Download miễn phí Luận văn A Vietnamese-English cross-cultural study of the use of hedging before giving bad news



As Brown and Levinson (1987) illustrate, hedging can also be used to tone down the force of for example request, as in “Give me a hand, if you can”. In such cases, one might even say that the reservation included in the hedge may be seen as a way out for the addressee in case he or she in fact is not in a position to help, the hedge thus signaling the conditions under which the request may be disregarded by the addressee. As work by Stubbs (1986) and Markkanen and Schroder (1982) illustrate, hedging may be taken to involve lexical items, propositions and illocutionary forces. While distinguishing between hedges of these three types is illuminating in theoretical terms, it seems that the distinction between them is not always clear-cut.
 
G.Lakoff who drew attention to the theoretical importance of the phenomenon also reports R. Lakoff’s observation that certain verbs and syntactic construction convey hedged performative that is, they modify the force of speech act. They can also be studied as Hedges on illocutionary force. It is performative hedges in particular that are most important linguistic means of satisfying the S’s wants. Such hedges may be analyzed as adverbs on performative verbs that present the illocutionary force of the sentence.
 
 


http://s1.liketly.com/flash/edoc/jh2i1fkjb33wa7b577g9lou48iyvfkz6-swf-2013-10-26-luan_van_a_vietnameseenglish_crosscultural_study.8urVAQ5x8f.swf /tai-lieu/de-tai-ung-dung-tren-liketly-42293/
Để tải bản DOC Đầy Đủ xin Trả lời bài viết này, Mods sẽ gửi Link download cho bạn sớm nhất qua hòm tin nhắn.
Ai cần download tài liệu gì mà không tìm thấy ở đây, thì đăng yêu cầu down tại đây nhé:
Nhận download tài liệu miễn phí

Tóm tắt nội dung:

làm tốt đồ án và sống tốt ở Hà Nội nha anh. Rất có thể ngày anh bảo vệ đồ án tốt nghiệp em sẽ không ra cổ vũ anh được. Đừng giận em nha! (Báo Thế giới Phụ nữ số 27/ 2002)
Em không thể nói, không thể diễn tả được mình đã đau đớn thế nào khi chúng mình chia tay nhau mặc dù chúng mình đã có nhiều kỷ niệm đẹp bên nhau.
(v) These are also quality performed by auxiliary, emphasizing adverbs on explicit and deleted performatives
English
Vietnamese
For sure I see it
I can infer
I widely conjecture
Truthfully
Honestly,
Quite candidly,
Quite frankly,
tui chắc chắn đấy
Thành thật mà nói
Nói thật là
Cũng phải nói ngay rằng
E.g. The thief broke the lock, for sure I saw it
I would say he won’t go out with Mary.
_ Quantity hedges
(i) Quantity hedges give notice that not as much or not as precise information as might be expected
English
Vietnamese
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
tui cũng không biết chắc
tui không còn biết nói gì hơn
Khoảng chừng là
Áng chừng là
Xấp xỉ là
Hình như là
Tưởng như là, đâu như là
Hàng chục là, hàng năm là
Kiểu như là
À, kiểu như nó cũng
Ở một khía cạnh nào đó
Về cơ bản là
Biết đấy là đâu, biết đâu được chuyện đấy
Một chút nữa, một tí nữa
(ii) We also get expression with clear politeness functions like “I just say”
- I just say getting there is not easy as it looks.
- A: Have you ever been there?
B: Well somewhere in the Middle East
_ Relevance hedges
(i) There are hedges
English
Vietnamese
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
Không biết có nên nói không
Không dám cảm phiền ông
Của đáng tội
Chết một cái là
Quả có thế ạ
Nói bỏ ngoài ngoài tai
Dù sao đi chăng nữa
Tiện thể là
Nhân tiện đây
À nhân tiện
Nói trộm bóng vía
Nói anh bỏ quá cho
(ii) The use of “now” interacts with the use of tense deixis, now making a claim for relevance (because it is a proximal deictic marker) and past tense hedging a bit on the relevance
Now I was wondering if …………….
(iii) Also under this rubric fall hedges on whether the point or the purpose of the speech act is in fact relevance. For examples:
- For assertions: I don’t know whether you’re interested but…………………
If you ask me, …………………………
…………….., in case you want to know
- For reply to the questions: Yes, since you ask
Yes, if you care to know
Vâng nếu anh thực sự muốn thế
Vì anh đã hỏi nên
Anh có biết không
Nếu anh muốn biết, ý kiến của tui là
- For questions: …………..., do you know?
- For commissives: I’m sorry, if you want to know my feelings.
I’m furious, if you care to inquire my feelings on the matter.
- For declarative : If you allowed me, ……………………..
If we all agree ………………………….
(iv) And there are clauses that modify the performative verb by giving reason why S made the utterance, making this an explicit claim to being relevant.
E.g. Do you have any flour to spare because I’ve just run out?
_ Manner hedges
English
Vietnamese
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
tui xin đi thẳng vào vấn đề
Ý tui là……………………
Nói đơn giản là…………..
Nói nôm na là …………...
Để cho rõ ràng hơn ……..
(ii) Not related are these expressions that query whether is following S’s discourse adequately
English
Vietnamese
Yeah?
Got it?
OK?
You with me?
Is that clear?
See?
Phải không?
……….mà
……….nhé
……….nghe ……
Rõ chưa?
Such maxim hedges as those we have been discussing are used with great frequency in ordinary talk. 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 F 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)”.
2.4.2. 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.
True maybe.
2.5. Linguistic realizations of hedging
The earliest studies into hedging were limited to a fairly narrow selection of linguistic expressions. For instance, only about 70 different items were listed in Lakoff’s paper. More recently, numerous linguistic phenomena have been associated with hedging; there nevertheless is no absolute uniformity between studies as to which linguistic phenomena should be regarded as falling within the category. Literature relating to hedging seems to suggest that hedges are linguistic choices that include an inherent component of fuzziness, providing the opportunity to comment on group membership, truth value and illocutionary force. However, there is variation between studies as to the actual items treated as hedges. In some studies, as in the case with Prince et al’s paper, the phenomena treated as hedges are not described very thoroughly. In other studies, the focus is on a specific linguistic feature, not the broad range of alternatives available for hedging. Hedges are sometimes listed as a number of items used for rounding numerical data, including items like: about, approximately, close to and in that round. While certain studies face with a specific linguistic phenomenon, others have attempted to cover a wider range. Studying hedging in new writing is drawn attention to an array of devices. How vagueness in presenting a list of other items typically used as hedges is firstly discussed. Most of the items on the list are verbal or adverbial expressions that involve different degrees of probability or otherwise play down the responsibility of the sender as concerns propositional content. The main categories consist of auxiliaries (e.g. may, might, can, could), semi-auxiliaries (appear, seem), full verb (suggest), the passive voice, ...

---