功能视角下不同范式学术语篇元话语对比研究——以模糊语与加强词为例

A Functional Perspective on the Use of Metadiscourse in Academic Discourse Across Paradigms:Illustrated by Hedges and Boosters

元话语帮助学术语篇实现作者与读者之间的交际互动。作为互动元话语的子类,模糊语和加强词是作者传达立场与评价、实现与读者人际互动的重要语言资源。以往研究侧重考察文化、体裁、学科等因素对元话语使用的影响,聚焦模糊语和加强词且针对研究范式因素影响的讨论相对较少。鉴于此,本研究自建语料库,结合Hyland(1998)和功能语言学情态系统,构建模糊语和加强词分析框架,对比五种质性研究方法(叙事研究、个案研究、扎根理论研究、现象学研究和民族志研究)学术论文中模糊语和加强词的使用。研究发现,不同质性研究方法论文中模糊语使用频次都高于加强词,现象学研究中模糊语使用频次显著高于其他研究方法,不同研究方法中加强词使用频次无显著差距。模糊语和加强词在五类论文中都用于修饰命题内容,表达作者对于命题或提议的坚定程度以及体现作者责任,但功能分布略有不同。结果表明研究范式对学术语篇中模糊语和加强词使用有一定影响。研究有助于进一步认识两类元话语在学术语篇意义构建中的作用,并为学术语篇写作教学提供思路。

The use of metadiscourse could facilitate academic communication between writers and readers. As subtypes of interactional metadiscourse, hedges and boosters are major resources to express writers’ stance and evaluation, and to help writers interact with readers. Previous studies have explored cultural, generic, and disciplinary influence on the use of metadiscourse. However, few studies focused on the paradigmatic influence on the use of hedges and boosters. Therefore this study aims to compare the use of hedges and boosters in RAs based on a self-compiled corpus employing five qualitative approaches(narrative research, case study research, grounded theory research, phenomenological research and ethnographic research). An analytic framework is proposed based on Hyland(1998) and the system of modality in functional linguistics. It is found that hedges are more frequently used than boosters in all different approaches. The frequency of hedges is significantly higher in RAs of phenomenology than the other four approaches. No significant differences have been found across different approaches regarding the frequency of boosters. Hedges and boosters are all used to modify propositional content, writers’ assertiveness on propositions or proposals, and writers’ commitment. The results demonstrate the paradigmatic influence on the use of hedges and boosters in academic discourse. The study may contribute to a better understanding of the function of hedges and boosters in the discursive construction of academic discourse, thus providing implications for the learning and teaching of academic writing.