conditional clauses used as hedging devices in english and vietnamese equivalents a pragmatic perspective = mệnh đề điều kiện được sử dụng làm phương tiện rào đón trong tiếng anh và tương đương

NGÔ THỊ MINH TRANG CONDITIONAL CLAUSES USED AS HEDGING DEVICES IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS: A PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE Mệnh đề điều kiện được sử dụng làm phương tiện rào đón tron

NGÔ THỊ MINH TRANG

CONDITIONAL CLAUSES USED AS HEDGING DEVICES IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS: A PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE

(Mệnh đề điều kiện được sử dụng làm phương tiện rào đón trong tiếng Anh và tương đương của chúng trong tiếng Việt: nghiên cứu trên bình diện dụng học)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS CODE: 60.22.15

HANOI – 2012

NGÔ THỊ MINH TRANG

CONDITIONAL CLAUSES USED AS HEDGING DEVICES

IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS: A

PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE

(Mệnh đề điều kiện được sử dụng làm phương tiện rào đón trong tiếng Anh và tương đương của chúng trong tiếng Việt: nghiên cứu trên bình

diện dụng học)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS CODE: 60.22.15

SUPERVISOR: DR NGÔ HỮU HOÀNG

HANOI – 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CANDIDATE’S STATEMENT i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .ii

ABSTRACT .iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .iv

LIST OF FIGURES .v

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale of the Study 1

2 Objectives of the Study 3

3 Scope of the Study 3

4 Methods of the Study 4

4.1 Methods 4

4.2 Introduction of the novella 4

5 Design of the Study 5

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 6

CHAPTER ONE: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 6

1.1 The Concept of Hedging 6

1.1.1 Definitions of Hedge 6

1.1.2 Forms of Hedges 8

1.1.3 Functions of Hedges .9

1.2 Cooperative Principle 10

1.3 Politeness Theory 12

1.3.1 Politeness and Face 12

1.3.2 Face Saving Acts versus Face Threatening Acts 13

1.3.3 Grice‟s Cooperative Principle and Brown and Levinson‟s Politeness Theory .14

1.4 The Concept of Conditionals 14

1.4.1 Definition of Conditional Sentences 14

1.4.2 True Conditionals 15

1.4.3 Pseudo-Conditionals 17

CHAPTER TWO: IF-HEDGING AND POLITENESS 19

2.1 If-hedging and Cooperative Principle 19

2.1.1 If-hedging and Maxim of Quality 19

2.1.2 If-hedging and Maxim of Quantity 20

2.1.3 If-hedging and Maxim of Relation 21

2.1.4 If-hedging and Maxim of Manner 22

2.2 If-hedging and Politeness Principle 24

CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 28

3.1 True Conditionals and Pseudo-Conditionals Occurrence Rate 28

3.2 Pragmatic functions of Pseudo-Conditionals in English and Vietnamese equivalents 30

3.3 Suggestions on teaching and learning English conditionals 38

3.4 Suggestions on translating English conditionals 39

PART C: CONCLUSIONS 40

1 Conclusions 40

2 Limitations 41

3 Suggestions for Further Study 41

REFERENCES 42 APPENDIXES I

Appendix 1: English Conditionals I

Appendix 2: English Pseudo-Conditionals and Vietnamese Equivalents VII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS EFL: English as a Foreign Language

ELT: English Language Teaching

FTA: Face Threatening Act

FSA: Face Saving Act

LIST OF FIGURES Table 3.1: The percentage of true conditionals and pseudo-conditionals Table 3.2: The number of true conditionals and pseudo-conditionals

PART A INTRODUCTION

1 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

Up to date, linguistics has followed logicians in analyzing conditional sentences in light of material implication However, in spite of such a long period of theorization and application of various approaches, there has been no agreed-upon method of teaching English conditionals so far Some teachers teach conditional sentences and subjunctive mood side by side, some teachers teach them separately, and teachers use different ways to classify conditional sentences Overall, current ELT coursebooks have essentially utilized the typology in Logic (real, counterfactual and hypothetical), which they term first, second and third types respectively, with the addition of two more types: zero and mixed The vast majority of ELT materials provide information about the following aspects of conditional sentences:

a The tense-aspect marking of the main verbs in the If-clause and main clause

b The modal auxiliaries that can be used in each clause

c The time reference of the conditional sentence (not of each clause)

d The user‟s attitude towards possibility

(Gabrielatos, 2003) Nevertheless, there has been considerable difference of opinion and much terminological confusion in the area of pragmatic functions Let consider the following examples:

In the sentence (1), the result clause “he'll tell us”- is dependent on the clause” But this is not the case in the sentence (2) where “If-clauses” does not express

“if'-a condition “if'-and result; but implies “Squiggly isn‟t s“if'-aying “if'-anything, whether he knows the answer or not” And the same is true for the other examples which do not fit into the 1, 2, 3 system, for example:

As can be seen, the If-clauses in the examples (3) and (4) are not dependent on the main clauses, and they could equally be expressed as a politeness marker used in speech act of requesting to avoid imposition on the hearer and mitigate the negative effect of refusals in communication These so-called conditionals are also used in Vietnamese, causing a lot of confusing for learners to determine the type of conditionals:

Nếu mai rảnh thì qua nhà tớ chơi nhé!

Nếu không phiền, cậu nhặt hộ tớ mớ rau nha!

Vietnamese, like English, has developed through usage; as the result, language patterns may refuse to be forced into a logically consistent mold One of the reasons for the lack of appropriate system to categorize conditionals may be the inherent flexibility of the language itself In this case, teachers have to base on pragmatics‟ point of view to explain these so-called conditionals Since conditional sentences are basic to the material of grammar and pragmatics, a detailed understanding of conditional sentences is vital for an accurate interpretation of its contents

In consideration of the importance of conditionals in teaching and learning English

as well as the fact that limited research has been done to evaluate pragmatic functions of conditionals, especially in Vietnamese context, the researcher has decided to undertake

the study entitled “Conditional Clauses Used as Hedges in English and Vietnamese

Equivalents: a Pragmatic Perspective” in order to provide the more comprehensive

2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The study has been done in an effort to determine the pragmatic functions of conditionals in English and Vietnamese equivalents Particularly, the study addresses the following primary objectives:

1 To distinguish the conditionals as hedging devices from true conditionals

2 To identify the pragmatic functions of If-hedging comparing to Vietnamese equivalents

3 To suggest some implications for teaching, learning and translating English conditional sentences

The researcher hopes that this study cannot only bring together the fields of conditionals in grammar and pragmatics but also propose guidelines for EFL teachers who wish to implement conditionals to enhance their students‟ language proficiency as well as communicative competence Equally, this study is hoped to provide Vietnamese learners with the approaches of translating conditional sentences and some ways to help Vietnamese learners of English overcome the difficulties in translating conditional sentences By carrying out this study, the researcher also hopes that conditionals can receive more attention and enjoy more popularity among linguistics researchers so that English education in Vietnam can actually equip students with communicative competence

3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Due to the scope of a minor thesis, limited time and experience, it is impossible

to cover all contrastive pragmatic matters Hence, this study just concentrates on pragmatic functions of If-clauses relating to the context in which If-clauses function as

a politeness marker in a certain speech act Also, the study explains pragmatic functions of If-clauses as a hedging device basing on Grice‟s Cooperative Principle and Brown and Levinson‟s Politeness Theory in consideration of FTA and FSA Particularly, the pseudo-conditionals from the novella named The Little Princess are

used as data in this study Detailed analysis and comparative study requires much time and effort; therefore, semantic and syntactic theories are also employed at times to help better analyze conditionals in English and Vietnamese equivalents

4 METHODS OF THE STUDY

4.1 Methods

Such methods as descriptive, comparative and contrastive were employed to describe and analyze, to compare and contrast the database in order to explore similarities and differences in using English conditionals and Vietnamese equivalents Obviously, descriptive method was utilized to provide in-depth and detailed description of conditionals in terms of pragmatics; whereas, comparative and contrastive method was used to give a comparison and contrast relevant to pragmatic properties of conditionals in English and Vietnamese equivalents

A qualitative approach was also conducted to discover meanings that emerge after careful documentation and thoughtful analysis for over approximately a five-month period The data were quantitatively converted into numeric patterns as the primary basis for organizing and reporting results It concentrates on smaller but focused samples rather than large random samples When studying the features of sentence patterns used, as a result of quantification, the researcher can look for recurring patterns emerging from the data

4.2 Introduction of the novella

The Little Prince has been well-known all over the world because the novella has captured the hearts and minds of both children and adults Published by Harcourt

in 1943 and 1971, Katherine Woods' straightforward and beautiful translation is the only one that does justice to The Little Prince The novella is divided into 27 chapters, each of which varies in length from less than a page to a maximum of 3 or 4 pages, depending on the size of the edition read While it presents itself primarily as a narrative in the style of a journal, the book actually contains what may be interpreted

as two distinct story lines: one involving the story of the little prince, the other involving the pilot/narrator

The researcher chooses The Little Prince in English by Katherine Woods (1971) and Vietnamese version by Nguyễn Tấn Đại (2001) as data to analyse because

it is interesting and reliable to measure how often conditionals might occur in a known novel Significantly, novel as a fictional piece of prose usually in a narrative style should use a good language Regardless of how it began, the novel has risen to prominence and remained one of the most popular and treasured examples of human culture and writing; therefore, analysing novel can assist the study to meet the conditions on consideration of reliability and validity Moreover, it is a nice and short text which is available online for anyone to check that the researcher has done this properly

well-5 DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The thesis is divided into three parts as follows:

The first part is the Introduction, which presents the basic information such as: rationale for the study, objectives of the study, scope of the study, research questions, methods, as well as design of the thesis

The second part is the Development of the study, divided into three chapters:

- Chapter 1 provides relevant theoretical background to this study

- Chapter 2 examines the pragmatic relation of If - hedging with Cooperative Principle and Politeness Principle in English and Vietnamese

- Chapter 3 presents an analysis of the data as well as the interpretation of the results in order to attain the objectives of the study

The last part is the Conclusions which summarize what is addressed in the study, points out the limitations and provides some suggestions for further study

PART B DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER ONE THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This chapter provides the theoretical background of the thesis It is divided into four main sections; section 1 discusses the concept of Hedging, section 2 presents Cooperative Principles, section 3 focuses on the Politeness Strategies, and section 4 deals with the concept of Conditionals

1.1 THE CONCEPT OF HEDGING

1.1.1 Definitions of Hedge

Hedging has been a major concern of various viewpoints such as cross cultural comparisons, gender studies, translation studies, politeness theory, academic discourse and so on over the last twenty years In the literal sense, the term “hedge” and

“hedging” expresses the idea of “barrier”, “limit”, “defence”, or the way used to protect or defend oneself In the light of language, hedges have been defined in various ways based on their forms and functions

At the most basic level, Crystal (2008) defined hedge as “an application in pragmatics and discourse analysis of a general sense of the word („to be non-committal or evasive‟) to a range of items which express a notion of imprecision or qualification” Likewise, Richards and Schmidt (2010) described hedge as “a mitigating device which is dedicated to decrease the impact of an utterance” As can

be seen, both definitions of hedge come from pragmatics aspects regarding hedge as a marker indicating how Gricean maxims are observed In this case, hedges are considered pragmatic markers which reinforce the influence of the message and hence they appear to be associated mainly with the politeness strategies

In literature, there are various linguistic expressions that can be considered as hedges According to Fraser (2010), Weinreich (1966) was the first person to mention hedging in the linguistic field when he referred to „„meta-linguistic operators,‟‟ arguing that for every language „„meta-linguistic operators‟‟ such as (in) English true, real, so-called, strictly speaking, and the most powerful extrapolator of all, like, function as instructions for the loose or strict interpretation of designate in his research literature (1966: 163) However, it was Lakoff who officially introduced the term in 1972 bringing the greatest initial impact that popularized the concept of hedging He defined hedges as follows:

“For me, some of the most interesting questions are raised by the study of words whose meaning implicitly involves fuzziness - words whose job it is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy I will refer to such words as 'hedges'”

Lakoff (1972:195)

In Lakoff‟s point of view, hedging refers to words or phrases “whose job it

is to make things fuzzier” involving that the writer is less than fully committed

to the certainty of the referential information given As Clemen (1997: 238) stated, Lakoff merely concentrated on the logical relationships of words and the semantic aspect of hedging Furthermore, Clemen (1997: 238) indicated that Lakoff did not consider context to be important for giving hedges their meaning but saw hedges as independent lexical items with the capacity to make things 'fuzzier'

Later on, Lakoff's pioneering opinions have been further developed by a number of linguists They have generally adopted a broader view on hedging, considering it not only a semantic phenomenon but also a pragmatic one making a great contribution to the interpersonal function of language

Holmes (1982) demonstrates that hedges are devices which lessen the force of

an utterance thereby attenuating or reducing the strength of the utterance or softening / weakening the effect of the utterance In addition, she supports the idea that hedges are for positive politeness In simpler words, hedging means the way people express

their uncertainty about something or state something uncertain, and “hedges” are words or phrase which carry the speaker‟s uncertainty (Bonano, 1982: 36) One reason that speakers do not show certainty of what they say is that they want to indicate only the criteria or type of criteria they find important at that time (Schmidt, 1974: 622)

In more technical definitions, hedges are particles, words, or phrases that modify “the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase in a set” (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 145) Remarkably, Brown and Levinson maintain both the attenuation and the reinforcement aspects of hedging; revealing a fact that hedges are

“strengtheners” as well as “weakeners” which developed fully the speech act aspect of hedging Whereas Lakoff (1972) considers only propositional hedging and Fraser (1975) concentrates only on performative verb hedging, Brown and Levinson deal with the hedging of the illocutionary force of a speech act in term of politeness phenomena

As can be seen, research on hedges is difficult to clarify what hedging expressions are It lacks a solid definition of hedges and accordingly a profound understanding of what might be used as a hedge The complexity of these functional definitions is that almost any linguistic item or expression can be used as a hedge This means that no clear-cut lists of hedging expressions are possible (Clemen, 1997: 6) Despite the difficulty in establishing definitions of hedges, there is some consensus

in the field that hedges should be discerned between the actual item and the function

of hedging in general Regarding all the different approaches synthesized precisely by Clemen (1998), hedging can be considered the general use of linguistic means to mitigate the impact of an utterance; increasing the possibility of a better acceptance and simultaneously minimizing the risk of rejection In this case, hedging is thereby nothing more than a way to relate to the maxims of conversation by Grice

1.1 2 Forms of Hedges

In consideration of hedging in academic writing, Crompton (1997) along with some defenders such as Skelton (1988b), Myers (1989), Salager-Meyer (1994) and Hyland (1994) distinguishes hedges between forms as follows:

− copulas other than be (e.g The result appears to be that )

− lexical verbs (e.g The result suggests that )

− modal verbs (e.g The result might be that )

− probability adverbs (e.g The result possibly is that )

− probability adjectives (e.g It is possible that the result )

(Crompton 1997: 280, examples added by Riekkinen (2009))

Additionally, hedging has been regarded to adhere to, for instance, If-clauses, Time Adverbials and Passives (Hyland, 1994), Lexis Expressing Personal Involvement (Salager-Meyer, 1994), All Clause Initial Adverbs (Skelton, 1988b), All Devices Suggesting an Alternative (Myers, 1989) As can be seen even from this small sample of references, the forms of hedge are an open-ended category

1.1.3 Functions of Hedges

In common sense, hedges are most commonly concerned with either expressing

a lack of commitment to the truth of something the speaker utters (Lyons, 1977; Coates, 1989; Markkanen & Schröder, 1989; Hyland, 1998) or alternatively softening the force of the speaker's utterance such as softening claims (Hatch, 1992), softening complaints, requests and commands (Brown & Levinson, 1987), softening performatives (Lakoff, 1972; Fraser, 1975), and softening criticism (Drechsel, 1989)

Regarding the array of literature, hedges can function as cooperative devices in conversation For examples, quality hedges that diminish speaker‟s commitment may

redress advice or criticisms: “As far as I am concerned…” Quantity hedges may be used to weaken complaints or requests: “Could you make this copy more or less final?” Whereas, relevance hedges are intended to redress offers or suggestions: “This may sound like dumb question but…”And manner hedges can be employed to redress all kinds of FTAs: “If you see what I‟m driving at…”

Later, hedges can act as one of politeness strategies (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Buikema & Roeters, 1982) by which we are able to “recognize the speech function, the type of offer, command, statement, or question, the attitudes and judgments embodied in it, and the rhetorical features that constitute it as a symbolic act” (Halliday & Hassan, 1989:45) In plenty of previous work, hedging has been viewed

as a negative politeness strategy; however, it may simultaneously be seen to have a positive politeness dimension Brown and Levinson comment that one way to express positive politeness toward one‟s addressee; to communicate “that one‟s own wants … are in some respects similar to the addressee‟s wants” is to avoid disagreement (1987: 101)

As can be seen, the functions of hedges are manifold and can be separated from one another However, it is necessary to note that these functions can, and in fact often

do, overlap (Mauranen, 2004: 176) Some linguists would rather to deal with the functions of hedging as overlapping without any clear-cut distinctions

1.2 COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE

In cooperation with Speech Act Theory (e.g Austin, 1962 & Searle, 1969), Grice‟s work on the Cooperative Principle initiates the current interest in pragmatics, and leads to its development as a separate discipline within linguistics Grice (1975: 45) defined Cooperative Principle as one of the important principles in conversation that “make your contribution such as required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” According to Grice (1975), there are four maxims under this general principle namely, maxims of quantity, quality, relation and manner

The maxim of Quantity:

- Make your contribution as informative as is required

- Do not make your contribution more informative than is required

The Maxim of Quality:

- Do not say what you believe to be false

- Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

The Maxim of Relation:

- Be relevant

The Maxim of Manner:

- Avoid obscurity of expression

- Avoid ambiguity

- Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)

- Be orderly

Grice (1975:45) The cooperative principle seems to be the basic framework of human speech conduct It can be seen clearly that the principle requires the conversation to be precisely informative, truthful, relevant and explicit However, while conversation participants nearly always observe the Cooperative Principle, they do not always observe these maxims strictly Verschueren (2000: 33) stated that “…on many occasions, the maxims will be breached or „flouted‟ But since speakers are expected

to be co-operative by using language in accordance with the maxims, any clear breaching or flouting will be interpreted by a co-operative interlocutor as a conscious act signaling special (implicit) meaning.” The Cooperative Principle accounts for the

relationship between the literal meaning and actual meaning, explaining how the

“Conversational Implicature” is produced and understood, but it does not explain why people violate the conversational maxims so as to express themselves in a vague or an indirect way

1.3 POLITENESS THEORY

1.3.1 Politeness and Face

Politeness is defined as a common word that means “having or showing that one has good manners and consideration for other people” (Oxford Advanced Learners‟ Dictionary) In 1987, Brown and Levinson defined politeness as a form of behavior enabling communication to take place between potentially aggressive partners Central to interpersonal politeness, Brown and Levinson‟s work is dealt with two parts; the first part is their fundamental theory concerning the nature of

„politeness‟ and how it functions in interaction, whereas the second part is a list of

„politeness‟ strategies with examples from different languages (Kitamura, 2000)

In the theoretical part of their work, Brown and Levinson introduce the notion

of „face‟ in order to illustrate “politeness” in the broad sense They confirm that human beings have two kinds of face, namely “positive face” and “negative face”

„Positive face‟ is described as the positive and consistent image people have of themselves, and their desire for approval, whereas “negative face” is depicted as the desire of every individual to have his/her own actions unimpeded by others (Brown & Levinson, 1987) Additionally, the researchers assert that face is susceptible to face-threatening acts (FTAs) such as orders, requests, warnings, remindings and threats, and accordingly politeness strategies are employed with an aim to reduce the imposition of FTAs The significance of FTAs is evaluated in relation to three social variables: the social distance between the speaker and the hearer, the relative power of the speaker and the hearer and the ranking of impositions within a given culture (Brown & Levinson, 1987) On the basis of a combination of these three variables, speakers decide which of the following strategies to employ:

1 Bald on record - without redressive action: saying things directly, such as

“Turn the light on”

2 Positive politeness - expressing solidarity: “Be a good boy and turn the light on”

3 Negative politeness - expressing restraint: using conventional indirectness: “I wonder if you could turn the light on”

4 Off-record - using non-conventional indirectness: “It's dark in here”

5 Don't do the FTA

(Brown & Levinson, 1987)

Among the five strategies, positive and negative politeness strategies are most discussed for their close relationship with „face‟which is based on the supposition that the speaker wishes to mitigate the potential face-threat carried in his/her utterance in order to maintain the hearer‟s want to be approved (positive politeness) or to be free

of imposition (negative politeness)

1.3.2 Face Saving Acts versus Face Threatening Acts

According to Brown and Levinson (1987), FSA is type of behavior through which a person utters something that lessens the possible threat to another‟s face while FTA functions as an illocutionary act that may threaten another person‟s face, for example in orders, requests, warnings, dares, complaints, criticism, ridicule, reprimands, insults, accusations, etc Noticeably, FTA may threaten either the negative

or the positive face of the speaker or the hearer Besides, they regard the redressive action as “an action that gives face to an addressee” and indicate that the face-threatening acts are modified via using various means that speaker employs throughout the conversation (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 70) Moreover, they explain that FTA sometimes occurs in a conversation and it can damage the face of the hearer

or the speaker because FTA is an opposite act to wants and desires of others If people

want the communication runs well, they can defend each other's face or they can also lessen the threat by using FSA

To sum up, the major point of politeness is how to manage „face‟ in various ways so that one‟s partner of communication will not lose his/her „face‟ or how to save his/her face Remarkably, it can be seen that the more indirect linguistic forms people use (e.g passive form, a supposition), the more polite the way of expression will be

1.3.4 GRICE’S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE AND BROWN AND LEVINSON’S POLITENESS THEORY

On a more general level, Gricean model of Cooperative Principle is another building block in Brown and Levinson‟s theory; that is, Grice‟s cooperative principle

is a tool to express Brown and Levinson‟s politeness theory in order for avoiding FTA

by utilizing FSA Brown and Levinson notice the existence of a “model person” with two special properties: rationality and face They try to develop a model of politeness which would have validity across cultures The common factor in Brown and Levinson‟s (1987) approaches is that they all claim, explicitly or implicitly, the universality of their principles for linguistic politeness The general idea is to understand various strategies for interactive behaviours based on the fact that people engage in rational behaviours to achieve the satisfaction of certain wants

1.4 CONDITIONALS

1 4.1 Definition of Conditional Sentences

In common sense, conditionals are introduced by “if”, “unless”, or other conjunctions which are usually interpreted in terms of aspectual or modal verb forms Such other conjunctions are often used as unless, providing that/ provided that, as long

as, only if, if only, on the condition that, assuming that, given that, supposed that/ supposing that, and so on Besides, the term is sometimes employed to refer to the

entire two-part construction, including protasis and apodosis, which is aimed to explain a particular situation or circumstance and its consequences

In linguistics, conditionals are defined in various ways; however, few of them provide clear-cut definition For examples, Conditionals in “A Practical English Grammar” (Thomson & Martinet, 1986) and Conditionals in “Comprehensive English Grammar for Student” (Murphy, 1961) are only analyzed in lights of structures, usages and variations Later, Quirk (1987) came up with an idea which is regarded the core of a definition about conditional sentence: “Conditional clauses state the dependence of one circumstance or set of circumstances on another” Furthermore, Cobuild (1990) commented that: “Sentences containing conditional clauses are sometimes called conditional sentences” and according to him, conditional clauses begin with “if” or with conjunctions having similar meaning like “unless” Regarding the functions of Conditional clauses, Haiman (1978) convinces that conditional clauses need studying from a discourse standpoint Empirically, Akatsuka (1986) indicates that conditionals belong to the domain of discourse and many of her arguments in her 1985 paper are based on discourse considerations

Via these theories above, it is accepted for most fields of language learning that the expressions of conditionals can be manifested in different ways for different intentions Conditional Sentences can be regarded as one kind of complex sentence of

at least two main clauses “the main clause (result clause)” and “subordinate clause (if clause)” which are aimed at performing the dependence of one circumstance or set of circumstances on another In others words, If-clauses set up the condition for the main clauses to produce the result or outcome However, the limitation of conditional perceptions over grammar concerns was validated in the previous work and nowadays, researchers are more curious about the different pragmatic functions within the conditional construction from various subtypes

1 4.2 True Conditionals

In grammar, a conditional sentence is a two-clause sentence in which the first clause states a supposition or hypothesis and the second clause states the results if that condition is met Logically, a conditional is a compound statement formed by combining two sentences (or facts) using the words "If then" The hypothetical clause which states the condition ("If this ") is named the protasis and the conclusion clause is termed the apodosis (" then this.") There are three main types

of Conditionals in English which is presented hereafter

Conditional type I: if + present simple tense + modal verb with future

reference (e.g will/shall/may) For instance:

If it rains, we will stay home

He will arrive late unless he hurries up

First conditional is often called the "real" conditional because it is used for

“real or possible” situations Quirk (1972) stated that “The condition leaves unresolved the question of the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of the condition and hence also the truth of the proposition expressed by the main clause” Likewise, Elbaum (1986) defines this type of conditionals as “condition that has a possibility of occurring” It means that these situations take place if a certain condition is met

Particular case related to First conditional is so-called Zero conditional when

the result of the condition is always true, like a scientific fact such as:

If you heat ice, it melts

Obviously, Zero conditional is used when the result will always happen; the result of the condition is an absolute certainty Regarding sentence structure, it is necessary to note that two clauses use the present simple tense to talk about the condition

Conditional type II: if + simple past tense + modal verb with

future-in-the-past reference (e.g would, could, might) For example:

If he studied more, he would pass the exam

They would buy a new house if they had more money

Second conditional is called the "unreal" conditional because it is used for unreal - impossible or improbable - situations This conditional provides an imaginary result for a given situation The verb “to be”, when used in the 2nd conditional, is always conjugated as “were” According to Quirk (1972), “a hypothetical condition conveys the expectation that the condition will not be fulfilled” Later, Elbaum (1986) stated that “An unreal condition tell about something that is not true or real It makes a supposition” Moreover, Pyle and Munoz (1994) asserted that “The unreal conditional expresses a situation (past, present or future) that would take place or would have taken place if the circumstances expressed were or had been different now or in the past”

Conditional type III: if + past perfect tense + modal verb with

future-in-the-past reference (e.g would/could/might) + have + ed participle:

If I had known you were sick, I would have sent you flowers

If he had known that, he would have decided differently

Like Second conditional, Third conditional is called the "unreal" conditional It

is often referred to as the "past" conditional because it concerns only past situations with hypothetical results Mainly, it is utilized with an aim to express a hypothetical result to a past given situation

Syntactically, the condition is the subordinate clause, and the consequence is the main clause Therefore, the properties of the entire sentence are primarily determined by the properties of the protasis (condition) (its tense and degree of factualness) However, English conditional sentences are perceptibly multifold in

meaning because of a number of conditional signals with various meanings; hence, a variety of pragmatic functions can be found in communication

If I may interrupt, what time is it?

If you think of it, pick up some soap on your way home

(Fasold & Shuy, 1977)

These conditionals above are purposely utilized to soften the foregoing part of the utterance that might be viewed as imposition Remarkably, these sentences do not seem to fit common types of conditional; both of them mean something like “if it's the case that” and are examples of what is called Pseudo conditionals where the result does not logically follow from the condition

According to Wilamová (2005), pseudo-conditionals are illustrated by clauses in the position of afterthoughts such as …, if I may say so, …, if I were you,

If-…, if you wanted to, If-…, if you like, If-…, if you insist, If-…, if it comes to that, If-…, if that isn‟t an impertinent question, … This group of pragmatic markers is named pseudo-conditionals because these If-clauses are not truly conditional sentences in their nature

as they syntactically lack the other part of the conditional structure and semantically they lack the condition which has to be fulfilled before something else can happen (Wilamová, 2005) Remarkably, Wilamova (2005) indicates that pseudo-conditional‟s if-clauses are not one hundred percent conditional sentence because of the absence of

a characteristic conditional structure and a condition that should be in the conditionals fulfilled

CHAPTER TWO

“IF” HEDGING AND POLITENESS

This chapter analyzes the pragmatic functions of pseudo-conditionals as hedging devices in English and Vietnamese basing on Grice‟s theory of Cooperative Principle and Brown and Levinson‟s theory of Politeness Principle

2 1 “IF” HEDGING AND COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE

2.1.1 “If” Hedging and Maxim of Quality

Quality hedges may suggest that speakers do not taking full responsibility for the truth of their utterance Using these hedges, the speakers want the listeners to discern what they are talking about is true in the given conditions but it can be false in

other situations:

If I remember correctly, Ann comes from America

In the above example, if the speaker only says that “Ann comes from America.” and she does not know for sure if Ann comes from America, she may violate the maxim of quality since she say something that she does not know to be true

or false Nevertheless, by adding “If I remember correctly”, the speaker wants to confirm that she are observing the conversational maxim of quality

If I remember correctly, these negotiations – and please correct me if I’m wrong – weren‟t they seen as a way to avoid the situation was now find our self

in?

(Fraser, 2010) Likewise, in Vietnamese we have some expressions like:

Nếu tôi nhớ không nhầm thì bài thơ này của một thi sĩ thời tiền chiến

Nếu tôi đoán không sai thì thế nào hắn cũng đến đây

Nhưng đối với lịch sử biểu tình, nếu biểu tình có lịch sử, thì nó cũng có một

2.1.2 “If” Hedging and Maxim of Quantity

Quantity hedges give notice that not as much or not as precise information as might be expected Let consider some examples hereafter:

If no one hasn’t told you, I will tell you: you are fired, sorry

I tell you the truth, if you don't believe; I will tell you another story about him

If I haven't already told you, I'm getting married

In the examples mentioned above, the speakers imply that what they are intended to say is not required (because the listeners have probably known), but they have to mention again In this case, conditionals function as a hedge to avoid quantity flouting In Vietnamese, such these sentences are like:

Không nói thì các đồng chí cũng biết, lần này địch đánh lớn

Nếu anh chị quên thì tôi nhắc cho anh chị nhớ, ngày mai là đã đến hạn trả nợ

cho tôi rồi đấy nhé!

Nếu như chưa ai thông báo cho các anh thì coi như bây giờ tôi thông báo: kể

từ ngày mai các anh bị đuổi việc

In terms of pragmatics, it is true that using conditionals can save listeners‟ face and thereby making communication more effective Generally, in three sentences above, the speakers feel a need to make (essentially repeat or reaffirm) the information they know in advance that listeners have already known In this case, conditionals function as a device to avoid flouting maxim of quantity towards the speakers

2.1.3 “If” Hedging and Maxim of Relation

Though conditional clauses can serve a range of discourse functions, it seems generally true that their antecedents have the potential of introducing a new question,

or topic, for discussion in the discourse As noted by Groenendijk and Stockhof (1984), this is what makes sequences such as the following felicitous:

A: What‟s the weather going to be like today?

B: If Bill took his umbrella, it‟s going to rain

Clearly, the conditional is not an answer to the question; but it provides a strategy for arriving at an answer, namely, by answering the question raised by the antecedent of the conditional Sometimes, speakers use conditionals to restrict the given situation so that the speech acts following is marked:

I don't know if this is relevant but after reading so much about accounts being

disabled or suspended for not having a privacy policy and what not I'm thinking the worst

If Nixon is not president, then Monday follows Sunday

In Vietnamese, these following sentences can be considered relevant hedges:

Tôi thì cứ nói thẳng những điều mình nghĩ, nếu có gì thất thố xin anh bỏ quá cho

Tôi đã nói hết với anh những gì muốn nói Tha lỗi cho tôi, nếu những lời lẽ trong thư có làm cho anh đau khổ Và cũng xin anh hiểu cho rằng tôi không

hề cố ý

Nếu cô có mích lòng thì tôi chịu lỗi với cô chứ tôi không thể không nói ra điều

này

Nếu không thích chú bỏ ngoài tai, chớ với tôi, nó thiêng lắm

Nếu anh muốn nghe thì tôi nói cho anh nghe, họ nói anh tư túi, quan liêu Nếu anh muốn biết thì tôi cũng chẳng giấu anh, mẹ tôi đang mắc bệnh hiểm

nghèo

Nếu anh quan tâm, thì đây địa chỉ của cô ấy

Vì anh muốn nghe nên tôi nói (cho anh biết), họ nói anh tư túi, quan liêu Tại anh muốn nghe tôi mới nói (cho anh biết), họ nói anh tư túi, quan liêu Nếu em dọa anh thì anh cũng nói thẳng với em rằng ở đời này chưa ai bắt

được anh làm việc gì mà anh thấy chưa cần làm

(Hằng, 2009)

In the examples mentioned above, the speakers aware that what they are about

to say is inappropriate and may have a negative impact on the listeners, but they have

to say In such a required situation, speakers use pseudo-conditionals to create an excuse or apology, justification or explanation to avoid threatening listeners‟ face

2.1.4 “If” Hedging and Maxim of Manner

In utterances, speakers often use hedges to reveal that they comply with the principles of cooperation For example:

If the old king has died of a heart attack and a republic has been declared,

then Tom will be quite content

It can be said from the example that the interpreter can be assumed to recognize that the antecedent clause provides a representation of the circumstances in which it is claimed that Tom will be happy The interpreter can further assume that the speaker has given the best, most cooperative representation of those circumstances that she

can A good representation is an orderly one; therefore, the interpreter can presume that the speaker has abided by the orderliness requirement of the Maxim of Manner

Regarding some similar examples of Vietnamese conditionals:

Gia đình chính là một xã hội thu nhỏ, nếu muốn nói cho dễ hiểu

Yếu tố để đi đến thành công là siêng năng, nếu không muốn nói dài dòng Tình yêu là gì à? Tình yêu là một hung thần, nếu muốn định nghĩa một cách ngắn gọn

Nếu theo thuận tự mà nói thì chuyện có thực là như vậy đấy

Nếu nói một cách khách quan, không phải mọi tác phẩm của Hồ Biểu Chánh

đều trường tồn với thời gian

Nếu nhìn nhận từ góc độ đó thì cụ Tanaka là một người kể chuyện biết chữ rất