比较英语和印度尼西亚学者在发表的研究文章中使用的模糊限制语:一个基于语料库的研究

Q2 Social Sciences

Teflin Journal Pub Date : 2015-09-09 DOI:10.15639/TEFLINJOURNAL.V26I2/209-227

I. N. S. Sanjaya, A. A. R. Sitawati, N. K. Suciani

{"title":"比较英语和印度尼西亚学者在发表的研究文章中使用的模糊限制语:一个基于语料库的研究","authors":"I. N. S. Sanjaya, A. A. R. Sitawati, N. K. Suciani","doi":"10.15639/TEFLINJOURNAL.V26I2/209-227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study examines whether English and Indonesian research articles written by their respective native speaker scholars are significantly different from each other in terms of the number of hedges used. Hedges are rhetorical features (e.g. may, perhaps, suggest) used to withhold complete commitment to the truth-value of propositions. The ultimate goal of the study is to examine whether Indonesian scholars need special instruction in hedging propositions. The assumption underlying the present study is that when they write in English, Indonesian scholars will deploy rhetorical features inherent in the Indonesian academic writing. Statistical analysis on 52 Applied Linguistics research articles (26 from each language) reveals that English research articles contain significantly more hedges than their Indonesian counterparts (Mann-Whitney U = 68.00, n1 = n2 = 26, p < 0.05, r = - 0.69), suggesting that Indonesian scholars are indeed in need of instruction that specifically focuses on hedging propositions in English.","PeriodicalId":37036,"journal":{"name":"Teflin Journal","volume":"26 1","pages":"209-227"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COMPARING HEDGES USED BY ENGLISH AND INDONESIAN SCHOLARS IN PUBLISHED RESEARCH ARTICLES: A CORPUS-BASED STUDY\",\"authors\":\"I. N. S. Sanjaya, A. A. R. Sitawati, N. K. Suciani\",\"doi\":\"10.15639/TEFLINJOURNAL.V26I2/209-227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The study examines whether English and Indonesian research articles written by their respective native speaker scholars are significantly different from each other in terms of the number of hedges used. Hedges are rhetorical features (e.g. may, perhaps, suggest) used to withhold complete commitment to the truth-value of propositions. The ultimate goal of the study is to examine whether Indonesian scholars need special instruction in hedging propositions. The assumption underlying the present study is that when they write in English, Indonesian scholars will deploy rhetorical features inherent in the Indonesian academic writing. Statistical analysis on 52 Applied Linguistics research articles (26 from each language) reveals that English research articles contain significantly more hedges than their Indonesian counterparts (Mann-Whitney U = 68.00, n1 = n2 = 26, p < 0.05, r = - 0.69), suggesting that Indonesian scholars are indeed in need of instruction that specifically focuses on hedging propositions in English.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37036,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Teflin Journal\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"209-227\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Teflin Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15639/TEFLINJOURNAL.V26I2/209-227\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teflin Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15639/TEFLINJOURNAL.V26I2/209-227","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 13

摘要

该研究考察了英语和印尼语的母语学者所写的研究文章在模糊限制语的使用数量上是否存在显著差异。模糊限制语是用来保留对命题的真值的完全承诺的修辞特征(例如，may, perhaps, suggest)。本研究的最终目的是考察印尼学者在套期保值命题方面是否需要特殊的指导。本研究的假设基础是，当印尼学者用英语写作时，他们会使用印尼学术写作固有的修辞特征。对52篇应用语言学研究论文(各26篇)的统计分析表明，英语研究论文中的模糊限制语明显多于印尼语研究论文(Mann-Whitney U = 68.00, n1 = n2 = 26, p < 0.05, r = - 0.69)，这表明印尼学者确实需要专门关注英语模糊限制语命题的指导。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

COMPARING HEDGES USED BY ENGLISH AND INDONESIAN SCHOLARS IN PUBLISHED RESEARCH ARTICLES: A CORPUS-BASED STUDY

The study examines whether English and Indonesian research articles written by their respective native speaker scholars are significantly different from each other in terms of the number of hedges used. Hedges are rhetorical features (e.g. may, perhaps, suggest) used to withhold complete commitment to the truth-value of propositions. The ultimate goal of the study is to examine whether Indonesian scholars need special instruction in hedging propositions. The assumption underlying the present study is that when they write in English, Indonesian scholars will deploy rhetorical features inherent in the Indonesian academic writing. Statistical analysis on 52 Applied Linguistics research articles (26 from each language) reveals that English research articles contain significantly more hedges than their Indonesian counterparts (Mann-Whitney U = 68.00, n1 = n2 = 26, p < 0.05, r = - 0.69), suggesting that Indonesian scholars are indeed in need of instruction that specifically focuses on hedging propositions in English.

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

来源期刊

Teflin Journal Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

20 weeks