A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Hedging in Facebook Comments: A Sex- and Age-based Approach

Sarab kadir Mugair, Inst. Atyaf Hasan Ibrahim, Amthal Mohammed Abbas


The study investigates the effect of sex and age on the use of hedges in Facebook comments. The sample of the study consists of 300 comments written by native male and female Facebook users as their reflections to the same posts. The procedures followed in this study cover the discussion of the phenomenon and then its relation to world of social media. Then, an analysis of the posts of the sample of the study is tackled. The analysis aims at exploring whether the variables, sex and age, are traceable in reflecting the ways by which male and female language users can give their stances via hedging in Facebook comments. Hyland’s (2005) model is adopted in the process of analysis. The findings uncovered that there are fundamental contrasts with respect to sex and age in the area of hedging; female users make more use of hedges than male do in addition to the idea that the older one grows, the more use of hedges is.


Hedges, Sex, Age, Facebook Comments

Full Text:



Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge. Wisconsin: Wisconsin University Press.

Bonyadi, A., Gholami, J., & Nasiri, S. (2012). A contrastive study of hedging in Environmental Sciences research articles. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(6), 1186-1193.

Bruce, I. (2005). Syllabus Design for General EAP Courses: a Cognitive Approach. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 4(3), 239-256.

Coates, J. 2004. Women, Men and Language: A sociolinguistic account of gender in language. (third edition). Edinburgh: Longman.

Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287.

Fraser, B. (1996). "Pragmatic markers". Pragmatics 6.2 (1996): 167–190.

Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Article Abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 9(2), 128-139.

Geyer, N. (2008). Discourse and Politeness: Ambivalent Face in Japanese. New York: Continuum.

Hewings, M. (2006). Introduction. In M. Hewings (Ed.). Academic writing in context: Implications and applications (pp. 79–92). London: Continuum.

Holmes,J.(1984).Modifying Illocutionary Force. Journal of Pragmatics,8, 345-365.

-----------. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. New York: Longman.

--------------. & Meyerhoff, M. (2005). The Handbook of Language and Gender. Blackwell Publishing.

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

-------------- . (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interaction in Academic Writing. London: Pearson Education Ltd.

-------------- & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. In Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.

---------------. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum: London.

Lakoff, G. (1975). Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper Colophon Books.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.

Litosseliti, L. (2006). Gender and Language. London: Hodder Arnold.

Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45, 211–236.

Paltridge, B.( 2006). Discourse Analysis. London & New York: Longman

Peterlin, A. P. (2005). Text-Organizing Metatext in Research Articles: An English-Slovene Contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes. 24, 307–319.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive

Grammar of the English Language. London & New York: Longman.

Riekkinen, N. (2009). Softening Criticism: The Use of Lexical Hedges in Academic Spoken Interaction (Pro Gradu Thesis). Retrieved August, 3rd, 2013, from http://www.helsinki.fi/englanti/elfa/ProGradu_Niina_Riekkinen.pdf

Rounds, P. (1982). Hedging in Written Academic Discourse: Precision and Flexibility. University of Michigan: Mimeo.

Robson, M.,& Stockwell, P. (2005). Language in Theory: A Resource Book for Students: ABCD. London & New York: Rutledge.

Rodney, J. & Decker, Th.D. (2013). Introduction to Verbs. London: Longman.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow.

Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourses: Exploring variation According to Discipline and Intended Audience (Electronic Doctoral Dissertation. Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 138). Retrieved from http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/951-44-5195-3.pdf._

Urbanová, L. (1995). On the Status of Declarative Questions in English Conversation”. Brno Studies in English 21 (1995): 59–65.

Weatherall, A. (2002). Gender, Language, and Discourse. London: Routledge.

Xiaofang Gao, X. (2004). Contrastive Analysis of Hedges in a Sample of Chinese and English Molecular Biology Papers. Psychological Reports, (95), 487-493.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.7p.196


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.