INTRODUCTION
RATIONALE
Hedging devices are utilized to express uncertainty regarding the truth value of propositions presented by writers or speakers This study analyzes and compares the forms and functions of hedging devices in English and Vietnamese conversations, focusing on Vietnamese high school English textbooks and the New Interchange series.
Hedges are linguistic devices that soften the impact of spoken and written messages, allowing speakers and writers to manage tone and convey interpersonal nuances As noted by Hyland (1996a), hedging is a crucial aspect of spoken discourse, aiding in the qualification of commitment and promoting discussion These devices help writers communicate effectively across diverse cultural backgrounds by adjusting the clarity of their statements (Getkham, 2011) According to Lakoff (1973) and Clemen (1997), hedges control the degree of fuzziness in communication, enabling authors to express their certainty regarding the truthfulness of their claims.
Academic and scientific communication relies heavily on important tools that facilitate everyday interactions Consequently, these tools have garnered significant interest from scholars in recent years, particularly within the field of linguistics.
In pragmatics, hedges play a crucial role in communication, reflecting politeness, vagueness, hesitation, and indirectness As noted by Hyland (1996a), hedging is essential for academics, as it enhances their professional image and is vital for persuading others to accept their claims By employing hedging devices, individuals can minimize conflict with readers and appropriately substantiate their statements, making the effective use of hedges important in conversations.
Hedges, such as "possible," "might," and "perhaps," reflect a writer's choice to present information as opinion rather than absolute fact, promoting politeness and face-saving in communication (Hyland, 2005: 178) Vietnamese students often struggle with using hedges in conversation The study titled “Hedging Devices in Conversations in the Vietnamese High School English Textbooks versus those in the New Interchange Series” aims to highlight the importance of hedges for English learners and teachers It offers insights into the role of hedges in communication within Vietnamese high school English textbooks compared to the New Interchange series, ultimately enhancing understanding and language competence for more effective communication.
AIM AND OBJECTIVES
This study aims to study the similarities and differences in using hedges in the conversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in the New Interchange series
This study aims at the following objectives:
- To identify the forms and functions of hedging devices in the conversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in the New Interchange series
This study aims to analyze and compare the forms and functions of hedging devices found in conversations from Vietnamese high school English textbooks and the New Interchange series By examining these texts, we seek to identify the similarities and differences in the use of hedges across the two languages, highlighting how hedging influences communication in each context.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
With regard to what has already been stated in the previous sections and based on the objectives of the present research, the following research questions were sought to answer:
1 What are the forms and functions of hedging devices in the conversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in the New Interchange Series?
2 What are the similarities and differences in forms and functions of hedging devices used in the conversations in the Vietnamese English High School Textbooks and those in the New Interchange Series?
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study analyzes the various forms and functions of hedges found in conversations within Vietnamese English high school textbooks and the New Interchange series The research is grounded in a comprehensive dataset that facilitates a thorough examination of these linguistic features.
62 conversations: 30 conversations selected from the Vietnamese English high school textbooks and 32 conversations selected from the New Interchange series.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study examines and compares the use of hedging devices in conversations found in Vietnamese high school English textbooks and the New Interchange Series, based on Hyland's model.
This study, conducted in 1998, aims to enhance the learning and teaching of English by focusing on the understanding of conversations that incorporate hedges It significantly contributes to the existing literature on hedging, offering insights into the effective use of hedges in everyday dialogue The findings may help individuals navigate conversations more effectively, minimizing conflicts and misunderstandings.
STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS
The study consists of five chapters:
Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION – presents the rationale for choosing the area for studying, aims and objectives, research questions, scope of the study and significance of the study The structure of the thesis is also included here to serve as an outline of the study.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL
DIFFERENT VIEWS OF HEDGES
Hedges found in all of the world's languages are as a tool of communication Hedging can be as simple as saying "maybe", “a little”
The concept of hedging, often expressed through phrases like "almost" or "kind of," is a fascinating subject in communication studies It encompasses various dimensions, including fuzzy logic, semantics, pragmatics, and social interactions.
The concept of "hedge" stems from Zadeh's work on fuzzy logic, which suggests that objects can belong to a set in a partial manner rather than strictly as members or non-members Zadeh (1965) emphasized that the transition between membership and non-membership is gradual, not abrupt (Zadeh, 1972:149).
Zadeh suggests that some hedges (such as very, more or less, essentially, and slightly) may be considered as “operators acting on the fuzzy set” and
“representing the meaning of its operand” (Zadeh, 1972: 4) For example, in the term “very tall man”, the operator “very” acts on the fuzzy meaning of the term
Zadeh (1972: 22) categorizes hedges into two types:
- Type I: Hedges in this category can be represented as operators acting on a fuzzy set; (e.g very, more or less, slightly, and highly)
- Type II: Hedges in this category require a description of how they act on the components of the operand; (e.g essentially, technically, actually, strictly, in a sense, practically, virtually, and regular) (Zadeh, 1972: 22)
Lakoff‟s (1973), House & Kasper‟s (1981), Prince et al‟s (1982) and Hübler‟s (1983) studies of hedges provide further insights into the semantics of hedging
The term "hedge" was introduced in the early 1970s by G Lakoff in his seminal work, “Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts.” Lakoff explored linguistic phenomena that describe the less central members of broad conceptual categories, defining hedges as words that introduce a degree of fuzziness in meaning He argued that truth and falsity exist on a spectrum, with hedges modifying the accuracy of natural language statements This foundational definition has influenced subsequent analyses of hedging, highlighting its role in softening the membership of specific expressions.
(1) a) John is sort of smart b) That is technically a bookcase or the reinforcement of the class membership, for example,
(2) a) John is very, very smart b) I really love you c) What I tell you is the absolute truth
Most studies following Lakoff‟s treatment of hedges concentrate on the pragmatic aspects of hedges However, the semantic aspects of hedges is also quite prominent in some studies
House and Kasper (1981) define 'hedge' as adverbials that add precision, such as "kind of," "sort of," "somehow," and "rather." They categorize hedges as mitigating devices within the politeness marker group known as "Down-graders," which also includes terms like play-downs, understaters, downtoners, and "minus" committers.
Prince et al‟s (1982) study on hedges in pediatric intensive-care unit physicians‟ speech approaches hedges by dividing them into approximators and shields
- Approximators are further divided into two main types: adaptors (e.g sort of) and rounders (e.g about)
- Shields: come in two varieties: plausibility (e.g I think, probably) and attribution (e.g according to her estimates, mother says that)
Hübler (1983) identifies several grammatical categories that form hedges, including the negation of predicates, gradation of predicates, modalization through parenthetical verbs, modal adverbs, modal verbs, and questions He argues that hedges enhance the appeal of statements, making them more acceptable to listeners, which in turn increases the likelihood of acceptance and minimizes the risk of negation.
Since the early 1970s, the concept of hedging has evolved significantly Pragmaticists and discourse analysts now view hedges as modifiers that influence the speaker's commitment to the truth-value of entire propositions.
Hedging is a rhetorical strategy that involves the use of specific terms, structures, or prosodic forms to indicate a speaker's lack of full commitment to the meaning or intent of their utterance This technique, known as content mitigation or force mitigation, reduces the impact of the statement, effectively softening its significance In essence, hedging diminishes the full value of the utterance by introducing uncertainty or ambiguity.
The concept of "Hedged Performative," introduced by Fraser in 1973, examines the use of modal and semi-modal verbs as pragmatic hedges that modify the illocutionary forces of performative verbs Fraser highlights that certain modals can emphasize the speaker's obligation, exemplified by the strong performative statement, “I must advise you to remain quiet,” which clearly represents the act denoted by the performative verb Additionally, Fraser categorizes hedges into three types: propositional, illocutionary, and compound hedges.
In their 1982 study, Prince et al explore the use of hedging in the speech of physicians working in pediatric intensive care units They categorize hedges into two main types: propositional hedges, which introduce ambiguity within the content of the statement, and relational hedges, which reflect uncertainty in the relationship between the speaker and the propositional content.
“I’m certain that his feet are sort of blue.”(Propositional hedge)
“I’m certain that I guess John is right.”(Relational hedge)
Brown and Levinson (1987) explore the concept of hedging in communication, highlighting its connection to politeness A hedge is defined as a word, phrase, or particle that alters the extent to which a noun phrase or predicate belongs to a set, indicating that the membership is either partial, conditionally true, or more accurate than initially perceived.
Hedging phenomena play a crucial role in the interpersonal function of language, allowing individuals to identify various speech functions such as offers, commands, statements, or questions This recognition encompasses the attitudes and judgments expressed within the communication, as well as the rhetorical features that define it as a symbolic act (Halliday and Hasan, 1989: 45).
According to Salager-Meyer (1994), hedging reflects a mental attitude that seeks typical linguistic forms, emphasizing its connection to vagueness and fuzziness Salager-Meyer categorizes hedges into four main types: shields, approximators, expressions of personal doubt and direct involvement, and emotionally charged intensifiers.
Salager-Meyer (1997) presents a detailed classification of hedging devices in scientific English, which encompasses seven distinct categories: (1) modal auxiliary verbs, (2) modal lexical verbs, (3) adjectival, nominal, and adverbial modal phrases, (4) approximators of degree, quantity, frequency, and time, (5) introductory phrases, (6) if clauses, and (7) compound hedges.
Hedges are defined by Hyland (1998: 5) as tools that allow writers to express propositions as opinions rather than facts, highlighting uncertainty His definition emphasizes the diverse types and functions of hedges, showcasing their significant role in academic writing and communication.
Effective use of hedges enhances social interactions by showcasing the speaker's ability to convey varying levels of certainty Mastering these rhetorical strategies is essential for navigating conversational contexts successfully.
HEDGES AND POLITENESS
Politeness has been widely studied by various researchers in attempts to define it Since there is still much debate about politeness, every theory has received many critiques
Lakoff (1975: 64) refers to politeness as a phenomenon which was
“developed by societies in order to reduce friction in personal communication” The linguist highlights the three rules, which distinguish the communication as being polite (ibid 87):
Leech (2016) expands on Lakoff's definition of politeness by categorizing illocutionary acts into four types: competitive, convivial, collaborative, and conflictive He also introduces two maxims of politeness, offering a more nuanced understanding of interpersonal communication.
1 Tact Maxim: The maxim is used to minimize the cost and maximize the benefit to the hearer Leech creates tact maxim from competitive illocutionary goal – a goal which competes with the social goal (begging, demanding, asking, and ordering) by imposing something on the hearer This maxim is closely related to the negative politeness
2 Generosity Maxim: This maxim maximizes the cost and minimizes the benefit to oneself In the example “You go and have fun while I prepare the dinner.” the minimum benefit can be distinguished – one will not be having fun; and the cost of not being able to have fun is the preparation of a dinner
Brown and Levinson (1987) revises the notion of „face‟ provided by Goffman and introduces a definition “a public self-image” They divide the
„face‟ into two types – positive and negative
Positive politeness involves actions aimed at addressing the addressee's positive face, which means recognizing and aligning one's own desires with those of the addressee to foster a sense of connection and mutual understanding.
Negative Politeness refers to actions taken to address and protect the addressee's negative face, which is the desire to maintain autonomy and avoid imposition This form of politeness aims to mitigate threats to one's face by softening challenges, ensuring that individuals feel respected and their personal space is honored Thus, politeness becomes essential in situations where someone's face is at risk and requires safeguarding.
Besides, the writers provided 5 groups of politeness strategies with different impacts on the „face‟ of hearer or the speaker:
- Bald on-record – no attempt of lessening the impact on the face;
- Positive politeness – minimizes the threat to the hearer‟s positive face;
- Negative politeness – minimizes the threat to the hearer‟s negative face;
- Off-record (indirect) – takes the pressure off the speaker;
- No act – no action is taken
Brown and Levinson (1987) emphasize negative politeness strategies, which involve mitigating the illocutionary force of a statement, softening the felicity conditions of a speech act, or adjusting any of the four Gricean maxims.
The Cooperative Principle, a key concept in pragmatics, has garnered significant attention in recent decades, particularly through Paul Grice's theory of conversational implicature Grice emphasizes that communication is not merely a series of disconnected remarks; rather, it involves cooperative efforts aimed at achieving a common purpose He outlines four fundamental maxims that guide this cooperative interaction, highlighting the importance of mutual understanding in effective communication.
Ensure your contributions are accurate by adhering to these principles: i) refrain from stating anything you believe to be untrue, and ii) avoid making claims without sufficient evidence to support them.
B) The maxim of Quantity iii) make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange iv) do not make your contribution more informative than is required
Be perspicuous, and specifically v) avoid obscurity vi) avoid ambiguity vii) be brief viii) be orderly
Successful communication does not strictly require adherence to established principles; even when conversations deviate from participants' expectations, these principles often operate at a deeper level, leading to the generation of implicatures.
House and Kasper (1981: 157) state that ''both these functions – one defensive and ego-oriented the other protective or alter-oriented are fulfilled by politeness''
Brown and Levinson (1987) are the only authors who explore the connection between hedges and politeness They categorize hedges according to four maxims, providing a framework for understanding their role in communication.
Table 2 1 Types of hedges according the four maxims
Types of hedges Examples Functions
Quality hedges I think, I believe, I assume To soften the speaker‟ commitment Quantity hedges
Roughly, more or less, approximately, or so, I cannot tell you any more than that, to some extent, all in all
To redress complaints or Request
Relevance hedges This may not be relevant… but, now is probably the time to say, I might mention at this point, while
To redress offers or Suggestions
Manner hedges It you see what I mean, what I meant was, to put it more simply
To redress all kinds of face threatening acts (FTAs)
HEDGES AND MODALITY
One major characteristic that hedging provides is modality Hyland (1998:
3) states that “hedging is one part of epistemic modality; it indicates an unwillingness to make an explicit and complete commitment to the truth of propositions In everyday conversation hedges are commonly expressed through auxiliary verbs and by epistemic adjectives, adverbs and lexical verbs.” Modality is epistemologically related since it deals with the relativity of a particular truth or knowledge Thus, it is a concept which may be directly reflected with the presence of hedging in a discourse
Modality in spoken communication encompasses three key dimensions: epistemic, deontic, and dynamic, which together create a comprehensive understanding of modality meanings Epistemic modality specifically pertains to the speaker's expression of their commitment to the truth of a proposition, reflecting their attitudes towards knowledge and varying degrees of certainty This allows speakers, particularly in academic contexts, to moderate their statements, thereby reducing the likelihood of opposition and minimizing potential face-threatening acts.
According to Hyland (1998: 2), the core of hedging lies in the writer or speaker's assessments of statements and their potential impact on listeners, highlighting the importance of epistemic modality in communication.
Modal verbs are primarily linked to epistemic modality (Coates, 1983) Hyland (1998) further distinguishes between subjective modality, which reflects the speaker's uncertainty, and objective modality, which pertains to uncertainty in an unverifiable external state of affairs, highlighting the inherent imprecision involved.
TAXONOMY OF HEDGES
The classification of hedges lacks clear criteria in existing literature, leading to an arbitrary taxonomy Various models have been proposed, including House and Kasper’s (1981) focus on linguistic expressions that signal politeness, Skelton’s (1988) emphasis on lexical and modal verbs, and Myer’s (1989) view of hedges as expressions of politeness strategies Additionally, Salager-Meyer’s model (1994) highlights the connection between hedging and purposive vagueness, suggesting that hedges contribute to linguistic fuzziness.
Markkanen’s and Schroder’s model (1997) concentrates on hedging in the form of pragmatic function from the semantic modification of the words or phrases
Crompton’s model (1997) extends the reference of hedge to politeness- related features of academic writing, such as impersonal constructions, the use of the passive, and lexis-projecting emotions
Varttala (2001) explores the intersection of Economics, Technology, and Medicine, offering a comprehensive classification of hedging expressions The author identifies five primary categories of hedges: modal auxiliaries, full verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and nouns Additionally, Varttala includes a category termed "other hedges," which encompasses strategies such as "if clauses" and references to "limitations."
Table 2.2 Varttala’s (2001) Classification of hedging forms Modal
May Probability adverbs Probability adjectives
Can Adverbs of indefinite frequency
Should Adverbs of indefinite degree
Hyland (1998) divides hedges into two categories: Lexical hedges and Non-lexical or strategic hedges
Hedging, as defined by Hyland (1998), is primarily conveyed through various linguistic elements, including lexical verbs like "appear" and "believe," epistemic adverbs such as "possibly" and "apparently," epistemic adjectives like "likely" and "possible," epistemic nouns including "assumption," "possibility," and "probability," as well as modal verbs such as "may" and "should."
Hyland (1998) categorizes lexical verbs into two primary types: judgmental verbs and evidential verbs Epistemic judgment verbs, such as "suggest," "believe," and "conclude," encompass Palmer’s speculative and deductive functions In contrast, epistemic evidential verbs include terms like "show" and "appear."
Epistemic adverbs play important roles in interpersonal communication
Epistemic adverbs convey both conviction and doubt, lacking a fixed syntactic position within sentences (Hyland, 1998: 134) These adverbs are categorized into two types: adjuncts and disjuncts.
Adjuncts known as hedges, or "downtoners," reduce the intensity of verbs, as noted by Quirk et al (1972) These downtoners are categorized into four distinct groups: compromisers, diminishers, minimizers, and approximators.
A disjunct conveys the speaker's or writer's personal attitude towards the sentence's content, typically set apart by commas It serves as an evaluative comment on the rest of the statement According to Quirk et al (1972), disjuncts are categorized into two primary types: style disjuncts and content disjuncts.
Style disjuncts are adverbs that express the speaker's commentary on their own style and form of communication, indicating the context in which they assert authority over their statements According to Hyland (1996), these disjuncts play a crucial role in shaping how the truth of a proposition is interpreted, with some functioning to hedge or soften the impact of the statements made.
Content disjuncts comment on the truth value of what is said/written (Quirk et al, 1972: 509) They make observations on the actual content of the utterance then its truth conditions
Modal adjectives express evidence which cannot only be attributed to the adjective, but rather to the impersonal construction the adjective occurs in (Butler, 2003: 475) Modal adjectives modify propositional content Nuyts
(2001) argues that epistemic adjectives can be either used performatively or descriptively because performative uses can be both, subjective and intersubjective
Hyland (1998a: 130) states that some nouns such as “assumption, claim, possibility, and hope” can be used to express epistemic meaning Varttala (2001:
140) categorizes epistemic nouns into three types: nonfactive assertive nouns (e.g proposal, suggestion), tentative cognition nouns (e.g assumption, belief, estimation)”, and nouns of tentative likelihood (e.g likelihood, possibility) (Varttala, 2001: 140)
Hyland (1998) also suggests three main non-lexical strategies including: a) Reference to limiting experimental conditions b) Reference to a model, theory or methodology c) Admission to a lack of knowledge
Hyland (1998: 251) states that hedging devices are “polypragmatic in that they convey a range of different functions simultaneously” He suggests three functions of hedges when he analyzes a corpus of 26 research articles
Hedges enable writers to articulate propositions with enhanced precision, acknowledging the challenges of accurately quantifying reality As such, they serve as a crucial tool for presenting uncertain scientific claims with the necessary caution.
Hedges enable writers to foresee potential negative outcomes of being incorrect, allowing them to discuss speculative scenarios without directly taking personal responsibility for their claims.
Thirdly, hedges “help writers to develop a relationship with the reader, addressing affective expectations in gaining acceptance for claims” (ibid: 479)
Salager-Meyer‟s (1994: 155) taxonomy of hedges has four main categories, summarized as follows:
1 Shields: modal verbs expressing possibility, semi-auxiliaries (appear), probability adverbs (probably) and their derivative adjectives, epistemic verbs (suggest);
3 Expressions of the authors‟ personal doubt and direct involvement: (we believe);
4 Emotionally charged intensifiers: (particularly encouraging)
Hyland’s (1998) model focuses on syntactic forms and pragmatic categories of hedging
Figure 2.1: Hyland’s model of scientific hedging (Hyland, 1998: 156)
This study utilizes Hyland’s model to examine the syntactic and pragmatic functions of hedging, aligning with the research's objectives According to Hyland (1998), hedges influence both the propositional content and the assertiveness of the writer or speaker.
Hedging functions can be categorized into two primary types: content-oriented and reader-oriented Content-oriented hedges encompass accuracy-oriented hedges, which include both attribute-oriented and reliability-oriented hedges, as well as writer-oriented hedges.
According to Hyland (1998), content-oriented hedges mitigate the relationship between propositional content and a representation of reality; they hedge the correspondence between what the writer says about the world and
The way we perceive the world is influenced by various factors, particularly the desire for propositional accuracy and the need for self-protection against the repercussions of poor judgment These motivations often overlap, shaping the writer's approach and the use of hedges in their communication.
Accuracy-oriented hedges are used by writers to convey propositions with greater precision in areas prone to revision Their primary function is to indicate that the proposition is grounded in plausible reasoning, even when certain knowledge is lacking In this context, personal commitment is either minimal or secondary These hedges encompass attributes and reliability, each driven by distinct motivations and realizations.
Attribute hedges facilitate the accurate expression of discrepancies between idealized models of nature and actual behavior They empower writers to refine categories, define entities, and conceptualize processes with greater precision, allowing for a clearer distinction of how closely results align with an idealized state while specifying the attributes of the phenomena being described.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
RESEARCH METHODS
This study analyzes linguistic elements through both quantitative frequency profiling and qualitative concordance line analysis, as outlined by Rayson (2003) It employs descriptive and contrastive methods to examine the frequency and functions of hedging expressions found in Vietnamese high school English textbooks compared to those in the New Interchange series.
The study establishes a theoretical framework through references to both Vietnamese and international literature, focusing on the analysis of 62 sample conversations to examine the forms and functions of hedges Utilizing Hyland’s (1998) model, the research calculates the frequency of hedge categories and compares their usage in Vietnamese high school English textbooks with the New Interchange series This comparison aims to identify similarities and differences in hedge usage between the two languages.
SAMPLING
Samples for this analysis were drawn from Vietnamese high school English textbooks and the New Interchange series, comprising 30 conversations from the former and 32 from the latter Upon reviewing these materials, we identified and extracted all instances of hedges for further examination.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The data were collected from the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and the New Interchange series, which are popular and reliable and include:
- New Interchange Student‟s book - Level 2
- New Interchange Student‟s book - Level 3
Vietnamese high school English textbooks:
- Tiếng Anh 10 (Book 1 and Book 2)
- Tiếng Anh 11 (Book 1 and Book 2)
- Tiếng Anh 12 (Book 1 and Book 2)
The selected books for this analysis align with CEFR Level B1, as outlined in Decision No 5209/QĐ-BGDĐT issued by the Vietnam Ministry of Education on November 23, 2012 This correlation is further supported by the accompanying table from the New Interchange Teacher's Book – Level 3.
Table 3.1: Interchange 4 th Edition and The CEFR
ESOL IELTS TOEFL iBT TOEIC
This study was based on two sets of data composed of 62 conversations,
32 in the New Interchange series (5606 words) and 30 in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks (7520 words)
Hedges can be distinguished from other linguistic devices through specific syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic features Hyland (1998) conducted an analysis of hedging in writing, focusing on both the quantitative aspects of hedge forms and the pragmatic functions they serve.
RESEARCH PROCEDURES
The hedges used in conversations from Vietnamese high school English textbooks and the New Interchange series were selected for analysis These hedges were systematically examined and categorized based on their forms and functions The following outlines the procedures employed for data analysis.
- Describing and analyzing the forms and functions of hedging devices in the conversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in the New Interchange series
This article examines the similarities and differences in the use of hedging devices in Vietnamese high school English textbooks compared to the New Interchange series By analyzing the forms and functions of these hedging devices, the study highlights how both language contexts employ hedges to express uncertainty, politeness, and tentativeness in conversation The findings reveal distinct patterns in the usage of hedges, reflecting cultural nuances and educational approaches in language learning Ultimately, this comparison provides valuable insights into the role of hedging in effective communication across different linguistic environments.
Statistics were also analyzed to compare the frequencies of the hedges in conversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in the New Interchange series
Detailed steps are as follows:
- First, the data was analyzed using Wordsmith Tools 5.0 A list of common hedging devices was compiled based on Hyland‟s examples
The current study involved a thorough manual review of the identified items, during which relevant words, phrases, and entire sentences were marked, analyzed, and organized according to the taxonomy outlined in section 3.3.3.1.
- Third, a quantitative analysis was conducted to determine the frequency of different hedging devices in conversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in the New Interchange series
- Finally, all hedging forms were analyzed in terms of functions The qualitative analysis was based on Hyland‟s (1998) poly-pragmatic model of hedging functions.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
FORMS OF HEDGES
This section examines the distribution of hedges in NIS and VHSET data, highlighting the importance of hedging in communicative prose, which is expressed both lexically and strategically The study identifies a total of 976 hedges, with Table 4.1 illustrating the distribution between lexical and non-lexical hedges.
Table 4.1: The distributions of hedge forms
Total Per Freq Per Freq Per
Research indicates a notable preference for lexical hedges over strategic hedges in communication, with lexical hedges comprising 76.5% in NIS and 76.1% in VHSET In contrast, strategic hedges represent only 23.5% in NIS and 23.9% in VHSET, highlighting the dominance of lexical hedging in discourse.
In academic writing, the most frequently utilized hedges include epistemic lexical verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and modal verbs, as noted by Hyland (1996: 480) An analysis of conversations in NIS and VHSET indicates a total of 745 lexical hedges, with 362 found in NIS and 383 in VHSET The distribution of these lexical hedges is detailed in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 shows the frequency of lexical hedges by category in conversations in NIS and VHSET in the descending order of most commonly occurrences
Table 4.2: The Frequency of Lexical Hedges
No Lexical Hedges NIS VHSET
Total Per Freq Per Freq Per
Table 4.2 demonstrates that hedging is most commonly realized by means of modal verbs (n0, 30% in NIS and n7, 51.4% in VHSET) The
Epistemic adverbs are the second most frequent hedging type in NIS data, accounting for 34.3%, while they rank third at 15.7% in VHSET Epistemic lexical verbs, on the other hand, are the third most common hedges in NIS at 26.5%, but they hold the second position in VHSET with 29.5% In contrast, epistemic adjectives are rarely used, comprising only 3.3% in NIS and 3.4% in VHSET, placing them last among hedge types Notably, no epistemic nouns were identified in either series A detailed analysis of lexical hedges, complete with examples, is provided in Part 4.2.
Table 4.3 The frequency of non-lexical hedges
No Non-lexical Hedges NIS VHSET Total
Freq Per Freq Per Freq Per
5 Empty Subjects with Lexical Verbs 14 12.6% 9 7.5% 23 10.0%
7 Claim as one possibility among many 8 7.2% 7 5.8% 15 6.5%
In addition to lexical structures, speakers utilize various grammatical methods to hedge responsibility The data reveals that Personal Attribution is the most common non-lexical hedge, appearing 65 times, which accounts for 28.1% of the instances This is followed by Agentless passive constructions at 16.0%, along with the strategy of presenting a claim as one possibility among many.
In the analysis of hedge functions, "Attribution to the Source" ranks lowest at 6.1%, while another strategy follows closely at 6.5% The remaining strategies exhibit similar occurrence rates, as detailed in Table 4.3 A comprehensive discussion and examples of hedge functions can be found in Part 4.2.
FUNCTIONS OF HEDGES
This study identified and analyzed four primary functions of hedging: attribute-oriented, reliability-oriented, writer-oriented, and reader-oriented The distribution of these hedging functions in NIS and VHSET is illustrated in the table below.
Table 4.4: The frequency of hedge functions
No Functions of hedges NIS VHSET Total
Freq Per Freq Per Freq Per
A pragmatic analysis indicates that the hedging devices employed in NIS and VHSET serve diverse underlying functions These functions align with the four primary discourse functions of hedging identified by Hyland.
In the 1998 model, Table 4.4 illustrates a variation in the frequency of hedges based on their functions, with 473 occurrences in NIS and 503 in VHSET Notably, reliability-oriented hedges are prevalent in both datasets.
In the analysis of hedges, NIS and VHSET exhibit notable frequencies, with NIS showing 39.5% and VHSET 45.7% Writer-oriented hedges rank second in both distributions, comprising 27.3% in NIS and 30.6% in VHSET Attribute-oriented hedges follow, occupying the third position in NIS at 18.8%, while they rank last in VHSET at 10.3% Conversely, reader-oriented hedges are found at the bottom in NIS with 14.4%, but take the third position in VHSET at 13.3%.
In the analysis of NIS and VHSET, speakers employ two types of attribute-oriented hedges—downtoners and style disjuncts—to moderate the accuracy of their claims Notably, Table 4.5 reveals a significant disparity in the frequency of these hedges between the two datasets, with NIS exhibiting a higher occurrence of attribute-oriented hedges at 89, compared to 52 in VHSET.
Table 4.5 The frequency of attribute-oriented hedges
No Attribute-oriented Hedges NIS VHSET Total
Freq Per Freq Per Freq Per
The analysis of the NIS data reveals that downtoners are exclusively utilized, accounting for 100% of the occurrences (89 instances), with no style disjuncts present Similarly, in the VHSET data, downtoners dominate as well, comprising 96.2% of the occurrences, while style disjuncts make up only 3.8% (2 instances).
Figure 4.1 The frequency of adjuncts
In the category of adjuncts, downtoners are predominantly represented by diminishers, accounting for 55.4% with a total of 77 instances This is followed by approximators at 21.6% with 30 instances, and compromisers at 18.7% with 26 instances Minimizers are the least common, comprising only 4.3% with a total of 6 instances Detailed distributions of these adjuncts can be found in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6 reveals that in NIS data, the most common adverbial hedges are "just" (n=0, 33.7%), "only" (n=9, 10.1%), and "kind of" (n=8, 9.0%) In contrast, "not exactly," "not at all," and "quite" rank lowest, each appearing only once (1.1%).
Other adverbial hedges do not appear commonly with a relatively low frequency
Table 4.6 The frequency of Adjuncts
No Adjuncts NIS VHSET Total
Freq Per Freq Per Freq Per
In VHSET data, just (n, 36.0%), only (n, 20.0%) and kind of (n=5,
10.0%) also take the first three positions of distribution Some adverbial hedges
(Not very, Not at all, Almost, sort of, pretty, a little) do not appear while other adverbials are rare The use of adjuncts is illustrated in the following examples:
[02] People usually take time to study for personal or professional reasons, depending on their needs and learning styles (V12-U10)
[03] When I was a kid, I was kind of irresponsible (E3-U11)
[05] Yes I'm not quite sure about how people express their cultural identity (V12-U5)
[06] Three days? Wow, the equipment must be pretty high-tech! (E3-U2)
[07] But don’t you think you’ve accomplished quite a bit in the last few years? (E3-U16)
Functioning as “downtoners”, adjuncts in the above examples lower effect on the force of the verb in [02], adjective in [03], [04], [05], [06], another adverb they modify [07] or a phrase [01]
Style disjuncts, as defined by Quirk et al (1985: 612), reflect the manner or respect in which someone speaks In the analysis of NIS data, no style disjuncts were identified, whereas VHSET conversations included two: "personally" and "in general." These terms signify the degree of precision intended by the speakers, suggesting that they aim to convey the validity of their claims.
[08] Personally, I think you are addicted to social media and rely too much on the Internet (V12-U4)
[09] That we'll focus on the effects of global warming on people's health and life on Earth in general (V11-U6)
The data analysis shows that speakers use modal verbs, epistemic adjectives, and content disjuncts As shown in Table 4.7:
Table 4.7 The Frequency of reliability-oriented hedges
No Attribute-oriented Hedges NIS VHSET Total
Freq Per Freq Per Freq Per
Table 4.7 shows that the total number of Reliability-oriented Hedges is
In the analysis of hedging strategies, modal verbs emerge as the most prevalent means of reliability-oriented hedging, comprising 69.5% in NIS and 78.4% in VHSET Content disjuncts follow, representing 18.7% in NIS and only 3.5% in VHSET, as they are utilized to indicate reliability by commenting on the likelihood of propositional truth These disjuncts often manifest through adverbs of certainty, which express doubt, and adverbs of mental perception, which reflect the understanding of results (Hyland, 1996a) Furthermore, the findings align with Hyland's (1998) assertion that adjectival hedges are used attributively, showcasing noun phrase stacking that condenses complex phenomena into a single syntactic element, enabling writers to structure concepts into impersonal constructions while hedging the described processes.
Modal verbs are polysemous, possessing multiple meanings within a sentence Epistemic modals allow for varying degrees of certainty, enabling speakers to express confidence, doubt, inference, or non-inference in their statements (Hyland, 1998: 105-107).
Data reveals that modal verbs are the most common lexical hedges in NIS and VHSET conversations, with nearly all nine modal verbs utilized for hedging purposes Table 4.8 illustrates the frequency and distribution of these modal verbs, highlighting notable differences in their use as hedges within NIS and VHSET dialogues.
In the NIS data, a total of 130 occurrences of eight modal verbs were identified, excluding "shall." The most frequently used modal auxiliaries in NIS conversations include "will" (26.2%), "would" (23.8%), and "can" (21.5%) Additionally, "could" (13.1%) and "should" (6.2%) are also relatively common In contrast, "must," "might," and "may" appear less frequently, each with only a few occurrences (3.1%) Notably, "shall" was not found in the data.
In the VHSET data analysis, a total of 197 instances of nine modal auxiliaries used for hedging interpretation were identified The most frequently occurring modals were "can" at 37.1%, "will" at 34%, and "should" at 10% In contrast, "would" appeared in 7.6% of cases, while "could" was noted in 4.6% The remaining modals, including "shall" and "may" (both at 2%), "must" at 1.5%, and "might" at 1%, were found to be quite rare in the VHSET conversations.
The speaker employs hedges to convey uncertainty in weak statements, thereby steering clear of absolute claims This study systematically analyzes various modal verbs, which are categorized into five primary clusters, as illustrated in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8 The frequency of modal verbs
NO MODAL VERBS NIS VHSET
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
Data analysis reveals both the similarities and differences in hedge usage between NIS and VHSET conversations Understanding these aspects is crucial for effectively employing hedges to achieve successful communication goals.
The results of the study show some similarities not only in forms but also in functions of hedges in conversations in NIS and VHSET
Data analysis reveals that both NIS and VHSET datasets contain identical or similar forms of hedges, with the majority of hedging forms present in NIS also identified in VHSET.
The pragmatic analysis indicates that the use of hedges across four functions is consistently similar in both NIS and VHSET data sources The ranking of Reliability-oriented hedges as the most frequently used and Writer-oriented hedges as the least remains unchanged It is evident that English speakers in both NIS and VHSET prefer hedges that enhance message accuracy, specifically Attribute-oriented and Reliability-oriented hedges, over those focused on the writer or reader Furthermore, the occurrence of reader-oriented hedges in NIS closely parallels that in VHSET.
In both NIS and VHSET data, lexical hedges are more prevalent than non-lexical hedges, likely due to the greater number of sub-categories within lexical hedges Among these, modal auxiliaries are the most frequently used, while epistemic adjectives are the least common This indicates that modal auxiliaries are a vital type of hedge in conversations within both NIS and VHSET Notably, no epistemic nouns appear in either dataset, emphasizing the strategic use of "personal attribution" in these contexts.
“agentless passive constructions” are preferred in both sets of data, whereas,
“claim as one possibility among many” and “attribution to the source” are the least commonly used hedging strategies
Fourth, more than one hedge form has been identified in a sentence or an utterance In many samples, two or more hedging expressions are found [83] and [83] are typical instances
In the analysis presented in [83], the speaker employs the epistemic adverb "probably" and a strategic hedge, stating "claims as one possibility among many," to soften the propositional content Additionally, four distinct hedging expressions are identified in [84], which include personal attribution ("I think"), the modal verb "should," the epistemic adverb "perhaps," and the same strategic hedge mentioned earlier.
The distribution of the hedging forms and functions used in NIS and VHSET data shows that the two series have different rhetorical preferences
Epistemic adverbs are the second most frequently used lexical category in NIS at 34.3%, while they rank third in VHSET at 15.7% Despite VHSET containing a larger word count, NIS shows a significant predominance of epistemic adverbs In terms of lexical verbs, epistemic verbs are the second most common in VHSET at 28.1%, but they rank third in NIS at 26.5% Additionally, VHSET speakers utilize more modal verbs compared to NIS speakers Interestingly, downtoners are less frequently used in VHSET than in NIS, which contrasts with many other sub-types of lexical hedges.
In NIS, speakers frequently employ "Personal Attribution" (n@) and "Empty Subjects with Lexical Verbs" (n) strategies to hedge their propositional content, in contrast to VHSET speakers, who use these strategies less often (n% and n=9).
On the contrary, “Agentless passive constructions” (n#) and “Hypothetical Conditionals” (n ) strategies are identified more common in VHSET than those in NIS (n and n)
In the context of hedge functions, reliability-oriented and writer-oriented hedges are more prevalent in VHSET compared to NIS Conversely, speakers in VHSET utilize Attribute-oriented and Reader-oriented hedges less frequently than their NIS counterparts.