A vietnamese – english cross – cultural study of the use of hedging before giving bad news

A vietnamese – english cross – cultural study of the use of hedging before giving bad news

PART 1: INTRODUCTION1 Rationale

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

same nationality, social or ethnic origin, gender, age, occupation What is more, “language isclosely related to the way we think and to the way we behave and influence the behavior ofothers” (Karmic 1998:79) Hence, culture can be well-understood or grasped with the help of

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 havecommunication and to have communication means to have access to a language.”

Although well aware of the ultimate objective of learning a foreign language towardsuccessful communication, many Vietnamese learners of English hold that a good commandof a foreign language or success in foreign language learning lies only in mastering grammarrules and accumulating as much vocabulary as possible As a result, even possibly producinggrammatically well-formed utterances, they may experience unwanted culture shock, andcommunication breakdown when running into a real and particular context of situation Thisunexpected incidence occurs due to their insufficient knowledge and awareness of socialnorms and values, roles and relationships between individuals, especially those from thetarget culture.

It is worth noting that different languages and cultures have different expressions of behaviorand different realizations of speech acts by language users This has suggested a considerablenumber of researchers, both local and foreign to conduct their studies on cross-culturalpragmatics 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 Indaily life, no one likes to give their relatives or friends bad news because rarely does he/ shefind it easy to reduce listeners’ feeling of sadness, to lessen the hurt, but sometimes even thebest, brightest and most talented, the informers are left with no choice Nevertheless, toconvey bad news such as informing the death of the husband in an accident to his wife if thespeaker 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 youthat 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 specificcommunicative intent such as: one strategy of politeness, vagueness, and mitigation.Therefore, a desire to have a further insight into major similarities and differences in usinghedges 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 ofhedging 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-culturalcommunication 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 thereis a culture gap between Vietnamese and English, inappropriate language use may causemisinterpretation, miscommunication and communication breakdown among cross-culturalcommunicators

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 theact of giving bad news with the use of politeness and hedging In addition, adjacency pairsare beyond the scope of this paper.

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

- The Northern Vietnamese dialect and the English spoken by Anglophone community ofEngland, America, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, are chosen for contrastive analysis - The data are collected by conducting survey questionnaires to examine the ways VNSs andENSs 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 usinghedges 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 inAustralia, Singapore and Hong Kong) Based on English-speaking informants’ statusparameters, the researcher looked for the Vietnamese subjects of similar parameters in orderto have a symmetrical distribution of informants and data for the study.

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

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 politenessstrategies.

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 givensituations

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 theirinformation and attitude, they are doing intercultural or cross-cultural communication, tryingto show or let the other(s) learn about their cultural values, norms, and beliefs Sinceintercultural communication and cross-cultural communication are not very much differentand are used interchangeably (Scollon in Hinkel 1999: 183), we therefore would like to adoptthe view of intercultural communication as the exchange of information between individualswho are unalike culturally (Rogers and Steinfatt, 1999: 103) What is more, suchcommunication is much influenced by different factors, notably the binary system ofcompetence-performance (what one knows vs what one does) and context (which sets thescene and shapes the meaning that will attributed to what is said).

Cross-cultural or intercultural communication is simply defined as “the exchange ofinformation 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 amember 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 bringtheir cultural values and norms into mutual exchanges One of the typical examples ofcultural misunderstanding is that they transfer what is accepted in their culture to newsituation of communicating with others from a different culture This leads to not onlyserious misunderstanding, but also communication breakdowns or fatal consequences Forinstance, people from the Anglophone cultures feel normal when saying “thank you” whenoffered a compliment on the work Nevertheless, it is not the common way for many VNSs todo the same job Therefore, when contacting each other, a Vietnamese and his Anglophonecounterpart may have unexpectedly negative comments on each other about the same act.According to Thomas (1995) and Cutting (2003) one of the reasons for communicationfailure is that interlocutors may not have a good acquisition of the common language used incross-cultural communication

All the above disruption can be said to be culture shock, which can lead to the feelings ofestrangement, confusion, anger, hostility, indecision, frustration, etc That is why one isadvised to know how far one can go as individuals and learn about the culture one is exposedto.

1.1 Speech Acts

“The inference the hearer makes and takes himself to be intended to make is basednot 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 sentencesthat are the principle focuses of descriptive and linguistics It must bring in social context Itmust deal with the real contexts that make up human communication and social situations inwhich 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 statesome 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 evinceemotion 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’sobservation (1962) in which it is said that sentences are used to report states of affairs andutterance of some sentences can be treated as performance of an act Richards defines speechacts 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 performingthem 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 ofcultural concepts.

Following is how illocutionary acts are classified:

AustinSearleBach and Harnish

Exposives Assertives/ Representatives Assertives

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” (anindirect way to ask a special person to marry) – Sunflower, 1997

Similarly, in many Vietnamese folk poems, indirect ways of love declaration are foundabundant 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 alsoindirect ways are resorted to for verbal expressions Thus, directness and indirectness are thetwo basic forms of expression that are linguistically and culturally universal It is impossibleto say that one language uses only straightforward or direct ways of expression while theother employs just roundabout or indirect expressions The ways of language is employed todepend 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”) thatcontrast with English linearity (figure a) He mainly concentrates on writing and restricts hisstudy 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:

According to the diagrams, English people often use roundabout and direct patterns wholethe Oriental people in general and the Vietnamese in particular seem to prefer roundaboutand indirect patterns In the Anglophone main stream culture, the ideal form ofcommunication 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’slook 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 besocially accepted as “polite” and expect that the offer will be extended the second or thirdtime 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 NguyenQuang 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 morefrequently.

It has been found that, in English, the purpose of interaction seems to be made overt at thebeginning, but in Vietnamese, things seem to go the other way round In many cases, ifsomeone puts the purpose of his talk upfront, he may be considered rude According toNguyen Quang (1998), if time permits and relationship allows, interactants will have smalltalk 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 incommunication Nguyen Quang (1998: 5) proposes twelve factors that, in his argument, mayaffect the choice of directness and indirectness in communication.

1 Age: the old tend to be more indirect than the young2 Sex: the female prefer indirect expression

3 Residence: the rural population tend to use more indirectness than the urban one4 Mood: While angry, people tend to use more indirectness

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

6 Personality: The extroverted tend to use more directness than the introverted7 Topics: While referring to a subtle topic, a taboo …., people are more inclined to

(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 humancooperation, so that any theory which provides an understanding of this phenomenonat 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 ofindividuals within social interactions (Thompson 2003: 32) Since face, understood as everyindividual’s feelings of self-image (Thomas 1995: 169), can be damaged, maintained orenhanced through interaction with others, a person often claims for him/ herself throughinteraction That is why in everyday interchange, we usually avoid embarrassing the otherperson, or making him feel uncomfortable simply because we bear in mind that everybodyhas basic face needs or wants which refers to the respect that individual has for him orherself According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 61-62), face is “the public self image thatall 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 interactionwith others Once face is damaged or threatened, there seems to be a risk of communicationbreakdown Therefore, maintaining or partially satisfying each other’s face seems to be themajor 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 andnegative face

like, admire, value, or approve of one’s wants (material or non-material) or the need to beaccepted and liked by others, treated as a member of the group, and to know one’s wants areshared by others.

1.3.1.2 Negative face

Negative face, according to Brown and Levinson is “the basic claim to territories, personalpreserves, rights to non-distraction, i.e to freedom of action and freedom of imposition” Inother words, “negative face is reflected in the desire not to be impeded or put upon, to havethe freedom to act as one chooses” (Thomas 1995: 169), or “the wants that one’s action beunimpeded by others” (Eelen 2001: 3), and “the need to be independent, to have freedom ofaction, 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 orthreaten another person’s face; such acts are known as “face threatening acts” (FTAs) by, forinstance, representing a threat to or damaging the H’s positive face (insulting the addresseeor expressing disapproval of what the H holds valuable or does something) or his/ hernegative 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 theaddressee 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 toanother 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 oflinguistics, especially sociolinguistics and pragmatics, throughout the 20th century Therehave been so far two main approaches to politeness: politeness as social norms (normativepoliteness) 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 andLevinson 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 withindirectness, (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, themore polite we become More correctly, she places politeness on the same par with negativepoliteness by challenging the claim that there is a direct relationship between indirectnessand 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 morecomfortably 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 utterancetakes longer for the speaker to produce and longer for the H to process (costly) and the Hmay not understand what the speaker is getting at (risk).

Nguyen Quang (1994: 23) provides a satisfactory definition of politeness (which is adoptedas a working definition of politeness for this study), not “leaning” to any side of the coin, andwith no bias against either positive or negative politeness, but reconciliation of the twoextremes 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/ otherpeople feel better or less bad” Setting aside the non-verbal aspect as mentioned in the scopeof the study, the thesis author in convinced that this definition covers both ends of thecontinuum of positive and negative politeness by implying that politeness involves takinginto account the feelings of others (Holmes, 1992: 296, Wardhaugh 1986: 280) and it is themeans employed to show awareness of another person’s face (Yule 1996: 60), used to showconcern for people’s face (Brown and Levinson 1987).

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

First, putting aside the views of conversational principle and maxims, and conversationalcontract, the distinction between normative and strategic politeness is rather loose andrelative in that almost all illocutionary acts should operate within the framework ofinterpersonal relationships.

Second, it is the author’s opinion that normative politeness based on social norms is thedeparture or foundation of strategic politeness What require normative politeness to berealized are interpersonal relationships where interlocutors should follow some certainpoliteness norms to save or preserve the other’s face This, in turn, will more or less make atwist 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’spositive and negative face.

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

Finally, Brown and Levinson’s model is adequate for the interpretation of ongoing verbalinteraction in which participants are reciprocally attending to one another’s face needs (Watts2003: 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 ofappropriateness.

Lakoff (1973) argues that the majority of conversation is governed by what is termed thepoliteness principle Similar to Grice (but earlier), she claimed that there are three maxims orrules 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 beseen 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 costand benefit and much related to offering favorableness to the hearer Leech sees PP as beingof the same status as Grice’s Cooperative Principle (CP), which it “rescues” by explainingwhy 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, theprinciple 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), minimizehearer dispraise and maximize hearer praise (approbation maxim), minimize self-praise andmaximize self-dispraise (modesty maxim), minimize disagreement and maximize agreementbetween oneself and others (agreement maxim) and minimize sympathy between oneself andothers (sympathy maxim).

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

schema proposes five components of communicative choices: (1) without redressive actionbadly, (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 generalprinciple 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 linguisticstrategies available to speakers to enable them, if they so wish, to minimize threat to face If aspeaker chooses to commit an FTA, they can go “on record”, say “badly, without redress”:

- Smarten yourself up

The second way available to go “on record” is to choose to pay attention to face throughredressive action Thus, they may redress the FTA by choosing positive politeness thatattends to positive face, to enable S to pay attention to H’s positive face by the use of in-group identify markers such as:

- You’re so good at solving computer problems I wonder if you could just help mewith a little formatting problem I’ve got.

Or they can redress the threat with negative politeness that respects the hearer’s negative face(when FTAs are unavoidable) which includes the marking of deference through using the Vpronoun, or, for example, the elimination of all reference to both S and H through the use of

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 besafe).

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 significantinfluences on positive polite linguistic choices, positive politeness is defined as forms forfree-ranging, solidarity-oriented emphasizing shared attitudes and values, minimizing socialdistance, “maximizing the politeness of polite illocutions” (Leech 1983: 84) and “essentiallyother-oriented behavior” (Holmes 1995: 26)

According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 101-103), “positive politeness is redress directedto the addressee’s positive face, his perennial desire that he wants …should be thought of asdesirable” However, they emphasize “it is not necessarily redressive of the particular facewant infringed by the FTA because positive techniques are used as a kind of metaphoricalextension of intimacy, implying common ground or sharing of wants, social accelerator toindicate 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 definitionwhich reads:

“Positive politeness is any communicative act which is intentionally andappropriately meant to show the speaker’s concern to the hearer/ addressee, thus,enhancing the sense of solidarity between them Simply put, positive politeness is toshow the speaker’s concern to others In this case, positive politeness can be calledwarm 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 cross-cultural communication is that he implicitly suggests that positive politeness strategies areappropriate between those who know each other well, or those who wish to know each otherwell, and being polite in the contexts of P, D and R’s operation involves how to express arange of speech functions in a culturally appropriate way.

When interacting or getting socialized with other people, what we normally do is to payattention to satisfying face needs When face is threatened in interaction, both aspects of facecome under fire (Mey 1993) or under risk of “losing face”, which motivates the speaker toadopt linguistically appropriate choices to ‘save face’ In the case of the undesirable state ofthreatened face engendered by an FTA, politeness strategies are developed to satisfy the dualaspects of face or any aspect of an FTA, and then there appear positive and negativepoliteness strategies when the speaker goes on-record with redressive action Therefore, it isworthy of note that politeness strategies are relevant realizations of redressive action for thespeaker’s choice to go on-record Brown and Levinson (1987) give multifarious examples toillustrate the kinds of choices to open to the speaker and posit fifteen sub strategies ofpoliteness addressed to the hearer’s positive face According to them, positive politenessstrategies aim to save positive face, or are addressed to H’s positive face and described asexpressions of solidarity, intimacy, informality, and familiarity Thus, they are developed tosatisfy 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/ chúngmình 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 ofpositive 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 nămchục (Wow, how smart you look today! What occasion? By the way, can I borrow 50,000VND, 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 acouple 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 getthis 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 youcould 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 goand 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 Icould 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 dựnên 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 theFTA is slight

- I know you are always glad to get a tip or two on gardening, Fred, so if I were you, Iwouldn’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 đếnđâu 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; itperforms the function of minimizing the particular imposition that the FTA unavoidably

effects (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 129) or it is “minimizing the impoliteness of impoliteillocutions” (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 theaddressee’s negative face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his actionunimpeded” (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 129), Thomas (1995: 172) makes it clear by statingthat “negative politeness is oriented towards a hearer’s negative face, which appeals to thehearer’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 andcross-culturally communicative environment, Nguyen Quang (2003: 44) proposes his own

definition of negative politeness: “Negative politeness is any kind of communicative actwhich is appropriately intended to show that the speaker does not want to impinge on theaddressee’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 becalled distancing/ cool/ distant politeness”

Briefly, negative politeness strategies, in Brown and Levinson’s (1987) words, converselyare 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 morepolite, than positive strategies, a point which was discussed earlier Thus, they can be alsoexpressed in two ways: (i) by saving the interlocutor’s face by mitigating FTAs; or (ii) bysatisfying 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 Watts2003 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 andaddress, 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 atlunchtime.

- 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 whichit 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 politeutterance 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 whenthey claim that there exist some cases in Brown and Levinson’s model which is hard todemarcate even what positive politeness and negative politeness are.

All the theories discussed above are the basic way leading to hedging/ hedges displayed inchapter 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 andhedging) The designation “hedge/ hedging” itself was introduced first by G.Lakoff (1972) inhis article: “Hedges: A study in meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts” In hissynchronic, non-contrastive study of the oral and written standard English, Lakoff defineshedges (from the point of view of language philosophy) as words whose function is to makemeaning fuzzier (e.g sort of) or less fuzzy Lakoff argues that the logic of hedges requiresserious semantic analysis for all predicates Lakoff defines hedges as follows:

“For me, some of the most interesting questions bare raised by the study of wordswhose meaning implicitly involves fuzziness-words whose job is to make thingsfuzzier or less fuzzy I will refer to such words as “hedges”’.

However, with the fast development of linguistics, hedging phenomena, seen as a purelysemantic 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 thespeech function, the type of offer, command, statement, or question, the attitudes andjudgments 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 somethirty years now, no unified description of the concepts is to be found in literature AsHylland (1998) states “straightforward definitions of the notions are rather rare and theexisting 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 researcherscontinue to approach the concepts of hedge and hedging in a variety of ways Differences arealso to be found in terminology relating to the area, terms other than hedge and hedgingbeing 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 andshields (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 certainstudies 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 generallylabeled “hedges” and these hedging devices attenuate or reduce the strength of the utteranceor 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 towardsthe idea that hedges are for positive politeness.

Brown and Levinson (1987:145) define “hedge” as “ a particle, word or phrase thatmodifies the degree of membership of a predicate or a noun phrase in a set, it says of thatmembership that it is partial or true only in certain respects or that it is more true andcomplete 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 gambitswhich play an important part in conversations as the various social, psychological, andcommunicative signals In Richards’s definition (50:118)

“Gambits may be used to show whether the speaker’s contribution adds new information, 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, ràođón hoặc nhấn mạnh nội dung cần diễn đạt nào đó) (1976:176)

Most of the Vietnamese linguists agree that Vietnamese gambits belong to the “setexpression” 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 addany false or truth values to the content of an utterance, (ii) hedges are attitude markers thatcan be taken as an indication of speakers’ sensitivity towards the hearer To have deeperinsight 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 assimple ones like: very, much, more or less, essentially or slightly and more complex ones liketechnically 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 theiroperands Hedges vary in their dependency on context”.

Lakoff’s semantic characterization of hedging portrays hedges as words that may be realizedas two seemingly contradictory functions, namely those of making things fuzzier or lessfuzzy In fact, it appears that hedges have been considered by most scholars as devices withthe primary function of making things semantically fuzzier However, by approaching thestatus of hedges in how we conceptualize the universe, it is to illustrate that at the semanticlevel hedging may indeed be seen to have both of these dimensions that is to make thingsfuzzier and less fuzzy.

Hedging as an increase in fuzziness

Hedging is firstly often linked to purposive vagueness and tentativeness, which suggests thathedges are typically associated with an increase in linguistic fuzziness This view can betraced back to Lakoff’s work which emphasizes that natural language sentences are not oftenentirely true, false nor nonsensical, but rather somewhat true and somewhat false Brown andLevinson (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 referentialinformation 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 infuzziness Hence, hedges may alternately be looked upon as devices that in fact decreasefuzziness

Hedges could indeed be interpreted to signal that the phenomenon under scrutiny does notconform to the limited conceptual categories of natural language, and by way of distancingthe phenomenon from the core of a given conceptual category hedges actually render therelationship between the phenomenon of the universe and the relevant conceptual categoriesmore accurate.

The two semantic characterizations of hedging offered above both stems from the element offuzziness inherent in hedging device, it probably often being impossible to distinguishbetween the interpretations in practice Nevertheless, being aware of these possibleinterpretations is useful when we turn to the way in which hedging occurs in differentcommunication situations.

2.3 From the point of view of pragmatics

Hedging has more recently been approached as pragmatic rather than a purely semanticphenomenon 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 eyeon the communication situation, particularly the effect of the strategy on the relationshipbetween sender and addressee in face-to-face communication Generally speaking, the morepragmatics-oriented descriptions of hedging phenomena presented in literature are oftenrather circumspect notions for the purposes of a particular research project rather thanthorough 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 andSchroder (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, tomodify 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 ofhedging, avoidance of sender responsibility toward the referential information presentedevidently 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 presumingthat anything involved in the FTA is desired or delivered by H” This is meant that hedgingcan be used to indicate that S does not want to impose upon H’s desires or beliefs Brownand Levinson thus discuss hedges as a greater length as one of ten strategies linked tonegative face protection Hubler (1983: 156-159) picks up the idea of hedging phenomena asindications of negative politeness and contends that hedges are primarily used in negativeface work, hedging devices being “detensifying” elements which sender can employ “tomaximize the emotional acceptability of the propositional content presented to the H forratification” On the other hand, hedges can also be interpreted as simultaneously serving thesender’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 ofmembership of a predicate or noun phrase in a set”

For example,

A serving is a sort of toyKiểu như một trò chơi

John is a true friendJohn đúng là một người bạn tốt

I rather think it is hopelessTôi thoáng nghĩ là không có hi vọng đâuYou are quite rightHình như bạn hơi đúng

According to Brown/ Levinson (1987), conversational principles are the sources of strongbackground assumptions about cooperation, in formativeness, truthfulness, relevance, andclarity which on many occasions need to be softened for reasons of face Here to, hedges arethe 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:

Brown and Levinson (1987) distinguishes four different kinds of hedges, namely thoseaffecting illocutionary force, hedges on Grice’s maxims, hedges addressed directly topoliteness strategies and hedges encoded in prosodic and kinetic strategy However, due tolimited time, the author only takes notice of hedges on Grice’s maxims.

Có một số dẫn chứng cho thấy là…… Tôi không chắc lắm ……… Theo chỗ tôi biết ……… Tôi nghĩ rằng ………Tôi cho là ……….Nghe đâu là ……….Tôi tin là ………

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 emmuốn biết cuộc hôn nhân vội vàng của anh có hạnh phúc không? (Báo Thế giới Phụ nữ số39/ 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 ……… As you probably/ may know ……….As you and I both know

Như các bạn đã biết……….Mọi người biết đấy ……….Có người nói rằng ……… Có người cho rằng ……….Người ta cho rằng………

E.g “I am not sure and let me tell you why I am not sure It seems to me ………I want to beas accurate as I can be Seems to me the last time she was there to see Barry before Christmaswe were joking (… ) and so I said would qualify or something like that I don’t/ I don’t think

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

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

12/ 2003)

(iv) As quality hedges, we have degrees of probability expressed in increasing doubt.

DefinitelyProbably May/ might

Có thể là

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 số27/ 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 anddeleted performatives

For sure I see itI can infer

I widely conjectureTruthfully

Honestly,Quite candidly,Quite frankly,

Tôi chắc chắn đấyThành thật mà nóiNói thật là

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.

All in all

Tôi cũng không biết chắcTôi không còn biết nói gì hơnKhoảng chừng là

Áng chừng làXấp xỉ làHình như là

Tưởng như là, đâu như làHàng chục là, hàng năm là

In nutshell

To cut a long story shortIn short

BasicallySo to speakSort of

Some sort of … likeTo some extentIn a waySomehowUp to a point

Kiểu như là

À, kiểu như nó cũngỞ một khía cạnh nào đóVề cơ bản là

Biết đấy là đâu, biết đâu được chuyện đấyMột chút nữa, một tí nữa

(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

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

Chết một cái làQuả có thế ạ

Nói bỏ ngoài ngoài taiDù sao đi chăng nữaTiện thể là

Nhân tiện đâyÀ nhân tiện

Oh I know ………Anyway ……… While I remember ……… While I think of it ……… All right now

Nói 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 isin 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, ………

_ Manner hedges

If you see what I’m getting atIf you see what I’m driving atTo be succinct,

Not to beat about the bushYou see……….What I meant was……… More clearly, ………To put it more simply, ….

Now to be absolutely clear, I wantI’m not sure if it makes sense … I don’t know if this is clear at all

Tôi xin đi thẳng vào vấn đềÝ tôi là………Nói đơn giản là………… Nói nôm na là ………… Để cho rõ ràng hơn ……

(ii) Not related are these expressions that query whether is following S’s discourseadequately

Yeah?Got it?OK?

You with me?Is that clear?See?

Phải không?……….mà……….nhé……….nghe ……Rõ chưa?

Such maxim hedges as those we have been discussing are used with great frequency inordinary talk According to Brown/ Levinson, they have in many cases straightforwardpoliteness applications Quality hedges that weaken S’s commitment may redress advice or

criticisms: “I think perhaps you should” Quantity hedges may be used to redress complaintsor 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 youconsider…?” And manner hedges can be used to redress all kinds of FTAs: “You are notexactly 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, Ihate to have to say this but ……, I don’t want to hurt you but (which preface criticisms andbad 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 itmay 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’saddressee; to communicate “that one’s own wants … are in some respects similar to theaddressee’s wants” (1987: 101) is to avoid disagreement One avoidance strategy is rendingone’s opinion safely vague, seeking agreement with the addressee when the latter has notmade his or her position clear Sometimes, S may choose to be vague about his ownopinions, so as not to get seen to disagree For this reason, one characteristic device inpositive 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 linguisticexpressions For instance, only about 70 different items were listed in Lakoff’s paper Morerecently, numerous linguistic phenomena have been associated with hedging; therenevertheless is no absolute uniformity between studies as to which linguistic phenomenashould be regarded as falling within the category Literature relating to hedging seems tosuggest that hedges are linguistic choices that include an inherent component of fuzziness,

providing the opportunity to comment on group membership, truth value and illocutionaryforce However, there is variation between studies as to the actual items treated as hedges Insome studies, as in the case with Prince et al’s paper, the phenomena treated as hedges arenot 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 writingis drawn attention to an array of devices How vagueness in presenting a list of other itemstypically used as hedges is firstly discussed Most of the items on the list are verbal oradverbial expressions that involve different degrees of probability or otherwise play down theresponsibility of the sender as concerns propositional content The main categories consist ofauxiliaries (e.g may, might, can, could), semi-auxiliaries (appear, seem), full verb (suggest),the passive voice, various adverbs and adverbial (probably, almost, relatively), someadjectives (probable), indefinite nouns and pronouns

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

manifestations of hedging in English and German Skelton points out that there are a verylarge number of ways in which one can hedge in English, including impersonal phrases, thesystem of modal expressions, verbs like seem, look and appear, introductory phrase like Ithink, 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 isobvious that there are certain evident types of linguistic expression the spring to mind in thisrespect As noted earlier, in the seminal work by Lakoff (1973), hedging was firstapproached with reference to a relatively limited set of hedges, including lexical items andphrases such as: roughly, sort of, strictly speaking, etc In the course of time, the concept ofhedging has come to be understood more broadly as including a numbers of ways ofexpressing 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, allthe 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 meAs far as I know/ as you knowI may be mistaken but I thinkI’m not sure if it’s right butI guess/ think ……

Since I’ve been wondering …

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

ClassificationPrince/ Fader/ Bosk

From the viewpoint of discourse analysis Prince et al start from Lakoff’s definition of hedgesas 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 betweenthe prepositional content and the speaker that is speaker’s commitment to the truth of theproposition 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.

Within propositional content

In the relationship between the

propositional content and the speaker

shields

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

truth-His feet were sort of blue.

It’s a bit cold in here.

However, according to Hubler, there are two kinds of indetermination: phrastic and neustic

Phrastic indetermination

concerns the propositional

content of a sentence understatements