1
2
Vietnamese cultures, with the hope to pay a humble contribution to the people who the
thesis author has owed so much for their love and support: colleagues and students.
For any of those purposes, the study promises to make itself meaningful, reliable and
applicable to the reality.
2. Scope of the study
• Within the limit of a minor thesis, the research has been carried out in the office
setting. Participants selected are people who are currently working in offices. The
3
• provide language teachers and learners with an insight into hedging in invitation
declining employed by Vietnamese and American speakers to avoid hurting their
partners.
• give some suggestions on teaching hedging in the situations of invitation declining.
4. Methodology
This is mainly a quantitative method, specifically, a survey research. Survey research is the
method of gathering data from respondents supposed to be representative of some
population, using an instrument composed of closed structure or open-ended items
(questions). In a survey, researchers sample a population. Since populations can be quite
large, researchers directly question only a sample (i.e. a small proportion) of the
population. That is why survey research is a suitable choice for a cross-cultural study.
The questionnaire is designed carefully basing on some hypothesis with both close-ended
and open-ended questions. The data collected will then be analyzed to find out the
similarities and differences in hedging an invitation decline between the American and the
Vietnamese from different perspectives, age, gender, power, distance, and circumstance.
The evaluations and comments on the results, hence, are made inductively.
4
1. Theoretical Background
1.1. Hedging
There have been so far two main approaches about hedging. The term ‘hedge’/ ‘hedging’
itself was introduced first by G. Lakoff (1972) in his article ‘Hedges: A Study in Meaning
Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts’. Lakoff argues that the logic of hedges requires
serious semantic analysis for all predicates. He defines hedges as follows:
For me, some of the most interesting questions are raised by the study of words whose
meaning implicitly involves fuzziness - words whose job it is to make things fuzzier or less
fuzzy. I will refer to such words as 'hedges'
(1972:195)
In his article "Fuzzy-Set - Theoretic Interpretation of Linguistic Hedges", Zadeh (1972)
followed Lakoff in using the new designation ‘hedge’ and analyzed English hedges (such
as simple ones like ‘very’, ‘much’, ‘more or less’, ‘essentially’, and ‘slightly’ and more
complex ones like ‘technically’ and ‘practically’) from the point of view of semantics and
logics. The author assumes that hedges are operators that act on the fuzzy set representing
the meaning of their operands. Hedges vary in their dependency on context.
Later on, hedging has been viewed from the perspective of pragmatics. The concept of
hedge/ hedging is understood in different ways in the literarture. Hedges have been
referred to as compromisers (James,1983), downtoners (Quirk at all, 1972,1985),
5
Brown & Levinson (1978, 1987), dealing with politeness in verbal interaction from the
point of view of pragmatics, viewed hedges as a device to avoid disagreement. Brown and
Levinson (1987: 145) define ‘hedges’ as:
…a particle, word or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or
noun phrase in a set; it says of that membership that it is partial, or true only in certain
respects, or that it is more true and complete than might be expected'
(1987:146)
Vietnamese linguists such as Nguyn Thin Giáp (2000), Hoàng Phê (2002), Nguyn
Quang (2003) also view hedging as a pragmatic phenomenon. Hoàng Phê in his
Vietnamese Dictionary states that ‘hedges are expressions which are preventive from
[unexpected] misunderstanding and reaction/responses to what is said’. According to
Nguyn Quang (2003), hedging is a strategy used simply to hedge the propositional
content.
In this paper, we mainly view hedging from pragmatic perspective. In pragmatics, the
concept of hedging is mainly linked to the concept of speech act and politeness
phenomena. A hedge is either defined as one or more lexico-syntactical elements that are
used to modify a proposition, or else, as a strategy that modifies a proposition. A hedge can
appear before or after a proposition. The term ‘hedging’ is used to refer to the textual
strategies of using linguistic means as hedges in a certain context for specific
communicative purposes.
1.2. Hedges and Speech Acts
Hedging, when being viewed from pragmatic perspective, is surely linked to a very
common pragmatic perception: speech act, as speech act is ‘one of the central phenomena
that any general pragmatic theory must account for’ (S.C Levinson 1983:226).
So what is a speech act? In fact, speech act theory is built on the foundation laid by
Wittgenstein and Austin. In his book Philosophical Investigations (1958), Ludwig
Wittgenstein set forth with an idea called ‘ordinary language philosophy’. He believed that
the meaning of language depends on its actual use. Language, as used in ordinary life, is a
John Searle (1965) is also one of the linguists much concerned with the theory. According
to Searle, to communicate is to express a certain attitude, and the type of speech act being
performed corresponds to the type of attitude being expressed. For example, a statement
expresses a belief, a request expresses a desire, and an apology expresses regret. As an act
of communication, a speech act succeeds if the audience identifies, in accordance with the
speaker's intention, the attitude being expressed. That is why to understand language one
must understand the speaker’s intention. Since language is intentional behavior, it should
be treated like a form of action. Thus Searle refers to statements as speech acts. The speech
act is the basic unit of language used to express meaning, an utterance that expresses an
intention. Normally, the speech act is a sentence, but it can be a word or phrase as long as
it follows the rules necessary to accomplish the intention. When one speaks, one performs
an act. Speech is not just used to predicate something, but it actually does something.
Though making a statement may be the paradigmatic use of language, there are all sorts of
other things we can do with words. We can make requests, ask questions, give orders,
make promises, give thanks, offer apologies, and so on. Speech act stresses the intent of
the act as a whole. According to Searle, understanding the speaker’s intention is essential
to capture the meaning. Without the speaker’s intention, it is impossible to understand the
words as a speech act.
Hedging, therefore, can be treated as speech acts, as hedging is set up to perform intentions
and to express the attitudes of the speakers, for examples: to make an excuse, a question, to
give thanks, apologies, promises etc. The act of hedging can consist of different means,
including hedging devices (or hedges).
followed by (3) a direct refusal, ‘I can’t come to your wedding party’. In this case, to
perform one communicative purpose of declining an invitation, the speaker is employing a
speech act set, which consists of many other individual speech acts.
In the example above (1) and (2) are hedges which combine with the direct refusal to make
up a speech act set. They play as individual speech acts in the whole set.
Within the larger act of communicating something, Austin (1965) identifies three
component speech acts: the locutionary act - the act of saying something as might be
reported in direct or indirect discourse, the illocutionary act as would be performed in
saying something—acts of proposing, promising, apologizing, etc., and the perlocutionary
act identified primarily in terms of the outcome or consequences of a communicative
effort. Of these three classes, the illocutionary act counts as Austin’s great discovery.
These three acts are ultimately related because normally, in a meaningful utterance,
‘Speakers (S) says something to Hearer(H); in saying something to H, S does something;
and by doing something, S affects H.’ (Bach & Harnish, 1979:3)
Searl (1965), basing on the speakers’ intention, presents one of the most influential and
widely used classifications of speech acts. Searl’s classification consists of five broad
types, namely:
apologies, requests, complaints, and refusals (Kasper and Rose, 2001).
Basing on the five categories set by Searl, it can be said that hedges in invitation declining
belong to different types of speech acts. It can be assertive when the speaker is giving an
excuse ‘My daughter is ill today.’, or ‘I am busy.’ If the speaker is asking about the
invitation or giving some suggestions, for examples: ‘When is the wedding party?’ / ‘Why
not tomorrow?’ it can be considered Directives. Hedges are Commissivse if speaker is
talking about his plans or arrangements, or making promises: ‘I have to work in the
evevning’/‘I will give you a hand in preparing the wedding’. In the case when speaker
express their feelings about the invitation, such as appreciation, regret, confusion etc.,
hedges are Expressive. Declarations hardly appear among hedges in invitation declining.
action, and not to be imposed on by others. (Yule 1996:61)
In general, participants will co-operate with each other due to the mutual vulnerability of
face. However, it is not possible for conversation to flow without a demand or intrusion
being made on another person’s autonomy. Certain illocutionary acts are liable to damage
or threaten another person’s face. Brown and Levinson define the performance of such
11
politeness strategies to reduce the weightiness of the decline. A hedge itself can be an off-
record decline. For example, when a person says ‘I have already had other plans for the
evening’, this sentence alone is a hedge, yet it can be understood as an off-record decline.
Brown and Levinson include hedges as part of the strategies available for both positive
12
2. Findings
2.1 The Extent of Hedging in Invitation Declining
Firstly, the extent that people hedge when giving a common invitation decline is viewed
from gender perspective between the two cultures - those of American and Vietnamese.
The statistics shows that a majority of Vietnamese and American people hedge. It can be
clearly seen from the Figure 2 that when declining an invitation, it’s Vietnamese women
who use hedges the most (96%), while only 70% Vietnamese male say that they mostly
hedge. The numbers of American male and female who admit that they mostly hedge
when declining an invitation are 80% and 86% respectively. Therefore, it can be noted that
the difference in the extent of using hedges in invitation declining between Vietnamese
Male
Female
Figure 2. Extent of hedging in invitation declining from gender perspective.
13
Figure 3. Extent of hedging in invitation declining from age perspective
Vietnamese people under 40 of age employ more hedging than those who are above 40
(86% and 80% respectively). The reason for this phenomenon is the power of age in
Vietnamese culture. In Vietnam, the older a person gets, the more power he/ she gains. So
the elder people do not think it is always a must to hedge their invitation declines.
However, age is not the most decisive factor in the office setting, where power and
distance play better roles in communication. The extent to which people use hedging also
depends on the partners they are communicating with. In the figures of this paper, numbers
1-5 indicate:
1. boss/ someone superior
2. someone junior
3. colleague ( same sex/ close)
4. colleague ( opposite sex/ close)
5. colleague ( same sex/ not close)
6. colleague (opposite sex/ not close)
20
40
60
80
100
%
1 2 3 4 5 6
American
Vietnamese
Figure 4. Extent of hedging in invitation declining to different kinds of partners
Though all Vietnamese and American participants agree that they should hedge when
refuse an invitation from someone more powerful at work, Vietnamese people tend to care
for both gender and distance when they have to decide to hedge or not, whereas, American
hedge more to people of the opposite sex. The distance is also taken into account but not as
much serious as Vietnamese people do.
2.2. Frequency of Strategies
From the survey questionnaire, it is suggested that there are seven ways utilized to hedge
an invitation decline: (a) Humming and Hawing, (b) Expressing Regret and Sorry, (c)
Giving Excuses, (d) Showing Appreciation to the Invitations, (e) Blaming the partner, (f)
Giving Offer and Promise. Sometimes people use one tactic at a time, while in other cases
they decide to employ different ways (a speech act set) at the same time to hedge (Mixing
each strategy on the scale from 0 to 4. Therefore, the higher the means are, the more
frequently the strategy is employed. In the following figures, A stands for American party,
and V stands for Vietnamese party.
• Male
Hedging
strategies
Likert
mean
Never
0
Hardly
1
Sometimes
2
Often
3
Always
4
A V A V A V A V A V A V
(a) 2.0 1.45 0.13
0.2 0.26
0.2 0.2 0.53 0.26
0.06
0.13
0.06
0.2 0.0
(e) 0.8 1.06 0.33
0.0 0.53
0.93 0.13 0.06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(f) 1.0 1.25 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.33 0.0 0.06
0.0 0.0
(g) 3.3 3.27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.26 0.26
0.2 0.53
0.53
Other(s) No
Figure 5. Frequency of strategies used by Vietnamese and American male participants
Likert
mean
Never
0
Hardly
1
Sometimes
2
Often
3
Always
4
A V A V A V A V A V A V
(a) 2.42
1.97 0.06
0.06
0.13
0.33 0.26 0.46 0.4 0.13
0.13
0.0
(b) 2.47
1.95 0.0 0.06
(f) 1.13
1.6 0.13
0.13
0.6 0.26 0.26 0.46 0.0 0.13
0.0 0.0
(g) 3.14
3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.26 0.2 0.33
0.2 0.4 0.6
Other(s) No
Figure 6. Frequency of strategies used by Vietnamese and American female participants
By the same way of analyzing the data, it can be noted that the favorite hedging option of
Vietnamese females is Strategy (g), i.e. Mixing Different Ways (its mean is 3.4 in the
frequency scale from 0 to 4). This is also true to the American counterparts, though the
average frequency is a bit lower than that of the Vietnamese (3.14). The second favorite by
Hedging
Strategies
Likert
mean
Never
0
Hardly
1
Sometimes
2
Often
3
Always
4
A V A V A V A V A V A V
(a) 2.06
2.46 0.06
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.53 0.26
0.06
0.06
0.0
(b) 2.47
0.2 0.6 0.4 0.26 0.33 0.0 0.06
0.0 0.0
(g) 3.14
3.27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.26 0.26 0.33
0.2 0.4 0.53
Other(s) No
Figure 7. Frequency of strategies used by participants under 40 years old
On comparing the average frequency of each strategy employed by both Vietnamese and
American people under 40, it is noted that the most remarkable difference lies in the
4
A V A V A V A V A V A V
(a) 2.27 1.27 0.06
0.26
0.13 0.26 0.4 0.4 0.26
0.06
0.13 0.0
(b) 2.73 1.88 0.0 0.13
0.13 0.26 0.2 0.2 0.46
0.4 0.2 0.0
(c) 2.53 2.94 0.0 0.0 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.53
0.26
0.06 0.4
(d) 2.18 1.93 0.0 0.13
0.06 0.13 0.4 0.46 0.26
0.06
0.13 0.0
(e) 0.94 1.06 0.26
19
of the American people who are under the age of 40. The two least favored tactics by two
parties again are strategies (e) and (f), and the strategy (g) is still the highest on the scale.
2.2.3. Hedging Strategies in Different Situations
The use of hedging varies in different situations. The two situations are set to see if the
hedging strategies are different in formal and informal situations. The following date will
display the similarities and differences between Vietnamese and American use of each
strategy in different situations from the perspectives of gender, power and distance
between the S and the H.
2.2.3.1. Humming and Hawing
6.6
10
20
23.3
33.3
40
3
.
3
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5 6
sit.1 American
sit.1 Vietnamese
sit.2 American
sit.2 Vietnamese
Figure 9. Humming and Hawing
Statistically, Humming and Hawing is hardly used to hedge when declining a wedding
invitation made by someone superior or junior in both Vietnamese and American cultures.
Meanwhile, it is a popular strategy in the case when the partner is a not very close opposite
sex colleague (40% Americans and 66% Vietnamese). To the partners who are bosses,
juniors or same sex close colleagues, Vietnamese people tend to hum and haw less
frequent than the Americans. On the contrary, to colleagues that are not very close,
especially to those of opposite sex, Vietnamese people employ it much more often than the
American.
It can be referred from the data in Figure 9 that the significance of the invitation decides
the extent of using this tactic – Humming and Hawing. It is much less frequently used in
6.6
13.3
33.3
33.3
83.3
66.6
56.6
60
66.6
70
80
30
30
33.3
50
46
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6
%
sit.1 American
sit.1 Vietnamese
sit.2 American
sit.2 Vietnamese
Figure 10: Expressing Regret and Sorry
21
73.3
70
80
80
60
50
86.6
80
86.6
83.3
80
83.3
66.6
60
50
57
30
33.3
83.3
2.2.3.4. Showing Appreciation
86.6
80
73.3
70
76.6
70
86.6
80
66.6
70
70
76.6
46.6
40
50
53.3
40
43.3
7
0
3
0
3
0
4
0
4
6
.
22
Showing Appreciation is one of the favorite hedging strategies when declining a wedding
invitation. We can see the similarity between the number of Vietnamese and Americans
who employ this tactic towards different kinds of partner in the first situation. Figure 12
indicates that there is not much difference between them. The strategy is the most popular
in the case 1 (86.6%) and almost equally used in the rest cases (from 66.6%-76.6%).
Wedding is surely an important event in one’s life whether it happens in Vietnam or in the
US. Showing Appreciation is a very tactful way to share the happiness to the partners,
though the speakers cannot attend it.
Nevertheless, in less formal situations, (e.g. when being invited to a dinner), this tactic is
not such highly applied. American people seem to be more honest in this circumstance.
They tend to show what they are really feeling. They appreciate the invitation made by
their boss, and close friends more than those made by colleagues who are not close.
Vietnamese people show appreciation more when they deal with their boss or someone
they are not close to. Only 30% - 40% say that they verbally appreciate their close
colleague’s invitation. Vietnamese people trust much in the intimacy and hope that their
close friends can understand them as they really are, without any artificiality.
2.2.3.5. Blaming the Partner
23
In both situations, neither Vietnamese nor American people employ this hedging tactic
when they deal with colleagues that are not close. Maybe the distance between them does
not guarantee that this tactic can do it job safely.
Vietnamese people prove to be better at using this strategy. They even employ Blaming the
%
sit.1 American
sit.1 Vietnamese
sit.2 American
sit.2 Vietnamese
Figure 14. Giving Offer or Promise
From Figure 14, it is shown that in both situations, Vietnamese people tend to give offer or
promise more frequent when they decline an invitation from close colleagues. Vietnamese
people tend to think that close colleagues are those who most deserve an offer or a promise
as the intimacy counts. They also believe that they should compensate for the absence at
the wedding party by such ways as promising to come for a visit another day, to give a gift,
or to give a hand in helping to prepare for the party etc. To boss or someone junior, it is a
bit more inconvenient to give an offer or promise, as it is not close enough to offer help, or
promise to give a present. Vietnamese people tend to give money as a wedding present,
and they do not like to mention it because material matter is sometimes unsafe. It is a bit
different in American culture, where people give offer or promise to boss, junior, close
colleagues at similar rates. In the first situation, this tactic is used by neither Vietnamese
83.3
86.6
86.6
90
90
86.6
76.6
76.6
80
80
93.3
70
80
80
80
80
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 2 3 4 5 6
%
sit.1 American
sit.1 Vietnamese
sit.2 American
sit 2 Vietnamese
25
and American informants, the hedging techniques in invitation declining can be put into
seven main strategies, namely: Delaying, Showing Contrition, Giving Excuses, Showing
Esteem, Blaming the Partners, Giving an Alternative and Mixing Different Ways.
Followings are seven main strategies and their examples taken from the survey answers by
both Vietnamese and American participants.
Strategy 1: Delaying
Delaying, or being suggested as Humming and Hawing technique in the questionnaire, is a
commonly-used verbal strategy to hedge the main part of an invitation decline. In this
situation the S is aware that his /her refusal to the invitation contains a threat to the H’s
face. Delaying, therefore, is employed, firstly, to show the speaker’s hesitation and
reluctance when declining; and secondly, to allow the speaker some time to find the best
words for the decline so that the hearer will get less hurt.
Delaying can be categorized into four types:
• Preface
Preface is one delaying tactic to help the speaker start their decline in the safest and
most tactful way. This tactic can be performed with adverbs and interjections such as:
well, actually, umm, nah, yeah… in American English and , à, m, qu là… in
Vietnamese.
Examples: - Actually… I have something going on on that date
- Well thanks. But I don’t think I can go.
Copyright: Tài liệu đại học ©