International journal

Speech Genres

ISSN 2311-0759 (Online)
ISSN 2311-0740 (Print)

For citation:

Boginskaya O. A. “It is evident that …”: Boosting as a strategy employed to express author’s commitment to the truth of a proposition (a corpus-based analysis of research article abstracts) . Speech Genres, 2024, vol. 19, iss. 1 (41), pp. 56-65. DOI: 10.18500/2311-0740-2024-19-1-41-56-65, EDN: FHAZFS

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).
Full text:
download
(downloads: 318)
Language: 
Russian
Heading: 
Studies of individual genres
Article type: 
Article
UDC: 
821.161.1’38’42:001
DOI: 
10.18500/2311-0740-2024-19-1-41-56-65
EDN: 
FHAZFS

“It is evident that …”: Boosting as a strategy employed to express author’s commitment to the truth of a proposition (a corpus-based analysis of research article abstracts)

Autors: 
Boginskaya Olga A., Irkutsk National Research Technical University
Abstract: 

The article analyzes linguistic means used for boosting which is considered a crucial metadiscourse strategy regularly employed in the genre of research article abstracts. The study aims at identifying the types of booster and the frequency of occurrence of boosting markers in Russian-language research article abstracts in the field of soft and hard sciences. The study makes an attempt to reveal differences in the use of these metadiscourse patterns and suggest reasons for the uneven distribution of boosters in the two corpora. The study is based on the assumption that disciplinary conventions affect the choice of rhetorical strategies. The study draws on a corpus of 180 research article abstracts published in 12 soft and hard science journals. The theoretical basis of the study is the taxonomy of metadiscourse markers proposed by Hyland. The findings showed that soft science authors used boosting markers much less frequently than their hard science counterparts. Differences were also revealed in terms of the types of boosting. The results of the analysis confirmed the assumption that boosting as a metadiscourse strategy is determined by disciplinary conventions. The results obtained can be used both by teachers of academic writing and academic writing course designers and become an avenue for further research into metadiscourse as an important rhetorical strategy. 

Key words: 
boosting
metadiscourse
genre
abstract
academic discourse
research article
Reference: 
  1. Alonso-Almeida F. Evidential and epistemic devices in English and Spanish medical, computing and legal scientific abstracts: A contrastive study. In: Bondi M., Lorés Sanz R., eds. Abstracts in Academic Discourse: Variation and Change. Bern, Peter Lang, 2014, pp. 21–42.
  2. Bodde D. Chinese Thought, Society and Science: The Intellectual and Social Background of Science and Technology in Pre-modern China. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1991. 480 p.
  3. Boginskaya O. A diachronic analysis of hedging in non-native authors’ research article abstracts. Cultura, Lenguaje y Representación, 2022, vol. 27, pp. 7–22.
  4. Boginskaya O. Creating an authorial presence in English-medium research articles abstracts by academic writers from different cultural backgrounds. International Journal of Language Studies, 2022, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 49–70.
  5. Buzalskaya E. V. Speech Genre ‘Annotation to a Scientific Article in Linguistics’: Typical Implementation Models. Russian as a Foreign Language and Methods of its Teaching, 2020, vol. 31, pp. 3–11 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2019-5-3-0-8
  6. Garcia-Calvo J. Use of metadiscourse in research article abstracts for scientific events. Revista Letras, Curitiba, 2002, vol. 57, pp. 195–209.
  7. Gushchina G. I. Category of categorical/noncategorical in the system of communication (on the material of Russian and English dialogues). Vestnik Bashkirskogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Bashkir University], 2008, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 982–985 (in Russian).
  8. Hu G., Cao F. Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of Englishand Chinesemedium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 2011, vol. 43, pp. 2795–2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma. 2011.04.007
  9. Hunston S. Professional conflict – disagreement in academic discourse. In: Baker M., Francis G., TogniniBonelli E., eds. Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Philadelphia, John Benjamin, 1993, pp. 115–134.
  10. Hyland K., Wang W., Jiang F. Metadiscourse across languages and genres: An overview. Lingua, 2021, vol. 265, pp. 103205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103205
  11. Hyland K. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 1998, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 349– 382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
  12. Hyland K. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London, Continuum, 2005. 230 p.
  13. Ji X. Comparison of abstracts written by native speakers and second language learners. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 2015, vol. 5, pp. 470–474. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2015.55041
  14. Kovalkova M. V. Research article abstract as a small-format genre of the English-language scientific medicine discourse. Izvestia of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University, 2020, no. 3 (146), pp. 179–184 (in Russian)
  15. Kozubíková Šandová J. Interpersonality in research article abstracts: A diachronic case study. Discourse and Interaction, 2021, vol. 14, iss. 1, pp. 77–99. https://doi. org/10.5817/DI2021-1-77
  16. Malyshkin K. Yu., Nikitina L. B. Lexico-grammatical markers of the categoricalness of the statement. Omsk Scientific Bulletin, 2014, vol. 5 (132), pp. 108–110 (in Russian).
  17. Naumenko Yu. N. Research article abstract as a reflection of the national specifics of written academic discourse. Sternin I. A., ed. Language and National Consciousness : Coll. of arts, iss. 26. Voronezh, Ritm, 2020, pp. 63–66 (in Russian).
  18. Panchenko N. N., Volkova Ya. A. Categoricalness in scientific discourse. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities and Social Sciences, 2021, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 535–543. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0740
  19. Petrovskaya A. V. Discursive features of English research article abstracts in the agrarian field. Library Information Discourse, 2021, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 17–22. (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.47612/LID-2021-1-1-17-22
  20. Rashidi N., Alihosseini F. A contrastive study of metadiscourse markers in research article abstracts across disciplines. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov, 2012, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 17–23.
  21. Silkina O. M. Scientific abstract superstructure: Universal and culturally specific (on the material of English, German and Russian languages). Research Result. Theoretical Applied Linguistics, 2019, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 82–98.
  22. Skelton J. The representation of truth in academic medical writing. Applied Linguistics, 1997, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 121–40.
  23. Solov’janova E. V. Tactics and techniques for softening the categoricalness of critical remarks in agonal scientific communication (on the material of English and Russian scientific articles). Sternin M. A., ed. Comparative studies: Coll. of arts, iss. 15. Voronezh, Ritm, 2018, pp. 105–111 (in Russian).
  24. Swales J. M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990. 288 p.
  25. Takimoto M. A Corpus-Based Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in English Academic Articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2015, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 95– 105. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i1.836
  26. Tivyaeva I. V., Kuznetsova D. L. Comparative analysis of the structural and content organization of annotations to Russian and English scientific articles. Actual Problems of Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics, 2020, vol. 3, pp. 139–152 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.29025/20796021-2020-3-139-152
  27. Vassileva I. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 2001, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0
  28. Wang F., Pramoolsook I. Attitude in abstracts: stance expression in translation practice reports and interpretation practice reports by Chinese students. Discourse and Interaction, 2019, vol. 14, iss. 1, pp. 100–123. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2021-1-100
Received: 
12.08.2022
Accepted: 
28.10.2022
Published: 
01.03.2024