中文學術論文的規避策略
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2010/08-2011/07
Authors
張妙霞
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
「規避」一詞在語言學中指當說話者欲表達不肯定態度時所用的語言策略，主要目 的在於減緩因互動而產生的威脅對方面子的行為。此現象亦反映了語言的靈活性；當語 言使用者對所說語句無法肯定其來源或正確性時，使用規避策略，能保護說話者，免於 對所用語句負全責。 雖然規避策略在面對面互動中弱化了談話者的命題內容，在學術寫作中，卻可鞏固 作者的論點。在學術論文中，作者主要目的為發表新的研究發現，並使同領域學者接受 自己的觀點，使論點其成為該領域的新知。藉由規避策略，作者可避免自己的論點過於 武斷或極端，因而保護自己，免受讀者的批評。學術論文的規避策略的使用，自八零年 代起，已廣受語言研究者的注意。然而，主要研究集中在英文學術論文的規避策略的功 能及分佈之分析。在中文方面，學者雖已注意到規避策略在中文言談中的功能，此策略 在學術論文的功能及其與口語之間的關係，卻顯少受到重視。 因此本研究計畫擬探討 規避策略在中文學術論文的功能，並回答下列問題： 1. 中文學術論文的作者如何使用規避策略來修飾文中的論點? 2. 中文學術論文的規避策略分佈情形為何? 3. 在不同領域的寫作中，規避策略是否有所不同? 4. 中文學術論文的規避策略和中文口語的規避策略是否有所不同? 藉由語料分析及以上議題的探討研究，本計畫期能建立中文學術論文中規避策略的 理論及分析架構，並一窺此寫作策略在實際語料中的全貌。此外，透過自然及人文科學 領域中規避策略的功能比較，期能深入了解不同領域作者寫作風格的異同。另一方面， 中文學術論文及英文及口語的比較亦能使研究者了解此策略在文類區隔上所扮演的角 色。
The term “hedges” has been used by linguists to refer to expressions that signal speakers’ lack of full commitment to indicate speakers’ uncertainty or that weaken the face-threatening acts of propositions in interactional spoken discourse. The use of hedges also reflects the flexibility of language to express indeterminate notions or references in the world. Although using hedges weakens the strength of propositions in face-to-face communication, it may help the author to present the argument in a more appropriate way. While researchers intend to present their works as appealing to readers, they have to defend themselves from potential oppositions or criticism. In such cases, hedges serve to weaken the definiteness of statements and thus make claims invincible. In other words, using hedges reduces the risk of opposition from the audience. Therefore, hedges also serve as face-saving devices for the authors to avoid negation. Among various kinds of academic writing, research articles/papers have received most attention in the studies about hedges. Research articles are one of the central means for researchers to introduce new findings and present new claims to their disciplinary community. In addition to presenting new findings, another important goal of research articles is to persuade the research community to accept the new claims and to ratify these claims as new knowledge in the discipline. Owing to the lack of research on Chinese hedges in academic writing, this study aims to investigate Chinese writers’ use of hedges in Chinese academic research articles. By examining academic texts, differences between written and spoken discourse in the use of hedges may be observed. Moreover, we are interested in the distribution of hedges in different academic fields in Chinese. Specifically, we address the following research questions: 1. What kind of linguistic devices do Chinese academic writers exploit to hedge their statements? How are they different from English academic writing? 2. What is the frequency distribution of the hedging devices in Chinese academic texts? 3. Is there any disciplinary variation in the use of hedges in Chinese academic texts? 4. Is there any difference or similarity in the use of hedges between Chinese spoken discourse and academic texts? By analyzing the linguistic devices whereby writers qualify their arguments and statements, we aim to provide a unifying framework for the analysis of hedges in Chinese academic discourse. Furthermore, comparison among soft and hard sciences and with English will enable us to understand writers’ rhetorical styles among different disciplines and between different cultures. Comparison of hedges in academic discourse and spoken discourse will also reveal how language users, specifically writers and speakers, differ when they are involved in different genres of interaction and communication.
The term “hedges” has been used by linguists to refer to expressions that signal speakers’ lack of full commitment to indicate speakers’ uncertainty or that weaken the face-threatening acts of propositions in interactional spoken discourse. The use of hedges also reflects the flexibility of language to express indeterminate notions or references in the world. Although using hedges weakens the strength of propositions in face-to-face communication, it may help the author to present the argument in a more appropriate way. While researchers intend to present their works as appealing to readers, they have to defend themselves from potential oppositions or criticism. In such cases, hedges serve to weaken the definiteness of statements and thus make claims invincible. In other words, using hedges reduces the risk of opposition from the audience. Therefore, hedges also serve as face-saving devices for the authors to avoid negation. Among various kinds of academic writing, research articles/papers have received most attention in the studies about hedges. Research articles are one of the central means for researchers to introduce new findings and present new claims to their disciplinary community. In addition to presenting new findings, another important goal of research articles is to persuade the research community to accept the new claims and to ratify these claims as new knowledge in the discipline. Owing to the lack of research on Chinese hedges in academic writing, this study aims to investigate Chinese writers’ use of hedges in Chinese academic research articles. By examining academic texts, differences between written and spoken discourse in the use of hedges may be observed. Moreover, we are interested in the distribution of hedges in different academic fields in Chinese. Specifically, we address the following research questions: 1. What kind of linguistic devices do Chinese academic writers exploit to hedge their statements? How are they different from English academic writing? 2. What is the frequency distribution of the hedging devices in Chinese academic texts? 3. Is there any disciplinary variation in the use of hedges in Chinese academic texts? 4. Is there any difference or similarity in the use of hedges between Chinese spoken discourse and academic texts? By analyzing the linguistic devices whereby writers qualify their arguments and statements, we aim to provide a unifying framework for the analysis of hedges in Chinese academic discourse. Furthermore, comparison among soft and hard sciences and with English will enable us to understand writers’ rhetorical styles among different disciplines and between different cultures. Comparison of hedges in academic discourse and spoken discourse will also reveal how language users, specifically writers and speakers, differ when they are involved in different genres of interaction and communication.