Exploring Lexical Hedges in George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion: A Pragmalinguistic Perspective

نوع المستند : المقالة الأصلية

المؤلف

Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Arts, Port Said University, Egypt

10.21608/jfpsu.2025.401014.1456

المستخلص

The study explores lexical hedges in Shaw’s Pygmalion from a pragmalinguistic perspective. It attempts to identify the devices, strategies, functions and purposes of lexical hedges in Pygmalion. To achieve this aim, it adopts Muhammad’s (2025a) model that is mainly adapted from the models of Salager-Meyer (1997), Hyland (1998), Varttala (2001) and Fraser (2010). Employing qualitative and quantitative approaches, the analysis of data pinpoints that there are seven forms of lexical hedges in the drama, and the most pervasive device is the modal auxiliary, whereas the least pervasive is the impersonal pronoun. The analysis also brings into light their diverse functions along with their dramatic, and thematic purposes. The findings show that hedges contribute to the issues which Shaw raises through weaving the drama. As it turns out, when it comes to human nature and moralities just as it is the case with hedging, things are neither definite, certain nor absolute.
تستكشف الدراسة التحوّط المُعجميّ في مسرحية بجماليون للكاتب شو من منظورٍ تداولي لُغوي، وتحاول التعرف على أدوات وأساليب ووظائف وأغراض التحوّط المُعجميّ في المسرحية. ومن أجل تحقيق هذا الهدف، تتبنى الدراسة نموذج محمد (2025a) والقائم بشكلٍ أساسي على نماذج سالاچر ماير (1997)، هايلند (1998) ڤارتالا (2001)، وفريزر (2010). وقد أوضح تحليل البيانات الذي تم إجرائه باتباع المنهجين النوعيّ والكميّ وجود سبع صيغٍ من التحوّطات المُعجميّة في الدراما، وأنّ الفعل الناقص هو أكثر الصيغ انتشارًا بينما الضمير غير الشخصي هو أقلها انتشارًا. كما أوضح التحليل وظائفهم المتنوعة علاوة على أغراضهم الموضوعية والدرامية. وأظهرت النتائج أنّ التحوّطات تُسهم في القضايا التي يطرحها شو من خلال نسج الدراما. وكما يتضح، عندما يتعلق الأمر بالطبيعة البشرية والأخلاقيات-كما هو الحال مع التحوّط-فإن الأمور ليست محددة أو مؤكدة أو مطلقة.

الكلمات الرئيسية

الموضوعات الرئيسية

المراجع

Amine, W.F.A.A. (2019). A gender-based study of hedging in selected TV interviews in Arabic: A new approach to hedging. CDELT Occasional Papers in the Development of English Education, 66(2), 623-647.
Burton, R. (1916). Bernard Shaw: The man and the mask. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Çakirtaş, Ö., & Şekerci, Ö. (2015). Bernard Shaw and politics. International Journal of Language Academy, 3(9), 340-348.
Florea, S. (2017). Pushed to the hedge: hedging devices in Romanian online media discourse on migration and refugees. Jesikoslovlie, 18(2), 181-195.
Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic competence: the case of hedging. In G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch, & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp. 15-34). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Gomaa, Y.A. (2019). A corpus-based pragmatic analysis of hedging in linguistic master theses abstracts written by Pakistani students. Hermes. 8(1), 9-31.
Griffith, G. (2003). Socialism and superior brains: The political thought of George Bernard Shaw. New York: Routledge.
Hassan, A. S., & Said, N. K. M. (2020). A pragmatic study of hedges in American political editorials. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 10(3), 60-74. http://doi.org/10.37648/ijrssh.v10i03.007
Hassan, J. S. (2024). Hedging in selected modern drama: A pragmatic Study. Journal of University of Garmian, 10(4), 228-241. https://doi.org/10.24271/garmian.2023.10421
Henderson, A. (1911). George Bernard Shaw: His life and works, a critical biography. Cincinnati: Stewart & Kidd Company.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Jalilifar, A. R. (2007). Hedging as a pragmatic strategy: Variation across disciplines and cultures. Teaching English Language, 2(1), 43-69.
Jameel, A. F. (2023). A pragmatic study of hedging in academic discourse. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 13(1), 674-682. http://doi.org/10.37648/ijrssh.v13i01.054
Jensen, J. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility. Human communication research, 34(3), 347-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00324.x 
Kilicoglu, H., & Bergler, S. (2008). Recognizing speculative language in biomedical research articles: a linguistically motivated perspective. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Current Trends in Biomedical Natural Language Processing (pp. 46–53). Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458-508.
Liu, J. (2020). A pragmatic analysis of Hedges from the perspective of politeness principle. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(12), 1614-1619. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1012.15
Muhammad, I. R. (2025a). Speculative language in drama: A pragmatic perspective of lexical hedges in Shaw’s Arms and the Man and Man and Superman. Journal of the Faculty of Arts Suez University, 31(2), 369-433. https://doi.org/10.21608/jfask.2025.434217
Muhammad, I. R. (2025b). The pragmatics of syntactic hedging in George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion. Journal of the Faculty of Arts Suez University, 31(2), 320-368. https://doi.org/10.21608/jfask.2025.434213
Namsaraev, V. (1997). Hedging in Russian academic writing in sociological texts. In R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 64-79).
Salager-Meyer, F. (1997). I think that perhaps you should: A study of hedges in written scientific discourse. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written texts: Classroom applications (pp. 127–143). Washington DC: United States Information Agency.
Shaw, G. B. (1931). Immaturity. London: Constable and Company Ltd.
Shaw, G. B. (1977). Pygmalion. In S. Weintraub (Ed.), The portable Bernard Shaw. Penguin Books.
Suleiman, A. (2010). George Bernard Shaw. Baghdad: Mena for Printing & Publishing.
Taweel, A.Q., Al-Saidat, E. M., Rafayah, H.A., & Saidat, A.M. (2011). Hedging in political discourse. The Linguistics Journal, 5, 169-196.
Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience (Published PhD Thesis). University of Tampere, Finland.
Vlachos, A., & Craven, M. (2010). Detecting speculative language using syntactic dependencies and logistic regression. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning – Shared Task (pp. 18–25). Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Vlasyan, G. R., Pastukhova, O. D., & Shusharina, V. A. (2018). Hedging as a mitigation mechanism in political interview. In I. V. Denisova (Ed.), Word, Utterance, Text: Cognitive, Pragmatic and Cultural Aspects: Vol. 39. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 745-753). UK: Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.04.02.107
Weintraub, S. (Ed.). (1977). The portable Bernard Shaw. New York: Penguin Books.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
مجلة کلية الآداب .جامعة بورسعيد
المجلد 33، العدد 33 - الرقم المسلسل للعدد 33
(يوليو-الجزء الثالث)
يوليو 2025
الصفحة 118-146

ملفات

شارك

إرسال الاستشهاد إلى

الإحصائيات