MASARYK UNIVERSITY BRNO

Faculty of Education
Department of English Language and Literature

POLITENESS MARKERS IN SPOKEN

LANGUAGE

Author: JANA VROV

Supervisor: PhDr. Renata Povoln, 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.

....

Acknowledgements:

I would like to devote my thanks to PhDr. Renata Povoln, Ph.D., for her great
patience, kind support, valuable advice, comments and guidance during the supervision of my
bachelor thesis.

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

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 Wildes 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.

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 (Urbanov & 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 (Urbanov & Oakland
2002: 10), which supports Dontcheva-Navratilovas 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

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).
Urbanov 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 speakers awareness of the addressees 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).

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). Urbanov 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.
Hirschov (2006), in contrast to Yule (1996) and Urbanov 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 Hirschov 2006: 171).
Both Hirschov (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 Hirschovs (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 persons 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 (Hirschov 2006: 172). Yule (1996), using a simple and

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 (Hirschov 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 (Hirschov 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
addressees 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 Hirschov (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 addressees 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 (Hirschov 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 Hirschov (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

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 (Hirschov 2006: 175).
As far as strategies are concerned, Urbanov 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 (Urbanov & 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.) (Urbanov & 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. Lets 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 thats near enough is it, or I didnt find
she was terribly helpful) (Urbanov & Oakland 2002: 45). Informal politeness may indicate
the higher status of the addresser compared to the addressee. Urbanov 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 addressees negative face (ibid.: 129). In other words, the key aspect of
negative politeness is the addressers 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. Dont presume/assume, 3. Dont coerce,
4. Communicate addressees want, 5. Redress other wants of addressees. 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 Dont presume/assume within the theory of negative politeness. The main feature of
Dont 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.
Dont coerce class is based on involving prediction of the addressees reaction. This
prediction is easily spotted in requesting for help or offering the addressee something. The
addressees 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 speakers 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 speakers want to not impinge on hearer class emphasizes another
way how to satisfy hearers negative face demands; that is the addressers 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 addressers wish to impose on the addressee but
someone elses, 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 youll forgive me if ... or I
hope this isnt 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 thats 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, lets
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 addressees 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 hearers draws the attention to
offering partial compensation for the face threat in the FTA1 by redressing some particular
other wants of hearers (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

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 wouldnt 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
Willlamov (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 addressees 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, Willamov (2005) uses Brown and
Levinsons 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 Willamovs
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 Willamov (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. Willamov (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 Willamov (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 (Willamov, 2005: 87). Moreover, expressions such as
please, kindly, perhaps, or maybe soften the propositional content of the utterance
(Willamov, 2005: 87).
The forth type of hedging devices suggested by Willamov (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 Willamov (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 addressees face may be
threaten by the addressers utterance (ibid.: 91). But-clauses, in contrast to pseudoconditionals,
attenuate the propositional content of the utterance by providing explanation of the speakers
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,
Willamov (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 (Willamov 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 addressees 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 dont 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 speakers 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 (Willamov 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
addressers lack of information, which Willamov (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 dont mean to tell me, Im afraid, or unfortunately
are speaker-oriented devices that again mitigate an FTA such as a refusal or criticism
(Willamov 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 Wildes The Importance of Being Earnest (first performed for public in 1895 at
the St. Jamess 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 Jacks object of guardianship the eighteenyear-old Cecily Cardew, who was proposed by Jacks best friend Algernon while pretending
to be Ernest. Therefore the truth is inevitable to be revealed, Jack and Algernon notify their
real identities. Gwendolens 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 Bracknells nephew and Algernons 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 (Stbrn 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
todays 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. Jacks 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. Gwendolens 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, plays 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 Willamovs 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 dont 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 shouldnt 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

I dont think
I thought

I suppose

I hope
I believe
personally

total number

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 dont
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 Willamov (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 dont mind, cousin Cecily.

These examples also prove Willamovs (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 dont 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

(Willamov 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, isnt 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
Willamovs classification (2005), two subgroups are distinguished in the table. Apparently,
the use of markers of hesitation/uncertainty is the usual way of expressing ones 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 isnt 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 Im afraid.
I may tell you
you dont 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 dont 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, Im 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

total number

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 Wildes 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 womens 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 dont think may be considered as the only exception: with 8 tokens
in the ladies utterances, it highly surpasses the number of gentlemens occurrences of this
marker.

I think
I dont 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 addressees 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 dont 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

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 peoples
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 dont 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 dont 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 Jacks 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 Jacks 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 dont 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 Moncrieffs way of expressing is concerned, the second leading
male characters 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 dont 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 dont 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 dont think
I thought
I suppose
I hope
I believe
personally
total number

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 Cecilys
utterances.

Cecily: Oh, I am afraid I am.

Cecily: I am so afraid he will look just like every one else.
Cecily: Im afraid Ive no time, this afternoon.
Cecily: I am afraid you must be under some misconception.

Nonetheless, it may be assumed that this was the authors 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 Willamov (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 Jacks 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 bakalsk prce se zabv signly negativn zdvoilosti (tzv. negative
politeness) v mluvenm projevu, a to zejmna nstrojem zvanm hedge jako prostedkem
pro vyjden zdvoilosti.
Teoretick st prce v samostatnch kapitolch objasuje pojmy: mluven projev,
zdvoilostn princip, negativn zdvoilost a hedges tak, jak je vid odborn literatura.
Praktick st detailnji rozebr nejznmj divadeln hru Oskara Wilda Jak je dleit mti
Filipa, s ambic nalzt, sprvn kategorizovat a vysvtlit pouit jednotlivch druh
hedges v dialozch ty hlavnch postav dramatu. Praktick st si zrove ukld za cl
nalzt spojitost mezi lingvistickmi prostedky, kter pouvaj jednotliv postavy, a jejich
charakterem a socilnm pvodem. Tato problematika je zkoumna ve tech sekcch. Prvn se
zabv obecnmi tendencemi pi pouvn nstroje hedge, druh hled genderov
diference, tj. srovnv pouvn tchto signl zdvoilosti mezi muskmi a enskmi
postavami hry. Ve tet, a tak posledn sti jsou detailnji rozebrny signly zdvoilosti
v mluv individulnch postav. Draz je kladen na zvltnosti pouvn nstroje 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 Brn.

Hirschov, M. (2006) Pragmatika v etin. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackho v Olomouci.

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

Stbrn, Z. (1987) Djiny anglick literatury 2. Praha: Academia.

Urbanov L., Oakland A.( 2002) vod do anglick stylistiky. [Introduction to English
Stylistics] Brno: Barrister & Principal.

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

Spisy Filozofick fakulty Ostravsk univerzity. Vol. 154. Ostrava: Ostravsk
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. <http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/earnest/canalysis.html>

Themes, Motives, Symbols. Sparknotes: The Importance of Being Earnest. 15 March 2008.
<http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/earnest/themes.html>

46