Exploring Authorial Stance Devices and Hedging Strategies in Tertiary Level EFL Learner Argumentation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26817/16925777.1958Keywords:
Metadiscourse, Hedges, Learner Corpus, Argumentation, StanceAbstract
We investigated the use of hedges within Interactive Meta Discourse Markers (IMDM) in a longitudinal learner corpus, comprising one semester of written data from 35 tertiary-level EFL students. The analysis involved both group-level observations to track collective trends in hedge usage over time and individual-level analyses focusing on five students’ use of hedges throughout the semester. A frequency-based approach was employed to identify the most common hedges, which were then compared to native-speaker data to assess similarities and differences, as well as the collective tendencies of both groups regarding hedge usage. The findings revealed that should was the most frequently used hedge in the non-native corpus, with students notably not employing noun phrases in their arguments. The common hedging expressions suggested a pattern of authorial stance, and log-likelihood analysis showed similarities in hedge use. A comparison of the most frequently used hedges indicated an overuse of should within the non-native corpus. Additionally, a correlation was observed between students’ use of hedges and their exam performance over the semester, alongside positive interaction evident in the collective analysis.
Downloads
References
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English (Vol. 24). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24
Akbaş, E. (2012). Exploring metadiscourse in master’s dissertation abstracts: Cultural and linguistic variations across postgraduate writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 1(1), 12-26. https://doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.1p.12
Akbaş, 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/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0260
Akbaş, E., & Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2018). Metadiscourse variations across academic genres: Rhetorical preferences in textual and interpersonal markers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(4), 767-775. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0001
Algı, 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.
Bayyurt, Y. (2010). Author positioning in academic writing. In S. Zyngier & V. Viana (Eds.), Avaliações e perspectivas: Mapeando os estudos empíricos na área de Humanas (Appraisals and perspectives: Mapping empirical studies in the humanities) (pp. 163-184). The Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
Bayyurt, Y., & Akbaş, E. (2014). Graduate students' perceptions on the use of hedges and boosters in academic texts. In Proceedings of the 27th National Linguistics Conference. Antalya, Turkey. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2253.5686
Beyazyıldırım, D. (2022). İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen üniversite öğrencilerinin metinlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicileri (Unpublished master’s thesis). Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Türkiye.
Bogdanovic, V., & Mirovic, I. (2018). Young researchers writing in ESL and the use of metadiscourse: Learning the ropes. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(4), 813-830. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0031
Bruce, I. (2009). Results sections in sociology and organic chemistry articles: A genre analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 28(2), 105-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.12.005
Çiçek Tümer, C. (2021). Data-driven learning and the use of interactive metadiscourse markers (transitions, frame markers, and code-glosses) in argumentative paragraphs written by freshmen pre-service English language teachers (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University.
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
Daşkın, N. C., & Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2019). A proverb learned is a proverb earned: Proverb instruction in EFL classrooms. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 57-88. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.543781
Demir, C. (2018). Hedging and academic writing: An analysis of lexical hedges. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(4), 74-92.https://izlik.org/JA62ND42GG
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2016). Cross-cultural variation in the use of hedges and boosters in academic discourse. Prague Journal of English Studies, 5(1), 163-184. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjes-2016-0009
Farahani, M. V. (2017). Investigating the application and distribution of metadiscourse features in research articles in applied linguistics between English native writers and Iranian writers: A comparative corpus-based inquiry. Journal of Advances in Linguistics, 8(1), 1268-1285. https://doi.org/10.24297/jal.v8i1.6441
Fatahipour et al. (2020). Ecology of teaching academic writing: A case study of the effect of metadiscourse markers instruction on intermediate EFL learners' narrative vs. descriptive writing. Başkent University Journal of Education, 7(1), 70-80.
Hatipoğlu, C., & Algı, S. (2017). Contextual and pragmatics functions of modal epistemic hedges in argumentative paragraphs in Turkish. In C. Hatipoglu, E. Akbas, & Y. Bayyurt (Eds.), Metadiscourse in written genres: Uncovering textual and interactional aspects of texts (pp. 85–108). Peter Lang
Hatipoğlu, Ç., & Algı, S. (2018). Catch a tiger by the toe: Modal hedges in EFL argumentative paragraphs. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 957-982. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0373
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.03.002
Hu, S. (2023). Use of authorial stance markers in different rhetorical moves of dissertation abstracts by international students in China: A corpus-based comparative study. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 11(2), 49-57. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20231102.13
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Kan, M. O. (2016). The use of interactional metadiscourse: A comparison of articles on Turkish education and literature. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16(5), 1639-1648. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.5.0196
Kaya, F., & Sofu, H. (2020). Exploring effects of explicit teaching of metadiscourse markers on EFL students’ writing proficiency. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 20(2), 113-130.
Kim Loi, C., & Lim, J. M.-H. (2015). Hedging in academic writing: A pedagogically-motivated qualitative study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 600-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.200
Kobayashi, Y. (2016). Investigating metadiscourse markers in Asian Englishes: A corpus-based approach. LIF - Language in Focus Journal, 2(1), 19-35.https://doi.org/10.1515/lifijsal-2016-0002
Lee, J. J., & Cassal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46, 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009
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.2016.06.004
Li, T., & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 345-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004
Özdemir, Ö., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011
Sancak, D. (2019). The use of transitions, frame markers, and code glosses in Turkish EFL learners’ opinion paragraphs (Unpublished f’s thesis). Middle East Technical University.
Tarrayo, V. N., & Duque, M. C. T. (2011). Arguing in L2: Discourse structure and textual metadiscourse in Philippine newspaper editorials. i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 1(4), 11-24. https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.1.4.1600
Tavakoli, M., et al. (2010). The effect of metadiscourse awareness on EFL learners’ reading comprehension: A case of Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 92-102. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n1p92
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 Linguistic Studies, 17(Special Issue 1), 33-49.
Uluçay, Ç. (2014). A rotten apple spoils the barrel: Cause markers employed by native speakers of Turkish when writing Turkish paragraphs in English and Turkish (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University.
Uysal, D., & Güven, M. (2018). Negative feelings of Turkish students in the EFL learning process. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(4), 120-140. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1469726
Wentzel, A. (2018). A guide to argumentative research writing and thinking. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315175676
Yaghoubi, A., & Ardestani, S. (2014). Explicit or implicit instruction of metadiscourse markers and writing skill improvement. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(4), 14-22. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.4p.14
Yüksel, H. G., & Kavanoz, S. (2018). Dimension of experience: Metadiscourse in the texts of novice non-native, novice native, and expert native speakers. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(3), 104-112. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.3p.104
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 GIST – Education and Learning Research Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
| Article metrics | |
|---|---|
| Abstract views | |
| Galley vies | |
| PDF Views | |
| HTML views | |
| Other views | |
