Pragmatic aspects of the conversations in new interchange 3

INTRODUCTION 1

Rationale

Speaking is considered the most crucial skill among reading, writing, speaking, and listening Teaching English effectively involves more than just imparting grammatical structures, vocabulary, and phonetic rules; it requires an understanding of pragmatic aspects, or language in use This approach is essential for achieving communicative competence, which is vital for successful communication in English For further illustration, we can analyze the conversation presented in example (1.1).

(1.1) Conversation 2 - Book 3, Unit 1, p 5: That’s what friends are for!

Jim: Hi My name’s Jim Hunt I’m calling about the ad for a roommate

Jim: Are you still looking for someone?

Jim: Oh, good I’m really interested

Dave: Well, there are four of us, and it’s a fairly small house, so we want someone who easy to get along with

Dave: Great! So can I ask you a few fairly straightforward questions about yourself?

Jim: No problem I like it when people are direct

The conversation in (1.1) illustrates various pragmatic features, including existential presuppositions, such as the implication that having a name indicates existence, as seen with "my name" suggesting the speaker has a name and "Jim Hunt" confirming the existence of Jim Hunt Additionally, it highlights lexical presuppositions like "still," which indicates ongoing action, and employs modal verb hedges, such as "can," along with adverb hedges to convey uncertainty or possibility.

In communication, the use of qualifiers like "really," "fairly," and "pretty" reflects the speaker's sensitivity to the quality maxim, indicating an awareness of the conversation's context Politeness constraints are evident as speakers prioritize the opinions of others, exemplified by phrases such as "No problem I like it when people are direct," while downplaying their own feelings with statements like "I’m pretty easygoing." Additionally, adjacency pairs, including greetings, questions and answers, as well as requests and their acceptance, play a crucial role in conversational structure Various speech acts, such as directives, expressives, and representatives, are effectively utilized to convey meaning and intent in dialogue.

If a teacher teaches her students with all those pragmatic aspects with the speaker’s intended meaning in context, the lesson will be remarkably interesting and useful for the students

Good textbooks play a vital role in teaching foreign languages, and the New Interchange series is particularly effective for teaching English Research into the pragmatic features of conversations within these textbooks can enhance the teaching process Notable studies have been conducted on the New Interchange series, including Moradi's evaluation of language functions in 2008, Nguyễn Thị Phương Loan's adaptation of New Interchange Intro for her teaching in 2010, Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Dung's analysis of speech acts in New Interchange 1, 2, and 3 in 2014, and Inthavong's exploration of adjacency pairs and verbal strategies in New Interchange 1 and 2 in 2018.

Despite existing research, there is a lack of studies focusing on pragmatic features like presuppositions, hedges, and politeness constraints This gap has led me to choose the topic "Pragmatic Aspects of the Conversations in New Interchange 3" for my MA thesis.

Aim and Objectives

- To study the unexplored pragmatic aspects of the conversations in New Interchange 3

This research is intended to deal with the following objectives:

- To identify and analyze the types of presuppositions used in the conversations in New Interchange 3;

- To identify and analyze the types of hedges used in the conversations in New Interchange 3;

- To identify and analyze the types of politeness constraints used in conversations in New Interchange 3

In order to achieve the aim and objectives, the researcher tries to find the answers to the 3 following questions:

1 What are the types of presuppositions used in the conversations in New Interchange 3 and how frequently are they used?

2 What are the types of hedges used in the conversations in New Interchange 3 and how frequently are they used?

3 What are the types of politeness constraints used in the conversations in New Interchange 3 and how frequently are they used?

- Pragmatic aspects consist of presuppositions, hedges, and politeness constraints which are considered major issues of pragmatics;

- Samples are collected from the conversations in New Interchange 3;

Scope of the Study

- Pragmatic aspects consist of presuppositions, hedges, and politeness constraints which are considered major issues of pragmatics;

- Samples are collected from the conversations in New Interchange 3;

- The focus is on types and frequency of occurrence of presuppositions (theoretically supported by Yule, 1996), hedges (theoretically supported by Vattala, 200), and politeness constraints (theoretically supported by Leech, 2005).

Significance of the Study

Theoretically, the present study helps to enrich the pragmatic theories which are essential for the studies of language in use

Practically, it provides English teachers and learners of sufficient examples of pragmatic features such as presuppositions, hedges, and politeness constraints to facilitate language users and learners of the language

Structure of the Thesis

The study consists of 5 chapters, each of which is for a particular function

This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the study, outlining the statement of the problem, research aims and objectives, and key research questions It also defines the scope and significance of the study while detailing the structure of the thesis.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Pragmatics and Pragmatic Competence

Pragmatics is defined by several linguists as the study of language in use Levinson (1983) describes it as the examination of the relationships between language and context that are encoded in a language's structure He emphasizes the ability of language users to appropriately pair sentences with their contexts Similarly, Mey (2001) contributes to this definition, highlighting the significance of context in understanding language.

Pragmatics is defined as the study of language from the perspective of its users, focusing on their choices, the constraints they face in social interactions, and the impact of their language use on others (1992: 310) It encompasses three key areas: the influence of real-world knowledge on the interpretation and use of utterances, the effect of the relationship between speaker and hearer on sentence structure, and the understanding of speech acts by speakers (Richards et al., 1992: 248).

As I understand it, pragmatics is the study of language in use, or to be more specific, the study of the speaker’s meaning in specific contexts

Together with linguistic competence, pragmatic competence is also a fundamental aspect that forms communicative competence “pragmatic competence” is defined as “the knowledge of how verbal acts are

Effective communication involves understanding and executing a speaker's intent within specific contextual and discourse constraints This skill, as defined by Faerch and Kasper (1984), encompasses the ability to use language purposefully to achieve particular objectives while also grasping the meaning of language within its context.

As it is widely believed, pragmatic competence plays a significant part in facilitating the appropriate and effective communication of interlocutors from different languages.

Presupposition

According to Hudson (2000: 321), a presupposition refers to an assumption that is accepted as true within a sentence that conveys additional information Similarly, Finch (2000: 173) highlights that presupposition pertains to the essential preconditions required for statements to hold true Essentially, it reflects the speaker's belief that certain information is already established before making a statement For instance, the assertion “My dog is really cute” presupposes the truth of the statement “I have a dog.”

According to Yule (2000: 27), presupposition is expressed through various words, phrases, and structures, which he classifies into six distinct types: existential, factive, non-factive, lexical, structural, and counter-factual presuppositions.

Presuppositions are primarily a topic of pragmatics rather than semantics, as they lack stability and context-independent meaning, exemplified by the concept of defeasibility.

Over the years, presupposition has been studied from various viewpoints What the recent studies have in common is the fact that they mostly

8 emphasize the pragmatic aspect of presupposition and regards presupposition as one of the most noteworthy notions in pragmatics

Simons (2007) posits that pragmatic presuppositions are the contextual beliefs attributed to a speaker, suggesting that the semantic presuppositions of a sentence evolve into pragmatic presuppositions for the speaker This implies that speakers must believe the context meets the necessary conditions for their utterances to convey meaning effectively.

Pragmatic presuppositions, as highlighted by Caffi (1993), refer to the underlying intentions and assumptions of the speaker that go beyond the literal meaning of words These presuppositions encompass a range of shared elements, including knowledge, expectations, desires, interests, claims, attitudes, and fears, which are assumed to be common between the speaker and the listener (Mey, 1993: 203).

It can be then inferred that the success of a presupposition depends upon the addressor's assumptions, shared knowledge between interlocutors and their shared knowledge of the world

Presupposition, as defined by Yule (2000), involves various linguistic forms that signal potential presuppositions, which are realized in context with speakers Yule (1996) identifies six types of presupposition: existential, factive, lexical, structural, non-factive, and counter-factual, each with distinct characteristics and implications in communication.

Existential presupposition is assumed to be present in possessive constructions (2.1), definite noun phrases (2.2), and proper nouns (2.3) (2.1) Your house is modern >> You have a house

(2.2) The door is big >> The door exists

(2.3.) Peter can’t see the film >> A person named Peter exists b Factive presupposition

Factive presupposition occurs when certain words in a sentence imply facts Various verbs such as "realize," "regret," "discover," and "remember" trigger these presuppositions Additionally, the verb "be" combined with adjectives like "sure," "aware," and "surprised" also indicates presupposition For example, the sentence "She didn’t realize he was ill" presupposes the fact that "He was ill." Understanding these elements is crucial for comprehending how language conveys underlying meanings.

(2.5) I’m glad that it’s over >> It’s over c Lexical presupposition

Certain linguistic expressions, including "manage," "stop," and "start," can generate lexical presuppositions This phenomenon occurs when a specific form is used with its explicit meaning, while simultaneously implying an additional, unspoken meaning Examples (2.6) and (2.7) illustrate how these presuppositions function in communication.

(2.6) He has stopped smoking >> He used to smoke

(2.7) You are making mistakes again >> You made mistakes before

In addition to the presuppositions linked to specific words and phrases, structural presuppositions also play a crucial role in communication Certain sentence structures inherently suggest that a portion of the information is accepted as true by the speaker For example, wh- forms such as "when" and "where" exemplify this type of presupposition, indicating underlying assumptions in dialogue.

(2.8) When did he meet her? >> He met her e Non-factive presupposition

Non-factive presupposition differs from previous types as it assumes that the information following it is not true Common verbs associated with this presupposition include dream, imagine, pretend, likely, appear, think, believe, guess, suppose, bet, seem, fear, feel, look, and sound.

(2.9) I dreamed that I was a billionaire >> I was not a billionaire

(2.10) He pretends to be talkative >> He is not talkative f Counter-factual presupposition

A counter-factual presupposition implies that the presupposed statement is not only false but is also the opposite of the truth This concept is often illustrated through conditional structures, particularly the second and third types, as well as phrases like "if only," "as if," and "would rather." Examples of these structures can be seen in sentences such as (2.11) and (2.12).

(2.11) If you were my true friend, you would have helped me >> You are not my true friend

(2.12) I wish my girlfriend were here >> My girlfriend is not here

Yule (1996) categorizes presuppositions into six distinct types, which have been utilized in various research studies My analysis of presuppositions in conversations from New Interchange 3 is grounded in Yule's theoretical framework.

Hedges

As Hyland (1998: 1) states, straightforward definitions of hedge and related terms are rather rare and the terms are used in different ways by different authors

The concept of hedging in linguistics, as introduced by Lakoff, suggests that natural language often reflects a degree of truth that is not absolute, indicating that sentences can be partially true or false in different contexts Lakoff highlights that specific verbs and syntactic structures can express these hedged performatives, illustrating the complexity of meaning in language.

The concept of hedges extends beyond hedged performatives to encompass modifiers that reflect the speaker's commitment to the truth-value of an entire proposition, rather than just its categorical elements (Markkanen and Schröder, 1997) Hyland (1996) defines hedges as expressions of tentativeness and possibility, later refining this definition to include any linguistic means that indicate either a lack of complete commitment to the truth value of a proposition or a reluctance to express that commitment categorically (Hyland, 1998).

Milton (1997) also consider the use of hedges as expressing doubt and uncertainty to the proposition and as a means of avoiding full commitment to the propositional content

Markkanen and Schründer (1992) emphasize the significance of specific pronouns and the avoidance of others as essential hedging tools in scientific writing They highlight the role of impersonal expressions, passive constructions, modal verbs, adverbs, and particles as additional hedging mechanisms Furthermore, they advocate for the inclusion of various rhetorical and stylistic devices Notably, their definitions suggest that nearly any linguistic element can serve as a hedge, depending on the context and intended function.

The concept of "hedge" has evolved beyond its linguistic origins to include communicative, interactional, pragmatic, discoursal, and social dimensions According to Yu (2009), hedges can be understood through seven key aspects, starting with their function as words, particles, or phrases that modify other linguistic units.

Hedges play a crucial role in communication by modifying elements of an utterance, either making them more vague or more precise, depending on the speaker's intent They can serve as predicates or nouns, influencing category membership and the overall clarity of the message Additionally, hedges are often employed in speech acts, functioning as hedged performatives to convey nuanced meanings.

Hedging is a linguistic tool that modifies the truth value of propositions, making statements appear both vaguer and more precise It serves to moderate a speaker's commitment to the content being presented, whether through prosodic, lexical, syntactic, discoursal, or strategic means Additionally, hedging fosters positive interpersonal relationships and enhances interactional behavior in communication, making it an essential aspect of effective dialogue.

Hedging plays a crucial role in communication by fulfilling various social functions, such as preserving the speaker's or listener's face, safeguarding the reputation of the writer or their institution, and reflecting the personality of the speaker or writer Additionally, it fosters solidarity with the audience and seeks validation from readers Furthermore, hedging can occasionally serve as a text or discourse organizer, guiding the interpretation of the content while simultaneously performing one or more of these essential functions.

In conclusion, the literature reveals a diverse range of meanings and functions of hedges Notably, Yu's (2009) analysis stands out as one of the most comprehensive discussions, effectively encompassing nearly all perspectives on hedges.

Clemen (1997: 6) highlights that there is no definitive limit to the linguistic expressions classified as hedges, emphasizing that no specific linguistic items are inherently hedges Instead, their status as hedges depends on the communicative context and co-text in which they are used.

Combining functional and syntactic criteria, Salager-Meyer (1994: 154-

The proposed taxonomy of hedges includes five distinct types: (1) Shields, which encompass modal verbs indicating possibility, semi-auxiliaries, probability adverbs, their corresponding adjectives, and epistemic verbs; (2) Approximators, consisting of stereotypical "adaptors" and "rounders" that modify quantity, degree, frequency, and time; (3) Expressions reflecting the author's personal doubt and direct involvement; and (4) Emotionally-charged intensifiers that amplify the sentiment of the statement.

The authors' reactions are conveyed through comment words, while compound hedges consist of multiple hedges Vattala (1999) argues that there is significant overlap between Salager-Meyer's categories from 1994, suggesting that the taxonomy does not adequately capture the complexity of these linguistic elements.

Hyland (1996) establishes different categories for scientific hedges from a socio-pragmatic and discoursal point of view He develops a fuzzy category model for hedging devices, in which two main categories are:

Content-oriented hedges focus on softening the connection between the propositional content and its reflection of reality, while reader-oriented hedges emphasize the interpersonal dynamics between writers and their audience.

Clemen (1997: 243) also provides a list of the most frequent hedging devices, such as: epistemic qualifiers, certain personal pronouns, indirect constructions, parenthetical constructions, subjunctive, conditional, concessive conjuncts and negation

In 2009, Yu introduced a novel taxonomy of hedging devices, categorizing them into five main types based on grammatical, semantic, and pragmatic characteristics These categories include quantificational approximators, negation combined with intensifier approximators, performative shields, modal shields, and pragmatic-marker hedges.

According to Vattala (2001), hedging devices can be classified into lexical devices, syntactic constructions, and others, presented in detail as follows:

- Modal auxiliaries: will/would, can/could, may/might, shall/should, ought to, etc.;

Nonfactive reporting verbs such as "argue," "predict," and "suggest" play a crucial role in conveying nuanced perspectives, while tentative cognition verbs like "believe," "think," and "speculate" reflect uncertainty in thought processes Additionally, tentative linking verbs such as "seem" and "appear" help articulate perceptions and assumptions Together, these verbs enrich communication by allowing for a range of interpretations and fostering a deeper understanding of various viewpoints.

In the realm of language, various types of adjectives play a crucial role in conveying meaning and nuance Probability adjectives, such as "apparent," "possible," and "probable," help express likelihood and certainty Indefinite frequency adjectives, including "common," "frequent," and "general," describe how often something occurs Additionally, adjectives of indefinite degrees like "fair," "little," "main," and "major" provide context regarding the extent or importance of a subject Lastly, approximative adjectives such as "approximate," "close," "gross," and "virtual" indicate estimates or near values, enhancing the precision of communication.

Politeness Theories

Linguists offer varied definitions of politeness, reflecting the diverse aspects they examine Lakoff (1973) defines politeness as a social construct designed to minimize conflict in interpersonal interactions.

Politeness is a multifaceted concept aimed at mitigating face threats, as defined by Brown and Levinson (1978) Leech (1983) describes it as a strategy for avoiding conflict, measurable by the effort invested in preventing confrontations Yule (1996) further elaborates that politeness in interactions involves the methods used to acknowledge and respect another person's face.

Whatever their definitions are, politeness means avoidance of losing face (of the speaker or hearer or both) to help people be in harmony in any interaction

Politeness has been discussed by Lakoff (1973), Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), and Leech (1983, 2005), among others

According to Lakoff (1973), politeness can be categorized into three types: polite, impolite, and rude An impolite act occurs when the politeness principle is disregarded in contexts where politeness is unnecessary In contrast, a rude act arises when politeness strategies are absent in situations that call for them, often leading to intentional negative conflict A polite utterance adheres to the politeness principle, regardless of the context Lakoff identifies three key maxims of politeness: "Don’t impose (Distance)," "Give options (Deference)," and another maxim that emphasizes the importance of maintaining respectful communication.

“Make the receiver feel good” (Lakoff, 1973)

According to Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), there are five main groups of strategies: bald on-record, positive politeness, negative politeness, off-record politeness and don’t do the FTA

Bald on-record means “doing an act baldly, without redress … doing it in the most direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way possible” (Brown & Levinson, 1987)

“Positive politeness is oriented toward the positive face of H [the hearer], the positive self-image that he claims for himself” (Brown & Levinson,

In 1987, it was identified that there are fifteen strategies of positive politeness These strategies involve the speaker (S) expressing admiration or interest in the hearer’s (H) desires, highlighting shared wants between S and H, and asserting a common perspective with H, even without explicitly referencing group membership.

“Negative politeness is oriented mainly toward partially satisfying

(redressing) H’s negative face, his basic want to maintain claims of territory and self-determination” (Brown & Levinson, 1987) Brown and

Levinson (1987) propose ten strategies of negative politeness to be used

When a speaker aims to perform a Face-Threatening Act (FTA) while evading responsibility, they can choose to communicate off record, allowing the listener to interpret the message as they see fit This approach encompasses fifteen distinct strategies for achieving this nuanced form of communication.

In the fifth strategic choice, "Don't do the FTA," the speaker strategically sidesteps potential offense to the hearer by avoiding a face-threatening act However, this approach also results in the speaker not achieving their intended communication effectively.

Leech (1983) describes that politeness principle is “minimizing (all things being equal) the expression of impolite beliefs”, and there is a corresponding positive version, “maximizing (all things being equal) the

20 expression of polite beliefs” His politeness principle consists of six maxims, namely, Tact, Generosity, Approbation, Modesty, Agreement and Sympathy (Leech, 1983)

In 2005, Leech expanded his 1983 politeness principle into the Grand Strategy of Politeness (GSP), which views politeness as a guiding constraint in human communication This framework emphasizes the importance of avoiding communicative discord and offense, while promoting harmonious interactions.

Politeness, as defined by GSP, involves S expressing or implying meanings that prioritize the interests of the other person (O), particularly the addressee, while downplaying their own interests Although O usually refers to the addressee, it can also encompass third-person politeness, indicating that consideration extends beyond direct interactions.

Leech (2005) identifies five constraint-pairs that highlight the asymmetry between the speaker (S) and the other (O), comprising a total of ten constraints The odd-numbered constraints represent pos-politeness, which focuses on the hearer, while the even-numbered ones denote neg-politeness, emphasizing the speaker's perspective One key constraint is the importance of valuing O's wants, as offers, invitations, and promises are seen as generous, whereas refusing favors is viewed as ungenerous, as illustrated in Example (2.13).

Inviting someone to sit down and enjoy a cup of coffee exemplifies a common social interaction In English, politeness often involves placing a low value on the other person's desires, with requests being indirect and tentative This approach not only allows the recipient an opportunity to decline but also reduces the perceived imposition on them, highlighting a key aspect of politeness in the language.

13) Example (2.14) is given for illustration

(2.14) A: Could I help myself for a tiny sip of sherry?

Valuing the qualities of others is essential, as genuine compliments foster positive interactions, while insincerity can lead to mixed reactions In certain contexts, using complimentary language becomes almost indispensable, highlighting the importance of authenticity in communication.

Guests often praise hosts by saying their cooking rivals that of top chefs, highlighting the deliciousness of the meal However, in an effort to be polite, individuals may undervalue their own qualities, engaging in self-deprecation that can be either genuine or exaggerated This behavior is exemplified in the common practice of downplaying one's skills or contributions.

In social interactions, expressions of apology and gratitude play a crucial role in demonstrating respect and acknowledging obligations When S apologizes to O for an offense, it highlights S's recognition of their fault and their obligation to make amends Similarly, when S expresses gratitude for a favor done by H, it serves as a polite acknowledgment of H's kindness These polite speech acts are essential for maintaining harmonious relationships and showcasing social etiquette.

(2.17) I’m (terribly) sorry Please excuse me I’m afraid I’ll have to leave early

Responses to apologies often diminish the perceived fault of the person apologizing, thereby reducing their obligation to the one they are apologizing to Similarly, expressions of gratitude can also minimize the sense of indebtedness, reflecting a similar dynamic in social interactions.

(2.19) It’s okay./ Don’t worry / It was nothing

(2.20) That’s all right./ You’re welcome./ No problem./ Glad to be of help /It was a pleasure

Valuing others' opinions is crucial, as agreement is typically viewed as the preferred response while disagreement is seen as less favorable For instance, in example (2.21), this dynamic illustrates the importance of aligning with others' judgments to foster positive communication.

(2.21) A: It’s a beautiful view, isn’t it?

An Overview of the Previous Studies

In conclusion, various politeness theories have emerged, with some achieving notable popularity and practicality For my analysis, I focus on Leech's ten politeness constraints (2005), as they provide a systematic and applicable framework for examining politeness in communication.

2.5 AN OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES

A lot of empirical studies have been conducted to identify and describe presuppositions as well as analyze the frequencies of these types in the investigated data

An analysis of presupposition in the movie script of "Maleficent," conducted by Yuliana (2015), explored the various types and meanings of presupposition based on Yule’s (1996) theory The study examined 72 utterances from the script using both referential and distributional methods The findings revealed the presence of all six types of presupposition, with existential presupposition being the most prevalent.

In a study conducted by Nopembri (2015), the presuppositions in the 2012 American Presidential Debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were analyzed using Yule’s (1996) presupposition theory The research utilized a qualitative method to examine the dialogue transcript from the debate The findings revealed various types of presuppositions, with lexical presupposition being the most prevalent, followed by factive, counter-factual, and structural presuppositions Notably, no non-factive presuppositions were identified, and existential presuppositions were not explored in the study.

In 2014, Aditya conducted a study focused on identifying the types of presupposition utilized by the main characters in a narrative Drawing on Yule's (1996) theory of presupposition and Holmes' contextual framework, the research aimed to analyze the presuppositional elements present in the characters' dialogue and to interpret the underlying meanings conveyed through their utterances.

The analysis of the Hotel Transylvania movie script revealed the presence of all six types of presupposition identified by Yule (1996) Among these, counter-factual presupposition was the most frequently used, while non-factive presupposition was the least utilized The study employed both quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the utterances of the film's main characters.

A study by Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Kiều (2016) in Vietnam aimed to analyze the types and structural features of presupposition in conversations from Anne Tyler's novel "The Accidental Tourist." The research involved collecting 50 conversations from over 100 in the novel, employing both quantitative and qualitative methods alongside statistical, descriptive, and synthetic approaches for data analysis The findings revealed that all six types of presupposition were present, with existential presuppositions being the most frequently used, while counter-factual presuppositions were the least common.

Trần Thị Việt Hoa's 2018 study analyzed presupposition in conversations from three volumes of new high school English textbooks in Vietnam, utilizing George Yule's 1996 framework The research employed both quantitative and qualitative approaches, incorporating descriptive, analytic, and synthetic methods for data analysis The findings revealed the presence of all six types of presupposition, highlighting their structural and functional characteristics.

The study identified 25 presuppositions expressed through various structures, encompassing different types of words and phrases with varying frequencies These results were further supported by the research of Nguyen Quang Ngoan.

In conclusion, numerous studies on presupposition have demonstrated the significant influence of Yule’s (1996) theoretical framework on data analysis This impact is a key reason for my selection of Yule’s model for analyzing presupposition in my research.

Nikula (1997) examined the use of hedging in the spoken English of Finnish learners compared to native speakers The study revealed that learners employed hedges less frequently and with less variety than their native counterparts Additionally, while native speakers often combined multiple hedges in various positions within their sentences, learners predominantly relied on the phrase "I think," using it excessively and primarily at the beginning of their statements.

In her 2009 study, Yu explored the pragmatic development of hedging among EFL learners, categorizing hedges into various types such as quantificational approximators, performative shields, modal shields, and pragmatic-marker hedges The research involved analyzing written questionnaires, simulated debates, and oral interviews from 211 Chinese students across junior high, high school, and university English courses The findings revealed a progression in the learners' hedging strategies, starting from the simplistic use of "I think" to an intermediate stage incorporating intensifiers and mitigators, ultimately advancing to a more sophisticated system at the university level.

26 exhibited awareness of hedging clusters that drew on all categories of hedges

Rabab’ah (2013) examined the use of hedges in academic research articles within nursing and education, identifying both similarities and differences in their application The study highlighted significant disparities in the overall use of hedging devices and their subcategories between writers from the two disciplines It concluded that hedging serves as a communicative strategy, allowing authors to qualify their commitment, soften the impact of their statements, express uncertainty, maintain their credibility, persuade readers, and mitigate potential rejection of their claims.

In his 2019 study, Yang analyzed the functions of hedges in English advertising using Grice’s (1975) maxims The research revealed that hedging contributes to the fuzziness of language and serves as an important communication strategy Yang concluded that advertisers should effectively utilize hedges to enhance the promotion of their products and services while also improving their understanding of communication strategies.

Nguyễn Lê Tố Quyên (2014) conducted a comparative study on the types of hedges employed by American and Vietnamese celebrities, focusing on their syntactic and pragmatic features The research revealed that quality hedges were the most commonly used in both cultures, while differences emerged in the usage of quantity hedges, manner hedges, and mixed hedges These findings were later corroborated by Nguyen Quang Ngoan and Nguyen Le To Quyen (2016).

In his 2016 contrastive analysis of hedges used by judges in The Voice America and The Voice Vietnam, Bùi Văn Sang identified three main categories: lexical, phrasal, and clausal hedges Utilizing Grice’s (1975) four conversational maxims, he explored the functions of hedging in these contexts The study concluded that quantity hedges were the most prevalent, while other types of hedges were distributed unevenly.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Methods

The research utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze conversations Quantitatively, it examined the frequency of various types of presuppositions, hedges, and politeness constraints Qualitatively, it explored the specific characteristics of each category and sub-category, incorporating the researcher’s insights based on the theories of Yule (1996) and Vartalla.

Research methods employed in the study included the analytic, synthetic, statistic, descriptive, and comparative methods These methods were employed in combination as follows:

- The analytic method was used to analyze and classify of presuppositions, hedges, and politeness constraints in the investigated conversations

- The synthetic method was to help the researcher synthesize the findings and draw out conclusions in the final process of the research

- The statistic method was used to work out the quantitative data for examining the frequency of occurrence of presuppositions, hedges, and politeness constraints in the investigated conversations

- The descriptive method helped to describe the main linguistic features of the presuppositions, hedges, and politeness constraints under investigation

- The comparative method was used to compare and contrast the similarities and differences between any two different categories in comparison.

Data Source and Samples

The research data was sourced from the conversations in New Interchange 3, which features 32 dialogues between two speakers, totaling 262 turns and 3,037 words This textbook was chosen because it is the final volume in the New Interchange series, representing the highest level of language proficiency within the collection It is commonly understood that higher proficiency levels lead to a greater realization of pragmatic aspects in language use.

The information concerning the number of speakers, number of turns, and number of words of each investigated conversation in the text book are revealed in Table 3.1

Table 3.1: Conversations in New Interchange 3

Data Analysis

As previously presented, the analytic, synthetic, statistic, descriptive, and comparative methods were all employed to examine the data from different angles

Based on the theoretical background discussed in Chapter 2, three frameworks for data analysis were created to analyze the data from three different pragmatic aspects

First, based on Yule’s (1996) theory, a framework for data analysis of presuppositions was created with six types of presupposition, supported with specific cases and examples, as shown in Table 3.2

Table 3.2: Framework for presupposition analysis

Types Structural Functions Triggers and Examples

Possessive adjectives - my, your, + noun

- Jame’s car, the + noun +of + noun Ex: Steve Jobs’s work

Definite noun phrases - the, that, this, these, those + noun

Proper noun - Peter, Viet Nam

Factive verbs - know, see, realize…

Ex: I know your dream is to become a famous chef

Ex: I'm not quite sure about how people express their cultural identity

Implicative verbs - manage, forget to,…

Ex: John forgot to lock the door

Verbs to change state - go back, start, become, stop,…

Verbs of judgment - blame, fault, criticize,…

Ex: Peter blamed David for eating the pizza

Ex:You’re late again

Conventional items - clean, kill, bachelor, new,

Ex: When did he leave?

- possitive; comparative; superlative Ex: Carol is a better linguist than Barbara

Temporal clauses - Before, while, since, …

Ex: She wrote the book when she lived in Boston

- who/whom…+clause Ex: My laptop, which is a present from my parents, is very useful

Cleft sentences -It is/was …+which which/whom/that or What …is/ was…

Ex: It was his voice that held me

No longer/ not…any more/ used to

- no longer/not…any more/used to Ex: He used to watch a lot of TV

- wonder + wh-questions Ex: I wonder why he left

Nonfactive verbs - think, sound, pretend,…

Ex: He pretends to be ill

Ex: I’m afraid there’s no real friendship between a boy and a girl

Conditional sentences) type 2/3), as if, without, …

- as if, without, conditional sentences (type 2/3),… Ex: If you were my friend, you would help me

Building on Vattala’s (2001) theory and adapting it for data analysis, a framework consisting of seven categories for analyzing hedges was developed, as illustrated in Table 3.3 This framework primarily focused on the various forms of hedges, while the interpretation of their hedging functions was contextualized using Grice’s (1975) maxims of the cooperative principle, as further elucidated by Brown and Levinson (1987).

Table 3.3: Framework for hedge analysis

1 Modal auxiliary He just may come

2 Verb It seems that he came

3 Adjective It is possible that she answered correctly

4 Adverb Roughly , this is what he said

5 Noun Using probability models similar to those employed in speech recognition it is possible to estimate …

6 Phrase I have some positions on things that in kind of a traditional framework would be viewed as liberal

7 Clause What I believe is that the free market is the greatest force for economic prosperity

For the analysis of linguistic politeness, a framework consisting of ten politeness constraints was developed, drawing from Leech's (2005) theory of the "Grand Strategy of Politeness." This framework provides a structured approach to understanding politeness in communication.

Table 3.4: Framework for politeness constraint analysis

Constraints Label for this constraint

1 place a high value on O’s wants Generosity Commissives

2 place a low value on S’s wants Tact Directives

3 place a high value on O’s qualities Approbation compliments

4 Place a low value on S’s qualities Modesty Self-evaluation

5 place a high value on S’s obligation to O

6 place a low value on O’s obligation to S

7 place a high value on O’s opinions Agreement Agreeing, disagreeing

8 place a low value on S’s opinions Opinion – reticence Giving opinions

9 place a high value on O’s feelings Sympathy Expressing feelings

10 place a low value on S’s feelings Feeling– reticence Suppressing feelings

Validity and Reliability

The reliability of the data is confirmed through the analysis of presuppositions, hedges, and politeness constraints gathered from 32 conversations in New Interchange 3, utilizing the three analytical frameworks outlined in Part 3.3 The analyzed samples match the original textbook content, and the raw data analysis results are available in the Appendix.

The credibility of data analysis is enhanced through comprehensive frameworks addressing presuppositions, hedges, and politeness constraints, as established by Yule (1996), Vattala (2001), and Leech (2005) These established theories are widely recognized and help minimize personal bias and subjective assessments from researchers.

All statistics have been generated using computer assistance, ensuring accuracy and reliability Each investigated category is supported by relevant data examples for illustration, which can be verified for authenticity.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Presuppositions in the conversations in New Interchange 3

Structural Presupposition 72 Non-factive Presupposition 38 Counter-factual Presupposition 6

Figure 4.2: Distribution of types of presuppositions in the conversations in New Interchange 3

Figure 4.2 clearly presents the distribution of the six types of presuppositions in the collected data

The analysis reveals that existential presuppositions constitute the largest share at 36%, with 89 items identified Structural presuppositions follow closely at 29%, comprising 72 items Non-factive presuppositions and lexical presuppositions are nearly equal, representing 16% (38 items) and 15%, respectively.

(37 items), respectively Both counter-factual presuppositions and factive presuppositions are rarely used, with only 2% (6 items) and 1% (3 items) in turn

All the 245 items of presuppositions are realized in various linguistic means which are discussed in detail in the following parts, with typical examples for illustration

Existential presuppositions are a key linguistic category that reflects the speaker's assumption of existence This is achieved through various linguistic elements, such as proper nouns like "Bob Branson," definite noun phrases such as "the message," and possessive structures including "my wallet" and "my teacher's house." These expressions indicate the speaker's belief in the real-world existence of the referenced entities.

(4.1) Conversation 1 - Book 3, Unit 1, p 2: That’s what friends are for! Kim: Well, I’d prefer someone I have something in common with- who I can talk to easily

Chris: I think I know just the guy for you Bob Branson Do you know him?

(4.2.) Conversation 6 - Book 3, Unit 3, p 17: Could you do me a favor? Jeff: And would you ask her if she’d like to go with me?

Amy: All right, Peter I’ll give her the message

(4.3) Conversation 8 - Book 3, Unit 4, p 23: What a story!

Brian: Someone stole my wallet last night!

Kate: Oh no! What happened?

(4.4.) Conversation 10 - Book 3, Unit 5, p 31: Crossing cultures

Marta: Guess what! I just got invited to my teacher’s house for dinner! Karen: Oh, how nice!

Factive presuppositions account for only 1% of the data, with just three instances identified These presuppositions involve the use of factive verbs, such as "know," "realize," and "see," or adjectives like "sure," "glad," and "happy," to imply that the information following these linguistic cues is true For example, in one instance, the speaker presupposes, "I still had a lot to learn," highlighting the reliance on factive language to convey certainty.

(4.5) Conversation 21 - Book 3, Unit 11, p 66: Life’s little lessons Carol: Until you graduate, you don’t understand that life is just beginning

After I finished high school, I realized that I still had a lot to learn

Alan: I know what you mean I was really immature when I was a kid

(4.6) Conversation 22 - Book 3, Unit 11, p 69: Life’s little lessons Peter: I’m thinking of going back to school to get another degree It’s so hard to find a job with a degree in literature

Kay: Yeah, I know what you mean

Lexical presupposition involves using a specific expression that carries an asserted meaning while simultaneously implying an unstated concept that is conventionally understood This means that when a speaker employs a certain term, it is generally assumed that the listener is aware of an additional, non-explicit meaning associated with that expression.

In the collected data, lexical presuppositions take the fourth position, with

Out of the total presuppositions analyzed, 37 items represent 15% For instance, in example (4.7), the use of "still" implies the presupposition that "You have been looking for someone." Similarly, in example (4.8), the word "again" indicates the presupposition that "I got a landscaping job" previously.

(4.7) Conversation 2 - Book 3, Unit 1, p 5: That’s what friends are for! Jim: Hi My name’s Jim Hunt I’m calling about the ad for a roommate Dave: Oh, right

(4.8) Conversation 4 - Book 3, Unit 2, p 11: Career moves

Tracy: So, have you found anything?

Mark: Nothing yet, but I’ve got a couple of leads One is working as an intern for a record company – mostly answering phones Or I can get a landscaping job again

Similarly, in example (49), the lexical presupposition for the trigger

“again” is “Your refrigerator needed fixing before” and that for the trigger “this time” is “It was not the oven the other time” The verb phrase

“came down” in example (4.10) helps us work out the speaker’s possible presupposition that “The Berlin Wall had been built up by 1989”

(4.9) Conversation 12 - Book 3, Unit 6, p 36: What’s wrong with it?

Ms Lock: Oh, yes What can I do for you? Does your refrigerator need fixing again?

Mr Burr: No, it’s the oven this time

Ms Lock: Oh, so what’s wrong with it?

(4.10) Conversation 19 - Book 3, Unit 10, p 60: The past and the future

Emma: Hmm Next question: How long was the Berlin Wall up?

Steve: Well, they built it right after World War II, and it came down in

1989, so it was up for 44 years Uh, how am I doing so far?

Structural presuppositions are specific sentence structures that conventionally imply certain information is already accepted as true These structures enable speakers to present information as presupposed, allowing the addressee to accept it as a given fact.

In my collected data, it is the structural presuppositions that take the second position of all the presupposition types, accounting for 29% with

72 items Some representative examples are given for illustration

In example (4.11), the Wh-question "What happened to the whale?" implies the assumption that "Something happened to the whale." Similarly, in example (4.12), the temporal clause "when the police rescued him" carries the underlying truth that "The police rescued him."

Jake: What an awful story! A couple was sailing their yacht from Hawaii to Mexico While they were crossing the Pacific, their boat hit a whale and sank!

Anne: Is that true? What happened to the whale?

Anne: Don’t tell me! He got stuck in the chimney!

Jake: Exactly And he was still trying to get out two days later when the police rescued him

In the example "My company used to pay for it," it is implied that the company no longer covers health insurance Similarly, the phrase "I wonder what happened" suggests that an event or occurrence has taken place.

(4.13) Conversation 30 - Book 3, Unit 15, p 95: There should be a law!

Sarah: Health insurance bills, child-care bills, rent! Now that I’m going to school and only working part time, I have a hard time making ends meet

Todd: Health insurance is so expensive, isn’t it?

Sarah mentioned that her company previously covered certain expenses while she was employed full-time In a conversation, Jackie confirmed that Beth was requested to arrive at seven o'clock, prompting Bill to inquire about the current time.

Jackie: It’s nearly a quarter to eight I wonder what happened

Bill: Hmm She might have forgotten the time Why don’t I call and see if she’s on her way?

Non-factive presuppositions differ from previous types as they are assumed to be false In my study, which analyzed 38 items, non-factive presuppositions ranked third, accounting for 16% of the total.

Non-factive presuppositions can be illustrated through various examples For instance, in example (4.15), the verb "sound" implies the speaker's assumption that "Possibly, being an intern is not more interesting than landscaping." Similarly, in example (4.16), the presupposition suggested by the verb "guess" is "Perhaps, it was not his first bank robbery." Additionally, example (4.17) further demonstrates the use of non-factive verbs in conveying assumptions.

The term "seemed" implies that the speaker believes the individuals may not have had an enjoyable experience In contrast, the adverb "maybe" indicates the speaker's assumption that there could be a lack of fortune-tellers listed in the phone book.

Tracy: Being an intern sounds more interesting than landscaping And it’s probably not as hard!

Mark: Yeah, but a landscaper earns more money than an intern And you get a great tan!

Jake: It doesn’t say Oh and here’s another one A guy in Los Angeles was robbing a bank But as he was escaping, he got caught in the revolving door

Anne: I guess it was his first bank robbery!

(4.17) Conversation 26 - Book 3, Unit 13, p 82: That’s a possibility Brent: How was your dinner party?

Adam: I think it went pretty well People really seemed to enjoy themselves

(4.18) Conversation 17 - Book 3, Unit 9, p 54: Self-improvement

Ken: You know, I’ve always wanted to have my fortune told

Lisa: Really? Do you know where you can get it done?

Ken: I’m not sure But maybe there are some fortune-tellers listed in the phone book Let’s take a look

Counterfactual constructions imply that the statement in the complement clause is false and contradicts reality As a result, these constructions presuppose a scenario that is the opposite of what is true, presenting an idea that is contrary to the actual facts.

The present study reveals that only 6 items, constituting 2% of the total, represent the second lowest contribution to the data collected For instance, example (4.19) demonstrates a third conditional clause, "If I had been more sensible," which implies the speaker's acknowledgment of their previous lack of sensibility Similarly, example (4.20) features the wish structure, "I wish I could do more to help," indicating the speaker's belief that they are unable to provide additional assistance.

(4.19 ) Conversation 22 - Book 3, Unit 11, p 69: Life’s little lessons Peter: I’m thinking of going back to school to get another degree It’s so hard to find a job with a degree in literature

Kay: Yeah, I know what you mean

Peter: I should have studied something more practical If I’d been more sensible, I would have majored in economics

In our efforts to educate the younger generation, we are creating programs for schools that highlight the pollution of oceans caused by industrial waste and the alarming depletion of fish supplies due to overfishing.

Carla: I think what you are doing is terrific I wish I could do more to help

To sum up, according to the statistic results, all the six types of presuppositions suggested by Yule (1996) are realized with different

48 frequencies in the study The results are similar to those in the studies by Yuliana (2015), Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Kiều (2016), and Trần Thị Việt Hoa

(2018) However, they are different from the results of the study by Aditya

Hedges in the conversations in New Interchange 3

Figure 4.3: Distribution of types of hedges in the conversations in New

Figure 4.3 describes the distribution of all the types of hedges (158 items) in the conversations of New Interchange 3

Modal auxiliary hedges, verb hedges, adjective hedges, adverb hedges, and noun hedges are categorized as lexical hedges, which constitute 66% of usage In contrast, phrase hedges and clause hedges, which are less frequently used, account for 11% and 23%, respectively Notably, the distribution of these hedges follows a consistent descending order, aligning with the findings of Nguyễn Lê Tố Quyên’s 2014 study.

According to Figure 4.3, adverb hedges dominate the data with 42 items, representing 27% of the total Clause hedges and modal verb hedges are nearly equal, comprising 23% (37 items) and 22% (34 items) respectively Verb hedges rank fourth with 26 items, accounting for 16%, while phrase hedges follow at 11% with 18 items.

The details of each type are presented with examples and comments in the following sections

Modal auxiliaries like can, could, may, might, will, would, and should serve as effective hedges in communication In our analysis, modal auxiliary hedges comprised 22% of the data, ranking third with a total of 34 instances Notably, the modals "could," "can," and "’d" exemplify their usage in various contexts.

In (4.24), the term "might" serves as a quality hedge, allowing speakers to soften their violation of the quality maxim This usage reflects the varying degrees of the speakers' commitment to the truthfulness of their statements.

Tim: Wow! There are so many jobs to choose from! What do you think?

Diane: Working in the media could be fun – there’s TV, newspapers, the

(4.23) Conversation 9 - Book 3, Unit 5, p 28: Crossing cultures

Pam: Well, it’s too far from home I’d miss my family

Fred: I don’t think I’d mind moving to a foreign country The language is the only thing that I’d be worried about

(4.24) Conversation 18 - Book 3, Unit 9, p 57: Self-improvement Mike: Well, why don’t you join a dating service? A friend of mine met his wife that way

James: That’s not a bad idea

Mike: Also, it might be a good idea to check out singles’ night at the bookstore

James: Yeah If I don’t find a date, at least I might find a good book!

Full verbs like think, suppose, guess, believe, and seem serve as hedges in communication In the data analyzed for this study, these verbs ranked fourth, comprising 26 instances and representing 16% of the total.

In examples (4.25) to (4.28), the verbs "think," "sound," "guess," and "hear" function as quality hedges, reflecting the speakers' recognition of the importance of not making unsupported claims or statements lacking evidence.

Kim: Well, I’d prefer someone I have something in common with- who I can talk to easily

Chris: I think I know just the guy for you Bob Branson Do you know him?

Diane: No I’m really more interested in working with computers Hey, look Designing interactive media I’d like that!

Tim: Designing interactive media? It sounds interesting, but what is it?

(4.27) Conversation 5 - Book 3, Unit 3, p 14: Could you do me a favor?

Jack is excited to attend his best friend's wedding this weekend and asks Rod if he can borrow his video camera to capture the special moments Rod agrees, mentioning that he doesn't have any plans to use it.

Fred: I hear Maggie is going to work in India

Pam: India! Wow! I hear it’s a beautiful place, but I don’t think I could ever live there

Adjectives such as possible, probable, sure, hopeful, likely, clear, afraid, only, etc can be used as hedges

In the collected data, it is the type of hedges that is extremely rarely used, with only one item, only, which is shown in example (4.29) as a quality hedge

Adverbs such as really, certainly, fairly, obviously, quite, pretty, basically, always, and actually, etc can be used as hedges

The analysis of the collected data reveals that adverb hedges constitute the largest share, aligning with Nguyễn Lê Tố Quyên’s (2014) findings Specifically, there are 42 instances of adverb hedges, accounting for 27% of the total hedges identified, which is nearly one-third of the overall data set.

The adverbs actually in example (4.30), really, fairly, and pretty in (4.31), mostly and probably in (4.32) are all quality hedges conveying the speakers’ commitment to the truth values of the propositions

Chris: Do you have a date for a party yet?

Kim: Actually, I don’t … Do you think you could help me find one?

Chris: Hmm What kind of guys do you like?

Kim: Oh, I like guy who aren’t too serious and who have a good sense of humor You know… like you

Jim: Oh, good I’m really interested

Dave: Well, there are four of us, and it’s a fairly small house, so we want someone who easy to get along with

Dave: Great! So can I ask you a few straightforward questions about yourself?

Nouns like possibility, probability, and likelihood are often considered hedges; however, the current study found no instances of noun hedges in the collected data, mirroring the findings of Nguyễn Lê Tố Quyên’s 2014 research.

Different kinds of phrases such as verb phrases, noun phrases, adjective phrases, adverb phrases, and preposition phrases can be used as hedging devices

In the present study, phrase hedges are the group which takes the fifth position with18 items, accounting for only 11% Examples from the collected data are given for illustration

The verb phrase "d’ prefer" and expressions like "kind of" and "at least" exemplify quality hedges, reflecting the speakers’ intent to convey statements they believe to be true or supported by evidence Additionally, the adverb phrase "by the way" serves to introduce supplementary information, further emphasizing this cautious approach to communication.

(4.36) is, however, a typical and regularly used example of relevance hedge

Kim: Well, I’d prefer someone I have something in common with- who I can talk to easily

Chris: I think I know just the guy for you Bob Branson Do you know him? (4.34) Conversation 21 - Book 3, Unit 11, p 66: Life’s little lessons Alan: So what were you like as a kid?

Carol: When I was a kid, I was kind of rebellious

Alan: You? Really? What was the turning point?

Carol: When I graduated from high school

(4.35) Conversation 18 - Book 3, Unit 9, p 57: Self-improvement

Mike: Also, it might be a good idea to check out singles’ night at the bookstore

James: Yeah If I don’t find a date, at least I might find a good book!

Jeff: No, this is Jeff, not Peter

Jeff: By the way, who’s Peter?

Different types of clauses can function as hedges and they can be adverbial clauses, noun clauses, or imperative clauses

In the collected data of the present study, clause hedges take the second highest position, at 23% with 37 items Certain examples are given below to illustrate this group

The phrases "You know" and "Would you mind if I borrowed your video camera?" serve as examples of manner hedges, while "I don't think so?" reflects uncertainty These expressions illustrate how language can soften requests and opinions, enhancing communication.

(4.37), “Doesn’t that sound fantastic?” in example (4.38) and “I don’t think I’ll need it for anything.” are cases of quality hedges

Kim: Well, I’d prefer someone I have something in common with- who I can talk to easily Chris: I think I know just the guy for you Bob Branson Do you know him?

Kim: No, I don’t think so

Tracy: Good news! I’ve found a summer job!

Mark: That’s great! Anything interesting?

Tracy: Yes, working as an amusement park Doesn’t that sound fantastic? Mark: Sure, it does

Jack: Hi, Rod This is Jack

Rod: Oh, hi, Jack What’s up?

Jack is excited to attend his best friend's wedding this weekend and wants to record the event He asks Rod if he can borrow his video camera, to which Rod agrees, stating he won't need it for anything else.

Pam: You certainly sound very confident

Fred: You know, actually, there is one thing I’d miss

In summary, lexical hedges constitute the majority among hedge types, followed by clause and phrase hedges Within the lexical hedge category, adverb hedges, modal auxiliary hedges, and verb hedges are the most commonly used, while noun hedges are absent from the data These findings align with the results presented by Nguyễn.

In Lê Tố Quyên's 2014 study, the most commonly utilized type of hedges was adverb hedges, accounting for 27% In contrast, the present study identifies a different trend in hedge usage.

A 2014 study found that full verb hedges accounted for 39.8% of the data, with the majority being quality hedges, while a smaller proportion consisted of relevance and manner hedges These variations may be attributed to differences in data types, communication contexts, and the specific purposes of the speakers in the two studies.

Politeness Constraints in the Conversations in New Interchange 3

Figure 4.4 highlights the distribution of politeness constraints, which rank third among the three pragmatic aspects studied: presuppositions, hedges, and politeness constraints A total of 127 items are identified, categorized into 10 distinct constraints.

Obligation S to O Constraint 2 Obligation O to S Constraint 1

Figure 4.4: Distribution of types of politeness constraints in the conversations in New Interchange 3

The analysis reveals that the five most frequently used constraints are significantly more common than the others The Opinion-Reticence Constraint leads with 43 items, representing 34% of the total, followed by the Agreement Constraint at 28% with 35 items The remaining three politeness constraints include Tact Constraints (13% with 17 items), Generosity Constraints (9% with 12 items), and Sympathy Constraints (8% with 10 items) In contrast, the other five constraints—Feeling-Reticence, Modesty, Obligation S to O, Obligation O to S, and Approbation Constraints—are used far less frequently, with usage ranging from 3% to 1%.

The details of each constraint are presented in the following parts with representative examples and comments

This constraint emphasizes S's prioritization of O's desires, as S minimizes personal benefits while maximizing personal costs Through this approach, S implies that any resulting benefits are intended for O This dynamic is primarily expressed through S's commissives.

In the current study, the fourth constraint is identified, accounting for 9% with 12 items related to various types of commissives Notable examples include promises such as "I’ll give her the message" and "OK, I’ll have someone look at it right away," alongside offers like "Can I help you?" and "Oh, yes What can I do for you?"

Jeff: And would you ask her if she’d like to go with me?

Helen: Yes, I’d like to return this jacket

Ms Lock: Oh, yes What can I do for you? Does your refrigerator need fixing again?

Mr Burr: No, it’s the oven this time

Ms Lock: Oh, so what’s wrong with it?

Mr Burr: Well, I think the temperature control needs to be checked

Everything I try to cook gets burned

Ms Lock: Really? OK, I’ll have someone look at it right away

Tact Constraint is utilized with the purpose of placing a low value on S’s wants but a higher value on O’s want It often occurs in directives, especially requests

In the analyzed data, the third-ranked constraint accounts for 13% with 17 items, primarily consisting of indirect directives aimed at elevating O's desires This is illustrated through examples (4.44), (4.45), and (4.46), which feature indirect requests such as, “Do you think you could help me find one?”, “Would you mind if I borrowed your video camera?”, and “May I speak to Sophia?”.

61 please?”, “Would you like to leave a message?”, and “Would you tell her that Tony is having a party on Saturday?”

Jack: Hi, Rod This is Jack

Rod: Oh, hi, Jack What’s up?

Jack: I’m going to my best friend’s wedding this weekend I’d love to videotape it Would you mind if I borrowed your video camera?

Jeff: Hello May I speak to Sophia, please?

Amy: I’m sorry, she’s not in right now Would you like to leave a message?

Jeff: Yes, please This is Jeff Would you tell her that Tony is having a party on Saturday?

Placing a high value on O’s quality is what we should do to others This partly shows our respect to them, partly helps them to know their own

Recognizing the value of others is essential, whether their contributions are exceptional or not We can express our appreciation through compliments, and constructive criticism can also play a vital role in helping others grow.

In the present study, this constraint is, however, almost not used with only

In the example provided, S expresses admiration for O's good sense of humor, stating, "Oh, I like guys who aren’t too serious and who have a good sense of humor You know… like you." This highlights the importance of humor in building connections and showcases S's appreciation for a lighthearted personality.

Chris: Hmm What kind of guys do you like?

Modesty and politeness are often associated with individuals who undervalue their own qualities However, the use of modesty can vary based on the intentions of the person involved.

In this study, the approbation constraint is utilized twice, accounting for 2% of the findings This is illustrated in examples (4.48) and (4.49), where S reflects on their self-evaluation, stating, “After I finished high school, I realized that I still had a lot to learn,” and “I was really immature when I was a kid.”

(4.48) Conversation 21 - Book 3, Unit 11, p 66: Life’s little lessons

Carol: Until you graduate, you don’t understand that life is just beginning

After I finished high school, I realized that I still had a lot to learn

Alan: I know what you mean I was really immature when I was a kid

In a communicative event, S may want to present his obligation to O This obligation may be realized in two ways: showing gratitude or apologizing

In my collected data, with only two items found, this constraint shares the same percentage of 2% as the modesty constraint, with two apologies “Oh,

I’m sorry” and “I’m really sorry about this” in examples (2.49) and (4.50) in turn

Jeff: And would you ask her if she’d like to go with me?

Jeff: No, this is Jeff, not Peter

Helen: And some of the buttons are very loose This one came off, in fact

And there’s a stain in the collar

Clerk: I’m really sorry about this Would you like to exchange it for another one?

This constraint places a low value on O’s obligation to S, occurring in responses to thanks and apologies, in which S wants to minimize O’s fault or debt

The current study reveals that a specific strategy, represented by a single item in the data, shares a mere 1% occurrence with the approbation constraint This is exemplified in case (4.51), where S responds to O's apology by stating, "Well, to be honest, I don’t think this jacket is very well made I’d rather get a refund."

Clerk: I’m really sorry about this Would you like to exchange it for another one?

Helen: Well, to be honest, I don’t think this jacket is very well made I’d rather get a refund

Responding to someone's opinions or judgments with agreement is a polite practice, even when we may disagree To mitigate face-threatening situations, it's important to express disagreements tactfully This can be achieved through full agreements, partial agreements, pseudo agreements, or by softening disagreements with hedging language.

In this study, the agreement constraint emerges as a significant factor, comprising 28% of the total findings with 35 identified items Notable examples include the strong agreement expressed in "Yes! Companies hate bad publicity," and a nuanced partial agreement illustrated by "Yeah, but a landscaper earns more money than an intern."

(4.52), “Yeah, but wouldn’t you miss your friends?” in (4.53), and “Yes, it

65 is But a lot of companies ignore those laws.” in (4.54) as well as disagreement with hedges “You certainly sound very confident.” in (4.52)

Mark: Yeah, but a landscaper earns more money than an intern And you get a great tan!

Pam: Yeah, but wouldn’t you miss your friends?

Fred: Sure, for the while, but I’d make new ones

Pam: You certainly sound very confident

(4.54) Conversation 14 - Book 3, Unit 7, p 43: The world we live in.

Carla: How can they do that? Isn’t that against the law?

Andy: Yes, it is But a lot of companies ignore those laws

Andy: Well, then another way to stop them is to get a TV station to run a story on it

Carla: Yes! Companies hate bad publicity By the way, what’s the name of this company?

When expressing opinions, it is considered polite for the speaker to downplay their statements by using hedges, thereby softening the impact of their views This approach is also evident in consultancy, where the speaker acknowledges the listener's greater expertise by soliciting their opinions.

The current study identifies a predominant constraint, utilized in 34% of instances with 43 items This constraint is expressed through various modal auxiliary hedges, including "could" and "would," as well as the verb hedge "hear" and the adverb hedge "maybe." Additionally, it incorporates clause hedges such as "I don’t think I could " and "It’s the custom to bring " which further emphasize the hedging techniques employed.

Diane: Working in the media could be fun – there’s TV, newspapers, the

Tim: Well, let’s look Hmm How about this? You could be a TV news director

Diane: Are you kidding? Directing the news would be nerve-racking! Tim: Well, writing for a magazine must be exciting How about that? (4.56) Conversation 9 - Book 3, Unit 5, p 28: Crossing cultures

Fred: I hear Maggie is going to work in India

Pam: India! Wow! I hear it’s a beautiful place, but I don’t think I could ever live there

Marta: Yes, but what do you do when you’re invited to someone’s house here?

Karen: Well, it’s the custom to bring a small gift

Karen: Oh, maybe some flowers or dessert

Marta: And is it all right to bring a friend along?

Karen: Well, if you want to bring someone, you’re expected to call first and ask if it’s OK

Valuing the feelings of others is a key aspect of politeness, as it demonstrates empathy and understanding By acknowledging both the positive and negative emotions of those around us, we foster a respectful and considerate environment.

CONCLUSION

Định dạng
Số trang	109
Dung lượng	1,42 MB