Abstract
Even a cursory look at any tapescript of a native speaker’s spontaneous conversation clearly shows that spoken discourse is abundant with hedges. Traditionally, conversational hedges have been, if not omitted, little emphasized in grammar reference books or ELT textbooks. However, these small words (Hasselgreen 2002) play a key role in spoken interaction. They add texture to the spoken language and make the learner sound not only more polite but also more fluent and native-like. The purpose of this study is to investigate EFL students’ attitude to the use of hedging expressions in spoken discourse as well as their awareness of the meanings and functions of these mitigating devices. The hedging devices under study are items most frequently found in native-speaker speech (‘I mean’, ‘sort of/kind of’, ‘just’,‘like’, ‘I think’, ‘I guess’, ‘I don’t know’, ‘you know’, ‘or something/or something like that’), according to Michigan Corpus of American Spoken English (MICASE) and Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English (CANCODE) corpora findings. The subjects were 19 advanced students of English. A questionnaire, which consisted of three sections, was administered to elicit the students’ responses. The results indicate that foreign language students, despite their high level of language proficiency, are not conscious of the interpersonal functions that hedging devices fulfill, which might be due to the fact that this aspect of pragmatic competence is neglected both by language teachers and textbook writers. The paper, therefore, discusses some possible pedagogical implications involved in preparing learners to become more interactionally competent speakers.
The term small words has been borrowed from Hasselgreen (2002).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aijmer, K. 2002. English discourse particles. Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Andersen, G. 1998. The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretic perspective. In Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, eds. A. H. Jucker and Y. Ziv, 147–170. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Anderson, L. and P. Trudgill. 1990. Bad language. Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CANCODE Corpus. (http://uk.cambridge.org/elt/corpus/cancode.htm).
Carter, R. 1998. Orders of reality: CANCODE, communication, and CULTURE. ELT Journal 52: 43–56.
Carter, R. and M. McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Spoken and written English grammar and usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, R. and M. McCarthy. 1997. Exploring spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Cock, S., S. Granger, G. Leech and T. McEnery. 1998. An automated approach to the phrasicon of EFL learners. In Learner English on computer, ed. S. Granger, 67–79. London: Addison Wesley Longman.
de Klerk, V. 2005. Procedural meanings of well in a corpus of Xhosa English. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1183–1205.
Fraser, B. 2010. Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In New approaches to hedging, eds. G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch and S. Schneider, 15–34. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Hasselgreen, A. 2002. Learner corpora and language testing: Small words 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 – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
House, J. and G. Kasper. 1981. Politeness markers in English and German. In Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech, ed. F. Coulmas, 21–35. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jucker, A. H., S. W. Smith and T. Lüdge. 2003. Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1737–1769.
Jucker, A. H. and Y. Ziv. 1998. Discourse markers: An introduction. In Discourse markers: Description and theory, eds. A. H. Jucker. and Y. Ziv, 1–12. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kasper, G. 1981. Pragmatische Aspekte in der Interimsprache. Tuebingen: Narr.
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.
Low, G. 1996. Intensifiers and hedges in questionnaire items and the lexical invisibility hypothesis. Applied Linguistics 17: 1–37.
Markkanen, R. and H. Schröder. 1997. Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, eds. R. Markkanen and H. Schröder, 3–20. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
McCarthy, M. and R. Carter. 1994. Language as discourse. Perspectives for language teaching. London: Longman.
Metsä-Ketelä, M. 2006. Words are more of less superfluous: The case of more or less in Academic Lingua Franca English. Nordic Journal of English Studies 2: 117–143.
MICASE Corpus. (www.hti.umich.edu/m/micase).
Moreno, A. E. I. 2001. Native speaker – non-native Speaker interaction: The use of discourse markers. ELIA 2. (http://institucional.us.es/revistas/elia/2/10.%20angela.pdf). Accessed 2 February 2011.
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.
Nugroho, A. 2002. The contradiction of certainty and uncertainty in hedging and its implications to language teaching. k@ta 4. (http://puslit.petra.ac.id/files/published/journals/ING/ING020401/ING02040103.pdf). Accessed 10 February 2011.
O’Donnell, W.R. and L. Todd. 1991. Variety in contemporary English. London: Harper Collins Academic.
Overstreet, M., J. Tran and S. Zietze. 2006. Increasing pragmatic awareness: Die Vagheit der Sprache und so. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 39: 24–29.
Overstreet, M. and G. Yule. 1999. Fostering L2 pragmatic awareness. Applied Language Learning 10: 1–14.
Östman, J-A.1981. ‘You know’: A discourse-functional approach. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pappas, J. S. 1989. Qualifiers in patient-physician discourse: An analysis of interviews from radio call-in programs. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 5: 94–111.
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.
Quaglio P. 2009. Television dialogue: The sitcom ‘Friends’ vs. natural conversation. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Romero-Trillo, J. 2002. The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non- native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 769–784.
Sankoff, G., P. Thibault, N. Nagy, H. Blondeau, M. Fonollosa and L. Gagnon. 1997. Variation and the use of discourse markers in a language contact situation. Language Variation and Change 9: 191–218.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Schourup, L. C. 1985. Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York: Garland.
Stenström, A. 2006. The Spanish discourse markers o sea and pues and their English correspondences. In Pragmatic markers in contrast, eds. K. Aijmer and A-M. Simon-Vandenbergen, 155–172. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Stubbe M. and J. Holmes. 1995. You know, eh and other exasperating expressions: an analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English. Language and Communication 16: 63–88.
Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4: 91–112.
Wang, A. 2005. When precision meets vagueness: A corpus-assisted approach to vagueness in Taiwanese and British courtrooms. Paper presented at the 7th Biennial Conference on Forensic Linguistics/Language and Law. Cardiff University, UK.
Wichmann A. and C. Chanet. 2009. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française 29: 23–24. (http://clf.unige.ch/display.php?idFichier=416). Accessed 7 February 2011.
Wierzbicka A. 2003. Cross-cultural pragmatics. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kot, A. (2015). It’s Small Words that Make a Big Difference. In: Pawlak, M., Waniek-Klimczak, E. (eds) Issues in Teaching, Learning and Testing Speaking in a Second Language. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38339-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38339-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-38338-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-38339-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)