1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 25, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 25, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
PDF

Abstract

One of the canonical uses of in Polish is that of the Lakoffian hedge, which modifies the propositional content of an utterance by pointing to its fuzziness, inexactitude or approximation. In conversational speech the word is frequently put to excessive use, which appears to significantly deviate from the prescribed one, and as such deserves closer attention. The aim of the present study, which makes use of corpus linguistics tools to collect naturally-occurring data and discourse analysis framework to manually examine them, is twofold. Initially, it sets out to examine the linguistic contexts of , which are assumed to furnish valuable guidelines for sifting out the prototypical uses of the word from the innovative ones. Next, the focus shifts onto indentifying context-sensitive functions of the latter in highly diversified stretches of discourse. The research findings demonstrate that the cotextual settings of the non-canonical exhibit a number of distinctive characteristics, such as frequent co-occurrence of the word with pragmatic markers, reflexive discourse and unfilled pauses, all indicative of its relatively tenuous link with the neighbouring portions of text. As regards the functions of the unconventional , the word emerges as a pragmatically multifunctional yet no longer hedging device, capable of, among others, facilitating floor-holding/-grabbing, helping to plan discourse, marking register clash and introducing elaboration on prior thought. Rich in pragmatic functions and syntactically more detached from the adjacent textual material than its canonical base, the investigated appears to fit into the category of propositionally empty yet strategically salient pragmatic markers.

© 2015 International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.25.3.01ada
2015-09-01
2024-10-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.25.3.01ada
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abdollahzadeh, Esmaeel
    (2011) Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics43.1: 288–297. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aijmer, Karin
    (2002) English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 10). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/scl.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10 [Google Scholar]
  3. Behnam, Biook , Amin Naeimi , and Ali Darvishzade
    (2012) A comparative genre analysis of hedging expressions in research articles: Is fuzziness forever wicked?English Language and Literature Studies2.2: 20–38. doi: 10.5539/ells.v2n2p20
     https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v2n2p20 [Google Scholar]
  4. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    (1985) Modifiers as indicating devices: The case of requests. Theoretical Linguistics12.2/3: 213–229. doi: 10.1515/thli.1985.12.s1.213
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1985.12.s1.213 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brinton, Laurel J
    (1996) Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions (Topics in English Linguistics 19). Berlin, New York, N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110907582
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907582 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen C. Levinson
    (1978) Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Esther N. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology 8). Cambridge, New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–310.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Caffi, Claudia
    (1999) On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics31.7: 881–909. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00098‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2007) Mitigation (Studies in Pragmatics 4). Amsterdam, Boston, Mass.: Elsevier Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Channell, Joanna
    (1990) Precise and vague quantities in writing on economics. In Walter Nash (ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (Written Communication Annual 3). Newbury Park, Calif., London: Sage Publications, pp. 95–117.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (1994) Vague language (Describing English Language). Oxford, New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Clemen, Gudrun
    (1997) The concept of hedging: Origins, approaches and definitions. In Raija Markkanen , and Hartmut Schröder (eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (Research in Text Theory/Untersuchungen zur Texttheorie 24). Berlin, New York, N.Y.: Walter de Gruyter & Co., pp. 235–248.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cutting, Joan
    (ed.) (2007) Vague language explored. Houndmills, New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230627420
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230627420 [Google Scholar]
  13. Defrancq, Bart , and Gert De Sutter
    (2010) Contingency hedges in Dutch, French and English: A corpus-based contrastive analysis of the language-internal and -external properties of English depend, French dépendre and Dutch afhangen, liggen and zien . In Stefania Marzo , Kris Heylen , and Gert De Sutter (eds.), Corpus studies in contrastive linguistics (Special Issue of International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15.2). Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Pa.: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 183–213. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.15.2.03def
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.2.03def [Google Scholar]
  14. Diewald, Gabriele
    (2006) Hecken und Heckenausdrücke – Versuch einer Neudefinition. In Emilia Calaresu , Cristina Guardiano , and Klaus Hölker (eds.), Italienisch und Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprachen. Bestandsaufnahmen, Analysen, Perspektiven/Italiano e tedesco come lingue della comunicazione scientifica. Ricognizioni, analisi e prospettive (Romanistische Linguistik 7). Berlin, Münster: LIT Verlag, pp. 295–315.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Duszak, Anna
    (1994) Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics21.3: 291–313. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90003‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90003-5 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fetzer, Anita
    (2009)  Sort of and kind of in political discourse: Hedge, head of NP or contextualization cue?In Andreas H. Jucker , Daniel Schreier , and Marianne Hundt (eds.), Corpora: Pragmatics and discourse. Papers from the 29th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 29) (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 68). Amsterdam, New York, N.Y.: Editions Rodopi B.V., pp. 127–149.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (2010) Hedges in context: Form and function of sort of and kind of . In Gunther Kaltenböck , Wiltrud Mihatsch , and Stefan Schneider (eds.), New approaches to hedging (Studies in Pragmatics 9). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 49–71. doi: 10.1163/9789004253247_005
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253247_005 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fischer, Kerstin
    (2006) Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: Introduction to the volume. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (Studies in Pragmatics 1). Amsterdam, Boston, Mass.: Elsevier Ltd., pp. 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Flowerdew, John
    (1991) Pragmatic modifications on the ‘representative’ speech act of defining. Journal of Pragmatics15.3: 253–264. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(91)90013‑N
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90013-N [Google Scholar]
  20. Fraser, Bruce
    (1975) Hedged performatives. In Peter Cole , and Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol 3: Speech acts. New York, N.Y.: Academic Press, pp. 187–210.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (1990) An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics14.3: 383–395. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90096‑V
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V [Google Scholar]
  22. Heider [Rosch], Eleanor
    (1971) On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. Unpublished paper. University of California, Berkeley.
  23. Holmes, Janet
    (1982) Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research13.2: 9–29. doi: 10.1177/003368828201300202
     https://doi.org/10.1177/003368828201300202 [Google Scholar]
  24. (1984) Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo27: 47–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hu, Guangwei , and Feng Cao
    (2011) Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics43.11: 2795–2809. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hübler, Axel
    (1983) Understatements and hedges in English (Pragmatics and Beyond IV: 6). Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Pa.: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pb.iv.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.iv.6 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hyland, Ken
    (1998) Hedging in scientific research articles (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 54). Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Pa.: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.54
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54 [Google Scholar]
  28. Itakura, Hiroko
    (2013) Hedging praise in English and Japanese book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics45.1: 131–148. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  29. Jalilifar, Alireza , and Maryam Alavi-Nia
    (2012)  We are surprised; wasn’t Iran disgraced there? A functional analysis of hedges and boosters in televised Iranian and American presidential debates. Discourse and Communication6.2: 135–161. doi: 10.1177/1750481311434763
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481311434763 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lakoff, George
    (1972) Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In Paul M. Peranteau , Judith N. Levi , and Gloria C. Phares (eds.), Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Chicago Linguistic Society 8). Chicago, Ill.: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 183–228.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (1982) Categories and cognitive models (Linguistic Agency University Trier, series A, 96). Trier: Linguistic Agency University Trier.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (1986) Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. In Anne M. Farley , Peter T. Farley , and Karl-Erik McCullough (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory at the 22nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Chicago Linguistic Society 22, 2). Chicago, Ill.: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 152–167.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, Ill., London: The University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Markkanen, Raija , and Hartmut Schröder
    (1997) Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In Raija Markkanen , and Hartmut Schröder (eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (Research in Text Theory/Untersuchungen zur Texttheorie 24). Berlin, New York, N.Y.: Walter de Gruyter & Co., pp. 3–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Mauranen, Anna
    (2004) “They’re a little bit different”... Observations on hedges in academic talk. In Karin Aijmer , and Anna-Brita Stenström (eds.), Discourse patterns in spoken and written corpora (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 120). Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Pa.: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 173–197. doi: 10.1075/pbns.120.12mau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.120.12mau [Google Scholar]
  36. McLaren-Hankin, Yvonne
    (2008) “We expect to report on significant progress in our product pipeline in the coming year”: Hedging forward-looking statements in corporate press releases. Discourse Studies10.5: 635–654. doi: 10.1177/1461445608094216
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608094216 [Google Scholar]
  37. Meyer, Paul G
    (1997) Hedging strategies in written academic discourse: Strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In Raija Markkanen , and Hartmut Schröder (eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (Research in Text Theory/Untersuchungen zur Texttheorie 24). Berlin, New York, N.Y.: Walter de Gruyter & Co., pp. 21–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Miodek, Jan
    (1996) Jaka jesteś, polszczyzno? [What are you like, the Polish language?] (Z Prac Instytutu Filologii Polskiej Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego). Wrocław: Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Polonistyki Wroc- ławskiej.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Mišković-Luković, Mirjana
    (2006) Semantika i pragmatika iskaza: Markeri diskursa u engleskom jeziku [The semantics and pragmatics of utterances: Discourse markers in English]. Beograd: Filološki Fakultet.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Mortelmans, Tanja
    (2012) Epistemic MUST and its cognates in German and Dutch. The subtle differences. Journal of Pragmatics (Special Issue – Modality at work: Cognitive, interactional and textual functions of modal markers)44.15: 2150–2164.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt
    (1998) The function of discourse particles: A study with special reference to spoken standard French (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 53). Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Pa.: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.53
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.53 [Google Scholar]
  42. Myers, Greg
    (1989) The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics10: 1–35. doi: 10.1093/applin/10.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  43. Nikula, Tarja
    (1997) Interlanguage view on hedging. In Raija Markkanen , and Hartmut Schröder (eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (Research in Text Theory/Untersuchungen zur Texttheorie 24). Berlin, New York, N.Y.: Walter de Gruyter & Co., pp. 188–207.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Pęzik, Piotr
    (2012) Dane mówione w NKJP [Spoken data in the NKJP (Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego/The National Corpus of Polish)]. In Adam Przepiórkowski , Mirosław Bańko , Rafał L. Górski , and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.), Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego [The National Corpus of Polish]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, pp. 272–273.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Poveda Cabanes, Paloma
    (2007) A contrastive analysis of hedging in English and Spanish architecture project descriptions. RESLA (Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada)20: 139–158.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Prince, Ellen F. , Joel Frader , and Charles Bosk
    (1982) On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In Robert J. Di Pietro (ed.), Linguistics and the professions: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Delaware Symposium on Language Studies (Advances in Discourse Processes 8). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation, pp. 83–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Redeker, Gisela
    (1990) Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics14.3: 367–381. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90095‑U
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90095-U [Google Scholar]
  48. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    (2004) Lectures on repair and categorization (244b/266 Conversational Structures II), University of California, Los Angeles.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Schourup, Lawrence
    (1999) Discourse markers: Tutorial overview. Lingua107.3/4: 227–265. doi: 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)90026‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schröder, Hartmut , and Dagmar Zimmer
    (1997) Hedging research in pragmatics: A bibliographical research guide to hedging. In Raija Markkanen , and Hartmut Schröder (eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (Research in Text Theory/Untersuchungen zur Texttheorie 24). Berlin, New York, N.Y.: Walter de Gruyter & Co., pp. 249–272.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Sidnell, Jack
    (2010) Conversation analysis: An introduction (Language in Society). Oxford, Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Słownik języka polskiego [The dictionary of Polish] (2013) Jakby [(As) if/Like]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. sjp.pwn.pl/szukaj/jakby (accessed15 October 2013).
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Szymczak, Mieczysław
    (ed.) (1978) Słownik języka polskiego [The dictionary of Polish]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Tchizmarova, Ivelina K
    (2005) Hedging functions of the Bulgarian discourse marker xajde . Journal of Pragmatics37.8: 1143–1163. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  55. Varttala, Teppo
    (1999) Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine. English for Specific Purposes18.2: 177–200. doi: 10.1016/S0889‑4906(98)00007‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00007-6 [Google Scholar]
  56. Vass, Holly
    (2004) Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genres. Ibérica7: 125–141.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Weinreich, Uriel
    (1966) On the semantic structure of English. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language (MIT Press Classics), 2nd edn. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 142–217.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Wierzbicka, Anna
    (1991) Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 53). Berlin, New York, N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Yang, Yingli
    (2013) Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics50.1: 23–36. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  60. Zadeh, Lotfi A
    (1965) Fuzzy sets. Information and Control8.3: 338–353. doi: 10.1016/S0019‑9958(65)90241‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X [Google Scholar]
  61. (1971) Quantitative fuzzy semantics. Information Sciences3.2: 159–176. doi: 10.1016/S0020‑0255(71)80004‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0255(71)80004-X [Google Scholar]
  62. Zuck, Joyce G. , and Louis V. Zuck
    (1985) Hedging in newswriting. In Anne-Marie Cornu , Johan Vanparjis , Mieke Delahaye , and Lut Baten (eds.), Beads or bracelet? How do we approach LSP? Selected papers from the 5th European Symposium on LSP. Leuven: Oxford University Press, pp. 172–180.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.25.3.01ada
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): (Non-)canonical use of language; (Non-)propositional meaning; Hedges; Pragmatic markers

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