LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Taxonomy of hedging devices by Salager-Meyer 1994} ‘Table 2: Summary of hedging fiunctions and the devives used to express them by Hyland 1998 ‘Table 3; Vaxonom
Theoretical lackground
Definitions of hedge 5 1.2 Classification of hedging devices and hedging functions 6 1.3 Hedges versus conversational maxims and politeness stvategies
Defining hedges comprehensively remains challenging due to diverse perspectives across pragmatics, linguistics, semantics, logic, and philosophy There is still a lack of clear consensus on what constitutes a hedge, making it difficult to establish a universally accepted definition in language studies.
Lakoff (1972: 195) from a language philosophy perspective, first introduced the term "hedge" to describe words that serve to make statements more cautious or less definitive These hedges play a crucial role in communication by softening assertions, expressing uncertainty, or adding nuance to statements Understanding the use and function of hedges is essential for analyzing effective language use and communication strategies.
Hedges are linguistic elements that modify the degree of certainty or commitment in a statement, as defined by Brown & Levinson (1987) They are particles, words, or phrases that indicate that a predicate or noun phrase's membership in a set is partial or context-dependent, suggesting that the statement is true only in certain respects By using hedges, speakers can soften their assertions, making statements more cautious and polite, which is essential for effective communication and maintaining social harmony Incorporating hedges also enhances clarity and credibility, aligning with key SEO principles for engaging and informative content.
According to Ilyland (1998: 5), hedging is “the means by which writers can present
@ proposition as an opinion rather than a fact: items are only hedges in their epistemic sense, and only when they mark uncertainty”
This article establishes a theoretical foundation for analyzing hedging devices by broadly defining "hedge" to include six key aspects outlined by Yu (2009: 69) These aspects provide a comprehensive framework for understanding and applying hedging techniques effectively The study aims to guide the process of identifying and utilizing hedging strategies in various contexts, ensuring a thorough and nuanced approach to linguistic hedging.
A hedge is a linguistic device used as a word, particle, or phrase that modifies another unit, such as a predicate or noun, to create either vagueness or precision It influences category membership or specific elements within an utterance, reflecting the speaker's intent Typically, hedges operate locally within parts of an utterance or proposition, allowing speakers to soften, qualify, or specify their statements for clearer communication.
(2)Hedge performing a speech act, ie used as a hedged performative (e.g, I think/ suppose? guess that )
(3)Iledge as a linguistic means modifying the truth value of a whole proposition, making its content appearing vaguer yel more precise
(4) ledge as a linguistic means moderating the speaker’s attitude or his/her commitment to the propositional content
(5)Hedge as a linguistic moans that contributes to good interpersomal relationship, or good interactional behavior in communication
Hedges serve multiple social functions, including preserving the speaker’s or listener’s face, safeguarding the writer’s or speaker’s reputation, projecting their personality, and fostering solidarity with the audience Additionally, hedges help gain approval and ratification from readers or listeners, enhancing communicative effectiveness and social harmony.
1.2, Classification of hedging devices and hedging functions
The classification of hedging devices is considered somewhat arbitrary, as there are no universally accepted criteria for categorizing hedges (Yu, 2009: 55) Several prominent approaches exist in the literature, including Salager-Meyer's classification, which offers valuable insights into the taxonomy of hedging strategies These classifications aim to better understand how hedges function in communication, despite the lack of a standardized framework.
In 1994 Salager-Meyer devcloped a five-type taxonomy of hedges which is presented in ‘Table 1 ‘This taxonomy, according to Crompton (1997: 277),
“allempted Lo consider both formal and functional criteria” of hedges.
Type of hedge Category Exampk
1 Shields ~ Modal verbs ~ Would, might
- Probability adverbs and - Probably, likely i - Suggest, believe
2 Approximators |- Rounders of quantity, degree, |- Approximately roughly frequency
3 Parsonal - Expressionsofauthorsdoubt |- 7beieve, immy opmrien expressions and direct involvement
4, Emotionally ~ Comment words ~ Extremely interesiing, charged - Particularly encouraging inlonsifiors § Compound - Double hedges - Itmay suggested that
Thođges - Treble hedges - Hwould seem likely that
- Quadruple hedges - Inwould seem somewhat unlikely that
Table 1 Taxonomy of hedging devices (adapted from Salager-Meyer, 1994)
‘The taxonomy of hedges presented above is based on a combination of functional and sytlaclic crilena, tryig to match grammatical forms with functional categories
Despite its perceived clarity, Varttala (1999) criticized the taxonomy for featuring obvious overlaps between categories and failing to account for the complex nature of handling phenomena Nonetheless, this classification remains widely used in many studies, highlighting its continued relevance in the field.
Lyland (1998) emphasizes that hedging devices convey a range of meanings depending on the user and context, making it impossible to assign them to discrete, fixed categories He highlights the polypragmatic nature of hedging tools, which serve multiple functions rather than having a single, specific purpose To address this, Hyland (1996a) proposed a fuzzy category model that classifies hedging devices into two main types: content-oriented hedges and reader-oriented hedges, reflecting their versatile roles in academic and professional writing This understanding underscores the importance of context in interpreting hedging devices and their nuanced functions in communication.
Content-oriented hedges play a crucial role in moderating the relationship between propositional content and non-linguistic mental representations of reality These hedges are further divided into accuracy-oriented hedges and writer-oriented hedges, each serving to enhance precision or perspective in communication By employing these hedges, speakers can effectively manage uncertainty and establish clarity in conveying complex information This emphasis on hedging strategies improves both the accuracy and interpretability of language, aligning communication more closely with the speaker's intentions and the listener's understanding.
According to Hyland (1998: 164), accuracy-oriented hedges are used by writers to express propositions with greater precision through attribute and reliability hedges Attribute hedges, such as "quite," "almost," "barely," "generally," and "approximately," allow writers to specify how closely their results align with an ideal state Reliability hedges indicate the writer's level of certainty or uncertainty and are expressed using modal verbs like "can," "could," "may," and "might," modal adjectives like "possible" and "likely," modal adverbs such as "probably," "possibly," "maybe," and "apparently," as well as modal nouns like "possibility," "probability," and "chance." These hedges enhance the accuracy and reliability of scholarly and professional communication.
Writer-oriented hedges aim to protect authors from negative consequences by reducing personal commitment, as Llyland (1998: 170) explains This function is achieved through the use of passive constructions, abstract nouns, epistemic lexical verbs with judgmental and evidential meanings, and attributing claims to external sources These strategies help writers minimize personal involvement and maintain a professional distance from their propositions (Llyland, 1998: 171).
Hyland (1998) identified a reader-oriented category of hedges that enhances interpersonal interaction by involving readers in a dialogue and addressing them as thoughtful individuals capable of judging the truthfulness of propositions Personal attribution and references using pronouns such as "I," "we," "my," and "our" are key indicators of reader-oriented hedges Additionally, reader engagement can be achieved through questions, appeals to testability, and suggestions of alternatives, which serve to foster a conversational and participatory dynamic between writers and readers.
Accuracy- oriented Writer-orlented Reader-orlented
(Lledges propositional (ledges writer (Lledges assertiveness) content) commitment)
1 Attribution type 1 Epistemic lexical verhs 1 Epistemic lexical
- Content disjuncts - Judgmental type verbs
- Style dishmets - Evidemtial type - Judgmental type
2 Reliability type expressions 2 Personal attribution
- Hpisemic lexicall - Passive voice 3 Personal reference to verbs - Abstract rhelors methods and models
- Modal verbs - “Empty” subjects 4 Hypotheticals
- Rpisteric adjectives | 3 Attribute to literature 5 Suggestions of
- Epistcinic nouns 4 Reference to methad alternatives
Table2 © Summary of hedging functions and the devices used fo express them (adapted from Hyland, 1998: 186) © Vuss’s classification
Vass (2004) proposed a model of linguistic analysis structured around three key parameters The first parameter focuses on verbal and non-verbal lexical items that signal hedging, which help convey uncertainty or cautiousness in communication The second parameter involves hedging strategies, including indetermination, depersonalization, and subjectivization, used to soften statements or express ambiguity The third parameter encompasses four functions that integrate both ideational and interpersonal components, enhancing the communicative effectiveness of hedging by managing interpersonal relationships and conveying nuanced meanings.
Effective communication involves responding to the community's expectations regarding the nature and uncertainty of knowledge, aiming to prevent conflicts and negative reactions It also includes softening the illocutionary force of one's utterances and creating a specific impression on the addressee These strategies are essential for fostering respectful and understanding conversations.