For a study on modalization, modulation and intensity (degree), it is relevant to investigate both hedges and boosters. Only this way, the provision of a complete picture of such intermediate assessments is ensured. This subsection aims at defining boosters, presenting the very few studies focusing solely on these concepts and showing various related variables such as disciplinary domain, internal text features etc.
As shown in the introduction, boosters (certainly, this is a fact) are culture-specific devices that express the writer’s full commitment towards the reliability or truthfulness of the propositional information. (cf. Schmied 2018: 9) Hyland (2017: 20) notes that boosters or certainty markers such as it is clear, definitely and surely “[e]mphasize force or writer's certainty in proposition.” In the same vein, Holmes (cf. 1982: 18-20) refers to boosters as lexical elements that every writer can employ to convey the idea of self- confidence regarding their statements. They consolidate the illocutionary force of the authors’ claims, in contrast to weakening 'downtoners' (Holmes’ term for hedges). Along the same lines, Diani (cf. 2012: 60) presents the examples of certainly, of course,
clearly and it is clear as items that reviewers use to persuade their readers by means of
the reviewers’ belief in the logical strength of their argument. Within the same context of Italian researchers, Bondi (cf. 2008: 32) declares that emphatics (Crismore’s (1989) term for boosters) are mostly adverbs or adverbials which ensure an increased authority or vigor to the arguments. Boosters appear to provide certainty and truthfulness of a writer's claims, as long as they are accompanied by necessary evidence.
Beyond showing certainty and strengthening the proposition, boosters also appear to be engaging and interpersonal. Boosters, together with hedges, are also seen as
engagement and stance elements (see Lee and Deakin 2016: 22) I agree that one function of boosters and hedges is engaging with the readers. It is clear that they function within the interpersonal level and that explains why they help authors to also engage with their readers. By expressing confidence, boosters can persuade the readers on the factuality of a certain statement or text. Hyland (cf. 1998b: 353) supports this idea by clarifying that although boosters’ expression of confidence can leave little space for the reader’s personal conclusions, it also offers authors a means of interaction with their audience and establish interpersonal agreement. However, my aim is to categorize and investigate grammatical and author-related features of hedges and boosters.
Despite the scientific relevance of boosters, there is obviously a higher amount of research on hedges than boosters, particularly in academic writing (see e.g. Hyland 1998b: 352-353; Bondi 2008). Bondi (cf. 2008: 32) underlines the widely accepted necessity for a more in-depth analysis of the pragmatic and semantic features of emphatics (cf. Hyland 2000a, 2000b; Biber et. al. 1999; Conrad and Biber 2000; Precht 2003; cited in Bondi 2008: 33). In the same year, Lafuente Millán similarly declares that boosters “have not received nearly as much attention as hedges” (Lafuente Millán 2008: 70). Akbas and Hardman (cf. 2018: 835) raise a similar issue by pointing out the limited number of studies with a focus on boosters.
The disciplinary domains and internal characteristics of texts also play an important role in the types of boosters used and their corresponding functions. The internal characteristics of texts, undoubtedly and invariably, followed by significantly (which is less polarized) appear in contrastive and analogy contexts, such as significantly larger. (cf. Bondi 2008: 41) These forms can be equally interrelated to exposition contexts (relate, associate) and change-effect processes (influence, increase). In Bondi’s study, undoubtedly only functions in change processes while invariably is more oriented towards exposition. (cf. Bondi 2008: 44-45) Moreover, various disciplines may show different focuses reflected in their uses of boosters. In Economics, it would rely on a simplification of reality with a focus on statistical significance (significantly) and a process of abstraction (typically). In History, the focus would be on displaying frequency and gathering of factual data (inevitably, usually, thoroughly, invariably). (cf. Bondi 2008: 38)
The following table presents the various functions or ‘parameters of evaluation’, as Bondi calls them, expressed by boosters such as ‘certainty’ (certainly, undoubtedly), ‘importance’ (significantly) and ‘expectedness’ (invariably). It also shows the results from these lexemes (only their instances that modify adjectives or adverbs) in the disciplinary domains of Economics and History. The results show that undoubtedly reaches a considerable percentage in modifying adjectives or adverbs in History, and less than half (only 6.5%) in Economics. Certainly shows more similar quantities in both disciplinary domains, while significantly is found as a modifier of adjectives and adverbs in Economics over three times the amount (the highest score) as in History. All in all, these findings show Bondi’s consideration of the aspect of booster’s positioning, which is one of the main aspects of my study. The findings also provide a better understanding of the functions of the mentioned boosting adverbs, show the low -
medium frequency in use of these forms in the mentioned position and the relevance of disciplinary domains in the emerging variation.
Table 6: Adverbial boosters modifying adjectives or adverbs in two different discipli- nary domains (Bondi 2008: 39).
From another point of view, Bondi (2008) takes an interesting stance on boosters and the way they modify parts of the clause complex such as adverbs, adjectives or the whole clause complex. This shows the relevance of scope or dependency.
Boosters may show different and overlapping meanings and functions, which may often make it difficult to rank them. In a similar manner to hedges, boosters interweave both ideational and interpersonal meanings. (cf. Bondi 2008: 32) Previous studies (see Hyland 1998a: ix; Bondi 2008: 34) have also proven that the affective and epistemic function of hedges and boosters often overlap, allowing no place for a clear-cut division of these categories. During my analysis, the booster significantly usually conveyed either a ‘significant manner’ or a ‘statistically significant’ entity, but sometimes it was related to ‘meaningfulness (and feelings).’ These different meanings were often overlapping. Bondi (cf. 2008: 37) considered the category of ‘statistical significance’ which I used for significantly. According to her, ‘statistical significance’ is actually based on ‘expectedness’, but it appears to blur the difference between the evaluative parameters of ‘significance’ and ‘expectedness.’
As expected, a lexeme can be a booster or not, depending on the context. Serholt (2012: 9) discusses the contextual variation of certain that is expressed in the two following examples (3.4 and 3.5).
3.4 It is certain that there is no difference between A and C. 3.5 Certain items were analyzed.
While certain in example a) functions as a booster, the same lexeme in example b) appears as an adjective that specifies which items were analyzed. Similar differences can be observed in most items functioning as boosters, thus signaling the relevance of conducting a contextual analysis. (cf. Serholt, 2012: 9)
To make the matter even more complex, Hyland (cf. 2017: 18) provides examples on how the same lexemes can fall into both categories, namely hedges and boosters. Quite functions as a hedge (quite well) and at the same time as a booster (quite extraordinary). In the same vein, I placed the same lexeme as booster (certainly) and hedge (not certainly, which equals possibly). In addition, he offers three functions of the objective explicit form it is possible: hedging a proposition, drawing an assumption
which conveys the author’s attitude (it is possible that he was her brother) and reference to the likelihood of something in the actual world (it is possible to graduate at the University of Chemnitz). (cf. Hyland 2017: 18) Collectively, the previously mentioned studies outline the difficulty of analyzing boosters in context, comparable to hedges.
In academic writing, there is usually a more frequent usage of hedges than boosters. (cf. Schmied 2018: 9) From my research, there were very few studies focusing exclusively on boosters. This subsection provides an overview of the studies I found. Vázquez and Giner (2009: 219) suggest that hedges and boosters are “two sides of the same coin”, and that “boosting deserves particular attention if we want to fully interpret the phenomenon of academic persuasion”. Theirs is one of the few studies that focuses exclusively on boosters, particularly as a phenomenon acting on the interpersonal and ideational levels to achieve aims of objectivity and persuasion. (cf. Vázquez and Giner 2009: 219) For that purpose, the authors qualitatively and quantitatively compare their use in English RAs from contrastive disciplines, such as Mechanical Engineering and Marketing and Biology, which stands ‘in between’ this hard vs. soft science contrast. (cf. Vázquez and Giner 2009: 220-225) This aspect of their study will be treated in detail in the subsection 3.6.4.
From a qualitative perspective, Vázquez and Giner (2009: 229) provide boosting functions with useful examples as such (3.6) from Marketing:
3.6 Time has substantiated that this is not a fad and it certainlywas not anticipated prior to the advent of Cigar Aficionado magazine. (Latour, 2003: 13)
Vázquez and Giner suggest that here, the writer has the aim of convincing “the audience of the truth of the statement […] [and] blocking any other viewpoints” (Vázquez and Giner 2009: 229). The authors show an example (3.7) where according to them, the booster must is used to reaffirm the writer’s uncertainty (regarding results).
3.7 The CCSR/NIES results are somewhat smaller for the future, as indicated above, and in addition to the large errors these results suggestthat extrapolation of the current observed trends to the future must remain uncertain. (Austin et al., 2003:17) (Vázquez and Giner 2009: 233).
It is an arguable interpretation because it infers that boosters are also used to strengthen tentativeness and uncertainty, which seems quite different from emphasizing conviction and self-confidence. While the authors only focus on the booster must, I emphasize all hedges within the clause complex (3.7), which in its whole is extremely tentative and covered by the hedging phenomenon. Various parts of the clause complex and its meaning fall into the category of what Hyland (cf. 1998a: 143-145) refers to as non- lexical hedging (and lexical hedging), and more particularly writers presenting a lack of data/methodology. These features affect the use of must, since it functions within the span of suggest. This shows how this and similar papers which focus exclusively on either hedges or boosters might lack a complete picture of what Vázquez and Giner (2009: 219) themselves call “two sides of the same coin”. Moreover, the authors show an example from the paper of Austin et al., which is written by 13 authors from many
different countries (Canada, Italy, Japan, UK, Switzerland, USA and Germany) and thus three different continents (North America, Asia and Europe). I am convinced that there are author-, (academic) culture- and gender-related issues in the selection and analysis of such a paper. In simple terms, researchers cannot normally know who wrote which part of the paper or the effect of the respective academic culture, background and gender of the person who wrote it. Moreover, Vázquez and Giner (cf. 2009: 233) present the paper by Austin et al. (2003) as a paper from Biology, but it is from Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Even though the definition of various disciplines can be problematic (cf. Bondi 2008: 52), the selection criteria of the RA disciplines, authors or their background could have been made clear by Vázquez and Giner (2009). Overall, it is a useful qualitative and quantitative contribution, which leads to a better understanding of the non-widely researched linguistic devices of boosters. It adds useful literature and good discussions to this underexplored area of research, and differences in the usage of boosters across disciplines.
In conclusion, boosters are a very broad category, comparable to hedges. They show similar overlaps with hedges and many interesting differences depending on disciplinary domains, internal features of texts etc. Since they are underexplored in previous literature, it is essential to include them and their major subcategories, intensifiers and emphasizers.
3.2.1. Lexical boosters: Intensifiers
One relevant feature of boosters is the conveyance of the degree of a certain lexeme or a large part of the text. Such boosters are categorized as intensifiers. They will be introduced in this subsection together with some studies focusing on them. The term intensifiers was introduced by Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1985). Intensifiers stand for degree adverbs that either indicate degrees on a scale while modifying gradable objectives (extremely cautious) or show the endpoint of a certain scale (totally different). (cf. Bondi 2008: 39) They usually have a narrow scope (cf. Bondi 2008: 39) and are predominately semantic. However, they may also contain pragmatic features, as my study aims to show. Grabe and Kaplan (1997/2010) present functions of emphatics (or boosters) as close exactness of a certain measurement (completely). In SFG, intensifiers are included in the category of adjuncts of intensity, where they show total degree (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 189). This implies that intensifiers and adjuncts of intensity are similar terms, but not the same. The former relates to proposition-related boosters (my term) and the later is an umberella term for all lexemes that show high (almost) and total (totally, completely) values and intensity (degree). These aspects will be discussed in more detail in subsection 3.9.6.3.1. One study that focuses on intensifiers and their functions within an Italian and German context is the one by Benso (2000). The author compares native and non-native use with the help of a corpus analysis in her thesis on adjective intensification. She found that Italian students overuse adjective intensification quantitatively, but usually went back to a restricted set of items such as ‘-ly delexicalized scalar intensifiers’ (e.g. totally, perfectly) and ‘general purpose intensifiers’ containing a high level of delexicalization
(e.g. very). This work is worth mentioning because intensifiers such as totally/entirely belong to my analysis. In a similar manner as German students, Italians did not present a wide variety of intensifiers as much as native speakers did and their mother tongue transfer possibly influenced their infraction of collocational restrictions (e.g. much easy).
The discussion above showed some of the main features of intensifiers, the few studies focusing on them and their differences to the concept of intensity adjuncts. As previously mentioned, intensifiers or propositional boosters appear to be equivalent semantic (and pragmatic) devices to approximators. This becomes obvious from the discussion above, which reveals aspects of intensifiers such as showing grades or the endpoint of a certain scale. The same aspects are shown by approximators, which deal with lower grades of a certain scale. They both convey degree. The ranking of Halliday and Matthiessen (2014: 189) of the total (entirely), high (quite) and low (hardly) degrees of intensifying adjuncts proves this similarity. This is also supported by Hyland (1998a: 135-139), who presents examples of what he calls (intensifying) adjuncts or downtowners that include compromisers, such as quite; rather, pretty. Within intermediate levels, the focus will shift from the semantic elements named intensifiers to the more complex and pragmatic elements named emphasizers.
3.2.2. Lexical boosters: Emphasizers
As authors of academic texts, we interact with our audiences and allow space for possible discussions. We also direct the audience by emphasizing the strongest points of our analysis in terms of evidence or accepted knowledge. These are some of the reasons why we make use of (author-related) emphasizers. Emphasizers such as certainly and definitely strengthen the illocutionary force of the proposition. (cf. Bondi 2008: 39) Emphasizers are introduced by Quirk et al. (1985). Grabe and Kaplan (1997/2010) present functions of emphatics (obviously, surely) such as conveying a high degree of authorial commitment. Emphatics emphasize the given information through extreme or unusual descriptors or commentaries and through evaluation forms that allow no space for qualification. (cf. Grabe and Kaplan 1997/2010: 160) These functions are in line with the ones of emphasizers as shown in my analysis. Emphasizers have a usually broad scope. They are predominately pragmatic but can also show semantic features.
A study focusing on scope would require the division of boosters into emphasizers and intensifiers. (cf. Bondi 2008: 39) They noticeably differ in scope, since the scope of emphasizers covers the whole clause or clause complex, while intensifiers have a generally narrower scope. However, their functions may overlap when, for instance, an emphasizer modifies a gradable predicate (Quirk et al. 1985; Bondi 2008: 39). This distinction presented by Quirk et al. (1985) and complemented by Bondi (2008)is very relevant for my study. Its relevance derives from the fact that it similarly covers both author-related boosters (or emphasizers) and proposition-related boosters (or intensifiers).
Through a brief review of a few useful studies, this subsection showed the main features of emphasizers such as strengthening the illocutionary force of the proposition
and having a large scope. While intensifiers are comparable to approximators, emphasizers are comparable to shields because of their pragmatic features and their large scope. This inevitably leads to a unified view on hedges and boosters as shown in the next subsection.