(Luận văn) a comparative study of politeness strategies in the presidential debate 2016 between hillary clinton and donald trump

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
QUY NHON UNIVERSITY

NGUYỄN VÕ Ý NHI

an

lu
n

va
p
ie

gh
tn

to
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES
IN THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE 2016 BETWEEN

d
oa
nl

w
do

HILLARY CLINTON AND DONALD TRUMP

oi

m
ll

fu
an

v
an
lu
nh

M.A THESIS IN ENGLISH

at
z
z
@
om

l.c

ai

gm
an

Lu

Binh Dinh, 2019

n

va
a
th
c
si


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
QUY NHON UNIVERSITY

NGUYỄN VÕ Ý NHI

lu
an

M.A THESIS IN ENGLISH

va
n

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN THE

AND DONALD TRUMP

p
ie

gh
tn

to

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE 2016 BETWEEN HILLARY CLINTON

d
oa
nl

w
do

FIELD

: English Linguistics

CODE

: 8.22.02.01

fu
an

v
an
lu
oi

m
ll

Supervisor: TRẦN THỊ MINH KHÁNH, Ph.D.

nh
at
z
z
@
om

l.c

ai

gm
an

Lu

Binh Dinh, 2019

n

va
a
th
c
si

BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC QUY NHƠN

NGUYỄN VÕ Ý NHI

an

lu
n

va
p
ie

gh
tn

to

SO SÁNH CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ TRONG TRANH LUẬN
TRANH CỬ TỔNG THỐNG MỸ 2016 GIỮA HILLARY

d
oa
nl

w
do

CLINTON VÀ DONALD TRUMP

v
an
lu

: Ngôn ngữ Anh

Mã số

: 8.22.02.01

oi

m
ll

fu
an

Chuyên ngành

nh
at
z

z

Người hướng dẫn: TS. TRẦN THỊ MINH KHÁNH

@
om

l.c

ai

gm
an

Lu

Binh Dinh, 2019

n

va
a
th
c
si


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
I honestly declare this thesis “A comparative study of politeness strategies in
the presidential debate 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump” is
my own work. This thesis does not contain the work or parts of the work of
other people, except those cited in the quotations and the references.

an

lu
n

va

Quy Nhon, July 2019

p
ie

gh
tn

to
w
do

Nguyễn Võ Ý Nhi

d
oa
nl
oi

m
ll

fu

an

v
an
lu
nh
at
z
z
@
om

l.c

ai

gm
an

Lu
n

va
a
th
c
si


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I gratefully acknowledge my deep indebtedness to all of my teachers
who have provided me with useful and interesting lectures, which have helped
me to lay the foundation for this thesis.
I respectfully express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Mrs Trần
Thị Minh Khánh, Ph.D., for her great guidance, valuable encouragement as

lu
an

well as comments on the thesis, which makes me possible to complete the

va

thesis before the due date.

n
gh
tn

to

I would also like to send my gratutide to Quy Nhon University, Postgraduate Department, and Foreign Languages Department.

p
ie

Finally, I would like to thank my beloved parents for my supports

d
oa

nl

w
do

throught my life.

oi

m
ll

fu
an

v
an
lu
nh
at
z
z
@
om

l.c

ai

gm

an

Lu
n

va
a
th
c
si


ABSTRACT
The study focused on investigating linguistic politeness devices and providing
a comparison of gender-related differences between between Hillary Clinton
and Donald Trump in using politeness devices namely hedges, boosters and
tag questions. The paper is theoretically based on the view of gender-related
politeness by Holmes (1995). The study was carried out through the adoption

lu
an

of quantitative, qualitative, analytic, synthetic, and descriptive methods. The

va

findings showed that linguistic politeness forms of hedges, boosters and tag

n
gh

tn

to

questions were employed by both candidates. However, there were
differences in the use of linguistic realizations of politeness between the male

p
ie

and female. The candidates tend to use more hedges than boosters and tag

w
do

questions. Hillary Clinton in the presidential debate tends to use more hedges

d
oa
nl

than Donald Trump. With regard to Boosters, the total amount of boosting
devices produced by Trump is higher than that of Clinton. Besides, Trump

v
an
lu

used the tag question in some cases, Clinton hardly used it. This difference

oi

m
ll

fu
an

results from gender-related features of language usage.

nh
at
z
z
@
om

l.c

ai

gm
an

Lu
n

va
a
th

c
si


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ABSTRACT

an

lu

TABLE OF CONTENTS

n

va

LIST OF TABLES

1.1. Rationale ................................................................................................. 1

p
ie

gh

tn

to

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1

1.2. Aim and objectives .................................................................................. 2

w
do

1.2.1. Aim of the study ............................................................................... 2

d
oa
nl

1.2.2. Objectives of the study ..................................................................... 2

v
an
lu

1.3. Research questions.................................................................................. 3

fu
an

1.4. Significance of the study ......................................................................... 3

oi

m
ll

1.5. Scope of the study.................................................................................... 3
1.6. Definitions of terms in the study ............................................................. 4

nh

at

1.7. Organization of the thesis ....................................................................... 4

z
z

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................... 6

@
gm

2.1. Politeness and Gender ............................................................................ 6

ai

om

l.c

2.2 Gender-related differences in the use of linguistic politeness forms...... 7
2.2.1 Hedges.............................................................................................. 10

Lu

an

2.2.2 Boosters............................................................................................ 16

n

va
a
th
c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

2.2.3 Tag questions ................................................................................... 17
2.2. Summary of hedges, boosters and tag questions .................................. 21
2.3. Previous research ................................................................................. 23
2.4. Summary................................................................................................ 25
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE ........................... 27
3.1. Research methods ................................................................................. 27

lu

an

3.2.The United States presidential debates of 2016 .................................... 27

va
n

3.2.1.The candidates ................................................................................. 28

3.3.Data collection ....................................................................................... 31

p
ie

gh
tn

to

3.2.2.The debates ...................................................................................... 30

w
do

3.3.1. Sampling of the study ..................................................................... 32

d
oa
nl

3.3.2. Population of the study ................................................................... 32

3.4. Data analysis......................................................................................... 32

v
an
lu

3.5. Research procedures ............................................................................. 33

fu
an

3.6. Summary................................................................................................ 33

m
ll

CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ......................................... 34

oi
nh

4.1. Overview of hedges, boosters and tag questions in presidential debates

at

...................................................................................................................... 34

z

z

@

4.2. Hedges in the presidential debates ....................................................... 36

gm

4.2.1. Hedges in the first presidential debate ............................................ 36

l.c

ai
om

4.2.2. Hedges used in the second presidential debate ............................... 47

an

Lu

4.2.3. Hedges in the third presidential debate........................................... 55
4.2.4. Summary ......................................................................................... 63

n

va
a
th
c

si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

4.3. Boosters used by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the presidential
debates.......................................................................................................... 64
4.3.1. Boosters in the first presidential debate .......................................... 64
4.3.2. Boosters in the second presidential debate ..................................... 67
4.3.3. Boosters in the third presidential debate......................................... 69
4.3.4. Summary ......................................................................................... 71

lu
an

4.4. Tag questions used by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the

n

va

presidential debates ..................................................................................... 71

4.4.2. Tag questions in the second presidential debate............................. 74

p
ie

gh
tn

to

4.4.1. Tag questions in the first presidential debate ................................. 72

4.4.3. Tag questions in the third presidential debate ............................... 75

w
do

4.4.4. Summary ......................................................................................... 75

d
oa
nl

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS.......................... 77

v
an
lu

5.1. Conclusions ........................................................................................... 77

fu
an

5.2. Implications........................................................................................... 79

oi

m
ll

5.3. Limitations ............................................................................................ 80
5.4. Suggestions for further research........................................................... 80

nh

at

REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 81

z
z
@
om

l.c

ai

gm
an

Lu
n

va
a
th
c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page
number

Title

number
4.1

34

Frequency of hedges, boosters and tag questions
used by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the

an

lu

presidential debates

n

va

Hedges in the first presidential debate

36

4.3

Modal auxiliaries in the first presidential debate

37

4.4

The adverbs (perhaps, conceivably, probably,

40

maybe) as hedging devices in the first presidential

p
ie

gh
tn

to

4.2

w
do

41

The group of hedging devices (Um, Uh, Oh, Ah,

d
oa
nl

4.5

debate

Well, Yeah, Yes) in the first presidential debate

v
an
lu

44

Pragmatic particles in the first presidential debate

4.7

Hedges used in the second presidential debate

47

4.8

Modal auxiliaries in the second presidential debate

48

4. 9

The adverbs (perhaps, conceivably, probably and

oi

m
ll

fu
an

4.6

nh

50

at

maybe) in the second presidential debate

z

51

The group of hedging devices (Um, Uh, Oh, Ah,

z

4.10

@

gm

Well, Yeah, Yes) in the second presidential debate
53

ai

Pragmatic particles in the second presidential debate

4.12

Hedges in the third presidential debate

4.13

Modal Auxiliaries in the third presidential debate

om

l.c

4.11

55

Lu
an

56

n

va
a
th
c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

4.14

The adverbs (perhaps, conceivably, probably and

58

maybe) in the third presidential debate
4.15

The group of hedging devices (Um, Uh, Oh, Ah,

59

Well, Yeah, Yes) in the third presidential debate

an

lu
n

va
p
ie

gh
tn

to

Pragmatic particles in the third presidential debate

61

4.17

Boosters in the first presidential debate

64

4.18

Boosters in the second presidential debate

67

4.19

Boosters in the third presidential debate

69

4.20

Tag questions in the presidential debates

72

4.21

Tag questions in the first presidential debate

72

4.22

Tag questions in the second presidential debate

74

Tag questions in the third presidential debate

75

w
do

4.16

4.23

d
oa
nl
oi

m
ll

fu
an

v
an
lu
nh
at
z
z
@
om

l.c

ai

gm
an

Lu
n

va
a
th
c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, all the preliminaries of the thesis are introduced. It starts
with the rationale of the research, followed by its aim and objectives of the
study and research questions. It continues with the significance of the study
and the scope of the study. The organization of the present study is presented

lu
an

in as the last part of the chapter.

n

va

1.1. Rationale

gh
tn

to

People of both genders cannot live without using a particular language to
communicate. Thus, language is considered as one of the most important

p

ie

elements in communication. According to Finegan: “language is often defined

w
do

as an arbitrary vocal system which is used by human to communicate with

d
oa
nl

one another” (2008). With the use of language, people can convey their ideas
and their opinions to others in order to create an interaction between them and

v
an
lu

the society. After all, language is the method of communication that
distinguishes us from animals as well as differentiates between one individual

fu
an

and another, and gender of the speaker. It should be noted that there are many

m
ll

social factors that influence laguage use. Gender difference is one of the

oi

nh

factors that plays a role in language use as stated by Holmes - “Gender is just

at

one social variable which intersects with other social categories and groups

z

z

that people belong to” (1995:10). During the last few decades, gender

@

gm

differences in language use have been widely discussed in many academic

l.c

ai

studies. It is noticeable that there are significant and consistent differences in

om

communication styles between men and women. In the last two decades,

Lu

linguists have analyzed a plenty of evidence related to differences between

an

men and women in their use of politeness strategies. Although linguists have

n

va
a
th
c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

2

examined different models of politeness and gender, their studies have been
challenged over the years. It seems possible that women and men may have

different perceptions of appropriate linguistic behaviors in different contexts.
Generally, women tend to express positive and negative politeness more often
and more explicitly than men (Holmes, 1995: 6). In fact, there are many
studies having been conducted regarding Gender and Politeness strategies. I
am also interested in knowing the true facts about the differences of

lu
an

utterances used by women and men. Hence, this inspired me to conduct a

n

va

research on gender-related politeness strategies in the presidential debate with

gh
tn

to

the topic: “A comparative study of politeness strategies in the presidential
debate 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.” The aim of this

p
ie

study is to find out dissimilarities in using politeness forms between these

w
do

male and female politicians. This study is expected to contribute to their

d
oa
nl

understanding of gender-related politeness devices in social reality and its
connection to language and interaction.

v
an
lu

1.2. Aim and objectives

fu
an

1.2.1. Aim of the study

The study is carried out with the aim to investigate linguistic forms which

m
ll

may be specified as gender-related politeness strategies such as hedges,

oi

nh

boosters and tag questions - being used in the presidential debate 2016

at

between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

z
z

1.2.2. Objectives of the study

@

gm

To achieve the aim of the study, the research will focus on the following

l.c

ai

objectives:

an

Lu

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

om

+ To find out politeness devices used in the presidential debate 2016 between

+ To provide a comparison of gender-related differences between Hillary

n

va
a
th
c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

3

Clinton and Donald Trump in using politeness devices.
1.3. Research questions
To achieve the aims and objectives mentioned above, the thesis concentrates
on answering the following questions:
1. What are the politeness devices in the presidential debate 2016 between
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?

2. What is the frequency of occurrence of these politeness devices?

lu
an

3. What are the similarities and differences in using politeness devices

n

va

between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?

gh
tn

to

1.4. Significance of the study
Findings of this study are expected to provide some insights in politeness

p
ie

strategy and gender-related politeness devices include including hedges,

w
do

boosters and tag questions that may be useful as the following:

d
oa
nl

- To show the readers gender-related politeness devices including hedges,
boosters and tag questions.

v
an
lu

- It is expected that the finding can be useful for orther researchers to make
more positive contributions to the theory of gender-related politeness.

fu
an

- It can also be useful for English Department Students as a contribution to

m
ll

their understanding of gender-related politeness devices in social reality and

oi

nh

its connection to language and interaction.

at

- By studying the politeness strategy, people are more aware of and pay more

z

z

attention to the application of politeness in their communication such as more

@

om

l.c

1.5. Scope of the study

ai

sentences in expression of ideas.

gm

carefulness in determining the choice of words, phrases, clauses, and

Lu

This study concentrates on linguistic forms which may be specified as gender-

an

related politeness devices include hedges, boosters and tag questions.

n

va
a
th
c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

4

1.6. Definitions of terms in the study
 Hedges
A hedge is a mitigating word, sound or construction used to lessen the
impact of an utterance due to constraints on the interaction between the
speaker and addressee, such as politeness, softening the blow, avoiding the
appearance of bragging and others. Typically, they are adjectives or adverbs,
but can also consist of clauses such as one use of tag questions. It could be

lu
an

regarded as a form of euphemism. Hedges are considered in linguistics to be

n

va

tools of epistemic modality; allowing the speaker to signal his or her degree

items into multiple categories, where items can be in a certain category to an
extent. Hedges can also be used to politely give commands and requests to

p
ie

gh
tn

to

of confidence in a connected assertion. Hedges are also used to distinguish

d
oa
nl

w
do

others. ( /> Boosters

v
an
lu

A term that serves to amplify or strengthen an utterance, such as “really”.
( />
m
ll

fu
an

 Tag questions

oi

A tag question is a constituent that is added after a statement in order to

nh

request confirmation or disconfirmation of the statement from the addressee.

at

z

Often it expresses the bias of the speaker toward one answer.

z

@

( />
l.c

ai

gm

1.7. Organization of the thesis

The study will be organized in five chapters as follow:

om

Chapter 1 Introduction

Lu

an

This chapter covers the rationale, aims and objectives, research questions, the

n

va
a
th
c

si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

5

significance of the study, scope of the study and the organization of the study.
Chapter 2 Literature review
This chapter presents an overview of politeness and gender and gender-related
differences in the use of linguistic politeness forms. Besides, previous studies
related to this research area are also summarized in order to indicate a gap for
the study.
Chapter 3 Methodology and procedure

lu
an

This chapter comprises research methods, procedures of the study, description

n

va

of samples, data analysis.

gh
tn

to

Chapter 4 Findings and discussion
This chapter describes the results of analyzing data to find out gender-

p
ie

related politeness devices include hedges, boosters and tag questions - used

w
do

in the presidential debate 2016 between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton

d
oa
nl

and gender-related differences in the use politeness strategies in the debates
and speeches of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the presidential

v
an
lu

debate 2016.

Chapter V: Conclusion

fu
an

A summary of the study, major findings, implications, limitations as well as

m
ll

suggestions for further studies are all mentioned in this final chapter.

oi
nh
at
z
z
@
om

l.c

ai

gm
an

Lu
n

va

a
th
c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

6

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter begins with a brief overview of some concepts including
Politeness and Gender and gender-related politeness devices including
hedges, boosters and tag questions. The last part of this chapter is concerned
with a review of previous, relevant studies.

an

lu

2.1. Politeness and Gender

va

The relation between language, gender and politeness has been the interests of

n

many sociolinguists. Lakoff (1973) is renowned for her work on language and

gh
tn

to

gender. She called attention to the differences between the speech of men and

p
ie

women. Her claim inspired many scholars to do investigations in this field.

w
do

Although the term gender refers to a male-female distinction, it is a social
concept, discussed in the field of sociolinguistics. According to Segal (2004,

d
oa
nl

p3) “gender is taken to refer to a culturally based complex of norms, values

v
an
lu

and behaviors that a particular culture assigns to one biological sex or
another.” Concerning the relation between gender and politeness, many

fu
an

investigations have been done; amongst them are the works of Lakoff (1975),

m
ll

Brown and Levinson (1987) and Montgomery (1998). According to Lakoff

oi

(1975), women’s speech seems more polite than men’s. Besides, she claimed

nh

at

that men are taught to speak more politely with women than with other men.

z

Women’s language style is characterized by the use of elements such as

z

@

“hedges, tentativeness, tag questions which show indirectness, mitigation and

gm

l.c

ai

hesitation” and male speech is characterized as “direct, forceful, confident
using features such as direct, unmitigated statements and interpretation” (cited

om

in Mills (2003). Montgomery (1998) also claimed that both male and female

Lu

an

speakers use polite language when speaking to women. On the whole

n

va
a
th
c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

7

investigations show that females are often marked for using more polite
structures than men. These beliefs have been challenged by some researchers.
One of the opponents of such research and findings is Mills (2003). She
believed that such judgments are just personal assessments. It seems that
societies have changed and the relation between men and women is not the
same as in the past. There are women who speak roughly and rudely to men
and vice versa. Mills (2003) argued that certain practices that are considered

lu
an

to be polite are in fact “stereotypically gendered” and not based on the truth

n

va

(p. 202). Many investigations on politeness and gender done on European

gh
tn

to

countries show that women are more polite than men; however, politeness
strategies are used differently in various cultures, so, they are better to be

p
ie

examined basing on different cultural perspectives. Every individual in a

w
do

society is a complex of certain characteristics and experiences and often it is

d
oa
nl

not easy to determine factors of language in behaviors.
2.2 Gender-related differences in the use of linguistic politeness forms

v
an
lu

Linguistic politeness means recognizing the autonomy of others and avoiding

fu
an

intrusion (negative politeness), as well as emphasizing connectedness and
appreciation (positive politeness). In particular, in western cultures, polite

m
ll

oi

people avoid being too forceful or direct (Holmes 1995: 24). In general, many

nh

linguists have concluded that women’s linguistic behaviours can be

at

characterized as more polite than those of men (Brown 1980, Tannen 1991,

z
z

Holmes 1995, Coates 1998).

@

ai

gm

Positive politeness strategies outlined by Brown and Levinson include

om

l.c

intensifying interest, using in-group identity markers, seeking agreement,
presupposing or asserting common ground, offering or promising, giving or

an

Lu

asking for reasons while negative politeness strategies comprise conventional
indirectness, questions, hedges, indirectness, deference, apology, and

n

va
a
th
c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

8

impersonalizing (1987: 102,131). As Holmes (1995) stated women are much
more likely than men to express positive politeness in the way they use
language and women’s utterances show evidence of concern for the feelings
of people they are talking to more often and more explicitly than men’s do.
In English, there are infinite ways of expressing linguistic politeness, such as
a greeting, a compliment, an apology, the use of hedges. Among them, hedges
are commonly defined as “linguistic forms which dilute an assertion; for

lu
an

example: sort of, like, I think and kind of” (Wareing 2004: 88). This definition

n

va

also indicates that speakers do not want to sound completely certain about

gh
tn

to

something by using several linguistic forms such as modal auxiliary verbs
(should, would, could, may, might) and other words, such as perhaps, maybe,

p
ie

really. Therefore, hedges are linguistic forms which express the speaker’s

w
do

uncertainty, and they weaken or reduce the force of an utterance as well as

d
oa
nl

soften its effect (Coates 2004: 88). Besides, other labels for ‘hedges’ are
‘downgraders’ (House and Kasper 1981), ‘compromisers’ (James 1983),

v
an
lu

‘downtoners’ (Quirk et al.1985), ‘weakeners’ (Brown and Levinson 1987),

fu
an

and ‘softeners’ (Crystal and Davy 1975) (quoted in Holmes 1995: 73).
To illustrate this, Holmes (1995) conducted a study on New Zealand women’s

m
ll

oi

and men’s use of different forms of politeness, such as hedges, boosters, and

nh

pragmatic particles. In Holmes’analysis of strengthening and reducing

at

linguistic devices in New Zealand, linguistic devices which reduce the force

z
z

of an utterance are generally labeled “hedges”, while those which increase its

@

gm

force can be called “boosters”. Generally, hedges and modal forms are more

l.c

ai

exploited by women than men (Wareing 2004). For example, women tend to

om

use lexical items you know, I think and sort of more often than men do, and

an

Lu

the more frequent use of hedges (sort of, kind of) has been identified as a
characteristic of women’s speech (Yule 2006: 224). In addition, hedges are

n

va
a
th
c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

9

also used by women more often than men as politeness devices to facilitate
discussion (Preisler 1986). As shown in Holmes, women tend to use
pragmatic particles such as you know, I think, sort of, of course more
frequently than men do to express positive politeness (1995: 87). However,
the examination of the distribution of instances of ‘I think’ by New Zealand

women and men showed that there was no difference in the overall frequency
of this pragmatic particle, while women used ‘I think’ as a politeness device

lu
an

in a range of contexts, almost all of the male examples were instances of male

n

va

teachers softening an alternative suggestion or disagreeing utterance

gh
tn

to

addressed to a pupil (Holmes 1995: 94).
Similarly, Brown’s analysis of strengthening and weakening particles in

p
ie

Tenajapa argues that “particles which weaken an utterance can be seen to play

w
do

a role in negative politeness and those particles which strengthen an utterance

d
oa
nl

can be seen to play a role in positive politeness” (Mills 2003: 209).
Accordingly, it is noticeable that in Mayan communities, when women speak

v
an
lu

to women, in general, they use more strengthening particles than men speaking

fu
an

to men. In particular, the use of the particle ‘a little’ as a diminutive which
functions both as a negative politeness element when used by males and as a

m
ll

positive politeness used by female. Additionally, “the use of ‘a little’ is also

oi

nh

seen to be a characteristic of women’s speech” (Mills 2003: 209).

at

In general, hedges and boosters may fundamentally affect the perception of an

z
z

utterance as polite or not. Unlike boosters, which reinforce rather than express

@

gm

positive politeness, hedging devices may in themselves be the main focus of the

l.c

ai

expression of negative politeness in different kinds of utterances. Even though

om

boosters do not in themselves express positive politeness, they may contribute to

an

Lu

the expression of positive politeness in utterances (Holmes 1995: 77).

n

va
a
th
c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

10

2.2.1 Hedges
The term “hedging” is a complex area of linguistics studies obviously
concerns with linguistics aspects such as pragmatics, semantics, logic and
linguistic philosophy. Moreover, the concept of hedging can be defined in
different ways in accordance with those fields.
From the pragmatic perspectives, Brown and Levinson (1978) argue that hedges
are not limited to the content or on the explicit performative expressions but also

lu
an

act “on illocutionary force and speaker commitment in general”.

va
n

A hedge is a linguistic device that generally reduces the force of an utterance,

gh
tn

to

and softens the effect of the statement. Other labels for “hedges”, as mentioned
in Holmes (1995: 73), are “downgraders” ( House and Kasper 1981,

p
ie

“compromisers” (James 1983), “downtoners” (Quirk et al. 1985), “weakeners”

w
do

(Brown and Levinson 1987) and “softeners” (Crystal and Davy 1975).

d
oa
nl

Hedging can function as both positive and negative politeness devices
(Holmes 1995: 77-78). Positive politeness is respecting and avoiding threats

v
an
lu

to the positive face, and it is typical of rather informal and intimate situations

fu
an

as it emphasizes the solidarity between the speaker and the addressee (Brown

m
ll

& Levinson 1987: 70; Holmes 1995: 14, 20; Brown 1998: 85). Negative

oi

politeness, on the other hand, is avoidance-based as it wishes to respect other

nh

people’s claims for their territories and avoids intruding. Acts of negative

at

z

politeness are thus ways of showing others this respect for their freedom of

z
@

action. (Brown & Levinson 1987:70.)

gm

The use of hedges as politeness devices has also been considered by other

ai

om

l.c

researchers, such as Brown and Levinson (1987) and Coates (1987). But to
label these linguistic forms as solely politeness devices would not be

Lu

an

sufficient or accurate; hedges can also be used to facilitate the addressee, or

n

va
a
th

c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

11

focus on the accuracy of the information provided in a statement. According
to Talbot “We use hedges to avoid stating things categorically, to avoid
sounding too dogmatic and sure of ourselves” (2010: 85). However, hedges
are multifunctional, and the context has to be taken into consideration. While
analyzing hedges, such as sort of and I think, in a context, Holmes found that
these linguistic devices had complex functions. According to Holmes “They
are used differently in different functions. They mean different things

lu
an

according to their pronunciation, their position in an utterance, what kind of

n

va

speech act they are modifying and who is using them to whom in what

gh

tn

to

context” (2008: 303).
Additionally, there are many different ways of reducing the illocutionary

p
ie

force of an utterance, and hedging is performed by using a number of

w
do

linguistic devices. Hedging devices include modal verbs (i.e could, might,

d
oa
nl

may, would, should), lexical items (such as perhaps) and three pragmatic
particles usually regarded as hedges ( sort of, you know and I think,) .

v
an
lu

 Modal auxiliaries: may, might, can, could, should, will, would, must

fu
an

Modal auxiliaries: may, might, can, could, should, will, would, must,

m
ll

particularly in their epistemic senses. Modal verbs reflect the speaker’s

oi

attitude and help them express ideas indirectly, which makes modal verbs

nh

perfect candidates as hedging devices. Moreover, they allow speakers to be

at

z

fuzzy about an informational content, avoid face threatening acts and

z

@

formulate illocutions so as not to offend the hearer.

ai

gm

May/might

om

l.c

The modal auxiliaries may and also its preterite form might have often been
considered as the prototypical hedging devices (Hyland 1998: 116). This is

Lu

an

evident from the relatively high frequency of use of these modals found in

n

va
a
th
c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

12

this study and in Hyland (1998) and Varttala (2001) as well as in those
reported in Hyland (op. cit.:107). May can be used to express epistemic and
non-epistemic modality.
Can/Could
The auxiliary verb can seems to be very problematic in terms of its pragmatic
analysis because while most modals have two different types of meaning (root
and epistemic), can does not seem to allow epistemic reading in affirmative

lu
an

sentences. Affirmative can thus expresses primarily a deontic/intrinsic

va

meaning (permission, possibility, and ability) (Hyland 1998:109). Despite

n
gh
tn

to

these claims, it has been argued that can can be successfully used as a hedge
that weakens the strength of an assertion and also helps the authors to avoid

p
ie

personal responsibility for their statements:

w
do

Example: This [the omission and the colloquial register] can have an impact on

d
oa
nl

the answer […]

v
an
lu

Meyer notes that this example would be, interpreted as understating the
certainty of its truth and that the reducing of the degree of certainty to a mere

fu
an

possibility may be read as a weakening of the assertion (Meyer 1997: 36).

m
ll

According to Huschová (2014: 94), in such cases, can expresses in root

oi

possibility and thus convey what is circumstantially possible and can be

nh

at

interpreted in terms of enabling conditions. Therefore, it seems that the

z

phenomenon of hedging does not have to be necessarily strictly limited to

z
@

epistemic modality.

gm

l.c

ai

Could may standardly express epistemic sense of tentative possibility
(paraphrasable with I believe / perhaps). Furthermore, can and could often occur

om

with passive voice (Biber et al. 1999: 499) and in these cases can and could is

Lu

an

used to avoid overt identification of the human agent of the main verb.

n

va
a
th
c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

13

Will/would
Like may and might, will and its past tense form would can also be used to
express epistemic and non-epistemic modality. Will is more commonly used
to express epistemic meaning than non-epitemic meaning. Turning now to

would, like will, it is more commonly used as an expression of epistemic
modality than deontic or dynamic modality.
Should

an

lu
As an expression of epistemic modality, should indicates a somewhat extreme

va
n

possibility, or a reasonable assumption or conclusion; it is therefore possible

gh
tn

to

that the speaker is mistaken (Palmer 1990: 59). Consequently, such use of
should can be treated as a hedging device because it expresses “a tentative

p
ie

assumption, assessment of probability, based on facts known to the speaker”

w
do

(Coates 1983: 64).

d
oa
nl

Must

v
an
lu

Must is used to express confident inference based on deduction from the facts
available (Hyland 1998:106).

fu
an

Example: I suggest therefore that D1 degradability must be causally linked

oi

m
ll

to Q

nh

B site occupation which in turn determines PEST region accessibility to

at

protease through allosteric effects. […] (Hyland 1998:109)

z
z

The epistemic use of must is often paraphrasable by “I am sure”, thus the

@

gm

author expresses a (high) degree of certainty that “degradability” surely is

l.c

ai

causally linked to the other phenomenon, a proposition, that is based on

om

previous evidence (notice the conjunction “therefore”).

an

Lu

 Lexical verbs with modal meanings

n

va
a
th
c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

14

Lexical devices used to signal the speaker's lack of confidence or to assert
something tentatively are described as hedges such as possible, might, and
perhaps. This may be to show doubt and indicate that information is
presented as opinion rather than fact, or it may be to convey deference,
humility, and respect for colleagues' views (Hyland 1998: 351).
 Three pragmatic particles usually regarded as hedges ( sort of, you
know and I think)

lu
an

Coates (2004), said “Hedges are linguistic forms such as I think, I’m sure, you

va

know, sort of, and perhaps which express the speaker’s certainty or

n
gh
tn

to

uncertainty about the proposition under discussion” (p.88). Another linguist,
Holmes, also stated her opinion about hedges. Holmes (1995) did not use the

p
ie

term “hedges”. She used the term “pragmatics particles”. Three pragmatic

Sort of

d
oa
nl

w
do

particles usually regarded as hedges are sort of, you know and I think.

The same complexity emerged in the analysis of the pragmatic particle sort of

v
an
lu

(Holmes 1988a, 1989a). Sort of is a pragmatic particle with a range of

fu
an

functions in different contexts. Like other pragmatic particles, sort of

m
ll

expresses both referential meaning (degrees of certainty) and affective

oi

meaning (politeness). Consequently, comparing their use as politeness devices

nh

by women and men involves careful analysis. They provide an interesting

at

z

contrast in that sort of is typically a hedge occurring in informal contexts.

z
@

Example 1: Female interviewee describing experiences at school to female

l.c

ai

gm

interviewer.

the others sort of trail along and sort of aren’t considered same

om

an

from his party who has been causing him problems.

Lu

Example 2: Prime Minister in a TV interview commenting on a young MP

n

va
a

th
c
si

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn