Boosters and Hedges are the two widely used terms in linguistics. Several linguists have proposed the definition and have discussed aspects related to the two terms. Hyland categorised boosters and hedges into stance theory which explicate the ways writers can use to show their point of view and the degree of their certainty towards certain utterances. However, only a few researches about the use of boosters and hedges by different genders are conducted. Therefore, this study aims at finding the similarities/differences of boosters and hedges usage in abstract and conclusion sections in data of males and females and seeking the two-, three-, four, five-word clusters of top five boosters and hedges. Stance and engagement theory (Hyland, 1996b, 2005) and world-class theory (Varttala, 1999) are used for data analysis. WordSmith is used in calculating the frequency and searching common word cluster. The results show that males and females tend to use boosters and hedges similarly in the section of abstract and conclusion, but females use them more frequently. The frequency of two- and three-word clusters in boosters and hedges used by males and females are higher than four- and five-word clusters. In fact, five-word clusters are rather rare in the data. It is hoped that the result of the study give insight on how male and female use boosters and hedges, especially in relation to politeness.

Boosters and Hedges are the two widely used terms in linguistics. Several linguists have proposed the definition and have discussed aspects related to the two terms. Hyland categorised boosters and hedges into stance theory which explicate the ways writers can use to show their point of view and the degree of their certainty towards certain utterances. However, only a few researches about the use of boosters and hedges by different genders are conducted. Therefore, this study aims at finding the similarities/differences of boosters and hedges usage in abstract and conclusion sections in data of males and females and seeking the two-, three-, four, five-word clusters of top five boosters and hedges. Stance and engagement theory (Hyland, 1996b, 2005) and world-class theory (Varttala, 1999) are used for data analysis. WordSmith is used in calculating the frequency and searching common word cluster. The results show that males and females tend to use boosters and hedges similarly in the section of abstract and conclusion, but females use them more frequently. The frequency of two- and three-word clusters in boosters and hedges used by males and females are higher than four- and five-word clusters. In fact, five-word clusters are rather rare in the data. It is hoped that the result of the study give insight on how male and female use boosters and hedges, especially in relation to politeness.

Baker, Paul. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.
Baker, Paul. (2014). Using corpora to analyze gender. India: Bloomsbury Academic.
Bashanova, E.Y. (2012). Hedging in online news articles (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
Biber, D., Conrad, Susan., Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics. Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bróna, M. (2010). Corpus and sociolinguistics: Investigating age and gender in female talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage.
Evison, J. (2010). What are the basics of analyzing a corpus? In A. O’Keefe, & M. McCarthy (Eds). The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, (pp.122-135). Oxford: Routledge.
Fasold, R. (1990). The Sociolinguistics of Language. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 3: 9-28.
Hu & Cao. (2011). Hedging and Boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11): 2795-2809.
Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the Academy: Forms of Hedging in Science Research Articles. Written Communication, 13(2): 251-281.
Hyland, K. (1996b). Writing without conviction: Hedging in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4): 433-454.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London & New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and Engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Journal citation reports. Retrieved from http://0-admin-apps.webofknowledge.com.millennium.lib.ntust.edu.tw/JCR/JCR?PointOfEntry=Home&SID=Z2Pj1INtT59OaJztOuz
Kasper, G. (1998). Politeness. In J. L. Mey (Eds.). Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, (p. 667). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kennedy, G. (1998). An introduction to corpus linguistics. London: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Linguistics. (2015). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/linguistics
Markkanen, R. & Schrödder, H. (1997). Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In . R. Markkanen & H. Schrödder (Eds.). Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, (pp. 3-18). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. P. Drew, M. H. Goodwin, J. J. Gumperz, D. Schiffrin (Eds.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nemati, A. & Bayer, J. M. (2007). Gender differences in the use of linguistics forms in the speech of men and women: A comparative study of Persian and English. Language in India, 7, 185-201. Retrieved from http://ut.pr/biblioteca/Glossa2/Journal/dec2007/Gender%20Differences%20in%20the%20Use%20of%20Linguistic%20Forms%20in%20the%20Speech%20of%20Men%20and%20Women.pdf
Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45, 211-236. Retrieved from http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/pennebaker/reprints/newmansexdif2007.pdf
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Poos, D. & Simpson, R. (2002). Cross-disciplinary comparisons of hedging: Some findings from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. In Reppen, R., S.M. Fitzmaurice and D. Biber (Eds.). Using corpora to explore linguistic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Reid, J. (1995). A study of gender differences in minimal responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 24(5), 489-512.
Riekkinen, N. (2009). ‘This is not criticism, but…’. Softening criticism: The use of lexical hedges in academic spoken interaction. (Unpublished thesis).University of Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/englanti/elfa/ProGradu_Niina_Riekkinen.pdf
Salagar-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 149-170.
Serholt, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in academic writing: A study of gender differences in essays written by Swedish advanced learners of English. Unpublished thesis. University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2077/29526
Sinclair, J. (1992). Corpus concordance collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2013). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. (3rd ed.). Taipei: Crane Publishing Co, Ltd.
Tu, P. N. (2013). A corpus-based study of research article abstracts in relation to lexical item, formulaic language and rhetorical structure. (Unpublished master’s thesis. National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Wang, S.P., & Kao, C.L. (2012). Wordlists, clusters and structure in research article introductions. Studies in English Language and Literature, 30, 27-43.
Varttala, T. A. (1999). Remarks on the Communicative Functions of Hedging in Popular Scientific and Specialist Research Articles on Medicine. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 177-200.
Varttala, T. A. (2011). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse: Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience (Doctoral dissertation. University of Tampere, Finland.) Retrieved from https://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/67148/951-44-5195-3.pdf?sequence=1
Vázquez, I & Giner, D. (2009). Writing with Conviction: the Use of Boosters in Modelling Persuasion in Academic Discourse. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 22, 219-237. Retrieved from http://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/13822/1/RAEI_22_14.pdf
Winardi, A. (2009). The use of hedging devices by American and Chinese writers in the field of applied linguistics. Jurnal Sastra Inggris, 8(3), 228-237.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.