La matización asertiva en el artículo biomédicouna propuesta de clasificación para los estudios contrastivos inglés-español

  1. Gustavo Mendiluce Cabrera
  2. Ana Isabel Hernández Bartolomé
Revista:
Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos ( AELFE )

ISSN: 1139-7241

Any de publicació: 2005

Número: 10

Pàgines: 63-90

Tipus: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Altres publicacions en: Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos ( AELFE )

Resum

Utterance modifiers have aroused the interest of English linguists since Lakoff coined the term 'hedge' in 1972. Far from that first semantic approach, nowadays hedges and boosters are mostly studied from a pragmatic point of view. This means that these linguistic units should not be considered as a limited set of lexical forms, but rather as a contextual phenomenon. In addition, oral discourse has also given way to written scientific discourse along this time. Despite this boom in English research, Spanish literature on this topic is extremely limited. In fact, most works on hedging written by Spanish authors merely analysed English texts. Furthermore, if they ever deal with Spanish texts, their results are usually rendered in English. Thus, hedges and boosters represent a terminological and conceptual gap in Spanish. To fill this gap, this paper proposes an attempt to classify these units. Particularly, our aim is to hint tentative guidelines for an English- Spanish contrastive study of utterance modifiers in the biomedical research article. This genre will illustrate our proposal for both languages

Referències bibliogràfiques

  • AMA (1998). American Medical Association Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors, 9ª ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
  • Barrass, R. (2002). Scientists Must Write. London / New York: Routledge.
  • Bobenrieth Astete, M. A. (1994). El artículo científico original. Estructura, estilo y lectura crítica. Granada: Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública.
  • CBE (1994). Scientific Style and Format: The CBE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers, 6ª ed. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Clemen, G. (1997). The concept of hedging: origins, approaches and definitions en Markkanen & Schröder (eds.), 235-248.
  • Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes 16,4: 271-287.
  • Duque García, M. M. (2000). Manual de estilo. El arte de escribir en inglés científico-técnico. Madrid: Paraninfo.
  • Fortanet, I. (coord.) (2002). Cómo escribir un artículo de investigación en inglés. Madrid: Alianza.
  • Fortanet, I.; J. C. Palmer & S. Posteguillo (2001). Hedging devices in technical and academic English en Palmer et al. (eds.), 241-257.
  • Gilbert, G. N. & M. Mulkay (1984). Opening Pandora's Box: a Sociological Analysis of Scientists Discourse. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Goodman, N. W. & M. B. Edwards (1999). Medical Writing: A Prescription for Clarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Grabe, W. & R. B. Kaplan (1997). On the writing of science and the science of writing: hedging in science text and elsewhere en Markkanen & Schröder (eds.), 151-167.
  • Gross, A. G. (1993). The rhetoric of science and the science of rhetoric en A. W. Halsall (ed.), Proceedings of The Canadian Society for the Study of Rhetoric (1991-1992), vol 4, 8-35. Ottawa: Canadian Society for the Study of Rhetoric.
  • Haverkate, H. (1994). La cortesía verbal: estudio pragmalingüístico. Madrid: Gredos.
  • Hernández Vaquero, D. (1992). El artículo científico en biomedicina: normas para la publicación de trabajos. Barcelona: Ciba-Geigy.
  • Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. Language and Communication 10,3: 185-206.
  • Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 8,3: 345-365.
  • Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. Regional English Language Centre 13,2: 9-28.
  • Huth, E. J. (1999). Writing and Publishing in Medicine. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
  • Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT 18,3: 349-382.
  • Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.
  • Knorr Cetina, K. (1981). The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  • Lewin, B. A. (1998). Hedging: form and function in scientific research texts en I. Fortanet, S. Posteguillo, J. C. Palmer & J. F. Coll 8eds.), Genre studies in English for academic purposes, 89-104. Castellón: Universitat Jaume I.
  • Lindeberg, A. C. (2004). Promotion and Politeness: Conflicting Scholarly Rhetoric in Three Disciplines. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press.
  • Markkanen, R. & H. Schröder (eds.) (1997). Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Medicina Clínica (1993). Manual de estilo: publicaciones biomédicas. Barcelona: Doyma.
  • Mendiluce Cabrera, G. (2005). Estudio comparado inglés/español del discurso biomédico escrito: la secuenciación informativa, la matización asertiva y la conexión argumentativa en la Introducción y la Discusión de artículos biomédicos escritos por autores nativos y no-nativos. Tesis doctoral. Universidad de Valladolid.
  • Mendiluce Cabrera, G. & A. I. Hernández Bartolomé (2004). La Introducción del artículo biomédico, laguna retórica de los autores nonativos, 259-270 en Actes de GLAT-2004: La production des textes spécialisés: structure et enseignement. Brest (Francia): ENST.
  • Mendiluce Cabrera, G. & A. I. Hernández Bartolomé (2005, en prensa). Zigzagueando en Medicina: el artículo biomédico en inglés y español en Actas del III Simposio Internacional: Traducción, Texto e Interferencias. Universidad de Almería.
  • Navarro, F. A. (2000). Diccionario crítico de dudas inglés-español de medicina. Madrid: McGraw- Hill/Interamericana.
  • Oliver del Olmo, S. (2004a). Análisis contrastivo español/inglés de la atenuación retórica en el discurso médico. El artículo de investigación y el caso clínico. Tesis doctoral. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
  • Oliver del Olmo, S. (2004b, en prensa). A corpus-based study of hedging in Spanish medical discourse: analysing genre patterns in Spanish language biomedical research articles en XII Susanne Hübner Seminar: Corpus linguistics: theory and applications for the study of English. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza.
  • Palmer, J. C.; S. Posteguillo & I. Fortanet (eds.) (2001). Discourse Analysis and Terminology in Language for Specific Purposes. Castellón: Universitat Jaume I.
  • Piqué Angordans, J. (2002). La sección de la Introducción en Fortanet (coord.), 56-83.
  • Prince, E. F.; J. Frader & C. Bosk (1982). On hedging in physicianphysician discourse en R. J. di Pietro (ed.), Linguistics and the Professions, 83-97. Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex.
  • Puerta López-Cózar, J. L. & A. Mauri Más (1996). Manual para la redacción, traducción y publicación de textos médicos. Barcelona: Masson.
  • Quirk, R.; S. Greenbaum; G. Leech & J. Svartvik (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
  • Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes 13,2: 149-170.
  • Salager-Meyer, F. (2000). Procrustes recipe: hedging and positivism. English for Specific Purposes 19,2: 175-187.
  • Salager-Meyer, F.; M. A. Alcaraz Ariza & N. N. Zambrano (2003). The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English medical discourse (1930-1995). English for Specific Purposes 22,3: 223-247.
  • Salager-Meyer, F. & N. Zambrano (2001). The bittersweet rhetoric of controversiality in nineteenth- and twentieth-century French and English medical literature. Journal of Pragmatics 2,1: 141-173.
  • Saz Rubio, M. M. del (2001). A pragmatic insight into the use of reader-oriented hedges: accomplishing the necessary attention to the audience in research articles en Palmer et al. (eds.), 259-270.
  • Skelton, J. R. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. English Language Teaching Journal 42,1: 37-44.
  • Skelton, J. R. (1997). How to tell the truth in The British Medical Journal: patterns of judgment in the 19th and 20th centuries en Markkanen & Schröder (eds.), 42-64.
  • Strunk, W. & E. B. White (1959). The Elements of Style. New York: Macmillan.
  • Varttala, T. (1999). Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine. English for Specific Purposes 18,2: 177-200.
  • Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring Variation According to Discipline and Intended Audience. Tampere (Finlandia): University of Tampere. <http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/951- 44-5195-3.pdf>(consulta: 28-01-2004)
  • Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes 20,1: 83-102.
  • Wilkinson, A. M. (1991). The Scientist's Handbook for Writing Papers and Dissertations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Yang, J. T. (1997). An Outline of Scientific Writing For Researchers with English as a Foreign Language.Singapore / London: World Scientific.
  • Zeiger, M. (2000). Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet