Sci.Int.(Lahore),32(2),187-192,2020 ISSN 1013-5316;CODEN: SINTE 8 187 March-April AN ANALYSIS OF GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE USE OF METADISCOURSE MARKERS IN PAKISTANI ACADEMIC RESEARCH ARTICLES Faiza Latif, *Muhammad Tahir Rasheed Department of English, FAST National University Lahore Campus, Pakistan. *corresponding author: m.tahirrasheed1994@gmail.com ABSTRACT: The objective of the study is to identify the difference in the number of meta-discourse markers: hedges and boosters used by Pakistani male and female authors in the abstract, discussion and conclusion sections of their academic research articles and to investigate either female use more hedges than males or females use more boosters than males in the Pakistani context. Research article authors take various stances to represent the true value of their claims while writing. Gender plays a very vital role in the use of rhetorical devices and the author's gender could have a very significant effect on how much or what type of meta-discourse is used. Males and females not only differ in their psychological and physiological nature but also in their use of language. A comparative study was made to probe into the frequency of hedges and boosters in these three sections. To do so 50 research articles written by Pakistani authors were selected. Hyland's [2005] meta-discourse taxonomy was employed to identify the list of hedges and boosters. The results demonstrated that Pakistani female authors used more hedges than male writers and used fewer boosters than males. Key Terms: Meta-discourse markers, Hedges, Boosters, Gender, Hyland’s taxonomy, Rhetorical device 1. INTRODUCTION Males and females, not only differ in their psychological and physiological nature, but also in their use of language. A researcher [2] presented in his study that gender plays a very vital role in the use of rhetorical devices and the author's description of gender could have a very significant effect on how much or what type of meta-discourse is used. The present study deals with the differences between Pakistani male and female research article authors in their use of two interpersonal discourse markers: hedges and boosters. Another scholar [3] in her study stated that in both disciplines, females used more hedging devices in research articles: applied linguistics and chemistry. Gender is a socially created phenomenon, and gender is not concerned with what an individual "has," but with what an individual does" [4]. Language-gender partnership, nothing else is transparent and controlled. A group of researchers in their studies [5; 6;7] defined the term meta-discourse as a significant rhetorical characteristic and an important strategy in the creation of any piece of discourse. The researcher [8] was the very first person to introduce and elaborate functional categorization of meta- discourse and refers the term meta-discourse to all those features which authors use in their written or spoken discourse to make readers decode the encoded message, share their ideas, views, and perspectives and they resonate the peculiar customs, traditions, and norms of their culture. Hyland [1] defines the concept of meta-discourse as a cover descriptor for personal self-expression used to exchange interactional meanings in a text, enable the author or speaker of any text or conversation to convey a message, and establish contact with readers as members of a specific community. [9;10;11;12] in their studies discuss the usage of meta-discourse and explain that they are used for literary and communicative functions. According to them, interpersonal meta-discourse aims to communicate with the reader about some concept, content or suggestion. An author [8] also provides the definition of textual discourse markers as the devices which perform the task of organizing the written texts and spoken conversations for the readers. In the present study, the researcher has worked on two interpersonal markers namely hedges and boosters. A researcher [13] in her study provides the definitions of hedges and boosters. Hedges are defined as markers that show full certainty about the statements given in the text either written or spoken. Examples include may, might, perhaps, would, probable, maybe, etc. From a linguistic point of view of the author has categorized hedges as epistemic verbs (may, might, would), probability adverbs (perhaps, maybe) and epistemic expressions (it is likely, it is probable). Boosters or certainty markers, in comparison, show full commitment and certainty about the ideas, propositions, and statements presented by the author in a text or by a speaker in a conversation. Examples include of course, obviously, sure, certain, etc. A group of authors [14] defines hedges and boosters in their study. According to them, hedges describe the writers' or speakers' indirect stance, their decision to recognize other voices, points of view, ideas and propositions. The speakers and authors while using hedges become open to negotiation with the hearers or readers. They define boosters and devices which allow the writer or speaker assumes and avert substitute, opposing ideas by showing certainty in place of doubt. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The current study has adopted the Hyland’s (2005) meta- discourse taxonomy. The hedges and boosters include the words given below according to this taxonomy: