Corpus-Based Comparative Study of Hedging in Academic Writing by Native and Non-Native English Writers

Abstract

Hedging plays a crucial role in academic writing by enabling authors to express caution, negotiate claims, and construct an appropriate scholarly stance. However, despite growing interest in academic discourse, systematic comparative research on how native and non-native English writers employ hedging devices remains limited; therefore, this study addresses an important gap in corpus-based contrastive analysis. The primary objective of this research is to identify and compare the types, frequency, and rhetorical functions of hedging devices used by native and non-native English writers in academic texts, and to examine how these devices shape academic tone and authorial stance. Methodologically, the study adopts a corpus-based mixed-methods approach, drawing on two comparable corpora of published academic research articles authored by native and non-native English writers. Quantitative analysis identifies formal hedging patterns, while qualitative analysis examines their rhetorical functions; both analyses are integrated to ensure interpretive depth. The results reveal that non-native writers employ hedging more frequently overall; however, their usage is heavily concentrated on modal verbs, whereas native writers demonstrate greater lexical and functional diversity. Besides this, native writers use hedging more strategically to engage readers and negotiate claims, while non-native writers tend to rely on hedging primarily as a defensive strategy. In conclusion, the findings suggest that hedging differences are rhetorical rather than merely grammatical; therefore, effective academic writing instruction should emphasize functional and contextual awareness. It is recommended that the English for Academic Purposes pedagogy incorporate corpus-informed materials to develop nuanced hedging competence among emerging scholars