HEDGES AND BOOSTERS IN SPORTS COLUMNS OF THE STAR AND NEW STRAITS TIMES

Abstract

This study investigates the use of hedges and boosters in Malaysian sports columns, focusing on how evaluative stance is constructed in opinion discourse. Drawing on Hyland’s (2005) metadiscourse framework, a manually compiled corpus of 44 sports articles from The Star and New Straits Times was analysed to identify patterns in the deployment of stance markers. Hedges and boosters were manually coded and categorized to determine their types and frequencies across both newspapers. A higher occurrence of hedges than boosters was found in both newspapers. The findings revealed a rhetorical preference for cautious expression, as indicated by the higher frequency of hedges compared to boosters. Type 1 hedges, primarily low-commitment modals such as might, would and could, were the most common, suggesting editorial tendencies that favour interpretive nuance over assertive commentary. Both publications exhibited similar strategic deployment of these linguistic resources, implying shared conventions within Malaysian sports journalism. These rhetorical choices contributed to the persuasive tone of sports commentary and reflect genre-specific preferences in stance-taking. The findings offered insights into journalistic style and may inform both editorial practice and journalism education. Future research could extend the analysis to digital platforms or explore stance variation across different sports genres.