(Luận văn thạc sĩ) HEDGING DEVICES IN CONVERSATIONS IN THE VIETNAMESE HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEXTBOOKS VERSUS THOSE IN THE NEW INTERCHANGE SERIES

This study examines and compares the forms and functions of hedging devices in conversations in English and Vietnamese textbooks: Vietnamese high school English textbooks and New Interch

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

QUY NHON UNIVERSITY

LÊ THỊ PHƯƠNG THỦY

HEDGING DEVICES IN CONVERSATIONS

IN THE VIETNAMESE HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEXTBOOKS VERSUS THOSE IN THE NEW

BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TAO

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC QUY NHƠN

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

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

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 where

otherwise acknowledged, and that this thesis has not been submitted for a higher

degree at any other institutions

To the best of my knowledge, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by other people except where the reference is made in the

thesis itself

Bình Định, 2019

LÊ THỊ PHƯƠNG THỦY

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

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

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

I am grateful to the leaders of An Nhon 1 High School for their support and 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 support and care throughout this process

ABSTRACT

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

of the study show the ways that both native and non-native speakers of English use hedge forms and functions in conversations As a whole, they use similar words or expressions to hedge their propositional content Lexical hedges are more commonly used than non-lexical ones In addition, speakers prefer some forms (modal verbs, lexical verbs and personal attribution) and functions (reliability-oriented and writer-oriented hedges) to others Moreover, speakers tend to employ more than one hedging device in a sentence or an utterance However, the study also points out some differences in using hedges both semantically and functionally Some forms of hedges occur densely in the New Interchange series but rarely in Vietnamese high school English textbooks or vice 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, aims and objectives, research questions, scope of the study and significance of the study 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 and compares the forms and functions of hedging devices in conversations in English and Vietnamese textbooks: Vietnamese high school English textbooks and New Interchange series

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

They are important tools, which have been used widely in academic, scientific and every day communication Therefore, they have attracted scholars‟ attention considerably in recent years in relation to linguistics studies

In pragmatics, hedges are correlated with politeness, vagueness, hesitation and indirectness According to Hyland (1996a), hedging is a significant communication device for academics since it both confirms the individual‟s professional persona and represents a critical element in the rhetorical means of gaining acceptance of claims Hedging devices help to avoid conflict among readers and justify a statement correctly, therefore, it is important to be able to use 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, allowing information 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 students have difficulty in using hedges in their conversations The study “Hedging Devices in Conversations in the Vietnamese High School English Textbooks versus those in the New Interchange Series” is carried out with an aim to remind English learners and teachers the values of hedges in communication It also provides them with a firm foundation about hedges and the use of hedges in conversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in the New Interchange series Hopefully, it will help them better their understanding about hedges and improve their language competence for effective communication

1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES

1.2.1 Aims

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

1.2.2 Objectives

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

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

in the two languages

1.3 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?

1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

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

62 conversations: 30 conversations selected from the Vietnamese English high school 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 High School English Textbooks versus those in the New Interchange Series” is just an attempt 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 the theoretical level, the study makes a significant contribution to the literature of hedging study The results of the study may provide information about using hedges in conversations to obtain the greatest effectiveness in everyday conversations, 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 and significance of the study The structure of the thesis is also included here to serve

as an outline of the study

Chapter 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND – gives a relevant and concise literature review of previous

studies as well as some theoretical aspects related to the problem under investigation

Chapter 3 – METHODS AND PROCEDURES – mentions the research

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

Chapter 4 - FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION – presents illustration,

interpretation and comment based on the theoretical background and frameworks mentioned in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 It includes the analysis of hedging surface structures and functions; and the comparison of hedges‟ use between the two series

Chapter 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS – summarizes

major findings of the investigation and provides implications for learning and teaching 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 the previous researches Since many definitions have been suggested and proposed since the 1960s, the notions of hedges has gone through the logic, semantic, pragmatic, and interpersonal stages The following sections discuss the definitions of hedges in different stages of hedging evolution, forms and functions of hedges and the relation between hedges and other linguistic elements (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 of communication Hedging can be as simple as saying "maybe", “a little”

"almost," or "kind of" in oral or written communication As an interesting area of study, 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” rather than having to belong to the set “completely” or “not at all”; “the transition of an object 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 the term “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 on the components of the operand; (e.g essentially, technically, actually, strictly, in

a sense, 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) and Hübler‟s (1983) studies of hedges provide further insights into the semantics of hedging

“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 and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts” He pays special interest in the linguistic phenomena used to talk about the more peripheral members of broad conceptual categories According to him, hedges are “words whose meaning implicitly involves 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, and hedges make natural language sentences more/less true or more/less false This definition 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 the pragmatic aspects of hedges However, the semantic aspects of hedges is also quite 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 other mitigating devices in their politeness marker category “Down-graders” which are called hedges, play-downs, understaters, downtoners, or “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) states that hedges are formed by means of the following grammatical 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 to increase the appeal of the utterance, to make it more acceptable to the interlocutor and thus increase the probability of acceptance and reduce the chances 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 the speaker'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, the speaker signals a lack of a full commitment either to the full category membership of a term or expression in the utterance (content mitigation), or to the intended illocutionary force of the utterance (force mitigation) Simply put, it

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

The term “Hedged Performative” was introduced by Fraser (1973) He analyses modal verbs or semi modals from the point of view of pragmatic hedges He finds out that some modals or semi-modals can be used to modify the illocutionary forces of performative verbs by emphasizing the inevitable obligation 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 act denoted by the performative verb in the sentence” (Fraser, 1973: 188) Fraser (2010: 17) also divides hedges into three types: propositional, illocutionary, and compound hedges

Prince et al‟s (1982) work on hedging in pediatric intensive-care unit physicians‟ speech approaches hedges They divide hedges into two types: propositional (as fuzziness within the propositional content) and relational (as fuzziness 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: "a particle, 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 in certain respects, or that it is more true and complete than perhaps might be expected"

Hedging phenomena have contributed to the interpersonal function of language, 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 and Hasan, 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 direct involvement; and emotionally charged intensifiers

Salager-Salager-Meyer (1997) has made a rather more concrete classification of hedging devices in scientific English, including seven 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

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

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

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

2.2 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):

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 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 is defined as redressive action directed to the addressee‟s positive face, where redress consists in partially satisfying that desire

by communicating that one‟s own wants are in some respects similar to the address‟s wants

- Negative Politeness is defined as redressive action addressed to the addressee‟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 politeness strategies which include: hedging the illocutionary force of an utterance; hedging any of the felicity conditions on the speech act; or hedging any of the four Gricean maxims

The Cooperative Principle has been discussed a lot in the past few decades One of the major theories in pragmatics is the theory of conversational implicature proposed by Paul Grice, who states that “our talk exchanges don‟t normally consist of a succession of disconnected remarks, and would not be rational if they did They are characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperative efforts; and each particular recognizes in them, to some extent, a common 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 basic maxims 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

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

C) The maxim of Relevance

Make your contributions relevant

D) The maxim of Manner

Be perspicuous, and specifically

v) avoid obscurity vi) avoid ambiguity vii) be brief

viii) be orderly

In fact, it is not true that people have to follow these principles to have successful communication In daily talks, when the communication does not proceed as participants‟ expectations, the principles are nevertheless being observed at some deeper level, and thus, implicatures are triggered

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''

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

Table 2 1 Types of hedges according the four maxims

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

I think of it,

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)

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 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 can be viewed as a device in spoken communication conveying the three basic dimensions of modality including: epistemic, deontic and

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

Hyland (1998: 2) states that "the writer or speaker's judgments about statements 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 modal verbs (Coates, 1983) In addition, Hyland (1998: 250) argues that subjective modality locates the uncertainty in the speaker's mind whereas objective modality locates it in "an unverifiable state of external affairs" which is rooted in the imprecision of the state of affairs

2.4 TAXONOMY OF HEDGES

2.4.1 According to Forms

It can be easily seen that there are no clear criteria for classifying hedges

in the literature Thus, the taxonomy of hedges is said to be arbitrary Various models of hedges have been proposed House and Kasper’s model (1981) focuses

on typology of linguistic expressions, which includes a small part of hedges that are frequently used to signal politeness (or impoliteness) in English Skelton‟s model (1988) only focuses on the linguistic terms of hedges in lexical verbs and modal verbs Myer‟s model (1989) is only concerned with hedges as realizations

of politeness strategies Salager-Meyer’s model (1994) emphasizes that hedging

is often linked to purposive vagueness and tentativeness that suggests hedges are typically 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 related features of academic writing, such as impersonal constructions, the use of the passive, and lexis-projecting emotions

politeness-Varttala (2001) works on Economics, Technology and Medicine and provides a classification of hedging expression The writer divides hedges into five main categories: modal auxiliaries, full verbs, adverbs, adjectives, nouns and

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

Table 2.2 Varttala’s (2001) Classification of hedging forms Modal

Auxiliaries

May Probability adverbs Probability

adjectives

Nonfactive assertive nouns

Nonfactive reporting verbs Might

Can Adverbs of

indefinite frequency

Adjectives of indefinite frequency

Tentative cognition nouns

Tentative cognition verbs Could

Should Adverbs of

indefinite degree

Adjectives of indefinite degree

Nouns of tentative likelihood

Tentative linking verbs Would

Must Approximative

adverbs

Approximative adjectives 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 by lexical 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 a sentence Epistemic adverbs are divided into adjuncts and disjuncts

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

A disjunct expresses the speaker‟s or writer‟s own attitude or the propositional content of the sentence It is often separated by a comma or a set of commas 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 content disjuncts

Style disjuncts convey the speaker‟s comment on the style and the form of what 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 small class 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 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)

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 that they convey a range of different functions simultaneously” He suggests three functions of hedges when he analyzes a corpus of 26 research articles

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

Secondly, hedges “allow writers to anticipate possible negative consequences of being proved wrong” They “allow writers to refer to speculative possibilities while at the same time avoiding direct personal responsibility 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: (we believe);

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

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

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

He states that hedging functions can be divided into two main categories, namely content-oriented and reader-oriented Content-oriented hedges includes accuracy-oriented (inclusive of attribute-oriented and reliability-oriented) and writer-oriented hedges

a) Content-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

Reliability

Hedge

Reader-oriented Content-oriented

Accuracy-oriented Writer-oriented Attribute

what the world is thought to be like The motivation for these hedges fall into two overlapping categories, concerning the writer‟s focus on propositional accuracy 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 express propositions with greater precision in areas often subject to revision The main function of accuracy-oriented hedges is to imply that the proposition is based on plausible reasoning in the absence of certain knowledge; Personal commitment is either not involved or is subordinate to this function Accuracy-oriented hedges include attribute and reliability which have different motivations and realizations

+ Attribute hedges

The use of attribute hedges allows deviations between idealized models of nature and instances of actual behavior to be accurately expressed They enable writers to restructure categories, define entities and conceptualize processes more 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 a better match with familiar descriptive terms Attribute hedges generally cluster around this pragmatic core and involve the use of a finite set of items which Ernst (1984) labels “degree of precision” adverbs In sum, writers use attribute hedges 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, a majority of, in many cases) and qualification (viewed in this way, from a practical point of view, based on, according to, in the view of, many people think that)

+ Reliability hedges

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

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

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

Limited knowledge: It is not known whether, poorly understood

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

- Writer-oriented hedges

Writer-oriented hedges limit the writer‟s commitment to statements Writer-oriented hedges enable writers to refer to speculative possibilities while at the same time guard against possible criticism, they are therefore often associated with higher level claims than accuracy-oriented ones Hyland (1998: 170) claims that “writer-oriented hedges therefore create a clear pragmatic contrast with other content hedges: accuracy-oriented hedges are proposition-focused and seek to increase precision by referring to the exact state of knowledge or to how a proposition is to be understood; writer-oriented hedges are writer-focused and aim to shield the writer from the consequences of opposition by limiting personal commitment” These hedges diminish the author‟s presence in the text rather than increase the precision of claims The most 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 a principal means of withholding personal commitment The tentativeness relates mainly to the commitment the author wishes to bestow on the statement rather than a strict concern with the truth of its propositional relationships Examples:

Impersonal expressions and Compound hedges: be assumed to, It might be speculated, It would indicate, This probably indicates that, It seems reasonable to assume that, It would seem somewhat unlikely that, The present work indicates/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: under these conditions, the prediction of this model, despite the limitations of this method, 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 of negation on subjective grounds Core examples of reader-oriented hedges confirm the attention writers give to the interactional effects of their statements

The writer thereby hedges the claim to be made by explicitly drawing the reader into the deductive process, rhetorically treating the audience as capable of making the same logical inferences In sum, these hedges recognize the need for reader acceptance in accrediting knowledge and respond to the possibility of opposition to claims on interpersonal grounds Here writers consider both the reader‟s role in confirming knowledge and the need to conform to community expectations regarding deference to colleagues‟ views Core examples are therefore distinguished by features addressed to the needs of an audience, which anticipates involvement in negotiating claims

Examples:

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

Offering a claim as one possibility among many: one of

Hypothetical conditions: if we assume that, if true, if anything Rhetorical questions: Why do such temporal changes occur? Could such a putative interaction have a physiological significance?

2.5 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON HEDGES

Around the world, since hedging is used widely in spoken and written discourses, many studies have been conducted on hedging in both spoken and written discourses Previous studies have approached hedges from different views such as fuzzy logic, semantic, pragmatic and interpersonal The authors include: 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) examined hedges in English and Vietnamese conversations The researchers categorized hedges into speech art hedges and conversational hedges They also proved that conversational hedges are used by both the Vietnamese and Americans The form 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 the behavior 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 that Vietnamese 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, Quantity hedges, Manner hedges and Mixed hedges Her findings showed that

"Quality hedges" were most frequently-used, while "Relevance hedges" took the

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

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

In addition, Lê Thị Kim Tuyến (2016) conducted a doctoral dissertation about hedges in conversations in English and Vietnamese films The study investigated hedges in the discourse of films in English and Vietnamese in the light of pragmatics Hedges were seen as linguistic expressions functioning to avoid misunderstanding or negative reactions The writer examined and analyzed the manifestation and the pragmatic features of hedges in conversations in English and Vietnamese films She also pointed out some similarities and differences in the use of hedges in conversations in films between the two languages In terms of the hedge manifestation, she found out that hedges in English and Vietnamese could be in forms of words, phrases, clauses and sentences The words as hedges were more frequently used and the sentences as hedges were used less frequently than others in the conversations in both the English films and Vietnamese one In terms of the pragmatic features, both English speakers and the Vietnamese ones used hedges to show their respect to the CP and to the politeness

Bùi Văn Sang (2016) conducted “A contrastive analysis of Hedges in giving 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 Hedges and Clausal Hedges Dealing with hedging functions, he also examined hedges according to the four basic maxims of conversation which constitute the

Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975) His results revealed that the proportion for the Quality hedges was the highest whereas relevant hedges are the last common type Other types of hedges were distribute unevenly to each other in the two sources of data

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

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

of study showed that “there were variations and similarities in the way people utilized hedges as interpersonal meta-discourse devices to guide, negotiate, and persuade readers to accept their assertions and viewpoint, and in the way the negative politeness strategy was used to respect the readership and give more room for the readers‟ alternative interpretations” Besides, the writer found out the difference in the frequency of the occurrence of hedges, which was relatively lower in the RAs written by Vietnamese authors She also explained the reason for 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 on hedges in conversation in English textbooks like NIS and VHSET so far This study is conducted with an aim to contribute a minor part to fulfilling the overall picture of this matter

CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES

This chapter provides a description of methodological approach used this study In addition, it focuses on how data were collected and identified as hedges Then, it also presents the procedures of the statistical and qualitative analysis 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 the concordance lines (Rayson, 2003) This study also utilizes descriptive and contrastive methods to analyze the frequency of forms and functions of hedging expressions used in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in the New Interchange series

The theoretical background was set up with references to both Vietnamese and foreign publications To this purpose, the discussion sections of 62 sample conversations were analyzed manually for exploring forms and functions of hedges 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 and contrasting the use of hedges in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in the New Interchange series to find out the similarities and differences between the two languages in the study

3.2 SAMPLING

The samples were taken from the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and the New Interchange series 30 conversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and 32 conversations in the New Interchange series were selected for the analysis After reading the materials, we picked out all 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 English textbooks and the New Interchange series, which are popular and reliable and include:

New Interchange series:

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

Table 3.1: Interchange 4 th Edition and The CEFR

(Richards, Hull & Proctor, 1998)

Interchange CEFR Council of

Europe

Cambridge

TOEFL iBT TOEIC

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 high school English textbooks (7520 words)

There must be some syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic features that can distinguish hedges from other linguistic devices Hyland (1998) analyzed hedging in writing, involving the following levels of linguistic description and inquiry: quantitative analysis of hedge forms and pragmatic analysis of their functions

3.3 RESEARCH PROCEDURES

The hedges in conversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in the New Interchange series were chosen and collected for analysis They were then carefully considered and classified according to their forms and functions Followings are procedures 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

- Comparing and contrasting the forms and functions of hedging devices in the conversations in the Vietnamese high school English textbooks and those in the New Interchange series to see the similarities and differences

in using hedges in the two languages

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

- Second, the present study required a manual examination of the identified items, where the relevant words, phrases, or whole sentences have been marked, 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 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

3.4 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

In this study, hedging forms were analyzed in their own context and only forms with epistemic meaning were counted as examples of hedging Then, they were assigned to one of the forms and functions mentioned in 2.3.3 Whenever a vague word or an expression faced, the issue was brought to and discussed with the 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 hedges were estimated Then, the data were checked for explaining the observed differences 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

Freq Per Freq Per

4.1.1 Lexical Hedges

According to Hyland, the most commonly used hedges in academic writing are: epistemic lexical verbs, epistemic adverbs, epistemic adjectives and epistemic modal verbs (Hyland, 1996: 480) In conversations in NIS and VHSET, the data reveal that the total number of lexical hedges is 745 items (362 in NIS and 383 in VHSET) The categories of lexical hedges are shown 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

Freq Per Freq Per

1 Epistemic Modal Verbs 130 35.9% 197 51.4% 327 43.9%

2 Epistemic Lexical Verbs 96 26.5% 113 29.5% 209 28.1%

2.1 Judgmental verbs 31 8.6% 31 8.1% 62 8.3%

2.2 Evidential verbs 65 18.0% 82 21.4% 147 19.7%

3 Epistemic Adverbs 124 34.3% 60 15.7% 184 24.7%

3.1 Downtoners 89 24.6% 50 13.1% 139 18.7% 3.2 Content disjuncts 35 9.7% 8 2.1% 43 5.8%

3.3 Style disjuncts 0 0.0% 2 0.5% 2 0.3%

4 Epistemic Adjectives 12 3.3% 13 3.4% 25 3.4%

Table 4.2 demonstrates that hedging is most commonly realized by means

of modal verbs (n=130, 30% in NIS and n=197, 51.4% in VHSET) The