Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of English Language, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Lorestan University of Lorestan, Khorramabad, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of English Language, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran.

3 PhD candidate,, Criminal Law and Criminology, Islamic Azad University, Khomein Branch.

10.30473/il.2025.75063.1701

Abstract

Hedges are linguistic tools that reduce the certainty of statements, enabling speakers to manage responsibility, protect face, and navigate social relationships. This study explores hedging in family court discourse, using Hyland’s (1996, 1998) interpersonal model, which frames hedges as interactional resources balancing propositional meaning with social relations. Data were collected from 15 divorce court hearings and analyzed through a corpus-based quantitative and qualitative discourse approach. Participants were grouped into legal professionals (judges/lawyers) and lay individuals (spouses), and hedge usage was examined by type (lexical/syntactic), gender, and interactional context. Results show hedge use is influenced by social roles, gender, and communicative goals. Unexpectedly, men used more hedges than women, suggesting a strategic function—mitigating responsibility, softening claims, and preserving self-image. Legal professionals used the fewest hedges, likely reflecting institutional norms and the demand for authoritative speech. Lexical hedges appeared more frequently than syntactic ones, possibly due to psychological pressure, time constraints, and the urgency of courtroom communication.
This study, situated at the intersection of language, gender, power, and identity, reveals that hedges serve as strategic tools of discursive agency in high-stakes legal settings. The findings have implications for legal discourse analysis, institutional linguistics, and training in courtroom communication, especially within family law.

Keywords

Main Subjects

 
Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. John Benjamins Publishing.
Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organization of verbal interaction in judicial settings. Macmillan.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. Continuum.
Boye, K. (2012). Epistemic meaning: A cross-linguistic and functional-cognitive study. De Gruyter Mouton.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Caffi, C. (1999). On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 881–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8
Carli, A. (1990). Gender, Language, and Influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Chaemsaithong, K. (2015). Stance expressions in the courtroom: A diachronic perspective on courtroom discourse [Doctoral dissertation, Hanyang University].
Chen, J., & Zhang, Y. (2022). A study of hedges in courtroom oral arguments from the perspective of contextual adaptation. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Publications (IJMRAP), Volume 4, Issue 8, pp. 95-100, 2022.
Coates, J. (1996). Women talk: Conversation between women friends. Blackwell.
 
Cotterill, J. (2003). Language and power in court: A linguistic analysis of the O.J. Simpson trial. Palgrave Macmillan.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00017-5
Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ehrlich, S. (2001). Representing rape: Language and sexual consent. Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
Estaji, A. and Afshin, F. (2012). A Study of Hedging in Persian Academic Papers. Language Research2(2), 17-36. [in Persian]
Fishman, P. M. (1980). Conversational insecurity. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 127-132). Pergamon Press. 
Fraser, B. (2010a). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch, & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp. 15–34). Emerald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253247_003
Fraser, B. (2010b). Hedging in political discourse: The Bush 2007 press conferences. In U. Okulska & P. Cap (Eds.), Perspectives in politics and discourse (pp. 201–214). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.191.11
Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Blackwell.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hassani, M., & Razmdideh, P. (2019). The Effect of Gender and Style Variables on Hedging Devices among Persian Speakers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 8(3), 130-137. doi:https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.8n.3p.130
Heffer, C. (2005). The language of jury trial: A corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse. Palgrave Macmillan.
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. E. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Wiley-Blackwell.
Heng, C. S., & Tan, H. (2002). Extracting and comparing the intricacies of metadiscourse. Discourse Studies, 4(3), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040030501
Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. Language & Communication, 10(3), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(90)90011-V
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. Longman.
Hyland, K. (1995). The author in the text: Hedging scientific writing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, 33–42.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hu ̈bler, A. (1983). Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia , PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on “I think”. John Benjamins.
Khaleqi, Z. and Imani, A. (2022). A Gender- and Age-Based Study of “Hedges” in the Speech of Persian Speakers. Journal of Researches in Linguistics14(2), 25-46. doi: 10.22108/jrl.2023.136310.1705
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00249188
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper & Row.
Lebedeva, I. S., & Gribanova, T. I. (2019). Hedging in courtroom discourse. Philology: Scientific Research, 4, 35–42.
Malyuga, E., & McCarthy, M. (2018). English and Russian vague category markers in business discourse: Linguistic identity aspects. Journal of pragmatics135, 39-52.
Mauranen, A. (1997). Hedging in language revisers’ hands. In R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 115–133). Walter de Gruyter.
Mortensen, S. S., & Mortensen, J. (2021). Epistemic stance in courtroom interaction. Discourse & Society, 32(4), 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926521991591
Mulac, A., & Lundell, T. L. (1994). Effects of gender-linked language differences in adults’ written discourse: Multivariate tests of language effects. Language & Communication, 14(3), 299–309.
Najafi, P. , Niazi, N. and Ashkani, P. (2025). A corpus-based study of Linguistic and Legal Functions of the Discourse Marker “Khob” in the Iranian Judicial System. Linguistic Studies: Theory and Practice, (), -. doi: 10.22034/jls.2025.143418.1233 [in Persian]
Naghizadeh, M. , Tavangar, M. and Amoozadeh, M. (2011). An Inquiry into the Concept of Subjectivity Involving Modal Verbs in Persian. Journal of Researches in Linguistics3(4), 1-20. [in Persian]
O’Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. Academic Press.
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Prince, E. F., Frader, J., & Bosk, C. L. (1982). On hedging in physician–physician discourse. In R. J. Di Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the professions (pp. 83–97). Ablex.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90007-5
Salager-Meyer, F. (2000). Referencing behavior in scientific writing: A diachronic study. English for Specific Purposes, 19(3), 279–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00013-9
Skelton, J. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal, 42(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/42.1.37
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Swann, J. (1992) Girls, Boys and Language. Oxford: Blackwell. 
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage Publications.
Vass, H. (2015). Analysing hedging in legal discourse using small-scale and large-scale corpora. College Sidekick.(collegesidekick.com)
Vass, H. (2004). Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genres. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 17(2), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2021-0011
Wilss, W. (1997). Knowledge and skills in translator behavior.
Zhang, Y. (2021). Pragmatic analysis of hedges used in defendant's arguments in civil courts: A case study of Lao Rongzhi. Modern Chinese, 10, 78–84.