Language of caution and certainty: Writing proficiency in hedges and boosters in student essays

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.

Hedges, Boosters, Epistemic Hedges

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 (Unpublished master’s thesis).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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 19–21, 2019. https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/pdf/conferences/research-congress-proceedings/2019/lli-II-017.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. https://cuvillier.de/get/ebook/4583/9783736949591_E-Book.pdf#page=90 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Chesterman, A. (1998). Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company. https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/5001052 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. 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 in academic texts (pp. 235–248). Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807332.235 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Croom Helm. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=dd52e9e7b01435d16ab5d19d1bc59d00a4212d1a [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. 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). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 13(2), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368828201300202 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Lakoff, G. (1970). A note on vagueness and ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 357-359. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177575 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Palmer. (2007). Mood and Modality. Cambridge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Park, S., & Oh, S. Y. (2018). Korean EFL learners’ metadiscourse use as an index of L2 writing proficiency. The SNU Journal of Education Research, 27(2), 65–89. https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/168521/1/27(2)_4.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Perkins, M. R. (1983). Modal Expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/414408 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Widiawati, Y. (2018). Hedges in scientific EFL writing. Lingual: Journal of Language and Culture, 5(1), 12. https://jurnal.harianregional.com/languange/id-38277 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/357609 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. 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/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar