1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of A contrastive study of hedging in English and Chinese academic spoken discourse
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This study sets out to discuss the distribution and linguistic features of hedging strategy, investigating how they are realized in L1 English, English as a lingua franca (ELF), and L1 Chinese within the academic spoken genre. To this end, a systematic procedure for identifying hedging devices was developed, applied to two languages and an international variety. Results indicate functional diversity in hedging conventions, with L1 English exhibiting a colloquial propensity compared to ELF and L1 Mandarin. Conversely, ELF speakers display the highest frequency of hedges but with less diversity. L1 Mandarin speakers show a preference for author-oriented hedges, while L1 English speakers favor audience-oriented ones. The findings are interpreted considering language differences, linguacultural practice, cognitive interpretations, and socio-pragmatic awareness within academic communities. The study also contributes to further discourse analysis and scholarly peer communication by highlighting the importance of hedging in usage-based research.

© International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24019.dua
2025-08-18
2026-07-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.24019.dua
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adamczyk, Magdalena
    2015 “Do Hedges Always Hedge? On Non-Canonical Multifunctionality of Jakby in Polish.” Pragmatics (): –.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Benton, Matthew A., and Peter Van Elswyk
    2020 “Hedged Assertion.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Assertion, ed. bySanford C. Goldberg, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Berman, Ruth, Hrafnhildur Ragnarsdóttir, and Sven Strömqvist
    2002 “Discourse Stance: Written and Spoken Language.” Written Language & Literacy (): –. 10.1075/wll.5.2.06ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.5.2.06ber [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, Douglas
    2006 “Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes (): –. 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2016 “Using Multi-Dimensional Analysis to Explore Cross-Linguistic Universals of Register Variation.” InGenre- and Register-related Discourse Features in Contrast, ed. byMarie-Aude Lefer, and Svetlana Vogeleer, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.87.02bib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.87.02bib [Google Scholar]
  6. Brezina, Vaclav
    2012 “Epistemic Markers in University Advisory Sessions: Towards a Local Grammar of Epistemicity.” PhD dissertation. The University of Auckland.
  7. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  8. Burridge, Kate
    2012 “Euphemism and Language Change: The Sixth and Seventh Ages.” Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology. 10.4000/lexis.355
     https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.355 [Google Scholar]
  9. Channell, Joanna
    1994 Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, Chenghui, and Jun (Lawrence) Zhang
    2017 “An Intercultural Analysis of the Use of Hedging by Chinese and Anglophone Academic English Writers.” Applied Linguistics Review (). 10.1515/applirev‑2016‑2009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-2009 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, Linhua, and Fuyin Li
    1994 “Hedges in Communication.” Journal of Foreign Languages: –.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Coates, Jennifer
    1983 The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Cohen, Jacob
    2013 Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203771587
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587 [Google Scholar]
  14. Crompton, Peter
    1997 “Hedging in Academic Writing: Some Theoretical Problems.” English for Specific Purposes: –. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(97)00007‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00007-0 [Google Scholar]
  15. Crossley, Nick
    2001 The Social Body: Habits, Identity, and Desire. London: SAGE. 10.4135/9781446219867
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446219867 [Google Scholar]
  16. Diewald, Gabriele
    2006 “Discourse Particles and Modal Particles as Grammatical Elements.” InApproaches to Discourse Particles, ed. byKerstin Fischer, –. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780080461588_022
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588_022 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dontcheva-Navratilova, Olga
    2016 “Cross-Cultural Variation in the Use of Hedges and Boosters in Academic Discourse.” Prague Journal of English Studies (): –. 10.1515/pjes‑2016‑0009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/pjes-2016-0009 [Google Scholar]
  18. Duan, Shiping
    2015 “A Study of Hedge Sequences in Chinese EFL Learners’ Oral English under the Framework of Complex Systems Theory.” Foreign Language World: –.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Duan, Yuxiang, and Liesbeth Degand
    2024 “Attitudinal Resources in Academic Talks: A Corpus-Based Analysis Across Languages.” Corpus Pragmatics: –. 10.1007/s41701‑024‑00171‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-024-00171-4 [Google Scholar]
  20. Farkas, Richárd, Veronika Vincze, György Móra, János Csirik, and György Szarvas
    2010 “The CONLL-2010 Shared Task: Learning to Detect Hedges and Their Scope in Natural Language Text.” Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning-Shared Task.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Fronhofer, Nina-Maria
    2020 “Emotion Concepts in Context — A Contrastive Analysis of English and German Discourse.” PhD dissertation. Universität Augsburg.
  22. Fu, Changping
    2007 “Fuzzy Thinking and Translation.” PhD dissertation. Shanghai Foreign Language University.
  23. Fu, Rongbo, and Kefei Wang
    2022 “Hedging in Interpreted and Spontaneous Speeches: A Comparative Study of Chinese and American Political Press Briefings.” Text & Talk (): –. 10.1515/text‑2019‑0290
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0290 [Google Scholar]
  24. Gong, Heng, Lingling Liu, and Feng Cao
    2021 “A Cross-Linguistic Study of Interactional Metadiscourse in English and Chinese Research Articles by the Same Chinese Scholars.” Journal of Language, Identity & Education (): –. 10.1080/15348458.2021.1932504
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2021.1932504 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hinkel, Eli
    1997 “Indirectness in L1 and L2 Academic Writing.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(96)00040‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00040-9 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hu, Guangwei, and Feng Cao
    2011 “Hedging and Boosting in Abstracts of Applied Linguistics Articles: A Comparative Study of English- and Chinese-Medium Journals.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hunt, Kellogg W.
    1965 Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. National Council of Teachers of English Research Report No. 3, National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hyland, Ken, and John Milton
    1997 “Qualification and Certainty in L1 and L2 Students’ Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing (): –. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(97)90033‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hyland, Ken
    1996 “Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles.” Applied Linguistics (): –. 10.1093/applin/17.4.433
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2005 “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies: –. 10.1177/1461445605050365
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2006 “Disciplinary Differences: Language Variation in Academic Discourses.” InAcademic Discourse Across Disciplines, ed. byKen Hyland, and Marina Bondi, –. Frankfort: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0446‑2
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0446-2 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2011 Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.54
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54 [Google Scholar]
  33. Johansen, Stine Hulleberg
    2021 “I Guess Anyone Would Do That Wouldn’t They?: How Do Native Speakers of Norwegian and English Hedge in Informal Conversations?” Language in Contrast (): –. 10.1075/lic.19025.joh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.19025.joh [Google Scholar]
  34. Jovic, Marina, Iranda Kurtishi, and Mohammad Awad AlAfnan
    2023 “The Persuasive Power of Hedges: Insights from TED Talks.” World Journal of English Language (): –. 10.5430/wjel.v13n5p200
     https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n5p200 [Google Scholar]
  35. Jucker, Andreas H., Sare W. Smith, and Tanja Lüdge
    2003 “Interactive Aspects of Vagueness in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00188‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00188-1 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kashiha, Hadi
    2021 “Stance-Taking Across Monologic and Dialogic Modes of Academic Speech.” Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies (): –. 10.2989/16073614.2021.1964371
     https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2021.1964371 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lakoff, George
    1973 “Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts.” Journal of Philosophical Logic (): –. 10.1007/BF00262952
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262952 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lindeberg, Ann Charlotte
    2004 Promotion and Politeness: Conflicting Scholarly Rhetoric in Three Disciplines. Turku: Åbo Akademis förlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Lyons, John
    1995 Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511810213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810213 [Google Scholar]
  40. Markkanen, Raija, and Hartmut Schröder
    1997 “Hedging: A Challenge for Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis.” InHedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, ed. byRaija Markkanen, and Hartmut Schröder, –. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110807332.3
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807332.3 [Google Scholar]
  41. Martín, Pedro
    2003 “The Pragmatic Rhetorical Strategy of Hedging in Academic Writing.” Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics (): –.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Mur-Dueñas, Pilar
    2021 “There May Be Differences: Analyzing the Use of Hedges in English and Spanish Research Articles.” Lingua: –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103131
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103131 [Google Scholar]
  43. Myers, Greg
    1989 “The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles.” Applied Linguistics: –. 10.1093/applin/10.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  44. Nemickienė, Živilė
    2015 “Hedging as a Multifunctional Phenomenon of Research/Popular Research Articles.” Respectus Philologicus (). 10.15388/RESPECTUS.2015.28.33A.10
     https://doi.org/10.15388/RESPECTUS.2015.28.33A.10 [Google Scholar]
  45. Nikula, Tarja
    1997 “Interlanguage View on Hedging.” InHedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, ed. byRaija Markkanen, and Hartmut Schröder, –. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110807332.188
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807332.188 [Google Scholar]
  46. Palmer, Frank Robert
    2014 Modality and the English Modals. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315846453
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315846453 [Google Scholar]
  47. Peng, Lizhen
    2007 Modality of Modern Chinese. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Peng, Xi
    2001 A Contrastive Analysis of English and Chinese Discourse. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Prince, Ellen F.
    1976 “The Syntax and Semantics of Neg-Raising, with Evidence from French.” Language (): –. 10.2307/412568
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412568 [Google Scholar]
  50. Raphalen, Yann, Chloé Clavel, and Justine Cassell
    2022 “You Might Think About Slightly Revising the Title: Identifying Hedges in Peer-Tutoring Interactions.” InProceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, –. Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/2022.acl‑long.153
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.153 [Google Scholar]
  51. Recski, Leonardo
    2005 “Interpersonal Engagement in Academic Spoken Discourse: A Functional Account of Dissertation Defenses.” English for Specific Purposes: –.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Ren, Wen, and Lu Wang
    2023 “A Corpus-Based Study of Metadiscourse Features in Chinese-English Simultaneous Interpreting.” Frontiers in Psychology: 1269669. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1269669
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1269669 [Google Scholar]
  53. Salager-Meyer, Françoise
    2000 “Procrustes’ Recipe: Hedging and Positivism.” English for Specific Purposes: –. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(99)00022‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00022-8 [Google Scholar]
  54. Sanchez, Liliana Mamani, and Carl Vogel
    2015 “A Hedging Annotation Scheme Focused on Epistemic Phrases for Informal Language.” InProceedings of the IWCS Workshop on Models for Modality Annotation. London: Association for Computational Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Skelton, John
    1988 “The Care and Maintenance of Hedges.” ELT Journal (): –. 10.1093/elt/42.1.37
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/42.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  56. Sun, Shuyi Amelia, Feng Kevin Jiang, and Yanhua Liu
    2024 “Maybe, But Probably Not”: A Cross-Disciplinary Study of Negation in Three Minute Thesis Presentations.” English for Specific Purposes: –.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Taylor, John. R.
    2007 “Metaphors of Linguistic Knowledge: The Generative Metaphor vs. the Mental Corpus.” InLanguage, Mind, and the Lexicon, ed. byIraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Carlos Inchaurralde, and Jesús-M. Sánchez-García, –. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Thompson, Sandra A., and Paul J. Hopper
    2001 “Transitivity, Clause Structure, and Argument Structure: Evidence from Conversation.” InFrequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, ed. byJoan Bybee, and Paul P. J. Hopper, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.03tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.03tho [Google Scholar]
  59. Varttala, Teppo
    1999 “Remarks on the Communicative Functions of Hedging in Popular Scientific and Specialist Research Articles on Medicine.” English for Specific Purposes (): –. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(98)00007‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00007-6 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2001 “Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse Exploring Variation According to Discipline and Intended Audience.” PhD dissertation. University of Tampere.
  61. Vassileva, Irena
    2001 “Commitment and Detachment in English and Bulgarian Academic Writing.” English for Specific Purposes (): –. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(99)00029‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0 [Google Scholar]
  62. Weinreich, Uriel
    1966 “On the Semantic Structure of English.” InUniversals of Language, ed. byJoseph Greenberg, –. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Wu, Tieping
    2000 Fuzzy Linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Xiao, Xiqiang
    1990 “Semantic Analysis of Fuzzy Qualifiers.” Journal of Anhui Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition): –.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Yang, Yingli
    2013 “Exploring Linguistic and Cultural Variations in the Use of Hedges in English and Chinese Scientific Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  66. Zadeh, Lotfi A.
    1996 “Fuzzy Languages and Their Relation to Human and Machine Intelligence.” Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Systems: –. 10.1142/9789814261302_0021
     https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814261302_0021 [Google Scholar]
  67. Zhao, Qiurong, Yuanxing Dong, and Huihua Liu
    2011 “A Comparable Corpus-Based Study on Hedges.” Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal (): –
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Zhou, Hong
    2008 “Approximators and Their Pragmatic Functions in English and Chinese.” Foreign Languages Research: –.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24019.dua
Loading
A contrastive study of hedging in English and Chinese academic spoken discourse
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24019.dua
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24019.dua
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24019.dua
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: English as a lingua franca ; hedging ; academic spoken discourse ; contrastive approach ; L1 Chinese ; L1 English

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error