Hedging

In their article Metadiscourse Awareness and ESAP Comprehension Jalififar & Shooshtari argue for explicit instruction of hedging because it improved the language proficiency of the participants in their study, which in turn improved their reading comprehension. The researchers use Lakoff and Hyland to define hedging. In the case of Lakoff it is using words that can make assertions clear or not so clear and for Hyland it is utilizing words with less certainty. Jalififar & Shooshtari illustrate how there is a conversation that takes place between a reader and a writer during the reading process. Readers may not understand words that are used to hedge off of propositions if they are not explicitly taught to recognize these types of words while reading. The authors point out that hedging is often used in academic writing and that it can pose problems for non-native readers and writers of English. Jalififar & Shooshtari call for more research in this area, so ESAP and non-native students can become better readers and writers.

            This was such an interesting topic to me that I am in the process of writing a semantic theory research paper on it. Students use the modals “may” and “could” quite often in their academic writing to hedge off of statements where they have less certainty. I have found that “could” has slightly less certainty than “may” and it has given me understanding why I choose between the two words in my writing. Most native speakers of English just use their instincts when they use these two modals in their academic writing and non-native writers wouldn’t have that luxury. In my teaching and tutoring experience I have noticed that many non-native writers make much stronger assertions, so I would concur with Jalififar & Shooshtari that reading instructors should explicitly teach words used for hedging. There is a twofold benefit to clearly teaching hedging to students because they will not only better understand what they read, but will also become more sophisticated writers.