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.
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
References (44)
References
Abbuhl, R. (2011). The effect of feedback and instruction on writing quality: Legal writing and advanced L2 learners. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Allison, D. (1995). Assertions and alternatives: Helping ESL undergraduates extend their choices in academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(1), 1–15. 

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.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 

Bruce, N. (2002). Dovetailing language and content: Teaching balanced argument in legal problem answer writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 321–345. 

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. 

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. 

Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271–287. 

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–339. 

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. 

Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2014). Teaching L2 composition. New York: Routledge.
Garner, B. (Ed.). (2011). Black’s law dictionary (4th pocket ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Group.
Gotti, M. (2011). Investigating specialized discourse (3rd ed.). Bern: Peter Lang 

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. 

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. 

Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 361–386. 

Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 20–44. 

Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239–256. 

Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433–453. 

Hyland, K. & Milton, J. (1997). Hedging in L1 and L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2): 183–206 

Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, 8, 183–228.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 

Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lee, D. S., Hall, C., & Hurley, M. (1999). American legal English: Using language in legal contexts. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
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.
McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. New York: Longman.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1–35. 

Neumann, R. K. Jr. & Tiscione, K. K. (2013). Legal reasoning and legal writing (7th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer Law and Business.
Oates, L. C. & Enquist, A. (2014). The legal writing handbook (6th ed.) New York: Wolters Kluwer Law and Business.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170. 

Skelton, J. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal, 42, 37–43. 

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.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 

Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93 

Vass, H. (2004). Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genres. Ibérica, 7, 125–141.
Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 83–102. 

Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Attardo, Salvatore & Lucy Pickering
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 january 2025. 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.