For citation:
Viktorova E. Y. Article Hedges vs boosters: Communicative mitigation and enhancement in the genre of dissertation review. Speech Genres, 2023, vol. 18, iss. 2 (38), pp. 126-131. DOI: 10.18500/2311-0740-2023-18-2-38-126-131, EDN: ZRZDAG
Article Hedges vs boosters: Communicative mitigation and enhancement in the genre of dissertation review
The article presents the results of the cross-disciplinary research which focuses on the two types of discourse markers – hedges and boosters and their use in Russian official dissertation reviews. The study is based on reviews of official opponents and external reviewers of PhD theses on linguistics, literary criticism, history, physics, chemistry and medicine. The reviews were borrowed from the online pages of dissertation councils of Russian universities. The qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data proved the gradual nature of hedging and boosting and showed that hedges and boosters frequency depends on the discipline and the author of the review’s gender. It is shown that in the reviews of humanities scholars hedges prevail over boosters, whereas in natural sciences hedges are more frequent. In all disciplines excepting physics men use hedges and boosters more often than women. Moreover, boosters demonstrate a greater dependence in their frequency on both the discipline and gender whereas the hedges appear more universal in their use in all the reviews under study.
- Anikin V. M., Poizner B. N. Reviewing disserations: Through the letter of the norm to the principles of objective evaluation. Izvestiya VUZ. Applied Nonlinear Dynamics, 2017, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 79–86 (in Russian).
- Dementyev V. V. Axiological genristics: Aspects of a problem “evaluation and genre”. Speech Genres, 2016, no. 2 (14), pp. 9–24 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.18500/2311-0740-2016-2-14-9-24
- Hübler A. Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 1983. 192 p.
- Hyland K. Hedges, Boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 2000, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 179–197.
- Hyland K. Prudence, Precision and Politeness: Hedges in Academic Writing. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis Lingüistics, 2005, no. 10, pp. 99–112.
- Lakoff G. Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, 1972, pр. 183–228.
- Larina T. V. Emotive ecology and emotive politeness in English and Russian blind peer-review. Journal of Psycholinguistics, 2019, no. 1 (39), pp. 38–57 (in Russian).
- Nabieva E. A. Retsenziya kak publitsisticheskii zhanr [A Review as a Journalisric Genre]. Moscow, Flinta, Nauka Publ., 2015. 160 p. (in Russian).
- Nikitina L. B., Malyshkin K. Yu. The speech genre of scientific review through a prism of assessment assertiveness. Speech Genres, 2015, no. 2 (12), pp. 72– 79 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.18500/10.18500/23110740-2015-2-12-72-79
- Pentrenko Yu. A. Review as am academic discourse genre and its major characteristics. Philological Sciences. Theory and Practice, 2020, vol. 13, iss. 11, pp. 262–267 (in Russian).
- Steksova T. I. Object clauses in academic discourse: Genre preferences. Speech Genres, 2020, no. 4 (28), pp. 278–286 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.18500/10.18500/2311-0740-2020-4-28-278-286
- Viktorova E. Yu. Discourse markers: A unity through variety. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philology. Journalism, 2014, vol. 14, iss. 1, pp. 10–15 (in Russian).
- Viktorova E. Yu. Discourse markers of various types in spoken and written academic discourse. Philology and Person, 2014, no. 4, pp. 15–27 (in Russian).