REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
E XPLORING THE C ONCEPT OF H EDGING
In our life, if there is something unpleasant or unwanted for us, we might hedge (limit the effect, defend, or protect ourselves) against it by avoiding dealing with it or avoiding committing ourselves to a particular action or decision It is possible to find out the similarity between the everyday meaning of the term hedge and the linguistic expressions referred to when using the term According to R Markkanen and H Schroder, two German dictionaries of linguistics indicating that the formulation of concepts in everyday communication require the use of hedges because “concepts trigger prototypical images in people’s minds, which makes it necessary to somehow mark their less prototypical representatives” (1999:1) In this thesis, the term hedge will be considered in semantic, pragmatic and social aspects
2.1.1.1 Semantic and Pragmatic aspects of hedging
The use of hedge as a linguistic term goes back at least to the early 1970s, when
G Lakoff (1972) published his article Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts Lakoff was interested in the linguistic phenomena used to talk about the more peripheral members of broad concept categories To illustrate the practical possibility of studying such linguistic terms in terms of logical properties and to address the questions involved in such analyses, Lakoff carefully studied a group of words and phrases like rather, largely, in a manner of speaking, very that he regarded as hedges in “making things fuzzier or less fuzzy” (1972: 213)
Although the meaning of the term hedge has been broadened to cover linguistic items other than what Lakoff mentioned in his work, his early work and his definition of hedges have remained a basis for a number of later analyses of the hedging phenomenon because his definition elucidates the semantic basis on which the notion of hedging rests Lakoff also briefly mentioned the possibility that hedges may “interact with felicity conditions for utterances and with rules of conversation” (1972: 213) Supporting Lakoff’s definition, Brown & Levinson define the term hedge/ hedging as “a particle, word or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or a 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 and complete than perhaps might be expected” (1987: 145)
Since the early 1970s the concept of hedge has moved far from its origins, especially after it caught the interest of pragmatists and discourse analysts It is no longer used to indicate expressions that modify the category membership of a predicate or noun phrase The idea of hedged performatives (I suppose/ guess/ think that…; won’t you open the door?) which had been mentioned by Lakoff
(1972) in his article “Robin Lakoff’s observation” became one way of widening the concept of hedges Fraser (1974) considers the effect of hedged performatives on the illocutionary act in performative sentences like I must advise you to remain quiet in which the modal must relieves the speaker from some of the responsibility
However, Halliday and Hasan (1985) have called attention to the fact that utterances have not only an ideational but also an interpersonal component
Consequently, the concept of hedging has been further developed in pragmatics and discourse analysis where it has been approached as a pragmatic, rather than a purely semantic, phenomenon Hedges, in this point, were taken to be modifiers of the speaker’s/ writer’s commitment to the truth-value of a whole proposition, not just the category membership of a part of it For example, Kopple, V (1985) considers the use of hedges as showing a lack of full commitment to the propositional content of an utterance Kopple sees such hedges as perhaps, seem, might, to a certain extent as modifying the truth-value of the whole proposition, not as making individual elements inside it more imprecise
Brown/Levinson (1978, 1987), dealing with politeness in verbal interaction from the point of view of pragmatics, viewed hedges as a device to avoid disagreement They describe hedges as a strategy or an expression of negative politeness in face-saving Sharing Brown and Levinson at this point, Hoang Phe
(1994) in Tu dien Tieng Viet (Vietnamese Dictionary) defined hedging as a device to “avoid misunderstanding or reactions to the utterances the speaker is going to say” In negative politeness, hedges are used to mitigate on the illocutionary force of an utterance or on any of the four maxims introduced by Grice (1975) Supporting Brown and Levinson (1978), Hübler (1983) postulates the role of hedging in making sentences more acceptable to the hearer, thus this will increase the chances of ratification for these sentences According to Hübler, the function of hedges is to reduce the risk of negation
Since the concept of hedge is widened to contain the modification of commitment to the truth of propositions, some researchers think that it is necessary to distinguish between two types of hedge They start from Lakoff’s
(1972) definition of hedges as devices that make things fuzzy, and add that there are two kinds of fuzziness: One is fuzziness within the propositional content
(called approximators); the other is fuzziness “in the relationship between the propositional content and the speaker, that is the speaker’s commitment to the truth of the proposition conveyed” (called shields) (Prince; Frader; Bosk 1982:
85) The first fuzziness: approximators (e.g She is sort of nervous) affect the truth-conditions of propositions, and the second fuzziness: shields (e.g., I think she is nervous) do not affect the truth-conditions but reflect the degree of the speaker’s commitment to the truth-value of the whole proposition Hübler (1983) makes a similar distinction between understatements, which concerns the propositional content of a sentence, and hedges, which connect with the claim to validity of the proposition a speaker makes For example, a sentence like It is a bit stuffy in here contains an understatement, while It is stuffy in that coal mine, I suppose contains a hedge Hübler admits that both understatements and hedges perform the same function of expressing indetermination of making sentences more acceptable to the hearer and thus increasing their chances of ratification
Besides the mentioned above factors affecting the understanding of hedging, social factors should also be considered in order to have a complete knowledge about hedging In conversations, people from different societies, different cultural backgrounds may not understand each other and even get troubles (especially when they impose their own cultural background and norms to others) For example, an Anglicist person may have a very bad comment to a Vietnamese person, who does not have the same reaction as the Anglicist people: saying “thank you” when offered a compliment on, say their clothes If this Anglicist person does not understand the difference between the two cultures, their communication may be broken down or got a fatal consequences In order to avoid misunderstanding in intercultural communication, besides the requirements in exchanging and understanding information between individuals who are unalike culturally, there are some means that can help communicators soften their talk such as hedging devices According to Salager-Meyer (2000), hedging is added into the conversation (in spoken or written form) to make linguistic behavior more socially acceptable in accordance with certain social norms established by a given culture at a given moment, time or epoch In other words, hedging is a good device to direct linguistic behavior to a right track in order to meet certain conventionalized expectations of professional or academic communities with a certain social norms Moreover, hedging competence, which entails knowledge and understanding of these conventionalisms, is often considered an integral part of general linguistic competence which allows us to assume our place in a community (Wilss, 1997)
In addition, hedging is also used to obtain other purposes besides assisting the writer to gain agreement from professional communities According to Bhatia, every genre has a certain rules and conventions which the researcher or academic writer can use different means to discover them, but they “cannot break away from such constraints completely without being noticeably odd.” (1993:14)
The Dictionary of Stylistics also classifies the concepts hedge and hedging as belonging to the fields of discourse analysis and speech act theory and defines them as “qualification and toning-down of utterances and statements (…) in order to reduce the risky of what one says” (Wales 1989: 58) The motivation for their use is given as “mitigation of what may otherwise seem too forceful” and
“politeness or respect to strangers and superiors.” Similarly, Markkanen &
Schrửder (1989; 1992) see hedging as a means to accomplish the writer’s intention, a modifier of the writer’s responsibility for the truth value of the propositions expressed or as a modifier of the weightiness of the information given, or the attitude of the writer to the information According to these two linguists, hedging also offers a possibility for textual manipulation in the sense that “the reader is left in the dark as to who is responsible for the truth value of what is being expressed” (1992: 56) They consider the use of certain pronouns and the avoidance of others, the use of impersonal expressions, the passive and other impersonalization constructions (e.g It is…; There is…), in addition to the use of modal verbs, adverbs and particles, which are usually included in hedges
Thus, hedging can operate on different levels of communication at the same time
H EDGING AND S CIENTIFIC D ISCOURSE
This section will provide a critical overview of the nature of scientific discourse in order to situate the aspects of hedging in the wider context of scientific discourse The section is divided into three parts It begins with a discussion of the nature of scientific discourse, both in textual features and in organizational features of scientific discourse
The purpose of part 2 is to establish the linguistic context of research writing in order to emphasize the importance of discourse analysis in understanding written texts Specially, identifying relationships between linguistic forms, exploring surface cohesion and providing linguistic environments in which hedging expressions appear are the main tasks of part 2
Part 3 will identify an overall picture about hedging – a means by which arguments are negotiated in scientific communication In particular, this part will consider some concepts in the speech acts, and in linguistics literature such as
2.2.1 The Nature of Scientific Discourse 2.2.1.1 The Nature of Scientific Discourse in Empiricist Views
Unlike novels, poetry or short stories, which reflect the specific mark of each author, scientific written discourse is normally believed to be purely informative and directly representative of natural facts As Kaplan and Grabe (1991:200) observations, researchers studying scientific discourse seem to assume that scientific reports are truthful and precise accounts of experimental processes as they occur in the laboratory According to Bazerman, “the accomplishment of scientific discourse is that it appears to hide itself” (1988:14) Scientific knowledge is believed to be built upon the qualities of the subject matter, the judgment of publication, critical peer evaluation and strict scientific procedures, and the non-subjective basis in which scientific text pays a role of “a messenger replaying the truth from nature” (Gilbert, 1976: 285) Besides that, it is believed that when presenting research findings, authors of scientific texts have to follow a conventional style and format which “represent the standard product of the knowledge manufacturing industry” (Swales, 1987: 42) This means that almost all personal opinions and interests of authors are removed and the authors’ identities are excluded from their scientific products
One of the features clearly recognized in scientific discourse is rhetorical procedures of objectivity and impersonality (Knorr-Cetine, 1981) Authors of scientific texts often try to hide their presence and personal interests in reporting their research to aim at peer audiences, which helps fulfill the persuasive role of scientific discourse Passivation, indirectness or avoidance of explicit value statements are among many examples of this strategy These devices help to remove scientists from the report, add to the objectivity and precision of reporting and as Bazerman (1984:163) states, they are “far from the rhetorical fancy to be avoided in scientific writing.” The reason infancy and persuasive features become a central part of scientific discourse is that research findings, as well as other information presented by scholars, will be offered for examination in the scientific community in the sight of the production of scientific knowledge which traditionally was considered to be beyond social factors The traditional view of science was that the nature world is a world of reality and objectivity, and
“its [the nature world] characteristic cannot be determined by the preferences or intentions of its observers These characteristics can, however, be more or less faithfully represented Science is that intellectual enterprise concerned with providing an accurate account of the objects, processes and relationships occurring in the world of natural phenomena To the extent that scientific knowledge is valid, it reveals and encapsulates in its systematic statements the true character of this world (Mulkay, 1979: 19-20)
Therefore, scientists are generally aware of the importance of the accuracy of the production of scientific knowledge which is built up in a process involving strict criteria against which the validity of knowledge is to be criticized Moreover, scientists are assumed to produce an accurate portrayal of the physical world and are believed to act according to a distinctive spirit of great people Beyond that, Merton praises scientists for their number one position in the universe, and strongly claims that “the activities of scientists are subject to rigorous policing, to a degree perhaps unparalleled in any other field of activity”(1973:276)
2.2.1.2 The Social Nature of Scientific Discourse
However, recently many studies on sociology have investigated the social and linguistic aspects of scientific research (for example Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984;
Mulkay, 1979; McKinlay & Potter, 1987; Myers, 1990) Mulkay (1979:60) was objected to Merton’s (1973) normative opinion by an argument that besides having the role of reflecting the physical world, scientific discourse also creates its scientific community socially and these two roles support each other In other words, the physical world is based on the scientist’s “attempts to interpret that world.” This interpretation is continually “revised, and partly dependent on the social context in which interpretation occurs” (Mulkay, 1979:61) Mulkay’s view suggests that the production of scientific knowledge is built from a process of negotiation within a specific context; therefore, to some extent, this process chosen by scientists is affected by the expectations and presumptions of those scientists Specifically, the entire research procedure, including choosing a reasonable research topic, methodology and/or other means to analyze and theories to base the procedure on, more or less depends on the individual scholar who has his/her own critical eyes of a specific group of scientific community
Therefore, the product of this scientific research may not necessarily be a true picture of the universe, but is the result of a negotiation process within the research scope:
“The conclusion established through scientific negotiation are not, then definitive accounts of the physical world They are rather claims which have been deemed to be adequate by a specific group of actors in a particular cultural and social context
There is, at least a prima facie case in favour of the thesis that “objects present themselves differently to scientists in different social settings, and that social resources enter into the structure of scientific assertions and conclusions” (Mulkay, 1979:95)
Sharing Mulkay’s opinion, other researchers such as McKinlay & Potter, 1987, and Myers, 1990 conclude that scientific language serves two rhetorical functions which are (i) to assist the scientists and researchers in addressing and persuading readerships about scientific issues, and (ii) to establish and maintain the authority of science itself This means that, besides presenting the crucial reality about the scientific world, scientific writing has another rhetorical objective which involves persuading readers that the scientific question discussed by the researcher is situated within the land of fact In other words, the production and validation of scientific knowledge is not simply the true values expressed through analysis by scientists and is not a dispassionate, objective representation of nature, but also includes the social negotiation ability of the researchers within the community This description is accurate because although in theory the technical aspects of knowledge production can be made by an individual scientist, in practice scientific information may warrant the status of truth only after being communicated to and accepted by the relevant scientific community
In this communication process, the audience with its own theoretical and methodological competence may not accept the research results; the scientific scholar, therefore, has to convince the readership of the importance of his/her study, of the reliability and suitability of the theories, the methods applied in the analysis process, and the validity of the interpretation of the research results
Therefore, communication of scientific knowledge with the readership is nearly always considered an important component of the knowledge-validation process in the research procedure itself (Bhatia, 1985; Rounds, 1982; Pettinari, 1983), and Alley (1987) is not unreasonable when advising researchers that if they do not communicate well and persuade readers to accept their idea, then they should change their research In the consequence, the important thing here is “how we really do convince each other, not what is true according to abstract methods”
(Booth, 1974, cited by McCloskey 1994:106) Sharing this opinion, Latour and Woolgar (1979:76) take the experimental research article as an example of scientific discourse and show that the production of this type of research depends on various writing and reading process which is based on the successful persuasion of readers, and that scientific knowledge is produced in a process of negotiation that focuses on texts rather than on facts Their conclusion appears to be almost exclusively dedicated to the production of research papers and basically related to operations on statements, citing, criticizing and forming knowledge claims from other researchers’ criticism and competition While Latour and Woolgar’s study is criticized as rather subjectivist, it draws attention to the importance of public judgment as an important factor for success in professional research The scientist’s contribution is judged by colleagues, people in his/her field of study or those who are potentially able to make use of it And once the scientist’s contribution is judged to be significant, grand, and is borrowed, or cited by other researchers, it will soon achieve recognition In other words, scientific publication is more or less a tangible reward which satisfies the specific needs of certain people in the scientific community operating a reward system - a system of “distributing property.” This system resting on peer judgment (Barnes & Edge, 1982:15), thus becomes the primary reason for the use of persuasive rhetoric in scientific discourse
Regarding to persuasive language in scientific discourse, Hyland (1996) also agrees with the opinions of the above authors According to him, meaning of a scientific text is created by the author through the form of linguistic expression; however, there are many other factors affecting the interpretation of the text One of these factors is the readers’ scientific competence, which may include opinions contrary to those of the scientific author Being aware of this possibility, scientific writers must be careful in using linguistic expressions, and must organize their scientific discourse well in order to avoid negative reaction
CORPUS ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH RESEARCH ARTICLES
L EXICAL H EDGES IN THE E CONOMIC R ESEARCH A RTICLES (RA S )
Hedging can be expected to occur frequently in RAs for various purposes
However, the differences in the use of hedges in potential disciplinary have not been fully addressed From the current corpus results, this chapter investigates the presence of linguistic phenomena that may be seen as typical realizations of hedging, namely various devices marked by uncertainty, hesitation, vagueness, and items employed to indicate degrees of less than full commitment to the accuracy or precision of what is said The chapter mostly focuses on lexical hedges, then non-lexical hedges, and after that the harmonic combination of hedges (both lexical hedges and non-lexical hedges) in the same sentences in discussion sections of economic discourse after presenting some comparisons analyzed quantitatively between economic texts and two other areas: physics and applied linguistics
3.1.1 Comparing Hedging Usage in English RAs with Two other Areas: Applied Linguistics and Physics
In this section of the chapter, we would like to compare three different topics (economics, applied linguistics and physics) in the same academic genre with an aim to see whether hedging devices are popular in economic discourses
Table 3.1 below summarizes certain disciplinary differences in the incidence of typical hedging devices investigated in the corpus
Table 3.1 Relative Numbers of Hedging Devices per 100 words in RAs on
Economics, Applied linguistics and Physics
As concerns differences in the overall frequency of hedging, economics emerged as the area of specialization where hedges figured most often out of the three disciplines, hedges used in both applied linguistics and physics are quite similarly frequent This result is somewhat interestingly unexpected, because previously some researchers such as Backhouse (1993), Klamer (1984) indicated discourse on economic may be hedged at a very low degree because economists indeed tend to argue their cases rather forcefully The present results indicating that in comparison with applied linguistics and physics, hedging may be noticeably twice more frequent in RAs on economics also surprised me, because my hypothesis was that hedges used in economics is equally seen in applied linguistics because two areas are all in academic genre and they all are in social science, therefore
In this study, two other techniques are used to compare data of these three genres: a normal quantile-quantile (or Q-Q) plot, ANOVA
• Numerical Summary (Normal Quantile-quantile Plot)
With the help of computer program MiniTab, we can have a clearer Descriptive Statistics picture about hedging usage in economic, applied linguistics and physics as shown in Table 3.2
Descriptive Statistics: English Economics, English Applied , English Physics
Variable N N* Mean SE Mean StDev Minimum Q1 English Economic 200 0 1.172 0.160 2.264 0.000000000 0.000000000 English Applied 40 0 0.540 0.165 1.042 0.000000000 0.0651 English Physics 40 0 0.487 0.108 0.682 0.000000000 0.000000000 Variable Median Q3 Maximum
English Economic 0.311 0.886 12.105 English Applied 0.121 0.427 4.766 English Physics 0.299 0.604 3.271
Table 3.2 Descriptive Statistics: Economics, Applied Linguistics, Physics
N shows the number of variables compared in the corpus In this case, 25 economic texts with 8 types of hedging devices equal to 200 variables, 5 applied linguistics texts and 5 physics texts with 8 hedging devices each were compared
Mean indicates the average number of hedges used in each area Means of three areas in the present study show that in the average, the number of hedges used in the economic texts is double the number of hedges in the applied linguistics or physics (1.172 hedges in economic compared with 0.540 in applied linguistics and 0.487 in physics) Median is another value used to indicate where the center of the data is The Standard Deviation (SD) is the most commonly used to measure of how spread out the data are The SD results of these three areas are all small (2.264; 1.042; and 0.682), which shows that the scores are all near the average, the curses of the diagram are not spread out (see figure III-1 below)
This means that the scores are not far from the average degree and the average number found from the score is typical and can be used to represent for the whole data
ANOVA is another tool in MinTab to test whether hedging usage in economics is significantly different in comparison with the rest of two types of discourse The name “analysis of variance” is based on the manner in which the procedure uses variances to determine whether the means are different The procedure works by comparing the variance between group means versus the variance within groups as a method of determining whether the groups are all part of one larger population or separate populations with different characteristics
In this case, the null hypothesis (H0
) that there is no difference in the use of hedges among economic, applied linguistics and physics texts (H0 = mean of economics = mean of applied linguistics = mean of physics) If we prove that the null hypothesis is incorrect, then the alternative hypothesis states that at least one is different In other words, we can conclude that there is a difference among these three types of discourse Because we examine one factor (hedging usage), we use a one-way ANOVA
H0 : There is no significant difference among the means for
English Economics, Applied Linguistics, and Physics
H1: The mean for the experimental group is significantly different from that of the control group
The following is the result after we processed the data
Source DF SS MS F P Factor 2 24.84 12.42 3.18 0.043 Error 277 1080.20 3.90
Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev
Level N Mean StDev -+ -+ -+ -+ - Detail EE 200 1.172 2.264 ( -* -) Detail EA 40 0.540 1.042 ( -* -)
Table 3.3 One-way ANOVA: English Economics, Applied Linguistics and
The result from MiniTab shows that P-value (0.043) is less than the alpha (α0.05), which leads us to a conclusion that at least one type of discourse is different from the others Therefore, we can reject the null-hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis that there is a significant different among these three types of discourse
3.1.2 Lexical Hedges in the English Corpus
As can be seen in Table 3.1, lexical hedging devices are twice more than non- lexical hedging devices used in the economic discourse (2.062 device per 100 words compared with 0.802 hedges per 100 words) The result from the corpus of this thesis is similar to what Holmes (1988: 27) shown in his study: lexical hedges represent the most common means of realizing epistemic modality in English and the language offers at least 350 devices for this purpose
The present results indicate that hedging is closely associated with the notion of modality, which is often approached with reference to the system of the modal auxiliaries, implicating this category as a central token of hedging
Table 3.4 illustrates the list of categories of hedges in descending order of frequency in economic discourse (The figures show frequency per 100 words in the data)
Category Devices Devices per 100 words
Table 3.4 Categories of Lexical Devices in the English Corpus
The result in the present study is rather different from that emerging from Hyland’s (1998:104) analysis of biology RAs, where full verbs are outstanding among other lexical devices Ranking after the most frequency hedges:
Noun/Pronoun (0.816 devices per 100 words), the share of the categories of lexical hedges distinguished out of the total number of hedges identified is second highest in modal verbs (0.485 devices per 100 words) followed by lexical verb with 0.283 devices per 100 words The overall results in themselves are sufficient to illustrate that there may indeed be noteworthy different between types of lexical devices in economic RAs However, it is not enough to say the difference if only numbers are mentioned Moreover, there are many more lexical devices used in “more than one hedge per sentence” category in the data which are not separated Therefore, deep surface analyses are needed including The following sections will provide more detailed information about the use of specific hedging phenomena and combination of lexical devices with other devices in the same sentence
3.1.2.1 Nouns and Pronouns as Hedging Devices in the English Corpus
Noun and pronouns were seen potential hedging devices because they contained many epistemic meanings inside These nouns and pronouns are all characterized by a component of tentative or indefinite meaning that makes them become useful hedging devices In the economic corpus, there were three main types of nouns considered as hedging devices: approximations, pronouns and non-writer agency or non-writer subject structures (which will be mentioned in more detail than the first two types)
The first type was named approximations which show the writers’ uncertainty when indicating information in their texts This type of hedge often accompanies with some pronouns such as most, most of, several of For example,
P RAGMATIC A NALYSIS OF H EDGING D EVICES IN THE E NGLISH C ORPUS
Functions of hedging devices in academic writing in general and in economic discourse in particular have been mentioned in previous research (e.g Brown and Levison (1987), Myers (1989), Hyland (1996)), and also in this study To understand more about functions of hedging devices, it is necessary to analyze pragmatic features of hedging, not just stopping at analyzing some semantic features
During our research, it is proved that one form of hedging device may convey more than one function (as in example (73), (74)), and vice versa, one function of hedges may be expressed through multi-hedging forms (as in example (75))
73 (8a) a large literature suggests (8b) that stock transactions tend to have lower synergistic gains overall than cash transactions (EE 13)
74 (6a) Another possible scenario is one (6b) in which developing countries joined the global market in recent decades, (6c) and for comparative-advantage reasons, this has led to a loss of some manufacturing from OECD countries to developing countries (EE 2)
75 (15a) These conditions can be viewed as being the result of cumulative exposure (15b) that accumulates with age (Frank and Maetzel, 2000), (15c) so younger persons may be less likely to report them (EE 15)
In example (73) and (74), one form of hedging device: reporting lexical verb suggest (in statement 8a) and tentative adjective possible (in statement 6a) had two functions: (i) avoiding a firm commitment for the writer and (ii) asking audience to get involved into the decision making process For the first function, the writers implied that the statements given were just a suggestion drawn from literature (as in statement 8a) or a possibility concluded from the writer’s subjective opinion (as in statement 6a) By using tentative lexical verb and adjective as in example (73) and (74), the writers blurred their responsibility and reduced a possible negative reaction from the audience Besides that function, these hedging devices in two first examples above also had a function to shift the responsibility to make the final conclusions to the audience By doing that the writers wanted to increase the involvement of the audience involved into the conversation they are running The writers implied that the audience shared the same knowledge and background with the writers and the audience was knowledgeable enough to make conclusion for that statements
Example (75) illustrated the situation that many forms of hedging could be used to express one hedging function: reducing the writer’s commitment when he/she is not so sure about the truth value of the statement The writer in example (75) used modal verb can with passive voice can be viewed, modal verb may and probability adjective likely to hedge his/her statement (15a) and another consequence (15c)
Realizing the multi-function of hedging devices, the following section will provide some pragmatic analyses and supporting examples about hedging devices basing on functions introduced by Hyland (1996): content-oriented function and reader-oriented function
3.2.1 Content-oriented Functions of Hedging in the English Corpus
Hedging devices have a function to mitigate the relationship between what the writer states about the world and what the world is like This function is called content-oriented function or content-based function It is clear that almost all economic writers have a desire to provide as much information within their knowledge as possible and with as great accuracy as possible However, while sharing their knowledge to the professional community, the writers cannot avoid their objective belief Moreover, in economic discourse especially in empirical studies, it may be hard to assure any condition in the changing business environment, or to predict all possible problems might occur in the future
Sometimes, economic phenomena do not always take place as what the economists think and expect Economic results or conclusions also frequently vary from how economists imagine and structure them; therefore, academic authors may use hedging (say, epistemic modality) to reduce the risk, to avoid negative criticisms when giving not totally certain claims with appropriate indication of reality With the assistance of hedges, economic writers can introduce to their professional community what they feel is true, not necessarily only what is totally drawn from their research Content-based function of hedges can particularly be divided into two sub-functions: (1) function to provide accuracy of statements, and (2) function to protect writers’ face
As a sub-function of the content-based hedges, accuracy-based hedges also function to address the writer’s concern with the relationship between statements and reality This hedging group helps economic writers avoid violating the Grice’s (1972) quality maxim suggesting writers should not state what they might not be sure or lack of information The modal verb “may” in this example
76 (20a) Competition may take too long to work, and (20b) even in the long run it needs not work to promote ethical values (EE 1) implies that the writer might not have sufficient information to really make and inform the judgment It is not so clear whether the information about the competition can still be suitable with the conditions of the statement (20a) or its truth value still needs studying This modal verb also notifies readers that the writer was aware of his/her inadequacy and what he/she stated out is his/her own view which may or may not totally be correct
Supporting our points, some economists answering our interview said that different from theoretical economists, experimental economists cannot control their experiments, so they just give evidence and suggest for the situation This is because “you can never be sure, you cannot control experiments”… “you just have people and you don’t know why they make the decision they made” It’s different from the situation that “if you control Adam in a physical repertoire, you will know exactly what Adam does” (E1) (Economist 1- recording) Some economists also agreed that using hedging is a way to be honest to their audience
Another interviewee (E2) said that economists “are precise in their techniques
The number (conducted from their study) is correct, but the interpretation is different”; therefore, it will be better to give suggestions from given numbers
Accuracy-based function of hedges contributes to the evaluation of the truth value of statements With this function, hedges indicate that the writers do not fully guarantee for the declarative assertions, and do not concern about commitment to the statements For example,
77 Likewise, (18a) firms (18b) that do not manipulate their earnings or compete for glamorous executives (18a) might not survive (18c) as independent entities long enough for reality to intervene (EE 1)
78 (1a) The evidence (1b) surveyed in this paper (1a) demonstrates (1c) that there can be no simple general conclusion about the relationship between trade liberalization and poverty (EE 10)
Two hedges used in example (77) and (78) above indicated that the writers wished to give information for which they do not want to be held entirely accountable The hedge might in example (77), successfully enables the writer to avoid taking a full responsibility to the truth value of the statement, and to avoid raising false conclusion about the survival of the firms in statement (18a) in condition (18c)
Modal verb can in example (78) together with the indirect subject the evidence weakened the commitment of the writer to the possibility of the demonstration (1c) and removed any questionable reactions might occur from readers
• Authors’ degree of certainty with hedging devices
CORPUS ANALYSIS OF VIETNAMESE RESEARCH
L EXICAL H EDGES IN V IETNAMESE E CONOMIC C ORPUS
As mentioned previously, there have not been any research on hedging so far, in this thesis, we cannot avoid using some common terms in English
As can be seen from Table 4.1 showing the number of hedges per 100 words, in comparison with English corpus, hedging devices used in Vietnamese corpus is, in general, less than the devices used in English economic discourse (1.172 devices compared with 0.450 devices per 100 words)
Table 4.1 Number of Lexical and Non-Lexical Hedging Devices per 100 words in Vietnamese and English Corpora
Although in general the number of English hedges used in economic discourses is more than that in Vietnamese discourses, if we look in more detail, we notice that in most of the categories, hedging devices are found more frequently in Vietnamese corpus compared with that in English corpus Besides some minor differences in hedging usages between the two discourses, there are two types of devices outstanding in Vietnamese corpus: modality (lexical device) and impersonalization (non-lexical device) which should be dealt with in more detail in the following sections
4.1.1 Modality Functions as Hedging Devices in the Vietnamese Corpus
As can be seen from Table 4.1, the number of Vietnamese modality per 100 words is very high in the lexical device category Two types of modality appearing frequently in Vietnamese corpus are: (1) Modal Adverbs; (2) Modal Auxiliary Each sub-group will be further discussed in the following sections
4.1.1.1 Modal Adverbs as Hedging Devices in the Vietnamese Corpus
According to Ngu, T.H (1996), Vietnamese modal adverbs (or particles) are used separately as a completed unit because of the users’ habit Gradually, particles and adverbial clauses are modeled and become fixed unit in Vietnamese Modal adverbs appearing rather frequently in Vietnamese corpus are summarized in the following Table 4.2 :
Commitment level Modal Adverbs English
Num of devices per 100 words
Rõ ràng obviously (15) 0.08 thực sự truly (9) 0.05 nhất định certainly (5) 0.03 tất nhiên obviously (3) 0.02
Higher degree of commitment Đương nhiên/dĩ nhiên obviously (2) 0.01 Khá + tính từ Rather + adjective (10) 0.05 dường như probably (3) 0.02
Number of word in the whole corpus
Table 4.2 Modal Adverbs in the Vietnamese Corpus
Modal adverbs in Vietnamese corpus are likely used to express the speakers’ attitude and belief in the truth of a proposition Modal adverbs may appear in different positions in a sentence as many previous researchers mentioned (Coates, 1983; Huddleston, 1984; Quirk, 1976); however, in Vietnamese corpus, modal adverbs mostly appear in front of the sentence (as in example 114) or in front of main verbs (as in example 115)
114 (4a) Tất nhiên, khi đó, một mâu thuẫn lớn sẽ xẩy ra: (4b) Giá trị doanh nghiệp khi cổ phần hoá sẽ tăng lên rất cao (VE 23)
(Obviously, at that time, a great contradiction occurs: the company value will increase rapidly) 3
3 Below Vietnamese examples, English equivalents are translated by the writer of this dissertation
115 (32) Ngay từ khi xây dựng đề cương, hình hài cơ bản của công trình nghiên cứu khoa học đã có thể thể hiện qua mục tiêu nghiên cứu, vấn đề đặt ra cần tập trung giải quyết, nội dung và phương pháp nghiên cứu… (VE 2) (Right at the time the proposal was developed, basic framework of a scientific study was likely expressed through research objectives, the thing is it is needed to focus on content and research methods…)
If commitment level of the writer to the truth value of the statement is considered, modal adverbs in Vietnamese corpus can be divided into two sub- groups: (i) Higher degree of commitment modal adverbs; and (ii) Lower degree of commitment modal adverbs
Ngu, T.H (1996) named this group “the surely structure P” or “obvious meaning” group We call these adverbs “higher degree of commitment modal adverbs” because when using this group of modal adverbs (high degree of commitment modal adverbs) to hedge his/her writing, the writer wants to emphasize his/her certainty about the truth value of the information in the statement Modal adverbs belonging to this group appear rather frequently in Vietnamese corpus (34 types out of 56 modal adverbs) Ngu, T.H (1996:107) found popular adverbs expressing obvious meaning such as rõ ràng, chắc chắn, hẳn là, rõ là, thế nào cũng, thật ra, thì có, chứ gì, đấy chứ, đương nhiên, dĩ nhiên, tất nhiên, hiển nhiên là, đây, đấy, mà, kia mà, cơ, đấy chứ Some typical modal adverbs of this group in our corpus are rõ ràng, thực sự, tất nhiên, nhất định, đương nhiên, hoàn toàn Let consider some examples,
116 (10a) Các công ty con đã thực sự linh hoạt trong quản lý, điều hành, thực hiện chuyên môn hoá sản phẩm, (10b) từ đó tối đa hoá lợi nhuận và năng lực cạnh tranh cho toàn bộ tổ hợp (VE 1)
(Small companies are really active in managing, operating, specializing products; as the result maximizing profits and competitiveness for the whole complex.)
117 (20a) Như vậy, rõ ràng Nhà nước đang buông lỏng quyền và vai trò của mình với tư cách là chủ sở hữu, (20b) tức quyền quyết định tối thượng của mình đốI với DNNN (VE 13)
(Therefore, it is obvious that the Government is relaxing its rights and roles as an owner, in other words, its supreme rights and roles to state-owned enterprises.)
In example (116), the writer was rather confident when providing statement (10a) The confidence is shown through the past tense đã (did) used before this modal adverb thực sự (really), the verb linh hoạt (be active), and the follow up conclusion (10b) An adverb Như vậy (Thus) used in front of example (117) helped us lead to a conclusion that the statement (20a) is a result of a previous study or reports
Different from the first modal adverbs group, the lower level of commitment modal adverbs group such as dường như (probably); khá + adjective (rather + adjective); khoảng (about/ around) expresses just a belief, speculation or indecisiveness of the writer
118 (6) Chúng [tỷ giá giao ngay] khác hoàn toàn với cơ chế tỷ giá “bám theo thị trường” như chúng ta dường như đã thực hiện trong thời gian qua (VE 12) (They [spot delivery exchange rate] are totally different from exchange rate mechanism “belong in the market” as we have probably realized so far)
119 (4) Đó không phải là giải pháp nhất thời, tình thế mà là một chủ trương nhất quán được hình thành trên cơ sở nghiên cứu khá toàn diện các vấn đề kinh tế- xã hội và pháp lý (VE 13)
(It is not a temporary, provisional solution, but a consistent guideline established under a rather comprehensive research basis about economic-social and legal issues)
Chúng ta (We- the writer and maybe some readers getting involved in this situation) used in example (118) meaned that the writer was not so sure about what was done in the past
Using the modal adverb khá in statement (4) of example (119), the writer provided a very low level of commitment to the truth value of that statement
COMPARING HEDGING USAGES BETWEEN ENGLISH AND
G ENERAL C OMPARISON AND C ONTRAST
As mentioned previously, because confrontation threatens to destroy rather than reinforce emotional ties, it is avoided, and the Vietnamese writers are willing to sacrifice to candid exchange of opinions in order to reinforce the emotional ties that bind Such reinforcement requires the use of hedges Besides that, many researchers indicated that controlling one’s feelings is also highly prized in Vietnamese culture; consequently, showing one’s preferences is discouraged
Therefore, we assume that, Vietnamese writers often convert their straightforward expressions of feeling into expressions of uncertainty by using a lot of hedging devices, thus appealing to the readers by disclaiming authority This not only leaves room for further discussion and negotiation, but also tends to elicit more supportive reactions from the readers However, when analyzing the corpus, the fact shows that the above assumption is only correct with some particular hedges, but in general, hedges are used more frequently in English corpus than in Vietnamese corpus The following table (Table 5.1) provides more detail for this
Table 5.1 Number of Hedging Devices per 100 words in Vietnamese and
Table 5.1 provides us both English and Vietnamese numbers of hedging devices per 100 words in different categories In general, the average number of hedges in the English corpus is double that number in the Vietnamese corpus As can be seen, English and Vietnamese writers are quite different in hedging usages in: (1) modality; (2) Noun/Pronouns; (3) Non-lexical devices, and especially in (4) compound hedges Vietnamese writers use much more modality to hedge their statements, but use less nominalization in their writing than English writers While Vietnamese writers use more vague language through employing many non- subject structures to avoid mentioning to any particular person responsible for their suggestions, English writers prefer integrating hedges (multi-hedging devices) to increase the effect of their persuasion
Table 5.2 below presents a more complete and concrete statistics of hedging usage in the two corpora This technique works with quantitative variables to present a numerical summary of the variable values These values summarize the empirical distribution of the variables This provides the count N, the mean, median, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, minimum, maximum, first quartile Q1, and third quartile Q3 of the variables
Descriptive Statistics: English Hedging Devices, Vietnamese Hedging Devices
Variable N N* Mean SE Mean StDev Minimum Q1 English Hedging 200 0 1.172 0.160 2.264 0.000000000 0.000000000 Vietnamese Hedgi 200 0 0.4503 0.0363 0.5138 0.000000000 0.0485
Variable Median Q3 Maximum English Hedging 0.311 0.886 12.105 Vietnamese Hedgi 0.2935 0.6745 3.2634
Table 5.2 Descriptive Statistics of Hedging Devices in the English and
N shows the number of variables compared in the corpus In this case, 25 economic texts in each language (English and Vietnamese) plus 8 types of hedging devices each equal to 200 variables Mean indicates the average number of hedges used in English and Vietnamese economic corpus Means of the two genres in the present study show that in the average, the number of hedges used in English economic discourse is double the number of hedges in the Vietnamese economic texts Median is another value used to indicate where the center of the data is The
Standard Deviation (SD) is the most commonly used to measure of how spread out the data is The SD measures how far the data is in comparison to the mean
Visual displays of Figure 5.1 with numerous examples will often help us learn more about these criteria The center of the curve is mean and the spread is specified by SD Large values of SD gives curves that are spread out Small values of the SD give curves that are much more compact The SD results of these two genres are all small (2.264; 0.5138), which shows that the scores are all near the average, the curses of the diagram are not spread out This means that the hedges found in the two corpora are not far from the average degree, and the average number found from the score is typical and can be used to represent for the whole data
As can be seen from the figure below , the number of hedges per 100 words is normally distributed (in a bell-shaped curve)
12 9 6 3 0 -3 English Economics Vietnamese Economics English Economics
Histogram of English Economics, Vietnamese Economics
Figure 5.1 Histogram of Hedges in the English and Vietnamese Economic
C OMPARISON AND C ONTRAST IN D IFFERENT C ATEGORIES
In order to have a more concrete picture about hedging usage of the two corpora, we would compare each criterion of the two corpora
The t-test is also used in this case to compare the two corpora T-test is much more frequently used in language studies because it can help us get around the problems that disallow the use of other distribution (e.g z-distribution) The t-test has a family of distributions that differ according to the size of a sample The sample sizes of this research is rather large (N= 200 for each group) The t-test is used to test whether hedging usage in English economics is significantly different in comparison with Vietnamese economics In order to test whether there is a significant difference between the two corpora, we set up a null hypothesis (H 0 ) (a hypothesis contrasting to our conclusion) that there is no difference in the use of hedges between English economics and Vietnamese economics This means, we hypothesize that mean of English economics = mean of Vietnamese economics If we prove that the null hypothesis (H0) is incorrect, then we accept the alternative hypothesis (H1) stating that at least one is different In other words, we can conclude that there is a difference between the two genres We use a one-way ANOVA to assess the result because we examine one factor (hedging usage) and compare 2 means (English and Vietnamese)
H0 : There is no significant difference among the means for English Economics and Vietnamese Economics (mean of hedges in English Economics = mean of hedges in Vietnamese Economics)
H1: The mean for the experimental group is significantly different from that of the control group (H 1 : mean of hedges in English Economics ≠ mean of hedges in Vietnamese economics.)
Table 5.3 summarizes the results needed for our comparison
One-way ANOVA: English Economics, Vietnamese Economics
Source DF SS MS F P Factor 1 52.14 52.14 19.35 0.000 Error 398 1072.26 2.69
Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev
Level N Mean StDev -+ -+ -+ -+ - English Economics 200 1.172 2.264 ( -* - )
Table 5.3 ANOVA Hedges in English and Vietnamese Economics
To test the null hypothesis that the hedging behaviour is the same in both English and Vietnamese economics, we compare Minitab’s p-value with the commonly used alpha level of 0.05 (i.e we are 95% confident that there is different between the two genres; or we believe hedging behaviour is equal unless the alpha level is 5%)
If p < α (=0.05) à then we can reject the null hypothesis This means hedging behaviour between the two corpora is different
If p > α (=0.05) à then we cannot reject the null hypothesis In other words, there is no difference between the two corpora in term of hedging behaviour
The result from MiniTab in Table 5.3 above shows that P-value = 0.000 is less than the alpha (α= 0.05), which means we can reject the null-hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis that there is a significant different between the two corpora
N um ber of H ed ges p e r 1 0 0 w o rd s
Boxplot of English Economics, Vietnamese Economics
Figure 5.2 Boxplot of Hedges in the English and Vietnamese Economic
Another tool- boxplot is also used to compare hedging usage between the two corpora In the boxplot, the inner boxes show a 95% confidence interval for the median The first two rows of the Data display (in
Figure 5.2 instructs Minitab to display a box showing the interquartile range, from the 25th to the 75th percentile Outlier Symbol instructs Minitab to display an asterisk (*) for all outlier values In the boxplot, the inner boxes show a 95% confidence interval for the median The boxplot suggests that hedging devices in English economics is more frequently used than hedges in Vietnamese economics
To conclude, the analysis of variance output and boxplots clearly shows that hedging usages of English and Vietnamese economists are different The high F- statistic and low p-value indicate there is a statistically significant difference between the two corpora The 95% confidence interval for average hedges in English corpus is between 0.31 and 0.88, and for average hedges in Vietnamese corpus is between 0.04 and 0.62
5.2.1 Devices in the Two Corpora with No Differences
With the assistance of ANOVA tool and boxplots in MiniTab, we compare different types of hedging in English and Vietnamese economics Similar to what we did in the previous section when comparing general hedging usage in English and Vietnamese Economics, we raise a null hypothesis (H0) that contrasts to an alternative hypothesis (H 1 ) Then we compare the P-value with a fixed alpha level (α = 0.05) in order to make any conclusion about the similarities or differences in term of each criterion in the two corpora The Boxplots will provide a clearer image about each type of hedge in the two corpora The following sections will provide a particular look at each criterion
H0: mean of English phrasal hedges (EP) = mean of Vietnamese phrasal hedges (VP)
H1: mean of EP < mean of VP
H 2 : mean of EP > mean of VP Table 5.4 shows the P-value = 0.819 > α level (0.05); therefore, H 0 cannot be rejected and H1 is not accepted In other words, there is no difference in using phrasal devices as hedges in the two corpora
One-way ANOVA: English Phrasal Devices, Vietnam Phrasal Devices
Source DF SS MS F P Factor 1 0.0034 0.0034 0.05 0.819 Error 48 3.0878 0.0643
Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev
Level N Mean StDev -+ -+ -+ -+- English Phrasal 25 0.1751 0.2839 ( -* -)
Table 5.4 ANOVA of Phrasal Hedging Devices in the English and
Supporting to the conclusion above, Table 5.4 illustrates the overlap of the phrasal devices in the two corpora This means that the upper quartile and the lower quartile of the two corpora are almost the same The low F value and the high P level express a big difficulty in comparing the two corpora in term of phrasal device usage
5.2.1.2 Lexical Verbs as Hedges in the English and Vietnamese Corpus
Similar to what we did before, we hypothesize that there is no relationship between the use of lexical verbs as hedges in English and Vietnamese Economic texts
Hypothesis: H 0 : mean of English lexical verbs functioning as hedges
(EV) = mean of Vietnamese Lexical Verbs (VV) functioning as hedges
H 1 : mean of EV < mean of VV
H2: mean of EV > mean of VV Table 5.5 below shows the P-value = 0.545 > α level (0.05); therefore, H 0 cannot be rejected and H 1 is not accepted In other words, there is no difference in using lexical verbs as hedges in the two corpora
One-way ANOVA: Lexical Verbs English, Lexical Verbs Vietnamese
Source DF SS MS F P Factor 1 0.0339 0.0339 0.37 0.545 Error 48 4.3746 0.0911
Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev
Level N Mean StDev -+ -+ -+ -+ - Lexical Verbs En 25 0.2833 0.2950 ( -* -) Lexical Verbs Vi 25 0.2312 0.3086 ( -* -)
Table 5.5 ANOVA of English and Vietnamese Lexical Verbs as Hedges
VN Phrasal Devices English Phrasal Devices
Boxplot of English and Vietnamese Economics Phrasal Devices
Lexical Verbs Vietnamese Lexical Verbs English
Boxplot of Lexical Verbs English, Lexical Verbs Vietnamese
Figure 5.3 Boxplot of Phrasal Hedging Devices in English and Vietnamese
Figure 5.4 Boxplot of English and Vietnamese Lexical Verbs
Figure 5.4 illustrates the overlap of Vietnamese lexical verbs and English lexical verbs The English first and third quartiles are 0.139, and 0.4, and the first and third quartiles of Vietnamese data are 0.198, and 0.38 Moreover, on an average, the frequency of English and Vietnamese is almost the same (the Mean of the two corpora are 0.283 (English) and 0.212 (Vietnamese))
5.2.1.3 Adverbs as Hedges in English and Vietnamese Corpus
The results taken from the MiniTab program about adverbs considered as hedges in both English and Vietnamese corpora also provide a similar conclusion about unrelated relationship in this type of hedge between the two corpora
Hypothesis: Null Hypothesis H0: mean of English adverbs functioning as hedges (EA) = mean of Vietnamese adverb (VA) considered as hedges
Alternative Hypothesis H1: mean of EA < mean of VA Alternative Hypothesis H 2 : mean of EA > mean of VA
Table 5.6 below shows the P-value = 0.940 > α level (0.05); therefore, H0 cannot be rejected and H1 is not accepted In other words, there is no difference in using lexical verbs as hedges in the two corpora
One-way ANOVA: Adverbs in EE, Adverbs in VE
Source DF SS MS F P Factor 1 0.0003 0.0003 0.01 0.940 Error 48 2.3907 0.0498
Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev
Level N Mean StDev + -+ -+ -+ - Adverbs in EE 25 0.1802 0.2313 ( -* -) Adverbs in VE 25 0.1850 0.2147 ( -* -) + -+ -+ -+ - 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250
Table 5.6 ANOVA of English and Vietnamese Adverbs as Hedges
5.2.1.4 Adjective as Hedges in the English and Vietnamese Corpus Table 5.7 below indicates a low F-value (0.21) and a high P-level (0.646) of adjective considered as hedges in the two corpora The mean of the two corpora are nearly the same (0.123 for English and 0.2001 for Vietnamese.), which shows an overlap at the two corpora (the overlap can also be seen at Figure 1.6)
One-way ANOVA: Adjective in EE, Adjective in VE
Source DF SS MS F P Factor 1 0.0104 0.0104 0.21 0.646 Error 48 2.3360 0.0487
Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev
Level N Mean StDev + -+ -+ -+ - Adjective in EE 25 0.1237 0.2394 ( -* -)
Table 5.7 ANOVA of English and Vietnamese Adjective as Hedges
N u m bers of H ed ges per 10 0 word s
Adverbs in VE Adverbs in EE
Boxplot of Adverbs in English and Vietnamese Economics
N u m ber of H e d ge s pe r 1 00 w or ds
Adjective in VE Adjective in EE
Boxplot of Adjectives in English and Vietnamese Economics
Figure 5.5 Boxplot of English and
Vietnamese Adverbs Figure 5.6 Boxplot of English and
5.2.2 Differences among Hedging Devices in the Two Corpora
Besides similarities in some devices between English and Vietnamese economic writers, there are some types of hedging devices used differently in the two languages
In order to examine the similarity and difference in hedging usage in the two corpora, we set up a null hypothesis that there is no relationship between the use of these types of hedges in English and Vietnamese Economic texts
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND IMPLICATIONS
C ONCLUDING R EMARKS
This is a corpus-based study of 55, 000 words of English and Vietnamese The study is the combination of both systematic classification of linguistic forms and pragmatic explanations of hedging devices In Vietnam, while other previous researchers only focused on a particular linguistic aspect of hedging usage, or a certain politeness phenomenon in spoken language, this study can be considered the first comprehensive study of hedging devices in written discourse The study summarizes some outstanding forms of English and Vietnamese hedging devices, important functions of hedges and some explanations about the differences between the two languages Besides providing a linguistic system of hedging devices, the study also provides pragmatics analysis which cannot be achieved through intuitive observations by dealing with hedges in certain contexts where accurate purposes of hedging users are expressed By doing this way, the study also implies that in order to fully understand a hedge, it is necessary to analyze that device in its social context
The following points are some main findings of the research
4 Hedging is a typical, indispensable, and massive communication device in economic RAs with different functions (Chapter III and IV) On the average, there is more than one hedge in every 100 words in English corpus, and nearly 0.5 hedges per 100 words in Vietnamese corpus This number is much higher when specific devices are analyzed This finding suggests that more theories of language should consider hedging devices seriously Hedging devices can be used to realize writers’ academic expectations of accurately presenting claims, and to confirm their contributions to the academic field Besides that hedges also assist writers to acknowledge limitations and lack in the writers’ capability or in experiment conditions, which makes the writers’ suggestions and ideas be more persuasive
5 Economic research articles both in English and Vietnamese contain various types of hedging expressions (chapter III, IV) Lexical devices make up the highest proportion in two languages (2.062 English hedging devices per
100 words, and 1.836 Vietnamese hedging devices per 100 words) This probably because lexical hedges are very specific in the meanings that they express; therefore, lexical hedges are more suitable to avoid ambiguous meanings in academic discourse In English corpus, Nouns/pronouns functioning as hedges occur the most frequently, followed by modality and lexical verbs While, in Vietnamese corpus, the most frequent hedging device is modality, followed by nouns/pronouns and lexical verbs Besides lexical devices, non-lexical hedging devices are also employed much in the two corpora to distance the writers from their propositional statement, and to avoid negative reactions might appear from the audience because of the writers’ lack of knowledge, limiting experimental conditions, or inadequate research methods
6 Hedging devices are used differently in different fields of study Within the scope of this thesis, three genres in English (economics, applied linguistics and sociology) and three fields of study in Vietnamese (economics, applied linguistics and physics) are compared in the use of hedges A significant difference in hedging usages between the three academic fields in English is identified On the average, the number of hedges per 100 words in English economic discourses is double the number of hedges in the two fields (1.172 hedges per 100 words in English economic RAs compared with 0.540 and 0.487 hedges per 100 words in RAs of applied linguistics and sociology respectively) In general, nouns and pronouns used as hedges in English corpus occur more frequently in economic RAs than in the two other fields In addition, English economists of English corpus also use more compound hedges at the same time than writes in sociology and applied linguistics RAs The difference in hedging usage among three academic fields of study in Vietnamese corpus is not significant in term of quantity The difference is only identified when pragmatic analysis is taken
7 The English corpus and the Vietnamese corpus have many differences in frequent occurrence of each type of hedges, as well as in the quality of the writing (chapter V) The corpus analysis of this thesis indicates a restricted use of modal verbs in English corpus, but a different result is seen in Vietnamese corpus where modal verbs outweigh other types of hedging
Nouns or Pronouns functioning as hedges are mostly used in the English corpus, but not frequently used in Vietnamese corpus Another significant difference between the English and Vietnamese discourses in term of hedging usage is the prominence of using more than one hedge at the same time English writers use six times this type of hedges more than Vietnamese writers do (6.512 compared with 0.516 devices per 100 words)
The harmony of many hedges in the same sentence increases the effect of this shielding device in English corpus
8 Pragmatically, hedging is a versatile resource that writers intentionally use to increase interpersonal meanings (chapter III and IV) Hedging is a good way to design our opinions to maximize the expression of interpersonal emotions as well as to address the need for deference and cooperation when trying to gain agreement during negotiation Hedging not only allows writers to express whether they believe that something is true, but to show how they feel about it, and to allow the writers manage conversation for maximal interpersonal efficiency The relationship between writers and readers is increased when the writers use hedges to avoid loosing their and their audience’s politeness faces Hedges assist the writers to shield them from negative reactions from opposite ideas; therefore, they can increase ratification of claims from the audience Besides that, the writers can also encourage their readers to get involve into the decision making process by giving the audience chances to choose either following the writers’ suggestions or not By doing this way, the writers want to acknowledge the readers’ contribution into the social process of knowledge accreditation
9 Hedging devices should be considered in a certain context (chapter III, IV)
The study emphasizes the relationship between a discourse community, standards of knowledge and textual representations with the use of hedges
The semantic analysis of hedging usage achieved through corpus analysis in this research may not be fully understood without combination of pragmatic constraints in determining meanings Therefore, the study provides a full profile of hedging usage in RAs with context interpretations of hedging meanings
10 Many types of hedges are often used together (chapter III, IV, V) in one sentence to form compound hedges In the English corpus, there are 37.5% three types of hedges used together, 33.9% two different types of hedges are used at the same time, 28.6% four or more than four types of hedges are used together In Vietnamese RAs, among 122 compound hedges, there are
85 cases two hedges are used together, 31 cases triple hedging devices combine with one another In English RAs, combinations are likely to include a non-lexical device (e.g impersonalization) or a noun co-occurs with another type of hedges The most common groupings were nouns + non-lexical devices (N6 cases) and non-lexical devices + another non- lexical devices (N= 64 cases) In Vietnamese corpus, the combination between modal verbs and non-lexical devices outweighs other types of combinations (N= 37+ 34= 71 cases)
11 A form of a hedging device does not fix to a limited meaning, while a purpose of the writer can be expressed through various hedging forms (chapter III, IV) A hedging device conveys different categorical meanings
Hedging is a poly-pragmatic device conveying a range of functions For example, non-subject structures functioning as effective hedges in (i) avoiding negative reactions which may occur from audience; (ii) avoiding personal involvement when writes impossible or unwilling to reach accuracy; (iii) showing the writers’ consideration and care to their audience when the writers give their audience chances to get involve into the decision making process Besides that, various hedging forms can be used to express one purpose of the writers For example, writer-oriented function of hedging devices can be expressed through three devices: impersonalization, modality, and noun
12 The study has some implications in research, language understanding, and teaching in investigating a popular persuasive device in RAs via comparative approach to help non-native researchers, learners recognize some illegitimate uses of hedging that may render their writing awkward in the eyes of native speakers.
I MPLICATIONS OF THE S TUDY
From the study, it is clear that since hedging devices are dynamic, flexible and versatile, hedging devices and other linguistic features cannot be fully understand without studying the social and interactional contexts of use, these patterns of usage have shaped the system It seems that writers make meanings through their choice of functions in which they use the lexicon Therefore, the study emphasizes the functional understanding of writing contexts, and a commitment to the notion of language use In other words, in order to understand the hedges, it is necessary to understand Field, Tenor, and Mode (adapted from Collerson, 1994) The Field includes both the object focus (things or ideas), and the activity focus (what is being done) The Field means “what’s going on with references to what” (Gerot,
1995) Two groups of people may view the same hedging device in different ways
The writer may consider modality, for example, as the way to get the audience involved into the decision making process; while, the audience might think that the writer is not sure about what she/he is going to say The Tenor refers to the interpersonal relationships of contact, cordiality of relations, and status among the language users (Gerot, 1995) It includes whether people getting involved into the conversation know each other, like each other, and being more or less powerful because of different in their social status This study suggests that writers who are young and holding low-status tend to use more hedges than those who are older and holding a higher social status Mode includes the channel, role of language, and the register or type of language used Language at this moment is only part of the event Hedges in this case are used formally in an academic environment where readers are strict scientists with critical thoughts with an aim to have a better scientific environment The choice of language that the writers make for Field, Tenor and Mode are tied with the usage pattern of culture Therefore, in order to fully understand hedging usages of writers, besides understanding invariant syntactic and semantic meanings of hedges, it is necessary to interpret hedges in a particular context connecting to the writers’ knowledge, goals and typical role hedges play in the RA discourse The fact that hedging usages are directly connected to individual goals and institutional structures is obvious because when writing RAs, the writers are seeking to ratify knowledge, rather than simply reporting it This means the writers are pursuing their personal ambitions