Andwi Sulistiyo, Teguh Setyawan


During the Covid-19 pandemic, many writings with educational content were produced. To state his position on facts or opinions, the writer needs to pay attention to the selection of hedges and boosters in accordance with the context. Based on 420 educational content presented on the Covid19.go.id, this study describes the forms and functions of hedges and boosters. This research was conducted in five steps, namely careful reading, recording the forms on data cards, data categorization, data analysis, and conclusion. The results are as follows. The Covid.19.go.id has more boosters than hedges. The most widely used forms of expression, both hedges and boosters, are epistemic adjectives and adverbs. The functions of hedges in educational content are to show uncertainty, avoid confrontation, show politeness, persuade, and provide alternative choices to readers. Meanwhile, boosters have functions to show a strong commitment, show information reliability, and close opportunities for negotiation between writers and readers.


Educational Content, Hedges, Boosters, Pandemic

Full Text:



Ahmadpour, S., Kuhi, D., Naderi, Y., & Ahmadpour, L. (2017). Hedges and Boosters in English Academic Writings as L1 vs . English as a Foreign Language for Persian. 5(4). https://doi.org/10.17354/ijssI/2017/66

Brown, Penelope & Levinsson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: some universals in langauge usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2016). Cross-Cultural Variation in the Use of Hedges and Boosters in Academic Discourse. Prague Journal of English Studies, 5(1), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjes-2016-0009

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar: Fourth Edition. Oxon: Routledge.

Hardjanto, T. D. (2016). Hedging Through the Use of Modal Auxiliaries in English Academic Discourse. Jurnal Humaniora, 28(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.22146/jh.v28i1.11412

Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/9.1.21

Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language and Communication, 10(3), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-S

Hu, G., & Cao, F. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007

Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433

Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349–382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349

Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667145

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365

Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and Certainty in L1 and L2 Students’ Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002

Lakoff, G., & Truth, D. O. F. (1975). Hedges : A Study In Meaning Criteria and The Logic of Fuzzy Concepts. Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics, 1975, 221–271.

Lee, W. W. L. (2020). Impression management through hedging and boosting: A cross-cultural investigation of the messages of U.S. and Chinese corporate leaders. Lingua, 242, 102872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102872

McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002

Olinger, A. R. (2011). Constructing identities through “discourse”: Stance and interaction in collaborative college writing. Linguistics and Education, 22(3), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.04.001

Papafragou, Anna. (2000). Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Oxford: Elsevier.

Poole, R., Gnann, A., & Hahn-Powell, G. (2019). Epistemic stance and the construction of knowledge in science writing: A diachronic corpus study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42, 100784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100784

Rabab’ah, G., & Abu Rumman, R. (2015). Hedging in Political Discourse: Evidence from the Speeches of King Abdullah II of Jordan. Prague Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 157–185. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjes-2015-0009

Hyland, Ken. (2007). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing, The Modern Language Journal (Vol. 91, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00593_9.x

Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2

Salichah, I., Irawati, E., & Basthomi, Y. (2015). Hedges and Boosters in Undergraduate Students ’ Research Articles. Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora, 3(2), 154–160. http://journal.um.ac.id/index.php/jph/article/view/4855

Samaie, M., Khosravian, F., & Boghayeri, M. (2014). The Frequency and Types of Hedges in Research Article Introductions by Persian and English Native Authors. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1678–1685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.593

Takimoto, M. (2015). Assertions and lexical invisibility in EFL learners’ academic essays. Journal of Pragmatics, 89, 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.09.009

Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0

Wei, J., & Duan, J. (2019). A Comparative Study of Metadiscoursal Features in English Research Article Abstracts in Hard Disciplines. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 1–37.

Wibowo, A. H., & Yusoff, N. (2014). ‘Hedges’ and Media Ethics: A Case in Indonesian Newspaper. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 155(October), 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.295

Yagız, O., & Demir, C. (2014). Hedging Strategies in Academic Discourse: A Comparative Analysis of Turkish Writers and Native Writers of English. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.085

Yazdani, S., Sharifi, S., & Elyassi, M. (2014). A sian R esearch C onsortium Exploring Hedges and Boosters in 9 / 11 English Front Page News Articles. 4(3), 301–313.

Yeganeh, M. T., & Ghoreyshi, S. M. (2015). Exploring Gender Differences in the use of Discourse Markers in Iranian Academic Research Articles. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 684–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.104

Yeganeh, M. T., Heravi, I. M., & Sawari, A. (2015). Hedge and Booster in Newspaper Articles on Iran’s Presidential Election: A Comparative Study of English and Persian Articles. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 679–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.103

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26499/metalingua.v19i1.677


  • There are currently no refbacks.

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

Jurnal METALINGUA Indexed by:

SINTAGoogle ScholarOCLC World CatISJDGARUDAPKP IndexCrossref 


@2016 Jalan Sumbawa Nomor 11 Bandung 40113 Laman: http://balaibahasajabar.kemdikbud.go.id/

Powered by OJS, edited by donz