• Tatiana Aksiutina
Keywords: hedging, theory of politeness, corpus research, lexical bundles, spoken discourse, academic written discourse


The article studies the concept hedging by focusing on problems concerning definition, the history of its origin and classifications of hedge-markers. The study aims to look at the way hedging works in context rather than in isolation. It also strives to contribute to the research on hedges considering them within the framework of P. Brown and S. Levinson’s politeness theory as face-saving strategies both in spoken and academic written discourse. Its objective is to find and offer the ways of making verbal and non-verbal communication more effective through providing interlocutors in discourse with both the knowledge about hedges and the opportunity to develop their skills in using them as a communicative strategy.Hedging as analyzed in the present article builds upon the corpus approach framework and is accounted for through sociolinguistic criteria. The major findings refer to examining both the rate and range of hedge markers used by learners of English and Ukrainian at varying proficiency levels. The article claims that hedges can belong to any part of speech and lists as examples nouns, verbs, adjectives. Recently, so-called lexical bundles referred to as word clusters have attracted the attention of corpus linguists. Clusters are understood as word chains consisting of 2-5 components, which are located in contact and are reproduced in speech as integral phrases. These include both recurrent complete sentences and structurally incomplete word-combinations. In this context, it should be emphasized no linguistic items are inherently hedgy, but can acquire this quality depending on the communicative context.The article explores the ambiguity of cross-cultural hedge correspondences.


1. Biber, D. (2016). Using multi-dimensional analysis to explore cross-linguistic universals of register variation. Genre- and Registerrelated Discourse Features in Contrast. Amsterdam, Phil., John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2016, 7.
2. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. S. l, Pearson Education Limited, 1204 p.
3. Brown, P., Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage (17th ed.). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 345 p.
4. Carter, R., McCarthy, M. (2011). Cambridge Grammar of English: a comprehensive guide. Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage (6th ed.). Cambridge University Press, 973 p.
5. Collins Cobuild Advanced Dictionary of English (2017). Harper Collins Publisher, 617.
6. Conrad, S., Biber, D. (2009). Real Grammar: a corpus-based approach to English. Pearson, Longman, 150 p.
7. Crystal, D. On keeping one’s hedges in order. English Today, 1988, vol. 4, no. 3 (15), 46–47.
8. Farr, F., Murphy, B., O’Keeffe, A. (2004). The Limerick corpus of Irish English: design, description and application. In Corpora, Varieties and the Language Classroom. Special Edition of Teanga 21. Dublin, 5–29.
9. Goffman, E. (1955). On Face-Work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal of Interpersonal Relations, no. 18 (3), 213–231.
10. Gray, B., Biber, D. (2015). Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation. Current Issues in Phraseology. Amsterdam, Phil., John Benjamins Publishing Company, 109–134.
11. Knight, D., Adolphs, S., Carter, R. (2013). Formality in digital discourse: a study of Hedging in CANELC. Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics: new domains and methodologies. Springer Netherlands, 131–152.
12. Korpusnaia lingvistika (2008). [Corpus linguistics]. Institut lingvisticheskikh issledovaniy, RAN. URL: http://corpora.iling.spb.ru/theory.htm (20.10.2020) (іn Russian).
13. Lakoff, D. (1972). Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, no. 2 (4), 458–508.
14. Larina, T. V. (2009). Kategoriia vezhlivosti i stil kommunikatsii: sopostavleniie angliiskikh i russkikh lingvokulturnykh traditsii [Category of politeness and style of communication: comparing English vs Russian linguistic and cultural conventions]. Yazyk. Semiotika. Kultura. Moscow, Rukopisnyie pamiatniki Drevnei Rusi, 512 p. (іn Russian).
15. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. (2003). Pearson Education Limited. 6th ed., 1950 p.
16. Mariukhin, A. P. (2010). Nepramaia kommunikatsiia v nauchnom diskurse (na materiale russkogo, angliyskogo, nemetskogo yazykov) [Indirect communication in scientific discourse (in Russian, English and German languages)]: Avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk. In-t yazykoznaniya RAN. Moscow, 24 (іn Russian).
17. Luuka, M., Markannen, R. (1997). Impersonalization as a form of hedging. Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic texts. Werner Hilderbrandt, Berlin, 168–187.
18. O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., Carter R. (2007). From Corpus to Classroom: language use and language teaching. Cambridge University Press, 315 p.
19. Petrova, E. S. (2011). Sopostavitelnaia tipologiia angliiskogo i russkogo yazykov: grammatika [Comparative typology of the English and Russian languages: Grammar]. St. Petersburg, SPbGU; Moscow, Akademiya, 368 p. (іn Russian).
20. Salazar, D. (2014). Lexical Bundles in Native and Non-native Scientific Writing: applying a corpus-based study to language teaching. In Studies in Corpus Linguistics. Vol. 65. Amsterdam, Phil., John Benjamins Publishing Company, 212, 23–27.
21. Wales, K. (2001). A Dictionary of Stylistics (studies in language and linguistics). Longman, 198–199.
22. Zadeh, L. A. (1976). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Moscow: Myr, 166 p.
How to Cite
Aksiutina, T. (2021). HEDGING AND ITS LINGUISTIC MANIFESTATION IN SPOKEN AND WRITTEN DISCOURSE: CORPUS RESEARCH. Anglistics and Americanistics, 1(18), 4-10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15421/382101