社会科学和自然科学学术论文模糊限制语应用对比研究
摘要
模糊限制语是指那些表示不确定概念或限制条件的词语和语言结构,通过其无定量、无定指的特性使命题表达更加严谨、准确、客观。模糊限制语是英语学术论文写作中常用的策略,它能表明作者对话语及读者的态度,给作者及读者都留下讨论的余地,体现了作者的科学态度及对同行的尊重。目前语言学框架下模糊限制语的研究取得了新的进展,其研究领域已拓宽到语言学的各个层面,包括语义学、话语分析、语用学、翻译学、二语习得、认知、跨文化交际学、修辞学、文体学、篇章学等。其中,模糊限制语在学术论文中的运用受到极大关注,首先,许多学者研究了模糊限制语在不同学科中的应用情况,但研究对象大多限于单一学科,如医学,生物和经济等;其次模糊限制语的对比研究也取得了很大的进展,但大多局限于相同学科,不同语言之间的研究,如英语和德语,英语和汉语等。对模糊限制语在不同学科领域,如模糊限制语在社会科学和自然科学领域学术论文中的应用对比研究尚未发现。
本文基于Ken. Hyland’s对于模糊限制语的理论框架和分类模式,借助语料库的研究手段,对模糊限制语在社会科学和自然科学学术论文中的运用情况进行了定量、定性的分析。笔者建立了社会科学和自然科学两个英文学术论文语料库,以及相应的模糊限制语分类模式和附码系统,对两个语料库的模糊限制语进行了附码标注,采用Concord 300工具,对模糊限制语在这两个语料库中的出现频率,种类及分布规律进行了对比分析。同时也探究了模糊限制语在学术论文中语用功能。
分析结果表明:就模糊限制语的应用而言,这两个领域之间既有相似之处又存在差异。相似表现为,模糊限制语在学术论文中的应用非常广泛,无论在社会科学还是自然科学学术论文中都发挥着重要的作用。不同之处首先表现在模糊限制语使用的数量上,社会科学多于自然科学;其次表现在所使用的模糊限制语的种类上,社会科学论文比自然科学论文使用了更多种类的模糊限制语,而且在模糊限制语的使用上,不同学科有不同的用词特点。出现差异的原因在于,由于社会科学的研究对象为各种社会现象及其发展规律,在量化方面存在困难,所以其研究方法主要基于逻辑的推理,包括研究者的判断,存在主观性,所以在发表自己的观点时会借助于模糊限制语的使用,使自己的观点更好的被接受;而自然科学的研究对象为自然界的物质形态、结构、性质和运动规律,其研究一般都基于精确的实验,其结论基于精确的数字,客观性比较强,所以模糊限制语的使用较少。
理解这些相似之处和学科差异必将有益于英语学术论文写作教学。本文研究旨在拓宽模糊限制语的研究范围,提高不同学科学术论文作者对模糊限制语的意识和应用能力,充实目前的学术论文写作教学内容。
Hedges refer to words expressing indeterminacy or limitations, through which the propositions are made more rigid, accurate and objective. Hedging is one of the strategies frequently employed in academic writing. This strategy is mainly used to comment to the propositions or claims s/he presented. Meanwhile, appropriate use of hedging may not merely reflect the author’s scientific attitude, his or her merits of modesty and caution as well as deference to their peers, but also leave room for future discussion. The use of hedges in research articles (hereinafter RAs) has been studied to some extent in relatively recent work. However, these studies mainly restricted to the context of academic articles on one single discipline, for example, medicine, biology and economics, few attention has been focused on hedging use in other disciplines; the comparative study of hedging in different field, for example, social sciences and natural sciences, is rare. This thesis aims to explore the possible difference and similarities of hedging between social science and natural science RAs.
Based on K. Hyland’s theory and modal of hedges and with a corpus-based methodology, we make a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the hedging in social science and natural science research articles. Two corpora of research articles have been set up. One is Social Science Corpus; the other is Natural Science Corpus, each corpus including 20 articles. The framework of hedging for the present study and a corresponding coding system are set up, and hedging devices adopted in the two fields are thoroughly annotated. By means of the Concord 300, the distribution regularities of hedging summarized. After a vertical analysis of hedging, this thesis goes on with a horizontal comparative analysis of hedging between the two fields, aiming to reveal the working mechanism of hedging and the binding force of different subject features on writers’hedging choice. What’s more, the pragmatic function of hedging use in the two fields has been explored.
The results reveal, in terms of hedging, there are not only similarities but also disciplinary discrepancies between social science RAs and natural science RAs. The similarity is hedging devices used popularly both in social sciences RAs (hereinafter SS RAs) and natural sciences RAs (hereinafter NS RAs), and play important roles. The discrepancies, first lies in the number of hedging devices, there are more hedging devices in SS RAs than that in NS RAs; second, the varieties of hedging devices, the SS RAs used more kinds of hedging devices than NS RAs, and what’s more they have their own preferences in hedging use. The reasons for the discrepancies due to, on one hand, the subjects of social sciences are mainly some phenomena, which are difficult to quantify exactly and thus it is unavoidable for researchers to resort more hedging devices to account for them; on the other hand, natural sciences are dominantly concerned with quantitative modal-building and the analysis of observance to establish empirical uniformities, and thus their explanations derive from precise measurement and systematic exploration of relationship between some variables. In this sense, it is no wonder that fewer hedging devices are employed in natural sciences RAs. These findings will expectedly be of great help to the teaching of English for Academic Purpose (EAP). The thesis aims to broaden the study of hedging, enhancing the hedging awareness of writers of different scientific fields and their ability of applying hedges, and new materials for the teaching of scientific English writing.
本文基于Ken. Hyland’s对于模糊限制语的理论框架和分类模式,借助语料库的研究手段,对模糊限制语在社会科学和自然科学学术论文中的运用情况进行了定量、定性的分析。笔者建立了社会科学和自然科学两个英文学术论文语料库,以及相应的模糊限制语分类模式和附码系统,对两个语料库的模糊限制语进行了附码标注,采用Concord 300工具,对模糊限制语在这两个语料库中的出现频率,种类及分布规律进行了对比分析。同时也探究了模糊限制语在学术论文中语用功能。
分析结果表明:就模糊限制语的应用而言,这两个领域之间既有相似之处又存在差异。相似表现为,模糊限制语在学术论文中的应用非常广泛,无论在社会科学还是自然科学学术论文中都发挥着重要的作用。不同之处首先表现在模糊限制语使用的数量上,社会科学多于自然科学;其次表现在所使用的模糊限制语的种类上,社会科学论文比自然科学论文使用了更多种类的模糊限制语,而且在模糊限制语的使用上,不同学科有不同的用词特点。出现差异的原因在于,由于社会科学的研究对象为各种社会现象及其发展规律,在量化方面存在困难,所以其研究方法主要基于逻辑的推理,包括研究者的判断,存在主观性,所以在发表自己的观点时会借助于模糊限制语的使用,使自己的观点更好的被接受;而自然科学的研究对象为自然界的物质形态、结构、性质和运动规律,其研究一般都基于精确的实验,其结论基于精确的数字,客观性比较强,所以模糊限制语的使用较少。
理解这些相似之处和学科差异必将有益于英语学术论文写作教学。本文研究旨在拓宽模糊限制语的研究范围,提高不同学科学术论文作者对模糊限制语的意识和应用能力,充实目前的学术论文写作教学内容。
Hedges refer to words expressing indeterminacy or limitations, through which the propositions are made more rigid, accurate and objective. Hedging is one of the strategies frequently employed in academic writing. This strategy is mainly used to comment to the propositions or claims s/he presented. Meanwhile, appropriate use of hedging may not merely reflect the author’s scientific attitude, his or her merits of modesty and caution as well as deference to their peers, but also leave room for future discussion. The use of hedges in research articles (hereinafter RAs) has been studied to some extent in relatively recent work. However, these studies mainly restricted to the context of academic articles on one single discipline, for example, medicine, biology and economics, few attention has been focused on hedging use in other disciplines; the comparative study of hedging in different field, for example, social sciences and natural sciences, is rare. This thesis aims to explore the possible difference and similarities of hedging between social science and natural science RAs.
Based on K. Hyland’s theory and modal of hedges and with a corpus-based methodology, we make a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the hedging in social science and natural science research articles. Two corpora of research articles have been set up. One is Social Science Corpus; the other is Natural Science Corpus, each corpus including 20 articles. The framework of hedging for the present study and a corresponding coding system are set up, and hedging devices adopted in the two fields are thoroughly annotated. By means of the Concord 300, the distribution regularities of hedging summarized. After a vertical analysis of hedging, this thesis goes on with a horizontal comparative analysis of hedging between the two fields, aiming to reveal the working mechanism of hedging and the binding force of different subject features on writers’hedging choice. What’s more, the pragmatic function of hedging use in the two fields has been explored.
The results reveal, in terms of hedging, there are not only similarities but also disciplinary discrepancies between social science RAs and natural science RAs. The similarity is hedging devices used popularly both in social sciences RAs (hereinafter SS RAs) and natural sciences RAs (hereinafter NS RAs), and play important roles. The discrepancies, first lies in the number of hedging devices, there are more hedging devices in SS RAs than that in NS RAs; second, the varieties of hedging devices, the SS RAs used more kinds of hedging devices than NS RAs, and what’s more they have their own preferences in hedging use. The reasons for the discrepancies due to, on one hand, the subjects of social sciences are mainly some phenomena, which are difficult to quantify exactly and thus it is unavoidable for researchers to resort more hedging devices to account for them; on the other hand, natural sciences are dominantly concerned with quantitative modal-building and the analysis of observance to establish empirical uniformities, and thus their explanations derive from precise measurement and systematic exploration of relationship between some variables. In this sense, it is no wonder that fewer hedging devices are employed in natural sciences RAs. These findings will expectedly be of great help to the teaching of English for Academic Purpose (EAP). The thesis aims to broaden the study of hedging, enhancing the hedging awareness of writers of different scientific fields and their ability of applying hedges, and new materials for the teaching of scientific English writing.
引文
Berkenkotter, C. & T. Huckin. 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, P. & S. Levinson. 1978. Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. In Goody, E. N. (Ed.), Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. pp.56-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. & S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, C. 1990. Qualifications in Science: modal meanings in academic discourse. In Nash, W. (Ed.). The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Carmen, P. A. 2003. The epistemic nature of disciplinary discourse: echoing postmodern literary practices. Estudios ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 12, pp. 25-41.
Chen, Z. & Ran, Y. 1995. Hedges and their pragmatic analysis. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University, 11(1), pp. 18-24. (陈志安,冉永平,模糊限制语及其语用分析,《四川外语学院学报》, 1995年第11卷第1期。)
Coates, J. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.
Crismore, A. & R. Farnsworth. 1990. Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In Nash, W. (Ed.), The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse, pp.118-136. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Crismore, A. & W. Vande Kopple. 1988. Readers learning from prose: The effects of hedges. Written Communication, 5 (2), pp. 184-202.
Crystal, D. 1995. In search of English: a traveler’s guide. ELT Journal, 49(2),pp. 107~121.
Dahl, T. 2004. Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, pp. 1807-1825.
Dai, J. 2002. On communicative functions of fuzzy language. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages. 25(6), pp. 21-25.(戴建东,试论模糊语言的交际功能,《解放军外国语学院学报》,2002年第25卷第6期。)
De Figueiredo-Silva, M. 2001. Teaching academic reading: some initial findings from a session on hedging. Paper delivered at Proceeding of the Postgraduate Conference 2001-Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, The University of Edinburgh.
Donohue, J. P. 2006. How to support a one-handed economist: The role of modalisation in economic forecasting. English for Specific Purposes, 25(2), pp. 200-216.
Dubois, B. 1987. Something on the order of around forty to forty-four: imprecise numerical expressions in biomedical slide talks. Language in Society, 16, pp. 527-541.
Eva, T. V. 2006. Epistemic modality markers in research articles: a cross-linguistic and cross disciplinary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), pp.61-87.
Gao, X. & Q. Zhang. 2002. Hedges: categorization and application. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University, 18(5), pp. 89-91. (高晓芳,张琴,模糊限制语:分类与应用,《四川外语学院学报》,2002年第18卷第5期。)
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Second Edition). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
He, Z. 1998. An Introduction to Pragmatics (In Chinese). Changsha: Hunan Education Press. (何自然,《语用学概论》,长沙:湖南教育出版社。)
Hewings, M. & A. Hewings. 2002.‘It is interesting to note that…’: Acomparative study of anticipatory‘it’in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), pp. 367-383.
Hopkins, A. & T. Dudley-Evans, 1988. A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7 (2), pp. 113-121.
Huang, X. 2002. A discourse and pragmatic analysis of hedges in academic papers. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University, 18(4), pp. 85-88. (黄小萍,学术论文中模糊限制语的语篇语用分析,《四川外语学院学报》,2002年第18卷第4期。)
Hyland, K. 1996. Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17 (4), pp. 433-454.
Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hyland, K. 1999. Persuasion in academic articles [On-line]. Available Telnet: sunzil.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/101000128.pdf.
Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Hyland, K. 2002. What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text, 22 (4), pp. 529-557.
Hyland, K. & P. Tse. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), pp.156-177.
Hyland, K. 2004. Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.
Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Cuntinuum.
Jiang, T. 2006. On modal hedges in EAP-A study on corpus. CAFLE, No. 110, pp. 47-51. (蒋婷,论学术英语中的情态模糊限制语,《外语电化教学》, 2006年第110期。)
Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges: A Study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzyconcepts. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, 8, pp. 221-271
Lewin, B.A. 2005. Hedging: an exploratory study of authors’ans readers’identification of‘toning down’in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purpose, 4(2), 163-178.
Li, P. & S. Zheng. 2005. A pragmatic functional analysis of Chinese and English hedges. Journal of Anhui University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 29(1), pp. 109-112. (李萍,郑树棠,中英模糊限制语功能探究,《安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2005年第29卷第1期。)
Lin, B. & W. Wang. 2003. Pragmatic vagueness from a cognitive perspective. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, No. 8, pp. 6-10. (林波,王文斌,从认知交际看语用模糊,《外语与外语教学》, 2003年第8期。)
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Magnet, A. & D. Carnet. 2006. Letters to the editor: Still vigorous after all these years? A presentation of the discursive and linguistic features of the genre. English for Specific Purposes, 25(2), pp. 173-199.
Markkanen, R. & H. Schroder. 1988. Hedging as a translation problem in scientific texts. In Lauren, C. & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special Language: From humans thinking to thinking machines, pp. 171-179. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Markkanen, R. & H. Schroder. 1997. Hedging and discourse. New York: de Gruyter.
Martin, J. R. 1985. Process and Text: two aspects of semiosis. In Benson, J. D. & W. S. Greaves (Eds.), Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, 1(1). pp. 248-274. Seclected Theoretical Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop, Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
Mauranen, A. 1997. Hedging in Language Revisers’Hands. In Markkanen, R. & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and Discourse. pp. 115-133. New York :de Gruyter.
Meyers, P. G. 1997. Hedging strategies in written academic discourse:strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In Markkanen, R. & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. pp. 21-41. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Myers, G. 1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), pp. 1-35.
Palmer, F. R. 1979. Modality and the English Modals. London and New York: Longman.
Prince, E., J. Frader, & C. Bosk. 1982. On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In Pietro, R.D. (Ed.), Linguistics and the Professions.
Proceedings of the Second Annual Delaware Symposium on Language Studies. pp. 83-97. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985.
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman,.
Rescki, L. 2005. Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: a functional account of dissertation defenses. English for Specific Purposes, 24(1), pp. 5-24.
Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. & B. Loyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization. pp. 27- 48. New Jersey: Hillsdale.
Salager-Meyer, F. 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), pp. 149-170.
Schroder, H. M. Hartmut. & Z. Dagmar. 2000. Hedging: A challenging for pragmatics and discourse analysis. Letze Aktualisierung am Donnerstag, 6, pp. 231-232.
Skelton, John. 1988. The Care and Maintenance of Hedges. ELT Journal, 42(1), pp.37-43.
Stapleton, P. 1995. Scientific Writing for Agricultural Research Scientists.Cotonous: WARDA/CTA.
Stubbs, M. 1986. A matter of prolonged field work: notes towards a modal grammar of English. Applied Linguistics, 7(l), pp. 1-25.
Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Teaching Press.
Tardy, C. 2004. The role of English in scientific communication: Lingua franca or Tyrannosau rus rex? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3 (3), pp. 247-269.
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), pp.177-200.
Varttala, T. 2001. Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring Variation According to Discipline and intended Audience [On-line]. Available Telnet:acta.uta.fi.
Vassileva, I. 2001. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), pp. 83-102.
Webber, P. 2005. Interactive features in medical conference monologue. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), pp. 157-181.
Weinreich, U. 1966. On the Semantic Structure of English. In Greenberg, J. H. (Eds.) Universals of Language, pp.142-217. Second Edition. Cambridge/Mass: MIT Press.
Widdowson, H. G. 1984. Explorations in applied linguistics 2. Oxford: OUP. Wissnoff, J. R. 2000. Hedging Your Bets: L2 Learners’Acquisition of pragmatics in Academic Writing and compiter-mediated Discourse. Second Language Studies, 19(1), 119-148.
Wu, T. 1979. Elementary research of fuzzy language. Journal of Foreign Languages, No. 4, pp. 13-16. (伍铁平,模糊语言初探,《外国语》,1979年第4期。)
Yakhontova. T. 2006. Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse:The issue of influencing factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 25(5), pp. 153-167.
Yang, H. 2001. Hedges in science articles. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University, 17(1), pp. 84-87. (杨慧玲,科技论文中的模糊限制语,《四川外语学院学报》,2001年第17卷第1期。)
Yang, P. 2001. Rounders in English and Chinese. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 24(6), pp. 13-17. (杨平,英汉范围变动型模糊限制语对比研究,《解放军外国语学院学报》,2001年第24卷第6期。)
Yang, Y. 2002. Hedges and verbal communication. Foreign Language Education, 23(4), pp. 49-53. (杨毓隽,模糊限制语与言语交际,《外语教学》,2002年第23卷,第4期。)
Yu, Q. & A. Qin. 2001. On hedges in academic and research English writing. Journal of HUST (Social Science Edition), 15(4), pp. 121-123. (余千华,秦傲松,英语科技论文中的模糊限制语,《华中科技大学学报(社会科学版)》,2001年第15卷第4期。)
Zadeh, L. A. 1965. Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control, 8, pp. 338-353.
Zadeh, L. A.1972. A Fuzzy-set-theoretic interpretation of Hedges. Journal of Cybernetics, 2, pp. 4 - 34.
Zadeh, L. A. 1975. The Concept of a Linguistic Variable andits Applications to Approxi mate Reasoning, Part I.Information Sciences, 8, pp.:199-249.
Zadeh, L. A. 1975. The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and its Applications to Approxi mate Reasoning, Part II. Information Sciences, 8, pp. 301-357.
Zhang, C. 2006. Comparative study on hedges’styles and functions between English and Chinese. Journal of Jiangxi Normal University (Social Sciences), 39(1), pp. 125-128. (张长明,英汉模糊限制语的对比分析研究:类型和功能,《江西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2006年第39卷第1期。)
Zhao, Y. 1999. Hedges in scientific English writing. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, No. 9, pp. 15-17. (赵英玲,英语科技语体中的模糊限制语,《外语与外语教学》, 1999年第9期。)
Zhou, R. 2001. Pragmatic analysis of indirectness of hedges. Shandong Foreign Languages. Teaching Journal, No. 3, pp. 13-15. (周瑞琪,模糊限制语间接性的语用分析,《山东外语教学》,2001年第3期。)
Zuck, J. G. & L. V. Zuck. 1986. Hedging in newswriting. In Cornu, A. M., J., Vanparijs & M. Delahaye (Eds.), Beads or bracelet: How do we approach LSP. pp. 172-180. London: Oxford University Press.
Brown, P. & S. Levinson. 1978. Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. In Goody, E. N. (Ed.), Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. pp.56-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. & S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, C. 1990. Qualifications in Science: modal meanings in academic discourse. In Nash, W. (Ed.). The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Carmen, P. A. 2003. The epistemic nature of disciplinary discourse: echoing postmodern literary practices. Estudios ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 12, pp. 25-41.
Chen, Z. & Ran, Y. 1995. Hedges and their pragmatic analysis. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University, 11(1), pp. 18-24. (陈志安,冉永平,模糊限制语及其语用分析,《四川外语学院学报》, 1995年第11卷第1期。)
Coates, J. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.
Crismore, A. & R. Farnsworth. 1990. Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In Nash, W. (Ed.), The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse, pp.118-136. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Crismore, A. & W. Vande Kopple. 1988. Readers learning from prose: The effects of hedges. Written Communication, 5 (2), pp. 184-202.
Crystal, D. 1995. In search of English: a traveler’s guide. ELT Journal, 49(2),pp. 107~121.
Dahl, T. 2004. Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, pp. 1807-1825.
Dai, J. 2002. On communicative functions of fuzzy language. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages. 25(6), pp. 21-25.(戴建东,试论模糊语言的交际功能,《解放军外国语学院学报》,2002年第25卷第6期。)
De Figueiredo-Silva, M. 2001. Teaching academic reading: some initial findings from a session on hedging. Paper delivered at Proceeding of the Postgraduate Conference 2001-Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, The University of Edinburgh.
Donohue, J. P. 2006. How to support a one-handed economist: The role of modalisation in economic forecasting. English for Specific Purposes, 25(2), pp. 200-216.
Dubois, B. 1987. Something on the order of around forty to forty-four: imprecise numerical expressions in biomedical slide talks. Language in Society, 16, pp. 527-541.
Eva, T. V. 2006. Epistemic modality markers in research articles: a cross-linguistic and cross disciplinary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), pp.61-87.
Gao, X. & Q. Zhang. 2002. Hedges: categorization and application. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University, 18(5), pp. 89-91. (高晓芳,张琴,模糊限制语:分类与应用,《四川外语学院学报》,2002年第18卷第5期。)
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Second Edition). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
He, Z. 1998. An Introduction to Pragmatics (In Chinese). Changsha: Hunan Education Press. (何自然,《语用学概论》,长沙:湖南教育出版社。)
Hewings, M. & A. Hewings. 2002.‘It is interesting to note that…’: Acomparative study of anticipatory‘it’in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), pp. 367-383.
Hopkins, A. & T. Dudley-Evans, 1988. A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7 (2), pp. 113-121.
Huang, X. 2002. A discourse and pragmatic analysis of hedges in academic papers. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University, 18(4), pp. 85-88. (黄小萍,学术论文中模糊限制语的语篇语用分析,《四川外语学院学报》,2002年第18卷第4期。)
Hyland, K. 1996. Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17 (4), pp. 433-454.
Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hyland, K. 1999. Persuasion in academic articles [On-line]. Available Telnet: sunzil.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/101000128.pdf.
Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Hyland, K. 2002. What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text, 22 (4), pp. 529-557.
Hyland, K. & P. Tse. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), pp.156-177.
Hyland, K. 2004. Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.
Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Cuntinuum.
Jiang, T. 2006. On modal hedges in EAP-A study on corpus. CAFLE, No. 110, pp. 47-51. (蒋婷,论学术英语中的情态模糊限制语,《外语电化教学》, 2006年第110期。)
Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges: A Study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzyconcepts. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, 8, pp. 221-271
Lewin, B.A. 2005. Hedging: an exploratory study of authors’ans readers’identification of‘toning down’in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purpose, 4(2), 163-178.
Li, P. & S. Zheng. 2005. A pragmatic functional analysis of Chinese and English hedges. Journal of Anhui University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 29(1), pp. 109-112. (李萍,郑树棠,中英模糊限制语功能探究,《安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2005年第29卷第1期。)
Lin, B. & W. Wang. 2003. Pragmatic vagueness from a cognitive perspective. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, No. 8, pp. 6-10. (林波,王文斌,从认知交际看语用模糊,《外语与外语教学》, 2003年第8期。)
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Magnet, A. & D. Carnet. 2006. Letters to the editor: Still vigorous after all these years? A presentation of the discursive and linguistic features of the genre. English for Specific Purposes, 25(2), pp. 173-199.
Markkanen, R. & H. Schroder. 1988. Hedging as a translation problem in scientific texts. In Lauren, C. & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special Language: From humans thinking to thinking machines, pp. 171-179. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Markkanen, R. & H. Schroder. 1997. Hedging and discourse. New York: de Gruyter.
Martin, J. R. 1985. Process and Text: two aspects of semiosis. In Benson, J. D. & W. S. Greaves (Eds.), Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, 1(1). pp. 248-274. Seclected Theoretical Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop, Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
Mauranen, A. 1997. Hedging in Language Revisers’Hands. In Markkanen, R. & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and Discourse. pp. 115-133. New York :de Gruyter.
Meyers, P. G. 1997. Hedging strategies in written academic discourse:strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In Markkanen, R. & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. pp. 21-41. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Myers, G. 1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), pp. 1-35.
Palmer, F. R. 1979. Modality and the English Modals. London and New York: Longman.
Prince, E., J. Frader, & C. Bosk. 1982. On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In Pietro, R.D. (Ed.), Linguistics and the Professions.
Proceedings of the Second Annual Delaware Symposium on Language Studies. pp. 83-97. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985.
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman,.
Rescki, L. 2005. Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: a functional account of dissertation defenses. English for Specific Purposes, 24(1), pp. 5-24.
Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. & B. Loyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization. pp. 27- 48. New Jersey: Hillsdale.
Salager-Meyer, F. 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), pp. 149-170.
Schroder, H. M. Hartmut. & Z. Dagmar. 2000. Hedging: A challenging for pragmatics and discourse analysis. Letze Aktualisierung am Donnerstag, 6, pp. 231-232.
Skelton, John. 1988. The Care and Maintenance of Hedges. ELT Journal, 42(1), pp.37-43.
Stapleton, P. 1995. Scientific Writing for Agricultural Research Scientists.Cotonous: WARDA/CTA.
Stubbs, M. 1986. A matter of prolonged field work: notes towards a modal grammar of English. Applied Linguistics, 7(l), pp. 1-25.
Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Teaching Press.
Tardy, C. 2004. The role of English in scientific communication: Lingua franca or Tyrannosau rus rex? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3 (3), pp. 247-269.
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), pp.177-200.
Varttala, T. 2001. Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring Variation According to Discipline and intended Audience [On-line]. Available Telnet:acta.uta.fi.
Vassileva, I. 2001. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), pp. 83-102.
Webber, P. 2005. Interactive features in medical conference monologue. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), pp. 157-181.
Weinreich, U. 1966. On the Semantic Structure of English. In Greenberg, J. H. (Eds.) Universals of Language, pp.142-217. Second Edition. Cambridge/Mass: MIT Press.
Widdowson, H. G. 1984. Explorations in applied linguistics 2. Oxford: OUP. Wissnoff, J. R. 2000. Hedging Your Bets: L2 Learners’Acquisition of pragmatics in Academic Writing and compiter-mediated Discourse. Second Language Studies, 19(1), 119-148.
Wu, T. 1979. Elementary research of fuzzy language. Journal of Foreign Languages, No. 4, pp. 13-16. (伍铁平,模糊语言初探,《外国语》,1979年第4期。)
Yakhontova. T. 2006. Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse:The issue of influencing factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 25(5), pp. 153-167.
Yang, H. 2001. Hedges in science articles. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University, 17(1), pp. 84-87. (杨慧玲,科技论文中的模糊限制语,《四川外语学院学报》,2001年第17卷第1期。)
Yang, P. 2001. Rounders in English and Chinese. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 24(6), pp. 13-17. (杨平,英汉范围变动型模糊限制语对比研究,《解放军外国语学院学报》,2001年第24卷第6期。)
Yang, Y. 2002. Hedges and verbal communication. Foreign Language Education, 23(4), pp. 49-53. (杨毓隽,模糊限制语与言语交际,《外语教学》,2002年第23卷,第4期。)
Yu, Q. & A. Qin. 2001. On hedges in academic and research English writing. Journal of HUST (Social Science Edition), 15(4), pp. 121-123. (余千华,秦傲松,英语科技论文中的模糊限制语,《华中科技大学学报(社会科学版)》,2001年第15卷第4期。)
Zadeh, L. A. 1965. Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control, 8, pp. 338-353.
Zadeh, L. A.1972. A Fuzzy-set-theoretic interpretation of Hedges. Journal of Cybernetics, 2, pp. 4 - 34.
Zadeh, L. A. 1975. The Concept of a Linguistic Variable andits Applications to Approxi mate Reasoning, Part I.Information Sciences, 8, pp.:199-249.
Zadeh, L. A. 1975. The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and its Applications to Approxi mate Reasoning, Part II. Information Sciences, 8, pp. 301-357.
Zhang, C. 2006. Comparative study on hedges’styles and functions between English and Chinese. Journal of Jiangxi Normal University (Social Sciences), 39(1), pp. 125-128. (张长明,英汉模糊限制语的对比分析研究:类型和功能,《江西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2006年第39卷第1期。)
Zhao, Y. 1999. Hedges in scientific English writing. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, No. 9, pp. 15-17. (赵英玲,英语科技语体中的模糊限制语,《外语与外语教学》, 1999年第9期。)
Zhou, R. 2001. Pragmatic analysis of indirectness of hedges. Shandong Foreign Languages. Teaching Journal, No. 3, pp. 13-15. (周瑞琪,模糊限制语间接性的语用分析,《山东外语教学》,2001年第3期。)
Zuck, J. G. & L. V. Zuck. 1986. Hedging in newswriting. In Cornu, A. M., J., Vanparijs & M. Delahaye (Eds.), Beads or bracelet: How do we approach LSP. pp. 172-180. London: Oxford University Press.