1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Languages in Contrast
  4. Volume 21, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 21, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Hedging is a complex phenomenon with an indefinite number of potential realisations. The complexity and versatility of hedging strategies make them particularly interesting to study across languages. This contrastive study compares the realisations of the pragmatic function of hedging in everyday Norwegian and English conversations using data from four corpora of Norwegian and English informal spoken conversations (the Norwegian Speech Corpus, the Nordic Dialect Corpus, the BigBrother corpus, and the BNC2014). The results show that speakers of both languages mainly use pragmatic particles, adverbs, and first-/second-person pronouns + cognitive verbs [1/2 pers. + Cog. V] to express hedging. Furthermore, English speakers use significantly more [1/2 pers. + Cog. V] and modal verbs than Norwegian speakers, who use significantly more adjectives, prepositional phrases and clauses to hedge their utterances.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.19025.joh
2020-10-27
2024-09-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lic.19025.joh
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adolphs, S. and Carter, R.
    2013 Spoken Corpus Linguistics: From Monomodal to Multimodal. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203526149
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203526149 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aijmer, K.
    1984 “Sort of” and “Kind of” in English Conversation. Studia Linguistica38: 118–128. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.1984.tb00738.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1984.tb00738.x [Google Scholar]
  3. 2002 English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C.
    2015 Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139057493
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493 [Google Scholar]
  5. Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M.
    2006 Introduction. InPragmatic Markers in Contrast, K. Aijmer and A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds), 1–10. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780080480299
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080480299 [Google Scholar]
  6. Andersen, G.
    2010 A Contrastive Approach to Vague Nouns. InNew Approaches to Hedigng, G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch and S. Schneider (eds), 35–48. Bingley: Emerald Bingley. 10.1163/9789004253247_004
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253247_004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Andvik, E. E.
    1992 A Pragmatic Analysis of Norwegian Modal Particles. Arlington: The Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of Texas.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 1994 Recourse to Consensus in Norwegian Modal Particles. PhD Thesis, University of Texas.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Beeching, K.
    2016 Pragmatic Markers in British English: Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139507110
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139507110 [Google Scholar]
  10. Berthelin, S. R. and Borthen, K.
    2019 The Semantics and Pragmatics of Norwegian Sentence-Internal jo. Nordic Journal of Linguistics42(1): 3–30. 10.1017/S0332586519000052
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586519000052 [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E.
    1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. BigBrother-korpuset. Tekstlaboratoriet, ILN, Universitetet i Oslo
    BigBrother-korpuset. Tekstlaboratoriet, ILN, Universitetet i Oslo. Available athttps://www.hf.uio.no/iln/english/about/organization/text-laboratory/services/index.html#speech
  13. Blakemore, D.
    1989 Denial and Contrast: A Relevance Theoretic Analysis of but. Linguistics and Philosophy12: 15–37. 10.1007/BF00627397
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627397 [Google Scholar]
  14. Borthen, K.
    2018 Store spørsmål om små ord. Innledning til temanummer om pragmatiske partikler i norsk [Big Questions, Small Words. Introduction to a Special Issue on Pragmatic Particles in Norwegian]. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift36: 225–247.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C.
    1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  16. Buysse, L.
    2017 The Pragmatic Marker you know in Learner Englishes. Journal of Pragmatics121: 40–57. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.09.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2018 “It Was a Bit Stressy as Well Actually”. The Pragmatic Markers actually and in fact in Spoken Learner English. Journal of Pragmatics156: 28–40. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  18. Channell, J.
    1994 Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Clemen, G.
    1997 The Concept of Hedging: Origins, Approaches and Definitions. InHedging and Discourse Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, R. Markkanen and H. Schröder (eds), 235–248. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110807332.235
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807332.235 [Google Scholar]
  20. Coates, J.
    1987 Epistemic Modality and Spoken Discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society85: 110–131. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.1987.tb00714.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1987.tb00714.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Estling Vannestål, M.
    2015 A University Grammar of English: With a Swedish Perspective. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Faarlund, J. T., Lie, S. and Vannebo, K. I.
    1997 Norsk Referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Farr, F. and O’Keeffe, A.
    2002 Would as a Hedging Device in an Irish Context: An Intra-Varietal Comparison of Institutionalised Spoken Interaction. InUsing Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation, R. Reppen, S. M. Fitzmaurice and D. Biber (eds), 25–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.9.04far
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.9.04far [Google Scholar]
  24. Fraser, B.
    1980 Conversational Mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics4: 341–350. 10.1016/0378‑2166(80)90029‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6 [Google Scholar]
  25. 1996 Pragmatic Markers. Pragmatics Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA)6: 167–190. 10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra [Google Scholar]
  26. 2010 Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging. InNew Approaches to Hedging, G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch and S. Schneider (eds), 15–34. Bingley: Emerald Bingley. 10.1163/9789004253247_003
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253247_003 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fretheim, T.
    1979 Demperen “nesten” En pragmatisk studie. Maal og Minne3–4: 182–219.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 1981 “Ego”-dempere og “alter”-dempere. Maal og Minne: 86–100.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hasselgård, H.
    2020 Corpus-Based Contrastive Studies: Beginnings, Developments and Directions. Languages in Contrast20(2): 184–208. 10.1075/lic.00015.has
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00015.has [Google Scholar]
  30. Hardjanto, T.
    2016 Hedging through the Use of Modal Auxiliaries in English Academic Discourse. Humaniora28: 37–50. 10.22146/jh.v28i1.11412
     https://doi.org/10.22146/jh.v28i1.11412 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hasund, I. K.
    2003 The Discourse Markers like in English and liksom in Norwegian Teenage Language: A Corpus-Based, Cross-Linguistic Study. PhD Thesis, University of Bergen/Agder University College.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hasund, I. K., Opsahl, T. and Svennevig, J.
    2012 By three Means: The Pragmatic Functions of three Norwegian Quotatives. InQuotatives: Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, I. Buchstaller and I. van Alphen (eds), 37–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.15.05has
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.05has [Google Scholar]
  33. Hübler, A.
    1983 Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.iv.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.iv.6 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hunston, S.
    2002 Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524773
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524773 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hyland, K.
    1996 Writing without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles. Applied Linguistics17: 433–454. 10.1093/applin/17.4.433
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433 [Google Scholar]
  36. 1998 Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.54
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54 [Google Scholar]
  37. Johannessen, J. B., Priestley, J., Hagen, K., Åfarli, T. A. and Vangsnes, Ø. A.
    2009 The Nordic Dialect Corpus – An Advanced Research Tool. Proceedings of the 17th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics (NODALIDA 2009). Odense, Denmark, 14–16May 2009 283–286.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Johansen, S. H.
    2019 Exploring the Use of Probes in a Corpus Pragmatic Study of Hedging Strategies. Nordic Journal of English Studies18(1): 121–148. 10.35360/njes.493
     https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.493 [Google Scholar]
  39. Jucker, A. H., and Ziv, Y.
    1998 Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.57
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W. and Schneider, S.
    2010 New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald Bingley. 10.1163/9789004253247
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253247 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kimps, D., Davidse, K. and Cornillie, B.
    2014 A Speech Function Analysis of Tag Questions in British English Spontaneous Dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics66: 64–85. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.013 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kozubíková Šandová, J.
    2017 “…And Our Study Might Therefore Have Been Slightly Underpowered”: A Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Hedging in English and Czech Medical Research Articles. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Philologica: 115–130. 10.14712/24646830.2017.7
     https://doi.org/10.14712/24646830.2017.7 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kranich, S.
    2011 To Hedge or not to Hedge: The Use of Epistemic Modal Expressions in Popular Science in English Texts, English–German Translations, and German Original Texts. Text & Talk: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies31(1): 77–99. 10.1515/text.2011.004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2011.004 [Google Scholar]
  44. Lakoff, G.
    1972 Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts. InPapers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, P. M. Peranteau, J. N. Levi and G. C. Phares (eds), 183–228. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Lind, M.
    1994 Pragmatiske partikler i diskursanalytisk perspektiv: jo, altså, vel, nå og da i et norsk talemålsmateriale. Master’s Dissertation, University of Oslo.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V. and McEnery, T.
    2017 The Spoken BNC2014. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics22: 319–344. 10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov [Google Scholar]
  47. Lukka, M. R. and Markkanen, R.
    1997 Impersonalization as a Form of Hedging. InHedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, R. Markkanen and H. Schröder (eds), 168–187. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110807332.168
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807332.168 [Google Scholar]
  48. Magliacane, A. and Howard, M.
    2019 The Role of Learner Status in the Acquisition of Pragmatic Markers during Study Abroad: The Use of Like in L2 English. Journal of Pragmatics146: 72–86. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.026
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.026 [Google Scholar]
  49. Markkanen, R. and Schröder, H.
    1997 Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110807332
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807332 [Google Scholar]
  50. Mauranen, A.
    2004 “They’re a Little Bit Different”. Observations on Hedges in Academic Talk. InDiscourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora, K. Aijmer and A.-B. Stenström (eds), 173–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.120.12mau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.120.12mau [Google Scholar]
  51. Norsk talespråkskorpus – Oslodelen. Tekstlaboratoriet, ILN, Universitetet i Oslo
    Norsk talespråkskorpus – Oslodelen. Tekstlaboratoriet, ILN, Universitetet i Oslo. Available athttps://www.hf.uio.no/iln/english/about/organization/text-laboratory/services/index.html#speech
  52. O’Keeffe, A.
    2018 Corpus-Based Function-to-Form Approaches. InMethods in Pragmatics, A. H. Jucker, K. P. Schneider and W. Bublitz (eds), 587–618. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110424928‑023
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-023 [Google Scholar]
  53. O’Keeffe, A., Clancy, B. and Adolphs, S.
    2020 Introducing Pragmatics in Use (2nd Edition). Abingdon: Routledge. (unpagenated manuscript).
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Opsahl, T.
    2002 “Jeg bare: Hæ?! Hva skjedde her da?”: En studie av de kommunikative funksjonene til diskurspartikkelen ‘bare’ i et ungdomsspråkmateriale. Master’s Dissertation, University of Oslo.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Östman, J.-O.
    1982 Pragmatic Particles in an Applied Perspective. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen (Special Issue): 135–153.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Overstreet, M.
    1999 Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff Like That: General Extenders in English Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Prince, E., Frader, J. and Bosk, C.
    1982 On Hedging in Physician–Physician Discourse. InLinguistics and the Professions, R. J. di Pietro (ed.), 83–97. Norwood-New Jersey: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Rygg, K.
    2017 “Typically Norwegian to be Impolite.” Impoliteness according to Whom?FLEKS Scandinavian Journal of Intercultural Theory and Practice 20174(1): 1–15. 10.7577/fleks.2439
     https://doi.org/10.7577/fleks.2439 [Google Scholar]
  59. Salager-Meyer, F.
    1994 Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical English Written Discourse. English for Specific Purposes13: 149–70. 10.1016/0889‑4906(94)90013‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2 [Google Scholar]
  60. Schiffrin, D.
    1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  61. Solberg, T. K.
    1990 Modalpartikler i norsk. Master’s Dissertation, University of Oslo.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Svennevig, J.
    2007 “Ikke sant” as a Response Token in Norwegian Conversation. InInterpreting Utterances. Pragmatics and its Interfaces. Essays in Honour of Thorstein Fretheim, R.-A. Nilsen, N. A. A. Amfo and K. Borthen (eds), 175–189. Oslo: Novus Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 2008 “Ikke sant” som respons i samtale. InSpråk i Oslo Ny forskning omkring talespråk, J. B. Johannessen and K. Hagen (eds), 127–138. Oslo: Novus forlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 2010 Pre-empting Reference Problems in Conversation. Language in Society39: 173–202. 10.1017/S0047404510000060
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404510000060 [Google Scholar]
  65. Tchizmarova, I. K.
    2005 Hedging Functions of the Bulgarian Discourse Marker xajde. Journal of Pragmatics37: 1143–1163. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  66. Vassileva, I.
    2001 Commitment and Detachment in English and Bulgarian Academic Writing. English for Specific Purposes20: 83–102. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(99)00029‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0 [Google Scholar]
  67. Vold, E. T.
    2006 Epistemic Modality Markers in Research Articles: A Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Disciplinary Study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics16: 61–87. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2006.00106.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00106.x [Google Scholar]
  68. Yang, Y.
    2013 Exploring Linguistic and Cultural Variations in the Use of Hedges in English and Chinese Scientific Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics50(1): 23–36. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  69. Zadeh, L. A.
    1965 Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control8: 338–353. 10.1016/S0019‑9958(65)90241‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.19025.joh
Loading
“I guess anyone would do that wouldn’t they?”
Languages in Contrast 21, 163 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.19025.joh
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.19025.joh
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.19025.joh
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus pragmatics; English/Norwegian; hedging; spoken conversations

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error