HEDGES AND BOOSTERS IN 19TH CENTURY BRITISH FICTION
Vol.9, Issue 2, 2023, pp. 225-238 Full text
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33919/esnbu.23.2.5
Web of Science: 001131896300003
Authors:
1 Fatma Yuvayapan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7924-0933
2 Emrah Peksoy https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4940-616X
Affiliation:
1 Kahramanmaras Sütçü İmam University, Türkiye 03gn5cg19
2 Kahramanmaras Istiklal University, Türkiye 022ge7714
Contributor roles
Project Administration, Investigation, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing: F.Y. (lead);
Conceptualization, Supervision, Visualization: E.P. (lead);
Data curation, Software, Validation: F.Y, E.P. (equal)
Abstract
Hedges and boosters are two important sources of linguistic devices to express tentative evaluations and to mitigate solidarity with readers. Men and women have different tendencies of using these linguistic devices. Women are usually considered to follow a personal and polite style whereas men are more competitive and assertive. Hence, gender-preferential features of women and men are one of the prerequisites of understanding the functions of hedges and boosters. One relatively neglected aspect of gender-based studies of these linguistic devices is fiction. In this paper, we explored male and female English writers' use of hedges and boosters in HUM19UK Corpus, a corpus of 19th century British fiction. We calculated a statistically significant overuse in the deployment of hedges and boosters by female writers in the 19th century, which is an indication of a new writing style adapted by the female writers in that era. However, the most common items of hedges and boosters were identical in both corpora.
Keywords: hedges, boosters, gender, literature, fiction, nineteenth century
Article history:
Submitted: 8 June 2023
Reviewed: 10 August 2023
Accepted: 5 November 2023
Published: 20 December 2023
Citation (APA):
Yuvayapan, F. & Peksoy, E. (2023). Hedges and Boosters in 19th century British Fiction. English Studies at NBU, 9(2), 225-238. https://doi.org/10.33919/esnbu.23.2.5
Copyright © 2023 Fatma Yuvayapan and Emrah Peksoy
This open access article is published and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. If you want to use the work commercially, you must first get the authors' permission.
References
Akbaş, E., & Hardman, J. (2018). Strengthening or weakening claims in academic knowledge construction: A comparative study of hedges and boosters in postgraduate academic writing. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(4), 831-859. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0260
AlJazrawi, D. A., & AlJazrawi, Z. A. (2019). The use of meta-discourse: An analysis of interactive and interactional markers in English short stories as a type of literary genre. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 8(3), 66-77. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.8n.3p.66
Alward, A. S., Mooi, C. C., Jamilah, S., & Bidin, B. (2012). Hedges and boosters in the Yemeni EFL undergraduates' persuasive essay: An empirical study. The Internet Journal of Language, Culture and Society, 34, 1-12.
Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc (4.0.11) (Computer Software). In Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
Boicu, R. (2007). Modal verbs and politeness strategies in political discourse. Analele Universităţii din Bucureşti 17(1), 15-28. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/45913
Boroujeni, E. K. (2012). Specifying metadiscoursal signals in the novel Pride and Prejudice and its two Persian translations by Copple's model (1980). Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 357-366. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2012.v3n2.357
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2016). Cross-cultural variation in the use of hedges and boosters in academic discourse. Prague Journal of English Studies, 5(1), 163-184. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjes-2016-0009
Easley, A. (2004). First-Person anonymous: Women writers and Victorian print media, 1830-1870. Ashgate.
Eder, M., Rybicki, J., & Kestemont, M. (2016). Stylometry with R: A Package for Computational Text Analysis. R Journal, 8(1), 107-121. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2016-007
Ehrlich, S. (1990). Point of view: A linguistic analysis of literary style. Routledge.
Evert, S., Proisl, T., Jannidis, F., Reger, I., Pielström, S., Schöch, C., & Vitt, T. (2017). Understanding and explaining Delta measures for authorship attribution. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 32(suppl_2), ii4-ii16. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqx023
Farrokhi, F., & Emami, S. (2008). Hedges and boosters in academic writing: native vs. non-native research articles in applied linguistics and engineering. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 1(2), 62-98.
Hardjanto, T. D. (2016). Hedging through the use of modal auxiliaries in English academic discourse. Humaniora, 28(1), 37-50. https://doi.org/10.22146/jh.v28i1.11412
Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. Language & Communication, 10(3), 185-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-S
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAF textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90004-3
Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text & Talk, 18(3), 349-382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667145
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=KdFoDwAAQBAJ
Kennedy, V. (2017). Orientalism in the Victorian Era. In P. Rabinowitz (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature (pp. 1-89). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.226
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458-508. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262952
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place.`` Language in Society, 2`(1), 45-79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500000051
Livia, A. (2003). "One man in two is a woman": Linguistic approaches to gender in literary texts. In M. Meyerhoff & J. Holmes (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 142-158). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756942.ch6
Sadeghi, K., & Esmaili, S. (2012). Frequency of textual metadiscourse resources (MTRs) in two original and simplified novels. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3, 647-652. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.4.647-652
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213
Serholt, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in academic writing - A study of gender differences in essays written by Swedish advanced learners of English (Undergraduate thesis, University of Gothenburg). GUPEA. http://hdl.handle.net/2077/29526
Taymaz, N. (2021). A corpus-based comparison of use of hedges and boosters by Turkish ELT MA and PhD students. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(1), 33-49. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.903302
Walker, B., McIntyre, D., Land, E., Price, H., & Burke, M. (2019). 19th Century British Fiction Corpus, version 1 (HUM19UK). https://www.linguisticsathuddersfield.com/hum19uk-corpus
Review:
1. Reviewer's name: Undisclosed
Review Content: Undisclosed
Review Verified on Publons
2. Reviewer's name: Undisclosed
Review Content: Undisclosed
Review Verified on Publons
Handling Editor: Boris Naimushin, PhD, New Bularian University
Verified Editor Record on Publons