Rationale
Human beings possess the most advanced language skills among various species, which distinguishes them and plays a crucial role in their evolution The emergence of language has facilitated easier communication among individuals As societies progress, the complexity of language also increases.
In the era of globalization, countries are increasingly seeking to establish strong friendships and partnerships across economic, cultural, and political domains The implementation of open policies by various governments has facilitated the exchange and exploration of diverse cultures, leading to a significant rise in cross-cultural communication As the world continues to evolve, it is crucial for researchers and linguists to study how individuals from different cultural backgrounds interact with one another.
Numerous studies have explored cultural diversity and the differences between cultures, highlighting the crucial role of language in intercultural communication Successful conversations depend on various elements, including the topic, mutual interests, and understanding between speakers and listeners Conflicts are common in communication, particularly among familiar individuals, often escalating into debates or strong disagreements However, as the most intelligent beings, humans have developed strategies to resolve disputes, such as employing hedges as effective communication tools.
Numerous studies on hedging have been conducted, yet it remains a complex topic that warrants additional investigation This research specifically focuses on hedging in argumentation, emphasizing its significance within the context of Vietnamese discourse.
This article presents an American cross-cultural study that compares the use of hedges in arguments between Vietnamese and American cultures By examining these differences, the study aims to contribute to the growing body of research on hedging in communication.
Aims of the Study
This study aims to explore the similarities and differences in the use of hedges between English and Vietnamese speakers It investigates how cultural influences shape the use of hedges in arguments among Americans and Vietnamese individuals Additionally, the research seeks to assist Vietnamese students in navigating potential conflicts in cross-cultural communication when engaging in arguments with native English speakers.
Scope of the Study
This study focuses exclusively on verbal communication challenges faced by both American and Vietnamese participants The analysis of how these individuals utilize hedges in their arguments employs a blend of qualitative and quantitative research methods.
This study focuses on the communication dynamics between Vietnamese and American students, particularly examining their interactions with parents and friends Through a questionnaire, it explores the challenges and issues these students face in their relationships, highlighting the importance of understanding cross-cultural communication among peers.
Design of the Study
Communication
Human interaction relies on various forms of communication, which are essential for sharing ideas, information, and complex emotions People utilize multiple channels, including language, signs, writing, and behavior, to convey their thoughts and opinions However, language is not the only tool available for expression This raises the fundamental question: "What is communication?"
Communication is defined by Hybels & Weaver II as “the process of sharing information, ideas and feelings” (1992:5), involving a sender and a recipient who exchange messages While the recipient does not need to be aware of the sender's intentions during the communication, mutual understanding is crucial for effective interaction Successful communication largely depends on both parties sharing common customs and cultural backgrounds, highlighting the importance of shared context in the exchange of ideas.
Effective communication involves several key elements, including the sender-receiver dynamic, the message, channels, feedback, noise, and the setting of the communication The sender and receiver engage in a process where ideas and feelings are exchanged, forming the message Feedback represents the responses between the sender and receiver, while channels encompass the various means of sharing the message, such as verbal and non-verbal signals, as well as auditory and visual elements Additionally, noise refers to any interference that hinders the understanding or accurate interpretation of the message Finally, the setting denotes the context or environment in which the communication takes place.
Effective communication encompasses various channels, including both verbal and non-verbal forms According to Hybels and Weaver II (1992), these elements are crucial for conveying messages clearly and meaningfully Understanding the interplay between these communication types enhances overall interaction.
Verbal communication is a fundamental way for individuals to interact, utilizing sounds, words, and language to convey messages and feedback between senders and recipients It serves as an effective tool for expressing thoughts, ideas, and emotions, highlighting the importance of participants' feelings and attitudes in the communication process Ultimately, the goal of verbal communication is to facilitate meaningful exchanges between people.
Verbal communication, encompassing the exchange of messages to inform, inquire, argue, and discuss various topics, faces significant challenges such as misunderstandings and language barriers, even among speakers of the same language and culture Anglicists, particularly Americans, experience difficulties due to regional differences; for example, New Yorkers often communicate more quickly and assertively, which can lead Californians to perceive them as pushy, while New Yorkers may view Californians as slow or less intelligent Verbal communication can be categorized into interpersonal communication and public speaking, and it encompasses the intricacies of intralanguage, including grammar, lexis, and phonetics Therefore, studying verbal communication is essential for understanding both the structural elements of language and the cultural patterns associated with it.
Non-verbal communication is a crucial aspect of the communication process, often encompassing a broader range of participants, means, messages, and feedback than verbal communication Unlike verbal communication, which relies on spoken language, non-verbal communication occurs without the use of words, highlighting its unique role in human interaction.
Albert Mehrabian's research (1981) highlights the significance of non-verbal communication, which accounts for 55% of message effectiveness, compared to only 7% for intralanguage and 38% for paralanguage This underscores the critical role of non-verbal cues, such as gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, and conversational distance, in successful communication (Nguyen Quang, 1998: 61) Gestures, particularly hand movements, are a prominent aspect of non-verbal communication, and these elements exhibit unique characteristics that vary across different cultures.
Both verbal and non-verbal communication significantly influence interactions among individuals from diverse cultures, including those who share similar communication styles.
Culture
Every country possesses unique customs, traditions, and cultures that shape its identity Cultural communication involves understanding the underlying values, beliefs, and attitudes that often remain hidden, akin to the submerged part of an iceberg (Nguyen Quang, 1998:3) The subtle and informal patterns of interaction within a culture are not always overtly expressed, making the study of the relationship between culture and communication crucial This exploration not only reveals the distinct characteristics of a culture but also highlights how other cultures influence individual communication styles.
Hybels & Weaver II (1992:25) claimed that the goal of giving definition of culture is to clarify the crucial link between culture and communication, as follow:
Culture is a learned set of shared interpretation about beliefs, values, norms and social practice, which affect the behaviors of a relatively large group of people
The shared interpretation of culture involves the symbols and meanings that exist in people's minds, which are communicated and understood differently among individuals As Nguyen Quang (1998) noted, cultural differences are evident, with appropriateness varying across cultures Hybels & Weaver II (199:27) describe beliefs as the collective understanding of a group regarding truth and reality, while values reflect what is deemed good or important within a culture Norms dictate expected behaviors in communication, and social practices represent the consistent behavior patterns of cultural members Hall (1959) defined culture as the collective behaviors, attitudes, and material aspects of a society, while Samovar, Porter, & McDaniel (2007:20) expanded this definition to include values, beliefs, and assumptions Holliday (2004:4) further categorized culture into essentialist and non-essentialist views, emphasizing nature, place, and relation.
Essentialist view Non-essentialist view Nature Culture – physical identity
(I visited 3 cultures- Spain, Morocco and Tunisia)
Culture – a social force (There was something culturally different about each of the countries I visited) Place Culture – a country and a language
Relation The world- Mutually exclusive national cultures (People from Egypt cannot
… when they arrive in French Culture)
Cultures can flow, change, intermingle, cut across and through one another
(Schools throughout the world have a lot of cultural similarities)
Table 1: Holliday‟s view of culture
Linguists emphasize the vital connection between culture and communication, highlighting how cultural influences shape communication styles across different regions This relationship gives rise to challenges in cross-cultural communication.
Cross-cultural communication
In today's diverse society, communication extends beyond individuals who share similar beliefs and values, highlighting the importance of intercultural communication As modern society evolves, the need for effective exchange and interaction among people from different cultures becomes essential, making intercultural communication a valuable tool for fostering understanding and collaboration.
The differences between intercultural communication and cross-cultural communication have been studied Intercultural communication is defined as
Intercultural communication refers to the interaction between individuals from distinct cultural backgrounds, focusing on the "sharing of meanings" across cultures, as defined by Samovar, Porter, and McDaniel (2007) In contrast, cross-cultural communication emphasizes the comparison of different communication styles According to Samovar and Porter (1991), intercultural communication occurs when a message is created by one culture for another, necessitating mutual understanding Meanwhile, cross-cultural communication involves the exchange and negotiation of cultural elements through non-verbal gestures and relationships, highlighting the similarities and differences between cultures Ultimately, intercultural communication is characterized by direct interactions among individuals from diverse cultures, while cross-cultural communication analyzes these interactions.
Communicating with individuals from different cultural backgrounds often results in misunderstandings due to varying beliefs, norms, and values This cross-cultural communication can lead to misinterpretations, which may escalate into cultural conflicts or cause cultural shock, particularly for those lacking experience in such interactions Consequently, challenges are common in cross-cultural communication, highlighting the importance of understanding potential problems that may arise.
Potential problems in cross-cultural verbal communication
Effective communication within a shared cultural context, despite common beliefs and values, often reveals underlying issues Participants may find themselves unable to resolve conflicts, which can escalate into arguments or struggles As a result, challenges in cross-cultural communication remain prevalent.
In this paper, due to the limitation of the study, the main focus is on the cross- cultural verbal communication between American and Vietnamese students
In a study on direct and indirect speech acts, Nguyen Quang (2004) conducted a case analysis of a Request-Reason conversation in both Vietnamese and English The research involved 112 Vietnamese learners of English and 26 American participants, highlighting the differences in speech act usage across the two languages.
Eight Australians participated in a study where they reviewed a conversation and provided feedback Most Vietnamese students appreciated the researcher’s indirect approach, finding it made the offer more acceptable In contrast, American and Australian participants felt that discussing unrelated topics, such as the weather, elder relatives, or health, was unnecessary They preferred to get straight to the point without additional context.
- Excuse me, sir Could I have 3 days off please? My mother’s ill, you know
Cross-cultural communication often suffers from misunderstandings due to the judgments individuals make about regional differences within a country, similar to those made about people from entirely different cultures (Nguyen Quang, 1998:40) This can lead to increased conflict and miscommunication among diverse cultural groups As a result, numerous studies have been conducted in the field of cross-cultural communication to identify solutions and provide guidance for effective communication across cultural boundaries.
Cross-cultural study
The study of cross-cultural communication is essential in the fields of linguistics and cultural studies, as it explores human behavior, beliefs, and attitudes across different cultures.
R and Melvin Ember (2002) suggested the outline of a cross-cultural study which consists of organization and classification, numbers of questions, measures of study, and the analysis of the result The classification including three main parts: selection of cultures, source materials and classification The section of cultures mainly bases on the criteria of maximum cultural diversity, maximum geographical dispersal and adequacy of literature within the scope of the two preceding criteria
The theories in cross-cultural communication, as outlined by Ember, C & M (2002), emphasize the importance of understanding the specific culture shared by a community, as documented by professional social scientists In the classification process, the author advocates for coding each document, ensuring that each category is accompanied by a concise descriptive statement that captures the scope of information provided.
First what are the foci of study? Second, what are the issues of coherence or decoherence within the foci studied? Third, how do these issues apply between foci
Ember and Ember (2002) emphasize the importance of clearly defining the problem of study, particularly in terms of focus They argue that cultural comparison should not only involve comparing communities but should also prioritize the specific communicative commonalities shared within those communities Furthermore, they highlight the need to examine coherence and decoherence within the defined focus, as making comparisons involves identifying both correlated and uncorrelated features of the cultures under study.
According to Aneas (2009), effective data collection and analysis in cross-cultural communication research hinge on the specific contexts involving study participants This emphasizes the crucial role of the researcher in conducting the study, as they are responsible for gathering and analyzing data, as well as accurately recording and conveying messages during interactions between individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds.
The study of cross-cultural communication has significantly evolved since the publication of Hall's "The Silent Language" in 1959 In today's rapidly changing world, interpersonal interactions have transformed, making it essential for researchers to examine global events and cultural phenomena This exploration aids in understanding the unique customs and cultural traits that differ from their own, enhancing their comprehension of diverse communication styles.
In the string of cross-cultural communication studies, politeness plays an important role in getting a successful conversation The following section discusses politeness and politeness strategies in communication.
Politeness
This article explores the concept of politeness through a linguistic lens, emphasizing its connection to culture and communication It outlines key principles for effective communication, particularly when engaging with specific cultural contexts According to Richards (1992:81), politeness serves to convey the social distance between speakers and their respective roles Furthermore, it encompasses the concept of face work, which involves efforts to establish, maintain, and protect one's face during interactions within a speech community The subsequent section will delve into face and politeness strategies.
Linguists studying politeness emphasize its connection to the concept of "face," which refers to the public self-image that individuals strive to maintain in conversations According to Brown and Levinson (1987), both speakers and hearers are concerned with preserving their face during interactions.
The expectation of maintaining a positive self-image in public interactions is crucial, as individuals often face the risk of losing this "face" during communication According to Yule (1996:61), the concept of face is integral to understanding social dynamics and interpersonal relationships.
A person's negative face reflects their desire for independence and freedom from external constraints, while their positive face embodies the need for acceptance and belonging within a group This duality highlights the importance of balancing individual autonomy with the desire for social connection and shared values.
Effective communication necessitates the maintenance, respect, and sharing of both negative and positive faces However, the risk of threatening, imposing, or losing face is significant Politeness plays a crucial role in enhancing, maintaining, and protecting face, employing strategies to minimize face-threatening actions.
Figure 2: Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown & Levison, 1987)
Brown and Levinson identified four key politeness strategies: bald on record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and off-record or indirect strategy (Brown & Levinson, 1987:69) The bald on record strategy is primarily used by speakers who have a close relationship with their audience.
E.g Do the dishes It’s your turn or Give me those!
The positive politeness strategy aims to protect the hearer's positive face and fulfill their desires by fostering a sense of solidarity among participants This approach emphasizes shared goals in conversation, making it particularly effective in contexts where the audience is familiar with one another.
+ A positive politeness strategy might be the request:
E.g It would be great if you could do the dishes for me
+ The speakers appeals to a common purpose friendly:
E.g You must be hungry now How about something for lunch?
Negative politeness strategy, which addresses the negative face of the listener, acknowledges the speaker's potential imposition or interruption, often accompanied by an apology This approach prioritizes the avoidance of imposing on others and preserving their freedom, while also maintaining a respectful distance in communication.
+ A question extended and containing a modal verb:
E.g I know you’ve been kinda strapped for cash, but could I borrow $5?
+ Expression apology for the imposition:
E.g I’m sorry to interrupt you, but can you explain this again
Linguistically, negative politeness can be expressed by:
E.g Dinner is served (avoids directly imposing on a guest)
E.g It’s hot in here (request somebody to open the door or turn on the fan)
E.g I somehow understand what you’ve said
+ Avoiding using address form directly:
E.g Someone’ eaten apples on the table
Politeness strategies are essential for effective communication, as various speech acts necessitate distinct approaches In interactions, disagreements are inevitable when participants fail to find common ground The upcoming sections will delve deeper into this topic.
Argument
Argument is one of the focal points of this study Van (1996) defines argument as follow:
Argumentation is a social and verbal process that seeks to influence the listener's or reader's acceptance of a controversial viewpoint It involves presenting a set of propositions designed to either justify or challenge that viewpoint, appealing to a rational audience.
Argumentation is a verbal activity primarily found in communication, serving as a form of verbal expression that can manifest in intercultural interactions The writer delineates the characteristics of argumentation, emphasizing its role in effective communication across diverse cultures.
According to Van (1996), argumentation is a social activity involving two or more participants who respond to or support claims with evidence It serves as a reasoning process where speakers aim to justify their own viewpoints or refute opposing ones, often revolving around controversial issues Argumentation is inherently persuasive and contested, fostering dynamic relationships among participants during discussions, which is evident in the frequent occurrence of arguments in everyday conversations.
Arguments among conversation participants can lead to effective problem-solving and the discovery of new perspectives However, the speech acts in these arguments vary significantly across different cultures and regions To effectively make their points, participants often employ various techniques, particularly politeness strategies Perelman (1969) identified three key argumentative techniques: quasi-logical techniques, which involve logically linking a series of problems; techniques structuring reality, which rely on a foundation of mutual agreement to facilitate persuasion; and techniques of dissociation, which aim to clarify the distinction between apparent points and reality.
Argument activities between students about their daily life happen variously
Conflicts among students can arise from discussions about a classmate's appearance, such as their new coat, hairstyle, or bags, often leading to teasing and insults These aggressive behaviors can escalate into serious issues in cross-cultural communication To effectively manage arguments, it is essential to employ strategies such as self-calming, mutual respect in conversations, and seeking solutions that satisfy all parties involved Additionally, controlling emotions, identifying common ground, and practicing modesty are valuable techniques for resolving disputes.
Politeness strategies in argumentation often focus on preserving the interlocutor's face, with hedges being a particularly effective tool in both communication and argumentation Nguyen Quang (2004) identifies various forms of hedges that are utilized within these politeness strategies The subsequent section will explore the theories surrounding the use of hedges in communication.
Hedges and Use of hedges in argument
Research has identified two primary approaches to hedges, with Lakoff (1972) emphasizing their logical properties He argues that hedges serve to either clarify or obscure meaning, exemplified by phrases like "sort of." According to Lakoff, hedges are linguistic tools that contribute to the fuzziness of meaning in communication.
The exploration of words that introduce ambiguity is particularly fascinating to me; these words, which I term 'hedges,' serve to either obscure or clarify meaning.
Besides, hedging has been view from the perspective of pragmatics In discussing cooperative principle in conversation, Yule (1996:37) assumed that
Speakers often use specific expressions known as hedges to indicate that they might not completely adhere to established principles.
E.g As far as I know, they’re married
I won’t bore you with the details, but it was an exciting trip
Not to change the subject, but is this related to the the budget?
This may be a bit confused, but I remember being in a car
In dealing with politeness strategies in verbal communication, Brown & Levison (1990:145) define hedges as:
A particle, word, or phrase modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase within a set It indicates that this membership is partial, true only in specific respects, or more complete than anticipated.
Brown and Levison (1987) proposed that hedges serve as a key politeness strategy in communication They identified that hedges can modify the strength of statements and help to soften complaints, requests, and commands, enhancing the overall effectiveness of interpersonal interactions.
E.g + Strengthened statement: You know, he’s only my partner at the company + Weakened statement: It maybe late now Shall we go home?
+ Softened complaints: I think you behaved badly last night
+ Softened request: Would you please lend me your car for a while?
+ Softened command: Close the door, will you ?
Nguyen Quang (2004: 46) pointed that using hedges in conversation helps to mitigate the disagreement of the speakers, and then reduce the face threatening of the hearers
E.g You really should sort of lay all the cards on the table
It’s easy a pie, in a way
Hedging plays a vital role in communication, especially in argumentation, as it helps individuals save face for others This approach is viewed as a politeness strategy within the realm of pragmatics, emphasizing the importance of maintaining respect and consideration in discussions.
In arguments, hedges play a crucial role by softening statements and introducing uncertainty Phrases like "If I may say so," "As you probably know," and "This may be a bit confusing" are commonly used to present an argument more cautiously.
E.g If I may say so your handwriting is bad
This may be a bit confused, but are you the last one to leave the room?
When expressing disagreements, it's common to use hedging phrases such as "I’m not sure if this is right," "I may be mistaken," or "I'm not sure if this makes sense." These phrases help to soften the disagreement and invite dialogue, making it easier for others to understand your perspective Additionally, expressions like "Do you see my point?" and "Know what I mean?" can further engage the listener and encourage a more open conversation.
E.g I’m not sure if this is right , but someone has stolen my pen
I may be mistaken, but John is travelling to Australia now
To give an end to an argument, hedges employed consist of I don’t know if this is clear at all, I should say that, Ok, so is that clear, etc
E.g I should say it‟s enough for arguing
Yule (1996) categorizes hedges into four types based on Grice's maxim: quality, quantity, relation, and manner Hedges related to quality include phrases like "As far as I know" and "I may be mistaken, but." For quantity, expressions such as "As you probably know" and "I won’t bore you with all the details, but" are used In terms of relation, one might say, "I don’t know if this is important, but" or "Not to change the subject, but." Lastly, manner hedges include phrases like "This may be a bit confusing, but" and "I’m not sure if this makes sense, but."
Besides, Prince (1982) divided hedges into two categories as approximators and shields with two more subclasses in each category
Approximators which affect the truth condition of proposition consists of adaptors and rounders
Adaptors are essential for conveying the degree of truth in a statement, using terms such as somewhat, sort of, kind of, some, a little bit, quite, and to some extent For instance, one might say, "He is an intelligent student but a little lazy," illustrating how adaptors can nuance the meaning of a proposition.
She somewhat looked at me in the meeting yesterday
(+)Rounders indicates the inexactness of terms as approximately, something around, about, roughly, essential, etc
E.g The number of students taking part in the contest is approximately two hundreds
The average mark of the test is something between five and six
Shields reflect the commitment of the speakers to the truth of propositional content Two subclasses of shields are plausibility shields and attribution shields
(+)Plausibility shields relate to the speakers‟ expression of doubtful attitude or uncertainty such as I think, I guess, I believe, I suppose, I’m afraid, I don’t see that, as far as I’ concerned, etc
E.g I guess he was the last person leaving the room
As far as I’m concerned, her plan is the most feasible
Attribution shields, such as "according to," "as is well known," and "someone suggests that," enable speakers to convey their opinions indirectly while distancing themselves from the absolute truth of their statements For instance, saying "According to his father, he left home very early in the morning" illustrates how these phrases can be used to attribute information to others, thereby reducing personal accountability for the claims made.
The price has been increased rapidly, as far as anyone knows
Hedges play a crucial role in communication, particularly in argumentative contexts Understanding the theory of hedges is essential for researchers conducting surveys Therefore, a review of previous studies on hedges constitutes the primary focus of section 1.9.
Review of previous studies
This study explores the use of hedging in arguments within a Vietnamese-American context, drawing on insights from cross-cultural communication and pragmatics The researchers conducted a minor investigation to gather relevant references and information, providing a comprehensive overview of existing studies on hedges.
The study "Hedging in Invitation Declining: A Vietnamese-American Cross-cultural Study" by Đặng Thị Kim Chung (2003) explores seven key hedging strategies used in declining invitations It identifies various factors that influence the use of hedging in this context Additionally, the author provides practical exercises and activities designed to assist teachers in effectively instructing students on the use of hedges, specifically in the context of declining invitations.
“Analysis of Grammatical Forms and Semantic Functions of Hedging in Political Discourse: American President Debate” by Rufaidah Kamal Abdul Majeed
(2010) attract the attention of many readers In this study, the American President
Debate was analyzed basing on the categories of hedges in grammatical forms and functions The detail and careful analysis of the researchers marked the valuable findings of the study
In the study "A Study on Pragmatic Functions of Hedges Applied by College English Teachers in the Class" by Jiang Hua (2011) from the School of Foreign Studies at Henan Polytechnic University, China, the author explores the pragmatic functions of hedges utilized by college English teachers This research is grounded in Prince's theory of hedge classification, highlighting the significance of hedges in enhancing communication and managing uncertainty in the classroom setting.
This study examines the use of hedges in arguments, focusing on the similarities and differences in their application within a Vietnamese-American cross-cultural context By exploring various linguistic aspects, the research aims to shed light on how hedging strategies vary across cultures in argumentative discourse.
METHODOLOGY
Research question
In this minor study, the research question raised is:
What are the similarities and differences of the use of hedges in argument by American and Vietnamese learners of English?
Subjects of the Study
The study includes two groups as participants of the survey
Thirty sophomore students from Thai Nguyen University of Information and Communication Technology, aged between 20 and 25, have been selected to participate in English class level 3 after successfully completing General English levels 1 and 2 While some students are eager to communicate effectively with native English speakers, the majority feel shy about interacting with foreigners in English.
A group of thirty native English speakers, aged 20 to 25, are currently studying at the University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign and St John's University in New York All participants in this group are American students.
Data collection instruments
The researcher will gather data for the study using a discourse completion test (DCT), a method that has been effectively employed in various research projects In this minor study, the DCT will be supplemented with a sample questionnaire to enhance data collection.
The questionnaire aims to explore the differences in hedge usage among American and Vietnamese respondents when arguing with various partners in diverse situations Tailored to the daily activities of students, the survey consists of two primary sections: the first gathers personal information such as age and gender, while the second presents three situational questions that examine how participants employ hedges in their arguments.
Situation 1: You want to travel alone in your summer holiday, but one person prevents you:“ I am not sure if this makes sense, but travelling alone is so boring”
Situation 2: You know for sure that a person‟s friend is a cheater but he/she does not believe you He/she says that “ I may be mistaken, but he is kind”
Situation 3: A person accuses you of breaking a vase because there was only you in the room: “ I guess you broke the vase”
In any argumentative situation, participants must tailor their responses based on the relationship with their communication partner, whether it's a parent, a close friend, or a classmate.
There are two versions of the questionnaire, one in English to deliver for English native speakers, and one in Vietnamese for Vietnamese students
The DCT in this research includes three different situations of arguing which are in relation to following features:
No Relative Power of the
The survey is only carried out within the scope the university, specifically among students
The relative power of the speakers: higher power between the students and their parents (+P), equal power among the students and their close friends/classmates (=P)
Social Distance: the speakers are familiar with their parents and their close friends (-D), the speakers have acquaintance with their classmates(+D)
The characterizations are useful in collecting, categorizing and analyzing the data in order to support for the purpose of the study.
Procedures
To ensure the validity and reliability of the data collection questionnaire, a pilot version was initially distributed to 10 native English speakers Their feedback and insights significantly contributed to the refinement of the DCT questionnaire.
A DCT questionnaire was administered to 50 Vietnamese students, emphasizing the importance of adapting arguments to various partners in different situations Similarly, 50 American students from the University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign and St John’s University in New York participated by providing arguments in three distinct scenarios To enhance the reliability of the findings, the researcher selected and rearranged the responses, ultimately analyzing 30 completed questionnaires from both Vietnamese and American students.
Methods of the study
This study employs a mixed-methods approach, integrating both quantitative and qualitative methods The quantitative aspect involves collecting data from respondents and analyzing relevant materials such as books, articles, and previous research In contrast, the qualitative method focuses on the context and dynamics of data collection and analysis involving study participants By combining these methodologies, the research aims to identify key elements in cross-cultural communication studies.
To effectively analyze the collected data, this research relies on a foundational classification of hedges, specifically utilizing Prince's framework from 1982.
This chapter explores the use of hedges in arguments, beginning with their realization in section 3.1 Section 3.2 analyzes the frequency of hedge usage among American and Vietnamese students Sections 3.3 and 3.4 focus on the differences in hedging based on informants' parameters and the perspectives of communicating partners Finally, section 3.5 presents a contrastive analysis that highlights the similarities and differences in hedge usage between American and Vietnamese students, drawing from the data collected.
Realization of hedges used in argument
According to Prince (1982), hedges are classified into two main categories: approximators, which include adaptors and rounders, and shields, which consist of plausibility shields and attribution shields However, research data indicates that the rounder type of hedge is not utilized by American and Vietnamese participants in this study Additionally, two other categories of hedges—expressing pessimism and hesitation—are identified Based on Prince's theory and the collected data, five distinct categories of hedges are classified.
Hedges play a crucial role in communication, allowing speakers to express uncertainty about the truth of their statements while also making their arguments more palatable to listeners Common examples in American English include phrases like "sort of," "kind of," and "a little bit," while in Vietnamese, similar expressions include "có vẻ là" and "một chút."
E.g -I think he is a little bit unfaithful
- Tớ nghĩ là anh bạn mới quen của cậu có chút xíu gì đó không trung thực
Expressions such as "I think," "I suppose," "I guess," "I don’t see that," "as far as I’m concerned," "I’m afraid," "I’m sorry that," and "seem" are commonly used in communication to convey personal opinions, uncertainties, or politeness These phrases reflect subjective viewpoints and can soften statements, making them more approachable in conversations Understanding their usage can enhance interpersonal interactions and improve clarity in expressing thoughts.
Both Vietnamese and American students frequently utilize hedging in their arguments, which reflects their personal opinions on the issues at hand rather than establishing a definitive right or wrong.
E.g - I guess you are wrong when blaming me for breaking the vase
- As far as I’m concerned, he is not good at all
- Con cho rằng bố mẹ sẽ hiểu con
- Tớ không nghĩ là đi du lịch một mình sẽ nhàm chán đâu bạn ạ
- Hình như anh ấy không phải người đáng tin cậyđâu
Attribution shields serve to convey uncertainty or speculation indirectly, reflecting the speaker's degree of confidence regarding a statement or another individual's viewpoint Common English expressions include "according to him/her," "as is well known," "it's possible to say that," and "there's a rumor about that." In Vietnamese, similar phrases such as "theo như anh ấy/cô ấy," "như được biết rõ ràng," and "người ta rất có thể nói là" fulfill the same function.
E.g - As you know, I’m always truthful, believe me
-People say he is not good
- Bạn biết mà, tớ không hề làm điều đó
- Mọi người nói là anh ta không tốt đâu
To soften the impact of disagreements, the speaker employs expressions of pessimism that convey uncertainty and doubt, while also presenting contrasting viewpoints on the argumentative issue Phrases such as "I'm not sure if this makes sense," "It may be wrong, but," and "If I may say so, I may be mistaken, but" serve to introduce these contrasting ideas effectively.
American English and tôi không chắc là điều này có ý nghĩa gì không nhưng, có thể sai nhưng, tôi có thể nhầm nhưng,… in Vietnamese
E.g - It may be wrong but he is not kind at all
- I may be mistaken but you should be careful with him
- Tớ muốn nói với bạn chuyện này, nếu có gì không phải bạn bỏ qua nhé!
- Có thể con nói sẽ làm mất lòng bố mẹ nhưng bố mẹ nên xem xét thật kỹ liệu bác ấy có tốt thật không?
In arguments, hesitation serves as a strategic tool for speakers to present their contrasting viewpoints more cautiously This form of hedging allows individuals to postpone their responses, creating a buffer in the conversation Common hedging expressions include adverbs and interjections, such as "actually," "yeah," and "um" in American English, as well as "ờ," "vậy à," and "ừm" in Vietnamese.
E.g - Well… thanks But I decide to travel alone
- Ừm…cũng thùy thôi bạn ạ Tớ sẽ cố gắng để không thấy nhàm chán.
The frequency of using hedges in argument
The study explores the use of hedges in arguments among American and Vietnamese participants, focusing on interactions with parents, close friends, and classmates Findings reveal that 80% of utterances collected from the survey employed hedges, while 20% did not A clear distinction in the use of hedges between the two cultural groups is illustrated in Table 3, highlighting significant differences in their argumentative styles.
Frequency of using hedges American students Vietnamese students
Table 3 reveals that 82% of American students and 78% of Vietnamese students use hedges in their arguments, indicating a higher tendency among Americans to employ hedges Additionally, the data shows that 21% of utterances from Vietnamese participants and 18% from American participants were made without hedges This lack of hedging is particularly evident in situation 3, where both groups are blamed for breaking a vase while arguing with close friends and classmates Therefore, it can be concluded that both American and Vietnamese respondents are less likely to use hedges when arguing with peers of equal status, especially in blame situations.
American and Vietnamese participants exhibit distinct differences in their use of hedges during arguments, as evidenced by their varying preferences for different types of hedges This disparity is visually represented in Chart 1, which illustrates the distribution of hedging categories among both groups.
Chart 1: Distribution of hedging categories in argument
Chart 1 illustrates the varied distribution of five hedge types used by informants Notably, plausibility shields are the most frequently employed, comprising 34% of the total Common expressions such as "I think" and "I guess" are favored by both English native speakers and Vietnamese Additionally, pessimism is a popular choice in arguments, representing 25% of the distribution Attribution shields also engage students in debates, accounting for 17% In contrast, adaptors and hesitation are less utilized, making up only 11% and 13%, respectively, of the overall hedge types.
The analysis of hedging categories in arguments highlights the differences in hedge usage between American and Vietnamese students This section will explore these distinctions in hedging practices, focusing on the perspectives of the informants involved.
Use of hedges as seen from informants’ parameters
This section focuses on the use of hedges from a gender perspective, analyzing the frequency of different types of hedges utilized by American and Vietnamese males and females.
Research indicates that gender differences among conversation participants significantly influence communication styles Specifically, variations in hedging techniques between males and females highlight these distinctions Notably, the study observes an equal representation of both American and Vietnamese males and females in the sample.
Figure 3: Use of hedge in argument from gender perspective
According to the data presented, Vietnamese female students employ hedges in arguments at a significantly higher rate of 91%, compared to 70% for Vietnamese male students In contrast, American students use hedges at rates of 85% for females and 78% for males This indicates a greater gender disparity among Vietnamese students than their American counterparts, reflecting cultural differences regarding gender equality Vietnamese culture, influenced by traditional Eastern norms, often places men in positions of greater power, leading women to be more cautious and deliberate in their communication Conversely, American culture exhibits less distinction in gender communication styles, although American female students still hedge more than their male peers when engaging in arguments.
The use of hedges in arguments varies significantly between American and Vietnamese students, as illustrated by the diverse types of hedges they employ Table 4 highlights these differences, showcasing the distinct categories of hedges used by each group.
Hedging categories American students Vietnamese students
Table 4: Frequency of hedging types used by American and Vietnamese informants
According to section 3.1, hedges can be categorized into five distinct types: Adaptors, Plausibility shields, Attribution shields, Expressing pessimism, and Hesitation Table 4 illustrates the varied usage of these hedge types among male and female students from both American and Vietnamese backgrounds.
The data indicates that plausibility shields are the most frequently used tactic among both American and Vietnamese informants The phrases "I think," "I suppose," and "I guess" are particularly popular hedges in arguments Specifically, 38% of American male students and 34% of American female students utilize these hedges, while 34% of Vietnamese male participants and 32% of female participants do the same Notably, male students in both groups employ plausibility shields more than their female counterparts, suggesting that male participants are more focused on expressing their opinions on controversial issues.
Table 4 reveals that expressing pessimism is a significant type of hedging, ranking second among five types utilized in arguments Notably, female students from both America and Vietnam employ hedges of expressing pessimism more frequently than their male counterparts, with American females using this type in 21% of their utterances and Vietnamese females in 28% This suggests that female respondents may exhibit a greater tendency toward pessimism compared to males.
Attribution shields rank third among five hedging categories, with 16% of American male students and 17% of female students utilizing them, compared to 15% of Vietnamese male students and 19% of female students The difference in the use of attribution shields between male and female participants is minimal, although female students tend to hedge more than their male counterparts Overall, both American and Vietnamese participants appear to aim for common ground in their arguments.
From Table 4, hedge of adaptors are least used in argument by both
Research indicates that American male and female informants exhibit less variation in their use of hedges compared to their Vietnamese counterparts As shown in Table 4, American female students generally utilize various types of hedges more frequently than males, with the exception of plausibility shields Similarly, Vietnamese male and female students show comparable usage of hedges such as adaptors, attribution shields, and expressions of pessimism However, hesitation is more commonly employed by Vietnamese male students, who use it 16% more than their female peers This tendency may stem from a cultural inclination among Vietnamese males to feign agreement before presenting contrasting opinions, employing expressions like "Ừ, ờ," to effectively manage the flow of conversation and introduce their arguments.
The use of hedges varies significantly between American and Vietnamese informants, influenced by the parameters of their communication partners These differences are evident in the types of hedges employed by each group to effectively convey their arguments and achieve their communicative goals This section explores the role of hedges in relation to the characteristics of the interlocutors involved in the conversation.
3.4 Use of hedges as seen from communicating partners’ parameters
This section highlights the five types of hedges, emphasizing their role in shaping how informants utilize hedges in their arguments, particularly in relation to the influence of various partners.
Based on the questionnaire, three distinct communicating partners in arguments have been identified: students' parents, close friends, and classmates American and Vietnamese informants express hedges differently when engaging with each partner The variation in the use of hedges by American and Vietnamese participants in their arguments with these communicating partners is clearly illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Use of hedges to different kinds of partners
The use of hedges in arguments varies between American and Vietnamese participants, particularly when addressing parents, close friends, and classmates American informants are more likely to employ hedges when arguing with their parents (94%) compared to Vietnamese participants (89%) A similar trend is observed with close friends, where 85% of Americans use hedges, while only 73% of Vietnamese do the same Conversely, Vietnamese participants tend to use hedges slightly more when arguing with classmates, at 92%, compared to 88% for their American counterparts.
American students tend to use more hedges in their communication compared to Vietnamese students In contrast, Vietnamese respondents generally avoid hedging when interacting with familiar individuals This difference in hedging behavior, particularly in discussions with parents, is clearly illustrated in Figure 5 below.
The analysis reveals that parents hold greater power in their relationships with informants, indicated by a positive power dynamic (+P) Despite this power imbalance, the informants and parents share a close bond, characterized by their familiarity and intimacy (-D).
Contrastive analysis
This section provides a summary of the similarities and differences in hedge usage between American and Vietnamese students, based on an analysis of hedging classification, frequency of hedge use, and perspectives from various communicative partners.
Plausibility shields and expressing pessimism are two types of hedges which are used at the highest rate by both American and Vietnamese students to argue with three different partners
Female informants of both groups use types of hedges as adaptors, attribution shields and expressing pessimism more frequently than male informants do
Adaptors are the least frequently used by both American and Vietnamese participants
Both American and Vietnamese parties do not hedge much in situation 3: being blamed for breaking the vase
Basing on the data analysis, there is variety of dissimilarities of hedging using by both American and Vietnamese students in argument Below is the list of differences in brief
From the gender view, Vietnamese female hedge in argument more frequently than the American However, American male use hedges with more frequent than Vietnamese male in argument
American informants utilize all five hedging categories—adaptors, plausibility shields, attribution shields, expressions of pessimism, and hesitation—when engaging in arguments with their communication partners In contrast, Vietnamese participants selectively choose specific hedging types depending on the individual they are arguing with.
In Vietnamese culture, individuals confidently engage in arguments with their parents and utilize adaptors when debating with classmates However, hesitation is primarily reserved for discussions among close friends, where it serves as a hedge in communication.
Vietnamese students tend not to say sorry to their both their close friends and their classmate, except for their parents
Statics show that Vietnamese informants are more likely to maintain the good relationship with their close friends by using more hedges of plausibility shields and hesitation
American females use hedges more frequently than American males, a trend mirrored in Vietnamese speakers, with one exception: Vietnamese males exhibit a higher tendency to use hedges of hesitation compared to their female counterparts.
Implications
Cross-cultural communication often leads to misunderstandings, particularly regarding the concepts of S and H Vietnamese individuals may encounter challenges when hedging in arguments while conversing with Americans The following insights are designed to assist Vietnamese learners of English in avoiding mistranslations during hedging, enabling more effective communication with native English speakers.
In Vietnamese communication, the familiarity between individuals significantly influences the use of hedges during arguments, with closer relationships leading to less frequent hedging In contrast, Americans tend to use hedges frequently, even with close friends Therefore, Vietnamese students are encouraged to incorporate hedges more often in discussions with intimate partners The most commonly used hedges in these contexts are plausibility shields and expressions of pessimism, which help navigate arguments effectively.
In Vietnamese culture, apologies are typically reserved for genuine mistakes, which can sometimes lead to communication breakdowns In contrast, Americans frequently use phrases like "I'm sorry" and "I'm afraid that" to express respect and maintain politeness, even in casual conversations These expressions allow speakers to convey uncertainty and present contrasting ideas without offending the listener Consequently, when engaging in discussions with native English speakers, Vietnamese learners are encouraged to incorporate these hedging expressions to enhance their communication effectiveness.
Summary
This study examines hedging in arguments through various communicative functions, categorizing hedges into five types: Adaptors, Plausibility shields, Attribution shields, Expressing pessimism, and Hesitation The classification of these hedges is crucial for data analysis Additionally, the study analyzes communication partners, including parents, close friends, and classmates, while considering factors such as gender, relative power, and social distance Ultimately, the research addresses the question of the similarities and differences in hedge usage between American and Vietnamese learners of English.
The study reveals that gender significantly influences the use of hedges in arguments, with 91% of Vietnamese and 85% of American females employing hedges, compared to 70% of Vietnamese and 78% of American males.
There are five types of hedges, with plausibility shields being the most frequently used by both Vietnamese and American parties during discussions with various partners American informants utilize all five types of hedges in their arguments, while Vietnamese participants selectively employ specific types of hedges that are appropriate for different conversational partners.
Statistics indicate that American participants use hedges more frequently in arguments compared to their Vietnamese counterparts When engaging in discussions with close relationships, such as parents and friends, Vietnamese individuals tend to rely on hedging less than Americans.
This article provides a concise analysis of the similarities and differences in hedging during arguments between Vietnamese and American students It highlights potential challenges that Vietnamese learners may face when using hedges in discussions with Americans, aiming to help them navigate these interactions effectively The article offers practical suggestions for using hedges appropriately when engaging with native English speakers Ultimately, it concludes that cultural differences significantly impact how both Vietnamese and American participants employ hedging in their arguments.
Suggestions for further Studies
This article offers valuable insights for English language teachers and learners regarding the use of hedges in arguments Additionally, it highlights potential challenges that may arise in arguments among intercultural communicators.
Further research on hedging in arguments should be conducted over an extended period and with a broader range of participants, ideally through random sampling Additionally, future studies should propose activities and solutions to assist Vietnamese students in effectively navigating hedging when engaging with native English speakers Exploring hedges in various communication contexts presents an intriguing avenue for subsequent research.
Finally, the author would be grateful for any reflecting ideas, comments, supports and criticisms from readers
Aneas, M.A.&Sandin, M.P (2009), Intercultural and Cross-Cultural
The article "Communication Research: Some Reflections about Culture and Qualitative Methods" emphasizes the significance of qualitative methods in understanding cultural dynamics within communication It highlights the work of Brown and Levison (1987), which explores the universality of politeness in language usage, underscoring the interplay between language, culture, and social interaction This research contributes valuable insights into how qualitative approaches can effectively capture the nuances of communication across diverse cultural contexts.
Carol, R and Ember, M (2002), Cultural Anthropology, Tenth Edition, Prentice
Ember, C, R & Ember, M (2002), A Basic Guide to Cross-Cultural Research
Retrieved July 2, 2012 from http://www.yale.edu/hraf/basiccc.htm
Grundy, P (200), Doing Pragmatics, Arnold, London
Gudykunst, W.B & Mody, B (2002), Handbook of International and Intercultural
Hall, E.T (1959), The Silent Language, Doubleday, New York
Holliday, A & Hyde, M & Kullman, J (2004) Intercultural communication,
Hua, J (2011), A Study on Pragmatic Functions of Hedges Applied by College
English Teachers in the Class, School of Foreign Studies, Henan Polytechnic
Hybels, S & Weaver II, R.L (1992), Communicating Effectively, McGraw- Hill,
Levison, S.C (1983), Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Lakoff, G (1972), Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concept, Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol 2
Majeed, R.K.A (2010), Analysis of Grammatical Forms and Semantic
Functions of Hedging in Political Discourse: American President Debate, College of Education for Women, Vol 21 (3)
Mehrabian, A (1981), Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes, Wadsworth, Belmont
Perelman, C & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L (1969), The new rhetoric A treatise on argumentation, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, London
Prince, E., J Frader and C Bosk (1982), „„On hedging in physician-physician discourse‟‟, in R J Di Pietro(ed.), Linguistics and the professions Proceedings of the second annual delaware symposium on language studies,
Richards, J & Platt, J & Weber, H (1992), Longman Dictionary of Language
Teaching & Applied Linguistics, Longman, London
Samovar, L.A & Porter, R.E & McDaniel, E.R (2007), Communication between
Samovar, L, A & Porter, R.E (1991), Communication between cultures,
Van, E & Grootendorst, R & Snoeck, H F et al (1996), Fundamentals of
Argumentation Theory A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments, Erlbaum, Mahwah
Yule, G (1996) Pragmatics Oxford: Oxford University Press Đặng Thị Kim Chung (2003) Hedging in Invitation Declining: A Vietnamese-
American Cross-cultural Study M.A Theis VNU-CFL, Hanoi
Nguyễn Quang (2002), Giao tiếp và giao tiếp văn hoá, Đại học Quốc Gia, Hà Nội
Võ Đại Quang (2009), Một số phương tiện biểu đạt nghĩa tình thái trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt, Đại học Quốc Gia, Hà Nội
This survey questionnaire is designed for the study entitled “A Vietnamese-
This article presents an American cross-cultural study examining the use of hedging in arguments Your participation in providing responses to the following items is highly valued Please note that all information collected will be utilized solely for research purposes.
Personal Information Please tick () where appropriate
Survey Questionnaire Below are some argumentative situations Would you please write down exactly what you would say in the normal conversation
Situation 1 : You want to travel alone in your summer holiday, but one person prevents you:
- I am not sure if this makes sense, but travelling alone is so boring
What would you say to argue with him/her?
If that person is your father/mother
If that person is your best friend
If that person is your classmate
(* ) Hedging is a way of speaking in which you use words or phrases like: I mean, I guess, I think,
Situation 2 : You know for sure that a person‟s friend is a cheater but he/she does not believe you He/she says that
- I may be mistaken, but he is kind
What would you say to argue with him/her?
If that person is your father/mother
If that person is your best friend
If that person is your classmate
Situation 3 : A person accuses you of breaking a vase because there was only you in the room:
- I guess you broke the vase
What would you say to argue with him/her?
If that person is your father/mother
If that person is your close friend
If that person is your classmate
Thank you for your co-operation!
Bảng câu hỏi này được thiết kế để thu thập dữ liệu cho nghiên cứu mang tên “Nghiên cứu giao văn hóa Việt-Mỹ về cách rào đón khi tranh luận” Chúng tôi rất mong các bạn dành thời gian để trả lời các câu hỏi trong bảng khảo sát này.
Hãy đánh dấu()vào chỗ thích hợp
Dưới đây là một số tình huống gây tranh cãi Bạn hãy cho biết bạn sẽ nói gì trong những tình huống sau?
Tình huống 1: Bạn muốn đi du lịch một mình trong kỳ nghỉ hè nhưng một ngườiđã ngăn cản bạn:
- (Tôi) không chắc là điều này có ý nghĩa gì không nhưng đi du lịch một mình rất nhàm chán
Bạn sẽ nói gì để tranh luận?
Nếu người đó là bố/mẹ của bạn
Nếu người đó là bạn thân của bạn
Nếu người đó là bạn cùng lớp
Dấu hiệu rào đón là những từ hoặc cụm từ như "tôi cho rằng", "tôi đoán/nghĩ rằng", "bằng cách này hay cách khác", "đại loại là", "kiểu như", "có thể nhầm lẫn nhưng", và "tới một mức độ nào đó" Những cụm từ này thường được sử dụng để diễn đạt sự không chắc chắn hoặc để mở đầu cho ý kiến cá nhân.