A Comparative Study of Boosters in the Discussion Section of Medical and Applied Linguistics Articles

Islam NamazianDost

Abstract


This study tried to investigate the role of interpersonal meta-discourse markers such as boosters. In order to illuminate this relation, 15 medical and 15 applied linguistics articles were selected randomly from around 50 articles. Therefore, quantitative and qualitative methods were applied to answer the research questions to identify the frequency and percentage of booster employment in their discussion sections. Moreover, to determine the supposedly meaningful differences between booster applications in the corpus, the chi-square test was used. The findings showed that there was not any significant difference between applied and medical articles in using boosters in their discussion section. Moreover, it was found that boosters such as it is clear that, definitely, certainly, really, totally, always were the most frequent ones which were used in two groups of articles namely applied and medical articles. Since meta-discourse markers, i.e., boosters play crucial roles in mediating the relationship between what writers intend to argue and their discourse communities, the results of the present study have obvious importance in increasing students’ awareness of the way they organize their writings.


Keywords


Discourse Analysis, Meta-discourse Markers, Boosters

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alward, A., Mooi, C., & Bidin, S. (2012). Hedges and Boosters in the Yemeni EFL Undergraduates’ Persuasive Essay: An Empirical Study. The Internet Journal of Language, Culture and Society, 34, 1-12.

Aull, L., & Lancester, Z. (2014). Linguistic Markers of Stance in Early and Advanced Academic Writing: A Corpus-based Comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055

Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barton, E.L. & Stygall, G.(2004). Discourse Studies in Composition. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Publisher,2002.

Cmejrkova, S. (1996). Academic writing in Czech and English. In E. Ventola, & A. Mauranen, Academic writing. Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 137-152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.41.11cme

Chen, Z. (2012). Expression of Epistemic Stance in EFL Chinese University Students’ Writings. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 173-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n10p173

Dobakhti, L. (2013). Expressing Certainty in Discussion Sections of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Articles. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 57-77.

Gillaerts, P., & Velde, F. V. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004

Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 345-365.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6

Holmes, J. (1990). HEDGES AND BOOSTERS IN WOMEN’S AND MEN’S SPEECH. Language & Communication, 3, 185-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-S

Hu, G., & Cao, F. A.-a.-m. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795-2809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007

Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18, 349-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349

Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, Boosters and lexical invisibility: noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667145

Kaplan, R. (1976). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language learning, 16, 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x

Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, J., & Heng, S. (2013). Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Academic Research Article Result and Discussion Sections. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19(1), 65-74.

Kim, C. H., & Suh, H. W. (2014). Epistemic Rhetorical Stance: Hedges and Boosters in L1 and L2 Students’ English Writings. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 22(2), 61-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.17154/kjal.2014.03.30.1.61

Kobayashi, Y. (2009). Extracting characteristics of English essays written by Japanese EFL learners. Proceedings of Jinmonkon Symposium Series of Information Processing Society of Japan (pp. 261-268). Osaka: Information Processing Society.

Kondowe, W. (2014). Hedging and boosting as interactional metadiscourse in literature doctoral dissertation abstracts. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 214-221.

Nivales, M. (2011). Hedging in College Research Papers: Implications for Language Instruction. Asian EFL Journal, 35-45.

Peacock, M. (2006). A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles. Corpora, 1(1), 61-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/cor.2006.1.1.61

Salek, M. (2014). A Diagram of Interactive and Interactional Markers in Different Parts of English Research Articles. Journal of Language Sciences & Linguistics, 2(3), 55-66.

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.

Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438

Uysal, H. (2014). A Cross-cultural Study of Indirectness and Hedging in the Conference Proposals of English NS and NNS Scholars. Occupying Niches: Interculturality, Cross-culturality and Aculturality in Academic Research, 179-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02526-1_12

Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specifc Purposes, 83-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0

Vázquez, I., & Giner, D. (2009). Writing with Conviction: The Use of Boosters in Modelling Persuasion in Academic Discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 22, 219-237.

Wee, L. (2004). Extreme communicative acts’ and the boosting of illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 2161-2178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.001

Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50, 23-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008

Yazdani, S., Sharifi, S., & Elyassi, M. (2014). Interactional Metadiscourse in English and Persian News Articles about 9/11. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 428-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.2.428-434




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.7p.1

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




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

2012-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.