Text

INDONESIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS

---

The present study examined research articles from eight academic disciplines to measure the frequencies and
functions of hedges and boosters. The quantitative results showed that hedges exceeded boosters, with
philosophy articles showing a significant use of hedges and boosters. The natural science papers were
underrepresented in the number of hedges and boosters. Moreover, the results indicated that the choices the
writers make seem to be constrained by the discourse norms and rhetorical styles of each discipline and reflect the
nature of different disciplinary characteristics. The humanities and social sciences are basically more
interpretative and less abstract, a style that requires more hedges and boosters and opts for subjectivity, whereas
natural sciences are typically more fact-oriented and more impersonal, which is accompanied by fewer hedges
and boosters and opts for objectivity. This was confirmed by a further analysis that showed that the relative
incidence of hedges of the possibility/probability category in adjectives and adverbs was the highest in
humanities and the lowest in natural sciences. Moreover, the relative incidence of hedges of the tentative
cognition category in nouns and verbs was the highest in humanities and social sciences and the lowest in natural
sciences.

---

Ketersediaan

Tidak ada salinan data

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

Reading Interest and Habits/Kebiasaan Membaca, Minat Baca

No. Panggil

510 MASAHIRO a

Penerbit

bandung : upi.edu., 2015

Deskripsi Fisik

Hlm 145.;20cm.

Bahasa

Indonesia

ISBN/ISSN

-

Klasifikasi

510

Tipe Isi

-

Tipe Media

-

Tipe Pembawa

-

Edisi

volume 5, Nomor 1 Juli 2015

Subjek

Politik Pemerintahan

Info Detail Spesifik

-

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

Masahiro Takimoto

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar

---

Anda harus masuk sebelum memberikan komentar