| تعداد نشریات | 24 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 929 |
| تعداد مقالات | 8,346 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 16,802,336 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 14,116,912 |
Hedges and Boosters in the Writing of Advanced Iranian EFL Learners | ||
| Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly | ||
| دوره 45، شماره 2، 2026، صفحه 97-119 اصل مقاله (1.11 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/tesl.2025.53078.3408 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Hadi Bastami؛ Mozhgan Hooshmand* ؛ Reza Rezaei؛ Abdolvahed Zarifi | ||
| English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| This quantitative corpus-based study investigated the use of hedges and boosters in the writing of Iranian advanced EFL learners, with particular attention to potential gender differences. Forty EFL learners (20 males and 20 females, aged 15-20) were purposively selected from private language institutes in Yasouj, Iran, based on their performance on the Quick Oxford Placement Test (QOPT). A corpus of 40 essays (12,464 words total) was analyzed using Hyland's (2005) metadiscourse framework to identify and categorize hedges and boosters. Manual coding by two raters achieved substantial inter-rater reliability (r = .79). Frequency counts were normalized per 1,000 words, and chi-square tests were employed to examine gender differences. Results revealed that learners employed various types of hedges and boosters, with epistemic modal verbs being the most frequent category for both marker types, while epistemic nouns were rare or absent. Epistemic adjectives were the least frequent hedges, and epistemic nouns were the least frequent boosters. Notably, chi-square tests indicated no statistically significant gender differences in the use of either hedges or boosters, suggesting that male and female learners employed these markers with similar frequency and variety. The findings highlight the predominance of basic, frequently taught metadiscourse forms and suggest a need for explicit instruction to expand learners' repertoire of hedging and boosting strategies. Pedagogical implications emphasize the importance of genre-based, corpus-informed instruction and teacher professional development in metadiscourse awareness. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Hedges؛ Boosters؛ Iranian Learners؛ Writing؛ Gender | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2019). A cross-cultural study of hedging in discussion sections by junior and senior academic writers. Ibérica (38), 177-202.
Alemi, M., & Tayebi, A. (2011). The influence of incidental and intentional vocabulary acquisition and vocabulary strategy use on learning L2 vocabularies. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 81-98.
Al-Mudhaffari, M. (2020). Interactional strategies in L2 writing: An exploration of hedging and boosting strategies in applied linguistics research articles. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 20(1), 171-186.
Amiryousefi, M. & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Definitions, Issues and Its Implications for English Teachers. English Language Teaching 3 (4), 159-167.
Argina, A. W., & Ijabah, N. (2022). Hedging Strategies in Research Articles: A Comparative Analysis of Indonesian Male and Female English Students. Acitya: Journal of Teaching and Education, 4(1), 285-296.
Batool, S. F., Majeed, H., & Zahra, S. T. (2019). An Investigation of Hedges and Boosters in Pakistani Opinion Articles. CORPORUM: Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2(1), 01-12.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
Charles, M. (2006). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 492-518.
Coates, J. (2015). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language (3rd ed.). Routledge.
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.
Dehghayedi, M. (2023). An investigation of interpersonal meta discursive markers in English persuasive essays written by Iranian EFL students. Iranian Evolutionary Educational Psychology Journal, 5 (4), 144-162.
Demir, C. (2018). Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(4), 74-92.
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.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143-188.
Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59(3), 199-208.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Ghasedi, P., Yazdani, H., & Ahmadian, M. (2023). Virtual Languaculture Task Implementation as a Mediator between EFL Teachers’ Digital Literacy and EFL Learners’ Speaking Fluency and Accuracy. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 42(2), 149-171.
Ghazanfari, M., Tavakoli, M., & Afghari, A. (2019). Gender differences in factors affecting EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Journal of Language and Translation, 9(1), 115-130.
Ghia, E., Petrocelli, E., & Pizziconi, S. (2022). Data Possibly Suggest... Hedging in Second Language Writing: A Study on Advanced Italian EFL Learners. Belgrade English Language and Literature Studies, 14(1), 47-72.
Güçlü, R. (2024). Hedging and boosting in Turkish MA theses’ conclusions. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 20(1),17-54.
Hassani, M. T., & Dastjani, M. (2014). A discourse analysis of gender differences in the use of hedging devices in applied linguistics research articles. English Language Teaching, 1(1), 59-73.
Herminingsih, D. I., & Al-Isro’iyah, L. (2023). The Metadiscourse Analysis in Abstracts of Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal Articles: Hedges vs Boosters. International Linguistics Research, 6(1), 24-44.
Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15(1-2), 29-53.
Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication, 10(3), 185-205.
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(11), 2795-2809.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes 13(3), 239-256.
Hyland, K. (1998). ‘Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge’. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 18(3), 349-82.
Hyland K. (1999a). Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In: Candlin C & Hyland K (eds). Writing: Texts, processes and practices. London and New York: Longman, pp 99–121.
Hyland, K. (1999b). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourse: social Interactional in Academic Writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
Hyland, K.(2004) Disciplinary Discourses: social interactions in academic writing. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Bloomsbury Publishing
Hyland, K. & and Milton, J. (1997). Hedging in Ll and L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-206.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Jabbar, W. (2019). Investigating Fourth Year College Students’ Awareness in the Use of Hedging and Boosting in Their Academic Research Project. Journal of Garmian University, 6(2), 345-359.
Kamyabi, A., & Jamaleddin, F. (2021). The Use of Hedges in Persian Learners’ Writing. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 10(1), 185-200.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell.
Khazaee H., Maftoon P., Birjandi P., Rezaie Golandouz Gh. (2020). Hedges in English for academic purposes: A corpus-based study of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 8 (33), 109-122.
Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language and woman’s place. Harper & Row.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
Loi, C. K., & Lim, J. M. H. (2019). Hedging in the Discussion Sections of English and Malay Educational Research Articles. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 19(1).
Mallaki, A., Ebrahimi, S. F., & Farvardin, M. T. (2022). Functional Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in Academic Students Essays: Across Disciplinary Study. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 15(31), 245-268.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook. Sage publications.
Nguyen, T. T. L., & Pramoolsook, I. (2015). Hedges and boosters in academic writing: A comparative study of Vietnamese and Thai university students. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 8(2), 122-140.
Ningrum, S., Puspita, H., & Mulyadi, A. I. (2024). Hedges and Boosters in Academic Writing of ASEAN EFL Learners. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 8(1), 202-218.
Nizigama, E., & Mahdavirad, F. (2021). Hedging and boosting in the introduction and discussion sections of English research articles: A cross-cultural study of papers written by native and non-native academics. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(1), 108-123.
Pan, F. & Zheng, B. (2017). Gender difference of hedging in interpreting for Chinese government press conferences: a corpus-based study. Across Languages and Cultures, 18(2), 171-193.
Peng, J. E., & Zheng, Y. (2021). Metadiscourse and voice construction in discussion sections in BA theses by Chinese university students majoring in English. Sage Open, 11(2), 21582440211008870.
Petch-Tyson, S. (1998). Writer/reader visibility in EFL written discourse. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 107-118). Longman.
Saleh, E., Tabatabaee Lotfi, S. A., & Sarkeshikian, A. H. (2023). A comparative study of the metadiscourse markers used by Iranian and Chinese EFL university students. Iranian Journal of Comparative Education, 6(3), 2546-2563.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
Yagiz, O., & Demir, C. (2015). A Comparative Study of Boosting in Academic Texts: A Contrastive Rhetoric. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5(4), 12-28.
Yeganeh, M. T., & Ghoreyshi, S. M. (2015). Exploring gender differences in the use of discourse markers in Iranian academic research articles. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 684-689.
Yule, G. (2007). The study of language. Cambridge university press. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 307 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 221 |
||