{"title":"斯洛文尼亚语学术语篇中的模糊情态副词","authors":"Jakob Lenardic, Darja Fišer","doi":"10.4312/SLO2.0.2021.1.145-180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper first presents a comparative analysis of modal adverbs in doctoral theses in the humanities and social sciences on the one hand, and in natural and technical sciences on the other from the 1.7-billion-token corpus of Slovenian academic texts KAS (Erjavec et al., 2019a). Using a randomized concordance analysis, we observe the epistemic and non-epistemic usage of the modal adverbs and show that epistemic adverbs are more characteristic of the humanities and social sciences theses. We also show that the non-epistemic dispositional meaning of possibility, which is most commonly used in natural and technical sciences theses, is not used as a hedging device. In the second part of the paper we compare the usage of a selected set of modals in bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral theses in order to chart how researchers’ approach to stance-taking changes at different proficiency levels in academic writing, showing that the observed increase in hedging devices in doctoral theses seems to be less a function of an increased proficiency level in academic writing as such and more the result of conceptual differences between undergraduate and postgraduate theses, only the latter of which are original research contributions with extensive discussion of the results.","PeriodicalId":371035,"journal":{"name":"Slovenščina 2.0: empirical, applied and interdisciplinary research","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hedging modal adverbs in Slovenian academic discourse\",\"authors\":\"Jakob Lenardic, Darja Fišer\",\"doi\":\"10.4312/SLO2.0.2021.1.145-180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper first presents a comparative analysis of modal adverbs in doctoral theses in the humanities and social sciences on the one hand, and in natural and technical sciences on the other from the 1.7-billion-token corpus of Slovenian academic texts KAS (Erjavec et al., 2019a). Using a randomized concordance analysis, we observe the epistemic and non-epistemic usage of the modal adverbs and show that epistemic adverbs are more characteristic of the humanities and social sciences theses. We also show that the non-epistemic dispositional meaning of possibility, which is most commonly used in natural and technical sciences theses, is not used as a hedging device. In the second part of the paper we compare the usage of a selected set of modals in bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral theses in order to chart how researchers’ approach to stance-taking changes at different proficiency levels in academic writing, showing that the observed increase in hedging devices in doctoral theses seems to be less a function of an increased proficiency level in academic writing as such and more the result of conceptual differences between undergraduate and postgraduate theses, only the latter of which are original research contributions with extensive discussion of the results.\",\"PeriodicalId\":371035,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Slovenščina 2.0: empirical, applied and interdisciplinary research\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Slovenščina 2.0: empirical, applied and interdisciplinary research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4312/SLO2.0.2021.1.145-180\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Slovenščina 2.0: empirical, applied and interdisciplinary research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4312/SLO2.0.2021.1.145-180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
本文首先从斯洛文尼亚学术文本KAS (Erjavec et al., 2019a)的17亿token语料库中对人文社会科学和自然技术科学博士论文中的情态副词进行了比较分析。通过随机一致性分析,我们观察了情态副词的认知性和非认知性用法,发现认知性副词在人文社科论文中更具特色。我们还表明,在自然科学和技术科学论文中最常用的可能性的非认识论配置意义并没有被用作对冲手段。在论文的第二部分,我们比较了一组选定的情态在学士、硕士和博士论文中的使用情况,以图表研究人员在不同熟练程度的学术写作中采取立场的方法是如何变化的。表明在博士论文中观察到的模糊措辞的增加似乎不是学术写作水平提高的功能,而是本科和研究生论文之间概念差异的结果,只有后者是原创性研究贡献,并对结果进行了广泛的讨论。
Hedging modal adverbs in Slovenian academic discourse
This paper first presents a comparative analysis of modal adverbs in doctoral theses in the humanities and social sciences on the one hand, and in natural and technical sciences on the other from the 1.7-billion-token corpus of Slovenian academic texts KAS (Erjavec et al., 2019a). Using a randomized concordance analysis, we observe the epistemic and non-epistemic usage of the modal adverbs and show that epistemic adverbs are more characteristic of the humanities and social sciences theses. We also show that the non-epistemic dispositional meaning of possibility, which is most commonly used in natural and technical sciences theses, is not used as a hedging device. In the second part of the paper we compare the usage of a selected set of modals in bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral theses in order to chart how researchers’ approach to stance-taking changes at different proficiency levels in academic writing, showing that the observed increase in hedging devices in doctoral theses seems to be less a function of an increased proficiency level in academic writing as such and more the result of conceptual differences between undergraduate and postgraduate theses, only the latter of which are original research contributions with extensive discussion of the results.