HEDGE APPROXIMATORS AS PROFESSIONAL TOOLS OF GERMAN MASS MEDIA DISCOURSE
https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-83-98
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is the analysis of German mass media texts to investigate into hedge approximators. Synonymous analytical constructions eine Art … (a kind of); so etwas wie …; (so) etwas Ähnliches wie … are used to achieve certain pragmatic purposes the discourse of mass media. The most frequent word combination is eine Art... . The structural organization of such combinations is regulated by specific rules. The majorities of nominal groups of the eine Art N type without an attribute preceding the main component (eine Art Glück) do not allow to determine the case of the second noun in modern German. Nouns of all three genders, including noun of the weak type of declination, do not have inflexions. The case form of the main word in the phrase is revealed by expanding the cluster with an attribute. The basic types of such constructions are constructions with the genitive case (eine Art gemeinsamen Traums), construction with the preposition von and a noun in the dative case (eine Art von gemeinsamem Traum) and constructions with the case agreement between the two parts of the nominal group (in einer Art gemeinsamem Traum). The distribution of these types of constructions in the contemporary German language is determined in essence by grammatical factors, namely by the oblique form of the “auxiliary” noun and also by the number and by the semantic class of the second noun. All three synonymous clusters are used both with concrete and abstract nouns. These hedge markers make possible for authors of articles to limit the degree of confidence or doubt about the authenticity of the described fact, since sometimes there is no information about the nominated object, the risks of an erroneous statement being significantly minimized. Hedge markers show that the author is detached, careful, diplomatic and aims at avoiding conflictual situations.
About the Author
E. L. Shubina
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. S. l: Pearson Education Limited.
2. Bocharova, Е.S. (2001). Funkcional’no-semanticheskoe pole approksimacii v sovremennom anglijskom yazyke [Functional semantic field of approximation in the contemporary English] (Candidate thesis). Pyatigorsk State Linguistic University, Pyatigorsk, Russia (in Russian).
3. Dönninghaus, S. (2005). Die Vagheit der Sprache/Begriffsgeschichte und Funktionsbeschreibung anhand der tschechischen Wissenschaftssprache [The Vagheit of the language/term history and description of function on the basis the Czech science language]. Harrassowitz Verlag Wiesbaden (in German).
4. Duden. (2006). Richtiges und gutes Deutsch: Wörterbuch der sprachlichen Zweifelsfälle [Correct and good German: dictionary of the linguistic cases of doubt]. 5., neu bearb. u. erw. Aufl. Mannheim etc.: Dudenverlag. (Der Duden in 12 Bd.: Das Standardwerk zur deutschen Sprache; Bd. 9.) (in German).
5. Duden. (2009). Die Grammatik. Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch [The grammar. Indispensably for correct German]. 8., überarbeitete Auflage. Herausgegeben von der Dudenredaktion. Mannheim u.a.: Dudenverlag (Duden Band 4) (in German).
6. Dürscheid, Ch., & Businger, M. (2006). Schweizer Standarddeutsch. Beitrӓge zur Varietӓtenlinquistik, Tübingen: Narr, 131-161 (in German).
7. Farr, F., Murphy, B., & O’Keeffe, A. (2004). The Limerick corpus of Irish English: design, description and application. In F. Farr, & A. O’Keeffe (Eds.). Corpora, varieties and the language classroom. Special edition of Teanga 21 (pp. 5-29), Dublin: IRAAL.
8. Gorina, O.G., & Hrabrova, V.Е. (2017). Lingvisticheskij hedzhing kak kommunikativnaya struktura (v rusle korpusnyh issledovanij) [Linguistic khedzhing as communicative structure (in the course of hull of experiments)]. Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Serija: Lingvistika i mezhkul’turnaya kommunikaciya [Bulletin of Novosibirsk State University. Series: Linguistics and intercultural communication], Vol. 15, No 3, 44-53 (in Russian).
9. Knight, D., Adolphs, S., & Carter, R. (2013). Formality in digital discourse: a study of hedging in CANELC. In J. Romero-Trillo (Eds.). Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics 2013: new domains and methodologies (pp. 131-152), S. l: Springer Netherlands.
10. Krysin, L.P. (1994). Evfemizmy v sovremennoj russkoj rechi [Euphemisms in the contemporary Russian speech]. Rusistika, Berlin: Philology.ru, No 1-2, 28-49 (in Russian).
11. Lakoff, D. (1972). Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, No 2(4), 458-508.
12. Prince, E.F., Frader, J., & Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. Linguistics and the professions, Norwood/New Jersey: Albex Publishing Corporation, Vol. 8, 83-97.
13. Pristinskaya, T.M. (2005). Problema nominacii so znacheniem priblizitel’nosti v lingvisticheskih issledovaniyah [Problem of nomination with approximation value in the linguistic studies]. Gumanitarnye i social’no-ekonomicheskie nauki [Humanities and socio-economic sciences], No 4, 161-164 (in Russian).
14. Rounds, P. (1982). Hedging in written academic discourse: precision and flexibility. Michigan: The University of Michigan. Mimeo.
15. Schmidlin, R. (2011). Die Vielfalt des Deutschen: Standard und Variation. Gebrauch, Einschätzung und Kodifizierung einer plurizentrischen Sprache [The variety of German: standard and variation. Use, estimate and coding of a pluricentral language]. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, XIII. (Studia linguistica Germanica 106) (in German).
16. Sorokin, Yu.Е. (1988). Sintaksicheskie konstrukcii priblizitel’noj ocenki v sovremennom anglijskom yazyke [Syntactic constructions of approximate estimation in the contemporary English] (Candidate thesis). V.I. Lenin Moscow State Pedagogical Institute, Moscow, Russia (in Russian).
17. Shkot, I.L. (1984). Yazykovye sredstva vyrazheniya approksimacii v sovremennom anglijskom yazyke [Linguistic means of the expression of approximation in the contemporary English]. Vestnik Kievskogo universiteta. Romano-germanskaya filologiya [Bulletin of Kiev University. Romano-Germanic philology], Kiev: KGU, Vol. 13, 25-27 (in Russian).
18. Shubina, E. (2007). Problema normy i variativnosti v nemeckom jazyke na urovne slovosochetanij tipa Nquant+AdjN i eine Art+AdjN (po materialam hudozhestvennoj literatury XVII-XX vekov, sovremennoj pressy i jeksperimental’nyh dannyh), [Problem of standard and variability in the German language at the level of word combinations of the type Nquant+AdjN and eine Art+AdjN (based on materials of the artistic literature of 17-20 centuries, contemporary press and experimental data)] (Doctoral thesis). M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia (in Russian).
19. Verschueren, J. (1987). Metapragmatics and universals of linguistic action. Linguistic action: some empirical-conceptual studies, Norwood (N.J.): Ablex, 125-140.
Review
For citations:
Shubina E.L. HEDGE APPROXIMATORS AS PROFESSIONAL TOOLS OF GERMAN MASS MEDIA DISCOURSE. Professional Discourse & Communication. 2019;1(1):83-98. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-83-98
Email this article 