A corpus-based comparison of use of hedges and boosters by Turkish ELT MA and PhD students
Abstract
In the path of academic writing, authors accomplish certain interactions with their readers through the means of meta-discourse markers such as hedges and boosters. There have been many studies that dwell on the function of meta-discourse markers (Abdi, Rizi, & Tavakoli, 2010; Crismore, 1984; Hyland, 1999, 2000, 2001; Longo, 1994). However, the ones that focus solely on hedges and boosters and comparison of the level of students such as MA versus PhD in a specific field of study are not as many. Therefore, the present corpus-based study investigates the possible reasons for changes of frequencies of hedges and boosters from MA to PhD level Turkish EFL students who proceed on their academic journey in the field of English Language Teaching. The discussion parts of ten MA theses and ten PhD dissertations were selected, written by the same students to be able to compare the possible improvements between levels. The texts were analyzed with the concordance program AntConc 3.5.7.0. The investigation revealed that the frequency of the occurrences of boosters was higher in PhD than in MA level, whereas the students used more hedges in their MA theses than in PhD dissertations. These findings may imply an increase in students’ self-confidence while conveying ideas and discussing their findings from MA to PhD level, based on a broader academic experience and expertise having been gained in time by PhD students, as well as a certain degree of unawareness by both levels of students as to the use of meta-discourse markers and academic writing styles.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abdi, R., Rizi, M. T., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of pragmatics, 42(6), 1669-1679.
Akbas, E., & Hardman, J. (2018). Strengthening or weakening claims in academic knowledge construction: A comparative study of hedges and boosters in postgraduate academic writing. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(4).
Algi, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in L1 and L2 argumentative paragraphs: Implications for teaching L2 academic writing (Unpublished Master thesis). Middle East Technical University.
Atmaca, Ç. (2016). Comparison of hedges in ma theses and ph. D. Dissertations in elt. Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken/Journal of World of Turks, 8(2), 309-325.
Beyer, D. (2015). It is probably the reason why…. Hedging in BA and MA theses by German ESL students. In Schmied, J.(ed.), Academic Writing for South Eastern Europe: Practical and Theoretical Perspectives. Göttingen: Cuvillier, 81-98.
Clemen, G. (1997). The concept of hedging: Origins, approaches and deï¬nitions. Research in text theory, 235-248.
Crismore, A. (1984). The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. J. Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 279-296.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written communication, 10(1), 39-71.
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.
Harris, Z., 1959. The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological linguistics. 1(1), 27-29.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers' text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 13(2), 9-28.
Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. Language & Communication, 10(3), 185-205.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied linguistics, 17(4), 433-454.
Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles (Vol. 54). John Benjamins Publishing.
Hyland, K. (1998b). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455.
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for specific purposes, 18(1), 3-26.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses. Social interactions in academic writing. Longman, London.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for specific purposes, 20(3), 207-226.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses, Michigan classics ed.: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going?. Journal of pragmatics, 113, 16- 29.
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of second language writing, 6(2), 183-205.
Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M. H. (2015). Hedging in academic writing-a pedagogically-motivated qualitative study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 600-607.
Koutsantoni, D. (2006). Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 19-36.
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 485-508.
Levinson, P., Brown, P., Levinson, S. C., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge university press.
Longo, B. (1994). The role of metadiscourse in persuasion. Technical communication, 41(2), 348-352.
Rashidi, N., & Alihosseini, F. (2012). A contrastive study of metadiscourse markers in research article abstracts across disciplines. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov, 5(4), 17-23.
Schmied, J. (2009). Discourse Approaches to Specialised and Popular Academic English: Comparing stance, hedges and modality. In M. Dynel (ed.). Advances in discourse approaches. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 76-91.
Serholt, S. (2012). Hedges and Boosters in Academic Writing-A Study of Gender Differences in Essays Written by Swedish Advanced Learners of English.
Takimoto, M. (2015). A corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 95-105.
Trajkova, Z. (2015). Expressing commitment and detachment in non-native English BA graduate papers, Academic Writing for South Eastern Europe: Practical and Theoretical Perspectives. Göttingen: Cuvillier, 143-163.
Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse. Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. Tampere University Press.
Vázquez Orta, I., & Giner, D. (2009). Writing with conviction: The use of boosters in modelling persuasion in academic discourses, 219-237.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ISSN 1305-578X (Online)
Copyright © 2005-2022 by Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies