A contrastive analysis of moderating criticism the use of disjuncts as mitigating hedges in verbal communication

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF
LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES


HOÀNG THỊ SÁU
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF MITIGATING CRITICISM:
THE USE OF DISJUNCTS AS MITIGATING HEDGES

IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION
NGHIÊN CỨU ĐỐI CHIẾU VỀ SỰ GIẢM NHẸ Ý CHÊ BAI BẰNG VIỆC
SỬ DỤNG TRẠNG NGỮ TÌNH THÁI LÀM PHƯƠNG TIỆN RÀO ĐÓN
TRONG GIAO TIẾP BẰNG LỜI TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT

M.A. PROGRAMME 1 THESIS
Field: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS
Code: 60.22.15

HÀ NỘI - NĂM 2012


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF
LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES


HOÀNG THỊ SÁU
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF MITIGATING CRITICISM:
THE USE OF DISJUNCTS AS MITIGATING HEDGES

IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION
NGHIÊN CỨU ĐỐI CHIẾU VỀ SỰ GIẢM NHẸ Ý CHÊ BAI BẰNG VIỆC
SỬ DỤNG TRẠNG NGỮ TÌNH THÁI LÀM PHƯƠNG TIỆN RÀO ĐÓN

TRONG GIAO TIẾP BẰNG LỜI TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT

M.A. PROGRAMME 1 THESIS
Field: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS
Code: 60.22.15

HÀ NỘI - NĂM 2012


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LISTS OF FIGURES AND TABLES.....................................................................v
PART I: INTRODUCTION....................................................................................1
1. Rationale..........................................................................................................1
2. Scope of the study............................................................................................2
3. Aims of the study.............................................................................................3
4. Objectives of the study....................................................................................3
5. Research questions..........................................................................................3
6. Methodology....................................................................................................3
7. Design of the study..........................................................................................4
PART II: DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................5
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND...............................................5
1.1. SPEECH ACTS.............................................................................................5
1.1.1. Notion and classification of speech acts...............................................5
1.2. SPEECH ACT OF CRITICIZING..............................................................6
1.3. FACE AND POLITENESS..........................................................................7
1.3.1. What is FACE?......................................................................................7
1.3.2. What is POLITENESS?........................................................................9
1.4. HEDGING DEFINED................................................................................ 12
1.4.1. Hedging from the point of view of pragmatics..................................13

1.4.2. Hedging as both positive and negative politeness..............................14
1.5. DISJUNCTS................................................................................................ 19
1.5.1. Disjuncts defined.................................................................................. 19
1.5.2. Types of disjuncts................................................................................. 20
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW:............................................................ 23
PRE-CRITICIZING HEDGING.......................................................................... 23
2.1. THE PREVIOUS STUDIES ON CRITICIZING..................................... 23
2.2. PREVIOUS STUDIES ON DISJUNCTS AS HEDGES FROM
PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE........................................................................ 25
2.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS..................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY....................................................................... 27
3. 1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS....................................................................... 27
3. 2. RESEARCH APPROACH - CA............................................................... 27
3. 3. DATA COLLECTION METHOD: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE................30
3. 4. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT................................................... 31
3. 5. DATA COLLECTING PROCEDURES................................................... 31
3. 6. DATA ANALYSIS UNITS/ PARAMETERS............................................ 31
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS............................................ 34
4. 1. USE OF DISJUNCTS SEEN FROM COMMUNICATING
PARAMETERS................................................................................................. 34
4.1.1. Data analysis........................................................................................ 34


4.2. CONCLUDING REMARKS..................................................................... 39
4.2.1. Similarities............................................................................................ 39
4.2.2. Differences............................................................................................ 40
4. 3. USE OF DISJUNCTS SEEN FROM INFORMANTS’ PARAMETERS
.......................................................................................................................... 41
4.3.1. Data analysis........................................................................................ 41
4.3.2. Concluding remarks............................................................................ 45

PART III: CONCLUSION.................................................................................... 46
1. Review of the study........................................................................................ 46
2. Implications of the study............................................................................... 47
3. Limitations of the study................................................................................. 48
4. Suggestions for further study........................................................................ 48
APPENDICES....................................................................................................... 52


LISTS OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1: Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 69)………….12
Figure 2. Theoretical CAs and Applied CAs ……. …………………………………….27
Table 1: Classification of illocutionary acts……………………………………………...5
Table 2: Quality hedges …….. ………………………………………………………….15
Table 3: Quantity hedges ………………………………………………………………..16
Table 4: Relevance hedges ………………………………………………………………17
Table 5: Manner hedges …… ………………………………………………………….. 17
Table 6: Types of disjuncts …………………………………………………………….. 21
Table 7: Distribution on informants’ status parameters………………………………33
APPENDIX A. Survey questionnaire………………………………………………53 - 58
APPENDIX B. Examples of hedges………………………………………………...59 - 60
APPENDIX C1. Table 1: Use of disjuncts seen from communicating parameters……..
…………………………………………………………………………………………61- 63
APPENDIX C2. Table 2: Use of disjuncts seen from informants’parameters………….
…………………………………………………………………..……………………..64- 68


PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
It can not be denied that language plays an important part not only in recording and
understanding culture but also in communication among people who share or do not share

the same nationality, social or ethnic origin, gender, age, and occupation. Furthermore,
“language not only has a great impact on our thinking and behaviors but also on others"
(Karmic, 1998:79). Hence, understanding social conventions and attention to such
important concepts as politeness, and face –threatening act, will certainly enable us to
better comprehend the different ways of speaking by people from different cultures, thus
helping eliminate culture-shocks, misunderstandings and communication-breakdown.
Despite good awareness of the ultimate objective of learning a foreign language
toward successful communication, many Vietnamese learners of English must concede that
a good command of a foreign language or success in foreign language learning lies only in
mastering grammar rules and accumulating as much vocabulary as possible. The
importance of vocabulary and grammar has been proved in Laufer and Hulstijn (2001),
Putri (2010), Aquilina (1988) and in many other researches. In spite of different approaches
to the matter, these authors state one thing in common that both vocabulary and grammar
are vital aspects in language. However, it lies in the fact that even when language learners
produce grammatically well-formed utterances, they may experience unwanted culture
shock and communication breakdown when running into a real and particular context of
situation. This unexpected incidence occurs due to their insufficient knowledge and
awareness of social norms and values, roles and relationships between individuals,
especially those from the target culture.
Of the universal human speech acts, criticism is considered a high face-threatening
act, and a high- demanding politeness in communication, especially in intercultural
communication. In addition, criticisms are socially complex even for native speakers.
Furthermore, many local and foreign studies regarding the speech act of criticizing have
been carried out in different languages and in interlanguage of English learners of different
language backgrounds such as House and Kasper (1981), Tracy, Van Dusen, and Robison
(1987), Tracy and Eisenberg (1990), Wajnryb (1993; 1995) and Toplak and Katz (2000),
Minh (2005), Hoa (2007), and others. The findings of the previous studies were mainly


discussed in the light of cross-cultural perspective. Yet, hedging in criticizing from

pragmatic perspective is still an area available for more exploration. This research,
therefore, has chosen hedging as a potential subject. The study is done not only to see the
similarities and dissimilarities in the use of hedges to criticize between the two cultures.
Another goal of this research is to raise the awareness of both teachers and learners of
English about the necessity of hedging in language, and to give teachers several
suggestions in teaching this language phenomenon to their students.
Nevertheless, hedging is a very broad area, and within the limit of the study, it is
impossible to discuss all aspects of hedging in language. As criticism is an act yielding
high risk of making hearers lose face, it requires different supplementary steps to reduce
the weightiness of the utterance. This is where hedging can mostly be seen. In daily life,
no-one likes to be criticized, and no-one wants to criticize others directly because there still
exists the relationship between people, which is considered most important in every
society. Hence, in forced situations, people still criticize but soften it by using such
disjuncts as “frankly, from my point of view, seriously,…” right before the criticism. That is
the reason why the use of disjuncts as mitigating hedges in criticism is chosen for the
project.
Needless to say, disjuncts as hedging devices used in a certain context for specific
communicative intents such as one strategy of politeness and mitigation have great effect
on minimizing shocks in communication. Therefore, a desire to have a further insight into
major similarities and differences in using disjuncts as hedges has inspired the writer to
develop the research entitled “A contrastive analysis of moderating criticism: The use
of disjuncts as mitigating hedges in verbal communication.”
To sum up, it is hoped that this study can provide the increase of some sociocultural knowledge and awareness of the importance of hedges before criticizing among
both teachers and learners of English in order to avoid hurting their partners in every day
communication. This also helps enhance better cross-cultural communication and foreign
language learning and teaching in Vietnam.
2. Scope of the study
- The study is confined to the verbal aspects of the act of criticism with the use of

politeness and hedging. In addition, adjacency pairs are beyond the scope of this paper.

- The study strictly pertains to the perspective of pragmatics though the author realizes that

syntactic theory and semantics apparently do explain the meaning of the verbal work
- Northern Vietnamese learners of English and Southern English native speakers are

chosen for contrastive analysis.
- The data are collected by conducting survey questionnaires to examine the ways the

Northern Vietnamese and Southern English native speakers use disjuncts as mitigating
hedges. (30 informants each)
- Hedges under investigation are limited to a single utterance.

3. Aims of the study
- To find out the similarities and differences in the way the Northern Vietnamese learners

of English and Southern English native speakers criticize using disjuncts as a politeness
strategy in mitigating criticism.
- To raise both teacher‟s and learner‟s awareness of the importance of hedges before

criticizing in order to avoid hurting their partners.
4. Objectives of the study
In order to achieve the targeted aims, two objectives are put forward:
- The data will be collected by conducting survey questionnaires for the chosen informants

in Northern Vietnam and in Southern England. (Hedges under investigation are limited to a
single utterance).
- The data will be processed and analyzed quantitatively to see how the two groups use

disjuncts as hedges in criticizing situations and to see if there are any distinct features that
characterize the way Northern Vietnamese learners use hedges as compared to that of
Southern native speakers, through which implications will be drawn out.
5. Research questions
What are the major similarities and differences in the ways Northern Vietnamese
learners of English and Southern English native speakers use disjuncts as hedges in
mitigating criticism?
6. Methodology
- Quantitative method in the form of survey questionnaires is much resorted to. To collect

data for analysis, Metapragmatic Questionnaire (MPQ) is designed. The collected data will
be analyzed using comparing and contrasting techniques to find out the similarities and


differences in the ways Northern Vietnamese learners of English and Southern English
native speakers perform the act of criticizing using hedges as a politeness strategy.
- The questionnaires are delivered directly to 30 Northern Vietnamese learners of English

and to 30 English people via e-mails. Based on both Vietnamese and English informants‟
status parameters, the researcher looks for the Vietnamese subjects of similar parameters in
order to have a symmetrical distribution of informants and data for the study.
7. Design of the study
The study is composed of three parts:
Part I: Introduction: presents the rationale, scope, aims, research question, and
methodology of the study
Part II: Development: This part consists of four chapters:
Chapter 1: Theoretical background and Literature review :
- Theoretical background: discusses the notions of speech act theory, face, politeness,

politeness strategies, hedges and disjuncts.

Chapter 2:: Hedging before criticizing: This chapter explores previous works of criticizing,
hedging, hedging strategies and disjuncts from pragmatic perspective.
Chapter 3: Methodology: This chapter states the chosen methods to carry out the study and
to analyze the collected data such as contrastive analysis (CA), and survey questionnaires.
It also deals with informants and procedures of the data collection.
Chapter 4: Data analysis and findings: This chapter analyses collected data to find out
major similarities and differences in the choice of hedging strategies in given situations by
Vietnamese learners of English and native speakers of English.
Part III: Conclusion: This part summarizes the main findings of the study, provides some
implications for TEFL, and offers suggestions for further research.


PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter reviews the theories relevant to the topic under investigation in the
present study, namely speech acts, speech act of criticizing, face, politeness, politeness
strategies, hedges and disjuncts.
1.1. SPEECH ACTS
According to Levinson (1983), speech act theory is one of the central issues in
language use. In this section, the works by such pioneers in the field as Austin (1962),
Searle (1974; 1979), and Bach and Harnish (1979) are briefly reviewed in order to provide
theoretical frameworks for the study.
1.1.1. Notion and classification of speech acts
The notion of speech acts originates from the British philosopher of language John
Austin (1962). In his very influential work “How to do things with words” (1975), Austin
defines speech acts as the actions performed in saying something or actions performed
using language. In fact, when speaking, we perform certain linguistic actions such as
giving reports, making statements, asking questions, giving warnings, making promises
and so on. In other words, speech acts are all the acts we perform through speaking – all
the things we do when we speak. Austin (1962) distinguishes between the three kinds of

acts: locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary. A locutionary act is the act of saying
something in the full sense of “say”. An illocutionary act is the one of using the utterance
to perform a particular function; and a perlocutionary act is the one producing some kinds
of effects that are produced by means of saying something. Among the above three kinds of
acts, illocutionary act is the core interest of Austin as well as of other pragmatists
(Levinson, 1983).
Following is how illocutionary acts are classified by different authors:
Table 1: Classification of illocutionary acts
Austin (1962)
Exposives
Commisives
Behabities


Exercitives
Verdictives

In the present study, criticizing refers to an illocutionary act whose illocutionary
point is to give negative evaluation on hearers‟ (H‟s) actions, choice, words, and products
for which he or she may be held responsible. This act is performed in hope of influencing
H‟s future actions for the better for his or her own benefit as viewed by speakers (S), or to
communicate S‟s dissatisfaction/ discontent with or dislike regarding what H has done but
without implying that what H has done has undesirable consequences for S. Therefore,
criticizing speech act is defined as a verbalized reaction to a given criticism.
1.2. SPEECH ACT OF CRITICIZING
The speech act of criticizing has been studied by different researchers such as
House and Kasper (1981), Tracy, van Dusen, and Robison (1987), Tracy and Eisenberg
(1990), Wajnryb (1993, 1995) and Toplak and Katz (2000) and others.
Tracy, et al. (1987) investigate the characteristics of criticisms by people from different
cultural backgrounds and distinguished “good” from “bad” criticisms. According to him, a

good criticism is one that displays a positive language and manner; suggests specific
changes and possible critic; states justified and explicit reasons for criticizing and does not
violate the relationship between interlocutions and is accurate. Supporting that point of
view, Wajnrub (1993) holds an effective criticism must be kept simple specific, wellgrounded, linked to strategies for improvement and delivered as an attempt to share
experience. It also needs to be softened by means of a number of strategies. These include
“measuring words” (to avoid being too negative), “soft-pedaling” (i.e. using internal and
external modifications to lessen the harshness of the criticism), “using affirmative
language” such as comforting messages, “distancing and neutralizing” (to depersonalize
the criticism) and “using negotiating language” (to avoid imposing on the addressee.)
(Wajnryb, 1993; cited in Minh, 2005). That point of view seems to be supported by
Wajnryb (1995) who prefers a direct and “economical” criticism rather than indirect,
wordy, and time-wasting one.
Following Yule‟s classification (1997), like all the other speech acts, criticizing can
be either a direct speech act or an indirect speech act. That means a criticism can be


realized by either direct or indirect strategies. When mentioning to the directness level of a
criticism, Blum-Kulka (1987) states that the directness level of a criticism in this study was
determined by the degree of illocutionary transparency, and thus the amount of effort
needed to interpret the illocutionary point of this criticism.
The speech act of criticism is coded according to their: (i) realization strategies, (ii)
semantic formulas, and (iii) modifiers, as follows:
(i): Criticism realization strategies are defined as the pragmalinguistic conventions
of usage by which criticisms are realized. (Adapted from Blum-Kulka, House, and
Kasper‟s, 1989; and Takahashi‟s definition, 1996).
(ii): Criticism semantic formulas are semantic structures that have acquired an
illocutionary force representing criticisms. (Adapted from Clark, 1979)
(iii): Modifiers are linguistic devices employed to help reduce the offence of a facethreatening act.
In this study, criticisms are investigated as an illocutionary act in which the factors
related to H and S, namely the relationship, gender, age, occupation have a great impact on

the way they criticize. And the author just focuses on one of the modifiers which are used
as hedges to make “good” criticisms and to save H‟s face. That is disjuncts.
1.3. FACE AND POLITENESS
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness and anything related to this
theory is considered a fundamental requirement in human social life specified by social
order and human cooperation at pre-condition level. Therefore, face and politeness are
interrelated and mutually affected in human interaction.
1.3.1. What is FACE?
Since “face, understood as every individual’s feelings of self-image” (Thomas,
1995: 169), can be damaged, maintained or enhanced through interactions and transactions
with others, a person often claims face for him/herself in conversations. According to
Brown and Levinson (1987: 61-62), face is the respect that an individual has for him or
herself. Once face is damaged or threatened, there seems to be a risk of communication
breakdown. That is why in everyday interactions we usually avoid embarrassing other
people, making them feel uncomfortable because we bear in mind that everybody has some
basic face needs or wants. Therefore, maintaining or partially satisfying each other‟s face
seems to be the major and apparently the only motivation to be polite in communication


(Watts, 2003; Holmes, 1995). To many scholars, face consists of two opposing face wants:
positive and negative face.
1.3.1.1. Positive face
Normally, people are typically caught between the wants to achieve their own goals
and the desire to avoid threatening their partners‟ face (both positive and negative face).
Positive face, as Brown and Levinson (1987: 61) observe, is “the positive consistent selfimage or personality (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and
approved of) claimed by interactants”. In other words, positive face is seen as the desire
that others like, admire, value, or approve of one‟s wants (material or non-material) or the
need to be accepted and liked by others, treated as a member of the group, and to know
one‟s wants are shared by others.
1.3.1.2. Negative face

Negative face, according to Brown and Levinson is the basic claim to territories,
personal preserves, rights to non-distraction, i.e. to freedom of action and freedom of
imposition. In other words, “negative face is reflected in the desire not to be impeded or
put upon, to have the freedom to act as one chooses” (Thomas, 1995: 169), or “the wants
that one’s action be unimpeded by others” (Eelen, 2001: 3), and “the need to be
independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others” (Yule, 1996:
61)
In general, the remarkable difference between the positive face and the negative
face is that the former refers to the people‟s wants or desires of making others pleased and
satisfied by their own actions, whereas the latter implies the required freedom and
independence of the people who want to act. Therefore, positive face is relevant to the
study in the extent that using hedges before criticizing helps make the least offence and
keep face among S and their communicating partners.
1.3.1.3. Face threatening acts (FTAs)
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), certain illocutionary acts are liable to
damage or threaten another person‟s face; such acts are known as “face threatening acts”
(FTAs) by, for instance, representing a threat to or damaging the H‟s positive face
(insulting the addressee or expressing disapproval of what the H holds valuable or does
something) or his/ her negative face (impinging upon H‟s freedom of action in the case
when H likes gossiping). They define FTAs as “those acts that by their nature run


contrary to the face wants of the addressee and/ or of the speaker” (Brown and Levinson,
1987: 65). Along the same line, Yule (1996) observes that an FTA occurs when a speaker
says something that represents a threat to another individual‟s expectation regarding selfimage.
1.3.2. What is POLITENESS?
1.3.2.1. Politeness defined
Politeness has received various amounts of attention and controversy from all areas
of linguistics, especially sociolinguistics and pragmatics, throughout the 20th century.
There have been so far two main approaches to politeness: politeness as social norms

(normative politeness) or conversational principle and maxims or do‟s and don‟ts (Lakoff
1973, 1989; Leech, 1983) and face-saving acts or politeness strategies (strategic politeness)
(Brown and Levinson 1978; 1987) (cf. Dan, 1998; Quang, 2003).
In her cross-cultural study on politeness, Blum-Kulka (1987: 131) suggests that
politeness is “(i) a function of redressive actions with redressive having correlative
relationship with indirectness, (ii) an interaction achieved between two needs, the need for
pragmatic clarity and the need to avoid coerciveness and (iii) a social distance and role
relationship”. By giving such a definition, Blum-Kulka implies the tendency that the more
indirect we go, the more polite we become. More correctly, she places politeness on the
same part with negative politeness by challenging the claim that there is a direct
relationship between indirectness and politeness. Intuitively speaking, it seems workable as
seen in Anglophone cultures. However, it is, too, intuitively untenable because it does not
necessarily means that going direct is less polite, hence “indirectness does not necessarily/
always imply politeness” (Blum-Kulka, 1987: 131). For example:
(1) Indirect: The house looks like a barn! (Nhà cửa gì trông như chuồng lợn thế này!)

(Implying „tidy up the room‟)
(2) Indirect: What‟s a wife expected to do at this time? (Implying “It‟s time you prepared

dinner”)
Direct : Time to cook, honey.
Despite the fact that all utterances are FTAs to various degree, the direct ones seem more
comfortably accepted, thus more polite. However, this confirms the idea proposed by
Dascal (1983, cf. Thomas,1995) that indirectness is costly and risky because an indirect


utterance takes longer for the speaker to produce and longer for the hearer to process and
the hearer may not understand what the speaker is getting at risk.
In this study, the adopted model of politeness, or “polite way of talking” which is
seen as deviations from Grice maxims (for politeness reasons) is that of Brown and

Levinson‟s due to the following reasons:
First, the distinction between normative and strategic politeness is rather loose and
relative in that almost all illocutionary acts should operate within the framework of
interpersonal relationships.
Second, it is the author‟s opinion that normative politeness based on social norms
is the departure or foundation of strategic politeness. What require normative politeness to
be realized are interpersonal relationships where interlocutors should follow some certain
politeness norms to save or preserve the other‟s face.
Third, in interpersonal verbal interaction, no matter whether a criticism is
constructive or not, every criticizing utterance carries in itself potential damage or threat to
the addressee‟s positive and negative face.
Fourth, politeness strategies, both positive and negative, when used, can (i) support
and enhance the addressee‟s positive face (positive politeness) and (ii) help avoid
transgressing the addressee‟s freedom of action and freedom from imposition (negative
face).
Finally, Brown and Levinson‟s model is adequate for the interpretation of ongoing
verbal interaction in which participants are reciprocally attending to one another‟s face
needs (Watts, 2003)
1.3.2.2. Politeness principles
Lakoff (1973) argues that the majority of conversation is governed by what is
termed as politeness principles. Similar to Grice (but earlier), she claimed that there are
three maxims or rules that speakers should follow in conversation to maintain politeness:
(i): Don‟t impose – This is similar to the theory of negative politeness – trying not to
impose on people or to disrupt them in any way. It can be seen through such expressions
as:
-

I‟m sorry to bother you …..

-

Could you possibly ……?


(ii): Give options – It is avoiding forcing the other participant into a corner with the use of
such expressions as:
-

It‟s up to you ……

-

I won‟t be offended if you don‟t want to ….

(iii): Make the hearer feel good – We say things that flatter the other participant and make
him/ her feel good; rather in the same way we pander to positive face. This can be seen
through the use of such expressions as:
-

What would I have done without you?

-

I‟d really appreciate your advice on this.

According to Leech (1983), politeness principle (PP) consists of 6 maxims (Tact,
Generosity, Approbation, Modesty, Agreement and Sympathy), which are related to the
notion of cost and benefit and much related to offering favorableness to the hearer. Leech
sees PP as being of the same status as Grice‟s Cooperative Principle (CP), which it
“rescues” by explaining why speakers do not always observe the Gricean maxims

(Thomas, 1995).
Brown and Levinson (1987) do not set a rule of politeness principles as Lakoff and
Leech did, but drop a hint by providing the following schema, termed “possible strategies
for doing FTAs”, available to speakers to encounter unavoidable face-threatening acts, to
make appropriate communicative choices and to reduce the possibility of damage and
threat to hearer‟s face or to the speaker‟s own face. Once a decision has been made, they
argue, the speaker selects the appropriate linguistic means to accomplish the chosen
strategy. Their schema proposes five components of communicative choices: (1) without
redressive action badly, (2) positive politeness, (3) negative politeness, (4) off record and
(5) don‟t do the FTA (or refrain from doing the FTA). Each strategy on the schema is

numbered 1-5, the general principle being that the higher the number the more polite the
strategy.


1. Without redressive action, badly
On record
Do the FTA

2. Positive politeness

With redressive action
4.O
ff
rec
ord

3.
Negative
politenes

s

5. Don‟t do the FTA
Figure 1: Possible strategies for doing
FTAs (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 69)
Finally, they can choose not to do
any FTAs, seen as the least facethreatening acts (just to be safe).
To conclude, in doing an FTA, the
speaker needs to balance three wants:
The want to communicate content of the
FTA
The want to be efficient (or urgent)
The want to maintain H‟s face to any
degree
In this study, the author
investigates how disjuncts are used as a
positive politeness strategy to mitigate
FTA in verbal communication.
1.4. HEDGING DEFINED
When people talk, is it just
information that is being exchanged? A
traditional view on language saw the
exchange of information as the sole
purpose of human communication.
Nowadays, however, it is widely
recognized that spoken language
performs a variety of other tasks, too.
These tasks can be divided into two broad

categories, one covering the

that

exchange of information

it is

and the other interpersonal

par

aspects of communication.

tial

In other words, when we

or

speak, our words do not

true

only convey meaning but

onl

carry interpersonal

y in

messages as well.

cert
of

ain

interpersonal

res

One

way

conveying
messages

in

spoken

pec

interaction is hedging. The

ts

designation

or

“hedge/
is

that

introduced first by Lakoff

it is

(1972)

mor

hedging”

itself
in

“Hedges:

his
A

article:

study

in

e

meaning Criteria and the

true

Logic of Fuzzy Concepts”.

and

In his synchronic, noncontrastive study of the oral
and

written

English,

standard

Lakoff

defines

hedges as the tool to make
things fuzzier or less fuzzy.
Brown

and

Levinson (1987:145) define
“hedge” as “ a particle,
word

or

modifies

phrase
the

degree

that
of

membership of a predicate
or a noun phrase in a set, it
says of that membership


complete than perhaps might be expected”. This definition reveals a fact that hedges are
“strengtheners” as well as “weakeners”.
For domestic researches, the subject matter still requires more attention.
Vietnamese linguists such as Giap (1976), Phe (2002), Quang (2003) also view hedging as
a pragmatic phenomenon. Phe (2002) in his Vietnamese Dictionary states that hedges are
expressions which prevent communicating partners from unexpected misunderstanding and
reaction/responses to what is said. According to Quang (2003), hedging is a strategy used

simply to hedge the propositional content. Referring the so-called quán ngữ, a possible
equivalent to gambit in his work “Từ và nhận diện từ trong tiếng Việt”, Nguyễn Thiện Giáp
(1976) argues:
“Gambits are repeatedly-used expression in discourses for coherence, cohesion,
communication, emphasis on ideas”
(English version by Hoang, 2003:7)
(Quán ngữ là những cụm từ cố định lặp đi lặp lại trong các văn bản để liên kết, đưa đẩy,
rào đón hoặc nhấn mạnh nội dung cần diễn đạt nào đó) (1976:176)
In this thesis, hedging is studied as a politeness strategy in interpersonal
communication. The author adopts a similar approach to that of Brown and Levison which
means that hedges can either strengthen or weaken the S‟s ideas in interactions.
1.4.1. Hedging from the point of view of pragmatics
Hedging has more recently been recognized as a pragmatic rather than a purely
semantic phenomenon. In much of the more recent work relating to hedging, it is the
interpersonal aspect of the strategy that has been given emphasis. Hedging has been
analyzed in view of the communication situation, particularly the effect of the strategy on
the relationship between sender and addressee in face-to-face communication. Generally
speaking, the more pragmatics-oriented descriptions of hedging phenomena presented in
literature are often rather circumspect notions for the purposes of a particular research
project rather than thorough deliberations of the phenomenon. Addressing hedging, it can
be defined plainly as the process whereby the author reduces the strength of what he is
writing. Markkanen and Schroder (1985) define hedging as a strategy of “saying less than
one means”, the function of strategy being to modify the writer‟s responsibility for the
truthfulness of an utterance, to modify the attitude of the author to the propositions and
information put forth in a text or even to hide this attitude.


1.4.2. Hedging as both positive and negative politeness
Much of previous work on hedging is based on Brown and Levinson‟s treatment of
hedges (1978; 1987) where it is reasoned that hedges can be used to avoid “assuming or

presuming that anything involved in the FTA is desired or delivered by H”. This is meant
that hedging can be used to indicate that S does not want to impose upon H‟s desires or
beliefs. Brown and Levinson thus discuss hedges as a greater length as one of ten strategies
linked to negative face protection. Hubler (1983) picks up the idea of hedging phenomena
as indications of negative politeness and contends that hedges are primarily used in
negative face work, hedging devices are “detensifying” elements which sender can employ
to maximize the emotional acceptability of the propositional content presented to the H for
approval. On the other hand, hedges can also be interpreted as simultaneously serving the
sender‟s negative face.
1.4.2.1 Hedging as a negative politeness strategy
Hedges/ hedging in general belong to negative politeness. Brown and Levinson
(1987) appoint that hedge including particle, word or phrase modifies the degree of
membership of a predicate or noun phrase in a set
According to the two authors, conversational principles are the sources of strong
background assumptions about cooperation, in formativeness, truthfulness, relevance, and
clarity which on many occasions need to be softened for reasons of face. Here to, hedges
are the most immediate tool for the job and the authors discuss such hedges on Grice‟s
Maxims.
The four maxims of Grice recognized are quality, quantity, relation, and manner.
- The quality states:
+ Make yourself as informative as required (for the current purpose of exchange)
+ Don‟t make our contribution more informative than it is required

-The quantity maxim says:
+ Don‟t say what you believe to be false and
+ Don‟t say that for which you lack adequate evidence

-The relevance maxim says:
+ be relevant
-Grice‟s specific maxims of manner are:

+ Be perspicacious


+ Avoid obscurity of expression
+ Avoid ambiguity

*Hedges addressed to Grice’s maxims (see the examples in Appendix B, p.59-60)
- Table 2: Quality hedges
(i) Quality hedges may suggest that S does not take full responsibility for the truth of his

utterance
English
There is some evidence to the effect that
As far as I know
I may be mistaken but
I think
I‟m not sure if it‟s right but
I guess
I believe
I assume
(ii) Or alternately they stress S‟s commitment to the truth of his utterance
English
With completely honesty I can say
I absolutely deny that
I absolutely believe that
(iii) Or they may disclaim the assumption that the point of S‟s assertion is to inform H.
English
As you know
As you probably/ may know
As you and I both know

(iv) As quality hedges, we have degrees of probability expressed in increasing doubt.
English
Definitely
Probably


May/ might
(v) These are also quality performed by auxiliary, emphasizing adverbs on explicit and

deleted performatives
English
For sure I see it
I can infer
I widely conjecture
Truthfully
Honestly,
Quite candidly,
Quite frankly,
- Table 3: Quantity hedges
English
I can‟t tell you than that it is
I should think
Roughly
More or less
Approximately
Give or take a few
Or so
All in all
In nutshell

To cut a long story short
In short
Basically
So to speak
Sort of
Some sort of …. like
To some extent
In a way
Somehow


Up to a point
- Table 4: Relevance hedges
English
This may not be relevant/ appropriate/
timely but …….
This may sound like dumb question but….
Not to change the subject ………………..
Now is probably the time to say …………
I might mention at this point ……………
Since I‟ve been wondering ………………
Since it‟s been on my mind ……………..
Sorry, I‟ve just thought …………………
By the way ……………………………...
Oh I know ………………………………
Anyway ………………………………...
While I remember ……………………...
While I think of it ……………………...
All right now
_ Table 5: Manner hedges

English
If you see what I‟m getting at
If you see what I‟m driving at
To be succinct,
Not to beat about the bush
You see…………….
What I meant was………..
More clearly, ……………
To put it more simply, ….
Now to be absolutely clear, I want
I‟m not sure if it makes sense …...
I don‟t know if this is clear at all


Such maxim hedges as those we have been discussing are used with great
frequency in ordinary talks. According to Brown/ Levinson, they have in many cases
straightforward politeness applications. Quality hedges that weaken S‟s commitment may
redress advice or criticisms: “I think, perhaps, you should”. Quantity hedges may be used
to redress complaints or requests: “Could you make this copy more or less final?”
Relevance hedges are useful ways of redressing offers or suggestions: “This may be
misplaced but would you consider…?” And manner hedges can be used to redress all kinds
of FTAs: “You are not exactly thrifty, if you see what you meant”. In addition to the hedges
on the maxims with their FTA uses there are some which, while they may be derived from
Maxim hedges, function directly as notices of violations of FTA wants. For example:
“Frankly, to be honest, I hate to have to say this but ……, I don’t want to hurt you but
(which preface criticisms and bad news)”.
1.4.2.2. Hedging as a positive politeness strategy
In much of previous work, hedging has been viewed as a negative politeness
strategy, but it may also at times be seen to have a positive politeness dimension. Brown
and Levinson (1978; 1987) are of the opinion that one way to express positive politeness

toward one‟s addressee; to communicate “that one’s own wants … are in some respects
similar to the addressee’s wants” (1987: 101) is to avoid disagreement. One avoidance
strategy is rending one‟s opinion safely vague, seeking agreement with the addressee when
the latter has not made his or her position clear. Sometimes, S may choose to be vague
about his own opinions, so as not to get seen to disagree. For this reason, one characteristic
device in positive politeness is to hedge these extremes in order to make one‟s own
opinion safely vague. Some hedges can have positive politeness functions as well, notably:
sort of, kind of, like, in a way.
E.g. I really sort of hope that your presentation will be good.
It is beautiful, in a way.
From those points of view, the pragmatic functions of hedges are drawn out as
follows:
1. Express fuzziness, inexactitude (the following word is not the exact or best word)
2. Express uncertainty (lack of/decreased commitment to a proposition)
3. Softening a stance or opinion (further qualifies/modifies the statement)
4. Mitigating a criticism or request


5. Preceding sophisticated vocabulary or jargon words
6. Preceding metaphors
7. Filled pauses

In conclusion, hedging is considered to be a strategy used to hedge the
propositional content (the propositional accuracy- Quang, 2003) and illocutionary force of
the utterance. Along the line, the thesis author would add that (i) hedges are expressions
which do not add any false or truth values to the content of an utterance, (ii) hedges are
attitude markers that can be taken as an indication of speakers‟ sensitivity towards the
hearer. The present study will focus on a part of quality hedges in which disjunctive
adverbials are used as a negative politeness strategy with the function of redressing H‟face
by softening criticisms.

1.5. DISJUNCTS
1.5.1. Disjuncts defined
In terms of syntactic features, disjuncts are adverbials which “have a superior role
as compared to the sentence elements; they are syntactically more detached and in some
respects “superordinate”, in that they seem to have a scope that extends over the sentence
as a whole” (Quirk et al., 1985:613) . They are not considered essential to the sentence, but
which are considered to be the speaker‟s or writer‟s attitude or descriptive statements.
They are generally used to refer to the sentence that is not fully described in the previous
conversation. Thus, disjuncts commonly appear at the beginning or at the end of sentence.
In terms of semantic features, Quirk (1985:440) identifies disjuncts with the speaker's
authority for, or comment on, the accompanying clause:
“Semantically, DISJUNCTS

express an evaluation of what is being

said either with respect to the form of the communication or to its meaning.”
For example: Frankly, he is slow in the uptake.
Most disjuncts can only be found with an adverb or a prepositional phrase which
are usually positioned initially.
For example: From my point of view, he is not a good eloquent speaker.
Seriously, girls aren’t as good at sports as boys.
In terms of pragmatics, one of the foreign authors who studies about disjuncts is
Hyland (1998). According to his polypragmatic paradigm, disjuncts are used as hedges to
show speaker-oriented, hearer-oriented, and content-oriented. Second, disjuncts are under