Rationale
In many species, human beings have the highest development with the use of language It is the language that made human different from the other species and put an important mark in the human‟s evolution The appearance of language helps man communicate to each other easily The more developing the society is, the more complicated the language is
In the trend of globalization, all countries together would like to be loyal friends and potential partners not only in economy but also such other field as cultures and politics It is the opening-policy applied by many governments that stimulates the exchanging and studies different cultures which has been increased promptly Hence, cross-cultural communication attracts more and more attentions and the studies of the linguists As the world has been so far changing, it is extremely essential to do researches on how people from different cultures communicate to each other
Therefore, there have been plenty of studies on cultural diversities as well as the differences between cultures Language is indispensable factor affecting the intercultural communication Language is used to communicate but how to get a successful conversation concerns with different elements, for instance, the topic of the conversation, the mutually interesting connections among the speakers and the hearers, the understanding of each other Obviously, argument is unavoidable in communication The participants of the conversation, especially those in familiar relationship are at a high rate of having conflict in every communicating Actually, the struggle may be developed to be a debate or a strong disagreement through the conversation However, as considered to be the most intelligent living creatures, human know how to put an end to a debate That is when hedge is employed as a useful means of communicating
Actually, variety of researches on hedging has been carried out before
Hedging, however, is still a broad issue that needs further exploration Therefore, hedging in argument is chosen for the research In this minor study – A Vietnamese-
American Cross-Cutural Study on the Use of Heding in Argument - the basic emphasis is on comparing Vietnamese and American cultures on using hedges to argue, with the hope to pay contribution on the string of hedging studies.
Aims of the Study
The aim of the study is to find out the similarities and differences of using hedges in English and Vietnamese At that time, the study examines whether cultures affect the way of using hedges in argument by the American and Vietnamese In addition, the paper wishes to help Vietnamese students avoid potential conflicts in cross-cultural communication when argue with English native speakers.
Scope of the Study
The study is only confined the area of verbal communication, potential problems in communication by both American and Vietnamese The data analysis of how participants of the study use hedges in argument is mainly done using the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods
The study mainly concentrates on the relations of student-student communication including Vietnamese and American students The situations of the questionnaire are issues between the students and their parents and friends.
Design of the Study
Communication
Obviously, human always interact to each other by various means Without communication, it is extremely difficult for man to share ideas, information, and other complicates feelings Human can communicate to each other in a various channels such as language, signs, writing, or behavior Yet, language is not the unique tools for man to express their thoughts and opinions Consequently, the question raised is that “What is communication?”
Hybels & Weaver II claimed that communication is “the process of sharing information, ideas and feelings” (1992:5) This process concerns with a sender and a recipient who are sharing and exchanging of messages The recipient, of course, need not to be present of the sender‟s intention at the time of communication
However, communication requires both participants to share the commonality In another word, one of the most important factors leading the success of communicating is the mutual understanding of the sender and addressee who share the shame custom and culture
In a communication process, it takes into accounts the elements of communication It is assumed that the communication consist of such elements as sender – receiver, message, channels, feedback, noise and setting of the communication (Hybels & Weaver II, 1992) From the figure 1, it certainly shows that sender- receivers are those who get involved in communication The ideas and feelings shared by a sender- receiver is called message, and feedback is the response of the receiver- senders to each other Channels are the means which used to share massage including sound, sight, verbal and non-verbal signals The figure also points that the interference that keeps a massage from being understood or accurately interpreted – the noise Setting is defined as where the communication occurs
Figure 1: Elements of Commnunication (Hybels & Weaver II, 1992:7-10) From the figure, it can be shown that there exist different channels of commnunication which is consisted of verbal and non- verbal communication
Verbal communication is one way for people to interact to each other by different means such as sounds, words and language Verbal communication, itself, refers to the transform the message and feedback of both senders and recipients
Language, as a result, is a useful means for participants in communication to express their thoughts, ideas, and especially feelings Words, or sentences themselves cannot be messages in communication without the participants‟ emotion and attitudes It is likely that the purpose of using verbal communication is to
Setting Channel Message- feedback inform, inquire, argue, and discuss topics of all kinds, and so on However, there has been variety of challenges in verbal communication Misunderstandings and language barriers appear to be attracted the most solutions even the senders and receivers face–to- face communicate and share the common language and culture
Anglicist, especially Americans, can have problems when talking to each other because of differences For instance, New Yorkers tend to faster and respond more quickly (“high involvement”) than Californians (“high considerateness”) To some New Yorkers, Californians seem slower, less intelligent and not as responsive To some Californians, New Yorkers seem pushy and domineering (Nguyen Quang, 1998:40).Levels in verbal communication are mainly divided into interpersonal communication and public speaking Additionally, verbal communication belongs to the intralanguage which takes grammar, lexis, phonetics, rules of language use and etc into account Hence, it seems certain that study verbal communication is the study of the skeleton of language paralleling with the cultural patterns of the target language and the comparative language
Besides verbal communication, one indispensable channel of communicating is non-verbal communication It can be claimed that the participants of communication process, means, message – feedback and setting of non-verbal communication is larger and wider-spread than verbal one Dislike the using of language as verbal communication to have interaction with others, non-verbal communication is performed without speaking words
In his research, Albert Mehrabian (1981) draws the conclusion of the effectives of a massage in communication Specifically, the intralanguage and paralanguage only occupies in turn 7% and 38% of the effectiveness while the extralanguage or non-verbal communication takes up to 55% of total effectiveness of a massage Consequently, non-verbal communication plays an extremely important role of the success of relaying message in communication Non-verbal communication or “silent” communication includes the use of gestures, facial expressions, eye contact and conversational distance (Nguyen Quang, 1998: 61)
The movement of the body or part of the body is defined as gesture In fact, the movement of hands is the most popular part of gesture Gesture, facial expression, eye contact and conversational distance have distinctive features belonging to different cultures
Obviously, both verbal and non-verbal communication plays an extremely important role in the ways people of different cultures interacting to each other, even those who share the same communicative commonality.
Culture
Every country has its own customs, tradition of ceremonies, and cultures In term of cultural communication, culture is understood as the values, belief, attitudes, which are considered as the hidden part of iceberg (Nguyen Quang, 1998:3) The informal and hidden pattern of human interaction of one culture is not always shown clearly Therefore, studying the relationship between culture and communication becomes more important not only to help one to find out the characteristics of one‟s culture, but also the effects of others‟ culture on his ways of communication
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 writers explained that the shared interpretation mentions to cultures existing in people‟s minds When the communication takes place, the meanings of symbols on ones‟ mind are shared with other people, which form the basis for culture However, there exist symbols only shared to a few, and not all people are aware of the same symbols Similarly, Nguyen Quang (1998) suggested that the cultural differences are obvious phenomenon, and “what is appropriate in one culture may be inappropriate in another culture” According to Hybels & Weaver II (199:27), beliefs refer to “the basic understanding of a group of people about what the world is like or what is true or false” Values mention to what is good or bad or what is regarded as important defined by a group of people in sharing their culture The rules for appropriate behavior which provide the expectations of the participants in communication process are defined as norms Social practices are the predictable behaviour patterns that are followed by members of a culture Hall (1959) defined culture as the sum of people‟s behaviour patterns, attitudes and material things In addition, culture is also made definition as the values, beliefs, orientations, and underlying assumptions of those in one society (Samovar, Porter, & McDaniel, 2007:20) Below is the point of view of culture shown by Holliday (2004:4) He classified the culture basing on essentialist and non-essentialist view with three categories as 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
Of all the ideas of linguists, it can be drawn that culture and communication have a crucial relation, in which culture has strong effect on the ways people communicate from coast to coast This is raised the problems of cross-cultural communication.
Cross-cultural communication
The communication nowadays is not limited among those who share the same belief, norm, values and so on The development of the modern society creates the need of exchanging and communicating of people from different cultures
Hence, intercultural communication appears as a useful means of communication
The differences between intercultural communication and cross-cultural communication have been studied Intercultural communication is defined as
“interaction between people whose cultural assumptions are distinct enough to alter the communication event” (Samovar, Porter, &McDaniel, 2007:10) In other words, intercultural communication focuses on “sharing of meanings” across cultures while the cross-cultural communication concentrates on the comparison of communication styles Specifically, “intercultural communication occurs whenever a message is produced by a member of one culture for consumption by a member of another culture, a message must be understood” ( Samovar and Porter, 1991:10) On the other hands, it is assumed that the process of exchanging, negotiating, and mediating one‟s cultural in non-verbal gestures, and relationships is defined as cross-cultural communication Seeking of similarities and differences between cultures is the basis of cross-cultural communication Consequently, intercultural communication involves face-to-face communication between people from different cultures while cross-cultural communication involves comparison of face-to-face communication (Gudykunst & Mody, 2002)
Generally, communicating to people whose beliefs, norms, and values culturally different from ours easily leads to misunderstandings In other words, that is when we communicate across cultural boundaries The misinterpreting can develop to cultural conflict or can cause cultural shock to everyone, especially those who are inexperienced in cross-cultural communication Therefore, problems are easy to occur in cross-cultural communication The following section refers to potential problems in commnunication across cultures.
Potential problems in cross-cultural verbal communication
Communicating among people who share the same culture, belief, norms, and values still conceal itself problems The participants of the conversation cannot solve the problems themselves, and even lead to an argument or struggle
Consequently, there have been existing problems in cross-cultural communication
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
To study the directness and indirectness speech acts, Nguyen Quang (2004:202) carried out a case study by one Request-Reason conversation in both Vietnamese and English 112 Vietnamese learners of English and 26 American and
8 Australian were requested to read the conversation and give feedback and comments Most Vietnamese students agree with the indirect way of the researcher in the conversation to make the offer more acceptable In contrast, the American and Australian assume that it is not necessary to talk around such as talking about the weather, the elder people, and their health They all directly come to the communicative point without adding any more reasons guiding to the point as follow
- Excuse me, sir Could I have 3 days off please? My mother’s ill, you know
Another problem in cross-cultural communication is that “the judgements that people make about regional differences within a country are similar to those they make about people from another culture” (Nguyen Quang, 1998:40)
Consequently, misunderstanding and argumentation is easier to appear between those of different cultures Hence, there have been varieties of cross-cultural communication studies that do research to find out the solutions and suggest advices for communicators to be successful in communicating to people from different cultures.
Cross-cultural study
Obviously, the study of cross-cultural communication plays an important role in study of linguistics and cultural studies Cross-cultural study, itself, examines the human behaviour, belief, and attitudes, and so on cross cultures Carol
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 background knowledge of theories in cross-cultural communication study suggested by Ember, C & M (2002) consists of the detailed description of culture in which a particular community sharing that culture written by a professional social scientist In classification part, the writer preferred to assign each document with coding Then, each category should be included a brief descriptive statement, indicating the range of information
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, C & M, 2002:2) The authors suggested that firstly, the one has to define clearly what the problem to study in term of foci is Comparing communities is not the only the approach of cultural comparison, but the focus on the people, the specific communicative commonality shared in that community The second question concentrates on the coherence and decoherence within that foci Making a comparison is to find out the correlation and uncorrelated features of the two cultures which can apply suitably in the foci of the study
Aneas (2009) suggested that the data collection and analysis of a cross- cultural communication essentially base on the certain situations with participants of the study In other words, the researcher plays an extremely important role in carrying out the research, gathering and analyzing the data, recording and conveying the message in interaction between those who are culturally different
It cannot be denied that the study of cross-cultural communication has been strongly developed since “The silent language” by Hall (1959) was published
Nowadays, the world is changeable, the way people interact to each other, consequently, is not the same as it was Therefore, studying the events and phenomena all over the world attached with cultures and communication helps researchers themselves clearly understand the distinctive features of the customs, cultures that differ from their own culture
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
Politeness, in this paper, is discussed from the point of the view of linguistics and in close relation with cultures and communication It is a number of principles for being polite in communication, especially when interact to a particular culture
According to Richards (1992:81), politeness is how languages express the social distance between their speakers and their different role relationship In addition, politeness refers to how face work, in which the attempt to establish, maintain and save face during conversation is carried out in a speech community The following sub-section presents face and politeness strategies
Studying politeness, many linguists suggested that in conversation, the politeness related the face of the speakers and the hearers Face is “the public self– image that every member wants to claim for himself” (Brown & Levinson, 1987)
In other words, the expectation of being respected their self-image in the public of people is face want Face is consistently at risk of possibly losing in communication Yule (1996:61) also pointed that
A person’s negative face is the need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others, and a person’s positive face is the need to be accepted, even liked, by others, to be treated as a member of the same group, and to know that his or her wants are shared by others
Both negative and positive faces require the maintenance, respect and sharing in communication However, the possibility of threatening, imposing or even losing face is at high rate Politeness which is responsible for enhancing, maintaining and protecting face provide politeness strategies to reduce face threatening act
Figure 2: Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown & Levison, 1987) Basing on this, Brown and Levinson outlined the politeness strategies including four types: bald on record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and off-record or indirect strategy (Brown & Levinson, 1987:69) Bald on record strategy is most often utilized by speakers who closely know their audience
E.g Do the dishes It’s your turn or Give me those!
Positive politeness strategy which is applied in positive face attempts to minimize the threat to the hearer's positive face and satisfy his/her want Positive politeness tends to show solidarity, emphasies that participants have common goal in conversation so it is most commonly used in situations where the audience knows each other fairly well
+ 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 standing for negative face presumes that the speaker will be imposing on the listener, even apologizing for imposition or interruption Negative politeness concerns not to impose on others or restrict their freedom, but maintain distance
+ 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
In short, politeness strategies play a fundamental in communication Different acts of speech require different politeness strategies In interaction, arguing is unavoidable if the participants do not meet the common communicative point The following sections will discuss this issue.
Argument
Argument is one of the focal points of this study Van (1996) defines argument as follow:
Argumentation is a verbal and social activity of reason aimed at increasing (or decreasing) the acceptability of a controversial standpoint for the listener or reader, by putting forward a constellation of propositions intended to justify (or refute) the standpoint before a rational judge
In this definition, the writer clearly shows what argumentation is and what characteristics of argumentation are Obviously, argumentation is a verbal activity which occurs mostly in communication In other words, argument is a form of verbal communication which may appear in intercultural communication
Van (1996) pointed that argumentation is a social activity which involves two or more participants in the conversation responding the claim or supporting a claim with evidence It is also an activity of reason in which the speakers aim to support for the claim The goal of argumentation is to justify one‟s standpoint or to refute someone else‟s In addition, argument consists of controversial issues
Arguing is, of course, persuasive and contested When having arguments, the relationships among participants are stimulated in communication This is reflected by the high rate of arguing in conversations in everyday life
Arguments between participants of the conversation help themselves clearly solve the problem or find out a new point However, the participants‟ speech act in argumentation is different from one to another, from coast to coast and from different cultures To gain their point in arguing, naturally, the participants attempt to use flexibly techniques, especially politeness strategies Perelman (1969) suggested three techniques in arguing as quasi-logical techniques, techniques structuring reality, and techniques of dissociation Quasi-logical techniques involve the argument ofthe string of problems happening logically A sufficient agreement is the starting point of further persuasion or arguments is the technique basing on the structure of reality Techniques of dissociation aim to qualify apparent point to reality
Argument activities between students about their daily life happen variously
It can be an argument among students about a classmate‟s new coat, hairstyle, and bags and so on Aggression such as teasing, insulting, swearing may appear This may develop as conflicts in cross-cultural communication Hence, useful strategies for argumentation, including calming oneself, showing respect to each other in communication and finding out the best solution or method to satisfy all are suggested Additionally, tips of controlling the one‟s emotion, finding the common ideas between participants and modesty are considered best techniques applied in argument
Generally, such suggestions for strategies implemented in argumentation base on politeness strategies with the aim to save face of the interlocutor One effective strategy employed much in communication as well as in argumentation is hedges In discussing politeness strategies in communication, Nguyen Quang (2004) listed various forms of hedges which are employed in politeness strategies The following section reviews theories of hedges.
Hedges and Use of hedges in argument
Studies show that two main approaches about hedges have been discussed so far Lakoff (1972) paid attention on the logical properties of words and phrases In term of semantic analysis, he argues hedges as words whose function is to make meaning fuzzier or less fuzzy (e.g sort of) Lakoff (1972:195) defined hedges as follows:
For me, some of the most interesting questions are raised by the study of words whose meaning implicitly involves fuzziness-words whose job it is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy I will refer to such words as ‘hedges’
Besides, hedging has been view from the perspective of pragmatics In discussing cooperative principle in conversation, Yule (1996:37) assumed that
“there are certain kinds of expressions speakers use to mark that they may be in danger of not fully adhering to the principles These kinds of expression are called hedges”
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 &
…a particle, word or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase in a set; it says of that membership that it is partial, or true only in certain respects, or that it is more true or complete than might be expected
Brown & Levison (1987) suggested that hedges can act as one of the politeness strategies in communication According to the linguists, communicative functions of hedges are to strengthen or weaken the statement as well as to soften complaints, requests and commands
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
In short, saving face for the other is crucial role of hedge in communication in general and in argumentation in particular Consequently, hedging is considered as a politeness strategy from the perspective of pragmatics
In argument, hedges are used variously Such expressions of hedges as If I may say so, As you probably know, This may be a bit confused are normally employed to propose an argument
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?
To express disagreements, hedges like I’m not sure if this is right, I may be mistaken, I'm not sure if this makes sense, Do you see my point, Know what I mean, and so on are often applied
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
In term of hedging classification, Yule (1996:38) divided hedges into four categories towards Grice‟s maxim of quality (e.g As far as I know, I may be mistaken but, I guess…), quantity (e.g As you probably know, I won’t bore you with all the details but,…), relation (e.g I don’t know if this is important but, Not to change the subject but, ), and manner (e.g This maybe a bit confused but, I’m not sure if this makes sense but, I don’t know if this is clear at all,…)
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 help to express the degree of the truth of proposition, for example somewhat, sort of, kind of, some, a little bit, quite, to some extent, etc
E.g He is an intelligent student but a little lazy
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 include according to, as is well known, someone suggests that, the possibility will be, etc These will help the speakers express their attitude indirectly and avoid taking the responsibility of the truth of the message
E.g According to his father, he left home very early in the morning
The price has been increased rapidly, as far as anyone knows
Generally, hedge with its functions and forms play an important role in communicating, especially in argumentation The theory of hedges will help researchers a lot in carrying out the survey Hence, review of previous studies about hedges is the main content of section 1.9.
Review of previous studies
Inspired of hedges in cross-cultural communication and pragmatics, the researchers put an effort to do this minor study A Vietnamese-American Cross- Cutural Study on the Use of Heding in Argument Together with collecting related references and information, the writer had an overview of different studies of hedges
An overview of the study “Hedging in Invitation Declining: A Vietnamese- American Cross-cultural Study” by Đặng Thị Kim Chung (2003) is made In this paper, seven main hedging strategies in invitation declining were found Besides, factors affecting hedging were also listed Moreover, the writer suggested several exercises and activities as a guide for teachers to teach hedges in general and in invitation declining in particular
“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
“A Study on Pragmatic Functions of Hedges Applied by College English Teachers in the Class” by Jiang Hua (2011) from School of Foreign Studies, Henan Polytechnic University, China suggested pragmatic functions of hedges in College English class basing on Prince‟s theory of classification of hedges
Obviously, hedges have been explored in many aspects of language as well as in different fields of linguist In this minor study A Vietnamese-American Cross- Cutural Study on the Use of Heding in Argument, the similarities and dissimilarities of using hedges in argument will be the focus point.
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 Vietnamese students of ThaiNguyen University of Information and Communication Technology are chosen who are in different majors They are all sophomore who passed the two first exams of General English level 1 and 2, and now they are all taking part in English class level 3 Some of them are excited about communicating with English native speakers quite well, but most of them are often shy to interact to foreigners in English Their age ranges from 20 to 25
Anther group is thirty native English speakers who are studying at University ofIllinois - Urbana-Champaign, and St John‟s University, New York Their age is between 20 and 25 They are all American students.
Data collection instruments
To collect the data for the study, the researcher will utilize a discourse completion test (DCT) which has been applied in variety of studies In this minor study, DCT is accompanied by sample of the questionnaire
The aim of the questionnaire is to find out the differences in using hedges to argue with different partners in different situations by both American and Vietnamese respondents The questionnaire is designed basing on daily activities of students The survey questionnaire consists of two main parts The first is about personal information of age, and gender The second includes three questions of different situations in which participants use hedges to argue with different partners
Situations of the questionnaire are shown as follow:
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 each situation of argumentation, the participants are required to give the response to the communicating partner if the partner is their father/mother, their close friend, or their 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
In order to ensure that the questionnaire used to collect data was valid and reliable, a pilot questionnaire was, firstly, delivered to 10 native English speakers
The feedback and comments on the validity and reliability of these English speakers made a contribution on modifying the DCT questionnaire
Then, the resulting DCT questionnaire was conducted on 50 Vietnamese students It was important to explain students to argue differently to different partners in each situation 50 American students at University of Illinois - Urbana- Champaign, and St John‟s University, New York were required to fill in arguments in three situations For a more reliable result, the investigator re-arranged and made a choice of 30 questionnaires completed by Vietnamese students and 30 ones finished by American students.
Methods of the study
The main method of this study is the combination of quantitative method and qualitative method Quantitative method involves the gathering data from the respondents It also refers to relevant materials such as books, articles, website, and the review of previous studies It is assumed that the characterizations of qualitative research applied in cross-cultural communication study can help the researcher find a number key of elements to consider Qualitative method refers to the statics of the data collection and analysis basing on certain situations with participants of the study Hence, both qualitative and quantitative methods are employed in this paper
To analyze the collected data, the research has to base on the foundation of the study – classification of hedges In this thesis, hedging classification is based on the framework of Prince (1982)
This chapter discusses the realization of hedges used in argument in section 3.1 The frequency of using hedges by both American and Vietnamese students is analyzed in section 3.2 The differences in hedging to argue is seen as informants‟ parameters and from communicating partners‟ parameter are the focus of section 3.3 and 3.4 Basing on analyzing data, a contrastive analysis is made in 3.5 to show the differences and similarities of using hedges by American and Vietnamese students.
Realization of hedges used in argument
According to Prince (1982), there are two classes and two more subclasses of hedges It consists of approximators (adaptors and rounders) and shields (plausibility shields and attribution shields).However, the data collection of the research figures out that the type of hedge – rounders – is not employed in this study by both American and Vietnamese participants Moreover, there exist two more categories of hedges as expressing pessimism and hesitation Adapting from the theory of Prince (1982) and basing on data collection, five categories of hedges are classified as follow:
This kind of hedge helps S argues when they are uncertain about the truth of the utterances as well as to make their arguments easier to be accepted by the H
Expressions popular in this category are sort of, kind of, a little bit,… in American English and có vẻ là, một chút,…in Vietnamese
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
Statistically, expressions 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, seem…(Tôi nghĩ rằng, tôi cho rằng, tôi không thấy vậy, như tôi đã nói, tôi e rằng, tôi lấy làm tiếc là, dường như,…in
Vietnamese) are most employed in arguments by both Vietnamese and American students This kind of hedge does not involve the right or wrong of the terms but reflect the S‟ own opinions to the argumentative problems
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 are used to express the S‟ attitude of doubt or guess in an indirect way This type of hedges attributes to the degree of certainty towards the proposition or another party Such expressions are according to him/her, as is well known, as you know, the possibility will be, It’s possible to say that, one may well say that, they say, there’s a rumour about that, etc in English and theo như anh ấy/cô ấy, nhưđược biết rõ ràng, như anh/chị biết đấy, có khả năng là, người ta rất có thể nói là, họ bảo là, quan đây có tin đồn là, in Vietnamese
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 mitigate the force of arguing on the H, the S explores the pessimism to express the uncertain and doubtful attitude as well as to give the S‟ contrastive ideas about the argumentative matter Such expressions are I’m not sure if this makes senses but, It may be wrong but, If I may say so, I may be mistaken but,…in
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 argument, hesitation helps the S to start giving their contrastive points of the matter safely In other words, this type of hedges is one of tactics to delay giving responses of the S This type of hedge includes adverbs and interjections as well, actually, yeah,…in American English and ờ, vậy à, ừm, …
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
With three different situations in argument which are popular in everyday life, the informants of the studies have to argue with three different partners as their parents, their close friends, and their classmates 80% utterances collected from the survey questionnaire are applied hedges in the way of argument 20% utterances without hedges are produced by American and Vietnamese participants in argument The differences in using and disusing hedges in argument by American and Vietnamese participants are clearly shown in Table 3
Frequency of using hedges American students Vietnamese students
Table 3: Frequency of using hedges in argument Table 3 shows that 82% American students use hedges in argument The number of Vietnamese participants of the study hedge in argument is 78% respectively It can be noted that the use of hedges by American group is bigger than that of Vietnamese group Besides, from the table, it can be estimated 21% and 18% is the number of utterances without hedges produced by both Vietnamese and American informants The reason for this is that both American and Vietnamese students do not employ hedges much in situation 3: being blamed for breaking the vase This happens when the two groups of participants argue with their close friends and classmates Consequently, it can be concluded that when being blamed, American and Vietnamese respondents tend to argue without hedging especially with those who are equal in power in communication
In general, there exist differences in using hedges in argument by American and Vietnamese participants This is seen from the choices of different hedges‟ types by both groups of participants The distribution of hedging categories is clearly shown in Chart 1
Chart 1: Distribution of hedging categories in argument
As can be seen from Chart 1, the distribution of five types of hedges is different It clearly shows that plausibility shields, which account for 34%, are employed most by informants Studies shows that I think, I guess,… are most popular expressions hedging by both English native speakers and Vietnamese
Besides, expressing pessimism is also preferred to use in arguing, which take up to 25% of the distribution Attribution shields attract students to argue with 17% From the chart, it can be calculated that adaptors and hesitation are less popular than other types of hedges in argument; they in turn take up only 11% and 13% in the distribution of hedges‟ types
In brief, the distribution of hedging categories in argument reveals the dissimilarity in using hedges by American and Vietnamese students Hence, the difference in hedging using which is seen from the view of informants‟ parameters is going to be discussed in the following section.
Use of hedges as seen from informants’ parameters
In this section, the discussion of the use of hedges is the focus point Hedge using is viewed from the gender perspective Additionally, the frequency of each type of hedges used by both American and Vietnamese males and females is going to be analyzed in detail
Previous studies claim that the difference of gender of the participants in conversation affects the way people communicate In argument, the ways of hedging by male and female is clearly shown from gender perspective It can be noted that the number of male and female of both American and Vietnamese is equal
Figure 3: Use of hedge in argument from gender perspective
It can be seen in Figure 3, Vietnamese female students applying hedges in argument the most with 91%, while only 70% Vietnamese male use hedges The numbers of American female and male students using hedges to argue are 85% and 78% respectively It can be concluded that dissimilarity between Vietnamese male and female students is bigger than that of the Americans This belongs to the difference of the two cultures which stipulates the equality of men and woman
Vietnamese culture is affected much by cultures of the Orient in which men have more power and privileges than women Hence, the women normal pay more attention to their words and are cautious of communicating to each other That is there is little distinction in gender of American culture Besides, the figure shows that American female students tend to hedge less than Vietnamese ones However, they still are more cautious to argue with their partners than American male naturally
The difference of using hedges in argument is clearly shown through different types of hedges employed by both American and Vietnamese students
Table 4 clearly shows the dissimilarity of using different categories of hedges
Hedging categories American students Vietnamese students
Table 4: Frequency of hedging types used by American and Vietnamese informants
As classified in section 3.1, five different categories of hedges are: Adaptors, Plausibility shields, Attribution shields, Expressing pessimism and Hesitation
Table 4 shows the different use of each type of hedges argued by both American and Vietnamese male and female students
It can be seen from the table that plausibility shields are the tactic that applied most by both groups of informants As mentioned above I think, I suppose, I guess (Con nghĩ rằng, tớ cho rằng, mình đoán là) are the most popular hedges used to argue It is clearly shown in the table that the number of American male and female students employ plausibility shields is 38% and 34% respectively Also, 34% and 32% shows the number of utterances applied this type of hedges by Vietnamese male and female participants It can be noted that American and Vietnamese male students apply this type of hedge in argument more than female of both groups The explanation can be that male participants of both groups concern with giving their opinions of the controversial problems
From Table 4, it can be calculated that expressing pessimism is one type that attracts informants in hedging This type ranks at the second position in the five types of hedges used in argument It is clearly shown that female students of both America and Vietnam employ more hedges of expressing pessimism to argue than male students The numbers of utterances applied this type of hedges by American and Vietnamese female account for 21% and 28% respectively It can be inferred that female respondents tend to be more pessimistic than male ones
As shown in the table, attribution shields rank at the third position in the total of five hedging categories The number of American male and female students employ attribution shields is 16% and 17% respectively, and that is and 15% and 19% of Vietnamese male and female participants The dissimilarity of using attribution shields between male and female of both sides is not much Naturally, female students hedge more than male ones do It can be concluded that in argument, American and Vietnamese participants try to seek the common point of the interlocutors
From Table 4, hedge of adaptors are least used in argument by both
American and Vietnamese males and females Additionally, it can be noted that the dissimilarity of American male and female informants in using different each type of hedge to argue is not as big as the Vietnamese ones We can see from Table 4, American female students, normally, employ each type of hedges in the high rate than male ones, except for plausibility shields This appears the same to Vietnamese male and female students with types of hedges as adaptors, attribution shields and expressing pessimism Hesitation, on the contrary, is preferred to use by Vietnamese male informants than Vietnamese female It is calculated that 16% Vietnamese male students apply hesitation more than 10% female do The explanation for this can be that Vietnamese male students only pretend to agree with the interlocutor‟s point, and then they give their contrastive ideas immediately Ừ, ờ,…are expressions which is seen as good tactic to delay the participant‟s excitement of arguing as well as giving one‟s own argumentative points
Generally, there are differences in the use of hedge which can be seen from informant‟s parameters To different interlocutors, American and Vietnamese informants applied different types of hedges to argue to gain the communicative point The section below discusses the use of hedges in the view of communicating partner‟s parameters
3.4 Use of hedges as seen from communicating partners’ parameters
In this section the five types of hedges are again the focus point to paralleling with the analysis of different role of partners who affect the way the informants‟ using hedges to argue a lot
Basing on the questionnaire, it can be estimated that there exist three different communicating partners in arguments as students‟ parents, close friend class mate To each partner in communication, the informants of both American and Vietnamese express hedges differently The distribution of hedges used to argue with each communicating partner by American and Vietnamese participants is clearly shown in Figure 4
Figure 4: Use of hedges to different kinds of partners
As shown in Figure 4, the use of hedges to parents, close friend and classmate of American participants is different from that of Vietnamese ones It can be calculated that American informants hedge to argue with their parents more than Vietnamese group (94% and 89%) It appears the same to close friend 85%
American employ hedges to argue with their close friend, and only 73% Vietnamese hedge to those who are in intimate relationship However, Vietnamese participants use little more hedges to argue with classmate than American ones (92% and 88%)
It can be inferred that American students employ more hedges to different partners than Vietnamese students Besides, Vietnamese respondents tend not to hedge much to those who are familiar with them Consequently, the dissimilarity in using hedges to argue with participants‟ parents by both the American and Vietnamese is clearly shown in Figure 5 below
In the analysis of relationship between the informants and the parents, it is shown that the communicating partners as parents have higher power than the informant (+P) However, they are familiar with each other because of their intimate relationship (-D)
Contrastive analysis
Basing on the analysis of hedging classification, the frequency of hedge using and the use of hedges as seen from different communicating partners, the similarities and differences of using hedges in argument by American and Vietnamese students are briefly summarized in this section
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
In terms of hedging categories, American informants employ all five types of hedges to argue with communicating partners as adaptors, plausibility shields, attribution shields, expressing pessimism and hesitation Meanwhile, Vietnamese participants make a choice of hedging types to argue with each communicating partner
In terms of communicating partners, the Vietnamese do not use hesitation to argue with their parents, and adaptors to argue with their classmates Hesitation is type of hedge that Vietnamese informants employ much in arguing with their close friends only
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 apply five types of hedges in the higher rate than American male It is the same as Vietnamese female and male except hesitation
Vietnamese male tend to employ more hedges of hesitation than Vietnamese female.
Implications
In cross-cultural communication, there are many reasons causing the misunderstanding of the S and the H Hedging in arguments consists of potential problems that Vietnamese may face when communicating to American people
These implications shown below are aimed to help Vietnamese learners of English avoid mistranslating when hedging to argue with English native speakers
The more familiar people are, the less frequency of hedges using to argue in Vietnamese The intimacy between the Vietnamese students and their partners in argument determines the frequency of hedges in communication However, the American still hedge very frequently to their interlocutors, even their close friends
Hence, Vietnamese students should employ hedges in argument frequently to those who are intimate Plausibility shields and expressing pessimism are the most popular types of hedges used to argue with such communicating partners
Traditionally, Vietnamese people hardly say sorry to others, except for mistakes This may lead the communication break-down As the American tend to say sorry very often to all their communicating partners to show respect, even those who are intimate Such expressions as I’m afraid that, I’m sorry but seem to be used widely by American These expression helps the S give their doubtful attitude and give the contrastive ideas of the problem without threatening the H‟s face
Therefore, when arguing with English native speakers, Vietnamese learners should hedge such expressions above.
Summary
In this study, hedging in arguments has been seen from the communicative functions Basing on the theory and the data collection, five categories of hedges are classified as Adaptors, Plausibility shields, Attribution shields, Expressing pessimism and Hesitation The classification of hedges plays an extremely important role in the data analysis of the research Additionally, the communicating partner consisting of parents, close friend, and classmate is another category to analyze the data Such factors as gender, relative power, social distance among the informants and their partners in arguments have been explored Generally, the result of the study gives the answer for the research question What are the similarities and differences of the use of hedges in argument by American and Vietnamese learners of English?
The result of the study shows that gender decides the use of hedges It is concluded that 91% and 85% of Vietnamese and American female hedge in arguments, while the number of Vietnamese and American male is 70% and 78%
In total of five types of hedges, the most popular type used is plausibility shields in which I think, I guess, I mean, I suppose (Tôi nghĩ rằng, tôi cho rằng) appear with the high rate of frequency by both Vietnamese and America parties to argue with three different partners It is concluded that American informants employ all five types of hedges to argue with communicating partners However, Vietnamese participants use certain types of hedges to argue suitably to different partners
Statics show that, in argument, American participants employ hedges to three different partners of communication more frequently than Vietnamese participants do Arguing with those who have intimate relationship as parents and close friends, Vietnamese informants tend to hedge less than American ones
The similarities and differences are brief summarized with the aim to give the remarkable analysis of the study Consequently, potential problems that may occur between Vietnamese students and American ones when hedging to argue are also discussed The purpose is to help Vietnamese learners of English avoid getting troubles when use hedge to argue with the American Suggestions of using hedges when arguing with English native speakers were made for Vietnamese students To sum up, distinctive features of culture have influence on the use of hedges in argument by both groups of participants.
Suggestions for further Studies
This paper, to some extent, makes benefit for English language teachers and learners in using hedges in argument Moreover, the thesis suggests possible problems that may appear in argument among intercultural communicators
It is suggested that further study of hedging in arguments should be carry out for a longer span of time and in a wider scope of the participants Moreover, it is better to carry out on the survey on participants randomly Further studies should involve suggestions of activities as well as solutions to help Vietnamese students avoid problems in hedging to argue with English native speakers Studying hedges in different situations of communication is interesting ideas for the next study
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
Communication Research: Some Reflections about Culture and Qualitative Methods, Volume 10, No 1, Art 51 Retrieved June 10, 2012 from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1251/2738 Brown, P & Levison, S.C (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
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-
American Cross-Cutural Study on the Use of Hedging ( * ) in Argument” Your co- operation of giving responses to the following items is greatly appreciated All information will be used only for the purpose of this research
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 điều tra này nhằm thu thập dữ liệu cho nghiên cứu với đề tài: “Nghiên cứu giao văn hóa Việt-Mỹ về cách rào đón ( * ) khi tranh luận” Xin các bạn vui lòng dành thời gian trả lời câu hỏi trong bảng điều tra
THÔNG TIN CÁ NHÂN Hãy đánh dấu()vào chỗ thích hợp
CÂU HỎI KHẢO SÁT 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, tới một mức độ nào đó… đựợc sử