Hedges and Boosters in Student Scientific Articles within the Framework of a Pragmatic Metadiscourse

Authors

  • Mimas Ardhianti Universitas PGRI Adi Buana Surabaya, Indonesia
  • Jimat Susilo Universitas Swadaya Gunung Jati Cirebon, Indonesia
  • Asep Nurjamin Institut Pendidikan Indonesia, Garut, Indonesia
  • Eko Cahyo Prawoto Universitas PGRI Adi Buana Surabaya, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v11i4.9018

Keywords:

Academic writing, Student articles, Boosters, Hedges, Epistemic modality, Pragmatics metadiscourse,

Abstract

The ability of students to edit scientific papers is still low, especially in mastering the use of hedge (fencing devices) and boosters (strengthening devices). Hedges and boosters are forms of expression of the author's attitude towards propositional content through epistemic modalities. This study aims to describe hedges and boosters in student scientific articles within the framework of a pragmatic metadiscourse. A qualitative descriptive approach was used in this study. The data used is in the form of editing words, sentences, and paragraphs in scientific articles editing courses. The source of this research data is a scientific article by PGRI Adi Buana University Surabaya students in 2022. Data collection techniques use documentation techniques and recording techniques. Data analysis techniques to identify hedges and word lists of boosters using the AntConc application built by Lawrence Anthony. Data that has been obtained from the AntConc application found the frequency of hedges and boosters in scientific articles. The results of this study showed that the use of modal verb hedges in the first position was 214 frequencies, followed by 59 adverbs of hedges, and verb hedges were 3 frequencies, while the use of booster in the first position was 202 frequencies, followed by adverbs booster of 63 frequencies, and booster verbs of 6 frequencies. This study shows that students ability to tendency to (1) use epistemic modalities in modal verbs, (2) tend to use more capital verbs that mean certainty and possibility, and (3) tend to use adverbs to mean epistemic modalities.

Author Biographies

Mimas Ardhianti, Universitas PGRI Adi Buana Surabaya

Pendidikan Bahasa Indonesia, Fakultas Sosial dan Humaniora,Universitas PGRI Adi Buana Surabaya, Indonesia

Jimat Susilo, Universitas Swadaya Gunung Jati Cirebon

Pendidikan Bahasa Indonesia, Universitas Swadaya Gunung Jati, Indonesia

Asep Nurjamin, Institut Pendidikan Indonesia, Garut

Pendidikan Bahasa Indonesia, Institut Pendididkan Indonesia, Indonesia

Eko Cahyo Prawoto, Universitas PGRI Adi Buana Surabaya

Pendidikan Bahasa Indonesia, Fakultas Sosial dan Humaniora,Universitas PGRI Adi Buana Surabaya, Indonesia

References

Amalia, N. (2021). Penyuntingan Naskah (Nadra Amalia (ed.); Cetakan Pe). Umsu.

Bacang, Bernadita C, Rillo, Richard, M, Alieto, Ericson, O. (2019). The Gender Construct in the Use of Rhetorical Appeals, Hedges, and Boosters in ESL Writing. A Discourse Analysis, Asian EFL Journal, 25(5.2), 210–224.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education Limited.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Chen, Z. (2012). Expression of epistemic stance in EFL Chinese university students’ writing. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 173–179.

Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Croom Helm.

Coates, J. (1987). Epistemic Modality and Spoken Discourse. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1987.tb00714.x

Coates, J. (1995). The expression of root and epistemic modality in English. In B. Aarts & C. F. Meyer (Eds.), The verb in contemporary English: Theory and description. 145–156.

Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes. 16(4), 271–287. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(97) 00007-0

Farahani, M. V. (2019). Metadiscourse in academic English texts: A corpus-based probe into British Academic Written English Corpus. Studies About Languages, 34, 56–73. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.34.21816

Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Getkham, K. (2016). Authorial stance in Thai students’ doctoral dissertations. English Language Teaching. 9(3), 80–95. https://doi.org/doi:10.5539/elt.v9n3p80

Hidayati, F. (2020). Penggunaan Hedges dan Boosters Sebagai Strategi Metadiskursus dalam Artikel Ilmiah: Suatu Analisis Penggunaan Piranti Pemagaran dan Penguat dalam Artikel Bidang Linguistik, Ekonomi, dan Kimia. Disertasi: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

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

Hu, C., & Li, X. (2015). Epistemic modality in the argumentative essays of Chinese EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 8(6), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n6p20

Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 6(2), 183–205.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics. 25(2), 156–177.

Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics. 17(4), 433–454.

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins Publishing.

Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping Interactions in Academic Writing. University of London: UK.

Jalilifar, A. dan M. A.-N. (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. Journal SAGE.

Kim, L.C., & L. J.-H. (2015). Hedging in academic writing - a pedagogically-motivated qualitative study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, pp. 197, 600- 607.

Malášková, M. (2015). Hedging in academic discourse: A comparative analysis of applied linguistics and literary criticism research articles (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Masaryk University in Brno.

Navratilova, D. (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/https://doi.org/10.1515/pjes-2016-0009

Oktay, S. A. (2020). The metadiscursive aspects of advice-giving: Hedging and boosting in an agony aunt’s column. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(3), 1611–1620. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.803918

Palmer. (2007). Mood and Modality. Cambridge.

Peng, J. E., & Zheng, Y. (2021). Metadiscourse and Voice Construction in Discussion Sections in BA Theses by Chinese University Students Majoring in English. SAGE Open, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211008870

RadojiÄić, S., & Novakov, P. (2022). Hedging and Boosting Strategies in Linguistics and Geography – A Case Study of Student Perception. Folia Linguistica et Litteraria, 13(42), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.31902/fll.42.2022.16

Risaldi, Antok, D. (2021). Modalitas sebagai fitur lingual praktik kuasa dalam komunitas pedofilia. Jurnal Kembara, 7, 2.

Sánchez-Jiménez, D. (2022). Linguistic variation of politeness in written academic discourse: Hedges and boosters of the author’s voice in the evaluation of sources. Revista Signos, 55(108), 260–286. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342022000100260

Sukhanindr, M. (2008). Hedging in research articles about English language teaching written by Thai and native speakers of English. Kasetsart Journal of Humanities, 16(2), 109–120.

Sumanat, W. (2017). Examining Hedges in persuasive letters: A case of Thai ESP learners at the Rajamangala University of Technology, Phra Nakhon (RMUTP). Proceedings from: Pibul Research’17. 672–678.

Takimoto, M. (2015a). A Corpus-Based Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in English Academic. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 99–105. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.17509%2Fijal.v5i1.836

Takimoto, M. (2015b). A Corpus-Based Analysis Of Hedges And Boosters In English Academic Articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.17509/Fijal.v5i1.836

Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics. 22(1), 58–78. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58

Triyoko, H, I Dewa Putu Wijana, Praptomo, B. (2021). Hedges and Boosters in Indonesian Scientific Articles. Register Journal, 14(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v14i1.65-82

Vartalla, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse: Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tampere, Finland.

Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing, English for Specific Purposes. 20(1), 83–102.

Viktorova, E. Y. (2023). Hedges vs. boosters: Communicative mitigation and enhancement in the genre of dissertation review. International Journal “Speech Genres,†18(2 (38)), 126–131. https://doi.org/10.18500/2311-0740-2023-18-2-38-126-131

Downloads

Published

2023-10-16

How to Cite

Ardhianti, M., Susilo, J., Nurjamin, A., & Prawoto, E. C. (2023). Hedges and Boosters in Student Scientific Articles within the Framework of a Pragmatic Metadiscourse. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 11(4), 626–640. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v11i4.9018

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 4 (2023)

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:

  1. They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  2. The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  3. That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  4. That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  5. They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  6. They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.

Copyright
Authors who publish with JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Licensing for Data Publication

JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching uses a variety of waivers and licenses, that are specifically designed for and appropriate for the treatment of data:
Other data publishing licenses may be allowed as exceptions (subject to approval by the editor on a case-by-case basis) and should be justified with a written statement from the author, which will be published with the article.

Creative Commons License

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