Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Do you notice the difference between the fact and the claim in the above?
The fact ‘humans live on Earth’ cannot be proven wrong and so does not
require hedging language, while the claim ‘humans will likely destroy the
planet’ could (in the distant future) be disproven. It is the
hedging adjective ‘likely’ in this claim that provides caution, protecting the
speaker or writer from being wrong. Hedging language, therefore, offers a
type of modality that allows the speaker or writer to indicate their degree of
confidence or certainty when delivering an idea or claim.
However, although the previous claim that ‘humans will likely destroy the
planet’ uses some hedging language, this claim still isn’t easy to disprove
because there’s no time limitation to that statement. Because we don’t know
when humans may or may not destroy the planet, the writer or speaker may
sound fairly confident when claiming this (using ‘likely’) without fear of
being easily disproven. But is this true for the following two claims?
Which claim do you think is more certain, and which claim could be more
easily disproven? A or B? Clearly, in claim A, the
hedging adverb ‘probably’ indicates some degree caution, but this is not as
cautious as the hedging phrase ‘it is possible that’ in sentence B. And is this
any surprise? While claim B could be disproven today, it would take 150
years to disprove the speaker in A (which is beyond anyone’s lifetime).
Clearly then, different hedging words and phrases like ‘probably’ or ‘it is
possible that’ may be used to demonstrate varying degrees of caution and
certainty.
Does this sentence have any hedging language, and is its claim true? By
adding hedging language, we can make this claim more accurate and cautious
by highlighting to the reader that it isn’t always the case that students get
higher grades. Instead, we can show that there’s merely a tendency for this to
be true: