Functional Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in Academic Students Essays: Across Disciplinary Study
الموضوعات :آزاده ملاکی 1 , سید فواد ابراهیمی 2 , محمد تقی فروردین 3
1 - گروه زبان انگلیسی. واحد بوشهر. دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی. بوشهر. ایران.
2 - English Department, Shadegan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shadegan, Iran
3 - گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی. واحد اهواز. دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی. اهواز. ایران
الکلمات المفتاحية: Essay, Booster, Hedge, Metadiscourse Marker, MICUSP,
ملخص المقالة :
Hedging and boosting are significant communicative resources to construe and attain persuasion in different fields and particular genres of academic writing. Hedges allow the researcher to address possible problems, raise objections or anticipate opposition to the research claims while contributing something new to the ongoing dialogue in a research field. Boosters enormously help to achieve the essential writers’ need to convince their readership of the truth in their propositions. They are mainly used whenever writers consider it not too risky to include them in their propositions. This study aims to investigate the frequencies and functions of hedges and boosters in academic students' essays. To meet this end, 96 students' essays (a total of 269.428 words) were selected from the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers (MICUSP), including English and Psychology disciplines. The corpus was analyzed based on Abdollahzadeh (2019)classification of hedges. The results showed that hedges and boosters were frequent enough to be considered in teaching writing, either reducing or increasing the force of written utterances. The results of this study could be used directly in the syllabus designed for academic essay writing.
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2019). A cross-cultural study of hedging in discussion sections by junior and senior academic writers. Ibérica(38), 177-202.
Aceto, L. (2003). How to write a paper. Reykjavık University. http://www.ru.is/faculty/luca/imthowto/howtowrite-imt.pdf
Akman, E., & Karahan, P. (2023). Hedges and boosters in academic texts: a comparative study on English language teaching and physiotherapy research articles. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi(32), 1335-1349. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1252902
Almurashi, W. (2016). Analysis and Critical Reflection of Acehnese Language Phonology Endangered languages View project. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 4, 14.
Bahar, M. A. (2014). Lisansüstü eğitimde akademik yazma ve önemi. International Journal of Language Academy, 2(4), 209-233. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18033/ijla.150
Bayat, N. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünme düzeyleri ile akademik yazma başarıları arasındaki ilişki. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(173), 155-169.
Bayyurt, Y. (2010). Corpus Based Approaches To Politeness And Author Positioning In Academic Writing. https://www.academia.edu/download/5903988/flfildocumentfile87.pdf
Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. J. (2015). Beyond dichotomies. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223 (1). Doi:https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000194
Campbell, D. T. (2014). This chapter is a preliminary exercise in the sociology of science—an exploratory application of principles of. Interdisciplinary Collaboration: An Emerging Cognitive Science. https://books.google.com/
Chafe, W. (1985). Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing, 105, 105-123.
Chafe, W., & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language: Academic Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-97008-003
Demir, C. (2018). Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges. Journal of language and linguistic studies, 14(4), 74-92. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jlls/issue/43366/528087
Demirel, E. T. (2019). The Use of Hedging Strategies in Research Articles: A Corpus Comparison of Native and Non-Native Researchers. Karabük Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(1), 349-362. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/joiss/issue/47457/599913
Doyuran, Z. (2009). Conciliation of knowledge through hedging in Turkish scientific articles. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(1), 85-99. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/603618
Fang, Z. (2021). Demystifying academic writing: Genres, moves, skills, and strategies: Routledge.
Farrokhi, F., & Emami, S. (2008). Hedges and boosters in academic writing: native vs. non-native research articles in applied linguistics and engineering. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 1(2), 62-98.
Fulwiler, T. (2002). College writing: A personal approach to academic writing: ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED462687
Hall, K. L., Feng, A. X., Moser, R. P., Stokols, D., & Taylor, B. K. (2008). Moving the science of team science forward: collaboration and creativity. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2), S243-S249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.007
Hinkel, E. (2005). Analyses of second language text and what can be learned from them. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 639-652): Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781410612700-46/analyses-second-language-text-learned-eli-hinkel
Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC journal, 13(2), 9-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368828201300202
Holmes, J. (1984). Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo, 27(1), 47-62.
Hryniuk, K. (2018). Expert-like use of hedges and boosters in research articles written by Polish and English native-speaker writers. Research in Language (RiL), 16(3), 263-280. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=891901
Hyland, K. (1998a). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text & Talk, 18(3), 349-382. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349/html
Hyland, K. (1998b). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216698000095
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing (1stEd.). New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143. https://ojs.ub.gu.se/index.php/njes/article/view/417/405
Hyland, K. (2018). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing: Bloomsbury Publishing.
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
Jalilifar, A., & Alavi-Nia, M. (2012). We are surprised; wasn’t Iran disgraced there? A functional analysis of hedges and boosters in televised Iranian and American presidential debates. Discourse & Communication, 6(2), 135-161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481311434763
Karasar, N. (2006). Bilimsel arastırma yöntemi. 16. Baskı, Ankara: Nobel.
Markkanen, R., & Schröder, H. (1997). Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 24, 3-18. https://books.google.com
Matthiessen, C., & Halliday, M. (1997). Systemic functional grammar. Current approaches to syntax. Amsterdam and London: Benjamins & Whurr.
Ngampradit, K. (2020). A corpus-based study of metadiscoursal boosters in applied linguistics dissertations written in Thailand and in the United States. Variation in time and space, 321-350. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110604719
Sepehri, M., Hajijalili, M., & Namaziandost, E. (2019). Hedges and boosters in medical and engineering research articles: A comparative corpus-based study. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(4), 215-225.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, G. (1996). Voices in the text: Discourse perspectives on language reports. Applied linguistics, 17(4), 501-530. https://books.google.com/
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
