Exploring Authorial Stance Devices and Hedging Strategies in Tertiary Level EFL Learner Argumentation

Abstract

We investigated the use of hedges within Interactive Meta Discourse Markers (IMDM) in a longitudinal learner corpus, comprising one semester of written data from 35 tertiary-level EFL students. The analysis involved both group-level observations to track collective trends in hedge usage over time and individual-level analyses focusing on five students’ use of hedges throughout the semester. A frequency-based approach was employed to identify the most common hedges, which were then compared to native-speaker data to assess similarities and differences, as well as the collective tendencies of both groups regarding hedge usage. The findings revealed that should was the most frequently used hedge in the non-native corpus, with students notably not employing noun phrases in their arguments. The common hedging expressions suggested a pattern of authorial stance, and log-likelihood analysis showed similarities in hedge use. A comparison of the most frequently used hedges indicated an overuse of should within the non-native corpus. Additionally, a correlation was observed between students’ use of hedges and their exam performance over the semester, alongside positive interaction evident in the collective analysis.