学术论坛语篇中模糊限制语的人际意义分析
发布时间：2018-11-02 19:18
【摘要】：模糊性是语言的显著性特征之一。对语言模糊性的研究有助于揭示语言的本质。模糊限制语指那些能把事情变得更加模糊或不那么模糊的词语。对模糊限制语的研究已经从语义学拓展到语用学，语篇分析，语体分析，跨文化交际以及模糊集合等多个领域。特别是对模糊限制语在法律文本，研究论文以及案例报告等语体中体现的人际意义的研究也已经展开。然而对学术论坛这一语体中模糊限制语所体现的人际意义的研究目前还鲜有涉及。随着互联网技术的广泛推广和应用，对网络学术论坛语体的研究有助于促进人们之间在网络上的交流和互动。 本文基于系统功能语言学人际元功能的理论和Hyland对模糊限制语的分类，，借助语料库的研究手段和Wconcord这一统计软件对BISC这一学术论坛中模糊限制语体现的人际意义进行了定量和定性分析。本文作者以BISC这一学术论坛中240篇有关学术问题的电子邮件（字数为80844）为语料，把邮件主体内容部分划分了三个语步：（1）表达作者对论坛中其他成员观点的看法，并表明自己发送此邮件要发表的观点；（2）对自己的观点进行理论上的论证和解释；（3）重申自己的观点并期待其他学者对此作出回应。 分析结果表明：无论在整个论坛语篇中还是在各个独立的语步中，四种类型的模糊限制语按出现频率的高低的排列次序为：可靠型模糊限制语（54.0‰），读者导向型模糊限制语(31.0‰)，作者导向型模糊限制语(21.2‰)以及特性型模糊限制语(16.3‰)。这表明邮件的作者在写作过程中首先考虑的是如何使用可靠型模糊限制语表达自己对命题内容的不确定性，以此避免自己的武断。邮件的作者运用模糊限制语的手段考虑最少的是如何对所述现象的特性作出准确得描述。横向来看，不同类型的模糊限制语在三个不同语步中也具有不同的分布规律，体现了不同的人际意义。 对学术论坛语篇中模糊限制语人际意义的研究扩展了模糊限制语的研究领域并且将有助于增强人们对网络论坛的语体特征的了解。另外，本研究可能给写作教学带来一定的启示。
[Abstract]:Fuzziness is one of the salient features of language. The study of language fuzziness helps to reveal the nature of language. Hedges refer to words that make things more or less vague. The study of hedges has been extended from semantics to pragmatics, discourse analysis, stylistic analysis, cross-cultural communication and fuzzy sets. In particular, the research on the interpersonal meaning of hedges in legal texts, research papers and case reports has also been carried out. However, there is little research on the interpersonal meaning of hedges in academic forum. With the wide spread and application of Internet technology, the research on the language style of online academic forum is helpful to promote the communication and interaction between people on the network. Based on the theory of interpersonal metafunctions in systemic functional linguistics and Hyland's classification of hedges, With the help of corpus-based research and statistical software Wconcord, this paper makes a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the interpersonal meaning of vague hedges in BISC, an academic forum. The author uses BISC, an academic forum, as the corpus of 240 emails (80844 words) to divide the main content of the mail into three steps: (1) to express the author's views on the views of other members of the forum. And to express their views to send this email to express; (2) theoretical argumentation and explanation of one's own point of view; (3) reiterating one's point of view and expecting other scholars to respond to it. The results show that the four types of hedges are in the order of frequency of occurrence: reliable hedges (54.0 鈥
本文编号：2306719
[Abstract]:Fuzziness is one of the salient features of language. The study of language fuzziness helps to reveal the nature of language. Hedges refer to words that make things more or less vague. The study of hedges has been extended from semantics to pragmatics, discourse analysis, stylistic analysis, cross-cultural communication and fuzzy sets. In particular, the research on the interpersonal meaning of hedges in legal texts, research papers and case reports has also been carried out. However, there is little research on the interpersonal meaning of hedges in academic forum. With the wide spread and application of Internet technology, the research on the language style of online academic forum is helpful to promote the communication and interaction between people on the network. Based on the theory of interpersonal metafunctions in systemic functional linguistics and Hyland's classification of hedges, With the help of corpus-based research and statistical software Wconcord, this paper makes a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the interpersonal meaning of vague hedges in BISC, an academic forum. The author uses BISC, an academic forum, as the corpus of 240 emails (80844 words) to divide the main content of the mail into three steps: (1) to express the author's views on the views of other members of the forum. And to express their views to send this email to express; (2) theoretical argumentation and explanation of one's own point of view; (3) reiterating one's point of view and expecting other scholars to respond to it. The results show that the four types of hedges are in the order of frequency of occurrence: reliable hedges (54.0 鈥
本文编号：2306719
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/wenyilunwen/hanyulw/2306719.html
