Abstract

Nuanced communication heavily relies on hedges, which are linguistic strategies that convey ambiguity or uncertainty. In many computational tasks, such as sentiment analysis and natural language processing, it is crucial to assess the degree of uncertainty introduced by a hedge accurately. This paper outlines a technique for extracting hedges. It provides a detailed examination of one of their features, specifically the level of fuzziness associated with them, thereby facilitating more efficient information retrieval. Additionally, it aims to lay the groundwork for a "Fuzziness Score" for hedges by investigating key factors, potential methodologies, and associated challenges.

References

• Blankenship, Kevin L., and Thomas Holtgraves (2005), "The Role of Different Markers of Linguistic Powerlessness in Persuasion," Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24 (1), 3–24.
• Bradac, James J., and Anthony Mulac (1984), "A Molecular View of Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles: Attributional Consequences of Specific Language Features and Communicator Intentions," Communications Monographs, 51 (4), 307–19.
• Crismore, A., & Kopple, W. J. V. (1990). Rhetorical contexts and hedges. In Rhetoric Society Quarterly (Vol. 20, Issue 1, p. 49). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773949009390869
• Gibbons, Pamela, Jon Busch, and James J. Bradac (1991), "Powerful Versus Powerless Language: Consequences for Persuasion, Impression Formation, and Cognitive Response," Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10 (2), 115–33.
• Holtgraves, Thomas, and Benjamin Lasky (1999), "Linguistic Power and Persuasion," Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18 (2), 196–205.
• Hosman, Lawrence A., Thomas M. Huebner, and Susan A. Siltanen (2002), "The Impact of Power-of-Speech Style, Argument Strength, and Need for Cognition on Impression Formation, Cognitive Responses, and Persuasion," Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21 (4), 361–379.
• Hosman, Lawrence A., and Susan A. Siltanen (2011), "Hedges, Tag Questions, Message Processing, and Persuasion," Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30 (3), 341-49.
• Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the Academy. In Written Communication (Vol. 13, Issue 2, p. 251). SAGE Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013002004
• Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 2 (4), 458-508.
• Lakoff, George (1975), "Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts," in Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics, Springer, Dordrecht, 221–71.
• Marta, M. M. (2015). A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE MEDICAL RESEARCH ARTICLE. In Medicine and Pharmacy Reports (Vol. 88, Issue 4, p. 567). https://doi.org/10.15386/cjmed-560
• Meyer, Paul G (1997), "Hedging Strategies in Written Academic Discourse: Strengthening the Argument by Weakening the Claim," Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 24, 21.
• Mifdal, M., & Lewis, M. (2023). Revisiting the use of hedges and boosters in scientific research articles in Morocco: Caution that does not exclude conviction. In Cultures of Science (Vol. 6, Issue 1, p. 113). SAGE Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1177/20966083231159737
• Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical written English discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170.
• Sparks, John R., Charles S. Areni, and K. Chris Cox (1998), "An Investigation of the Effects of Language Style and Communication Modality on Persuasion," Communications Monographs, 65 (2), 108–25.