An Exploration of Hedging and Boosting Devices Used in Academic Discourse Focusing on English Theses at the University of Namibia

Haufiku, Naftal K.; Kangira, Jairos

doi:10.22158/selt.v6n1p1

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Soft sciences, however, are very cautious in generalizing their findings since the opinions and behaviours of participants can easily change. Haufiku and Kangira (2018) argue that when more hedges and fewer boosters are used, it is more likely to leave readers with the impression that their discussions may be merely educated guesses, and not necessarily based on any substantial evidence. On the other hand, other researchers argue that statements that are not properly hedged create the impression that the findings are complete with no room for further research or confirmation (Serholt, 2012).…”

Section: The Use Of Hedges and Boosters As Elements Of Metadiscoursementioning

confidence: 99%

Variations in Rhetorical Moves and Metadiscourse Elements in Conference Abstracts: A Genre Analysis

Obeng

Wornyo²,

Hammond³

2023

EJALS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An abstract represents the summary of a piece of writing. Genre and metadiscourse analytical studies could highlight move variations in abstracts. The study aimed to investigate variations in the academic conference abstracts of the hard and soft sciences with a focus on rhetorical structure/sequence and the use of hedges/boosters. A corpus of sixty (60) abstracts was used for the study; this comprised 30 abstracts each from the soft sciences and the hard sciences. The abstracts were selected from two conference proceedings. The framework of rhetorical moves for abstracts comprising introduction (I), purpose (P), method (M), product (Pr), and the conclusion was used for the analysis of the rhetorical sequence of the abstracts. The abstracts were further analysed for their use of boosters and hedges. From the results, 43.3% of hard sciences abstracts (HSA) and 33.3% of soft science abstracts (SSA) followed the framework used. Furthermore, purpose, method, product, and conclusion were obligatory moves whereas the introduction move was optional in the SSA. On the other hand, only method and product moves were obligatory with the rest being conventional in SSA. The most dominant move sequence for HSA was I-P-M-Pr-C (46.7%) followed by I-M-Pr-C (17%) and I-P-M-Pr (17%) whereas P-M-Pr-C (43.3%) was the most dominant sequence followed by I-P-M-Pr-C (33.3%) for the SSA. The hard sciences abstracts and the soft sciences abstracts do not show marked differences in the authors’ use of boosters and hedges. Pedagogical implications of the findings of this study are useful particularly for academic conference applicants, academic writing instruction as well as advancing genre and metadiscourse research in conference abstracts. Article visualizations:<img src="/-counters-/soc/0044/a.php" alt="Hit counter" />

show abstract

Section: The Use Of Hedges and Boosters As Elements Of Metadiscoursementioning

confidence: 99%

Variations in Rhetorical Moves and Metadiscourse Elements in Conference Abstracts: A Genre Analysis

Obeng

Wornyo²,

Hammond³

2023

EJALS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Например, с междисциплинарной точки зрения Н. Хауфику и Дж. Кангира проанализировали роль хеджей в магистерских диссертациях и пришли к выводу о том, что частотность использования данной стратегии предопределена необходимостью соблюдения стилистических норм письма, принятых в том или ином дискурсивном сообществе (Haufiku, Kangira, 2018). О. Дончева-Навратилова, исследовавшая межкультурные различия хеджирования в англоязычном академическом дискурсе носителями и неносителями английского языка, обнаружила, что первые прибегают к смягчению иллокутивной силы высказывания значительно чаще (Dontcheva-Navratilova, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Russian lexical and syntactic hedges in dissertation reviews

Boginskaya

2023

Rusistika

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The author analyzes Russian lexical and syntactic hedges as a rhetorical strategy for mitigating the negative evaluation of the reviewed research. The relevance of the study is due to the ongoing attempts to reconceptualize the nature of academic discourse, which is increasingly viewed both as an interactive space and an information environment. This approach determines the need to study metadiscourse as an effective strategy for constructing a harmonious dialogue between the reviewer and the author of the dissertation under review. The purpose of the study is to identify lexical and grammatical categories of hedges and their rhetorical functions in the thesis reviews. A corpus of 90 dissertation reviews published on the websites of Russian dissertation councils in 2019-2022 was used as research materials. The object of the study was the genre of a dissertation review, where for the first time the linguistic means of mitigating negative evaluation on two linguistic levels were identified. This determines the scientific novelty of this study. To analyze the lexical and syntactic realizations of the hedging strategy, the methods of quantitative and interpretive analysis were used. The quantitative analysis revealed that the hedging strategy is mainly verbalized with the help of verbs, adverbs and introductory constructions. The interpretive analysis showed that hedges perform a wide range of communicative functions: shifting the communicative focus; modal mitigation of criticism; deintensification. The research contributes to linguistics disciplines such as pragmalinguistics, text theory and discourse analysis. The prospects of the research are an analysis of lexical and grammatical categories of other metadiscursive strategies.

show abstract

“…Hedging as a metadiscourse category has been investigated in a number of studies of academic discourse [Boginskaya, 2022;Haufiku, Kangira, 2018;Hyland, , 2005Larina, 2019;Mikolaichik, 2020;Takimoto, 2015;. Varttala, for example, has compared the pragmatic functions of hedging in popular science and academic articles on economics, medicine, and engineering .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hedging as a Politeness Strategy in Research Article Reviews

Boginskaya

2023

PSFUP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metadiscourse in academic communication has been under the analysis of a great number of studies. However, most research was predominantly conducted on English academic texts, while metadiscourse strategies are used in Russian-language academic prose remains understudied and needs to be explored. On the basis of 50 reviews of manuscripts submitted to Russian journals, the present article analyzes types of the lexical realization of hedging as a metadiscourse strategy used by reviewers to mitigate negative evaluations and to show politeness. The study is relevant due to the numerous attempts to reconceptualize the nature of academic discourse and to ascribe it to the interactional rather than informational type of communication. Hedging is used for constructing harmonious relationship between the reviewer and the reviewee. The present study aims to identify lexical items used for hedging in the corpus of research article reviews. When the quantitative analysis reveals that hedging is predominantly realized through the use of verbs and adverbs, the interpretive analysis shows that lexical hedges serve for three pragmatic functions such as shifting the communicative focus, mitigating criticism, and de-intensifying negative evaluations. Hedging is an indicator of the authorial pragmatic competence and is a key to effective communication in the evaluative genres of academic discourse and research articles reviews. It creates a proper balance of negative and positive evaluations, assists in saving face and constructing an image of a competent partner.

show abstract

An Exploration of Hedging and Boosting Devices Used in Academic Discourse Focusing on English Theses at the University of Namibia

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

Variations in Rhetorical Moves and Metadiscourse Elements in Conference Abstracts: A Genre Analysis

Variations in Rhetorical Moves and Metadiscourse Elements in Conference Abstracts: A Genre Analysis

Russian lexical and syntactic hedges in dissertation reviews

Hedging as a Politeness Strategy in Research Article Reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About