REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
E XPLORING THE C ONCEPT OF H EDGING
In our lives, we often use hedging as a strategy to protect ourselves from unpleasant situations by avoiding commitment to specific actions or decisions The term "hedge" has both everyday and linguistic meanings, highlighting the need for hedges in communication According to linguists R Markkanen and H Schroder, hedges help convey concepts that may evoke varying mental images, necessitating a way to indicate less prototypical representations This thesis will explore the concept of hedging through semantic, pragmatic, and social lenses.
2.1.1.1 Semantic and Pragmatic aspects of hedging
The use of hedge as a linguistic term goes back at least to the early 1970s, when
G Lakoff (1972) published his article Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts Lakoff was interested in the linguistic phenomena used to talk about the more peripheral members of broad concept categories To illustrate the practical possibility of studying such linguistic terms in terms of logical properties and to address the questions involved in such analyses, Lakoff carefully studied a group of words and phrases like rather, largely, in a manner of speaking, very that he regarded as hedges in “making things fuzzier or less fuzzy” (1972: 213)
The term "hedge" has evolved to encompass various linguistic elements beyond Lakoff's original definition, yet his foundational work continues to inform subsequent analyses of hedging Lakoff's definition highlights the semantic underpinnings of hedging and suggests its interaction with conversational rules and felicity conditions Supporting this, Brown and Levinson describe hedging as a linguistic element that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase within a set, indicating that such membership may be partial or contextually true, thereby enhancing the nuance of the statement.
Since the early 1970s, the concept of hedge has evolved significantly, gaining attention from pragmatists and discourse analysts It has shifted away from merely indicating expressions that modify the category membership of predicates or noun phrases The notion of hedged performatives, as discussed by Lakoff, includes phrases like "I suppose," "I guess," and "I think that," as well as requests such as "won't you open the door?"
In 1972, Robin Lakoff expanded the understanding of hedges in language, while Fraser (1974) examined how hedged performatives influence illocutionary acts For instance, in performative sentences such as "I must advise you to remain quiet," the use of the modal verb "must" alleviates some of the speaker's responsibility.
Halliday and Hasan (1985) emphasize that utterances encompass both ideational and interpersonal elements This insight has led to an evolved understanding of hedging within pragmatics and discourse analysis, viewing it as a pragmatic phenomenon rather than merely semantic Hedges serve as modifiers of a speaker's or writer's commitment to the truth-value of an entire proposition, rather than just affecting specific parts For instance, Kopple (1985) interprets hedges like "perhaps," "seem," and "might" as indicators of a speaker's lack of full commitment to the proposition's content, thereby altering the truth-value of the entire statement.
Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) explored the concept of politeness in verbal interactions through a pragmatic lens, identifying hedges as tools to mitigate disagreement They characterized hedges as strategies that exemplify negative politeness, aimed at preserving face Hoang Phe aligns with this perspective, emphasizing the significance of hedges in maintaining social harmony.
In the Vietnamese Dictionary (1994), hedging is defined as a strategy to prevent misunderstandings or adverse reactions to a speaker's statements Within the framework of negative politeness, hedges serve to soften the illocutionary force of an utterance, aligning with Grice's (1975) four maxims Supporting this view, Brown and Levinson (1978) and Hübler (1983) emphasize that hedging enhances the acceptability of sentences for the listener, thereby increasing the likelihood of their affirmation Hübler further asserts that the primary function of hedges is to minimize the risk of negation.
The expanding definition of hedging now includes the adjustment of commitment to the truth of propositions, prompting some researchers to propose a distinction between two types of hedges, building on Lakoff’s foundational work.
(1972) definition of hedges as devices that make things fuzzy, and add that there are two kinds of fuzziness: One is fuzziness within the propositional content
In the context of communication, approximators refer to expressions that indicate a degree of uncertainty, while shields denote the fuzziness in the relationship between the propositional content and the speaker's commitment to the truth of the conveyed proposition.
In the realm of language, two types of fuzziness are identified: approximators and shields Approximators, such as "She is sort of nervous," influence the truth-conditions of propositions, while shields, like "I think she is nervous," indicate the speaker's level of commitment to the truth-value without altering the truth-conditions Hübler (1983) elaborates on this by distinguishing between understatements, which relate to the propositional content, and hedges, which pertain to the validity of the speaker's claim For instance, "It is a bit stuffy in here" exemplifies an understatement, whereas "It is stuffy in that coal mine, I suppose" serves as a hedge Both understatements and hedges ultimately aim to express indeterminacy, making statements more palatable to the listener and enhancing their likelihood of acceptance.
To fully grasp the concept of hedging, it is essential to consider social factors, as misunderstandings can arise in intercultural communication Individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds may misinterpret each other's responses, leading to potential conflicts For instance, an Anglicist may misjudge a Vietnamese person's reaction to a compliment, resulting in communication breakdowns if cultural differences are not acknowledged To mitigate such misunderstandings, hedging devices can be employed, as they help make linguistic interactions more socially acceptable by aligning with specific cultural norms According to Salager-Meyer (2000), hedging enhances conversations by adhering to established social expectations, particularly within professional and academic contexts Additionally, possessing hedging competence, which involves understanding these cultural conventions, is crucial for effective communication and integration within a community (Wilss, 1997).
Hedging serves multiple purposes beyond helping writers gain consensus within professional communities As noted by Bhatia, each genre adheres to specific rules and conventions, which researchers and academic writers can explore through various methods However, deviating too far from these established norms can result in a noticeable lack of coherence.
The Dictionary of Stylistics categorizes hedge and hedging within discourse analysis and speech act theory, defining them as techniques for qualifying and softening statements to minimize potential risks associated with communication Their primary purpose is to mitigate the impact of expressions that might otherwise appear overly assertive.
Hedging serves as a tool for expressing politeness and respect towards strangers and superiors, while also allowing writers to modify their responsibility for the truthfulness of their statements Markkanen and Schründer (1989; 1992) highlight that hedging can obscure the writer's accountability regarding the information presented, leaving the reader uncertain about the truth value of the assertions made They note that the strategic use of specific pronouns, avoidance of others, impersonal expressions, passive constructions, and modal verbs, adverbs, and particles are key components of hedging Consequently, hedging functions on multiple levels of communication simultaneously.
H EDGING AND S CIENTIFIC D ISCOURSE
This section offers a critical overview of scientific discourse, focusing on the role of hedging within its broader context It is organized into three parts, starting with an exploration of the textual and organizational characteristics that define scientific communication.
Part 2 aims to define the linguistic context of research writing, highlighting the significance of discourse analysis for comprehending written texts It focuses on identifying the connections between linguistic forms, examining surface cohesion, and creating linguistic environments where hedging expressions are utilized.
Part 3 will identify an overall picture about hedging – a means by which arguments are negotiated in scientific communication In particular, this part will consider some concepts in the speech acts, and in linguistics literature such as
2.2.1 The Nature of Scientific Discourse
2.2.1.1 The Nature of Scientific Discourse in Empiricist Views
Scientific written discourse differs from creative writing, as it is typically viewed as purely informative and a direct representation of natural facts Researchers often regard scientific reports as accurate and truthful accounts of experimental processes (Kaplan and Grabe, 1991) Bazerman (1988) notes that the effectiveness of scientific discourse lies in its ability to remain unobtrusive The foundation of scientific knowledge is seen as dependent on the subject matter, publication judgment, peer evaluation, and rigorous procedures, positioning scientific texts as "messengers" of truth (Gilbert, 1976) Furthermore, authors must adhere to conventional styles and formats, which represent the standardized output of the knowledge production process (Swales, 1987) As a result, personal opinions and identities of authors are largely absent from their scientific writings.
Scientific discourse is characterized by rhetorical strategies that emphasize objectivity and impersonality, as noted by Knorr-Cetina (1981) Authors often strive to minimize their personal presence and interests in their research presentations to effectively engage peer audiences, thus enhancing the persuasive nature of scientific writing Techniques such as passivation, indirectness, and the avoidance of explicit value statements contribute to this objective, reinforcing the precision and objectivity of their reports Bazerman (1984) asserts that these strategies are essential, rather than mere stylistic choices, in scientific communication The incorporation of these features reflects the belief that research findings must be scrutinized within the scientific community, where the production of knowledge is traditionally viewed as independent of social influences This perspective positions the natural world as a realm of reality and objectivity.
The characteristics of the natural world are independent of the observers' preferences or intentions, yet they can be represented with varying degrees of accuracy Science serves as an intellectual pursuit aimed at delivering a precise depiction of the objects, processes, and relationships inherent in natural phenomena Valid scientific knowledge encapsulates the true nature of the world through systematic statements, revealing its authentic character.
Scientists recognize the critical importance of accuracy in producing scientific knowledge, which relies on stringent criteria for validating information They are expected to provide an accurate representation of the physical world and are believed to embody a unique spirit of excellence Merton highlights the esteemed status of scientists, asserting that their activities undergo rigorous scrutiny, arguably unmatched in any other field.
2.2.1.2 The Social Nature of Scientific Discourse
Recent sociological studies have explored the social and linguistic dimensions of scientific research, highlighting that scientific discourse not only reflects the physical world but also shapes the scientific community itself (Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984; Mulkay, 1979; McKinlay & Potter, 1987; Myers, 1990) Mulkay (1979) critiques Merton's normative perspective, arguing that the interpretation of the physical world by scientists is influenced by their social context and is subject to continual revision This suggests that the creation of scientific knowledge involves negotiation within specific contexts, where the expectations and assumptions of scientists play a significant role Consequently, the research process—including topic selection, methodology, and theoretical frameworks—depends on the individual scholar's perspective within their scientific community Thus, the outcomes of scientific research may not accurately reflect the universe but rather emerge from a negotiation process shaped by the research context.
Scientific conclusions are not absolute representations of the physical world; instead, they reflect the perspectives of specific groups within particular cultural and social contexts Evidence suggests that the perception of objects can vary among scientists based on their social environments, indicating that social factors influence the formation of scientific claims and conclusions (Mulkay, 1979:95).
Mulkay, along with researchers McKinlay & Potter (1987) and Myers (1990), highlights that scientific language fulfills two key rhetorical functions: it aids scientists in addressing and persuading audiences about scientific issues, and it helps establish the authority of science This indicates that scientific writing not only conveys essential truths about the scientific realm but also aims to persuade readers that the discussed scientific questions are grounded in fact Consequently, the production and validation of scientific knowledge extend beyond mere objective analysis by scientists; it also involves the social negotiation skills of researchers within their communities This perspective is valid because, while individual scientists may theoretically produce technical knowledge, the status of truth for scientific information is often contingent upon its communication and acceptance by the broader scientific community.
In the communication of scientific research, scholars must effectively persuade their audience of the significance, reliability, and validity of their findings and methodologies This communication is a crucial aspect of the knowledge-validation process, as noted by Bhatia (1985) and others, emphasizing that researchers must engage their readers to gain acceptance of their ideas Booth (1974) highlights the importance of convincing others over merely presenting abstract truths, while Latour and Woolgar (1979) illustrate that scientific discourse relies heavily on persuasive writing and negotiation rather than just factual presentation Their analysis, despite facing criticism for being subjective, underscores the role of public judgment in evaluating a scientist's contributions Recognition in the scientific community often hinges on peer validation, making persuasive rhetoric essential for success in research publication, which serves as a reward within this competitive system (Barnes & Edge, 1982).
Hyland (1996) emphasizes that persuasive language plays a crucial role in scientific discourse, as the meaning of a scientific text is shaped by the author's linguistic expressions However, various factors, including the readers' scientific competence and potentially opposing opinions, influence text interpretation Consequently, scientific writers must carefully select their language and structure their discourse effectively to mitigate the risk of negative reactions from readers.
Scientific discourse is fundamentally a sender-addressee relationship where social issues significantly influence the construction of texts for specific discourse communities Kaplan and Grabe (1991) highlight that the social nature of scientific discourse allows it to be shaped by the cultural and rhetorical assumptions of authors, aiming for maximal acceptability rather than objective transparency Knoor-Cetina (1981) notes that scientific papers often conceal more than they reveal, as they fail to fully represent the complexities of laboratory research while claiming to provide a comprehensive report Additionally, the written outputs of research frequently employ literary strategies that readers may overlook To enhance acceptability, strategies such as impersonal statements, vague language, and hedging expressions are commonly utilized in scientific discourse.
Research articles are crucial for disseminating scientific information among researchers Numerous studies have explored various forms of scientific communication, including conference papers, book reports, and review articles.
Research articles (RAs) are among the most extensively analyzed texts in scientific discourse, with numerous studies examining their literary conventions Despite this, there remain significant gaps in the research surrounding RAs that need to be addressed One area of focus is the study of hedging expressions, which represents just one facet of the broader investigation into research articles.
2.2.1.3 The Characteristics of Scientific Research Articles (RAs)