{"title":"The Influence of Disciplinary Variation and Speaker Characteristics on the Use of Hedges and Boosters in Zhihu Live Talks","authors":"Wen Yuan;Yue Jin;Yingli Yang","doi":"10.1109/TPC.2024.3354464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<bold>Background:</b>\n 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. \n<bold>Literature review:</b>\n 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. \n<bold>Research questions:</b>\n 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? \n<bold>Research methods:</b>\n 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. \n<bold>Results:</b>\n 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. \n<bold>Conclusion:</b>\n The findings can guide different speakers to configure metadiscourse to inform, argue, and direct while popularizing professional knowledge of different disciplines.","PeriodicalId":46950,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10440161/","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background:
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.
Literature review:
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.
Research questions:
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?
Research methods:
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.
Results:
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.
Conclusion:
The findings can guide different speakers to configure metadiscourse to inform, argue, and direct while popularizing professional knowledge of different disciplines.
期刊介绍：
The IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to applied research on professional communication—including but not limited to technical and business communication. Papers should address the research interests and needs of technical communicators, engineers, scientists, information designers, editors, linguists, translators, managers, business professionals, and others from around the globe who practice, conduct research on, and teach others about effective professional communication. The Transactions publishes original, empirical research that addresses one of these contexts: The communication practices of technical professionals, such as engineers and scientists The practices of professional communicators who work in technical or business environments Evidence-based methods for teaching and practicing professional and technical communication.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
