The Use of Hedges and Boosters in Monolingual and Bilingual EFL Learners’ Academic Writings: The Case of Iranian Male and Female Post-graduate MA Articles

Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

Department of Humanities, Payam-e Noor University, Tehran, IRI

Abstract

Expressing doubt and certainty in academic writings requires a cautious use of hedges and boosters. Despite their importance in academic writing, little is known about how they are used in monolingual and bilingual male and female EFL learners’ academic writings. To shed some lights on the issue, the present study investigated the use of hedges and boosters in research articles written by monolingual and bilingual male and female EFL learners. Based on the collected corpus from twelve academic research articles, the overall rhetorical and categorical distribution of hedges and boosters were identified across four sections of these articles (Abstract, Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion). The results evinced that the overall distribution of hedges and boosters in research articles written by bilinguals was higher than that of monolinguals. Moreover, there were significant differences between male and female EFL learners in the use of hedges and boosters in their academic research articles. These findings not only paved the way for further studies in the use of hedges and boosters but they also presented some beneficial implications for teaching of academic writing to EFL learners.

Keywords


Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding research in Second Language Learning (2th edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Falahati, R. (2006). The use of hedging across different disciplines and rhetorical sections of research articles. (papers from the 22th Northwest Linguistics Conference).

Farrokhi, F., &Emami, S. (2008). Hedges and Boosters in Academic Writing: Native vs. Non-native Research Articles in Applied Linguistics and Engineering. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 62-98.

Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English.RELC Journal, 13(2), 19-28.

Hyland, K. (1996a). talking to academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251-281.

Hyland, K. (1996b). writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles.Applied Linguistics, 17(14), 433-454.

Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge.TEXT, 18(3), 349-382.

Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing Modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-194.

Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997), qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing.Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205.

Modirkhamene, S. (2006).The reading achievement of third language versus second language learners of English in relation to the Interdependence Hypothesis.International Journal ofMultilingualism, 13(4), 280-295.

Simin, S. and Tavangar, M. (2009).Metadiscourse knowledge and use in Iranian EFL writing. Asian EFL Journal, 11, 230-255.

Shengming, Y. (2009). The pragmatic development of hedging in EFL learners.Phd dissertation.Department of English, City University of Hong Kong.

Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 58–77.

Varttala, T. (2001).Hedging on scientifically oriented discourse: exploring Variation according to Discipline and intended audience.Electronic doctoral dissertation.Acta Electronica Universities Tamperensis 138, Received from http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/951-44-5195-3.pdf

Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Wishnoff, J., R. (2000) Hedging Your Bets: EFL Learners’ Acquisition of Pragmatic Devices in Academic Writing and Computer-mediated Discourse, Second Language Studies, no. 19.1.