Wellman Kondowe Department of Languages & Literature, Mzuzu University, P/Bag 201, Luwinga, Mzuzu 2, Malawi. C. Africa

HEDGING AND BOOSTING AS INTERACTIONAL METADISCOURSE IN LITERATURE DOCTORAL DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS Wellman Kondowe Department of Languages & Literature, Mzuzu University, P/Bag 201, Luwinga, Mzuzu 2, Malawi. C. Africa ABSTRACT Writing traditions of different disciplines of study are linguistically uniquely ritualized in the way writers present their arguments. Claims in other subjects are strengthened by showing commitment through boosting devices while other subjects recommending detached way of writing through hedging. The present study was undertaken to investigate the culture of writing in literature subject by analyzing dissertation abstracts of PhD candidates in the field using Hyland s (2005) metadiscourse taxonomy. Sixty abstracts, from 2007 to 2012, were selected and analysed using AntConc concordance tool supplemented by manual analysis. The study discovers that literature PhD candidates hedge three times more than they use boosters favoring the use of low commitment modal auxiliary can and solidarity phrases. They boost only when they are convinced that their claims share some universal understanding. The study recommends that lessons on hedging and boosting need to be included in the research writing subjects of novice writers for them to be more conversant with the conventions of research writing that strictly obeys the required formality. KEYWORDS: Hedges, boosters, interactional metadiscourse, dissertation abstracts, literature PhD students INTRODUCTION Research abstracts have recently attracted wide scholarly attention in the field of corpus linguistics especially from those whose primary focus is on metadiscourse. Modern linguists have realized that research abstracts (RAs) constitute a special genre with unique linguistic features. When crafting abstracts, writers employ language cautiously because the acceptance of their research papers depends largely on how they are presented to the academic community (Nivales, 2010). They have to decide either to increase the strength of their propositions by using boosters or decrease the force through the use of hedges. Researches indicate that hedges and boosters serve three main functions: 1) threat minimizing strategy to signal distance and to avoid absolute statements; 2) strategies to accurately reflect the certainty of knowledge; and 3) politeness strategies between writers and editors (Salager-Meyer, 1997; Nivales, 2010; Hinckel, 2009). The growing interest on hedges is apparent in various research investigations spanning hedging in speaking to hedging in writing (Hyland, 1994). Scholars have explored frequency and functions of hedging according to genre and different rhetorical sections of scientific papers 214

(Salager-Meyer, 1997). Mojica (2005) studied hedges in research articles of Filipino engineers and linguists to examine how these authors use this academic discourse feature. Her study indicates that there was significant difference in the two groups of authors ways of showing commitment and detachment to their proposed ideas: Engineers boost more while linguists hedge more. She attributed this difference to the highly technical discussions in engineering as well as to its writing conventions which may not be as rigid as those of the linguists (Nivales, 2009). Her study further notes that the use of hedging by engineers, despite the probable absence of academic writing training, could be influenced by the Filipino culture, which is known for its politeness. This suggests that every discipline of study is uniquely ritualized in its extent to which it accommodates hedging and boosting metadiscourse features. Abdi (2011) observes that academic writers leave traces of themselves in their writing which may be linked to their national culture. This study is specifically set to investigate whether literature PhD candidates are highly committed or detached to their ideas in the way they present their dissertation abstracts to the academia. The study has been necessitated because communication through writing of doctoral theses is both prestigious and highly structured. As such, writing abstracts, for such theses, has proven to be very specialized activity with many visible and invisible layers. Therefore, it is hoped that an analysis of how doctoral researchers confidently or detachedly present their ideas would be highly beneficial to all stakeholders concerned in the teaching and learning of English. Framework A recent taxonomy of metadiscourse formulated by Hyland (2005) which appears in Table 1 below was chosen as the model for this study. As noted by Abdi, (2011) Hyland s model is highly preferred in modern metadiscourse studies for being recent, simple, clear and comprehensive. Table 1: A model of metadiscourse in academic texts Category Function Examples Interactive Help to guide the reader through the text Resources Transitions express relations between main clauses in addition; but; thus; and Frame markers refer to discourse acts, sequences or stages finally; to conclude; my purpose is Endophoric markers refer to information from other texts noted above; see figure; in section 2 Evidentials refer to information from other texts according to X; Z states Code glosses elaborate propositional meaning namely; e.g; such as, in other words Interactional Involve the reader in the texts Resources Hedges withhold commitment and open dialogue might; perhaps; possible; about Boosters emphasize certainty and close dialogue in fact; definitely; it is clear that Attitude markers express writers attitude to proposition unfortunately; I agree; surprisingly Self mentions explicitly reference to author(s) I; we; my; me; our Engagement markers explicitly build relationship with readers consider; note; you can see that This study only concentrated on Hedges and Boosters under interactional metadiscourse, and had nothing to do with the rest. Unlike interactive metadiscourse resources that aim at guiding the reader through the text with the aid of linguistic signposts, interactional metadiscourse deals with writers expression of opinion and their relationship and interaction with the readers (Velde & Gillaerts, 2010). Interactional metadiscourse is more personal, direct, evidently related to interpersonality. We have restricted our study to this type by primarily focusing on hedges and boosters as main means of showing commitment and detachment in written texts. 215

RESEARCH QUESTION The study specifically aims at addressing the following question: How do literature doctoral candidates present their arguments in the abstracts of their academic research? METHOD OF RESEARCH The Corpus RAs abstracts for doctoral dissertations for literature were selected to be the corpus of the study. Sixty abstracts, from 2007 to 2012, (ten for each year) were downloaded from http://pqdt.calis.edu.cn/, which is an international abstract database for dissertations of all disciplines. The corpus was later converted into text format so that they could be operated on AntiConc software. In order to ensure reasonable coverage across the discipline, we randomly selected ten abstracts from each category of literature ranging from African, American, Caribbean and English literature so that conclusions drawn should cater across all these categories. Detecting Hedges and Boosters All the seven items listed in the model above under hedges and boosters were used during analysis. However, since no comprehensive list exists, as admitted by some scholars (Adel, 2006; Vassileva, 2001), some forms, not mentioned in the list, were also recognized in the process of analysis and were put into groups. Hedges were grouped into three. The first category consists of modal and lexical verbs with low degree of commitment such as may, might, could, can and would. Introductory verbs like seem, suggest, appear, and phrases that use any or a combination of these, such as it may seem to appear, it might be suggested formed another category. Lastly, probability adjectives and their adverbs counterparts like possible/possibly, probable/probably, presume/presumably were also grouped together. Boosters were similarly classified into three. The first group comprised of modal auxiliaries with higher degree of commitment like must, should, have to, and need to. Adjectives as well as adverbs like certainly, definitely, and obviously were treated as boosters as they are used to show confidence in the claims. Solidarity features like it is well-known, it is a fact, as we all know, were also grouped as boosters in this study. Data Analysis Data for the study was analysed with an aid of AntiConc software concordance tool which has come to be widely used in studies on corpus linguistics. Besides that the tool is fast, effective, and time saving, it was further chosen for its ability to detect how words and phrases are commonly used in the corpus. All the files were selected, and each hedging and boosting item was entered individually to see how it frequently occurs in the corpus. All the results were recorded manually for further analysis. To supplement the machine concordancing strategy, a manual analysis followed immediately to identify other items that perform equal function of boosting and hedging but were not included in the model in Table 1 above. 216

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results of the study are shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Distribution of hedges and boosters in the corpus Type Resources Frequency Hedges Type 1: May 7 Low commitment modal Might 7 auxiliaries Could 5 Can 17 would 8 44 in total Type 2: Introductory verbs Seem(s) 4 Suggest(s) 8 Appear(s) 4 Believe 1 Assume(s) 2 19 in total Type 3: Adjectives and adverbs Possible/possibly 5 likely 1 probably 0 presumably 0 perhaps 0 Apparently 1 Grand Total 70 7 in total Boosters Type 1: High modals commitment Type 2: Adjective and adverbs must 4 Should 6 Have to 0 Need to 2 certainly 0 definitely 0 obviously 0 12 in total Type 3: Solidarity features It is a well-known 1 It is a fact 8 We all know 0 Grand Total 21 None 9 in total As seen from Table 2 above, doctoral researchers in literature use hedges three times more than boosters. This may not be very surprising. Literature, as a subject belonging to art, is very personal and subjective. As such interpretation of events in works of fiction might not be presented precisely as they heavily rely on personal perception and judgment. These advanced 217

scholars are quite aware that one only needs to use overt boosters when they are convinced about the certainty of their claims or when their statements contain ideas that they believe to be true and universally proven. This may not necessarily apply to literature due to its subjective nature with the presence of bulk of conflicting schools of thoughts that remain unresolved. Furthermore, doctoral dissertations are meant to be original and should significantly contribute to the growing body of knowledge in the field. As such, candidates trade cautiously when presenting such fluid work to highly experienced professors. Hence, opting for hedges than boosters would help them tone down their statements and reduce risk of opposition. Literature candidates deliberately avoid personal accountability of their claims by blatantly leaving room to accommodate opposing views which may open up a new debate in the field. It appears Type 1 (modal auxiliaries of low commitment) is preferred when hedging when showing detachment to their claims. Modal auxiliaries constitute 63% of the total hedging resources used. Among the five modals identified in the corpus, can takes a lion s share of 37%. The study agrees with Mojica (2005) who also observed that modals are the favored form of hedging highly used in most texts. Hinkel (2009) note that use of low commitment auxiliary modals, such as can, may, might, could, serve a huge purpose in written academic discourse. These verbs, together with other linguistic elements perform a range of textual and pragmatic functions. They often serve to mark evidentiality, possibility and likelihood, strategic vagueness, and politeness in discourse. In the corpus, the candidates use such modals to refer to matters of personal beliefs and knowledge which served as a basis for writers to express their judgments about states of affairs, events, and actions in the work of fiction. These low commitment modals represent gradient markers of possibility and tend to have overlapping meanings that can be interchangeable in some contexts. The students detachedly want their readers to know that they do not claim to have the final word on the subject. Type 2 hedges (introductory phrases) which comes second in the rank equally perform a similar function to low commitment modals. Literature students use of phrases like I suggest, it seems, it appears, in the following syntactic structures, does not show confusion or lack of authoritative knowledge: a) Al-Masadis ethical literary project, I suggest, reads artistic representation as a mode of creation (Malcom, 2012 PhD abstract). b) Rural society is just too sparse, and relationships stereotypically appear as changeless as the age-old rural modes of living (Moffitt, 2012 PhD Abstract). c) Their use of dramatic form and the manner and style in which they (re)present an unsung history seems to suggest a perspective and animus (Prece, 2008 PhD Abstract) Literature doctoral candidates use of italicised phrases, in the above excerpts, indicates their precision in reporting results. The phrases present the true state of the writers understanding and may be used to negotiate an accurate representation of the state of the knowledge under discussion. In fact, these students may wish to reduce the strength of claims especially when stronger statements cannot be justified by the data or evidence presented, which in the end will 218

deter their thesis defence. Advanced L2 prose analysts are expected to master such appropriate use of precision and vagueness and acquire judgment of where and how to be appropriately imprecise in their writing of literature abstracts. The study further agrees with Biber et al. (1999) who observe that overall frequency levels of high commitment boosting modals, such as must, should, ought to, need (to), and have to in academic writing is around half of that of low commitment modals. It has also been observed that they are the preferred form of boosting as revealed in the corpus of this study, with 57% of the total boosters. In general terms, the uses of boosting modals of high commitment convey commitment, obligation and compulsion to act perhaps through a sense of duty, self-discipline, or merely through the sense of expediency (Leech, 2005). Additionally, according to Leech (2005), these modals refer to logical (that is, inferential and reasoned) necessity, based on logical deduction (as in the heater should/has to/ought to work now). Boosting modals typically refer to the necessity of actions and events and real-world obligations that can be social, moral, physical, psychological, or emotional that compels one to act. In the following excerpts identified in the corpus, d) [ ] political and economic reforms specifically targeting corruption and governance must be undertaken as well (Bellin, 2009 PhD abstract) e) These new techniques and changes must be fully integrated into to the conduct of current research in African history (Walsh, 2009 PhD abstract) Writers use modal booster must commitedly to strengthen their claims and impart an element of objectivity and the necessity to undertake such an action without much ado. In (d) Bellin stresses on the need to perform political and economic reform those targeting corruption and good governance. While in (e) Walsh emphasizes that the new techniques and changes have to be integrated fully into the current research trends of African history. Corruption is universally viewed as a malpractice that deters development hence the writer knows that his overt use of booster must, to stress his claim, will go highly unopposed and easily accepted. In the same vein, the new techniques and changes, that Walsh puts forwards, are new innovations to the field of African history which indicate his research originality; hence their use of strong boosters indicate their high commitment and conviction about their research output. The analysis also reveals that boosting modals need to, ought to, and have to have rarely been used in the corpus. There is only one incident ( there is urgent need to re-evaluate the entire selection policy ) where modal need to has been featured as a booster. Despite their resemblance to must in denoting obligation and necessity, the former have been disfavored due to their low gradient strength. These advanced scholars operated on two clear extremes. In their crafting of abstracts, only high hedges and strong boosters were chosen leaving a very tiny room for modals with weak stamina. It is also noticeable from the corpus that Type 3 solidarity feature booster (it is a fact) has been used eight times out of the total twenty-one boosters used constituting 38%. These students could probably choose this booster as a way of occupying a niche and urging readers of their abstracts 219

to see the importance of their study. Appealing to readers, in this case high profiled academicians, to see the need of their study, is a strategy to assert their identity and their originality, as well as the possible contributions their studies could make, hence have their dissertations approved. It is also worthy commenting on the scanty usage of adjectives and adverbs as both hedges and boosters. They both occupy less than 1% of the total metadiscoursal devices under discussion. The limited usage of qualifying words maybe attributed to students desire to be as direct as possible. Dissertation abstracts which are meant to be summaries of a huge document need to present important ideas that capture the gist of their theses only in a single paragraph. Hence, the candidates only opt for words that are functional and leave out grammatical ones like adjectives and adverbs. CONCLUSION Advanced L2 writers, especially those writing on subjective topics like the ones in literature, need to be familiar with means of projecting their commitment or detachment in written discourse. How to be imprecise and appear reserved in formal writing is delineated by culturally and socially determined conventions since the author and the reader may not share the same norms and expectations. The study has discovered that literature doctoral students hedge three times more than they use boosters; favoring the use of low commitment modal auxiliary can. We have observed that students opt for modal hedges as a way of reducing the risk of opposition, being precise in reporting results, but also as a means of being polite and accommodative in their attempt to get their thesis approved and have them passed. However, these scholars sparsely use boosters to show their research originality but also when they were quite sure that their claims share some universal understanding. We, therefore, agree with Nivales (2010:43) in recommending that lessons on hedging and boosting need to be included in the research writing subjects as well as the need for novice writers to be more exposed to the conventions of research writing. Developing writers need to be aware of the usefulness of metadiscoursal devices in presenting their claims especially on topics that are controversial. Hedges have been widely commended to be very useful resources that students can utilize in their serious academic writing. We further note that making overt conclusions regarding the writing culture of doctoral literature abstracts is beyond the scope of a single study. Further researchers can diachronically investigate the changing trends in the use of hedges and booster over time. A comparative study can also be undertaken to assess whether literature PhD students from various parts of the globe use similar linguistic resources in crafting RAs, for instance, comparing African literary scholars and Americans and investigating factors behind. 220

Limitations of the study Corpus of the study was limited because the abstracts used were only those that were accessible online. All those that are not published online were not part of the corpus. Secondly, the data was strictly for doctoral candidates, therefore, results and conclusions drawn here may not be confidently generalized to other group of literature candidates. REFERENCES Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse Strategies in Research Articles: A Study of the Differences across Subsections. In The Journal of Teaching Language Skills 3 (1), Spring 2011, Ser. 62/4. Bellin, R. (2009). Argument: The American Transcendentalists and disputatious reason. Unpublished PhD thesis: Princeton University. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson, Harlow, Essex. Gillaerts, P., & Velde, F. V. (2010). Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Articles Abstracts. In Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139. Hinkel, E. (2009). The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. In Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 667-683. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum: London. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. In Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 156-177. Leech, G. (2005). Meaning and the English Verb, 3rd ed. Longman, Harlow, UK. Malcom, C. P. (2012). Settlement fictions: Global South literature and the postcolonial urban imaginary. Unpublished PhD thesis The State University of New Jersey Moffitt, A. H. (2012). Reviving the rural: The modernist poetics of the 20th century rural novel. Unpublished PhD thesis. Princeton University Mojica, L. (2005). Filipino authors ways of showing detachment/commitment in their English academic papers. In D. Dayag & J.S. Quakenbush (Eds.), Linguistics and language education in the Philippines and beyond: a festschrift in honor of Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista, (pp. 511-525). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. Nivales, M. L. (2010). Hedging in College Research Papers: Implications for Language Instruction. In Asian EFL Journal. pp 35-45 Prece, P. (2008). Writing home: The post colonial dialogue of Athol Fugard and August Wilson: Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Kansas. Salager-Meyer, F. (1997). I think that perhaps you should: A study of hedges in written scientific discourse. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: classroom applications. (pp. 105-118). Washington, D.C., USA: English Language Programs- United States Information Agency. Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 83-102. Walsh, K. (2009) Antigone in modernism: Classicism, feminism, and theatres of protest. Unpublished PhD thesis. 221