The Metadiscourse Analysis in Abstracts of Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal Articles: Hedges vs Boosters

D. Herminingsih, Latifatul Isro'iyah
{"title":"The Metadiscourse Analysis in Abstracts of Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal Articles: Hedges vs Boosters","authors":"D. Herminingsih, Latifatul Isro'iyah","doi":"10.30560/ilr.v6n1p24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In academic writing, authors must separate opinion from facts and assess their arguments suitably and convincingly, the expressing of uncertainty and certainty is critical. This research investigates the usage of hedges and boosters in research articles from three disciplines: engineering, social science, and midwifery. This study carries three issues: what are the language forms of hedges and boosters in abstracts of journal articles of multi-disciplinary science at Tulungagung University, how often hedges and boosters are used and how their meaning reflects the writer's level of assurance in the information given. The research design used in this study is descriptive-qualitative. The data taken were from in the past five years (from 2017 to 2022) as its primary sources of data. The researcher used random sampling and took ten articles of each science. There were thirty papers contributed by the lecturers who submitted their journal articles to the Tulungagung University repository (https://repository.unita.ac.id/). This study concluded that abstracts of journal articles in midwifery science were the highest among the other sciences. The second most used of hedges was also found in engineering sciences and the lowest usage was from social science. This finding is not relevant to (Vázquez Orta & Giner, 2008) conclusion that Hedging is more common in disciplines driven by socially manufactured, abstract data and less often in fields driven by real data. The findings of this study generally validated Salager- Meyer's assertion that it is crucial and extremely important to be able to navigate scientific language. In contrary, the highest booster frequencies were found in social science, and then the second was in midwifery science. The lowest was in engineering science. It appears that the boosters are being used to convey a high level of confidence in the conclusions that can be drawn from the outcomes of the study that was carried out. In other instances, the boosters appear to serve as rhetorical devices that are designed to express the author's view as if it were self-evident or as if it were a commonly acknowledged thought or truth. In social science which the author writes more argumentatively, boosters were needed to convey their ideas or opinions much more.","PeriodicalId":261061,"journal":{"name":"International Linguistics Research","volume":"12 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Linguistics Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30560/ilr.v6n1p24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In academic writing, authors must separate opinion from facts and assess their arguments suitably and convincingly, the expressing of uncertainty and certainty is critical. This research investigates the usage of hedges and boosters in research articles from three disciplines: engineering, social science, and midwifery. This study carries three issues: what are the language forms of hedges and boosters in abstracts of journal articles of multi-disciplinary science at Tulungagung University, how often hedges and boosters are used and how their meaning reflects the writer's level of assurance in the information given. The research design used in this study is descriptive-qualitative. The data taken were from in the past five years (from 2017 to 2022) as its primary sources of data. The researcher used random sampling and took ten articles of each science. There were thirty papers contributed by the lecturers who submitted their journal articles to the Tulungagung University repository (https://repository.unita.ac.id/). This study concluded that abstracts of journal articles in midwifery science were the highest among the other sciences. The second most used of hedges was also found in engineering sciences and the lowest usage was from social science. This finding is not relevant to (Vázquez Orta & Giner, 2008) conclusion that Hedging is more common in disciplines driven by socially manufactured, abstract data and less often in fields driven by real data. The findings of this study generally validated Salager- Meyer's assertion that it is crucial and extremely important to be able to navigate scientific language. In contrary, the highest booster frequencies were found in social science, and then the second was in midwifery science. The lowest was in engineering science. It appears that the boosters are being used to convey a high level of confidence in the conclusions that can be drawn from the outcomes of the study that was carried out. In other instances, the boosters appear to serve as rhetorical devices that are designed to express the author's view as if it were self-evident or as if it were a commonly acknowledged thought or truth. In social science which the author writes more argumentatively, boosters were needed to convey their ideas or opinions much more.
多学科期刊论文摘要的元语篇分析:限制语与促进语
在学术写作中,作者必须将观点与事实分开,并适当而令人信服地评估他们的论点,表达不确定性和确定性是至关重要的。本研究调查了三个学科的研究文章中模糊限制语和助推器的使用情况:工程学、社会科学和助产学。本研究涉及三个问题:在图伦加贡大学多学科期刊论文摘要中模糊限制语和增强语的语言形式是什么?模糊限制语和增强语的使用频率是多少?它们的含义如何反映作者对所提供信息的确信程度。本研究采用描述定性的研究设计。数据采自过去五年(2017年至2022年)作为其主要数据来源。研究人员采用随机抽样的方法,每门学科抽取10篇文章。这些讲师将论文提交给了图龙宫大学信息库(https://repository.unita.ac.id/),共发表了30篇论文。这项研究的结论是,在其他科学中,助产科学的期刊文章摘要是最高的。第二多使用模糊限制语的领域也出现在工程科学领域,使用模糊限制语最少的领域是社会科学领域。这一发现与(Vázquez Orta & Giner, 2008)的结论无关,即对冲在由社会制造的抽象数据驱动的学科中更为常见,而在由真实数据驱动的领域中则不太常见。这项研究的发现基本上证实了Salager- Meyer的断言,即能够驾驭科学语言是至关重要的。相反,在社会科学中发现了最高的促进频率,其次是助产科学。最低的是工程科学。看来,助推器正在被用来传达对从所进行的研究结果中得出的结论的高度信心。在其他情况下,助推器似乎是一种修辞手段,旨在表达作者的观点,好像它是不言而喻的,或者好像它是一个公认的思想或真理。在社会科学中,作者的写作更具论证性,因此需要更多的助推器来传达他们的想法或观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信