MASARYK UNIVERSITY BRNO

Faculty of Education

Department of English Language and Literature

POLITENESS MARKERS IN SPOKEN LANGUAGE

Author: JANA ŠVÁROVÁ Supervisor: PhDr. Renata Povolná, Ph.D.

Brno 2008

2

Declaration:

I declare I have worked on my thesis on my own and that I have used only the sources

mentioned in the references.

....………………………………

3

Acknowledgements:

I would like to devote my thanks to PhDr. Renata Povolná, Ph.D., for her great

patience, kind support, valuable advice, comments and guidance during the supervision of my

bachelor thesis.

4

Contents

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………5

1 Theoretical part:

1.1 Spoken language …………………………………………………………………...…… 6

1.2 Politeness principle …………………………………………………………………...….8

1.2.1 Politeness strategies ………………….……………………………………..… 9

1.3 Negative politeness ……………………………………………………………..………12

1.4 Hedging …………………………………………………………………………………16

2 Practical part

2.1 The Importance of Being Earnest …………………………………………………...… 20

2.2 Main characters and their social environment ..……………………………..………… 21

2.3 Hedging devices used in the play …………………………………………………...…. 23

2.3.1 General tendencies …………………………………………………………... 24

2.3.2 Comparison between genders……………..…………………….……………. 31

2.3.3 Hedges from individuals’ point of view ……………….…………………..… 36

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………..…………………… 42

Resume ……………………………………………………………………………………… 44

References …………………………………………………………………………………... 45

5

Introduction

People communicate since they are part of the society. The first reason is that they

simply have to as living among others demands social interaction; secondly, it is a

fundamental need and also a pleasure for humans to be part of relationships. It is speech that

plays the main role in the communication, since it can express complicated ideas through

important nuances in the use of a wide range of means. However, the function of speech is not

only to convey information of certain meanings, but is also connected to interaction between

people. This interaction is supposed to be polite, as etiquette of the absolute majority of

cultures suggests, to enable the participants of the communication to feel comfortable, to

enjoy conversations and social interaction in general. Through prescribed rules of etiquette,

people are able to communicate effectively.

Polite spoken discourse conveyed by politeness markers is the key focus of the present

bachelor thesis. As the field of politeness markers is immense, the author has restricted the

object of her thesis to one of the many categories, namely to negative politeness with the

ambition to describe and investigate hedging devices. The thesis begins with a general

introduction to politeness principles. Thereafter it deals with the key focus of the thesis –

negative politeness with a special concern for hedges as one of the linguistic markers

expressing politeness in both spoken and written discourse.

As far as the practical part of the thesis is concerned, the author will try to demonstrate

hedging devices used in Oscar Wilde’s masterpiece The Importance of Being Earnest. For the

purpose of the investigation, quantitative and qualitative analysis of the text will be carried

out. The practical part will try to describe, analyze and justify the use of seven types of

hedging devices in the dialogues of the four leading characters of the play – John (Jack/Ernest)

Worhing, Gwendolen Fairfax, Algernon Moncrieff, and Cecily Cardew.

It is hoped that the research will prove the existence of some connections between the

means of negative politeness and the thinking of the main characters of the play.

6

1.1 Spoken language

One of the categories of language use which affect language variation is mode (Leech

1982: 133). It divides language into its spoken and written form. Each of the forms is

inseparable part of language; moreover, modern world could not possibly exist without the

combination of both, as the two parts mutually supplement each other, i.e. they are

complementary. In other words, “each perform different functions in society, uses different

forms, and exhibits different linguistic characteristics” (ibid.). Both types mentioned above

are distinguished by specific and unique features, but it would be incorrect to claim that one

type is superior to the other, or more important and more perfect (Urbanová & Oakland 2002:

10). As the thesis deals with politeness markers in spoken language, the following paragraphs

are devoted to the concept of speech, its features, usage and specifics.

Leech (1982) points out that spoken language “pre-dates written language” and

continues with the idea that “many languages spoken today have no written form” (ibid.: 133).

Concerning individuals, spoken language is the first to be learnt too “since children learn to

speak before they learn to write” (ibid.: 133). By this, Leech (1982) proves that for both

mankind and individuals, spoken form of the language precedes the written form.

As far as function of spoken language is concerned, it is to “socialize individuals, i.e.

to integrate people in social nets by enabling them to communicate in a quick and direct way

with immediate feedback from the addressee” (Dontcheva-Navratilova 2005: 66). Leech

(1982) adds, concerning the function of spoken language, that speech is an everyday activity,

therefore used more frequently than writing (ibid.: 135). Spoken language may be simply

characterized by the following nouns “readiness and immediateness” (Urbanová & Oakland

2002: 10), which supports Dontcheva-Navratilova’s definition of function, highlighting the

interactive approach to spoken language. In terms of six basic functions of language

suggested by Jakobson, typical functions of speech are referential, phatic, emotive, and

conative (as quoted in Dontcheva-Navratilova 2005: 14)

Turning now to the question of linguistic characteristics, term ‘inexplicitness’ matches

the concept of spoken language. The reason is the following: speech is used in face-to-face

communication, which means that “both visual and auditory media are available” (Leech

1982: 136). Leech (1982) explains that spoken language may afford to be less explicit as any

communication is because: firstly, is accompanied by body language, secondly “the

immediate physical environment can be referred to”, thirdly, participants share common

7

knowledge, finally, an immediate feedback is provided. Hence if there is a token of

misunderstanding or incomprehension, the message may be clarified or repeated (ibid.: 136).

Urbanová and Oakland (2002) approach this problem from sound and paralinguistic

view stating that speech uses suprasegmental features such as stress, rhythm, intonation

(features in narrower conception) and voice timbre, voice intensity, pauses, presence of

unarticulated sounds, speech pacing, and pan of voice pitch (ibid.: 11).

Spoken language also lacks clear sentence boundaries, therefore it is, especially in

spontaneous speech, difficult to delimit sentences, since they “may be unfinished or may be

not discernable as units at all” (Leech 1982: 136). But there are other means assisting as

delimiters, e.g. falling intonation, pauses etc.

As Leech (1982) mentions, simple structures are another typical feature of spoken

language. In other words, grammatical structures used in speech are less complex (ibid.: 137).

With contrast to written discourse, repetitiveness and non-fluency accompany everyday

speech. The phenomenon of non-fluency is represented by concrete examples of hesitation,

unintended repetition, false starts, fillers, grammatical blends etc. (ibid.: 139). Since the

function of spoken language is mainly to directly communicate, to help social interaction to

be accomplished, monitoring and interactive feature are inseparable parts of speech. They

“indicate the speaker’s awareness of the addressee’s presence and reactions”, invite him or

her to the active participation (Leech 1982: 139). Dontcheva-Navratilova (2005) adds another

typical feature of spoken language – lexical sparsity, i.e. “a very high proportion of

grammatical words” (ibid.: 71).

8

1.2 Politeness principle

According to Yule (1996), ‘politeness’ may be considered as a fixed concept, more

specifically, as “polite social behaviour, or etiquette, within a culture” (ibid.: 60). With a more

concrete definition to follow, Yule understands politeness as a range of principles expressing

politeness in any social interaction which may include being tactful, generous, modest, and

sympathetic to others (ibid.: 60). Urbanová and Oakland (2002) suggest a definition which,

compared to Yule (1996), makes the concept clearer. They define politeness as “the ability of

the speaker to show respect, discretion, and goodwill” (ibid.: 42). For the purposes of the

present thesis combination of both concepts will be used so as to provide a more complex

view.

Hirschová (2006), in contrast to Yule (1996) and Urbanová and Oakland (2002),

offers a very elaborate and sophisticated approach from the pragmalinguistic point of view,

since she describes politeness as a special way of using the language which focuses on

“smooth communication, self-fulfilment and self-defence of the individual in the interaction

with other communicating individuals” (ibid.: 171). Similarly, Lakoff summarizes what is

meant by politeness in three rules: “do not impose, give options, and make the addressee feel

good – be friendly” (as quoted in Hirschová 2006: 171).

Both Hirschová (2006) and Yule (1996) consider a technical term ‘face’ a crucial term

for describing politeness. Yule (1996) introduces face as “a public self-image of a person”

(ibid.: 60), which is very similar to Hirschová’s (2006) “self-evaluation and self-projection of

participants of a communication” (ibid.: 171). Deriving the term ‘face’ from social

psychology, a new dimension is given to the concept of politeness which is specified by Yule

as “awareness of another person’s face” (ibid.: 60). In different words, face is tightly

connected to the social distance and closeness. The social distance is demonstrated by

linguistic instruments expressing respect and deference. Participants of any English

conversation are supposed to determine the relative social distance between them (ibid.).

There are two subcategories concerning face. ‘Negative face’ suggests giving space to

disagreement or refusal, or “to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be

imposed on by others” (Yule 1996: 61). The exact opposite of negative face is ‘positive face’

being described as “fields of concepts, interests, wishes in which the individual wants to be

respected and positively evaluated” (Hirschová 2006: 172). Yule (1996), using a simple and

9

clearer definition, understands positive face as “the need to be accepted, even liked, by others,

[the need] to be treated as a member of group” (ibid.: 62).

1.2.1 Politeness strategies

Politeness principle is divided into four strategies: ‘the direct conduct’, ‘positive

politeness’, ‘negative politeness’, ‘and indirect conduct’ (Hirschová 2006: 171). The first

concept is based on direct speaking and direct behaviour. The addresser does not use long

sentences or phrases, simply requests or commands. He or she acts impolitely because the

circumstances enable them to do so or the situation is urgent. This phenomenon is well known

for warnings when there is no time to think about appropriate language (Hirschová 2006: 172).

Short commands (e.g. Look out! or Be careful!) signal high degree of urgency. This principle

is acceptable only in communication in which the participants are familiar with each other.

The second type, ‘positive politeness’, is an expression of solidarity (appreciating

addressee’s positive face, sharing the same values) and an act of sympathy towards the

addressee. In spoken language, special devices such as ‘on record’ expressions, that incite a

polite atmosphere, are used. This kind of expression can be noticed in a friendly and familiar

conversation in which the relationship between the addresser and addressee is relatively close

but still, as Hirschová (2006) remarks, there is a social distance between the participants.

Chosen topics are nice to be discussed or provoke nice feelings (ibid.: 173).

The third strategy – ‘negative politeness’ – enables the speaker to avoid conflicts (e.g.

refusals, disagreements, critique etc.) by hesitating and softening the utterance with devices

such as modality or indirect questions. In fact, the intended enunciation is introduced in a

careful way with a set of polite phrases (e.g. Could you be so kind as..., Sorry to bother you,

but...). The addresser is extremely indirect so as not to harm the addressee’s negative face, but

at the same time tries to find a compromise to satisfy his or her needs, too. Elaborated

constructions are, as in any other language, strictly given by etiquette and formal social

behaviour of a particular culture (Hirschová 2006: 174). Negative politeness is more

frequently used on formal social occasions and signals the unfamiliarity between the

participants or their different social status.

‘Indirect conduct’ is the last strategy mentioned by Hirschová (2006). It differs from

the conventional language in the way that the statements are deliberately confusing or

misleading. Devices like irony (e.g. Just on time as always!), rhetorical questions (e.g. Who

10

cares!), tautologies or incomplete statements (e.g. And then he came and...) go hand in hand

with the indirect conduct. The interpretation of such utterances depends on the relationship

between the addresser and addressee; the closer the relationship is, the less confusing the

utterance is perceived to be (Hirschová 2006: 175).

As far as strategies are concerned, Urbanová and Oakland (2002) introduce terms

‘formal politeness’ reflecting the social etiquette, and ‘informal politeness’ indicating close

relationship between the participants such as members of family, friends or worker mates

(ibid.: 43). As in any other language, the degree of politeness depends on the relationship

between the participants and the aim of utterance as claimed above.

‘Formal politeness’ applies complex grammatical structures and is often connected to

implicatures which are understandable only within the situational context. The more polite the

utterance is, the more complicated language is used (Urbanová & Oakland 2002: 43). A polite

request, expressed very formally, contains usually an apology at the same time (e.g. I know it

is a terrible imposition but would it be possible for you to meet me tomorrow afternoon? I

would be very grateful.) Polite request may be expressed with distancing too (e.g. I was just

wondering whether we could possibly meet tomorrow.) (Urbanová & Oakland 2002: 43). The

message is formulated carefully and complexly with a special emphasis on vocabulary and

grammatical forms. The speaker tends to be as indirect as possible. In an informal

conversation, a similar request is often expressed by a direct suggestion indicating solidarity

(e.g. Let’s meet tomorrow afternoon, shall we?). Dispassionateness is a frequent phenomenon

in informal conversations, too (e.g. What about meeting tomorrow afternoon?).

The English language tends to prefer polite expressions; moreover, it tends to involve

implicatures in both written and spoken utterances. This means a hidden meaning is implied

in sentences, which may not be easily revealed and correctly interpreted by foreigners.

By contrast, ‘informal politeness’ is expressed by simple and economical grammatical

and lexical devices. Sentences are short, often deliberately vaguely formulated so that the

meaning remains inexplicit. This kind of expression produces the impression of politeness

which is often connected to doubt (e.g. is that I mean that’s near enough is it, or I didn’t find

she was terribly helpful) (Urbanová & Oakland 2002: 45). Informal politeness may indicate

the higher status of the addresser compared to the addressee. Urbanová and Oakland (2002)

provide an example from everyday life – an extract from a conversation between a secretary

and her boss:

“I always do quotations that way,” she said. “You never complained before.”

“Well, I am complaining now,” he said. “Just do it again, will you?” (ibid.: 46)

11

Formal politeness is almost an equivalent for negative politeness as well as informal

politeness may be, to some extent, replaced with the term positive politeness. Still, the two

similar concepts provide a complex overview over the topic and offer readers different

approaches to the issue discussed.

12

1.3 Negative politeness

According to Brown and Levinson (1987), negative politeness is “redressive action

addressed to the addressee’s negative face” (ibid.: 129). In other words, the key aspect of

negative politeness is the addresser’s respect towards the addressee giving him freedom to

react in a free way. The chance to disagree or refuse is given to the addressee to enable him or

her feel more comfortable in the conversation. Negative politeness is “specific and focused”

(Brown & Levinson 1987: 129), uses set expressions and phrases conventionalized in the

language of certain cultures. These phrases are therefore the most elaborate and precise. The

product of using markers of negative politeness is social distancing (ibid.: 130).

Brown and Levinson (1987) offer a detailed categorization within negative politeness

dividing it into five suprastrategies – 1. Be direct, 2. Don’t presume/assume, 3. Don’t coerce,

4. Communicate addressee’s want, 5. Redress other wants of addressee’s. Furthermore, based

on these five categories, Brown and Levinson (1987) elicit and provide ten negative

politeness strategies, emerging from the five suprastrategies, which are representatives of

practical polite policy: 1. Be conventionally indirect, 2. Question, hedge, 3. Be pessimistic, 4.

Minimize the imposition, 5. Give deference, 6. Apologize, 7. Impersonalise speaker and

hearer, 8. State the face-threating act as a general rule, 9. Nominalize, 10. Go on record as

incurring a debt, or as not indebting hearer (ibid.: 131).

The essential point of the first category titled “Be direct” is a tendency to directness.

However, imposition caused by rapid approach to the point is not considered to be polite, “Be

direct” is therefore a compromise reached by the use of “hybrid strategy of conventional

indirectness” (Brown & Levinson 1987: 130). As the wants of be direct and be indirect clash,

the compromise tries to satisfy partially both of them. In everyday discourse, such

compromise is expressed by the use of phrases and sentences that “have contextually

unambiguous meanings”, which means that “the utterance goes on record, and the speaker

indicates his desire to have gone off record” (Brown & Levinson 1987: 132). The elemental

devices which provide conventional indirectness are indirect speech acts. The following

sentence may serve as an example: Why are you feeding the cat on cakes and biscuits?, which

is at the same time a representative of “Be conventionally indirect” strategy.

The second category suggested by Brown and Levinson (1987) deals with the concept

of “Don’t presume/assume” within the theory of negative politeness. The main feature of

“Don’t presume/assume” category is diametrically different from the first one, as the main

13

idea is to carefully avoid presuming or assuming anything involving the addressee (Brown &

Levinson 1987: 144). Due to this approach, the addresser keeps the necessary distance from

the addressee, “avoiding presumptions about the addressee, his wants, what is relevant or

interesting or worthy of his attention” (ibid.: 144). This strategy works through the use of

questions and hedges, which will be dealt with in detail in Section 1.3.

“Don’t coerce” class is based on involving prediction of the addressee’s reaction. This

prediction is easily spotted in requesting for help or offering the addressee something. The

addressee’s face is, in this case, not threaten, since the addresser is giving him an option not to

do the act. This attitude to the addressee produces three politeness strategies. Strategy number

three, which “makes it easy for the addressee to opt out” is called “Be pessimistic” (Brown &

Levinson 1987: 172). The main point of the third strategy is “expressing doubt that the

conditions for the appropriateness of speaker’s speech act obtain” (Brown & Levinson 1987:

173), as in the following example: Could you bring me the book tomorrow?

The fourth strategy – “Minimize the imposition” – may be characterized as using

indicators that downgrade the seriousness of the imposition. In English, words such us just in

the next sentence achieve this effect: I just wanted to ask you if there is a chance I can stay

tonight.

The last strategy within the third class is called “Give deference”. As the title implies,

the crucial idea of giving deference is conveying directly the perception of high status to the

addressee, making him feel as he has the “rights to relative immunity from imposition”

(Brown & Levinson 1987: 178). The recognition of higher status of the addressee is generally

achieved by correct use of honorifics.

“Communicate speaker’s want to not impinge on hearer” class emphasizes another

way how to satisfy hearer’s negative face demands; that is the addresser’s open demonstration

of his awareness of these demands and taking them into account. The two basic ways which

accomplish this effect are, firstly, straight-forwardly apology (Strategy 6. Apologize), and

secondly, conveying reluctance on the side of the addresser to admit that it is him who needs

help by “implication that it is not the addresser’s wish to impose on the addressee but

someone else’s, or that is not on hearer in particular but on some people in general that this

disposition must be made” (Brown & Levinson 1987: 187). In this way, the addresser

separates himself or the addressee from the responsibility and therefore indicates that he is

reluctant to impinge.

14

As Brown and Levinson (1987) state, this idea is practically realized through the

further three strategies: 7. Impersonalise speaker and hearer, 8. State the face-threating act as

a general rule, and 9. Nominalize.

The sixth strategy, in a nutshell, devotes attention to apology first and then expresses

the actual request. A wide range of clauses are used such as I hope you’ll forgive me if ... or I

hope this isn’t going to bother you too much, but… or I hate to impose, but… etc.

“Impersonalize speaker and hearer” is another useful tool how to denote that the

addresser does not want to impinge on the addressee. In practical language it means that we

avoid using I and you by introducing performatives (e.g. And that’s it.), imperatives (e.g.

Come on!), impersonal verbs (e.g. It appears that...), passive voice (e.g. It would be penalized

if anybody... ), or replacement of the pronouns I and you by indefinites (e.g. OK, guys, let’s

finish the work first. ), as well as pluralization of the you and I pronouns (e.g. We are very

sorry to inform you that...), and point-of-view distancing (e.g. I wondered whether I might ask

you...).

The eighth strategy, “State the face-threating act as a general rule”, applies a concept

of avoiding pronouns in sentences to “dissociate speaker and hearer from the particular

imposition” (Brown & Levinson 1987: 206), as in the following pair of examples where the

contrast is being provided evidently: University students are obliged to fulfil at least 15

credits per term to be allowed to continue in their studies. versus You must fulfil 15 credits…

The last strategy recognized within the forth class “Communicate addressee’s want” is

called “Nominalize”. This strategy focuses on nominalization of the subject, which makes the

sentence more formal. Brown and Levinson (1987) bring forward a scale of “degrees of

formality corresponding to degrees of nouniness” (ibid.: 208) in an expedient example getting

to the core of nominalization:

(a) … and that impressed us favourably,

(b) … was impressive to us.

(c) … made a favourable impression on us.

The very last category titled “Redress other wants of hearer’s” draws the attention to

“offering partial compensation for the face threat in the FTA1 by redressing some particular

other wants of hearer’s” (Brown & Levinson 1987: 209). Naturally, two strategies arise from

this category: already discussed strategy number 5 – “Give deference”, and the last strategy

that will be dealt with in this section – “10. Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not

1 face-threating act

15

indebting hearer”. The addresser, in this case, claims his indebtedness to the addressee, or

disclaims any indebtedness of addressee. The means used are generally the following: e.g. I

would be eternally grateful if you would… for requests, or It wouldn’t be any trouble; I have

to go right by there anyway. for offers (ibid.: 210).

To sum up, the main classes of negative politeness, as Brown and Levinson (1987)

categorised them, have been presented in this section. As the area of negative politeness is

considerably broad, in has been necessary to focus on one narrower field within the negative

politeness – hedging, which introduces a several different categories of politeness markers.

Hedging will be the focus of the next section.

16

1.4 Hedging

Willlamová (2005) introduces hedging devices, “one of the means through which

linguistic politeness can be manifested” (ibid.: 80), as one of the subgroup of pragmatic

markers, the function of which is “to soften the propositional content of the message” (ibid.:

80). In other words, hedges are those pragmatic markers which “attenuate (weaken) the

strength of an utterance” (ibid.: 81). A different point of view offered by Brown and

Levinson (1987) states that hedge is “a particle, word, or phrase that modifies the degree of

membership of a predicate or noun phrase in a set” (ibid.: 145). The key aspect of this

argument is that this membership is “partial, or true only in certain respects, or that is it is

more true and complete than perhaps might be expected” (ibid.: 145). In fact, hedges create a

gap or distance between the utterance itself and the addresser so that the addressee’s face is

not threatened. The true intentions are encoded with the use of hedges to communicate in a

way that avoids interactional threats (ibid.: 146).

As far as the categorization of hedges is concerned, Willamová (2005) uses Brown and

Levinson’s classification (1987); moreover, she enriches the existing classification by

introducing signals that reflect different functions of pragmatic markers. This leads to a new

and original typology. This thesis, namely the practical part, is based on Willamová’s

classification of hedging devices. These hedging devices are described and analyzed in the

stage play The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde. For this reason, the following

paragraphs deal with a short introduction and explanation of seven individual types

recognized as hedging devices.

Subjectivity markers, the first category mentioned by Willamová (2005), are defined

as “speaker-oriented markers, which emphasize the subjective attitude of the speaker towards

the message” (ibid.: 82). The relevant point here is that the degree of subjectivity increases as

typical pragmatic expressions such as I think, I guess, I suppose etc. are used. An utterance

which includes a subjectivity marker is considered to be more polite because the subjectivity

signals that the utterance should not be understood as something “universally true and definite,

but rather as a personal opinion, judgement or belief” (ibid.: 83). The addressee is hence given

an opportunity to react freely saving his face. Willamová (2005) also highlights that this type

of hedging device is “typically used to express: disagreement, reservation, refusal, suggestion,

uncertainty and indecision” (ibid.: 83).

17

Performative hedges, another category recognized by Willamová (2005) are speaker-

oriented markers as well. They “mitigate the message that follows, because they refine its

illocutionary force” (ibid.: 85). In simple terms, this type of hedge purifies the strength of an

utterance in typically face-threating acts such as request, suggestion, apology, disagreement

etc. (ibid.: 85). The function of performative hedges is “to avoid making direct utterance”

(ibid.: 86), which again makes the utterance more acceptable for the addressee. It is worth

noting that these hedges are called introductory as they occur before the real message and

rather comment on the speech acts that follow.

Pragmatic idioms are “minimal lexical devices that signal how the illocutionary force

of an utterance should be interpreted” (Willamová, 2005: 87). Moreover, expressions such as

please, kindly, perhaps, or maybe soften the “propositional content of the utterance”

(Willamová, 2005: 87).

The forth type of hedging devices suggested by Willamová (2005), clausal mitigators,

can be divided into two subcategories: pseudoconditionals and but-clauses. If-clauses are

characteristic examples of pseudoconditionals, the role of which is to give a sort of

afterthought to the utterance to mitigate its content. The label pseudoconditionals suggests

that these clauses on the one hand share some features of conditionals (conjunction if, the

form of the verb), but on the other hand differ in a way that they “lack the other part of the

conditional structure”. Furthermore, they “lack the condition which has to be fulfilled before

something else can happen” (ibid.: 88). A significant fact concerns an unusual use of the

pseudoconditionals: the addresser firstly “goes on-record”, freely expresses his thought, but

afterwards compensates the utterance by the use of a pseudoconditional clause (ibid.). By this

compensation the addresser achieves a satisfactory level of politeness. The crucial function of

pseudoconditionals is again to soften the content of the utterance, but unlike the performative

hedges, they refer rather to the preceding part of the utterance. In other words,

pseudoconditionals are frequently placed to the final position, although the initial position

also occurs in everyday speech of native speakers. There is a slight difference between the

two placements, as Willamová (2005) claims, in the degree of politeness: the initial position is

considered to be more polite as it alerts in advance to the fact that the addressee’s face may be

threaten by the addresser’s utterance (ibid.: 91). But-clauses, in contrast to pseudoconditionals,

“attenuate the propositional content of the utterance by providing explanation of the speaker’s

motifs for carrying out a FTA” (ibid.: 92). The authoress stresses three typical speech acts that

are hedged by but-clauses: the first group includes refusal or disapproval, the second consists

of apology, the third and the last at the same time, agreement. In all the groups the addresser

18

comments on the utterance he has just made to mitigate its strength. Based on her research,

Willamová (2005) introduces two patterns which but-clauses typically follow:

(a) Thanks + but-clause = polite refusal

(b) Apology + but-clause = polite apology

= polite request (ibid.: 94)

The main function of downgraders, another group of speaker-oriented hedges, is to

“minimize the size of imposition” (Willamová 2005: 94). The effect is achieved in the

following way – downgraders “disguise dispreferred speech acts by expressing the negative

meaning indirectly” or they “understate the degree to which things are negative or non-

desirable” (ibid.: 97). Expressions such as just, just in case, a bit, a few, one thing, rather,

scarcely, a little, and more are embedded in sentences and provide not only the preservation

of addressee’s face, but also protect the addresser (ibid.: 95).

Pragmatic markers that impart hesitation, uncertainty or vagueness are called

tentativizers. The first group of speech acts – hesitation and uncertainty – are expressed by

well, and I don’t know which may on the one hand seem as a limited range of markers but on

the other hand the frequency of their usage suggest the popularity of such expressions.

Markers of hesitation/uncertainty attenuate the speaker’s meaning as well as subjectivity

markers do, but, in contrast with the first type of hedging devices mentioned above, they

“decrease the certainty and definitiveness of the utterance” (Willamová 2005: 98). The second,

but not less important subgroup of tentativizers, is a group of particles, words and phrases

representing vagueness. Pragmatic expressions such as a kind of, and sort of thing are typical

markers of vagueness. Their crucial goal to be accomplished is either to disguise the

addresser’s lack of information, which Willamová (2005) calls non-intentional vagueness, or

to express

(a) self-deference and self-protection

(b) negative politeness

(c) formality and chatty atmosphere

(d) persuasive use of language,

which are apparently carried out intentionally by the addresser. Conventional (i.e. intentional)

vagueness is closely connected to implicit meaning as the means of negative politeness create

a space between the participants of the communication by avoiding precise meaning.

19

Compared with all the six previous types of hedging devices, hedges on politeness

maxims are the most conventionalized expressions. Sentence adverbials such as to tell you

the truth, I must say, nothing personal, you don’t mean to tell me, I’m afraid, or unfortunately

are speaker-oriented devices that again “mitigate an FTA such as a refusal or criticism”

(Willamová 2005: 103), which means that hedges on politeness maxims are most frequently

used to soften uncomfortable or unpleasant statements (ibid.).

20

2.1 The Importance of Being Earnest

Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest (first performed for public in 1895 at

the St. James’s Theatre in London) is a famous comedy of manners set in England during the

late Victorian era. The humour of the play is based on the main character Jack Worthing who

has created a fictitious brother Ernest to feel free to live a double life. Being in love with

pretty Gwendolen, Jack proposes to her with a resolution to banish his younger brother. But

the plot gets complicated as Gwendolen meets Jack’s object of guardianship – the eighteen-

year-old Cecily Cardew, who was proposed by Jack’s best friend Algernon while pretending

to be Ernest. Therefore the truth is inevitable to be revealed, Jack and Algernon notify their

real identities. Gwendolen’s mother, Lady Bracknell, however, still refuses to bless marriage

between her daughter and foundling Jack. In deus ex machina fashion, it becomes clear that

Jack is Lady Bracknell’s nephew and Algernon’s older brother and gets the blessing to marry

Gwendolen (“Themes, Motives, Symbols”).

The Importance of Being Earnest was an early experiment in Victorian melodrama.

The comedy contains features of satire, irony, and intellectual farce. It is full of absurd and

grotesque situations, elegant plots and dialogues with new jokes, puns, quips, aphorisms, and

paradoxes. Without looking bellow the surface, “it could seem that Wilde just turned inside

out traditional and fashionable conventions, rules from etiquette books“ (Stříbrný 1987: 571).

But the reverse is the truth. Wilde uses his aphorisms and paradoxes to express pregnant

antinomies of English social life and to strike controversial topics such as the nature of

marriage, constrained morality, and hypocrisy; furthermore, politics, finance, clerical morality,

or class division in the society. Oscar Wilde is considered to be a genius in embedding serious

today’s topics into the dialogues of his main characters, never avoiding his brilliant and smart

sense of humour. Wilde uses puns – immediately from the beginning as the title of the play is

a pun itself – and inversions of English sayings, “generally adopted truths”, or conventional

ideas. The richness of the language, the intelligence of humour, and the concern of modern

ideas make Oscar Wilde an outstanding playwright and make his masterpieces read,

appreciated, and loved all over the world till nowadays (“Themes, Motives, Symbols”).

21

2.2 Main Characters and their social environment

The main protagonist, Jack Worthing, is a sensible, responsible and respected young

man, because his role in the rural society of Hertfordshire demands it. Jack’s occupation is a

major landowner and justice of the peace, which predicts and determines his character and

personality. This role prevents him from misbehaving and therefore Jack seeks a temporal

getaway in a role of his imaginative younger brother who leads a scandalous life in the city of

London. Jack represents conventional Victorian values; by his decent behaviour, he makes

other members of society think that he sticks to notions of high moral standards but at the

same time disregards these notions in a hypocritical way. “Oscar Wilde criticizes the general

tolerance for hypocrisy in conventional Victorian morality” through the character of Jack

Worthing (“Analysis of Major Characters”).

The character of Gwendolen Fairfax represents the “qualities of conventional

Victorian womanhood” (“Analysis of Major Characters”). Gwendolen is a sophisticated,

strong-minded woman with highly moral attitudes to any issue. Gwendolen’s motto of her life

is self-improvement; she attends lectures, elaborates her own ideas and ideals. Gwendolen is a

typical representative of “middle- and upper-middle class with appearance of virtue and

honour” (“Analysis of Major Characters”).

The second, but not less important, play’s hero is Algernon Moncrieff – a typical

dandy figure. Algernon is “charming, idle, decorative bachelor, moreover brilliant, witty,

selfish, and amoral character” (“Analysis of Major Characters”). His contribution to the play

is based on “delightful paradoxical and epigrammatic pronouncements” that perfectly supply

the verbal gun-plays in absolute majority of dialogues (“Analysis of Major Characters”). The

main difference between Algernon and Jack is that Algernon is not a hypocrite. He openly

claims to be a Bunburyist. He is not ashamed to admit the fact not only to himself. “His

personal philosophy puts a higher value on artistry and genius than on almost anything else,

and he regards living as a kind of art form and life as a work of art — something one creates

oneself“ (“Analysis of Major Characters”).

“If Gwendolen is a product of London high society, Cecily is its antithesis” (“Analysis

of Major Characters”). Cecily Cardew is more natural, realistically drawn character in the

play. She is an unspoiled lady due to the fact that she lives in the country. As the

neighbourhood does not offer her any kind of adventure, Cecily fantasizes too much and

builds a whole relationship in her both mind and diary. “Cecily is the only character that does

22

not speak in epigrams” (“Analysis of Major Characters”), which highlights the purity of her

mind and the capacity of her imagination.

23

2.3 Hedging devices in the dialogues of the main characters

The aim of the following section is to describe and analyze the hedging devices that

the four main characters of the play – Jack Worthing, Gwendolen Fairfax, Algernon

Moncrieff, and Cecily Cardew – use. Based on Willamová’s categorization (2005), seven

types of hedging devices will be distinguished; moreover, both quantitative and qualitative

analyses will be carried out to provide detailed analyses of the text with a crucial focus on

hedges.

Before the analyses will be provided, it is necessary to note that the male characters

were given a slightly greater opportunity to express themselves as the author of The

Importance of Being Earnest, Oscar Wilde, introduced these characters earlier in the play.

Nevertheless, this fact will be ignored as the sum of the words used by males is not

significantly higher than that used by females and therefore it is assumed that it will not

threaten the credibility and quality of the present research.

24

2.3.1 General tendencies

For a clear demonstration and further analyses, the following figure serves as a

transparent instrument. It shows the concrete numbers of hedging devices used by the main

characters, divided into seven types. Besides, two of the types, namely clausal mitigators and

tentativizers, are subdivided into two main groups.

number of hedges

1. Subjectivity markers

2. Performative hedges

3. Pragmatic idioms

4. Clausal mitigators (∑)

pseudoconditionals

but-clauses 5. Downgraders

6. Tentativizers (∑)

markers of hesitation/

uncertainty

markers of vagueness

7. Hedges on politeness

maxims

Total number of markers

74

5

6

74

7

67

60

57

45

12

30

416

Figure 1: General tendencies

Figure 1 clearly indicates that subjectivity markers are the most frequently used

hedging device. This fact is not surprising since subjectivity markers are most popular for

their both easy formation and interpretation. The main characters hedge their opinions with

the following short clauses: I think, I don’t think, I thought, I suppose, I hope, I believe, and

personally. The most preferred position of these clauses is the initial one, although the middle

and final positions occur in the text more than once, as the following examples show:

Jack: I suppose you know how to christian all right?

Jack: I beg your pardon, Algy, I suppose I shouldn’t talk about your own aunt in the

way before you.

Algernon: If I were in mourning you would stay with me, I suppose.

25

Subjectivity markers used in the text always fulfill their function precisely, while

emphasizing subjective attitude of the speaker towards the message. Therefore they clearly

follow polite manners in conversation.

I think 3

I don’t think 2

I thought

I suppose 7

I hope 2

I believe

personally

total number 4

Figure 2: Detailed analyses of subjectivity markers

As Figure 2 indicates, there is no doubt that the subjectivity markers I think and I

suppose are the most preferred ones of all. With the total amount of 12, I hope and I don’t

think suggest that their frequency of occurrences is relatively high too. These four expressions

make the utterances sound natural and smooth. That is also the reason why subjectivity

markers are used in everyday speech by the absolute majority of native speakers even

nowadays.

The equally most popular hedges in the play are clausal mitigators. Surprisingly

enough, both types of clausal mitigators can be found in speeches of all the characters. As

Figure 3 suggests, the use of clausal mitigators is not balanced: but-clauses predominate

significantly compared to the use of pseudoconditionals.

Jack

Worthing

Gwendolen

Fairfax

Algernon

Moncrieff

Cecily

Cardew

pseudoconditionals 2 2 1 2

but-clauses 20 11 17 19

total number of clausal

mitigators 22 13 18 21

Figure 3: Detailed view on clausal mitigators

Again, both pseudoconditionals and but-clauses fulfill their function, since they

comment on and explain the message of the utterance, mitigating especially refusals and

26

disagreements. Although this further commenting on ideas, facts and responses make the

utterances longer, it never affects the quality and precision of the dialogues. Clausal

mitigators also follow the structures described by Willamová (2005). Let us demonstrate this

phenomenon on the authentic examples:

Pseudoconditionals:

Jack: Well, if you want to know, Cecily happens to be my aunt.

Cecily: You can see the entry if you like.

Algernon: You might make that your mission, if you don’t mind, cousin Cecily.

These examples also prove Willamová’s (2005) claim that there is a “tendency towards final

placement” (ibid.: 90), which is also a position considered to be more polite than the initial or

middle one.

But-clauses:

Jack: Thank you, Lady Bracknell, I prefer standing. (polite refusal)

Jack: It pains me very much to have to speak frankly to you, Lady Bracknell, about

your nephew, but the fact is that I do not approve at all of his moral character.

(polite disapproval)

Gwendolen: I am sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid

I have the prior claim. (polite apology)

Jack: I don’t really know what a Gordon is like, but I am quite sure that lady Bracknell

is one. (polite agreement)

Downgraders, the function of which is to “minimize the size of imposition”

(Willamová 2005: 94), complete the top three of the most frequent hedges used. In the text of

the play, the following expressions are typical representatives: quite, rather, a little, and just.

They typically occur in the following contexts:

Gwendolen: Then that is all quite settled, is it not?

Jack: It is rather a bore.

Algernon: Your brother is a little off colour, isn’t he, dear Jack?

Cecily: There is just one question I would like to be allowed to ask my guardian.

27

quite

3

6

just 4

a little

1

0

rather

1

0

total number

6

0

Figure 4: Detailed analyses of downgraders

Quite is clearly the most frequently used downgrader with the frequency of occurrence

of 35. Figure 4 also indicates that just functioning as subjunct in a sentence is the least

popular of all.

Precisely in the middle of the scale of frequency of hedges used by the main characters

are tentativizers. They have been found the dialogues fifty-seven times. With regard to

Willamová’s classification (2005), two subgroups are distinguished in the table. Apparently,

the use of markers of hesitation/uncertainty is the usual way of expressing one’s thoughts.

Namely, the adverb well starts the absolute majority of responses, while the adverb now,

compared to the former one, only a small number of responses. To be more precise, it occurs

in the dialogues only twice.

well 43

now 2

total number 45

Figure 5: Detailed view on markers of hesitation

Algernon: Well, in the first place girls never marry the man they flirt with.

Jack: Now, what name was I given?

Markers of vagueness, although less preferred by the main characters, represent

inseparable part of the strategies through which characters express themselves. Sort of and

kind of in different modifications are the only examples to be found. Figure 6 below implies

that from the two examples, kind of is the more preferred one having 8 tokens in the text.

sort of 4

kind of 8

28

total number 12

Figure 6: Detailed view on markers of vagueness

The following examples suggest the way in which markers of vagueness are used in sentences:

Jack: My dear fellow, the truth isn’t quite the sort of thing one tells to a nice sweet,

refined girl.

Cecily: You know German, and geology, and things of that kind influence a man very

much.

The least popular and therefore the least frequently used markers is a group consisting

of hedges on politeness maxims, pragmatic idioms, and performative hedges. The last

mentioned type of hedge is also the most neglected one since it has only five tokens in the text.

But let us begin with hedges on politeness maxims. These fixed and most conventionalized

expressions occur with the frequency of thirty-two tokens comprising both typical

representatives and some rare ones. Out of these, the most often repeated expressions are

naturally I must say and I’m afraid.

I may tell you 1

you don’t really mean to say 1

you mean to say 1

I must say 5

I'm afraid 14

to tell you quite frankly 2

I may tell you candidly 1

it would be nearer the truth to

say 1

I must beg you 1

to speak with perfect candour 1

I need hardly say 1

do you mean to say 1

total number 30

Figure 7: Detailed view on hedges on politeness maxims

The examples below demonstrate the fact that especially the typical representatives

occur in all of the three positions within a sentence, i.e. initial, middle, and final:

Cecily: I am afraid you must be under some misconception.

29

Jack: As for your conduct towards Miss Cardew, I must say that your taking in a sweet,

simple, innocent girl like that is quite inexcusable.

Algernon: I think that is rather mean of you, Ernest, I must say.

Although they occur extremely rarely in the text, some nice examples of pragmatic

idioms were used by Oscar Wilde, namely kindly, perhaps, and please.

Algernon: If you will kindly come into the next room for a moment.

Gwendolen: Perhaps this might be a favourable opportunity for my mentioning

who I am.

Algernon: Please don’t touch the cucumber sandwiches.

kindly 3

perhaps 1

please 2

total number 6

Figure 8: Detailed view on pragmatic idioms

Finally, performative hedges represent the bottom of the scale of frequency of hedges

used in the play. Four examples that may be found in the text are: May I ask you, do you mean

to say, I am glad to say, and I am sorry to say. As far as placement in sentences is concerned,

performative hedges either introduce a sentences or have final placement.

Jack: May I ask you then what you would advise me to do?

Jack: Cecily is not a silly romantic girl, I am glad to say.

May I ask you 2

Do you mean to say 1

I am glad to say 1

I am sorry to say 1

total number 5

Figure 9: Detailed view on performative hedges

30

Having discussed the hedging devices successively according to the frequency of their

occurance in the text, an important feature should be highlighted. A combination of markers

within one sentence is also a repeated phenomenon. Oscar Wilde not only combines two

different types of hedges within one sentence, but also combinations of three types of hedges

are used in the text more than once. The following examples were chosen to illustrate the

described phenomenon:

Combination of two types of hedges:

Jack: Well, I am afraid I really have none. (tentativizer + hedge of politeness maxims)

Gwendolen: Thanks, mamma, I’m quite comfortable where I am.

(but-clause + tentativizer)

Combination of three types of hedges:

Jack: Well, really, Gwendolen, I must say that I think there are lots of other much

nicer names. (tentativizer + hedge on politeness maxim + subjectivity marker)

Algernon: I think that it is rather mean of you, Earnest, I must say.

(subjectivity marker + downgrader + hedge on politeness maxims)

combination of 2 types of hedges 7

combination of 3 types of hedges

total number 6

Figure 10: Combination of hedges used in one sentence

Figure 10 depicts the number of combinations of hedges. Interestingly enough, three

different hedges in one sentence were found nine times in the text. The combination of two

types of hedging devices is a more common phenomenon, incorporating most frequently a

subjectivity marker + a but-clause, a but-clause + a hedge on politeness maxims, a tentativizer

+ a hedge of politeness maxims or a but-clause + a tentativizer in one sentence.

The purpose of using these combinations is obviously to create dialogues as polite as

possible in order to reflect the features of authentic conversations in Oscar Wilde’s times. By

31

the choice of extremely elaborate and conventionalized phrases, the author achieved high

standard of spoken politeness.

2.3.2 Comparison between genders

Turning now to the question of gender differences, Figure 11 shows that male

characters tend to use hedges more frequently than female ones as the total number of hedges

used by Jack Worthing and Algernon Moncrieff amounts to 182 occurrences.

male characters female characters

total number of

hedges

1. Subjectivity markers

2. Performative hedges

3. Pragmatic idioms

4. Clausal mitigators (∑)

pseudoconditionals

but-clauses 5. Downgraders

6. Tentativizers (∑)

markers of hesitation/

uncertainty

markers of vagueness

7. Hedges on politeness

maxims

Total number of markers

34

4

3

40

3

37

35

48

39

9

18

182

40

1

3

34

4

30

25

9

6

3

12

124

74

5

6

74

7

67

60

57

45

12

30

307

Figure 11: Comparison between genders

A comparison between hedges used by male and female characters supports the idea

that male heroes significantly more frequently prefer to use tentativizers in their dialogues

than female characters do. Since the number of tentativizers used by male characters exceeds

the number of tentativizers used by females more than five times, this phenomenon deserves a

more detailed explanation. Markers of hesitation/uncertainty absolutely dominate the speech

of Jack Worthing and Algernon Moncrieff. Especially the particle well, as the key

representative of hesitation markers, is simply the most popular throughout the whole play. It

introduces the absolute majority of responses. It is worth noting that the adverbial now, used

only twice in the play, is used only by male characters.

32

males females

well 37 6

now 2 0

total number 39 6

Figure 12: Comparison – markers of hesitation

As far as markers of vagueness are concerned, they are also preferred by male

characters. With respect to the plot of the play, this fact is logical. Both men pretend to be

somebody else and therefore they often lie. Their needs of more time to react and to formulate

their thoughts, lead to the use of hesitation markers. Markers of vagueness serve perfectly the

males’ need to conceal the truth. They constantly either shadow the truth or lie without any

preliminary preparation and therefore vague expressions occur in their speeches. Compared to

gentlemen, ladies react quickly without hesitation, and, as they have nothing to conceal,

ladies’ utterances are more explicit, not so vague. The result of the described attitude is only

nine tentativizers in the female parts of dialogues. Concerning vague expressions, Figure 13

indicates that women never use sort of as a marker of vagueness.

males females

sort of 4 0 kind of 5 3

total number 9 3

Figure 13: Comparison – markers of vagueness

Women show clear preference for subjectivity markers. The total number of 40 signals

with which Cecily Cardew and Gwendolen Fairfax soften their utterances comprise the use of

I think, I suppose, I believe, I hope etc. rather than by any other expression. They appear to

limit the universality and definiteness of their ideas through suggestions that these may be

only their points of view. This may be explained in the terms of women’s behaviour: both

ladies try to attract a man and consequently, in some situations, tend to behave modestly and

33

humbly as the etiquette of 19th century demanded. Figure 14 contrasts the use of subjectivity

markers with regard to gender. It is obvious that wide range of markers used is roughly

balanced, i.e. almost no divergences appear in the utterances pronounced by males and

females. The expression I don’t think may be considered as the only exception: with 8 tokens

in the ladies’ utterances, it highly surpasses the number of gentlemen’s occurrences of this

marker.

males females

I think 12 11

I don’t think 4 8

I thought 1 1

I suppose 9 8

I hope 4 8

I believe 3 3

personally 1 1

total number 34 40

Figure 14: Comparison – subjectivity markers

If we continue searching for the differences between genders, another significant

feature may be revealed. Clausal mitigators are second in the choice of hedging devices for

both female and male characters. Both genders variegate their formulation by the use of

pseudoconditionals and but-clauses to save their addressee’s face. With respect to the

subdivision of this type of hedging devices, but-clauses dominate the utterances produced by

both genders. Clausal mitigators may be thus claimed to be the first common marker

occurring in the utterances produced by both genders.

Figure 15 signals what the research detected: downgraders used by both ladies and

gentlemen are the third most frequently used markers. Hence downgraders may be added to

the category of markers occurring in the speeches of both genders. Figure 15 brings a more

detailed analysis of downgraders. It suggests that males prefer using quite in their dialogues

more distinctly than females. In contrast to Gwendolen and Cecily, males tend to use a little

and rather more frequently.

males females

quite 20 16

just 1 3

a little 7 3

rather 6 4

34

total number 34

26

Figure 15: Comparison – downgraders

Since the numbers of subjectivity markers and downgraders used by males almost

equal, it can be assumed that gentlemen prefer these types of hedging devices equivalently.

Both subjectivity markers and downgraders occupy the third position on the scale of

frequency of hedges used by males (see Figure 11).

Another noticeable fact concerning the gender differences is that gentlemen express

their point of view with the use of hedges of politeness maxims almost twice as often as ladies

do. In other words, fixed expressions such as I must say or I am afraid can be found in the

dialogues of male figures more easily. Figure 16 shows a significant feature in the use of I

must say. It can be found only in the polite utterances produced by men while women neglect

this structure completely. The only balanced hedging device, i.e. used by both men and

women equally, is a polite phrase I am afraid.

males females

I may tell you 1 0

you don’t really mean to say 1 0

you mean to say 0 1

I must say 5 0

I'm afraid 7 7

to tell you quite frankly 0 2

I may tell you candidly 1 0

It would be nearer the truth to say 1 0

I must beg you 0 1

to speak with perfect candour 0 1

I need hardly say 1 0

do you mean to say 1 0

total number 18 12

Figure 16: Comparison – hedges on politeness maxims

As far as performative hedges and pragmatic idioms are concerned, all of the four

characters seem to neglect them, and therefore we may file them in the category of the most

ignored and extremely rarely used hedges not only in general but also with regard to gender.

m

ales

f

emales

35

kindly 2 1

perhaps 0 1

please 1 1

total number 3 3

Figure 17: Comparison – pragmatic idioms

males females

May I ask you 2 0

Do you mean to say 1 0

I am glad to say 1 0

I am sorry to say 0 1

total number 4 1

Figure 18: Comparison – performative hedges

While the use of pragmatic idioms is well-proportioned, significant divergences may

be spotted between the utterances of men and women. Even though the numbers are not high,

gentlemen apparently prefer performative hedges, or at least seldom insert them in their

speeches.

To sum up, general tendencies in the use of hedges in the analyzed text almost accord

with the tendencies of the genders; subjectivity markers, downgraders, and clausal mitigators

represent the most frequently used markers. Conversely, hedges on politeness maxims,

performative hedges and pragmatic idioms are clearly disregarded by the four main characters.

However, after a detailed examination, the following significant features have been found:

1. male characters not only add tentativizers the most recurrently into their speech, but

also use them five times more frequently than females do. Moreover, females rank

tentativizers only as the forth most preferable markers.

2. downgraders and clausal mitigators exceed the concept of gender since both males and

females rank them among their top three hedging devices.

3. the most preferred types of hedges (subjectivity markers in the case of ladies and

tentativizers in the case of gentlemen) remarkably correspond with the roles of the main

characters and the plot of the play.

36

2.3.3 Hedges from individuals’ points of view

The last section of analysis contributes to the research from the point of view of the

individual characters. As the general characteristics and gender differences were provided in

the previous two sections, this section focuses on some interesting details and specific

features of individuals. To illustrate the whole situation, Figure 19, giving the numbers of

hedges used by individual characters, provides detailed ciphers.

Jack Worthing

Gwendolen

Fairfax

Algernon

Moncrieff

Cecily

Cardew

1. Subjectivity markers

2. Performative hedges

3. Pragmatic idioms

4. Clausal mitigators (∑)

pseudoconditionals

but-clauses 5. Downgraders

6. Tentativizers(∑)

Hesitation /

uncertainty

Vagueness

7. Hedges on politeness

maxims

Total number of markers

19

4

1

22

2

20

14

27

22

5

9

145

13

0

3

13

2

11

16

4

2

2

8

74

16

0

2

18

1

17

21

21

17

4

11

128

27

1

0

21

2

19

9

5

4

1

4

93

Figure 19: Hedges used by individuals

Research has shown that Jack Worthing is the master of using tentativizers. With the

total number of 27, the only person who could possibly compete with him in using this type of

hedge is Algernon Moncrieff. Jack, a great liar, postpones the core message of most of his

utterances by markers of hesitation and uncertainty, while supplementing his untrue or half-

true declarations with markers of vagueness.

Jack keeps explaining his ideas, persuading people, or even objecting to other people’s

statements. His talkative nature encourages him to develop his ideas and comment on them.

This process is mostly conveyed through clausal mitigators, namely but-clauses, which are his

37

second most frequently used hedges. The use of subjectivity markers in the speech of Jack

arises from his following good manners. Surprisingly enough, Jack also shows his creative

attitude to language as he makes use of all the types of subjectivity markers but one.

I think 6

I don’t think 2

I thought 0

I suppose 7

I hope 2

I believe 1

personally 1

total number

1

9

Figure 20: Subjectivity markers in the utterances of Jack Worthing

From syntactic point of view, Jack naturally uses all the possible positions of these

hedging devices in sentence: initial, final and middle positions.

Jack: I don’t think the name suits me at all.

Jack: I have returned sooner than I expected. Dr. Chasuble, I hope you are well?

Jack: I have a country house with some land, of course, attached to it, about fifteen

hundred acres, I believe.

The last considerably important point to be mentioned is Jack’s treatment of

performative hedges. With 4 tokens, the principal character is even creative in using them. In

other words, three different examples may be found out of the total number of four:

Jack: May I ask you then what you would advise me to do?

Jack: Do you mean to say you have had my cigarette case all this time?

Jack: Cecily is not a silly romantic girl, I am glad to say.

Even though Gwendolen is a dominant user of only one category of hedges, her style

of speaking deserves a special remark. The object of Jack’s love embellishes her utterances

with pragmatic idioms which occur in the text rather rarely. Moreover, she shows her creative

attitude to spoken language as she never by repeating the same pragmatic idiom twice.

38

Gwendolen: Algy, kindly turn your back.

Gwendolen: Perhaps this might be a favourable opportunity for my mentioning

who I am.

Gwendolen: Bread and butter, please.

It should also be pointed out that although females master the use of subjectivity

markers, Cecily uses them twice as often as Gwendolen does. Furthermore, she is the least

frequent user of subjectivity markers of all. However, she is as creative as Jack because she

covers all of the types recognized but one.

I think 4

I don’t think 1

I thought 1

I suppose 3

I hope 3

I believe 0

personally 1

total number

1

3

Figure 21: Subjectivity markers in the utterances of Gwendolen Fairfax

Nevertheless, Gwendolen compensates the lack of subjectivity markers in her

utterances by using downgraders and clausal mitigators. The explanation may be the

following: Gwendolen is a member of high society, spending her time among both ladies and

gentlemen. Her intelligence and constant effort to achieve perfection in all of her fields of

interest motivates her to improve in all respects, so in her manner of speaking, too. The

distribution of hedges used is therefore significantly balanced.

quite

1

3

just 2

a little 1

rather 0

total number

1

6

Figure 22: Downgraders in the utterances of Gwendolen Fairfax

It is necessary to point out that downgraders used by Gwendolen sometimes occur in

certain patterns. She either reduplicates them, especially the downgrader quite, to highlight

the fact that she is trying to hedge by downgrading, or she uses a combination of different

39

downgraders in one sentence. This phenomenon may be represented by the following

authentic examples:

Reduplication:

Gwendolen: Of course you are quite, quite sure that it is not Mr. Ernest Worthing

who is your guardian?

Gwendolen: They are quite, quite, blue.

Combination:

Gwendolen: well, just a little older than you seem to be - and not quite so very

alluring in appearance.

The last fact to be mentioned about Gwendolen is her negligence of performative

hedges which are the most ignored type of all hedges throughout the play.

As far as Algernon Moncrieff’s way of expressing is concerned, the second leading

male character’s strength is in the use of downgraders. Compared with the rest of the main

characters, Algernon softens his utterances with a wide range of downgraders most frequently.

Algernon: Miss Cardew was a little too much interested in your poor brother Ernest?

Algernon: I think it rather dangerous your venturing on it now.

Algernon: That is quite a different matter.

It may be said that downgraders used by Algernon agree perfectly with his character.

Witty remarks are downgraded so that they do not impose others. However, they do not seem

to lose their content at the same time. Similarly, he deals with his ironic and amoral ideas,

which is another evidence of his being an extremely charming person. Figure 23 also supports

the fact that the downgrader a little occurs most frequently just in the utterances of Algernon.

He places a little both before adjectives and nouns.

Algernon: If I am occasionally a little over-dressed, (…)

Algernon: Yes, darling, with a little help from others.

quite 11

just 0

a little 5

rather 4

total number 20

40

Figure 23: Downgraders in the utterances of Algernon Moncrieff

Algernon was also given a privilege (by Oscar Wilde) in using hedges on politeness

maxims. In this manner, a character of real gentleman is depicted. Typical examples may be

found in his utterances such as I am afraid, I must say, you don’t mean to say, do you mean to

say, as well as the unusual one which follows:

Algernon: It is a great bore, and, I need hardly say, a terrible disappointment to me,

but the fact is I have just had a telegram to say that my poor friend

Bunbury is very ill again.

Similarly to Gwendolen, Algernon never uses performative hedges.

As Figure 24 below indicates, the expert in using subjectivity markers is Cecily

Cardew. Introducing the absolute majority of her utterances with I think, I don’t think, I hope,

I suppose, and I believe, she hardly manages to use other means of hedging. The overuse of

subjectivity markers makes her utterances a bit indigent. Moreover, Cecily tends to locate all

of her subjectivity markers in one position only. The following sentence is the only exception

when Cecily uses the marker in the middle position; the majority of 26 subjectivity markers

are placed in the initial position:

Cecily: When it appears in volume form I hope you will order a copy.

I think

I don’t think

I thought

I suppose

I hope

I believe

personally

total number 7

Figure 24: Subjectivity markers in the utterances of Cecily Cardew

Another disturbing point is that Cecily does not even cover all of the markers and

rather keeps using her favourite five markers again and again. All of the other characters use

the whole range of subjectivity markers but one.

41

Unfortunately, Cecily treats hedges on politeness maxims in the same way. Out of the

four hedges on politeness maxims used, Cecily uses four times the same type. To be more

specific, I am afraid is the only representative of this type of hedges used in all of the Cecily’s

utterances.

Cecily: Oh, I am afraid I am.

Cecily: I am so afraid he will look just like every one else.

Cecily: I’m afraid I’ve no time, this afternoon.

Cecily: I am afraid you must be under some misconception.

Nonetheless, it may be assumed that this was the author’s intention. Cecily is an

innocent young lady living in the countryside. Having spent her live in considerably isolated

home with only one and puritan governess, Miss Prism, without any further exposure to

different attitudes to language, it is not surprising that this fact is reflected in her speech.

42

Conclusion

The crucial goal of the thesis was to conduct research into the play by Oscar Wilde,

The Importance of Being Earnest, while applying the means of both quantitative and

qualitative analysis. The practical part is divided into three sections. While illustrating the

results in 24 figures, the investigation comes to the following conclusions: all of the seven

types of hedging devices recognized by Willamová (2005) were detected in the dialogues of

the four leading characters. Thanks to the more detailed analysis, certain tendencies were

revealed.

As far as general tendencies of the hedges used in the play are concerned, the numbers

of hedges indicate that the most popular, i.e. the most frequently used hedges, are subjectivity

markers and clausal mitigators. With the amount of 74 occurrences, they absolutely dominate

the speeches of all the main characters. It is assumed that the high frequency of the use of

these types of hedges is closely connected to their easy formation as well as interpretation.

However, downgraders and tentativizers appear to be also a significant feature of utterances

expressing politeness. Having more than 50 tokens in the text, both devices may be

considered highly popular. Hedges on politeness maxims represent the middle of imaginary

scale of frequency of hedges used. In contrast to the devices already mentioned, the group

consisting of pragmatic idioms and performative hedges are rated as the most neglected

hedging devices of all, since they occur in the text rather sporadically, having less than 7

tokens in all the utterances. Another noteworthy fact was also revealed in this section –

utterances can also be hedged by a combination of two or three devices within one sentence.

The second section of the study discovered remarkable divergences in the use of

hedges between male and female characters. The most significant difference found is the fact

that female characters tend to use predominantly subjectivity markers, while male characters

prefer to use tentativizers. It is believed that the use of a certain type of hedges is connected to

the roles and the spirits of the main characters – females behave rather modestly according to

43

what etiquette demands hedging their utterances by subjectivity markers which indicate

personal and therefore polite attitude. Being great liars and cheaters, males, on the contrary,

use tentativizers as they need more time to formulate their thoughts and lies. As far as clausal

mitigators are concerned, no gender differences can be spotted, since they are preferred by

both men and women. Men also use hedges on politeness maxim more often than women.

Both performative hedges and pragmatic idioms seemed to be neglected by both genders.

Equally important results were provided in the section concerning individuals and

their styles in using polite language means. Firstly, the main protagonist, Jack Worthing may

be classified as the master in using tentativizers, since the highest number of tentativizers

occurs just in his utterances. Besides, the use of but-clauses supports the idea of the existence

of a close connection between Jack’s character and the language used. His talkative and lively

spirit is reflected in his speech just by the use of the means mentioned above. Gwendolen

showed her strength in using pragmatic idioms, which she even uses creatively and naturally.

Generally, her use of hedging devices is extraordinarily balanced, since she expresses herself

by different types of devices, which may be explained in terms of her social status, i.e. being

part of high society, Gwendolen has the chance to confront her style of expressing with others.

This exposure of qualitative language improves her own language, too. She is also the only

speaker who reduplicates hedging devices in one sentence. Downgraders and hedges on

politeness maxims appear to be the dominance of Algernon Moncrieff, who reduces the size

of the imposition by these means. The last, but not less interesting, figure in the play is Cecily

Cardew, who expresses her thoughts mainly by subjectivity markers. As she tends to repeat

the same representatives of all the markers, her language may seem a bit poorer. Nevertheless,

it is assumed that it was the intention of the author to depict the character through the

linguistic means to achieve a portrait of naive country girl.

To sum up, the research has revealed some general tendencies in the use of hedges and

has discovered some gender differences. Moreover, it has also described unique use of the

language by the four main characters with respect to their personalities, social background

and the plot of the play. Hopefully, it has proved that the thinking and the nature of the spirit

are reflected in the language used by the speakers, with a special focus on markers of

politeness as a necessary part of each language, not just English.

44

Resume

Tato bakalářská práce se zabývá signály „negativní zdvořilosti“ (tzv. „negative

politeness“) v mluveném projevu, a to zejména nástrojem zvaným „hedge“ jako prostředkem

pro vyjádření zdvořilosti.

Teoretická část práce v samostatných kapitolách objasňuje pojmy: mluvený projev,

zdvořilostní princip, negativní zdvořilost a „hedges“ tak, jak je vidí odborná literatura.

Praktická část detailněji rozebírá nejznámější divadelní hru Oskara Wilda Jak je důležité míti

Filipa, s ambicí nalézt, správně kategorizovat a vysvětlit použití jednotlivých druhů

„hedges“ v dialozích čtyř hlavních postav dramatu. Praktická část si zároveň ukládá za cíl

nalézt spojitost mezi lingvistickými prostředky, které používají jednotlivé postavy, a jejich

charakterem a sociálním původem. Tato problematika je zkoumána ve třech sekcích. První se

zabývá obecnými tendencemi při používání nástroje „hedge“, druhá hledá genderové

diference, tj. srovnává používání těchto signálů zdvořilosti mezi mužskými a ženskými

postavami hry. Ve třetí, a také poslední části jsou detailněji rozebrány signály zdvořilosti

v mluvě individuálních postav. Důraz je kladen na zvláštnosti používání nástroje „hedge“

45

References

Biber, D. et al. (1999) Grammar in Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (2004) Politeness – Some Universals in Language Usage.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2005) Grammatical Structures in English – Meaning in Context.

Brno: Masarykova Univerzita v Brně.

Hirschová, M. (2006) Pragmatika v češtině. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci.

Leech G.,Deuchar M., Hoogenraad R. (1982) English Grammar for Today. Lodon: Macmillan

Press Ltd.

Stříbrný, Z. (1987) Dějiny anglické literatury 2. Praha: Academia.

Urbanová L., Oakland A.( 2002) Úvod do anglické stylistiky. [Introduction to English

Stylistics] Brno: Barrister & Principal.

Wilamová, S. (2005) On Expressing Negative Politeness in English Fictional Discourse.

Spisy Filozofické fakulty Ostravské univerzity. Vol. 154. Ostrava: Ostravská

univerzita.

Wilde, O. (1994) The Importance of Being Earnest. London: Penguin.

Yule, G. (1996) Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

46

Internet sources

“Analysis of Major Characters”. Sparknotes: The Importance of Being Earnest. 15 March

2008. <http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/earnest/canalysis.html>

“Themes, Motives, Symbols”. Sparknotes: The Importance of Being Earnest. 15 March 2008.

<http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/earnest/themes.html>