Cover not available
Part of
Language Learning, Discourse and Cognition: Studies in the tradition of Andrea Tyler
Edited by Lucy Pickering and Vyvyan Evans
[Human Cognitive Processing 64] 2018
► pp. 275–300

Chapter 11
The use of hedging devices in L2 legal writing

A cognitive functional perspective

The focus of this chapter is to determine the conceptual profile of the rhetorical phenomenon of hedging and to investigate how hedging devices are represented in legal memos produced by L2 writers of English. Because it addresses negotiation of various poles on the reality spectrum, hedging is crucial for the construction of an effective legal memo. A sample of 14 memos is analyzed utilizing a mixed method approach. The analysis demonstrates that the differences in the objective “success” of memos are conditioned by each writer’s textual and functional patterns of hedging. These conclusions elucidate the processes guiding legal memo writing and the longitudinal development of the hedging function in the writing patterns of non-native legal writers.

Keywords: Cognitive Linguistics, English for Specific Purposes, second language writing
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Cognitive Linguistics and the ICM of hedging
    • 2.1Hedging in legal memos
    • 2.2L2 writing
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Context and data
    • 3.2Operationalization of hedging
    • 3.3The rubric
    • 3.4The hedging coding scheme
    • 3.5Analysis and procedure
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Descriptive quantitative patterns
    • 4.2Functional changes in hedging patterns
    • 4.3Hedging patterns and common law argumentation scores
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 20 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.64.12dol
References
Abbuhl, R.
(2011) The effect of feedback and instruction on writing quality: Legal writing and advanced L2 learners. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Allison, D.
(1995) Assertions and alternatives: Helping ESL undergraduates extend their choices in academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(1), 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, V., Langton, N., & Lung, J.
(2004) Legal discourse: Opportunities and threats for corpus linguistics. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 203–231). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloor, M. & Bloor, T.
(1991) Cultural expectations and socio-pragmatic failure in academic writing. In P. Adams, B. Heaton & P. Howarth (Eds.), Socio-cultural issues in English for academic purposes (pp. 1–12). Basingstoke: Modern English Publications/British Council.Google Scholar
Boers, F., Demecheleer, M., & Eyckmans, J.
(2004) Etymological elaborations as a strategy for learning idioms. In P. Bogaards (Ed.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing (pp. 53–78). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruce, N.
(2002) Dovetailing language and content: Teaching balanced argument in legal problem answer writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 321–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clemen, G.
(1997) The concept of hedging: Origins, approaches and definitions. In R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 235–248). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S.
(1993) Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crompton, P.
(1997) Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferris, D.
(1997) The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B.
(2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J.
(2014) Teaching L2 composition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Garner, B.
(Ed.) (2011) Black’s law dictionary (4th pocket ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Group.Google Scholar
Gotti, M.
(2011) Investigating specialized discourse (3rd ed.). Bern: Peter Lang DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J.
(1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs, & G. Steen. (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 82–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S., & Tyson, S.
(1996) Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hewings, M., & Hewings, A.
(2002) “It is interesting to note that …”: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 367–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, E.
(1997) Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 361–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J.
(1988) Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 20–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huebler, A.
(1983) Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K.
(1994) Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433–453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998) Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. & Milton, J.
(1997) Hedging in L1 and L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2): 183–206 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1972) Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, 8, 183–228.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, D. S., Hall, C., & Hurley, M.
(1999) American legal English: Using language in legal contexts. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Markkanen, R., & Schroeder, H.
(1989) Hedging as a translation problem in scientific texts. In C. Lauren & M. Nordman. (Eds.), Special languages: From human thinking to thinking machines (pp. 171–175). London: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. & Carter, R.
(1994) Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Myers, G.
(1989) The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neumann, R. K. Jr. & Tiscione, K. K.
(2013) Legal reasoning and legal writing (7th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer Law and Business.Google Scholar
Oates, L. C. & Enquist, A.
(2014) The legal writing handbook (6th ed.) New York: Wolters Kluwer Law and Business.Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F.
(1994) Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skelton, J.
(1988) The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal, 42, 37–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, H.
(2009) Modality in L2 legal writing: A functional analysis. The Language Research Bulletin, 24. Retrieved July 25, 2016. [URL]
Taylor, J.
(2003) Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. & Evans, V.
(2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vande Kopple, W.
(1985) Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vass, H.
(2004) Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genres. Ibérica, 7, 125–141.Google Scholar
Vassileva, I.
(2001) Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Attardo, Salvatore & Lucy Pickering
2018. Afterword. The theoretical and applied foundations of Andrea Tyler’s approach to the study of language. In Language Learning, Discourse and Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing, 64], ► pp. 301 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.