現在位置首頁 > 博碩士論文 > 詳目
  • 同意授權
論文中文名稱:以語料庫的方法探討不同性別對於英文政治演講稿的規避語的使用比較 [以論文名稱查詢館藏系統]
論文英文名稱:Gender-specific Use of Hedging Devices in English Political Speeches: a Corpus-based Study [以論文名稱查詢館藏系統]
院校名稱:臺北科技大學
學院名稱:人文與社會科學學院
系所名稱:應用英文系碩士班
畢業學年度:105
畢業學期:第二學期
出版年度:106
中文姓名:陳瓊茹
英文姓名:Chiung-Ju Chen
研究生學號:102548518
學位類別:碩士
語文別:英文
口試日期:2017/06/16
論文頁數:169
指導教授中文名:洪媽益
指導教授英文名:Michael Tanangkingsing
口試委員中文名:黃如瑩;陳瑞山
口試委員英文名:Vinia Huang;Ruey-Shan Chen
中文關鍵詞:規避語性別語料庫分析政治演講稿政治言談
英文關鍵詞:GenderSexHedgingHedging DevicesHedgesCorpus-based AnalysisPolitical SpeechPolitical Discourse
論文中文摘要:規避語的使用在過去幾十年的研究相當廣泛,涉及各領域,包含學術、科學、法律、建案,新聞報導及社論等等。此外,性別差異對語言的使用以及對規避語的使用的影響的研究也相當多,例如與電腦相關的文章或學術文章皆有討論此議題。但是,政治文類卻顯少探討性別差異對規避語的使用的影響,尤其是政治演講稿這類的文類。因此,本研究的目的即是探究政治演講稿男女性講者在使用規避語上的差異,包括使用的規避語有哪些、使用的次數有多少,以及使用的作用為何。分析的語料庫資料是從西元一九〇〇年至二〇〇〇年美國修辭學前百大演講網站隨機挑選的三十九篇政治演講稿,由二十篇的男性演講者講稿(共計50,080個字)及十九篇的女性演講者講稿(共計50,056個字)組成。本研究使用Wordsmith 6.0工具自動找出具備形式的規避語及其使用次數,然後再手動刪除具備其形式但無其作用的規避語。作用的探討則採用Hyland (1996) 的三導向做為基礎來分析,即正確性導向、作者導向及讀者導向。研究結果顯示,男性及女性講者在政治演講稿中使用規避語的差異不大,並無顯著差異,主要原因可能是因為講者及寫稿者的教育程度高,因此他們懂得運用規避語來隱藏性別差異,再來可能是因為美國是相當具有權威的國家,政治演講者必須使用規避語來維持權威感。儘管如此,男性及女性講者在政治演講稿中各規避語類別上的使用比較仍相當值得探究。而不論男性或女性講者,使用規避語最主要的作用是要規避他們自己給予的承諾,其次是降低所言之正確性,最後才是與民眾互動。建議未來研究可以採納不同的規避語分類架構,或是換成其他政治文類,甚至是不同語言的語料庫資料,例如研究中文演講稿的中文規避語,或許會有不同的結果。
論文英文摘要:For the past few decades, hedging phenomenon has been engaged in various discourse types such as academic articles, scientific research papers, legal writing, architecture project descriptions, news writing/editorials, etc.. There are also numerous studies on the gender difference in language use and investigations on the effect of gender on hedging usage in the fields like computer-related and academic texts. However, the gender-specific use of hedging devices in political discourse appears to receive little attention. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the use of hedges through quantitative and pragmatic analyses of hedging forms, frequencies, and their functions in male and female-speaker political speeches. Data for this study comprised 39 speech texts randomly selected from the American Rhetoric Top 100 Speeches website (Eidenmuller, M. E., 2001-2016), with an equivalent corpora of 20 male-speaker speech texts (consisting of a total of 50,080 words) and 19 female-speaker speech texts (consisting of a total of 50,056 words) delivered from 1900 to 2000. To identify hedging forms and frequencies, the research data was analyzed automatically by Wordsmith Tools 6.0 and then manually scrutinized those with hedging forms but without hedging functions. To define the functions of identified hedging devices, this study employed Hyland’s (1996) polypragmatic model of three hedging functions: accuracy-oriented, writer-oriented and reader-oriented functions. The results of the study showed that the number of identified hedging devices are, on a general level, almost equal in each gender, and there is no significant difference between genders in the use of hedging devices in political speeches. The reasons for causing such phenomenon are firstly due to speech speakers’ and script writers’ high educational level to employ hedging devices to conceal gender difference, and secondly because of U.S.A.’s position of leading authority, political speakers use hedging devices to hold authority. Nevertheless, each gender’s focus on the use of certain hedges in each hedging category is worthy of exploration. With regard to hedging functions, as a whole for both gender, the results reveal that hiding or revealing politicians’ commitment is politicians’ first concern, followed by the correctness of what politicians said and, the last, politicians’ interactions with the public. In conclusion, it is suggested that a different classification model of hedging on another genre of political discourse and a different language corpora, Chinese language in Chinese political speeches, may be adopted for future research.
論文目次:Chinese Abstract i
English Abstract iii
Acknowledges v
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 3
1.3 Definition of Key Terms 4
1.4 Significance of the Study 5
Chapter 2 Literature Review 6
2.1 Political Discourse 6
2.1.1 Definition of political discourse 6
2.1.2 Types of political speeches 7
2.2 Gender Issues in Political Communication 10
2.2.1 Definition of gender 10
2.2.2 Gender differences in language use 12
2.2.3 Gender issues in political communication 14
2.3 Hedging in Political Discourse 15
2.4 Hedging in Other Disciplines, Languages, and Cultures 18
2.5 Gender and Hedging in Political Discourse 19
2.6 Hedging Devices 20
2.6.1 Historical review 20
2.6.2 Definition of hedges 26
2.6.3 Classification of hedges 27
2.6.4 The function of hedges 38
2.7 Establishing Hedging Categories for the Study 42
Chapter 3 Methodology 45
3.1 Research Data 45
3.2 Data Collection 46
3.3 Data Analysis and Analytical Tools 47
3.4 Analytical Procedure 47
3.5 Theoretical Model for Analyzing Hedging Functions 50
3.5.1 Accuracy-oriented hedges 50
3.5.2 Writer-oriented hedges 53
3.5.3 Reader-oriented hedges 55
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 60
4.1 Overall Distribution of Hedging Categories in Male and
Female-Speaker Political Speech Texts 60
4.2 Rank and Frequency of Hedging Devices 65
4.3 Categories of Hedges in Male and Female Political Speech
Texts 70
4.3.1 Quantificational hedges 70
4.3.1.1 Approximators of quantity 71
4.3.1.2 Approximators of frequency 73
4.3.1.3 Approximators of degree 75
4.3.2 Modal hedges 78
4.3.2.1 Epistemic hedges 79
4.3.2.2 Deontic hedges 81
4.3.2.3 Dynamic hedges 83
4.3.3 Propositional pragmatic-marker (PPM) hedges 89
4.3.3.1 Factual hedges 90
4.3.3.2 Conditional hedges 92
4.3.3.3 Personal hedges 95
4.3.3.4 Subjective hedges 96
4.3.3.5 Third person hedges 98
4.3.3.6 Linking hedges 99
4.3.4 Interpersonal pragmatic-marker (IPM) hedges 101
4.3.4.1 Interactional hedges 101
4.3.4.2 Interpersonal hedges 103
4.3.5 Direct questions 105
4.3.6 Section summary 106
4.4 Functions of Hedges in Political Speech Texts 110
4.4.1 Accuracy-oriented hedges 110
4.4.2 Writer-oriented hedges 110
4.4.3 Reader-oriented hedges 110
Chapter 5 Conclusion 113
5.1 Summary of the Study 113
5.2 Implication of the Study 115
5.3 Limitations of the Study 116
5.4 Suggestions for Future Research 116
References 118
Appendices
Appendix A List of selected male-speaker speech texts for analysis 124
Appendix B List of selected female-speaker speech texts for analysis 125
Appendix C Taxonomy of hedging devices 126
Appendix D Excluding list for each hedging devices in male-speaker
corpus 128
Appendix E Excluding list for each hedging devices in female-speaker corpus 141
Appendix F List of Top 100 Words in the Corpus of Male-speaker Speech
Texts 154
Appendix G List of Top 100 Words in the Corpus of Female-speaker Speech Texts 157
Appendix H Frequency List of Identified Hedges in the Corpus of Male-
speaker Speech Texts 160
Appendix I Frequency List of Identified Hedges in the Corpus of Female-
speaker Speech Texts 165
論文參考文獻:Aalberg, T., & Jenssen, A. T. (2007). Gender stereotyping of political candidates. Nordicom Review, 28(1), 17-32.
Ackelsberg, M. A. (2003). Broadening the study of women’s participation. Women and American Politics: New Questions, New Directions, 214-236.
Alexander, D., & Andersen, K. (1993). Gender as a Factor in the Attribution of Leadership Traits. Political Research Quarterly, 46(3), 527-545.
Atkeson, L. R. (2003). Not all cues are created equal: The conditional impact of female candidates on political engagement. Journal of Politics, 65(4), 1040-1061.
Banducci, S. A., & Karp, J. A. (2000). Gender, leadership and choice in multiparty systems. Political Research Quarterly, 53(4), 815-848.
Bashanova, E. Y. (2012). Hedging in Online News Writing. Master Thesis. Department of Applied Foreign Languages, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology.
Basu T. (2016), The Science of Hillary Clintons Changing Voice. from
https://www.inverse.com/article/18934-hillary-clinton-voice-change-science-explained-vocal-chords-and-aging
Blankenship, J., & Robson, D. C. (1995). A “feminine style”; in women’s political discourse: An exploratory essay. Communication Quarterly, 43(3), 353-366.
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions (Vol. 19): Walter de Gruyter.
Brownlow, S., Rosamond, J. A., & Parker, J. A. (2003). Gender-linked linguistic behavior in television interviews. Sex Roles, 49(3), 121-132.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4): Cambridge University Press.
Cabanes, P. P. (2007). A contrastive analysis of hedging in English and Spanish architecture project descriptions. Revista española de lingüística aplicada(20), 139-158.
Coates, J. (2004). Women, men, and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language. Great Britain: Pearson Education.
Colley, A., Todd, Z., Bland, M., Holmes, M., Khanom, N., & Pike, H. (2004). Style and content in e-mails and letters to male and female friends. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(3), 369-378.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287. doi: http://libsearch.ntut.edu.tw:2053/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00007-0
Darian, S. (1995). Hypotheses in introductory science texts. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 33(2), 83-108.
Dixon, J. A., & Foster, D. H. (1997). Gender and hedging: From sex differences to situated practice. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(1), 89-107.
Eidenmuller, M. E. (2001-2016). Top 100 Speeches of the 20th Century by Rank - American Rhetoric. from http://www.americanrhetoric.com/top100speechesall.html
Falahati, R. (2006). The use of hedging across different disciplines and rhetorical sections of research articles. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 22nd NorthWest Linguistics Conference (NWLC22).
Fox, R. L., & Lawless, J. L. (2004). Entering the arena? Gender and the decision to run for office. American Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 264-280.
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6, 167-190.
Fraser, B. (2007). Hedging in political discourse. Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture (DAPSAC).
Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. New approaches to hedging, 15-34.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (1997). Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: An extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS quarterly, 389-400.
“Gender” (2016). Cambridge University Press 2016. from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/gender
“Gender” (2016). Cambridge University Press 2016. from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/gender
GEORG, P. (1997). Hedging strategies in written academic discourse: Strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 24, 21.
Hemphill, L., & Otterbacher, J. (2012). Learning the lingo?: gender, prestige and linguistic adaptation in review communities. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work.
Herring, S. (1994). Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: Bringing familiar baggage to the new frontier. Retrieved April, 29, 2002.
Holmes, J., & Meyerhoff, M. (2008). The handbook of language and gender (Vol. 25): John Wiley & Sons.
Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8(3), 345-365.
Holmes, J. (2013). Women, men and politeness. New York: Routledge.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795-2809.
Hübler, A. (1983). Understatements and hedges in English: John Benjamins Publishing.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles (Vol. 54). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197.
Itakura, H. (2013). Hedging praise in English and Japanese book reviews. Journal of pragmatics, 45(1), 131-148. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.003
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458-508.
Lakoff, R. (2003). Language, gender, and politics: putting women and power in the same sentence. The handbook of language and gender, 161-178.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2(01), 45-79.
Lambert, V. (2016), How Hillary Clinton found her voice through coaching. from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/how-hillary-clinton-found-her-voice-through-coaching/
Laurinaitytė, R., Selmistraitis, L., Kozačišče, J., Buitkienė, J., Miniotaitė, D., Cibulskienė, J., . . . Marchertaitė, J. (2011). Hedges in political discourse. Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas.
Leaper, C., & Smith, T. E. (2004). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in childrens language use: talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Developmental psychology, 40(6), 993.
Lewin, B. A. (2005). Hedging: an exploratory study of authors and readers identification of ‘toning down’in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(2), 163-178.
Lovenduski, J. (1992). Gender and Politics. Encyclopedia of Government and Politics.London: Routledge, 603-615.
Martín, P. A. M. (2008). The mitigation of scientific claims in research papers: A comparative study. IJES, International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 133-152.
Matić, D. (2014). IDEOLOGY HIDDEN IN THE FORM OF CROATIAN AND AMERICAN POLITICAL SPEECHES. TEME: Casopis za Društvene Nauke, 38(3).
Milne Dafouz, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113.
Mu, C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J., & Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135-148. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003
Namsaraev, V. (1997). Hedging in Russian academic writing in sociological texts. Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 83-114.
Newman, L. K. (2002). Sex, gender and culture: Issues in the definition, assessment and treatment of gender identity disorder. Clinical child psychology and psychiatry, 7(3), 352-359.
Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45(3), 211-236.
Nikolayevna, G. Y., & Nurseitova, K. (2013). Gender in Linguistics. 115-119.
Nikula, T. N. (1997). Interlanguage view on hedging. Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 24, 188-207.
Oosterveld, V. (2005). The Definition of Gender in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Step Forward or Back for International Criminal Justice. Harv. Hum Rts. J., 18, 55.
Oxford, R. L. (1993). Instructional Implications of Gender Differences in Second/Foreign Language (L2) Learning Styles and Strategies. Applied language learning, 4, 65-94.
Peterlin, A. P. (2010). Hedging devices in Slovene-English translation: A corpus-based study. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 171-193.
Player Pellby, E. (2013). Hedging in Political Discourse-An Analysis of Hedging in an American City Council. Bachelor Thesis. Avdelningen för humaniora. Gävle University.
Priesler, B. (1986). Linguistic sex roles in conversation: Social variation in the expression of tentativeness in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Prince, E. F., Frader, J., & Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. Linguistics and the Professions, 8, 83-97.
Reisigl, M. (2008). 11. Rhetoric of political speeches. Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere, 4, 243.
Riekkinen, N. (2009). Softening criticism: The use of lexical hedges in academic spoken interaction. Retrieved 17th January, 2010.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170.
Schleef, E. (2005). Gender, Power, Discipline and Context: On the Sociolinguistic Variation of okay, right, like, and you know in English Academic Discourse. Paper presented at the Twelfth annual symposium about language and society-Austin.
Scott, M. (2012). WordSmith Tools version 6, Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.
Skelton, J. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT journal, 42(1), 37-43.
Taweel, A. Q., Saidat, E. M. R., Hussein, A., & Saidat, A. M. (2011). Hedging in political discourse. The Linguistics Journal, 5(1).
Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 11-52.
Vasilieva, I. (2004). Gender-specific use of boosting and hedging adverbs in English computer-related texts–a corpus-based study. Paper presented at the International Conference on Language, Politeness and Gender.
Vass, H. (2004). Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genres. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE)(7), 125-141.
Vázquez Orta, I., & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond mood and modality: Epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles. A cross-disciplinary study. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 171-190.
Vold, E. T. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: a cross‐linguistic and cross‐disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 61-87.
Weinreich, U. (1966). On the semantic structure of language. Universals of Language, 1, 142-215.
Weiss, G. (2002). Searching for Europe: The problem of legitimisation and representation in recent political speeches on Europe. Journal of Language and Politics, 1(1), 59-83.
Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 50(1), 23-36. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008
Yeganeh, M. T., Heravi, I. M., & Sawari, A. (2015). Hedge and Booster in Newspaper Articles on Irans Presidential Election: A Comparative Study of English and Persian Articles. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 679-683. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.103
Yu, S. (2009). The pragmatic development of hedging in EFL learners. City University of Hong Kong.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and control, 8(3), 338-353.
論文全文使用權限:同意授權於2017-07-17起公開