首页> 外文期刊>Advances in health sciences education: theory and practice >Hedging to save face: a linguistic analysis of written comments on in-training evaluation reports
【24h】

Hedging to save face: a linguistic analysis of written comments on in-training evaluation reports

机译:套期保值:对培训中评估报告的书面评论的语言分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Written comments on residents' evaluations can be useful, yet the literature suggests that the language used by assessors is often vague and indirect. The branch of linguistics called pragmatics argues that much of our day to day language is not meant to be interpreted literally. Within pragmatics, the theory of 'politeness' suggests that non-literal language and other strategies are employed in order to 'save face'. We conducted a rigorous, in-depth analysis of a set of written in-training evaluation report (ITER) comments using Brown and Levinson's influential theory of 'politeness' to shed light on the phenomenon of vague language use in assessment. We coded text from 637 comment boxes from first year residents in internal medicine at one institution according to politeness theory. Non-literal language use was common and 'hedging', a key politeness strategy, was pervasive in comments about both high and low rated residents, suggesting that faculty may be working to 'save face' for themselves and their residents. Hedging and other politeness strategies are considered essential to smooth social functioning; their prevalence in our ITERs may reflect the difficult social context in which written assessments occur. This research raises questions regarding the 'optimal' construction of written comments by faculty.
机译:关于居民评价的书面评论可能会有用,但是文献表明,评估者使用的语言通常是含糊和间接的。语言学的一个分支称为语用学,认为我们日常语言中的许多部分并不是要按字面意义进行解释。在语用学中,“礼貌”理论建议使用非文字语言和其他策略来“挽回面子”。我们使用Brown和Levinson具有影响力的“礼貌”理论对一组书面的培训中评估报告(ITER)评论进行了严格,深入的分析,以阐明评估中使用模糊语言的现象。我们根据礼貌理论对一所机构内科第一年住院医师的637个注释框中的文本进行了编码。非文字语言的使用很普遍,“套期保值”是一项重要的礼貌策略,在对高分和低分居民的评论中普遍存在,这表明教师们可能正在努力为自己和居民“丢脸”。套期保值和其他礼貌策略被认为对平稳社会功能至关重要;它们在我们的ITER中的流行可能反映了进行书面评估的困难的社会环境。这项研究提出了有关教师书面评论“最佳”构造的问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号