The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Linguistic Markers and Stylistic Attributes of Hedging in English Academic Papers Written by Native and Non-Native Speakers of English
Abstract
Hedging means mitigating words so as to lessen the impact of an utterance. It may cause uncertainty in language but is regarded as an important feature in English academic writing. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the style of academic writing in English with particular reference to the significant role of hedging and the linguistic features that mark it. The data was taken from academic articles in the humanities written by native speakers of English, Filipino speakers of English, and Thai speakers of English. It is hypothesized that speakers of English as a foreign language use fewer and different hedging devices than native speakers of English. The result of the analysis shows that the prominent linguistic markers of hedging are the auxiliaries may, might, could, the verbs suggest, appear, seem, and the adverbs perhaps and often. They are divided into three groups according to their stylistic attributes of hedging; namely, probability, indetermination, and approximation. The use of hedging found in the data confirms what Hyman (1994) says; i.e., that hedging allows writers to express their uncertainty about the truth of their statements. It is also found that English native speakers use hedges most frequently. The Filipino speakers of English are the second, and the Thai speakers of English use hedges the least frequency. This implies that hedging is likely to be related to the level of competence in English including knowledge of stylistic variation, and that it needs to be formally taught to those who speak English as a second or foreign language.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This may also explain why the literature has focused on particular markers in earlier studies, such as hedging, which has often proved to be challenging for EFL and ESL learners”
From Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers (2022) · cites this paper as Prasithrathsint 2015
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 31
- Adams, Rachel Lynette. 2013. Use of Hedges in Decision Making Between GPs and Patients. PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
- Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Connor, Ulla. 1996. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Csongor, Alexandra. 2013. Rhetorical Moves and Hedging in Medical Research Articles and Their Online Popularizations. PhD dissertation, University of Pecs, Pécs.
- Dueraman, Bayatee. 2012. Teaching EFL writing: Understanding and Re thinking the Thai Experience. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, Vol 4, No 1, 255-275.
- Falahati, Reza. 2004. A Contrastive Study of Hedging in English and Farsi Academic Discourse. MA thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria.
- Fialová, Kateřina. 2010. Expressing Politeness in American TV Programmes. BA thesis, Tomas Bata University in Zlin, Faculty of Humanities.
- Forman, Ross. 2005. Teaching EFL in Thailand: A Bilingual Study. PhD thesis, Faculty of Education. University of Technology, Sydney.
- Fraser, Bruce. 2010. Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In New Approaches to Hedging, edited by Gunther Kaltenbock, Wilrud Mihatsch and Stefan Schneider. Emerald Group Publishing.
- Gonzalez, Andrew. 1998. The Language Planning Situation in the Philippines. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 19 (5, 6): 487.
- Glass, T. E. 2008.The Nature of English Writing Done by Graduates of a University in Thailand. PhD dissertation, Purdue University, Indiana.
- Hasselgreen, A. 2004. Testing the Spoken English of Young Norwegians: A study of Test Validity and the Role of "smallwords" in Contributing to Pupils'Fluency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Holmes, Janet. 1983. The functions of tag questions. English Language Research Journal 3: 40-65
- House, J., and Kasper, G. 1981. Politeness markers in English and German. In Conversational Routine, edited by F. Coulmas (157-186). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
- Jalilifar, A.R. and M. Alavi. 2011. Power and politics of language use: A survey of hedging devices in political interviews. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 3.3: 43-66.
- Kachru, Braj B. 1985. Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. English in the world: Teaching and learning of Language and Literature, edited by Randolph Quirk and Henry Mddowson: 11-30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Kachru, Braj B. 1986. The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions and Models of Non-Native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Press. (Reprint 1990, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.)
- Lakoff, G. 1973. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 458-508.
- Martin-Martin, P. 2003. The pragmatic rhetorical strategy of hedging in academic writing. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 0: 57 72.
- ---. 2008. The mitigation of scientific claims in research papers: A comparative study. International Journal of English Studies 8: 133-152.
- Matsumoto-Gray, Katherine. 2009. Politeness in Increasing Degrees of Imposition: A Sociolinguistic Study of Politeness in Political Conversations. MA thesis, University of Utah, Utah.
- Nivales, Maurie Liza M. 2011. Hedging in college research papers: implications for language instruction. Asian EFL Journal, 35-45.
- Nugroho, Aylanda. 2002. The contradiction of certainty and uncertainty in hedging and its implications to language teaching. Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Kristen Petra 4.1: 17-22. http://puslit.petra.ac.id.journals/letters/
- Pendley, C. 1983. Language policy and social transformation in contemporary Singapore. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 11.2: 45-58.
- Riekkinen, Niina. 2009. Softening Criticism: The Use of Lexical Hedges in Academic Spoken Interaction. Pro Gradu Thesis, University of Helsinki.
- Skelton, John. 1988. The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal 42.1: 36-43.
- Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse Analysis. University of Chicago Press.
- Tang, Jingwei. 2013. Pragmatic functions of hedges and politeness principles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature 2.4:155-160.
- Uysal, HacerHande. 2014. A cross cultural study of Indirectness and hedging in the conference proposals of English NS and NNS scholars. In Occupying Niches: Interculturality, Cross-culturality and Aculturality in Academic Research, Second Language Learning and Teaching, edited by A. Lyda and K Warchal. Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
- Varttala, Teppo. 2001. Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring Variation According to Discipline and Intended Audience. PhD dissertation, University of Tampere, Tampere
- Yang, Y. 2003. A Contrastive Study of Hedges in English and Chinese Academic Discourse. MA thesis, Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
El-Dakhs, D. A. S., Yahya, N., & Pawlak, M. (2022) · Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education · doi:10.1186/s40862-022-00175-0 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Prasithrathsint, A.
- Venue
- MANUSYA
- Published
- 2015
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-22
- ISSN
- 0859-9920
- 2665-9077
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Linguistic Markers and Stylistic Attributes of Hedging in English Academic Papers Written by Native and Non-Native Speakers of English. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1163/26659077-01801001
- The paper
- Prasithrathsint, A. (2015). Linguistic Markers and Stylistic Attributes of Hedging in English Academic Papers Written by Native and Non-Native Speakers of English. MANUSYA. https://doi.org/10.1163/26659077-01801001