政治话语中的模棱两可:来自约旦国王阿卜杜拉二世演讲的证据

Ghaleb Rabab’ah, Ronza Abu Rumman
{"title":"政治话语中的模棱两可:来自约旦国王阿卜杜拉二世演讲的证据","authors":"Ghaleb Rabab’ah, Ronza Abu Rumman","doi":"10.1515/pjes-2015-0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper reports on the findings of a study that aimed to identify the linguistic items which act as hedges in the speeches of King Abdullah II of Jordan, as well as to examine the pragmatic functions of these devices. Twenty-five political speeches of King Abdullah II, randomly selected from the official website of King Abdullah (see Appendix), were analyzed adopting Salager-Meyer’s (1994) taxonomy. The study revealed that the most frequently used hedging device in King Abdullah’s speech is modal auxiliaries, and the most frequently used hedging device subcategory is the modal auxiliary “can”. The findings suggest that these hedging devices fulfil several pragmatic functions. These findings contribute to understanding that speaking a second language (Arabic, in the case of King Abdullah II) neither affects the types of hedging devices nor the functions these devices perform. Moreover, contrary to scientific discourse (e.g., medicine), the research concludes that political discourse as a non-scientific genre resorts to hedging devices to express indirectness, politeness, lack of commitment and probability.","PeriodicalId":402791,"journal":{"name":"Prague Journal of English Studies","volume":"104 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hedging in Political Discourse: Evidence from the Speeches of King Abdullah II of Jordan\",\"authors\":\"Ghaleb Rabab’ah, Ronza Abu Rumman\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/pjes-2015-0009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper reports on the findings of a study that aimed to identify the linguistic items which act as hedges in the speeches of King Abdullah II of Jordan, as well as to examine the pragmatic functions of these devices. Twenty-five political speeches of King Abdullah II, randomly selected from the official website of King Abdullah (see Appendix), were analyzed adopting Salager-Meyer’s (1994) taxonomy. The study revealed that the most frequently used hedging device in King Abdullah’s speech is modal auxiliaries, and the most frequently used hedging device subcategory is the modal auxiliary “can”. The findings suggest that these hedging devices fulfil several pragmatic functions. These findings contribute to understanding that speaking a second language (Arabic, in the case of King Abdullah II) neither affects the types of hedging devices nor the functions these devices perform. Moreover, contrary to scientific discourse (e.g., medicine), the research concludes that political discourse as a non-scientific genre resorts to hedging devices to express indirectness, politeness, lack of commitment and probability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":402791,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prague Journal of English Studies\",\"volume\":\"104 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Prague Journal of English Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/pjes-2015-0009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prague Journal of English Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/pjes-2015-0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

摘要本文报告了一项研究的结果,该研究旨在识别约旦国王阿卜杜拉二世演讲中充当模糊限制语的语言项目,并研究这些设备的语用功能。本文采用Salager-Meyer(1994)分类法,从阿卜杜拉国王官方网站(见附录)中随机抽取25篇阿卜杜拉二世国王的政治演讲。研究发现,阿卜杜拉国王演讲中使用频率最高的限界语是情态助语,使用频率最高的限界语子类别是情态助语“can”。研究结果表明,这些套期保值手段具有多种语用功能。这些发现有助于理解说第二语言(阿卜杜拉二世国王的情况是阿拉伯语)既不影响对冲工具的类型,也不影响这些工具的功能。此外,与科学语篇(如医学语篇)相反,该研究得出结论,政治语篇作为一种非科学类型,采用模棱两可的手段来表达间接、礼貌、缺乏承诺和概率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Hedging in Political Discourse: Evidence from the Speeches of King Abdullah II of Jordan
Abstract This paper reports on the findings of a study that aimed to identify the linguistic items which act as hedges in the speeches of King Abdullah II of Jordan, as well as to examine the pragmatic functions of these devices. Twenty-five political speeches of King Abdullah II, randomly selected from the official website of King Abdullah (see Appendix), were analyzed adopting Salager-Meyer’s (1994) taxonomy. The study revealed that the most frequently used hedging device in King Abdullah’s speech is modal auxiliaries, and the most frequently used hedging device subcategory is the modal auxiliary “can”. The findings suggest that these hedging devices fulfil several pragmatic functions. These findings contribute to understanding that speaking a second language (Arabic, in the case of King Abdullah II) neither affects the types of hedging devices nor the functions these devices perform. Moreover, contrary to scientific discourse (e.g., medicine), the research concludes that political discourse as a non-scientific genre resorts to hedging devices to express indirectness, politeness, lack of commitment and probability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Passive across Two Registers of Present-Day British English: A Corpus-Based Lexico-Grammatical Perspective Stimulating the Law through Ubuntu and Nagomi in Three Japanese Short Stories The Loss of the Real in Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go, Klara and the Sun and Nocturnes New stories from the Mabinogion and Pedeir Keinc y Mabinogi: Texts, Narratives and Tradition1 Arguments and Counterarguments for and against Coffee in 17th-Century English Literature
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1