Mệnh đề điều kiện được sử dụng làm phương
tiện rào đón trong tiếng Anh và tương đương
của chúng trong tiếng Việt: nghiên cứu trên bình
diện dụng học

Ngô Thị Minh Trang

Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ
Luận văn ThS ngành: Ngôn Ngữ Anh; Mã số: 60 22 15
Người hướng dẫn: Dr. Ngô Hữu Hoàng
Năm bảo vệ: 2012 Abstract: Numerous studies have been carried out to investigate English conditionals in
light of syntactics and semantics; however, limited research has been done to evaluate the
pragmatic functions of conditionals, particularly in Vietnamese context. This study,
therefore, is done with an aim to offer a detailed analysis of conditionals in light of
pragmatics. The study employed a qualitative approach through data collection and
analysis from a well-known novella. The data then were quantitatively converted into
numeric patterns as the primary basis for organizing and reporting results. The findings of
the study show that conditional clauses are not only used in English for referring to real
as well as hypothetical conditions and their consequences but can be also used as a
hedging device to issue politeness, especially in spoken contexts, where the if-clause
often stands alone and is independent of the main clause. Hopefully, this study would
offer both theoretical & practical contribution on the area of pragmatic studies
particularly on analyzing conditionals used in language basing on the Cooperative
Principle and Politeness Theory. Theoretically, this study is hoped to broaden the
understanding of pragmatic functions of conditional in real communication. It is also
expected that the findings in this study will give a direct contribution to the existing
knowledge in the field of pragmatic studies. Practically, the researcher hopes that this
study can provide the educators with the appropriate explanations of pseudo-conditionals

for over approximately a five-month period. The data were quantitatively converted into numeric
patterns as the primary basis for organizing and reporting results.

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter provides the theoretical background of the thesis. It is divided into four main
sections; section 1 discusses the concept of Hedging, section 2 presents Cooperative Principles,
section 3 focuses on the Politeness Strategies, and section 4 deals with the concept of Conditionals.
1. The Concept of Hedging
1.1. Definitions of Hedge
1.2. Forms of Hedges
1.3. Functions of Hedges
2. Cooperative Principle
3. Politeness Theory
3.1. Politeness and Face
3.2. Face Saving Acts versus Face Threatening Acts
3.3. Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory
4. The Concept of Conditionals
4.1. Definition of Conditional Sentences
4.2. True Conditionals
4.3. Pseudo-Conditionals

CHAPTER 2: “IF” HEDGING AND POLITENESS
This chapter analyzes the pragmatic functions of pseudo-conditionals as hedging devices in
English and Vietnamese basing on Grice’s theory of Cooperative Principle and Brown and
Levinson’s theory of Politeness Principle.
2.1. If-hedging and Cooperative Principle
2.1.1. If-hedging and Maxim of Quality
2.1.2. If-hedging and Maxim of Quantity
2.1.3. If-hedging and Maxim of Relation

studying English conditional sentences in light of pragmatics and some ways to help Vietnamese
learners of English overcome the difficulties in translating English conditionals into Vietnamese and
vice versa.
Furthermore, in the last part of the thesis, Vietnamese learners of English can be provided
with useful knowledge that can help them know how to perform a pseudo-conditional effectively in
communication.

2. LIMITATIONS
First of all, data were collected only within a period of five months; this time constraint was
determinant for the way in which data was collected. Also, the data were collected from one novella
consisting of 27 chapters; therefore, the findings discussed in this study cannot be generalized for the
occurrence rate of conditionals. Moreover, because of the same constraint, the researcher was able to
gather only examples from If-clauses, while more other conditional structures would have certainly
enabled the researcher to draw a more detailed picture of actual conditionals. Next, this study was
guided by a simple research design whose aim was to begin to understand the pragmatic functions of
pseudo-conditionals in linguistics and communication.
Language Database.
8. Coulmas F. (1981), Conversational Routine, The Hague, Netherlands, Mouton.
9. Crompton P. (1997), Hedging in Academic Writing: Some Theoretical Problems.
English for Specific Purposes.
10. Crystal D. (2008), A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, Malden, MA:
Blackwell Pub.
11. Drechsel J. (1989), Peer Groups and the Language of Negotiation in Education
Linguistics.
12. Elbaum S.N. (1986), Grammar in Contex, Boston, Cengage Heinle.
13. Fasold R. W., Shuy R. W. (1977), Studies in language variation: semantics, syntax,
phonology, pragmatics, social situations, ethnographic approaches, Georgetown
University Press.
14. Fraser B. (1975), Hedged Performatives, Syntax and Semantic volume 3: Speech acts,
New York.
15. Fraser B. (1996), Pragmatic Markers, Boston University.
16. Fraser B. (2010), Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging, Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
17. Fraser B., Nolen, W. (1981), The Association of Deference with Linguistic Form,
International Journal of the Sociology of Language.
18. Gabrielatos C. (2003), Conditional Sentences: ELT typology and corpus evidence,
Paper given at the Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics,
University of Leeds.
19. Grice H. P. (1975), Logic and Conversation, Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts,
New York, Academic Press.
20. Groenendijk J., Stockhof M. (1984), Studies in the semantics of questions and the
pragmatics of answers, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
21. Haiman J. (1978), Conditionals are Topics, Language 54.
22. Halliday M. A.K., Hasan R. (1989), Language, Context and Text: a social semiotic
perspective, Oxford.
23. Hatch E. (1992), Discourse and Language Education, Cambridge, Cambridge

lexical hedges in academic spoken interaction, Unpublished MA thesis, University of
Helsinki.
38. Salager-Meyer F. (1994), Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical
English Written Discourse, English for Specific Purposes, Vol 13.
39. Schmidt C. (1974), The Relevance to Semantic Theory of a Study of Vagueness in
Papers from the Eight Regional Meeting, Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society.
40. Searle J. R. (1969), Speech Acts: An Essay In The Philosophy of Language,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
41. Skelton J. (1988b), Comments in academic articles, Applied Linguistics in Society,
London, CILT/BAAL.
42. Thomson A. J, Martinet A. V. (1986), A Practical English Grammar, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
43. Verschueren J. (2000), Understanding Pragmatics, Beijing, Foreign Language
Teaching and Research Press.
44. Weinreich U. (1966), On the semantic structure of English, Universals of language,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45. Wilamová S. (2005), On The Function of Hedging Devices in Negatively Polite
Discourse, Brněnské University.
46. Wilamová S. (2005), On Expressing Negative Politeness in English Fictional
Discourse, Ostrava, Ostravská University.
47. Woods K. (1971), The Little Prince (Trans.), Mariner Books.