Naklonski prislovi kot pragmatični omejevalci v slovenskih znanstvenih besedilih

Avtorji

  • Jakob Lenardič Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta
  • Darja Fišer Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4312/slo2.0.2021.1.145-180

Ključne besede:

epistemska naklonskost, jedrna naklonskost, pragmatično omejevanje, pomenoslovje, pragmatika, korpusno jezikoslovje

Povzetek

V članku najprej primerjamo rabo epistemskih naklonskih prislovov v doktorskih disertacijah v humanistiki in družboslovju po eni strani ter naravoslovnih in tehničnih znanosti po drugi v korpusu slovenskih znanstvenih besedil KAS (Erjavec idr., 2019a). Z naključnim vzorčenjem korpusnih zgledov pokažemo, da so tisti naklonski prislovi, ki skoraj izključno izkazujejo epistemski pomen in se posledično uporabljajo kot ti. pragmatični omejevalci (angl. hedges), najbolj značilni za doktorske disertacije v humanistiki in družboslovju. Pokažemo tudi, da neepistemski dispozicijski pomen naklonske možnosti, ki se najpogosteje pojavlja v naravoslovju in tehničnih vedah, ni rabljen kot pragmatični omejevalec. V drugem delu članka primerjamo rabo epistemskih naklonskih prislovov v diplomskih in magistrskih delih ter doktorskih disertacijah z namenom, da ugotovimo, ali se pristop do podajanja in prikazovanja izsledkov z vidika pragmatičnega omejevanja v znanstvenem diskurzu spreminja glede na izkušenost avtorjev z znanstvenim pisanjem. Pokažemo, da doktorski študentje pogosteje uporabljajo naklonske prislove v omejevalni funkciji, za kar trdimo, da je posledica vsebinskih in konceptualnih razlik med diplomskimi in magistrskimi nalogami po eni strani ter doktorskimi nalogami po drugi, saj v okviru Bolonjske reforme zgolj slednje morajo obvezno predstaviti izvirni znanstveni prispevek, katerega poglavitni cilj je poglobljena predstavitev novih rezultatov.

Prenosi

Podatki o prenosih še niso na voljo.

Literatura

Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic Markers of Stance in Early and Advanced Academic Writing: A Corpus-based Comparison. Written communication, 31(2), 151–183. doi: 10.1177/0741088314527055

Aull, L. L., Bandarage, D., & Miller, M. R. (2017). Generality in student and expert epistemic stance: A corpus analysis of first-year, upper-level, and published academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 26, 29–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2017.01.005

Bajec, A., et al. (Eds.). (2014). Možno (lexicographic entry). In Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika.

Coates, J. (1983). The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.

Crosthwaite, P., Cheung, L., & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Writing with Attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 107–123. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2017.02.001

Cvrček, V. (2021). Calc v1.02: Corpus Calculator. Czech National Corpus. Retrieved from https://www.korpus.cz/calc/

DeLazero, O. E. (2011). On the Semantics of Modal Adjectives. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 17(1), 87–94. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol17/iss1/11/

Dunning, T. (1993). Accurate Methods for the Statistics of Surprise and Coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 61–74.

Erjavec, T., Fišer, D., & Ljubešić, N. (2019a). Corpus of Academic Slovene KAS 1.0. Slovenian language resource repository CLARIN.SI. http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1244

Erjavec, T., Fišer, D., & Ljubešić, N. (2019b). Corpus of Academic Slovene (MSc/MA theses) KAS-mag 1.0. Slovenian language resource repository CLARIN.SI. http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1266

Erjavec, T., Fišer, D., & Ljubešić, N. (2019c). Corpus of Academic Slovene (doctoral theses) KAS-dr 1.0. Slovenian language resource repository CLARIN.SI. http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1265

Erjavec, T., Fišer, D., & Ljubešić, N. (2019d). Corpus of Academic Slovene (BSc/BA theses) KAS-dipl 1.0. Slovenian language resource repository CLARIN.SI. http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1267

Erjavec, T., Fišer, D., & Ljubešić, N. (2020). The KAS corpus of Slovenian academic writing. Language Resource and Evaluation. doi: 10.1007/s10579-020-09506-4

Erjavec, T. (2012). Mutext-East: Morphosyntactic Resources for Central and Eastern European Languages. Language Resources and Evaluation, 46, 131–143. doi: 10.1007/s10579-011-9174-8

Fidler, M., & Cvrček, V. (2015). A Data-Driven Analysis of Reader Viewpoints: Reconstructing the Historical Reader Using Keyword Analysis. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 23(2), 197–239. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24602151

von Fintel, K. (2006). Modality and language. In D. M. Borchert (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Second Edition (pp. 20–27). Detroit: MacMillan Reference USA.

von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. (2007): An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. Oxford studies in epistemology, 2, 32–63.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1997). On the writing of science and the science of writing: Hedging in science text and elsewhere. In J. S. Petöfi (Ed.), Hedging and Discourse (pp. 151–167). De Gruyter, Berlin and New York.

de Haan, F. (2001). The Relation Between Modality and Evidentiality. Linguistic Reports, 9, 201–216.

Hladnik, M. (2015). Mind the Gap: Resumption in Slavic Relative Clauses. LOT Publications. Retrieved from https://www.lotpublications.nl/mind-the-gap-resumption-in-slavic-relative-clauses

Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the Academy: Forms of Hedging in Science Research Articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251–281. doi: 10.1177/0741088396013002004

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (2004). Patterns of engagement: Dialogic features and L2 undergraduate writing. In L. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 5–23). London, UK: Continuum.

Kratzer, A. (2012). The notional category of modality. In Modals and Conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives (pp. 27–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234684.003.0002

Lancaster, Z. (2016). Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 16–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.006

Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458–508. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/30226076

Lenardič, J., & Fišer, D. (2020). Epistemic modal adverbs in Slovenian academic discourse. Proceedings of the Conference on Language Technologies and Digital Humanities (pp. 34–41).

Van Linden, A., & Davidse, K. (2009). The clausal complementation of deontic-evaluative adjectives in extraposition constructions: a synchronic-diachronic approach. Folia Linguistica, 43(1), 171–211. doi: 10.1515/FLIN.2009.005

Marušič, F., & Žaucer, R. (2016). The modal cycle vs. negation in slovenian. In F. Marušič & R. Žaucer (Eds.), Formal Studies in Slovenian Syntax (pp.167–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.236.08mar

Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and Modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Palmer, F. R. (2014). Modality and the English modals. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.

Pihler Ciglič, B. (2017). Evidencialna branja prislova dizque v nekaterih različicah ameriške španščine in njegove ustreznice v slovenščini. Ars & Humanitas, 11(2), 85–103. doi: 10.4312/ars.11.2.85-103

Piqué-Angordans, J., Posteguillo, S., & Andreu-Besó, J. V. (2002). Epistemic and Deontic Modality: A Linguistic Indicator of Disciplinary Variation in Academic English. LSP & Professional Communication, 2(2), 49–65.

Pisanski Peterlin, A. (2010). Hedging Devices in Slovene-English Translation: A Corpus-Based Study. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 171–193. doi: 10.35360/njes.222

Pisanski Peterlin, A. (2015). So prevedena poljudnoznanstvena besedila v slovenščini drugačna od izvirnih? Korpusna študija na primeru izražanja epistemske naklonskosti. Slavistična revija, 63, 29–44. Retrieved from https://srl.si/ojs/srl/article/view/COBISS_ID-57701986

Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rizomilioti, V. (2006). Exploring Epistemic Modality in Academic Discourse Using Corpora. In Information Technology in Languages for Specific Purposes, Educational Linguistics, 7, 53–71. Boston, MA: Springer.

doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-28624-2_4

Rowbotham, M., Harden, N., Stacey, B., Bernstein, P., & Magnus-Miller, L. (1998). Gabapentin for the Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA, 280(21), 1837–1842. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.21.1837

Takimoto, M. (2015). A Corpus-Based Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in English Academic Articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 95–105. doi: 10.17509/ijal.v5i1.836

Thompson, P. (2000). Modal Verbs in Academic Writing. In B. Kettemann & G. Marko (Eds.), Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis – Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora (pp. 305–328).

Toporišič, J. (2004). Slovenska Slovnica. Maribor: Založba Obzorja.

Objavljeno

1. 07. 2021 — posodobljeno 6. 07. 2021

Verzije

Kako citirati

Lenardič, J., & Fišer, D. (2021). Naklonski prislovi kot pragmatični omejevalci v slovenskih znanstvenih besedilih. Slovenščina 2.0: Empirične, Aplikativne in Interdisciplinarne Raziskave, 9(1), 145-180. https://doi.org/10.4312/slo2.0.2021.1.145-180 (Original work published 2021)

Najbolj brani prispevki istega avtorja(jev)

1 2 > >>