科技语篇与女性语言中情态助动词的模棱两可

Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1515/opli-2022-0229
Lindsay Susannah Schmauss, Kelly Kilian
{"title":"科技语篇与女性语言中情态助动词的模棱两可","authors":"Lindsay Susannah Schmauss, Kelly Kilian","doi":"10.1515/opli-2022-0229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This Critical Discourse Analysis examines hedging as a linguistic device at the intersection of scientific discourse and women’s language. Hedging has been identified as a marker of scientific discourse where it is valued for expanding dialogic space for the promulgation of knowledge. It is also a recognised marker of women’s common language, where it is purported to align with discriminatory gender norms that women should not impose their views but could also be construed as a lack of clear thinking, conviction, or confidence. This could be limiting, especially in professional domains, however, the particular value attached to hedging in scientific discourse challenges this hypothesis and provides the focus of this study of gender differences in hedging with modal auxiliary verbs in the context of scientific discourse. The findings confirm hedging as a marker of scientific discourse and reflect modal auxiliaries being used with similar frequency by women and men, although with subtle, but significant differences in the specific modals that were used, and how. This provides a nuanced picture of women hedging in ways that mostly exemplify the standards of scientific discourse while also integrating some of the socially normative hedging practices that are associated with women’s language.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hedging with modal auxiliary verbs in scientific discourse and women’s language\",\"authors\":\"Lindsay Susannah Schmauss, Kelly Kilian\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/opli-2022-0229\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This Critical Discourse Analysis examines hedging as a linguistic device at the intersection of scientific discourse and women’s language. Hedging has been identified as a marker of scientific discourse where it is valued for expanding dialogic space for the promulgation of knowledge. It is also a recognised marker of women’s common language, where it is purported to align with discriminatory gender norms that women should not impose their views but could also be construed as a lack of clear thinking, conviction, or confidence. This could be limiting, especially in professional domains, however, the particular value attached to hedging in scientific discourse challenges this hypothesis and provides the focus of this study of gender differences in hedging with modal auxiliary verbs in the context of scientific discourse. The findings confirm hedging as a marker of scientific discourse and reflect modal auxiliaries being used with similar frequency by women and men, although with subtle, but significant differences in the specific modals that were used, and how. This provides a nuanced picture of women hedging in ways that mostly exemplify the standards of scientific discourse while also integrating some of the socially normative hedging practices that are associated with women’s language.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2022-0229\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2022-0229","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要这篇批评性话语分析考察了对冲作为科学话语和女性语言交汇处的一种语言手段。套期保值被认为是科学话语的一个标志,它因扩大知识传播的对话空间而受到重视。它也是女性共同语言的一个公认标志,据称它与歧视性的性别规范相一致,即女性不应强加自己的观点,但也可能被解释为缺乏清晰的思维、信念或信心。这可能是有限的,尤其是在专业领域,然而,科学话语中对套期保值的特殊价值挑战了这一假设,并为研究科学话语中语气助动词套期保值的性别差异提供了重点。这些发现证实了套期保值是科学话语的标志,并反映了女性和男性使用频率相似的语气助词,尽管在使用的特定语气词以及使用方式上存在细微但显著的差异。这提供了一幅女性套期保值的细致入微的画面,其方式主要体现了科学话语的标准,同时也整合了一些与女性语言相关的社会规范性套期保值实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
Hedging with modal auxiliary verbs in scientific discourse and women’s language
Abstract This Critical Discourse Analysis examines hedging as a linguistic device at the intersection of scientific discourse and women’s language. Hedging has been identified as a marker of scientific discourse where it is valued for expanding dialogic space for the promulgation of knowledge. It is also a recognised marker of women’s common language, where it is purported to align with discriminatory gender norms that women should not impose their views but could also be construed as a lack of clear thinking, conviction, or confidence. This could be limiting, especially in professional domains, however, the particular value attached to hedging in scientific discourse challenges this hypothesis and provides the focus of this study of gender differences in hedging with modal auxiliary verbs in the context of scientific discourse. The findings confirm hedging as a marker of scientific discourse and reflect modal auxiliaries being used with similar frequency by women and men, although with subtle, but significant differences in the specific modals that were used, and how. This provides a nuanced picture of women hedging in ways that mostly exemplify the standards of scientific discourse while also integrating some of the socially normative hedging practices that are associated with women’s language.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信