Impact of L1 Background and English Proficiency on Hedging Patterns of Korean EFL Writers: Learner Corpus-based Analysis

Abstract

Ever since first defined by Lakoff (1973) as words whose job is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy (p. 471), the concept of hedges has consequently widened in a way to modify the speaker/writers commitment to the truth-value of a whole proposition (Markkanen & Schröder, 1997) and eventually to realize an interactional and communicative strategy called hedging, a product of social forces. In the latter approach where hedges are treated as purposive imprecise language, hedging signals distance, unobtrusively injects an authors personal view into his communication (Dubois, 1987, p. 539), and protects the writers reputation by avoiding absolute statements. Such tentativeness eludes personal responsibility for statements, reducing the authors degree of liability (Hübler, 1983, p. 18). Hedges have crucially been concerned with academics whose claims are inevitably framed as tentative. They enable writers to present unproven claims with caution and to enter a dialogue with their audience (Hyland, 1998a, p. 6). With the growing interest in interlanguage pragmatics and the inseparability of language and culture (Roberts, 1998, p. 109), intercultural communicative awareness and the ability to use pragmatic knowledge strategically have further been highlighted in second language learning scene. Despite its significant status in academic society, however, interpreting and using hedges appropriately have repeatedly been reported to be difficult for learners, especially in academic writing where EFL writers tend to unfold a collection of facts in a direct and impersonal manner (Bloor & Bloor, 1991

Dudley-Evans, 1991

Hyland, 2000a

Kamimura & Oi, 2006

Oh, 2007

Skelton, 1988). The present study was motivated in search of diagnostic analysis on the problematic areas of hedges for Korean EFL learners and thus aims to provide suggestions for ways to guide them toward the skillful use of hedging. The data used for the research were extracted from the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English (ICNALE). From a total of 1,300 participants, 2,600 essays were collected and examined. The participants were composed of four language groups: The Korean learner group along with two other learner groups with East Asian native language backgrounds, and the native speaker group from five different English-speaking countries. All the participants of the study were classified into one of the four English proficiency levels (or score bands) defined in this study, which has enabled the analysis of the effect of proficiency factor as well as language factor on the pattern of hedging usage. The results resonate with findings from previous studies that native speakers employ hedging markers at a higher frequency than ESL/EFL learner writers do (Aijmer, 2002

Baumgarten & House, 2010

Hyland, 1995

Skelton, 1988). The findings direct attention to three aspects of EFL writing with regard to their usage and pattern of hedging expressions. The EFL learners were found to be dependent on a restricted number of hedging devices than the native speakers for the very nature of the target language itself, including the semantic, pragmatic, form complexity, and saliency. The rise in EFL proficiency was accompanied by the broader range of hedging devices available to the learners, although it did not prove to affect the frequency in a consistent manner. Finally, the Korean learners, whom we refer to as the learner group in focus, were observed to be strong and assertive in tone, which points to their lack of experience in manipulation of expressing tentativeness in their claims. Another problem in the area of stylistic aspects was diagnosed in terms of mixed use of written and spoken registers. Several theoretical and pedagogical implications for EFL teaching and assessment can be drawn from the present study. First, the present study provides a piece of evidence that supports the proficiency impact on the use of two lexical pairs. Second, the correlation of proficiency with the lexical pairs can possibly contribute to the development of automated writing evaluation system, particularly to the identification of the features of styles that can be quantified and used in automated scoring. Third, explicit instruction on hedging is needed in EFL settings, an aspect which has largely been neglected in Korean English classrooms. Lastly, regular English writing practice sessions should take place in order to familiarize the learners with the stylistic features present in academic genres of discourse.