APPROXIMATION AS A LINGUISTIC HEDGING TACTIC IN ACADEMIC DISCOURSE: INTERLINGUAL ASPECT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/folium/2024.4.15Keywords:
hedging strategy, linguistic hedging, approximation tactic, hedge, academic discourse, scientific communication, genre of abstract of scientific article, pragmatic function, comparison, multilingual discoursesAbstract
Despite the attention paid to linguistic hedging, researchers have not focused on the ways in which these strategies are implemented in various academic texts. Therefore, our comparative study aims to identify the common and distinctive characteristics of the approximation tactic as one of the hedging strategies in academic discourse. We selected sentence constructions from scientific texts of the same volume, particularly from abstracts of academic articles in the field of humanities, in order to analyze them and draw objective conclusions about the implementation of the approximation tactic. The analysis included an equal amount of text from English and Ukrainian academic journals. The analysis was based on texts of 20,000 characters in each language, and a corpus of sentence structures of 300 units in each language was formed. Through the work of earlier researchers and the author's analysis, several communicative techniques of approximation tactic were identified, including uncertain number, generalisation, restriction and analogy. A comparative analysis revealed differences in the implementation of the highlighted techniques. Based on our observations, generalisation is the most common method of actualising the approximation tactic in English academic discourse, accounting for 37% of language samples. In contrast, the most common method in Ukrainian discourse is the use of the uncertain number technique, which accounts for 37% of the language samples. The use of analogy is equally common in both English and Ukrainian contexts, accounting for 15% and 16% respectively. However, the use of restriction occurs more frequently in English discourse (23%) than in Ukrainian discourse (16%). These identified trends reflect both linguistic and cultural traditions of academic language.
References
Венгринюк М., Мельник О. Комунікативно-прагматичнии потенціал анотації як вторинного науково-технічного тексту. Наукові записки Національного університету «Острозька академія». Серія «Філологічна». 2015. № 55. С. 42–44.
Висоцька О.Л. Науковий дискурс у сучасних лінгвістичних дослідженнях. Молодий вчений. 2018. № 8 (60). С. 65-70.
Іваницька Н.Б. Реалізація комунікативної стратегії переконання в різномовних наукових статтях: зіставний аспект. Вчені записки ТНУ імені В. І. Вернадського. Серія: Філологія. Журналістика. 2021. Том 32 (71). № 1, Ч. 1. С. 220-228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32838/2710-4656/2021.1-1/38
Ільченко О.М. Етикет англомовного наукового дискурсу. К. : ІВЦ Політехніка, 2002. 288 с.
Романченко А. Комунікативні тактики стратегії хеджування. Наукові записки. Серія: Філологічні науки. Кропивницький: Видавець Лисенко В. Ф., 2017. Вип. 153. С. 310-314.
Яхонтова Т. Лінгвістична генологія наукової комунікації. Видавничий центр ЛНУ імені Івана Франка, 2009. 234 с.
Aksiutina T. Hedging and its linguistic manifestation in spoken and written discourse: corpus research. Anglistics and Americanistics. 2021. №18. Р. 4-10. DOI: 10.15421/382101
Brown P., Levinson S. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. 17th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni. Press, 1987. 345 p.
Dontcheva-Navratilova O. Cross-cultural variation in the use of hedges and boosters in academic discourse. Prague Journal of English Studies 2017. № 5 (1). Р.163-184.
Fraser B. Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch, & S. Schneider (Eds.). New approaches to hedging. Bingley: Emerald, 2010. РР. 15-34.
Hübler A. Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1983. 167 р.
Hyland K. (1996). Talking to the Academy: Forms of Hedging in Science Research Articles. Written Communication. 1996. № 13 (2). Р. 251–281.
Kranich S. To hedge or not to hedge: the use of epistemic modal expressions in popular science in English texts, English–German translations, and German original texts. Text & Talk – An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies. 2015. № 31 (1). Р. 77-99.
Lakoff D. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1972. № 2(4). Р. 458–508.
Stine Johansen Hulleberg. A Contrastive Approach to the Types of Hedging Strategies Used in Norwegian and English Informal Spoken Conversations. Contrastive Pragmatics. 2021. №2. Р. 81–105.
Vlasyan G. R. Linguistic Hedging In The Light Of Politeness Theory. In I. V. Denisova (Ed.), Word, Utterance, Text: Cognitive, Pragmatic and Cultural Aspects. 2018. Vol 39. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 685-690). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.04.02.98
Wallwork A. English for Academic Research. Pisa, Springer, 2016. 377 p.