INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Language of caution and certainty: Writing proficiency in hedges

and boosters in student essays

Rizza Mae C. Lopez¹, Jefferson A . Pedida², Leizl Joy A. Alzate³, Ma. Theresa L. Eustaquio⁴

Department of Languages and Literature, College of Arts and Sciences, Isabela State University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100485

Received: 31 October 2025; Accepted: 07 November 2025; Published: 20 Deceber 2025

ABSTRACT

The expression of certainty and doubt is crucial in academic writing. Writers and readers must be able to

distinguish between subjective evaluation and objective information presented in academic texts. Hedges and

boosters primarily serve this function. Despite the evident importance of these devices, there are no apparent

studies that measure students’ proficiency in using them. Therefore, this study investigates the proficiency

level of students regarding hedges and boosters and examines the two most common grammatical

classifications within these features. It further analyzes how students epistemically express their degree of

doubt and certainty in their argumentative essays. A corpus of 50 argumentative essays written by students

majoring in English Language Studies at a state university in the northern Philippines was analyzed. Overall,

the findings suggest that the general proficiency level of the students is in the developing stage, and epistemic

modal verbs occur most frequently across all proficiency levels in both classifications of hedges and boosters.

Keywords: Hedges, Boosters, Epistemic Hedges, Epistemic Boosters, Writing Proficiency

Lopez, Rizza Mae, Faculty, DLL, Isabela State University

INTRODUCTION

The expression of doubt and certainty plays a crucial role in academic writing. These metadiscourse devices

indicate the relationship between a writer’s claims and their degree of certainty or uncertainty, allowing

readers to engage with, acknowledge, or oppose the claims being made. These lexical devices are generally

known as hedges and boosters (Holmes, 1990).

Hedging language, or the language of caution, is evasive. Writers use qualifying words (e.g., seem, tend, may)

to assert caution and uncertainty toward their claims. It is a way for writers to communicate their degree of

commitment or confidence in the reliability of the claims they make. According to Lakoff (1973), hedging “is

used to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy.” Furthermore, hedging in academic discourse can act as a defense or

protection of a writer from criticism by acknowledging that there could be flaws in their claim, which can

engage academic readers’ involvement. However, the overuse of hedges can signal cowardice, and a writer

may appear to lack conviction. Thus, it is imperative that academic writers know how to use both hedges and

boosters, which are the opposite of hedges.

Boosters in academic discourse play a pivotal role. Boosters, or the language of certainty in academic texts,

emphasize the degree of confidence writers have toward their claims. It is their way of conveying to readers

that there is a strong relationship between the presented evidence and the claim. Thompson (2016)

characterized boosters as a linguistic way of demonstrating newsworthiness and rhetorical assertiveness.

According to Hyland (1998) and Lee & Deakin (2016), the precise expression of doubt and certainty is

recognized as a central convention in argumentative/academic writing. However, Thompson (2001) has

claimed that novice writers lack knowledge of these metadiscourse markers. Hyland (2005) states that

indifference towards these markers can be harmful to learners’ academic performance. In other words, hedges

and boosters prove to be significant in academic discourse as they convey and communicate a writer’s attitude

towards a statement.

Page 6176

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

While hedges and boosters have received attention as contrasting features of academic writing, they have

garnered a substantial number of studies. However, the researchers found that most studies investigated the

frequency distribution, identified the occurrences of hedges and boosters in different academic fields, explored

their epistemic meaning, and compared native and non-native writers of English. No studies examined

students’ proficiency in using hedges and boosters in their writing, which makes this study unique. Unlike

previous studies that compared writer groups from different academic disciplines and their second language

proficiency levels, this study specifically examines the English language proficiency of students majoring in

English Language Studies at a state university in the northern Philippines. It seeks to discover the students’

attitudes towards their arguments and whether they can use these interactional devices to express their degree

of doubt and certainty in their claims within their argumentative essays.

Research Questions

This study aims to determine the proficiency level of students majoring in English Language Studies at a state

university in the northern Philippines in using hedges and boosters.

Specifically, this study seeks to:

1. Determine the participants’ level of proficiency towards hedges and boosters in terms of writing.

2. Determine how the participants differ in their proficiency level towards hedges and boosters in terms of

writing.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Conceptual Literature

Metadiscourse

In recent years, linguists’ interest has shifted from examining the ideational function of texts to how texts

function interpersonally. This shift has brought attention to metadiscourse, a linguistic category that signals

speakers’ or writers’ attitudes, organizes texts, and fosters interaction between speakers and listeners or writers

and readers.

A debate exists, however, about whether metadiscourse functions only interpersonally or also textually. This

means it acts as a conveyor of speakers’ and writers’ perspectives and engages readers as part of the discourse

community, but also expands or adds information to propositional content. Kopple (1985) argued that

metadiscourse acts on two levels. On one level, it adds information to propositional content. On another level,

it does not add information but helps readers organize and interpret the text’s propositional content. Based on

this, Kopple (1985) proposed a classification of metadiscourse with two divisions: Textual metadiscourse and

Interpersonal metadiscourse.

Hyland (2005) rejected this classification, believing that all metadiscourse is interpersonal. He proposed a

classification currently used in recent research. Hyland and Tse (2004) state three principles of metadiscourse:

First, metadiscourse is distinct from the propositional content of a text; it’s a means to articulate and organize

that content in a discourse. Second, metadiscourse refers to readers’ and writers’ interaction. Third,

metadiscourse is distinct in that it functions internally in a text, while there’s a strong connection between

context and its meaning. These three principles guided Hyland’s (2005) classification of metadiscourse. He

proposed two divisions: Interactive and Interactional. The Interactive dimension focuses on organizing the text

according to the speakers’ or writers’ assessment of their audiences. It concerns the audience’s background

knowledge, comprehension abilities, and probable interest. The Interactive dimension has five general

subcategories: Transitional Markers, Frame Markers, Endophoric Markers, Evidentials, and Code Glosses.

The present study focuses on the Interactional dimension, where writers use metadiscourse markers to interact

with readers through intrusion and commentary. This is also referred to by linguists as the ‘voice’ of the writer

Page 6177

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

or speaker in a discourse. Hyland (2005) classified metadiscourse into five broad subcategories, the main focus

of which is Hedges and Boosters, along with Attitude Markers, Self-Mentions, and Engagement Markers.

The concept of metadiscourse not only assists writers in conveying their attitudes, personalities, and

assumptions but also helps readers organize, interpret, and evaluate information in a text. Metadiscourse,

therefore, is a social act that promotes social engagement in writing between writers and readers in academic

discourse.

This concept is important in this study because metadiscourse in academic writing plays a crucial role in

communicating coherence, the writer’s intended message, and the meaning of a text to readers. Furthermore,

understanding how the concept of hedges and boosters emerges as one of the key elements in research is

important. Proficiency in these linguistic features contributes to the successful acceptance of written academic

texts within the strict academic discourse community.

Hedges

Since the coinage of “metadiscourse” by Zellig Harris several decades ago, hedges have become a central

focus of research studies. Hedges are lexical devices that withhold the writer’s full commitment to their

propositions, conveying uncertainty or lack of confidence and suggesting that the presented information is an

opinion rather than a fact. They give readers room to evaluate and interpret the communicated propositional

content, deciding whether to agree or disagree.

Hedges are a complex linguistic feature important in academic writing, and various definitions have been

attached to them. Beyer (2015) suggested that any linguistic item expressing certainty or doubt to some degree

could be considered a hedge. The term was popularized by Lakoff (1973), who described hedges as “words

whose job is to make things fuzzy or less fuzzy.” On the other hand, Hyland defines hedges as indicating a

writer’s hesitation about the certainty of a claim or a lack of absolute commitment to its truth value, turning the

information into an opinion rather than a fact.

Brown and Levinson (1978) introduced the Politeness Theory to linguistics, perceiving hedges as face-saving

acts or signs of politeness. This means writers use hedging devices to avoid sounding demanding or overly

assertive. They employ hedges to reduce their authority and emphasize modesty in their propositions,

following academic conventions and seeking acceptance within the strict academic discourse community.

Jabbar (2019) provided detailed characteristics of hedges, including displaying hesitation, uncertainty,

indirectness, and politeness. Therefore, hedges are not only a modification of words within propositions that

indicate attitudes and degrees of doubt, but also a way for writers to demonstrate politeness and seek

acceptance in the discourse community.

Epistemic modality is concerned with a writer’s attitude towards the truth value or factual status of their

proposition. Palmer (2007) proposed three types of epistemic modality judgments: one that communicates

uncertainty, one derived from what is generally known, and lastly, an inference from observable evidence. The

characteristics of epistemic modality coincide with the purpose of hedges and boosters. Both concepts concern

the writer’s or speaker’s attitude towards the truth value of their proposition. For example, “Jasmine might not

come to the meeting” uses “might” as a hedge that displays epistemic modality.

However, there is significant overlap between epistemic modality in relation to speculation, assumption, and

deduction, and hedges that display the writer’s attitudes in their academic text. Therefore, epistemic hedges

will be the primary focus of this study. The table below presents Hyland’s (2005) classification of epistemic

hedges derived from the study of Taymaz (2021).

Table 1. Hyland’s (2005) classification of hedges

HEDGES

Epistemic Modal Verbs

Page 6178

May

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Might

Could

Would

Should

Epistemic Lexical Verbs

Suggest

Assume

Believe

Think

Guess

Estimate

Feel

Appear

Seem

Indicate

Imply

Epistemic Adverbs

Perhaps

Possibly

Probably

Likely

Epistemic Adjectives

Epistemic Nouns

Possible

Probable

Un/likely

Assumption

Possibility

Suggestion

Page 6179

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

The concept of hedges is relevant to this study because they play a crucial role in linguistics. Hedges, linguistic

devices used in both written and spoken academic discourse, contribute to the overall meaning by engaging

readers with the writer’s or speaker’s attitude towards the truth value of their propositions.

Boosters

Boosters in academic writing signal certainty and importance. Often referred to as the language of certainty,

boosters emphasize the writer’s strong confidence in their propositions.

Boosters exhibit contrasting characteristics to hedges. Hyland (1998) defined them as a way for writers to

establish solidarity with readers while limiting their interpretation, offering little room for negotiation.

Holmes (1982) further argues that boosters reflect a writer’s strong conviction and clear confidence in the

persuasiveness of their writing. According to Vasquez and Ginger (2009), gaining acceptance for new

knowledge within the discourse community is challenging. To persuade readers and ensure their acceptance,

propositional content must be emphasized and highlighted. Boosters provide this opportunity, enhancing the

writer’s credibility.

However, overuse of boosters can convey a strong, authoritative presence that can be detrimental to the overall

writing quality of an academic paper. The same applies to hedges; overuse can cast doubt on the writer’s

presence and knowledge of the subject.

Similar to hedges, boosters have a close connection with epistemic modality, which refers to the writer’s

attitude towards the truth value or factual status of their proposition. Takimoto (2015) also claimed that

boosters relate to the writer’s attitude towards the propositional content. Taymaz (2021) states that boosters

support epistemic stance-making in academic texts. For example, “Angel will certainly go home after seeing

this” uses “certainly” as a booster device that shows epistemic modality. Therefore, this study focuses on

boosters with epistemic meaning. The table below presents Hyland’s (2005) classification of boosters.

Table 2. Hyland’s (2005) classification of boosters.

BOOSTERS

Epistemic Modal Verbs

Epistemic Lexical Verbs

Will

Must

Demonstrate

Know

Prove

Epistemic Adverbs

Certainly

Obviously

Clearly

Undoubtedly

Certain

Obvious

Clear

Epistemic Adjectives

Page 6180

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Epistemic Nouns

The fact

Claim

This concept is relevant to the present study because it contributes to the overall writing quality of academic

texts. Boosters can demonstrate newsworthiness, strengthen the warrant of the paper, and add value to the

research. Exploring how boosters are used can provide insights into how writers employ boosting strategies

within their propositions, allowing readers to understand these strategies better.

Related Studies

In a study by Alonzo et al. (2019), researchers investigated lexical hedges, boosters, and Low’s (1996) Lexical

Invisibility Hypothesis on political blog articles. This hypothesis suggests that learners struggle to recognize

hedges and boosters in academic texts, impacting the intended message of the writer. The study’s framework

followed Ken Hyland’s (2000) work, examining Low’s hypothesis. The results provided evidence, both direct

and indirect, that learners can understand lexical hedges and boosters.]

Farrokhi & Emami (2008) also examined twenty research articles in Electrical Engineering and Applied

Linguistics, written by both native and non-native English writers. Their aim was to investigate how hedge and

booster usage varied across disciplines and genres. The analysis focused on four rhetorical sections: Abstract,

Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion. The study found that Applied Linguistics articles used more hedges

and boosters compared to Electrical Engineering articles. Additionally, significant differences emerged in the

usage patterns between native and non-native writers.

Metadiscourse has been recognized as crucial in academic writing. Park & Oh (2018) examined the correlation

between L2 writing proficiency and the use of metadiscourse markers (hedges and boosters) in two corpora:

Korean EFL learners’ argumentative essays and essays written by native learners, categorized into three

proficiency groups. Their results suggest that as proficiency develops, learners demonstrate a more balanced

use of hedges and boosters, with a declining reliance on interactive metadiscourse markers.

Furthermore, Min et al. (2020) analyzed how hedges and stance-making devices relate to the overall writing

quality of non-native English learners. Their study used 28 argumentative essays written by advanced Korean

EFL writers. The findings suggest a general correlation between hedges and stance devices and overall writing

quality. Notably, hedges significantly influence the content quality aspect of writing, while stance devices play

a positive role in the formal quality aspect. Building on the findings of Min et al. (2020), this present study

aims to assess the proficiency level of students towards hedges and boosters.

In addition, Utara et al. (2012) also conducted a crucial study that elegantly emphasized the importance of

explicit instruction on learners’ use of hedges and boosters. They analyzed a series of persuasive essays written

by forty-third year undergraduate students majoring in English. The study employed a pretest and posttest

design. Based on the data gathered, they concluded that prior instruction helps learners produce higher quality

papers.

As Seskauskiene (2008) conducted a case study on hedging used by undergraduate Lithuanian learners

majoring in English. The findings revealed that more advanced and proficient learners of English are able to

produce texts with hedging comparable to those produced by experienced academics. While there have been

studies assessing hedging strategies and advocating for explicit instruction, less attention has been paid to

measuring students’ proficiency in using these markers.

Existing research often compares writer groups based on their second language proficiency. Therefore, this

study aims to assess students’ proficiency towards hedges and boosters through argumentative essays,

analyzing their usage of these markers.

Page 6181

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

METHODOLOGY

This study employs a descriptive-qualitative design. The use of AntConc for lexical analysis adds a

quantitative component to its largely qualitative approach. Following the writing task, the software program

AntConc was used to analyze the participants’ essays for the classification of hedges and boosters.

This paper examines the participants’ proficiency in using hedges and boosters in their writing. The study also

investigates which classifications of hedges and boosters participants employ and their attitudes towards the

propositions presented in their essays. The participants of the study involved students majoring in English

Language Studies at a state university in the northern Philippines. The participants were selected through

random sampling from students enrolled in the first semester of the 2023-2024 school year. To gather data, the

researchers conducted a writing test. Participants were asked to write an argumentative essay using a writing

prompt adapted with minimal modifications from Min et al. (2019)’s study titled “Exploring the Use of Hedges

and Stance Devices in Relation to Korean EFL Learners’ Argumentative Essay.” Argumentative essays

typically aim to convey a personal stance, encompassing feelings, attitudes, judgments, or assessments (Min,

2019). Among all types of essays, this is the most effective to use.

Table 1. Rubrics in Evaluating the Essay of the Participants

Beginning

Developing

Proficiency

Mastery

Reader cannot Thesis

determine the obvious

may

be Contains

or arguable

an Contains an arguable claim

claim that develops fresh insight and

Thesis/Claim

thesis

purpose

the thesis has purpose

and unimaginative.

OR Thesis

that is somewhat

and original. Thesis

are and purpose are

challenges

thinking.

the

reader’s

10 Points

no

arguable somewhat vague. fairly clear.

claim.

The

focuses

writer The

on includes

writer The

1 includes

writer The writer includes all 3

Support/

Reasoning

2 rhetorical

pathos,

elements

ethos)

(logos,

in the

own thoughts rhetorical element rhetorical

and

about

beliefs in the development elements in the development of ideas.

the of ideas. Offers development of

10 Points

Assumptions

are

made

topic; neglects somewhat obvious ideas.

the rhetorical support that may

elements.

Offers

simplistic,

undeveloped,

or

explicit. Details are relevant,

and convincingly

original interpreted.

Offers solid but original,

less

reasoning.

be

Details

general,

interpreted,

too

broad.

are too

not

Assumptions are

not

always

or

cryptic irrelevant to thesis,

recognized

support for the or inappropriately

ideas.

made explicit.

Repetitive.

Refutation

missing

vague.

Refutation

Author

acknowledges

the

Opposing

Viewpoints

or paragraph missing acknowledges the opposing view and argues it

and/or

vague. opposing

does

view, logically.

not

Obvious lack There are one or but

of

logical

argument

throughout.

sound, two examples that present a sound

10 Points

Page 6182

are not

counterpoint.

sound,

logical

argument.

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Work

structure;

lacks a clear supporting

lacks Body lacks a clear Body

mostly Body

flows

from

thesis;

Structure and

Organization

direction;

flows from the transitions guide the reader

thesis; transitions smoothly through the text;

thesis

conclusion,

body

or evidence

tied to

seems transitions

loosely are awkward at

thesis; times; appropriate

conclusion.

conclusion effectively wraps

up the essay,

10 Points

haphazard;

transitions are

not present.

missing;

conclusion has no

sense of closure.

Neglects

important

sources.

Uses

relevant Uses sources to Uses

sources

extend, extend, and inform, but not

writer’s own

to

support,

Sources/

sources but lacks a support,

variety of sources and inform, but substitute

Documentation

Overuse

quotations

paraphrases to sources.

substitute

writer’s

ideas.

(Probably uses

source

material

without

acknowledgem

ent.)

of and/or the skillful not

or combination of writer’s

development

substitute development of ideas. Source

own material is announced by a

of signal phrase and ended with

in-text citations.

5 Points

Quotations

own paraphrases

and ideas.

may

Doesn’t

overuse

be too long and/or

quotes, but

inconsistently

referenced.

may not always

conform to MLA

format.

Errors

so Repeated

Occasional minor Essentially

free

grammatical,

and spelling

from

Grammar/

Mechanics

numerous they weaknesses

distract

reader

skew

writer’s

meaning.

in errors

do

not mechanical,

the mechanics

and distract the reader punctuation,

and usage. Pattern of or interfere with errors.

the flaws. Meaning is meaning.

still clear.

5 Points

Total

The researchers personally invited participants to write an argumentative essay. They were given 30 minutes to

complete the writing prompt. The participants' essays were then collected and evaluated for their overall

quality using the Saint Paul College Argumentative Grading Rubric. In order to address the study's research

question, participants were tasked with writing argumentative essays. These essays were then graded by

multiple inter-raters in the Department of Languages and Literature for their overall quality. In terms of the

reliability of the inter-raters, they have been teaching the English language for several years at one of the state

universities in the region. They have also received several training certifications, such as TESOL and EPT, and

possess a C1 to C2 proficiency level based on the CEFR. These qualifications ensure a smooth rating and

evaluation process, especially when using the rubric adapted from the Saint Paul College Argumentative

Grading Rubric. Following this, the researchers conducted a detailed analysis of the participants' usage of

hedges and boosters.

To answer the second question regarding how participant proficiency levels influence their use of hedges and

boosters, the researchers employed the concordance software program AntConc 4.2.4 to examine the two most

frequently occurring epistemic hedges and boosters within the participants' essays.

Page 6183

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

To ensure methodological clarity and validity, the analysis of hedges and boosters using AntConc followed a

systematic approach. First, classification criteria were based on Hyland’s (1998) framework, categorizing

hedges as linguistic elements that express uncertainty (e.g., perhaps, might, suggest) and boosters as those that

convey certainty or emphasis (e.g., clearly, undoubtedly, definitely). A predefined keyword list guided the

initial identification of these markers. To enhance accuracy, non-epistemic expressions—such as instances

where hedging or boosting words served non-modal functions (e.g., really in "I really like this" vs. "This really

proves the point")—were manually excluded. This step was crucial to ensuring that only epistemic markers

influencing the strength of claims were retained. Furthermore, consistency checks were conducted to enhance

reliability. A second researcher independently reviewed a subset of the data, and discrepancies in classification

were resolved through discussion. Additionally, inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa to

quantify agreement between raters, ensuring the robustness of the classification process. These measures

collectively reinforced the validity and transparency of the analysis.

The essays were categorized and analyzed separately based on the assigned proficiency levels: advanced,

proficient, advancing proficiency, developing, and beginning. Clemen (1997) notes that hedges and boosters

are context-dependent. This means there is no definitive list; a word can function as a hedge in one context but

a booster in another. Therefore, the researchers manually analyzed the function of these devices, specifically

focusing on those with epistemic modality. Words with non-epistemic or deontic functions were excluded.

Following this analysis, the frequencies of epistemic modal verbs (can, should, may, etc.), epistemic lexical

verbs (prove, show, believe, etc.), epistemic adverbs (greatly, around, maybe, etc.), epistemic adjectives

(inevitable, likely, possible, etc.), and epistemic nouns (claim, the fact, idea, etc.) were examined to determine

their function and ultimately arrive at a conclusion about how writers use these devices to express their

attitudes towards their propositions.

The argumentative essays were analyzed by an experienced interrater independently. The participants' raw

scores were then calculated and converted using the table below. This table also served as the basis for

determining the participants' proficiency level in using hedges and boosters in their writing.

Table 2. Levels of Writing Proficiency

SCORE

45-50

DESCRIPTIVE RATING

Advanced

40-44

Proficient

35-39

Approaching Proficiency

Developing

24-34

23 and below

Beginning

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Participants Level of Proficiency Towards Hedges and Boosters

The researchers used the AntConc software tool to efficiently identify hedges and boosters in student essays.

Additionally, in the initial analytical phase, multiple raters assessed the participants' proficiency level using the

Saint Paul College Argumentative Grading Rubric. The raw scores of the participants were calculated and

transmuted. This table summarizes the participants' essay proficiency in using hedges and boosters.

Additionally, the explicit usage of hedges and boosters will be further analyzed.

Table 3. Students’ Level of Proficiency towards hedges and boosters

Page 6184

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Score

Descriptive Rating

Advanced

Frequency (n=50) Percentage (100%)

45-50

0

40-44

Proficient

2

4

35-39

Approaching Proficiency

Developing

5

10

80

6

24-34

40

3

23 and below

Beginning

Table 3 presents the frequency and percentage distribution of the participant’s scores on their argumentative

writing, providing insight into their proficiency level towards hedges and boosters. Specifically, out of the total

participants, none of the participants, or 0% received the Advanced rating with a score of 45 to 50. The

findings clearly show that the participants have yet to reach an advanced level in their writing performance

which indicates that the participants have difficulties in mastering the usage of hedges and boosters. According

to Hyland & Milton (1997), for L2 writers, comprehending the proper usage of boosters and hedges is not an

easy task. L2 writers are affected by their native language and the transfer of knowledge to a foreign language

shows traces of their own culture (Chesterman, 1998). Cultural factors are considered to interfere with

achieving native-like written academic papers in several previous studies.

Meanwhile, 2 participants, or 4% obtained a Proficient rating with scores of 40 to 44. This finding shows that

only few of the participants can expert-like use hedges and boosters. The findings coincide with the result of

the study of Waluyo (2019) where there is a limited number of Thai students who possess equal abilities to

English writers. Weigle (2005) states that proficient writers can recognize challenges in academic writing thus,

they consider different factors such as which rhetorical strategies to use and allowing readers to engage,

understand, and evaluate the information.

On the other hand, 5 participants, or 10% acquired an Advancing Proficiency rating which corresponds to

scores of 35 to 39. The findings demonstrate that a minority are only able to attain near proficiency. Freedman

et al. (1983) argued that writers without full proficiency in the second language, in the case of the present study

proficiency in the English language, can threaten the ability to conceptualize the intended ideational

information and maintain the coherence of their written texts. There will be a decline in persuasiveness and the

quality of the paper.

Notably, 40 participants, or 80% achieved a descriptive rating of Developing which corresponds to a score

between 24 to 34. The data suggest that most of the participants are novice writers and indicate a lack of

knowledge on the appropriate usage of hedges and boosters. The findings coincide with the results of Park &

Oh (2018) where inexperienced writers are less competent in communicating their ideas and arguments

suggesting a lack of knowledge and competence on metadiscourse markers. Moreover, Hyland (1996) also

concludes in his study that ESL or non-native writers, in an English-dominated research world, find themselves

facing difficulties in participating and learning the appropriate usage of hedges and boosters. The ability of a

writer to articulate the propositional information and establish social engagement with the readers is a criterion

of what can be considered an excellent article which can be done with the use of hedges and boosters (Hyland

1994).

Lastly, 3 participants, or 6% acquired a Beginning rating with a score of 23 below. The findings suggest a

minority of the participants are inexperienced writers and faced strong difficulties in presenting their

arguments as well as communicating their intended meanings to the readers. Park & Oh (2018) pointed out in

their study that novice writers are unable to consider readers during their writing process. Additionally, they

pointed out that writing is an involved conversation between authors and readers, and that producing subpar

work results from failing to recognize the readers.

Page 6185

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

In a nutshell, the findings suggest none of the participants received advanced ratings and that the general

performance of the participants is at the developing stage which indicates that most of the participants were

unable to use hedges and boosters appropriately. According to Oh & Kang (2013) and Holmes (1982), writers

in context must be able to communicate their arguments on diverse controversial social issues or speculative

topics, therefore, mastering the ability of expression of doubt and certainty – hedges and boosters, is significant

as pragmatic skill.

Participants with Advanced Level

It is evident that none of the participants achieved an advanced rating, therefore, a lack of data existed to

analyze how they strategically used hedges and boosters, understanding the limitations of their claims and why

they are labeled as advanced.

Participants with Proficient Level

Participants under the proficient level have a unique way of strategizing their use of hedges and boosters.

Generally, they tend to make their claims convey affective meanings and acknowledge readers' presence for

the ratification of the claim. They made use of personal attribution to convey a professional attitude. This

strategy according to Hyland (1996) is called reader-motivation hedges where a writer proficiently selects

appropriate hedges to convey his proposition. Widiawati (2018) states that reader-motivation hedges evoke

tentativeness. Moreover, participants under the proficient level tend to also use faceless or agentless objects

such as “it” on their claims that limit their presence. This is their way to avoid criticism or negative

consequences reducing the writer’s presence and weight of responsibility. Another characteristic of the usage

of hedges that can be observed in the participants under proficiency level was the usage of accuracy-based

hedges. It allows the participants to differentiate the inference from facts, communicating to the readers that

the claim was rather a logical inference instead of reliable facts. These strategies found on participants under

proficiency level proved that they comprehend the usage of certain hedges and appropriately convey it

according to their purpose. On the other hand, their usage of boosters tends to focus on evidential boosters that

indicate their propositions are true which strengthens their claims and emphasizes evidence.

In sum, participants under proficient level use hedging and boosting strategies such as reader-motivation,

accuracy-based, writer-based hedges, and evidential truth to skillfully communicate their claims and

reasoning. According to Vebriyanto et al. (2019) despite the opposing nature of hedges and boosters, these

markers create harmony in an academic paper. Hyland (1996) argues that a lack of knowledge about using

hedges appropriately hinders a writer's participation in the research community. The same principle applies to

boosters. However, participants under proficient level used hedges skillfully that granted their intended

meaning to be conveyed properly.

Participants with Advancing Proficiency Level

In their essays, participants with advancing proficiency levels employed creative ways to use hedges and

boosters. They are inclined to use impersonal expressions to detach themselves from their propositions. Hyland

(1996) identifies this as writer-based hedges, which use empty subjects, passive constructions, and abstract

rhetors. This strategy is commonly found in participants with advancing proficiency levels, shielding them

from the negative consequences of their claims. Furthermore, they also tended to use hedges that distinguish

between facts and opinions and rarely used reader-motivation hedges that engage the reader in the discourse.

They focused more on conveying referential meanings, in contrast to participants at the proficient level, who

balanced affective and referential meanings. The strategies found in participants with advancing proficiency

indicate their experience in establishing their claims and awareness of opposition. However, there is a lack of

reader-motivated hedges, which allow the reader to negotiate and engage in the discourse.

On the other hand, participants with advancing proficiency levels tended to use boosters that function as

accepted truths, using modal verbs such as "will" to indicate that their claims are widely known, thus

increasing the persuasive aspect of their propositions. They demonstrated an awareness of boosters that

strengthen their claims.

Page 6186

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

In summary, participants with advancing proficiency levels focused more on the accepted truth function of

boosters and on referential meanings, neglecting the reader’s engagement, which is crucial for acceptance in

the discourse community. Wang et al. (2016) state that reader-motivated hedges allow writers to create a good

rapport and establish effective communication between writer and reader.

Participants with Developing Level

A notable number of participants received a developing rating on their essays, indicating a lack of knowledge

regarding the appropriate use of certain hedges and boosters. They tended to use the three strategies noted by

Hyland (1996), namely writer-based, accuracy-based, and reader-motivated hedges. However, ungrammatical

usage hindered the proper reception of their messages. In passive constructions, some participants neglected

the "be" before modal verbs, while others omitted necessary modal verbs from their claims. Moreover,

excessive use of personal attribution, such as "I believe," weakened their claims and reasoning, indicating a

lack of data to support their stance. Their use of strategies in presenting their claims tended to be imbalanced.

Hyland (1996) states that proficiency in these strategies, especially in a strict discourse community, increases

the success of claim acceptance. Conversely, participants with a developing level tended to use fewer

evidential boosters, which Jabbar (2019) reiterates as the most powerful rhetorical strategy. This indicates that

participants exhibited high tentativeness in their essays.

Nevertheless, participants with a developing level used a variety of strategies in presenting their claims.

However, improper use of features led to ungrammatical constructions and heavily affected their claims. It is

also important to note other factors, such as punctuation, vocabulary, and structure, that might have affected

the holistic scores of their essays.

Participants with Beginning Level

Beginning participants have fewer strategies for using hedges and boosters. Generally, their claims tend to

convey more affective meanings and fail to acknowledge limitations due to substantial use of personal

attribution, which clearly presents the writer's presence in their claims. They rarely use impersonal expressions

that would shield them from negative consequences. Additionally, there was less variety in the hedges used

effectively. Participants often used incorrect grammatical forms; for example, the modal verb "will" was used

instead of "can." Furthermore, their use of boosters was limited, making their claims lack confidence. Similar

to participants with developing proficiency, they used fewer evidential boosters, which indicate the degree of

truth in their claims.

Overall, participants at the beginning level are novices in using hedges and boosters, leading to poor writing

quality. Jabbar (2019) states that it is significant in expressing a claim to practice caution, as overemphasis on

a claim is detrimental to writing performance.

The Differences of the Participants in their Proficiency Level Towards Hedges and Boosters

This section discusses the different proficiency levels of the participants and their usage of boosters and hedges

aiming to depict the participants' two preferred classifications based on the compiled classifications of hedges

and boosters by Hyland (2005) and Taymaz (2021).

Table 4 below shows the percentage distribution of the participants’ scores on their argumentative writing,

providing results into their proficiency levels with regard to hedges and boosters. Furthermore, the researchers

aim to comprehend the participants' attitudes, opinions, and knowledge, shifting focus from just the facts. This

includes understanding how they use hedges and boosters epistemically and arriving at a conclusion that might

provide insights into how participants at different levels employ hedges and boosters in their argumentative

essays.

Table 4. Students’ Level of Proficiency towards hedges and boosters

Score

Descriptive Rating

Percentage (100%)

Page 6187

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

45-50

Advanced

0

40-44

Proficient

4

35-39

Approaching Proficiency

Developing

10

80

6

24-34

23 and below

Beginning

Participants with Advanced Level

Participants at the advanced level are those who received scores of 45 to 50. Notably, none of the participants,

or 0%, reached the advanced level, providing the researchers with a lack of data for analyzing their use of

epistemic hedges and boosters. These findings closely align with Manzolim and Dela Cruz's (2024) study,

where only one respondent obtained an advanced rating on the overall writing quality of their essays. Park and

Oh (2018), however, noted that experienced or advanced writers used a wide variety of hedges and boosters,

and as proficiency increases, a greater number of interactional devices are used.

Participants with Proficient Level

Participants at the proficient level constitute 4% of the total sample, achieving scores of 40 to 44. The most

frequently occurring classifications of hedges in the essays of participants at the proficient level were epistemic

modal verbs (e.g., "can") and epistemic nouns (e.g., "claim"). The following extracts demonstrate the writers’

attitudes towards the truth value of their propositions.

1. How can we handle this situation giving both sides an equal satisfaction? (Participant 23)

2. We cannot stop people from using tabacos but we can do something to prevent it from getting worst.

(Participant 30)

3. The main reason of my claim is that everyone deserves to breath fresh air inside and out of their house.

(Participant 30)

The modal verb "can" tends to convey different meanings in certain contexts. Coates (1983), Carter and

McCarthy (2006), and Zugno (2018) discussed three meanings: permission, possibility, and ability. According

to Ardhianti et al. (2023), epistemic hedges are considered communicative strategies that weaken statements

containing value and convey the writer’s certainty or degree of confidence in the truth value of the proposition.

Therefore, in contexts where the modal verb "can" does not reflect epistemic meaning—possibility—it was

removed, and similar analysis was done with other modal verbs within the categories of hedges and boosters.

Nevertheless, the use of the word "can" in extracts (1) and (2) both indicate logical possibilities, where the

writers are asking for engagement and acknowledgment from the reader. Both statements use the inclusive

pronoun "we." In extract (1), it is used to mitigate the writer's presence while sharing a context that draws on

presumed beliefs of the readers (Hyland, 1998; Takimoto, 2015). In extract (2), it seeks solidarity with the

readers (Alward et al., 2012), aiming to draw agreement with its claim about the existence of possible solutions

to prevent the widespread use of tobacco.

The second most occurring classification of hedges in proficient essays is epistemic nouns. The epistemic noun

"claim" was used by the participant in extract (3) to indicate an assertion that invites readers to evaluate the

soundness of the proposition. Using hedging strategies allows readers to participate in the discourse as reliable

interlocutors (Donadio, 2022). Participants at the proficient level preferred to employ epistemic modal verbs

(e.g., "cannot") and epistemic adverbs (e.g., "in fact") as boosters to emphasize their statements.

4. We cannot stop people from using tabaccos but we can do something to prevent it from getting worst.

(Participant 30)

Page 6188

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

5. In fact, a law was even implemented years ago about the restriction of using electric cigarettes in public

places, yet, huge quantity of people are still disobeying. (Participant 23)

The writer used the epistemic modal verb "cannot" to indicate a strong conviction that tobacco users will

continue to use tobacco. According to Varsanis (2020), this demonstrates a restriction on negotiation and seeks

to persuade readers through the logical force of the argument. It draws on a general observable phenomenon in

society, based on readers’ assumed knowledge that smokers are unable to stop their addiction, thus creating a

context that supports the writer’s argument. However, in extract (5), the writer displays a strong degree of

confidence in their statement. The use of the epistemic adverb "in fact" indicates the writer’s strong

commitment to the truth value of the statement, thus building strong authority and credibility. This builds

personal responsibility toward the credibility of the argument (Hyland, 2004; Varsanis, 2020). However, the

hedging phrase "huge quantity" indicates a change in the degree of confidence. The employment of ambiguous

and indirect arguments allows the writer to avoid possible criticism from readers who might have different

experiences.

Overall, participants at the proficient level employ an almost balanced number of hedges and boosters. The

findings imply that participants at the proficient level are strategic in balancing hedges and boosters in their

arguments. This supports the findings of Park and Oh (2018), where higher-level writers appear to comprehend

the appropriate usage of hedges and boosters. It also concludes that they balance assertiveness and

tentativeness in the expression of their propositions. However, it is important to note that there is a scarcity of

participants who received a proficient rating, thus affecting the data collection of hedges and boosters.

Participants with Advancing Proficiency Level

Participants with advancing proficiency levels are those who obtained scores of 35 to 39, comprising 10% of

the total sample. Participants with advancing proficiency levels used hedges more than boosters in their essays.

The most frequently occurring grammatical categories were epistemic modal verbs (e.g., "may") and epistemic

adverbs (e.g., "usually").

1. Discarded match sticks and cigarette butts also pose fine hazard in public since it is highly combustible.

This may potentially lead to property damage. (Participant 27)

2. For everyone’s sanity and comfort smoking must be prohibited in public places. As this places usually

consits of young souls that are still deserving of a long life ahead of them. (Participant 31)

Similar to other epistemic modal verbs, the meaning of "may" varies depending on context. Therefore, a close

analysis of each context where it occurs was conducted. Participant 27 employs the epistemic modal verb

"may" to hedge their argument. This indicates a lack of commitment, weakening the claim's force. According

to Zugno (2018), epistemic "may" is used by a writer to avoid committing themselves to the credibility of the

proposition. In this extract, however, the writer employs the epistemic "may" as a prediction or indication of

epistemic possibility, suggesting that smoking in public might lead to property damage—an obvious

phenomenon such as a fire break. This is an inference from what is generally known as the cause of fire

breaks.

On the other hand, the purpose of the epistemic adverb "usually" in extract (2) is to indicate an assumption—

an inference from what is generally known (Ardhianti et al., 2023). The writer draws on norms in public places

and conveys their lack of confidence, seeking judgment from the readers concerning the status of what was

stated.

Boosters found in participants with advancing proficiency levels were greatly diverse compared to participants

at the proficient level. The most frequently occurring grammatical categories of boosters were epistemic modal

verbs (e.g., "must") and epistemic lexical verbs (e.g., "prove").

3. Smoking doesn’t only make Somone look older For their age but also it has became the root of a lot

deseases that in most cases leads to death. That is why smoking must be only allowed in places where no one

can be at risk. (Participant 31)

Page 6189

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

4. Some studies also prove that the difficulties in breathing and asthma sometimes observed when we touch or

use something that has been used by the smoker. (Participants 15)

The function of the epistemic modal verb "must" in extract (3) is logical inference (Zugno, 2018). It is a

deduction based on observable evidence, leading to an inference about the limitations of smoke-free areas. The

participant presents their argument with an authoritative stance, positioning themselves firmly behind their

words (Varsanis, 2020). Furthermore, the usage of "must" indicates the writer’s conviction towards their

arguments.

In contrast, extract (4) presents an interesting way of both mitigating and empowering propositions. The writer

seems to lack confidence or seeks to reduce the risk of their claims by hedging with the use of the epistemic

"some." They then empower the proposition by employing the epistemic lexical verb "prove," allowing readers

to engage and arrive at similar conclusions. According to Donadio (2022), writers apply boosting strategies in

their compositions to infuse trust and confidence, thus persuading readers to believe in their claims.

Overall, participants with advancing proficiency levels inclined to use epistemic modal verbs and epistemic

adverbs. However, there is a disparity in how frequently they employ hedges and boosters in their

argumentative essays. Unlike participants at the proficient level, participants with advancing proficiency levels

tend to favor hedges more than boosters. This indicates evident tentativeness in their tone and attitudes towards

their propositions. Despite the increased number of participants at this level of proficiency, outnumbering

those at the proficient level, the data might not be enough to fully elucidate the differences in the distribution

of hedges and boosters in their argumentative essays.

Participants with Developing Level

Participants at the developing level comprise 80% of the total sample, with scores ranging from 24 to 34. After

a close analysis of the argumentative essays of participants at the developing level, it is evident that the two

most frequently occurring classifications of hedges were epistemic modal verbs (e.g., "should") and epistemic

lexical verbs (e.g., "guess").

1. We should know that smoking in public places should be prohibited for its contagious effects –

influence children to smoke.... (Participant 32)

2. Smoking in the public should be a disturbance to others that can lead war or misunderstanding between

those people. (Participants 21)

3. We should have an advocacy that promotes people to stop smoking in public spaces. Help them realize

that this undisciplined beahaviour should be stop not just for our welfare and also for the innocent

youth. (Participants 32)

4. So in my opinion well, I guess that “smoking” is prohibited because many people are aware and using

it,.. (Participants 9)

In extracts (1) and (2), both display epistemic meaning. According to Zugno (2018), the modal verb "should,"

when expressed epistemically, communicates a tentative assumption—a probability assessment constructed

from the known facts of the writer. In extracts (1) and (2), the writer uses "should" as an assumption based on

the general knowledge that smoking has detrimental effects. The writer assumes that readers understand its

prohibition and that smoking might interfere with others. This hedging reduces the risk of the claim, indicating

tentativeness and ambiguity towards the proposition. It relies on observable phenomena that readers might

have experienced themselves.

In extract (3), the usage of the modal verb "should" functions differently. This prominence across different

proficiency levels in this study might be because the question they responded to contained the modal verb

"should." Nevertheless, it was included in this study to understand its difference and how important it is to

identify hedges pragmatically. The modal verb "should" has a function of moral obligation and, at its weakest,

Page 6190

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

offers advice (Zugno, 2018). In extract (3), it functions as offering advice to the readers on what should be

done regarding smoking. Such a function was not considered hedging. Therefore, modal verbs reporting such a

function were excluded from the list.

Conversely, the epistemic lexical verb "guess" in extract (4) was used by the writer to hedge the statement.

Takimoto (2015) discussed in his study that when a writer constitutes personal attribution to a statement, it

indicates a subjective explicit orientation, suggesting that the writer presumes personal responsibility and

knows only to themselves the evidence and deduces a conclusion from it. The usage of the epistemic "guess"

above coincides with the report of Hyland (2002) and Takimoto (2015), where the writer links themselves to

their ideas with increased personal responsibility and honesty.

On the other hand, the two prominent categories of boosters in the argumentative essays of participants at the

developing level were epistemic modal verbs (e.g., "must") and epistemic lexical verbs (e.g., "show").

5. As most people believe that there is always room for improvement we must also acknowledge too that there

is a room for privacy. Meaning to say if we... (Participant 19)

6. research shows that through inhaling smoke can cause many serious problems especially in our health.

(Participant 26)

Extract (5) suggests that the writer was seeking acceptance and persuading readers through belief in the logical

force of the argument. The writer employs the epistemic "must" in their propositions for logical inference and

expression of certainty (Coates, 1983; Zugno, 2018). This indicates strong assertiveness in their tone,

reflecting an authorial presence. On the other hand, Hyland (2012) and Takimoto (2015) argue that writers use

boosters such as "show" in extract (6) to highlight the efficacy and strength of the connection between claim

and data. Takimoto (2015) further argued that through the use of impersonal strategies such as faceless

subjects, agentless passive constructions, and abstract subjects, objectivity is more emphasized. Extract (6)

uses the epistemic "show," which suggests an emphasis on the force of the proposition, further strengthened by

the usage of impersonal strategies.

Participants at the developing level comprise the most substantial number among different levels of

proficiency, providing a considerable amount of data that assists in understanding their usage of hedges and

boosters. It can be concluded that participants at the developing level tend to employ grammatical categories

such as epistemic modal verbs and epistemic lexical verbs for both hedges and boosters. Furthermore, upon

close analysis, it is found that they tend to use hedges more frequently than boosters. The number of hedges

occurred twice as often as the number of boosters. This generally suggests that participants at the developing

level expressed their propositions tentatively or with great ambiguity or honesty, indicating a lack of balance in

the usage of hedges and boosters.

Participants with Beginning Level

Participants at the beginning level are those who obtained scores of 23 and below, comprising 6% of the total

sample. Regarding the classification of hedges, it was noted that the most commonly used features in the

essays of participants at the beginning level were epistemic modal verbs (e.g., "would") and epistemic lexical

verbs (e.g., "believe"). The extracts below illustrate how the participants express their propositions.

1. If you cannot overthrow your smoking habits, think about how it would affect the people around you.

(Participants 5)

2. Smoking is addiction but I believe everthing is good but in moderation. (Participant 39)

The modal verb "would" has sparked debate among researchers regarding its discourse function. Various

studies on modality have failed to accurately determine the epistemic effect of "would" (Birner, Kaplan, &

Ward, 2001; Algi, 2012). Coates (1983) characterizes it as indicating some predictability of action from the

past, while Palmer (1990) and Perkins (1983) describe it as expressing tentativeness. On the other hand, Zugno

(2018) claims it possesses a hypothetical meaning, which supports Coates' characterization. Coates (1983) and

Page 6191

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Zugno (2018) seem to coincide with the writer’s use in extract (1), where the modal verb "would" functions as

a general hypothetical marker. Zugno (2018) further claims that the hypothetical "would" communicates

politeness or tentativeness instead of an authentic hypothesis when used pragmatically. This indicates that the

writer of extract (1) expresses hesitancy and mitigates the force of the proposition.

On the other hand, Panther (1981), as cited by Varsanis (2020), suggests that writers tend to steer clear of

expressing claims that include personal beliefs and opinions. This contradicts extract (2), where the writer

seems to reject the immunization strategy that aids in lessening negative criticism and transferring

responsibility to faceless objects. When the epistemic lexical verb "believe" is used, it appears to indicate that

the writer lacks confidence in the proposition and is compelling readers to engage in an open discussion

regarding the writer’s perspective and the nature of the proposition (Takimoto, 2015).

A closer analysis revealed that participants at the beginning level preferred to use epistemic modal verbs (e.g.,

"will") and epistemic adjectives (e.g., "always") when boosting their propositions in their argumentative

essays.

1. Maybe a place on public places where smokers will allowed to smoke will resolved this problem.

(Participant 39)

2. ...usually he smoke after we eat. It was his daily routine. But he always make sure that when he

smokes, nobody around him,... (Participant 39)

3. ...the second degree smoker inhale more smoke than the one holding the cigarette and a place where it

alway happen are in public places like Plaza, mall... (Participant 34)

Note: it was assumed that the writer of extract (5) meant the term ‘always’ when the researchers pragmatically

analyzed the context.

The epistemic modal verb "will" specifies a writer’s confidence about the truth value of the proposition

(Zugno, 2018). According to Lakoff (1970), it proposes the highest form of degree of certainty. In Extract (3),

the epistemic "will" suggests the decisiveness of the writer, and as Zugno (2018) explained, it communicates a

confident statement. Nonetheless, Extract (3) includes both hedges and boosters, creating a balance of

detachment and commitment. The use of the epistemic "maybe" suggests a probability, but a resolute usage of

"will" clearly demonstrates confidence and restriction for negotiation. The epistemic adjectives "always,"

however, in Extracts (4) and (5), were used inferring from observable evidence. Ardhianti et al. (2023) state

that observable evidence is formed through deduction. Furthermore, the writer deliberately expressed a higher

degree of certainty or signaled strong conviction to emphasize his or her perspective. In these circumstances,

according to Akbas (2018), the writer has the willingness to accept full responsibility for the content of their

propositions.

Generally, participants at the beginning level reinforce epistemic modal verbs and epistemic lexical verbs more

frequently among the other grammatical classifications of hedges. On the other hand, they use epistemic modal

verbs and epistemic adjectives for boosters. A similar inference on advancing proficiency regarding the

frequency usage of hedges and boosters can be seen in participants at the beginning level. They are inclined to

use more hedges than boosters in their argumentative essays, suggesting a tentative attitude.

In summary, participants under the proficient level tend to employ a balanced distribution between hedges and

boosters in their compositions, while participants at the advancing proficiency, developing, and beginning

levels present a similar manner where they are inclined to use more hedges than boosters. As the proficiency

level decreases, they use more hedges compared to boosters. This coincides with the findings of previous

studies by Allison (1995), Hyland and Milton (1997), and Oh and Kang (2013), where novice writers display

an unbalanced use of hedges and boosters. However, in their study, hedges were underused, while expert

writers demonstrate a strategic balance in their usage of the two features, which is the focus of this study. A

study by Oh and Park (2018) also opposed this, where the findings indicate that as proficiency rises, a greater

number of hedges occurred, while the opposite was true for the boosters. However, it is important to take into

account the disproportionate number of participants for each level, which could have affected the findings.

Page 6192

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

CONCLUSION

The findings imply that the general performance of the participants is at a developing level, and none attained

an advanced level of proficiency towards hedges and boosters, suggesting that most of the participants were

unable to use these markers properly.

The study also implies that almost all the participants received lower scores, which leads to the conclusion that

they are novices in communicating their ideas in modest and negotiable ways. As participants specialized in

English Language Studies, a program likely to encounter diverse research, it is imperative to have knowledge

of these devices. Hedges and boosters depict the attitude of the writer towards his or her propositions, and the

inability to recognize their presence can affect the understanding of the communicated ideas.

Therefore, the lack of knowledge of these features results in poor writing quality, yet good writing is a skill

significant for English students. However, it is also important to consider other factors that can affect the

participants’ writing performance. The participants may have lack of information about argumentative essays

and the topics they had to discuss. Time constraints can also affect their performance, leading to poor writing

quality. Moreover, the findings also imply that English students have weak knowledge of these markers, but it

is not clear whether the tendency in this study is also notable for other programs such as engineering or social

sciences.

The study further implies that modal verbs were the most occurring in all different proficiency levels

mentioned in this study in both classifications of hedges and boosters, which provides information on the most

common use of features that can be a focus on explicit teaching and future research. In addition, modal verbs

acted differently in each context, marking them as having unstable meaning when correlated to context.

Nevertheless, in terms of hedges and boosters in general, it is necessary to have a balance in the use of these

features; an imbalance can result in damaging the writer’s credibility and coherence of the academic texts,

which is evident in this present study.

The present study revealed that students have low proficiency in hedges and boosters, which act as an indicator

of properly received messages by readers. Based on the results, the researchers proposed several

recommendations. Firstly, conduct an explicit study on how students pragmatically employ hedges and

boosters, considering their proficiency level and L1 background. Secondly, conduct a comparative study

between programs to identify their proficiency levels and attitudes towards their stance by analyzing their use

of hedges and boosters. Thirdly, include explicit teaching of the usage of these metadiscourse markers in the

curriculum, as they are important in conveying the writer's message and engaging the readers. Additionally,

incorporate grammar classes with various authentic activities that focus on the proper use of metadiscourse

markers. Given that epistemic modal verbs are the most frequently occurring hedges and boosters, this could

be one of the primary focuses of explicit teaching and future research. Finally, investigate how modal verbs act

differently depending on context and determine which students employ them the most, whether for epistemic

meaning or deontic meaning.

REFERENCES

1. Akbas, E., & Hardman, J. (2018). Strengthening or weakening claims in academic knowledge

construction: A comparative study of hedges and boosters in postgraduate academic writing.

Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(4), 831-859. https://doi.org/EJ1202129

2. Algi, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in L1 and L2 argumentative paragraphs: Implications for

teaching L2 academic writing. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University,

Turkey. https://open.metu.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/11511/21757/index.pdf

3. Allison, D. (1995). Assertions and alternatives: Helping ESL undergraduates extend their choices in

academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/EJ501423

4. Alonzo, A., & Camba, A. (2019). A study on hedges, boosters, and lexical invisibility in political

blog articles. DLSU Research Congress 2019, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines, June 19–

Page 6193

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

21,

2019.

https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/pdf/conferences/research-congress-

proceedings/2019/lli-II-017.pdf

5. Alward, A. S., Mooi Ch. Ch., & Bidin, S. J. (2012). Hedges and boosters in the Yemeni EFL

undergraduates' persuasive essay: An empirical study. The Internet Journal of Language, Culture

and Society, 34, 1–12.

6. Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 4.2.4) [Computer Software]. Waseda University, Tokyo,

Japan.

7. Ardhianti, M., Susilo, J., Nurjamin, A., & Prawoto, E. C. (2023). Hedges and boosters in student

scientific articles within the framework of a pragmatic metadiscourse. Journal of Languages and

Language Teaching, 11(3), 626-640. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v11i3.9018

8. Beyer, D. (2015). It is probably the reason why… Hedging in BA and MA theses by German ESL

students. In J. Schmied (Ed.), Academic Writing for South Eastern Europe: Practical and Theoretical

Perspectives (pp. 81-98), Göttingen: Cuvillier.

https://cuvillier.de/get/ebook/4583/9783736949591_E-Book.pdf#page=90

9. Birner, B. J., Kaplan, J. P., & Ward, G. (2001). Open propositions and epistemic would. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Washington, DC.

10. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N.

Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56-289). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-2BAD-6

11. Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide:

Spoken

and

written

English

grammar

and

usage.

Cambridge,

UK:

CUP.

https://mail.koreatesol.org/sites/default/files/pdf_publications/KTJ9-2009web.pdf#page=187

12. Chesterman, A. (1998). Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John

Benjamin Publishing Company. https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/5001052

13. Clemen, G. (1997). The concept of hedging: Origins, approaches and definitions. In R. Markkanen

& H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic

phenomenon

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807332.235

14. Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Croom Helm.

in

academic

texts

(pp.

235–248).

Berlin:

de

Gruyter.

15. Manzolim, H. A., & Dela Cruz, M. (2024). HU U?: The impact of texting language on the academic

writing proficiency of second language learners. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and

Translation, 8(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt

16. Donadio, P., & Passariello, M. (2022). Hedges and boosters in English and Italian medical research

articles: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Language Studies, 16(1), 1–20.

https://www.iris.unina.it/retrieve/e268a733-536e-4c8f-e053-1705fe0a812c/1-Donadio-161.pdf

17. Farrokhi, F., & Emami, S. (2008). Hedges and boosters in academic writing: native vs. non-native

research articles in applied linguistics and engineering. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and

Practice, 1(2), 62-98.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=dd52e9e7b01435d16ab5d19d1bc

59d00a4212d1a

18. Freedman, A., Pringle, I., & Yalden, J. (1983). The writing process: Three orientations. In A.

Freedman, I. Pringle, and J. Yalden (Eds.), Learning to write: First language second language (pp.1-

15).

19. Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes,

13(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90004-3

20. Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written

Communication, 13(2), 251- 281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013002004

21. 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

22. Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic Knowledge. TEXT, 18(3),

349-382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349

23. Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts.

Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667145

Page 6194

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

24. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001

25. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Hooking the Reader: A Corpus Study of Evaluative That in Abstracts.

English for Specific Purposes. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002

26. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.

27. Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 13(2), 9–28.

https://doi.org/10.1177/003368828201300202

28. Jabbar, W. (2019). Investigating fourth year college students’ awareness in the use of hedging and

boosting in their academic research project. Journal of University of Garmian, 6(2), 349–353.

https://jgu.garmian.edu.krd/article_92063.html

29. Lakoff, G. (1970). A note on vagueness and ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 357-359.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177575

30. Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of

Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262952

31. Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing:

Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 33, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.03.001

32. Low, G. (1996). Intensifiers and hedges in questionnaire items and the lexical invisibility

hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.1

33. Oh, S.Y., & Kang, S. (2013). The effect of English proficiency on Korean undergraduates’

expression of epistemic modality in English argumentative writing. The Journal of Asia TEFL,

10(4),97-132.

https://www.asiatefl.org/main/download_pdf.php?i=36&c=1391762084&fn=10_4_04.pdf

34. Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English Modals. 2nd Ed. London: Longman.

https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781317900924_A23916158/preview-

9781317900924_A23916158.pdf

35. Palmer. (2007). Mood and Modality. Cambridge.

36. Park, S., & Oh, S. Y. (2018). Korean EFL learners’ metadiscourse use as an index of L2 writing

proficiency.

space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/168521/1/27(2)_4.pdf

37. Perkins, M. R. (1983). Modal Expressions

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/414408

The

SNU

Journal

of

Education

Research,

27(2),

65–89.

https://s-

in

English.

London:

Frances

Pinter.

38. Šeškauskienė, I. (2008). Hedging in ESL: A case study of Lithuanian learners. Kalbų studijos, (13),

71-76. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=54140

39. Takimoto, M. (2015a). A Corpus-Based Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in English Academic.

Indonesian

Journal

of

Applied

Linguistics,

5(1),

99–105.

https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.17509%2Fijal.v5i1.836

40. Taymaz, N. (2021). A corpus-based comparison of the use of hedges and boosters by Turkish ELT

MA and PhD students. Journal of Language and Linguistics Studies, 17(1), 25-39.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1285159.pdf

41. Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied

Linguistics, 22(1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58

42. Waluyo, B. (2019). Thai first-year university students’ English proficiency on CEFR levels. The

New English Teacher, 13(2), 51–71. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1426806.pdf

43. Wang, S., & Tatiana, K. (2016). Corpus research on hedges in applied linguistics and EFL journal

papers. International Journal of Education, 9(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.17509/ije.v9i1.3717

44. Weigle, S. C. (2005). Second Language Writing Expertise. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in second

language

learning

and

teaching

(pp.

128-149).

New

York:

Palgrave

Macmillan.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230523470_7

45. Widiawati, Y. (2018). Hedges in scientific EFL writing. Lingual: Journal of Language and Culture,

5(1), 12. https://jurnal.harianregional.com/languange/id-38277

46. Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and

Communication, 36, 82-93. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/357609

Page 6195

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

47. Varsanis, N. (2020). The use of hedges and boosters in linguistic research papers written in English

by Greek and English native-speaker writers: A corpus-based study [Diploma thesis, Aristotle

University

of

Thessaloniki].

https://ikee.lib.auth.gr/record/318062/files/Diploma%20Thesis%20(corrections%20included-

final)%20VARSANIS%20N.%20(pdf).pdf

48. Vázquez, I., & Giner, D. (2009). Writing with conviction: The use of boosters in modelling

persuasion in academic discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 22, 219–237.

https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2009.22.14

49. Vebriyanto, D. A., Mujiyanto, J., & Fitriati, S. W. (2019). Types and function of hedges and

boosters in graduate students’ research articles. English Education Journal, [Volume/Issue].

https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/download/32508/13979/

50. Zugno, M. T. (2018). Modality in academic writing: Learners' and expert writers' use of hedges and

boosters

in

English.

[Unpublished

master's

thesis].

Academia.edu.

https://www.academia.edu/65303722/Modality_in_academic_writing_learners_and_expert_writers_

use_of_hedges_and_boosters_in_English

Page 6196

www.rsisinternational.org