Hedging devices used in english speeches by president joseph biden on the covid 19 = các phương tiện rào đón trong các bài phát biểu tiếng anh của tổng thống joseph biden về covid 19

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
QUY NHON UNIVERSITY

PHAN THỊ CẨM TÚ

HEDGING DEVICES USED IN ENGLISH SPEECHES
BY PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN
ON THE COVID-19

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8 22 02 01

Supervisor: Bùi Thị Đào, Ph.D


BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC QUY NHƠN

PHAN THỊ CẨM TÚ

CÁC PHƯƠNG TIỆN RÀO ĐÓN
TRONG CÁC BÀI PHÁT BIỂU TIẾNG ANH
CỦA TỔNG THỐNG JOSEPH BIDEN VỀ
COVID 19

Chuyên ngành : Ngôn ngữ Anh
Mã số: 8 22 02 01

Người hướng dẫn: TS. Bùi Thị Đào

i

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I hereby declare that I am the sole author of the MA thesis entitled
―Hedging devices used in English speeches by President Joseph Biden on the
Covid -19‖. The thesis contains no material published elsewhere or written by
other people except where reference is made in the text of the thesis.
Moreover, this research has not been submitted for any other degree or
diploma at any university.
Quy Nhon, 2022

PHAN THỊ CẨM TÚ


ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this study is the result of not only my efforts but also
other assistance of individuals to whom I would like to express my special
gratitude.
Firstly, I am deeply grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Bùi Thị Đào, who
has supported me with her endless patience, thoughtful guidance and
comprehensive advice during the whole period of the study. Without her
instructions, this thesis would have been impossible to be completed.
Secondly, I am also thankful to all the lecturers of the courses for their
valuable lectures and experiences, which provide essential knowledge for this
thesis.
Thirdly, my gratitude is devoted to my colleagues and close friends for

their kind support and warm encouragement, without which I could not have
overcome all the trouble during the fulfilment of this study.
Finally, I owe my whole family a debt of gratitude, especially my
parents, who always stand by me and provide me with emotional support and
great care while my thesis was in process and have helped me overcome
many unexpected difficulties during the course and the thesis. This
accomplishment would not have been possible without them.


iii

ABSTRACT

Based on Salager-Meyer‘s classification framework, the present study
aimed to investigate the linguistic devices which act as hedges used in 10
speeches made by President Joseph Biden on COVID-19. The main purpose
of the study is to explore kinds of hedging devices in speeches to find out the
most dominant type of hedging devices and the frequencies of the hedging
devices are identified in the speeches of the President Joseph Biden
experience the world in COVID-19. The study is a combination of qualitative,
quantitative, descriptive, analytic, and synthetic method. The results indicate
that modal auxiliaries verbs, which is the most frequently used hedging
device in President Joseph Biden‘s speeches and the most frequently used
hedging device subcategory is the modal auxiliary ―will‖. The findings of the
study could serve as data for further understanding. To learners, this kind of
hedging devices is proved to be one of the effective instruments for
improving their English skills in general and in communication in particular.


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................. ii
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................. iv
ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS .................................................. vi
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURE .......................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1
1.1 RATIONALE .......................................................................................... 1
1.2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVE...................................................................... 4
1.2.1. Aims ................................................................................................ 4
1.2.2. Objective ......................................................................................... 4
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................... 4
1.4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY....................................................... 5
1.5. SCOPE OF THE STUDY ...................................................................... 5
1.6. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY .................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................... 7
2.1. AN OVERVIEW OF HEDGES AND PREVIOUS STUDIES ............. 7
2.2. DEFINITIONS OF HEDGES .............................................................. 12
2.3. TYPES OF HEDGES........................................................................... 15
2.3.1. Modal auxiliary verbs ................................................................... 20
2.3.2. Modal lexical verbs ....................................................................... 21
2.3.3. Adjectival, adverbial and nominal modal phrases ........................ 22
2.3.4. Approximators of degree, quantity, frequency and time .............. 25
2.3.5. Introductory phrases ...................................................................... 26

v
2.3.6. If clauses........................................................................................ 28
2.3.7. Compound hedges ......................................................................... 29
2.4. SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 31
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 32
3.1. RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................... 32
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF DATA .................................................................. 32
3.3. DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES ............................................. 33
3.4. DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 33
3.5. VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ....................................................... 35
3.6. SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ......................................... 37
4.1. AN OVERVIEW HEDGING DEVICES TYPES EXPLORED FROM
THE DATA.................................................................................................. 37
4.1.1. Modal auxiliary verbs ................................................................... 39
4.1.2 Modal lexical verbs ........................................................................ 42
4.1.3 Adjectival, adverbial and nominal modal phrases ......................... 44
4.1.4 Approximators of degree, quantity, frequency and time ............... 47
4.1.5. Introductory phrases ...................................................................... 50
4.1.6. If clauses........................................................................................ 53
4.2. SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS.......................... 55
5.1 REVIEW OF FINDINGS IN THE STUDY ......................................... 55
5.2. IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................. 56
5.3. LIMITATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES ...................................... 58
5.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES ...................................... 59
REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 61
APPENDIXES

vi

ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS

(a) Abbreviations
Adj.: Adjective
Adv.: Adverbs
HD: Hedging devices
AFT.: Approximators of degree, quantity, frequency and time
(b) Conventions
-

Boldface is used to mark the first use of technical terms.

-

Italics are used for examples, emphasis, and technical terms.


vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 The categories and some examples of hedging words.................... 19
Table 4. 1. Distribution of Hedging types ....................................................... 37
Table 4. 2. Frequency and percentages of modal auxiliaries .......................... 39
Table 4. 3. Frequency and percentages of modal lexical verbs ...................... 42
Table 4. 4. Frequency and percentages of adjectival, adverbial and nominal
modal phrases ................................................................................ 44
Table 4.5. Frequency and percentage of approximators concerning degree,
quantity, frequency and time ......................................................... 47

Table 4.6. Frequency and percentages of introductory phrases ...................... 50
Table 4.7. Frequency and percentages of if clauses....................................... 53


viii

LIST OF FIGURE
Figure. 2.1. Set model for modal verbs, auxiliary verbs and verbs ................ 21
Figure. 4. 1. Distribution of Hedging types .................................................... 38
Figure. 4. 2. Frequency and percentages of modal auxiliaries ....................... 40
Figure. 4. 3. Frequency and percentages of modal lexical verbs .................... 43
Figure. 4. 4. Frequency and percentages of adjectival, adverbial and nominal
modal phrases ................................................................................ 45
Figure. 4.5. Frequency and percentage of approximators concerning degree,
quantity, frequency and time ......................................................... 48
Figure. 4.6. Frequency and percentages of introductory phrases ................... 51


1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1. RATIONALE

It has been widely accepted that communication plays an important role
in daily life conversation. In order to be a successful communicator, a speaker
must be aware of not only what to say but also how to say it appropriately.
Thus, in a conversation, besides informative content of an utterance, speakers
often use devices to attenuate or reinforce the utterances of the speech act.

One of the devices is hedges which are expressed to avoid misunderstanding
or negative reaction to speaker‘s speech and contribute to the flexibility and
continuation for a conversation as well as achieve communicative purposes.
Human often face with many real-life difficult situations that they
cannot express straightly what they are thinking clearly. In those situations, it
is very necessary for the speakers to have tactful communicative skills and
strategies. It is the issue of effective communication that deal with for
creating and using of hedges.
Channel (1994: 3) states that ―one of the most useful and enduring
insights to come out of the recent study of language use is that speakers and
writers tailor their language to make it suitable to the situation (when,
where and why?)‖ and ―the linguistic context (is it gossipy chat, an
interview, a story in a popular newspaper?.)‖. Lakoff (1972: 90) explains that
―in order to show their femininity, women tend to adopt an unassertive style
of communication. That is, they must learn to denude their statements of
declarative force.‖ He also further describes that ―women‘s speech lacks


2
authority.‖ His studies devoted to the domain has demonstrated and, roughly
speaking, agreed upon the validity of hedging devices in strengthening the
statements by weakening the claims. Sandell (1977: 5) explains that in order
to achieve the same effect with different speakers, i.e. to make them react
in a uniform manner, the skilled sender changes his wording with each
different utterances so as to conform to their different frames of meanings.
Still, his conception of the topic of the message is as unchanging as the effect
he desires on one part of the hearers. Nevertheless, this does not imply that
these different wordings would have the same effect on a single
individual, which makes it important to distinguish between inter
individual and intra individual identity (or similarity) of meanings, and to

research if one and the same nominal meanings, differently styled in a
message, will carry out intra individually different meanings, particularly
regarding those aspects in which we call persuasive effects. By reasons of
similarity and utterance, it is possle to purport that indetermination,
indirectness, vagueness are different strategies or means of the same
phenomenon hedging. To a certain extent, all these means do share certain
pragmatic functions.
In recent years, together with the increasing infectious diseases on covid19, great efforts of presidents in Vietnam and elsewhere have been made in order
to prevent and cure. The information on covid-19 in presidents‘ speeches is
constantly updated with various hedging devices to help people avoid spreading
diseases. Hedging is considered as not only one mechanism whose main meaning
is related to the tone, attitude, and information within speeches, but a
communicative strategy in form of pragmatic competence which plays a central
role in delivering the intended message of the speaker as well. (Getkham, 2011).
Getkham further stated that hedging devices are one of the important requirements


3
which help speakers to maintain objectivity in their language production. One way
through which this requirement can be realized is utilizing hedges. Hedging in
speeches from pragmatic perspective is still an area available for more
exploration.
This study, the author adopts the viewpoint of Palmer (2003: 331) that
hedge devices are words and phrases that ―certain prosodic and paralinguistic
features, having the effect of damping down the force of what is said, and are
valuable resources for speakers;‖ and Brown & Levinson (1987: 145) that
hedge devices are ―particles, words or phrases that modify 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.‖

Moreover, Salager-Meyer (1994:150) defined that hedges are
associated with ―purposive vagueness and tentativeness.‖ The meanings of
hedge verbs are to reduce the risk of negation. Hedges have been given
different classifications by different researchers (Crompton, 1997; Hyland,
1996, 1998; Myer, 1989; Salager-Meyer, 1994). One of the most important
ones is that of Hyland (1996). Hyland (1996: 430) suggested three types of
hedging: ―content-oriented‖ hedges, ―reader-oriented‖ hedges and ―writeroriented‖ hedges. ―Content-oriented‖ hedges are further subdivided into
―accuracy-oriented‖ and ―writer-oriented‖ hedges. Accuracy-oriented hedges
are utilized to ―qualify the accuracy of a part of the proposition, while writeroriented hedges are used to ―reduce the commitment of the speaker to the
proposition in order to protect against the threat of negation‖. On the other
hand, a ―reader-oriented‖ hedges is ―an acknowledgement of the reader‘s
right to make judgments and to engage in a dialogue.‖
Besides, hedging is considered as an integral and important tool in


4
writing discourse. Less attention has been made on hedging in different
disciplines or genres in speeches. All the above reasons, an insightful
investigation into “Hedging Devices used in English Speeches by President
Joseph Biden on the COVID-19” has chosen as a potential subject to help
people master pragmatic features of hedging devices used in speeches so that
they can achieve a sufficient foundation of knowledge to make their speeches
successful and persuasive, avoid misunderstanding.
1.2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVE
1.2.1. Aims
This study aims to investigate hedging devices through analyzing
speeches by President Joseph Biden on the COVID-19.
1.2.2. Objective
This study is intended to fulfill the following objectives:
- To identify and classify hedging devices used in speeches by President

Joseph Biden on the COVID-19
- To explore the frequencies of the hedging devices used in those speeches
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
To achieve the aims and objectives of the study, the following research
questions are raised:
1. What are types of hedging devices used in speeches of President Joseph
Biden on the COVID-19?
2. What are the frequencies of the hedging devices identified in those
speeches?


5
1.4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The outcome of this study is expected to bring an insight into the use of
hedging devices in English speeches by President Joe Biden. Also, the
analysis of types of the hedging devices in those speeches is hoped to bring
some pedagogical implications to the teaching and learning of English. The
learners are expected to earn the benefits from the results of analysis to have a
sufficient knowledge and understanding about hedges so that they can
identify hedges in each study.
1.5. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study is focused on the analysis of common hedging devices in ten
speeches by President Joseph Biden on the COVID-19. This study also tries
to find out the frequency of occurrences of these hedging devices in speeches
by President Joseph Biden on the COVID-19. In the study, the data is
analyzed based on the research of Salager-Meyer (1994) and theoretical
framework indicated by Brown & Levinson (1987). Ten speeches by
President Joseph Biden on the COVID-19 from the official websites
consisting of and
are used as the main source of the research.

1.6. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The study consists of five chapters as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter shows an overview of the thesis including the rationales, aims,
objectives, research questions, the scope of the study, significance of the
study and the organization of the study.
Chapter 2: Literature Review and theoretical background


6
This chapter reviews previous studies, the definition, viewpoints and types of
hedging devices described in details.
Chapter 3: Methods and Procedures
This chapter discusses the methods of research and research procedures. In
addition, data collection, data analysis and research procedures are also
presented.
Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion
This chapter discusses the results of the study from the collected data based
on the two research questions mentioned above. The statistic of occurrence
frequency, the category and the functions of the hedging devices in the
speeches and remarks of President Biden are provided.
Chapter 5: Conclusion and Implications
This chapter summarizes the main findings of the research, present the
limitations of the study, give implications and put forward some suggestions
for further research.


7

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews previous studies and provides some theoretical
concepts related to the problem under investigation. It attempts to explore the
notion of hedging devices, types of hedging devices and meanings of hedging
devices.
2.1. AN OVERVIEW OF HEDGES AND PREVIOUS STUDIES
Lakoff (1972) set the foundation in the field of hedges with his article
Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts. Lakoff
was interested in the linguistic phenomena used to talk about the more peripheral
members of broad concept categories. To illustrate the practical possibility of
studying such linguistic terms in terms of logical properties and to address the
questions involved in such analyses, Lakoff carefully studied a group of words
and phrases like rather, largely, in a manner of speaking, very that he regarded
as hedges in ―making things fuzzier or less fuzzy‖ (1972: 213).
Lakoff (2008) develops hedges including vocabulary, voice, tone, style,
and syntactic structure. Lakoff further explained that the linguistic feature often
used is hedges like you know, I mean, well, and used to express a
―lack of confidence or show any expression of uncertainty or tentative
sentences‖. Later, many other linguists followed Lakoff‘s theory and further
studied them in many other works including Brown & Levinson (1987), Hyland
(1996, 1998), Myers (1989), Nash (1990), Salager-Meyer (1994), and so on.
Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) study hedges as devices to avoid
disagreement. They use hedges as a strategy or an expression of negative
politeness in face-saving. Halliday and Hasan (1985) state hedges as


8
modifiers of the speaker‘s or writer‘s commitment to the truth-value of a
whole proposition, not just the category membership of a part of it. Halliday

and Hasan, Kopple (1985) considers the use of hedges as showing a lack of
full commitment to the propositional content of an utterance such as perhaps,
seem, might, to a definite extent as modifying the truth-value of the whole
proposition, not as making individual elements inside it more imprecise.
Salager-Meyer

(1997)

considers

hedges

as

several

different

grammatical forms, namely Auxiliary Verbs Model, Modal lexical verbs,
Adjectival, adverbial, and nominal modal phrase, Approximator, Introductory
phrases, If-clauses, and Compound hedges. The ways of expressing hedging
are researched to convey opinions of the writers or speakers to negotiate an
accurate representation of the knowledge under discussion.
Furthermore, hedging devices draw much attention from researchers.
Many doctoral dissertations, master theses and journals investigate hedging
devices in various aspects. Gribanova & Gaidukova (2019) studied hedges in
their journal with the title ―Hedging in different types of discourse.‖ The article
explores discourse features of some of the most common hedges observed in
modern English and apply Prince et al.‘s (1982) classification of hedges into
approximators (modify the propositional content conveyed in the utterance)

and shields (modify the truth value of the utterance) to analyse hedging
behaviour in two discourse genres. Azizah (2021) researched the articles
named ―Hedges Function in Masculine and Feminine Feature‘s Language.‖
The aim of the article is to explore the gender language features proposed by
Coates (2013) proposed in Lakoff's theory (1975) by investigating language
features based on gender and use the taxonomy of the hedging strategy. The
results of the study show that male-female language features can be expressed
by the opposite gender by the use of hedges and strategies.


9
In Viet Nam, hedges devices are studied in a doctoral dissertation
entitled ―hedging devices in English and Vietnamese economic research
articles (ERAs)‖ by Phạm Thi Thanh Thuy (2008). The research was carried
out on the feature in the written discourse of economics with a systematic
analysis including linguistic forms and a pragmatic explanation for their use
was given. The main purposes of the thesis are to characterize the common
extent, functions and major forms of hedging in one particular genre: economic
research articles. Her thesis was conducted based on an analysis of authentic
written articles to give the concept within academic strategies for modifying
illocutionary force. The research not only described the distribution of surface
forms used in hedge in English and Vietnamese research articles but also
identified the framework underlying rhetorical choices. The findings provided
teachers of English for Specific Purposes in general and of economics in
particular better understandings of hedging. Therefore, they can assist their
students in understanding economic texts as well as writing texts and
commitments to the notion of language use were emphasized.
Ngo Thi Minh Trang (2012) researched hedging devices entitled
―Conditional clauses used as hedging devices in English and Vietnamese
equivalents: A pragmatic perspective‖. Her research have been conducted to

study English conditional in light of syntactics, semantics, and pragmatic
functions, especially in Vietnamese context. Therefore, her study was done to
offer the detailed analysis of conditionals in light of pragmatics. The chosen
data was taken from a well-known novel. Both qualitative and quantitative
approaches were applied in her research. The findings showed that
conditional clauses are used in English to refer real and hypothetical
conditions as well as their consequences. In addition, they are also used in
spoken contexts where the if-clause often stands alone and is independent of


10
the main clause as a hedging device to issue politeness.
The study contributed to the area of pragmatic studies on analyzing
conditionals used in language basing on the Cooperative Principle and
Politeness Theory. The finding broadened the understanding of pragmatic
functions of conditional in real communication. The study also provided the
educators and their students with the clear explanations of pseudoconditionals such as ―If you like… If I may interrupt…‖. Above all, the study
offered learners a couple of ways to express politeness in communication
thanks to the use of pseudo conditionals. These ways were expected to be
helpful for those who are interested in translating English conditionals into
Vietnamese ones and vice versa.
Nguyen Thi Thanh Huyen (2012) investigated the linguistic devices of
hedges and major pragmatic functions of identified hedges in conversations in
the novel of Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell. The study was carried
out based on taxonomy of hedging devices by Yu (2009) and poly pragmatic
paradigm of hedges by Hyland (1998). The study revealed that four main
hedging categories were used in the conversations in the novel, namely,
modal hedges, performative hedges, quantificational hedges and pragmaticmarker hedges. Besides, there are also other minor types of tag questions,
subjunctives and depersonalization. The findings showed that three main
functions that identified hedging devices fulfill are speaker-orientation,

accuracy-orientation and hearer-orientation.
Do Thi Kim Cuc (2013) researched hedging devices named ―A study of
the linguistic features of hedging devices in lectures in English‖ based on the
theory of speech act classification by Yule and the Cooperative Principles by
Grice. In her study, hedging devices are frequently used on the side of
teachers to get their communicative purpose. For instance, the teacher often


11
uses some hedging devices such as ―kind of‖ or ―sort of‖ to make his
definition more acceptable as in Cat is a kind of animals that has four legs.
Likewise, some patterns such as It is said that….or I am told that…. may be
used to inform that the information that he is giving is not said by other
people. The investigation is carried out both qualitative and quantitative
approach collected in 32 lectures in 4 volumes of Lectures to her students
website. The data was carefully analyzed and synthesized in order to find out
the occurrences and classification of hedges according to the existing
taxonomy of hedges. The findings made a contribution to investigate the
linguistic features of hedge devices in lecturers, which helps non-native
teachers and students have a better insight into hedging devices used in
lecturers in English as well as use hedges more efficiently in communication.
Moreover, there is a big difference in the expressions of speaking and writing.
Therefore, the learners need to have a sufficient knowledge and understanding
about hedges and speech acts to identify them in various situations.
Ngo Thi Anh Hoa (2014) also investigated the use of quantifiers as
hedges in her thesis called ―A study of the English quantifiers as hedges used
in theses by MA students of English at the University of Languages and
International studies, Vietnam national, HaNoi‖. The research was conducted
on the data of 10 MA English theses of ULIS. In order to find out the
frequencies of using quantifiers in MA theses as well as to explore the

pragmatic meanings of quantifiers used as hedges in these theses, she
combined the uses of quantifiers in English theses and their roles as hedging
devices in academic writing. Then, the finding is given by quantitative and
qualitative research based on the combination of observation, description and
discussion in the light of pragmatics. The finding will be helpful for MA
Vietnamese students to know how to use quantifiers in written English in


12
general and theses in particular.
All the researches mentioned above show that hedging devices have
been investigated in various domains and perspectives; however, none of
these above has discussed hedging devices in speeches by President Joseph
Biden on the COVID-19. Therefore, this thesis makes an attempt to contribute
to further researches relating to hedging devices and to fill the gap in this
research area.
2.2. DEFINITIONS OF HEDGES
Hedges have been given different definitions by different scholars
during the past few decades. According to Lakoff (1972), from the point of
view of language philosophy, the term hedges/ hedging dealt with the logical
properties of words and phrases like rather, largely, in the manner of
speaking, very with the ability of making thing fuzzier or less fuzzy. He
defined hedges as follows: ―for me some the most interesting questions are
raised by the study of words whose meaning implicitly involves fuzziness –
words whose job is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy. I will refer to such
words as hedges.” (471). Later on, Lakoff's pioneering opinions have been
further developed by a number of linguists. They have generally adopted a
broader view on hedging, considering it not only a semantic phenomenon but
also a pragmatic one making a great contribution to the interpersonal function
of language.

Holmes (2008) explains a different viewpoint than Lakoff and other
research work. Hedges are expressed as an act of politeness and solidarity
with the interlocutor, rather than as a form of expressing uncertainty when
conveying a speech, and as a connect tools to the type of the conversation
topic, to neutralize the sensitivity of the assertions. The hedges devices can
range from a single lexical item to syntactic structures, which do not ease the


13
form of establishing a definition and hedges can appear alone or in clusters.
Martin-Martin (2008) further describes hedges as the linguistic and contextual
aspects of the situation. This function can be easily analyzed in daily
conversations, interviews, or in a debate. In events dealing with the speech,
several lexical hedges will be explored.
According to Schmidt (1974: 622), one reason that speakers do not
show certainty of what they say is that they want to indicate only the criteria
or type of criteria they find important at that time.

Holmes (1982)

demonstrates that hedges are devices which lessen the force of an utterance
thereby attenuating or reducing the strength of the utterance or softening/
weakening the effect of the utterance. In addition, she supports the idea that
hedges are for positive politeness. Bonano (1982: 36) states hedges in simpler
words. Hedges are used to express their uncertainty about something or state
something uncertain, and are words or phrase which carry the speaker‘s
uncertainty.
Brown & Levinson (1987: 145) defined the term ―hedge‖ as a
particular word or phrase that modifies the degree of the membership of a
predicate or a noun phrase in a set it says of that membership that it is partial

or true only in a certain respect, or that it is more true and complete than
perhaps might be expected. Moreover, Holmes (1995) claims that hedges are
used by women as an act of politeness and solidarity with the interlocutor,
rather than as a form of expressing uncertainty when delivering a speech.
Holmes also stated that speakers use hedges in their speech to make it easier
for the interlocutor to understand the speaker's meaning.
Salager-Meyer (1994:150) defined hedges as phrases associated with
―purposive vagueness and tentativeness.‖ Hyland (1998) defined hedge as the
linguistic devices used qualify a speaker‘s confidence in the truth of a


14
proposition. Hedges (think, perhaps, might and maybe) express tentativeness
and possibility in communication. Hinkel (2004) defines hedges as lexical
communicative properties used in various linguistic forms including verbs
(mental and emotive), adjectives, adverbs, modal, and conjunctions.
Hyland (1998: 5) defines hedging 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.‖ Crystal (2008)
considers hedges as ―an application in pragmatics and discourse analysis of a
general sense of the word (to be noncommittal or evasive) to a range of items
which express a notion of imprecision or qualification‖.
Richards and Schmidt (2010) further explain hedges as ―a mitigating
device which is dedicated to decrease the impact of an utterance.‖ Yu (2009:
69) defined hedge as ―a word, particle or phrase modifying another linguistic
unit (such as a predicate or a noun), category membership, or an element of
an utterance, to make the modified part more vague (in term of face value) or
more precise (in term of the speaker‗s intendment).‖ In this case, hedge works
rather locally on part of an utterance or proposition.
Fraser (2010) claims that hedging is ―a part of pragmatic competence

through which speakers are able to communicate in any sociocultural context
and to interpret intended message effectively‖. By using hedges, speakers
have somewhat a limited conviction to any convince from their utterance.
Schneider (2011) also explains that ―hedging is one of strategies used to
succeed ones‘ conversation,‖ and ―hedging is a communicative strategy
which is observable in formal monologues such as scientific presentation,
business talks, and highly popular speeches.‖
Coates (2013) considers hedges as ―I think, you know, I'm sure, sort of,
perhaps is a form of linguistics used to express uncertainty when


15
speaking.‖ Hassani and Razmdideh (2019) defines hedges as terms not also
express the assessments of reliability and appropriate but the social
interactions as well. In this study, the author will focus mainly on the
viewpoint of Brown & Levinson (1987) and Salager-Meyer (1994). i.e.
hedging refers to any linguistic means used to indicate either a) a lack of
complete commitment to the value of an accompanying proposition, or b) a
desire not to express that commitment categorically.
2.3. TYPES OF HEDGES
In this section, the researcher has adopted hedging devices classified by
different taxonomies in the previous studies. Developing ideas of Lakoff
(1972), Prince, Frader and Bosk (1982) classified hedging into Approximators
and Shields. According to Prince, Frader and Bosk (1982), Approximators are
defined as hedges affecting the content of the propositions but they do not tell
us anything about the writers/ speakers commitment. Their typical example
was ―His feet were sort of blue” in which ―sort of” affects the truth value of
the propositional content (i.e. his feet may or may not be blue), but it does not
imply that the speaker is less than fully committed, or committed in some
marked way to the truth of the proposition. Meanwhile, Shields are hedges

which do not affect the truth meaning of the related statements. Hedging
devices in the second group can be recognized by signals marking the writers‘
commitment (e.g. I think, I believe, I guess, It seems that…). For instance, in
this example ―we think many other SLA researchers would gladly embrace
it”, the phrase ―we think” signals that the writer has implied that he/she does
not really commit to the truth value of the statement.
Based on a combination of hedge features, Salager-Meyer (1994)
divided hedges into five-type, including (1) Shields: modal verbs, semiauxiliaries, probability adverbs and adjectives and epistemic verbs, (2)