Boosters and Hedges as Subjectivity Markers in Research Article Conclusions


  • Larysa Kyrychuk

Ключові слова:

research article, subjectivity marker, interactional device, booster, hedge,


The present paper is devoted to the study of subjectivity devices, namely, boosters and hedges, in the Conclusion section of research articles. The aim of the study is to indicate the amount of these elements in the Conclusions and to reveal their pragmatic meaning. The boosters and hedges are viewed as pragmatic persuasive devices which contribute to the effective negotiation of knowledge and encouraging the audienceʼs involvement. The quantitative analysis demonstrates that the employment of these devices is quite balanced across the research articles. The results of the discourse analysis indicate that the key pragmatic function of boosters and hedges is to build the writer-reader relationship by modifying the illocutionary force of the assertions. The research also proves that the interactional pragmatic devices can be fully understood only in the connection with the institutional context. The findings of the analysis made it possible to verify the claims about the tendency of balancing the strategies of enhancing and softening the statements and the one of a steady drop in the occurrences of boosters in academic articles. 


Coates J. Epistemic Modality and Spoken Discourse / J. Coates // Translations of the Philological Society. – 1987. – P. 110–131.

Crismore A. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finish students / A. Crismore, R. Markkanen and M. Steffensen // Written Communication. – 10. – 1993. – P. 39–71.

Denzin N. K. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research / N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln. – Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications, 2005. – 1210 p.

Gillaerts P. Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Articles Abstracts / P. Gillaerts, F. Van de Velde. – Lessius University College, Sint-Andriess, Antwerp, Belgium, 2010.

Hinkel L. Hedging, Inflating, and Persuading in L2 Academic Writing / L. Hinkel // Applied Learning. – Vol. 15, No 1, 2. – 2005. – P. 29–53.

Holmes J. Expressing Doubt and Certainty in English / J. Holmes // RELC Journal. – No 3. – 1982. – P. 9–28.

Hyland K. Writing with conviction? Hedging in science research articles / K. Hyland // Applied Linguistics. – 17 (4). – 1996. – P. 433–454.

Hyland K. Exploring corporative rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEOʼs setter / K. Hyland // The Journal of Business Communication. – 35. – 1998. – P. 224–245.

Hyland K. Hedges, Boosters and Lexical Invisibility: Noticing Modifies in Academic Texts / K. Hyland // Language Awareness – 9 (4). – 2000. – P. 179–197.

Hyland K. Metadiscourse in Academic Writing. Applied Linguistics 25/2 / K. Hyland, Tse Polly. – Oxford : University Press, 2004. – P. 156–177.

Hyland K. Metadiscourse. Exploring Interaction in Writing / K. Hyland. – Blumsbury Publishing, 2005. – 240 p.

Legeyda A. V. Hedging-Ariadneʼs Thread? Objectivity through Subjectivity in Academic Discourse / A. V. Legeyda // Вісник ХНУ. – № 973. – 2011. – P. 46–50.

Miao- Hsia Chang. Subjectivity and Objectivity in Academic Discourse. How Attribution Hedges Indicate Authorial Stance / Miao- Hsia Chang, Yu-Wen Luo, Yueh-Kuei Hsu. – Concentric : Studies in Linguistics, 2012. – No 38.2. – P. 293–329.

Salager-Meyer F. Hedges and textual communicative Function in Medical English Written Discourse / F. SalagerMeyer // English for specific purposes. – No 13 (2). – 1994. – P. 147–171.

Sayah L. Exploring Stance and Engagement Features in Discourse Analysis Papers / L. Sayah, M. R. Heshemi // In Theory and Practice in Language studies. – 2014. – Vol. 4, No 3. – P. 593–661.

Skelton J. Comments in academic articles / J. Skelton // In: Grunwell P. (ed) Applied Linguistics in Society. – London : CILT/ BAAL, 1988.

Vassileva I. Commitment and Detachment in English and Bulgarian Academic Writing / I. Vassileva // English for Specific Purpose. – 2001. – No 20. – P. 83–102.

Vazquez I. The Use of Boosters in Modeling Persuasion in Academic Discourses / I. Vazquez, D. Giner // Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses. – University of Zaragosa, 2009. – No 22. – P. 219–237.






Дискурсознавство. Текстологія. Літературознавство