The author responds to a critical analysis by Peter Crompton of definitions in literature on hedge, a linguistic phenomenon understood by linguists in different ways. This analysis of the definition and subsequent test offered by the first author is offered to demonstrate the weaknesses of the proposed thesis. (MSE)

The author replies to criticism of his definition of hedge, a linguistic phenomenon, defending his line of argument and making his assumptions explicit. Concludes that if hedging is to be treated as a linguistic phenomenon, it is the job of linguists to describe it in terms of the choices available within the language system as a whole. (MSE)