46-84. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.1.03ahn
Anthony, L. (2017). AntFileConverter (Version 1.2.1) [Computer software]. Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antfile converter/
Atkins, S., Clear, J., & Ostler, N. (1992). Corpus design criteria. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 7(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/7.1.1
Azarbad, E., & Ghahraman, V. (2018). A comparative study on the English to Persian translation of hedges in the abstracts of MA theses in English translation studies. Journal of Language and Translation, 8(3), 57-67.
Barlow, M. (2017). MonoConc Pro-Semester (version 2.2.) [Computer software]. Althestan. http://www.michaelbarlow.com
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.
Bouhlal, F., Horst, M., & Martini, J. (2018). Modality in ESL textbooks: Insights from a contrastive corpus-based analysis. Canadian Modern Language Review, 74(2), 227-252. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.3075
Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2005). NS and NNS scientists’ amendments of Dutch scientific English and their impact on hedging. English for Specific Purposes, 24(1), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.09.004
Callies, M. (2015). Learner corpus design and methodology. (2015). In S. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 7-182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Channell, J. (1994). Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cobb, T. (2016). Corpus Builder (v.2.3).http://www.lextutor.ca/cgi-bin/tools /corp_build /index. pl?uppers=50
Davoodifard, M. (2006). A contrastive analysis of hedging in English and Persian research articles: Linguistic and cultural variations across languages and disciplines [Unpublished M.A. thesis].University of Esfahan.
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2016). Cross-cultural variation in the use of hedges and boosters in academic discourse. Prague Journal of English Studies, 5(1), 163-184. https: //doi.org /10.1515 /pjes-2016-0009
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Granger, S. (2003). The international corpus of learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 538-546. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588404
Granger, S. (2012). How to use foreign and second language learner corpora. In A. Mackey & S.M. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 7–29). London: Blackwell Publishing.
Hawkey, R. & Barker, F. (2004). Developing a common scale for the assessment of writing. Assessing Writing, 9(2), 122–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2004.06.001
Hawkins, J.A., & Filipović, L. (2012). Criterial features in L2 English: Specifying the reference levels of the Common European Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U.
Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141-15). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795-2809. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251-81.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113(1), 16-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma. 2017.03.007
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3
Jalilifar, A., Shooshtari, Z. G., & Mutaqid, S. (2011). The effect of hedging instruction on reading comprehension for Iranian university students. Research in Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 69-89.
Larsson, T. (2017). A functional classification of the introductory it pattern: Investigating academic writing by non-native-speaker and native-speaker students. English for Specific Purposes, 48, 57-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.06.001
Li, Q., & Pramoolsook, I. (2015). Research article abstracts in two subdisciplines of business-move structure and hedging between management and marketing. English Language Teaching, 8(1), 52-62.
Lozano, C., & Mendikoetxea, A. (2013). Learner corpora and second language acquisition: The design and collection of CEDEL2. In N. Ballier, A. Díaz-Negrillo & P. Thompson (Eds.), Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data (pp. 65–100). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Markkanen, R., & Schröder, H. (1997). Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 3-18). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Martikainen, H. (2018). Modal markers as potential sources of distortion intranslated medical abstracts. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 917-934.
Mauranen, A. (1993a). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I
Mauranen, A. (1993b). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A textlinguistic study. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Mauranen, A. (1997). Hedging in language revisers’ hands. In R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 115-133). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Mauranen, A. (2010). Discourse reflexivity-a discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 13-40.
Nikroo, P. (2010). The relationship between the knowledge of sentence structure and quality of translation. International Journal of Language Studies, 4(1), 1-58.
Plappert, G. (2019). Not hedging but implying: Identifying epistemic implicature through a corpus-driven approach to scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 163-174. https://doi.org/10.10 16/j.pragma.2018.09.001
Rasti, I. (2011). Involving the reader in the text: Engagement markers in native and non-native student argumentative essays [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Liverpool, UK.
Rayson, P. (2019). Log-likelihood and effect size calculator [Computer program]. http:// ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/llwizard.html
Resche, C. (2015). Hedging in the discourse of central banks. Studies in Communication Sciences, 15(1), 83-92. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.scoms.2014.12.008
Rezanejad, A., Lari, Z., & Mosalli, Z. (2015). A cross-cultural analysis of the use of hedging devices in scientific research articles. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(6), 1384-1392.
Sabzevar, A., Haghverdi, H., & Biriya, R. (2020). A corpus-based analysis of epistemic stance adverbs in essays written by native English speakers and Iranian EFL learners. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 12(25), 32-52. https://doi.org/10.30495/JAL. 2020.674922
Skelton, J. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal, 42(1), 37-43. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/42.1.37
Sun, X., & Hu, G. (2020). Direct and indirect data-driven learning: An experimental study of hedging in an EFL writing class. Language Teaching Research, 24(5), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1362168820954459
Tahririan, M. N. & Shahzamani, M. (2009). Hedging in English and Persian editorials: A contrastive study. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 199-221.
Tham, D. (2013). Expository eureka: Model expository essays for today’s secondary school students. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Editions.
Tognini-Bonelli, T. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tsukamoto, S. (2002). KWIC concordance for windows: Easy access to corpora. In T. Saito, J. Nakamura & S. Yamazaki (Eds.), Language and computers, English corpus linguistics in Japan (pp. 327–340). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
Varma, S. B., & Tan, H. (2015). Hedges used by ESL students in single-sex and mixed-sex informal conversations. Language & Communication, 2(2), 169-182.
Vass, H. (2017). Lexical verb hedging in legal discourse: The case of law journal articles and supreme court majority and dissenting opinions. English for Specific Purposes, 48, 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.esp.2017.07.001
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3-20). Tokyo: Logos International.
Weisi, H., & Asakereh, A. (2020). Hedging devices in applied linguistics research papers: Do gender and nativeness matter? Glottotheory. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/glot-2020-2013
Wulff, S., & Gries, S. T. (2011). Corpus-driven methods for assessing accuracy in learner production. In P. Robinson, (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 61-87). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.