Boosting in English and Indonesian Research Articles: A Cross-Cultural and Cross-Disciplinary Study

I Nyoman Suka Sanjaya

doi:10.21512/lc.v10i2.1423

Authors

I Nyoman Suka Sanjaya Bali State Polytechnic

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v10i2.1423

Keywords:

boosters, research articles, sociocultural context, discipline, Indonesian

Abstract

Boosters, defined as linguistic devices (e.g. certainly) used by writers to indicate full commitment to the truth value of a proposition, has received little attention from applied linguists, despite their persuasive power in research writing. The present study investigated the effects of the two variables of sociocultural context and discipline on the frequency of use of boosters in research articles. A specialized corpus of 104 research articles published between 2007 and 2010 taken from applied linguistics and chemistry written in English and Indonesian by the respective native speaker scholars were quantitatively analyzed using 2 x 2 Factorial ANOVA. The results showed that there was a significant main effect of sociocultural context, F (1, 100) = 44,34, p <0,05, ŋ2 = 0,307, a significant main effect of discipline, F (1,100) = 19,16, p < 0,05, ŋ2 = 0,161, and a significant interaction between sociocultural context and discipline, F (1,100) = 6,90, p < 0,05, ŋ2 = 0,065. However, the within-sociocultural context simple effects analysis revealed that English applied linguistics and chemistry research articles were not significantly different from each other, F (1,101) = 1,07, n.s. suggesting that, discipline might not be a decisive factor that influences boosting usage in research articles. These results indicate that the two variables (sociocultural context and discipline) exerted unequal influence upon boosting practices in research articles. The differential characteristics of the two sociocultural contexts are offered as explanations to account for the differential boosting practices of English and Indonesian research articles.

Dimensions

Plum Analytics

References

Adnan, Z. (2008). Discourse structure of Indonesian research

article introductions in selected hard sciences. In S. Burgess & P. Martín-Martín (Eds.), English as an Additional Language in Research Publication and Communication, 39-63. Berlin: Peter Lang.

Biber, D. (2006). University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Biber, D. (2009). Quantitative methods in corpus linguistics.

In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, 2, 1286-1304. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Diani, G. (2008). Emphasizers in spoken and written academic discourse: The case of really. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(3), 1569–9811.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (4 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139.

Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current Conceptions of Stance. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 15-33). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (Fourth ed.). New York: Routledge.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival (3rd Edition ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hood, S. (2011). Writing discipline: Comparing inscriptions

of knowledge and knowers in academic writing. In F. Christie & K. Maton (Eds.), Disciplinarity: Functional Linguistic and Sociological Perspectives, 106-128. London: Continuum.

Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts

of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795-2809.

Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic

influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12-25.

Hyland, K. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction, 1(1), 5-22.

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse: English in a

Global Context. London/ New York: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2011). Academic discourse. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis, 171-184. New York: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2014). Dialogue, community and persuasion in research writing. In L. Gil-Salom & C. Soler-Monreal (Eds.), Dialogicity in Written Specialized Genres, 1-20. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hyland, K., & Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific writing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42(1), 297-338.

Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M.-H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129–146.

Martín, P., & Pérez, I. K. L. (2014). Convincing peers of the value of one’s research: A genre analysis of rhetorical promotion in academic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 1-13.

Mauranen, A., & Bondi, M. (2003). Evaluative language use in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 269–271.

Mur-Dueñas, P. (2007). ‘I/we focus on...’: A cross-cultural

analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 143–162.

Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3068-3079.

Peacock, M. (2006). A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles. Corpora, 1(1), 61-84.