LEXICAL REALIZATIONS OF HEDGING IN THE ENGLISH ACADEMIC DISCOURSE

Keywords: academic discourse, corpus, hedging strategies, lexical hedging, academic writing

Abstract

Hedging is considered a significant characteristic of academic writing, alongside other essential features, including complexity, formality, precision, objectivity, explicitness, accuracy, and responsibility. The phenomenon of hedging is highly diverse and encompasses a range of linguistic tools. This article examines the lexical realization of hedging in English academic discourse, with a particular focus on research articles in the field of philology. Hedging is viewed as a lexical-pragmatic strategy that enables authors to mitigate categorical claims, express epistemic caution, and maintain an appropriate level of objectivity in academic communication. Our research aims to examine the lexical realizations of hedging in English academic discourse, with a focus on research articles. Despite extensive scholarly attention to hedging in academic writing, its quantitative distribution across lexical categories in philological research articles remains insufficiently explored, which determines the relevance of the present study. The research is based on a corpus of 82 research articles published in reputable international journals in the field of philology. The analysis confirms that hedging is an integral pragmatic strategy in academic writing, enabling authors to express epistemic caution, mitigate categorical claims, and maintain an appropriate level of objectivity. The quantitative findings demonstrate that modal auxiliary verbs represent the most frequent grammatical category of hedging devices in the corpus, followed by adverbs and adjectives, highlighting their central role in shaping authorial stance in philological research articles. The frequency of hedging devices in the corpus is 18 words per one thousand words in the compiled corpus. That is, 1.8 % of words in the whole corpus are hedges. This finding suggests that the total number of such devices remains relatively low in the field of philology. The study contributes to a deeper understanding of hedging as a lexical-pragmatic phenomenon. It may serve as a basis for further comparative research into hedging strategies across disciplines, genres, or languages.

References

1. Венгринюк М., Мельник О. Комунікативно-прагматичнии потенціал анотації як вторинного науково-технічного тексту. Наукові записки Національного університету «Острозька академія». Серія «Філологічна». 2015. № 55. С. 42–44.
2. Ільченко О.М. Етикет англомовного наукового дискурсу. Київ: ІВЦ Політехніка, 2002. 288 с.
3. Al-Habahbeh S. S., Jarrah M., Altakhaineh A. R. Developmental Trajectories of Verbal and Verbless Negation in Jordanian Arabic. Psycholinguistics.2025. Vol. 38(1). P. 41-76
4. Brown P., Levinson S. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 345 p.
5. Crismore A., Vande Kopple W. Reader’s learning from prose. The effect of hedges. Written communication. 1988. Vol. 5 (2). P. 184–202.
6. Crompton P. Hedging in Academic Writing: Some Theoretical Problems. English For Specific Purposes. 1997. Vol. 16(4). P. 271-287.
7. Dontcheva-Navratilova O. Cross-Cultural Variation in the Use of Hedges and Boosters in Academic Discourse. Prague Journal of English Studies. 2016. Vol. 5 (1). P. 163–184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/pjes-2016-0009
8. Hyland K. Talking to the Academy: Forms of Hedging in Science Research Articles. Written Communication. 1996. № 13 (2). Р. 251–281.
9. Ivanytska N., Paslavska I. Approximation as a linguistic hedging tactic in academic discourse: interlingual aspect. Folium. 2024. № 4. P. 106-112.
10. Jiménez-Pareja S., Díaz-Negrillo A. Gender and lexical distribution of subject-characterizing -ly adverbs? Linguistica Pragensia. 2025. Vol. 35(2). P. 81-103.
11. Lakoff D. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 1972. № 2(4). Р. 458–508.
12. Lewin B. A. Hedging: an Exploratory Study of Authors’ and Readers’ Identification of ‘Toning Down’ in Scientific Texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2005. Vol. 4. P. 163-178.
13. Leyla S., Atai M. A Cross-Cultural Study of Hedging Devices in Discussion Section of Applied Linguistics Research Articles. Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran. 2008. Vol. 7. P. 1-22.
14. Lysanets Yu., Bieliaieva O., Purdenko T., Ostrovska L., Morokhovets H. Hedging strategies in the English academic discourse. The Medical and ecological problems. 2020. Vol 24. № 5-6. P. 29-31
15. Medvid O., Vashyst K. Lingua-Pragmatic Mode of Social Advertising. Alfred Nobel University Journal of Philology. 2025. Vol. 2 (30). P. 409-429. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32342/3041-217X-2025-2-30-21
16. Myers G. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics. 1989, (10): 1–35.
17. Prasithrathsint A. Linguistic markers and stylistic attributes of hedging in English academic papers written by native and non-native speakers of English. Manusya: Journal of Humanities. 2015. Vol. 18(1). P. 1-22.
18. Rudik I., Ter-Grygorian M. Compositional Architecture and Syntactic Features in Anglican Sermon Discourse: A Corpus-Based Analysis. Alfred Nobel University Journal of Philology. 2025. Vol. 2(30). P. 394-408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32342/3041-217X-2025-2-30-20
19. Shymko V. Personality Profiling Through Language: Assessment Techniques for Big Five Traits in Psycholinguistic Perspective. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS. 2025. Vol. 38(1). P. 175-192.
20. Varttala T. Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring Variatio. Tampere: University of Tampere, 2001. 327 p.
21. Wallwork A. English for Academic Research. Pisa, Springer, 2016. 377 p.
Published
2026-04-10
How to Cite
Tymoshchuk, N. M. (2026). LEXICAL REALIZATIONS OF HEDGING IN THE ENGLISH ACADEMIC DISCOURSE. New Philology, (101), 256-262. https://doi.org/10.26661/2414-1135-2026-101-33
Section
Articles