(Luận văn) hedging devices in conversations in the vietnamese high school english textbooks versus those in the new interchange series

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING QUY NHON UNIVERSITY lu LÊ THỊ PHƯƠNG THỦY an n va p ie gh tn to HEDGING DEVICES IN CONVERSATIONS nl w IN THE VIETNAMESE HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH d oa TEXTBOOKS VERSUS THOSE IN THE NEW lu oi lm ul nf va an INTERCHANGE SERIES FIELD: English Linguistics z at nh CODE: 8.22.02.01 z l gm @ m co Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr NGUYỄN QUANG NGOẠN an Lu n va ac th si BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TAO TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC QUY NHƠN LÊ THỊ PHƯƠNG THỦY lu an n va gh tn to PHƯƠNG TIỆN RÀO ĐÓN TRONG ĐÀM THOẠI p ie GIỮA SÁCH GIÁO KHOA TIẾNG ANH TRUNG nl w HỌC PHỔ THÔNG VIỆT NAM VÀ NEW d oa INTERCHANGE nf va an lu oi lm ul Chuyên ngành: Ngôn Ngữ Anh Mã số: 8.22.02.01 z at nh z @ m co l gm Người hướng dẫn: PGS TS Nguyễn Quang Ngoạn an Lu n va ac th si i STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I certify my authorship of the master‟s thesis submitted entitled: HEDGING DEVICES IN CONVERSATIONS IN THE VIETNAMESE HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEXTBOOKS lu VERSUS THOSE IN THE NEW INTERCHANGE SERIES an n va for the degree of Master of Arts, is the result of my own research, except where tn to otherwise acknowledged, and that this thesis has not been submitted for a higher degree at any other institutions ie gh p To the best of my knowledge, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by other people except where the reference is made in the w d oa nl thesis itself an lu oi lm ul nf va Bình Định, 2019 z at nh LÊ THỊ PHƯƠNG THỦY z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th si ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all the people for their support and contributions to the realization of this thesis First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, Assoc Prof Dr Nguyễn Quang Ngoạn, whose brilliant ideas, unconditional support and encouragement from the very early day to the lu final steps have enabled me to develop a better understanding of the subject and an n va to embrace the challenges in every step of the thesis I am greatly indebted for tn to his invaluable contributions and substantial feedback Without him, this study would not have been accomplished p ie gh I am indebted to the lecturers of Quy Nhon University who have w wholeheartedly guided me through each part of the thesis oa nl I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to the Master‟s Thesis d Examiners for their valuable feedback, constructive detailed comments and lu va an tremendously helpful suggestions for my thesis I am grateful to the leaders of An Nhon High School for their support nf oi lm ul and valuable help they have provided me during the course Finally and most importantly, my heart-felt gratitude goes to my family, z at nh for their unconditional love, infinite patience and enormous emotional support and care throughout this process z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th si iii ABSTRACT The study examines conversations in Vietnamese high school English textbooks (VHSET) versus the New Interchange series (NIS) The aim is to analyze hedge forms and functions under Hyland‟s (1998) framework to find the similarities and differences in using hedges in the two series It also suggests lu some implications for teaching and learning hedges in conversations in the an n va textbooks In order to achieve the aims and objectives, a contrastive analysis of tn to data is conducted on both qualitative and quantitative approaches The findings of the study show the ways that both native and non-native speakers of English gh p ie use hedge forms and functions in conversations As a whole, they use similar w words or expressions to hedge their propositional content Lexical hedges are oa nl more commonly used than non-lexical ones In addition, speakers prefer some d forms (modal verbs, lexical verbs and personal attribution) and functions lu va an (reliability-oriented and writer-oriented hedges) to others Moreover, speakers tend to employ more than one hedging device in a sentence or an utterance nf oi lm ul However, the study also points out some differences in using hedges both semantically and functionally Some forms of hedges occur densely in the New z at nh Interchange series but rarely in Vietnamese high school English textbooks or vice versa Similarly, the ranking positions of reader-oriented and attribute- z m co l gm @ oriented hedges are interchanged in the two series an Lu n va ac th si iv TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv lu ABBREVIATIONS vii an LIST OF TABLES viii va n LIST OF FIGURES ix 1.1 RATIONALE ie gh tn to CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION p 1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES nl w 1.2.1 Aims oa 1.2.2 Objectives d 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS lu va an 1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY nf 1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY oi lm ul 1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL z at nh BACKGROUND 2.1 DIFFERENT VIEWS OF HEDGES z @ 2.2.1 From Fuzzy logic view l gm 2.2.2 From Semantic view 2.2.3 From Pragmatic view m co 2.2 HEDGES AND POLITENESS 11 an Lu 2.3 HEDGES AND MODALITY 15 n va ac th si v 2.4 TAXONOMY OF HEDGES 16 2.4.1 According to Forms 16 2.4.1.1 Lexical Hedges 18 2.4.1.2 Non-lexical Hedges 19 2.4.2 According to Functions 20 2.4.2.1 Salager-Mayer‟s model 20 2.4.2.2 Hyland‟s model 21 lu an 2.5 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON HEDGES 26 n va CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND PROCEDURES 29 3.2 SAMPLING 30 gh tn to 3.1 RESEARCH METHODS 29 p ie 3.3 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 30 w 3.3.1 Data Sources 30 oa nl 3.3.2 Criteria for Data Collection 31 PROCEDURES 31 d 3.3 RESEARCH an lu 3.4 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY 33 nf va CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 34 oi lm ul 4.1 FORMS OF HEDGES 34 4.1.1 Lexical Hedges 35 z at nh 4.1.2 Non-lexical Hedges 36 4.2 FUNCTIONS OF HEDGES 37 z 4.2.1 Attribute-oriented Hedges 38 @ gm 4.2.1.1 Downtoners 39 l 4.2.1.2 Style disjuncts 41 m co 4.2.2 Reliability-oriented Hedges 42 an Lu 4.2.2.1 Modal Verbs 43 4.2.2.2 Epistemic Adjectives 48 n va ac th si vi 4.2.2.3 Content disjuncts 49 4.2.2.4 Limited Knowledge 51 4.2.3 Writer-oriented Hedges 52 4.2.3.1 Epistemic Lexical Verbs 53 4.2.3.2 Agentless passive constructions 57 4.2.3.3 Empty Subjects with Lexical Verbs 58 4.2.3.4 Attribution to the Source 59 lu an 4.2.4 Reader-oriented Hedges 61 n va 4.2.4.1 Personal Attribution 62 4.2.4.3 Questions 64 4.2.4.4 Claim as one possibility among many 65 p ie gh tn to 4.2.4.2 Hypothetical Conditionals 63 w 4.3 SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES 66 oa nl 4.3.1 The Similarities 66 d 4.3.2 The Differences 68 an lu 4.4 SUMMARY 68 nf va CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 71 oi lm ul 5.1 CONCLUSIONS 71 5.2 IMPLICATIONS 73 z at nh 5.3 LIMITATIONS 73 5.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTHER STUDY 74 z REFERENCES 75 m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th si vii ABBREVIATIONS lu an n va : Common European Framework of Reference for Languages CP : Cooperative Principle Freq : Frequency HD (s) : Hedging Device (s) NIS : New Interchange Series Per : Percentage RAs : Research Articles : Vietnamese High School English Textbooks tn to CEFR VHSET p ie gh d oa nl w oi lm ul nf va an lu z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th si viii LIST OF TABLES an n va Table 2.1 Types of hedges according the four maxims 15 Table 2.2 Varttala‟s (2001) Classification of hedging forms 17 Table 3.1 Interchange 4th edition and the CEFR 31 Table 4.1 The distributions of hedge forms 34 Table 4.2 The frequency of lexical hedges 35 Table 4.3 The frequency of non-lexical hedges 36 The frequency of hedge functions 37 The frequency of attribute-oriented hedges 38 The frequency of adjuncts 40 The frequency of reliability-oriented hedges 42 Table 4.8 44 Table 4.9 The frequency of epistemic adjectives tn to Table name oa lu No Table 4.4 gh p ie Table 4.5 Table 4.7 nl w Table 4.6 Page d The frequency of modal verbs lu va an 48 Table 4.10 The frequency of content disjuncts 51 nf 53 Table 4.12 The frequency of epistemic lexical verbs 53 oi lm ul Table 4.11 The frequency of writer-oriented hedges z at nh Table 4.13 The frequency of judgmental verbs 54 Table 4.14 The frequency of evidential verbs 56 z 61 gm @ Table 4.15 The frequency of reader-oriented hedges Table 4.16 Detailed distributions of hedge functions 69 m co l an Lu n va ac th si 66 [83] It’s probably one of my all-time favorite movies.(E2-U13) [84] I think we should start with the definition of urbanization and perhaps mention some of its causes, such as lack of resources in rural areas and better work opportunities in urban areas.(V12-U2) [85] The computer is definitely one of the greatest inventions in the world (V10-U5) lu By using this strategy, the speakers don‟t mention directly to the things an va they want to refer but offer the alternatives to lower their voice and avoid n directness The data analysis shows not only the similarities but also the differences p ie gh tn to 4.3 SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES w between NIS and VHSET data in using hedges in conversations The similarities oa nl and the differences are discussed as follows to help us find out effective use of d hedges to obtain successful goals in conversations lu an 4.3.1 The Similarities nf va The results of the study show some similarities not only in forms but also oi lm ul in functions of hedges in conversations in NIS and VHSET First, the data analysis shows that the same or similar forms of hedges are z at nh found in both NIS and VHSET data Most of the hedging forms which appear in NIS are also identified in VHSET z @ gm Second, the pragmatic analysis reveals that the frequency of using hedges m co l according to four functions is quite similar in the two sources of data The ranking orders of Reliability-oriented hedges and Writer-oriented hedges remain an Lu unchanged in both NIS and VHSET with the most and the least commonly used rate It is established that the speakers of English in NIS and VHSET have a n va ac th si 67 greater tendency to use hedges related to accuracy of messages (Attributeoriented and reliability-oriented) than those associated with writer-oriented and reader-oriented messages The frequency of occurrence for reader-oriented hedges in NIS (n=68) is quite similar to those in VHSET (n=67) Third, in both NIS and VHSET data, the distribution of lexical hedges outnumbers that of non-lexical hedges This may be explained by the lu preponderant number of lexical hedge‟s sub-categories compared with that of an va non-lexical one Semantically, modal auxiliaries occur with the most frequency n while epistemic adjectives rank the last in the two sets of data It can be said that gh tn to modal auxiliaries become the most commonly used hedges, but also an important p ie type of hedge in conversations in NIS and VHSET In addition, no Epistemic Nouns are found in the two series Strategically, “personal attribution” and oa nl w “agentless passive constructions” are preferred in both sets of data, whereas, d “claim as one possibility among many” and “attribution to the source” are the lu an least commonly used hedging strategies nf va Fourth, more than one hedge form has been identified in a sentence or an oi lm ul utterance In many samples, two or more hedging expressions are found [83] and [83] are typical instances z at nh In [83], the speaker uses a lexical item (an epistemic adverb probably) and a strategic hedge (“claims as one possibility among many”) to hedge the z gm @ propositional content Also, it is interesting to note that four hedging expressions are identified in [84] including personal attribution (I think), a modal verb l possibility among many”) m co (should), an epistemic adverb (perhaps) and a strategic hedge (“claims as one an Lu n va ac th si 68 4.3.2 The Differences The distribution of the hedging forms and functions used in NIS and VHSET data shows that the two series have different rhetorical preferences With regard to lexical categories, Epistemic adverbs have the second highest frequency in NIS (34.3%), but rank third in VHET (15.7%) Epistemic adverbs in NIS (n=124) is greatly predominant in comparison with that in lu VHSET (n=60) in spite of the larger number of words in VHSET data Epistemic an va Lexical Verbs are the second commonly used category in VHSET (28.1%) but n take the third place in NIS (26.5%) VHSET speakers use more modal verbs gh tn to (n=197) than NIS speakers (n=130) It is quite surprising that unlike many other p ie sub-type of lexical hedges, downtoners are less commonly used in VHSET (n=50) than in NIS (n=89) oa nl w As for non-lexical categories, speakers in NIS tend to use more “Personal d Attribution” (n=40) and “Empty Subjects with Lexical Verbs” (n=14) strategies lu an to hedge their propositional content than VHSET speakers (n=25 and n=9) nf va On the contrary, “Agentless passive constructions” (n=23) and “Hypothetical oi lm ul Conditionals” (n=20) strategies are identified more common in VHSET than those in NIS (n=14 and n=10) z at nh With reference to hedge functions, reliability-oriented and writer-oriented hedges in VHSET comprise the higher frequency than those in NIS Meanwhile, z frequently than NIS speakers m co l 4.4 SUMMARY gm @ speakers in VHSET use Attribute-oriented and Reader-oriented hedges less Findings of current study reveal the considerable variability of hedging an Lu expressions used in conversations in NIS and VHSET n va ac th si 69 Table 4.16 Detailed distributions of hedge functions No NIS Functions of hedges VHSET Freq Per Freq Per Total Freq Per 187 39.5% 230 45.7% 417 42.7% Modal verbs 130 27.5% 197 39.2% 327 33.5% Modal adjectives 12 2.5% 13 2.6% 25 2.6% Content disjuncts 35 7.4% 1.6% 43 4.4% Limited knowledge 10 2.1% 12 2.4% 22 2.3% Writer-oriented 129 27.3% 154 30.6% 283 29.0% Lexical verbs 96 20.3% 113 22.5% 209 21.4% Agentless passive constructions 14 3.0% 23 4.6% 37 3.8% Empty subjects with lexical verbs 14 3.0% 1.8% 23 2.4% 1.1% 1.8% 14 1.4% 89 18.8% 52 89 18.8% 50 9.9% 139 14.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% Reader-oriented 68 14.4% 67 Personal attribution va an Reliability-oriented lu lu I 40 8.5% 25 5.0% 65 6.7% Hypothetical conditionals 10 2.1% 20 4.0% 30 3.1% Questions 10 2.1% 15 3.0% 25 2.6% Claim as one possibility among many 1.7% 1.4% 15 1.5% 100% 503 100% II n va ie gh tn to Attribution to the source p III Attribute-oriented w Downtoners Style disjuncts d oa an IV nl oi lm ul nf z at nh Total 473 10.3% 141 13.3% 135 976 14.4% 13.8% 100% z @ According to the data, the lexical hedges comprise modal verbs, adverbs, gm l lexical verbs, and adjectives Concerning the non-lexical hedges, apart from the m co use of agentless passive constructions, hypothetical conditionals, empty subjects an Lu with lexical verbs and questions, there are other forms of discourse-based strategies including limited knowledge, attribute to the source, personal n va ac th si 70 attribution and claim as one possibility among many Among these forms, modal verbs tend to receive a great amount of attention of speakers in the two series as they have done in the literature They are used to indicate qualification The strategies and devices identified here are a principal means of conferring less certainty on statements Functionally, the given forms are grouped according to categories under lu Hyland‟s (1998) modal They are reliability-oriented hedges, writer-oriented an va hedges, attribute-oriented hedges and reader-oriented hedges Out of the four n functions, reliability-oriented hedges are the most frequently used in gh tn to conversations, followed by writer-oriented hedges and attribute-oriented hedges p ie Reader-oriented hedges are the least common category d oa nl w oi lm ul nf va an lu z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th si 71 CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 5.1 CONCLUSIONS It is commonly accepted that hedges play an important role in everyday conversations Generally, this study has carried out on the basis of the lu an contemporary theories about the related concepts including: hedges, politeness va and modality It analyses and compares the forms and functions of hedging n tn to devices used in conversations in the two textbook series: one compiled by native ie gh speakers (NIS) and one by Vietnamese (VHSET) A contrastive analysis has p been done with both qualitative and quantitative approaches To set up a nl w theoretical base for the study, a review of some key terms has been presented in d oa the second part of the study such as: Fuzzy logic, Hedged performative, Lexical an lu hedges, Non-lexical hedges, Reliability-oriented hedges, Writer-oriented hedges, Attribute-oriented hedges and Reader-oriented hedges They are well defined va ul nf with classification and examples Besides, some comparisons have been made to oi lm clarify the reason why speakers employ hedging devices in such different ways z at nh With the findings and analysis, the study has found the clearest answers to the research questions Based on the data, the hedging devices are used z commonly for politeness aims, indirectness, probability and lack of commitment @ l gm and to show speaker‟s uncertainty or confidence In addition, in order to meet the aims and objectives mentioned in the Chapter and for the analysis to be m co convincible, statistics are shown in forms of tables and charts As a result, an Lu hedging devices have been described clearly, carefully and systematically Then, n va ac th si 72 the author has discussed the findings of the analysis The discussion has been done on the frequencies of occurrence of hedging forms and functions and has come to some conclusions: Both NIS and VHSET speakers tend to use the same or similar forms and functions of hedges in conversations The frequencies of occurrence of most forms and functions of hedges are quite similar The most preferred hedges lu an occurring in both series are modal verbs which express the degree of n va confidence of the truth of the proposition conversations while Attribute-oriented and reader-oriented hedges are less common in both NIS and VHSET p ie gh tn to Speakers prefer Reliability-oriented hedges and Writer-oriented hedges in w In both sets of data, lexical hedges outnumber those of non-lexical hedges oa nl and modal verbs are not only the most commonly used hedges, but also an d important type of hedge in conversations in NIS and VHSET lu va an Speakers use very few Epistemic Adjectives and no Epistemic Nouns as ul nf hedging devices in NIS and VHSET VHSET oi lm The frequency of reader-oriented hedges in NIS is quite similar to those in z at nh Speakers in NIS tend to use more “Personal Attribution” and “Empty Subjects with Lexical Verbs” strategies to hedge their propositional content z gm @ than VHSET speakers On the contrary, “Agentless passive m co more common in VHSET than those in NIS l constructions” and “Hypothetical Conditionals” strategies are identified an Lu Reliability-oriented and Writer-oriented hedges in VHSET comprise the higher frequency than those in NIS Meanwhile, speakers in VHSET use n va ac th si 73 Attribute-oriented and Reader-oriented hedges less frequently than NIS speakers 5.2 IMPLICATIONS The results of the study may be beneficial to learners and teachers of both languages The contrastive analysis has offered them a clearer insight into the use of hedging forms and functions in conversations lu an This thesis may help teachers with deeper knowledge of the contrastive va n analysis of hedging devices The study provides teachers with the additional As for students, the thesis may be used as a material or reference book in p ie gh tn to reference source that may be helpful in their teaching w their study It may help them to use hedges correctly and successfully in oa nl everyday situations d As the whole, teachers can encourage their students to master English lu va an through practicing hedging devices that represent higher skills in English ul nf learning Similarities and differences found in Chapter will help students 5.3 LIMITATIONS oi lm consider what hedging expression to be used in their daily conversations z at nh The paper is carried out on the basis of the limited data source due to the z limit of time and difficulty in approaching sources and references for the study @ gm Moreover, with limited ability and inexperience in conducting a research, some m co l weaknesses and limitations are inevitable I would be very grateful to those who take interest in this study with comments, advice, and adjustment The sincere, more perfect an Lu useful ideas are very valuable to make this paper more fulfilled, clearer, and n va ac th si 74 Classifying hedging devices lexically and functionally is not without its problems Some words or phrases can be categorized into different types of hedges Additionally, the incidences of a lexical items and non-lexical one may coincide 5.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTHER STUDY This study has been carried out to analyze hedging devices in lu an conversations in VHSET and NIS, but because of limited time and ability, the n va author didn‟t cover all aspects of hedging but that with the limited data sources tn to There are still some fields in this topic that need to be explored So, I would like ie gh to suggest some further researches on the following aspects: p - Hedges in college lectures d oa nl w - Hedges in sports commentaries oi lm ul nf va an lu z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th si 75 REFERENCES Bloomer M & Bloomer T (2007) The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: An Introduction London: Hodder Arnold Brown, P., Levinson, S C., & Levinson, S C (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Vol 4) Cambridge university lu press an Butler, J (2003) A minimalist treatment of modality Lingua, 113 (10), n va tn to 967-996 Clemen, G (1997) The concept of hedging: Origins, approaches and gh p ie definitions Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of w Coates, J (1983) The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries (Vol 3) oa nl a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, 235-248 d London: Croom Helm lu Crompton, P (1997) Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical va an problems English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287 nf Evison, J (2010) What are the basics of analysing a corpus? The oi lm ul Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, 122-135 z at nh Fraser, B (1973) Hedged Performatives Indiana University Linguistics Club z Fraser, B (2010) Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging New gm @ Approaches to Hedging, 1(1), 15-34 l Getkham, K (2011) Hedging devices in applied linguistics research articles Interdisciplinary in Language and an Lu Communication, 141-154 Discourses m co 10 n va ac th si 76 11 Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F (2010) Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts Journal of English for Academic purposes, (2), 128-139 Grice, H P (1975) “Logic and conversation" In P Cole, and J Morgan 12 (Eds.) Syntax & Semantics, 13 Halliday, M A K., & Hasan, R (1989) Language, context, and text: lu Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective an va 14 House, J., & Kasper, G (1981) Politeness markers in English and n German Conversational Routine, 157185, 157-186 Hübler, A (1983) Understatements and Hedges in English John gh tn to 15 Hyland, K (1994) Hedging in academic writing and EAF textbooks English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256 Hyland, K (1996a) Writing without conviction? Hedging in science d 17 oa nl w 16 p ie Benjamins Publishing lu Hyland, K (1996b) Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science nf va 18 an research articles Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454 19 Hyland, K oi lm ul research articles Written Communication, 13(2), 251-281 (1996c) Nurturing hedges in the ESP 20 z at nh curriculum System, 24(4), 477-490 Hyland, K (1998) Hedging in Scientific Research Articles (Vol 54) John gm @ 21 z Benjamins Publishing Hyland, K (2001) Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic l 22 m co articles Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574 Hyland, K (2004) Disciplinary discourses, Michigan Classics ed.: Social an Lu Interactions in Academic Writing University of Michigan Press n va ac th si 77 23 Hyland, K (2005) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192 24 Hyland, K., & Tse, P (2004) Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177 25 Lakoff, G (1973) Lexicography and Generative Grammar I: Hedges and meaning criteria Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences lu 211(1 Lexicography in English ), 144-153 an va 26 Lakoff, G (1975) Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of n fuzzy concepts In Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic to gh tn and Linguistic Semantics (pp 221-271) Springer, Dordrecht Lê Thị Kim Tuyến (2016) A study on Hedges in Conversations in English p ie 27 w and Vietnamese Films Doctoral dissertation, Da Nang University Leech, G N (2016) Principles of Pragmatics Routledge 29 Lyons, J (1977) Semantics (Vol 2) Cambridge university press 30 Markkanen, R., & Schröder, H (1989) Hedging as a translation problem d oa nl 28 an lu nf va in scientific texts Special Languages: From Human Thinking to 31 oi lm ul Thinking Machines, 171-179 Markkanen, R., & Schröder, H (1997) Hedging: A challenge for z at nh pragmatics and discourse analysis Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in gm @ 32 z Academic Texts, 24, 3-18 Murray, J A., Bradley, H., Craigie, W A., & Onions, C T (1933) The l 33 m co Oxford English Dictionary (Vol 1) Oxford: Clarendon Press Myers, G (1985) Texts as knowledge claims: The social construction of an Lu two biology articles Social Studies of Science, 15(4), 593-630 n va ac th si 78 34 Myers, G (1989) The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35 35 Nguyễn Quang Ngoạn & Nguyễn Lê Tố Quyên (2016) Types of Hedges Used by American and Vietnamese Celebrity VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 32(2) Retrieved from https://js.vnu.edu.vn/FS/article/view/1540 Nguyễn Thanh Huy & Trương Hồng Nhung (2015) Using hedges in lu 36 an va English and Vietnamese conversations: The similarities and n differences Asian Journal of Social Sciences, Arts and to gh tn Humanities, 3(1), 27-39 Nguyễn Thi Thúy Thu (2018) A corpus-based study on cross-cultural p ie 37 by Vietnamese and native English-speaking authors Social oa nl w divergence in the use of hedges in academic research articles written d Sciences, 7(4), 70 lu Nuyts, J (2001) Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic an 38 Nuyts, J (2001) Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: oi lm ul 39 nf va modal expressions Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 383-400 A Cognitive-pragmatic Perspective (Vol 5) John Benjamins z at nh Publishing Palmer, F R (2001) Mood and Modality Cambridge University Press 41 Palmer, F R (2014) Modality and the English Modals Routledge 42 Perkins, M R (1983) Modal Expressions in English Burns & Oates 43 Prince, E F., Frader, J., & Bosk, C (1982) On hedging in physician- z 40 m co l gm @ physician discourse Linguistics and the Professions, (1), 83-97 an Lu n va ac th si 79 44 Quirk et al (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language London: Pearson Longman 45 Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J (1972) A grammar of contemporary English London: Longman 46 Rayson, P (2003) Matrix: A statistical Method and Software Tool for linguistic Analysis through Corpus Comparison, Doctoral lu dissertation, Lancaster University an va 47 Rezaie, M., & Taki, S (2014) Hedging Expressions in English and n Persian MA and PhD Theses: The Case of Iranian to gh tn Learners Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(20), 2339 Richards, J C., Hull, J., & Proctor, S (1998) New Interchange Teacher's p ie 48 Cambridge University Press Salager-Meyer, F (1994) Hedges and textual communicative function in d 49 oa nl w Edition 3: English for International Communication (Vol 3) lu English an medical written discourse English for Specific Salager-Meyer, F (1994) Hedges and textual communicative function in medical oi lm ul 50 nf va Purposes, 13(2), 149-170 English written discourse English for Specific 51 z at nh Purposes, 13(2), 149-170 Salager-Meyer, F (1997) I think that perhaps you should: A study of z gm @ hedges in written scientific discourse Functional Approaches to Written Text: Classroom Applications, 1, 127-143 l Skelton, J (1988) Comments in academic articles In P Grunwell (Eds.), m co 52 Applied Linguistics in Society, London: Centre of International an Lu Language Teaching/British Association of Applied Linguistics n va ac th si 80 53 Skelton, J (1988) The care and maintenance of hedges ELT Journal, 42(1), 37-43 54 Skelton, R E (1988) Dynamic Systems Control: Linear Systems Analysis and Synthesis John Wiley & Sons, Inc Thompson, D K (1993) Arguing for experimental “facts” in science: A 55 study of research article results sections in biochemistry Written lu Communication, 10(1), 106-128 an Trương Nguyễn Thảo Trân (2010) Linguistic Features of Hedges in va 56 n Inaugural Addresses by the US President., Doctoral dissertation, Da to gh tn Nang University Varttala, T (2001) Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse Exploring p ie 57 University Press Yu, S (2009) The pragmatic development of hedging in EFL learners d 58 oa nl w variation according to discipline and intended audience Tampere lu an Doctoral dissertation, City University of Hong Kong Zadeh, L A (1965) Fuzzy sets Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353 60 Zadeh, L A (1972) A fuzzy-set-theoretic interpretation of linguistic oi lm ul nf va 59 hedges Journal of Cybernetics, (3), 4-34 Zadeh, L A (1973) Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex z at nh 61 systems and decision processes IEEE Transactions on Systems, z 62 gm @ Man, and Cybernetics, (1), 28-44 Zuck, J G., & Zuck, L V (1986) Hedging in newswriting Beads or m co l Bracelets, 172-180 an Lu n va ac th si