Hedging in Applied Linguistics Theses: An Exploratory Comparative Study

  • Nourhan Sorour


This study investigated the use of hedging in the Discussion and Conclusion chapters of the MA theses in Applied Linguistics. The focus is on the types and frequencies of hedging devices employed by thesis writers who are native speakers of Arabic (NSA) in comparison with those employed by native speakers of English (NSE). Data were collected from a corpus of three MA theses by NSA and three MA theses by NSE. The results indicated that NSE had a tendency to use hedges far more frequently in their academic writing than academic writers from other linguistic backgrounds. One of the possible reasons for this could be explained in light of the relatively limited access which speakers of English as a second/foreign language had to the repertoire of hedging devices in English.


Pragmatics Hedging Modality Corpus Applied linguistics 


  1. Abdollahzadeh, E. (2010). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 288–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Hedging in postgraduate student theses: A cross-cultural corpus study. International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research, 26, 581–586.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Channell, J. (1994). Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Downing, A., & Locke, P. (1992). A university concise English grammar. Hemel Hempstead: Phoenix ELT.Google Scholar
  7. Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15(1), 29–53.Google Scholar
  8. Hinkel, E. (2009). The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 667–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795–2809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Olaniyan, K. K., & Adeniji, A. (2015). Modality in statement of objectives in arts-based research article abstracts. British Journal of English Linguistics, 3(1), 42–51.Google Scholar
  14. Richardson, J. E. (2007). Analysing newspapers: An approach from critical discourse analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Simpson, P. (1993). Language, ideology and point of view. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. The American University in Cairo. (n.d.). Digital Archive and Research Repository. Available from December 8, 2014. DSpace software copyright © 2002–2012 Duraspace.
  17. Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50, 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nourhan Sorour
    • 1
  1. 1.Alexandria UniversityAlexandriaEgypt

Personalised recommendations