Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
The field of research has analyzed how hedging could be used pedagogically for
teaching academic writing and some studies refer to pedagogical implications from the research
carried out (Vasquez & Giner, 2008; Mojica, 2005; Hyland, 1996; Lakoff, 1972). However, there
careless in posting messages online without valid evidences; hence, the advent of fake news. The
issue on fake news has become a tremendous concern not only of the people using CMCs but
also in the society. These people seem not to be careful in creating their messages that they do
not consider turn-taking, showing politeness, and mitigating face threats in their conversations
online. They become overly confident that this is not just observed in forums, but are also seen
on Facebook comments, Twitter posts, and other social networking sites (SNS). This particular
study will attempt to investigate on the use of hedging devices as it is used in online forums by
employing the Salager-Meyer’s (1997, cited in Mojica, 2005) codification of hedging devices
Hedging Devices
It is often believed that academic writing is factual in nature whereby facts and
strength of the claims which the writer is making. This proposition associates the use of “hedges”
or “hedging devices” with scientific imprecision and defines them as linguistic cues of bias to
According to Webster’s II, New Riverside Dictionary (1984), a hedge is any “deliberate
ambiguous statement” or any equivocal statement. This may include mitigating devices in
politeness marker category “down graders”. Myers (1989) argues that, “Hedging is a politeness
strategy when it marks a claim, or any other statement, as being provisional, pending acceptance
by the readers” (in Crompton, 1997, p. 12). Hedging in academic discourse seems to generate
enormous interest among linguists working in different areas and using deferent methodologies.
variation of hedging. The impact of hedging devices in the discourse is measured by their overall
effect on meaning of the message of the text (oral or written). Furthermore, Hyland (1996)
illustrates that hedging devices are used to indicate a lack of commitment to the truth of
proposition, and a desire not to express the commitment categorically. Hedging, as one of the
most important aspects in texture of interaction between the reader and the writer/ researcher is
often perceived as contributing to the subtlety and flexibility of the text as well as the
persuasiveness of ideas. By means of hedging, a user distinguishes between what s/he says and
what s/he thinks about what s/he says. The general role of hedges in a scientific article is to
signal a writer’s anticipation of the negatibility of claims (Hyland, 1996); thus, it signals a
have the final-word on the subject. Expressing a lack of certainty does not necessarily show
confusion or vagueness. One could consider hedges as a strategy of being more precise in
reporting results. Hedging may present the true state of the writers' understanding and may be
used to negotiate an accurate representation of the state of the knowledge under discussion.
Hedges also “represent the writers’ efforts to persuade readers of the correctness of their claims,
helping them to gain acceptance for their work” (Hyland, 1988). Therefore, hedges soften the
overstatement of a claim. In other words, they imply that “a statement is based on plausible
reasoning rather than certain knowledge and they have a conciliatoryrole” (Hyland 1988, in
Crompton, 1997). They can be a powerful persuasive factor in gaining acceptance for claims.
Instead of saying “I know”, members of academia should rather “assume” or “suggest” even
when addressing other scholars (Hyland, 1996). Hedges are a major contribution to the
negotiation of social knowledge, because “writers must socially mediate their arguments, shaping
their evidence, observations, data and knowledge valued by their community” (Hyland, 1986 in
Dixon & Foster, 1996). Hyland calls them ‘disciplinary gate keepers. Skelton (1988, in
language which serves the function of modulating propositions. In sum, hedges balance objective
Bodomo (2009, p.6) defines CMC as” the coding and decoding of linguistic and other symbolic
systems between sender and receiver for information processing in multiple formats through the
medium of the computer and allied technologies such as PDAs, mobile phones, and blackberries;
and through media like the internet, email, chat systems, text messaging, YouTube, Skype, and
many more to be invented.” This variety of CMC consolidates different forms of communication,
making it easier for the user to switch between the different ways to communicate. Meanwhile,
Rooksby (2002) argues that Computer- Mediated Communication (CMC) is the process of
interpersonal relations. The development of communication technology has increased the speed
Boyd and Ellison (2007) define social networking sites as another form of CMC which is
a web service which allows the internet users to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile
within a bounded system, (2) articulates a list of other users with whom they share a connection,
and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.
The aforementioned features of SNS (Social Networking Sites) may differ from one another.
with different countries, to express self- identity through online blogging and share life
experiences.
Forums or discussion boards have paved way to the exchange of communication of CMC
users regardless of the distance. Forums are democratic places where a person can freely ask,
discuss and respond to the different issues being raised (Coleman & Gotze, 2001). Blumler and
Coleman (2001) reported that online discussion forums have been proposed as solutions to the
practical limits of mass deliberation. It has asynchronous system where it allows a person or a
group to communicate online by posting a comment or query and letting other people post an
answer for it. Let us cite, for example, if an individual posts a question, and three others post
answers to that question, these four "posts" comprise what is known as a "thread" of
This present study attempts to extend the existing research on hedging devices in light of
Discussion boards or Forums in the Philippine context by utilizing the politeness theory. This
study also aims to identify the categories and functions of hedging devices employed in forums.
Research Questions:
2. Do hedging devices used in forums indicate (1) turn-taking, (2) show politeness, or (3)
mitigate face-threats?
Theoretical Framework:
Most interactions are governed by politeness, that is to say by what is considered a polite
social behaviour within a certain culture. Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness theory is
acts (FTAs). In their theory, communication is seen as potentially dangerous and antagonistic.
The basic notion of this model is “face”, which is defined as “the public self-image that
every member of society wants to claim for himself”. In this framework, face consists of two
related aspects: (1). Negative face, or the rights to territories, freedom of action and freedom
from imposition or wanting your actions not to be constrained or inhibited by others; (2).
Positive face, which refers to the consistent self-image that people have; and their desire to be
The rational actions people take to preserve both kinds of face, for themselves and the
people they interact with, add up to politeness. Brown and Levinson also argue that in human
communication, either spoken or written, people tend to maintain one another's face
continuously.
we take liberties or say things that would seem discourteous among strangers. In both situations
we try to avoid making the hearer embarrassed or uncomfortable. Face-threatening acts (FTAs)
are acts that infringe on the hearers' need to maintain his/her self-esteem, and be respected.
Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with these FTAs.
Despite the studies made in the use of hedging devices, the researchers would like to
investigate if there are differences between the use of hedging devices in academic papers and in
computer-mediated communication (CMC). This may provide a deeper knowledge for users of
CMC to understand the communication styles of fellow CMC users in their replies to the topic
provided in the forum. Furthermore, if the teachers opt to integrate the use of CMC in their
teaching strategies, students may observe proper decorum in stating their opinions and in sharing
their ideas online. Thus, the students would learn to be more responsible in stating their claims
which not only eliminates the tendency for plagiarism but also to be more sensitive to the face of
the receiver of the message. This is due to the face threats which students and CMC users alike
statements with fellow students or CMC users. This phenomenon is called nowadays as cyber-
bullying which actually emanates from insensitive ways of stating opinions and sharing of ideas.
The hedging devices, which are categorized as TT- turntaking, SP for politeness, and MFT for
mitigate face-threats, are used as face-saving acts which helps the students to be considerate
concerning the face of others (Brown & Levinson, 1987). This way, disputes in CMC would be
Methodology
Research Design
This study employs a descriptive design since it is designed to help provide answers of
who, what, when, where, and how the hedging devices are used in a computer-mediated
communication such as in forums. This also aims to answer if people in CMC use hedging
devices in the same way that they use such in writing academic papers. Furthermore, this study
also employs a qualitative design to be able to identify the use of the hedging devices by getting
the frequency of the most preponderant hedging device/s and their use.
Corpus
The data that will be used in this study will be chosen from three different forums with
topics about the Philippines. There will only be one topic taken from each of the forum websites
namely; (1) Expatforum.com, (2) Topix, and (3) Philippine Expat forum. The total number of
threads/interaction that will be analysed in this study is 65 with approximately 4032 words.
Furthermore, this study will examine hedging devises used in forums by focusing on the use of
the said lexical items as (1) turn-taking, (2) show politeness, or (3) mitigate face-threats.
Analytical Framework
The hedging devices that will be used in this study were examined on the basis of
categorization created by Vassileva (2001), Strauss (2004), Salager-Meyer (1997) and Swales
Type 2: Semi- auxiliaries/ Epistemic verbs (e.g. seem, look, appear, sound)
surprisingly, less likely, always, possible, probable, somehow, somewhat, a lot of,
assumption, claim)
Type 4: Distancing Phrases (e.g. one school of thought, a possible view, it could
be concluded that, one could say, Based on the conducted survey, According to this
Procedure
The researchers will codify the hedging devices found in the replies in the forum by how
the latter were used by the posers (turn-taking, show politeness, or mitigate face-threats).
Through this, the researchers will be able to identify the most preponderant use of the hedging
The replies in the forums will be read in order to identify the hedging devices used. These
hedging devices will be manually marked and classified. The hedging device/s and their use that
is/are most and least preponderant in the forums are identified through frequency distribution.
The use of hedging devices in the selected forums will be analysed by reading the data gathered
to be able to categorize their uses - TT for turntaking, SP for politeness, and MFT for mitigate
face-threats. Through this, the researchers will be able to identify the most and least
preponderant use of these lexical items and discuss the reasons for such.
It has been observed that Netizens, most specifically the posers in forums, use hedging
devices in different purposes. Table 1 below shows that Type 1 (modals and probabilities) are
most favoured among the six types of hedges and the most preponderant hedging device
preferred by forum users. In fact, most of the modals used in the gathered corpus are the use of
would and could. This could in conformity with the general tendency of hedging in English by
The said result defines how most people use hedging devices to soften the overstatement
of a claim. In other words, they imply that “a statement is based on plausible reasoning rather
than certain knowledge and they have a conciliatory role” (Hyland 1988, in Crompton, 1997). In
sum, hedges balance objective information and subjective evaluation. Furthermore, the use of
this type of hedging devices seem to be the most informal and the easiest to use among the four
types which Vassileva (2001), Strauss (2004), Salager-Meyer (1997) and Swales and Feak,
(1994, in Mojica, 2005) proposed. This is due to the nature of interactivity in this kind of
communication which does not require too formal use of words in which conversation seems to
be like talking in person. Also, since the conversation is informal, Netizens or posers, do not take
time to think of a more appropriate word or hedging devices at that. This is because doing so
may just lengthen the message which is a “must not” in the cyber world. Cyber language is
Table 1
2. Semi- auxiliaries 12 23
3. Adjectival/Adverbial/ Nominal Expressions 5 10
4. Distancing phrases 0 0
5. Preference 7 13
6. Uncertainty 2 4
100%
Total 53
As the table reveals, posers (the people who responded in the Forum questions) prefer
short hedges and stick to conventional ways of hedging trying to use Type 1 and Type 2
structures with seem, tend etc. It is also noted that most of the CMC users used “maybe” and
“prefer” in every utterance to express their lack of certainty towards their claims yet, personal.
This finding could be associated to another function of hedges in writing: “to help writers avoid
personal responsibility for statements in order to protect their reputations and limit the damage
which may result from categorical commitments” (Hyland, 1995), which seems to be applicable
in the use of hedging devices in CMC. Furthermore, the researchers of this study had added
these two devices as part of codification in Salager- Myer’s (1997) codification of hedging
devices.
Table 2, on the other hand, shows that most of the CMC users use hedging devices to
mitigate face threats resulting from topic initiation, appropriate responses and requestive speech
acts (Kashiwasaki, 1995; Xie, 2000 in Usami, 2006 ). This is to minimize face threats of a
particular act and to present a positive image to the social world. Thus, can be considered as one
of the effects of interactions in CMCs since they do not have a face to face contact and facial
Table 2
Codification F %
1. Turn taking 4 8
2. Showing politeness 18 35
Total
51 100%
Note: “most preferred” and” would suggest” are coded as one
Meanwhile, the use of hedging device as turn taking appeared to be the least
preponderant. This result may be due to CMC users’ lack of interest in a particular topic but
wanted to help find a resolution as part of social norms. This voluntary linguistic behaviour
could be based on an individual choice that shows consideration and to save someone’s face.
Conclusion
This study marked Type 1 hedging devices or the use of modals and probabilities and the
Type 2 hedging devices or the use of epistemic verbs as the most preponderant among the four
types mentioned by Vassileva (2001), Strauss (2004), Salager-Meyer (1997) and Swales and
Feak, (1994, in Mojica, 2005) and the additional two types (preference and uncertainty) which
the researchers of this study had found out. This indicates that posers use hedging devices that
are shorter and more conversational due to the nature of language that SNSs use. On the other
hand, Type 6 or hedging devices that indicate uncertainty (i.e. most preferred and preference)
and Type 4 or hedging devices that indicate distancing phrases (i.e. Based on the conducted
survey and According to this exploratory study) ranked 5th and 6th respectively. The assumption
for this is that the use of such makes the claim sound more formal and not conversational which
The hedging devices found in the corpus gathered are reported as markers used as face
saving acts. This only shows that the posers used hedging devices so that they could foster a
good relationship with fellow posers which indicate that people in forums show responsibility in
posting their ideas online. Thus, tagging them as responsible netizens. This has been observed
when the “mitigating face-threats” appeared to be the most preponderant among the other uses of
hedging devices in CMC-forums. On the other hand, the “turntaking” appeared to be the least
preponderant use of hedging devices in CMC-forums since the latter seem to be inappropriate in
The main purpose of this study, is to educate the learners to become responsible Netizens
so that they will not experience cyber bullying due to their sloppy comments or claims on social
networking sites. This study reminds the learners to use hedging devices in posting comments or
statuses so that their statements would sound polite and sensitive to the varying types of people
who could read their messages. Further studies using other politeness strategies and using other
forms of CMC, however, are needed to provide additional solid support to the findings of the
said investigation with regards to honing the learners to become responsible Netizens since most
of the CMC users are students. They have to be educated of net etiquettes or “Netiquette” as
early as possible so that they may not experience bullying in the cyber world.
References
Bodomo, A. (2009). Computer mediated communication for linguistics and literacy technology
and natural language education. HongKong. University of HongKong
Boyd, M. & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal Computer- Mediated Communication, 13 (1). Retrieved from http://
jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/byd.ellison.html.
Blumler, J.G. & Coleman, S. (2001). Realising Democracy Online:A Civic Commons in
Cyberspace. London: Institute for Public Policy Research in Policy Deliberation.
London: Hansard Society
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for
Specific Purposes, 16/4, 271-287. Retrieved from http://aus.academia.ed.
Coleman, S. & Gotze, J. (2001). Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy
Deliberation. London: Hansard Society
Dixon, J. & Foster D. Gender and hedging: from sex differences into situated practice. Journal
Psycholinguistic Research, 6/1. Retrieved from http://www.psych.lancs.ac.uk
Hyland, K. (1996). “Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum”. Retrieved on February 25, 2012.
www.education.monash.edu.au/students/current/resources/voice.html.Pp.477.
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic fuzzy concepts. Chicago
Linguistics Society Papers, 8, 13-228. Retrieved from aus.academia.com
Mojica, L. A. (2005). The use of hedging devices among Filipino-authored academic papers.
Professional Chair Lecture. Delivered on March 19, 2005. De La Salle
University, Manila.
Rooksby, E. (2002). E- mail and ethics style and ethical relations in computer-mediated
communication. London. Routledge.
Vazquez, I. & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond mood and modality: epistemic modality markers as
hedges in research articles. A cross- disciplinary study. Revista Alicantina de
Estudios Ingleses, 21, 171-190. Retrieved from http://rua.ua.es
Usami, M.(2006). Discourse and politeness theory and cross cultural pragmatics. In Asako
Yositomi, Tae Umino and Masashi Negeshi (Eds.) Usage based Linguistics
Informatics 4: Readings in Language Pedagogy and Second Language Acquisition in
Japanese Context 19-41.Armsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing
Company. Retrieved from http://www.kyoshikai.org.mx/convocatorias/
2011/2011simposio_2006.pdf