Surprisingly little has been written about hedged assertion. Linguists often focus on semantic or syntactic theorizing about, for example, grammatical evidentials or epistemic modals, but pay far less attention to what hedging does at the level of action. By contrast, philosophers have focused extensively on normative issues regarding what epistemic position is required for proper assertion, yet they have almost exclusively considered unqualified declaratives. This essay considers the linguistic and normative issues side-by-side. We aim to bring some order and clarity (...) to thinking about hedging, so as to illuminate aspects of interest to both linguists and philosophers. In particular, we consider three broad questions. 1) The structural question: when one hedges, what is the speaker’s commitment weakened from? 2) The functional question: what is the best way to understand how a hedge weakens? And 3) the taxonomic question: are hedged assertions genuine assertions, another speech act, or what? (shrink)

What unites the different studies in this volume is a corpus-based approach, in which various theoretical concepts and categories are applied to, and tested ...

“Any theory of conditionals has consequences for less-than-certain judgements. Something is proposed of the form: If A, B is true iff A*B. If a clear-headed person, free from confusions of a logical, linguistic or referential sort, can be nearly sure that A*B yet far from sure that if A, B, or vice versa, then this is strong evidence against the proposal.” (Edgington 1995/2007).

By the slant of their aims, presidential candidates rely on their own rhetorical arsenal to win the acquiescence of the public. Hedges and boosters, two subcategories of metadiscourse markers, are among the rhetorical tropes which assist politicians to increase or decrease commitment, blur or sharpen the boundaries between good and evil, and bolster or emasculate solidarity. Despite the many functions hedges and boosters can play in political discourse, studies that address these devices in relation to their persuasive effect in televised (...) presidential debates cross-linguistically are tremendously scant. To this aim, the current study examined the hedging and boosting strategies used by the winners of American and Iranian presidential elections during one of their latest televised debates. A bottom–up method of analysis was adopted to analyze the debates in terms of hedges and boosters, and a functional model in light of what surfaced in the analysis along with awareness of the existing literature was proposed. The study showed that not only were the frequencies significantly different, but the functions these devices fulfilled were also varied cross-linguistically as the winners of both groups demonstrated diverse tendencies towards using hedges and boosters. (shrink)

Learning the unique linguistic forms and structures that construct and communicate scientific principles, knowledge, and beliefs is important for developing students’ disciplinary literacy. The use of scientific language is apparent in the texts that scientists produce to communicate their findings to other scientists—the research articles. Texts are underused in the science classroom and the texts that students do read often do not reflect the core attributes of authentic scientific reasoning. Adapted primary literature refers to an educational genre that enables the (...) use of scientific articles in high school. In the adaptation process, the language of the article is changed to make it more accessible for high school students. Here, we present a systemic functional linguistics analysis of an APL article compared to the original research article and to a popular article. The three texts were systematically scanned and compared for specific lexicogrammatical items that characterize five linguistic features of scientific writing: informational density, abstraction, technicality, authoritativeness, and hedging. We found that the adaptation process lowered the lexical complexity, while retaining the authenticity of the scientific writing. APL articles, as suggested by the linguistic analysis presented here, may serve as models of scientific reasoning and communication and may promote students’ language awareness and disciplinary literacy. We suggest using APL articles as an apprenticeship genre, for learning about the unique features of authentic scientific texts, and the reasoning that is reflected in the way the articles are written. (shrink)

Mitigation is a pragmatic-linguistic category traditionally related to the theory of verbal politeness. Previous work on this issue has shown that conversational hedging is largely conditioned by the speaker’s identity (Albelda 2012, Cestero 2011, Samper 2017), that is why a deeper understanding of attenuating phenomena requires close attention to the social context underpinning communicative interactions. This paper advances some preliminary results from the ongoing research on discursive mitigation in the Malaga-PRESEEA spoken corpus. The analysis is centered on the underlying mitigating (...) functions in the speech performance of a group of speakers with university education. Since one of our main objectives is contrastive, and previous solid research on attenuation has been carried out within the PRESEEA context, its methodological basis has been assumed (Albelda 2012, Cestero 2011, Samper 2017). Results of multifactorial logistic regression analysis from our data are partially similar to those obtained in previous studies: mitigation formulas are frequent among the well-educated speakers we have studied, especially those related to self-protection functions. Women—more than men—, and younger speakers—more than every other age-group—, tend to lead this use. (shrink)

Mitigation is a pragmatic-linguistic category traditionally related to the theory of verbal politeness. Previous work on this issue has shown that conversational hedging is largely conditioned by the speaker’s identity (Albelda 2012, Cestero 2011, Samper 2017), that is why a deeper understanding of attenuating phenomena requires close attention to the social context underpinning communicative interactions. This paper advances some preliminary results from the ongoing research on discursive mitigation in the Malaga-PRESEEA spoken corpus. The analysis is centered on the underlying mitigating (...) functions in the speech performance of a group of speakers with university education. Since one of our main objectives is contrastive, and previous solid research on attenuation has been carried out within the PRESEEA context, its methodological basis has been assumed (Albelda 2012, Cestero 2011, Samper 2017). Results of multifactorial logistic regression analysis from our data are partially similar to those obtained in previous studies: mitigation formulas are frequent among the well-educated speakers we have studied, especially those related to self-protection functions. Women—more than men—, and younger speakers—more than every other age-group—, tend to lead this use. (shrink)

According to Frege, we need a criterion for recognising when different sentences express the same thought to make progress in logic. He himself hedged his own equipollence criterion with a number of provisos. In the literature on Frege, little attention has been paid to the problems these provisos raise. In this paper, I will argue that Fregeans have ignored these provisos at their peril. For without these provisos, Frege’s criterion yields wrong results; but with the provisos in place, it is (...) of no use for Frege’s purposes. This is connected to what Frege took to be the ‘greatest difficulty for philosophy’: natural language sentences don’t just express thoughts; they convey evaluations and communicative hints. Because of this, Frege’s recognition criterion for thoughts cannot be applied to them and we cannot make logical progress by ‘recognising a thought in different linguistic guises’. (shrink)

Assertion is governed by an epistemic norm requiring knowledge. This idea has been hotly debated in recent years, garnering attention in epistemology, philosophy of language, and linguistics. This chapter presents and extends the main arguments in favor of the knowledge norm, from faulty conjunctions, several conversational patterns, judgments of permission, excuse, and blame, and from showing how. (Paired with a chapter by Peter J. Graham and Nikolaj J. L. L. Pedersen, "Knowledge is Not Our Norm of Assertion.").

BackgroundIn their research reports, scientists are expected to discuss limitations that their studies have. Previous research showed that often, such discussion is absent. Also, many journals emphasize the importance of avoiding overstatement of claims. We wanted to see to what extent editorial handling and peer review affects self-acknowledgment of limitations and hedging of claims.MethodsUsing software that automatically detects limitation-acknowledging sentences and calculates the level of hedging in sentences, we compared the submitted manuscripts and their ultimate publications of all randomized trials (...) published in 2015 in 27 BioMed Central (BMC) journals and BMJ Open. We used mixed linear and logistic regression models, accounting for clustering of manuscript-publication pairs within journals, to quantify before-after changes in the mean numbers of limitation-acknowledging sentences, in the probability that a manuscript with zero self-acknowledged limitations ended up as a publication with at least one and in hedging scores.ResultsFour hundred forty-six manuscript-publication pairs were analyzed. The median number of manuscripts per journal was 10.5 (interquartile range 6–18). The average number of distinct limitation sentences increased by 1.39 (95% CI 1.09–1.76), from 2.48 in manuscripts to 3.87 in publications. Two hundred two manuscripts (45.3%) did not mention any limitations. Sixty-three (31%, 95% CI 25–38) of these mentioned at least one after peer review. Changes in mean hedging scores were negligible.ConclusionsOur findings support the idea that editorial handling and peer review lead to more self-acknowledgment of study limitations, but not to changes in linguistic nuance. (shrink)

In this paper, I explore a new type of semiotic translation in the context of Audiovisual Translation Studies (AVTS). To that end, a set of formulaic sequencesbestowed of pragmalinguistic value (hedging strings) is analysed. It is argued that the semiotic analysis of conversational features in English may contribute to facilitate their pedagogical exploitation in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms. This analysis builds theoretically on a semiotic translational framework termed Semiosic Translation (and its subset, Semiosic Subtitling) predicated upon three (...) types of translation: (i) Metaleptic translation; (ii) indexical translation; and (iii) translation as dynamic discontinuity. Th e translational rationale thus arrived at is deemed to account for what it is that binds together linguistic signs with other sign systems. (shrink)

Despite having unwelcome effects on interpersonal relationships, disagreements constitute the mainstream of talk in dissertation defense sessions. This paper reports on variations in the design of disagreement turns in 20 Iranian defense sessions in L2 English. Drawing on and modifying Locher’s classification of disagreement strategies, turns were classified into two main categories of “mitigated” and “unmitigated”. Then, for each category, linguistic and paralinguistic devices, which were used in framing disagreements, were identified. The data features almost an equal number of mitigated (...) and unmitigated disagreements. “But with hedged contradictory remarks”, and “hedges” were the most frequent mitigating strategies, whereas “Direct opposite views” and “but with contradictory remarks” were the most frequent strategies in unmitigated and aggravated disagreements. Finally, the implications of the results for research on face and institutional talk are discussed. (shrink)

This paper aims to bridge the relationship between metalinguistic if you like as a non-propositional discourse marker and its conditional counterparts. This paper claims that metalinguistic if you like is polysemous between a hedge that denotes the speaker’s reduced commitment to some aspect of the main clause, and an optional yet potential conditional reading that interlocutors can legitimately draw on in interaction which is brought about due to the ‘if p, q’ sentence form. That is, although the metalinguistic reading (...) is most likely obtained automatically by default, it also carries an available conditional reading that is akin to other metalinguistic conditional clauses such as if you see what I mean. Next, a semantic representation of metalinguistic if you like is developed that takes on board a characterization of conditionality that departs from lexico-grammatical conventions, such that conditionals of the form ‘if p, q’ no longer bear a one-to-one correspondence with “conditional” truth conditions. Employing a radical contextualist semantic framework in which the unit of truth-conditional analysis is not constrained to the sentence form, utterances employing metalinguistic if you like are given a semantic representation such that the if-clause does not contribute propositional content, yet they also maintain their status as conditionals as the sentence form gives rise to a potential conditional secondary meaning. (shrink)