Masarykova univerzita

y.iii)Hedging

Hedging is a linguistic strategy employed by conversationalists to weaken the illocutionary force of utterances, to reduce the intensity of utterances and also their directness. It is utilized “in situations which would otherwise lead to a loss of face (either for the speaker or for the listener) and which would thus make communication untenable mainly due to the infringing of the Politeness Principle” (Urbanová 2003:58).

Similar inferences are stated by Brown and Levinson who assert that “ordinary communicative intentions are often potential threats to cooperative interaction” (1987:145). Thus, if you ask someone to do something, you assume that they are willing to do it, “to promise to do something is to admit that one hasn’t already done it, to assume that the addressee wants it done and would prefer you to do it - and so on [...]. Consequently, to hedge these assumptions [...] is a primary and fundamental method of disarming routine interactional threats [...]. Conversational principles are the source of strong background assumptions about cooperation, informativeness, truthfulness, relevance, and clarity, which on many occasions need to be softened for reasons of face” (Brown and Levinson 1987:146).

To weaken the force of their utterances, interlocutors make use of particular linguistic means. As already mentioned, many of them are context-sensitive, therefore the same linguistic item may be interpreted as a boosting device in one context, whereas in another it hedges the illocutionary force of a speech act. Typical examples of such device are phrases I think, I mean or you know, which require a broader context in order to be determined as an intensifying or attenuating device.

Hedging devices function as softeners of the illocutionary force of utterances and that is why they are associated with expressing negative politeness. “Negative politeness is redressive action addressed to the addressee’s negative face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded” (Brown and Levinson 1987:129). Holmes (1995:11-14) states that negative politeness relates to social distance and solidarity. Participants in a conversational exchange usually express negative politeness to people who they want to keep at a distance, which means that negative politeness stresses the social distance. By contrast, positive politeness puts emphasis on what people share and so it diminishes the distance between them. From this it follows that negative politeness strategies become apparent in formal contexts, whereas positive politeness occurs in informal and intimate situations (Holmes 1995:14).

It is widely accepted that politeness (either positive or negative) is a culture-specific phenomenon (Brown and Levinson 1987; Holmes 1995; Urbanová 2003; Leech 1983, etc.). In this connection, Urbanová (2003:60) mentions that there are “negative politeness cultures” or “standoffish cultures” which are “reserved and distant, an example of which is the British culture.”

As Holmes (1984:348) explains, modal meaning of an utterance includes the degree of certainty which the speaker expresses as to the validity of the proposition of the utterance. The speaker may be hesitant about the validity of the information included in the proposition. Thus, if s/he attenuates the force of this utterance, s/he expresses uncertainty or irresponsibility for its validity. In Example 8, Duncan used modal adverbs maybe and perhaps to show his uncertainty about the facts expressed in his proposition, which means that, pragmatically, these linguistic means function as hedges:

Example

ALAN DUNCAN: I mean. It's early days - you know what we're trying to do is to broaden the appeal of the, of the party, remove a lot of the negatives, try and appeal to people who are women, younger and maybe up in the north and living in urban areas.

Now just taking Bromley, it wasn't perhaps the easiest and most fertile ground in which to draw the best results from that kind of early strategic activity.

(App., p. 150, Alan Duncan, 2006-07-02, ll. 118-125)

Hedging devices are also used to show detachment from the proposition, as may be seen in Example 9 below. Using the modal adverb probably, Bush expresses his detachment because he does not want to be made responsible for his statement about Hillary Clinton’s assertion.

Example

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, first of all, we have already sanctioned Iran. The United States Government has got sanctions in place on Iran. I think probably what she is referring to is whether or not we should refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council. I have said that is certainly a very--a real possibility, and that once we are in the Security Council, of course, that's one of the options, but we are going to work with our friends and allies to make sure that when we get in the Security Council, we will have an effective response.

(App., p. 71, George W. Bush, 2006-01-27, ll. 67-78)

In the following example, Bush uses the hedging phrase I’m not exactly sure. Its function is to express content-oriented uncertainty:

Example

PELLEY: Your military officers say that Iranian agents today are killing American troops on the ground in Iraq. Is that an act of war on the part of Iran against the United States?

(App., p. 93, George W. Bush, 2007-01-14, ll. 261-270)

In this context, it is also possible to interpret the hedging phrase, used in Example 10 above, the other way round. Bush actually says that he wants to be very precise but he cannot because the interviewer does not give an exact definition of an “act of war”. Bush’s reply reveals that the interviewer is uncertain and Bush wants to show responsibility in this way. From this it follows that the context is crucial when interpreting functions of particular utterances. This finding has been stressed by the scholars of the Prague School. Mathesius states that every utterance carries its own meaning in a particular context and reflects the attitude of the speaker to reality. The meaning conveyed in an utterence is, in most cases, oriented to the hearer (1982 [1942]:93).

Firbas (1992) considers the “contextual factor” as the strongest of the three factors of functional sentence perspective (the other two factors are the “linear modification factor” and the “semantic factor”). He introduces the “immediately relevant context”, which is further divided into “verbal” and “situational”. The immediately relevant context is defined as a very narrow part of context that “is embedded in a sphere formed by the entire preceeding verbal context and the entire situational and experiential context accompanying it. In its turn, this sphere is embedded within a still larger one constituted by all the knowledge and experience shared by the interlocutors, which then forms part of the general context of human knowledge and experience” (Firbas 1992:22-23).

The above-mentioned utterance I’m not exactly sure may therefore be interpreted in two ways: either as content-oriented uncertainty or as the speaker’s responsibility for the claim. For this reason, Holmes’s observations may be more specified by the following conclusion, which is drawn from my research: When analysing pragmatic functions of various linguistic means, it is necessary to take into account the context in which the utterance is pronounced. Linguistic devices which seemingly serve as boosting devices may act as hedging devices in different contexts and vice versa, and for that reason, their pragmatic function changes as well.

In Example 11 below, Tony Blair justifies sending British forces to Iraq and Afghanistan. The interviewer asks about an accident, which is not further specified in the interview, that happened in Iraq. The utterance in bold, in which hedging (almost) and boosting (certainly) devices are combined, may be interpreted as content-oriented uncertainty - he may not know if it was an accident or not. Or, it may be interpreted as an assurance that it was an accident but Blair does not want to commit himself to it.

Example

JON SOPEL: And just what can you tell us about this incident today?

TONY BLAIR: I mean I can tell you no more than has just been on the news really.

JON SOPEL: But what do we know about what's happened?

TONY BLAIR: Well, we simply know, as the Ministry of Defence has said, that we believe it's almost certainly an accident, that it happened north of Baghdad as has just been described.

JON SOPEL: And what about what you're hearing from the Conservative leader, David Cameron, that there ought to be a board of inquiry in to all the events sounding - the taking of the sailors in Iran.

TONY BLAIR: Well there will be an inquiry, the Navy always do conduct an inquiry if their people are taken captive in that way and I'm sure as the Navy has already said, that they will look in to it very carefully, see what lessons can be learnt. Let's not forget the essential thing, is that fifteen of our personnel were taken capture and they were returned safe and unharmed and let me emphasise to you there was no deal made, there was no trade, there was no offer from us.

(App., p. 59-60, Tony Blair, 2007-04-15, ll. 338-354)

The next example is similar. Condoleezza Rice speaks about problems in the Balkans and about her hope of solving them. I certainly hope is an assurance to the viewers that it will really be solved. It may also be interpreted as content-oriented uncertainty since she is not sure about the chances of solving the problem but she does not want to admit it. Another interpretation could be that Rice wants to show responsibility and regard for the viewers - she does not want to distress them.

Example

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY RICE: We have a number of people working with Matt Nimetz to try to solve this issue. I certainly hope it gets solved, because I think it would be a pity if something that has to do with antiquity were to get in the way of what I think is a very important step for Macedonia and important to NATO. I think that the entry of Albania and Croatia and Macedonia into NATO would be a stabilizing factor in the Balkans at a time that that is needed. I think that Macedonia and Albania and Croatia have proven their worth in being associated with a number of important security initiatives. And I would very much hate to see this get in the way, and so I’m hoping that both sides will be flexible and accept Ambassador Nimetz’s proposal when he makes it.

(App., pp. 246, Condoleezza Rice, 2008-03-27, ll. 474-487)

More examples of hedges and their pragmatic functions may be found in Chapter 8, which discusses attenuation of the illocutionary force in greater detail.