نشانه های تردید در نگارش افراد در گروه ایمیلی آموزش زبان انگلیسی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
هدف مطالعه حاضر پرده برداشتن از چگونگی کاربرد واژگانی نظیر فکر می کنم1 در زبان ایمیل و گروه های ایمیلی، و درک تفاوت های میان نگارش اینترنتی کاربران بومی و غیر بومی در استفاده از نشانه های تردید می باشد. به این منظور تعداد 103 پیام الکترونیکی دریافت شده از افراد بومی و غیر بومی در یکی از گروه های ایمیلی آموزش زبان انگلیسی مطالعه شده اند. کاربرد واژه ها و افعالی چون فکر می کنم، احساس می کنم2، می دانم3و عباراتی چون این طور به نظر می رسد4 که در علم زبان شناسی کاربردی، نشانه های تردید5 نامیده می شوند، از چند دهه پیش تا حد زیادی در نوشتار و تا حد کمتری در گفتار، در سبک های نگارشی مختلف چون مقالات علمی و پایان نامه ها مورد توجه زبان شناسان قرار گرفته است (لوین، 2005). اما نحوه کاربرد آنها در تعاملات گروه های ایمیلی نادیده گرفته شده است و مقاله حاضر به آن می پردازد. تحلیل داده ها نشان می دهد که تفاوت معنی داری در میزان استفاده از نشانه های تردید در پیام های کاربران بومی و غیر بومی وجود دارد. مقایسه ها، همچنین، نشان دهنده تفاوت میان فراوانی استفاده از ابزارهای مختلف نشانه تردید میان افراد بومی و غیر بومی بود، به این ترتیب که کاربران بومی بسیار بیشتر از افراد غیر بومی از عبارات وصفی و اسامی تحدیدی استفاده نموده اند. این در حالی است که نویسندگان غیر بومی بیش از کاربران بومی، افعال تحدیدی و حروف تعیین/ نشانه های عددی / وابسته های اسمی + اسم را برای ابراز تردید به کار برده اند . از سوی دیگر، با اینکه از دید نوع ابزار به کار رفته برای ابراز تردید، تفاوت فاحشی میان ابزارهای استفاده شده در تعاملات اینترنتی و ابزارهای به کار رفته در سایر سبک های نگارشی مشاهده نمی شود، اما تحلیل داده ها نشان گر تفاوت میان نحوه به کار بردن زیرگروه های نشانه تردید در تعاملات اینترنتی و سایر سبک های نگارشی است.Hedging on the Net: the case of a TEFL e-mail group
This paper aims at documenting likely differences in the use of terms like think in electronic language. To be more specific, this paper is the result of a research, conducted to shed more light on the differences between native and non-natives’ use of hedging and its different realizations in the language of email groups. The language of email groups and, more generally, the email language have been of concern to a number of linguists and psychologists for the period since the genesis of virtual space (Nazaryan & Gridchin, 2006). Besides the common linguistic features between the two languages, certain linguistic features can be said to dominate the language of e-mail groups. For instance, I can refer you to the use of certain linguistic devices such as think, feel, know and expressions such as it seem to me to reveal personal opinion (Crystal, 2006). The use of such linguistic devices which are called hedging in applied linguistics, has been one of the frequently discussed topics in written corpus, mainly in dissertations and research articles (Lewin, 2005). However, questions such as how they are used in electronic language, in general, and in the language of e-mail groups, in particular, have been neglected in the literature to be addressed. To deal with this issue, this paper analyzes the use of different hedging devices like modal verbs, epistemic verbs, epistemic nouns, adverbial phrases, adjectival phrases, and indefinite articles/ numerals/general determiners in electronic messages in one of the TEFL email groups.
The corpus was built from 103 messages (totalled over 20541 words) posted on 5 of the most recent and challenging topics discussed in the group. Seventy two contributors were native speakers of English mostly from England, USA and Australia; the remaining 31 non-native speakers of English were from Korea, China, Japan and Indonesia. The data collected from the participants was subjected to both qualitative and quantitative analytical approaches. Given the highly contextual nature of hedging and the fact that a particular form can serve either a propositional or metadiscoursal function, items were coded manually rather than by computer. Quantitative approach served to identify frequency of occurrences and to produce comparable data.
The quantification of hedges showed a significant difference in the overall distribution of hedges throughout the native and non-native messages. More specifically, the density of hedges per total in native corpus was found to be 29 (i.e., one hedge in 29 words), as opposed to 61 in the non-native corpus.
Some of the findings indicate that the native writers are much more tentative in putting forward claims and in rejecting or confirming others' opinion, thus avoiding the so-called 'Face-Threatening Acts' (Brown and Levinson, 1987). In other words, the degree of detachment from one's claims and ideas appears to be considerably higher with the native writers than with the non-native ones.
The comparisons additionally indicate the differences in the frequency of certain types of hedging devices and their different realization. As to the modal verb, though it was found to be the most frequent sub-category in both sections of the corpus, differences were observed in its different realizations. Predominantly, native and non-native corpus employed modals such as can, will, may and may, can, will respectively. The modals could and might were absent in non-native messages with few occurrences in native corpus. Unlike modal verbs, the differences in the use of epistemic verbs, adjectival phrases, epistemic nouns and indefinite articles/ numerals/general determiners were rather striking. The frequency counts indicated the importance of epistemic verbs and indefinite articles/ numerals/general determiners to non-natives as they employed roughly twice as many of them as used in the native corpus. On the other hand, English participants favoured adjectival phrases and epistemic nouns. As to the percentage of the adverbial phrases, there was not a significant difference between the native and non-native corpus, though the native speakers used a wider range of them. The variations observed indicate that native and non-native participants have different orientations as to the distribution of different hedging devices throughout their postings. Different rhetorical and educational traditions or a view to preserving cultural identity when using English for international communication might explain such different orientation.
Compared with other genres, notwithstanding the observation that the same linguistic devices were found to be used in the language of e-mail groups as well as other written languages, as reported in the literature, it was found that email language uses hedging devices which have been recognized to be more of an informal type. This is a further proof on the observation that the language of email groups lacks the formality of other written corpus.
تبلیغات
