POLITENESS MARKERS IN SPOKEN LANGUAGE

MASARYK UNIVERSITY BRNO Faculty of Education Department of English Language and Literature POLITENESS MARKERS IN SPOKEN LANGUAGE Author: JANA ŠVÁRO...
Author: Philomena Bryan
0 downloads 2 Views 268KB Size
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

Declaration:

I declare I have worked on my thesis on my own and that I have used only the sources mentioned in the references.

....………………………………

2

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.

3

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

4

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.

5

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

6

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).

7

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

8

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

9

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) 10

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.

11

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

12

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.

13

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

14

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.

15

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).

16

Performative hedges, another category recognized by Willamová (2005) are speakeroriented 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 17

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 nondesirable” (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.

18

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.).

19

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 eighteenyear-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”).

20

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

21

not speak in epigrams” (“Analysis of Major Characters”), which highlights the purity of her mind and the capacity of her imagination.

22

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.

23

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.

24

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 I thought

2

I suppose

7

I hope I believe personally

2

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 pseudoconditionals but-clauses total number of clausal mitigators

2 20

Gwendolen Fairfax 2 11

22

13

Algernon Moncrieff

Cecily Cardew 1 17

2 19

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

25

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.

26

quite just a little rather total number

3 6 4 1 0 1 0 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 now total number

43 2 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 kind of

4 8

27

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 you don’t really mean to say you mean to say I must say I'm afraid to tell you quite frankly I may tell you candidly it would be nearer the truth to say I must beg you to speak with perfect candour I need hardly say do you mean to say total number

1 1 1 5 14 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 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.

28

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 perhaps please total number

3 1 2 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 Do you mean to say I am glad to say I am sorry to say total number

2 1 1 1 5

Figure 9: Detailed view on performative hedges

29

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 combination of 3 types of hedges

7

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

30

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.

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

male characters female characters 34 40 4 1 3 3 40 34 3 4 37 30 35 25 48 9

total number of hedges 74 5 6 74 7 67 60 57

39 9

6 3

45 12

18

12

30

182

124

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.

31

males well now total number

females 37 2 39

6 0 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.

sort of kind of total number

males 4 5 9

females 0 3 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 32

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.

I think I don’t think I thought I suppose I hope I believe personally

males 12 4 1 9 4 3 1

females 11 8 1 8 8 3 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.

quite just a little rather

males 20 1 7 6

females 16 3 3 4

33

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 I may tell you you don’t really mean to say you mean to say I must say I'm afraid to tell you quite frankly I may tell you candidly It would be nearer the truth to say I must beg you to speak with perfect candour I need hardly say do you mean to say total number

females 1 1 0 5 7 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 18

0 0 1 0 7 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 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 34

kindly perhaps please

2 0 1

1 1 1

total number

3

3

Figure 17: Comparison – pragmatic idioms

May I ask you Do you mean to say I am glad to say I am sorry to say total number

males 2 1 1 0 4

females 0 0 0 1 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.

35

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 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

Gwendolen Fairfax

Algernon Moncrieff

Cecily Cardew

19 4 1 22 2 20 14 27

13 0 3 13 2 11 16 4

16 0 2 18 1 17 21 21

27 1 0 21 2 19 9 5

22 5

2 2

17 4

4 1

9 145

8 74

11 128

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 halftrue 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 36

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 I don’t think I thought I suppose I hope I believe personally total number

6 2 0 7 2 1 1 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.

37

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 I don’t think I thought I suppose I hope I believe personally total number

4 1 1 3 3 0 1 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 just a little rather total number

1 3 2 1 0 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

38

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 just a little rather total number

11 0 5 4 20

39

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.

40

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.

41

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

42

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.

43

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“

44

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.

45

Internet sources

“Analysis of Major Characters”. Sparknotes: The Importance of Being Earnest. 15 March 2008.

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

46

Suggest Documents