HEDGING DEVICES IN CONVERSATIONS IN THE VIETNAMESE HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEXTBOOKS VERSUS THOSE IN THE NEW INTERCHANGE SERIES

I certify my authorship of the master‟s thesis submitted entitled:HEDGING DEVICES IN CONVERSATIONS IN THE VIETNAMESE HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEXTBOOKS VERSUS THOSE IN THE NEW INTERCHANGE SER

LÊ THỊ PHƯƠNG THỦY

HEDGING DEVICES IN CONVERSATIONS IN THE VIETNAMESE HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEXTBOOKS VERSUS THOSE IN THE NEW

LÊ THỊ PHƯƠNG THỦY

PHƯƠNG TIỆN RÀO ĐÓN TRONG ĐÀM THOẠI GIỮA SÁCH GIÁO KHOA TIẾNG ANH TRUNG

HỌC PHỔ THÔNG VIỆT NAM VÀ NEW

I certify my authorship of the master‟s thesis submitted entitled:

HEDGING DEVICES IN CONVERSATIONS

IN THE VIETNAMESE HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEXTBOOKS VERSUS

THOSE IN THE NEW INTERCHANGE SERIES

for the degree of Master of Arts, is the result of my own research, except whereotherwise acknowledged, and that this thesis has not been submitted for a higherdegree at any other institutions

To the best of my knowledge, the thesis contains no material previouslypublished or written by other people except where the reference is made in thethesis itself

Bình Định, 2019

LÊ THỊ PHƯƠNG THỦY

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all the people for theirsupport and contributions to the realization of this thesis First of all, I would like

to thank my supervisor, Assoc Prof Dr Nguyễn Quang Ngoạn, whose brilliantideas, unconditional support and encouragement from the very early day to thefinal steps have enabled me to develop a better understanding of the subject and

to embrace the challenges in every step of the thesis I am greatly indebted forhis invaluable contributions and substantial feedback Without him, this studywould not have been accomplished

I am indebted to the lecturers of Quy Nhon University who havewholeheartedly guided me through each part of the thesis

I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to the Master‟s ThesisExaminers for their valuable feedback, constructive detailed comments andtremendously helpful suggestions for my thesis

I am grateful to the leaders of An Nhon 1 High School for their supportand valuable help they have provided me during the course

Finally and most importantly, my heart-felt gratitude goes to my family,for their unconditional love, infinite patience and enormous emotional supportand care throughout this process

The study examines conversations in Vietnamese high school Englishtextbooks (VHSET) versus the New Interchange series (NIS) The aim is toanalyze hedge forms and functions under Hyland‟s (1998) framework to find thesimilarities and differences in using hedges in the two series It also suggestssome implications for teaching and learning hedges in conversations in thetextbooks In order to achieve the aims and objectives, a contrastive analysis ofdata is conducted on both qualitative and quantitative approaches The findings

of the study show the ways that both native and non-native speakers of Englishuse hedge forms and functions in conversations As a whole, they use similarwords or expressions to hedge their propositional content Lexical hedges aremore commonly used than non-lexical ones In addition, speakers prefer someforms (modal verbs, lexical verbs and personal attribution) and functions(reliability-oriented and writer-oriented hedges) to others Moreover, speakerstend to employ more than one hedging device in a sentence or an utterance.However, the study also points out some differences in using hedges bothsemantically and functionally Some forms of hedges occur densely in the NewInterchange series but rarely in Vietnamese high school English textbooks orvice versa Similarly, the ranking positions of reader-oriented and attribute-oriented hedges are interchanged in the two series

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the rationale for choosing the area for studying, aimsand objectives, research questions, scope of the study and significance of thestudy At the end of this chapter, the structure of the thesis is also included here

to serve as an outline of the study

1.1 RATIONALE

Hedging devices are often used to show the lack of certainty in truth value

of the proposition stated by the writers or speakers This study examines andcompares the forms and functions of hedging devices in conversations in Englishand Vietnamese textbooks: Vietnamese high school English textbooks and NewInterchange series

A hedge is a linguistic device used to convey interpersonal messages inspoken and written language It is a communicative strategy which enablesspeakers or writers to soften the force of utterances Hyland (1996a: 433) statesthat “Hedging is a well-documented feature of spoken discourse as a result of itsrole in qualifying categorical commitment and facilitating discussion.” Bymaking things fuzzy or less fuzzy, hedges are the best resources for writers whowant to communicate with readers from different cultural backgrounds tomanage tone, attitude and information within a discourse (Getkham, 2011).According to Lakoff (1973) and Clemen (1997), hedges are linguistic devicesthat control the degree of fuzziness in communicating messages, helping theauthors express how certain they are about the truth value of their statements

They are important tools, which have been used widely in academic, scientificand every day communication Therefore, they have attracted scholars‟ attentionconsiderably in recent years in relation to linguistics studies.

In pragmatics, hedges are correlated with politeness, vagueness, hesitationand indirectness According to Hyland (1996a), hedging is a significantcommunication device for academics since it both confirms the individual‟sprofessional persona and represents a critical element in the rhetorical means ofgaining acceptance of claims Hedging devices help to avoid conflict amongreaders and justify a statement correctly, therefore, it is important to be able touse hedges effectively in conversations

Hedges (e.g possible, might, perhaps and so on) indicate the writer‟s

decision to withhold complete commitment to a proposition, allowinginformation to be presented as an opinion rather than accredited fact (Hyland,2005: 178) Using hedges effectively for communicating purpose is considered

as a way serving for politeness and face saving However, Vietnamese studentshave difficulty in using hedges in their conversations The study “HedgingDevices in Conversations in the Vietnamese High School English Textbooksversus those in the New Interchange Series” is carried out with an aim to remindEnglish learners and teachers the values of hedges in communication It alsoprovides them with a firm foundation about hedges and the use of hedges inconversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in theNew Interchange series Hopefully, it will help them better their understandingabout hedges and improve their language competence for effectivecommunication

1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES

1.2.1 Aims

This study aims to study the similarities and differences in using hedges inthe conversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those inthe New Interchange series

1.2.2 Objectives

This study aims at the following objectives:

- To identify the forms and functions of hedging devices in theconversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in the NewInterchange series

- To compare and contrast the forms and functions of hedging devices inthe conversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in theNew Interchange series to see the similarities and differences in using hedges in thetwo languages

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

With regard to what has already been stated in the previous sections andbased on the objectives of the present research, the following research questionswere sought to answer:

1 What are the forms and functions of hedging devices in theconversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in the NewInterchange Series?

2 What are the similarities and differences in forms and functions ofhedging devices used in the conversations in the Vietnamese English High SchoolTextbooks and those in the New Interchange Series?

1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study focuses on the forms and functions of hedges used in theconversations in the Vietnamese English high school textbooks and those in theNew Interchange series This study is based on a set of data composed of

62 conversations: 30 conversations selected from the Vietnamese English highschool textbooks and 32 conversations selected from the New Interchange series

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The study of “Hedging Devices in Conversations in the Vietnamese HighSchool English Textbooks versus those in the New Interchange Series” is just anattempt to describe and contrast the use of hedges in the light of Hyland‟s model(1998) It is hoped to contribute to the process of learning and teaching English,especially to understanding English conversations, which contain hedges On thetheoretical level, the study makes a significant contribution to the literature ofhedging study The results of the study may provide information about usinghedges in conversations to obtain the greatest effectiveness in everydayconversations, avoiding conflicts and misunderstandings

1.6 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 andsignificance of the study The structure of the thesis is also included here to serve

as an outline of the study

BACKGROUND – gives a relevant and concise literature review of previous

studies as well as some theoretical aspects related to the problem underinvestigation.

Chapter 3 – METHODS AND PROCEDURES – mentions the research

design, sampling, data collection and analysis, research procedures andreliability and validity

Chapter 4 - FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION – presents illustration,

interpretation and comment based on the theoretical background and frameworksmentioned in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 It includes the analysis of hedgingsurface structures and functions; and the comparison of hedges‟ use between thetwo series

Chapter 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS – summarizes

major findings of the investigation and provides implications for learning andteaching English Some topic areas are also raised for further studies

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL

BACKGROUND

This chapter discusses some key concepts related to hedges from theprevious researches Since many definitions have been suggested and proposedsince the 1960s, the notions of hedges has gone through the logic, semantic,pragmatic, and interpersonal stages The following sections discuss thedefinitions of hedges in different stages of hedging evolution, forms andfunctions of hedges and the relation between hedges and other linguisticelements (politeness and modality) Moreover, review on the studies of hedging

in other disciplines and related fields is also presented in this chapter

2.1 DIFFERENT VIEWS OF HEDGES

Hedges found in all of the world's languages are as a tool ofcommunication Hedging can be as simple as saying "maybe", “a little”

"almost," or "kind of" in oral or written communication As an interesting area ofstudy, the concept of hedging has gone through different stages: fuzzy logic,semantic, pragmatic, and social or interpersonal

2.2.1 From Fuzzy logic view

The term “hedge” originated from the work of Zadeh about fuzzy logic.According to Zadeh (1965), an object may belong to the set “partially” ratherthan having to belong to the set “completely” or “not at all”; “the transition of anobject from membership to non-membership is gradual, rather than 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 theterm “very tall man”, the operator “very” acts on the fuzzy meaning of the term

“tall man”

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 onthe components of the operand; (e.g essentially, technically, actually, strictly, in asense, practically, virtually, and regular) (Zadeh, 1972: 22)

2.2.2 From Semantic view

Lakoff‟s (1973), House & Kasper‟s (1981), Prince et al‟s (1982) andHübler‟s (1983) studies of hedges provide further insights into the semantics ofhedging

“Hedge” was first used as a linguistic term in the early 1970s, when G.Lakoff (1973) published his article “Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria andthe Logic of Fuzzy Concepts” He pays special interest in the linguisticphenomena used to talk about the more peripheral members of broad conceptualcategories According to him, hedges are “words whose meaning implicitlyinvolves fuzziness-words whose job is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy”(Lakoff, 1973: 234) He states that truth and falsity area matter of degree, andhedges make natural language sentences more/less true or more/less false Thisdefinition of hedges has been used as a foundation in many later analyses of

hedges According to Lakoff (1973), hedging involves the attenuation of the membership of a particular expression, for example:

(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 thepragmatic aspects of hedges However, the semantic aspects of hedges is alsoquite prominent in some studies

House & Kasper (1981) use of the term 'hedge' for adverbials precision(e.g kind of, sort of, somehow, rather) The writers include hedges among othermitigating devices in their politeness marker category “Down-graders” which arecalled hedges, play-downs, understaters, downtoners, or “minus” committers

Prince et al‟s (1982) study on hedges in pediatric intensive-care unitphysicians‟ speech approaches hedges by dividing them into approximators andshields

- 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) states that hedges are formed by means of the followinggrammatical categories: negation of predicates, gradation of predicates,

modalization of affirmative sentences by means of parenthetical verbs, modal

adverbs, modal verbs, and questions According to Hübler, hedges are used toincrease the appeal of the utterance, to make it more acceptable to theinterlocutor and thus increase the probability of acceptance and reduce thechances of negation.

2.2.3 From Pragmatic view

The concept of hedge has gone far from its origins since the early 1970s.Pragmaticists and discourse analysts have taken hedges to be modifiers of thespeaker's commitment to the truth-value of a whole proposition

“Hedging is a rhetorical strategy By including a particular term, choosing

a particular structure, or imposing a specific prosodic form on the utterance, thespeaker signals a lack of a full commitment either to the full categorymembership of a term or expression in the utterance (content mitigation), or tothe intended illocutionary force of the utterance (force mitigation) Simply put, it

is attenuation of the full value which the utterance would have, absent thehedging” (Fraser, 2010: 201)

The term “Hedged Performative” was introduced by Fraser (1973) Heanalyses modal verbs or semi modals from the point of view of pragmatichedges He finds out that some modals or semi-modals can be used to modify theillocutionary forces of performative verbs by emphasizing the inevitableobligation of the speaker For example: “I must advise you to remain quiet.” is

an example of “strong performative” as it is “easily seen as counting as the actdenoted by the performative verb in the sentence” (Fraser, 1973: 188) Fraser(2010: 17) also divides hedges into three types: propositional, illocutionary, andcompound hedges

Prince et al‟s (1982) work on hedging in pediatric intensive-care unitphysicians‟ speech approaches hedges They divide hedges into two types:propositional (as fuzziness within the propositional content) and relational (asfuzziness in the relationship between the propositional content and the speaker).

For example:

“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: 150) examine the hedging phenomenon based

on the politeness aspects of communication The term hedge is defined as: "aparticle, word or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or

a noun phrase in a set; it says of that membership that it is partial or true only incertain respects, or that it is more true and complete than perhaps might beexpected"

Hedging phenomena have contributed to the interpersonal function oflanguage, by which people may “recognize the speech function, the type of offer,command, statement, or question, the attitudes and judgments embodied in it,and the rhetorical features that constitute it as a symbolic act” (Halliday andHasan, 1989: 45)

Salager-Meyer (1994) states that hedging may be regarded as "the product

of a mental attitude which looks for prototypical linguistic forms.” In Meyer‟s view, hedging is related to vagueness and fuzziness Salager-Meyer‟s(1994: 155) taxonomy of hedges has four main categories, including: shields;approximators; expressions of the authors‟ personal doubt and directinvolvement; and emotionally charged intensifiers

Salager-Salager-Meyer (1997) has made a rather more concrete classification ofhedging devices in scientific English, including seven categories: (1) Modalauxiliary verbs; (2) Modal lexical verbs; (3) Adjectival, nominal and adverbialmodal phrases; (4) Approximators of degree, quantity, frequency and time; (5)Introductory phrases; (6) If clauses and (7) Compound hedges.

Hyland (1998: 5) defines hedges as “the means by which writers canpresent a proposition as an opinion rather than a fact: items are only hedges intheir epistemic sense, and only when they mark uncertainty” Focusing on thefunctions of hedges, Hyland‟s definition creates an extensive coverage forhedges in type and usage

The appropriate use of hedges reflects a high degree of efficiency in socialinteraction by demonstrating the ability to express degrees of certainty andmastering rhetorical strategies required under conversational circumstances:

“Hedging refers to any linguistic means used to indicate either a) a lack ofcomplete commitment to the truth value of an accompanying proposition, or b) adesire not to express that commitment categorically.” (Hyland, 1998:1)

2.2 HEDGES AND POLITENESS

Politeness has been widely studied by various researchers in attempts todefine it Since there is still much debate about politeness, every theory hasreceived 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 asbeing polite (ibid 87):

categories – competitive, convivial, collaborative and conflictive He suggests

two maxims of politeness:

1 Tact Maxim: The maxim is used to minimize the cost and maximize thebenefit to the hearer Leech creates tact maxim from competitive illocutionary goal –

a goal which competes with the social goal (begging, demanding, asking, andordering) by imposing something on the hearer This maxim is closely related to thenegative 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 is defined as redressive action directed to theaddressee‟s positive face, where redress consists in partially satisfying thatdesire by communicating that one‟s own wants are in some respects similar tothe address‟s wants

- Negative Politeness is defined as redressive action addressed to theaddressee‟s negative face, where redress consists in partially satisfying that need

by weakening a challenge to negative face Therefore, politeness is employed when the „face‟ is threatened and needs to be preserved.

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) focus primarily on negative politenessstrategies which include: hedging the illocutionary force of an utterance; hedgingany of the felicity conditions on the speech act; or hedging any of the fourGricean maxims

The Cooperative Principle has been discussed a lot in the past fewdecades One of the major theories in pragmatics is the theory of conversationalimplicature proposed by Paul Grice, who states that “our talk exchanges don‟tnormally consist of a succession of disconnected remarks, and would not berational if they did They are characteristically, to some degree at least,cooperative efforts; and each particular recognizes in them, to some extent, acommon purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction.”(Grice, 1975:45) According to Grice, when we communicate with one another,

we try to be cooperative by the Cooperative Principle He suggests four basicmaxims of conversation which constitute a Cooperative Principle:

A) The maxim of Quality

Try to make your contribution one that is true, specially:

i) do not say what you believe to be false

ii) do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

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

House and Kasper (1981: 157) state that ''both these functions – onedefensive and ego-oriented the other protective or alter-oriented are fulfilled bypoliteness''

Among these authors, only Brown and Levinson (1987) examine therelations between hedges and politeness The types of hedges according the fourmaxims suggested by Brown and Levinson (1987:164-172) are as follows:

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 approximately, or so, I cannot tell Request

you any more than that, to some extent, all in all

Relevance hedges This may not be relevant… but, To redress offers or

now is probably the time to say, I Suggestions

might mention at this point, while

I think of it,

Manner hedges It you see what I mean, what I To redress all kinds of

meant was, to put it more simply face threatening acts

(FTAs)

2.3 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 anunwillingness to make an explicit and complete commitment to the truth ofpropositions In everyday conversation hedges are commonly expressed throughauxiliary verbs and by epistemic adjectives, adverbs and lexical verbs.” Modality isepistemologically related since it deals with the relativity of a particular truth orknowledge Thus, it is a concept which may be directly reflected with the presence ofhedging in a discourse

dynamic, which are combined to form an overall picture of modality meanings.Epistemic modality, refers to “any utterance in which the speaker explicitlyqualifies his commitment to the truth of the proposition expressed by thesentence he utters” (Lyons, 1977: 797) It indicates the speaker's attitudestowards knowledge and the varying degrees of commitment towards theproposition expressed, and allows academics to tone down their statements toreduce the risk of opposition and minimize the face threatening acts.

Hyland (1998: 2) states that "the writer or speaker's judgments aboutstatements and their possible effects on interlocutors is the essence of hedging,and this clearly places epistemic modality at the center of our interest"

The lexical category mostly associated with epistemic modality is modalverbs (Coates, 1983) In addition, Hyland (1998: 250) argues that subjectivemodality locates the uncertainty in the speaker's mind whereas objectivemodality locates it in "an unverifiable state of external affairs" which is rooted inthe imprecision of the state of affairs

is often linked to purposive vagueness and tentativeness that suggests hedges aretypically associated with an increase in linguistics 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) works on Economics, Technology and Medicine andprovides a classification of hedging expression The writer divides hedges intofive main categories: modal auxiliaries, full verbs, adverbs, adjectives, nouns and

an additional category classified under "other hedges" which includes suchdevices and strategies as "if clauses" and references to "limitations"

Table 2.2 Varttala’s (2001) Classification of hedging forms Modal Adverbs Adjectives Nouns Verbs

Auxiliaries

adjectives assertive nouns reporting verbs Might

indefinite frequency indefinite frequency cognition nouns cognition verbs Could

indefinite degree indefinite degree tentative linking verbs Would

likelihood

Will

Hyland (1998) divides hedges into two categories: Lexical hedges and

Non-lexical or strategic hedges

2.4.1.1 Lexical Hedges

According to Hyland (1998), hedging is most commonly expressed bylexical verbs (e.g appear, believe), epistemic adverbs (e.g possibly, apparently),epistemic adjectives (e.g likely, possible), epistemic nouns (e.g assumption,possibility, probability) and modal verbs (e.g may, should)

With regard to lexical verbs, Hyland (1998) divides them into 2 main

categories: judgmental verbs and evidential verbs Suggest, believe and conclude

are examples of epistemic judgment verbs which include Palmer‟s speculative

and deductive function Show and appear are examples of epistemic evidential

verbs

Epistemic adverbs play important roles in interpersonal communication.

They express conviction and doubt They “are not syntactically integrated”(Hyland, 1998: 134) It means that they do not have a fixed position in asentence Epistemic adverbs are divided into adjuncts and disjuncts

Adjuncts used as hedges are also called “downtoners” that “have alowering effect on the force of the verb” (Quirk et al, 1972: 452) Downtonersare distinguished into four groups: compromisers, diminishers, minimizers andapproximators (ibid.)

A disjunct expresses the speaker‟s or writer‟s own attitude or thepropositional content of the sentence It is often separated by a comma or a set ofcommas and normally acts as an evaluation of the rest of the sentence Quirk et

al (1972) divide disjuncts into two main types: style disjuncts, and contentdisjuncts

Style disjuncts convey the speaker‟s comment on the style and the form ofwhat he is saying, defining in some way under what conditions he is speaking as

the „authority‟ for the utterance For Hyland (1996), style disjuncts are a smallclass of adverbs which convey how the truth value of a proposition is perceived,and thus some serve to hedge statements.

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 theutterance 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 ordescriptively because performative uses can be both, subjective andintersubjective

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)

2.4.1.2 Non-lexical Hedges

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

2.4.2 According to Functions

Hyland (1998: 251) states that hedging devices are “polypragmatic in thatthey convey a range of different functions simultaneously” He suggests threefunctions of hedges when he analyzes a corpus of 26 research articles

Firstly, hedges “allow writers to express propositions with greaterprecision, recognizing the impossibility of exactly quantifying the world”(Hyland, 1996b: 478) Therefore, they are “an important means of statinguncertain scientific claims with appropriate caution” (ibid: 478)

Secondly, hedges “allow writers to anticipate possible negativeconsequences of being proved wrong” They “allow writers to refer tospeculative possibilities while at the same time avoiding direct personalresponsibility for their statements” (ibid: 478)

Thirdly, hedges “help writers to develop a relationship with the reader,addressing affective expectations in gaining acceptance for claims” (ibid: 479)

2 Approximators: (roughly, somewhat, often);

3 Expressions of the authors‟ personal doubt and direct involvement: (webelieve);

4 Emotionally charged intensifiers: (particularly encouraging)

2.4.2.2 Hyland’s model

Hyland’s (1998) model focuses on syntactic forms and pragmatic categories of hedging.

Hedge Content-oriented Reader-oriented

Accuracy-oriented Writer-oriented

Figure 2.1: Hyland’s model of scientific hedging (Hyland, 1998: 156)

This study draws on Hyland’s model because it focuses on both thesyntactic function and pragmatic function of hedging, which is the objective ofthe research Hyland (1998) treats the functions of hedges on the basis of howthey affect the propositional content and the assertiveness of the writer/speaker

He states that hedging functions can be divided into two main categories, namelycontent-oriented and reader-oriented Content-oriented hedges includesaccuracy-oriented (inclusive of attribute-oriented and reliability-oriented) andwriter-oriented hedges

a) Content-oriented hedges

According to Hyland (1998), content-oriented hedges mitigate therelationship between propositional content and a representation of reality; theyhedge the correspondence between what the writer says about the world and

what the world is thought to be like The motivation for these hedges fall intotwo overlapping categories, concerning the writer‟s focus on propositionalaccuracy or on self-protection from the consequences of poor judgment,although there may be an element of both purposes on any particular occasion.

- Accuracy-oriented hedges:

Accuracy-oriented hedges involve the writer‟s desire to expresspropositions with greater precision in areas often subject to revision The mainfunction of accuracy-oriented hedges is to imply that the proposition is based onplausible reasoning in the absence of certain knowledge; Personal commitment iseither not involved or is subordinate to this function Accuracy-oriented hedgesinclude attribute and reliability which have different motivations andrealizations

+ Attribute hedges

The use of attribute hedges allows deviations between idealized models ofnature and instances of actual behavior to be accurately expressed They enablewriters to restructure categories, define entities and conceptualize processesmore exactly to distinguish how far results approximate to an idealized state,specifying more precisely the attributes of the phenomena described

Attribute hedges indicate a discrepancy between actual results and either

an expected state or the concept routinely available to explain it, allowing abetter match with familiar descriptive terms Attribute hedges generally clusteraround this pragmatic core and involve the use of a finite set of items whichErnst (1984) labels “degree of precision” adverbs In sum, writers use attributehedges to seek precision in expression, and core examples encode variability,rather than writer perspective

Attribute hedges consist of: downtoners: (in some ways, quite, partially,barely, roughly, essentially, slightly), approximators (generally, approximately,around, often, somewhat, somehow, usually, significantly, relatively, most, amajority of, in many cases) and qualification (viewed in this way, from apractical point of view, based on, according to, in the view of, many people thinkthat)

+ Reliability hedges

Reliability hedges indicate the writer‟s confidence in the truth of aproposition They acknowledge subjective uncertainties and are motivated by thewriter‟s desire to explicitly convey an assessment of the reliability ofpropositional validity They deal with the epistemically possible and contingentalthough such subjective inferences can be confused with objective possibilitiesand often only participant understandings can disambiguate a hedge from averifiable possibility Reliability hedges are most commonly expressed byepistemic modal verbs, epistemic adjectives, nouns and adverbs

Modal auxiliary verbs: may, might, can, could, would, should

Modal adjectives, nouns, and adverbs: possible, possibility, probablyContent disjuncts: presumably, apparently, virtually, practically

Limited knowledge: It is not known whether, poorly understood

Accuracy hedges contribute precision and work to specify a state ofknowledge rather than hedge the writer‟s commitment Both accuracy andreliability types are principally concerned with interpretations of the world vialaws of reason and seek to increase the exactness of a claim, either by modifyingthe sense in which terms describe reality or by stating a more precise appraisal ofcertainty

- Writer-oriented hedges

Writer-oriented hedges limit the writer‟s commitment to statements.Writer-oriented hedges enable writers to refer to speculative possibilities while atthe same time guard against possible criticism, they are therefore oftenassociated with higher level claims than accuracy-oriented ones Hyland (1998:170) claims that “writer-oriented hedges therefore create a clear pragmaticcontrast with other content hedges: accuracy-oriented hedges are proposition-focusedand seek to increase precision by referring to the exact state of knowledge or to how aproposition is to be understood; writer-oriented hedges are writer-focused and aim toshield the writer from the consequences of opposition by limiting personalcommitment” These hedges diminish the

author‟s presence in the text rather than increase the precision of claims Themost distinctive signal of writer-oriented hedges is the absence of writer agency.Judgmental epistemic verbs, particularly speculative (e.g assume, predict,propose) and evidential verbs (e.g appear, seem), in impersonal phrasings are aprincipal means of withholding personal commitment The tentativeness relatesmainly to the commitment the author wishes to bestow on the statement ratherthan a strict concern with the truth of its propositional relationships Examples:

Impersonal expressions and Compound hedges: be assumed to, It might bespeculated, It would indicate, This probably indicates that, It seems reasonable toassume that, It would seem somewhat unlikely that, The present workindicates/demonstrates that

Modal lexical verbs (and some corresponding nouns and adjectives):indicate, assume, predict, propose, appear, seem, imply, suggest, believe,estimate, tend, think, argue, speculate

Impersonal reference to research methods, conditions, and models: underthese conditions, the prediction of this model, despite the limitations of thismethod, on the limited data available

b) Reader-oriented hedges

While hedging is traditionally linked with the objective dimension,securing ratification of scientific claims also involves reducing the risk ofnegation on subjective grounds Core examples of reader-oriented hedgesconfirm the attention writers give to the interactional effects of their statements

The writer thereby hedges the claim to be made by explicitly drawing thereader into the deductive process, rhetorically treating the audience as capable ofmaking the same logical inferences In sum, these hedges recognize the need forreader acceptance in accrediting knowledge and respond to the possibility ofopposition to claims on interpersonal grounds Here writers consider both thereader‟s role in confirming knowledge and the need to conform to communityexpectations regarding deference to colleagues‟ views Core examples aretherefore distinguished by features addressed to the needs of an audience, whichanticipates involvement in negotiating claims

Examples:

Personal attribution: I believe, to our knowledge, It is our view that, wefeel/believe that

Offering a claim as one possibility among many: one of

Hypothetical conditions: if we assume that, if true, if anything Rhetoricalquestions: Why do such temporal changes occur? Could such a putativeinteraction have a physiological significance?

2.5 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON HEDGES

Around the world, since hedging is used widely in spoken and writtendiscourses, many studies have been conducted on hedging in both spoken andwritten discourses Previous studies have approached hedges from differentviews such as fuzzy logic, semantic, pragmatic and interpersonal The authorsinclude: Zadeh (1965), Lakoff, (1972), Prince et al (1982), Hübler (1983),Brown & Levinson (1987), Skelton (1988:37), Markkanen & Schröder (1989),Thompson (1993), Hyland (1996, 1998, 2005), Bloomer & Bloomer (2007),Hyland and Tse (2004), Salager-Meyer (1994) and Gillaerts and Velde (2010)

In Vietnam, a lot of authors have carried out researches on hedges

Nguyễn Thanh Huy and Trương Thị Hồng Nhung (2012) examinedhedges in English and Vietnamese conversations The researchers categorizedhedges into speech art hedges and conversational hedges They also proved thatconversational hedges are used by both the Vietnamese and Americans Theform of hedges in both languages could be a word, a phrase, and a sentence.Moreover, they pointed out differences between the two language hedges in thebehavior style, occurrences of speech art hedges and the variety in vocabulary

Nguyễn Quang Ngoạn and Nguyễn Lê Tố Quyên (2016) in the study

“Types of Hedges Used by American and Vietnamese Celebrity” claimed thatVietnamese people preferred communicating in a delicate, considerate, indirect,and harmonious way The study was to compare and contrast type of hedges used

by American and Vietnamese celebrities in responses to questions in interviews,focusing on the five categories: Quality hedges, Relevance hedges, Quantityhedges, Manner hedges and Mixed hedges Her findings showed that "Qualityhedges" were most frequently-used, while "Relevance hedges" took the

lowest position in frequency out of the five categories under investigation Inaddition, the use of hedges were also different from each other in the distribution

of "Quantity hedges", "Manner hedges" and "Mixed hedges" in the Americanand Vietnamese data

In addition, Lê Thị Kim Tuyến (2016) conducted a doctoral dissertationabout hedges in conversations in English and Vietnamese films The studyinvestigated hedges in the discourse of films in English and Vietnamese in thelight of pragmatics Hedges were seen as linguistic expressions functioning toavoid misunderstanding or negative reactions The writer examined and analyzedthe manifestation and the pragmatic features of hedges in conversations inEnglish and Vietnamese films She also pointed out some similarities anddifferences in the use of hedges in conversations in films between the twolanguages In terms of the hedge manifestation, she found out that hedges inEnglish and Vietnamese could be in forms of words, phrases, clauses andsentences The words as hedges were more frequently used and the sentences ashedges were used less frequently than others in the conversations in both theEnglish films and Vietnamese one In terms of the pragmatic features, bothEnglish speakers and the Vietnamese ones used hedges to show their respect tothe CP and to the politeness

Bùi Văn Sang (2016) conducted “A contrastive analysis of Hedges ingiving comments by judges in The Voice America versus The Voice Vietnam”

He employed Varttala‟s (2001) analytical framework of his study Additionally,

he focused on three major categories namely: Lexical hedges, Phrasal Hedgesand Clausal Hedges Dealing with hedging functions, he also examined hedgesaccording to the four basic maxims of conversation which constitute the

Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975) His results revealed that the proportion forthe Quality hedges was the highest whereas relevant hedges are the last commontype Other types of hedges were distribute unevenly to each other in the twosources of data.

Besides, Nguyễn Thị Thúy Thu (2018) in "A Corpus-Based Study onCross-Cultural Divergence in the Use of Hedges in Academic Research ArticlesWritten by Vietnamese and Native English-Speaking Authors" studied hedges inAcademic Research Articles (RAs) The study examined the cultural divergence

in the use of hedges in the results and discussion sections of RAs written byVietnamese and native English-speaking authors, analyzing the variation in thefrequency and types of hedges within the rhetorical structure of RAs The results

of study showed that “there were variations and similarities in the way peopleutilized hedges as interpersonal meta-discourse devices to guide, negotiate, andpersuade readers to accept their assertions and viewpoint, and in the way thenegative politeness strategy was used to respect the readership and give moreroom for the readers‟ alternative interpretations” Besides, the writer found outthe difference in the frequency of the occurrence of hedges, which was relativelylower in the RAs written by Vietnamese authors She also explained the reasonfor this divergence which could be “due to the culturally diverse backgrounds,the intended readers, and the conventional rules of two discourse communities”

However, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no studies onhedges in conversation in English textbooks like NIS and VHSET so far Thisstudy is conducted with an aim to contribute a minor part to fulfilling the overallpicture of this matter

CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES

This chapter provides a description of methodological approach used thisstudy In addition, it focuses on how data were collected and identified ashedges Then, it also presents the procedures of the statistical and qualitativeanalysis The validity and reliability are also included in this chapter

3.1 RESEARCH METHODS

This study is an analysis of linguistic elements It consists both elements

of quantitative through frequency profiling and qualitative by analyzing theconcordance lines (Rayson, 2003) This study also utilizes descriptive andcontrastive methods to analyze the frequency of forms and functions of hedgingexpressions used in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those inthe New Interchange series

The theoretical background was set up with references to both Vietnameseand foreign publications To this purpose, the discussion sections of 62 sampleconversations were analyzed manually for exploring forms and functions ofhedges The frequencies of occurrence of the categories were also calculated.The forms and functions of hedges are analyzed on the basis of Hyland‟s (1998)model After that, data were analyzed for the purpose of comparing andcontrasting the use of hedges in the Vietnamese high school English textbooksand those in the New Interchange series to find out the similarities anddifferences between the two languages in the study

3.2 SAMPLING

The samples were taken from the Vietnamese high school Englishtextbooks and the New Interchange series 30 conversations in the Vietnamesehigh school English textbooks and 32 conversations in the New Interchangeseries were selected for the analysis After reading the materials, we picked outall the hedges for the analysis

3.3 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

3.3.1 Data Sources

The data were collected from the Vietnamese high school Englishtextbooks and the New Interchange series, which are popular and reliable andinclude:

New Interchange series:

- New Interchange Student‟s book - Level 2

- New Interchange Student‟s book - Level 3

Vietnamese high school English textbooks:

The books chosen for the present analysis correlates with CEFR level 3(B1) (Decision no.5209/QĐ-BGDĐT dated 23 November 2012 by VietnamMinistry of Education and the bellow table extracted from in the NewInterchange Teacher‟s book – Level3)

Table 3.1: Interchange 4 th Edition and The CEFR

(Richards, Hull & Proctor, 1998)

Interchange CEFR Council of Cambridge IELTS TOEFL TOEIC

Europe ESOL iBT

3.3.2 Criteria for Data Collection

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 highschool English textbooks (7520 words)

There must be some syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic features that candistinguish hedges from other linguistic devices Hyland (1998) analyzedhedging in writing, involving the following levels of linguistic description andinquiry: quantitative analysis of hedge forms and pragmatic analysis of theirfunctions

3.3 RESEARCH PROCEDURES

The hedges in conversations in the Vietnamese high school Englishtextbooks and those in the New Interchange series were chosen and collected foranalysis They were then carefully considered and classified according to theirforms and functions Followings are procedures for data analysis

- Describing and analyzing the forms and functions of hedging devices inthe conversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in theNew Interchange series.

- Comparing and contrasting the forms and functions of hedging devices inthe conversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in theNew Interchange series to see the similarities and differences in using hedges in thetwo languages

Statistics were also analyzed to compare the frequencies of the hedges inconversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in theNew Interchange series

Detailed steps are as follows:

- First, the data was analyzed using Wordsmith Tools 5.0 A list ofcommon hedging devices was compiled based on Hyland‟s examples

- Second, the present study required a manual examination of theidentified items, where the relevant words, phrases, or whole sentences have beenmarked, analyzed and sorted according to the taxonomy described in 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 Englishtextbooks and those in the New Interchange series

- Finally, all hedging forms were analyzed in terms of functions Thequalitative analysis was based on Hyland‟s (1998) poly-pragmatic model of hedgingfunctions

3.4 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

In this study, hedging forms were analyzed in their own context and onlyforms with epistemic meaning were counted as examples of hedging Then, theywere assigned to one of the forms and functions mentioned in 2.3.3 Whenever avague word or an expression faced, the issue was brought to and discussed withthe supervisor until an agreement can be achieved

More specifically, all the identified words and expressions were analyzed

in their contexts to make sure that they show epistemic stance of the speakers(uncertainty, tentativeness, and degree of commitment to a proposition)

Based on this process, the frequencies of forms and functions of hedgeswere estimated Then, the data were checked for explaining the observeddifferences and the significance of differences

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the results of the data analysis of hedges are presented

Moreover, it also compares and contrasts the use of hedges to show the

similarities and differences between the two sets of data

4.1 FORMS OF HEDGES

This section discusses distribution of hedges in the NIS and VHSET data

The study shows that hedging is a significant aspect of communicative prose and

that it is realized both lexically and strategically The result reveals that the total

number of hedges identified is 976 Table 4.1 shows the distributions of lexical

hedges and non-lexical hedges:

Table 4.1: The distributions of hedge forms

It can be easily seen that people tend to use more lexical hedges than

strategic ones Lexical hedges account for 76.5% in NIS and 76.1% in VHSET

while strategic hedges only take 23.5% in NIS and 23.9% in VHSET