A contrastive study of hedging in English and Chinese academic spoken discourse

Yuxiang Duan and Liesbeth Degand
Dalian Maritime University | Université Catholique de Louvain

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.

Publication history

Date received: 6 February 2024

Date accepted: 26 March 2025

Published online: 18 August 2025

Corrected: 2 September 2025

In the original Online-First version of this article, published on 18 August 2025, the author didn't include a correct affiliation and funding information. These have been updated in the current version of the article.
Table of contents

Hedging involves the use of linguistic means to express uncertainty, caution, hesitation, and at times, even scepticism about one’s propositions. Its significance is particularly pronounced in academic settings, where scholars refrain from being overconfident by softening their claims. Available research indicates that hedges are commonly present in various language environments, each with its own culturally specific traits (Hinkel 1997; Vassileva 2001), thereby playing a role in shaping intercultural discourse. Against this background, investigating the use of hedging and the associated differences among scholars with diverse stances from a linguacultural perspective is of significant importance. Broader in scope, hedging falls within the fields of vagueness and fuzziness in language, be it from a semantic or pragmatic standpoint. Semantic hedging pertains to the inherent vagueness in the meaning of language itself, while pragmatic hedging depends on contextual factors, whereby specific words engender indeterminate effects upon undergoing modification and constraint. The use of hedging, whether in the semantic or pragmatic domain, involves the engagement of human cognition.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Adamczyk, Magdalena
2015 “Do Hedges Always Hedge? On Non-Canonical Multifunctionality of Jakby in Polish.” Pragmatics 25 (3): 321–44.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benton, Matthew A., and Peter Van Elswyk
2020 “Hedged Assertion.” In The Oxford Handbook of Assertion, ed. by Sanford C. Goldberg, 245–263. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth, Hrafnhildur Ragnarsdóttir, and Sven Strömqvist
2002 “Discourse Stance: Written and Spoken Language.” Written Language & Literacy 5 (2): 255–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas
2006 “Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2): 97–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016 “Using Multi-Dimensional Analysis to Explore Cross-Linguistic Universals of Register Variation.” In Genre- and Register-related Discourse Features in Contrast, ed. by Marie-Aude Lefer, and Svetlana Vogeleer, 7–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav
2012 “Epistemic Markers in University Advisory Sessions: Towards a Local Grammar of Epistemicity.” PhD dissertation. The University of Auckland.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burridge, Kate
2012 “Euphemism and Language Change: The Sixth and Seventh Ages.” Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology 7. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Channell, Joanna
1994 Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 8 (1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Linhua, and Fuyin Li
1994 “Hedges in Communication.” Journal of Foreign Languages 5: 55–59.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer
1983 The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob
2013 Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crompton, Peter
1997 “Hedging in Academic Writing: Some Theoretical Problems.” English for Specific Purposes 16: 271–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crossley, Nick
2001 The Social Body: Habits, Identity, and Desire. London: SAGE. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2006 “Discourse Particles and Modal Particles as Grammatical Elements.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, ed. by Kerstin Fischer, 403–426. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dontcheva-Navratilova, Olga
2016 “Cross-Cultural Variation in the Use of Hedges and Boosters in Academic Discourse.” Prague Journal of English Studies 5 (1): 163–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duan, Shiping
2015 “A Study of Hedge Sequences in Chinese EFL Learners’ Oral English under the Framework of Complex Systems Theory.” Foreign Language World 6: 45–53.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duan, Yuxiang, and Liesbeth Degand
2024 “Attitudinal Resources in Academic Talks: A Corpus-Based Analysis Across Languages.” Corpus Pragmatics 8: 335–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Fronhofer, Nina-Maria
2020 “Emotion Concepts in Context — A Contrastive Analysis of English and German Discourse.” PhD dissertation. Universität Augsburg.
Fu, Changping
2007 “Fuzzy Thinking and Translation.” PhD dissertation. Shanghai Foreign Language University.
Fu, Rongbo, and Kefei Wang
2022 “Hedging in Interpreted and Spontaneous Speeches: A Comparative Study of Chinese and American Political Press Briefings.” Text & Talk 42 (2): 153–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 22 (6): 542–558. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinkel, Eli
1997 “Indirectness in L1 and L2 Academic Writing.” Journal of Pragmatics 27: 361–386. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 43 (11): 2795–2809. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken, and John Milton
1997 “Qualification and Certainty in L1 and L2 Students’ Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 6 (2): 183–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken
1996 “Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles.” Applied Linguistics 17 (4): 433–454. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005 “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies 7: 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006 “Disciplinary Differences: Language Variation in Academic Discourses.” In Academic Discourse Across Disciplines, ed. by Ken Hyland, and Marina Bondi, 17–45. Frankfort: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011 Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 21 (2): 163–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jovic, Marina, Iranda Kurtishi, and Mohammad Awad AlAfnan
2023 “The Persuasive Power of Hedges: Insights from TED Talks.” World Journal of English Language 13 (5): 200–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H., Sare W. Smith, and Tanja Lüdge
2003 “Interactive Aspects of Vagueness in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 35 (12): 1737–1769. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kashiha, Hadi
2021 “Stance-Taking Across Monologic and Dialogic Modes of Academic Speech.” Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 39 (4): 352–362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1973 “Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 2 (4): 458–508. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindeberg, Ann Charlotte
2004 Promotion and Politeness: Conflicting Scholarly Rhetoric in Three Disciplines. Turku: Åbo Akademis förlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1995 Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Markkanen, Raija, and Hartmut Schröder
1997 “Hedging: A Challenge for Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis.” In Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, ed. by Raija Markkanen, and Hartmut Schröder, 3–18. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martín, Pedro
2003 “The Pragmatic Rhetorical Strategy of Hedging in Academic Writing.” Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 0 (2003): 57–72.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mur-Dueñas, Pilar
2021 “There May Be Differences: Analyzing the Use of Hedges in English and Spanish Research Articles.” Lingua 260: 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myers, Greg
1989 “The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles.” Applied Linguistics 10: 1–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nemickienė, Živilė
2015 “Hedging as a Multifunctional Phenomenon of Research/Popular Research Articles.” Respectus Philologicus 28 (33A). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikula, Tarja
1997 “Interlanguage View on Hedging.” In Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, ed. by Raija Markkanen, and Hartmut Schröder, 188–207. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank Robert
2014 Modality and the English Modals. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peng, Lizhen
2007 Modality of Modern Chinese. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peng, Xi
2001 A Contrastive Analysis of English and Chinese Discourse. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F.
1976 “The Syntax and Semantics of Neg-Raising, with Evidence from French.” Language 52 (2): 404–426. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raphalen, Yann, Chloé Clavel, and Justine Cassell
2022 “You Might Think About Slightly Revising the Title: Identifying Hedges in Peer-Tutoring Interactions.” In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2160–2174. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Recski, Leonardo
2005 “Interpersonal Engagement in Academic Spoken Discourse: A Functional Account of Dissertation Defenses.” English for Specific Purposes 24: 5–23.
Ren, Wen, and Lu Wang
2023 “A Corpus-Based Study of Metadiscourse Features in Chinese-English Simultaneous Interpreting.” Frontiers in Psychology 14: 1269669. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, Françoise
2000 “Procrustes’ Recipe: Hedging and Positivism.” English for Specific Purposes 19: 175–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanchez, Liliana Mamani, and Carl Vogel
2015 “A Hedging Annotation Scheme Focused on Epistemic Phrases for Informal Language.” In Proceedings of the IWCS Workshop on Models for Modality Annotation. London: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skelton, John
1988 “The Care and Maintenance of Hedges.” ELT Journal 42 (1): 37–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 74: 117–131.
Taylor, John. R.
2007 “Metaphors of Linguistic Knowledge: The Generative Metaphor vs. the Mental Corpus.” In Language, Mind, and the Lexicon, ed. by Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Carlos Inchaurralde, and Jesús-M. Sánchez-García, 69–104. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Paul J. Hopper
2001 “Transitivity, Clause Structure, and Argument Structure: Evidence from Conversation.” In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, ed. by Joan Bybee, and Paul P. J. Hopper, 27–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Varttala, Teppo
1999 “Remarks on the Communicative Functions of Hedging in Popular Scientific and Specialist Research Articles on Medicine.” English for Specific Purposes 18 (2): 177–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001 “Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse Exploring Variation According to Discipline and Intended Audience.” PhD dissertation. University of Tampere.
Vassileva, Irena
2001 “Commitment and Detachment in English and Bulgarian Academic Writing.” English for Specific Purposes 20 (1): 83–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel
1966 “On the Semantic Structure of English.” In Universals of Language, ed. by Joseph Greenberg, 142–217. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, Tieping
2000 Fuzzy Linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xiao, Xiqiang
1990 “Semantic Analysis of Fuzzy Qualifiers.” Journal of Anhui Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 2: 207–212.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, Yingli
2013 “Exploring Linguistic and Cultural Variations in the Use of Hedges in English and Chinese Scientific Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 50: 23–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zadeh, Lotfi A.
1996 “Fuzzy Languages and Their Relation to Human and Machine Intelligence.” Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Systems 6: 394–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhao, Qiurong, Yuanxing Dong, and Huihua Liu
2011 “A Comparable Corpus-Based Study on Hedges.” Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal 143 (4): 21–26Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhou, Hong
2008 “Approximators and Their Pragmatic Functions in English and Chinese.” Foreign Languages Research 2: 40–44.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
 
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue