Article Sidebar

Submitted
December 21, 2023
Accepted
March 12, 2024
Published
March 12, 2024
Download
Pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 54 Download : 55

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Hedges and boosters in general, and academic writing in particular, assume significant role in allowing writers to mitigate opposing claims while strengthening their arguments supported by reliable data. This study aimed to quantify the frequencies of hedges and boosters used by second language (L2) learners of English in ten ASEAN countries, including China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan. Research samples were collected from the ICNALE learner corpus comprising 5,400 two different, determined topics of academic writings. Lancsbox 6.0 was utilized to analyse the sample texts. The results elucidate a notable trend wherein ASEAN English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners exhibit a preference for boosters over hedges Among the identified overused boosters are completely, really, and always, while overused hedges include usually, often, and maybe. This inclination suggests that EFL learners express confidence in articulating their perspectives. Boosters serve as instrumental tools to reinforce confidence and certainty, emphasize significance and relevance, strengthen persuasiveness, enhance coherence and flow, and establish authority and academic voice. Nevertheless, it is imperative for L2 learners to recognize the importance of hedges in denoting tentativeness, softening criticism, acknowledging limitations, and establishing expertise.

Keywords

academic writing boosters corpus EFL learners hedges

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Sulistya Ningrum, Hilda Puspita, Ahmad Iman Mulyadi

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Lisensi Creative Commons
Ciptaan disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0 Internasional.
How to Cite
Ningrum, S., Hilda Puspita, & Ahmad Iman Mulyadi. (2024). Hedges and Boosters in Academic Writing of ASEAN EFL Learners. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 8(1), 202–218. https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.8.1.202-218
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Akbas, E., & Hardman, J. (2018). Stance in written and spoken university registers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23(2), 174–199.
  2. Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 659–663.
  3. Biook, H., & Mohseni, S. (2014). The effect of task complexity on the accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance. Journal of Language and Translation, 4(1), 11-22.
  4. Brown, H. D., & Jones, M. (2018). Writing in the disciplines: A reader and rhetoric for academic writers. Cengage Learning.
  5. Brown, L. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2022). Exploring the impact of explicit instruction on academic vocabulary and syntactic complexity in EFL writing. TESOL Quarterly, 56(3), 134-148.
  6. 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.
  7. Field, A. (2022). Understanding quantitative research methods in psychology: An overview. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49(3), 210-225.
  8. Garcia, M. A., & Nguyen, T. H. (2022). Explicit instruction in academic writing: The role of teacher feedback in promoting student learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35(1), 78-92.
  9. Gu, P. Y. (2019). Hedges and boosters in L2 English students’ argumentative essays: A comparative study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 52–67.
  10. Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29.
  11. Hyland, K. (2017). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 52–60.
  12. Ishikawa, T. (2021). The International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English (ICNALE): A corpus of East Asian learners' English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 7(2), 131-148.
  13. Jing, Y. (2017). The use of hedges and boosters in English academic writing by Chinese students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 29, 63-73.
  14. Johnson, D. M., & Williams, R. (2020). What we say and how we say it: Social and pragmatic factors influencing teachers’ feedback on student writing in US college composition classes. Routledge.
  15. Kováč, S. (2020). The language of tentativeness and the expression of epistemic stance in research articles: A corpus-based analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 161, 64-79.
  16. Kuo, C. H. (2016). An investigation of the use of stance markers in novice and expert academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 41, 30-41.
  17. Lee, H. S., & Kim, J. K. (2023). Demonstrating comprehension through confident discourse: An analysis of student engagement in classroom discussions. Studies in Higher Education, 45(2), 210-225.
  18. Li, Y. (2019). A corpus-based study of hedges and boosters in applied linguistics research articles written by native and non-native English speakers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 39, 66-78.
  19. Liu, Y., & Jiang, J. (2019). A corpus-based study of hedges and boosters in academic writing by Chinese postgraduates. English for Specific Purposes, 53, 34–49.
  20. Liu, J., & Jiang, P. (2019). Hedging and boosting in scientific discourse: A study of hedges and boosters in computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 53, 84-95.
  21. Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9–13.
  22. Patel, R. K., & Jones, A. B. (2021). Integrating language and content: A collaborative approach to teaching academic literacy to EFL learners. English for Specific Purposes, 45, 45-62.
  23. Smith, J. R., & Jones, A. B. (2023). Quantitative research methods in psychology: A comprehensive review. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(3), 210-225.
  24. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some explanatory discourse on modality. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93.