A study on the use of hedging devices in conversations in the story harry potter and the sorcerer’s stone by j kk rolling

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES
____________

ĐINH THỊ HUYỀN TRANG

A STUDY ON THE USE OF HEDGING DEVICES IN
CONVERSATIONS IN THE STORY “HARRY POTTER AND THE
SORCERER’S STONE” BY J.K. ROLLING.
NGHIÊN CỨU VIỆC SỬ DỤNG PHƯƠNG TIỆN RÀO ĐÓN TRONG CÁC HỘI
THOẠI TRONG TRUYỆN “HARRY POTTER VÀ HÒN ĐÁ PHÙ THỦY”CỦA
J.K.ROLLING.

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 02 01

Hanoi – 2016


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES
____________

ĐINH THỊ HUYỀN TRANG

A STUDY ON THE USE OF HEDGING DEVICES IN
CONVERSATIONS IN THE STORY “HARRY POTTER AND THE

SORCERER’S STONE” BY J.K. ROLLING.
NGHIÊN CỨU VIỆC SỬ DỤNG PHƯƠNG TIỆN RÀO ĐÓN TRONG CÁC HỘI
THOẠI TRONG TRUYỆN “HARRY POTTER VÀ HÒN ĐÁ PHÙ THỦY” CỦA
J.K.ROLLING.

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 02 01
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Hoàng Văn Vân

Hanoi – 2016


CANDIDATE’S STATEMENT
I hereby certify that the thesis entitled
A study on the use of hedging devices in conversations in the story “Harry Potter
and the Sorcerer’s Stone” by J.K. Rolling is the result of my own research for the
Degree of Master of Arts at Vietnam National University, Hanoi University of
Languages and International Studies (ULIS) and that this thesis has not been submitted
for any assessment in any other formal courses of study elsewhere.
Hanoi, 2016

Đinh Thi ̣Huyề n Trang

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In my complement of my thesis, I have received generous advice and a great

deal of support from a number of people. Firstly, I would like to express my sincere
thank to my supervisor. Prof. Dr. Hoàng Văn Vân for his invaluable guidance,
constructive critical feedback and his generous help in the process of completing my
thesis.
My special thanks also go to all my respected lecturers in the M.A course for
their informative and valuable lectures and the administrative staff of the Department
of Post Graduate Studies, ULIS, for their help, guidance, enthusiasm and valuable
support during my course of study.
Finally, I owe my deep thanks to my dear family, especially my mother, my
younger sister for their love, material and spiritual support throughout this research
and my friends who always stand by me with their consideration and encouragement.

ii


ABSTRACT
The research aims to investigate the use of hedge devices employed in the story
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer‟s Stone by J.K. Rolling, being one of the most bestselling and famous story over the world. The methods chosen for this research were
quantitative and qualitative which emerged the frequency of hedging appearing in
conversations by main characters and explained how they were used. To find out the
answers to all research questions, the research supplies readers a foundational
knowledge of hedging through literature review section. By dint of methodology
section, the author can conclude the findings that modal verbs, modal lexical verbs and
conditionals as well which create strong effects in conversations in the story Harry
Potter and the Sorcerer‟s Stone.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENT

CANDIDATE’S STATEMENT ................................................................................... I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... II
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. III
TABLE OF CONTENT ..............................................................................................IV
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... VI
PART A: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
1. Statement of the Problem and the Rationale of the Study ....................................... 1
2. Significance of the study ...................................................................................... 2
3. Aim, objectives and scope of study ....................................................................... 2
3.1. Aim of study ..................................................................................................... 2
3.2. Objectives of study ........................................................................................... 2
5. Research questions ............................................................................................... 3
6. Organization of study ........................................................................................... 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................................ 5
1. Review on hedge ................................................................................................. 5
1.1.1. Towards understanding hedging ...................................................................... 5
1.1.2. Hedge as a pragmatic phenomenon ................................................................. 6
1.3. Related studies .................................................................................................. 7
1.4. Taxonomy ........................................................................................................ 8
CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY ................................................................................ 14
2.1. Data ............................................................................................................... 14
2.2. The data collection criteria .............................................................................. 15
2.3. Research methods ........................................................................................... 15
2.4. Data collection procedure ................................................................................ 16
2.5 . DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................... 16
2.5.1. Modals verbs ............................................................................................... 16
2.4.2. Modal lexical verbs ...................................................................................... 21

iv

2.4.3. Conditionals ................................................................................................. 24
2.4.4. Approximators ............................................................................................. 26
2.4.5. Adjectives, adverbs and nominal modal phrases ............................................ 32
2.4.7. The use of hedge devices .............................................................................. 37
PART C: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS .............................................. 40
3.1. Major findings of the research ......................................................................... 40
3.2. Implications of the study ................................................................................. 42
3.4. Suggestions for further studies ......................................................................... 42
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 44
APPENDIX.................................................................................................................... I

v


LIST OF TABLES
Figure 1: The use of modal verbs as hedge devices.................................................................. 17
Figure 2: The occurrence of modal verbs as hedges per 1,000 words .................................... 17
Figure 3: Raw Data of Modal Lexical Verbs ........................................................... 21
Figure 4: Modal Lexical Verbs per 1,000 words. ..................................................... 22
Figure 5: The use of conditionals as hedges .............................................................................. 24
Figure 6: Conditionals per 1,000 words ..................................................................................... 24
Figure 7: Raw Data of Approximators ....................................................................................... 27
Figure 8: Normalized Data Of Approximator of Degree, Indefinite Quantity, Indefinite
Frequency and Time per 1,000 words. ....................................................................................... 28
Figure 9: Normalized Data of Adjectives, Nouns and Adverbs per 1,000 words. ................ 34
Figure 10: Raw Data of Introductory Phrases ........................................................................... 36
Figure 11: Introductory Phrases per 1,000 words ..................................................................... 36
Figure 12: Concluding Data of All Hedge Devices Analyzed in the Research ..................... 38

vi


PART A: INTRODUCTION
This part presents rationale for the study which consists of 6 sections:
(1) State the problem and the rationale of the study. (2) and (3): Clarify the
significance, aims, objectives and the scope of study as well. (4): Provide the scope
and limitation of study. (5): Propose the research questions. (6): Brief organization of
study.
1. Statement of the Problem and the Rationale of the Study
Literary works are considered as a device to reflect real world. Through
masterpieces in each previous, the latter generations can fill in historical atmosphere,
which draw a cultural picture and previous lifestyles expressed by how they
communicate or their conversation ways. Although precise plays an important role in
impart information speakers, sometimes, wish to imitate their utterances by the use of
hedges.
There is no doubt that the definition of hedges is controversial. The concept of
hedges was firstly put forward by American linguistic George Lakoff (1972: 485). In
his paper, hedge was defined as “words whose job is to make things fuzzier and less
fuzzy”. However, there are some scholars who favor the use of hedging in
communication (e.g Hyland, 1998; 1995). Drawing inxspiration from classical
rhetoric, they operate on the assumption that conversations are not only contentoriented and informative but also aim at convincing and influencing their listeners.
Many researchers recently have paid attention on the use of hedging in academic
writing, which highlights the functions of hedges to persuading audiences. However,
merely discourse writing does not reflect pragmatic functions of hedging totally
because there is no interaction in this kind of text. Therefore, I investigate the use
hedges in conversations in a present story – Harry Potter and the Scorer’s stone by J.K.
Rowling which partly devotes to research pragmatic functions in real conversations
which recorded in written forms.

1


The study is conducted by finding out the meanings of hedge devices related to
the literary works, in this case story, which presents the analysis of hedges used by the
main characters in a novel namely Harry Potter and the Scorer‟s stone .
2.

Significance of the study
Theoretically, due to investigating how hedges are used in the story Harry Potter

and the Sorcerer‟s Stone, this can be a theoretical foundation for the latter studies
hedges in other genres. The outcome of this study raises the interest and enthusiasm of
other researchers to deal with the hedges articles in their own institutions, or conduct
similar, follow- up and parallel studies to strengthen or prove the outcome of this
present research.
Practically, by dint of finding out the use of hedges in real conversations through
the story Harry Potter and the Sorcerer‟s Stone, the author hopes to draw and raise the
speakers’ attention to this spoken devices which partly cements their communication
skills.
3. Aim, objectives and scope of study
3.1. Aim of study
To soften daily conversations, we unconsciously use hedges as a speaking
habit. By dint of being aware of the appearance of hedge in speaking, the author
desire to explore the meanings of hedge devices used in conversations in Harry Potter
and the Sorcerer‟s Stone.
3.2. Objectives of study
The main objectives of this analysis aims to show that hedging is regularly used
in daily conversations; especially provide in insight in types, frequency and meanings

of hedges in the story Harry Potter and the Sorcerer‟s Stone.
To achieve the above mentioned aims, the following objectives are acutely set for
exploration:
+ Find out the types of hedges used in conversations in Harry Potter and the
Sorcerer‟s Stone.
2


+ Measure the frequency of hedges used in conversations in Harry Potter and the
Sorcerer‟s Stone.
+ Explain the use of hedges device in conversations in Harry Potter and the
Sorcerer‟s Stone.
4, Scope and limitation
This study deals with determining the forms and functions of various hedges
devices in conversations in the story Harry Potter and the Sorcerer‟s Stone.
The study is used both quantitative and qualitative method through content or
corpus analysis. These articles were gathered from conversations in Harry Potter and
the Sorcerer‟s Stone.
5. Research questions
- What are the most common types of hedge devices in Harry Potter and the
Sorcerer‟s Stone?
- How often does each device occur in conversations in Harry Potter and the
Sorcerer‟s Stone?
- How are the hedge devices used in the story explained?
6. Organization of study
This thesis consists of three parts, namely introduction, development and
conclusion.
Part A is introduction which provides an overview of the study including the
rationale,the aims, methods, the scope, the significance and the design of the study.
Part B, Development, includes three distinguishable chapters.

Chapter 1, Literature Review, reviews theoretical background on which the
whole study is based concluding terminological definitions and taxonomies of hedge.
Chapter 2, Methodology, briefly presents the methodological framework of the
study. It covers methods to carry the research.
Chapter 3, findings and discussion, presents findings and discusses how hedge
devices used in conversations in the story Harry Potter and the Sorcerer‟s Stone.
3


Part C, Conclusion, provides a summary of the study; summarizes significant
findings in terms of types, frequency and meanings of the hedges used in the story
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer‟s Stone; suggests some implications for the use of
hedges; points out some limitations of the study; and states some suggestions for
further studies.

4


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter provides the theoretical orientations of the study. It consists of
three sections: (1) Review on hedge; (2) Taxonomy; (3) Related studies. Section 1
presents a review of hedge. Section 2 provides a picture of related studies, and section
three presents different types of hedge.
1. Review on hedge
1.1. 1. Towards understanding hedging
According to Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary, hedge and hedging can be
defined as a barrier, limit, defence, or the act, or means of protection or defense. In the
literature, hedge refer terms like stancemarker (Atkinson, 1999), understatement
(Hubler, 1983), downtoners (Quirk, 1985), and downgraders (House and Kasper,

1981). Other terms that some researchers employ in some allied fields to refer to
hedging are mitigation (Stubbs, 1983; Labov and Fanshel, 1977), indirectedness
(HIkel, 1997; Lakoff, 1990; Tannen; 1982), tentativeness (Holmes, 1983), and
vagueness (Myer, 1996; Chanel, 1994).
Lakoff who was considered as the pioneer experiencing principals of hedging
drew attention to the problem of relating natural phenomenon to natural language
concepts. In his studies, Lakoff claims that natural language (concepts) have “vague
boundaries and fuzzy edges” (1973, 458). Instead of stating: Men are animals, we add
hedge “more and less” to this sentence Men are more and less animals. It is obvious
that by adding hedge, the form of the original sentence becomes softer as well as
fuzzier about the sentence meaning.
The forms of hedges have later been defined by Brown and Levinson
(1978:145) as “a particle, word or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a
predicate or a noun phrase in a set; it says of that membership that it is partial or true
only in certain respects, or that it is more true and complete than perhaps may be
expected”. This definition is interesting in that it includes in hedges both detensifiers
and indetensifiers.
5


As to the motivation for the use of hedges, a lot of discussion has concentrated
on their use in spoken discourse and the most frequently mentioned motivating factor
is politeness, as defined by Brown/ Levinson (1987). In their view, hedges are mainly
used for negative politeness in face- saving, in which they are put to elaborate use. In
positive politeness they figure only in expression of extreme, which is typical of this
form of politeness, “safe vague” because they leave it to the addressee to figure out
how to interpret them. In negative politeness strategies hedges are usedto hedge on the
illocutionary force of an utterance.
In conclusion, there are many views of using hedge which first included some
disadvantages of using hedging in various discourses and disciplines such as medicine,

chemistry, economics, psychology as well as politics; however, the understanding of
what a hedge is has also been changed since the first definition “fuzzy” to the
definition of “politeness”. As a result, there are number of various definitions on the
phenomenon of hedging.
1.1.2. Hedge as a pragmatic phenomenon
In recent studies deal with hedging, interpersonal aspect has been raised prominent.
According to Zuck and Zuck (1985, 172) defined that using hedge in news writing could
reduce the strength of what he is writing, in some cases, the information reported turns out
incorrect. In another cross- linguistic study of hedges in philosophical texts, Markanen and
Schroler (1978, 48) emerged hedging as a strategy of saying less than what one means.
Honestly speaking, in this case, hedge is presented as a strategy used to modify writers’
responsibility for the truthfulness of an utterance, to modify the definiteness of an utterance,
and to modify the attitude of the author to the propositions put forth in the text or even to hide
the attitude. Crismore and Vaude Kopple (1988; 185) also determined hedges as items that
signal a tentative or cautious assessment of the truth of referential, which allow senders to
reduce their responsibility toward information presented. All of these assertions above
undoubtedly capture some essential discourse function of hedging. However, to explore the
communication situation and the relationships between discourse participants as well, we
need to carry out the issue of linguistic politeness.
The notion of linguistic politeness first received attention in Grice’s studies on
conversational maxims where he suggested that, in order to account for language use in
6


context, a politeness maxim should perhaps be added to the well- known maxims he had
established within his cooperative principle (i.e. maxims of quality, quantity, relations, and
manner). In Robin Lakoff’s elaboration of Gricean maxims, she demonstrates that underlying
our behavior during linguistic interactions are two basic areas of linguistic competence, one
area being realized by adhering to the principle of clarity and the other by observing the
principle of politeness. In Leech theory (1983), politeness may be realized by weighing one’s

linguistic behavior against a group of maxims whereby speakers can minimize hearer cost and
maximize hearer benefit (tact maxim), minimize their own benefit and maximize that of
hearer (generosity maxim), minimize hearer dispraise and maximize hearer praise
(approbation maxim), minimize seft-praise and maximize seft- dispraise (modesty maxim),
minimize disagreement and maximize agreement between oneseft and others (agreement
maxim), and minimize antipathy and maximize sympathy between oneseft and others
(sympathy maxim)

In contrast to Lakoff and Leech, Brown and Levison (1987/1978) developed a
seemingly different approach to the study of linguistic politeness. While Robin Lakoff
and Leech had been interested in politeness as a part of a system of conversational
principles, Brown and Levinson looked at politeness as a systemic feature of linguistic
interaction.
1.3. Related studies
Hedging as a rhetorical artefact writing is an interesting topic to many
generations of linguistic through a number of studies. For example, “The hedging in
academic writing: A Pragmatic analysis of English and chemistry” by Adamu Musa,
“Hedging in Journalistic articles” by Aquino. Those authors focus on the frequent
forms of hedges in writing texts whose implications does not aim to improve speaking
skill. This apparently offers a gap for the linguistic researchers to conduct a study on
hedging used in speaking.
As regard Vietnam’s ELT context, the researchers have the same interest in
hedge device used in academic writing. The most recent research by Ngo (2014)
demonstrated on quantifiers as hedge used in these by MA student of English. Besides,
the former researches in hedges devices in verbal communication is gradually carried
out in 2012 with “A Contrastive Analysis of Mitigating Criticism: The Use of Disjuncts
7


as Mitigating Hedges in Verbal Communication” by Hoang. To achieve the desired

aims of the study, survey questionnaire was designed and delivered to both
Vietnamese and English speakers who asked to give specific utterance to criticize.
Most recently, Nguyen (2014) did the research on the use of hedge devices in the
novel Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell. The goal of the research is find out
the frequency forms and functions of hedging in Gone with the Wind. Also, Nguyen’s
study has left gaps for the present research to continue exploring the meaning of hedge
devices in communications in different relationships in order to find out the use of
hedge devices in verbal communications.
1.4. Taxonomy

The majority of linguists emphasize the fact that a comprehensive list does not
exist yet. Therefore, the table below is a synthesis of several taxonomies that were
provided by several linguists, such as: Salager- Meyer (1997), Clemen (2002), Hinkel
(2002, 2004), and Hyland (1996, 2005) in order to build up a detailed picture of what
is considered to be hedge. Their taxonomies are not radically different but rather
supplementing each other.

8


Table 1: Taxonomy of Hedges
Salager
Meyer

Clemen

Hinkel

Hyland

Others

Modal auxiliary verbs
Modal lexical verbs

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

Vold
Vold

Adj,
Adv and
nominal
modal
phrases

+

+

+

+

Vold

N/A

+

+

+

Passive voice
Modal -Adverb expressions

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Introductory Phrases

+

N/A

N/A

N/A

Concessive conjunctions
Particles
Degree
Indefinite quantifiers
Approximators
Indefinite frequency
and time

+
N/A

N/A
+

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

Hagge
and
Kostelnik
Hoye
Hagge

and
Kostelnik
Hartman
N/A

+

+

+

+

N/A

+

+

N/A

N/A

N/A

+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A

+
N/A
+
+
N/A
N/A

+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

+
N/A
N/A
N/A
+
+

Pronouns

N/A

N/A

+

+

Indefinite articles
Questions
Tag questions
Pragmatic tags
Conversation hedges

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
+
+
+
+

+
+
+

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hagge
and
Kostelnik
N/A
N/A
N/A

Items

Conventional
hedges

Compound
hedges

Probability
(posibility)
adjectives
Nouns
Adverbs

Modal auxiliary verbs
with lexical verbs

Lexical verb with
Adjectives or
Adverbs
Conditional clauses
That clauses
Comments on value-judgement
Comments on truth-judgement
References
Qualification

Holmes
Quaglio

As can be seen from the table above, most of hedges are classified according to their part of
speech. Conventional hedges, are considered as hedge by several linguists- Clemen (2002),
9


Salager- Meyer (1997), Hinkel (2004), Hyland (1996) and Vold (2006). Salager- Meyer
(1997, 109-110) divided them into modal auxiliary verbs, modal lexical verbs and adjectival,
adverb and nominal modal phrases:
1) Conventional hedges:
a)

Modal auxiliary verbs such as may, might, can, could, will, would, should.

b) Modal lexical verbs such as to seem, to appear, to believe, to assume, to suggest, to

estimate, to tend, to think, to argue, to indicate, to claim, to propose, to speculate, to predict,
to calculate, to infer.
c)

Adjectival, adverb and nominal modal phrases.

+ Probability, adjectives such as possible, probable, un/likely.
+ Nouns such as assumption, claim, possibility, estimate, suggestion.
+ Adverbs such as perhaps, possibly, probably, practically, likely, presumably, virtually,
apparently, partially, partly, in case, by chance, in a way, quite,

barely, actually, clearly,

comparatively, essentially, indeed, normally, potentially, relatively, theoretically, maybe,
fairly, almost, nearly, merely, slightly, sufficiently, hopefully, broadly, somehow, somewhat.
1.

Hedging by passive voice. Salager- Meyer did not include it in his taxonomy;

However, Clemen (2002, 43), Hagge and Kostelnin (1989, cited in Unsal 2008, 25) and
Hyland (1996, 444, 447- 448) did on the basis that passive voice is agentless.
2.

Modal – adverb expressions: According to Hoye (1997: 13), modal – adverb

expressions such as could kindly, will kindly, could possibly function as hedging devices or
negative politeness strategies.
3.

Introductory phrases such as I believe, to our knowledge,

it is our view that,

we feel that. Salage- Meyer (1997; 110), Hagge and Kostelnik (1989, cited in Unsal 2008; 25)
assert that introductory phrases express personal doubt and direct involvement.
4.

Hedging realized by concession conjuncts: This is a category found in one

linguist’s taxonomy. Clemen (2002; 43) states that there are conjuncts such as though,
although, despite, in spite of, notwithstanding, whereas, while, even if, even though, which
attenuate the strength of the statement by giving an equivocation support.
5.

Hedging by particles is supposed by only Clemen (2002; 44)

6.

Hedge realized by approximators of:

+ Degree: approximately, roughly, about.

10


+ Indefinite quantifiers such as a lot of, a bit of, many/ much, some, little/ a little, a few/
few/ fewer, less (than), a number of, a good/ great deal of, more or less, more (than), most, at
least, over, under.
+ Indefinite frequency and time such as frequently, often, every so often, occasionally/
on occasion, on many/ numerous occasions, generally/ in general, usually, sometimes, at

times, from time to time, most of time, (hardly) ever, (almost) never, rarely, seldom,
ordinarily, (almost, nearly) always, invariably, once in a while, around, round, round about.
7.

Compound hedges: Salager- Meyer (1997; 10) distinguishes the commonest forms:

+ A modal auxiliary combined with a lexical verb with a hedging content such as it
would appear.
+ A lexical verb followed by a hedging adverb or adjective such as it seems reasonable/
probable; it may suggest that, it seems likely that, it would indicate that, this probably
indicates, it seems reasonable to assume that, it would seem somewhat unlikely that, it may
appear somewhat speculative that.
8.

Hedging realized by conditional clause. Conditional are included in taxonomies of

several linguists (in Table 1). Clemen (2002, 43) explains this category by saying that such
clauses refer to hypothetical situations. Moreover, Hyland (1996, 448) notices that conditional
sentences offer a possibility.
9.

“That” clause: Buikiene (2008; 13) notices that that clauses in combination with

modal verbs also belong to hedging.
10. Comments on value- judgment is a category mentioned by Clemen (2002, 44) that
is not included in anyone else’s taxonomies.
11. Comments on truth- judgment is also a category included in Clemen’s (2002, 44).
12. Reference: According to Hyland (1996, 444, 447-448), it is a conscious strategy to
mark a statement as an alternative view; thus, a hedge signals a personal opinion. The
linguists distinguishes between impersonal expressions that comment on others’ works and

reference to methods, models, or the conditions under which the results were obtained.
13. Qualification. In Hyland’s work (1996, 441), it can indicate the precise standpoint
from which to judge the truth of a claim.
14. Pronouns. Hagge and Kostelnik (1989, 25) as well as Hyland together with Banks
(1993, 447) and Hinkel (2004, 137) acknowledge particular pronouns, especially the plural
we.

11


15. Conversational hedges. Quaglio (2009, 7) and Hinkel (2004, 316) distinguish yet
another group of hedges , including sort of, kind of, like, kinda, to be supposed to, by
(some/any) chance, hopefully, if you know/ understand what I mean, if you catch/ get my
meaning/ drift, as everyone (else) you know (s), (as far as) we/ I know, as well known,
everyone/ people say, as the saying goes, from what I hear/ know/ see/ understand/, almost, at
all, at least, basically, enough, (a) few, hardly, just, (a) little, only, pretty, quite, actually,
anyway, in a way, less, more, something, lots.
Their theories can be included into the following table:

Table 2: The items of hedges chosen from the taxonomy.
ITEMS
Modal auxiliary verbs

may, might, can, could, will, would, should

Modal lexical verbs

to seem, to appear, to believe, to assume, to suggest, to estimate, to
tend, to think, to argue, to indicate, to claim,

to propose, to

speculate, to predict, to calculate, to infer.
Adjectives, adverbial

Probability adjectives: possible, probable, un/ likely, potential,

and nominal modal

apparent, approximate, broad, comparative, rare, relative, the very

phrases:

+superlative adjective + noun, most + adjective, according to +
noun, relative to + noun.
Nouns: assumption, claim, possibility, estimate, suggestion.

Passive voice

Special constructions of passive voice, i.e. it + passive verb + with
verbs of reporting such as agree, allege, announce, assure, believe,
consider, decide, expect, explain, hope, know, report, say, suggest,
suppose, think, understand, subject +passive verb + to- infinite.

Introductory Phrases

I believe, to our knowledge, it is our view that, we feel that.
Degree: approximately, roughly, about.
Indefinite quantifiers
A lot of, a bit of, many/ much, some, little/ a little, a few/ few/ fewer,

Approximators

less (than), a number of, a good/ great deal of, more and less, more
(than), most, at least, over, under.
Indefinite frequency and time: Frequently, often, every so often,
occasionally/ on occasion, on many/ numerous occasions,
12


generally/ in general, usually, sometimes, at times, from time to
time, most of time, (hardly) ever, (almost) never, rarely, seldom,
ordinarily, (almost, anvariably) once in a while, around, round,
round about.
Conditional clauses

If clause

13


CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY
The chapter covers four main parts consisting of data, the data selection criteria,
research method, data collection procedure and data analysis and discussion. Section 1
provides an introduction of the research corpus. Section 2 states the criterion of chosen
conversations in the study. Section 3 mainly indicates methods of research before
showing data collection procedure in sections 4. Finally, section 5 presents data
analysis and discusses the findings.
2.1. Data
The corpus of this study is the first novel in Harry Potter series, namely Harry

Potter and the Sorcerer‟s Stone by Rowling, first published in 1997 by Bloomsbury.
The novel won most of the British book awards that were polled by children and other
awards in the US. The book reached the top of the New York Times list of the best –
selling fiction in August 1999 and stayed the near the top of that list for much of 1999
and 2000. It has been translated into several other languages including Vietnam and
made into a length film with the same name. By dint of the first edition, the writer
Rowling emerged totally her power of writing, which attracted the readers to fill in the
following sections decidedly. The story is to tell the time Harry Potter learned and
lived the first year in Hogwarts school of Witchcraft and Wizardry after living as an
orphanage in his aunt’s house. Only after meeting the giant man named Hagrid and
receiving the letter from Hogwarts, a 11-year boy is explained his history, the reason
of his parents’ death and the real world where he totally belongs to.
The story fills the reader into the magic world where people can be seized upon
extraordinary power, strengthening the readers’ imagination of their surrounding
world. Being a fiction novel for teenager, the language used is really modern and
understandable for the young.
The research focuses on conversations of main characters in Harry Potter and the
Sorcerer‟s stone: Harry Potter, the close friends of Harry Potter – Ron and Hermione,
Professor Minena Mcgonagall, Dr. Dumbledore, the guardian – Hagrid. The story is
surrounded relationships: friends, colleague, teacher and student, with enemy, which
indicates in which relationship hedges used most and how it used.
14


2.2. The data collection criteria
This research is based on a set of English conversations in the story Harry Potter
and the Sorcerer‟s stone delivered by sevens main characters including conversations
among Harry Potter and his teachers Professor Minena Mc. Gonagall, Dr. Dumble
Dore Head Master of Hogwarts school of Witchcraft and Wizardry, his close friends –
Ron and Hermione, the guardian Mr. Hagrid. The total number of

dialogues

in

conversations is 636. As a result, 386 linguistic devices functioning as hedges were
subjected to the analysis.
The choice of dialogues is based on one criterion which involved in main
characters, especially focusing on relationship between Harry Potter and his close
friends- Ron and Hermione , his relatives – Dudley family, the guardian – Mr. Hagri,
his teachers- Professor Minena Mc. Gonagall, Dr. Dumble Dore- Head Master of
Hogwarts school of Witchcraft and. Its aim is to compare the change in the usage of
hedges in different relationships.
The conversations were analyzed according to the chosen types only.

The

methods and produces used for analyzing the data are discussed in the next sections.
2.3. Research methods
The research uses both quantitative and qualitative methods.
This study use quantitative method to find out which hedge is the most popular
and which one is the least popular within the hedge classification.
Quantitative method is applied to find out what hedge is the most popular and
what hedge is the least common among the hedging device provided in Table 2,
Chapter 2.
Qualitative method is used to analyze meanings of using hedges in
conversations by the main characters in the story Harry Potter and the Sorcerer‟s
Stone. Document analysis is valuable for collecting qualitative data. Firstly, it is used
to count the frequency of hedges in the corpus to identify which one is the most
popular (word frequency). Then, in- depth studies are conducted in the real context of

the text to identify the purpose in using hedges in conversations (meaning analysis).
15


2.4. Data collection procedure
This study is conducted mainly on the primary data collected from the story
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer‟s stone.
In order to collect appropriate data, we will manipulate the following steps:
+ First, we will identify and gather the hedges used by main characters,
especially conversations between Harry Potter and his teachers Professor Minena
Mcgonagall, Dr. Dumbledore, his friends Ron and Hermione, the school guardian Mr.
Hagrid and his relatives Dursleys.
+ Then we investigate the frequent types of these found hedges.
+ Last, we investigate meanings of hedge devices in conversations used in the
story Harry Potter and the Sorcerer‟s Stone.

2.5 . DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
2.5.1. Modals verbs
In 86 conversations, or 10,168 words, 124 hedges in the forms of modal verbs
were found. From Figure 2, where the raw data is presented (see Figure 2). It is not
difficult to see that 7 kinds of modals verb is all used when core character Harry Potter
creates conversations with his teachers Mc. Gonagall and Dr. Dumble Dore. It is also
obviously the modal will was used most frequently. Will occurs 27 times, which is
considered to reach the highest percentage of modal verbs as hedges. However, would
is used as past form of will which is only used 16 times being the fifth popular modal
verbs. It is obvious that can is used with the second commonly modal verb with 44
times in the story. By contrast, it appears merely 2 times in the conversations with his
relatives, 7 and 13 times in conversations with the older and his friends, respectively.
May, in the other hand, was the one used least frequently when is only used in
conversations with his teachers. Should appears with a low occurrence 13 times, is

used in all conversations with 5 times, 4 times and 2 times in conversations among
Harry and his friends, the guardians, his teachers, and his relatives as well.

16


Figure 1: The use of modal verbs as hedge devices
Figure 1 above presents the raw data only, therefore, it was normalized in order
to compare the results properly as the number of words in conversations between
Harry Potter with the order, his teachers, his friends and his relatives was significantly
different (2,589 words in conversations with the guardian Mr. Hagrid, 2,231 words
with his teachers, 3,671 words with his friend and 1,577 words with his relatives),
respectively. Figure 2 presents normalized data, i.e. the occurrence of hedges in the
form of modals per 1000 words (see Figure 2):

Figure 2: The occurrence of modal verbs as hedges per 1,000 words
It is obvious that hedges devices are used more variously in formal context with
his teacher. Furthermore, the normalized data shows that will, which, according to
17