English grammar - Roger Berry 2012
Ronald Carter and Michael McCarthy
D6 Hedging and boosting
Section D Extension
Ronald Carter and Michael McCarthy (2006) reprinted from Cambridge Grammar of English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 279-284.
This reading is different from previous ones in that it does not consist of continuous prose, like the articles and book chapters in other readings, but rather of an extract from a well-known reference grammar (a grammar which is intended primarily for finding answers to specific questions).
The information it contains is useful, as it relates to the grammatical areas described in B6 (modality) and elsewhere (e.g. the passive in A6), but it is also important for acquainting you with the nature of reference grammars and with how to use them as independent sources of information.
A third reason for adopting this reading is that it adopts a different approach to grammar by looking at it in one particular ’genre’, in this case academic communication. The idea underlying this approach is that grammar operates differently according to the genre (e.g. business letters vs e-mails), as well as to the mode (speech vs writing). Whether this is more a matter of frequency and tendencies rather than different grammatical systems is discussed more fully in A12.
Note the use of sometimes lengthy authentic examples, and the use of glosses in brackets ahead of examples to describe the sub-genres in volved. Bold is used for highlighted items (as opposed to underlining in this book).
Academic texts are most frequently characterised by a desire to avoid making claims and statements that are too direct and assertive, since academic discourse is often about theories, conclusions drawn from evidence, exchanging viewpoints, and so on, rather than hard, indisputable facts. Therefore, hedging (making a proposition less assertive) is very important in academic styles. Less often, it is sometimes also necessary to assert a claim or viewpoint quite directly and more confidently, a process we shall refer to as boosting.
Hedging and boosting are principally realised through modal expressions and through the use of simple tense forms. We also examine the role of adverbs and other constructions in asserting (boosting) and hedging.
Modality and tense-aspect 146a
Will is used to make confident predictions or to assert known or accepted facts:
Represented as a value between zero and one, X will approach unity in perfectly flat and open terrain, whereas locations with obstructions such as buildings and trees will cause X to become proportionally less (Oke, 1992).
[pathology lecture]
Right. Red blood cells leaving the capillaries and then entering the tissues. They’ll break down there and haemoglobin will be released and the tissue will turn black and eventually will go.
Must is used to make confident predictions or conclusions:
Such changes must be due to changes in motivational organisation of social behaviour.
Must is also used in boosted directives to the reader/listener to pay attention to particular points:
We must remember, however, that migrants may not need information about more than one destination.
(compare the weaker: We should remember, however, . . .)
It is useful to try to apply these general stages when considering any piece of worked stone. As always, they are meant to help us understand the processes and as such are merely an intellectual framework. Therefore one must not apply them too rigidly.
The unmodified simple forms of verb tenses are used to make non-hedged assertions:
Attachment, then, results in close and prolonged proximity of bacterial digestive enzymes with the substrate.
(compare the hedged: Attachment, then, may/can/could/might/should result in close and prolonged proximity of bacterial digestive enzymes with the substrate.)
Adams believed that the Washington government must, for material as well as moral reasons, fight an aggressive war for American commerce.
(compare: Adams may have believed/Adams probably believed . . .)
Hedging: modality 146b
Can, could, might and may
Broadly speaking, can, could, might and may are used in academic style in the same way as they are used in general English, but one or two usages which are more frequent in academic style are worth noting. Academic English often needs to state possibilities rather than facts, and academics frequently hypothesise and draw tentative conclusions.
Can is often used to make fairly confident but not absolute assertions, in contrast with could, might or may (see below):
These new insights into the multiple meanings of family can help us understand the experience of transnational migration.
(asserting a claim of what is normal, i.e. almost equivalent to ’these new insights . . . help us understand . . .’, but framed as ’usually/normally’ rather than ’always’)
Could and might are used for more tentative assertions:
One could say that our concept of selfhood is radically contaminated by the mindset of ’this is mine’, ’I am this’.
[consultant (A) tutoring a student doctor]
A: Right. Very good. What do you think might have happened since he left hospital that caused this ulcer to break down yet again?
B: He could have either occluded his graft.
A: Yes.
B: Or the area could have become infected.
A: Okay. Now is there any clinical evidence that he might have occluded his graft?
[on the behaviour of young birds]
Thus, one might conclude that the predisposition to respond to pattern or flicker only affects the further development of a preference in that it might help to guide the young bird towards objects having these characteristics.
A particular use of may, which is very common in academic texts, is to describe things which are likely to occur or which normally do occur. In this usage it is a formal equivalent of can:
Parallel vertical pipes, several centimetres long and 1-2 mm thick, are common in much of the unit, but especially in the middle part, where there may be several in each cm horizontal section.
[on mental health and mental retardation]
The anger experience may culminate in a variety of behavioural reactions, including aggression or withdrawal.
May is also widely used in a more general way in academic texts to make a proposition more tentative. May is less tentative than could or might:
This change may also have been in progress in other counties.
[CFS = chronic fatigue syndrome]
Overall, one may conclude that the present study has shown that patients with CFS have psychomotor impairments, problems maintaining attention, and are visually sensitive.
Would
Would is frequently used to hedge assertions which someone might challenge and to make argumentative claims less direct when used with speech-act verbs such as advocate, argue, assume, claim, propose, suggest:
Given this, we would argue that the Iowa sample has provided a unique opportunity to examine a number of important questions regarding schizophrenia, including the issue of mortality.
Theoretically, one would assume that this increased bacterial mass would synthesise more enzymes.
[lecture on the teaching of language and literature]
And students think that by reading a text, getting the information from it, they have understood it. They are, I would suggest, full of the understanding of one level: the referential meaning.
Would is also frequently used with appear and seem:
It would seem that in this domain, as in so many others, the north was more favoured than the south.
(compare the more assertive: It seems that in this domain . . .)
Should and ought to
Should allows the writer/speaker to describe desired or ideal situations. It is less strong than must:
However, to assess different advantages and disadvantages in other circumstances, the chosen method should be examined critically before use. (compare the stronger: . . . the chosen method must be examined . . .)
Ought to is occasionally used in this way in academic style, but is much less frequent than should:
Our use of the term ’stable’ ought to be defined here.
Should is used to hedge conclusions and predictions, but it expresses confidence in the probability that a situation will occur in a particular way:
The overall agreement of the results should allow us to accept them with some confidence.
(compare the more direct: . . . the results allow us to accept . . .)
[English literature lecture]
Okay. You should be able to see the connections already and hopefully you can see what Anderson is saying in this extract.
Hedging: other expressions 146c
Hedging in academic texts is often carried out by the use of a range of adverbial and prepositional constructions (plus some other types of expression). Their full effect can often best be observed by removing them from the example sentences quoted here.
Common hedging expressions include adverbs such as:
It was, arguably, the strongest leadership the department had ever had and it used its resources well.
They are both from roughly the same period in the middle of the sixteenth century.
Yet, seemingly for Bakhtin, though material forces no doubt exist, what determines that we know about them at all are intersubjective human relations.
Common prepositional phrases and other expressions used as hedges include:
Survey researchers have as a rule understandably preferred to make use of established diagnostic categories, rather than have to develop their own new ones and then try to persuade clinicians to accept these.
[critique of a collection of political essays]
Thus the essays were, in a sense, out of date when they appeared, yet the cultural tradition which they articulate and to which they contribute remains a part of the German scene to this day.
This summary more or less encapsulates the thesis advanced by Glynn in his new and wide-ranging history of arms races and arms control.
Hedging and impersonal constructions 146d
Propositions may be hedged by the use of impersonal it-constructions with passive voice which enable the writer/speaker to avoid the more direct commitment to a proposition which a first person I/we+ active voice may create:
It is suggested that the analytic procedures illustrated in this paper be applied to more widely-used oral testing instruments in order to evaluate their utility in eliciting conversational interaction.
(compare the more direct and personal: I suggest that . . .)
Such impersonal it-constructions may also be used simply to hedge a proposition by attributing it to other, unnamed experts:
It is claimed, or tacitly assumed, in narrative studies that temporality should be explored in narrative texts where it functions as a dominant principle of organisation.
A range of impersonal it-expressions are common in academic texts to attribute propositions to unnamed people. These include:
It is generally agreed that one of the most influential reports published during the war was the Beveridge Report, published in 1942, which mapped out the future welfare state.
Literature, it is claimed, seeks to recapture and reconstruct tradition.
The use of a raised subject as an alternative to, anticipatory it, similarly, enables the writer/speaker to make a less direct commitment to a proposition. Common passive expressions of this type include:
The value placed on children is believed to have changed from pre-industrial societies to the present time.
Operating practices are said to have been a major obstacle to improvement.
Boosting 146e
Boosting in academic texts, to make a claim more assertively, is often carried out by the use of a range of adverbial and prepositional constructions (plus some other types of expression).
Common boosting expressions include adverbs such as:
This is clearly a very restrictive hypothesis, which requires verification, and Lightfoot suggests that language change represents a useful testing ground.
While most people were indisputably poor, the economy had a considerable surplus above basic subsistence needs, although much of that surplus was concentrated in the hands of those in the top 10 per cent or so of the income distribution.
Yet utilities and transport unquestionably provide a service rather than a commodity.
Other expressions used in boosting include:
for sure/for certain there is/was no doubt that
it is/was clear/obvious/ that without doubt indisputable/etc.
It was clear that the Danes would remain neutral, although they offered to approach Catherine II in order to sound her out on a possible settlement.
In the early nineteenth century this was without doubt true of much of the Nord region and the Normandy textile area.
Questions, suggestions and issues to consider
1. In 146a it is said that both must and will are used for confident predictions. To what extent is this true? Look at the examples containing them and try replacing them with each other. Does this make a difference?
2. Look at the hedged statements below. Using your intuitions or the information above, explain the differences in meaning.
3. Are the other hedging expressions listed in 146c equivalent in meaning to the modal auxiliaries in 146a and 146b? Try two tests:
a) replacing the hedging expressions with modals
b) adding modals to the hedging expressions for instance (using the last example):
'This summary can encapsulate . . .
This summary can more or less encapsulate . . .
4. Consider the advantages and disadvantages of using the passive in academic writing as opposed to a personal construction, as for example in
It can be argued that . . . vs We can argue that . . .