(Luận văn thạc sĩ) a study of hedging devices in conversations in gone with the wind by margaret mitchell m a thesis linguistics 60 22 15

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES -*** - NGUYỄN THỊ THANH HUYỀN A STUDY OF HEDGING DEVICES IN CONVERSATIONS IN GONE WITH THE WIND BY MARGARET MITCHELL (Nghiên cứu phương tiện rào đón hội thoại tác phẩm Cuốn theo chiều gió nhà văn Margaret Mitchell) M.A THESIS Field: Linguistics Code: 60.22.15 HANOI – 2012 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES -***** - NGUYỄN THỊ THANH HUYỀN A STUDY OF HEDGING DEVICES IN CONVERSATIONS IN GONE WITH THE WIND BY MARGARET MITCHELL (Nghiên cứu phương tiện rào đón hội thoại tác phẩm Cuốn theo chiều gió nhà văn Margaret Mitchell) M.A THESIS Field: Linguistics Code: 60.22.15 Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr TRẦN XUÂN ĐIỆP HANOI – 2012 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of contents iii List of tables v List of figures vi Abbreviations vii PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale Aims of the research and research questions Implications of the research Scope of the research Methodology Research design PART 2: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER Theoretical Background 1.1 Definitions of hedge 1.2 Classification of hedging devices and hedging functions 1.3 Hedges versus conversational maxims and politeness strategies 11 1.4 About Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell 15 1.5 Chapter summary 16 CHAPTER 17 Findings and Discussions 17 2.1 Overview of hedging devices in Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell 17 2.2 Analysis of hedging devices in Gone with the Wind 19 iv 2.2.1 Analysis of modal hedges 19 2.2.2 Analysis of performative hedges 22 2.2.3 Analysis of quantificational hedges 24 2.2.4 Analysis of pragmatic-marker hedges 28 2.2.5 Analysis of tag questions, subjunctives and depersonalization 32 2.3 Functional analysis of hedging devices in Gone with the Wind 34 2.3.1 Speaker-oriented function of hedges 35 2.3.2 Accuracy-oriented function of hedges 36 2.3.3 Hearer-oriented function of hedges 37 PART 3: CONCLUSION 39 Recapitulation of main ideas of the research 39 Limitations of the study 40 Suggestions for further studies 40 REFERENCES 42 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Taxonomy of hedging devices by Salager-Meyer (1994) Table 2: Summary of hedging functions and the devices used to express them by Hyland (1998) Table 3: Taxonomy of hedging devices by Yu (2009) Table 4: Hedging devices in conversations in Gone with the Wind Table 5: Modal hedges: modal aux., modal adv., modal adj., and epistemic lexical verbs Table 6: Quantificational hedges: approximators of quantity, frequency, degree, and ―negation + intensifier‖ Table 7: Pragmatic-marker hedges: interpersonal and propositional Table 8: Other minor types of hedging devices: subjunctives, tag questions, and depersonalization vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Distribution of hedging devices in conversations in Gone with the Wind Figure Distribution of modal hedges Figure Distribution of performative hedges Figure Distribution of quantificational hedges Figure Distribution of pragmatic-marker hedges Figure Distribution of other minor types of hedging devices Figure Distribution of functions of hedging devices vii ABBREVIATIONS Adj Adjectives Adv Adverbs IPM Interpersonal pragmatic markers n Number p Page PPM Proportional pragmatic markers PART 1: INTRODUCTION This part will briefly present the rationale of the research, indicate the research purposes and research questions, and finally outline the organization of the study as a whole Rationale It is widely accepted that making frictions in human beings‘ everyday interaction within a community is almost inevitable In order to reduce such a friction and maintain peace and social harmony, there are certain strategies that should be followed One of these strategies is ―hedging‖ Introduced for the first time by Lakoff in 1972, the term of ―hedge‖ was generally understood as ―words whose job is to make thing fuzzier or less fuzzy‖ Since its appearance, hedges have received a great deal of attention in conversation analysis where such devices are used to create conviviality, facilitate discussion, or show politeness (Holmes, 1984; 1995) Hedging has also been associated with conveying purposive vagueness (Powell, 1985) and as a means of achieving distance between the speaker and what is said (Skelton, 1997) Being an interesting linguistic phenomenon, hedges have been concerned by a number of linguists However, as a matter of fact, Yu (2009: 34) indicated that the majority of hedge studies are found to be concerned with academic or scientific writing, including genres such as economics (Pindi and Bloor, 1986; Channell, 1990), science digests (Fahnestock, 1986), medical discourse (Salager-Meyer, 1991; 1993; 1994; Adams-Smith, 1984), molecular genetics articles (Myers, 1989), and news-writing (Zuck & Zuck, 1986; 1987) The field of spoken discourse, in contrast, seems to receive a comparatively limited number of comprehensive and thorough investigations Hence, with the hope of contributing to enrich the literature of researches on hedging in spoken discourse and to shed some light on the hedging phenomenon in American everyday conversations by investigating linguistic realization of hedging, pragmatic functions and some linguistic features of identified hedges, the author of the present paper decided to carry out the study entitled ―A study of hedging devices in conversations in Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell‖ In addition to certain theoretical contributions, the study is expected to have certain implications in language teaching when various linguistic expressions would be used to serve as valuable examples for hedging demonstration at work Aims of the research and research questions As mentioned earlier, the present research aimed to investigate linguistic devices of hedging, their linguistic realization and their major pragmatic functions in conversations in Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell The present study attempts to address the following research questions:  What are main hedging devices employed in conversations in Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell?  What are major functions of identified hedging devices in conversations in Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell? Implications of the research Both theoretical and practical implications may be offered by the findings of the present study From the theoretical perspective, this study may serve as an additional source of empirical studies on hedges in a way that it indicated different types of hedging devices used in everyday conversations to achieve different pragmatic effects and proved the possibility of utilizing the combined polypragmatic functions of hedges to investigate hedging phenomenon in spoken discourse In terms of practical perspective, the present study may serve certain samples as a source of authentic materials in learning and teaching hedging devices and functions of hedges since a text-based approach is believed to be a key dealing with the lack of pragmatic competence of non-native speakers in communication with native ones Scope of the research First, although communication comes with paralinguistic and extra-linguistic factors, the present study is restricted to the verbal mode of hedging That is to say, the prosodic features (speed, tone, loudness, etc.) and the kinesic mode (facial expressions, eye contact, etc.) are outside the research scope Adjacency pairs, in addition, are also beyond the scope of the investigation Second, though pragmatic functions of hedging in spoken discourses are believed to be realized through different communicative strategies without using hedging expressions, such as saying sorry, showing regret, expressing interest, and so on, the present paper is restrained to linguistic realization of hedges, from which the pragmatic effects of hedges are expected to be portrayed Methodology The research is based on a detailed contextual analysis of conversations in the novel of Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell A comprehensive understanding of hedging devices in Gone with the Wind involves at least two levels of linguistic description: a quantitative analysis and a pragmatic analysis The process of analysis is described as follows - Quantitative analysis: The purpose of quantitative surface-level analysis is to generalize the major forms of hedges in conversations All the indentified items were scrutinized in their context to select those linguistic categories that express hedges At this point, the taxonomy suggested by Yu (2009) was mainly employed to guide the process of identification of hedging devices in the conversations in the novel - Pragmatic analysis: The research then employed a contextual analysis of authentic conversations at the second level of analysis to identify the purposes 31 Subset is a division that signals sort of precondition or prerequisite for the upcoming statement, implying that the speaker is not committed to the statement Fallen in this subset are three types with 30 tokens (24) Gerald: ―Now, none of your pouts, Miss It doesn‘t matter who you marry, as long as he thinks like you and is a gentleman and a Southerner and prideful For a woman, love comes after marriage.‖ Scarlett: ―Oh, Pa, that‘s such an Old Country notion!‖ (p 21) Subset is a group used mainly for explanatory or exemplifying purposes in expressing difficult issues In these cases, speakers normally use just like or something like to approximate the target or to provide a rough idea or a paraphrase of the idea Three types with 25 tokens were identified for this subset (25) Rhett: ―Oh, so I am only capable of carnal lusts?‖ Scarlett: ―Well, you know it‘s true.‖ Rhett: ―Now I appreciate your hesitance in discussing the matter with me My unclean hands and lips besmirch the purity of his love.‖ Scarlett: ―Well, yes—something like that.‖ (p 346) Subset is a division that both signals the speaker‘s ground for evaluation or judgment and indicates the speaker as the source of information By indicating the speaker as the source of information, these pragmatic markers may well save face for others Fallen in this subset are four types and 23 tokens of PPM hedges (26) Scarlett: ―Alex, I don‘t want to talk about it.‖ Alex: ―I don‘t blame you one bit, Scarlett If it was my sister, I‘d—well, Scarlett, I‘ve never yet said a harsh word about any woman, but personally I think somebody ought to take a rawhide whip to Suellen.‖ (p 377) Subset indicates that the speaker is not the source of information, which helps the speaker avoid taking responsibility or being proved wrong with his/ her utterances This subset consists of three types and four tokens (27) Rhett: ―According to the Yankees, I ought to have a fine will There seems to be considerable interest in my finances at present Every day, I am hauled up 32 before another board of inquiry and asked foolish questions The rumor seems current that I made off with the mythical gold of the Confederacy.‖ Scarlett: ―Well—did you?‖ (p 314) The final subset is a group of pragmatic markers serving the purpose of correcting misconceptions expected of the hearer and providing further explanations for the foregoing discourse They come to be used as hedges because further explanations are usually a weaker version of the foregoing discourse, making it sound more reasonable and substantiated, thus easier to be accepted by the hearer Included in this subset were seven types with 12 tokens (28) Rhett: ―Oh, don‘t be so literal! In other words, if you didn‘t have this silly idea that you were damned to hell fire eternal, you‘d think you were well rid of Frank.‖ Scarlett: ―Oh, Rhett!‖ (p 456) 2.2.5 Analysis of tag questions, subjunctives and depersonalization Figure and Table below will show the distribution of three categories of tag questions, subjunctives and depersonalization as well as the detailed information of various linguistic items as hedges and tokens found in the data Figure Distribution of other minor types of hedging devices 33 Table Other minor types of hedging devices: subjunctives, tag questions, and depersonalization Hedging devices Raw number SUNJUNCTIVES …as if… If you were/ weren‘t… …as though… If I were… If it were… If they were / weren‘t… If she were…/ If he were… If only I‘d rather [+clause] If we were… Subtotal 48 TAG QUESTIONS Tag questions of ―you‖ (, would you?) 69 Tag questions of ―it‖ (, isn’t it?) 41 Tag questions of ―I‖ (, haven’t I?) Tag questions of ―she/ he‖ (, is she?) Tag questions of ―we‖ (, are we?) Tag questions of ―they‖ (, aren’t they?) Subtotal 124 DEPERSONALIZATION It looks / It looked 13 No one can It sounds There‘s a chance Subtotal 21 TOTAL: 193 TOKENS % 18.8 16.6 16.6 12.4 8.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 2.1 100 55.6 33.1 6.5 3.2 0.8 0.8 100 62 19 9.5 9.5 100 Sum Subjunctives: 24.9 % Item: 10 Token: 48 Tag questions: 64.2% Item:6 Token: 124 Tag questions: 10.9% Item: Token: 21 In terms of subjunctives, there are 10 types used as hedging devices, in which as if (9 tokens, 18.8%), If you were/ weren’t (8 tokens, 16.6%), and as though (8 tokens, 16.6%) were identified to be the most important expressions serving hedging effect (29) Rhett: ―You eat as though each meal were your last Don‘t scrape the plate, Scarlett I‘m sure there‘s more in the kitchen You have only to ask the waiter If you don‘t stop being such a glutton, you‘ll be as fat as the Cuban ladies and then I shall divorce you.‖ Scarlett: ―Why you look at me like that? Like a cat at a mouse hole!‖ (p 468) 34 As concerns tag questions, the table reveals that there are six types with 124 tokens to make tag questions become the most prominent category expressing hedging meaning, making up 64.2% Tag questions of you such as ―didn’t you?‖, ―have you?‖ or ―are you?‖ offer 69 tokens, accounting for 55.6% while there is only one tag question of they acting as a hedging device (30) Wade: ―You understand little boys, don’t you, Uncle Rhett?‖ Rhett: ―Yes, I understand little boys.‖ (p 487) Finally, with regards to depersonalization, the table presents four subtypes employed to convey hedging effect There is a total of 21 tokens found in the data, in which the expression It looks/ It looked alone accounts for 62%, followed by No one can (19%), and the rest (11%) (31) Rhett: ―Yes, you! There you are, a constant temptation to him, but like most of his breed he prefers what passes in these parts as honor to any amount of love And it looks to me as if the poor devil now had neither love nor honor to warm himself!‖ Scarlett: ―He has love!… I mean, he loves me!‖ (p 346) 2.3 Functional analysis of hedging devices in Gone with the Wind Adapted from the polypragmatic paradigm of hedges proposed by Hyland (1998), hedging devices in terms of pragmatic function in the novel are identified to perform three main functions: speaker-oriented, accuracy-oriented and heareroriented functions Figure presented below shows the frequency distribution of hedging devices according to their functions in Gone with the Wind 35 Figure Distribution of functions of hedging devices 2.3.1 Speaker-oriented function of hedges Firstly, it can be seen in Figure that speaker-orientation is the most prominent function that hedging devices perform in the conversations of the novel The percentage of 48.1% of the identified hedges was found to be speaker-focused ones, which aim to shield the speakers from possible consequences of error when making utterances The overall prominent position of speaker-oriented hedges in the corpus suggests that the speakers employ hedging devices primarily for the purpose of protecting themselves from being proved wrong by limiting their personal commitment This function of hedged was also identified to be realized by a variety of hedging categories, such as, modal auxiliary verbs, epistemic adverbs, epistemic adjectives, epistemic nouns, epistemic lexical verbs, and depersonalization All contributed a total of 1561 items functioning as speaker-oriented hedges Take an extract from a conversation between Scarlett and Ashley in the novel as an example: (32) Scarlett: ―I know I love you.‖ Ashley: ―Love isn‘t enough to make a successful marriage when two people are as different as we are You would want all of a man, Scarlett, his body, his heart, his soul, and his thoughts And if you did not have them, you would be miserable And I couldn’t give you all of me I couldn’t give all of me to anyone And I would not want all of your mind and your soul And you would be hurt, and then you would come to hate me—how bitterly! You would hate 36 the books I read and the music I loved, because they took me away from you even for a moment And I—perhaps I—‖ (p 65) After learning the news that Ashley, the man Scarlett is secretly in love with, is to marry his cousin, Scarlett decided to reveal her love to convince him change his marriage plan To response Scarlett‘s confession of love, a wide range of hedging devices verbs, like would, couldn’t, would not (auxiliary modal verbs) perhaps (modal adverb), was utilized by Ashley to make Scarlett get to know the possibility that he may be not her suitable man to ensure her happy marriage It is the hedging devices that help to create the favorable shield to protect Ashley when he refused Scarlett‘s love Other examples to exemplify speaker-oriented function of hedges are presented as follows (33) Scarlett: ―I’m not sure that that‘s a compliment,‖ Rhett: ―It isn‘t When will you stop looking for compliments in men‘s lightest utterances?‖ (p 182) (34) Scarlet: ―I think we should go and help to make it a success, all of us I think I should go in the booth with Melly because—well, I think it would look better for us both to be there instead of just one Don‘t you think so, Melly?‖ Melanie: ―Well!‖ (p 90) 2.3.2 Accuracy-oriented function of hedges Ranking at the second important function (45.7%), accuracy-orientation refer to the devices which show the speaker‘s concern to propositions with precision as Coetzer (2002: 57) has mentioned ―accuracy-oriented hedges try to present information as fully, accurately, and objectively as possible‖ In the data of the research, typical linguistic means to realize this hedging function include approximators of quantity, frequency, and degree such as some, about, nearly, almost, quite, so on In other words, accuracy-oriented function of hedges in 37 the conversations of the novel Gone with the Wind is fulfilled thanks to quantificational hedges The following are some extracted conversations exemplifying the accuracy-oriented function of hedges (35) Scarlett: ―I hope it doesn‘t rain tomorrow It‘s rained nearly every day for a week There‘s nothing worse than a barbecue turned into an indoor picnic.‖ Stuart: ―Oh, it‘ll be clear tomorrow and hot as June.‖ (p 4) (36) Scarlett: ―Bring him in!‖ Melanie: ―Shall I help you take him upstairs? You cannot manage him He‘s quite heavy.‖ (p 112) It can be concluded that speaker-oriented and accuracy-oriented hedges both concern about the precision, definiteness, or certainty of the utterance, but it is the focus of hedging that make them different from each other While accuracy-oriented hedges focus on modification of words or phrases within a proposition, like He is sort of sad, the focus of speaker-oriented hedges is given to the truth-value of the whole proposition and speaker‘s commitment or attitude to the content, like I think he is sad 2.3.3 Hearer-oriented function of hedges Figure shows that in the data hearer-oriented function of hedges, which mostly fulfills interpersonal interaction between speakers and listeners and ―works on syntactic level or utterance level to monitor the interaction/communication process‖ (Yu‘s, 2009: 105), makes up a relatively small rate (6.2%) in comparison with the speaker-oriented and accuracy-oriented function The data of the present study revealed that this type of function can be realized though various hedging expressions in making recommendation or suggestions, asking questions, taking personal responsibility, and addressing readers In other words, it is interpersonal pragmatic-marker hedges that perform hearer-oriented 38 function in the conversations of Gone with the Wind Some examples of hearerorientation of hedges are illustrated below (37) Kennedy: ―I‘m sorry about your ma, Miss Scarlett.‖ Scarlett: ―Please don‘t talk about it.‖ Kennedy: ―And your pa-Has he been this way since—?‖ Scarlett: ―Yes—he‘s—he‘s not himself, as you can see.‖ (p 264) (38) Scarlett: Well, you see, I didn‘t get home till the day after the battle The Yankees were all gone then Pa—Pa told me that—that he got them not to burn the house because Suellen and Carreen were so ill with typhoid they couldn‘t be moved.‖ Old Miss: That‘s the first time I ever heard of a Yankee doing a decent thing.‖ (p 245) As can be seen from two examples presented above, interpersonal pragmatic markers of as you can see and you see are used by the interlocutors in order to mitigate the propositions in a way that they seem to express sense of cooperation, sharing, solidarity, and intimacy between the speaker and the listener In a final remark, hearer-oriented function of hedges, therefore, can be realized as devices to establish good relationships and facilitate effective communication between the speaker and the listener 39 PART 3: CONCLUSION Recapitulation of main ideas of the research The present investigation was concerned with the possible linguistic expressions referring to hedging meanings and pragmatic functions of identified hedging devices in conversations in the well-known novel of Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell Two levels of linguistic descriptions which consist of the quantitative analysis, mainly based on taxonomy of hedging devices Yu‘s (2009), and pragmatic analysis, adapted from polypragmatic paradigm of hedges of Hyland‘s (1998) are utilized for the purpose of data analysis The study was performed with regards to two following questions: What are main hedging devices employed in conversations in Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell? What are major functions of identified hedging devices in conversations in Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell? In respect to the first questions, the findings of the research showed that there are four main categories of hedging devices emerging from the data, namely, modal hedges, performative hedges, quantificational hedges, and pragmatic-marker hedges, in which quantificational hedges (43.8%) are employed with the highest frequency, followed by modal hedges (34.8%), performative hedges (8.2%), and other minor types of tag questions, subjunctives, and depersonalization (5.7%) Concerning pragmatic functions of hedging expressions raised from the second question, it can be concluded from the research that hedges perform three types of functions related to: speaker orientation, accuracy orientation, and hearer orientation Among these, speaker-oriented hedges (48.1%) emerge to be the most prominent, preceding accuracy-oriented hedges (45.7%) and hearer-oriented hedges (6.2%) 40 Limitations of the study Due to the scope, the study has the following limitations The first issue deserving consideration concerns the notion of hedges and taxonomies of hedging devices When carrying out the study, in which the taxonomy of hedging devices of Yu (2009) were employed, the author was fully aware of the fact that there still exist controversial questions as to what exactly is a hedge and how this phenomenon should be investigated, which make it impossible to develop a complete taxonomy of hedging devices Therefore, context-based analysis and various references from the related literature were employed by the author to deal with the mentioned issues Secondly, when it came to analyze pragmatic functions of hedges in this research, it was perceived by the author that hedging pragmatic functions might be realized through different communicative strategies without hedging devices‘ existence; however, due to the limited time, the present paper was restricted to linguistic realization of hedging only, from which the pragmatic effects of hedges were partly portrayed Suggestions for further studies There are issues left untouched in this preliminary research into hedging phenomenon because of its size and limit To begin with, although the results of the investigation of hedging phenomenon in conversations in Gone with the Wind revealed different hedging devices and confirmed the multi-functional nature of hedges, it is fully realized by the author of the paper that some communicative strategies could be employed to fulfill hedging functions without using hedging expressions Therefore, future researchers are suggested to investigate possible hedging strategies in the novel to gain a more comprehensive analysis of hedging phenomenon in terms of linguistic features as well as pragmatic functions 41 Secondly, the present study almost cannot take into account prosodic features and paralinguistic factors which are supposed to be crucial in spoken discourse to highlight their hedging meanings The further studies would be better if those factors could have been taken into consideration Finally, it is believed that the cultural features of American face-to-face interactions can be reflected in the way hedging means and hedging strategies are exploited in American everyday conversations, which deserves in-depth studies in the future 42 REFERENCES Adams-Smith, D (1984) Medical discourse: Aspects of author's comment English for Special Purposes, 3, 25-36 Bashanova, E.Y (2012) Hedging in online news writing National Taiwan University of Science and Technology Brown, G., & Levinson, S (1978) Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena In E N Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp 56-310) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Brown, G., & Levinson, S (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Channell, J (1990) Precise and vague expressions in writing on economics In W Nash (Ed.), The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse Newbury Park, CA: Sage Clemen, G (1997) The concept of hedging: Origins, approaches and definitions In R Markkanen & H Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter Coates, J (1988) Women‘s Speech, Women Strength? In York Papers in Linguistics 13: selected papers from the sociolinguistics symposium Crompton, P (1997) Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems English for Specific Purposes, 16 (4), 271-287 Edmondson, W (1981) Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis London/New York: Longman Fahnestock, J (1986) Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts Written Communication, 3(3), 275-296 Fauziyah, N (2007) The Flouting and Hedging maxims Used by the Main Characters in William Gibson’s ―The Miracle Worker‖ English Letters and 43 Language Department, Faculty of Humanity and Culture, the State Islamic University of Malang Fraser, B (1975) Hedge performatives In P Cole & J L Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol 3: Speech acts): 187-210 New York: Academic Press Fraser, B (1988) Types of English discourse markers Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 38, 19-33 Grice, H.P (1975) Logic and Conversation In P Cole & J Morgan (eds) Syntax & Semantics 3: Speech Acts New York: Academic Press, pp 41 – 58 Holmes, J (1984) Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: some evidence for hedges as support structures Te Reo, 27, 47-62 Holmes, J (1988) Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks Applied Linguistics, 9, 20-44 Holmes, J (1995) Women, Men, and Politeness London: Longman Holmes, J (1995) Women, Men, and Politeness London: Longman Hyland, K (1994) Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks English for Special Purposes, 13(3), 239-256 Hyland, K (1996a) Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454 Hyland, K (1996b) Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles Written Communication, 13, 251-281 Hyland, K (1998) Hedging in scientific research articles Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Hyland, K., & Milton, J (1997) Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205 Lakoff, G (1972) Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, 8, 183-228 Reprinted as in Lakoff (1973) Lakoff, G (1973) Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458-508 44 Markkanen, R., & Schröder, H (1997) Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis In Markkanen, R., & Schröder, H (Eds.) Hedging and discourse: approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp 3-18) Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter Myers, G (1989) The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35 Myers, G (1992) Textbooks and the sociology of scientific knowledge English for Special Purposes, 11(3-17) Paloma P (2007) A contrastive analysis of hedging in English and Spanish architecture project descriptions Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20, 139-158 Pindi, M., & Bloor, T (1986) Playing safe with predictions: Hedging, attribution and conditions in economic forecasting Written Language, BAAL CILT Powell, M (1985) Purposive vagueness: An evaluation dimension of vague quantifying expressions Journal of Linguistics, 21, 31-50 Prince, E., Frader, J., & Bosk, C (1982) On Hedging in physician-phycisian discourse In R D Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the Professions (pp 83-97) Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex Riekkinen, N (2009) Softening criticism: The use of lexical hedges in academic spoken interaction (Unpublished MA Thesis) University of Helsinki Retrieved August, 1, 2012, from http://www.helsinki.fi/englanti/elfa/ Riekkinen, N (2009) Softening criticism: The use of lexical hedges in academic spoken interaction (Unpublished MA Thesis) University of Helsinki Retrieved August, 1, 2012, from http://www.helsinki.fi/englanti/elfa/ Salager-Meyer, F (1991) Hedging in medical discourse: 1980-1990 Interface, 6(1), 33-54 Salager-Meyer, F (1993) Imprecision and vagueness (hedging) in today's medical discourse: courtesy, coyness or necessity? The ESPecialist, 14(1), 1-15 45 Salager-Meyer, F (1994) Hedges and textual communicative funstion in medical English written discourse English for Special Purposes, 13, 149-170 Skelton, J (1997) How to tell the truth in The British Medical Journal: Patterns of judgement in the 19th and 20th Centuries Vande Kopple, W (1985) Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse Colleg Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93 Varttala, T (1999) Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine English for Specific Purposes, 18 (2), 177-200 Vass, H (2004) Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genres IB•RICA, 7, 125-141 Retrieved August,1, 2021, from http://www.aelfe.org Wilamová, S (2005) On Expressing Negative Politeness in English Fictional Discourse Spisy filozofické fakulty Ostravské univerzity, Ostrava Ostravská univerzita Yu, S (2009) The pragmatic development of hedging in EFL learners Hong Kong University Retrieved August, 1, 2012, from http://dspace.cityu.edu.hk/handle/2031/5731 Zuck, J G., & Zuck, L V (1986) Hedging in news writing In A.-M Cornu, J Van Parjis, M Delahaye & L Baten (Eds.), Beads or bracelets? How we approach LSP, Selected papers from the fifth European symposium on LSP (pp 172-180) Oxford: Oxford University Press Zuck, J G., & Zuck, L V (1987) Hedging in newswriting In A.-M Cornu, J Vanparijs & M Delahaye (Eds.), Beads or bracelets: How we approach LSP? (pp 171-181) Leuven, Belgium: Oxford University Press ... Wind by Margaret Mitchell The present study attempts to address the following research questions:  What are main hedging devices employed in conversations in Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell? ... detailed contextual analysis of conversations in the novel of Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell A comprehensive understanding of hedging devices in Gone with the Wind involves at least... What are major functions of identified hedging devices in conversations in Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell? Implications of the research Both theoretical and practical implications may