Background to the study
Hedges and boosters have emerged as significant elements in academic writing, particularly in research articles (Holmes, 1984, 1988; Salager-Meyer, 1994, 1997; Hyland, 1996a, 1998a; Markkanen, 1997; Varttala, 1999, 2001; Demir, 2015) The strict regulations and formal styles inherent in academic writing can challenge readers in effectively expressing and interpreting their ideas and viewpoints.
Academic writing is essential in scientific research as it effectively presents studies to readers and allows researchers to articulate and defend their viewpoints (Ferris, 1994) This writing style employs specific language to persuade readers to align with the authors' perspectives To strengthen their arguments, researchers must utilize hedges and boosters, which enable them to express varying degrees of certainty in their claims According to Hyland (2004), these linguistic tools help writers maintain a degree of detachment from their assertions while enhancing the credibility of their arguments.
In 1972, Lakoff defined hedges as "words whose job is to make things fuzzy," highlighting their role in linguistic and academic contexts Conversely, boosters are essential in academic writing, as they convey certainty and strengthen rhetorical impact in scientific research It is crucial for scientific inquiries to present and accept claims or statements clearly.
2 conviction with caution, the confidence with reliability, or the uncertainty about something
Contrary to the points of view about the concept of hedges that Lakoff
In 1981, Round argued that hedges serve a purpose beyond merely obscuring meaning; they are essential for negotiating a more accurate representation of knowledge in scientific discourse, thereby enhancing the precision of scientific claims.
Effective communication, whether verbal or non-verbal, is a primary objective of using English, particularly in scientific writing Researchers aim to bridge language barriers to effectively convey their perspectives and defend their viewpoints on various issues To achieve this, employing hedges—linguistic devices that express uncertainty or caution—can be particularly beneficial in academic discourse (Coast, 1987; Holmes, 1995).
Hedges are increasingly prevalent in research articles, serving as essential tools for researchers to defend their viewpoints They not only facilitate the presentation of new knowledge but also promote ongoing dialogue and argumentation within the academic discourse.
Round (1982) stated that hedging was a basic feature in academic discourse to enable the writers to show their certainty or doubt referring to their statement
Hyland (1998) noted that writers and speakers often overlook the significance of hedges in various disciplines Crystal (1995) highlighted a longstanding gap in research on hedging Despite the growing interest in modality and hedging in academic literature, this focus has not been adequately represented in educational materials Most scientific studies on hedges and boosters tend to concentrate on their usage within specific sections of research articles, such as the abstract, introduction, methodology, and conclusion Among these, the results and discussion (R&D) section is crucial, as it serves as the centerpiece of scientific research.
The Discussion section of a research article is crucial for authors to present their perspectives, defend their viewpoints on scientific results, and contextualize their findings within the broader academic landscape According to Hyland (1998a), this section enables writers to emphasize their results and connect them to existing literature, thereby enriching the discourse within their field (p.33).
Hyland (2000) emphasized the importance of hedges and boosters in conveying an author's confidence in academic writing Boosters like "clearly" and "obviously" indicate certainty, while hedges such as "seem" and "appear" reflect doubt about the information presented (p.179) Skelton (1988) argued that without hedging, language becomes overly rigid and simplistic, stating that "without hedging, the world is purely propositional" (p.38) In contrast, a hedging system introduces flexibility and nuance to language, enriching the discourse.
In his 1998 research, Hyland analyzed the use of hedges across various disciplines, gathering data from 28 articles in microbiology, astrophysics, marketing, and applied linguistics Utilizing Crismore et al.'s (1993) taxonomy of hedges and boosters, Hyland concluded that hedges are employed more frequently in the field of applied linguistics compared to other disciplines.
Hedges and boosters are essential communicative strategies that modify the strength of a writer's statements, as noted by Hyland (1998a) These linguistic tools help convey the appropriate relationship between writers and readers by either reducing uncertainty or emphasizing the accuracy of the claims made By effectively using hedges and boosters, writers can enhance their communication and establish a clearer understanding with their audience.
A hedge, an epistemic device, is often used to express epistemic modality and to modify the illocutionary force of speech acts (Holmes, 1988) On the
4 other hand, a booster is used for writers to express the beliefs, strong claims and mark their involvement and solidarity with authors
Hedges and boosters are crucial tools in academic writing that enhance the effectiveness of research articles By incorporating these linguistic devices, writers present their claims and arguments more clearly, reflecting a key aspect of academic discourse (Hyland, 1998; Tran and Duong, 2013) This approach not only elevates the sophistication of their writing but also minimizes the risk of negation, ultimately leading to a more intellectually valuable contribution to the field.
The research titled “Hedging and Boosting in Results and Discussion Sections of English Applied Linguistic Research Articles by Vietnamese and Foreign Writers” aims to investigate the use of hedges and boosters in research articles This study will delve into their specific functions and analyze the similarities and differences in types, frequencies, and applications between Vietnamese and foreign authors.
The problem statements
Hedges and boosters are essential components of academic writing, particularly in research articles, as they enhance the effectiveness of the work However, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge, there has been no prior investigation into the functions, similarities, and differences of hedges and boosters specifically within the Research and Development (R&D) section.
In academic language (AL) research articles, the use of hedges and boosters is crucial for enhancing the clarity and persuasiveness of the R&D section, which is vital for reporting results and engaging with readers and collaborators Despite its significance, previous researchers have often overlooked this aspect, which can lead to increased negations and diminish the articles' overall value In Vietnam, English is recognized as a key discipline across various fields, underscoring the importance of effective communication in academic writing.
Vietnamese writers (VWs) often struggle to correctly use hedges and boosters in their research articles because English is considered a foreign language rather than a second language Despite numerous studies on hedges and boosters across various fields, there has been a lack of research specifically targeting the R&D section of applied linguistics (AL) research articles in Vietnam This study aims to address this gap by examining the use, functions, similarities, and differences of hedges and boosters in terms of types, frequencies, and functions within the R&D section of AL research articles.
Aims and objectives of the study
This study aimed to examine the use of hedges and boosters in R&D section in AL research articles written by VWs and FWs
In order to achieve the aims of this study, the following objectives must be accomplished
To find out the hedges and boosters used in R&D section in AL research articles written by VWs and foreign writers (FWs)
To analyze the functions of hedges and boosters used in R&D section in AL research articles written by VWs and FWs
To explore the similarities and differences in types, frequencies and functions of hedges and boosters in R&D section in AL research articles written by VWs and FWs.
Research questions
The current study was designed to seek for convincing answers to the following questions:
1 How are hedges and boosters used in Results and Discussion section in English applied linguistics research articles written by Vietnamese and foreign writers?
2 What are the functions of hedges and boosters used in Results and Discussion section in English applied linguistics research articles written by Vietnamese and foreign writers?
3 What are the similarities and differences in types, frequencies and functions of hedges and boosters in Results and Discussion section in English applied linguistics research articles written by Vietnamese and foreign writers?
Scope of the study
This study investigates the usage and frequency of hedges and boosters in the R&D sections of academic literature (AL) research articles authored by both native and non-native speakers, utilizing a corpus of 60 articles in English It analyzes the functions of these linguistic tools and examines their similarities and differences in usage The research framework is grounded in Hyland’s taxonomy of hedges, supported by previous studies, while the examination of boosters follows Hinkel’s taxonomy The study acknowledges a limitation in the reduced quantity of hedge and booster words, aligning with the requirements of a Master of Arts thesis Ultimately, it aims to inspire further research on hedges and boosters to address existing gaps in the AL field.
Significances of the study
The importance of epistemic modality in academic writing and AL research articles has documented through many previous studies in disciplinaries or fields such as academics, environment, engineering, chemical, etc
Milton and Hyland (1999) emphasized that understanding hedges and boosters is essential for evaluating facts in academic writing Their study highlights the importance of these linguistic devices, suggesting that further research could help bridge existing gaps in the field of academic writing, particularly in research articles.
Writers and communicators are adopting a streamlined approach to convey information to readers with minimal cognitive effort Research highlights the significant role of epistemic modality, including hedges and boosters, in enhancing communication The findings enable writers to analyze the use of these epistemic devices in different sections of AL research articles authored by VWs and FWs Furthermore, the study aids VWs and learners in recognizing the similarities and differences in the application of hedges and boosters within AL research articles, demonstrating the potential for effective use of epistemic modality in the field of linguistics in Vietnam.
Writers can discover effective methods for using hedges and boosters in academic writing, which are essential for conveying certainty and nuance The correct application of these linguistic tools is crucial for addressing common errors in writer feedback within academic and applied linguistics research articles Furthermore, emphasizing the importance of hedges and boosters can enhance the quality of academic writing, encouraging writers to refine their arguments and present their ideas more persuasively.
Writers and English learners gain confidence when discussing unfamiliar topics with English speakers, enabling them to effectively express their viewpoints on various issues.
In academic writing, particularly in the fields of applied linguistics and linguistics, researchers and writers can enhance the effectiveness of their articles by strategically employing hedges and boosters.
Definitions of key terms
This research aims to investigate the use, functions, and distinctions between hedges and boosters in academic research articles Key terms relevant to this study will be clearly defined to enhance understanding.
A hedge is a linguistic device, including words and phrases like "may," "might," "probably," and "perhaps," that indicate degrees of probability (Hyland, 1998a) These hedges act as a bridge between the information presented in the text and the writer's interpretation of that information (Salager-Meyer, 1993, p.127) Additionally, hedges can serve as a politeness strategy, allowing speakers to soften their statements and reduce their commitment to the propositions they express.
A booster is a word or phrase that signifies a strong commitment to the truth of a statement According to Hyland (1998a), boosters are communicative strategies designed to enhance the strength of claims, effectively conveying a more assertive message.
A research article is an academic paper typically written in a formal style, particularly in the field of Applied Linguistics (AL) These articles are often published in reputable journals such as Applied Linguistics, ELSEVIER, Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Learning, Linguistics and Literature, Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, and ResearchGate Additionally, LANGUAGE & LIFE is a magazine featuring AL research articles written in English by Vietnamese authors and published in Vietnam.
The results and discussion section of a research paper outlines the findings of the study and provides an analysis of their implications and relevance This section is crucial for interpreting the data and understanding its significance within the broader context of the research.
In this study, a foreign writer is defined as any non-Vietnamese author who utilizes English to compose academic research articles in the field of Applied Linguistics (AL).
A Vietnamese writer, in this study, refers to any Vietnamese writers who use English to write academic research articles in the field of AL.
Organization of the study
This study is organized in five chapters
Chapter 1 provides the introduction, which is include the rationale, the aim and research questions, the significance, definitions of terminology, the theoretical framework, and the organization of the study
Chapter 2 presents the literature review of this study, which includes the definitions of hedges and boosters, the functions of hedges and boosters, and the previous research of those fields both domestically and internationally
Chapter 3 describes the methodology, which consists of the research setting, materials, research design, research tools, data collection and data analysis procedures, and the ethical consideration
Chapter 4 provides the data analysis and discussion of the findings The findings of the current research are compared to the previous researchers’ findings
Chapter 5 deals with the conclusions, recommendations for the use of hedges and boosters in R&D sections in research articles written by VWs and FWs, the limitations of the study, and some suggestions for further research concerning to the field
Introduction
This chapter begins with a literature review that defines hedges and boosters within the linguistic field Following this, an overview of the functions of hedging and boosting is provided The third section discusses previous research on hedges and boosters from both international and domestic articles Finally, the conceptual framework outlines the methodology for conducting the study.
Hedges…
This section of the chapter provides a comprehensive overview of various definitions of hedges and boosters, enabling readers to understand and engage with different interpretations found in the R&D segment of numerous research articles.
The term "hedge" emerged in linguistic studies during the 1970s, notably in George Lakoff's article "Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts." In 1973, Lakoff defined hedges as words that introduce fuzziness into meanings, serving to either clarify or obscure statements This fuzziness can assist individuals in navigating potentially embarrassing situations while also reflecting the writer's commitment to the truth of their assertions, as highlighted by Salager-Meyer.
1994 & Tran, 2013) and it can provide them with the more open room for the possibility of interpretation (Crompton, 1997)
Hedges are linguistic tools that convey hesitation, uncertainty, or politeness in communication According to Nikula (1997), their use in academic writing facilitates "meaning negotiations and reformulations" for both speakers and listeners Crismore and Vande Kopple (1997) further emphasized that hedges foster personal interaction between the language producer and receiver, enhancing the overall communicative experience.
11 which they signal that the truth of the material is tentative and the receiver has room to evaluate and judge for him or herself” (p.235)
According to Tran and Duong (2013), examining hedges in research articles reveals a crucial aspect of academic arguments Hedges serve as metadiscourse tools that enable writers and researchers to express their viewpoints across various fields and disciplines.
According to Hyland (1998), hedges are linguistic tools that allow writers to express propositions as opinions rather than definitive facts, highlighting uncertainty in their statements (p.5) He categorizes hedges in academic discourse into two types: content-oriented and reader-oriented Content-oriented hedges, as Hyland explains, help to soften the connection between what is stated and the writer's perception of reality, thereby indicating a degree of uncertainty about the correspondence between the writer's claims and the actual world (p.162).
Brown and Levinson (1987) defined a hedge as a word, phrase, or particle that alters the extent to which a predicate or noun phrase belongs to a set They also introduced the concept of hedges within their research on Politeness Theory, identifying them as strategies for maintaining politeness in communication.
Crompton (1997) noted that despite efforts to standardize definitions, researchers continue to interpret the concepts of hedging and hedge in diverse ways He described hedging as a linguistic tool that allows speakers to express uncertainty regarding the truth of their statements The foundational definition of hedging in linguistics can be traced back to Lakoff’s (1973) work, where he introduced the idea of "vague boundaries and fuzzy edges" in language.
Hedges, as described by Hyland (1998) and Tran and Duong (2013), are linguistic tools that allow writers to present claims or propositions as opinions rather than definitive facts, thereby minimizing their responsibility for the certainty of these statements Readers can recognize hedges through specific categories that reduce the strength of a statement, utilizing words such as "fairly," "almost," or "partly." Additionally, hedges often involve adverbs of frequency, including "usually," "often," and "sometimes," and serve to diminish the speaker's obligation to assert truth by employing terms like "probably," "perhaps," "may," or "maybe."
In academic writing, Hyland (1998) defines hedges as statements based on plausible reasoning rather than absolute certainty, granting readers the opportunity to challenge them (p 352) Additionally, Hyland (1996) describes hedges as tools to soften claims and reduce the potential imposition of those claims (p 434).
(2004) stated that hedges were communitive strategies which conveyed the level of writers’ confidence to the truth of a claim or statement and express an attitude to the audience
Yagiz and Demir (2014) describe hedges as a form of tentative language used to express uncertainty and soften claims or propositions, helping to minimize potential negative feedback from readers or research collaborators.
Hedges are essential lexical tools in academic writing that allow researchers and writers to soften or mitigate opposing claims, reflecting tentativeness and possibility They are crucial for presenting unproven propositions with caution and precision (Hyland, 1996b) According to Hyland (2000), hedges modify the writer's commitment to their propositions and play a significant role in the social negotiation of knowledge, aiding in persuading readers of the validity of their claims and fostering community acceptance of their work.
13 this study, hedge can be considered as lexical devices used to signal the author’s lack of confidence and mitigate the writer’s certainty about or reduce their commitment to a proposition
Hedges are linguistic rhetorical devices found in verbal or adverbial expressions such as "can," "could," "seem," and "probable," which indicate varying degrees of probability (Nguyen, 2018).
Holmes (1988) and Varttala (1998, 2001), five main word forms of epistemic lexical modality were modal auxiliaries, lexical verbs, adverbs, adjectives and nouns
Numerous researchers have categorized hedges in their studies, including notable contributions from Holmes (1984, 1988), Salager-Meyer (1994), and Hyland (1994, 1996, 1998a, 2000) Particularly, Hyland (1998a) and Salager (1994) developed influential categories that have been widely adopted by linguists, natural and social scientists, writers, students, and English as a second language learners.
According to Salager-Meyer (1997), the classification of hedges seemed to be more concrete than others based on seven categories as follow
3) Adjectival, nominal, and adverbial modal phrases
4) Approximators of degree, quantity, frequency, and time
Hyland (1994) proposed a hedge taxonomy including modal auxiliaries (may, might, can, could, would, etc.), modal lexical verbs (believe, seem, etc.), adjectival, adverbial, and nominal modal expressions and others
Recently, in a linguistics study, Fraser (2010) proposed several hedge types in forms of grammatical categories as follows
(1) Modal verbs including can, could, may, would, etc
(2) Modal adverbs such as possibly, probably, apparently, etc
(3) Modal adjectives refer to possible, probable, apparent, likely, etc
(4) Modal nouns consisting of suggestion, claim, assumption, etc
(5) Phrases such as somewhat, sort of, kind of, etc
Varttala (2001) revised Hyland's (1998b) classification of hedges into eight grammatical forms, which has been employed by various linguistics researchers, including Atai and Sadr (2008) Hashemi (2005) presents Varttala's updated category of hedges, highlighting its significance in linguistic studies.
In their 2008 study, Farrokhi and Emami developed a comprehensive classification of hedges, drawing on the frameworks established by Quirk et al (1985), Holmes (1988), Hyland (1996a, 1998), Hyland and Milton (1997), and Varttala (2001) This classification encompasses five distinct categories: modal verbs, lexical verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and nouns, providing a structured approach to understanding hedging in language.
Boosters
Booster devices, as defined by Demir (2015), play a crucial role in academic writing by enhancing the intensity of claims and propositions According to Holmes (1982), these lexical items enable writers to convey strong persuasion and assertiveness in their arguments By employing boosters, authors emphasize certainty and bolster the validity of their claims, effectively persuading readers of the information presented (Peacock, 2006).
Hedges and boosters are essential interpersonal metadiscourse devices that play a significant role in communication and academic writing, particularly in research articles According to Hyland, these devices are crucial for conveying uncertainty and confidence in scholarly discourse.
In 2005, certain words like "clearly," "obviously," and "indeed" were identified as boosters, which help writers convey certainty and show their engagement with the topic and readers Hyland (1999) defined boosters as tools that emphasize shared information, foster group membership, and enhance reader involvement.
Boosters are defined as communicative strategies that enhance the strength of statements, representing strong claims (Hyland, 1998a) Building on this, Peacock (2006) refined the definition, describing boosting as a strategy that emphasizes certainty, strong commitment, conviction, and accepted truth.
Hyland (2005) said that booster enabled writers to write with assurance
“while effecting interpersonal solidarity, setting the caution and self-effacement suggested by hedges against assertion and involvement” (p.179) Accordingly, unlike “hedges”, Hyland and Tse (2004) offered the definition of boosters as
“indicate certainty and emphasize the force of propositions” (p.168)
Boosters are lexical devices that convey strong conviction, enabling writers to assert propositions confidently According to Farrokhi and Emami (2008), terms like "clearly," "obviously," and "of course" serve to reinforce utterances, facilitating expressions of agreement, disagreement, reassurance, or denial Additionally, Hu and Cao (2011) characterize boosters as mediatory course devices that signal the writer's stance regarding the entire assertion.
Boosters, often referred to as intensifiers or emphatic tools, such as "certainly," "sure," and "definitely," are essential for writers to convey the certainty of their statements or propositions According to Peacock (2006), mastery of research writing involves a comprehensive understanding of boosting, as these words significantly enhance the persuasiveness of the writer's arguments and reinforce the validity of their views.
Previous studies have identified boosters in various forms, including modal verbs, lexical verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and nouns According to Skelton (1997), verbs like "show," "demonstrate," and "find" serve as tools for writers to assert the evidential truth of their discussions A comprehensive list of 118 booster words is available for reference.
According to Peacock (2006), a compilation of lexical items, including modal verbs and their derivative forms, is outlined in Appendix A Holmes (1988) suggested that various lexical devices, such as modal and lexical verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and nouns, are utilized to convey different degrees of certainty.
Table 2 1 Holmes' (1988) taxonomy of hedges and boosters
Can, could, may, might, should, will, would
Cannot, could not, have to, must, should, would not
Appear, believe, doubt, estimate, imply, suggest, etc
Confirm, indicate, know, predict, show, etc
About, approximately, nearly, often, occasionally, perhaps, probably, etc
Absolutely, actually, certainly, clearly, exactly, obviously, totally, etc
Approximate, common, considerable, general, possible, potential, relative, significant, typical, etc
Absolute, certain, clear, complete, confident, definite, exact, evident, impossible, sure, etc
Claim, evaluation, possibility, probability, suggestion, etc
Certainty, confidence, fact, evidence, precision, etc
Hyland (1998a) explains that modal verbs like "will" and "must" indicate accepted truths, minimizing the author's personal involvement and suggesting that the statements are widely recognized within the discipline Additionally, expressions such as "of course" and "obviously" serve a similar purpose in reinforcing the general acceptance of these claims.
Nuyts (2005) defines epistemic modality as a key category of modality, alongside deontic and dynamic modalities, characterized by the degree of probability expressed through modal auxiliaries, adjectives, and adverbs Essentially, boosters frequently occur in various forms of modal verbs and epistemic modal adverbs, enhancing the expression of certainty regarding states of affairs.
The current research focuses on 23 modal adjectives and nouns, specifically examining a type of hedge that includes phrases and words These hedges are utilized to fulfill the researcher’s requirements for data analysis.
Hyland (2004) proposed a taxonomy of boosters consisting of four categories which is presented in the following table
Table 2 2 Hyland's (2004) taxonomy of boosters
No Categories of boosters Examples
1 Tentative verbs and modals Should
2 Tentative adjectives and adverbs Certainly, definitely
3 Solidarity features It is a fact that, due to the fact that,
4 Self – mention reference Writer, researcher
Boosters are crucial for conveying speakers' intentions with confidence and conviction According to Hyland (2005), employing boosters enables writers to narrow down options and demonstrate a strong sense of certainty.
Table 2 3 Hinkel's (2005) category of boosters
Universal and negative pronouns All, each, every pronominal, etc
Emphatics Exact(-ly), extreme, for sure, etc
Amplifiers Absolutely, amazingly, Awfully, badly, etc
Eli Hinkel (2005) proposed a classification of hedges and boosters, highlighting three main types of boosters: universal pronouns, emphatics, and amplifiers (Bayyurt, 2010, p.167) This classification provides a framework for understanding the functions of boosters in language use.
According to Yagiz and Demir’s (2015), boosters can be categorized in to four types The following table is Yagiz and Demir’s (2015) categories of boosters
Table 2 4 Yagiz and Demir’s (2015) category of boosters
No Categories of boosters Examples
2 Epistemic lexical verbs Demonstrate, show, find
3 Epistemic adjectives Rigorous, undeniable, superior
4 Epistemic adverbs Actually, always, clearly
Demir (2016) adapted the taxonomy of boosters from Bayyurt (2010), categorizing them into modals, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and nouns Additionally, Demir included quantifiers and determiners in his classification The following table illustrates the taxonomy utilized in Demir's research.
Table 2 5 Demir's (2016) taxonomy of boosters
1 Modal boosters Must, need to, will, have-has, be to + infinitive
2 Verbal boosters Ascertain, assure, convince, prouve, etc
3 Adjectival boosters Absolute, adorable, alluring, apparent, etc
4 Adverbial boosters Accurately, assertively, categorically, etc
5 Quantifiers/determiners Many, much, a great amount, etc
6 Noun boosters Certitude, eternity, plethora, proof, etc
Hedges and boosters, encompassing modal verbs, lexical verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and nouns, serve various functions within the context of linguistic research A deeper exploration of hedges reveals their significant role in shaping meaning and nuance in communication.
25 and boosters in their functions will be explored more in details in R&D section in this study
Boosters, the same as hedges and in terms of grammatical categories, were manifested in these categories: modal verb, verb, adverb, adjective, and noun
Hedges and boosters in academic writings
Hedges and boosters are essential communicative strategies in academic writing that help modulate the strength of statements (Hyland, 1998, p.349) These linguistic tools, which include various forms such as epistemic modal verbs and their related adverbs, adjectives, or nouns, serve to either convey uncertainty or assert certainty, thereby influencing the relationship between writers and their audience Takimoto (2015) notes that these elements reflect the writers’ personal attitudes toward their claims, positioning hedges and boosters within the semantics of modality (p.99) Typically expressed through modal auxiliaries, hedges and boosters play a crucial role in articulating nuanced positions in research articles.
(1) Interruption while talking and busy hour can create either good or bad environment (AF24)
According to Hyland (1995), hedging function can be inferred that
Hedges enable writers to articulate their ideas more precisely in contexts that often involve reinterpretation By using hedges, writers can foresee potential negative outcomes that may arise from their statements, allowing them to safeguard their reputation and minimize personal accountability for their claims Additionally, hedges foster a collaborative relationship between writers and readers, encouraging readers to validate the assertions made.
Having mentioned the use of epistemic devices in academic writing as well as research articles, Hyland (1998) pointed out that “second language students find hedging their propositions notoriously problematic” (p.8)
In a study conducted by Varttala (2001), the usage and frequency of hedges in scientific texts across three distinct disciplines were examined, revealing notable differences in the application of epistemic devices between research articles and other types of scientific writing.
Vassileva (2001) examined the use of hedges and boosters in English and Bulgarian research articles, revealing significant differences in their application across the Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion sections.
Hedges and boosters, as lexical verbs, serve as epistemic devices that reflect a writer's uncertainty or confidence in their claims Hedges like "possibly," "might," "clear," or "seem" indicate a softened stance on the writer's commitment, while boosters are employed to assert the writer's confidence and persuade readers of the validity of their propositions.
28 as a strategy to restrict the negotiating space available to readers (Takimoto,
Boosters serve to convey evidential or implicit truths, accepted truths, and solidarity (Peacock, 2006) Lexical verbs like "show," "find," and "demonstrate" effectively express truth (Skelton, 1997) Supporting this perspective, Salager-Meyer (1994) emphasized that such verbs reinforce commitment to a proposition.
Hinkel (2005) identified three types of boosters: universal pronouns, emphatic forms, and amplifiers, which differ from classifications by other researchers Hyland (1998a) noted that modal verbs like "must" and "will" indicate accepted truths, whereas Hinkel emphasized that epistemic adverbs such as "clearly" and "certainly" convey the writer's emphatic force and certainty in their message.
Hedges and boosters are crucial in academic writing as they reflect the writer's confidence and uncertainty, aiding in persuading readers of the validity of their claims and fostering acceptance within their disciplines (Takimoto, 2015) These rhetorical devices enhance the power of persuasion (Demir, 2016), and effective use of hedges and boosters enables writers to achieve their objectives in a purposeful and objective manner.
Numerous studies across various disciplines have investigated effective strategies for utilizing epistemic devices, particularly hedges and boosters, highlighting the differences in their usage between native and non-native writers Research indicates that native writers tend to employ these epistemic devices more frequently than their non-native counterparts, as evidenced by findings from Skelton (1997), Hyland (1998), and Varttala (2001) This discrepancy underscores the challenges faced by non-native writers in academic writing.
In a study by Nasiri (2012), the frequency of hedges in Civil Engineering research articles was analyzed, comparing American and Iranian authors using Salager-Meyer’s (1994) taxonomy Focusing on the Introduction and Discussion chapters, the findings highlighted the significance of hedges as essential academic elements, enabling writers to express caution in their statements and claims, thereby maintaining their academic integrity within the discourse community (Haufiku, 2015, p.25).
Boosters play a significant role in academic writing across various disciplines, particularly in research articles Despite their importance, writers tend to focus more on hedges than on boosters when crafting these articles.
In her 2010 study, it was found that both English and Turkish university students predominantly used hedge devices over booster devices when making claims and arguments.
Research on the use of epistemic devices in academic articles reveals that most studies focus exclusively on either hedges or boosters, with only a few providing detailed analysis of boosters Notable research on hedges includes works by Hyland (1998a), Crismore and Van de Kopple (1998), and Varttala.
(2001) Some of studies mentioned both hedges and boosters such as Holmes
In a study by Nguyen (2018), a comparative analysis was performed on five articles from the English Language Teaching Journal and five from the Reading in a Foreign Language Journal The research focused on the distribution of hedging forms and functions within the Introductions, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion sections of these journals Notably, the study exclusively examined hedges and did not address the use of boosters.
Numerous studies have examined the use and frequency of hedges and boosters, highlighting their similarities and differences However, limited research has delved into the specific types of hedges and boosters linked to modality, particularly in relation to the distinct characteristics of various disciplines (Takimoto, 2014) This study aims to investigate the usage and frequency of these linguistic elements across different fields.
30 similarities and the differences both in categories of hedges and boosters between research articles written by VWs and FWs.
Review of previous studies
Due to the vast number of research articles on academic language (AL), the concepts of hedges and boosters have been explored from various perspectives in numerous studies, including those by Lakoff (1973), Holmes (1984, 1988), and Hyland (1996, 1998).
1999, 2000; Varttala, 2001; Hinkel, 2005; Peacock, 2006; Farrokhi and Emami,
2008; Hu & Cao, 2011; Jalilifar, 2011; Bonyadi, Gholami & Nasiri, 2012;
Hyland and Milton (1997) conducted a comparative study on the use of hedges (expressions of doubt) and boosters (expressions of certainty) in English writing exams, involving 900 Cantonese high school graduates and 770 British learners of the same age and educational background Their analysis of over one million words revealed that non-native writers tended to use more hedges, particularly in the form of modal verbs and adverbs, indicating challenges in conveying precise levels of certainty.
Abdi (2002) investigated the usage of hedges and boosters in a corpus of 55 research articles, comprising 25 from social sciences and 30 from natural sciences The study revealed a higher frequency of hedges in social science articles, while the use of boosters was similar across both fields This difference can be attributed to Abdi's assertion that natural science writers focus on empirical and objectively observable phenomena, which reduces uncertainty in their writing (p 142).
Peacock (2006) carried out a study to find out the frequency of boosters used in research articles by collecting data from six disciplines The corpus of
A study analyzing 216 articles across various fields, including business, law, physics, language and linguistics, public and social administration, and environmental science, revealed distinct differences in the use of boosters among disciplines.
31 boosters had played an important role in expressing a high degree of confidence that writers wanted to persuade the readers of truthful propositions or claim
In their 2008 study, Farrokhi and Emami examined the similarities and differences in the use of hedges and boosters between native and non-native research articles in Applied Linguistics (AL) and Electrical Engineering Analyzing a corpus of 10 research articles from each discipline, they found that AL articles utilized hedges and boosters more frequently than those in Electrical Engineering, highlighting a distinct variation in rhetorical strategies across these fields.
In Jalilifar's (2011) study, "World of Attitudes in Research Article Discussion Sections: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective," significant findings highlighted the vital role and notable differences in the use of hedges regarding their frequency, types, and functions (Tran & Duong, 2013) The researcher emphasized that Persian researchers often lack awareness of conventional academic English rules, as well as explicit instruction and exposure to the pragmatic and sociolinguistic aspects of the English language (Tran & Duong, ibid.).
In a study by Abdollahzadeh (2011), the use of hedges and boosters in research articles written in English as a foreign language by Iranian and Anglo-American authors was compared The research analyzed 60 conclusion chapters from academic articles in applied linguistics The findings revealed that both Iranian and Anglo-American writers employed an equal number of hedges; however, Anglo-American authors utilized a greater frequency of boosters than their Iranian counterparts.
Bonyadi et al (2012) conducted a study to compare the use of hedges in the discussion sections of Environmental Sciences Research Articles written in English by native English speakers and in Farsi by Iranian authors The results revealed significant differences, indicating that English articles featured a higher frequency of hedges compared to their Farsi counterparts This disparity can be attributed to cultural differences and varying attitudes towards the use of hedges in academic writing.
Behnam, Naeimi and Darvishzade (2012) conducted a research to examine the frequency, the functions of hedges in grammatical and lexical
In a study analyzing 100 qualitative and quantitative research articles, 32 categories were identified in the discussion section Utilizing Hyland’s (1996) taxonomy of hedges, the findings revealed a notable distinction in the use of hedges between qualitative and quantitative articles, highlighting differences in both frequency and form.
In a study conducted by Takimoto (2015), the frequencies and functions of hedges and boosters were analyzed across eight academic disciplines, revealing that hedges significantly outnumbered boosters Notably, the research indicated that the use of hedges related to tentative cognition was most prevalent in the humanities and social sciences, while it was least common in the natural sciences.
In a study by Yagiz and Demir (2015), researchers examined the use of boosters in approximately 60 articles authored by Anglophonic, Japanese, and Turkish writers The findings revealed that Anglophonic authors utilized boosters more frequently than their Japanese and Turkish counterparts, with Turkish authors showing a higher use of both tentative and assertive boosters The researchers attributed these variations to cross-cultural influences.
While many studies on epistemic modality have concentrated on the frequency, usage, and structure of hedges, there has been limited exploration of boosters in this field.
Numerous studies have shown that the use of hedges and boosters in research articles varies across languages and disciplines Consequently, this study focuses on the results and discussion section in Applied Linguistics (AL), as it is crucial for authors to effectively interpret and present their findings, as well as to outline the research process.
Hedges and boosters play a crucial role in academic writing, particularly in research articles, as they enhance the effectiveness of arguments By incorporating these linguistic devices, writers convey uncertainty or confidence, which allows readers to grasp the nuances of academic discourse and understand the strength of the claims being made.
Writers can enhance their academic writing by effectively articulating their claims and arguments in research articles, as demonstrated in studies by Hyland (1998) and Tran and Duong (2013) This approach not only showcases a higher level of sophistication in writing but also minimizes the risk of negation, ultimately leading to more intellectually valuable contributions to the field.
Conceptual framework of the study
A conceptual framework serves as a structured guide for researchers to elucidate the natural progression of the phenomenon being studied (Camp, 2001) It offers an integrated perspective on the problem at hand (Liehr & Smith, 1999) and outlines the relationships among various elements involved in the study.
Hedges & Boosters in R&D section of
This study focuses on English AL research articles authored by both Vietnamese and international writers, emphasizing the key concepts of the research Given these considerations, it is crucial to establish a conceptual framework to guide the current study The proposed conceptual framework for this research is outlined as follows.
Figure 2 3 Conceptual framework of the current research
Previous studies have primarily concentrated on hedges, examining their grammatical categories and functions However, researchers have presented varying perspectives on the forms and roles of hedges in their analyses For instance, Hyland offers insights that highlight these differing viewpoints.
Hyland’s (1996a, 1998a) taxonomy of hedges and
- Refer to general authorship/ audience
- Emphasize the force or writers’ certainty
- Increase the size or effect of statements
Hyland’s (1996a, 1998a) taxonomy of hedges and Hinkel’s (2005) taxonomy of boosters
Similarities & Differences in types, frequencies and functions of hedges and boosters
In the analysis of language functions, "always" is viewed as a hedge by 1988a, while Peacock (2006) and Holmes (1988) categorize it as a booster Holmes (1988) explores negative modal verbs, identifying them as boosters, but this aspect is largely overlooked in the works of Salager-Meyer (1994, 1997), Skelton (1994), Hyland (1996a, 1998a), and Varttala (2001) Although Peacock (2006) provides a clear definition of booster functions, it lacks strong connections between theoretical concepts and practical applications, indicating that his taxonomy of boosters is not well-defined.
In 1988, a classification of hedges and boosters was introduced, highlighting grammatical distinctions; however, the classification of boosting functions was found to be insufficient Hyland's (2004) categorization of boosting markers differs from Hinkle's (2005), indicating variations in the types of boosters identified To address the research objectives of examining the frequencies, functions, similarities, and differences between hedges and boosters, the integration of various taxonomies from previous studies may effectively support the current research needs.
Summary
Hedge devices are employed in academic writing to soften claims and propositions, while booster devices serve to strengthen them These linguistic tools help minimize the risk of negation, convey politeness, enhance the force of statements, emphasize certainty, and acknowledge truth This research aims to explore the use, functions, similarities, and differences of hedges and boosters in research articles The following chapter will focus on the study's methodology to uncover results and provide a detailed analysis and discussion of the findings.
Introduction
Dornyei (2007) noted that qualitative data, while not initially intended for objective measurement, can be categorized and quantified through analysis The current study aims to explore the functions, similarities, and differences between hedges and boosters, employing a mixed-method approach to identify key categories and interpret findings This chapter will detail the materials, data collection, and analysis procedures, outlining the framework analysis based on prior discussions Additionally, the study will address its validity and reliability.
Research design
This study conducts a qualitative and quantitative textual analysis of AL research articles authored by VWs and FWs While the primary focus is on qualitative methods throughout the research, the analysis also incorporates quantitative elements, reflecting the diverse nature of the corpora examined.
The study analyzed 60 research articles, indicating a substantial sample size suitable for employing quantitative methods To meet the researcher’s objectives, a mixed methods approach was utilized, combining both qualitative and quantitative techniques As noted by Creswell (2009), this approach leverages the strengths of both methodologies to effectively address the complexities of social phenomena that cannot be fully understood through either method alone (Haufiku, 2016) Additionally, Fred (2005) emphasized that quantitative research is characterized by the use of numerical data representation, while qualitative research focuses on understanding the underlying meanings and experiences.
The research utilized verbal descriptions as its primary data source, as noted on page 75 Additionally, a contrastive method was applied at various stages to analyze the usage, frequency, functions, similarities, and differences between hedges and boosters This approach facilitated a comparison of the study's findings with those of previous researchers, providing logical and appropriate justification for the chosen methodologies throughout the research.
Materials
This research analyzes 60 articles published in the field of Applied Linguistics (AL) from 2012 to the present, comprising 30 written by native English speakers (FWs) and 30 by non-native speakers (VWs) The selected studies are sourced from reputable journals specializing in AL and linguistics, including Applied Linguistics, ELSEVIER, and the International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, among others.
Social Sciences & Humanities, The Asian ESP Journal, The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, The Australian Association for Research in Education, VNU Journal of Foreign Studies (see Appendix F)
The research aims to investigate the use, functions, similarities, and differences of hedges and boosters in the R&D sections of 60 articles authored by VWs and FWs All selected articles are pertinent to applied linguistics and are written in English.
Table 3 1 Source of corpora in the current research
1 Research articles written by FWs 30
2 Research articles written by VWs 30
Table 3.2 Size of corpus used in the present research
No Corpus Total words in research articles
Data collection procedures
The data analyzed in this study was specifically gathered from the R&D sections of AL research articles authored by both foreign and Vietnamese writers This focus on the R&D section is significant, as Basturkmen (2012) noted that writers employ a greater use of hedges and boosters to demonstrate how their findings contribute to existing disciplinary knowledge Additionally, research indicates that hedges are predominantly utilized in the R&D section compared to other parts of AL research articles, as this section is crucial for authors to present their findings and claims effectively (Salager-Meyer, 1994).
This Master of Arts thesis emphasizes the importance of selecting relevant and purposefully chosen materials for study To fulfill these criteria, the research and development sections of AL research articles were meticulously selected based on specific guidelines.
The R&D section of each articles could have the length between 800 words and 4500 words However, some R&D sections with more than 4500 words could be accepted as exceptions
All R&D sections had to be extracted from AL research articles or related to linguistics
This study focused on the criteria related to hedges and boosters, leading to the exclusion of certain homonyms during the selection process For instance, the word "can" serves as a hedge but also refers to a container for liquids Similarly, in the context of boosters, the term "will" was analyzed for its specific function.
The writer will soon present the results and engage in discussions regarding the claims with the audience This phrase indicates a future action, highlighting the writer's intent to share findings and negotiate effectively with readers.
The corpus in this study consists of 119 845 words in total This does include all R&D sections and exclude tables, figures and examples.
Data analysis procedures
This study aims to identify the use of hedges and boosters in research and development (R&D) within artificial intelligence (AI) research articles To achieve this, a comprehensive list of hedge and booster terms was compiled and adapted from previous works by Quick et al (1985), Holmes (1988), and Hyland and Milton (1997).
Hyland (1996a, 1998a), Varttala (2001), and Hinkel (2005) conducted studies that utilized a concordance tool to identify occurrences of hedges and boosters in a Key Word In Context (KWIC) format The analysis was performed using AntConc version 3.5.8, which required the R&D sections to be converted into a “*txt” format for compatibility Subsequently, the data was organized into the “Corpus Files” column to facilitate the search, classification of hedges and boosters, and selection of samples for the corpus.
The researcher analyzed the occurrences of hedges and boosters in the R&D sections of AL research articles using AntConc software (version 3.5.8) The frequency of these linguistic elements was calculated per 1,000 words to determine their distribution Subsequently, the researcher converted the frequency data into percentage format, facilitating a clearer comparison of hedges and boosters within the corpus The frequency counts directly correlated with the percentage representation of hedges and boosters relative to the total word count in the R&D sections.
The frequency (F) of occurrence of hedges and boosters in research articles per 1000 words were calculated by the following formula:
(the number of words of the whole text)
For example, if there were 40 hedges in a R&D section with 1600 words, the frequency of occurrence of the hedges was equal to 25 (hedge tokens)
The frequency of hedges and boosters in percentage form in research articles were calculated by the following formula:
(the number of hedges or boosters in R&D section of research articles) ×100 %
(the number of words of the whole R&D section)
For example, if there are 20 hedges in a R&D section with 2500 words, the frequency of the hedge was equal to 0.08 or 8%
The frequency (F) per 1000 words used in each section was used with note(s) below the figures
The frequencies (F) in types were the occurrences (times)
The study analyzed the functions of hedges and boosters in research articles, utilizing Hyland’s (1996a, 1998a) taxonomy for hedges and Hinkel’s (2005) for boosters This analysis revealed the roles of hedges and boosters in the R&D sections of academic literature Hedges were categorized into attributes, reliability, writer-oriented, and reader-oriented types, with specific linguistic devices identified for each Attribute hedges included precise adverbs and approximators like "about" and "approximately," while reliability hedges utilized modal verbs and epistemic adverbs such as "may" and "possible." Writer-oriented hedges featured epistemic lexical verbs and passive constructions, whereas reader-oriented hedges were characterized by the use of personal pronouns.
42 if clauses such as we infer that, I believe, etc Devices to identify functions of boosters are list of boosters in Table 3.4 based on Hinkel’s (2005) taxonomy of boosters in functions
The researcher analyzed the similarities and differences in the use of hedges and boosters by VWs and FWs, employing a systematic approach that involved counting and comparing various variables To enhance clarity and provide a detailed overview, tables, figures, and bar graphs were utilized, allowing for precise insights to be conveyed to readers.
The procedure of analyzing data was appropriate steps based on the research questions so that the readers could understand clearly and profoundly
Research question 1: How are hedges and boosters used in R&D sections in English AL research articles written by VWs and FWs?
The frequencies of hedges and boosters in R&Ds were counted and collected to compare the use of them between the corpus of VWs and FWs
The study analyzed the roles of hedges and boosters by employing a taxonomy based on their grammatical categories This involved counting the overall frequency of hedges and boosters and categorizing them into groups such as modal verbs, lexical verbs, adverbs, amplifiers, and emphatics for ranking purposes.
Research question 2: What are the functions of hedges and boosters used in R&D sections in English AL research articles written by VWs and FWs?
In this study, we identified and examined hedge and booster words to understand their lexical and grammatical functions The findings will be discussed in detail to analyze their implications and significance.
Research question 3: What are the similarities and differences in function of hedges and boosters in R&D sections in English AL research articles written by VWs and FWs?
This article examines the usage and functions of hedges and boosters within a specific corpus, comparing the analyzed data to identify their similarities and differences The findings reveal distinct patterns in how hedges and boosters are employed, highlighting their unique roles in communication.
Framework for data analysis
This research aims to achieve three primary objectives: first, to analyze the frequency of hedges and boosters in the R&D sections of AL research articles authored by VW and FW; second, to investigate the specific functions of these linguistic devices.
(3) to identify the similarities and the differences between hedges and boosters
This study analyzes data from 60 research articles to examine the use of hedges and boosters, utilizing Hyland’s (1996a, 1998a) taxonomy for hedges and Hinkel’s (2005) taxonomy for boosters By employing a specific list of hedge and booster words, the frequency and functions of these linguistic devices are evaluated Additionally, Peacock’s (2006) theories on the functions of boosters further support the analysis, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of their role in academic writing.
Table 3 3 Category of hedges (compiled and adapted) in the current research
No Category of hedges Types of hedges
Can, could, may, might, should, would
Appear, argue, believe, indicate, know, suggest, seem, tend, think, predict
3 Adverbs About, always, approximately, around, often, definitely, generally, possibly, perhaps, probably, quite
4 Adjectives Apparent, clear, frequent, general, likely, main, most, potential, probable, relative,
5 Nouns Claim, idea, doubt, certain, suggestion
6 Other According to, base on, demonstrate that, to our knowledge, one of, however
In this research, Hyland’s (1996a, 1998a) taxonomy in function is used as the main framework with four categories (1) Attributes hedges, (2) Reliability hedges, (3) Writer -oriented hedges and (4) Reader-oriented hedges
Boosters, as defined by Holmes (1988), are epistemic modality devices used in academic writing to emphasize a writer's strong claims, persuade readers of the information's validity, and demonstrate confidence in those claims Building on this concept, Hinkel (2005) developed a taxonomy of boosters that categorizes them into grammatical forms and lexical functions, excluding verbs and focusing instead on indefinite pronouns, adjectives, and adverbs This taxonomy serves as the primary framework for analyzing boosters in this research due to its specific focus on non-verbal devices.
Table 3 4 Hinkel (2005) taxonomy of boosters in functions for the current research
Categories Functions of Boosters List of boosters
Refer to a general authorship/ audience
All, each, every, none, everybody, everything, no one, nothing Emphatics
Emphasize force or writes’ certainty in message
Extreme, sure, clearly, real, total, certainly, exact, a lot (of)
Increase the size or effect of statements
Absolutely, badly, completely, entirely, much, totally, never
Validity and Reliability
The validity of a study refers to the accuracy and truthfulness of its measurements According to Seale (2004), there are seven potential threats to validity: history, maturation, instability, regression, testing, instrumentation, selection, and experimental mortality Although the current study was conducted within a limited timeframe, it was not affected by the threats of history or maturation.
The study utilized documents from reputable sources, including Applied Linguistics, English Language Teaching, ELSEVIER, and ResearchGate The experimental modality had minimal impact on the findings, as the research primarily employed qualitative methods.
To validate the analysis in the research, a method checking the reliability
The study tested inter-rater and intra-rater reliability by involving two raters: the researcher and a Ph.D with over six years of university experience Both raters independently evaluated lists of hedges and boosters, categorized by type, to eliminate bias in their assessments Reliability was measured using Cohen’s kappa method, which is essential for determining the consistency of qualitative data A kappa coefficient of 0.85 was deemed necessary for the study, while the second analysis yielded a kappa of 0.90, indicating a high level of agreement and confirming the precision of the data collection process.
Seale (2004) defines reliability as the consistency of research procedures in producing results This study employed a mixed methodology, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative approaches Data analysis primarily utilized Hyland’s (1998a) taxonomies for hedges and Hinkel’s (2005) taxonomy for boosters, with minor adaptations for the current research.
Summary
This chapter provides a detailed description of the corpora collected from 60 applied linguistics research articles, followed by an outline of the data collection and analysis procedures It employs a conceptual framework to examine the use, functions, similarities, and differences of hedges and boosters within the research Additionally, the chapter discusses the validity and reliability of the study, utilizing a mixed-method approach that combines both quantitative and qualitative research techniques.
In addition, the comparative and contrastive statistical analyses applied for the research with the data analysis will be shown in the next chapter