Nội quy chuyên mục: - Hiện nay có khá nhiều trang chia sẻ Tài liệu nhưng mất phí, đó là lý do ket-noi mở ra chuyên mục Tài liệu miễn phí.

- Những bạn nào tích cực chia sẻ tài liệu, sẽ được ưu tiên cung cấp tài liệu khi có yêu cầu.
Nhận download tài liệu miễn phí

- Vào đây xem Kho tài liệu học tiếng anh khổng lồ của ket-noi
By kute_0o0
#959086 Luận văn tiếng Anh:Hedging devices in English and Vietnamese economic research articles (ERAs.) = Phương tiện rào đón trong các bài báo nghiên cứu kinh tế tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt . Ph.D. Thesis Linguistics: 62 22 15 01
LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................V
ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS............................................................ VI
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .............ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
1.1. RATIONALE OF THE STUDY........................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
1.2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...ERROR! BOOKMARK
NOT DEFINED.
1.3. THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE STUDY .........ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
1.4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.......................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
1.4.1. Data Collections ......................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.4.2. Procedures for the Analysis of the CorpusError! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................... - 22 -
2.1. EXPLORING THE CONCEPT OF HEDGING.....................................................- 22 -
2.1.1. The Concept of Hedging.................................................................. - 22 -
2.1.2. Social aspects of hedging ................................................................ - 24 -
2.1.3. Toward a Working Definition of Hedging........................................ - 25 -
2.2. HEDGING AND SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE.......................................................- 27 -
2.2.1. The Nature of Scientific Discourse .................................................. - 27 -
2.2.2. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles........................................... - 37 -
2.2.3. Hedging in Economic Research Articles.......................................... - 51 -
CHAPTER 3. CORPUS ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH RESEARCH ARTICLES
ON ECONOMICS................................................................................................ - 58 -
3.1. LEXICAL HEDGES IN THE ECONOMIC RESEARCH ARTICLES (RAS.).............- 58 -
3.1.1. Comparing Hedging Usage in English RAs. with Two other Areas:
Applied Linguistics and Physics...................................................................... - 58 -
3.1.2. Lexical Hedges in the English Corpus ............................................. - 61 -
3.1.3. Non-lexical Hedges ......................................................................... - 95 -
3.2. PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF HEDGING DEVICES IN THE ENGLISH CORPUS ...- 105 -
3.2.1. Content-oriented Functions of Hedging in the English Corpus ...... - 106 -
3.2.2. Reader-oriented Functions of Hedging Devices in the English Corpus ... -
119 -
CHAPTER 4. CORPUS ANALYSIS OF VIETNAMESE RESEARCH
ARTICLES ON ECONOMICS ......................................................................... - 122 -
4.1. LEXICAL HEDGES IN VIETNAMESE ECONOMIC CORPUS............................- 122 -
4.1.1. Modality Functions as Hedging Devices in the Vietnamese Corpus- 123 -
4.1.2. Lexical Verbs as Hedging Devices in the Vietnamese Corpus ........ - 135 -
4.1.3. Nouns and Pronouns Function as Hedging Devices in the Vietnamese
Corpus 141
4.1.4. Impersonalizations as Hedging Devices in the Vietnamese Corpus.....145
4.1.5. Compound Hedges .............................................................................150
4.2. PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF HEDGING DEVICES IN THE VIETNAMESE CORPUS.153 4.2.1. Content-oriented Functions of Hedging in the Vietnamese Corpus .....154
4.2.2. Reader-oriented Functions of Hedging Devices in the Vietnamese
Corpus 161
CHAPTER 5. COMPARING HEDGING USAGES BETWEEN ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE WRITERS.....................................................................................170
5.1. GENERAL COMPARISON AND CONTRAST......................................................170
5.2. COMPARISON AND CONTRAST IN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES ...........................172
5.2.1. Devices in the Two Corpora with No Differences ...............................175
5.2.2. Differences among Hedging Devices in the Two Corpora...................179
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND IMPLICATIONS ................186
6.1. CONCLUDING REMARKS..............................................................................186
6.2. IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY......................................................................190
6.2.1. Implications for Language Awareness................................................190
6.2.2. Implications for research....................................................................191
6.2.3. Implications for language learning.....................................................192
6.3. SUGGESTED FOR FURTHER STUDY................................................................194 Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1. Rationale of the Study
The last two decades of research on academic writing have demonstrated that
written academic genres are not purely objective, impersonal, and informative as
they were once believed to be. In fact, many researchers, such as Butler (1990),
Crompton (1997, 1998), Hyland (1994, 1996, 1998), Myers (1985, 1989),
Salager-Meyer (1994, 2000), Swales (1990), have shown that writers also need to
present their claims cautiously, accurately, and persuasively in order to meet
academia’s expectations and to enhance acceptance for their propositions. One of
the means to achieve such goal is the use of hedging.
Hedging was first introduced by Lakoff (1972) as a linguistic concept referring to
linguistic strategies which qualify categorical commitment. Hedging is now often
known as an expression of tentativeness and possibility and has become a
common feature in academic discourse (Hyland, 1996). It is used to qualify the
writers’ confidence in the truth of a proposition, and the presence of hedging
devices is generally viewed as an indicator of fuzziness.
However, while hedging in spoken discourse is a well-documented phenomenon,
one which plays important interpersonal and facilitative roles, less attention is
given to hedging in different disciplines or genres in academic writing. This
thesis, therefore, provides comprehensive research on this feature in the written
discourse of economics with a systematic analysis of (1) linguistic forms and (2)
a pragmatic explanation for their use.
1.2. Objectives of the Study and Research Questions
The main objectives of this thesis are to characterize the common extent,
functions and major forms of hedging in one particular genre: economic research
articles (RAs). In particular, the study addresses the following primary
objectives:
1. To identify the hedging devices used in the discussion sections of the English
and the Vietnamese ERAs.
2. To identify the communicative functions of hedges in Discussion sections of
English and Vietnamese ERAs.
3. To compare/contrast hedging expressions in Discussion sections in English
ERAs and in Vietnamese ERAs To realize the above objectives, this study will address the following research
questions:
1. Which typical lexico-grammatical forms are used to realize hedging functions
in English and Vietnamese ERAs.?
2. What are pragmatic functions of hedging devices in the English and
Vietnamese ERAs?
3. What are differences or similarities in the use of hedging between the two
languages?
1.3. The Contributions of the Study
Unlike previous studies focusing on hedging in primarily spoken conversation,
where it is extremely common and represents a significant communicative
resource for speakers (for example, Stubbs, 1986; Coates, 1987; Nittono, 2003;
Nguyen Quoc Sinh, 2004; Phan Thi Phuong Dung, 2004), this thesis places the
concept within academic strategies for modifying illocutionary force based on an
analysis of authentic written articles.
The research describes the distribution of surface forms used to hedge in ERAs in
English and Vietnamese. The thesis also identifies a valid explanatory framework
underlying rhetorical choices.
The analysis of these rhetorical principles provides a new area of insight for
linguists.
Knowledge about hedging from this thesis provides insights into how researchers
establish their claims, how they carry out their work and how they anticipate
negative reactions from readers to their propositions.
Information about hedging can also contribute to our understanding of the
practice of evidential reasoning and the structure of argumentation. In other
words, the study of hedging can Giúp us anticipate possible rebuttals and help
reveal how writers move between grounds and claims in the process of gaining
reader ratification of their statements.
Moreover, studying hedging has pedagogical implications. This study provides
an analytic insight into hedging expressions which enables teachers of English
for Specific Purposes (ESP) in general and of economics in particular, to assist
their students in understanding economic texts.
1.4. Research Methodology 1.4.1. Data Collections
This chapter discusses the methodology in the present research project for
collecting, selecting and analyzing the corpus described above.
The chapter starts with an outline of criteria for collecting and selecting the
corpus for the present research. Following is a brief description of procedures
followed for the linguistic analysis of the said corpus. The last part of the chapter
discusses the use of survey questionnaires as a device for validating the
researcher’s findings.
1.4.1.1 Criteria for Collecting the Data.
In light of the experience gained during the present research, it is possible to
divide collection criteria into Authenticity, Reputation, Accessibility and
Variation.
1.4.1.1.1 Authenticity
The data to be collected must be real life examples of language as used by the
target professional community. The data in the present thesis is empirical
research papers selected from journals published in the United States and in
Vietnam. The sample collected exemplifies the typical language of Economics
and is linguistically recognizable.
The sample collected for the present analysis seems to be authentic and not
simulated since it is extracted from well known journals edited by distinguished
professors from famous universities in the USA such as Harvard University, the
University of Texas, New York University, the National Economics University
in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam. Many prominent economists publish
their real experience and case studies in these journals including Elhanan
Helpman (Harvard), Torsten Persson (London School of Economics), Eric
Rasmusen (Indiana), Robert J. Shiller (Yale), Blanchard (MIT), Le Trong Khoi,
Phan Dinh Huong (Hanoi), Phan Trong Tue (Ho Chi Minh City)… Moreover,
writers of these journals are usually aware that their audience is international and
that they have responsibility for almost all of their statements in the articles.
However, only the authenticity may not be enough because publication can have
an influence on the readership that the corporate writers are aware of and
consciously initiate. The second criterion for collecting the data is set up.
1.4.1.1.2 Reputation
Reputation has to do with the extent to which peers or the readership as a whole
rate the articles released by a given source as well as the extent to which this
source is renowned in the Economic field. Bley-Vroman and Selinkers state that reputation means the extent to which the texts collected are valued by the
readership.
The sources from which data for the present analysis has been collected are
reputable sources in the Economic field. For one thing, they all have world-wide
coverage. For another, these articles are ranked by the Econometric Journal; the
RePEc (Research Papers in Economics) published by the Department of
Economics of University of Connecticut. The Econometric Journal ranks
journals, articles and working papers in economic field. This journal bases on
Impact Factors of the JCR (Journal of Citation Reports). Several rankings bases
on impact of journals and impact per articles (see more at the website:
Bấm vào đây để đăng nhập và xem link!). RePEc is a collaborative
effort of hundreds of volunteers in 54 countries and 34 US states to enhance the
dissemination of research in economics. The heart of the project is a
decentralized database of 184,000 working papers, 201,000 journal articles and
1,350 software components. The American Economic Association has the first
ranking in the number of articles published in RePEc (8681 articles) (more
information can be seen at the website: Bấm vào đây để đăng nhập và xem link!). About Vietnamese
economic corpus, all four journals chosen are suggested by leading experts in the
Faculty of macro-micro economics- National Economics University, Hanoi.
1.4.1.1.3 Accessibility
Accessibility refers to the extent to which the researcher can obtain the material
to be analysed, together with the possibility for the researcher to get in touch with
the writers of these articles, as, for example, when the researcher finds some of
these to be not fully understandable.
It is therefore possible to break the criterion of Accessibility down to material
accessibility, content – accessibility and people – accessibility.
With regard to the data, most of the articles were downloaded from electronic
journal service in the libraries of the University of Wisconsin - Madison (either
PDF files or html. files). The updated articles published in 2005 forward were
found as hard copy in the library. As for Vietnamese articles, all journals are
available in the library in the National Economics University, Hanoi. We can
also get some of them free from the publishers (e.g. Economic and Development
Review). This is a privilege that cannot be overlooked in this world of extremely
busy and time-conscious professionals.
1.4.1.1.4 Variation
This criterion forms a bridge between collection and selection criteria and has to
do with the extent to which the data collected or selected comes from different sources for the purpose of generalization. Furthermore, taking care to vary the
source of material to be collected and selected may Giúp the researcher to avoid
the pitfall of drawing conclusions from a small and poor corpus.
1.4.1.2 Criteria for Collecting the Corpus
Three criteria for the selection of the corpus for the present analysis were
identified: Universality, Text Length and Representativity.
1.4.1.2.1 Universality
The reason for choosing empirical research articles for the corpus is because of
their universality in the journal data. We have shown and summarized in table 3
the different types of research papers in the journal data. Because we are seeking
generalizations across a set of similar texts, a decision had to be made to select
for analysis not only what could be manually manageable, (i.e. not excessively
long), but especially those in particular type of research papers which were
present everywhere at once in the sample from all four sources. Moreover, there
is a hypothesis that in discussion section- one of 4 sections in an empirical
research, the writer will use a lot of hedging devices to give a series of points
referring back to statements made in the Introduction and interpret what has been
learned in the study.
This criterion and hypothesis led us to consider mostly texts from the discussion
section which was found to occur universally, as expounded in table I-1.

Link Download bản DOC
Password giải nén nếu cần: ket-noi.com | Bấm trực tiếp vào Link tải, không dùng IDM để tải:

Bấm vào đây để đăng nhập và xem link!

Lưu ý khi sử dụng

- Gặp Link download hỏng, hãy đăng trả lời (yêu cầu link download mới), Các MOD sẽ cập nhật link sớm nhất
- Tìm kiếm trước khi đăng bài mới

Chủ đề liên quan:
Hình đại diện của thành viên
By daigai
Kết nối đề xuất:
Tìm tài liệu
Advertisement