KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 27 Sayı: 51

AFET VE RİSK DERGİSİ ARAŞTIRMA MAKALESİ ÖZETLERİNDE KAÇINMALARIN VE GÜÇLENDİRİCİLERİN KULLANIMI: TOPLUM(DİL)BİLİMSEL BİR İNCELEME

Hedges and Boosters in the Journal of Disaster and Risk Research Article Abstracts: A Sociolinguistic/Sociological Investigation

Esra Küçüksakarya(NECMETTİN ERBAKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3103-9608
Ruhi Can Alkın(İZMİR KATİP ÇELEBİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8608-4043
Sayfa
449–476
Yayın Tarihi
2026-05-31
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Karma yöntemle oluşturulan bu çalışma, afet alanında ortaya çıkan makale özetlerindeki güçlendirici ve kaçınma kullanımlarının, yazar ve okuyucu arasındaki toplumdilbimsel ve entelektüel arka planını sorgulamakta ve bu yönüyle Türkçe alanyazınında bir ilki temsil etmektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma, Afet ve Risk dergisinde son beş yılda yayımlanan 210 araştırma makalesi özetinde yazarların kaçınmaları ve güçlendiricileri (hedges and boosters) nasıl kullandıklarını tespit ederek toplumdilbilim ve söylem çözümlemesi kapsamında bir araştırma ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:İncelenen akademik metinlerin genelde sosyal bilimler metinlerinden oluşması nedeniyle üstsöylem yöntemine eklektik olarak Holmes’ün (1990) toplumdilbilim yaklaşımı benimsenmiştir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Karma yöntemle oluşturulan bu çalışma, afet alanında ortaya çıkan makale özetlerindeki güçlendirici ve kaçınma kullanımlarının, yazar ve okuyucu arasındaki toplumdilbimsel ve entelektüel arka planını sorgulamakta ve bu yönüyle Türkçe alanyazınında bir ilki temsil etmektedir.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:kaçınmalar · güçlendiriciler · sosyal bilim araştırma makaleleri

Özet

Bu çalışma, Afet ve Risk dergisinde son beş yılda yayımlanan 210 araştırma makalesi özetinde yazarların kaçınmaları ve güçlendiricileri (hedges and boosters) nasıl kullandıklarını tespit ederek toplumdilbilim ve söylem çözümlemesi kapsamında bir araştırma ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Söz konusu kaçınma ve güçlendirici ifadeleri açık yorumları kısıtlama, netlik, belirsizlik gibi işlevleri ön plana çıkaran eylemlerin, kiplerin, adların, sıfatların, belirteçlerin kullanımından oluşmakta ve metne bilgisellik yükleyen, yazarın bilgisel duruşunu temsil eden birimler olarak nitelendirilmektedir. İncelenen akademik metinlerin genelde sosyal bilimler metinlerinden oluşması nedeniyle üstsöylem yöntemine eklektik olarak Holmes’ün (1990) toplumdilbilim yaklaşımı benimsenmiştir. Karma yöntemle oluşturulan bu çalışma, afet alanında ortaya çıkan makale özetlerindeki güçlendirici ve kaçınma kullanımlarının, yazar ve okuyucu arasındaki toplumdilbimsel ve entelektüel arka planını sorgulamakta ve bu yönüyle Türkçe alanyazınında bir ilki temsil etmektedir.

Abstract

This study aims to present research within the scope of sociolinguistics and discourse analysis by identifying how authors use hedges and boosters in the abstracts of 210 research articles published in the Journal of Disaster and Risk over the past five years. These hedge and booster expressions consist of the use of actions, moods, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs that emphasize functions such as restricting explicit interpretation, clarity, and ambiguity, and are characterized as units that add information to the text and represent the author’s intellectual stance. Since the academic texts examined mainly consisted of social scientific texts, Holmes’ (1990) sociolinguistic approach was eclectically adopted in addition to the metadiscourse method. This mixed-methods study examines the sociolinguistic and intellectual background of booster and hedge uses in article abstracts emerging from disaster areas, and in this respect represents a first in Turkish literature.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Küçüksakarya, E., Alkın, R. C. (2026). AFET VE RİSK DERGİSİ ARAŞTIRMA MAKALESİ ÖZETLERİNDE KAÇINMALARIN VE GÜÇLENDİRİCİLERİN KULLANIMI: TOPLUM(DİL)BİLİMSEL BİR İNCELEME. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 51, 449–476. https://doi.org/10.21550/sosbilder.1879724

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (121)

  1. Afet ve Risk Dergisi (2021). 4(2). https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/afet/issue/65766
  2. Afet ve Risk Dergisi (2022). 5(1). https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/afet/issue/70082
  3. Afet ve Risk Dergisi (2022). 5(2). https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/afet/issue/73264
  4. Afet ve Risk Dergisi (2023). 6(1). https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/afet/issue/7
  5. Afet ve Risk Dergisi (2023). 6(3). https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/afet/issue/80195
  6. Afet ve Risk Dergisi (2023). 6(4). https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/afet/issue/76541
  7. Afet ve Risk Dergisi (2024). 7(1). https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/afet/issue/83895
  8. Afet ve Risk Dergisi (2024). 7(2). https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/afet/issue/86456
  9. Akbaş, 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), 12-26.
  10. Akbaş, E. (2014). Are they discussing in the same way? Interactional metadiscourse in Turkish writers’ texts. A. Lyda, K. Warchal (Ed.), Occupying Niches: Interculturality, Cross-Culturality and Aculturality in Academic Research içinde (79-94. ss.), Springer.
  11. Algı, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in L1 and L2 argumentative paragraphs: Implications for teaching L2 academic writing. (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Middle East Technical University, Institute of Social Sciences.
  12. Al-Harthi, M., Alshahrani, H. J., Hamed, D. M., Ibrahim, W. M. A. (2022). Evidentials, code glosses, hedges and boosters in academic articles: A cross-disciplinary study. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(3), 181-200.
  13. Álvarez Gil, F. J. & Quintana Toledo, E. (2024). Boosters in academic discourse: Contrastive analysis concerning their use in theses from the fields of social sciences and natural sciences. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación.
  14. Bal-Gezegin, B. (2016). Hedging and boosting devices in academic writing: A comparative study of Turkish and English research articles. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 452-458.
  15. Bayyurt, Y. (2010). Amplification in Turkish academic writing: A corpus-based study. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 778-791.
  16. Bazerman, C. (1981). Scientific writing as a social act: A review of the literature of the sociology of science. P. Anderson, J. Brockman, C. Miller (Ed.), New Essays in Technical and Scientific Communication Research, Theory, Practice içinde (156-184. ss.), Routledge.
  17. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. University of Wisconsin Press.
  18. Becher, T. & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Open University Press.
  19. Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness. University of Pittsburgh Press.
  20. Blagojević, S. (2004). Gender differences in the use of hedges in academic discourse. ESP Today, 2(1), 35-53.
  21. Bloor, M. & Bloor, T. (1991). Cultural expectations and socio-pragmatic failure in academic writing. P. Adams, B. Heaton, P. Howarth (Ed.), Socio-Cultural Issues in English for Academic Purposes içinde (1-12. ss.), MacMillan.
  22. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
  23. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
  24. Bruffee, K. A. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: A bibliographical essay. College English, 48(8), 773-790.
  25. Can, M. (2006). Türkçede vurgu ve anlam ilişkisi. Dilbilim Dergisi, (12), 45-60.
  26. Cao, F. & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A cross-linguistic study of English and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, (66), 17-31.
  27. Çapar, M. & Turan, Ü. D. (2019). Interactional metadiscourse in research articles written by Turkish and native speakers. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 10(1), 324-358.
  28. Chafe, W. L. (1985). Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. In D. R. Olson, N. Torrance, A. Hildyard (Ed.), Literacy, Language, and Learning: The Nature and Consequences of Reading and Writing (105-123. ss.), Cambridge University Press.
  29. Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. University of Chicago Press.
  30. Chou, I., Li, W., Liu, K. (2023). Representation of interactional metadiscourse in translated and native English: A corpus-assisted study. PLoS ONE, 18(7), Article e0284849.
  31. Comte, A. (2009). The positive philosophy of Auguste Comte. (Çev: H. Martineau), Cambridge University Press.
  32. Connor, U. & Moreno, A. I. (2005). Tertium comparationis: A vital component in contrastive rhetoric research. P. Bruthiaux vd. (Ed.), Directions in Applied Linguistics içinde (153-164. ss.), Multilingual Matters.
  33. Coşkun, E. & Demirel, M. V. (2015). Metadiscourse in Turkish academic writing: A comparative study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, (199), 310-316.
  34. Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
  35. Dafouz, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113.
  36. Dağ Tarcan, Ö. (2017). Türkçe bilimsel metinlerde etkileşimli üstsöylem belirleyicileri. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2), 176-184.
  37. Dağ Tarcan, Ö. (2019). Sosyal bilimler alanında yazılan Türkçe bilimsel metinlerde kullanılan üstsöylem belirleyicileri. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  38. Dağ Tarcan, Ö. (2020). Türkçe akademik metinlerde kaçınsamalar ile vurgulayıcıların kullanımı. Dil Dergisi, 171(2), 160-176.
  39. Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825.
  40. Davis, J. E. (2013). Social science, objectivity, and moral life. Society, (50), 554-559.
  41. del Saz Rubio, M. M. (2011). A pragmatic approach to research article introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 258-271.
  42. Demir, C. (2018). Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(4), 74-92.
  43. Doyuran, Z. (2009). Conciliation of knowledge through hedging. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(1), 85-99.
  44. Drabek, T. (1986). Human system responses to disaster: An inventory of sociological findings. Springer.
  45. Durkheim, E. (1984). The division of labor in society. (Çev: W. D. Halls), Macmillan.
  46. Durkheim, E. (2020). Sosyolojik yöntemin kuralları (Çev: F. Kıyak), Dorlion.
  47. Esmer, D. (2018). Türkçe akademik yazılarda epistemik belirteçler. Dilbilim Dergisi, 19(1), 77-95.
  48. Falahati, R. (2006). The use of hedging across disciplines. Proceedings of the 22nd Northwest Linguistics Conference.
  49. Fidan, N. (2002). Okulda öğrenme ve öğretme. Alkım Yayınları.
  50. Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., Velasco-Sacristán, M., Arribas-Baño, A., Samaniego-Fernández, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(8), 1291-1307.
  51. Gai, F. H. & Wang, Y. (2022). Metadiscourse and metacognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1026554. Giddens, A. (1991). The consequences of modernity. Stanford University Press.
  52. Gillaerts, P. & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139.
  53. Gökalp Yılmaz, F. G. (2021). Doğal afetler ve toplumsal değişme. Sosyolojik Bağlam Dergisi, 2(2), 119-132.
  54. Golebiowski, Z. & Liddicoat, A. J. (2002). Discipline and culture in academic writing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 59-71.
  55. Golmohammadi, S., Suluki, S., Daneshmand, F., Salahshoor, F. (2014). Strategic features of discussion sections. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, (98), 604-613.
  56. Guillem S. M. (2009). Argumentation, metadiscourse and social cognition: organizing knowledge in political communication. Discourse & Society, (20), 727-746.
  57. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press.
  58. Güçlü, R. (2024a). Hedging and boosting in Turkish MA theses’ conclusions. Mersin University Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 20(1), 17-54.
  59. Güçlü, R. (2024b). Yabancılara Türkçe öğretimi ders kitaplarında “ben” ve “biz”: Bir üstsöylem çözümlemesinde kültürel yansımalar. Türkbilig, 2024(48), 141-176.
  60. Güçlü, R. (2025). The use of metadiscourse markers in L2 Turkish opinion texts by native Albanian students. International Journal of Research in Turkish Teaching (JRTT), 5(2), 288-316.
  61. Güçlü, R. & Önem, E. E. (2025). The use of metadiscourse in Turkish EFL Learners’ L1 and L2 argumentative essays. Integration of Education, 29(3), 573-594.
  62. Hatipoğlu, Ç. & Algı, S. (2017). Pragmatic markers and modality in Turkish: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Pragmatics, (115), 12-27.
  63. Herminingsih, D. I. & Isro’iyah, L. (2023). The metadiscourse analysis in abstracts of multidisciplinary sciences journal articles: Hedges vs boosters. International Linguistics Research, 6(1), 24-33.
  64. Hodgkiss, P. (2013). A moral vision: human dignity in the eyes of the founders of sociology. Sociological Review, (61), 417-439.
  65. Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 13(2), 9-28.
  66. Holmes, J. (1983). Speaking English with the appropriate degree of conviction. C. Brumfit (Ed.), Learning and Teaching Languages for Communication: Applied Linguistic Perspectives içinde (100-113. ss.), Centre for Information.
  67. Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication, 10(3), 185-205.
  68. Holmes, J. (2008). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Routledge.
  69. Huemer, S., Mayring, P., Mruck, K. (2012). Metadiscourse in abstracts: A genre-based study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(3), 292-305.
  70. Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256.
  71. Hyland, K. (1996a). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251-281.
  72. Hyland, K. (1996b). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454.
  73. Hyland, K. & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205.
  74. Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text & Talk, 18(3), 349-382.
  75. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.
  76. Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
  77. Hyland, K. (2004a). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
  78. Hyland, K. (2004b). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.
  79. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
  80. Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1-23.
  81. Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143.
  82. Hyland, K. (2015). Metadiscourse. K. Tracy (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction 2 içinde (1-11. ss.), Wiley-Blackwell.
  83. Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, (113), 16-29.
  84. Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
  85. Hyland, K., Wang, W., Jiang, F. (2022). Metadiscourse across languages and genres: An overview. Lingua, (265), 103205.
  86. Kan, M. (2016). Akademik yazılarda vurgu yapıları: Eğitim alanında bir inceleme. Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 42(2), 187-204.
  87. Kerimoğlu, C. & Aksu, C. (2015). {-DIr} biçimbiriminin sözlü söylemdeki kiplik alanları ve kullanımları. Dil Araştırmaları, 9(17), 73-94.
  88. Khedri, M., Heng, C. S., Ebrahimi, S. F. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse Studies, 15(3), 319-331.
  89. Kondowe, W. (2014). Hedging and boosting as interactional metadiscourse in literature doctoral dissertation abstracts. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, (5), 214-221.
  90. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
  91. Kurt, B. (2022). Türkçe eğitimi alanındaki yüksek lisans ve doktora tezlerinin sonuç bölümünde tutum belirleyici kullanımının yazar temelli analizi. O. K. Gül (Ed.), VI. Uluslararası Türklerin Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı içinde (1573-1583. ss.), Türklerin Dünyası Enstitüsü.
  92. Kurudayıoğlu, M. & Çimen, L. (2020). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğrenen öğrencilerin akademik yazılarında etkileşimli üstsöylem belirleyicilerinin kullanımı. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(31), 3899-3923.
  93. Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, (8), 183-228.
  94. Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
  95. Lee, J. J. & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, (46), 39-54.
  96. Li, Z. & Xu, J. (2020). Reflexive metadiscourse in Chinese and English sociology research article introductions and discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, (159), 47-59.
  97. Markkanen, R. & Schröder, H. (Ed.). (1997). Social functions of language. John Benjamins.
  98. Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A textlinguistic study. Peter Lang.
  99. Mirshamsi, Z. & Allami, H. (2013). Metadiscourse in article introductions: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 5(11), 91-117.
  100. Mu C., Zhang L., Ehrich J., Hong H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, (20), 135-148.
  101. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.
  102. Oktay, A. (2020). A multidimensional approach to hedging in Turkish academic writing. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 30(2), 99-118.
  103. Özdemir, N. Ö. & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, (141), 59-63.
  104. Öztürk, H. & İşeri, S. (2023). Metadiscourse use in Turkish research article abstracts. Turkish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 34-51.
  105. Qiu, X. & Jiang, F. K. (2021). Stance and engagement in 3MT presentations: How students communicate disciplinary knowledge to a wide audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, (51), 100976.
  106. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton University Press.
  107. Russell, A. (2011). The Arab spring: Extra-national information flows, social media and the 2011 Egyptian uprising. International Journal of Communication, (5), 1238-1247.
  108. Salichah, I., Irawati, E., Basthomi, Y. (2015). Hedges and boosters in undergraduate students’ research articles. Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora, 3(2), 154-160.
  109. Serholt, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in Academic writing: A study of gender differences in essays written by Swedish advanced learners of English. (Yayımlanmamış lisansüstü tez). Göteborgs: Göteborgs Universitet Inst För Spak Och Litteraturer.
  110. Soyşekerci, G., Öztürk, E. A., İşeri, K. (2022). Lisansüstü tezlerin sonuç bölümlerinde üstsöylem belirleyicileri. Çukurova Üniversitesi Türkoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 766-794.
  111. Spencer, H. (2010). The Principles of sociology. Transaction Publishers.
  112. Şen, H. (2019). Türkçe akademik metinlerde üstsöylem belirteçlerinin kullanımı. Turkish Studies, 14(5), 231-250.
  113. Şen, H. (2022). Türkçe araştırma makalelerinde kaçınma stratejileri. Dilbilim ve Uygulama Dergisi, 8(1), 65-84.
  114. Şen, H. & İşeri, S. (2023). Disciplinary variation in Turkish academic abstracts: A metadiscourse perspective. Journal of Turkish Linguistics, 18(2), 101-118.
  115. Şimşek, R. & Erol, T. (2023). Akademik Türkçe içeriklerinde üstsöylem belirleyicilerin görünümleri. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(2), 393-403.
  116. Takimoto, M. (2015). A corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 95-105.
  117. Taymaz, N. (2021). A corpus-based comparison of use of hedges and boosters by Turkish ELT MA and PhD students. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, (17), 33-49.
  118. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
  119. Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83-102.
  120. 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.
  121. Yalavaç, M. (2021). A taxonomy of hedging and boosting in Turkish academic discourse. Turkish Journal of Linguistics, 13(3), 147-169.