Mệnh đề điều kiện được sử dụng làm phương tiện rào đón trong tiếng Anh và tương đương của chúng trong tiếng Việt: nghiên cứu trên bình diện dụng học Ngô Thị Minh Trang Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ Luận văn ThS ngành: Ngôn Ngữ Anh; Mã số: 60 22 15 Người hướng dẫn: Dr. Ngô Hữu Hoàng Năm bảo vệ: 2012 Abstract: Numerous studies have been carried out to investigate English conditionals in light of syntactics and semantics; however, limited research has been done to evaluate the pragmatic functions of conditionals, particularly in Vietnamese context. This study, therefore, is done with an aim to offer a detailed analysis of conditionals in light of pragmatics. The study employed a qualitative approach through data collection and analysis from a well-known novella. The data then were quantitatively converted into numeric patterns as the primary basis for organizing and reporting results. The findings of the study show that conditional clauses are not only used in English for referring to real as well as hypothetical conditions and their consequences but can be also used as a hedging device to issue politeness, especially in spoken contexts, where the if-clause often stands alone and is independent of the main clause. Hopefully, this study would offer both theoretical & practical contribution on the area of pragmatic studies particularly on analyzing conditionals used in language basing on the Cooperative Principle and Politeness Theory. Theoretically, this study is hoped to broaden the understanding of pragmatic functions of conditional in real communication. It is also expected that the findings in this study will give a direct contribution to the existing knowledge in the field of pragmatic studies. Practically, the researcher hopes that this study can provide the educators with the appropriate explanations of pseudo-conditionals such as “If you like…, If I may interrupt…” to their students. Additionally, this study could offer learners some ways to express politeness in communication by using pseudo- conditionals. Likewise, this research is expected to give the foundation and an important direction for those who are interested in translating English conditionals into Vietnamese ones. Keywords: Tiếng Anh; Tiếng Việt; Mệnh đề điều kiện; Giao tiếp Content PART A: INTRODUCTION 1. Rationale of the Study In consideration of the importance of conditionals in teaching and learning English as well as the fact that limited research has been done to evaluate pragmatic functions of conditionals, especially in Vietnamese context, the researcher has decided to undertake the study entitled “Conditional Clauses Used as Hedges in English and Vietnamese Equivalents: a Pragmatic Perspective” in order to provide the more comprehensive analysis on conditionals regarding pragmatic point of view. 2. Objectives of the Study In brief, the study addresses the following primary objectives: a. To distinguish the conditionals as hedging devices from true conditionals b. To identify the pragmatic functions of If-hedging comparing to Vietnamese equivalents c. To suggest some implications for teaching, learning and translating English conditional sentences 3. Methods of the study Such methods as descriptive, comparative and contrastive were employed to describe and analyze, to compare and contrast the database in order to explore similarities and differences in using English conditionals and Vietnamese equivalents. A qualitative approach was also conducted to discover meanings that emerge after careful documentation and thoughtful analysis for over approximately a five-month period. The data were quantitatively converted into numeric patterns as the primary basis for organizing and reporting results. PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND This chapter provides the theoretical background of the thesis. It is divided into four main sections; section 1 discusses the concept of Hedging, section 2 presents Cooperative Principles, section 3 focuses on the Politeness Strategies, and section 4 deals with the concept of Conditionals. 1. The Concept of Hedging 1.1. Definitions of Hedge 1.2. Forms of Hedges 1.3. Functions of Hedges 2. Cooperative Principle 3. Politeness Theory 3.1. Politeness and Face 3.2. Face Saving Acts versus Face Threatening Acts 3.3. Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory 4. The Concept of Conditionals 4.1. Definition of Conditional Sentences 4.2. True Conditionals 4.3. Pseudo-Conditionals CHAPTER 2: “IF” HEDGING AND POLITENESS This chapter analyzes the pragmatic functions of pseudo-conditionals as hedging devices in English and Vietnamese basing on Grice’s theory of Cooperative Principle and Brown and Levinson’s theory of Politeness Principle. 2.1. If-hedging and Cooperative Principle 2.1.1. If-hedging and Maxim of Quality 2.1.2. If-hedging and Maxim of Quantity 2.1.3. If-hedging and Maxim of Relation 2.1.4. If-hedging and Maxim of Manner 2.2. If-hedging and Politeness Principle CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS This chapter provides an analysis of the conditionals which are extracted from The Little Princess. The data will be analyzed according to the following aspects: - True Conditionals and Pseudo-Conditionals Occurrence Rate - Pragmatic Functions of Pseudo-Conditionals in English and Vietnamese Equivalents - Suggestions on Teaching and Learning English Conditionals - Suggestions on Translating English Conditionals PART C: CONCLUSION After analyzing the research findings and the discussion in the preceding part, conclusion, limitations and some suggestions are taken. . 1. Conclusions In grammar’s point of view, conditional clause refers to the condition under which the speaker makes the utterance. In pragmatics’ point of view, conditional clauses are not only used to mention real as well as hypothetical conditions and their consequences but also used as a hedging device to perform pragmatic functions, especially in spoken contexts, where the If- clauses often stand alone and are independent of the main clauses. In general, pseudo-conditionals are purposely employed with the intention of softening the foregoing part of the utterance that might be viewed as imposition. The speakers use the pseudo- conditionals as the form of a redress with an aim to soften the impact of the message to listeners; by this means serving the purpose of politeness. Another important thing is to deal with the suggestions for teachers to teach conditionals at school. To improve the communicative competence of students, initially, teachers have to help their students identify the pragmatic functions that conditionals express. Remarkably, the study is of great linguistic value since it has explored some approaches of studying English conditional sentences in light of pragmatics and some ways to help Vietnamese learners of English overcome the difficulties in translating English conditionals into Vietnamese and vice versa. Furthermore, in the last part of the thesis, Vietnamese learners of English can be provided with useful knowledge that can help them know how to perform a pseudo-conditional effectively in communication. 2. LIMITATIONS First of all, data were collected only within a period of five months; this time constraint was determinant for the way in which data was collected. Also, the data were collected from one novella consisting of 27 chapters; therefore, the findings discussed in this study cannot be generalized for the occurrence rate of conditionals. Moreover, because of the same constraint, the researcher was able to gather only examples from If-clauses, while more other conditional structures would have certainly enabled the researcher to draw a more detailed picture of actual conditionals. Next, this study was guided by a simple research design whose aim was to begin to understand the pragmatic functions of pseudo-conditionals in linguistics and communication. 3. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY The researcher will conduct a research of conditionals in the spoken discourse with a corpus- based approach. That will offer her a chance to observe and analyze great amounts of data, thereby ensuring a higher degree of representativeness. References Vietnamese: 1. Nguyễn Tấn Đại, (2001), Hoàng Tử Bé (Trans.), Nhà xuất bản Hội Nhà Văn, TP. HCM 2. Lê Thị Minh Hằng, (2009), Câu Điều Kiện Tiếng Việt dưới góc độ ngữ dụng, Retrieved from the website: http://vietnamhoc.multiply.com/journal/item/14. English: 1. Akatsuka N. (1986), Conditionals are discourse bound, Cambridge University Press. 2. Austin J. L. (1962), How to do Things with Words, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 3. Bonano M. (1982), Women’s language in the medical interview, Linguistics and the Professions, Norwood, N.J: Ablex. 4. Brown P., Levinson S. C. (1987), Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 5. Buikema R., Roeters A. (1982), Politeness Strategies in the Interaction of Women and men, Mexico City. 6. Coates J. (1989), Women’s Speech, Women Strength? York Papers in Linguistics 13. 7. Cobuild C. (1990), English Grammar, Collins Birmingham University International Language Database. 8. Coulmas F. (1981), Conversational Routine, The Hague, Netherlands, Mouton. 9. Crompton P. (1997), Hedging in Academic Writing: Some Theoretical Problems. English for Specific Purposes. 10. Crystal D. (2008), A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. 11. Drechsel J. (1989), Peer Groups and the Language of Negotiation in Education Linguistics. 12. Elbaum S.N. (1986), Grammar in Contex, Boston, Cengage Heinle. 13. Fasold R. W., Shuy R. W. (1977), Studies in language variation: semantics, syntax, phonology, pragmatics, social situations, ethnographic approaches, Georgetown University Press. 14. Fraser B. (1975), Hedged Performatives, Syntax and Semantic volume 3: Speech acts, New York. 15. Fraser B. (1996), Pragmatic Markers, Boston University. 16. Fraser B. (2010), Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging, Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 17. Fraser B., Nolen, W. (1981), The Association of Deference with Linguistic Form, International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 18. Gabrielatos C. (2003), Conditional Sentences: ELT typology and corpus evidence, Paper given at the Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics, University of Leeds. 19. Grice H. P. (1975), Logic and Conversation, Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, New York, Academic Press. 20. Groenendijk J., Stockhof M. (1984), Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Amsterdam. 21. Haiman J. (1978), Conditionals are Topics, Language 54. 22. Halliday M. A.K., Hasan R. (1989), Language, Context and Text: a social semiotic perspective, Oxford. 23. Hatch E. (1992), Discourse and Language Education, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 24. Holmes J. (1982), Expressing doubt and certainty in English, RELC Journal. 25. Hyland K. (1994), Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 13. 26. Hyland K. (1998), Hedging in Scientific Research Articles, Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company. 27. Kitamura N. (2000), Adapting Brown and Levinson‟s „Politeness‟ Theory to the Analysis of Casual Conversation, Australia. 28. Lakoff G. (1972), Hedges: a study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts in Papers from the Eight Regional Meeting, Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society. 29. Lyons J. (1977), Semantics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 30. Markkanen R., Schröder H. (1989), Hedging as a Translation Problem in Scientific Texts, Special Language: from Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines, Clevedon, Multilingual matters. 31. Mauranen A. (2004), “They're a little but different” : Observations on hedges in academic talk, Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company. 32. Murphy R. (1996), English Grammar in Use, (Bilingual series), NXB Da Nang. 33. Myers G. (1989), The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles, Applied Linguistics. 34. Pyle M. A, Munoz M. E. (1994), TOEFL preparation guide, New York, John Wiley & Sons. 35. Quirk R. (1987), A University Grammar of English, England, Longman Group UK Limited. 36. Richards J. C., Schmidt R. (2010), Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4 th ed.), London, Longman (Pearson Education). 37. Riekkinen N. (2009), “This is not criticism, but…” Softening criticism: The use of lexical hedges in academic spoken interaction, Unpublished MA thesis, University of Helsinki. 38. Salager-Meyer F. (1994), Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical English Written Discourse, English for Specific Purposes, Vol 13. 39. Schmidt C. (1974), The Relevance to Semantic Theory of a Study of Vagueness in Papers from the Eight Regional Meeting, Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society. 40. Searle J. R. (1969), Speech Acts: An Essay In The Philosophy of Language, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 41. Skelton J. (1988b), Comments in academic articles, Applied Linguistics in Society, London, CILT/BAAL. 42. Thomson A. J, Martinet A. V. (1986), A Practical English Grammar, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 43. Verschueren J. (2000), Understanding Pragmatics, Beijing, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 44. Weinreich U. (1966), On the semantic structure of English, Universals of language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 45. Wilamová S. (2005), On The Function of Hedging Devices in Negatively Polite Discourse, Brněnské University. 46. Wilamová S. (2005), On Expressing Negative Politeness in English Fictional Discourse, Ostrava, Ostravská University. 47. Woods K. (1971), The Little Prince (Trans.), Mariner Books. . Mệnh đề điều kiện được sử dụng làm phương tiện rào đón trong tiếng Anh và tương đương của chúng trong tiếng Việt: nghiên cứu trên bình diện dụng học Ngô Thị Minh Trang Trường Đại học. interested in translating English conditionals into Vietnamese ones. Keywords: Tiếng Anh; Tiếng Việt; Mệnh đề điều kiện; Giao tiếp Content PART A: INTRODUCTION 1. Rationale of the Study. (Trans.), Nhà xuất bản Hội Nhà Văn, TP. HCM 2. Lê Thị Minh Hằng, (2009), Câu Điều Kiện Tiếng Việt dưới góc độ ngữ dụng, Retrieved from the website: http://vietnamhoc.multiply.com/journal/item/14.