Basic Search / Detailed Display

Author: 林婉華
Wan-Hua Lin
Thesis Title: 規避詞在台灣醫學言談與期刊論文中的比較
Hedges in Medical Discourse: A Comparison between the Spoken and the Written Genres in Taiwan’s Medical Setting
Advisor: 張妙霞
Chang, Miao-Hsia
Degree: 博士
Doctor
Department: 英語學系
Department of English
Thesis Publication Year: 2014
Academic Year: 102
Language: 英文
Number of pages: 292
Keywords (in Chinese): HedgeMedical discourseface-to-face encountercommitmentproposition
Keywords (in English): Hedge, Medical discourse, face-to-face encounter, commitment, proposition
Thesis Type: Academic thesis/ dissertation
Reference times: Clicks: 184Downloads: 45
Share:
School Collection Retrieve National Library Collection Retrieve Error Report
  • The study investigates how hedging phenomena are manifested in the medical specialist-to-specialist communication in Taiwan. Hedging strategies utilized in two types of genres are examined and compared. The spoken genre consists of ten peer lectures, while the written genre comprises forty research articles. I explore the questions as to what linguistic devices are used as hedges in the medical profession, what functions those hedges serve, and what are the differences in the use of hedges in terms of genres. At last, I also compare the medical spoken discourse with Chinese daily conversation and the written discourse with Chinese academic written texts.
    The results show that the medical professionals make use of various hedging devices to modify their commitment towards the propositions being stated. These hedging devices are classified into modal auxiliaries, lexical hedges, and non-lexical hedges. Lexical hedges include lexical verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and nouns, while non-lexical hedges contain conditionality, rhetorical questions, and addressing limitations. Hedges are observed to manifest their polypragmatic functions in the medical discourse. That is, the medical specialists utilize different hedging devices to convey different functions depending on communicative circumstances. It is not uncommon to note that one single hedge may serve various functions and an individual function may be fulfilled by different hedges. In the medical discourse, lexical hedges are found to be the most commonly used hedging devices
    regardless of genres, which confirm the findings of many studies in the literature. Overall, the speakers employ more modal auxiliaries, conditionality, and rhetorical questions than the writers, whereas the writers utilize more adjectives, nouns, and addressing limitations than
    the speakers. The discrepancies in the application of those various hedging categories show statistically significant. Among those hedging strategies, adverbs are used the most frequently in both genres, and the application between these two genres does not show any statistical significance. Modal auxiliaries are normally used to express the speakers/writers subjective attitudes or feelings towards the propositions. Hui 會 ‘will/may’ is found to occur the most in the spoken discourse, while keyi 可以 is favored in the written discourse. Sensory verbs are overwhelmingly used by the speakers, whereas quotative verbs are favored by the writers.
    Genre difference accounts for the difference as writers rely heavily on hearsay evidence and research findings in literature to support their arguments and speakers adhere to conversational hedges to express their attitude and feelings towards the propositions. Hedging adjectives are predominately employed to modify their following nouns with various degrees of uncertainty or inaccuracy. Approximative nouns are used the most frequently in the spoken discourse, whereas question words occupy the majority of hedging nouns in the medical writing. It is worth noting that the speakers tend to apply a greater variety of forms than the writers. In addition, the speakers mostly use disyllabic hedges, whereas the writers favor monosyllabic hedges.
    In the medical profession, there is always existing uncertainty and there are always layers upon layers of explanation. Therefore, uncertainty can be counted as the crucial motive for the application of hedges. Hedges enable the medical specialists to express politeness in
    order to avoid potential FTAs, to express tentativeness and cautiousness, to convey less than full commitment to their statements, to convey vagueness to the exact accuracy or quantity, to show solidarity with medical community, or to present modesty for their achievements.
    In Chen’s (2008) conversational data, question words sheme 什麼 ‘what’ is employed the most frequently among all the lexical hedges, while in medical speech, the modal auxiliary hui 會 ‘will/may’ occur the most. In Chen’s study, there is no category of hedging
    adjectives due to their extremely small amount; however, adjectives occupy 6.01% in medical spoken discourse. In Lo’s (2010) academic written texts, modal auxiliaries are the most frequently used hedges for all the three disciplines, while in the medical written discourse, the hedging adverb huo 或 ‘alternatively’ and jiao 較 ‘relatively’, and the auxiliary keneg 可能 ‘may’ occur the most. The adverb of indefinite degree jiao 較 ‘relatively’ is used by medical specialists to modify the degrees of qualification and quantification. The hedging adverb huo 或 ‘alternatively’ is used to present potential alternatives commonly seen in medical discourse.

    TABLE OF CONTENTS vii LIST OF TABLES x LIST OF FIGURES xi ` CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Terminology and definition of hedges 5 1.3 Uncertainty in medicine 7 1.4 Purpose of the study 9 1.5 Significance of the study 10 1.6 Overview of the Study 11 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 12 2.1 Studies in hedges: from semantics to pragmatics 12 2.2 Hedges in medical research 22 2.2.1 Hedges in medical writing 23 2.2.2 Hedges in physician-physician interaction 29 2.2.3 Hedges in doctor-patient interaction 30 2.3 Hedges in non-medical research 36 2.3.1 Hedges in conversation 36 2.3.2 Hedges in research articles 40 2.4 Hedges in studies of genre difference (spoken vs. written) 45 2.4.1 Approximators in leisure, business, political, and academic discourses 47 2.4.2 Stance expressions in TOFEL 2000 Spoken and Written Academic Language Corpus 47 2.4.3 If-conditionals in academic discourses 48 2.4.4 Discourse features in medical conference and journal articles 53 2.5 Functions of hedges in academic discourse54 2.5.1 Expressing politeness and saving faces 54 2.5.2 Avoiding full commitment and convey uncertainty 55 2.5.3 Presenting tentativeness and cautiousness 56 2.5.4 Showing solidarity and asserting in–group membership 58 2.6 Categorization of hedges 59 2.6.1 Modal auxiliaries63 2.6.2 Lexical hedges 68 2.6.2.1 Lexical verbs 69 viii 2.6.2.2 Adverbs 71 2.6.2.3 Adjectives 73 2.6.2.4 Nouns 74 2.6.2.5 Vague expression of quality and quantity 77 2.6.3 Non-lexical Hedges 84 2.6.3.1 Conditionals 84 2.6.3.2 Questions 88 2.6.3.3 Reference to limitations of the current study92 2.7 Summary of Chapter Two 94 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 97 3.1 The database 97 3.2 Discourse analysis and corpus-based approach 104 3.3 Working definition of hedges 105 3.4 Data analysis 106 3.4.1 Statistical methods 107 3.4.2 Data transcription and word segmentation107 3.4.3 Data categorization 109 3.5 Summary of Chapter Three 112 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 114 4.1. Overall distribution of hedges 114 4.2 Auxiliaries 117 4.2.1 Keneng 可能 ‘may’ 120 4.2.2 Ke(yi) 可(以) ‘can’ 127 4.2.3 Hui 會 ‘will ; may’ 131 4.2.4 Ying(gai/dang) 應(該/當) ‘should’ 135 4.2.5 Neng(gou) 能(夠) ‘can’ 140 4.2.6 Summary 143 4.3 Lexical hedges 145 4.3.1 Verbs 145 4.3.1.1 Judgmental verbs 147 4.3.1.1.1 Speculative verbs 148 4.3.1.1.2 Assertive verbs 151 4.3.1.1.3 Resembling verbs 154 4.3.1.2 Evidential verbs 157 4.3.1.2.1 Quotative verbs 158 4.3.1.2.2 Sensory verbs 161 4.3.1.3 Other verbs 165 ix 4.3.1.4 Summary 165 4.3.2 Adverbs 167 4.3.3.1 Stance adverbs 168 4.3.3.2 Adverbs of indefinite degree 173 4.3.3.3 Adverbs of indefinite frequency 176 4.3.3.4 Adverbs of approximation 179 4.3.2.5 Summary 181 4.3.3 Adjectives183 4.3.3.1 Stance adjectives 184 4.3.3.2 Adjectives of indefinite degree 186 4.3.3.3 Adjectives of indefinite frequency 189 4.3.3.4 Adjectives of approximation 193 4.3.3.5 Summary 195 4.3.4 Nouns 196 4.3.4.1 Judgmental nouns 197 4.3.4.2 Nouns of approximation 202 4.3.4.3 Question words 205 4.3.4.4 Summary 210 4.3.5 Summary 211 4.4 Non-lexical Hedges 215 4.4.1 Conditionality216 4.4.2 Rhetorical questions 234 4.4.3 Addressing limitations 254 4.4.4 Summary 271 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION 275 REFERENCES 286

    Adam-Smith, Diana E. 1984. Medical Discourse: Aspects of Author’s Comment. ESP 3, 1,
    25-36.
    Adolphs, Svenja, Sarah Atkins, and Kevin Harvey. 2007. Caught Between Professional
    Requirements and Interpersonal Needs: Vague Language in Healthcare Contexts. In
    Joan Cutting ed., Vague Language Explored, 62-78.
    Ainsworth-Vaughn, N. 1992. Topic Transition in Physician-Patient Interviews: Power,
    Gender, and Discourse Change. Language in Society, 21, 409-426.
    Ainsworth-Vaughn, N. 1994. “Is That a Rhetorical Questions?” Ambiguity and Power in
    Medical Discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 4, 2, 194-214.
    Ainsworth-Vaughn, N. 1995. Claiming Power in the Medical Encounter: the Whirlpool
    Discourse. Qualitative Health Research 5, 270-291.
    Ainsworth-Vaughn, N. 1998. Claiming Power in the Doctor-Patient Talk. New York. Oxford
    University Press.
    Athanasiadou, Angeliki and Rene Dirven. 1997. Conditionality, Hypotheticality,
    Counterfactuality. In Angeliki Athanasiadou and Rene Dirven ed., On Conditionals
    Again, 61-96.
    Biber, Douglas. 2006. Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers. Journal of English
    for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-116.
    Biq, Yung-O. 1990. Question Words as Hedges in Conversational Chinese: A Q and R
    Exercise. In L Bouton and U Kachru, eds., Pragmatics and Language Learning,
    Monograph Series 1. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
    Bonanno, Michellina P. 1994. Hedges in the Medical Intake Interview: Discourse Task,
    Gender and Role. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation. Geogetown University, Washington,
    D.C.
    Bosk, Charles L. 1980. Occupational Rituals in Patient management. The New England
    Journal of Medicine 303, 2, 71-76.
    Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
    University Press.
    Brown, Penelope and Stephen. Levinson. 1978. Universals in Language Usage: Politeness
    Phenomena. In Esther N. Goody ed., Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social
    Interaction, 56-311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Brown, Penelope and Stephen. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language
    Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Bryant D. Geoffery and Geoffery R. Norman. 1980. Expression of Probability: Words and
    Numbers. The New England Journal of Medicine, 302, 7, 411.
    Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense,
    Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago and London: The
    University of Chicago Press.
    Caffi, Claudia. 1999. On Mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 7, 881-909.
    Caffi, Claudia. 2007. Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    Carter-Thomas, Shirley. 2007. The ‘iffiness’ of Medical Research Articles: A Comparison of
    English if and French si. In K. Flottum, ed., Language and Discipline Perspectives on
    Academic Discourse, 161-188. Cambridge Scholars Press.
    Carney, Patricia A., Joyce P. Yi, Linn A. Abraham, et al. 2007. Reactions to Uncertainty and
    the Accuracy of Diagnostic Mammography. Society of General Internal Medicine 22,
    234-241.
    Carter-Thomas, Shirley. 2007. The ‘iffiness’ of Medical Research Articles. A Comparison of
    English if and French si. In K. Flottum, ed., Language and Discipline Perspectives on
    Academic Discourse, 161-188. Cambridge Scholars Press.
    Carter-Thomas, Shirley and Elizabeth Rowley-Joliver. 2008. If-Conditionals in Medical
    discourse: From Theory to Disciplinary Practice. Journal of English and Academic
    Purposes 7, 191-205.
    Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing. In
    Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nicholes, eds., Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of
    Epistemology, 261-272. Norwood. N.J.: Ablex.
    Chang, Miao-Hsia, Yu-Wen Luo, and Yueh-Kuei Hsu. 2012. Subjectivity and Objectivity in
    Chinese Academic Discourse: How Attribution Hedges Indicate Authorial Stance.
    Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 38, 2, 293-329.
    Channell, Joanna. 1990. Precise and Vague Quantifiers in Writing on Economics. In Walter
    Nash ed., The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse, 3, 95-117.
    Channell, Joanna. 1994. Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Chen, Li Yin. 2008. A Corpus-Based Study of Hedges in Mandarin Spoken Discourse.
    Unpublished MA thesis. National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    Cheng, Winnie and Warren, Martin. 2003. Indirectness, Inexplicitness and Vagueness Make
    Clear. Pragmatics 13, 3, 381-400.
    Clarke, Valerie A, Coral L. Ruffin, David J. Hill, and Arthur L. Beamen. 1992. Ratings of
    Orally Presented Verbal Expressions of Probability by Heterogeneous Sample. Journal
    of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 8, 638-656.
    Coats, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom
    Helm.
    Coats, Jennifer. 1987. Epistemic Modality and Spoken Discourse. Transactions of the
    Philological Society, 85, 100-131.
    Coats, Jennifer. 1995. The Expression of root and Epistemic Possibility in English. In Joan
    Bybee and Suzanne Fleischman, eds., Modality in Grammar and Discourse.
    Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    Crompton, Peter. 1997. Hedging in Academic Writing: Some Theoretical Problems. ESP, 16,
    4, 271-287.
    Crystal, David. 1997. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell
    Publishers Ltd.
    Cutting, Joan. 2000. Analyzing the Language of Discourse Communities. Oxford: Elsevier
    Science.
    Cutting, Joan. 2001. Speech Acts of the In-Group. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 8, 1207-1233.
    Cutting, Joan. 2007. Vague Language Explored. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Danell, K. Johan.1978. The Concept of vagueness in Linguistics. Studia Neophiloglogica 50,
    3-24.
    Dirven, René & Marjolijn Vespoor (1998) Cognitive Exploration of Language and
    Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    Dubois, Betty Lou. 1987. Something on the Order of Around Forty to Forty-four: Imprecise
    Numerical Expressions in Biomedical Slide Talks. Language in Society 16, 527-541.
    Ferguson, Gibson. 2001. If You Pop Over There: A Corpus-based Study of Conditionals in
    Medical Discourse. English for Specific Purposes 20, 61-82.
    Fisher, Sue. 1984. Institutional Authority and the Structure of Discourse. Discourse Processes
    7, 201-224.
    Flowerdew, John. 2002. Academic Discourse. Pearson Education Limited.
    Ford, Cecilia E. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1986. Conditionals in Discourse: A Text-based
    Study from English. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott, eds., On conditionals. Cambridge,
    England: Cambridge University Press.
    Fraser, Bruce. 1975. Hedged Performatives. In Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan ed., In Syntax
    and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 187-210. New York: Academic Press.
    Fraser, Bruce. 2010. Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging. In Kaltenböck, Gunther,
    Wiltrud Mihatsch, and Stefan Schneiderm eds., New Approaches to Hedging. Studies
    in Pragmatics 9, 15-34.
    Frerguson, Gibson. 2001. If you Pop Over there: A Corpus-based Study of Conditionals in
    Medical Discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 61-82.
    Goffman, Evring. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behavior. Garden City,
    New York.
    Greene, A. G. 1976. Defining the Indefinable. The New England Journal of Medicine, 295,
    737.
    Grice H. Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Perter Cole and Jerry Morgan, eds., Syntax
    and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press, 41-58.
    Grice H. Paul. 1978. Further Notes on Logic and Conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry L.
    Morgan ed., In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 113-127. New York: Academic
    Press.
    Grice H. Paul. 1981. Presupposition and Conversational Implicature. In Peter Cole, ed.,
    Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 183-198.
    He, Zi-ran. 2000. A Further Study on Pragmatic Vagueness. Journal of Foreign Languages,
    125, 7-13
    Halliday, M. A. K. 1989. Spoken and Written Language. Oxford University Press.
    Holmes, Janet. 1984. Women’s Language, a Functional Approach. SGeneral Linguistics. 24,
    3, 149-178
    Holmes, Janet. 1988. Doubt and Certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics 9, 1, 20-44.
    Holmes, Janet. 1989. Sex Differences and Apologies: One Aspect of Communicative
    Competence. Applied Linguistics 10, 2, 194-213
    Holmes, Janet. 1990. Hedges and Boosters in Women’s and Men’s Speech. Language &
    Communication. 10, 2, 185-205
    House, Juliane and Kasper, Gabriele. 1981. Politeness Markers in English and German. In
    Coulmas, F., ed., Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton, 157-185.
    Hsieh, Chia-Ling. 2002. Modal Verbs in Chinese. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, National
    Tsing Hua University, Xinzhu, Taiwan.
    Hsieh, Chia-Ling. 2006. 漢語情態詞的語意界定:語料庫為本的研究 (The semantic
    categorization of Chinese modal expressions: A corpus-based analysis). Studies in
    Chinese Linguistics, 21, 45-63.
    Hsieh, Chia-Ling. 2009. Epistemic Stance Taking in Chinese Media Discourse. Research in
    Theoretical Linguistics 3, 1-35.
    Hübler, Axel. 1983. Understatements and Hedges in English. Amesterdam and Philadelphia.
    PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    Hyland, Ken. 1994. Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP Textbooks. ESP 13, 3, 239-256.
    Hyland, Ken. 1996a. Talking to the Academy: Forms of Hedging in Science Research
    Articles. Written Communication 13, 3, 251-281.
    Hyland, Ken. 1996b. Writing without Conviction? Hedging in Scientific Research Articles.
    Applied Linguistics 17, 4, 433-454.
    Hyland, Ken. 1996c. “I Don’t Quite Follow”: Making Sense of a Modifier. Language
    Awareness, 5, 2, 91-109.
    Hyland, Ken. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam and Philadelphia,
    PA: Jonh Benjamins Publishing Company.
    Hyland, Ken. 1999. Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In C Candlin
    C. and Hyland, Ken, eds., Writing: Texts, processes and practices. Longman, 99-121.
    Hyland, Ken. 2000. Hedges, Boosters and Lexical Invisibility: Noticing Modifiers in
    Academic Texts. Language Awareness 9, 4, 179-197.
    Hyland, Ken 2005. Stance and Engagement: a Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.
    Discourse Studies,7, 2, 173-191.
    Hyland, Ken. 2006. Medical Discourse: Hedges. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of
    Language and Linguistics 2nd ed., Oxford: Elsevier, 694-697.
    Hyland, Ken. 2009. Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. Continuum
    International Publishing Group.
    Jiang, Xiang-Ping. 2012. A Pragmatic Analysis of V+Yixia in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of
    Pragmatics 44, 1888-1901.
    Jucker, A. H., Smith S., and Ludge T. 2003. Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation.
    Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1737-1769.
    Kaltenböck, Gunther, Wiltrud Mihatsch, and Stefan Schneider. 2010. New Approaches to
    Hedging. Studies in Pragmatics 9. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    Kenny, Robert M. 1981. Between Never and Always. The New England Journal of Medicine,
    305, 18, 1097-1098.
    Kong Augustine, Octo Barnett, Frederick Mosteller, and Cleo Youtz. 1986. The New England
    Journal of Medicine 315, 12, 740-744.
    Lakoff, George. 1973. Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy
    Concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logics, 2, 4, 458-508.
    Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
    Levenkron, Jeffrey C. and Clifford G. Johnson. 1988. Journal of General Internal Medicine,
    3, 521.
    Lewin, Beverly. A. 2005. Hedging: an Exploratory Study of Authors’ and Readers’
    Identification of ‘Toning Down’ in Scientific Texts. EAP 4, 163-178.
    Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1997. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference
    Grammar. 3rd ed. The Crane Publishing Co. LTD.
    Li, Li-Juan and Guang-Chun Ge. 2009. Genre Analysis: Structural and Linguistic Evolution
    of the English-medium Medical Research Article (1985-2004). ESP 28, 93-104.
    Li, Renzhi. 2004. Modality in English and Chinese: A Typological Perspective. Boca Raton,
    Florida: Dissertation.com.
    Li, Tau-Ching. 1999. A Study of Hedging Expressions in Academic Journal Articles.
    Unpublished MA Thesis. Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
    Lin, Chia-Yen. 2010. ‘…That’s Acutally sort of You Know Trying to Get Consultants in…’:
    Functions and Multifunctionality of Modifiers in Academic Lectures. Journal of
    Pragmatics 42, 1173-1183.
    Liu, Yue-Hua, Pan, Wen-Yu, and Gu, Wei. 2011. Modern Chinese Grammar. 實用現代漢語
    語法. 9th ed. Taipei. 師大書苑.
    Lo, Yu-wen. 2010. Hedges in Chinese Academic Texts: How Authors Qualify Their
    Argument. Unpublished MA Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei,
    Taiwan.
    Lü, Shu-Xiang. 2000. 現代漢語八百詞. 9th ed. 北京商務書局.
    Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. London: Cambridge University Press.
    Markkanen, Raija and Hartmut Schröder. 1989. Hedging as a Translation Problem in
    Scientific Texts. In Christer Lauren and Marianne Nordman, eds., Special Language:
    from Human Thinking to Thinking Machines. Clevedon: Multilingual matters, 171-
    179.
    Markkanen, Raija and Hartmut Schröder. 1992. Hedging and its linguistic realization in
    English, German and Finnish philosophical texts: A case study. In M Nordman, ed.,
    Fachsprachliche Miniaturen. Frankfurt/Main et al.: Perter Lang, 121-130.
    Markkanen, Raija and Hartmut Schröder. 1997. Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the
    Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin/New York: Walter de
    Gruyter.
    Mauranen, Anna. 2004. “They’re a Little Bit Different”…Observations on Hedges in
    Academic Talk. In Karin Aijmer and Anna-Brita Stenström, Discourse Patterns in
    Spoken and Written Corpora, 173-197. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins
    Publishing Company.
    Mazur, Dennis J. and David H. Hickam. 1991. Patients’ Interpretations of Probability Terms.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 6, 3, 237-240.
    Mead, Richard and Willie Henderson. 1983. Conditional Form and Meaning in Economic
    Text. The ESP Journal, 2, 139-160.
    Mey, Jacob L. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
    Meyer, Bernd and Birte Pawlack. 2010. Mitigating and Being Vague in Interpreter-Mediated
    Discourse. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Wiltrud Mihatsch, and Stefan Schneiderm eds.,
    New Approaches to Hedging. Studies in Pragmatics 9, 73-91.
    Meyer, Paul George 1997. Hedging Strategies in Written Academic Discourse: Strengthening
    in Argument by Weakening the Claim. In Raija Markkanen and Hartmut Schröder, eds.,
    Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in
    Academic Texts, 21-41.
    Miskovic-Lukovic, Mirjana. 2009. Is There a Chance that I Might Kinda Sort of Take You
    Out to Dinner?: The Role of the Pragmatic Particles kind of and sort of in Utterance
    Interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 602-625.
    Mosteller, Frederick and Cleo Youtz. 1990. Quantifying Probabilistic Expressions. Statistical
    Science, 5, 1, 2-12.
    Myers, Greg. 1989. The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles. Applied Linguistics
    10, 1, 1-35.
    Myers, Greg. 1996. Strategic Vagueness in Academic Writing. In Eija Ventola and Anna
    Mauranen, eds., In Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues, 3-17. John
    Benjamins Publishing Company.
    Nikula, Tarja. 1996. Pragmatic Force Modifiers: A Study in Interlanguage Pragmatics.
    University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland.
    Nwogu, Kevin Ngozi. 1997. The Medical Research Paper: Structure and Functions. English
    for Specific Purposes, 16, 2, 119-138.
    Onishi, Toshikazu, Tsuguya Fukuo, Kunihiko Matsui and et al. 2002. Interpretation of and
    Preference for Probability Expressions among Japanese Patients and Physicians.
    Family Practice, 19, 1, 7-11.
    Overstreet, M. 2005. And Stuff und so: Investigating Pragmatic Expressions in English and
    German. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1845-1864.
    Palmer, Frank R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Palmer, Frank R. 1987. The English Verb. 2nd ed. London and New York: Longman.
    Palmer, Frank R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. 2nd ed. London and New York:
    Longman.
    Perkins, Michael R.. 1983. Modal Expressions in English. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex
    Publishing Corporation.
    Prince, Ellen F., Joel Frader and Charles Bosk. 1982. On Hedging in Physician-Physician
    Discourse. IN Di Pietro, and J. Robert, eds., Linguistics and the Professions, 83-97.
    New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
    Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology 4, 328-350.
    Rowley-Jolivet, Elizabeth. 2002. Science in the making: Scientific Conference Presentation
    and the Construction of Facts. In Ejia Ventola, Celia Shalom, and Susan Thompson,
    eds., The Language of Conferencing, 95-125. Bern: Perter Lang.
    Ruzaite, Jurate. 2004. Academic Precision Reconsidered: A Corpus-based Account. SKY
    Journal of Linguistics, 17, 217-247.
    Saeed, John I. 2003. Semantics. Blackwell Publishing.
    Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1994. Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical
    English Written Discourse. ESP 13, 149-170.
    Schwartz, William B. 1979. Sounding board. Decision Analysis: a look at the chief
    complaints. The New England Journal of Medicine 300, 10, 556-559.
    Schwartz, William B, Hubert J. Wolfe, and Stephen G. Pauker. 1981. Pathology and
    Probabilities- A New Approach to Interpreting and Reporting Biopsies. The New
    England Journal of Medicine 305, 16, 917-923.
    Simon, Gregory E. 1988. Will Sharing Uncertainty Reduce Physician Effectiveness? Journal
    of General Internal Medicine, 3, 520-521.
    Skelton, John. 1988. The Care and Maintenance of Hedges. ELT Journal 42, 1, 37-43.
    Skelton, John. 1997. The Representation of Truth in Academic Medical Writing. Applied
    Linguistics 18, 121-140.
    Smith, Alexander K., Douglas B. White, and Robert M. Arnold. 2013. Uncertainty – The
    Other Side of Prognosis. The New England Journal of Medicine 368, 26, 2448-2450.
    Srivastava, Ranjana. 2011. Dealing with Uncertainty in a Time of Plenty. The New England
    Journal of Medicine 365, 24, 2252-2253.
    Stubbs, Michael. 1986. A Matter of Prolonged Fieldwork: Notes toward a Model Grammar of
    English. Applied Linguistics, 7, 1, 1-25.
    Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings.
    Cambridge University Press.
    Swales, John M. 2002. Integrated and Fragmented Worlds: EAP Materials and Corpus
    Linguistics. In John Flowerdew, ed., Academic Discourse, 150-164. Pearson Education
    Limited.
    Tannen, Deborah. 1980. A Theory of Conversational Style. H. Deckert and M. Raupach, Eds.
    Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
    Tannen, Deborah. 1986. That’s Not What I Meant! How conversational Style Makes or
    Breaks Relationships. New York. Ballantine Books.
    Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking Voices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Tannen, Deborah. 1993. Gender and Conversational Interaction. Oxford Studies in
    Sociolinguistics Series. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Tannen, Deborah. 1994. Gender and Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Tchizmarova, I. K. 2005. Hedging Functions of the Bulgarian Discourse Marker xajde.
    Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1143-1163.
    Thompson, Dorothea K. 1993. Arguing for Experimental ‘Facts’ in Science. Written
    Communication 10, 1, 106-128.
    Tiee, Henry Hung-Yeh. 1995. A Reference Grammar of Chinese Sentences. 3rd ed. The
    University of Arizona Press.
    Tsai, Mei-Hui. 2000. Companions of Elderly Patients – A Sociolinguistic Study of Triadic
    Medical Encounters in Southern Taiwan. Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgetown University,
    Washington, D.C. USA.
    Tsai, Mei-Hui. 2005. Opening stages in triadic medical encounters in Taiwan.
    Communication and Medicine, 2, 53-68.
    Tsai, Mei-Hui. 2006. Opening Hearts and Minds: A Linguistic Framework for Analyzing
    Open Questions in Doctor-Patient Communication. Taipei, Taiwan: The Crane
    Publishing Company.
    Vande Kopple, William J. 1985. Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College
    Composition and Communication, 36, 1, 82-93.
    294
    Varttala, Teppo. 1999. Remarks on the Communicative Functions of Hedging in Popular
    Scientific and Specialist Research Articles on Medicine. ESP 18, 2, 177-200.
    Varttala, Teppo. 2001. Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring Variation
    According to Discipline and Intended Audience. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.
    English Philology, University of Tampere.
    Wang, Yu-Fang, Tsai Pi-Hua, and Yang Ya-Ting. 2010. Objectivity, Subjectivity and
    Intersubjectivity: Evidence from Qishi (‘actually’) and Shishishang (‘in fact’) in
    Spoken Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 705-727
    Warchal, Krystyna. 2010. Moulding Interpersonal Relations through Conditional Clauses:
    Consensus-building Strategies in Written Academic Discourse. Journal of English for
    Academic Purposes, 9, 140-150.
    Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1985. How Conversation Works. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    Webber, Pauline. 1994. The Function of Questions in Different Medical Journal Genres.
    English for Specific Purposes,13, 3, 257-268.
    Webber, Pauline. 2005. Interactive Features in Medical Conference Monologue. ESP 24, 157-
    181.
    Werth, Paul. 1997. Conditionality as Cognitive Distance. In On Conditionals Again.
    Athanasiadou & Dirven eds. John Benjamins Puglishing Company,
    Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
    Wu, Tie-Ping. 1999. 模糊語言學. 上海外語教育出版社.
    West, Candace. 1984. Medical Misfires: Mishearings, Misgivings, and Misunderstandings, in
    Physician-Patient Dialogues. Discourse Processes 7, 107-134.
    West, Candace. 1990. “Not just ‘Doctors’ Orders’: Directive-Response Sequences in Patients’
    Visits to Women and Men Physicians.” Discourse and Society, 1, 85-113.
    West, Candace. 1993. Reconceptualizing gender in physician-patient relationships. Social
    Science and Medicine, 36, 57-66.
    West, Candace and Frankel, Richard. M. 1991. “Miscommunication and Medicine.” In N.
    Coupland, H. Giles and J. M. Wiemann, eds., “Miscommunication” and Problematic
    Talk. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 166-194.
    Wierzbicka, Anna. 1986. Precision in Vagueness: The Semantics of English Approximatives.
    Journal of Pragmatics 10, 597-614.
    Yang, Yingli. 2013. Exploring Linguistic and Cultural Variations in the Use of Hedges in
    English and Chinese Scientific Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 50, 23-36.
    Zadeh, L. A. 1965. Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control 8, 3, 338-353.
    Zadeh, L. A. 1972. A Fuzzy-Set-Theoretic Interpretation of Linguistic Hedges. Journal of
    Cybernetics 2/3, 4-34.
    Zhang, Qiao. 1998. Fuzziness – Vagueness – Generality – Ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics
    19, 13-31.

    下載圖示
    QR CODE