รูปและหน้าที่ของรูปเบี่ยงบังระดับคำที่พบบ่อยในบทความวิจัยทางการแพทย์ด้านมะเร็งวิทยา: การศึกษาเปรียบเทียบในผู้เขียนที่เป็นเจ้าของภาษาและที่ไม่ใช่เจ้าของภาษา

  • Worawanna Petchkij Chulalongkorn University Language Institute, Chulalongkorn University
Keywords: รูปเบี่ยงบังระดับคำ, ชาวไทย, ผู้เขียนที่ไม่ใช่เจ้าของภาษา, บทความวิจัยทางการแพทย์, lexical hedge, Thai, non-native writers, medical research articles

Abstract

งานวิจัยนี้ศึกษารูปเบี่ยงบังระดับคำ (lexical hedges) พร้อมเปรียบเทียบความถี่และหน้าที่ในส่วนอภิปรายผลของบทความวิจัยภาษาอังกฤษทางการแพทย์ด้านมะเร็งวิทยา  ที่เขียนโดยผู้เขียนที่เป็นเจ้าของภาษาและที่ไม่ใช่เจ้าของภาษา ข้อมูลที่ใช้ศึกษาเป็น   ส่วนอภิปรายผลของบทความวิจัย 60 บทความ รูปเบี่ยงบังระดับคำที่พบบ่อยซึ่งเสนอโดยไฮแลนด์ (Hyland, 2005) ถูกนำมาใช้เป็นแนวทางในการวิเคราะห์ โดยใช้สถิติพรรณาคือ ความถี่ และ ใช้อัตราส่วนต่อ 1000 คำในการเปรียบเทียบ ความถี่ที่พบ  แสดงให้เห็นถึงการเลือกใช้รูปเบี่ยงบังที่แตกต่างกันระหว่างผู้เขียนทั้งสองกลุ่ม และอาจสะท้อนให้เห็นถึงความสามารถในการเบี่ยงบังในบทความวิจัยของผู้เขียนชาวไทยได้ด้วย ในส่วนของหน้าที่ของรูปเบี่ยงบังวิเคราะห์จากการใช้รูปเบี่ยงบังของผู้เขียน และพบว่า  รูปเบี่ยงบังมีหลายหน้าที่ นอกจากนี้ผลการวิจัยยังเป็นประโยชน์ต่อการเรียนการสอนภาษาอังกฤษด้วย

Common Lexical Hedges and their Functions in Medical Research Articles on Oncology: A Comparative study of Thai and Native Writers of English

This study examined and compared the frequencies and functions of common lexical hedges used by non-native (Thai) and native writers in the discussion sections of medical research articles in the area of oncology. A corpus of sixty research articles written in English by both groups were selected and analyzed through descriptive statistics in terms of frequency and a standardized size of 1000 words was employed to provide a basis for comparison. The list of common lexical hedges suggested by Hyland (2005) was used as a guideline. Their frequencies reflect the different preferences of both groups and may also indicate the ability to hedge of Thai writers. Functions of hedges were analyzed through the way they were used and several functions were found. Some pedagogical implications were suggested.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Akbas, E. (2012). Exploring metadiscourse in master’s dissertation abstracts: Cultural and linguistic variations across postgraduate writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 1(1): 12-26.

Bonyadi, A., Gholami, J. & Nasiri S. (2012). A Contrastive Study of Hedging in Environmental Sciences Research Articles. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(6), 1186-1193.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Brufee, K. (1986). Social construction: language and the authority of knowledge. A bibliographical essay. College English, 48. 772-779.

Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2004). NS and NNS scientists’ amendments of Dutch scientific English and their impact on hedging. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 25-39.

Channell, J. (1994). Vague Language. Oxford: OUP.

Clemen, G. (1997). The Concept of Hedging: Origins, Approaches and Definitions. In Markkanen, Raija and Schroder, Hartmut. (Eds). Hedging and Discourse: Approachs to the Anaylsis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts (pp. 235 – 248). New York: Water de Gruyter.

Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadisocurse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.) The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in Academic Writing: Some theoretical Problems. English for Specific Purposes. 16, (4), 271-287.

Cylne, M. (1991). The sociocultural dimension: the dilemma of the German speaking scholar. In H. Schroder, Subject-Oriented Text, pp 49 – 67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Darian, S. (1995). Hypotheses in Introductory Science Texts. h, 33 (2), 83-108.

Dekeyser, R. M. (2010) Where is our field going? The Modern Language Journal, 94, 646 – 647.

Elmalik, A. & Nesi, H. (2008). Publishing research in a second language: The case of Sudanese contributors to international medical journals. English for Academic Purposes. 7: 87– 96.

Flowerdew, J. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hongkong. Journal of Second Language Writing. 8, 123-145.

Gillaerts & Velde. (2010). Interactional Metadiscourse in Research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9, 128 -139.

Halabisaz et al. (2014) Hedging in Thesis Abstracts on Applied Linguistics across Persian and English. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 7 (1), 211-218.

Hidayati, F., Muhammad, A., & Dallyono, R. (2008). The use of hedging in academic discourse. Educationists, 2(1), 27- 37.

Hinkel, E. (2003). Teaching Academic ESL Writing. New York: Routledge.

Hubler, Axel. (1983). Understatements and Hedges in English (Pragmatics and Beyond IV), Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13 (4): 239 – 256.

Hyland, K. (1995). The Author in the Text: Hedging Scientific Writing. Hongkong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18: 33-42.

Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433 - 454.

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s.

Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and Researching Writing. Malaysia: Pearson Education.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Continuum.

Hyland, K. & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 16 (2): 183-205.

Iida, E. (2007). Hedges in Japanese English and American English Medical Research Articles. Unpublished Master’s degree Thesis, McGill University, Canada.

Jaroongkhongdach, W., Todd, W. R., Keyuravong S. & Hall, D. (2012). Differences in quality between Thai and international research articles in ELT. English for Academic Purposes, 11, 194-209.

Jiang, Y. & Tao, M. (2007). A comparative study of hedges in discussion sections of English and Chinese medical research articles. Foreign Language Research, 139(6), 115-122.

Kanoksilpatham, B. (2003). Corpus-based investigation of biochemistry research articles: Linking move analysis with multidimentional analysis. Unpublished dissertation. Georgetown university: Washington D.C.

Khamkhien, A. (2014). Linguistic features of evaluative stance: Findings from research article discussions. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4 (I), 54-69.

Lakoff, R. (1972). Hedges: a study of meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In Peranteau, P., Levi, J., and Phares, G. (eds.). English from the Eighth Regional Meaning of Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 183-228.

Levinson, S. C. (1980). Pragmatics. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.

Lewin A. B. (2005). Hedging: an exploratory study of authors’ readers’ identification of ‘toning down’ in scientific texts. English for Academic Purposes 4, 163-178.

Markkanen, R. & Schroder, H. (1997). Hedging and Discourse: Approachs to the analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. New York: Water de Gruyter.

Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Myers, G. (1985). The social construction of two biologists' proposals. Written Communication, 2(3), 219-245.

Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1–35.

Powell, M. (1985). Purposive vagueness: An evaluation dimension of vague quantifying expressions. Journal of Linguistics, 21, 31-50.

Prince, E., Frader, J., & Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In R. D. Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the Professions. Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex.

Pupipat, A. (1998). Scientific writing and publishing in Thailand: The perceptions of Thai scientists and editors. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Teacher College, Columbia University.

Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170.

Salager-Meyer, F. (2011). Scientific discourse and constructive linguistics: hedging. European Science Editing 37(2).

Skelton, J. (1988). Comments in academic articles. Applied Linguistics in Society. London: CILT/BALL.

Skelton, J. (1997). The representation of truth in academic medical writing. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 121-137.

Sukhanindr, Maneerat. (2008). Hedging in research articles about English language teaching written by Thai and native speakers of English. MA Thesis. Department of Foreign Language. Kasetsart University. Bangkok. Thailand.

Sukhanindr, M. (2008). Hedging in research articles about English language teaching written by Thai and native speakers of English. MA Thesis. Deapartment of Foreign Language Kasetsart University. Bangkok. Thailand.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Setting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thomas, S. & Hawes, T. P. (1994). Reporting Verbs in Medical Journal Articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13 (2), 129-148.

Thomas, S. & Hawes, T. P. (1994). Reporting Verbs in Medical Journal Articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13 (2), 129-148.

Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars' participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 250-263.

Vassileva, I. (1997). Hedging in English and Bulgarian Academic Writing. In Anna Duszak, Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse, pp. 203 -222. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian Academic writing. In Anna Duszak, Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse, pp. 83 -103. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Varttala, T. (1999). Remarks on the communicative functions of Hedging in Popular Scientific and specialist research articles on Medicine. English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 18, No.2, pp. 177-200.

Varttala, T. A. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse: Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. Unpublished Ph. D dissertation. Finland: University of Tampereen Yliopisto.

Vazquez, 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.

Ventola, E., (1997). Probability: the exploration to its role in academic writing. In: Duszak A, ed. Culture and Styles in Academic Writing. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Vold, E. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: a cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International of Applied Linguistics, 15 (1), 61-87.

Yagiz, O. & Demir, C. (2014). Hedging strategies in academic discourse: A comparative analysis of Turkish writers and native writers of English. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 260-268.

Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50 (2013), pp. 23–36.

Published
2016-01-01
How to Cite
Petchkij, W. (2016). รูปและหน้าที่ของรูปเบี่ยงบังระดับคำที่พบบ่อยในบทความวิจัยทางการแพทย์ด้านมะเร็งวิทยา: การศึกษาเปรียบเทียบในผู้เขียนที่เป็นเจ้าของภาษาและที่ไม่ใช่เจ้าของภาษา. Journal of Letters, 45(1), 83-127. Retrieved from https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jletters/article/view/65786