Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advanced Learners’ Perceptions of Hedges and Awareness-Raising Tasks

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Awareness in Action

Part of the book series: Second Language Learning and Teaching ((SLLT))

  • 1291 Accesses

Abstract

Despite the prominent role and the pervasive nature of hedges in native speaker spoken discourse, these so-called ‘small words’ (The term ‘small words’ has been borrowed from Hasselgren 2002) are undervalued in the teaching context. As a result, due to the absence or inappropriate use of hedges, non-native speakers can sound bookish, foreign or even rude. Therefore, pedagogical intervention which aims at raising learners’ awareness of the pragmatic functions hedging devices serve in spoken discourse appears to be a facilitative tool to develop this aspect of pragmatic competence. Existing publications (e.g. Félix-Brasdefer 2008) provide valuable insight into the benefits of explicit instruction in the acquisition of pragmatic concepts, but little is known about learners’ attitudes to pragmatics instruction. Such perspectives are important since learners’ negative perceptions of instructional practices can adversely affect their learning process. This study focuses on advanced students’ views on the value of conversational hedges as well as the attractiveness and usefulness of awareness-raising tasks used in a foreign language classroom. The results of a questionnaire administered to elicit learners’ responses indicate that generally students think that raising awareness of conversational hedges is beneficial. Moreover, the paper sheds light on learners’ preferences regarding various types of awareness-raising tasks. The survey findings are significant for both language teachers and materials writers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1996. Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In Pragmatics and language learning, Vol. 7. ed. L. F. Bouton, 21–39. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence. Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Pragmatics in language teaching, eds. K. R. Rose and G. Kasper, 13–32. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • CANCODE (The Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English) http://uk.cambridge.org/elt/corpus/cancode.htm.

  • Channell, J. 1994. Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. D. 1996. Speech acts. In Sociolinguistics and language teaching, eds. S. L. McKay and N. H. Hornberger, 383–420. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2008. Teaching pragmatics in the classroom: Instruction of mitigation in Spanish as a Foreign Language. Hispania 91–92: 479–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fotos, S. 1993. Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics 14(4): 385–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox Tree, J. E. 2007. Folk notions of um and uh, you know, and like. Text & Talk 27: 297–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasselgren, A. 2002. Learner corpora and language testing: Smallwords as markers of learner fluency. In Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, eds. S. Granger, J. Hung and S. Petch-Tyson, 3–33. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. 1988. Mistake correction. ELT Journal 42/2: 89–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasper, G. 2001. Classroom research in interlanguage pragmatics. In Pragmatics in language teaching, eds. K. Rose and G. Kasper, 33–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasper, G. and S. Blum-Kulka. 1993. Interlanguage pragmatics: An introduction. In Interlanguage pragmatics, eds. G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka, 3–17. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasper, G. and K. R. Rose. 2001. Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasper, G. and K. R. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic development in a second language. Michigan: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting, eds. P. M. Peranteau, J. N. Levi and G. C. Phares, 183–228. Chicago, III.: Chicago Linguistics Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyster, R. 1993. The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of sociolinguistic competence: A study of French immersion classrooms at the grade eight level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markkanen, R. and H. Schröder. 1997. Introduction. In Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, eds. R. Markkanen and H. Schröder, 1–18. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Flor, A., E. Usó and A. Fernández. 2003. Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching. Castellón: Universitat Jaume I.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLean, T. 2004. Giving students a fighting chance: Pragmatics in the language classroom. TESL Canada Journal 21(2): 72–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • MICASE (Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English) www.hti.umich.edu/m/micase.

  • Nikula, T. 1997. Interlanguage view on hedging. In Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, eds. R. Markkanen and H. Schröder, 188–207. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nugroho, A. 2002. The contradiction of certainty and uncertainty in hedging and its implications to language teaching. K@ta: A biannual publication on the study of language and literature Vol.4/No. 1, 17–22. Surabaya: Petra Christian University.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, W. R. and L. Todd. 1991. Variety in contemporary English. London: Harper Collins Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olshtain, E. and A. D. Cohen. 1990. The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESL Canada Journal 7: 45–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overstreet, M. and G. Yule. 1999. Fostering L2 pragmatic awareness. Applied Language Learning 10: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, E. F., J. Fråder and C. Bosk. 1982. On hedging in physician–physician discourse. In Linguistics and the professions, ed. R. J. di Pietro, 83–97. Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11: 129–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. 1993. Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13: 206–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. and S. N. Frota. 1986. Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition, ed. R. R. Day, 237–362. Rowley, MA: Newbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svartvik, J. 1980. Well in conversation. In Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk, eds. S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik, 167–177. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1995. Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16: 371–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tateyama, Y. 2001. Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, eds. K. R. Rose and G. Kasper, 200–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4: 91–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, D. and J. Willis. 1996. Consciousness-raising activities. http://www.willis-elt.co.uk/documents/7c-r.doc. Accessed 20 January 2011.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Foreign Languages in Częstochowa, Czestochowa, Poland

    Aneta Kot

Authors
  1. Aneta Kot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aneta Kot .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of English, University of Silesia, Sosnowiec, Poland

    Andrzej Łyda

  2. Institute of English, University of Silesia, Sosnowiec, Poland

    Konrad Szcześniak

Appendix

Appendix

QUESTIONNAIRE

Personal details

Age:

Male/Female:

Nationality:

Country:

Native language:

Language(s) spoken at home:

Education

Current studies:

Current year of study:

Institution:

Medium of instruction:

English only

Other language(s) (specify)

Both

==================================================

Years of English at school:

Years of English at university:

Private tutorials (One-to-one teaching):

Stay in an English-speaking country:

Where? When?

How long? Purpose?

_______________________________________________________

Please read the following statements which refer to the use of ‘small words’ (well, you know, I mean, well etc.) in spoken discourse as well as awareness raising activities used in foreign language classroom. Indicate your opinions by ticking the answer which reflects your views.

Yes (I agree) means confirmation, No (I disagree ) means rejection.

  1. 1.

    Thanks to the knowledge of the functions of ‘small words’ I can understand native speakers, conversations better.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 2.

    I employ ‘small words’ to make my conversations fluent.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 3.

    ‘Small words’ make the speaker sound uneducated.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 4.

    ‘Small words’ are only little words in conversation so it’s a waste of time to pay attention to them.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 5.

    I can communicate easily without using ‘small words’.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 6.

    I think that ‘small words’ are acquired unconsciously so there’s no point in teaching them.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 7.

    So far I haven’t paid attention to ‘small words’.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 8.

    I haven’t realized how important it is to use ‘small words’ to make my conversation more polite.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 9.

    I think that being grammatically correct is more important than being polite.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 10.

    I haven’t realized ‘small words’ perform important pragmatic functions in conversation.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 11.

    I still think small words are only fillers, unimportant words that should be avoided.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 12.

    I think that highlighting ‘small words’ in listening and oral materials is beneficial.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 13.

    I find cross-linguistic comparisons effective.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 14.

    Thanks to ‘small words’ I have improved my speaking skills.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 15.

    I think transcripts of native speaker models were helpful.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 16.

    Shadowing is an effective technique to raise students’ awareness of ‘small words’.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 17.

    I find metapragmatic information in the use of small words difficult.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 18.

    I think corpus-based materials were interesting.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 19.

    I think I benefited from instruction

  2. a)

    a) Yes Why? …………………… b) No Why not? …………………. c) Not sure

  3. 20.

    The authentic materials (audio and video materials) were difficult.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 21.

    Teacher explanations concerning the use of ‘small words’ were helpful.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 22.

    Class discussions about functions of ‘small words’ were useful.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 23.

    I think teaching materials were suitable.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 24.

    Role-plays based on native-speaker models were helpful.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 25.

    Raising awareness of ‘small words’ in L1 is helpful.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 26.

    I learned most from ……….

a) structural exercises b) teacher explanations c) transcripts d) class discussions

  1. 27.

    Thanks to awareness raising tasks I am more confident in my oral skills.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 28.

    What is the most interesting thing you learned in this class?

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

  1. 29.

    What is the least interesting thing you learned in this class?

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

  1. 30.

    How would you evaluate the classes

a) very interesting b) interesting c) somewhat interesting d) a little interesting e) not at all interesting

  1. 31.

    How would you evaluate the course materials

a) very easy b) easy c) neither easy nor difficult d) difficult e) very difficult

  1. 32.

    How would you improve the lessons?

……………………………………………………………………………

  1. 33.

    Which aspects did you have problems understanding?

……………………………………………………………………………

  1. 34.

    What other aspects would you like to learn?

……………………………………………………………………………

  1. 35.

    I think it’s important to raise students’ awareness of small words.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 36.

    I prefer explicit instruction to discovery learning.

a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

  1. 37.

    What is the value of small words in communication? (dispensable – indispensable, facilitative or a sign of sloppy thinking that should be avoided?.)

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………

  1. 38.

    I usually use such phrases

  2. a)

    to soften criticism and sound polite/to signal solidarity with conversational partner

  3. b)

    to maintain fluency/gain processing time/to fill gaps in conversation

  4. c)

    for genuine lack of information/for memory loss/for absence of equivalent word

  5. d)

    to express uncertainty

  6. e)

    ?………………………………………………….

  7. 39.

    I usually perceive someone who uses small words as ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………

  8. 40.

    Please rank (5 = high through 1 = low) the following awareness-raising tasks in terms of their USEFULNESS that you think you had for your learning of English, in terms of INTEREST LEVEL that you had for each activity as well as task DIFFICULTY.

Cross-linguistic comparisons (compare the use of ‘small words’ in L1 and L2)

Identification (identify ‘small words’ in the transcript and the functions)

Reformulation (compare students’ performance with a native speaker model)

Reconstruction (recall and insert the missing small words from the listening text)

Metapragmatic discussion (information about the use of functions of small words)

ACTIVITY USEFULNESS INTEREST DIFFICULTY

Cross-linguistic

comparison ________ ________ _________

Identification ________ ________ _________

Reformulation ________ ________ _________

Reconstruction ________ ________ _________

Metapragmatic

discussion ________ ________ _________

Additional comments ………………………………………………….…………

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND VALUABLE CONTRIBUTION!

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kot, A. (2014). Advanced Learners’ Perceptions of Hedges and Awareness-Raising Tasks. In: Łyda, A., Szcześniak, K. (eds) Awareness in Action. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00461-7_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation