تردید افکنی فراگفتمانی در مقالات پژوهشی در زبانشناسی کاربردی: بررسی مقایسه‌ای سوژانر «نتایج و بحث» در مقالات نویسندگان غیر انگلیسی زبان و انگلیسی زبان

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی(عادی)

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی، گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشکدة علوم انسانی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شیراز، ایران

2 استادیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی، گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشکدة علوم انسانی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شیراز، ایران

3 دانشیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی، گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشکدة علوم انسانی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شیراز، ایران

چکیده

به منظور بررسی تفاوت‌های احتمالی بین فراوانی و انواع راهبردهای تردیدافکنی و کاربرد آن‌ها در سوژانر «نتایج و بحث» در مقاله‌های پژوهشی نوشته‌شدۀ نویسندگان انگلیسی‌زبان غیربومی و انگلیسی‌زبان بومی، 60 مورد سوژانر «نتایج و بحث» از چهار نشریه علمی IJLL W, IJALEL, TQ, AL AL که توسط نویسندگان ایرانی (انگلیسی‌زبان غیرمادری) و بومی (انگلیسی‌زبان مادری) نوشته شده بودند، بررسی و واکاوی‌ شدند. همگی متن‌ها و نویسندگان آن‌ها به‌صورت تصادفی انتخاب شدند. راهبرد‌های تردیدافکنی به‌کار رفتۀ این نویسندگان با نرم‌افزار AntCnoc  و همچنین توسط دو کدگذار انسانی کارشناس، شناسایی‌شده و بر اساس چارچوب نظری پیشنهادی در مدل طبقه‌بندی وارتالا (2001) و مدل چندکاربردی هایلند (1998) کدگذاری شدند. نتایج مطالعه نشان‌داد که اختلاف آماری معنا‌داری در فراوانی، انواع و همچنین کارکردهای راهبرد‌های تردیدافکنی در سوژانر «نتایج و بحث» مقاله‌های نوشته شده توسط این دو گروه از نویسندگان وجود دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Metadiscursive Hedging in Research Articles in Applied linguistics: A Comparative Study of ‘Results and Discussion’ subgenres written by Iranian and Native English Writers

نویسندگان [English]

  • Marziyeh Nekoueizadeh 1
  • Mohammad Bavali 2
  • Mohammad Sadegh Bagheri 2
  • Ehsan Rassaei 3
1 Department of English Language, College of Humanities, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
2 Department of English Language, College of humanities, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
3 Department of English Language, College of humanities, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
چکیده [English]

This paper reports the findings of a study which sought to investigate the probable differences between frequency and forms of hedging devices as well as their functions in the ‘Results & Discussion’ subgenre of research articles (RAs) written by Iranian writers (non-native speakers of English) versus their native English counterparts (native speakers of English). A corpus of sixty (N=60) ‘Results & Discussion’ sections taken from four journals, namely IJLLALW, IJALEL, TQ, and AL, written in English by Iranian nonnative and native English writers were randomly selected. The AntCnoc software as well as two human coders identified and coded the hedging devices found in the corpus according to the theoretical framework proposed by Varttala’s (2001) taxonomy of hedging devices and Hyland’s (1998) polypragmatic model of hedging functions. Results indicated statistically significant differences in the frequency, forms, and functions of hedging devices in the ‘Results & Discussion’ subgenres written by the two academic writer groups.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Academic writing
  • Hedging devices
  • Polypragmatic hedging model
  • Research articles
  • Results & Discussion
  • Subgenre

مراجع

Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040020101
Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the differences across subsections. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.22099/JTLS.2012.391
Abdollahzadeh, I. (2007). Writer’s presence in Persian and English newspaper editorials. Paper presented at the international conference on Systemic Functional Linguistics. Odense, Denmark.
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24
Ahmad, U. K. (1995). Academic language and culture: Some observations on scientific Malay and scientific English. Paper presented at RELC Conference. Singapore.
Alimorad, Z. & Sahragard, R. (2012). Inflating and persuading in the discussion sections of NSs’ vs. PSs’ academic research articles. The Iranian EFL Journal, 8(2), 82-100. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Inflating-and-Persuading-in-the-Discussion-Sections-Alimorad-Sahragard/270d76590837df38f44d09133e54b3ce1f85bf8e
Anthony, L. (2017). AntConc. Software Retrievable from www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
Atai, M., & Sadr, L. (2008). A cross-cultural genre study on hedging devices in discussion section of applied linguistic research articles. Journal of Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran, 7(2), 42-57. http://paaljapan.org/resources/proceedings/PAAL11/pdfs/04.pdf
Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the royal society of London, 1675-1975. Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Discourse-Sociohistorical-Context-Philosophical/dp/0805820868
Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43-50. https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid=fb03d4a9-39bd-4675-964f-8fdb06fe83a1
Behnam, B., Naeimi, A., & Darvishzade, A. (2012). A comparative genre analysis of hedging expressions in research articles: Is fuzziness forever wicked. English Language and Literature Studies, 2(2), 20-38. http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ells/article/view/17553
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.  (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson. https://www.amazon.com/Longman-Grammar-Spoken-Written-English/dp/0582237254
Bloch, J., & Chi, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. X-274). Norwood NJ: Ablex. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED376727
Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1991). Cultural expectations and socio-pragmatic failure in academic writing. In P. Adams, B. Heaton & P. Howarth (Eds.), Socio-cultural issues in English for academic purposes (pp. 1-12). Basingtoke: Modern English Publications/British Council. https://www.amazon.com/Socio-cultural-Academic-Purposes-Developments-Language/dp/0333539753
Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1993). How economists modify propositions. In W. Henderson, T. Dudley-Evans & R. Backhouse (Eds.), Economics and language (pp. 153-169). London: Routledge. https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Language-Social-Theory/dp/0415092094
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.amazon.com/Questions-Politeness-Strategies-Interaction-Anthropology/dp/0521292506
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.com/books/about/Politeness.html?id=OG7W8yA2XjcC
Carlson, S. (1988). Cultural differences in writing and reasoning skills. In A. C. Purver (Ed), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 109-137). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Across-Languages-Cultures-Communication/dp/0803926871
Channel, J. (1994). Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://philpapers.org/rec/CHAVL
Clemen, G. (1997). The concept of hedging: Origins, approaches and definitions. In R. Markkanen & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 235-248). New York: Walter de Gruyter. https://books.google.com/books/about/Hedging_and_Discourse.html?id=srsxDOTAUgQC
Clyne, M. (1991). The sociolinguistic dimension: The dilemma of the German-speaking scholar. In H. Schroder (Ed.), Subject-oriented texts: Languages for special purposes and text theory (pp. 49-68). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. https://books.google.com/books/about/Subject_oriented_Texts.html?id=Qe1wkgFDgJkC
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm. https://www.amazon.com/Semantics-Auxiliaries-Routledge-Library-Editions/dp/1138989983
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1988). Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student writing. In A. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 109-137). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Across-Languages-Cultures-Communication/dp/0803926871
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang. https://books.google.com/books/about/Talking_With_Readers.html?id=BXsFAQAAIAAJ
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 119-136). Newbury Park, CA: Stage. https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Scholar-Studies-Academic-Discourse/dp/0803936923
Crismore, A., & Vande Kopple, W. (1988). Readers’ learning from prose: The effects of hedges. Written Communication 5(2), 184-202. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Readers'-Learning-from-Prose%3A-The-Effects-of-Hedges-Crismore-Kopple/13faea4808faae2cd6ef598b86d813804f43af58
Crismore, A., Makkannen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Metadiscourse-in-Persuasive-Writing%3A-A-Study-of-by-Crismore-Markkanen/5a5c7ce2b1c97770bcaff6a77040290747868767
Declerck, R. (1991). A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo:Kaitakusha Co., Ltd. https://www.amazon.com/Comprehensive-Descriptive-Grammar-English/dp/475890538X
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(4), 527-541. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/%E2%80%9CSomething-on-the-order-of-around-forty-to-in-slide-Dubois/c910f895e0c94226faf201ba1ac2e70ba288c525
Dubois, B. L. (1997). The biomedical discussion section in context. London: Ablex. Washington, D.C: United States Information Agency. https://www.bookdepository.com/Biomedical-Discussion-Section-Context-Betty-Lou-DuBois/9781567503098
Dudley-Evans, T. (1993). The debate over Milton Friedman’s theoretical framework: An applied linguist’s view. In W. Henderson, T. Dudley-Evans & R. Backhouse (Eds.), Economics and language (pp.132-152). London and New York: Routledge. https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Language-Social-Theory/dp/0415092094
Egbert, J. (2007). Quality analysis of journals in TESOL and applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 157-171. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00044.x
Falahati, R. (1994). The use of hedging across different disciplines and rhetorical sections of research articles. Paper presented at The 22nd, International Conference on East Asian Linguistics (ICEAL2), Vancouver, Canada. Google Scholar
Falahati, R. (2007). The use of hedging across different disciplines and rhetorical sections of research articles. In N. Carter, L. H. Zabala, A. Rimrott & D. Stroshenko (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Northwest Linguistics Conference (NWLC) at Simon Fraser University (pp. 99-112). Barnaby, Canada: Linguistics Graduate Students Association. Google Scholar
Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, New Jersey and Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://www.amazon.com/Academic-Literacy-Nature-Expertise-Philosophy/dp/0805810676
Greenbaum, S. (1969). Studies in English adverbial usage. London: Longman. https://books.google.com/books/about/Studies_in_English_adverbial_usage.html?id=RW0qAQAAIAAJ
Halliday, M.A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://books.google.com/books/about/Language_Context_and_Text.html?id=Sj0IAQAAIAAJ
Harder, B. D. (1984). Cultural attitudes in discourse analysis. CJLIRCL, 29(2), 115-129. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100010409
Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 360-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00040-9
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing. New Jersy: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sM3ws79ZffkC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Teaching+academic+ESL+writing&ots=d0EKrB_hue&sig=4_CzhT4fqh704uPcnakjOZuMraw#v=onepage&q=Teaching%20academic%20ESL%20writing&f=false
Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15(1/2), 29-53. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1069321
Holmes, J. (1983). Speaking English with the appropriate degree of conviction. In C. Brumfit, (Ed.), Learning and teaching languages for communication: Applied linguistics perspectives (pp 100-113). London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. https://www.amazon.com/Learning-Teaching-Languages-Communication-Perspectives/dp/0903466694
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp 157-185). The Hague: Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110809145.157
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English and Chinese medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795-2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
Hubler, A. (1983). Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://benjamins.com/catalog/pb.iv.6
Hyland (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://benjamins.com/catalog/pbns.54
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for
Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90004-3
Hyland, K. (1995). The author in text: Hedging scientific writing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, 33-42. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED390258
Hyland, K. (1996a). Writing without conviction: Hedging in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433-454. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433
Hyland, K. (1996b). Talking to academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13, 251-281. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741088396013002004
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 3-26. https://www.academia.edu/9558929/Talking_to_students_Metadiscourse_in_introductory_coursebooks
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interaction in academic writing. London: Pearson. https://books.google.com/books/about/Disciplinary_Discourses.html?id=TA2FAAAAIAAJ
Hyland, K. (2004). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum. https://books.google.com/books/about/Metadiscourse.html?id=KDDLXQKxhbEC
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Intaraprawat, P. & Steffensen, M. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ511984
Jalilifar, A. R. (2011). World of attitudes in research articles discussion section: A crosslinguistic perspective. Journal of Technology & Education, 5(3), 177-186. https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=195503
Jung, U. O. H. (2004). Paris in London revisited or the foreign language teacher’s topmost journals. System, 32, 357-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.04.003
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 18, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x
Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In R. B. Kaplan & U. Connor (Eds.), Writing across languages and cultures: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9-22). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. https://www.scirp.org/(S(i43dyn45teexjx455qlt3d2q))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=836691
Kreutz, H., & Harres, A. (1997). Some observations on the distribution and function of hedging in German and English academic writing, culture and styles of academic discourse. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048.181
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press. https://www.amazon.com/Therapeutic-Discourse-Psychotherapy-As-Conversation/dp/0124320503
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458-508. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30226076?seq=1
Lakoff, R. (1990). Talking power: The politics of language in our lives. New York: Basic Books. https://books.google.com/books/about/Talking_power.html?id=NGdsAAAAIAAJ
Marandi, S. (2002). Contrastive EAP rhetoric: Metadiscourse in Persian vs. English (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Tehran, Tehran. https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=5105
Markkanen, R., & Schröder, H. (1997). Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 3-18). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. https://www.degruyter.com/view/book/9783110807332/10.1515/9783110807332.3.xml
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I
Mauranen, A. (1997). Hedging in language revisers' hands. In Markkanen & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 115-133). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. https://www.academia.edu/1858124/Hedging_in_language_revisers_hands
Mauranen, A. (2001). Reflexive academic talk: Observations from MICASE. In R. Simpson & J. Swales (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 Symposium (pp.165-178). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. https://www.academia.edu/1858121/Reflexive_academic_talk_Observations_from_MICASE
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1
Myers, G. (1996). Public understanding of science and forms of popularizations. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen, (Eds.), Academic writing today and tomorrow (pp. 33-44). Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Academic-Tomorrow-Akateeminen-Kirjoittaminen-Huomenna/dp/9515702666
Namsarayev, V. (1997). Hedging in Russian academic writing in sociological texts. Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. Berlin: Mouton. https://www.kuwi.europa-uni.de/de/lehrstuhl/sw/sw2/forschung/hedging/hedging_and_discourse/namsaraev/index.html
Nekoueizadeh, M., & Motamedi, A. (2013). The Iranian academicians' strategies in writing English papers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2(4), 57-63. https://www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/IJALEL/article/view/941
Nikula, T. (1997). Interlanguage view on hedging. In R. Markkanen & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 188-208). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Interlanguage-View-on-Hedging-Nikula-Markkanen/ba92b4c3f196874fc2552c28a123cf4d7756bd98
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)85388-4
Pisanski Peterlin, A. (2010). Hedging devices in Slovene-English translation: A corpus-based study. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 177-193. http://ojs.ub.gu.se/ojs/index.php/njes/article/view/419
Prince, E. F., Frader, J. & Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In R. di Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the professions. Proceedings of the Second Annual Delaware Symposium on Language Studies (pp. 83-97). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. https://www.worldcat.org/title/linguistics-and-the-professions-proceedings-of-the-second-annual-delaware-symposium-on-language-studies/oclc/8132279
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman. https://www.amazon.com/Comprehensive-Grammar-English-Language-General/dp/0582517346
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2
Salager-Meyer, F. (1997). I think that perhaps you should: A study of hedges in written scientific discourse. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications (pp.105-118). Washington, D.C: United States Information Agency. https://www.tesol-france.org/uploaded_files/files/TESOL%20V2N2%20C8%20I%20think%20that%20Perhaps.pdf
Simpson, P. (1990). Modality in literary-critical discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 63-94). London: Sage Publications. https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/modality-in-literary-critical-discourse
Sionis, C. (1995). Communication strategies in the writing of scientific research articles by non-native users of English. English for Specific Purposes, 14(2), 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(95)00005-C
Skelton, J (1983). Comments in academic articles. In P. Grunwall (Ed.), Applied linguistics in society. London: C1LT/BAAL. https://www.amazon.com/Applied-Linguistics-Society-British-Studies/dp/0948003626
Spillner, B. (1983). Methodische aufgaben der fachsprachenforschung und ihre konsequenzenfüden fremdsprachenunterricht. In Kelz, H. P. (Ed.), Fachsprache: Sprachanalyse und Vermittlungsmethoden. Bonn: Peter Lange. https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/fachsprache-sprachanalyse-vermittlungsmethoden/author/kelz-heinrich/
Stubbs, M (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Blackwell. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Discourse+Analysis%3A+The+Sociolinguistic+Analysis+of+Natural+Language-p-9780631127635
Tannen, D. (1982). Ethnic style in male-female conversation. In J. J. Gumperz, (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 217-213). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/ir/academic/subjects/languages-linguistics/sociolinguistics/language-and-social-identity?format=PB
Tatis, K., & Rowland, T. (2006). Vague language in Greek and English mathematical talk: A variation study in face-work. Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 5, 257-264. Prague: PME. https://www.academia.edu/332520/Vague_Language_In_Greek_and_English_Mathematical_Talk_A_Variation_Study_In_Face-Work
Vande Kopple, W. J., & Crismore, A. (1990). Readers' reactions to hedges in a science textbook. Linguistics and Education, 2, 303-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(05)80024-5
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00007-6
Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Finland: University of Tampere. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Hedging-in-Scientifically-Oriented-Discourse.-to-Varttala/8110d180ccb5e47ec1f9e9ab7cfa781b1b464ba4
Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 83-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0
Vold, E. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-cultural study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 61-87. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00106.x
Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Explorations in applied linguistics 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://books.google.com/books/about/Explorations_in_Applied_Linguistics.html?id=aIlJAAAAYAAJ
Winardi, A. (2008). The use of hedging devices by American and Chinese writers in the field of applied linguistics. Jurnal Sastra Inggris, 8(3), 9285-9312. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=Jurnal+Sastra+Inggris+%2Bwinardi&btnG=
Yang, A., Zheng, S. Y., & Ge, G. C. (2015). Epistemic modality in English-medium medical research articles: A systemic functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 1-10. https://daneshyari.com/article/preview/355376.pdf
Yang, H. (2006). A comparative study of scientific hedging by Chinese writers and English writers. Language Education Papers, 3(3), 58-62. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Comparative-Study-of-Scientific-Hedging-by-and-Hua-Yang/a6fa15b853454c92595a75635fc96c25b4a06e8b
Yang, Y. (2003). A contrastive study of hedges in English and Chinese academic discourse (Unpublished MA thesis). Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50, 23-36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216613000295
Yu, S. (2009). The pragmatic development of hedging in EFL learners (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=The+pragmatic+development+of+hedging+in+EFL+learners&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
Zuck, J. G., & Zuck, V. L. (1985). Hedging in newspapers. In A. M. Cornu, J. Vanparijs & M. Delahene (Eds.), Beads or bracelet: How do we approach LSP (pp. 172-180). Leuven: Oxford University Press. https://books.google.com/books/about/Beads_or_Bracelet.html?id=qWVxOQAACAAJ
پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی
دوره 10، شماره 2
تیر 1399
صفحه 448-469

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار