摘要
为探究中英文医学论文中模糊限制语使用的差异,作者分别随机抽取中英文医学论文各20篇,提取其结果部分,建立起语料库CH和语料库EN。然后对语料库中出现的模糊限制语进行对比研究。结果发现,首先,从整体上看,语料库EN中包含的模糊限制语比语料库CH中的多,具有显著差异,这表明英语学者和作者比汉语学者和作者更加频繁地使用模糊限制语。其次,从类别分布上来看,英汉医学论文中缓和型模糊限制语、变动型模糊限制语的数量存在显著差异,语料库EN中包含了更多的缓和型模糊限制语和变动型模糊限制语。另外,语料库CH中未包含任何情感加强型模糊限制语、作者参与型模糊限制语和复合型模糊限制语,与之相反,语料库EN中包含了一小部分,作者参与型模糊限制语的千字比甚至达到了0.48。这种差异或许是中国传统文化及中国学术界所倡导的观念共同作用的结果。笔者开展这项研究以期能帮助中国医学工作者在阅读和撰写医学论文时正确理解和使用模糊限制语。
To investigate the difference in hedging in Chinese and English medical research articles, we randomly selected 20 English medical research articles and 20 Chinese ones, extracted their Results section, and built up Corpus CH and Corpus EN. Then we make a comparative study of hedging in the corpora. The results indicate that, firstly, on the whole, there are more hedges in Corpus EN than in Corpus CH, and the difference is statistically significant. It indicates that English-speaking re- searchers and writers use hedges more frequently than Chinese researchers and writers. Secondly, in terms of different categories of hedges, there is a significant difference in the use of shields and ap-proximators between Corpus CH and Corpus EN, with Corpus EN having more shields and approxi-mators. Besides, there is no emotionally-charged intensifier, author's personal involvement or corn-pound hedges in Corpus CH. On the contrary, Corpus EN has some, and the highest frequency per 1000 words reaches 0.48. We argue that such differences may due to Chinese traditional culture and the concepts supported by Chinese academic circles. By carrying out this study, we hope that we can assist Chinese researchers and workers understand and use hedges appropriately in their reading and writing medical research articles.
出处
《西北医学教育》
2013年第4期777-780,共4页
Northwest Medical Education
基金
陕西省社科基金项目"基于语料库的对比研究:英汉学术论文中的模糊限制语"(立项批准号:12K058
主持人:蒋跃)
关键词
模糊限制语
医学论文
对比研究
hedging
medical research articles
comparative study