Studies show that two main approaches about hedges have been discussed so far. Lakoff (1972) paid attention on the logical properties of words and phrases. In term of semantic analysis, he argues hedges as words whose function is to make meaning fuzzier or less fuzzy (e.g. sort of). Lakoff (1972:195) defined hedges as follows:
For me, some of the most interesting questions are raised by the study of words whose meaning implicitly involves fuzziness-words whose job it is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy. I will refer to such words as ‘hedges’
Besides, hedging has been view from the perspective of pragmatics. In discussing cooperative principle in conversation, Yule (1996:37) assumed that
“there are certain kinds of expressions speakers use to mark that they may be in danger of not fully adhering to the principles. These kinds of expression are called hedges”.
E.g. As far as I know, they’re married
I won’t bore you with the details, but it was an exciting trip Not to change the subject, but is this related to the the budget?
This may be a bit confused, but I remember being in a car
(Yule, 1996:38) In dealing with politeness strategies in verbal communication, Brown &
Levison (1990:145) define hedges as:
…a particle, word or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase in a set; it says of that membership that it is partial, or true only in certain respects, or that it is more true or complete than might be expected.
Brown & Levison (1987) suggested that hedges can act as one of the politeness strategies in communication. According to the linguists, communicative functions of hedges are to strengthen or weaken the statement as well as to soften complaints, requests and commands.
E.g. + Strengthened statement: You know, he’s only my partner at the company.
+ Weakened statement: It maybe late now. Shall we go home?
+ Softened complaints: I think you behaved badly last night
+ Softened request: Would you please lend me your car for a while?
+ Softened command: Close the door, will you?
Nguyen Quang (2004: 46) pointed that using hedges in conversation helps to mitigate the disagreement of the speakers, and then reduce the face threatening of the hearers.
E.g. You really should sort of lay all the cards on the table.
It’s easy a pie, in a way.
In short, saving face for the other is crucial role of hedge in communication in general and in argumentation in particular. Consequently, hedging is considered as a politeness strategy from the perspective of pragmatics.
In argument, hedges are used variously. Such expressions of hedges as If I may say so, As you probably know, This may be a bit confused are normally employed to propose an argument.
E.g. If I may say so your handwriting is bad.
This may be a bit confused, but are you the last one to leave the room?
To express disagreements, hedges like I’m not sure if this is right, I may be mistaken, I'm not sure if this makes sense, Do you see my point, Know what I mean, and so on are often applied.
E.g. I’m not sure if this is right, but someone has stolen my pen.
I may be mistaken, but John is travelling to Australia now.
To give an end to an argument, hedges employed consist of I don’t know if this is clear at all, I should say that, Ok, so is that clear, etc.
E.g. I should say it‟s enough for arguing.
In term of hedging classification, Yule (1996:38) divided hedges into four categories towards Grice‟s maxim of quality (e.g. As far as I know, I may be mistaken but, I guess…), quantity (e.g. As you probably know, I won’t bore you with all the details but,…), relation (e.g. I don’t know if this is important but, Not to change the subject but,..), and manner (e.g. This maybe a bit confused but, I’m not sure if this makes sense but, I don’t know if this is clear at all,…)
Besides, Prince (1982) divided hedges into two categories as approximators and shields with two more subclasses in each category.
Approximators which affect the truth condition of proposition consists of adaptors and rounders
(+)Adaptors help to express the degree of the truth of proposition, for example somewhat, sort of, kind of, some, a little bit, quite, to some extent, etc.
E.g. He is an intelligent student but a little lazy.
She somewhat looked at me in the meeting yesterday.
(+)Rounders indicates the inexactness of terms as approximately, something around, about, roughly, essential, etc.
E.g. The number of students taking part in the contest is approximately two hundreds.
The average mark of the test is something between five and six
Shields reflect the commitment of the speakers to the truth of propositional content. Two subclasses of shields are plausibility shields and attribution shields
(+)Plausibility shields relate to the speakers‟ expression of doubtful attitude or uncertainty such as I think, I guess, I believe, I suppose, I’m afraid, I don’t see that, as far as I’ concerned, etc.
E.g. I guess he was the last person leaving the room
As far as I’m concerned, her plan is the most feasible.
(+)Attribution shields include according to, as is well known, someone suggests that, the possibility will be, etc. These will help the speakers express their attitude indirectly and avoid taking the responsibility of the truth of the message.
E.g. According to his father, he left home very early in the morning.
The price has been increased rapidly, as far as anyone knows.
Generally, hedge with its functions and forms play an important role in communicating, especially in argumentation. The theory of hedges will help researchers a lot in carrying out the survey. Hence, review of previous studies about hedges is the main content of section 1.9.