{"title":"马鲁瓦高等师范学院毕业论文摘要中套期保值的学科与动态分析","authors":"Galbert Demanou, Camilla Arundie Tabe","doi":"10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.11n.4p.76","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines hedging as a rhetorical resource employed by fifth year (DIPES II) students of the Higher Teacher Training College of Maroua in Cameroon to show politeness, respect, humility and tentativeness in presenting their arguments or stating facts and subjective opinions. A specialized corpus of 46.368 tokens was used and hedges were retrieved using AntConc 3.4.4. Data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The analysis shows that there is generally an unsatisfactory representation of hedges in the abstracts. The findings further reveal that markers of intentional vagueness, accuracy hedges and writer-oriented hedges are the most common hedging strategies. Students seemingly rely on relatively simpler types of hedging like some, few, may, could, a number of. Conversely, more complicated constructions such as it appears that, it is possible that seem virtually inexistent. Students in the Department of Bilingual Letters were found to be more tentative than their counterparts of other disciplines. It is equally observed that more hedging strategies are used in stating research findings than in any other communicative purpose of the abstracts. In substance, the innovation in this paper may lie on its artful combination of disciplinary investigation with move analysis of hedging in a seemingly ‘marginalized’ academic genre, and its exclusive focus on novice writing in a non-native professional academic institution. This has led to the conclusion that the use of hedging can now be regarded as not only discipline-specific but also move-specific.","PeriodicalId":341726,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disciplinary and Move Analyses of Hedging in Abstracts of DIPES II Dissertations of the Higher Teachers’ Training college of Maroua\",\"authors\":\"Galbert Demanou, Camilla Arundie Tabe\",\"doi\":\"10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.11n.4p.76\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper examines hedging as a rhetorical resource employed by fifth year (DIPES II) students of the Higher Teacher Training College of Maroua in Cameroon to show politeness, respect, humility and tentativeness in presenting their arguments or stating facts and subjective opinions. A specialized corpus of 46.368 tokens was used and hedges were retrieved using AntConc 3.4.4. Data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The analysis shows that there is generally an unsatisfactory representation of hedges in the abstracts. The findings further reveal that markers of intentional vagueness, accuracy hedges and writer-oriented hedges are the most common hedging strategies. Students seemingly rely on relatively simpler types of hedging like some, few, may, could, a number of. Conversely, more complicated constructions such as it appears that, it is possible that seem virtually inexistent. Students in the Department of Bilingual Letters were found to be more tentative than their counterparts of other disciplines. It is equally observed that more hedging strategies are used in stating research findings than in any other communicative purpose of the abstracts. In substance, the innovation in this paper may lie on its artful combination of disciplinary investigation with move analysis of hedging in a seemingly ‘marginalized’ academic genre, and its exclusive focus on novice writing in a non-native professional academic institution. This has led to the conclusion that the use of hedging can now be regarded as not only discipline-specific but also move-specific.\",\"PeriodicalId\":341726,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.11n.4p.76\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.11n.4p.76","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文考察了喀麦隆马鲁阿高等师范学院五年级(DIPES II)学生在陈述论点或陈述事实和主观意见时使用的修辞资源,以表示礼貌、尊重、谦逊和犹豫不决。使用了一个专门的46.368个令牌语料库,并使用AntConc 3.4.4检索对冲。对数据进行定量和定性分析。分析表明,摘要中模糊限制的表述通常不令人满意。研究结果进一步表明,故意模糊、准确性模糊和作者导向模糊是最常见的模糊策略。学生们似乎依赖于相对简单的对冲类型,比如some, few, may, could, number of。相反,更复杂的结构,如it seems that, it is possible,看起来几乎不存在。双语文学系的学生被发现比其他学科的学生更犹豫不决。同样可以观察到,在陈述研究结果时使用的对冲策略比在摘要的任何其他交流目的中使用的对冲策略都要多。从本质上讲,本文的创新之处在于,它巧妙地将学科调查与对冲的移动分析结合在一个看似“边缘化”的学术流派中,并将其独家关注放在非母语专业学术机构的新手写作上。由此得出的结论是,套期保值的使用现在不仅可以被视为特定学科,也可以被视为特定走势。
Disciplinary and Move Analyses of Hedging in Abstracts of DIPES II Dissertations of the Higher Teachers’ Training college of Maroua
This paper examines hedging as a rhetorical resource employed by fifth year (DIPES II) students of the Higher Teacher Training College of Maroua in Cameroon to show politeness, respect, humility and tentativeness in presenting their arguments or stating facts and subjective opinions. A specialized corpus of 46.368 tokens was used and hedges were retrieved using AntConc 3.4.4. Data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The analysis shows that there is generally an unsatisfactory representation of hedges in the abstracts. The findings further reveal that markers of intentional vagueness, accuracy hedges and writer-oriented hedges are the most common hedging strategies. Students seemingly rely on relatively simpler types of hedging like some, few, may, could, a number of. Conversely, more complicated constructions such as it appears that, it is possible that seem virtually inexistent. Students in the Department of Bilingual Letters were found to be more tentative than their counterparts of other disciplines. It is equally observed that more hedging strategies are used in stating research findings than in any other communicative purpose of the abstracts. In substance, the innovation in this paper may lie on its artful combination of disciplinary investigation with move analysis of hedging in a seemingly ‘marginalized’ academic genre, and its exclusive focus on novice writing in a non-native professional academic institution. This has led to the conclusion that the use of hedging can now be regarded as not only discipline-specific but also move-specific.