Ключові слова:

hedging, hedge, ultimacy, distancing, epistemic modality.


The article examines the phenomenon of linguistic hedging related to the establishment of theauthor’s responsibility limits for the statement and the mitigation of ultimacy.

In English texts, hedging tools are used to express politeness to readers and interlocutors, to avoidsubjectivity in the information presentation and to protect themselves from possible criticism.

Hedging as a subjective method of influence has an objective reflection in reality and acts as apromising direction to a successful communication strategy of political, scientific, public discourse.

Non-ultimacy is realized through the use of so-called hedges, i.e. means belonging to differentlanguage levels. The article focuses on lexical and grammatical means: modal verbs, adjectives andnouns with the meaning of probability and possibility, quantitative nouns, adjectives and adverbs, aswell as inversions that emphasize that the author distances himself from the formulated conclusions,refers to the authority of others, refers to the authority of others. as probable, emphasizes that theopinion or conclusion does not belong to him personally.

The article provides a structural, semantic and pragmatic analysis of hedge markers, as well asthe classification of hedging instruments by both structural and functional criteria.

The study reviews the pragmatic causes and functional features of language tools marked by theperlocutionary intention of uncertainty. The study highlights basic lexical units belonging to thearsenal of hedging instruments. The results of the study can be seen as confirmation of the tendencyto increase the category of uncertainty in modern linguistic consciousness.

Біографія автора

O. V. Hyryn, Zhytomyr Ivan Franko State University

Candidate of Sciences (Philology), Associate Professor


Krylova I. P. (2000). A Grammarof Present-Day English. Practical Course.Moscow, 443 p. [in English].

Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: Astudy in meaning criteria and the logic offuzzy concepts, Papers from the EighthRegional Meeting of the ChicagoLinguistic Society, pp. 183–228. [inEnglish].

Markkanen, R., Schroder, H.(1997). Hedging: a challenge forpragmatics and discourse analysis. InMarkkanen, R., Schroder, H. (Eds.)Hedging and discourse: approaches tothe analysis of a pragmatic phenomenonin academic texts. Berlin, pp. 3–20. [inEnglish].

Matsuda, P.K. (2015) Identity inwritten discourse. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics, 35, pp. 140–159.[in English].

Van der Auwera, J.,Plungian.V.A. (1998). Modality’ssemantic map. Linguistic Typology 2, pp.79–124. [in English].

Vazquez, I., Giner, D.(2008)Beyond Mood and Modality: EpistemicModality Markers as Hedges inResearch Article. A Cross-DisciplinaryStudy.Journal for Revista Alicantina deEstudios Ingleses 21, pp. 171–190. [inEnglish].

Vazquez, I., Giner, D. (2009).Writing with conviction: the use ofboosters in modeling persuasion inacademic discourses. Revista Alicantinade Estudios Ingleses 22, pp. 219–237.[in English].

Ventola, A. (1997). Modalization:Probability — An exploration into its rolein academic writing. Culture and Stylesof Academic Discourse. Berlin, pp. 157–180. [in English].

Weinreich, U. (1966). On thesemantic structure of English, Universalsof language. 2nd Edition. Cambridge,pp. 142–217.[in English].

Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets.Information and Control 8, pp. 338–353.[in English].




Українська мова та сучасні лінгвістичні вчення