论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】This thesis aims to make a contrastive analysis of the usage of hedges between Chinese and English company profiles. The study concludes that that the communicative context constrains the writers’ choice-making of hedging， namely， the social world and mental world of the writers.
【Key words】hedges； company profiles； contrastive analysis； Adaption Theory
1. Introduction
1.1 Research Background
Recently， the study of hedges in different genres has been focused on by more and more researchers and scholars. Hedges are frequently used in company profiles. However， the quantity of the study of hedges in company profiles is small because it has not been fully developed. So far， we have little knowledge about the usage of hedges in company profiles and the differences they have. Therefore， it is of great significance to study and compare the hedges in CCP and ECP.
1.2 Research Purpose
The research aims to investigate the respective frequency and distribution of hedges and to list the linguistic realization of hedges in， and to summarize and explain the similarities and differences of Chinese and English hedges.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Hedges
2.1.1 Definitions
George Lakoff’s （1972） gives a definition of hedges，
“For me， some of the most interesting questions are raised by the study of words whose meaning implicitly involves fuzziness—words whose job is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy. I will refer to such words as ‘hedges’” （Lakoff， 1972： 195）. Based on Lakoff’s concept， Brown and Levinson （1987） define hedges， “a particle， word or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or a noun phrase in a set”.
2.1.2 Classification of Hedges
Prince et al. （1982） from pragmatic categorization observes that hedges usually make things fuzzy through two different means and then he categorized hedges into two groups： approximators and shields. The following figure 1 illustrates the taxonomy of hedges of Price et al. （1982：93）
Figure 1 Taxonomy of hedges of Prince et al. （Price et al.1982：93）.
2.2 Theoretical Framework： Adaption Theory
Jef Verschueren firstly proposes adaption theory in Pragmatics is a Theory of Linguistic Adaption in 1987.
To characterize language adaption as one of essential language characteristics， Verschueren （2000） points out four inter-related and combined angles： contextual correlates of adaptability， structural objects of adaptability， dynamics of adaptability and the salience of adaption process. Specifically， the elements of the communicative context are composed of the physical world， social word， the mental world and the utterer and interpreter. 3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Distribution of Hedges in Chinese and English Company Profiles
3.1.1 The total number of the selected corpora and the overall frequency of hedges
In CCP， the total of tokens is 45708； the number of hedges is 761； the percentage of hedges is 1.66%.
In ECP， the total of tokens is 16917； the number of hedges is 621； the percentage of hedges is 3.67%.
3.1.2 The number of each category of hedge in CCP and ECP
In CCP，there are 356 adaptors， 300 rounders， 38 plausibility shields， and 74 attribution shields. The total of hedges is 761.
In ECP， there are 141 adaptors， 320 rounders， 110 plausibility shields， and 50 attribution shields. The sum of hedges is 621.
3.1.3 The percentage of each type of hedges in CCP and ECP
In CCP， approximators account for 85.3% of the total of hedges， with 46.8% adaptors and 38.5% rounders. By contrast， shields just make up 14.7%， with 5.0% plausibility shields and 9.7 % attribution shields.
In ECP， approximators constitute 74.2% of the total of hedges， with 22.7% adaptors and 51.5% rounders， whereas 25.8%， with 17.7% plausibility shield and 8.1% attribution shields.
3.2 Linguistic Realization of Hedges in Chinese and English Company Profiles
3.2.1 Linguistic Realization of Adaptors
Adaptors are words that can modify the degree of original utterance. In company profiles， lexical adjectives， such as “全面的”， “巨大的”， etc and numerous， immense， more etc are regarded as adaptors . Besides lexical adjectives， lexical adverbs as rounders play a large part in the two corpora. CCP applies many lexical adverbs to achieve their purposes.
3.2.2 Linguistic Realization of Rounders
In CCP， some words such as “眾多的”， “部分（的）”， “其他”， etc are used to indicate the vagueness. While in ECP， lexical adjectives such as all， many， other， a few， several， few etc are adopted as rounders. Lexical adverbs like “近”，“接近”，“大约”， etc. in Chinese and around， approximately， about， etc in English are applied as rounders in the two corpora. They are always employed before numbers to change the truth of the statements.
In CCP， there are different kinds of quantifiers regarded as rounders to display the proper quantities. And these quantifiers generally follow the following rules：
1） number 左右/以上/前/以来
2） number 余/多 n.
In ECP， there also exist some rules to judge the quantifiers.
1） a singular quantifier （ of n.） eg： a lot of ， a number of， a group of ， etc. 2） plural quantifier of n. eg： lots of ， tons of ， types of ， years of， etc.
3.2.3 Linguistic Realization of Attribution Shields
In Chinese corpus， the passive voice can be expressed by means of adopting the Chinese term “被”. A verb or a noun often follows the word “被”.
When quoting others’ opinions or attitudes， Chinese expressions， “根據/按照……”， “……认为/指出/解释” etc frequently occur. Similarly， some English words， like “according to ”， etc， are often used.
3.3 Comparison of Hedges between Chinese and English Company Profiles
3.3.1 Similarities in the Use of Hedges between Chinese and English Company Profiles
1） Four categories of hedges are used in Chinese and English company profiles
2） Aproximators occur more frequently than shields in Chinese and English company profiles
3） CCP and ECP show great similarities in linguistic realization. The most frequently used linguistic realization is almost similar.
3.3.2 Differences in the Use of Hedges between Chinese and English Company Profiles
Firstly， the usage of hedges is more frequently employed in ECP than that in CCP， with 3.67% and 1.66% respectively.
Secondly， About the shields （plausibility and attribution shields）， shields take up 25.8% in English while in 14.7% in Chinese. Obviously， there exist more shields in ECP than in CCP.
Thirdly， CCP favor adaptors， accounting for 46.8%， Whereas ECP use rounders， constituting 51.5%.
3.4 Reasons for the Similarities and Differences
3.4.1 Similarities Triggered by Adaptation to Communicative Goals and Politeness
The reasons for similarities are ascribed to the uniformity of company profiles， which have some requirements. Company profile， as a genre， consists of a large amount of communicative events， i.e.， a amount of relationships between people who act in a given social context and people who perform certain roles.
3.4.2 Differences Triggered by Adaptation to Social World
The choice-making of hedges is inter-adaptable with a variety of perspectives of social world.
3.4.2.1 Environment
The differences can be caused by the environment. Chinese people are more serious in organizing company profiles and thus reduce the frequency of hedges. In western countries， the companies try to maximize their own profits through meeting the needs of customers with a natural and relaxed mood. Therefore， more hedges are adopted in English company profiles than those in Chinese company profiles. 3.4.2.2 Values
According to Samovar （2000：60）， values refer to a belief that people prefer a specific mode of conduct to another not only from the personal perspective but also from the social perspective. The differences in Chinese and English values can be reflected through the differences of the usage of hedges.
3.4.2.3 Interpersonal Relationship
Interpersonal relationship also has an influence on choice making of hedges. Influenced by the Confucian thought， writers in China are considered as the authorities of the fields of company and always present the third party’s opinions to make the readers believe in them. The employment of hedges indicates the authority of the writers in this aspect over the readers. That’s why Chinese company profiles adopt a number of attribution shields in the writing.
3.4.3 Differences Triggered by Adaptation to Mental World
Mental world of the communicators include emotions， motivations， desires， personality and intentions and so on， based on Verschueren’s opinions. People with different mental worlds will make different choices of using hedges. When it comes to the present study， the different motivations of writing and beliefs of the writers of the company profiles affect the preference of using hedges.
4. conclusions
This contrastive analysis of hedges in Chinese and English company profiles is of great pedagogical value to the teaching of the writing of company profiles.
Given the small scaled corpus adopted in this study， the future studies can be done with a relatively large-scaled corpus to make the studies more convincing.
References：
[1]Brown，P
【Key words】hedges； company profiles； contrastive analysis； Adaption Theory
1. Introduction
1.1 Research Background
Recently， the study of hedges in different genres has been focused on by more and more researchers and scholars. Hedges are frequently used in company profiles. However， the quantity of the study of hedges in company profiles is small because it has not been fully developed. So far， we have little knowledge about the usage of hedges in company profiles and the differences they have. Therefore， it is of great significance to study and compare the hedges in CCP and ECP.
1.2 Research Purpose
The research aims to investigate the respective frequency and distribution of hedges and to list the linguistic realization of hedges in， and to summarize and explain the similarities and differences of Chinese and English hedges.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Hedges
2.1.1 Definitions
George Lakoff’s （1972） gives a definition of hedges，
“For me， some of the most interesting questions are raised by the study of words whose meaning implicitly involves fuzziness—words whose job is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy. I will refer to such words as ‘hedges’” （Lakoff， 1972： 195）. Based on Lakoff’s concept， Brown and Levinson （1987） define hedges， “a particle， word or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or a noun phrase in a set”.
2.1.2 Classification of Hedges
Prince et al. （1982） from pragmatic categorization observes that hedges usually make things fuzzy through two different means and then he categorized hedges into two groups： approximators and shields. The following figure 1 illustrates the taxonomy of hedges of Price et al. （1982：93）
Figure 1 Taxonomy of hedges of Prince et al. （Price et al.1982：93）.
2.2 Theoretical Framework： Adaption Theory
Jef Verschueren firstly proposes adaption theory in Pragmatics is a Theory of Linguistic Adaption in 1987.
To characterize language adaption as one of essential language characteristics， Verschueren （2000） points out four inter-related and combined angles： contextual correlates of adaptability， structural objects of adaptability， dynamics of adaptability and the salience of adaption process. Specifically， the elements of the communicative context are composed of the physical world， social word， the mental world and the utterer and interpreter. 3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Distribution of Hedges in Chinese and English Company Profiles
3.1.1 The total number of the selected corpora and the overall frequency of hedges
In CCP， the total of tokens is 45708； the number of hedges is 761； the percentage of hedges is 1.66%.
In ECP， the total of tokens is 16917； the number of hedges is 621； the percentage of hedges is 3.67%.
3.1.2 The number of each category of hedge in CCP and ECP
In CCP，there are 356 adaptors， 300 rounders， 38 plausibility shields， and 74 attribution shields. The total of hedges is 761.
In ECP， there are 141 adaptors， 320 rounders， 110 plausibility shields， and 50 attribution shields. The sum of hedges is 621.
3.1.3 The percentage of each type of hedges in CCP and ECP
In CCP， approximators account for 85.3% of the total of hedges， with 46.8% adaptors and 38.5% rounders. By contrast， shields just make up 14.7%， with 5.0% plausibility shields and 9.7 % attribution shields.
In ECP， approximators constitute 74.2% of the total of hedges， with 22.7% adaptors and 51.5% rounders， whereas 25.8%， with 17.7% plausibility shield and 8.1% attribution shields.
3.2 Linguistic Realization of Hedges in Chinese and English Company Profiles
3.2.1 Linguistic Realization of Adaptors
Adaptors are words that can modify the degree of original utterance. In company profiles， lexical adjectives， such as “全面的”， “巨大的”， etc and numerous， immense， more etc are regarded as adaptors . Besides lexical adjectives， lexical adverbs as rounders play a large part in the two corpora. CCP applies many lexical adverbs to achieve their purposes.
3.2.2 Linguistic Realization of Rounders
In CCP， some words such as “眾多的”， “部分（的）”， “其他”， etc are used to indicate the vagueness. While in ECP， lexical adjectives such as all， many， other， a few， several， few etc are adopted as rounders. Lexical adverbs like “近”，“接近”，“大约”， etc. in Chinese and around， approximately， about， etc in English are applied as rounders in the two corpora. They are always employed before numbers to change the truth of the statements.
In CCP， there are different kinds of quantifiers regarded as rounders to display the proper quantities. And these quantifiers generally follow the following rules：
1） number 左右/以上/前/以来
2） number 余/多 n.
In ECP， there also exist some rules to judge the quantifiers.
1） a singular quantifier （ of n.） eg： a lot of ， a number of， a group of ， etc. 2） plural quantifier of n. eg： lots of ， tons of ， types of ， years of， etc.
3.2.3 Linguistic Realization of Attribution Shields
In Chinese corpus， the passive voice can be expressed by means of adopting the Chinese term “被”. A verb or a noun often follows the word “被”.
When quoting others’ opinions or attitudes， Chinese expressions， “根據/按照……”， “……认为/指出/解释” etc frequently occur. Similarly， some English words， like “according to ”， etc， are often used.
3.3 Comparison of Hedges between Chinese and English Company Profiles
3.3.1 Similarities in the Use of Hedges between Chinese and English Company Profiles
1） Four categories of hedges are used in Chinese and English company profiles
2） Aproximators occur more frequently than shields in Chinese and English company profiles
3） CCP and ECP show great similarities in linguistic realization. The most frequently used linguistic realization is almost similar.
3.3.2 Differences in the Use of Hedges between Chinese and English Company Profiles
Firstly， the usage of hedges is more frequently employed in ECP than that in CCP， with 3.67% and 1.66% respectively.
Secondly， About the shields （plausibility and attribution shields）， shields take up 25.8% in English while in 14.7% in Chinese. Obviously， there exist more shields in ECP than in CCP.
Thirdly， CCP favor adaptors， accounting for 46.8%， Whereas ECP use rounders， constituting 51.5%.
3.4 Reasons for the Similarities and Differences
3.4.1 Similarities Triggered by Adaptation to Communicative Goals and Politeness
The reasons for similarities are ascribed to the uniformity of company profiles， which have some requirements. Company profile， as a genre， consists of a large amount of communicative events， i.e.， a amount of relationships between people who act in a given social context and people who perform certain roles.
3.4.2 Differences Triggered by Adaptation to Social World
The choice-making of hedges is inter-adaptable with a variety of perspectives of social world.
3.4.2.1 Environment
The differences can be caused by the environment. Chinese people are more serious in organizing company profiles and thus reduce the frequency of hedges. In western countries， the companies try to maximize their own profits through meeting the needs of customers with a natural and relaxed mood. Therefore， more hedges are adopted in English company profiles than those in Chinese company profiles. 3.4.2.2 Values
According to Samovar （2000：60）， values refer to a belief that people prefer a specific mode of conduct to another not only from the personal perspective but also from the social perspective. The differences in Chinese and English values can be reflected through the differences of the usage of hedges.
3.4.2.3 Interpersonal Relationship
Interpersonal relationship also has an influence on choice making of hedges. Influenced by the Confucian thought， writers in China are considered as the authorities of the fields of company and always present the third party’s opinions to make the readers believe in them. The employment of hedges indicates the authority of the writers in this aspect over the readers. That’s why Chinese company profiles adopt a number of attribution shields in the writing.
3.4.3 Differences Triggered by Adaptation to Mental World
Mental world of the communicators include emotions， motivations， desires， personality and intentions and so on， based on Verschueren’s opinions. People with different mental worlds will make different choices of using hedges. When it comes to the present study， the different motivations of writing and beliefs of the writers of the company profiles affect the preference of using hedges.
4. conclusions
This contrastive analysis of hedges in Chinese and English company profiles is of great pedagogical value to the teaching of the writing of company profiles.
Given the small scaled corpus adopted in this study， the future studies can be done with a relatively large-scaled corpus to make the studies more convincing.
References：
[1]Brown，P