HEDGING IN COURTROOM DISCOURSE

The article presents an analysis of the functions of hedging devices used by participants of the courtroom procedure. Hedging is viewed in the article as a communicative strategy aimed at attenuating the communicative impact that the utterance could produce on the hearer. In studying the structural types and functions of hedges in courtroom discourse the authors give close attention to the stage of the trial procedure (Examination-in-Chief, Cross-Examination and Re-Examination) and its participants (lawyers, the judge, witnesses, the defendant). Statistical analysis of the use of hedging devices by trial participants points to considerable differences in their usage in the speech of witnesses and lawyers, judges and defendants, including functional differences. Hedging devices are more common at the examination-in-chief stage than during cross-examination and re-examination. Among the functions of hedging used by witnesses the authors observed lack of knowledge (most common), saving face and mitigating a claim. The prevailing function traced in the speech of lawyers with witnesses and the judge was lack of knowledge. Judges used epistemic verbs, reporting verbs and expressions, adverbials, softening expressions and shift of tenses to save face, prevent conflict and build and maintain relationship. The frequency of hedges correlates with the stage of the trial.