The Influence of Disciplinary Variation and Speaker Characteristics on the Use of Hedges and Boosters in Zhihu Live Talks

Wen Yuan University of International Business and Economics ; Yue Jin University of International Business and Economics ; Yingli Yang University of International Business and Economics

Abstract

<bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Background:</b> Zhihu live talks, as a major online knowledge commodity, enable speakers to provide professional information and interact with the audiences. The use of hedges and boosters has been associated with the realization of such a goal. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Literature review:</b> Previous research has indicated the relevance of disciplines or genres in the use of hedges and boosters in academic discourse; however, little is known about the use of these metadiscourse markers in Zhihu live talks as a new register for popularizing professional knowledge. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Research questions:</b> 1. What are the disciplinary variations in the use of hedges and boosters in medical science and health (Med) and education (Edu) live talks? 2. To what extent do speakers’ characteristics (i.e., expertise and community status) have an impact on the use of hedges and boosters in Med and Edu live talks? <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Research methods:</b> We collected the transcripts of 123 Med and 126 Edu live talks, as well as the demographic information of each speaker. Following a framework adapted from Hu and Cao, we conducted an analysis of the frequencies and functions of hedges and boosters, and how they associate with speaker characteristics in each category of live talks. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Results:</b> The two corpora exhibited significant differences in the frequencies and functions of hedges/boosters, and the differences can be attributed to the conventions of knowledge making in medicine and education disciplines. In addition, speaker characteristics have some impact on the use of hedges and boosters, such as speakers’ levels of conformity to disciplinary conventions or their strategic efforts in relational management. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Conclusion:</b> The findings can guide different speakers to configure metadiscourse to inform, argue, and direct while popularizing professional knowledge of different disciplines.

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Published
2024-03-01
DOI
10.1109/tpc.2024.3354464
CompPile
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (56) · 5 in this index

  1. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
  2. 10.1007/978-3-030-58163-3
  3. 10.1007/s10459-015-9622-0
  4. 10.1016/j.esp.2015.03.002
  5. 10.1093/applin/10.1.1
Show all 56 →
  1. 10.1075/aals.18.09wan
  2. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008
  3. 10.1515/applirev-2016-2009
  4. 10.1075/dapsac.79.11don
  5. 10.1080/15348458.2021.1932504
  6. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
  7. 10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
  8. 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
  9. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing
  10. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.005
  11. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003
  12. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  13. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  14. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  15. Corporate communication and impression managementNew Perspectives why companies engage in…
    J. Bus. Ethics  
  16. 10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102872
  17. Persuasion in business documents: Strategies for reporting positively on negative phenomena
    Ostrava J. English Phil.
  18. Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior
  19. Language As Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use
  20. 10.1108/9781787560765
  21. 10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012
  22. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing
  23. 10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00007-6
  24. 10.1017/9781316388228
  25. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage
  26. 10.1007/BF00262952
  27. 10.14198/raei.2009.22.14
  28. 10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2
  29. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00324.x
  30. 10.1177/14614456020040020101
  31. 10.3366/cor.2006.1.1.61
  32. Written Communication
  33. Written Communication
  34. 10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.246
  35. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1991.tb00240.x
  36. 10.1111/cogs.13023
  37. 10.1016/0022-1031(78)90015-X
  38. 10.1002/mar.20071
  39. 10.1177/0261927X04273034
  40. 10.1177/0261927X99018002004
  41. 10.1080/08824099809362094
  42. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
  43. A contrastive study of stance markers in Chinese learners English and Chinese argumentati…
    Foreign Lang. Their Teach.
  44. Term-based codebook development: Structure, process and agreement
  45. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.013.001
  46. 10.1177/030631285015004002
  47. 10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00043-7
  48. 10.1093/applin/18.2.121
  49. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
  50. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
  51. 10.1080/713655351