论文部分内容阅读
在英语医学论文中,模糊限制语使用广泛,作用重大,但其分类方法存在一些问题。文章从国内外6种权威医学期刊中随机选择了英、汉语医学论文各3篇,建立了一个小型语料库,对常见的三种模糊限制语的分类方法进行了对比分析研究。结果显示,这三种方法既有一定的相似性,也存在很多差异及问题。首先,名称不同但分类方法一致,如Salager-Meyer方法下的作者参与型与Hyland提出的倾向于读者的模糊限制语其实是同一类型的模糊限制语。其次,Prince和Hyland的分类方法并未涵盖所有的模糊限制语,而根据Salager-Meyer的分类方法,汉语论文中明显缺失英语论文中存在的情感加强型模糊限制语;且复合型模糊限制语的概念并不清晰明确,汉语论文中的作者参与型与复合型限制语远比英文论文少。故Salager-Meyer的分类方法不适合于汉语论文中模糊限制语的分析研究。
In English medical papers, hedges are widely used and have a great effect, but there are some problems in their classification methods. The article randomly selects three English and Chinese medical papers from 6 authoritative medical journals at home and abroad, sets up a small corpus, and compares and analyzes the three common classification methods of hedges. The results show that these three methods have some similarities, there are many differences and problems. First, the names are different but the classification is the same. For example, the author’s participation in the Salager-Meyer method is in fact the same type of hedges as Hyland’s hedges that favor readers. Secondly, the classification methods of Prince and Hyland do not cover all the hedges. According to the classification method of Salager-Meyer, the Chinese papers obviously lack the sentiment-enhanced hedges in English essays; and the complex hedges The concept is not clear and clear. The author’s participation and compound restrictions in Chinese essay are far less than English essays. Therefore, the classification method of Salager-Meyer is not suitable for the analysis of hedges in Chinese essay.