HA NOI OPEN UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF ENGLISH -oOo ASSIGNMENT PRAGMATICS Hà Nội- 2015 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .1 Rationale Scope of the study .1 Aims of the study .2 Methodology SOME BRIEFT ABSTRACTS II Theoretical background .3 Hedging Hedges and Speech Acts Invitation decline and hedges in invitation declining III.HEDGING STRATEGIES IN INVITATION DECLINING IN VIETNAMESE AND AMERICAN ENGLISH CONCLUSION 14 REFERENCES 15 INTRODUCTION Rationale An emphasis on language as a communication system is really necessary in an age of globalization Understanding social conventions and attention to such concepts as politeness, and face, which are important to members in a particular culture, will certainly enable us to better comprehend the different ways of speaking by people from different cultures, thus helping eliminate ethnic stereotypes and misunderstandings There have been so far plenty of researches on the field of politeness from various perspectives Yet, hedging in language is still an area available for more exploration This research, therefore, has chosen hedging as a potential subject Hedging is very broad area, and within the limit of the study, it is impossible to discuss all aspects of hedging in language As declining an invitation is an act with high risk of making the hearer loses face, it requires different supplementary steps to reduce the weightiness of the utterance This is where hedging can mostly be seen That is the reason why hedging in invitation declining is chosen for the project This study has focused on comparing American and 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 Scope of the study - The study has been done from the perspective of pragmatics where Vietnamese and American hedging in invitation declining is analyzed as speech acts in particular contexts However, semantic and syntactic theories are employed at times to help better analyze different hedging strategies - Hedging is known available in both spoken and written language Yet, in this research, the focus will be paid on hedging in spoken language only Aims of the study The main aims of the study are to: • find out the similarities and differences in the way Vietnamese and American people hedge when declining an invitation • help avoid potential cross-cultural conflicts between Vietnamese and American speakers, with focus on the proper use of hedging in invitation declining Methodology 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 SOME BRIEFT ABSTRACTS II Theoretical background 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 follow: 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 “hedge” (1971: 195) Later on, hedging has been viewed from the perspective of pragmatics The concept of hedge/hedging is understood in different ways in the literature Hedges have been referred to as compromisers (James, 1983), downtoners (Quirk at all, 1972, 1985), understatements (Hubler, 1983), weakeners (Brown and Levinson, 1987), downgraders (House and Kasper, 1981), softeners (Crystal and Davy, 1975), backgrounding terms (Low, 1996), approximators and shields (Prince at all, 1982) and pragmatic devices (Subble and Homes,1995), mitigators (Labov and Fanshel, 1977, Stubbs, 1983), Tentativeness (Homes, 1983, 1995) and vagueness (Channell, 1994) Brown and 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 Nguyen Thien Giap (2000), Hoang Phe (2002), Nguyen Quang (2003) also view hedging as a pragmatic phenomenon Hoang Phe is his Vietnamese Dictionary states that “hedges are expressions which are preventive from (unexpected) misunderstanding and reaction/responses to what is said” According to Nguyen 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 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 set forth with an idea called “ordinary language philosophy” He believed that the meaning language depends on its actual use.Language, as used in ordinary life, is a kind of “language games” because it consists of rules.In other words, prople follow rules to things with the language It was in this same period that Austin launched his theory of speech acts He insisted that “The total speech act in the total speech situation is the only actual phenomenon which, in the last resort, we engaged in elucidating” (1962: 147) 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 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, at 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 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 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 made an excuse, a question, to give thanks, apologies, promises, ect The act of hedging can consist of different means, including hedging devices (or hedges) Invitation decline and hedges in invitation declining It is noticed that normally, an invitation decline is a set of speech acts According to Murhy an Neu (1996), a speech act set is a combination of individual speech acts that, when produced together, comprise a complete speech act Often more than one discrete speech act is necessary for a speaker to develop the overarching communicative purpose – or illocutionary forces – desired When declining an invitation we commit an act of refusal, as the word decline itself, according to the Longman Dictionary, means “refuse to accept” However, declining an invitation sometimes is not simply saying no to an invitation When declining an invitation, speakers might produce different individual speech acts, for example, (1) an expression of regret, “I’m so sorry”, followed by (2) an excuse “I’m out of town on business next week”, 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 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, ect, - The perlocutionary act identified primanly in terms of the outcome or consequences of a communicative effort Of these three classes, the illocutionary act counts as Austins great discovery III.HEDGING STRATEGIES IN INVITATION DECLINING IN VIETNAMESE AND AMERICAN ENGLISH As said earlier, in this study, hedging in invitation declining in Vietnamese and American English is mainly viewed from pragmatic perspective It is seen as politeness strategies to minimize the threat to face Basing on the analysis of the data collected from Vietnamese 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 sometime to find the best words for the decline so that the hearer will get less hurt Delaying can be categorized into types: - 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, um, nah, yeah…in American English, and: à, m, là…in Vietnamese Examples: + Actually…I have something going on that date + Well…thanks But I don’t think I can go + Nah, man, I don’t really want to go + M…Chiều tớ quê (Um…I’m going to my homeland this afternoon) + …Chắc tớ không đến rồi… (Err…Perhaps I can’t come) - Doubt and hesitation: The purpose of showing doubt and hesitation is to give the hearer one feeling that the speaker is not sure about the decline, that maybe he/she will come and maybe not This tactic, therefore, gives the H a ray of hope about the presence of the S Examples: + I don’t know if I can go, perhaps not, thanks for the invite + Yeah, I probably will not be able to make it… + Em chẳng biết có đến không.Hôm nhà có việc (I’m not sure if I can come.I have some family affair that day) +Xem đã…Chắc không đến được.Thằng cu ốm chưa khỏi (Let me see…Perhaps I can’t come My little son is still ill) - Mitigation: With the use of mitigations such as sort of, kind of…in American English and có in Vietnamese can reduce the force of the decline, as they can soften the seriousness of the refusal Example: + Aw, I’m sort of busy today, maybe another time + Hôm ý có khó đấy.Đám cưới ông bác trùng vào ngày đấy, mời (It seems impossible that day My cousin’s wedding is on that day, too) - Appealing for understanding: This is a positive politeness strategy, as the speaker try to involve the listeners into his party, by supposing that they know all the troubles from the speaker’s side.The expressions which are often used are: You see…, You know…in American English and Anh xem…, Anh thấy đấy…in Vietnam Examples: + Gee, you see…I gotta finish this damn report this evening + Trời ơi, anh xem…con vợ em muộn lại làm um lên (Gosh, you see, my wife is always fussy whenever I come home late) Strategy 2: Showing regret The aims of this strategy, say, showing regret, are to express how the S fells regretful when declining an invitation By this strategy, the S also means that he/she really would like to accept the invitation but for unwanted reasons they have to decline It is used to appeal for the H’s understanding and showing apology - Expressing regret: * Oh! Gosh!/ Aw…What a pity!/ Unfortunately, what a shame!/ I wish… * Trời ơi…/ Chán quá…/ Tiếc nhỉ…/ Giá mà… Examples: + Aw, what a shame! It must be so much fun… + Tiếc quá, hôm có hẹn rồi… (What a pity! I have got an appointment today) - Saying sorry Examples: + Gosh! Iam sorry We can’t attend it 10 + Hôm cho em cáo lỗi với sếp Hôm nay, em phải sớm đón (I’m afraid I have to say sorry, boss Today, I have to leave early to pick up my kid) Strategy 3: Giving excuses It is obvious that excuses, is a vital part when declining an invitation Its aim is to make the hearer clear about the reason(s) for the decline The excuses can be the truth or lies One common tactic to give a persuasive excuse is to make it non-personal, and the other way is to mention a previous personal arrangement By these ways, the S can appeal for the hearer’s sympathy, thus, may partially make the S faultless and reduce the force of the decline - Making the excuse personal Examples: + I am really sorry, but I’m kind of tired And I have to wake up early for work tomorrow + Tiếc thật đấy, hôm ý sếp lại phái tớ xuống Hải Phòng (Oh! What a pity! My boss will send me to Hai Phong on that day) - Mentioning a previous personal arrangement Examples: + I’m sorry, but I have plans already + Hôm lại có tí việc hoãn (Oh! Today, I have some work that I can’t be postponed) Strategy 4: Expressing Esteem Being aware of the risk of making one lose face when declining an invitation, speakers can choose the strategy of giving the listeners a face, i.e making them to feel great first One effective way to this is to show how you appreciate the partner’s invitation This can guarantee that the speakers can safety commit the FTA – declining invitations afterwards 11 Three common ways to show esteem before declining an invitation that will be mentioned are: (1) expressing thanks, (2) expressing interest and (3) expressing surprise - Expressing thanks: Giving thank is an easy and common way to show appreciation to the invitations Examples: + Thanks for thinking of me, but I’m really swamped at the moment + Cảm ơn chị Nhưng có lẽ em không đến (Thank you But I probably will not be able to come) - Expessing interest: S can show their interest and concern for invitation by giving good comments on it or showing enthusiasm for it Examples: + How nice are the couple! But I’m afraid I can’t make it that day + Chúc mừng nhé! Nhưng hôm anh chị không đến (Congratulation! But I don’t think I can come that day) - Expressing surprise: Showing a nice surprise is also a good way in expressing your concerns for the invitation Examples: + Oh, really! What’s a nice surprise! + Cái gì? Cậu định cưới vậy? (What? When did you decide to get married?) Strategy 5: Blaming the partner It sounds like the speaker is going to another FTA In fact, this is a positive politeness strategy, as it shows the intimacy between the S and the H.Blaming the partner is not aimed at making the hearer feel bad It is a very tactful way to remind the hearer that the speaker has regarded him/her as a close person so far, so as to ask for their sympathy more easily 12 Examples; + Why didn’t you tell me before about this? I wouldn’t have already made plans for that date + Trời ơi! Sao khéo chọn lúc em bận mời? (Gosh, why you only invite me when I am busy?) Strategy 6: Giving an alternative Giving an alternative, in this case, is considered as the compensation for the FTA of declining an invitation The S hopes, by giving an alternative, he/she can make up for the face lost of the H and therefore, can also soften the effect of an invitation refusal - Giving an offer Examples: + What night? Tuesday? Gosh, man, I am sorry.I have an idea Why don’t you come to our house for dinner another time? We would love to share a good meal with you + Vợ đến giúp cậu chuyện đám cưới.Còn không đến (My wife will come and give you a hand wit the preparation for the wedding But I don’t think I can come) - Making a promise Examples: + Maybe next time I probably will not be able to make it + Lấn sau nhé.Hôm bận (Maybe another time.Today, I am busy) Strategy 7: Mixing different ways Sometimes hedging in in vitation declining can be formed by one single hedge In other cases, it is formed by a cluster of hedges Strategy 7, in fact is the mixture of several strategies mentioned above As discussed in the 13 theoretical background section, an invitation decline is mostly a speech act set, which contains different individual speech acts Strategy is the cases when speaks employ more than one strategy at a time to hedge their refusal Example: + Wow, good news! Unfortunately, I have got something planned before I don’t think I can come In the case, hedging contains different hedges: Showing appreciation, Showing regret and Giving excuses + Thứ à! Cậu để xem Chắc tớ đến mừng hạnh phúc cậu ngày hôm trước.T tớ có việc quan trọng bỏ (Saturday? Where? Let me see Perhaps I will come to congratulate you the day before because I have a very important work on Saturday) In this decline, there is a mixture of: Showing esteem, Delaying, Giving an alternative, and Giving excuse CONCLUSION In the research, hedge in invitation declining has been viewed in the light of pragmatics It is seen as speech acts that are employed to avoid the risk of making the hearers lose their face In this research, hedging in invitation declining has been limited in office setting Seven main hedging, strategies have been found, including declaying, showing regret, giving excuses, showing appreciation, blame the partner, giving an alternative, and mixing different ways Such factors as gender, age, power, distance of the speakers and the hearers and the formality of the events have been explored to find the differences in the use of hedges to decline an invitation between Vietnamese and American people 14 REFERENCES Lakoff (1972), A study in meaning criteria and the Logic of fuzzy concepts Zadeh (1972), Fuzzy-set-theoretic interpretation of linguistic hedges Nguyen Thien Giap (2000), Vietnamese linguists Hoang Phe (2002), Vietnamese Dictionary Ludwig Wittgenstein (1985), Philosophical Investigations G, Kasper & S, Blum-Kulka (1993), An Introduction New York, Oxford: OUP Tran Ngoc Them (1991), Cơ sở văn hóa Việt Nam.Ha noi: Education Publishing House Le Quang Thiem (2004), Nghiên cứu đối chiếu ngôn ngữ Ha noi: Ha noi National University Publisher 15 [...]... Saturday) In this decline, there is a mixture of: Showing esteem, Delaying, Giving an alternative, and Giving excuse CONCLUSION In the research, hedge in invitation declining has been viewed in the light of pragmatics It is seen as speech acts that are employed to avoid the risk of making the hearers lose their face In this research, hedging in invitation declining has been limited in office setting Seven ... applicable to the reality Scope of the study - The study has been done from the perspective of pragmatics where Vietnamese and American hedging in invitation declining is analyzed as speech acts... to such words as “hedge” (1971: 195) Later on, hedging has been viewed from the perspective of pragmatics The concept of hedge/hedging is understood in different ways in the literature Hedges... 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