Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 12. Number1  March 2021                                             Pp. 401 -420

Full Paper PDF


The Low Co-occurrence of Nominalization and Hedging in Scientific Papers Written by
Chinese EFL Learners

Xiao Liu
 College of Foreign Languages
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Nanjing, China


Received: 12/24/2020                         Accepted: 3/2/2021                Published: 3/24/2021


This article hypothesizes that one of the reasons for Chinese EFL learners’ rigid use of nominalization and insufficient use of hedging in academic writing can be attributed to the unclear understanding of the relationship between these two expressions. The aim of the research is to first prove and then explain the possible co-occurrence of nominalization and hedging in scientific papers, with the intention of deepening Chinese EFL learners’ understanding of the reasons for their possible co-occurrence. After a corpus-assisted statistical analysis of sixty abstracts selected from leading scientific journals written by native English speakers, it’s been found that there is indeed a tendency for nominalization and hedge to co-occur both at the textual-level and clause-level. Besides, a tentative analysis is conducted to explain the pattern of their co-occurrence. It has been observed that the number of nominalized expressions in clauses is inversely correlated with the probability degree of hedging, and the position of nominalization in the clause (theme or rheme) influences the generalization level of hedging. The research results could shed light on the pedagogic approach in improving Chinese EFL learners’ academic writing by making evident that the elusive Grammatical Metaphor competence could be enhanced by deepening the understanding of the inter-relationship between seemingly different in-congruent expressions like nominalization and hedges.
Keywords: Chinese EFL learners, co-occurrence, hedge, nominalization, Systemic Functional Linguistics

Cite as:  Liu, X. (2021). The Low Co-occurrence of Nominalization and Hedging in Scientific Papers Written by Chinese EFL Learners.
Arab World English Journal, 12 (1) 401-420.


Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction(pp. 56-311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cai, L.Q., & Dai W. D.(2002). Research on the possibility of precise discourse information of restricted language. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching, 08, 1-6.

Campbell, K. P., & Yong, Z. (1993). The Dilemma of English Language Instruction in the People’s Republic of China. Tesol Journal, 2(4), 4-6.

Charles, M. (2003). “This mystery.”: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 313-326

Chen, H. Q., & Xiong, W.Q. (2010). Investigation and research on the nominalization of English abstracts of Chinese master degree thesis. Journal of Dalian University of Technology (Social Science Edition), 31(4), 106-110.

Chen, H., & Wen, Q. F. (2020). Nominalization of academic English writing based on “output oriented approach”: a case study of facilitation teaching. Research frontier of Foreign Language Education, (01), 15-23.

Fan W.F. (1999). Nominalized Text Cohesion Function. Foreign Language Research, (01), 9-12.

Flowerdew, J. (1997). The discourse of colonial withdrawal: a case study in the creation of mythic discourse. Discourse & Society, 8(4), 453-477.

Halliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, text and context. Victoria: Derkin University.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2013). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. London:Routledge.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2006). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. Computational Linguistics, 27(1), 140-142

Huang, G. W. (2002). Hallidayan linguistics in China. World Englishes, 21(2), 281–290.

Hu, Z. L., & Fang, Y. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in functional linguistics in China. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.

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

Hyland, K. (2004a). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, (2), 173-192.

Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press

Jiang, P. (2013). Domestic fuzzy language research: current situation and goals. Foreign Languages (Journal of Shanghai International Studies University), 36(05), 43-49.

Jiang, F. (2016). Stance construction and interpersonal interaction of shell nouns. Contemporary Foreign Languages, 39(04), 470-482.

Lam, A. (2002). English in education in China: Policy changes and learners’ experiences. World Englishes, 21(2), 245–256.

Lakoff, G. (1975). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In Contemporary research in philosophical logic and linguistic semantics (pp. 221-271). Springer, Dordrecht.

Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multimedia demands of the scientific curriculum. Linguistics and Education, 10 (3): 247-272.

Liardét, C. L. (2013). An exploration of Chinese EFL learner’s deployment of grammatical metaphor: Learning to make academically valued meanings. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2), 161-178.

Liardét, C. L., & Black, S. (2020). Trump vs. Trudeau: Exploring the power of grammatical metaphor for academic communication. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45, 1-14.

Liu Y. F., & Chen Z.L. (2019). An Empirical Study on the nominalization of English titles of Chinese and foreign master’s degree theses. Foreign language teaching, (05), 18-23.

Li, W., & Guo J.H. (2020). The ideational GM competence of Chinese advanced English learners: a corpus-based study of Ph D theses. Foreign Language Teaching: Theories and Practice, (01), 50-58.

Luo L. Sh. (2007). A Study and Analysis of English Nominal Errors in Learners’ Interlanguage. Foreign Language Teaching, (01), 56-59.

Martin, J. R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Park, H. (2019). Grammatical Metaphor in Academic Writing: Focusing on Nominalization and Verbalization. The Journal of Linguistics Science, 89, 65-86.

Prasithrathsint, A. (2014). Nominalization as a marker of detachment and objectivity in Thai academic writing. MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities17(3), 1-10.

Prince, E., Frader, J., & Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician-physiciandiscourse. In R. J. di Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the professions (pp. 83-97). Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex.

Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2015). A meaning-based approach to the study of complexity in L2 writing: The case of grammatical metaphor. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 51-63.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2005). Technical writing in a second language: The role of grammatical metaphor. In L. J. Ravelli, & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 172–189). Cambridge: A&C Black

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. London: Cambridge University Press.

Sun Yanmei & Shao Xinguang. (2011). Grammatical metaphor and English reading. Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities (Humanities and Social Science) (07), 189-191.

Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive science, 12(1), 49-100.

Tang, G. L.(2014). The use of nominalization in abstracts and meta-function analysis. Journal of Changchun Normal University, 33(09), 73-77.

Tan L. H. (2011). A Corpus-based Study on Metaphoric Application of Nominalization in Scientific Discourses:A Case Study of Chinese EFL Learners’ and English Native Speakers’ Abstract of Science and Engineering Master’s Thesis. Journal of Hunan University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition), 14(04), 130-134.

Wang J.G & Sun F.L. (2018). A study on the characteristics of mild hedges in academic oral English. Foreign Language Teaching (03), 66-70, doi:10.16362/j.cnki.cn61-1023/h.2018.03.014.

Xu, C.X. (2006). Pragmatic Functions of English hedging. Foreign Language Teaching, (04), 37-39.

Xu, H.L. (2011). Use of Authorial Stance Markers in Research Discourse by Chinese Advanced EFL Learners: A Corpus-based Contrastive Study. Foreign Language Teaching, 32(06), 44-48.

Yang, Y. N. (2011). Grammatical metaphor in Chinese: A corpus based study. Functions of Language, 18(1), 1–28.

Ying G. L., & Zhou, H. (2009). A Study on the Relevance of Pragmatic Functions of hedging and Politeness Principles. Chinese Foreign Languages, 6(02), 43-47.

Yoon, C. (2018). Nominalization in Korean EFL Learners’ Argumentative Writing: A Comparative Study of Distribution and Use. The New Studies of English Language & Literature, 69, 249-274.

Zhang Liping(2016). A Study of Metaphoric Function and Translation of Nominalization in Policing English Discourse. Technology Enhanced Foreign Language Education (01), 73-78.

Zhou, H., & Liu, Y. B. (2017). The Use of GMs and Textual Functions in Abstracts of English Degree Thesis. Modern Foreign Languages, 40(04), 484-494.

Zhu, K., & Xia,  X.R. (2011). A Study on the Correlation between hedging and Written Communicative Ability. Foreign Language Teaching, 32(05), 31-34

Zhu yeqiu & Chen Xinren. (2015). Boundedness construal and countability acquisition:A cognitive account of English learners’ misuse of noun countability. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice (02), 1-6.

Zhu Y. Sh. (1994). Grammatical metaphor in English. Foreign languages (Journal of Shanghai Institute of foreign languages) (01):8-13.

Zhu Y. Sh. (2006). Nominalization, verbalization and GMs. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (02), 83-90.

Zhu Y. Sh., & Yan Sh.Q. (2000). Motivation and Contribution of Grammatical Metaphor Theory. Foreign Language Teaching and Research (02), 95-102.

Zhong L.F., & Chen X.H. (2015). Research on the Output Ability of Academic English Metaphors. Modern Foreign Languages, 38(03), 386-395.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on tumblr
Share on reddit
Share on email
Share on stumbleupon
Share on digg
Received: 12/24/2020
Accepted: 3/2/2021
Published: 3/24/2021
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on tumblr
Share on digg
Share on email
Share on reddit
Share on stumbleupon
Share on vk

Dr. Xiao Liu received her Ph.D. in linguistics from Lomonosov Moscow State University. She has been teaching at the College of Foreign Languages in Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics since 2016. Her primary research interests lie in metaphor, discourse analysis, and English for Academic Purposes. She was funded by the university to investigate EAP teaching for postgraduates.  ORCID iD: