CC BY
35
Научная статья УДК 811.81.371
DOI10.52070/2542-2197_2022_3_858_23
когнитивные основания хеджирования
Т. И. Грибанова
Московский государственный лингвистический университет, Москва, Россия, tigribanova@yandex.ru
Аннотация. Статья посвящена вопросу рассмотрения когнитивных оснований лингвистического хеджиро-
вания. Когнитивные процессы, лежащие в основе человеческого общения, можно подразделить на два основных типа. Первый тип носит универсальный характер и представляет собой набор шагов, предпринимаемых говорящим на пути обеспечения эффективной межличностной коммуникации. Второй тип носит узконаправленный характер и отражает осуществление выбора языкового средства в данном контексте с учетом конкретной коммуникативной задачи. В статье сделана попытка показать, что второй тип вышеупомянутых когнитивных процессов наиболее уместен для описания хеджирования как языкового явления.
Ключевые слова:
хедж, хеджирование, когнитивная прагматика, контекстуальные корреляты, фрейм, ментальная модель
Для цитирования:
Грибанова Т. И. Когнитивные основания хеджирования// Вестник Московского государственного лингвистического университета. Гуманитарные науки. 2022. Вып. 3 (858). С. 23-29. DOI: 10.52070/2542-2197_2022_3_858_23
Original article
Cognitive Foundations of Hedging
Tatiana I. Gribanova
Moscow State Linguistic University, Moscow, Russia, tigribanova@yandex.ru
Abstract.
Keywords:
For citation:
The article is aimed at discussing the cognitive foundations of linguistic hedging. There can be singled out two major types of cognitive processes underlying human communication. One can be viewed as a set of universal steps the speaker takes to provide effective interpersonal interaction. The other type is making linguistic choices in a given context governed by particular communicative purposes. The author argues that it is the second type of cognitive processes that is most appropriate for describing the linguistic phenomenon of hedging.
hedge, hedging, cognitive pragmatics, contextual correlates, frame, mental model
Gribanova, T. I. (2022). The cognitive foundations of hedging. Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities, 3 (858), 23-29. 10.52070/2542-2197_2022_3_858_23
INTRODUCTION
Uncertainty and fuzziness are indispensable properties of human language, they contribute to making communication more flexible and reliable. One of the main means these properties are realized is hedges.
The term "hedge" was first introduced in linguistics by G. Lakoff to describe "words whose job is to make things more or less fuzzy" [Lakoff, 1972, p. 184]. It has since been used to speak about linguistic means (lexical, morphological, syntactical) and strategies to indicate a lack of commitment to the truth of proposition or to describe this commitment less categorical.
The notion of linguistic hedging has been investigated from different angles such as semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, intercultural communication, and in different types of discourse like political, academic, media, etc. [Martinovski, 2013; Tang, 2013; Knight, Adolphs, Carter, 2013; Lebe-deva, Orlova, 2019; Gribanova, Lebedeva, Pavlova, 2021]. Yet not enough research has been conducted on production processes of hedging. The question is still open what governs the user's preference in hedging in different types of discourse.
In the present research it is argued that the speaker makes his linguistic choice of the appropriate hedging device mostly adapting himself to the contextual correlates to achieve the communicative aim set.
The author makes an attempt to account for the speaker's use of a contextual pattern to create a mitigation effect of the utterance and reach the necessary communicative objective.
The analysis is carried out on the material taken from the British National Corpus (BNC).
TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE
Within the human mind one's perception of the real world (animate and inanimate objects and events) are mapped on to their internal representations, which are not linear but form complex structures. These structures build up the foundation for one's further experience, and in the long run enable a person to perceive and understand the world around him.
Cognitive linguistics agrees upon two types of knowledge, namely general and specific [Shank and Abelson, 1977; Schwarz-Friesel, 2012]. General knowledge is the background information about the world shared by all human beings, while specific knowledge is based on one's previous experience.
To refer to structures representing stereotyped situations in this article we use the term frame introduced by D. Hymes [Hymes, 1974]. A person forms knowledge on the basis of his / her own experience of world perception and uses this knowledge 'to predict' interpretations and relationships regarding new information, events, and experiences [Escandell-Vidal, 1996, p. 634].
In interpersonal communication, in order to reach mutual understanding participants have to fill possible gaps and compensate for the missing communicative steps, which is often done automatically. According to the cognitive perspective, understanding involves matching bits of information. We match the information in the utterance (external data) to what is stored in our mind (internal data) [Schwarz-Friesel, 2012]. Thus, success of processing the new information depends on how effectively one can come up with an appropriative mental model, or frame. This model provides a ready-made pattern for interpreting the received information. There are slots which are filled with new input data and are assigned with different roles.
If one's expectations are met, this system works automatically. If not, one turns to inferential processes. As a hearer, one succeeds in grasping the communicative message when he / she finds a corresponding model to complete the new data with the previous assumptions. As a speaker, one relies on the hearer's ability to infer the necessary information.
The concepts contained in an utterance activate the corresponding frames in one's mind setting the cognitive foundations for further concepts to appear.
FRAMES AND CONTEXT
The necessary frame containing prototypical information about events, circumstances and participants is often prompted by a communicative setting.
The notion of context is related to specific knowledge, it is a part of the whole array of assumptions a person has at a given moment. The cognitive role of context, especially in discourse processing, becomes indispensable, as it provides a comprehensive analysis of both external and internal data.
For example, the utterance "I'm not good at art" allows more than one interpretation unless it is known in what situation it is pronounced. If we know that it is an answer to the question "What do you think of my painting?" we unmistakably feel its hedging effect.
Thus, specific knowledge provides us not only with patterns for interpreting meanings, but also
patterns for behaviour, as the appropriate use of Language requires particular knowledge behind it. This knowledge is obtained through recurrent exposure to the given situation and, hence, makes one's assumptions more accessible.
Therefore, a frame, providing a ready-made setting, should be viewed as a rather flexible structure comprised of bits of organized, easily retrieved knowledge.
It is noteworthy that a frame is not the same as a context. When a frame is activated, it leads to choosing a structured set of assumptions from which a specific context is selected.
Thus, the context is viewed as a subset of representations necessary to interpret a given utterance [Escandell-Vidal, 2017].
HEDGING AND FRAMES
The present research is aimed at showing that the cognitive aspect of hedging is connected with the notion of specific knowledge, rather than general knowledge.
The point is that hedging, being not only a linguistic but also a social and culture-specific phenomenon, can hardly be explained in terms of inferential models based on universal principles. It looks more relevant to account for the choice of a hedging device taking into account a particular context and communicative aim set.
Being purpose-motivated, communication is realized through particular linguistic and extralin-guistic strategies.
To establish mutual understanding between interlocutors, it is important to choose a strategy and maintain face. According to P. Brown and S. Levin-son, face is the "public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself" [Brown, Levinson, 1987, p. 4]. They singled out two types of face: positive and negative. The positive face is related to the speaker's wish to be approved of by others, while the negative face refers to the speaker's attempts to stay unimpeded [Brown, Levinson, 1987]. Hence, saving face serves as a major factor shaping communication. In its turn, hedging proves to be quite an effective strategy to maintain social interaction and face-saving. Let us analyze the utterance below:
Your skirt is a little bit too short.
On the one hand, this can be a suggestion for the listener to put on a more appropriate clothing item, thus threatening her negative face. On the other hand, it can be a complaint that the listener
is too light-minded, thus threatening her positive face. To mitigate the degree of face threatening the speaker uses the hedge "a little bit" to minimize the reproach and, in this way, to have the listener accept his advice more willingly. If the speaker expressed himself more directly and said: "your skirt is short", the listener would feel her face being lost because of the higher degree of reproach. Thus, the use of a hedging device reduces criticism and weakens face threatening.
The speaker's wish to be less direct activates in his mind the corresponding frame and results in selecting an appropriate strategy (advice instead of reproach) realized in using a particular linguistic form. In other words, the communicative success of a speech act depends on the correct choice of a strategy and its linguistic realization.
HEDGING AND CONTEXTUAL CORRELATES
Contextual correlates are believed to perform a restriction function to the utterance contributing to the realization of communicative aims by means of choosing appropriate strategies and forms [Wang, 2010]. As J. Verschueren argues, the communicative context contains interlocutors' mental world, social world and the physical world of the utterance [Verschueren, 2000].
Hedging, as a linguistic phenomenon, contributes to the adaption to the contextual correlates.
One of the significant contextual correlates that shape the utterance production is interlocutors' mental worlds, their communicative purposes and motivations [Wang, 2010]. For example:
Professor: How many items are there on your reference list?
Student: More than 20.
Being the student's scientific supervisor, the professor needs to know how well-read she is and thus asks her about the exact number of references in her final paper. The student knows, of course, how many research works she has read but answers in a rather vague way. She has certain academic responsibilities, and hopes to produce a better impression on her supervisor (as "more than 20" may mean "21", or "25" or even "29"). Thus, using a hedge the student provides the utmost amount of information to her professor, and at the same time, she saves her own positive face.
Another contextual correlate that may restrict conversation is a set of social rules, traditions and regulations that are considered acceptable in
a given society. Here also belong such sociolinguistic parameters, as gender, age, power, etc.
These social factors guide interlocutors' communicative behaviour and are indispensable for communicative success. The violation of these social factors may lead to a communicative failure. Let us look at the example below:
- Could I take your car tonight?
- Sure. But you must return it with the tank filled.
This is a short conversation between a father and a son. The son is making a request to his dad. Though very close to keen, the interlocutors demonstrate power relations. The son sounds less strong as he is not quite sure about his father's answer. To achieve his communicative aim the boy uses the hedge "could" (the subjunctive form of the modal verb "can"), thus preserving his own positive face, as well as the negative face of his father.
In his turn, the father speaks in a firmer tone: he gives his permission but with a certain reservation (he enjoins his son to fuel the car). The use of the intensifier "must" contributes to the effect.
Besides the abovementioned contextual correlates, there is one more which can hardly be ignored. This correlate is the so called physical world.
While communicating, speakers behave with respect to the physical characteristics of the world around them. J. Verschueren claims that "temporal deixis and spacial deixis are the most studied and most visible ways of anchoring language choices into a physical world" [Verschueren, 2000, p. 95]. The time and space of interaction shape communication process, determining the choice of linguistic means. Indicators of relative temporal and spatial relations can be various, such as for, above, in, at, over, behind, opposite, etc. Hedges do not serve this function directly, but they can assist other language means to present spatial and temporal relations in an indirect and more accurate way. This can be illustrated by the examples below:
(1) - When are you meeting Jim? - Around 5 p.m.
(2) Tensions are programmed every day for about eight hours in front of the screen.
The given samples examplify the use of hedges as a means of adaptation to the time characteristics of the situation. The direct temporal referential function in examples (4) and (5) is realized by means of the units "(at) 5 p.m.", "for eight hours". The hedges "around" and "about" are used for indirect assistance
in order to specify the time mentioned (a particular moment and duration correspondingly) more accurately. The speakers prefer not to give the exact time or duration of the events in order to avoid any accusation of possible imprecision, thus, saving their positive faces.
Now we proceed with analyzing hedges mitigating the space characteristics of communication.
(3) Mary: Excuse me, could you tell me where St. Peter's church is?
Brian: Just go straight down Carter road till you get to the intersection. Then turn right and walk about 300 meters. Then you will see the Park Hotel on your left. St. Peter's is just opposite it.
According to J. Verschueren, "spatial reference is usually relative to a perspective, which can be either utterer space or reference space... The latter is having a deictic centre distinct from the perspective of the utterer" [Verschueren, 2009, p. 99].
Example (6) illustrates this statement, locating the Park Hotel in a specific relation to the intersection, and St. Peter's church to the Park Hotel and Mary.
In this regard, the terms figure and ground are introduced. "Figure" refers to the target object, while "ground" is the entity used as deictic centre for spatial placement of the "figure" [Wang, 2010, p. 122].
In the first sentence, the hotel is regarded as figure and the intersection as ground. In the next sentence, the church is regarded as figure and the hotel becomes ground. The units denoting locality ("300 meters", "turn right", "on your left") provide information about the location asked about. The hedge "about" performs an assisting function, contributing to the indication of the exact place where St. Peter's church is situated.
Thus, hedges serve for indirect spatial and temporal reference in interpersonal communication to adapt utterances to the physical world.
ADAPTATION PROCESS: basic FEATURE
The process of language adaptation to the contextual meaning correlates can be described in terms of its dynamic, intentional and reciprocal aspects.
The context is hardly presented as a static entity. In the course of communication, contextual correlates may change, which will result in selecting a new set of linguistic means by the speaker. Thus, the dynamic character of the context makes language selection also dynamic. Let us see the
example below. The setting is as follows: Karen's little son has serious medical problems. Her friends are discussing possible ways of helping her out.
Madeleine: Look, I'm so worried about Karen and little Mikie. He needs a surgery, and they have almost no savings to pay for it.
Rob: Doesn't she have a health insurance?
Madeleine: She does, but it doesn't cover this particular case. Have you any idea what we can do for her?
Rob: Well, actually, I don't know. I could
possibly get her some money, but I don't think it would be enough, though.
Madeleine: Right... Perhaps we could find a charitable foundation or something?
Rob: Good idea! My sister-in-law knows
someone who could be helpful. Let me talk to her, I'm sure she'll be happy to introduce Karen to this person.
The dynamic character of the context can be traced through the development of the situation. The conversation starts with Madeleine's mentioning that Karen is pressed for money and can't provide the necessary medical care for her son. Then Rob says he can give Karen some money, though later he rejects the idea. After that Madeleine comes up with an idea to turn to some charitable foundation for help. Rob supports the suggestion and mentions what he can do to make it work.
Thus, in the course of interaction, the interlocutors keep looking for appropriate solutions, making linguistic choices (namely, using hedges) to adapt to the dynamic context. The variety of hedges used comprise modal verbs (could), modal adverbs (possibly), indefinite pronouns (some, something, someone), adjectives (enough), parenthetical units (actually, though, perhaps).
Another intrinsic feature of building the context is intentionality. Any communicative behaviour is based on the previously formed intentions. The formulated purpose shapes the speaker's choice of strategies and linguistic means. Hedges are frequently used to perform this adaptation task. The example below is a good illustration of this statement.
Setting: a salesperson is trying to sell an expensive clothing item to a customer, while the customer doubts that it is a reasonable purchase unless she gets a discount.
Salesperson: Madam, this dress looks really great on you.
Customer: Yeah. It is quite nice, but I think I'm going to look around a little bit.
Salesperson: We only have two of them left.
Customer: It is just too expensive. If the price was lower, maybe I'd be interested.
Salesperson: Since this dress seems made specially for you, I'll give you a ten percent discount.
Customer: Make it fifteen, and I'll buy it.
Here the customer finds a dress that suits her perfectly. She would like to buy it but it is too expensive. The salesperson is interested in selling her the item, so he is offering her a discount. They are bargaining using different hedges to realize their intentions. The sales person uses the adverbs "really", "only", "specially", in order to convince the woman that the dress is a must in her wardrobe. The customer, in her turn, expresses hesitation, using "quite", "I think", "a little bit", "just", "maybe".
Since both of them are interested in the action of purchase to take place, they are trying to meet each other half way. Their intentions, though seem different, are aimed at the common result, which determines the linguistic choice of hedging devices. It proves that the process of adaptation is intentional.
The analysis of the authentic material carried out above shows the important role of the context and contextual correlates to shape the communicative behaviour of the interlocutors. However, it is not only a linguistic means (a hedge) that adapts to the context, the context itself can be adapted under the influence of the selected language item. In the following example a hedge promotes adaptation following between contextual correlates and the utterance:
John: Hi, Annie! Where have you been? Why didn't you come last Saturday?
Annie: Hi, John! There were some reasons,you know.
Annie, the girlfriend of John's son Mark, doesn't feel like revealing the reasons of her missing the family gathering, as this might be unpleasant to John (the reason is a quarrel initiated by Mark). She likes Mark's family and doesn't want to upset them. Using a hedge (a sentence with fuzzy meaning) she promotes further communication going in a smooth and harmonious way.
Thus, on the one hand, the use of a hedging device is the result of adaptation to the contextual correlates. On the other hand, the choice of a hedge contributes to a new context favourable to both sides. In other words, the new context is a consequence of adaptation to the language means selected for the previous part of conversation. Thus, the interrelation between context and language is not linear.
conclusion
The present article investigates the cognitive foundations of hedging in interpersonal communication. The process of hedge selection presupposes making choices both in linguistic
form and communicative strategy. In the course of interaction, the speaker has to adapt to contextual correlates (mental, social and physical) in order to realize his/her communicative intention. The process of adaptation is dynamic, intentional and reciprocal.
список источников
1. Lakoff G. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts // Chicago Linguistic Society Papers. 1972. No. 8. P. 183-228.
2. Martinovski B. Reciprocal adaptation and problem refraining in group decision and negotiation // Journal of group decision and negotiation. 2013. Vol. 23, No. 3. P. 497-514.
3. Tang J. Pragmatic functions of hedges and politeness principles // International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature. 2013. Vol. 2, No. 4. P. 155-160. URL: http://dx.doi.org/107575/aiac.ijaleLv.2n.4p.155
4. Knight D., Adolphs S., Carter R. Formality in Digital Discourse: A Study of Hedging in CANELC // Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics 2013: New Domains and Methodologies / ed. by J. Romeo-Trillo, S. I. Springer. Netherlands, 2013. P. 131-152.
5. Lebedeva I. S., Orlova S. N. Semantics and pragmatics of the double modal might could. Training Language and Culture / Изд. ICC - the International Language Association (Бохум). 2019. Вып. 3(2). P. 71-84. URL: https:// elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=38538312
6. Gribanova T. I., Lebedeva I. S., Pavlova E. B. Gender Aspect of Hedging // Вестник Московского государственного лингвистического университета. Гуманитарные науки. 2021. Вып. 8 (850). С. 31-43.
7. Shang R. C., Abelson R. P. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structure. Hillsbale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1977. DOI: https://doi.org/10.432419780203781036
8. Schwarz-Friesel M. On the status of external evidence in the theories of cognitive linguistics // Language Sciences. 2012. Vol. 34(6). P. 656-664. DOI: 10.1016/J.LANGSCI.2012.04.007
9. Hymes D. Ways of speaking // Explorations in ethnography of speaking / ed. by R. Bauman, J. Sherzer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. P. 433-451.
10. Escandell-Vidal V. Towards a cognitive approach to politeness // Language sciences. 1996. Vol. 18, No. 3. P. 629650. DOI: 10.1016/S0388-001(96)00039-3
11. Escandell-Vidal V. Notes for a restrictive theory of procedural meaning: cognitive, philosophical and sociopragmatic perspectives. 2017. DOI: 10.1515/9783110546095005
12. Brown P., Levinson S. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
13. Wang Y. Analyzing hedges in verbal communication: An adaptation-based approach // English language teaching. 2010. Vol. 3, No. 3. P. 120-124. URL: https://www.ecsenet.org/elt
14. Verschueren J. Understanding Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
15. The British National Corpus. URL: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/bc (дата обращения 15.01.2022).
REFERENcES
1. Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, 8, 183-228.
2. Martinovski, B. (2013). Reciprocal adaptation and problem refraining in group decision and negotiation. Journal of group decision and negotiation, 23(3), 497-514.
3. Tang, J. (2013). Pragmatic functions of hedges and politeness principles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(4), 155-160. http://dx.doi.org/107575/aiac.ijaleLv.2n.4p.155
4. Knight, D., Adolphs, S., Carter, R. (2013). Formality in digital discourse: A study of hedging in CANELC (pp. 131152). Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics 2013: New domains and methodologies, ed. by J. Romeo-Trillo, S. I. Springer. Netherlands.
5. Lebedeva, I. S., Orlova, S. N. (2019). Semantics and pragmatics of the double modal might could. Training language and culture. ICC - the International Language Association (Bochum), 3(2), 71-84. https://elibrary.ru/ item.asp?id=38538312
6. Gribanova, T. I., Lebedeva, I. S., Pavlova, E. B. (2021). Gender aspect of hedging. Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities, 8(850), 31-43.
7. Shang, R. C., Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structure. Hillsbale, NJ: Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.432419780203781036
8. Schwarz-Friesel, M. (2012). On the status of external evidence in the theories of cognitive linguistics. Language sciences, 34(6), 656-664. 10.1016/J.LANGSCI.2012.04.007
9. Hymes, D. (1974). Ways of speaking. Explorations in ethnography of speaking (pp. 433-451), ed. by R. Bauman, J. Sherzer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Escandell-Vidal, V. (1996). Towards a cognitive approach to politeness. Language sciences, 18(3), 629-650. 10.1016/S0388-001(96)00039-3
11. Escandell-Vidal, V. (2017). Notes for a restrictive theory of procedural meaning: Cognitive, philosophical and sociopragmatic perspectives. 10.1515/9783110546095005
12. Brown, P., Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Verschueren, J. (2000). Understanding pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
14. Wang, Y. (2010). Analyzing hedges in verbal communication: An adaptation-based approach. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 120-124. https://www.ecsenet.org/elt.
15. The British National Corpus. http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/bc (accessed 15.01.2022).
СВЕДЕНИЯ ОБ АВТОРЕ
Грибанова Татьяна Игоревна
старший преподаватель кафедры грамматики и истории английского языка факультета английского языка Московского государственного лингвистического университета
INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Gribanova Tatiana Igorevna
Senior Lecturer at the Department of Grammar and History of English, Faculty of the English Language, Moscow State Linguistic University
Статья поступила в редакцию 04.02.2022 одобрена после рецензирования 01.03.2022 принята к публикации 09.03.2022
The article was submitted 04.02.2022 approved after reviewing 01.03.2022 accepted for publication 09.03.2022
