Reference to descriptive acts as a key hedging technique in academic discourse

Introduction. Modern professional and scientific communication is characterized by globalization of the academic space, in which scientists, strictly adhering to the principles of scientific ethics and norms of academic courtesy, rely on certain established norms in communication and interaction with each other, arguing their judgments and actions based on any official sources, precedent texts and institutional documents through multilevel hedging markers. to absolve oneself of epistemic responsibility for the proposed proposition. In this case, the reference to descriptive acts serves as one of the fundamental hedging mechanisms in institutional academic discourse, providing mitigation of categorical and assertive statements by delegating epistemic responsibility to documented research, authoritative normative texts and established institutional practices, thus implementing implicit strategies of rhetorical influence on the recipient and maintaining dialogue in the professional community. Materials and methods. The empirical research corpus includes scientific articles from the еLIBRARY in German and English, as well as a review of a dissertation in Russian, where descriptive acts implement hedging through references to certain sources. Analysis. The article analyzes the linguistic implementation of descriptive hedges (citation constructions, references, axiomatic statements) and their role in argumentation and representation of the results of various scientific papers. It is emphasized that reliance on descriptive acts promotes compliance with the norms of academic politeness, especially in multilingual contexts (foreign and Russian-language scientific discourse), and also ensures the acceptability of scientific statements in the professional community. Results. Thus, it is established that descriptive acts are universal and have high rhetorical effectiveness in written academic genres, since their systematic use activates strategies of implicit influence, minimizes conflict and enhances persistence, providing legitimacy of judgments within the institutional framework of the scientific community. 

1. Borisova TG., Bredikhina, YuI. Directives as a Base to Algorithmize the Client’s Actions in the Boundary Discourse of Social Work. Philology. Theory & Practice. 2024;17 (11):4180–4185. (In Russ.).

2. Bredikhin SN. Theory of Noncooperative Games in Generation and Interpretation of Utterances in Institutional Discourse. Professional'naya kommunikatsiya: aktual'niye voprosi lingvistiki i metodiki. 2023;16:50–58. (In Russ.).

3. Bredikhina YuI., Bredikhin MS. Factors and Markers of Institutional Discourse Paternalization. Professional'naya kommunikatsiya: aktual'niye voprosi lingvistiki i metodiki. 2025;18-3:20–27. (In Russ.).

4. Vlasyan GR. Hedging as a way to harmonize communication in the process of social interaction in Journalistic text in a new technological environment: achievements and problems: proceedings of the III PMMIS (Post massmedia in the modern information society) conference. Chelyabinsk: ChSU publ., 2019. P.74–77. (In Russ.).

5. Gribanova TI. The rhetorical potential of hedging tactics in English-language academic discourse (based on scientific and technical research articles) in Rhetorical traditions in the age of digitalization: mat. XXIII International Scientific Conference (February 6-8, 2020). Moscow: MSLU publ,, 2020. P. 247–260. (In Russ.).

6. Mavrinsky II. Review of MV. Melkoi's dissertation «Philosophical and anthropological understanding of the phenomenon of shame» URL: https://spbu.ru/sites/default/files/recenzy_mavrinskii_melkaya.pdf (date of request: 03.03.2026) (In Russ.).

7. Pocheptsov GG. Theory of communication. Moscow: Refl-book, 2001. 656 p. (In Russ.).

8. Pocheptsov OG. Fundamentals of the pragmatic description of the proposal. Kiev: Visha shkola, 1986. 116 p. (In Russ.).

9. Svetaylov BV. Linguistic and Socio-Cultural Features of Hedging in Scientific Discourse (by the Material of Texts of English-Language Scientific Articles on Economics). Philology. Theory & Practice. 2022; 15 (7): 2301–2306. (In Russ.).

10. Chekmaeva NA. Dialogue with another in academic discourse in Multidimensional space of modern linguistics: a collection of works by young scientists. Moscow: Yazyki narodov mira. 2019, p. 334–342. (In Russ.).

11. Bredikhin SN., Marchenko TV., Burov AA. Cognitive generative pragmaitcs of transdisciplinary intermediary terms in Synergy of Languages & Cultures 2022: Interdisciplinary Studies. St. Petersburg: SPSU publ., 2023. p. 70–79.

12. Brown Р., Levinson SC. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 345 p.

13. Hübler A. Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1983. 192 p.

14. Hyland K. Talking to the Academy. Forms of Hedging in Science Research Articles. Written Communication. 1996;13(2):251–281.

15. Lakoff G. Hedges: A Study In Meaning Criteria And The Logic Of Fuzzy Concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 1973;2(4):458–508.

16. Lewin, B. Hedging: Form and Function in Scientific Research Texts. Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes. 1998;9:89–108.

17. Prince E., Frader J., Bosk C. On Hedging in Physician-Physician Discourse in Linguistics and the Professions. Proceedings of the Second Annual Delaware Symposium on Language Studies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1982: 83–97. (In Eng.).

18. Tran TQ., Tang TB. Hedging in the Results and Discussion Section of English Applied Linguistics Research Articles by Vietnamese and Foreign Writers Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 2022;1(13):119–124. (In Eng.).

19. Wales KA Dictionary of Stylistics. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2011. 496 p.

20. Zelianouskaya AW. Modalverben als Ausdrucksmittel der Vermutung URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_46207400_37303445.pdf (дата обращения: 07.03.2026)