Lagos Papers in English Studies Vol.

1: 257-270 (2007)

HEDGING: THE PRAGMATICS OF POLITENESS IN ENGLISH.

AYODABO, JOEL OLATUNDE Ajayi Crowther University, Nigeria

Abstract This paper examines the place of hedging in politeness phenomenon. Hedging and politeness are discussed as essential aspects of pragmatics of English usage. Efforts of Adegbija (1989), Levinson (2003), Brown and Levinson (1978, 1986), Allan (1986), as well as Lakoff (2005), Mills (2003, 2005), Watts (2005) on the concepts of pragmatics, politeness and hedging are reviewed for theoretical background. A significant contribution of this paper is the identification of certain grammatical forms, in particular, adjectives, adverbs, nouns, noun groups, adjective groups, etc. as capable of functioning effectively as hedges, since no known existing grammatical theory caters for the phenomenon of Hedges. The paper concludes on the note that hedging, as an aspect of politeness, can be successful to the extent that the textual and nonlinguistic contexts offer substantial information to English language users.

Introduction In discourse analysis and speech act theory, hedging involves the qualification and toning-down of utterances or statements, so common in speech and writing. This is carried out through the use of clauses, adverbials, etc. to reduce the degree of risk of what one says. Mitigation of what otherwise seem too forceful may be one reason; politeness or respect to strangers and superior the other (Wales 1991). Age, gender, status, and other variables play a role here. A child, for instance, addressing his/her parents is expected, culturally, to speak in a low tone, at a slow pace, and look serious. A child is not expected to shout at his parents, for instance when making a request. It may be generally offensive, although, to shout in any language. In many contexts, a shout, especially an angry one, and to elder, is almost always interpretable as impolite unless it functions, for instance, as a warning to the addressee to save his life. A gentle, soft voice is often considered a marker of politeness in most pragmatic contexts. As further observed by Adegbija (1989:69), in Nigeria English gentleness and softness in tone of voice from a younger person to an elder, an employee to a boss, a subject to a boss, a subject to a chief, etc. even in a context where the latter is to blame for a particular event, have similar import to their connotations in the mother tongues.

257

July - 2007

Lagos Papers in English Studies Vol. 1: 257-270 (2007)

It has been observed that a majority of Nigerian speakers of English have not mastered the appropriate modulation of English tone to convey politeness or different nuances of meaning. Holmes (1984) has also observed that intonation remains the most difficult area of non-native suprasegmental features for second language speakers to master. That problem often makes the process of inference on the basis of shared knowledge to go wrong, very easily, at any moment, if the intonation contours do not allow the co-participants to share the same information state. In this paper, the cultural barriers of age, gender, and status are played down in the examination of the forms and functions of hedges, in politeness in English. The place of Pragmatics in Language Use. Pragmatics deals with the study of language usage (Levinson, 2003:5), though some scholars believe that the field is polymorphous (Lyons 1977, Searle, Keifer and Bierwisch 1980). It could study language from a functional standpoint. A restricted scope for pragmatics that has been proposed, according to Levinson (2003:7), is that pragmatics should be concerned solely with principles of language usage, and it should have nothing to do with the description of linguistic structure. In other words, it should be concerned solely with performance principles of language use (using Chomskys distinction between competence and performance). Pragmatics is however bedeviled with the problem of a comprehensive definition, and in respect of this, Jacob Mey (2004) observes that the various definitions offered by scholars do not delimit pragmatics either clearly and neatly, or to everybodys satisfaction. Many authors confine themselves to a strictly linguistically oriented definition; alternatively, they resort to a definition that, while incorporating as much societal context as possible, necessarily remains vague as regards the relation between pragmatics and the other areas of linguistics. We can identify with Meys (2004) position that pragmatics studies the way humans use their language in communication, based on the study of those premises that determine the effect of language use. In other words, pragmatics studies the use of language in human communication, as determined by the conditions of the society. Since issues in pragmatics include Context, Implicature, Reference and Anaphora, they constitute inevitable tools in utterance analysis. All these are discussed under micropragmatics by Mey (2004). Though his discussions are either further comments or additions to the earlier views of Grice (1975), Bach and Harnish (1982), amongst several others, they are quite rewarding. In essence, pragmatics offers a fuller, deeper and generally more reasonable account of human language behaviour. Politeness and General Discourse Politeness is a pervasive phenomenon in all communities, and its meaning is elusive due to the different definitions available in literature. Fraser (1975:13) for instance, proposes an essentially hearer-centred definition of politeness, and sees it as a property associated with an utterance in which, according to the hearer, the speaker has neither exceeded any rights nor failed to fulfill any obligations.

258

July - 2007

Lagos Papers in English Studies Vol. 1: 257-270 (2007)

Lakoff (1975) gives a broader explanation of politeness: to be polite is saying the socially correct thing, and she typifies certain behaviours as markers of politeness, adding that some forms are linguistic and some others are purely non-linguistic. In her opinion, three rules of politeness suffice: Formality, through keeping aloof; Deference, by giving options (hesitations, hedges euphemisms and lack of assertiveness); and Camaraderie, by showing sympathy (p. 53). Ferguson (1976:138), however, defines politeness formulas in terms of interpersonal rituals. Brown and Levinsons (1978) recognize two main types of politeness; positive and negative politeness. Positive politeness is used to satisfy the speakers need for approval and belonging, while negative politeness has the minimizing of the imposition of a face-threatening act as its main goal. On Negative Politeness, Scarcella and Brunak (1981:66-67) opine: Underlying negative politeness are strategies geared towards preventing infringement upon the hearers freedom of action. They are central to deferential behaviour when addressing those higher in rank and are characteristic of social distancing behaviour in general. Indirectness is another potent and subtle marker of negative politeness. As Scarcella and Brunak (1981: 67) have rightly noted, negative politeness strategies are central to deferential behaviour, when those higher in rank are being addressed. They further note that indirectness, which implies that a speaker does not make all his beliefs or desires explicit, is motivated by a desire to be polite. Scarcella and Brunak (1981:67) refer to the indirectness phenomenon as hedging. Here, a younger person or inferior in such a context does not fully express or make explicit his desires in order not to infringe on the rights of the superior or elder. Deferential responses like sir and ma, Adegbija (1989:73) observes, are very common in Nigerian society for marking negative politeness. Such terms, he adds, constitute deferential rituals expected of younger people or subordinates socialized into the culture. Deference is a pledge to be polite. It is the act of deference that can carry the subtleties of communication. Adegbija (1989: 58) in a study of politeness phenomenon in Nigeria English, Yoruba and Ogori, describes politeness as a property associated with a communicative situation by virtue of which a person speaks or behaves in a way that is socially and culturally acceptable and pleasant to the hearer. In that study, Adegbija collected data from the naturalistic situations and role playing/informal interview sessions, which he recorded and analyzed from the general perspective of Brown and Levinsons (1974, 1978) discussion of politeness, and with the principal objective of highlighting the nature of politeness strategies in Nigerian English, Yoruba and Ogori in various interactional contexts. The study reveals that utterances are interpretable as polite or impolite, within the framework of a particular pragmatic context or situation. It also shows that politeness phenomena, in the language system studied, constitute a complex microcosm of the spirit of the socio-cultural milieu that produced them. The study further reveals that in Nigerian English, Yoruba and Ogori, the greater the age and the higher the cultural and social status attained by an

259

July - 2007

Lagos Papers in English Studies Vol. 1: 257-270 (2007)

addressee, the greater the need the speaker feels to employ politeness strategies. Adegbijas study further reveals that greetings constitute an important means of showing positive politeness. Evolving from Adegbijas (1989a) study are three different types of Negative strategies. These are: the appropriate modulation of tone of voice and avoidance of interruption; by the use of professional, religious, cultural or social titles; and by use of indirectness markers. Brown and Levinson (1978) observe that the use of differential address terms such as title and sir are also characteristic of negative politeness. Nigerians covet and love social, political, religious, national, professional and cultural titles. Adegbija (1989:70) observes thus on this: In most pragmatic contexts, a speaker could be considered impolite if he did not address people by their appropriate title, which are seen as conveying politeness. Thus, on radio and television, in newspapers and magazines, and even in obituary announcement in Nigeria, differential address terms such as titles are used effusively to convey politeness However, very recent works in the area of politeness are quite revealing and enterprising. The call for a shift of attention from politeness to both politeness and impoliteness perhaps stems from the opinion of many scholars; that impoliteness is a necessarily an attack on the face of the interlocutor(s), and that certain impolite speech acts, such as reproaching, threatening and insulting are performed by speakers with intrinsic purpose of attaching or undermining the hearers face (Haverkate 1988:394). Bebe (1995:154) suggests that rather than seeing impoliteness as a reflection of pragmatic competence, it should be seen as achieving certain aims in a conversation, firstly to get power, and secondly, to give vent to negative feelings. And as a follow up, Kienpointer (1997) adds that in motivated impoliteness, the speaker is assumed to have intended to be rude, whereas unmotivated impoliteness is the result of insufficient knowledge of some kind (p. 267). Rather than perceiving a simple opposition between politeness and impoliteness, Kienpointner (1997) suggests that we should try to consider linguistic behaviour along a continuum, as a matter of degree rather than absolutes. Eelen (2001) argues that the model of politeness drawn on by researchers is one which implicitly or explicitly focuses only on politeness, and sees impoliteness as a derivation (p.264). Eelen (2001) and Watts (2003) have therefore further argued for a shift towards investigating the evaluations of utterances as polite as impolite, in the context in which they occur. Watts (2003:93) in particular, criticizes Brown and Levinsons (1986) model as merely describing strategies of face-work, and not linguistic politeness. Instead, he emphasizes the need for studying politeness, in interaction, as part of the process of producing and inferring the meaning of utterances. What is polite or impolite emerges from interaction, and can only be accessed by analyzing real social practice (Watt 2003: 152). This involves identifying the linguistic and non-linguistic structures that define the generally acceptable forms, or discourse formats, in which participants

260

July - 2007

Lagos Papers in English Studies Vol. 1: 257-270 (2007)

expect the interaction to be conducted. Closely related to the above, is the position of Watts (2003) who redefines the goal of politeness research thus: What a theory of politeness should be able to do is to locate possible realization of polite or impolite behaviour and offer a way of assessing how the members themselves may have evaluated that behaviour (pp. 19-20) However, the problem with Wattss (2003) review is the question of how an analyst would go about locating realizations of polite or impolite behaviour, and how to identify the members own evaluations of that behaviour. The fact is that such evaluations may or may not be explicit at the level of language use. Marsh (2005) therefore believes that there is the need for methods that capture such interpretive work, through which a participant creates meaning and participate in social activities. She submits: Conversation analysis (CA) offers the rich and nuanced methods needed to investigate how utterances are produced and interpreted in context and how social phenomena, such as politeness or impoliteness, may (or may not ) become the participants concern in the course of a particular interaction. (p. 195) Her belief in CA is strong, and she further adds: CA not only offers sophisticated analytic procedures and a toolkit available for the study of languages in interaction; it also forces the analysts to ask whether and how impoliteness (or politeness) can be seen as the participants concern in the conduct of interaction and encourages the analyst to critically re-examine the very notions of politeness and impoliteness from the empirical point of view (p. 195). The Grecian focus of the traditional theories of politeness is seen in the definition of politeness as a greater or lesser degree of departure from the Cooperative Principle, and in the speaker orientation, whereby politeness is part of speaker meaning, a particularized implicative un-intended by the speaker (Teskouragi 2005:240).Teskouragi (2005) further reports that new post-modern generation of politeness theories have recently emerged (see Eelen 2001, Mills 2003, Watts 2003), and they question the basic premises of the traditional theories, and seeks to provide an alternative paradigm for politeness theorizing. These post-modern theories differ from the traditional theories, in a number of ways, chief of which is their rejection of speech act theory (Mill 2003:381). They believe that politeness cannot, in principle, reside in a single utterances, but is negotiated in longer discourses, or over several encounters. Thus, politeness is seen as a dynamic phenomenon, and particular utterances are merely open to interpretation as polite. There are several ways in which language and politeness are connected. Every culture, according to Lakoff (2005:177), has roles or principles governing interaction; one subset of those principles concerns politeness. Again, cultures may differ on what kinds of behaviour are polite, and or when to be polite, rude or neutral. Ways of being polite may differ between men and women within a culture.

261

July - 2007

Lagos Papers in English Studies Vol. 1: 257-270 (2007)

Scholars in the field of politeness have defined politeness as behaviour designed to minimize the possibility of conflict. Lakoff (2005: 178) believes that politeness serves other functions. For instance, the appropriate use of politeness defines an individual as competent, benevolent, and of worthy trust; Politeness is also said to be useful in deciding whether others are in or out socially; and politeness is a tool by which societies maximize and legitimize gender distinction and define appropriate gender rules and roles (see p. 178). The discussion on politeness is further enlivened with Mills (2005) proposition of a model of impoliteness, which she sees as performative and dependent upon contextual judgments. She sees politeness and impoliteness as non-bipolar opposites, with the belief that there has been little analysis of impoliteness in research on politeness in general. Though Sara Mills (2005:266) agrees with this notion of a continuum (as espoused by Kienpointner, 1997), she puts a caveat: It is important that we see it as a continuum of assessment rather than as a quality of impoliteness and politeness. Millss (2005) position appears to best sum up the polite-impolite dialectics: Indeed, if a person is not linked, practically any linguistic utterance or intonation can be classified as impolite. But impoliteness is not simply a question of the omission of formal or formulaic social politeness. Impoliteness can be considered as any type of linguistic behaviour which assessed as intending to threaten the hearers face or social identity (p. 268). Generally, on positive politeness, apart from greeting, making small talk is another strategy identified by Brown and Levinson (1978). The function of making small talk before actually saying what one wants to say, is to avoid intruding on the hearer. Such small talks function as a mediator between the speaker and his actual or intended message and the hearer; it purposefully fills the gap, thereby reducing the abruptness of proceeding directly to ones message. Such small talks can be situated within the phenomenon called hedging. Hedges and their Characteristics in English Scarcella and Brunack (1981) describe hedging as an indirectness ploy in language use. In his opinion, Allan (1986) believes that hedges are ameliorative devices that are capable of making an utterance more polite, than it would ordinarily seem. Perhaps, an elaborate illustration of the use of hedges as ameliorative devices is done by Allan (1986). While discussing a variety of strategies and devices for ameliorating impositions when attending to face, it becomes obvious that some hedges are indirect while a number of them are explicitly statable. Allan contends that whereas the maxim be polite is usually interpreted as enjoining S to pay attention to Hs positive face, it is also important for S to pay attention to Hs negative face by not imposing

262

July - 2007

Lagos Papers in English Studies Vol. 1: 257-270 (2007)

himself on the hearer. He describes Face as the public self-image that S and H must have regard to, and that: We dont just lose face in the eyes of our co-interactants, we also maintain it, and enhance it. A moments thought should confirm from everyday experience that virtually every time S opens his mouth he needs to take care that his utterance will either maintain, enhance or threaten Hs face in just the way he intends to affect it, while at the same time maintaining or enhancing his own face. (P. 11) He contends that the above contributes to utterance meaning, recalling that a satisfactory theory of linguistic meaning cannot ignore questions of face presentation, nor other politeness phenomena that maintain the cooperative nature of language interchange. In a given context, these two aspects of face are said to be capable of leading to tension if the satisfaction of one constitutes an infringement upon the other. Although both verbal and non-verbal acts affect face, Allan (1986:11) concentrates maximum attention on the face affects of utterances. The face affects of an utterance are calculated against the sum of three pragmatic factors: D rating, P rating, and R rating. While D rating is based on the social distance between S and H, and determined on such parameters as their comparative ages, sexes, and socio-cultural backgrounds, P rating is based on the asymmetric relation of Hs power over or inferiority to S in the context of utterance, R rating is based on the relative ranking of a particular act within the context of utterance (See also Allan 1986, p11). The greater these ratings are, Allan (1986) opines, the more polite S should be, in order to be cooperative. Knowing how to use a language correctly is said to mean being able to assess these values, accurately, and correlate them with certain language expression, ways of speaking, tone of voice, etc. In order to produce an utterance that has the intended face affect, the face affect of the utterance is correlated with the sum of the values attributed to D, P, and R. So a low score on one component is said to be capable of offsetting a high score on another. Brown and Levinson (1978) attempt to show convincingly that different linguistic strategies are conveniently used to mitigate different degrees of face threat in norms as: baby, boy, brother, bud(dy), dad(dy), darling, dear, duckie, ducks, fella(s), gorgeous, Grandad, guys, handsome, honey, luv, mac, Marra, mate, mum(my), oldboy, sexy, sis(ter), Sweetheart, etc. p17 As the D rating or formality increases, so the language used gets closer to the Standard English found in textbooks or the closest regional approximation thereto In more formal styles, the jargon of hobbies, trades, and professions marks the solidarity of in-group members. A change from Ss normal manner of addressing H marks a meaningful change from Ss normal attitude to H. Thus, familiars who

263

July - 2007

Lagos Papers in English Studies Vol. 1: 257-270 (2007)

normally use in-group forms to address one another may switch to formal or high D forms, in order to express withdrawal of intimacy. In many circumstances, S will underplay his own attributes, ideas, possessions, and achievements, belittling his own positive face in order to enhance Hs. In short, in English, Ss modesty is counted a laudable trait, particularly in conversational interchange among strangers or mere acquaintances. The only general S-humbling strategy open to English speakers is to avoid mentioning himself. Yet, the most prevalent means of self- humbling in English is to say something self-deprecatory; e.g. when the hostess invites you to the dinner table and says Its not much Im afraid, you recognize that she is being modest, and does not intend the observation to be taken literally. Perhaps Allans (1986) discussion of hedges is most profound, particularly, under the subtitle Attending to Hs negative face. Here, he believes the speaker has the plain responsibility of paying attention to Hs negative face by not imposing on him. Another means of ameliorating the imposition is for S to suggest that he will share in carrying out the act. This is an expression of solidarity with H in bearing the burden of an act. Instead of sharing in the imposition, S can propose to swap an imposition on H for a favour towards H. Sometimes, S may seek to evade personal responsibility for the imposition; e.g. when the policeman says: I must ask you to blow into the breathalyzer, madam. Responsibility for opinions and pieces of information is sometimes eroded through impersonalizing. Another kind of strategy altogether is for S to minimize the imposition and perhaps joke it off; this is probably only possible in informal contexts Allan (1986) observes that the various ameliorative devices he has discussed are generally called hedges, stating that the more the presence of hedges in an utterance, the more polite it will seem. Hedges can also be used to back off from opinions and assertions. For example: a. Shes sort of pretty. b. It was a kind of bang. In addition to being tentative about imposing on H, S can come right out and apologize for the imposition, for example: a. Im sorry to trouble you but do you have the time? b. Forgive me for bothering you, but do you have a pen? The most frequently used ameliorators are those which purport to ask whether H objects to the imposition S is putting upon him. Perhaps the best known of these is please, meaning if it please(s) you. Although this seems to question Hs willingness to accept the imposition, it is in fact impossible for him to ever seriously respond No, it doesnt please me or I wont because it doesnt please me to. a. Please keep off the grass. b. Please remember to water the petunias, darling. c. Could you please post this letter?

264

July - 2007

Lagos Papers in English Studies Vol. 1: 257-270 (2007)

Alternatively, Allan adds that S may hedge his imposition by questioning whether it is possible for H to accept it, as in: a. Come tomorrow, then, if you can. b. Your wifes asked me to give her a lift home, if thats OK with you. c. Casper Milquetoast has been married six times, if you can believe it! In summary, Allan (1986) concludes that if S intends to maintain Hs negative face, he needs to observe the maxim dont impose. This overriding maxim, he adds, could be subcategorized into four more particular maxims governing the four categories of imposition on Hs negative face (see page 34, for further discussion) Much of available literature on hedges concentrates on their functions as devices of positive politeness. Brown and Levinson (1986: 117) believe that one characteristic device in positive politeness is to hedge extremes, so as to make ones own opinion safety vague. They assert that normally hedges are a feature of negative politeness, but with a caveat that some hedges can have this positive politeness function as well, most notably (in English). For instance: sort of, kind of, like, in a way A number of functions of hedges are discussed by Brown and Levinson (1987). One is that hedges may be used to soften FTAs of suggesting or criticizing or complaining. Another is that some of them can serve to avoid a precise communication of a speakers attitude. On their forms, Brown and Levinson (1986:145) say: a hedge is a particle, word or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase in a set. Hedges are considered, in an exact parallel way, conversational principles are the source of strong background assumptions about cooperation, informativeness, truthfulness, relevance and clarity (following Grices Cooperative Principle), which on many occasions need to be softened for reason of face. Thus, hedges are considered as the most immediate tool for carrying such: Other functions of hedges discussed by Brown and Levinson (1986) are Hedges on illocutionary force, Hedges encoded in particles. Here, they note that in some languages there are particles which encode such hedges in linguistic structure. Such are said to often constitute among the most commonly used words in a language, but are typically omitted from dictionaries, and given little theoretical attention. There are also hedges addressed to Grices Quality, Quantity, Relevance and Manner maxims. Hedges addressed to politeness strategies and Prosodic and Kinesic hedges are also discussed by Brown and Levinson (1986). The import of all this is that hedges are employed as expressions with clear politeness functions. In particular, hedges addressed to politeness strategies may be derived from maxim hedges and function directly as notices of violations of face wants. Examples are frankly, to be honest, etc when they occur in utterances.

265

July - 2007

Lagos Papers in English Studies Vol. 1: 257-270 (2007)

Carter, et al.s (1986) discussion of hedges is rather simple but refreshing and illuminating. They define hedges as words and phrases, which soften or weaken the force with which something is said. Examples given are. Kind of, sort of, by any chance, as it were, admittedly. Carter et al see hedges as a term which covers many common words and expressions in conversation and they may have different functions: 1. As the term suggests, some words will express uncertainty, be vague or qualify what is being said, for example: well, like, sorter, kind of /Kinder 2. On other occasions, however, the speaker may well be certain about the facts but wishes not to appear assertive. Conversation is, in fact, peppered with such expressions and would be pedantic otherwise. So we get statements prefaced with I think and I guess. As such they are another way of describing the maxim of quality. 3. Finally, they may function to get the listener to share in the speakers point of view. Terms from (1) do this plus expressions like isnt, I mean, you know/ Y know. They caution on a final note, that it is important not to memorize a list of words and feel one could necessarily label them; words with the same form may well have different functions, for instance, You know and fillers, like er and um, can also function to keep the turn in speaking (Allan 1986:285). After Allans (1986), Brown and Levinsons (1986), and Carter, et als (1986) comprehensive discussion of hedges, perhaps the phenomenon has not attracted much in-depth attention from scholars, here in Nigeria. In Ayodabos (1997) view, hedges are employed, normally, to avoid rash conclusions and assertions, and to give some gaps in case events turn otherwise. He adds: Hedges perform functions which illocutionary acts generally perform. Hedges perform the functions of stating, asserting, appealing, warning, condemning, and requesting. p17 He states further that hedges could be of different grammatical units: We discover that words, groups, clauses and sentences are capable of being employed to hedge other words, groups, clauses and sentences in conversation. Lawal (1997:172) observes that hedging tends to be highly favoured in a conversation involving mutual suspicion and distrust, as a pragmatic strategy of communicating hidden and affective meaning by deliberately flouting and /or obeying conversational principles. That is a follow-up to his earlier position that speakers often use highly grammaticalised hedges to inform their addresses of the extent they are abiding by Grices maxims of Quality, Quantity, Relevance and Manner. In Lawals (1997:115) opinion, hedging is capable of having both pragmatic and meta-pragmatic implications. Lawals (1997) view that a hedge could be intended to serve a mutual face-maintaining purpose corroborates Allans (1986) belief.

266

July - 2007

Lagos Papers in English Studies Vol. 1: 257-270 (2007)

Hedging in language use is capable of performing multifarious functions, chiefly among which are: pragmatic functions, stylistic functions and grammatical functions. From the discussion so far, it is obvious that hedges, fillers and hesitation markers are identified by various scholars as capable of belonging to different grammatical classes. Let us examine the position of grammar on similar words, phrases and other structures identified as hedges. Randolph Quirk, Sydney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and J. Svartvik (1999) discuss what can be defined as hedges (though they do not refer to them as hedges), under various grammatical classes. A few examples is suffice, here. Pages 129-180 aptly capture their discussion of fillers, hesitation markers, etc. under various titles. Writing on the adverb and other word classes, where Reaction signal and initiatorare mentioned, they are said to be important because of their high frequency in spoken English. Some are restricted to the spoken language. These can be assigned to two small classes: i) reaction signals, e.g. no yes, yeah, yep, m, hm, mhm ii) initiators, e.g. well, oh, ah; oh well, well then, why {esp AmE} The commonest discourse initiator of all (well) is less easy to account for plausibly. When used connectivity it has a transitional function as in: I hear youve bought a new house; well, when are you moving? Conjuncts can semantically endorse a connection already expressed by grammatical subordination. On syntactic functions of adverbs, adjuncts and subjuncts are relatively integrated within the structure of the clause. Examples of adjuncts given are: Slowly they walked back home He spoke to me about it briefly Examples of subjuncts: We havent yet finished Would you kindly wait for me. All he words in italics can function as hedges. By contrast, disjuncts and conjuncts have a more peripheral relation in the sentence. Semantically, disjuncts express an evaluation of what is being said earlier with respect to the form of the communication or to its meaning. On adjective modification, an adverb may premodlfy an adjective. Most commonly, the adverb is an intensifier or emphasizer: extremely dangerous really beautify deeply concerned very good Adverbs modifying other adverbs can only be intensifiers. A few intensifying adverbs, particular right and well premodify prepositions: The nail went right through the wall. He made his application well within the time Her parents are dead against the trip. (informal) A few intensifiers may pre-modify noun phrases and precede the determiner when they do so. The most common among adverbs are quite and rather (esp BrE). We had quite a party. They were quite some players

267

July - 2007

Lagos Papers in English Studies Vol. 1: 257-270 (2007)

It was rather a mess. (esp BrE) The predeterminers such and what have a similar function. A few intensifiers precede the indefinite article when it is equivalent to the numeral one: They will stay for about a week. Nearly a thousand demonstrators attended the meeting. Note (a) kind of and sort of (both informal) usually follow the determiner: This must be a sort of joke Other of-phrases precede the determiner: I had a bit of a shock There are two types of syntactic functions that characterize the traditional adverbs, but an adverb need have only one of these: (a) Clause element adverbial He quite forgot about it (b) Premodifier of adjective and adverb. They are quite (happy (happily married The most conspicuous example of an adverb that functions only as a modifier of adjectives and adverbs, and not as a clause element, is very (For very as an adjective, it is a restrictive adjective.) You are the very man I want. Decreased intensification to various degrees is realized by downtoners, as in: They have practically forced him to resign In spite of his manners, I rather like him. She sort of laughed at the idea. {informal} I was only joking He didnt in the least enjoy the party. Especially at the extremes of intensity, subjuncts of (a) and (b) can be given emphasis by appearing out E; I understand your attitude totally She wont mind in the slightest. It is noted that some intensifiers occur only in specific environments; for example, possibly with can(t) in nonassertive clauses: She cant possibly expect you to wait so long. As well as relating to attitude, intensifiers are used in respect of quantity and time: I paid him a great deal for his advice. She slept a little in the afternoon. In focusing subjuncts, special attention may be called to a part of a sentence as broad as predication or as narrow as a constituent within a phrase. There are two types of focusing subjunct that can so operate: one is restrictive, as in I merely wanted to know his name (i.e. I didnt want to know anything else) Only her sister visited her in hospital. (i.e. No one else did so) The examination of grammatical items as discussed by Quirk, et al(1999), especially on items that have glaring similarities with structures and functions of hedges, particularly those that function as ameliorators and minimizers, as discussed by various scholars is pertinent, here. This is

268

July - 2007

Lagos Papers in English Studies Vol. 1: 257-270 (2007)

necessary because no meaningful analysis of a linguistic item can survive the neglect of grammar. Conclusion In conclusion, hedges can be located as an aspect of politeness in the pragmatics of English usage. Obviously, there are other means and strategies of marking politeness. However, several words, phrases and particles exist in English, which though not discussed as hedges, their functions either as minimizers or exemplifiers, or initiators tally with the universal functions of hedges mentioned in some of the literatures in this paper. I quite agree that the semantic operation of hedging can be achieved in indefinite numbers of surface forms, and that many of the linguistic device(s) illustrated and describable as hedges are not restricted to negativepoliteness usage, or even to politeness usage at all, as there may be many different motivations for the choice of a linguistic means of expression. Again, in line with the views of Susan Burt (2005:235), pragmatics needs to be sensitive to the differences in world view, and the differences that will result in individual speakers estimation of cultural contexts, of social distance, power and other relationships. It is only then can pragmatics and politeness studies be adequately sensitive to situations of language context and language shift. The context determines both what one can say and what one cannot say: only the pragmatics of the situation can give full meaning to ones words (Mey 2004:43). References Adegbija, E.E. (1989). A Comparative Study of Politeness Phenomenon in Nigeria English; Yoruba and Ogori. Multilingual: Journal of CrossCultural and Inter Language Communication, 8.(1): 57-80. Allan, K. (1986). Linguistic Meaning Vol. 1. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Plc. Ayodabo, J.O., (1997). A Pragma-Stylistic Study of Abiolas Historic Speech of June 24 1993. In A. Lawal (ed.), Stylistics in Theory and Practice. pp 132-149. Ilorin: Paragon Books. Bach, K. & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Beebe, L. M. (1995) Politeness fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. In Linguistic and the education of language teachers .in Mills, S. (2003) Gender and impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research. 1 (2) Brown, P & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomenon. In Goody, E. N. (ed.) Questions and Politeness. pp 56289. Cambridge. Cambridge University. Press. Brown, P and Levinson, S. (1986) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burt, M. Susan (2005) How to get rid of unwanted suitors: Advice from Among- American Women of two generations. Journal of Politeness Research. 1 (2):219-236.

269

July - 2007

Lagos Papers in English Studies Vol. 1: 257-270 (2007)

Carter, R., Goddard, A., Reach, D., Sanger, K. & Bowring (1997). Working with Text Book for Language Analysis. London and Newyork: Routledge Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Eelen, Gino (2001) A critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome. Fraser, B. (1976). The Concept of Politeness. In The Proceedings of NWAVE IV. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics,3: Speech Acts. pp. 43-58. New York: Academic Press. Haverkate, H. (1988) Towards a typology of politeness strategies. Multilingual. 7(4). 385-409. Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying Illocutionary Force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8. (4), 345-365. Kienpointer, M. (ed.)(1997). Ideologies in Politeness. Pragmatics 9(1). Kempson, R. M. (1996). Semantics, Pragmatics and Natural Language Interpretation. In S. Lappin, (ed.). The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Cambridge: Blackwell Pub. Inc. Lakoff, R. T. (1972) The logic of Politeness; or minding your ps and qs. in papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics. Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language and Womens place. New York: Harper. Colophon. Lakoff, R. T. (2005) The Politics of Nice. Journal of Politeness Research. 1 (2) Lawal, A. (1997). Pragmatics in Stylistics: A Speech-Act Analysis of Soyinkas Telephone Conversation. in A. Lawal (ed.). Stylistics in Theory and Practice. Ilorin: Paragon Books. Leech, G. (1983). The Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Levinson, S.C. (1980). Speech Act Theory: the State of The Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, S. C. (2006) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mey, J. L (2004) (Second Edition). Pragmatics: An Introduction. USA: BLACKWELL PUBLISHING. Mills, S. (2003) Gender and impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research. 1 (2): 263-280. Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2005) Managing adversarial questioning in broadcast interviews. Journal of Politeness Research. 1 (2):193-217. Quirk, R, Greenbaum S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (1999). A Students Grammar of the English Language. England: Pearson Education Limited. Scarcella, R. & Brunak J. (1981). On Speaking Polite in a Second Language. In Joel Walters (ed.). pp. 59-75. Terkourafi, M (2005) Beyond the Micro Level in Politeness research: Journal of Politeness Research. 1 (2):237-262. Wales, K. (1991). A Dictionary of Stylistics. London & NewYork: Longman. Watts, Richard J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

270

July - 2007