Competence in lexical boosters and nativeness in academic writing of English: The possible relation

Cuneyt Demir


Boosters are an important metadiscourse device for writers because it creates an emphatic impression in the reader even if many non-native writers of English refrain from using it. However, the competence of metadiscourse devices such as boosters is crucial in having native-fluency in academic writing. Therefore, this avoidance of using boosters may spawn foreignness in non-native writers' academic texts. The present study has four-fold aims to accomplish: (1) whether there is a statistically significant difference between native and non-native writers of English in terms of the number of boosters and lexical diversity of boosters; (2) whether there is a correlation between a writer's competence of boosters and native-fluency in academic writing; (3) to suggest pedagogical implications for writers regarding the use of boosters; and (4) to create a list of boosters that may be used by writers in their prospective studies. Accordingly, the present study investigated 200 articles written in English by Anglophone and non-Anglophone writers. The results provided partly statistically significant differences. Another significant result which may be a reference point for further research is that Anglophone writers are prone to writing their academic texts with a higher lexical variety when compared to non-native writers. 


Academic writing, boosters, boosting, native fluency, writing

Full Text:



Akbas, E. (2014). Are They Discussing in the Same Way? Interactional Metadiscourse in Turkish Writers’ Texts. In A. Łyda, & K. Warchał, Occupying Niches: Interculturality, Cross-culturality and Aculturality in Academic Research (pp. 119-133). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Akbas, E. (2012). Exploring Metadiscourse in Master’s Dissertation Abstracts: Cultural and Linguistic Variations across Postgraduate Writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature , 1(1): 11-26, doi:10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.1p.12.

Azodi, N. (2014). Measuring the Lexical Richness of Productive Vocabulary in Iranian EFL University Students’ Writing Performance. Theory and practice in language studies , 4(9): 1837-1849, doi: 10.4304/tpls.4.9.1837-1849.

Behnam, B., & Mirzapour, F. (2012). A Comparative Study of Intensity Markers in Engineering and Applied Linguistics. English Language Teaching , 5(7): 158-163.

Biook, B., & Mohseni, F. (2014). The Use of Hedginh in Research Articles. Journal of Current Research in Science , 2(4): 474-477.

Chen, Z. (2012). Expression of Epistemic Stance in EFL Chinese University Students’ Writings. English Language Teaching , 5(10):173-179, doi:10.5539/elt.v5n10p173.

Feagans, L., & Applebaum, M. (1986). Validations of language subtype in learning disabled children. journal of Education Psychology , 78:358-64.

Hamamcı, Z. (2007). The Use of Hedges in Research Articles by Turkish Interlanguage Speakers of English and Native English Speakers in the Field of Social Sciences (master's thesis). Adana: The University of Çukurova.

Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching Academics ESL Writing. New York: Routledge.

Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal , 3: 9-28.

Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, Hedging, and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text , 18(3): 349-382.

Hyland, K. (1998b). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. The Journal of Business Communication , 35:224-245.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: exploring Interaction in Writing. New York: Continuum.

Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, J., & Heng, S. (2013). Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Academic Research Article Result and Discussion Sections. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies , 19(1): 65-74.

Kim, C. H., & Suh, H. W. (2014). Epistemic Rhetorical Stance: Hedges and Boosters in L1 and L2 Students' English Writings. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal , 22(2):61-93.

Lafuente-Millan, E. (2014). Reader engagement across cultures, languages and contexts of publication in business research articles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics , 24: 201-233, doi: 10.1111/ijal.12019.

Lu, X. (2012). The Relationship of Lexical Richness to the Quality of ESL Learners’ Oral Narratives. The Modern Language Journal , 96(2): 190-208, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232.x.

Mehdi, K., & Salahshoor, F. (2014). The relative significance of lexical richness and syntactic complexity as predictors of academic reading performance . International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning , 3(2): 17-28, doi: 10.5861/ijrsll.2013.477.

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

Perez-Liantada, C. (2010). The discourse functions of metadiscourse in published academic writing: issues of culture and language. Nordic Journal of English Studies , 9: 41-68.

Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: a study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies , 10(2):231-250, doi:10.1177/1461445607087010.

Pinker, S. (2014). Why academics stink at writing. The Chronicle of Higher Education , Available: http://chronicle. com/article/Why-Academics-Writing-Stinks/148989.

Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes , 13(2): 149-170.

Salek, M. (2014). A Diagram of Interactive and Interactional Markers in Different Parts of English Research Articles. Journal of Languages Science & Linguistics , 2(3): 55-66.

Sanjaya, N. S. (2013). Hedging and Boosting in English and Indonesian Research Articles (PhD Dissertation). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University.

Schreiber, J., & Asner-Self, K. (2011). Educational Research: The Interrelationship of Questions, Sampling, Design, and Analysis. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Skelton, J. (1997). How to tell the truth in The British Medical Journal: Patterns of judgement in the 19th and 20th centuries. In R. Markkanen, & H. Schröder, Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts (pp. 42-63). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Uysal, H. (2012). Argumentation across L1 and L2 Writing: Exploring Cultural Influences and Transfer Issues. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics , 9:133-159.

Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes , 20:83-102.

Vázquez, I., & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond mood and modality: Epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles. Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses , 21, 171-190.

Yağız, O., & Demir, C. (2015). A comparative study of boosting in academic texts: A contrastive rhetoric. International Journal of English Linguistics , 5(4):12-28, doi:10.5539/ijel.v5n4p12.

Yağız, O., & Demir, C. (2014). Hedging strategies in academic discourse: A comparative analysis of Turkish writers and native writers of English. 14th International Language, Literature and Stylistics Symposium (pp. 260-268). İzmir: Dokuz Eylul University.

Yağız, O., & Yiğiter, K. (2012). Academic Writing Difficulties and Challenges in Advanced Academic Literacy. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies , 5 (8) 1261-1272.

Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics , 50:23-36.

Yeşilbursa, A. A. (2011). Mitigation of Suggestions and Advice in Post-Observation Conferences Between 3 English Language Teacher Educators. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies , 7(1): 18-35.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

  Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies
ISSN 1305-578X (Online)
Copyright © 2005-2017 by Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies