Abstract This paper explores whether hedges and boosters are used differently in discussion sections of research articles adopting one of the two qualitative approaches: narrative inquiry and grounded theory. Based on 30 SSCI-indexed journal articles in the field of education, both similarities and variations between the two paradigms were identified regarding the ways propositions are modified. Generally, narrative inquiry researchers relied more on boosters than grounded theorists in their statements, while researchers following grounded approach were more tentative in building a theory or concept. Furthermore, while narrative and grounded-theory studies both used hedging and boosting, certain nuanced variations were observed, e.g., the former being more likely to boost their contributions to their research communities. Such similarities and differences can be rooted in and explained by the respective philosophical assumptions behind each paradigm, suggesting a paradigmatic influence on hedging and boosting in academic writing. This study contributes to the current understanding of metadiscourse by documenting paradigmatic variation and proposing four continua sensitive to hedge–booster interactions and to aspects of knowledge representation, thereby providing pedagogical implications for teaching and learning of metadiscourse in papers using one of the two qualitative approaches in particular and different qualitative approaches in general.

中文翻译：

---

对冲和助推的范式变异：叙事探究与扎根理论研究讨论的比较研究

摘要 本文探讨了在采用两种定性方法之一的研究文章的讨论部分中对冲和助推器的使用是否不同：叙事探究和扎根理论。根据教育领域的 30 篇 SSCI 索引期刊文章，确定了两种范式之间在修改命题的方式方面的相似之处和差异。一般来说，叙事调查研究人员在他们的陈述中更多地依赖助推器而不是扎根理论家，而遵循扎根方法的研究人员在建立理论或概念时更倾向于试探性。此外，虽然叙事研究和扎根理论研究都使用了对冲和促进，但观察到了某些细微的变化，例如，前者更有可能促进他们对研究社区的贡献。这种异同可以植根于每个范式背后各自的哲学假设并由其解释，这表明范式对学术写作中的对冲和促进产生了影响。本研究通过记录范式变化并提出对对冲-助推器相互作用和知识表示方面敏感的四个连续体，有助于当前对元话语的理解，从而使用两种定性方法之一为论文中的元话语教学提供教学意义。一般而言，特定的和不同的定性方法。