Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems

Abstract

Recent studies of hedging in academic writing have argued for the inclusion of hedging in EAP syllabi but have not, unfortunately, worked from a common understanding of the concept. This paper reviews and evaluates some of the different ways in which the term hedge has been understood and defined in the literature. Although the use of hedges as a politeness strategy offers the fullest functional account of hedging in academic writing, there has been a tendency to extend the reference of hedge to politeness-related features of academic writing, such as impersonal constructions, the use of the passive, and lexis-projecting emotions. It is suggested that hedge is more usefully reserved for expressions of epistemic modality, or markers of provisionality, as attached to new knowledge claims. It is further argued that it is not possible to designate certain kinds of lexis as epistemically modal and that authors can only be held responsible for modalizing, or hedging, their own propositions. A new definition of hedge, closely related to the ordinary definition, is suggested, together with a taxonomy of the hedges which would fit this definition so far identified in academic writing.