An examination of hedging and boosting devices used in academic discourse: case of 2014 and 2015 master of Arts in English Studies thesis at the University of Namibia select="/dri:document/dri:meta/dri:pageMeta/dri:metadata[@element='title']/node()"/>

DSpace Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Haufiku, Naftal K
dc.date.accessioned 2017-03-20T06:47:49Z
dc.date.available 2017-03-20T06:47:49Z
dc.date.issued 2016
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/11070/1935
dc.description A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in English Studies en_US
dc.description.abstract Hedges and boosters play different roles in academic discourse. This thesis is an analysis of the application of hedges and boosters in all ten theses of the Master of Arts in English Studies submitted and examined at the University of Namibia between 2014 and 2015. The primary aim of this study was to examine how research writers use hedges to distance themselves from their claims, and how they use boosters to show commitment towards their claims. The study used both the qualitative and quantitative methods in examining the ten theses. The significance of a mixed research approach was found in its ability to give an explanation of issues such as why research writers prefer some types of hedging and boosting devices over the others, and why some theses chapters have some types of hedges and boosters. The study only examined three chapters of the theses: the Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion. These chapters were selected to give a representation of academic practice. The study was informed by Hyland’s (2004) taxonomy of hedges and boosters. Kaplan’s (1997) Contrastive Rhetoric Theory was used to explain how researchers use hedges and boosters to express their uncertainties and certainties respectively. The study revealed that writers prefer Type 3 of hedges and boosters in all the three chapters. The study further revealed that there is an unequal distribution of hedges and boosters among writers. The study concluded that the preference of Type 3 may have been caused by the fact that since Type 3 does not have boosting devices writers find it less threatening to employ it in order to conform to the accepted academic writing style. The unequal distribution of hedges and boosters may have been caused by the type of data being analysed. The unequal distribution may also suggest that writers in academic discourse are not proficient in the English language. Hence, they ignore hedges and boosters that are less familiar to them. This research makes a contribution to the study of hedges and boosters, most particularly in Namibia where, according to the researcher’s observation, no similar studies have previously been conducted. en_US
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher University of Namibia en_US
dc.subject Hedging devices en_US
dc.subject Boosting devices en_US
dc.subject Academic discourse en_US
dc.subject.lcsh Discourse analysis
dc.subject.lcsh Pragmatics
dc.subject.lcsh Language and culture
dc.title An examination of hedging and boosting devices used in academic discourse: case of 2014 and 2015 master of Arts in English Studies thesis at the University of Namibia en_US
dc.type Thesis en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record