Dòng Nội dung
1
Đặc điểm của thành phần rào đóm trong phát ngôn hồi đáp hỏi trực tiếp trong Tiếng Anh ( Đối chiếu với Tiếng Việt) = The use of hedging devices in responses to direct questions in English ( in contrast with their Vietnamese equivalents) / Trần Thị Phương Thu. // Ngôn ngữ và đời sống. 2015, Số 3 (233).
2015
tr.62-69

This paper investigates the forms, frequency, and functions of hedging device used in responses to direct questions in English spoken language and dose a contrastive analysis of the function of these device and their Vietnamese equivalents. The results revealed that responses to direct questions in English and Vietnamese, hedging as a mitigating device extensively employed and that English hedges play the same roles as their Vietnamese equivalents in spoken discourse.
2
Marking imprecision, conveying surprise: Like between hedging and mirativity / Emily A. Han Ink. // Journal of Linguistics Vol. 55- Issue 1/2019
2019.
p. 1-34.

Mirative expressions, which mark surprising information (DeLancey 1997), are often expressed through linguistic forms that are also used to encode other, seemingly unrelated, meanings – e.g. evidential markers that mark lack of direct evidence (Turkish: Slobin & Aksu 1982, Peterson 2010; Cheyenne: Rett & Murray 2013; Cuzco Quechua: Faller 2002; Ostyak: Nikolaeva 1999; among others). In this paper, we show that the English particle like features a parallel polysemy between a mirative use and its better-known hedging use, which expresses weakened commitment to the strict denotation of a linguistic expression. After presenting several diagnostics that point to a genuine empirical difference between the hedging and mirative functions of like, we propose that both uses widen the size of a contextually restricted set, admitting elements that were previously excluded. More specifically, hedging like expands the set of ‘similar enough’ interpretations that we can apply to a linguistic expression in a context, including interpretations that we would normally consider to be too different from the context at hand. Mirative like, on the other hand, expands the set of worlds that we are willing to consider as candidates for the actual world in the conversation, resulting in the inclusion of worlds that interlocutors have previously ruled out due to perceived outlandishness. We therefore suggest that the two uses are best treated as sharing a common semantic kernel, deriving hedging and mirativity as effects of the particular type of object to which like applies.