國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	郭乃瑜 Kuo, Nai-Yu
論文名稱：	學術謹慎語在應用語言學上的使用研究 A Comparative Study on the Use of Academic Hedges in Applied Linguistics
指導教授：	陳浩然 Chen, Hao-Jan
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2015
畢業學年度：	103
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	122
中文關鍵詞：	學術寫作、謹慎語、語料庫
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：199 下載：31
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

上一筆

本文欲探討謹慎語的使用情況，謹慎語在學術寫作中扮演重要的角色。儘管在過去的學術論文已為廣泛，但是，之前的研究較著重在單字詞範疇裡。相對而言，僅少數研究著重於分析以引導性子句標記的謹慎語。因此，為進一步了解謹慎語在台灣英文學術寫作中的使用情況，本研究建構了三個語料庫，以分析三組之間的異同之處。
本文所研究的領域為應用語言學，三個語料庫分別為第二語言、母語與期刊語料庫。第二語言語料庫係由四十四篇台灣研究生著作的學術論文組成。母語語料庫則涵蓋五十一篇的學術論文，由美國俄亥俄州內許多間大學的碩士生所著。期刊語料庫則包含了一百一十篇期刊文章。
藉由比較和分析，本研究的幾項主要結果如下: (一) 第二語言學習者使用謹慎語的頻率較母語者和期刊學者高，可能是因為他們常重複地使用某些動詞所致。 (二)虛主詞引導的子句中，以動詞引導的子句(例:It seems/appears that)為最被廣泛使用，三組結果皆一致。(三) 相較於其他兩組而言，第二語言學習者較少使用以形容詞引導的子句(例:It is possible that)。(四)第二語言學習者較少使用以第一人稱的指稱詞表示主觀立場。
此外，研究亦發現在某些引導子句中，第二語言學習者傾向使用一些意思較為簡單或者口語上較為頻繁的動詞。學習者之所以有該傾向可能是從會話中習得而來或者他們認為該類動詞使用上方便容易，不易造成誤用的結果。
概括來說，從語料庫當中得知，以引導性子句標記的謹慎語在三組語料庫中使用廣泛。值得注意的是，第二語言學習者和其他兩組仍有些不同之處。因此，他們可能需要教師的引導，進而發現與母語者和期刊學者的相異之處，以便改進。最後，研究亦探討了第二語言學習者使用某些結構背後的理由，可有助於教學上的使用，使學習者能更靈活運用學術寫作技巧。

The thesis aims to examine the use of hedges. Hedges play an important part in academic writing. Despite the fact that hedges have been widely explored, previous studies focus more on single-word hedges. Not many studies have focused on the exploration of multi-word hedges. To have a better understanding of how hedges are used in Taiwanese academic writing, three corpora are built in the present study to analyze the similarities and differences.
The academic field selected for research is applied linguistics. Three corpora ( L2, native, and journal) are built to compare and contrast the differences in the use of multi-word hedges. L2 corpus is compiled with 44 master’s theses in applied linguistics from Taiwanese universities. Native corpus comprises 51 master’s theses in Ohio universities. Journal corpus contains 110 journal articles.
After comparing and analyzing three sets of data, some of the major findings are summarized as follows. Firstly, L2 writers use hedges more frequently than native and journal groups, which might be attributed to the fact that they tend to rely heavily on certain hedges. Secondly, the verb controlled it clauses (e.g. It seems / appears that) are the highest in number, which was consistently found in three groups. Thirdly, compared with native and journal groups, L2 writers displayed fewer instances of it clause controlled by adjectives (e.g. It is possible that). Lastly, L2 writers use first person clauses less often to express subjectivity.
In addition, the present study also discovers that L2 tend to use colloquial verbs or verbs with simple meaning more frequently than the native and journal writers. This might be due to the fact that it is more convenient to use, which would cause less misunderstanding.
In summary, multi-word hedges have been found to be a rhetorical strategy extensively used in all the three corpora. It is worth noting that L2 learners are found to differ from native and journal writers in certain areas. Therefore, L2 learners might need to be guided by teachers to point out the areas they differ from natives’ or journal writers’ writing. The present study has discovered some reasons behind the structural usage which might be helpful in assisting L2 writers when writing academic papers. They could more flexibly use this kind of rhetorical strategy and improve their writing skills.

摘要 i
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT    iv
TABLE OF CONTENT v
LIST OF TABLES    viii
LIST OF FIGURES    x
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION     1
1 Background    1
2 Purpose of the Study 4
3 Contribution of the Study 6
4 Definition of Key Terms 7
5 Structure of the Thesis 7
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 8
1 Evolution of Hedges    8
1.1 Semantic View 8
1.2 Pragmatic View 9
2 Function of Hedges 10
2.1 Politeness 10
2.2 Precision    11
2.3 Responsibility 11
2.4 Solidarity 12
3 Researchers’ Classification of Hedges 13
4 Single-and Multi-word Hedges    16
4.1 Single-word Hedges    16
4.2 Multi-word Hedges    19
5 Previous Studies on Hedges by Natives and L2 Learners 24
5.1 Overall Distribution of Hedges in L2 and Native Writing    24
5.2 Verbal and Nonverbal Types in L2 and Native Writing 25
5.3 Structural Patterns in L2 and Native Writing 28
6 Summary    37
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 38
1 Corpus Compilation 38
1.1 Journal Corpus 38
1.2 Native Corpus 40
1.3 L2 Corpus    41
2 Tools 42
3 Identification of Multi-word Hedges    44
4 Data Analysis 48
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS & DISCUSSION 50
1 Overall Frequency Distribution of Multi-word Hedges    50
2 Distribution of Verbal and Nonverbal Types    52
2.1 Distribution of Verbal Types across Three Corpora    52
2.2 Distribution of Nonverbal Types across Three Corpora 54
3 Distribution of Multi-word Hedges across Three Corpora 55
3.1 Top 25 Multi-word Hedges across Three Corpora 55
3.2 Anticipatory it Clauses 59
3.2.1 It + (modal) + (be) + verb 59
3.2.2 It + noun + that     67
3.2.3 It + adjective + that / It + adjective + to + infinitive + that 69
3.3 Abstract Entity 72
3.4 Human Subject 76
3.4.1 First-Person Pronoun (I/We) 77
3.4.2 Nominalized Subject 80
3.4.3 Named Researcher 84
4 Over- and Under-used Multi-word Hedges across Three Corpora    87
4.1 Overlapped Multi-word Hedges across L2 & Native Corpus    88
4.2 Overlapped Multi-word Hedges across L2 & Journal Corpus    90
4.3 Overlapped Multi-word Hedges across Journal & Native Corpus 93
5 Distribution of Function of Hedges 96
5.1 Reference to Other Studies     97
5.2 Reference to Result 98
5.3 Reference to Suggestions    100
6 Discussion of the Use of Multi-word Hedges across Three Corpora    101
6.1 Discussion of Overall Distribution of Multi-word Hedges    101
6.2 Discussion of the Structural Patterns across Three Corpora    103
6.2.1 Anticipatory it    103
6.2.2 Abstract Entity    105
6.2.3 Human Subject 106
6.3 Discussion of Over- and Under-used Multi-word Hedges 107
6.4 Discussion of Function of Hedges 109
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION    111
1 Summary of Findings    111
2 Teaching Implications 111
3 Textbook Implications 113
4 Limitations and Future Directions 113
REFERENCES 115
 


                                

Allison, D. (1995). Assertions and alternatives: helping ESL undergraduates extend their choices in academic writing. Second Language Writing, 4(1), 1-15.
Biber, D., (1988), Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English . Harlow: Longman.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Channell, J. (1990). Precise and vague quantities in writing on economics. In: The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse. (pp. 95-117) Ed. W. Nash. London: Sage.
Channell, J. (1994). Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chang, M. H. & Luo W. Y. & Hsu, Y. K. (2012). Subjectivity and objectivity in academic discourse: how attribution hedges indicate authorial stance. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 38(2), 293-329.
Charles, M. (2006). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: a cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 492-518.
Chen, H.C. (2005). The use of epistemic devices by Taiwanese applied linguists. Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 312-319). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
Chen, H. I. (2010). Contrastive learner corpus analysis of epistemic modality and interlanguage pragmatic competence. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 17, 27-51.
Charles, M. (2006). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: a corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 310-331
Clemen, G. (1997). “The concept of hedging: origins, approaches and definition.” In Markkanen, R. & Schroder, H. (eds.), Hedging & Discourse approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Beckenham, England: Croom Helm.
Crismore, A. & Vande K. William J. (1988). Readers’ learning from prose: the effects of hedges. Written Communication, 5(2),184-202.
Dubois, B. L. (1987). “Something on the order of around forty to forty-four”: imprecise numerical expressions in biomedical slide talks. Language in Society, 16, 527-541.
Fraser, B. (1980). Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 4(4), 341-350.
Granger, S. & Paquot, M. (2009).In Charles, M., Pecorari,D.& Hunston,S. (eds.)
Academic Writing. At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse, (pp.193-214). London & New York: Continuum.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd Ed.). London: Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hassan, R. (1989). Language, context and Text: Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Harwood, N. (2005). < i>‘Nowhere has anyone attempted… In this article I aim to do
just that’</i>: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(8), 1207-1231.
Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). “It is interesting to note that…”: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 367-383.
Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15(2), 29-53.
Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 13(2), 9-28.
Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8(3), 345-365.
Holmes, J. (1988b). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21-44.
House, J. and Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.) Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for
Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256.
Hyland, K. (1995). The author in the text: hedging scientific writing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching. 18, 33-42
Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy: forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251-281.
Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349-382.
Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574.
Hyland, K. (2002). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56(4), 351-358.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2009). Writing in the disciplines: Research evidence for specificity. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 1(1), 5-22.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: a corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts, English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123-139.
Hyland, K. & Milton, J. (1997). Qualifications and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205.
Huddleston, Rodney. (1971). The Sentence in Written English: A Syntactic Study Based on An Analysis of Scientific Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huebler, A. (1983). Pragmatics and beyond: Vol IV, 6. Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hu, Z., Brown, D. & Brown, L. (1982). Some linguistic differences in the written English of Chinese and Australian students. Language Learning and Communication, 1(1), 39-49.
Jiang, Y., Tao, M. (2007). A comparative study of hedges in discussion sections of English and Chinese medical research articles. Foreign Language Research, 139(6), 115-122.
Koutsantoni, D. (2006). Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles
and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 19-36.
Kuo, C. H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes 18(2), 121-138.
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458-508.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women’s place. New York: Harper and Row.
Lau, H. H. (2001a). 學術期刊論文的情態表達：台灣博士生的「謹言慎行」。《第十八屆中華民國英語文教學研討會論文集》。456-467頁。台北市：文鶴出版有限公司。
Li, T. C. (1998). A study of hedging expressions in academic journal articles. Unpublished MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Lin, M.C. & Liou, H.C. (2009). Hedging in the discussion sections of research articles in applied linguistics. Dept. of Applied English, Ming-Chuan University (compiled), Proceedings of the 2007(9th) International Conference and Workshop on TEFL and Applied Linguistics (pp. 376-387). Taipei: Crane Publishing Co., Ltd. NSC95-2411-H007-18 Journal of Applied English, 2, 71-92.
Lo (2010). Hedges in Chinese academic texts: how authors qualify their argument. Unpublished MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Master, P. (2002) Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for Specific Purposes. 10(1), 15-33.
Markknen & SchrÖder (1997). “Hedging a challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis”. In R. Markkanen & H. SchrÖder (Ed.), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, (pp. 3-18). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Milton, J. & Hyland, K. (1996). Assertions in students’ academic essays: A comparison of English NS and NNS student writers. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology LANG Conference Papers. http://hdl.handle.net/1783.1/10
45
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.
Nikula, T. (1997). Interlanguage View on Hedging. In Markkanen R. and H. Schröder (eds.) Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 188 – 207.
Perkins, M. (1983). Modal expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter.
Palmer, F. (1990). Modality and the English modals. (2nd Ed) London: Longman
Powell, M. (1985). Purposive vagueness: An evaluation on dimension of vague quantifying expressions. Journal of Linguistics. 21, 31-50
Prince, E. F., Frader, J., & Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician
discourse. In R. di Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the professions.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartik, J. (1985) A Grammar of Contemporary English. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Rayson, P. & Garside, (2000). Comparing corpora using frequency profiling.
Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora (pp.1-6)
Rounds, P. (1982). Hedging in written academic discourse: Precision and flexibility. Mimeo, Michigan: The University of Michigan.
Salager-Myer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170.
Scott, M. (1996). WordSmith tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Serholt S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in academic writing: a study of gender differences in essays written by Swedish advanced learners of English. Unpublished thesis, Gothenberg University, Engelska.
Scheibman, J. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive patterning of the English first person plural: Evidence from conversation. Language, culture and mind, 377-96.
Skelton, J. (1988b). Comments in academic articles. Applied Linguistics in Society. London: CILT/BALL.
Swales, J. & Feak, C. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.
Schmid, H. (1994/1995). Tree Tagger. Stuttgart University. Retrieved May 28, 2014, from http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/projekte/corplex/TreeTagger/
Schmid, H. (1995). Improvements in part-of-speech tagging with an application to German. Proceedings of the ACL SIGDAT-Workshop. Dublin, Ireland.
Varttala, T. (1999). Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in
popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 177-200.
Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientific oriented discourse: exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tampereeen Yliopisto, Finland.
Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1),83-102.
Vold, E. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: a cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 61-87.
Wishnoff, J. R. (2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse, 19(1), 127-157.
Yeh, C.C. (2007). Graduate students’ use of hedging devices. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 4(2), 25-42.
Yang, A., Zheng, S. Y., Ge, G. C. (2015). Epistemic modality in English-medium medical research articles: A systematic functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 1-10.
Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 23-36.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353.
Zhu, Y., Jin, J. (2010) Styles of literature review in research papers: a contrastive genre analysis. Journal of Zhejiang Normal University Social Sciences, 35(3) , 104-107.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文