Use of hedges as seen from informants’ parameters

Một phần của tài liệu (LUẬN văn THẠC sĩ) a vietnamese american cross cutural study on the use of hedging in argument (Trang 36 - 44)

In this section, the discussion of the use of hedges is the focus point. Hedge using is viewed from the gender perspective. Additionally, the frequency of each type of hedges used by both American and Vietnamese males and females is going to be analyzed in detail.

Previous studies claim that the difference of gender of the participants in conversation affects the way people communicate. In argument, the ways of hedging by male and female is clearly shown from gender perspective. It can be noted that the number of male and female of both American and Vietnamese is equal.

Figure 3: Use of hedge in argument from gender perspective

It can be seen in Figure 3, Vietnamese female students applying hedges in argument the most with 91%, while only 70% Vietnamese male use hedges. The numbers of American female and male students using hedges to argue are 85% and 78% respectively. It can be concluded that dissimilarity between Vietnamese male and female students is bigger than that of the Americans. This belongs to the difference of the two cultures which stipulates the equality of men and woman.

Vietnamese culture is affected much by cultures of the Orient in which men have more power and privileges than women. Hence, the women normal pay more attention to their words and are cautious of communicating to each other. That is

there is little distinction in gender of American culture. Besides, the figure shows that American female students tend to hedge less than Vietnamese ones. However, they still are more cautious to argue with their partners than American male naturally.

The difference of using hedges in argument is clearly shown through different types of hedges employed by both American and Vietnamese students.

Table 4 clearly shows the dissimilarity of using different categories of hedges.

Hedging categories American students Vietnamese students

Male Female Male Female

Adaptors 12% 13% 10% 11%

Plausibility shields 38% 34% 34% 32%

Attribution shields 16% 17% 15% 19%

Expressing pessimism 20% 21% 25% 28%

Hesitation 14% 15% 16% 10%

Table 4: Frequency of hedging types used by American and Vietnamese informants As classified in section 3.1, five different categories of hedges are: Adaptors, Plausibility shields, Attribution shields, Expressing pessimism and Hesitation.

Table 4 shows the different use of each type of hedges argued by both American and Vietnamese male and female students.

It can be seen from the table that plausibility shields are the tactic that applied most by both groups of informants. As mentioned above I think, I suppose, I guess (Con nghĩ rằng, tớ cho rằng, mình đoán là) are the most popular hedges used to argue. It is clearly shown in the table that the number of American male and female students employ plausibility shields is 38% and 34% respectively. Also, 34% and 32% shows the number of utterances applied this type of hedges by Vietnamese male and female participants. It can be noted that American and Vietnamese male students apply this type of hedge in argument more than female of both groups. The explanation can be that male participants of both groups concern with giving their opinions of the controversial problems.

From Table 4, it can be calculated that expressing pessimism is one type that attracts informants in hedging. This type ranks at the second position in the five types of hedges used in argument. It is clearly shown that female students of both America and Vietnam employ more hedges of expressing pessimism to argue than male students. The numbers of utterances applied this type of hedges by American and Vietnamese female account for 21% and 28% respectively. It can be inferred that female respondents tend to be more pessimistic than male ones.

As shown in the table, attribution shields rank at the third position in the total of five hedging categories. The number of American male and female students employ attribution shields is 16% and 17% respectively, and that is and 15% and 19% of Vietnamese male and female participants. The dissimilarity of using attribution shields between male and female of both sides is not much. Naturally, female students hedge more than male ones do. It can be concluded that in argument, American and Vietnamese participants try to seek the common point of the interlocutors.

From Table 4, hedge of adaptors are least used in argument by both American and Vietnamese males and females. Additionally, it can be noted that the dissimilarity of American male and female informants in using different each type of hedge to argue is not as big as the Vietnamese ones. We can see from Table 4, American female students, normally, employ each type of hedges in the high rate than male ones, except for plausibility shields. This appears the same to Vietnamese male and female students with types of hedges as adaptors, attribution shields and expressing pessimism. Hesitation, on the contrary, is preferred to use by Vietnamese male informants than Vietnamese female. It is calculated that 16% Vietnamese male students apply hesitation more than 10% female do. The explanation for this can be that Vietnamese male students only pretend to agree with the interlocutor‟s point, and then they give their contrastive ideas immediately. Ừ, ờ,…are expressions which is seen as good tactic to delay the participant‟s excitement of arguing as well as giving one‟s own argumentative points.

Generally, there are differences in the use of hedge which can be seen from informant‟s parameters. To different interlocutors, American and Vietnamese informants applied different types of hedges to argue to gain the communicative point. The section below discusses the use of hedges in the view of communicating partner‟s parameters.

3.4. Use of hedges as seen from communicating partners’ parameters.

In this section the five types of hedges are again the focus point to paralleling with the analysis of different role of partners who affect the way the informants‟

using hedges to argue a lot.

Basing on the questionnaire, it can be estimated that there exist three different communicating partners in arguments as students‟ parents, close friend class mate. To each partner in communication, the informants of both American and Vietnamese express hedges differently. The distribution of hedges used to argue with each communicating partner by American and Vietnamese participants is clearly shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Use of hedges to different kinds of partners

As shown in Figure 4, the use of hedges to parents, close friend and classmate of American participants is different from that of Vietnamese ones. It can be calculated that American informants hedge to argue with their parents more than Vietnamese group (94% and 89%). It appears the same to close friend. 85%

American employ hedges to argue with their close friend, and only 73% Vietnamese hedge to those who are in intimate relationship. However, Vietnamese participants

use little more hedges to argue with classmate than American ones (92% and 88%).

It can be inferred that American students employ more hedges to different partners than Vietnamese students. Besides, Vietnamese respondents tend not to hedge much to those who are familiar with them. Consequently, the dissimilarity in using hedges to argue with participants‟ parents by both the American and Vietnamese is clearly shown in Figure 5 below.

Parents

In the analysis of relationship between the informants and the parents, it is shown that the communicating partners as parents have higher power than the informant (+P). However, they are familiar with each other because of their intimate relationship (-D).

Figure 5: Use of hedges from communicating partner as parents

Figure 5 shows the differences of hedges employed by American and Vietnamese students to argue with their parents. As can be seen from the figure, Vietnamese students tend to use more hedges of adaptors, plausibility shields, attribution shields and expressing pessimism to argue with their parents than the American. This is defined as the higher power of parents to their children in Vietnamese cultures. The students have to be more cautious when argue with their parents to show their respects. Additionally, the parents, in Vietnamese cultures, are considered as the most important members of the family. From Figure 5, it can be estimated that both American and Vietnamese prefer to use plausibility shields when hedging to argue with their parents (40% American and 41% Vietnamese).

The expressions as I think, I suppose,… (Con nghĩ rằng, con cho rằng,… ) are the most frequent hedges used.

E.g. -I think he is unreliable.

- Ok father. But…I suppose I, myself, can decide to do everything at my age.

- Con nghĩ chuyến đi này sẽ rất bổ ích cho con.

- Con cho rằng con đã trưởng thành và có thể đi du lịch một mình rồi ạ.

Vietnamese culture has rules in behaving between families members in which the younger has to obey and respect the older, especially their parents.

Hence, to talk with parents, Vietnamese people often use “thưa/ dạ thưa + kinship term/tittle + ạ”. It can be calculated form Figure 5, there is no utterances of Vietnamese informants applied hesitation as ừ, ờ, …, while 12% American use this type of hedges to argue. As American cultures tend to praise the individual, freedom and equality, American participants, to some extent, feel free and comfortable to argue with their parents.

E.g. - Well…I might have. So what? We can always buy another one.

- Uhm…I'm quite sure he's a cheater. Believe me.

Close friend

Close friend is the communicating partner who has influence on the students to choose types of hedges to argue. Close friend has equal power with the informants (=P), and they are all familiar with to each other (-D).

Figure 6: Use of hedges from communicating partner as close friend

From Figure 6, it is clearly shown that plausibility shields are, again, used with the highest frequency to argue with close friend by both American and Vietnamese participants. As can be seen from the figure, the number of American informants using plausibility shields is 44% - more than 40% Vietnamese informants. This is the same in case of expressing pessimism and adaptors. 24% American students employ such expressions as I may be wrong but, I may be mistaken but, If I may say so ( thể sai nhưng tớ, tớ có thể nhầm nhưng, tớ nói điều này bạn đừng giận nhé in Vietnamese) to argue with their close friends. Meanwhile, only 18% Vietnamese students use this type of hedges. American respondents employ little more adaptors than Vietnamese ones (7% and 5%). It can be noted that Vietnamese informants, in argument, do not mind giving their opinions directly to their close friend who are intimate to them. On the other hands, American participants pay attention to mitigate the force of arguing on their close friends and save face for the H.

E.g. - I may be wrong but he is untruthful - He is sort of butcher. Believe me!

- Tớ sợ là cậu sẽ bị hắn lừa đấy

- Tớ muốn nói với bạn chuyện này, nếu có gì không phải bạn bỏ qua nhé!

As can be shown in Figure 6, it can be calculated that the Vietnamese use more hedges of attribution shields and hesitation than the American do. The biggest difference of using by both sides is shown in hesitation. When 21% Vietnamese students employ hesitation, only 12% American use this type in argument. The reason for this is that Vietnamese participants are aware of FTAs and try to avoid threatening their close friends‟ face. Additionally, this also explains the needs of finding the common point of Vietnamese students with their close friends in arguments. This reveals the feature of Vietnamese cultures that people often try to avoid debating to maintain the good relationship between each other, especially those who have close relationship to the speakers.

E.g. - Ừ…nhưng tớ vẫn muốn đi 1 lần cho biết cậu ạ (Uhm…I still want to travel alone)

To each partners of the communication, the informants express their different choices of hedges to argue. The ways they hedge to their parents is certainly different from that to their close friends as well as their classmates, which is discussed as follow.

Classmate

The communicating partners as classmates of the participants receive different ways of hedging compared to the partners as parents and close friend. The informants of the study and their classmates have equal power (=P) and in acquaintance with each other (+D).

Figure 7: Use of hedges from communicating partner as classmate

As can be seen from Figure 7, American informants employ all five types of hedges to argue with their classmates, while Vietnamese participants apply four types as plausibility, attribution, expressing pessimism and hesitation. As considered to be the most popular type of hedges in arguments, plausibility shields are still preferred to use by both American and Vietnamese participants by 42% and 45%. Besides, expressing pessimism shows the more frequent use of Vietnamese students than the American (27% Vietnamese and 21% American). It can be explained that Vietnamese informants are cautious to give their opinions of argumentative point to those who are not familiar with them. Consequently, they try to lessen the impact on the H by expressing pessimism.

E.g. - I think you should be careful with him - I may be mistaken but he always tells lies.

- Tớ nghĩ cậu nên xem xét lại con người anh ta

- Có thể mình nhầm nhưng anh ta không tốt như cậu nghĩ đâu.

From Figure 7, hesitation shows the difference of the using of hedges to argue with classmates by American informants in comparison with Vietnamese ones. To argue with classmates, American students apply more hedges of hesitation than those of Vietnamese (14% American and 10% Vietnamese). It can be noted that the American tend to avoid threatening their classmate‟ face in argument.

E.g. - Well…but I love travelling alone

- Uhm…You may right. But I still want to try this time.

As shown in Figure 7, it can be calculated that Vietnamese students do not employ any adaptors to argue with their classmates. It can be inferred that Vietnamese students make sure about their utterances‟ preciseness when argue with their classmates. In addition, Vietnamese informants may consider it to be unimportant to seek for the agreement of the classmates. The explanation can be that the classmates are just friends of the participants who are not very familiar with them. Therefore, the need of maintaining the relationship is not necessary.

In short, American and Vietnamese informants hedge differently to argue with different communicating partners. To see more clearly about the similarity and differences of using hedges by both American and Vietnamese, a contrastive analysis is discussed in section 3.5.

Một phần của tài liệu (LUẬN văn THẠC sĩ) a vietnamese american cross cutural study on the use of hedging in argument (Trang 36 - 44)

Tải bản đầy đủ (PDF)

(54 trang)