International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature

ISSN 2200-3592 (Print), ISSN 2200-3452 (Online)

Vol. 2 No. 4; July 2013
Copyright Australian International Academic Centre, Australia

Pragmatic Functions of Hedges and Politeness Principles

Jingwei TANG (Corresponding author)
School of Foreign Languages, Shandong Jiaotong University
5001 Haitang Road, Changqing District, Jinan, 250357, China
Tel: 86-158-652-88911 E-mail: [email protected]

Received: 10-04-2013 Accepted: 20-05-2013 Published: 01-07-2013
doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.4p.155 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.4p.155

Abstract
Fuzziness is one of the objective characteristics of human language, which makes language flexible and reliable. Its
helpful to keep communication more euphemistic and convincing. Hedges are core of fuzzy language and the study on
hedges contributes to the understanding of the essence of language. The thesis adopts the theory of face theory and
politeness principles and conducts a study on the functions of hedges in communication from the perspective of
politeness. The study finds that different types of hedges play the role of maintaining politeness in communication. It is
also pointed out that improper use of hedges fails to maintain politeness and leads to pragmatic failure.
Keywords: hedges, politeness, face, politeness principles
1. Introduction
Language is an important tool to conduct communication and exchange ideas, which has the properties of productivity
and simplicity. The productivity of language is in accordance with the diversity of objective things, while its simplicity
is in contradiction to the abundance of things. Language needs to break the limitations of notions and express the
diversity of things, from which fuzziness of language turns out.
Zadeh(1965) first formulates fuzziness and puts forward the notion of fuzziness in his article fuzzy sets. He also
connects fuzziness with language and starts to study fuzziness of language with mathematical methods. The study on
fuzziness of language forms a new branch in linguistics-Fuzzy Linguistics. In 1972, Lakoff published his article entitled
Hedges: a Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts, in which hedges is firstly coined to refer to
the fuzziness of language. Lakoff (1972:471) says, 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 prefer these words as hedges.
Lakoff says (1972:471) (for hedges) any adequate treatment will have to take context into account. Hedges are a
group of words whose functions are to conduct communication; the communicative function of words can not work
without context. Consequently, the study on hedges should be confined to the range of contexts, from which the
pragmatic study on the functions of hedges derives. The thesis tries to explore the pragmatic functions of hedges in
politeness.
After Lakoffs study, some researchers have been studying hedges from the perspective of semantics from 1970s and
others, instead, focus on the study of the pragmatic functions of hedges from the 1980s. Kasper (1975) analyzes the
model verb hedges from the perspective of pragmatics. Brown and Levinson (1978/ 1987) put forward politeness
principles and regard hedges as a negative politeness strategy to avoid disagreement. Prince (1982) discusses the
categories of hedges and studies hedges as discourse markers. Kasper (1981) finds hedges can help to reduce negative
influences and save faces. Some researchers (Blum-kulka, 1984; Gu, 1990) adopt speech act theory to study hedges.
Leech (1984) and Nikula (2000) explore to discuss hedges with the method of discourse analysis. The thesis will focus
on the pragmatic functions of hedges and explores their effectiveness to keep politeness.
2. Classifications of Hedges
There are different classifications of hedges due to different perspectives of study. The most influential one is put
forward by E. F. Prince, J. Frader & C. Bosk (1982) from the perspective of pragmatics. The pragmatic study on Hedges
starts from the 1980s, later than semantic study on hedges. Different from the fuzziness of semantic hedging, pragmatic
hedges are not fuzzy themselves. They do not change the apparent meanings of the statement, but reflect the speakers
communicative intent, causing effects of implication. Hedges have a strong pragmatic color, being a wonderful
communicative strategy. Hedges can be classified into approximators and shields in the field of pragmatics.
Approximators can change peoples perception on topics of conversations and the original meaning of discourse
structure according to the communicative context. That is, approximators can change the true value of discourse, or
make a certain degree of amendments based on the given facts, or provide certain range of variation to the original
discourse. Approximators can be classified into two subcategories: adaptors (words that make certain amendments to
the original meanings of discourse) and rounders (words that provide certain range of variation). Shields dont change
the content and true value of discourse, simply conveying speakers doubt or reservations towards the discourse and


IJALEL 2 (4):155-160, 2013 156
showing speakers attitudes indirectly to moderate the tone. As approximators are, shields can be divided into two
subcategories: plausibility shields and attribution shields.


2.1 Hedges of approximators
Approximators make certain amendments to the content of the discourse structure or provide the range of adaptation, in
other words, approximators are those hedges that can change the original meanings of discourses. Approximators can
affect the true value of the discourse, and even cancel the original intent of the discourse. In verbal communication,
correct use of these two types of changes can help speakers avoid being assertive, speak appropriately in order to
successfully achieve the purpose of communication.
Adaptors usually work as modifiers of terms in communication. More specifically speaking, adaptors are expressions
which reveal the degree of truth of the original proposition.
Your attitude is a little rude.
In this sentence, when the speaker criticizes the attitude of the other one, an adaptor a little is used, which effectively
lessens the degree of criticism and makes it more acceptable to be criticized.
A: What about his ears? Is he still draining fluid?
B: Its just sort of crusted not really draining.
This is a conversation between a doctor and a patients parent. If without the approximator sort of, the doctors words
would sound too arbitrary. Sort of helps to make the doctors description more approximate to the fact and avoid
being too arbitrary.
Rounders refer to those hedges which limit the range of subjects. They are usually some words to measure things. When
speakers use rounders, they tend to focus only on the size of the range without thinking about the proximity of the
subject to the fact, since an exact number is usually mentioned in the discourse and hearers can understand the
meanings of discourses in a certain range based on the number. Rounders include:
aboutapproximatelyessentiallyin most respectsloosely!strictly speakingsomething
betweenandaroundor soat leastless thanmore than
The body temperature is approximately 36.9 centigrade, which is essentially the degree of a healthy condition.
The heart beats eh something between 60 to 64 times a minute.
Such rounders as approximately and something between are used here since the speaker tries to make sure his
words are not too far away from the fact since the speaker can not give an exact number.
2.2 Hedges of Shields.
Different from approximators, shields do not change the true value or the original intent of discourse structures. Their
functions are to moderate the tone of speakers. Shields work as instructions to indicate the discourse reflecting the
speakers or others opinions. Hedges of shields can also be subdivided into two subcategories: plausibility shields and
attribution shields.
Plausibility shields refer to the speakers direct speculation of a certain subject or attitudes they hold. In this case,
plausibility shields usually include the first person pronouns (singular and plural), which indicates that the speakers are
willing to take the responsibility of the truth of their statements or to offer alternative opinions or ideas for reference.
Roles of the plausibility shields are to moderate the tone of speakers and avoid imposing their own thoughts on others.
Approximators
Hedges
Shields
Plausibility Shields Attribution Shields Adaptors Rounders
I think
I guess
I wonder
I suspect
I am afraid

Sb. says that
According to
In ones view
Its
said/believed


Kind of / Sort of
A little/ bit
Somewhat
Might
More or less

About
Around
Approximately
Roughly
Over

IJALEL 2 (4):155-160, 2013 157
The experiments are going on smoothly, as far as I know.
As she is not here, I suppose she must have gone home.
In some cases, the tone can also be moderated with some modal verbs indicating speakers doubt and inference.
The change may be gradual.
I might be able to do that.
Attribution shields do not convey the views or speculation of the speakers, but show the speakers attitude indirectly by
quoting others perspectives. Common grounds of plausibility shields and attribution shields are that when the speakers
put forward a thesis, they can help speakers leave adequate leeway, and mitigate their responsibility for the thesis. The
difference between them is that attribution shields usually include some personal structures or the third personal
structures, which excludes the speakers, results in an implication of the absence of speakers and protects the face of
speakers at the most.
It shows that there was presumably no acute decrease in heart rate.
Attribution shields in the sentence above help to avoid the personal factors and mitigate the responsibility when
speakers try to make statements. The impersonal structure, together with the attribution shields weakens the
responsiblity of the speakers when they make statements.
3. Face Theory and Politeness Principles
Hedges are often mutually confirmed with pragmatic principles. Exactly speaking, they reflect the speakers attitude
towards the degree of the credibility, details, relevance and clarity of the information provided in the communication.
Brown and Levinson (1987: 5960) argue that every member of a society has face, which refers to ones public self-
image, and when the speaker decides to commit an act which potentially causes the hearer (or the speaker) to lose face,
the speaker will tend to use a politeness strategy in order to mitigate the risk. They think face is The public self-image
that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting of two related aspects:
negative face: The basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction---i.e. to freedom of action
and freedom from imposition
positive face: The positive consistent self-image or personality (crucially including the desire that this self-image be
appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants.(B & L, 1987: 61)
Brown and Levinson argue that the factors causing face-threatening involve such variables as the social distance
between the participants, the power that the addressee has over the speaker, and the ranking of the imposition expressed
in the utterance in the relevant culture. Brown & Levinson (1987: 65) suggest some politeness strategies that can
minimize the seriousness of a face-threatening act (FTA).
Bald on-record: These strategies generally do not attempt to mitigate the threat to the hearers face, although some
ways exist to minimize face-threatening acts implicitly.
Positive politeness: This kind of strategies aims to mitigate the threat to the hearers positive face. Such strategies are
taken to make the hearer feel good about him himself.
Negative politeness: Negative politeness strategies are conducted to protect the hearers negative face and focus on
avoiding imposing views on the hearer. Negative politeness is an avoidance-based strategy of self-effacement and
restraint. Concrete ways to take negative politeness strategies include: being indirect, being pessimistic, minimizing the
imposition, and using obviating structures ect.
Off-record: This strategy uses indirect language and removes the speaker from the potential to be imposing.
There is no difficulty to notice that part of these strategies play similar roles with hedges, especially the negative
politeness strategy. That is the very basis of this paper to explore the pragmatic functions of hedges.
Grices Cooperative Principles (CP) exerts great influence on pragmatic studies. However, there still exist lots of
phenomena that CP cant explain. As a remedy for CP, Leech (1983) formulates Politeness Principle (PP), which are
presumed to interpret indirect ways to say things and fuzzy ways to express ideas. To Leech, politeness is motivation to
do things above. According to Leech (Leech 1983: 133), various politeness strategies are taken to mitigate the face-
threatening activities effectively:
Tact-maxim: Minimize the cost to other; maximize the benefit to other.
Generosity maxim: Minimize benefit to self, maximize cost to self.
Approbation maxim: Minimize dispraise of other, maximize praise of other.
Modesty maxim: Minimize praise of self, maximize dispraise of self.
Agreement maxim: Minimize disagreement between self and other; maximize agreement between self and other.
Sympathy maxim: Minimize antipathy between self and other; maximize sympathy between self and other.
4. Pragmatic Functions of Hedges in Politeness
Hedges are means of expressing fuzziness. He Z.R. (1985) argues that hedges are characterized by fuzziness,
uncertainty and possibility and fuzziness is inexplicitness, which doesnt definitely mean a bad thing. Explicitness isnt
IJALEL 2 (4):155-160, 2013 158
always in need and its essential to figure out the implications of words. Without implications, language would be dull.
Fuzziness is nature of language, which endows language with various pragmatic functions. Pragmatic study on hedges
dates from the middle of 1980s. Many researchers (Fasker, 1975; Brown& Levinson, 1978&1987; Prince, 1982; Kasper,
1981) have focused the functions of hedges from the perspective of pragmatics. The thesis aims to explore the
pragmatic functions of hedges in the realm of politeness.
4.1 Approximators and Their Pragmatic Functions in Maintaining Politeness
In communication, speakers tend to express themselves inexplicitly with hedges on purpose to avoid being assertive and
make their words sound more polite. Such hedges as kind of, to some extent, somewhat, quite, entirely,
more or less, really, and almost are effective to show politeness to the hearers in conversations.
Our product is quiet cheap.
Quite shows the speakers basic attitude towards the price of their product, indicating there is little space to concede,
while it also tells the hearer there is a degree of flexibility for bargaining. Such an approximator can both make clear the
speakers idea and leave adequate leeway to the hearer and take the hearers face into consideration.
Your coat is a little bit dirty.
To criticize others tends to lead to conflicts and threatens others face. In this case, certain pragmatic strategy should be
taken to mitigate the threatening. A little adheres to the principle of approbation maxim and shows the speakers
endeavor to reduce the degree of making others lose face.
4.2 Rounders and Their Functions in Maintaining Politeness
Rounders are usually used to refer to the range of variation and to measure things. Speakers adopt rounders with
meanings of approximation to offer the range of alternatives. Hearers are supposed to understand the speakers words
confined to the range. Rounders usually include: approximatelyessentially, about, over, in most respects, roughly,
about, ect.
A: Whats your annual income?
B: ErwellIts about the expenditure of a new car.
Obviously, B isnt willing to answer As question, since its something private. However, B doesnt intend to make A
feel embarrassed by refusing to answer the question and responds to it with fuzziness with the help of about. B
succeeds in making responses to As question without behaving impolitely.
G. Lakoff (1972) argues that being polite means giving others options; that is, let others make their own decisions and
avoid imposing views on others, which is one of the functions of hedges.
Would you like a drink------an orange juice or something?
Its grammatically right if the speaker says, Would you like an orange juice? However, such a response might make
the hearer feel a bit embarrassed since he has no other options. A sole option seems to be imposed on him. Something
in the sentence above endows the hearer with more options and makes him feel respected.
4.3 Plausibility Shields and Their Functions in Maintaining Politeness
Plausibility shields demonstrate speakers subjective judgment or the reservations they harbor. Such hedges include: I
think, hard to say, as far as I can tell, seem, I wonder, I believe/ assume/ suppose, Im afraid When speakers lack
enough confidence with the truth of information and dare not to make absolute judgments, they tend to use plausibility
shields in order that they can show respect to hearers and in case that they make hearers unpleased.
AHow do you think of my poem?
BIts hard to say, Im not good at literature.
Its hard to say helps B avoid making a direct assessment on the poem when Bs original judgment is that its not a
good poem. Out of good intentions and politeness, B makes an ambiguous answer with its hard to say and protects
As face. Such an answer also conforms to approbation maxim and agreement maxim in Leechs politeness
principles.
Boss: Im afraid this is not the first time you are late for work.
Employee: Sorry, Im . . . eh . . . just a little bit late.
The boss criticizes his employee but with no intention to arouse his internal resistance, so he uses Im afraid to
mitigate the criticism to protect the employees face. In response, the employee uses a little to save his own face.
In communication, face needs to be protected on both sides. Each has dual responsibility to maintain face: to protect his
face and respect others face. In reality, there are lots of face threatening acts (FTA). Face is of duality. When a person
makes a request, the request is a FTA both to the speaker and to the hearer. In order to be polite and protect the face of
the two sides, the request is usually made in a moderate way like in the following sentence.
I wonder whether you can give me a ride.
4.4 Attribution Shields and Their Functions in Maintaining Politeness
Attribute shields are often used by speakers to show their speculation or reservation. Speakers tend to quote the
IJALEL 2 (4):155-160, 2013 159
arguments of the third person and demonstrate their attitudes directly. No matter it is right or wrong, the quotation
doesnt necessarily conform to the speakers own view, having nothing to do with the speaker himself. Even if the
quotation is wrong or is against the hearers view, it wouldnt destroy the communicative relationship of both sides.
This is right in accordance to Leechs Agreement maxim: Minimize disagreement between self and other; maximize
agreement between self and other. Speakers use attribution shields to report others words. Thus no matter the words
are right or wrong, they convey the third partys views or attitudes and have nothing to do with the speakers. Even if
there is wrong information in these words, it does not influence the relationship between speakers and hearers badly,
resulting in maintaining the politeness between them.
According to John, all gentlemen are requested to wear suits on the cocktail party.
Obviously, the speaker wants the hearer to wear suits to attend the party. Its impolite to require the hearer directly and
impose requirements on the speaker. According to John effectively mitigates the degree of requirement and conveys a
clear implication that the hearer should wear suits to the party, which both completes the task of making suggestion and
avoids letting the hearer feel embarrassed.
However, roles of hedges are not always positive. Improper use of hedges can cause impoliteness in many cases. It
would bring negative consequence to communication. That is, when clear information is in need, hedges should be out
of the way. Otherwise, hedges might lead to failure of communication.
AIm going to fly to Beijing tomorrow. Will you please tell me what time the flight is?
BMaybe its about ten oclock?
A is definitely willing to get the exact time of the flight. Maybe and about fail to provide sufficient and wanted
information; this probably results in failure of the conversation and impoliteness. Speakers should take context and
hearers into consideration in communication and use hedges properly to avoid pragmatic failure.
Your new dress looks quite beautiful.
Quite mitigates the speakers praise for the dress and violates the principle of approbation maxim, making the
praise sound insincere. Pragmatic failure caused by using hedges improperly is sometimes attributed to the factor of
cultural differences. The proper use of certain hedges in the context of English culture may not be applied in another
culture.
Guest: Your dishes are so delicious!
Host: Thanks"not bad!
The hosts reply is not impolite in English culture when not bad is little fuzzy. However, if the context is transferred to
Chinese culture, it is an improper reply with some pragmatic failure, since such a reply indicates the host seems not to
be a modest man, which does not conform to Chinese custom.
5. Conclusion
Hedges are the most typical components of fuzzy language and play roles of maintaining politeness in communication.
Hedges can make communication euphemistic, moderate, polite and flexible, which effectively helps to maintain and
adjust the relationship between speakers and hearers and keep communication smooth. On the other hand, hedges would
make information fuzzy and fail to keep conveyed information appropriate, which may lead to inaccuracy of
information. Hedges need to be used timely and moderately in communication.

References
Blum-kulka, S. (1984)Requests and Apologies: A Cross-cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns. Applied
Linguistics, 5, 196:213.
Bunts, L.C. (1991).Vagueness. Kluwer: Academis Publishers.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1978) Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena, in Goody, E. (ed.), Questions
and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction ( pp.56~311). England: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Channell, J. (1994). Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clemen, Gudrun. (1997). The concept of hedging: Origins, approaches and definitions. In Hartmut Schroeder and
Raija Markkanen (eds.), Hedging and Discourse (pp. 98-108).Berlin: de Gruyter.
Fraser, Bruce. (2008). A brief history of hedging. In Stefan Schneider (ed.), Vagueness in Language. (pp. 87-91).
Bingley: Emerald Publishing.
He Z. R.(1985). Hedges and Language Communication. Journal of Foreign Languages, 5, 27-31.
House, J. and Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and in German In Florian Coulmas (ed.),
Conversational Routines (pp.157185). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kasper, B. (1975). Hedged Performatives (A) in Cole P.: Syntax and Semantics Speech Acts (C). New York: Harcont
Brace.
IJALEL 2 (4):155-160, 2013 160
Kasper, G. (1981). Communication Strategies: Modality Reduction. The Interlanguage Bulletins, 4: 266-283.
Lakoff, George. (1972). Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In P. J. Levi Peranteau &
G. Phares (eds.), Papers from the Eight Regional Meeting. (pp.183-228). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Lakoff, Robin. (1973). The logic of politeness. In Claudia Corum, T.C. Smith-Stark, & A. Weiser (eds.) Papers form
the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 228-298). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, Geoffrey. (1981). Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Leech, Geoffrey. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prince, E. F. , J. Frader & C. Bosk. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In R. J. Pietro (ed.),Linguistics
and the Professions. New Jersey: Ablex, Norwood.
Qin, X. B. (1984). Fuzziness of Language and Language Style of Fuzziness. Journal of Foreign Language, 6, 38-43"
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzz Sets. In Information and Control (pp. 338353). New York: Academic Press.
Skehon, H. (1988). The Care and Maintenance of Hedges. ELT Journal, 1, 35-52"
Verchueren, J. (2002). Understanding Pragnmtics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press"
Wu, T. P. (1999). Fuzzy Language. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.