ASSIGNMENT PRAGMATICS

HA NOI OPEN UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ENGLISH
-------oOo--------

ASSIGNMENT
PRAGMATICS

Hà Nội- 2015

1


CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................1
1. Rationale......................................................................................................................1
2. Scope of the study .......................................................................................................1
3. Aims of the study.........................................................................................................2
4. Methodology ..............................................................................................................2

SOME BRIEFT ABSTRACTS.....................................................3
II. Theoretical background...............................................................................................3
1. Hedging........................................................................................................................3
2. Hedges and Speech Acts..............................................................................................4
3. Invitation decline and hedges in invitation declining..................................................6

III.HEDGING STRATEGIES IN INVITATION DECLINING
IN VIETNAMESE AND AMERICAN ENGLISH.....................8
CONCLUSION............................................................................14
REFERENCES............................................................................15

2

INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
An emphasis on language as a communication system is really necessary in
an age of globalization. Understanding social conventions and attention to
such concepts as politeness, and face, which are important to members in a
particular culture, will certainly enable us to better comprehend the different
ways of speaking by people from different cultures, thus helping eliminate
ethnic stereotypes and misunderstandings. There have been so far plenty of
researches on the field of politeness from various perspectives. Yet, hedging
in language is still an area available for more exploration. This research,
therefore, has chosen hedging as a potential subject. Hedging is very broad
area, and within the limit of the study, it is impossible to discuss all aspects
of hedging in language. As declining an invitation is an act with high risk of
making the hearer loses face, it requires different supplementary steps to
reduce the weightiness of the utterance. This is where hedging can mostly be
seen. That is the reason why hedging in invitation declining is chosen for the
project. This study has focused on comparing American and Vietnamese
cultures, with the hope to pay a humble contribution to the people who the
thesis author has owed so much for their love and support: colleagues and
students. For any of those purposes, the study promises to make itself
meaningful, reliable and applicable to the reality.
2. Scope of the study
- The study has been done from the perspective of pragmatics where
Vietnamese and American hedging in invitation declining is analyzed as
speech acts in particular contexts. However, semantic and syntactic theories
are employed at times to help better analyze different hedging strategies.
1

- Hedging is known available in both spoken and written language. Yet, in
this research, the focus will be paid on hedging in spoken language only.
3. Aims of the study
The main aims of the study are to:
• find out the similarities and differences in the way Vietnamese and
American people hedge when declining an invitation.
• help avoid potential cross-cultural conflicts between Vietnamese and
American speakers, with focus on the proper use of hedging in invitation
declining.
4. Methodology
The questionnaire is designed carefully basing on some hypothesis with both
close-ended and open-ended questions. The data collected will then be
analyzed to find out the similarities and differences in hedging an invitation
decline between the American and the Vietnamese from different
perspectives, age, gender, power, distance, and circumstance. The
evaluations and comments on the results, hence, are made inductively.

2


SOME BRIEFT ABSTRACTS
II. Theoretical background
1. Hedging
There have been so far two main approaches about hedging. The term
“hedge“ / “hedging” itself was introduced first by G.Lakoff (1972) in his
article “Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy
Concepts” . Lakoff argues that the logic of hedges requires serious semantic
analysis for all predicates. He defines hedges as follow: For me, some of the
most interesting questions are raised by the study of words whose meaning

implicitly involves fuzziness – words whose job it is to make things fuzzier
or less fuzzy. I will refer to such words as “hedge” (1971: 195).
Later on, hedging has been viewed from the perspective of pragmatics. The
concept of hedge/hedging is understood in different ways in the literature.
Hedges have been referred to as compromisers (James, 1983), downtoners
(Quirk at all, 1972, 1985), understatements (Hubler, 1983), weakeners
(Brown and Levinson, 1987), downgraders (House and Kasper, 1981),
softeners (Crystal and Davy, 1975), backgrounding terms (Low, 1996),
approximators and shields (Prince at all, 1982) and pragmatic devices
(Subble and Homes,1995), mitigators (Labov and Fanshel, 1977, Stubbs,
1983), Tentativeness (Homes, 1983, 1995) and vagueness (Channell, 1994).
Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), dealing with politeness in verbal
interaction from the point of view of pragmatics, viewed hedges as a device
to avoid disagreement. Brown and Levinson (1987: 145) define “hedges” as
a particle, word or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a
predicate or noun phrase in a set; it says of that membership that it is partial,

3


or true only in certain respects, or that it is more true and complete than
might be expected (1987: 146) Vietnamese linguists such as Nguyen Thien
Giap (2000), Hoang Phe (2002), Nguyen Quang (2003) also view hedging as
a pragmatic phenomenon. Hoang Phe is his Vietnamese Dictionary states
that “hedges are expressions which are preventive from (unexpected)
misunderstanding and reaction/responses to what is said” .According to
Nguyen Quang (2003), hedging is a strategy used simply to hedge the
propositional content.
In this paper, we mainly view hedging from pragmatic perspective. In
pragmatics, the concept of hedging is mainly linked to the concept of speech

act and politeness phenomena. A hedge is either defined as one or more
lexico – syntactical elements that are used to modify a proposition, or else,
as a strategy that modifies a proposition. A hedge can appear before or after
a proposition. The term “hedging” is used to refer to the textual strategies of
using linguistic means as hedges in a certain context for specific
communicative purposes.
2. Hedges and Speech Acts
Hedging, when being viewed from pragmatic perspective, is surely linked to
a very common pragmatic perception: speech act, as speech act is “one of
the central phenomena that any general pragmatic theory must account for”
(S.C Levinson, 1983: 226).
So what is a speech act? In fact, speech act theory is built on the foundation
laid by Wittgenstein set forth with an idea called “ordinary language
philosophy”. He believed that the meaning language depends on its actual
use.Language, as used in ordinary life, is a kind of “language games”

4


because it consists of rules.In other words, prople follow rules to do things
with the language.
It was in this same period that Austin launched his theory of speech acts. He
insisted that “The total speech act in the total speech situation is the only
actual phenomenon which, in the last resort, we engaged in elucidating”
(1962: 147) . John Searle (1965) is also one of the linguists much concerned
with the theory. According to Searle, to communicate is to express a certain
attitude, and the type of speech act being performed corresponds to the type
of attitude being expressed. For example, a statement expresses a belief, a
request expresses a desire, and an apology expresses regret. As an act of
communication, a speech act succeeds if the audience identifies, in

accordance with the speaker’s intention, the attitude being expressed. That is
why to understand the speaker’s intention. Since language is intentional
behavior, it should be treated like a form of action. Thus Searle refers to
statements as speech acts. The speech act is the basic unit of language used
to express meaning, at utterance that expresses an intention. Normally, the
speech act is a sentence, but it can be a word or phrase as long as it follows
the rules necessary to accomplish the intention. When one speaks, one
performs an act. Speech is not just used to predicate something, but it
actually does something.
Though making a statement may be the paradigmatic use of language, there
are all sorts of other things we can do with words. We can make requests,
ask questions, give orders, make promises, give thanks, offer apologies, and
so on. Speech act stresses the intent of the act as a whole. According to
Searle, understanding the speaker’s intention is essential capture the
meaning. Without the speaker’s intention, it is impossible to understand the
words as a speech act.
5


Hedging, therefore, can be treated as speech acts, as hedging is set up to
perform intentions and to express the attitudes of the speakers, for examples:
to made an excuse, a question, to give thanks, apologies, promises, ect. The
act of hedging can consist of different means, including hedging devices (or
hedges).
3. Invitation decline and hedges in invitation declining
It is noticed that normally, an invitation decline is a set of speech acts.
According to Murhy an Neu (1996), a speech act set is a combination of
individual speech acts that, when produced together, comprise a complete
speech act. Often more than one discrete speech act is necessary for a
speaker to develop the overarching communicative purpose – or

illocutionary forces – desired.
When declining an invitation we commit an act of refusal, as the word
decline itself, according to the Longman Dictionary, means “refuse to
accept”. However, declining an invitation sometimes is not simply saying no
to an invitation. When declining an invitation, speakers might produce
different individual speech acts, for example, (1) an expression of regret,
“I’m so sorry”, followed by (2) an excuse “I’m out of town on business next
week”, followed by (3) a direct refusal, “I can’t come to your wedding
party”. In this case, to perform one communicative purpose of declining an
invitation, the speaker is employing a speech act set, which consists of many
other individual speech acts.
In the example above (1) and (2) are hedges which combine with the direct
refusal to make up a speech act. They play as individual speech acts in the
whole set.

6


Within the larger act of communicating something, Austin (1965) identifies
three component speech acts:
- The locutionary act – the act of saying something as might be reported
in direct or indirect discourse.
- The illocutionary act as would be performed in saying something –
acts of proposing, promising, apologizing, ect,.
- The perlocutionary act identified primanly in terms of the outcome or
consequences of a communicative effort.
Of

these three classes, the illocutionary act counts as Austins great

discovery.

7


III.HEDGING STRATEGIES IN INVITATION DECLINING IN
VIETNAMESE AND AMERICAN ENGLISH
As said earlier, in this study, hedging in invitation declining in Vietnamese
and American English is mainly viewed from pragmatic perspective. It is
seen as politeness strategies to minimize the threat to face. Basing on the
analysis of the data collected from Vietnamese and American informants,
the hedging techniques in invitation declining can be put into seven main
strategies namely: Delaying, Showing Contrition, Giving Excuses, Showing
Esteem, Blaming the Partners, Giving an Alternative, and Mixing Different
Ways.
Followings are seven main strategies and their examples taken from the
survey answers by both Vietnamese and American participants.
Strategy 1: Delaying
Delaying, or being suggested as Humming and Hawing technique in the
questionnaire, is a commonly – used verbal strategy to hedge the main part
of an invitation decline. In this situation the S is aware that his/her refusal to
the invitation contains a threat to the H’s face. Delaying, therefore, is
employed, firstly, to show the speaker’s hesitation and reluctance when
declining; and secondly, to allow the speaker sometime to find the best
words for the decline so that the hearer will get less hurt.
Delaying can be categorized into 4 types:
- Preface is one delaying tactic to help the speaker start their decline in the
safest and most tactful way. This tactic can be performed with adverbs and
interjections such as: well, actually, um, nah, yeah…in American English,
and: à, m, quả là…in Vietnamese.

Examples:
+ Actually…I have something going on that date.
8


+ Well…thanks. But I don’t think I can go.
+ Nah, man, I don’t really want to go.
+ M…Chiều nay tớ về quê mất rồi.
(Um…I’m going to my homeland this afternoon)
+ …Chắc tớ không đến được rồi…
(Err…Perhaps I can’t come)
- Doubt and hesitation: The purpose of showing doubt and hesitation is to
give the hearer one feeling that the speaker is not sure about the decline, that
maybe he/she will come and maybe not. This tactic, therefore, gives the H a
ray of hope about the presence of the S.
Examples:
+ I don’t know if I can go, perhaps not, thanks for the invite.
+ Yeah, I probably will not be able to make it…
+ Em cũng chẳng biết có đến được không.Hôm nay nhà có việc.
(I’m not sure if I can come.I have some family affair that day)
+Xem đã…Chắc là không đến được.Thằng cu ốm vẫn chưa khỏi.
(Let me see…Perhaps I can’t come. My little son is still ill)
- Mitigation:
With the use of mitigations such as sort of, kind of…in American English
and có khi là in Vietnamese can reduce the force of the decline, as they can
soften the seriousness of the refusal.
Example:
+ Aw, I’m sort of busy today, maybe another time.
+ Hôm ý có khi là khó đấy.Đám cưới con ông bác cũng trùng vào ngày đấy,
mới mời đây chứ.

9


(It seems impossible that day. My cousin’s wedding is on that day, too)
- Appealing for understanding:
This is a positive politeness strategy, as the speaker try to involve the
listeners into his party, by supposing that they know all the troubles from the
speaker’s side.The expressions which are often used are: You see…, You
know…in American English and Anh xem…, Anh thấy đấy…in Vietnam.
Examples:
+ Gee, you see…I gotta finish this damn report this evening.
+ Trời ơi, anh xem…con vợ em cứ về muộn lại làm um lên.
(Gosh, you see, my wife is always fussy whenever I come home late)
Strategy 2: Showing regret
The aims of this strategy, say, showing regret, are to express how the S fells
regretful when declining an invitation. By this strategy, the S also means that
he/she really would like to accept the invitation but for unwanted reasons
they have to decline. It is used to appeal for the H’s understanding and
showing apology.
- Expressing regret:
* Oh! Gosh!/ Aw…What a pity!/ Unfortunately, what a shame!/ I wish…
* Trời ơi…/ Chán quá…/ Tiếc nhỉ…/ Giá mà…
Examples:
+ Aw, what a shame! It must be so much fun…
+ Tiếc quá, hôm nay tôi có hẹn mất rồi…
(What a pity! I have got an appointment today)
- Saying sorry
Examples:
+ Gosh! Iam sorry. We can’t attend it.
10

+ Hôm nay cho em cáo lỗi với sếp. Hôm nay, em còn phải về sớm đón con.
(I’m afraid I have to say sorry, boss. Today, I have to leave early to pick up
my kid)
Strategy 3: Giving excuses
It is obvious that excuses, is a vital part when declining an invitation. Its aim
is to make the hearer clear about the reason(s) for the decline. The excuses
can be the truth or lies. One common tactic to give a persuasive excuse is to
make it non-personal, and the other way is to mention a previous personal
arrangement. By these ways, the S can appeal for the hearer’s sympathy,
thus, may partially make the S faultless and reduce the force of the decline.
- Making the excuse personal
Examples:
+ I am really sorry, but I’m kind of tired. And I have to wake up early for
work tomorrow.
+ Tiếc thật đấy, nhưng hôm ý sếp lại phái tớ xuống Hải Phòng rồi.
(Oh! What a pity! My boss will send me to Hai Phong on that day)
- Mentioning a previous personal arrangement
Examples:
+ I’m sorry, but I have plans already.
+ Hôm nay tôi lại có tí việc không thể hoãn được.
(Oh! Today, I have some work that I can’t be postponed)
Strategy 4: Expressing Esteem
Being aware of the risk of making one lose face when declining an
invitation, speakers can choose the strategy of giving the listeners a face, i.e.
making them to feel great first. One effective way to do this is to show how
you appreciate the partner’s invitation. This can guarantee that the speakers
can safety commit the FTA – declining invitations afterwards.
11

Three common ways to show esteem before declining an invitation that will
be mentioned are: (1) expressing thanks, (2) expressing interest and (3)
expressing surprise.
- Expressing thanks: Giving thank is an easy and common way to show
appreciation to the invitations.
Examples:
+ Thanks for thinking of me, but I’m really swamped at the moment.
+ Cảm ơn chị. Nhưng có lẽ em không đến được rồi.
(Thank you. But I probably will not be able to come)
- Expessing interest: S can show their interest and concern for invitation by
giving good comments on it or showing enthusiasm for it.
Examples:
+ How nice are the couple! But I’m afraid I can’t make it that day.
+ Chúc mừng nhé! Nhưng hôm đấy chắc anh chị không đến được.
(Congratulation! But I don’t think I can come that day)
- Expressing surprise: Showing a nice surprise is also a good way in
expressing your concerns for the invitation.
Examples:
+ Oh, really! What’s a nice surprise!
+ Cái gì? Cậu quyết định cưới bao giờ vậy?
(What? When did you decide to get married?)
Strategy 5: Blaming the partner
It sounds like the speaker is going to do another FTA. In fact, this is a
positive politeness strategy, as it shows the intimacy between the S and the
H.Blaming the partner is not aimed at making the hearer feel bad. It is a very
tactful way to remind the hearer that the speaker has regarded him/her as a
close person so far, so as to ask for their sympathy more easily.
12

Examples;
+ Why didn’t you tell me before about this? I wouldn’t have already made
plans for that date.
+ Trời ơi! Sao khéo chọn lúc em bận thì mời?
(Gosh, why do you only invite me when I am busy?)
Strategy 6: Giving an alternative
Giving an alternative, in this case, is considered as the compensation for the
FTA of declining an invitation. The S hopes, by giving an alternative, he/she
can make up for the face lost of the H and therefore, can also soften the
effect of an invitation refusal.
- Giving an offer
Examples:
+ What night? Tuesday? Gosh, man, I am sorry.I have an idea. Why don’t
you come to our house for dinner another time? We would love to share a
good meal with you.
+ Vợ tôi sẽ đến giúp cậu chuyện đám cưới.Còn tôi chắc không đến được.
(My wife will come and give you a hand wit the preparation for the
wedding. But I don’t think I can come)
- Making a promise
Examples:
+ Maybe next time I probably will not be able to make it.
+ Lấn sau nhé.Hôm nay mình bận mất rồi.
(Maybe another time.Today, I am busy)
Strategy 7: Mixing different ways
Sometimes hedging in in vitation declining can be formed by one single
hedge. In other cases, it is formed by a cluster of hedges. Strategy 7, in fact
is the mixture of several strategies mentioned above. As discussed in the
13

theoretical background section, an invitation decline is mostly a speech act
set, which contains different individual speech acts. Strategy is the cases
when speaks employ more than one strategy at a time to hedge their refusal.
Example: + Wow, good news! Unfortunately, I have got something planned
before. I don’t think I can come.
In the case, hedging contains different hedges: Showing appreciation,
Showing regret and Giving excuses.
+ Thứ 7 à! Cậu để mình xem đã. Chắc tớ sẽ đến mừng hạnh phúc cậu ngày
hôm trước.T hứ 7 tớ có việc rất quan trọng không thể bỏ được.
(Saturday? Where? Let me see. Perhaps I will come to congratulate you the
day before because I have a very important work on Saturday)
In this decline, there is a mixture of: Showing esteem, Delaying, Giving an
alternative, and Giving excuse.

CONCLUSION
In the research, hedge in invitation declining has been viewed in the light of
pragmatics.
It is seen as speech acts that are employed to avoid the risk of making the
hearers lose their face. In this research, hedging in invitation declining has
been limited in office setting.
Seven main hedging, strategies have been found, including declaying,
showing regret, giving excuses, showing appreciation, blame the partner,
giving an alternative, and mixing different ways. Such factors as gender,
age, power, distance of the speakers and the hearers and the formality of the
events have been explored to find the differences in the use of hedges to
decline an invitation between Vietnamese and American people.

14

REFERENCES
1. Lakoff (1972), A study in meaning criteria and the Logic of fuzzy
concepts.
2. Zadeh (1972), Fuzzy-set-theoretic interpretation of linguistic hedges.
3. Nguyen Thien Giap (2000), Vietnamese linguists.
4. Hoang Phe (2002), Vietnamese Dictionary.
5. Ludwig Wittgenstein (1985), Philosophical Investigations.
6. G, Kasper & S, Blum-Kulka (1993), An Introduction. New York,
Oxford: OUP
7. Tran Ngoc Them (1991), Cơ sở văn hóa Việt Nam.Ha noi: Education
Publishing House
8. Le Quang Thiem (2004), Nghiên cứu đối chiếu các ngôn ngữ. Ha noi: Ha
noi National University Publisher.

15