English modals as hedges and boosters in academic and journalistic articles
List of Authors
  • Siti Afifah Hashim

Keyword
  • Modals; Hedges; Boosters; Academic; Journalistic

Abstract
  • There has been much focus given on hedges and boosters in academic papers. Hedges and boosters are linguistic devices comprising both grammatical and lexical features and are used to establish direct engagement with the readers. Many studies have come to the conclusion that hedges are used in academic papers to avoid overstatement of claims, a strategy that provides some room for the readers to disagree with the claim made by the writers. Boosters, on the other hand, are linguistic devices used to make the writers’ deliberations sound more assertive, again though in a contrastive vein, a strategy to make readers understand that the claim made is true. This study, using Huffman’s Probability model & Hyland’s Interactional model of Metadiscourse, seeks to examine the use/function of modals as hedges and boosters. Additionally, the study examines the distribution of these hedges and boosters in two different genres; academic and journalistic. Inferential statistics is used to determine if significant differences exist between the two genres in authors' use of modals as hedges and boosters. For the purpose of the analysis, thirty academic articles from TESOL Quarterly and thirty journalistic articles from The Economist were examined. The findings showed boosters are more common in journalistic articles; hedging, on the other, is more prominently used in academic articles.

Reference
  • 1. Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145. 2. Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Vol.4). Cambridge University Press. 3. Bybee, J. (1995). The semantic development of past tense modals in English.Modality in grammar and discourse, 503-517. 4. Fu, X., & Hyland, K. (2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction, 7(1), 122-144. 5. Garcia, F.G. (2000). Modulating Grammar through Modality: a discourse approach. Elia Estudios de linguistica inglesa aplicada, (1), 119-134. 6. Ghazzoul, N. (2019). Linguistic and pragmatic failure of Arab learners in direct polite requests and invitations: A cross-cultural study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(2), 223-230. 7. Govindasamy, S. (2002). The Use of English Epistemic Modality Among ESL Learners. Jurnal Bahasa Moden. Universiti Malaya. Keluaran 14, September 2002. 8. Hacquard, V., & Wellwood, A. (2012). Embedding epistemic modals in English: A corpus-based study. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(4), 1-29. 9. Hashemi, M.R., & Shirazdi, D. (2016). The Use of Hedging in Discussion Sections of Applied Linguistics Research Articles with Varied Research Methods. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35 (1), 31-56. 10. He, M., & Rahim, H. A. (2019). Comparing Engagement Markers in Economics Research Articles and Opinion Pieces: A Corpus-based Study. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 19(2). 11. Huffman, A. (1989.) The System of Probability: A brief overview and preliminary statement of its application to the teaching of English. Unpublished Manuscript. New York: Columbia University. 12. Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18, 349–382. 13. Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197. 14. Hyland, K. (2001). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143. 15. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum. 16. Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(04), 543-562. 17. Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing Proximity : Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116-127. 18. Hyland, K. (2015). Genre, discipline and identity. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 32-43. 19. Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458-508 20. Lewis, M. (2002a). The English Verb – An Exploration of Structure and Meaning. Boston : Heinle. 21. Lewis, M. (2002b). The Lexical Approach – The State of ELT and a Way Forward.Boston : Heinle. 22. Lock, G. (1996). Functional English Grammar – An Introduction for Second Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University. 23. Loi, C. K., & Lim, J. M. H. (2019). Hedging in the Discussion Sections of English and Malay Educational Research Articles. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 19(1). 24. Mei, H. C., & Shuib, M. (2014). An analysis of hedging devices in complaint business letters. Journal of Language Studies, 14(3), 123-142. 25. Noorian, M., & Biria, R. (2010). Interpersonal metadiscourse in persuasive journalism: A study of texts by American and Iranian EFL columnists. Journal of Modern Languages, 20(1), 64-79. 26. Palmer, F.R. (2007). Mood and Modality. Beijing: World Book Publishing Company. 27. Salkie, R. (2010). Will: tense or modal or both? English Language and Linguistics, 14(02), 187-215. 28. Stern, N. (2016). Word order as a signal of meaning: English reflexive pronouns and why we behave ourselves. In Leanne Rolston (Ed.), University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics (pp. 111-119). https://depts.washington.edu/uwwpl/editions/vol34.html 29. Takimoto, M. (2015). A corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5 (1), 95 – 105. 30. Vazquez Orta, I. & Giner, D. (2009.) Writing with conviction: The use of boosters in modelling persuasion in academic discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Inglesses 22, 219-237. 31. Wang, S. P., & Tatiana, K. (2016). Corpus research on hedges in linguistics and EFL journal papers. International Journal of Education, 9(1), 45-52. 32. Ward, G., Birner, B.J. & Kaplan, J.P. (2003). A Pragmatic analysis of the epistemic would construction in English. In Palmer, F., Krug, M. & Facchinetti, R. (eds.) Modality in Contemporary English. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 33. Whitty, L. (2019). An Investigation of Learners’ Use of CAN and COULD in an English Language Classroom. Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2 (1), 32 – 46. 34. Yagız, O., & Demir, C. (2015). Hedging strategies in academic discourse: A comparative analysis of Turkish writers and native writers of English. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 260-268.