language plays an important part

It goes without saying that language plays an important part not only in recording and understanding culture but also in communication among people who share or do not share the same nationality

language and culture exchanges (i.e cross-cultural or intercultural communication) To support

this point of view, Durant (1997: 332) claims that “to have a culture means to have communication and to have communication means to have access to a language.”

Although well aware of the ultimate objective of learning a foreign language toward successful communication, many Vietnamese learners of English hold that a good command of a foreign language or success in foreign language learning lies only in mastering grammar rules and accumulating as much vocabulary as possible As a result, even possibly producing grammatically well-formed utterances, they may experience unwanted culture shock, and communication breakdown when running into a real and particular context of situation This unexpected incidence occurs due to their insufficient knowledge and awareness of social norms and values, roles and relationships between individuals, especially those from the target culture

It is worth noting that different languages and cultures have different expressions of behavior and different realizations of speech acts by language users This has suggested a considerable number of researchers, both local and foreign to conduct their studies on cross-cultural pragmatics and/ or communication such as thanking, requesting, complementing, etc However, little attention has been paid to the speech act of giving bad news using hedges In daily life, no one likes to give their relatives or friends bad news because rarely does he/ she find it easy to reduce listeners’ feeling of sadness, to lessen the hurt, but sometimes even the best, brightest and most talented, the informers are left with no choice Nevertheless, to convey bad news such as informing the death of the husband in an accident to his wife if the speaker goes straight to the point with:

“Your husband died in the accident.”

he/ she may cause such a sudden shock to the wife (the hearer) that she can hardly stand it Conversely, the wife in the above case will feel less painful if the news is given this way:

“As you know, among 212 passengers, only two survived And I regret to inform you that your husband is not among the lucky two”

Needless to say, hedges such as “as you know”, “I regret to inform” have been resorted to for

the effect of minimizing the shock Hedging is used in a certain context for specific communicative intent such as: one strategy of politeness, vagueness, and mitigation Therefore,

a desire to have a further insight into major similarities and differences in using hedges before giving bad news by native speakers of VNSs and ENSs has inspired the writer to develop her

research entitled “A Vietnamese-English cross-cultural study of the use of hedging before giving bad news” It is hoped that this study can provide the increase of some socio-cultural

knowledge and awareness needed for better cross-cultural communication and foreign language learning and teaching in Vietnam

The significance of the study is two-fold: First, giving bad news is one of highly sensitive acts

since this type of acts happens in everyday social interaction, and is obviously face threatening

Second, how to employ hedges/ hedging appropriately in order not to hurt the other in the act

of giving bad news is essential to achieve successful communication As there is a culture gap between Vietnamese and English, inappropriate language use may cause misinterpretation, miscommunication and communication breakdown among cross-cultural communicators

2 Scope of the study

- Although natural communication always comes with paralinguistic (speed, tone, loudness, pitch ) and extra-linguistic factors (facial expressions, eye contact, postures, orientation, proximity, movement, clothing, artifacts ), the study is confined to the verbal aspects of the act of giving bad news with the use of politeness and hedging In addition, adjacency pairs are beyond the scope of this paper

- The study strictly pertains to the perspective of pragmatics though the author realizes that syntactic theory and semantics apparently do explain the meaning of the spoken word

- The Northern Vietnamese dialect and the English spoken by Anglophone community of England, America, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, are chosen for contrastive analysis

- The data are collected by conducting survey questionnaires to examine the ways VNSs and ENSs use hedges in conveying bad news

3 Aims of the study

- To find out the similarities and differences in the way VNSs and ENSs give bad news using hedges as a politeness strategy

- The questionnaires were delivered to English-speaking people mostly living in Vietnam (working for Apollo, Language Links, British council) and some abroad (mostly in Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong) Based on English-speaking informants’ status parameters, the researcher looked for the Vietnamese subjects of similar parameters in order to have a symmetrical distribution of informants and data for the study

- Besides, discussion with the supervisor, colleagues, personal observations, recording from mass media and data collection from newspapers and magazines are also significant to the study

6 Design of the study

The study is composed of three parts They are:

Part 1 (Introduction) presents the rationale, scope, aims, research questions, and methodology

of the study

Part 2 (Development) consists of three chapters:

Chapter 1 (Theoretical lead-in): discusses the notions of language-culture relationship,

speech act theory, directness-indirectness, face, politeness, and politeness strategies

Chapter 2 (Hedging before giving bad news): explores different conceptualizations of

hedging and gives hedging strategies, based on speech act and politeness theories

Chapter 3 (Data analysis and findings) analyses collected data to find out major

cross-cultural similarities and differences in the choice of hedging strategies in given situations

Part 3 (Conclusion): summarizes the main findings of the study, provides some implications

for TEFL, and offers suggestions for further research

PART 2: DEVELOPMENTCHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL LEAD-IN

When two or more strangers from different cultures communicate or exchange their information and attitude, they are doing intercultural or cross-cultural communication, trying to show or let the other(s) learn about their cultural values, norms, and beliefs Since intercultural communication and cross-cultural communication are not very much different and are used interchangeably (Scollon in Hinkel 1999: 183), we therefore would like to adopt the view of intercultural communication as the exchange of information between individuals who are unalike culturally (Rogers and Steinfatt, 1999: 103) What is more, such communication is much influenced by different factors, notably the binary system of competence-performance (what one knows vs what one does) and context (which sets the scene and shapes the meaning that will attributed to what is said)

Cross-cultural or intercultural communication is simply defined as “the exchange of information between individuals who are unalike culturally” (Roger and Steifatt 1999: 103) or

“whenever a message producer is a member of one culture and a message receiver is a member

of another” (Porter and Samovar, 1985: 39) In cross-cultural communication, people from different cultures may not understand each other or get in trouble if they bring their cultural values and norms into mutual exchanges One of the typical examples of cultural misunderstanding is that they transfer what is accepted in their culture to new situation of communicating with others from a different culture This leads to not only serious misunderstanding, but also communication breakdowns or fatal consequences For instance, people from the Anglophone cultures feel normal when saying “thank you” when offered a compliment on the work Nevertheless, it is not the common way for many VNSs to do the same job Therefore, when contacting each other, a Vietnamese and his Anglophone counterpart may have unexpectedly negative comments on each other about the same act According to Thomas (1995) and Cutting (2003) one of the reasons for communication failure

is that interlocutors may not have a good acquisition of the common language used in cultural communication

cross-All the above disruption can be said to be culture shock, which can lead to the feelings of estrangement, confusion, anger, hostility, indecision, frustration, etc That is why one is advised to know how far one can go as individuals and learn about the culture one is exposed to.

1.1 Speech Acts

“The inference the hearer makes and takes himself to be intended to make is based not just on what the speaker says but also mutual contextual beliefs.”

(Bach, 1979: 5)Naturally, sociolinguistics confirms that the study of language has to go beyond the sentences that are the principle focuses of descriptive and linguistics It must bring in social context It must deal with the real contexts that make up human communication and social situations in which they are used From this viewpoint, Austin discovers that:

“The business of a statement can only be to describe some state of affairs or to state some fact, which must do either falsely or truly”

(Cf Nguyen Hoa, 2000: 69)Some sentences, as he realizes, are not intended to do as such, but rather, are to evince emotion

or to prescribe conduct, or to influence it in special ways In uttering the sentence, the S is often performing some non-linguistic act such as: daring, promising, resigning, requesting, and warning and so on Hence, the theory of speech act originated in Austin’s observation (1962) in which it is said that sentences are used to report states of affairs and utterance of some sentences can be treated as performance of an act Richards defines speech acts as an utterance

or a functional unit in communication Similarly, Hymes (1972) defines them as the acts we

perform when we speak When we say “Hello” or “How are you” that is, we have just performed an act of greeting, “Please open the window” – an act of requesting and so forth It

is argued that speech acts are culture-specific and the manner of performing them is governed

by social norms which differ from one speech community to another Indeed, Hudson believes that the concepts used in classifying speech acts are typical of cultural concepts

Following is how illocutionary acts are classified:

Exposives Assertives/ Representatives Assertives

Effectives

1.2 Directness and indirectness

1.2.1 Directness and indirectness

“I love you Please marry me!” (A direct way)

“I’ll buy a house but I would be very lonely when living there without you” (an indirect way to ask a special person to marry) – Sunflower, 1997

Similarly, in many Vietnamese folk poems, indirect ways of love declaration are found abundant For example:

“Bây giờ mận mới hỏi đào

Vườn hồng có lối ai vào hay chưa?”

In daily life, the utterance is not always unambiguous and clear Not only direct but also indirect ways are resorted to for verbal expressions Thus, directness and indirectness are the two basic forms of expression that are linguistically and culturally universal It is impossible to say that one language uses only straightforward or direct ways of expression while the other employs just roundabout or indirect expressions The ways of language is employed to depend largely on what is termed “culture thought patterns” that appear, to various degrees, different in different cultures

In the study of 700 essays of international students in the United States, Kaplan (1972: 31) proposes four discourse structures (otherwise referred to as “cultural thought patterns”) that contrast with English linearity (figure a) He mainly concentrates on writing and restricts his study to paragraphs

Parallel constructions, with the first idea completed in the second part (figure b)

Circularly, with the topic looked at from different tangents (figure c)

Freedom to digress and to introduce “extraneous” material (figure d)

With different lengths and parenthetical amplifications of subordinate elements (figure e)

They are respectively illustrated by the following diagrams:

Kaplan’s diagrams

Each diagram represents a certain language or a group of languages He identifies his discourse types with genetic language types, respectively:

Figure a with English

Figure b with Semitic

Figure c with Oriental

Figure d with Romance

Figure e with Russian

According to the diagrams, English people often use roundabout and direct patterns whole the Oriental people in general and the Vietnamese in particular seem to prefer roundabout and indirect patterns In the Anglophone main stream culture, the ideal form of communication includes being direct rather than indirect Many expressions exemplify this tendency such as

Don’t beat about the bush! Let’s get down to business; Get to the point! etc All indicate the

importance of dealing directly with issues rather than avoiding them Let’s look at the following example:

Host: Would you like some more dessert?

Guest: No, thanks It’s delicious but I really had enough.

Host: Ok, why don’t we leave the table and sit in the living room?

The host does not repeat the offer because he is sure that the guest really means what he says

In such a situation, if the guest is still hungry, he will directly say Yes, I’d like some more Thank you.

In the same situation, the Vietnamese, when invited, to take some more tend to refuse to be socially accepted as “polite” and expect that the offer will be extended the second or third time before he accepts it

For example:

Host: Chẳng mấy khi bác đến chơi nhà, mời bác ở lại dùng bữa với chúng em

(You rarely come to visit us, we invite you to stay and have dinner with us)

Guest: Ôi thôi, cảm ơn cô chú Tôi chỉ ghé qua thăm cô chú và gia đình thôi.

(Oh, no, thank you I only pay a short visit to you and your family)

Host: Bác cứ nói thế, chả mấy khi ……

(You say so, rarely … )

Guest: Phiền cô chú quá, cứ mỗi lần đến chơi cô chú lại bày vẽ ……

(I trouble you, whenever I visit you; you go to unnecessary lengths to … )

Finally, the guest agrees to stay and have dinner with the host

Directness and indirectness in English and Vietnamese can also be found in what Nguyen Quang call “by-the-way phenomenon” For such “safe” topics as good news, congratulations, weather This phenomenon happens less frequently But for the “subtle” and “unsafe” topics (bad news, borrowing money, sex, religions, etc) this phenomenon appears much more frequently

It has been found that, in English, the purpose of interaction seems to be made overt at the beginning, but in Vietnamese, things seem to go the other way round In many cases, if someone puts the purpose of his talk upfront, he may be considered rude According to Nguyen Quang (1998), if time permits and relationship allows, interactants will have small talk or discussion of unrelated issues

He proposes the following diagrams first:

(American English)

1.2.2 Factors affecting directness and indirectness

There are many socio-cultural factors affecting the degrees of directness and indirectness in communication Nguyen Quang (1998: 5) proposes twelve factors that, in his argument, may affect the choice of directness and indirectness in communication

1 Age: the old tend to be more indirect than the young

2 Sex: the female prefer indirect expression

3 Residence: the rural population tend to use more indirectness than the urban one

4 Mood: While angry, people tend to use more indirectness

5 Occupation: Those who do social sciences tend to be more indirect than those who

do natural sciences

6 Personality: The extroverted tend to use more directness than the introverted

7 Topics: While referring to a subtle topic, a taboo …., people are more inclined to indirectness

8 Place: When at home, people tend to use more directness than when they stay elsewhere

9 Communication environment/ setting: When in an informal climate, people tend to express themselves in a more direct way

10 Social distance: Those who are closer tend to talk in a more direct way

11 Time pressure: When in a hurry, people are likely to use more directness

12 Relative powers: When in a superior position, people tend to be more direct to their inferiors

(English version by Ngo Huu Hoang, 1998:14)

1.3 Face, politeness, and politeness strategies

Small talk

“Politeness is basic to the production of social order and a precondition of human cooperation, so that any theory which provides an understanding of this phenomenon

at the same time goes to the foundation of human social life.”

(Brown and Levinson 1987: 54)

1.3.1 What face?

Face is a technical term used in psychology and sociology to refer to the status and esteem of individuals within social interactions (Thompson 2003: 32) Since face, understood as every individual’s feelings of self-image (Thomas 1995: 169), can be damaged, maintained or enhanced through interaction with others, a person often claims for him/ herself through interaction That is why in everyday interchange, we usually avoid embarrassing the other person, or making him feel uncomfortable simply because we bear in mind that everybody has basic face needs or wants which refers to the respect that individual has for him or herself According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 61-62), face is “the public self image that all rational adult members of society possess” and “something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained or enhanced and must be constantly attended to in interaction with others Once face is damaged or threatened, there seems to be a risk of communication breakdown Therefore, maintaining or partially satisfying each other’s face seems to be the major and apparently the only motivation to be polite in communication (Watts 2003, Holmes 1995) To many scholars, face consists of two opposing face wants: Positive and negative face

admire, value, or approve of one’s wants (material or non-material) or the need to be accepted and liked by others, treated as a member of the group, and to know one’s wants are shared by others

1.3.1.2 Negative face

Negative face, according to Brown and Levinson is “the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction, i.e to freedom of action and freedom of imposition” In other words, “negative face is reflected in the desire not to be impeded or put upon, to have the freedom to act as one chooses” (Thomas 1995: 169), or “the wants that one’s action be unimpeded by others” (Eelen 2001: 3), and “the need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others” (Yule 1996: 61)

1.3.1.3 Face threatening acts (FTAs)

According to Brown and Levinson (1987), certain illocutionary acts are liable to damage or threaten another person’s face; such acts are known as “face threatening acts” (FTAs) by, for instance, representing a threat to or damaging the H’s positive face (insulting the addressee or expressing disapproval of what the H holds valuable or does something) or his/ her negative face (impinging upon H’s freedom of action in the case when H likes gossiping) They define FTAs as “those acts that by their nature run contrary to the face wants of the addressee and/ or

of the speaker” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 65) Along the line, Yule (1996) observes that an FTA occurs when a speaker says something that represents a threat to another individual’s expectation regarding self-image

1.3.2 What politeness?

1.3.2.1 Politeness defined

Politeness has received various amounts of attention and controversy from all areas of linguistics, especially sociolinguistics and pragmatics, throughout the 20th century There have been so far two main approaches to politeness: politeness as social norms (normative politeness) or conversational principle and maxims or do’s and don’ts (Lakoff 1973, 1989; Leech 1983) and face-saving acts or politeness strategies (strategic politeness) (Brown and Levinson 1978, 1987) (Cf Nguyen Duc Dan 1998, Nguyen Quang 2003)

In her cross-cultural study on politeness, Blum-Kulka (1987: 131) suggests that politeness is

“(i) a function of redressive action with the latter having correlative relationship with indirectness, (ii) an interaction achieved between two needs, the need for pragmatic clarity and the need to avoid coerciveness and (iii) a social distance and role relationship” By giving

such a definition, Blum-Kulka implies the tendency that the more indirect we go, the more polite we become More correctly, she places politeness on the same par with negative politeness by challenging the claim that there is a direct relationship between indirectness and politeness Intuitively speaking, it seems workable as seen in Anglophone cultures However, it

is, too, intuitively untenable because it does not necessarily means that going direct is less

polite, hence “indirectness does not necessarily/ always imply politeness” (Blum-Kulka 1987:

131) For example:

(1) Indirect: Nhà cửa gì mà trông như chuồng lợn thế này (Implied to tidy up the room)

Direct: Dọn dẹp phòng đi con (Tidy up the room, son)

(2) Indirect: What’s the wife expected to do at this time? (Meaning “to prepare dinner”)

Direct : Time to cook, honey

Despite the fact that all utterances are FTAs to various degree, the direct ones seem more comfortably accepted, thus more polite However, this confirms the idea proposed by Dascal (1983, cf Thomas 1995: 120) that indirectness is costly and risky in that an indirect utterance takes longer for the speaker to produce and longer for the H to process (costly) and the H may not understand what the speaker is getting at (risk)

Nguyen Quang (1994: 23) provides a satisfactory definition of politeness (which is adopted as

a working definition of politeness for this study), not “leaning” to any side of the coin, and with no bias against either positive or negative politeness, but reconciliation of the two extremes He confirms that “politeness is any communication act (either verbal or non-verbal,

or both) that is intentionally and appropriately meant to make another person/ other people feel better or less bad” Setting aside the non-verbal aspect as mentioned in the scope of the study, the thesis author in convinced that this definition covers both ends of the continuum of positive and negative politeness by implying that politeness involves taking into account the feelings of others (Holmes, 1992: 296, Wardhaugh 1986: 280) and it is the means employed to show awareness of another person’s face (Yule 1996: 60), used to show concern for people’s face (Brown and Levinson 1987)

In this study, the adopted model of politeness, or “polite way of talking” which is seen as deviations from Grice maxims (for politeness reasons) is that of Brown and Levinson’s due to the following reasons:

First, putting aside the views of conversational principle and maxims, and conversational contract, the distinction between normative and strategic politeness is rather loose and relative

in that almost all illocutionary acts should operate within the framework of interpersonal relationships

Second, it is the author’s opinion that normative politeness based on social norms is the departure or foundation of strategic politeness What require normative politeness to be realized are interpersonal relationships where interlocutors should follow some certain politeness norms to save or preserve the other’s face This, in turn, will more or less make a twist and impetus to implement strategies

Third, in interpersonal verbal interaction, no matter whether a dispraise is constructive or not, every dispraising utterance carries in itself potential damage or threat to the addressee’s positive and negative face

Fourth, politeness strategies, both positive and negative, when used, can (i) support and enhance the addressee’s positive face (positive politeness) and (ii) help avoid transgressing the addressee’s freedom of action and freedom from imposition (negative face)

Finally, Brown and Levinson’s model is adequate for the interpretation of ongoing verbal interaction in which participants are reciprocally attending to one another’s face needs (Watts 2003: 101)

1.3.2.2 Politeness principles

This is certainly true that all of the approaches to politeness (Lakoff’s, Leech’s, and Brown & Levinson’s) are appropriacy-based or conflict-avoidance-based, where politeness is a matter of

using the right words in the right contexts as determined by conventional rules of appropriateness.

Lakoff (1973) argues that the majority of conversation is governed by what is termed the politeness principle Similar to Grice (but earlier), she claimed that there are three maxims or rules that speakers should follow in conversation to maintain politeness:

Don’t impose – This is similar to the theory of negative politeness – trying not to

impose on people or to disrupt them in any way It can be seen through such expressions as:

- I’m sorry to bother you …

- Could you possibly ……?

- I know it’s asking a lot ……

Give options – It is avoiding forcing the other participant into a corner with the use of

such expressions as:

- It’s up to you ……

- I won’t be offended if you don’t want to ….

- I don’t mind if you don’t want to …….

Make the hearer feel good – We say things that flatter the other participant and make

him/ her feel good; rather in the same way we pander to positive face This can be seen through the use of such expressions as:

- What would I have done without you?

- I’d really appreciate your advice on this

- I owe you one for this

Leech’s (1983) Politeness principle (PP) consists of 6 maxims (Tact, Generosity, Approbation, Modesty, Agreement and Sympathy), which are related to the notion of cost and benefit and much related to offering favorableness to the hearer Leech sees PP as being of the same status

as Grice’s Cooperative Principle (CP), which it “rescues” by explaining why speakers do not always observe the Gricean maxims (Thomas 1995: 159)

Leech (1983) includes politeness as interpersonal rhetoric that involves three different sets of

conversational maxims, namely those pertaining to Grice’s cooperative principle, the principle

of politeness akin to that of Lakoff, and the “irony” principle In his theory, politeness may be realized by weighing one’s linguistic behavior against a group of maxims whereby speakers

can minimize hearer’s cost and maximize hearer’s benefit (tact maxim), minimize their own benefit and maximize that of the hearer (generosity maxim), minimize hearer dispraise and maximize hearer praise (approbation maxim), minimize self-praise and maximize self-dispraise (modesty maxim), minimize disagreement and maximize agreement between oneself and others (agreement maxim) and minimize sympathy between oneself and others (sympathy maxim).

Brown and Levinson (1987) do not set a rule of politeness principles as Lakoff and Leech did, but drop a hint by providing the following schema, termed “possible strategies for doing FTAs”, available to speakers to encounter unavoidable face-threatening acts, to make appropriate communicative choices and to reduce the possibility of damage and threat to hearer’s face or to the speaker’s own face Once a decision has been made, they argue, the speaker selects the appropriate linguistic means to accomplish the chosen strategy Their

schema proposes five components of communicative choices: (1) without redressive action badly, (2) positive politeness, (3) negative politeness, (4) off record and (5) don’t do the FTA

(or refrain from doing the FTA) Each strategy on the schema is numbered 1-5, the general principle being that the higher the number the more polite the strategy

1 Without redressive action, badly

On record 2 Positive politeness

Do the FTA With redressive action

4.Off record 3 Negative politeness

5 Don’t do the FTA

Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 69)

Based on this model, Brown and Levinson have identified a whole series of linguistic strategies available to speakers to enable them, if they so wish, to minimize threat to face If a speaker chooses to commit an FTA, they can go “on record”, say “badly, without redress”:

impersonal pronouns, inclusive pronoun they or we.

- It is said that … (impersonalization)

- People said that …(impersonalization)

Alternatively, they can’t go “off-record” and drop a hint to the hearer:

- It’s a laundry day, I see.

Finally, they can choose not to do any FTAs, seen as the least face-threatening acts (just to be safe)

To conclude, in doing an FTA, the speaker needs to balance three wants:

- The want to communicate content of the FTA

- The want to be efficient (or urgent)

- The want to maintain H’s face to any degree

1.3.2.3 Positive politeness and strategies

As regards the sociological factors/ variables of P, D and R that bring about significant influences on positive polite linguistic choices, positive politeness is defined as forms for free-ranging, solidarity-oriented emphasizing shared attitudes and values, minimizing social distance, “maximizing the politeness of polite illocutions” (Leech 1983: 84) and “essentially other-oriented behavior” (Holmes 1995: 26)

According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 101-103), “positive politeness is redress directed to the addressee’s positive face, his perennial desire that he wants …should be thought of as desirable” However, they emphasize “it is not necessarily redressive of the particular face want infringed by the FTA because positive techniques are used as a kind of metaphorical extension of intimacy, implying common ground or sharing of wants, social accelerator to indicate that he (the hearer) wants to ‘come closer’ to H” For example:

- to an acquaintance (about 5 years younger than you)

Take a chill pill, man!

All of the above ideas of positive politeness are summarized in Nguyen Quang’s definition which reads:

“Positive politeness is any communicative act which is intentionally and appropriately meant to show the speaker’s concern to the hearer/ addressee, thus, enhancing the sense of solidarity between them Simply put, positive politeness is to show the speaker’s concern to others In this case, positive politeness can be called warm or proximal, intimate politeness”

(Lecture note on cross-cultural communication, CFL-VNU, 2003: 43)

The kernel thrust of the definition Nguyen Quang contributes to the intracultural and cultural communication is that he implicitly suggests that positive politeness strategies are appropriate between those who know each other well, or those who wish to know each other well, and being polite in the contexts of P, D and R’s operation involves how to express a range of speech functions in a culturally appropriate way

cross-When interacting or getting socialized with other people, what we normally do is to pay attention to satisfying face needs When face is threatened in interaction, both aspects of face come under fire (Mey 1993) or under risk of “losing face”, which motivates the speaker to adopt linguistically appropriate choices to ‘save face’ In the case of the undesirable state of threatened face engendered by an FTA, politeness strategies are developed to satisfy the dual aspects of face or any aspect of an FTA, and then there appear positive and negative politeness strategies when the speaker goes on-record with redressive action Therefore, it is worthy of note that politeness strategies are relevant realizations of redressive action for the speaker’s choice to go on-record Brown and Levinson (1987) give multifarious examples to illustrate the kinds of choices to open to the speaker and posit fifteen sub strategies of politeness addressed

to the hearer’s positive face According to them, positive politeness strategies aim to save positive face, or are addressed to H’s positive face and described as expressions of solidarity, intimacy, informality, and familiarity Thus, they are developed to satisfy the positive face of the hearer chiefly in two ways: (i) by indicating similarities amongst interactants (using in-

group markers such as let’s in English or chúng ta/ chúng mình in Vietnamese), and (ii) by

expressing an appreciation of the interculator’s self-image

The following fifteen strategies are addressed to positive face, and are thus examples of positive politeness (cited from Watts 2003 and Nguyen Quang 2003)

(1) Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (her/ his interests, wants, needs, goods etc)

- Ái chà chà! Hôm nay nhân dịp gì mà diện bộ củ đẹp thế À này, có tiền cho tớ vay năm chục (Wow, how smart you look today! What occasion? By the way, can I borrow 50,000 VND, if you have?)

(2) Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)

- Good old Jim Just the man I wanted to see I knew I’d find you here Could you spare me a couple of minutes?

- Giời ơi, chặc … chặc… , chặc … con bé ấy vô cùng quyến rũ

(3) Strategy 3: Intensify interests to the hearer in the speaker’s contribution

- You’ll never guess what Fred told me last night This is right up your street

- Cậu biết không, bọn tớ quyết định tháng sau sẽ cưới

(4) Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers in speech

- Here’s my old mate, Fred How are you doing today, mate? Could you give us a hand to get this car to start?

- Ta đi chứ anh bạn (Shall we go, mate?)

(5) Strategy 5: Seek agreement in safe topics

- I agree, right Manchester United played badly last night, didn’t they? D’you reckon you could give me cigarette?

- Mình chuyển sang làm cho UNICEF rồi

- Cho UNICEF cơ à? Nhất đấy!

(6) Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement

- Well in a way, I suppose you’re sort of right But look at it like this Why don’t you?

- Anh nói cũng có lý nhưng theo tôi không thể đốt cháy giai đoạn được

(7) Strategy 7: Presuppose, raise, and assert common ground

- People like you and me, Bill, don’t like being put around like that, do we? Why don’t we go and complain?

- Túi nặng quá em ạ

- Em biết lắm chứ Toàn bộ giầy dép của em ở trong ấy mà lị

(8) Strategy 8: Joke to put the hearer at ease

- A: Great summer we’re having It’s only rained five times a week on average

- B: Yeah, terrible, isn’t it?

- A: Could I ask you for a favor?

- Các bố ấy không phải là Mike Tyson và vợ các bố ấy không phải là những bịch cát

(9) Strategy 9: Assert and presuppose knowledge of and concern for hearer’s wants

- I know you like marshmallows, so I’ve bought you home a whole box of them I wonder if I could ask you for a favor

- Tớ biết cậu không khoái ba cái trò tiệc tùng bù khú nhưng vì hôm nay có cả sếp của tớ dự nên cậu đến tiếp hộ tớ nhé

(10) Strategy 10: Offer, promise

- I’ll take you out to dinner on Saturday if you cook the dinner this evening

- Này, hôm nào ra Hải Xồm lai rai đi

(11) Strategy 11: be optimistic that the hearer wants what the speaker wants, i.e that the FTA

is slight

- I know you are always glad to get a tip or two on gardening, Fred, so if I were you, I wouldn’t cut your lawn back so short.

- Trông mời mọc quá nhỉ Tớ phải thử một miếng để xem tài nấu nướng của cậu tiến bộ đến đâu rồi

(12) Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity

- I’m feeling really hungry Let’s stop for a bite

- Tại sao ta không đi biển nhỉ?

(13) Strategy 13: Give and ask for reasons

- I think you’ve had a bit too much to drink, Jim Why not stay at our place this evening?

(14) Strategy 14: Assert reciprocal exchange or tit for tat

- Dad, if you help me with my math homework, I’ll mow the lawn after school tomorrow

- Tớ thổi cơm, cậu dọn bàn nhé

(15) Strategy 15: Give gift to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)

- A: Have a glass of malt whisky, Dick

- B: Terrific, thanks!

- A: Not at all I wonder if I could confide for a minute or two

In addition, Nguyen Quang (2003: 91-99) proposes two more strategies

(16) Strategy 16: Console, encourage H

- Việc gì phải buồn, thua keo này ta bày keo khác

- It’s nothing, really Don’t give up You have my backing

(17) Strategy 17: Ask personal questions

- Thu nhập có khá không?

- Anh chị sinh được mấy cháu rồi?

1.3.2.4 Negative politeness and strategies

Whereas positive politeness is free ranging, negative politeness is specific and focused; it performs the function of minimizing the particular imposition that the FTA unavoidably effects

(Brown and Levinson, 1987: 129) or it is “minimizing the impoliteness of impolite illocutions”

(Leech 1983: 84) Socio-linguistically, negative politeness involves expressing oneself appropriately in terms of social distance and respecting status differences (Holmes, 1992: 297)

Recognizing that “negative politeness is redressive action addressed to the addressee’s negative face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his action unimpeded”

(Brown and Levinson, 1987: 129), Thomas (1995: 172) makes it clear by stating that

“negative politeness is oriented towards a hearer’s negative face, which appeals to the hearer’s desire not to be impeded or put upon, to be left free to act as they choose”.

To observe and cover both pragmatic and socio-linguistic aspects of intra-culturally and culturally communicative environment, Nguyen Quang (2003: 44) proposes his own definition

cross-of negative politeness: “Negative politeness is any kind cross-of communicative act which is appropriately intended to show that the speaker does not want to impinge on the addressee’s privacy, thus, enhancing the sense of distance between them Simply put, negative politeness is not to poke your nose into others’ privacy Negative politeness can be called distancing/ cool/ distant politeness”

Briefly, negative politeness strategies, in Brown and Levinson’s (1987) words, conversely are addressed to H’s negative face and are characterized as expressions of restraint, formality, and distancing They are furthermore viewed as more face redressive, i.e more polite, than positive strategies, a point which was discussed earlier Thus, they can be also expressed in two ways: (i) by saving the interlocutor’s face by mitigating FTAs; or (ii) by satisfying negative face by showing respect for the addressee’s right not to be imposed on

Following are the ten strategies addressed to the hearer’s negative face (cited from Watts 2003 and Nguyen Quang 2003)

(1) Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect

- Could you tell me the time please?

- Anh có thể lấy hộ tôi quyển sách ở trên bàn kia được không?

(2) Strategy 2: Do not assume willingness to comply Question, hedge

- I wonder whether I could just sort of ask you a little question

- Nói chí ít ra anh ta cũng kiểu như hơi chậm hiểu

(3) Strategy 3: Be pessimistic about ability or willingness to comply Use subjunctive

- If you had a little time to spare for me this afternoon, I’d like to talk about my paper

- Nên chăng ta đứng ngoài cuộc thì hơn.

(4) Strategy 4: Minimize the opposition

- Could I talk to you for just a minute?

- Tôi chỉ muốn hỏi anh là tôi có thể mượn ô tô của anh về quê ngày mai được không?

(5) Strategy 5: Give deference

- Excuse me, officer I think I might have parked in the wrong place

- Tôi ngu quá đi mất Nhẽ ra tôi phải hỏi ý kiến anh trước mới phải

(6) Strategy 6: Apologize

- Sorry to bother you but ……

- Xin lỗi phải ngắt lời anh nhưng đấy không phải là ý tôi muốn nói

(7) Strategy 7: Impersonalize the speaker and the hearer Avoid the pronouns I and you

- A: That car is parked in a no-parking area

- B: It’s mine, officer

- A: Well, it’ll have to have a parking ticket

- Có lẽ vấn đề không đơn giản như vậy đâu

(8) Strategy 8: State the FTA as an instance of a general rule

- Parking on the double yellow is illegal, so I’m going to have to give you a fine

- Đề nghị hành khách xuất trình hộ chiếu và vé máy bay khi làm thủ tục vào sân bay

(9) Strategy 9: Nominalize to distance the actor and add formality

- Participation in an illegal demonstration is punishable by law Could I have your name and address, madam?

- Mong ước của tôi là hàng tháng kiếm đủ tiền để nuôi các cháu ăn học đầy đủ

(10) Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H

- If you could just sort out a problem I’ve got with my formatting, I’ll buy you a beer at lunchtime

- Việc này trong tầm tay tôi Anh khỏi phải lo

Nguyen Quang (2003) suggests one more strategy

(11) Avoid asking personal questions

- How much do you earn a month? (avoided)

- Why don’t you marry at such an age? (avoided)

- Chị làm ở đấy lương có cao không? (avoided)

- Anh bao nhiêu tuổi rồi? (avoided)

However, it is worth pointing out that there are some overlaps, or overlapping cases in which it

is hard to identify what kind of politeness an utterance belongs to For example,

Stop whining (Ngừng ca cẩm đi)

Im ngay đi (Shut up)

It is firstly, a directive which is a non-redressive on-record act, thus not seen as a polite utterance However, if it is added with some redressive factor, such as the politeness marker

please, kinship terms etc It can become less face-threatening:

Stop whining, please (English)

Làm ơn im ngay đi (Vietnamese)

The above view can be found in Thomas (1995), Eelen (2003), Watts (2003) and others when they claim that there exist some cases in Brown and Levinson’s model which is hard to demarcate even what positive politeness and negative politeness are

All the theories discussed above are the basic way leading to hedging/ hedges displayed in chapter 2

CHAPTER 2: HEDGING BEFORE GIVING BAD NEWS

2.1 Hedging defined

The word “hedge” or “hedging” can be broadly defined as referring to a barrier, limit, defense

or the act or means of protection (see The Oxford English Dictionary vs hedge and hedging) The designation “hedge/ hedging” itself was introduced first by G.Lakoff (1972) in his article:

“Hedges: A study in meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts” In his synchronic, non-contrastive study of the oral and written standard English, Lakoff defines hedges (from the point of view of language philosophy) as words whose function is to make meaning fuzzier (e.g sort of) or less fuzzy Lakoff argues that the logic of hedges requires serious semantic analysis for all predicates Lakoff defines hedges as follows:

“For me, some of the most interesting questions bare raised by the study of words whose meaning implicitly involves fuzziness-words whose job is to make things fuzzier

or less fuzzy I will refer to such words as “hedges”’.

However, with the fast development of linguistics, hedging phenomena, seen as a purely semantic phenomenon, have been attacked from the perspective of pragmatics, thus said to

contribute to the interpersonal function of language, 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 and Hassan 1989:45, cf Vartalla 2001)

Although the terms “hedge” and “hedging” have been part of linguistic vocabulary for some thirty years now, no unified description of the concepts is to be found in literature As Hylland (1998) states “straightforward definitions of the notions are rather rare and the existing characterizations soon reveal that the terms are used in different ways by author” Despite attempts to bring order into multitude of definition, it appears that researchers continue to approach the concepts of hedge and hedging in a variety of ways Differences are also to be found in terminology relating to the area, terms other than hedge and hedging being employed

to describe some of the linguistic phenomena elsewhere described as hedges Notions like

stance markers (Atkinson 1999), compromisers (James 1983), understatements (Hubler 1983), downtowners (Quirk et al 1985), downgraders (House and Kasper 1981), softeners (Crystal &

Davy 1975), backgrounding terms (Low 1996), approximators and shields (Prince et al 1982) and pragmatic devices (Stubbe&Holmes 1995) appear in literature where the term hedge might

be used by other scholars Similarly, phenomena that certain studies call hedging have in other

studies also been treated under headings such as: evidentiality (Chafe 1986), mitigation (Labov

& Fanshel 1977), indirectness (Tannen 1982, Lakoff 1990, Hinkel 1997), tentativeness (Holmes 1983), and vagueness (Chanell 1994).

Holmes (1975:73-5) asserts that devices which reduce the force of an utterance are generally labeled “hedges” and these hedging devices attenuate or reduce the strength of the utterance or soften/ weaken the effect of the utterance They damp down its force or intensity or directness

By giving the notion of boosters seen as devices utilized to increase the illocutionary force of

any utterance in which they are used, she deliberately inclines towards the idea that hedges are for positive politeness

Brown and Levinson (1987:145) define “hedge” 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” This definition reveals a fact that hedges are “strengtheners” as well as “weakeners”.

Hedges are sometimes extended to the area of gambits They are conversational gambits which play an important part in conversations as the various social, psychological, and communicative signals In Richards’s definition (50:118)

“Gambits may be used to show whether the speaker’s contribution adds new in formation, develops something said by previous speaker, expresses an opinion, agreement, etc”

Referring the so-called quán ngữ, a possible equivalent to gambit in his work “Từ và nhận

diện từ trong tiếng Việt”, Nguyễn Thiện Giáp argues:

“Gambits are repeatedly-used expression in discourses for coherence, cohesion, communication, emphasis on ideas”

(English version by Ngo Huu Hoang, 2003:7)(Quán ngữ là những cụm từ cố định lặp đi lặp lại trong các văn bản để liên kết, đưa đẩy, rào đón hoặc nhấn mạnh nội dung cần diễn đạt nào đó) (1976:176)

Most of the Vietnamese linguists agree that Vietnamese gambits belong to the “set expression” category in Vietnamese

In conclusion, hedging is considered to be a strategy used to hedge the propositional content (the propositional accuracy-Nguyen Quang 2003) and illocutionary force of the utterance Along the line, the thesis author would add that (i) hedges are expressions which do not add any false or truth values to the content of an utterance, (ii) hedges are attitude markers that can

be taken as an indication of speakers’ sensitivity towards the hearer To have deeper insight into hedges, different linguistic theories should be studied in detail

2.2 From the point of view of semantics

In his article “Fuzzy Set-Theoretic Interpretation of Linguistic hedges”, Zadeh (1972) follows Lakoff in using the new destination hedge and analyzes English hedges (such as simple ones like: very, much, more or less, essentially or slightly and more complex ones like technically and practically) from the point of view of semantics and logic It is assumed that:

“Hedges are operators that act on the fuzzy set representing the meaning of their operands Hedges vary in their dependency on context”.

Lakoff’s semantic characterization of hedging portrays hedges as words that may be realized as two seemingly contradictory functions, namely those of making things fuzzier or less fuzzy In fact, it appears that hedges have been considered by most scholars as devices with the primary function of making things semantically fuzzier However, by approaching the status of hedges

in how we conceptualize the universe, it is to illustrate that at the semantic level hedging may indeed be seen to have both of these dimensions that is to make things fuzzier and less fuzzy

Hedging as an increase in fuzziness

Hedging is firstly often linked to purposive vagueness and tentativeness, which suggests that hedges are typically associated with an increase in linguistic fuzziness This view can be traced back to Lakoff’s work which emphasizes that natural language sentences are not often entirely true, false nor nonsensical, but rather somewhat true and somewhat false Brown and Levinson (1987: 145) explicate Lakoff’s work and say that hedges may be regarded as elements that can

“modify the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase in a set” In this capacity,

hedges can also be used to take place of the truth value of referential information somewhere

on the continuum between absolute truth and falsehood

Hedging as a decrease in fuzziness

However, many studies have disregarded Lakoff’s view of hedging as an increase in fuzziness Hence, hedges may alternately be looked upon as devices that in fact decrease fuzziness

Hedges could indeed be interpreted to signal that the phenomenon under scrutiny does not conform to the limited conceptual categories of natural language, and by way of distancing the phenomenon from the core of a given conceptual category hedges actually render the relationship between the phenomenon of the universe and the relevant conceptual categories more accurate

The two semantic characterizations of hedging offered above both stems from the element of fuzziness inherent in hedging device, it probably often being impossible to distinguish between the interpretations in practice Nevertheless, being aware of these possible interpretations is useful when we turn to the way in which hedging occurs in different communication situations

2.3 From the point of view of pragmatics

Hedging has more recently been approached as pragmatic rather than a purely semantic phenomenon In much of the more recent work relating to hedging, it is the interpersonal aspect of the strategy that has been given emphasis, hedging has been analyzed with an eye on the communication situation, particularly the effect of the strategy on the relationship between sender and addressee in face-to-face communication Generally speaking, the more pragmatics-

oriented descriptions of hedging phenomena presented in literature are often rather circumspect notions for the purposes of a particular research project rather than thorough deliberations of

the phenomenon Addressing hedging, it can be defined plainly as “the process whereby the author reduces the strength of what he is writing” Markkanen and Schroder (1985) define hedging as a strategy of “saying less than one means”, the function of strategy being to modify

the writer’s responsibility for the truthfulness of an utterance, to modify the attitude of the author to the propositions and information put forth in a text or even to hide this attitude

Another author, in turn, see hedges as items that “signal features of hedging, avoidance of sender responsibility toward the referential information presented evidently being the primary motivation of hedging in these depictions”

2.4 Hedging as both positive and negative politeness

Much of previous work on hedging is based on Brown and Levinson’s treatment of hedges (1978/ 1987) where it is reasoned that hedges can be used to avoid “assuming or presuming that anything involved in the FTA is desired or delivered by H” This is meant that hedging can

be used to indicate that S does not want to impose upon H’s desires or beliefs Brown and Levinson thus discuss hedges as a greater length as one of ten strategies linked to negative face protection Hubler (1983: 156-159) picks up the idea of hedging phenomena as indications of negative politeness and contends that hedges are primarily used in negative face work, hedging devices being “detensifying” elements which sender can employ “to maximize the emotional acceptability of the propositional content presented to the H for ratification” On the other hand, hedges can also be interpreted as simultaneously serving the sender’s negative face

2.4.1 Hedging as a negative politeness strategy

Hedges/ hedging in general belong to negative politeness Brown and Levinson (1987: 105) appoint that:

“In a literature, “hedge” is a particle, word, or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase in a set”

For example,

English Vietnamese

A serving is a sort of toy Kiểu như một trò chơi

John is a true friend John đúng là một người bạn tốt

I rather think it is hopeless Tôi thoáng nghĩ là không có hi vọng đâu

You are quite right Hình như bạn hơi đúng

According to Brown/ Levinson (1987), conversational principles are the sources of strong background assumptions about cooperation, in formativeness, truthfulness, relevance, and clarity which on many occasions need to be softened for reasons of face Here to, hedges are the most immediate tool for the job and the authors discuss such hedges on Grice’s Maxims

The four maxims of Grice recognized are quality, quantity, relation, and manner

- The quality states:

+Make yourself as informative as required (for the current purpose of exchange)

+Don’t make us contribution more informative than it is required

-The quantity maxim says:

+Don’t say what you believe to be false and

+Don’t say that for which you lack adequate evidence

-The relevance maxim says:

*Hedges addressed to Grice’s maxims

I may be mistaken but I think………

I’m not sure if it’s right but ………

E.g Don’t be so sad I believe he is still alive.

Em không ngờ anh hoàn toàn ngược lại so với suy nghĩ của em Có thể em sai nhưng em muốn biết cuộc hôn nhân vội vàng của anh có hạnh phúc không? (Báo Thế giới Phụ nữ số 39/ 2002)

(ii) Or alternately they stress S’s commitment to the truth of his utterance

With completely honesty I can say ………

I absolutely deny that ………

I absolutely believe that ………

Thú thực là ………

Tôi thực sự tin rằng ………

Tôi hoàn toàn tin là ………

(iii) Or they may disclaim the assumption that the point of S’s assertion is to inform H

As you know ……… Như các bạn đã biết………

As you probably/ may know ……….

As you and I both know

Mọi người biết đấy ………

ever had more of a conversation than that about it” (Bill Clinton – By Nguyen Hoa – An introduction to semantics, p.168)

“Rồi như anh vẫn vừa nói đấy, bây giờ em đang băn khoăn …… thì liệu rằng có quay lại với nhau đi chăng nữa, em có giữ gìn được tình yêu hay không? (An interview on VOV 12/

E.g He will probably coming

He just may come

Có thể là anh ấy sẽ không đến đâu.

Anh cố gắng làm tốt đồ án và sống tốt ở Hà Nội nha anh Rất có thể ngày anh bảo vệ đồ án

tốt nghiệp em sẽ không ra cổ vũ anh được Đừng giận em nha! (Báo Thế giới Phụ nữ số 27/ 2002)

Em không thể nói, không thể diễn tả được mình đã đau đớn thế nào khi chúng mình chia

tay nhau mặc dù chúng mình đã có nhiều kỷ niệm đẹp bên nhau

(v) These are also quality performed by auxiliary, emphasizing adverbs on explicit and deleted performatives

Cũng phải nói ngay rằng

E.g The thief broke the lock, for sure I saw it

I would say he won’t go out with Mary.

Áng chừng làXấp xỉ làHình như làTưởng như là, đâu như làHàng chục là, hàng năm làKiểu như là

À, kiểu như nó cũng

Ở một khía cạnh nào đó

Về cơ bản làBiết đấy là đâu, biết đâu được chuyện đấy

(ii) We also get expression with clear politeness functions like “I just say”

- I just say getting there is not easy as it looks.

- A: Have you ever been there?

B: Well somewhere in the Middle East

This may sound like dumb question but…

Not to change the subject ………

Now is probably the time to say …………

I might mention at this point ………

Since I’ve been wondering ………

Since it’s been on my mind ………

Sorry, I’ve just thought ………

All right now

Không biết có nên nói khôngKhông dám cảm phiền ôngCủa đáng tội

Chết một cái làQuả có thế ạNói bỏ ngoài ngoài tai

Dù sao đi chăng nữaTiện thể là

Nhân tiện đây

À nhân tiệnNói trộm bóng víaNói anh bỏ quá cho

(ii) The use of “now” interacts with the use of tense deixis, now making a claim for relevance

(because it is a proximal deictic marker) and past tense hedging a bit on the relevance

Now I was wondering if ……….

(iii) Also under this rubric fall hedges on whether the point or the purpose of the speech act is

in fact relevance For examples:

- For assertions: I don’t know whether you’re interested but………

If you ask me, ………

……… , in case you want to know

- For reply to the questions: Yes, since you ask

Yes, if you care to know Vâng nếu anh thực sự muốn thế

Vì anh đã hỏi nên Anh có biết không Nếu anh muốn biết, ý kiến của tôi là

- For questions: ………… , do you know?

- For commissives: I’m sorry, if you want to know my feelings

I’m furious, if you care to inquire my feelings on the matter

- For declarative : If you allowed me, ………

If you see what I’m getting at

If you see what I’m driving at

To put it more simply, …

Now to be absolutely clear, I want

I’m not sure if it makes sense …

I don’t know if this is clear at all

Tôi xin đi thẳng vào vấn đề

criticisms: “I think perhaps you should” Quantity hedges may be used to redress complaints

or requests: “Could you make this copy more or less final?” Relevance hedges are useful ways

of redressing offers or suggestions: “This may be misplaced but would you consider…?” And manner hedges can be used to redress all kinds of FTAs: “You are not exactly thrifty, if you see what you meant” In addition to the hedges on the maxims with their FTA uses there are some

which, while they may be derived from Maxim hedges, function directly as notices of violations of F wants For example: “Frankly, to be honest, I hate to have to say this but ……, I don’t want to hurt you but (which preface criticisms and bad news)”

2.4.2 Hedging as a positive politeness strategy

In much of previous work, hedging has been viewed as a negative politeness strategy, but it may also at times be seen to have a positive politeness dimension Brown and Levinson (1978/ 1987) are of the opinion 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” (1987: 101) is to avoid disagreement One avoidance strategy is rending one’s opinion safely vague, seeking agreement with the addressee when the latter has not made his or her position clear Sometimes, S may choose to be vague about his own opinions, so as not to get seen to disagree For this reason, one characteristic device in positive politeness is to hedge these extremes in order to make one’s own opinion safely vague Some hedges can have positive

politeness functions as well, notably: sort of, kind of, like, in a way.

E.g I really sort of hope that your presentation will be good

It is beautiful, in a way.

True maybe.

2.5 Linguistic realizations of hedging

The earliest studies into hedging were limited to a fairly narrow selection of linguistic expressions For instance, only about 70 different items were listed in Lakoff’s paper More recently, numerous linguistic phenomena have been associated with hedging; there nevertheless is no absolute uniformity between studies as to which linguistic phenomena should be regarded as falling within the category Literature relating to hedging seems to suggest that hedges are linguistic choices that include an inherent component of fuzziness, providing the opportunity to comment on group membership, truth value and illocutionary force However, there is variation between studies as to the actual items treated as hedges In some studies, as in the case with Prince et al’s paper, the phenomena treated as hedges are not described very thoroughly In other studies, the focus is on a specific linguistic feature, not the broad range of alternatives available for hedging Hedges are sometimes listed as a number of

items used for rounding numerical data, including items like: about, approximately, close to and in that round While certain studies face with a specific linguistic phenomenon, others

have attempted to cover a wider range Studying hedging in new writing is drawn attention to

an array of devices How vagueness in presenting a list of other items typically used as hedges

is firstly discussed Most of the items on the list are verbal or adverbial expressions that involve different degrees of probability or otherwise play down the responsibility of the sender

as concerns propositional content The main categories consist of auxiliaries (e.g may, might, can, could), semi-auxiliaries (appear, seem), full verb (suggest), the passive voice, various adverbs and adverbial (probably, almost, relatively), some adjectives (probable), indefinite nouns and pronouns

Similar items are also mentioned by Makannen and Schoder (1985) that modal verbs and particles, the use of some pronouns and even the avoidance of others, agentless passive, other impersonal expressions, and certain vocabulary choices may be seen as central manifestations

of hedging in English and German Skelton points out that there are a very large number of ways in which one can hedge in English, including impersonal phrases, the system of modal expressions, verbs like seem, look and appear, introductory phrase like I think, the suffix –ish

in connection with certain adjectives and so on

While there are clearly numerous ways in which hedging may be realized in English, it is obvious that there are certain evident types of linguistic expression the spring to mind in this respect As noted earlier, in the seminal work by Lakoff (1973), hedging was first approached with reference to a relatively limited set of hedges, including lexical items and phrases such as: roughly, sort of, strictly speaking, etc In the course of time, the concept of hedging has come

to be understood more broadly as including a numbers of ways of expressing uncertainty, vagueness, hesitation, and the like, that is, to cover various linguistic manifestations of feelings and thoughts Here comes the overview of categories of hedges, all the details will be

expressed later First of all, the author would like to mention one of hedging devices-it’s modal

auxiliaries, consisting of eight different modal auxiliaries, namely can, could, may, might, must, should, will, would.

It may/ might/ can/ could well be true that he beat her.

Full verbs are indeed used as hedges such as: believe, appear, assume, suggest, propose,

imply, tend, imagine, reckon, seem.

I don’t believe he knew me.

In addition, we have adjectives used as hedges (potential, possible, likely, common, normal, usual, slight, and substantial); nouns as: likelihood, possibility, prospect, tendency, prediction, guess, hope, inclination” and adverbs: “usually, slightly, almost, generally, likely, apparently,

potentially, somewhat, greatly, frequently, nearly, approximately”

I almost resigned

It can’t be denied that clause element also plays as hedges:

If my memory doesn’t fail me

As far as I know/ as you know

I may be mistaken but I think

I’m not sure if it’s right but

I guess/ think ……

Since I’ve been wondering …

From linguistic realizations of hedging above, many researchers have basis to clarify hedges

Classification

Prince/ Fader/ Bosk

From the viewpoint of discourse analysis Prince et al start from Lakoff’s definition of hedges

as devices that make things fuzzy, but add that there are at least two kinds of fuzziness One is

fuzziness within the proposition content, the other fuzziness “in the relationship between the prepositional content and the speaker that is speaker’s commitment to the truth of the proposition conveyed” (Prince/ Fader/ Bosk, 1982: 85) Hedges were mainly discovered in the

discourse that was related to the physicians’ uncertainty in the medical-technical domain

Accordingly, there are two types of hedges; one is called approximator affecting the conditions of propositions

truth-His feet were sort of blue.

In the relationship between the propositional content and the speaker

approximators

shields