Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 25, No. 0, pp.74-97
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2025
Received 15 Oct 2024 Revised 17 Dec 2024 Accepted 16 Jan 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.25..202501.74

Analyzing Words of Caution and Confidence in ES and KS Dissertations

Sang-Geun Lee ; Hoe Kyeung Kim
(First author) Professor, Department of English Education, Korea University slee16@korea.ac.kr
(Corresponding author) Associate Professor, Binghamton University, SUNY hoekim@binghamton.edu


© 2025 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Academic writing frequently utilizes hedges and boosters to convey caution and confidence and eventually enhance credibility in scholarly communication. Previous research has mainly focused on the frequency of these devices in journal articles, with limited attention to their usage in doctoral dissertations, particularly written by ESL/EFL authors. This study aims to examine how English-speaking (ES) and Korean-speaking (KS) authors in the fields of English Education (EE) and Biology (BIO) use hedges and boosters in their dissertation discussions, with a special focus on the contexts in which these devices are employed. Using a mixed-methods approach, we first conducted a descriptive analysis of 120 dissertations, equally divided between ES and KS authors across two disciplines and then identified top 10 most frequently used hedges and boosters in each group. A subsequent qualitative analysis explored the contexts in which the key devices were employed, revealing cross-linguistic, cultural, and disciplinary patterns. The findings showed that ES authors tend to emphasize possibility and open interpretation, which reflects a western academic preference for acknowledging alternative perspectives. Conversely, KS authors prefer to deliver their findings directly and cautiously, highlighting the Korean cultural norms that favor both authoritative and humble statements. Regarding boosters, ES authors underscore notable results or unexpected findings, often in a narrative style that invites readers’ engagement, while KS authors employ boosters in contexts that require careful assertion of results, which is associated with the cultural values that emphasize modesty and reduce self-responsibility. After all, this study offers insights into how linguistic, cultural, and disciplinary factors shape those rhetorical strategies in dissertation writing, implying the need for specialized dissertation writing instruction, particularly for L2 writers, to address these contextual subtleties effectively.

Keywords:

boosters, caution, confidence, cross-linguistic, dissertation, hedges, interdisciplinary, qualitative analysis

References

  • Anderson, T., I. Alexander and G. Saunders. 2020. An examination of education-based dissertation macrostructures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes45, 1-12. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100845]
  • Becher, T. and P. Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Discipline.Open University Press/SRHE.
  • Biber, D., S. Conrad and G. Leech. 2002. Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English.Pearson Education ESL.
  • Blum-Kulka, S. 1987. Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics11(2), 131-146. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5]
  • Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085]
  • Choi, S. C. and S. H. Choi. 1994. We-ness: A Korean discourse of collectivism. In G. Yoon and S. C. Choi, eds., Psychology of the Korean People: Collectivism and Individualism, 57-84. Dong-A Publishing and Printing Co., Ltd.
  • Connor, U., E. Nagelhout and W. Rozycki. 2008. Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. John Benjamins Publishing Company. [https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169]
  • Durrant, P. 2014. Discipline- and level-specificity in university students’ written vocabulary. Applied Linguistics35(3), 328-356. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt016]
  • Eggington, W. G. 1987. Written academic discourse in Korean: Implications for effective communication, In U. Connor and R. B. Kaplan, eds., Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text, 153-168. Addison-Wesley.
  • Gudykunst, W. B., W. Matsumoto, T. Nishida, K. Kim and S. Heyman. 1996. The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research22(4), 510-413. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00377.x]
  • Guo, S. 2020. The influence of cultural values on language communication styles in intercultural communication. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research507, 403-406. [https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201215.366]
  • Hinkel, E. 1995. The use of modal verbs as a reflection of cultural values. TESOL Quarterly29, 325-343. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3587627]
  • Hinkel, E. 1997. Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics27(3), 361-386. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00040-9]
  • Hinkel, E. 2002. Second Language Writers’ Text: Linguistic and Rhetorical Features. Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602848]
  • Hinkel, E. 2005. Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning15, 29-93.
  • Hofstede, G. 2001. Cultural Consequences: Comparing Vales, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. Sage.
  • Holbrook, A., S. Bourke, T. Lovat and K. Dally. 2004. Investigating PhD thesis examination reports. International Journal of Educational Research41(2), 98-120. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.04.008]
  • Holtgraves, T. 1997. Styles of language use: individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology73(3), 624-637. [https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.73.3.624]
  • Hu, G. and F. Cao. 2011. Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics43, 2795-2809. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007]
  • Hu, G. and F. Cao. 2015. Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes39, 12-25. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.03.002]
  • Hyland, K. 1996. Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics17(4), 433-454. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433]
  • Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. John Benjamins Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54]
  • Hyland, K. 2001. Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes20(3), 207-226. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0]
  • Hyland, K. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies7(2), 173-192. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365]
  • Hyland, K. 2015. Teaching and Researching Writing. Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315717203]
  • Hyland, K. and F. Jiang. 2016. Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication33(3), 251-274. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316650399]
  • Hyland, K. and J. Milton. 1997. Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing6(2), 183-205. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3]
  • Kim, Y., C. Chiu, S. Cho, E. Au and S. Kwak. 2014. Aligning inside and outside perspectives of the self: A cross-cultural difference in self-perception. Asian Journal of Social Psychology17, 44-51. [https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12042]
  • Kim, H., O. Yol and S. Lee. 2020. A comparative study of hedges between ES and KS in two fields of study: English education vs. biology. English Language and Linguistics26(1), 175-197.
  • Kim, Y. and J. Lim. 2015. Hedging and boosting in L2 academic writing: A study of Korean university students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research6(4), 924-930.
  • Lee, J. 2012. A study on teaching Korean hedging expression for KAP learners. Bilingual Research49, 269-197.
  • Lakoff, R. 1973. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic2(4), 458-508. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262952]
  • Li, T. and S. Wharton. 2012. Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes11(4), 345-356. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004]
  • Liu, Z. 2018. The influence of Confucianism on East Asian countries. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research232, 77-79.
  • Matsumoto, D., S. Takeuchi, S. Andayani, N. Kouznetsova and D. Krupp. 1998. The contribution of individualism vs. collectivism to cross-national differences in display rules. Asian Journal of Social Psychology1, 147-165. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00010]
  • McGrath, L. and M. Kuteeva. 2012. Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes31(3), 161-173. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002]
  • Merkin, R. 2009. Cross-cultural communication patterns – Korean and American communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication9(2), 1-10. [https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v9i2.481]
  • Myers, G. 1992. ‘In this paper we report…’: Speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics17(4), 295-313. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90013-2]
  • Paltridge, B. 2002. Thesis and dissertation writing: An examination of published advice and actual practice. English for Specific Purposes21(2), 125-143. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00025-9]
  • Paltridge, B. 2013. Genre and English for specific purposes. In B. Paltridge and S. Starfield, eds., The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes, 347-366. Blackwell. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118339855.ch18]
  • Paltridge, B. and S. Starfield. 2020. Change and continuity in thesis and dissertation writing: The evolution of an academic genre. Journal of English for Academic Purposes48, 1-16. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100910]
  • Paré, A. 2019. Re-writing the doctorate: New contexts, identities, and genres. Journal of Second Language Writing43, 80-84. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.08.004]
  • Park, J. 2007. The writing styles of Korean scientists: Cultural influences and implications for English scientific writing. English for Specific Purposes26(4), 378-389.
  • Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.Longman.
  • Ryu, H. 2006. Rhetorical patterns in Korean college students’ English expository writings. English Teaching61(3), 273-292.
  • Salager-Meyer, F. 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes13(2), 149-170. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2]
  • Salager-Meyer, F. 2011. Scientific discourse and contrastive linguistics: Hedging. European Science Editing37(2), 35-37.
  • Seth, M. 2002. Education Fever: Society, Politics, and the Pursuit of Schooling in South Korea. University of Hawaii Press.
  • Shen, L., S. Carter and L. Zhang. 2019. EL1 and EL2 doctoral students’ experience in writing the discussion section: A needs analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes40, 74-86. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.06.004]
  • Shim, E. 2005. Teaching and learning hedging in academic writing. Journal of The English Language and Literature47(4), 197-220.
  • Shin, Y. 2011. A comparison of hedge usage by native-speaking Koreans and Chinese learners of Korean in introduction sections of Master’s theses. Discourse and Cognition18(1), 63-77.
  • Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.
  • Vold, E. T. 2006. Epistemic modality markers in research articles: a cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics16(1), 61-87. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00106.x]
  • Wharton, S. 2012. Epistemological and interpersonal stance in a data description task: Findings from a discipline-specific learner corpus. English for Specific Purposes31(4), 261-270. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.05.005]
  • Youn, M. 2018. The influence of standardized testing pressure on teachers’ working environment, KEDI Journal of Educational Policy15(2), 3-22.