الفهرس | Only 14 pages are availabe for public view |
Abstract ”Hedging” is of crucial importance for communication. People lean to hedge to achieve some communicative goals such as; expressing modesty, showing politeness, mitigating unpleasant expressions, toning down the force of the assertions, avoiding conflict and criticism, showing diplomacy and creating harmonious interpersonal relationship(Curnick, 2000; Vass, 2004; Williamova, 2005; Cabanes, 2007, Taweel et al., 2011). In its literal sense, the term ”hedging” refers to the idea of a barrier, limit, and defence or to the means used to protect or defened onself. It has generally been taken to mean those expressions in language which make messages indeterminate, that is, they convey inexactitude or in one way or another mitigate or reduce the strength of the assertions that speakers or writers make (Heng and Tan, 2002, p.6). The term ”hedges” was first coined by Lakoff G (1972, p. 194). In his pioneering article, ”Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy sets”, Lakoff refers to hedges as words whose job is to make things more or less fuzzy.Lakoff further defines hedges as follows: For me, some of the most interesting questions are raised by the study of words whose meaning implicitly involves fuzziness. Words whose job is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy. I will refer to such words as hedges (Lakoff, 1972, p.195). This thesis is an attempt to investigate the influence of ’gender’ on the use of ’hedging’ in some selected TV interviews in English and Arabic. To this end, the researcher has divided the study into five chapters. Chapter one is a general introduction. It includes a background of IV the study, objectives, and research questions, rationale of the study, scope of the study, hypothesis.It is also a trial to present a brief history for the term ’hedging’, its evolution from the point in which it was first introduced in the linguistic literature until today. The researcher introduces the different definitions of ’hedging’ and tries to reach a remarkable definition for the study. Furthermore, the researcher shed lights on the different functions of ’hedging’ in various discourses and the relationship of hedging to other linguistic domains such as ’modality’, ’vagueness’, ’politeness’, ’evidentiality’, ’boosters’, ’equivocation’, ’evasion’, ’indirectness’ ,’discourse markers’, and ’gender’. In chapter two, the researcher tries to make a survey for the previous studies that attempt to investigate ’hedging’ in various discourses such as (academic discourse, scientific discourse, political discourse, economic discourse, cross – cultural and cross –linguistic studies on hedging, and studies on gender and hedging). The researcher tries to point out in what way this thesis is different from the other studies tackled the concept of ’hedging’. Moreover, this chapter is so devoted to methodology and theoretical framework .Throughout this chapter, the researcher tries to shed light on the theories and models adopted for the analysis of the selected data. In chapter three, the researcher tries to analyze the interviews where English is the medium. The researcher has divided this chapter into two sections. Section one is mainly concerned with the analysis of the five interviews for female interviewees where English is the medium whereas section two is so devoted to the analysis of the five interviews for male interviwees where English is the medium as well. In the same domain, chapter four is so concerned with the analysis of the interviews where Arabic is the medium. Chapter five shed lights on the findings V obtained after analyzing the data. Moreover, it presents some suggestions for further research and the pedagogical implications of the study. Objectives of the study 1- Surveying the various definitions of ’hedging’ as introduced in the linguistic literature. 2- Identifying the multiple functions of ’hedging’ in various discourses. 3- Pointing out the relationship of ’hedging’ and other linguistic domains such as ’modality’, ’vagueness’, ’politeness’, ’evidentiality’, ’equivocation’, ’indirectness’, ’boosters’ and ’gender’. 4- Highlighting the most dominant types and strategies of ’hedging’ in the data under investigation. 5- Shedding light on the effect of ’gender’ on the use of ’hedging’ in TV interviews. 6- Pinpointing the significance behind the frequency of some hedging types in the data under investigation. Research Questions 1- How is ’hedging’ defined in the linguistic literature ? 2- What are the multiple functions of ’hedging’ in various discourses ? 3- What is the relationship of ’hedging’ and other linguistic domains such as ’modality’, ’vagueness’, ’politeness’, ’indirectness’ and ’boosters’ ? 4- To what extent can ’gender’ play a role in the use of ’hedging’ in TV interviews? 5- What are the most dominant types and strategies of ’hedging’ used in the data under investigation? VI 6- What is the significance behind the use of some types of ’hedging’ rather than some other types in the selected data? Rationale of the study The choice of this study stems from some reasons: Firstly, ’hedging’ is of crucial significance to communication in general and to interviews in particular. Unless the participants in communication appear modest, considerate, friendly, diplomatic and appropriate, the flow of communication will be hindered. Secondly, a great deal of research on ’gender’ and its relation to ’hedging’ has concentrated mainly on the use of individual hedges such as ”you know, kind of, sort of and well” excluding the other types and strategies of hedging. Therefore, this thesis is an aim to fill this gap. It tries to investigate hedging from various dimensions (e.g.the syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and the socio-pragmatic levels). Thirdly, most of the previous studies on ’hedging’ have been devoted to English and other languages rather than Arabic(e.g. English vs Spanish, English vs Chinese, English vs Bulgarian, English vs German, English vs Turkish, etc.). To this end, this study is a conduct on ’gender’ and its relation to ’hedging’ in some selected TV interviews in both Arabic and English. Scope of the study For limitations, this study is so restricted to TV interviews which are a subgenre of talk shows, so the researcher has excluded some other types of talk shows such as radio interviews, debates, sitcoms and some others. Moreover, the term ’hedging’ overlaps with a wide range of other linguistic domains, for narrowing down, the study investigates the VII relationship between ’hedging’ and several of them excluding some other types such as ’vocalizations’, ’hesitations’, ’fillers’ and ’gestures’. Furthermore, the TV interviews under investigation have been chosen with due attention to the popularity of both the interviewer and interviewee and the sensitivity of the topic under discussion. In addition, there are many factors that may affect the use of ’hedging’ in communication (e.g. age, level of education, social status and power), This study is so devoted to discuss the effect of ’gender’ on the use of ’hedging’ in TV interviews excluding the factors mentioned above. Hypothesis Men hedge their utterances the same way as women do. It is the context that represents a pivotal indicator in the frequency of hedging use in communication in general and TV interviews in particular. Moreover, the context is of crucial importance in determining the dominant types and strategies of hedging in both men and women’s speech. Theoretical Framework In this section, the researcher discusses the theories as well as the models adopted in order to account for the various forms and strategies of ’hedging devices’ employed in the data under investigation. To this end, an eclectic approach has been adopted to be the basis for the thesis, namely Brown and Levinson’s ’politeness theory’ has been chosen as well as a combination of some taxonomies of ’hedging devices’ and their forms applied by some theorists in the field, namely Salager –Meyer’s taxonomy of hedges (1997), Williamov’s taxonomy of hedges (2005), Martin and Martin’s typology of hedging (2008) and Fraser’s classifications of hedges (2010). VIII Methodology In this section, the researcher discusses the theories and the models adopted for the analysis of the TV interviews under investigation.In addition, the reseacher sheds light on the methodological tools applied for the analysis of the data under discussion. Data Data consists of twenty interviews. These interviews have been divided into two groups. The first group consists of ten interviews in which English is the medium whereas the second group consists of ten interviews where Arabic is the medium. Each group has been divided into five interviews for female interviewees and five interviews for male interviewees as well. The researcher has given due attention to the popularity of both the interviewer and the interviewee as well as the sensitivity of the topic under discussion. Data analysis procedures Data analysis deals with qualitative and quantative procedures which involve a careful investigation into the ’hedging markers’ and strategies in the data under discussion. To do so, there are some steps to follow: 1) Recording the collected interviews at first; 2) Transcribing each interview in order to extract the ’hedging devices’; 3) Establishing a frequency count and percentage for each of the lexical and syntactic ’hedging markers’; IX 4) Exploring the main types and strategies of ’hedging’ employed in the data; 5) Analyzing the basic pragmatic functions of lexical and syntactic ’hedges’ as used contextually in the data; 6) Highlighting the most dominant types and strategies used by each interviewer; 7) Justifying the dominance of some types and the significance beyond the frequency of some forms of ’hedging’ rather than some other types. Findings Using the frequency count and percentage, findings show that both men and women hedge their utterances nearly the same in the selected interviews under investigation. However, statistics show that women interviewees where English is the medium hedge their utterances in almost 7.82 %( see figure.21) whereas their men counterparts hedge their utterances in about 7.33 %( see figure.22). This shows that women interviewees where English is the medium hedge their utterances a little bit higher than their men counterparts. Furthermore, results show that tentivizers, subjectivity markers, downgraders and modals are the most dominant types of hedging used by women interviewees where English is the medium whereas subjectivity markers, clausal mitigators, tentivizers, modals and downgraders are the most widely used hedging devices utilized by men interviewees where English is the medium.On the other hand, in the selected interviews where Arabic is the medium, findings show that men interviewees hedge their utterances in almost 13 %( see figure.24) while women interviewees use hedges in nearly 12.95% (see figure.23). These findings show that men interviewees where Arabic is X the medium hedge their utterances a little bit higher than their women counterparts. In the same sense, statistics show that tentivizers, modals, clausal mitigators, subjectivity markers and approximators are the most dominant hedging devices used by women interviewees where Arabic is the medium whereas tentivizers, clausal mitigators, modals, subjectivity markers, hypothetical constructions and approximators are the most frequent hedging devices utilized by their men counterparts. It must be noted here that both men and women interviewees in which Arabic is the medium hedge their utterances more frequently than their counterparts where English is the medium(see figures.21,22,23,24) and this consequently proves what has been hypothesized that is hedging is ”situationally directed” or it is ”contextually dependant”. The reason why both men and women interviewees where Arabic is the medium hedge their utterances more frequently than their counterparts where English is the medium is that these interviewees where Arabic is the medium are put in more critical situations as they have got to respond to questions that may cause harm to their face and the face of their audience as well. They are also put under the pressure of confessing their seven sins in life and this causes them to hedge their utterances more frequently than their counterparts where English is the medium and this proves that context is the most pivotal indicator in determining the use of hedging.In the same domain, findings in this particular context disregard what has been claimed by Lakoff R that hedging is a typical feature of women expressing their deficiency, powerlessness and inferiority in a maledominating society, as the hedging devices used by women here express politeness, diplomacy, friendliness, self-protection, caution and neutrality. Furthermore, men can hedge their utterances more frequently than women when it is required. XI Conclusion This study is an endeavour to conduct a gender-based of hedging in selected TV interviews in Arabic and English. It shows the different definitions and functions of hedging in various discourses and genres and it tries to find out a sort of an agreed upon definition adopted by the many researchers in the field.Furthermore, the research attempts to consider other linguistic domains resulting from the use of hedging and its relation to them such as ”modality, vagueness, indirectness, politeness, evasion, equivocation, boosters and discourse markers”. In addition, the study seeks to identify the most dominant types utilized by the participants in the selected data under investigation and reveals in what way context of situation has the principal effect on the use of hedging in the selected interviews under discussion.In the light of the previous discussion, the study of male and female language in selected TV interviews in Arabic and English has come up with the following conclusions: 1- Hedging is of crucial importance to spoken discourse in general and TV interviews in particular since it is used to maintain smooth and friendly discussion among the participants. 2- Hedges function interpersonally as they occur whenever speakers want to reduce their commitment towards the truth of a proposition being conveyed or when they want to mitigate possible negative illocutionary effects on the audience. 3- Hedges are contextually-dependant since they acquire such an attribute in the light of the context in which they are used, therefore; context plays the principal role in determining the type and frequency of hedging use. XII 4- The inappropriate use of hedging devices may lead to miscommunication and miscomprehension whereas the appropriate use of these devices shows pragmatic awareness and language efficiency. 5- Hedging is not a typical feature of women language since men can lean to use these devices when the situation requires. 6- In some situations, men lean to hedge more frequently than women when they are put under pressure or in a critical situation. Moreover; unlike some previous work (e.g., Fishman, 1998; Lakoff, 1975), there is little evidence of gender differences in the overall rate of usage of hedged speech here. In short, hedging is not gender-differentiated in this study, at least in the interviews investigated. 7- Caution, diplomacy, self-protection, self-deference, confrontationavoidance and friendliness are some of the principal functions of hedging in TV interviews. 8- Interviewees where Arabic is the medium lean to use hedging devices with the same function as their counterparts where English is the medium. 9- Interviewees where Arabic is the medium lean to hedge their utterances much more higher than their counterparts where English is the medium and this proves that the use and frequency of hedging is situationally-dependant. It is not the language that determines the use and frequency of hedging but it is the situation that can achieve this goal. 10- The study shows that hedging devices in Arabic have the same roles as they have in English. They are mainly used to reduce the certainty and sureness of the utterances. They are also used to decline the speaker’s responsibility from what is being said or uttered. XIII Author’s Name: Waleed Faris AbdAllah Supervisors’name: Prof. Nagwa IbrahimYounis – Dr. Ahmed Ali Ibrahim Research title: A Gender - Based Study of Hedging in selected TV Interviews in English and Arabic Source: Faculty of Education – Ain Shams University Abstract This thesis is an attempt to investigate the effect of gender on the use of hedging in some selected TV interviews in Arabic and English. It also seeks to pinpoint the role of context of situation in determining the use of different types of hedging in discourse in general and the genre of TV interviews in particular. In the light of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory and with the application of a combination of hedging taxonomies, hedging devices in twenty TV interviews in Arabic and English are analyzed. By using the frequency count and percentage, hedging types and their frequency are extracted in the selected TV interviews under discussion. Findings show that women interviewees where English is the medium hedge their utterances a little bit higher than their men counterparts (e.g. women use hedges in almost 7.82%(see figure.21) while men use hedges in nearly 7.33%(see figure.22) whereas men interviewees where Arabic is the medium hedge their utterances a little bit higher than their women counterparts (e.g. men use hedges in almost 13%(see figure.24) while women use hedges in nearly 12.95%(see figure.23). These findings prove that hedging is not a typical feature of women language as it has been claimed by Lakoff R (1975) and also show that context is the pivotal indicator in determining the type and frequency of hedging in general and TV interviews in particular. Key words: hedging - epistemic modality - indirectness – vagueness – evasion – equivocation – evidentially – boosters – gender – politeness – discourse markers-talk shows – TV interviews |