Hedging Devices in Computer-Mediated Forums

Introduction

Background of the Study

The field of research has analyzed how hedging could be used pedagogically for

teaching academic writing and some studies refer to pedagogical implications from the research

carried out (Vasquez & Giner, 2008; Mojica, 2005; Hyland, 1996; Lakoff, 1972). However, there

is little attention to how it is used in online communications because it is mainly referred to

writing. This could have resulted to Computer-mediated communication (CMC) users to be

careless in posting messages online without valid evidences; hence, the advent of fake news. The

issue on fake news has become a tremendous concern not only of the people using CMCs but

also in the society. These people seem not to be careful in creating their messages that they do

not consider turn-taking, showing politeness, and mitigating face threats in their conversations

online. They become overly confident that this is not just observed in forums, but are also seen

on Facebook comments, Twitter posts, and other social networking sites (SNS). This particular

study will attempt to investigate on the use of hedging devices as it is used in online forums by

employing the Salager-Meyer’s (1997, cited in Mojica, 2005) codification of hedging devices

and Politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

Hedging Devices

It is often believed that academic writing is factual in nature whereby facts and

information are conveyed through important features in academic writing. However, it is

necessary for a writer to make decisions about his or her stance on a particular subject, or the

strength of the claims which the writer is making. This proposition associates the use of “hedges”

or “hedging devices” with scientific imprecision and defines them as linguistic cues of bias to

avoid personal accountability for statements (Giner & Vasquez, 2008).

According to Webster’s II, New Riverside Dictionary (1984), a hedge is any “deliberate

ambiguous statement” or any equivocal statement. This may include mitigating devices in

politeness marker category “down graders”. Myers (1989) argues that, “Hedging is a politeness

strategy when it marks a claim, or any other statement, as being provisional, pending acceptance

by the readers” (in Crompton, 1997, p. 12). Hedging in academic discourse seems to generate

enormous interest among linguists working in different areas and using deferent methodologies.

Researchers have been particularly interested in the cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary

variation of hedging. The impact of hedging devices in the discourse is measured by their overall

effect on meaning of the message of the text (oral or written). Furthermore, Hyland (1996)

illustrates that hedging devices are used to indicate a lack of commitment to the truth of

proposition, and a desire not to express the commitment categorically. Hedging, as one of the

most important aspects in texture of interaction between the reader and the writer/ researcher is

often perceived as contributing to the subtlety and flexibility of the text as well as the

persuasiveness of ideas. By means of hedging, a user distinguishes between what s/he says and

what s/he thinks about what s/he says. The general role of hedges in a scientific article is to

signal a writer’s anticipation of the negatibility of claims (Hyland, 1996); thus, it signals a

writer’s anticipation of the possibility of opposition to his or her statements.

 According to Lakoff (1972), writers want their readers to know that they do not claim to

have the final-word on the subject. Expressing a lack of certainty does not necessarily show

confusion or vagueness. One could consider hedges as a strategy of being more precise in

reporting results. Hedging may present the true state of the writers' understanding and may be

used to negotiate an accurate representation of the state of the knowledge under discussion.

Hedges also “represent the writers’ efforts to persuade readers of the correctness of their claims,

helping them to gain acceptance for their work” (Hyland, 1988). Therefore, hedges soften the

overstatement of a claim. In other words, they imply that “a statement is based on plausible

reasoning rather than certain knowledge and they have a conciliatoryrole” (Hyland 1988, in

Crompton, 1997). They can be a powerful persuasive factor in gaining acceptance for claims.

Instead of saying “I know”, members of academia should rather “assume” or “suggest” even

when addressing other scholars (Hyland, 1996). Hedges are a major contribution to the

negotiation of social knowledge, because “writers must socially mediate their arguments, shaping

their evidence, observations, data and knowledge valued by their community” (Hyland, 1986 in

Dixon & Foster, 1996). Hyland calls them ‘disciplinary gate keepers. Skelton (1988, in

Crompton 1997) suggests that hedging language seems to be a “subset of commentative

language which serves the function of modulating propositions. In sum, hedges balance objective

information and subjective evaluation.

Computer Mediated Communication

Computer-mediated communication plays a key role in improving social interaction.

Bodomo (2009, p.6) defines CMC as” the coding and decoding of linguistic and other symbolic

systems between sender and receiver for information processing in multiple formats through the
medium of the computer and allied technologies such as PDAs, mobile phones, and blackberries;

and through media like the internet, email, chat systems, text messaging, YouTube, Skype, and

many more to be invented.” This variety of CMC consolidates different forms of communication,

making it easier for the user to switch between the different ways to communicate. Meanwhile,

Rooksby (2002) argues that Computer- Mediated Communication (CMC) is the process of

human communication via computers to exchange information and messages to build

interpersonal relations. The development of communication technology has increased the speed

of exchanging communication to enhance the social relationship

Boyd and Ellison (2007) define social networking sites as another form of CMC which is

a web service which allows the internet users to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile

within a bounded system, (2) articulates a list of other users with whom they share a connection,

and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.

The aforementioned features of SNS (Social Networking Sites) may differ from one another.

People use communication technologies to enhance and increase communication opportunities

with different countries, to express self- identity through online blogging and share life

experiences.

Forums or discussion boards have paved way to the exchange of communication of CMC

users regardless of the distance. Forums are democratic places where a person can freely ask,

discuss and respond to the different issues being raised (Coleman & Gotze, 2001). Blumler and

Coleman (2001) reported that online discussion forums have been proposed as solutions to the

practical limits of mass deliberation. It has asynchronous system where it allows a person or a

group to communicate online by posting a comment or query and letting other people post an
answer for it. Let us cite, for example, if an individual posts a question, and three others post

answers to that question, these four "posts" comprise what is known as a "thread" of

conversation. The phrase, "threaded discussion board" is common, referring to threads of

conversation, each focused on a particular topic.

This present study attempts to extend the existing research on hedging devices in light of

Discussion boards or Forums in the Philippine context by utilizing the politeness theory. This

study also aims to identify the categories and functions of hedging devices employed in forums.

Research Questions:

1. What type/s of hedging device is/are most preponderant in the forums?

2. Do hedging devices used in forums indicate (1) turn-taking, (2) show politeness, or (3)
mitigate face-threats?

3. What is the most preponderant use of hedging devices in forums? Why?

4. What is the least preponderant use of hedging devices in forums? Why?

Theoretical Framework:

Most interactions are governed by politeness, that is to say by what is considered a polite

social behaviour within a certain culture. Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness theory is

defined as a redressive action taken to counter-balance the disruptive effect of face-threatening

acts (FTAs). In their theory, communication is seen as potentially dangerous and antagonistic.

The basic notion of this model is “face”, which is defined as “the public self-image that

every member of society wants to claim for himself”. In this framework, face consists of two

related aspects: (1). Negative face, or the rights to territories, freedom of action and freedom
from imposition or wanting your actions not to be constrained or inhibited by others; (2).

Positive face, which refers to the consistent self-image that people have; and their desire to be

appreciated and approved of by at least some other people.

The rational actions people take to preserve both kinds of face, for themselves and the

people they interact with, add up to politeness. Brown and Levinson also argue that in human

communication, either spoken or written, people tend to maintain one another's face

continuously.

In everyday conversation, we adapt our utterances to different situations. Among friends

we take liberties or say things that would seem discourteous among strangers. In both situations

we try to avoid making the hearer embarrassed or uncomfortable. Face-threatening acts (FTAs)

are acts that infringe on the hearers' need to maintain his/her self-esteem, and be respected.

Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with these FTAs.

Significance of the Study

Despite the studies made in the use of hedging devices, the researchers would like to

investigate if there are differences between the use of hedging devices in academic papers and in

computer-mediated communication (CMC). This may provide a deeper knowledge for users of

CMC to understand the communication styles of fellow CMC users in their replies to the topic

provided in the forum. Furthermore, if the teachers opt to integrate the use of CMC in their

teaching strategies, students may observe proper decorum in stating their opinions and in sharing

their ideas online. Thus, the students would learn to be more responsible in stating their claims

which not only eliminates the tendency for plagiarism but also to be more sensitive to the face of
the receiver of the message. This is due to the face threats which students and CMC users alike

commit when communicating in these kinds of CMC resulting to exchange of face-threatening

statements with fellow students or CMC users. This phenomenon is called nowadays as cyber-

bullying which actually emanates from insensitive ways of stating opinions and sharing of ideas.

The hedging devices, which are categorized as TT- turntaking, SP for politeness, and MFT for

mitigate face-threats, are used as face-saving acts which helps the students to be considerate

concerning the face of others (Brown & Levinson, 1987). This way, disputes in CMC would be

eliminated by becoming a more responsible Netizen.

Methodology

Research Design

This study employs a descriptive design since it is designed to help provide answers of
who, what, when, where, and how the hedging devices are used in a computer-mediated
communication such as in forums. This also aims to answer if people in CMC use hedging
devices in the same way that they use such in writing academic papers. Furthermore, this study
also employs a qualitative design to be able to identify the use of the hedging devices by getting
the frequency of the most preponderant hedging device/s and their use.

Corpus

The data that will be used in this study will be chosen from three different forums with
topics about the Philippines. There will only be one topic taken from each of the forum websites
namely; (1) Expatforum.com, (2) Topix, and (3) Philippine Expat forum. The total number of
threads/interaction that will be analysed in this study is 65 with approximately 4032 words.
Furthermore, this study will examine hedging devises used in forums by focusing on the use of
the said lexical items as (1) turn-taking, (2) show politeness, or (3) mitigate face-threats.

Analytical Framework

The hedging devices that will be used in this study were examined on the basis of

categorization created by Vassileva (2001), Strauss (2004), Salager-Meyer (1997) and Swales

and Feak, (1994, in Mojica, 2005). The categories are as follows:

Type 1: Modals/ Probabilities (e.g. may, might, could, would)

Type 2: Semi- auxiliaries/ Epistemic verbs (e.g. seem, look, appear, sound)

Type 3: Adjectival/ Adverbial/ Nominal expressions (e.g. clearly, obviously,

surprisingly, less likely, always, possible, probable, somehow, somewhat, a lot of,

assumption, claim)

Type 4: Distancing Phrases (e.g. one school of thought, a possible view, it could

be concluded that, one could say, Based on the conducted survey, According to this

exploratory study, Many scholars believe).

Procedure

The researchers will codify the hedging devices found in the replies in the forum by how

the latter were used by the posers (turn-taking, show politeness, or mitigate face-threats).

Through this, the researchers will be able to identify the most preponderant use of the hedging

devices in a computer-mediated communication such as a forum.

Data Analysis

The replies in the forums will be read in order to identify the hedging devices used. These

hedging devices will be manually marked and classified. The hedging device/s and their use that

is/are most and least preponderant in the forums are identified through frequency distribution.

The use of hedging devices in the selected forums will be analysed by reading the data gathered

to be able to categorize their uses - TT for turntaking, SP for politeness, and MFT for mitigate

face-threats. Through this, the researchers will be able to identify the most and least

preponderant use of these lexical items and discuss the reasons for such.

Results and Discussion

It has been observed that Netizens, most specifically the posers in forums, use hedging

devices in different purposes. Table 1 below shows that Type 1 (modals and probabilities) are

most favoured among the six types of hedges and the most preponderant hedging device

preferred by forum users. In fact, most of the modals used in the gathered corpus are the use of

would and could. This could in conformity with the general tendency of hedging in English by

second language users. (Mojica, 2005).

The said result defines how most people use hedging devices to soften the overstatement

of a claim. In other words, they imply that “a statement is based on plausible reasoning rather

than certain knowledge and they have a conciliatory role” (Hyland 1988, in Crompton, 1997). In

sum, hedges balance objective information and subjective evaluation. Furthermore, the use of

this type of hedging devices seem to be the most informal and the easiest to use among the four
types which Vassileva (2001), Strauss (2004), Salager-Meyer (1997) and Swales and Feak,

(1994, in Mojica, 2005) proposed. This is due to the nature of interactivity in this kind of

communication which does not require too formal use of words in which conversation seems to

be like talking in person. Also, since the conversation is informal, Netizens or posers, do not take

time to think of a more appropriate word or hedging devices at that. This is because doing so

may just lengthen the message which is a “must not” in the cyber world. Cyber language is

known to be brief and concise yet meaty and easy to understand.

Table 1

Frequency on Types Hedges Used

Types of hedging devices f %

1. Modals/ Probabilities 26 50

2. Semi- auxiliaries 12 23
3. Adjectival/Adverbial/ Nominal Expressions 5 10

4. Distancing phrases 0 0
5. Preference 7 13

6. Uncertainty 2 4
100%
Total 53

As the table reveals, posers (the people who responded in the Forum questions) prefer

short hedges and stick to conventional ways of hedging trying to use Type 1 and Type 2

structures with seem, tend etc. It is also noted that most of the CMC users used “maybe” and

“prefer” in every utterance to express their lack of certainty towards their claims yet, personal.
This finding could be associated to another function of hedges in writing: “to help writers avoid

personal responsibility for statements in order to protect their reputations and limit the damage

which may result from categorical commitments” (Hyland, 1995), which seems to be applicable

in the use of hedging devices in CMC. Furthermore, the researchers of this study had added

these two devices as part of codification in Salager- Myer’s (1997) codification of hedging

devices.

Table 2, on the other hand, shows that most of the CMC users use hedging devices to

mitigate face threats resulting from topic initiation, appropriate responses and requestive speech

acts (Kashiwasaki, 1995; Xie, 2000 in Usami, 2006 ). This is to minimize face threats of a

particular act and to present a positive image to the social world. Thus, can be considered as one

of the effects of interactions in CMCs since they do not have a face to face contact and facial

expressions may not be seen.

Table 2

Frequency of hedging devices per codification

in Politeness theory (Brown and Levinson, 1987)

Codification F %
1. Turn taking 4 8
2. Showing politeness 18 35

3. Mitigating face threats 19 37

4. Uncertainty 10 20

Total
51 100%
 Note: “most preferred” and” would suggest” are coded as one

Meanwhile, the use of hedging device as turn taking appeared to be the least

preponderant. This result may be due to CMC users’ lack of interest in a particular topic but

wanted to help find a resolution as part of social norms. This voluntary linguistic behaviour

could be based on an individual choice that shows consideration and to save someone’s face.

Conclusion

This study marked Type 1 hedging devices or the use of modals and probabilities and the

Type 2 hedging devices or the use of epistemic verbs as the most preponderant among the four

types mentioned by Vassileva (2001), Strauss (2004), Salager-Meyer (1997) and Swales and

Feak, (1994, in Mojica, 2005) and the additional two types (preference and uncertainty) which

the researchers of this study had found out. This indicates that posers use hedging devices that

are shorter and more conversational due to the nature of language that SNSs use. On the other

hand, Type 6 or hedging devices that indicate uncertainty (i.e. most preferred and preference)

and Type 4 or hedging devices that indicate distancing phrases (i.e. Based on the conducted

survey and According to this exploratory study) ranked 5th and 6th respectively. The assumption

for this is that the use of such makes the claim sound more formal and not conversational which

defies how cyber language has to be like.

The hedging devices found in the corpus gathered are reported as markers used as face

saving acts. This only shows that the posers used hedging devices so that they could foster a

good relationship with fellow posers which indicate that people in forums show responsibility in

posting their ideas online. Thus, tagging them as responsible netizens. This has been observed
when the “mitigating face-threats” appeared to be the most preponderant among the other uses of

hedging devices in CMC-forums. On the other hand, the “turntaking” appeared to be the least

preponderant use of hedging devices in CMC-forums since the latter seem to be inappropriate in

this type of communication. Moreover, although the nature of CMC is interactive

communication, turntaking doesn’t seem to be considered since posting comments happens in an

asynchronous time frame.

The main purpose of this study, is to educate the learners to become responsible Netizens

so that they will not experience cyber bullying due to their sloppy comments or claims on social

networking sites. This study reminds the learners to use hedging devices in posting comments or

statuses so that their statements would sound polite and sensitive to the varying types of people

who could read their messages. Further studies using other politeness strategies and using other

forms of CMC, however, are needed to provide additional solid support to the findings of the

said investigation with regards to honing the learners to become responsible Netizens since most

of the CMC users are students. They have to be educated of net etiquettes or “Netiquette” as

early as possible so that they may not experience bullying in the cyber world.

References

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usages.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bodomo, A. (2009). Computer mediated communication for linguistics and literacy technology
and natural language education. HongKong. University of HongKong

Boyd, M. & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal Computer- Mediated Communication, 13 (1). Retrieved from http://
jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/byd.ellison.html.
Blumler, J.G. & Coleman, S. (2001). Realising Democracy Online:A Civic Commons in
Cyberspace. London: Institute for Public Policy Research in Policy Deliberation.
London: Hansard Society

Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for
Specific Purposes, 16/4, 271-287. Retrieved from http://aus.academia.ed.

Coleman, S. & Gotze, J. (2001). Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy
Deliberation. London: Hansard Society

Dixon, J. & Foster D. Gender and hedging: from sex differences into situated practice. Journal
Psycholinguistic Research, 6/1. Retrieved from http://www.psych.lancs.ac.uk

Hyland, K. (1996).Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied

Linguistics, 17, 433-455. Retrieved from www.hawaii.edu

Hyland, K. (1996). “Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum”. Retrieved on February 25, 2012.
www.education.monash.edu.au/students/current/resources/voice.html.Pp.477.

Hyland, K. (1998) Directives: argument and engagement in academic writing.

Applied Linguistics, 23/2. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from www2.caes.hku.hk

Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic fuzzy concepts. Chicago
Linguistics Society Papers, 8, 13-228. Retrieved from aus.academia.com

Mojica, L. A. (2005). The use of hedging devices among Filipino-authored academic papers.
Professional Chair Lecture. Delivered on March 19, 2005. De La Salle
University, Manila.

Rooksby, E. (2002). E- mail and ethics style and ethical relations in computer-mediated
communication. London. Routledge.

Vazquez, I. & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond mood and modality: epistemic modality markers as
hedges in research articles. A cross- disciplinary study. Revista Alicantina de
Estudios Ingleses, 21, 171-190. Retrieved from http://rua.ua.es

Usami, M.(2006). Discourse and politeness theory and cross cultural pragmatics. In Asako
Yositomi, Tae Umino and Masashi Negeshi (Eds.) Usage based Linguistics
Informatics 4: Readings in Language Pedagogy and Second Language Acquisition in
Japanese Context 19-41.Armsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing
Company. Retrieved from http://www.kyoshikai.org.mx/convocatorias/
2011/2011simposio_2006.pdf