MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING QUY NHON UNIVERSITY TRAN THI DIEU AI A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF HEDGES USED IN DONALD TRUMP’S AND JOE BIDEN’S INAUGURAL SPEECHES Field: The English Lang
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
The inaugural speeches of U.S presidents are crucial in shaping national and international perceptions, marking the official beginning of their terms These speeches establish the tone for future policies and reflect the administration's core values and priorities Effective language is essential for communicating vision, building trust, and fostering unity Notably, the use of hedging in these speeches allows presidents to navigate assertiveness while maintaining caution and inclusivity.
Hedging in political discourse is a vital strategy that allows leaders to navigate the complexities of public communication By employing linguistic devices that introduce flexibility and manage uncertainty, political figures can articulate their goals while maintaining adaptability in the face of unpredictable challenges For presidents addressing the nation and the world, hedging enables them to modulate their messages, providing assurances and outlining objectives without making absolute commitments to specific outcomes This approach is crucial for engaging both supporters and opponents, as it conveys confidence while allowing for reinterpretation or modification based on changing circumstances.
Hedging is a crucial rhetorical tool in political language, yet research on its use in presidential inaugural speeches is limited Most studies have focused on written political discourse or formal interviews, neglecting the dynamic nature of spoken addresses during significant events like inaugurations These occasions pose unique challenges for political leaders, who must use language to both inform and inspire This study addresses the gap by examining how Donald Trump and Joe Biden utilize hedging in their inaugural speeches, highlighting how each leader navigates their specific rhetorical and political contexts.
This study examines how presidents strategically employ hedging through Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle, which emphasizes conversational maxims of Quality, Quantity, Relation, and Manner, and Vattarla’s (2001) classification of hedges into lexical, clausal, and phrasal categories By applying Grice’s maxims, the research highlights the pragmatic role of hedges in shaping interpretation, enabling speakers to maintain clarity, relevance, and truthfulness while fostering cooperation without excessive assertiveness Vattarla’s framework further aids in systematically identifying various hedging forms, shedding light on how these linguistic devices enhance the overall tone and persuasive impact of presidential speeches.
This research analyzes the inaugural addresses of Trump and Biden to explore how hedging serves as an effective rhetorical strategy in political communication It underscores the importance of hedging in enhancing presidential rhetoric, enabling leaders to deliver assertive yet adaptable messages By employing hedging techniques, political figures can connect with varied audiences while preserving their credibility and authority, ultimately enriching our understanding of political discourse.
Aim and Objectives
This study conducts a comparative analysis of the hedges used in the inaugural speeches of Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden It aims to identify and analyze the various forms and types of hedges employed by each speaker, highlighting their contributions to the overall tone and persuasiveness of the speeches.
In line with the formulation of the aim, the objectives of this research are:
1) To identify and analyze forms and types of hedges in Donald Trump's inaugural speech
2) To identify and analyze forms and types of hedges in Joe Biden's inaugural speech
3) To compare and contrast hedges in Donald Trump's inaugural speech and Joe Biden's inaugural speech.
Research Questions
The present study answers three research questions as follows:
1) What are the forms and types of hedges in Donald Trump's inaugural speech?
2) What are the forms and types of hedges in Joe Biden's inaugural speech?
3) What are the similarities and differences in hedges used in Donald Trump's inaugural speech and Joe Biden's inaugural speech?
Significance
This research explores the use of hedges as a linguistic strategy in presidential debates, offering valuable theoretical insights and practical applications for readers.
This study offers valuable insights into the application of hedges, particularly within political contexts, and serves as a useful resource for those interested in further exploring this topic Readers can utilize this research as a foundational guide for their future investigations into hedges.
This study aims to enhance readers' understanding of hedges in both political and everyday contexts By recognizing hedges in language, readers will gain insights into their usage and learn how to effectively respond to hedged statements.
Scope of The Study
This study examines the use of hedges in the Inaugural Addresses of President Donald J Trump, delivered on January 20, 2017, and President Joseph R Biden, Jr., delivered on January 20, 2021, both held at the West Front of the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C The analysis specifically focuses on the hedging language utilized by the presidents in their speeches.
Outline of The Report
This report includes five chapters as follows:
Chapter 1, Introduction, shows the rationale, aims and objectives of the study, research questions, significance, scope of the study and design of the study
Chapter 2, Literature Review, provides theory preliminaries for the study, then presents the relevant studies
Chapter 3, Research Design and Methodology, introduces the research methods, research process, data collection, data analysis and reliability of the study
Chapter 4, Findings and Discussion, presents the results of the data analysis, with interpretations and comments
Chapter 5, Conclusion, draws conclusions, implications and limitations of the study.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Definition of Hedges
Scholars such as Markkanen and Schruder (1997), Skelton (1988), Caffi (1999), Meyer (1997), Holmes (1990), and Nikula (1997) have provided various definitions of hedges, all highlighting their importance in reducing directness, expressing uncertainty, and ensuring politeness in communication Brown and Levinson (1987) describe hedges as linguistic tools that soften utterances, often indicating uncertainty or tentativeness These linguistic elements are essential in discourse, allowing speakers to effectively manage interpersonal relationships and navigate social interactions.
Grice's Cooperative Principle (1975) offers a framework for analyzing the pragmatic role of hedges in communication It posits that effective communication relies on cooperative norms, particularly the maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner Hedges function mainly within the quality maxim, enabling speakers to express truthfulness while recognizing the limitations of their information This approach fosters effective communication and enhances cooperation among speakers.
Varttarla (2001) identifies several linguistic methods for expressing hedges, including lexical, morphological, syntactic, and prosodic devices Lexical hedges specifically utilize words and phrases that convey uncertainty, such as "perhaps," "maybe," and "sort of."
Morphological hedges alter the certainty of statements through processes like affixation, exemplified by terms such as "unbelievable" and "ish." Syntactic hedges include modal verbs like "might" and "could," along with clausal elements such as "if" and "unless," which add conditions or qualifications to sentences Additionally, prosodic hedges utilize variations in intonation, stress, or rhythm to express hesitation or doubt in spoken communication.
Understanding the various linguistic methods of expressing hedges is crucial for analyzing their application in contexts such as political discourse Hedges allow speakers to strike a balance between authority and humility, especially in formal occasions like inaugural addresses A comparative analysis of hedges used in the inaugural speeches of political leaders like Donald Trump and Joe Biden provides valuable insights into their linguistic choices and enhances the effectiveness of their communication.
This study explores the various forms and types of hedges used by Trump and Biden in their inaugural speeches, analyzing their frequency, distribution, and pragmatic functions within the discourse.
2.2 Hedging Strategies from Pragmatics Perspective
Hedges are essential in pragmatics, acting as strategies that help speakers maintain interpersonal relationships, express politeness, and negotiate meaning in communication (Brown & Levinson, 1987) They function as linguistic tools that enable individuals to balance assertiveness with politeness, particularly in situations where expressing certainty or commitment could be seen as too aggressive or disrespectful.
Hedges play a crucial role in reducing the potential threat to an individual's social identity, known as "face," as defined by Goffman (1967) According to Brown and Levinson (1987), face-threatening acts (FTAs) can jeopardize the positive self-image of the interlocutor By using hedges, speakers can soften their statements, minimizing the imposition on the listener's face and fostering harmony and social rapport during interactions.
Moreover, hedges facilitate the negotiation of meaning and interpretation in communication According to the theory of implicature proposed by Grice
In communication, speakers convey both explicit statements and implied meanings, with hedges playing a crucial role in this dynamic Hedges indicate the speaker's level of certainty regarding their message, enabling listeners to interpret nuances effectively By serving as pragmatic cues, hedges enhance the inferential process and help guide the listener's comprehension of the intended message.
Hedges play a crucial role in managing politeness in communication, as outlined by Brown and Levinson (1987) They serve as linguistic markers that soften speech acts, reducing the potential imposition on the listener's freedom or face By employing hedges effectively, speakers show awareness of the interlocutor's feelings, fostering positive social interactions and promoting social harmony and cooperation.
Hedges serve as vital hedging strategies in pragmatics by reducing face-threatening acts, aiding in the negotiation of meaning, and managing politeness in communication Grasping the pragmatic implications of hedges is crucial for effective communication and intercultural competence, given their varied usage across linguistic and cultural contexts In political discourse, analyzing hedges reveals important insights into speakers' rhetorical strategies and communicative objectives, illuminating their interpersonal dynamics and persuasive techniques.
Hedging in English encompasses a variety of linguistic expressions that convey uncertainty or vagueness Initially confined to terms like "roughly" or "strictly speaking," the definition of hedging has evolved to include expressions of epistemic modality, which qualify statements based on limited knowledge While modal auxiliaries are often associated with hedging, the concept also involves various lexical and non-lexical devices that contribute to this linguistic phenomenon.
232) categorizes hedges into three primary types: lexical, clausal, and phrasal hedges Table 2.1 below summarizes these categories and their specific linguistic means
Table 2.1: Summary of Types and Linguistic Means of Hedges (Vattarla, 2001)
Lexical Hedges Modal Auxiliaries: Express possibility, probability, or necessity
Full Verbs: Indicate uncertainty or qualification
Adverbs: Modify certainty or intensity
Adjectives: Introduce shades of uncertainty
Nouns: Frame concepts with interpretive flexibility
Introduce conditions or qualifications using clauses
Questions: Open possibilities or invite interpretation
"Could it be that ?", "Is it possible that ?"
Phrasal Hedges Phrasal Verbs: Soften statements or introduce ambiguity
"come across as," "end up"
Phrasal Adverbs: Introduce degrees of approximation
"more or less," "in some way"
Frame statements with qualification or limitation
"in terms of," "with respect to"
Mitigate the force of statements with expressions like "to a certain extent."
"to a certain extent," "in a sense," "arguably"
Lexical hedges are the most recognized forms of hedging and include modal auxiliaries, full verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and nouns
Modal auxiliaries like "could," "might," "may," and "would" play a crucial role in hedging by conveying possibility, probability, or necessity while allowing for flexibility in language For instance, in the phrase "The results could suggest a potential correlation," the use of "could" mitigates the strength of the statement, signaling speculation instead of definitive certainty.
Full verbs such as "seem," "appear," and "tend" function as hedges, expressing uncertainty or qualification in statements For example, the phrase "The findings seem to indicate a trend towards higher levels of engagement" employs "seem" to imply that the interpretation relies on initial evidence rather than conclusive results.
Adverbs like "possibly," "potentially," and "likely" adjust the certainty of statements by adding varying degrees of uncertainty or probability For instance, the phrase "This approach may potentially yield promising results" illustrates how these adverbs modify the strength of the claim.
"potentially" to qualify the outcomes, indicating a level of uncertainty
Forms of Hedges
Introduce conditions or qualifications using clauses
Questions: Open possibilities or invite interpretation
"Could it be that ?", "Is it possible that ?"
Phrasal Hedges Phrasal Verbs: Soften statements or introduce ambiguity
"come across as," "end up"
Phrasal Adverbs: Introduce degrees of approximation
"more or less," "in some way"
Frame statements with qualification or limitation
"in terms of," "with respect to"
Mitigate the force of statements with expressions like "to a certain extent."
"to a certain extent," "in a sense," "arguably"
Lexical hedges are the most recognized forms of hedging and include modal auxiliaries, full verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and nouns
Modal auxiliaries like "could," "might," "may," and "would" play a crucial role in hedging by conveying possibility, probability, or necessity while allowing for flexibility in language For instance, the phrase "The results could suggest a potential correlation" uses "could" to soften the statement, highlighting speculation instead of asserting certainty.
Full verbs such as "seem," "appear," and "tend" function as hedges by expressing uncertainty or qualification For example, the phrase "The findings seem to indicate a trend towards higher levels of engagement" utilizes "seem" to imply that the interpretation relies on preliminary evidence rather than conclusive results.
Adverbs like "possibly," "potentially," and "likely" adjust the certainty of statements, adding layers of uncertainty or probability For instance, the phrase "This approach may potentially yield promising results" illustrates how these adverbs influence the meaning of the statement.
"potentially" to qualify the outcomes, indicating a level of uncertainty
Adjectives such as "possible," "probable," and "likely" convey varying degrees of uncertainty in descriptions For instance, stating "There is a probable correlation between these variables" indicates that while the correlation is plausible, it is not assured.
Nouns like "possibility," "likelihood," and "probability" serve as hedges, enabling nuanced interpretations of concepts For example, the phrase "There is a possibility of unforeseen consequences" employs "possibility" to recognize potential outcomes while avoiding definitive claims.
Clausal hedges include subordinate clauses, conditional statements, and questions, all of which introduce conditions, qualifications, or open-ended possibilities into discourse
Subordinate clauses and conditional statements serve as effective hedges in discourse, allowing for the introduction of conditions and qualifications Phrases such as "if," "unless," and "provided that" add contingencies to assertions For example, in the statement "If these trends continue, there may be cause for concern," the clause "if these trends continue" establishes a condition that must be met for the assertion to be valid.
Questions serve as hedges by encouraging interpretation and expanding possibilities instead of asserting definitive statements Phrasing like "Could it be that ?" or "Is it possible that ?" introduces an element of uncertainty and speculation into discussions For instance, the question "Could there be alternative explanations for these findings?" invites the exploration of different perspectives and interpretations.
Phrasal hedges encompass phrasal verbs, phrasal adjectives, phrasal adverbs, phrasal prepositions, and other phrasal forms These linguistic constructions further nuance statements by embedding hedging within complex phrase structures
Phrasal verbs like "come across as" and "end up" serve to soften statements and create ambiguity in communication For instance, the phrase "This might come across as overly cautious" illustrates how "come across as" can mitigate the strength of an assertion.
Phrasal adjectives like "sort of" or "kind of" qualify descriptions, making them less definitive "He has a sort of reserved demeanor" introduces ambiguity regarding the extent of the reservation
Phrasal adverbs like "more or less" and "in some way" convey degrees of approximation in language For instance, the phrase "The solution is more or less effective" suggests that the effectiveness is not definitive, highlighting the nuances in meaning.
Phrasal prepositions like "in terms of" or "with respect to" frame statements in a way that allows for qualification or limitation For instance,
"With respect to the outcomes, the data is inconclusive" uses "with respect to" to limit the scope of the assertion
Expressions such as "to a certain extent," "in a sense," and "arguably" serve to qualify statements and soften their impact For instance, saying "This is arguably the most effective method" highlights the subjective nature of the claim while still asserting its validity.
"arguably" to soften the assertion
Strategically employing linguistic tools allows speakers to shape audience expectations, express nuanced meanings, and encourage dialogue across various communication settings However, it is crucial to understand that excessive use of hedges can affect the clarity, credibility, and persuasive power of communication, potentially diminishing the strength of assertions and leading to ambiguity in interpretation.
In summary, grasping the role of hedges in language reveals the intricacies of communication By skillfully using these linguistic tools, speakers can adeptly handle the subtleties of conversations, recognize uncertainty, and promote mutual understanding in discussions.
The Cooperative Principle
Grice (1975), a prominent linguist and philosopher, explored how humans interpret language, proposing that effective communication requires cooperation between speakers He introduced the concept of cooperative principles, which are rational guidelines that facilitate smooth interactions Central to these principles is implicature, the ability of interlocutors to derive meaning from each other's statements despite missing information This concept emphasizes that listeners can infer a speaker's intended meaning based on context and shared communicative norms Grice categorized the cooperative principle into four maxims: quality, quantity, relation, and manner, each with distinct characteristics and potential violations.
The maxim of Quantity, as described by Brown and Levinson (1987), emphasizes the importance of providing an appropriate amount of information in communication Quantity hedges suggest that a statement may not be fully accurate or that the speaker may not possess all the necessary information for the situation This principle asserts that individuals should share only the information required for the conversation's purpose, avoiding unnecessary details.
Expressions like "I should think," "basically," and "in short" serve as hedges, indicating varying degrees of certainty and softening the impact of statements In conversations, such phrases help to convey a more nuanced perspective, allowing speakers to present their ideas with caution and consideration.
B: Well, it's too far to walk
Illustrates a Quantity hedge, as it communicates an implicit understanding of the distance without providing a precise measurement, suggesting the speaker’s intention to manage the expectations of the listener (Himmah, 2010, p 34)
Research shows that hedging devices serve important politeness functions, enabling speakers to engage in social interactions with subtlety and ambiguity (Hyland, 1998) These hedges help reduce the potential for miscommunication and demonstrate an understanding of the listener's needs, thereby enhancing the collaborative aspect of conversations (Goffman, 1967).
According to Grice's maxim, conversation participants must prioritize truthfulness, avoiding unverified statements and unsupported claims This means individuals should refrain from discussing topics they cannot substantiate or about which they lack knowledge To convey their commitment to honesty, speakers often use phrases like "I think," "I believe," or assert their sincerity with expressions such as "with complete honesty" or "I promise." Furthermore, they may challenge the assumption that their assertions are meant solely to inform the listener by employing phrases like "as you know" or "as is well known."
(2) As far as I know, they're married
(3) I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw a wedding ring on her finger
(4) He couldn't live without her, I guess
Grice's concept of relevance emphasizes the need for individuals to remain pertinent during conversations However, he acknowledges that the succinct formulation of this maxim conceals complex issues, such as the different types and focuses of relevance, their fluctuations during dialogue, and the legitimate shifts in conversation topics These challenges are difficult for Grice to address, and he plans to explore them in future work (Grice, 1989, p 27) When speakers stray into seemingly unrelated topics, they often employ relevance hedges, using phrases like "oh, by the way" or "well, anyway" to signal their awareness of drifting into non-relevant material and their intention to refocus the discussion.
(5) I don’t know if this is important, but some of the files are missing
(6) Not to change the subject, but is this related to the budget?
Effective communication requires clarity in speech, emphasizing the importance of being orderly and concise while avoiding unnecessary complexity and ambiguity The core message should be easily understood by the listener, as clarity ensures comprehension Phrases such as "what I meant was," "more clearly," or "to put it more simply" serve as manner hedges, illustrating the need for straightforward communication (Himmah, 2010, p 35).
(7) I am not sure if this makes sense, but the car had no lights
(8) I don’t know if this is clear at all, but I think the other car was reversing (Yule, 1996, p 38)
Mixed hedges involve a speaker integrating hedges from various maxims to address multiple conversational concerns at once For example, a speaker might hedge both the Quantity and Quality maxims, reflecting uncertainty about the information's amount and accuracy This technique allows speakers to navigate uncertainty, lessen the impact of their statements, and soften controversial points effectively.
(9) I’m not entirely sure if this is the right place to mention it, but I think the report has some inconsistencies
(10) I might be mistaken, but it seems like this might be a bit too detailed for our current needs
Speakers utilize Mixed Hedges to effectively manage complex communication, ensuring politeness and clarity while conveying multifaceted messages This strategic use of Mixed Hedges enhances flexibility in discourse, especially in political speeches, where addressing audience expectations, maintaining diplomatic ambiguity, and navigating sensitive topics pose significant challenges.
Review of Previous Studies
The exploration of hedging language has evolved from a focus solely on academic discourse to include political discourse, particularly in recent years Research into the linguistic aspects of political communication, especially in inaugural speeches and interviews, reveals how political leaders utilize specific strategies to effectively convey their messages and influence public opinion.
Fraser (2010) analyzed President George W Bush Jr.'s use of hedging in 2007 press conferences, revealing that hedging was employed as a strategic communication tool rather than a means to avoid questions This insight illustrates that the function of hedges varies based on political context and the speaker's goals Building on Fraser's research, this study shifts focus to inaugural speeches to explore whether the purpose and frequency of hedging differ in ceremonial contexts, highlighting the distinct rhetorical requirements of such occasions.
Jalilifar and Alavi (2012) investigated hedging in political interviews, finding that presidents hedge less than other political figures due to their authority and confidence Their study highlighted the use of the pronoun "we" as a hedging device to promote solidarity and politeness, indicating that hedges play a role in managing interpersonal dynamics By analyzing hedges in inaugural speeches, this research seeks to determine if similar patterns occur in formal speech contexts and if solidarity strategies vary between different administrations.
Rabab'ah and Abu Rumman (2015) examined King Abdullah II's political speeches and found that hedges were frequently employed to convey vagueness, politeness, or a lack of commitment, with modal auxiliaries like "can" being the most common hedging devices This study seeks to compare these findings with the use of modal auxiliaries in the speeches of Trump and Biden, aiming to determine if similar linguistic patterns are present in American political discourse or if contextual and cultural factors contribute to differences.
Smith's (2010) research on euphemisms and Jones' (2015) study of metaphors and hyperboles in inaugural speeches highlight the significant impact of linguistic devices on public perception These studies underscore the necessity of analyzing specific language features, like hedges, to grasp how leaders craft persuasive narratives Building on the work of Smith and Jones, this research specifically focuses on hedging, a nuanced linguistic phenomenon that is vital for attaining rhetorical goals.
Nguyen and Nguyen (2016) examined hedging strategies in celebrity discourse within American and Vietnamese contexts, revealing significant cultural and linguistic variations Although their research did not specifically address political rhetoric, it provides valuable insights into the cultural aspects of hedging This study builds on their findings by comparing the rhetorical styles of Trump and Biden, highlighting how their approaches may reflect contrasting ideological and cultural influences.
Research highlights the complex role of hedging in political communication, yet there is a significant lack of analysis regarding its use in inaugural speeches across various administrations This oversight misses an important aspect of political discourse: the way hedging strategies are utilized to balance authority and rapport, manage ideological nuances, and influence public dialogue in ceremonial settings.
This study systematically identifies and analyzes hedges in the inaugural speeches of Donald Trump and Joe Biden, employing Grice’s (1975) framework for hedge types and Varttala’s (2001) framework for hedge forms By comparing the rhetorical and ideological functions of these hedges, the research builds on foundational works by Fraser, Jalilifar and Alavi, and Rabab’ah and Abu Rumman, while also expanding Smith and Jones’ rhetorical analyses to encompass the nuanced role of hedges.
This study enhances the comprehension of hedging in political communication while providing a fresh perspective on how linguistic choices mirror leadership styles and political agendas By integrating its findings into the wider context of discourse analysis and political linguistics, this research advances the ongoing investigation of language as a strategic tool for political influence.
Chapter Summary
This chapter delves into Grice's (1975) Cooperative Principle, focusing on its four maxims: Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner, and their connection to hedging strategies in communication It highlights how speakers navigate uncertainties and manage their statements across different contexts The concept of Mixed Hedges is introduced, illustrating how various maxims can be combined to address complex conversational dynamics Additionally, the chapter reviews prior research on hedging in political discourse, tracing its evolution from academic analysis to political rhetoric, while identifying gaps in the literature, particularly in the context of U.S presidential inaugural speeches The insights drawn from various political contexts emphasize the importance of hedging in managing authority, politeness, and audience engagement.
This chapter details the research methodology employed in a comparative analysis of hedging strategies in the inaugural speeches of Donald Trump and Joe Biden It builds on the theoretical foundations established in the previous chapter, which examined Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Vattarla’s framework for linguistic hedging The study utilizes a qualitative approach combined with systematic linguistic analysis, emphasizing the pragmatic functions and rhetorical effects of hedges within each speech Data collection methods and analytical procedures are also outlined to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research process.
This study utilizes a descriptive, qualitative research design to investigate the role of hedges in inaugural addresses, highlighting their complex meanings in real-world contexts, as noted by Vanderstoep and Johnston (2009) By employing qualitative analysis, the research provides a context-sensitive examination of hedging's multifaceted function in political rhetoric This method allows for an in-depth understanding of the rhetorical effects of hedging in the speeches of Trump and Biden, revealing how each leader manages authority, flexibility, and rapport-building in a high-stakes environment.
Qualitative research is essential for analyzing inaugural addresses due to their significant rhetorical impact, as presidents utilize these speeches to convey visions while fostering inclusivity, adaptability, and assurance This approach allows for a nuanced interpretation of the layered meanings within political discourse, where subtle shifts in language can greatly affect public perception Furthermore, the study emphasizes how hedging techniques help speakers navigate uncertainty and complexity, illustrating the connection between language use and specific political goals.
In this study, Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle and Vattarla’s
The framework established by Vattarla (2001) for categorizing hedges serves as a solid basis for analysis, while Grice’s Cooperative Principle—encompassing the maxims of Quality, Quantity, Relation, and Manner—provides valuable insights into how hedges influence effective communication This pragmatic approach enables an understanding of how presidents navigate assertiveness and openness in their communication styles Vattarla's classification of hedges into lexical, clausal, and phrasal forms enhances the application of Grice's maxims, allowing for a systematic identification and categorization of linguistic hedges in political speeches Together, these frameworks facilitate a thorough analysis of both the form and function of hedges within the realm of political discourse.
The data for this study consists of hedges identified in the inaugural speeches of Donald Trump and Joe Biden, sourced from official transcripts on the White House website
The primary data sources for this research were:
The official White House transcripts of Donald Trump’s and Joe Biden’s inaugural addresses serve as the primary data source, offering a reliable foundation for identifying hedging language due to their precise documentation of the speeches' content.
The researcher was instrumental in analyzing data and identifying hedging devices, reflecting the qualitative research tradition where interpretation is crucial To facilitate systematic data collection, a comprehensive data sheet was developed to record all instances of hedging Each instance was categorized by its linguistic form—lexical, clausal, or phrasal—and its function in speech, such as hedging assertions, mitigating commitments, or signaling politeness.
Three primary types of data collection techniques, as suggested by Vanderstoep and Johnston (2009), were integrated into this research:
- Document Analysis: The analysis of textual transcripts provided the foundation for identifying linguistic hedges
- Observational Insights: While not involving direct interaction, this approach involved examining the language use in context, focusing on how the speeches were structured to address their audiences
- Historical Context Analysis: This included understanding the inaugural address format's significance and its influence on rhetorical strategies, including hedging
The data analysis employed Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Vattarla’s linguistic classification of hedges to evaluate their rhetorical effects in speeches This multi-stage analysis began with an initial survey of hedging, progressing to categorization and in-depth interpretation.
The initial survey entailed a comprehensive examination of both speeches to pinpoint all instances of hedging This extensive analysis revealed the various hedging strategies utilized by each speaker, enabling the researcher to gain a foundational understanding of the approaches taken by each president in their use of hedging.
Following the initial survey, each identified hedge was categorized using Vattarla’s framework (2001) This framework divides hedges into three main forms:
Lexical hedges play a crucial role in communication by introducing elements of uncertainty and caution These include modal auxiliaries like "might" and "could," adverbs such as "possibly" and "perhaps," adjectives like "likely," and nouns such as "probability." Analyzing these hedges reveals their significance in providing flexibility within speeches, allowing speakers to express nuanced viewpoints.
- Clausal Hedges: Clausal hedges include clauses that frame or condition statements (e.g., “I believe that…,” “It seems that…”) These hedges add complexity to assertions, allowing the speaker to modulate certainty
- Phrasal Hedges: This category includes multi-word expressions, such as phrasal verbs (“come across as”), which add nuance and soften the directness of statements
A data sheet was created for each hedge, documenting the speaker, type of hedge, and context, which facilitated a systematic comparison of the hedging techniques employed by Trump and Biden This analysis highlighted the contrasting ways in which each leader adjusts their messaging through the use of hedges.
To analyze the pragmatic function of each hedge, Grice’s Cooperative Principle was utilized, focusing on its four main maxims along with an additional category known as the Maxim of Mixed Hedge, which encapsulates combined functions Each hedge was examined in relation to these specific maxims.
- Maxim of Quantity: Quantity hedges, which modify the amount of information provided, were examined for their role in balancing detail in communication without overwhelming the audience
- Maxim of Quality: Quality hedges, which temper the truthfulness or certainty of a statement, were analyzed in light of each president’s strategy for expressing cautious assertions or acknowledging limitations
- Maxim of Relation: Relation hedges were assessed for their role in managing topic relevance, often by signaling connections between themes or shifts in focus
- Maxim of Manner: Manner hedges, which manage clarity and precision, were examined for their role in introducing intentional ambiguity, especially in contexts where adaptability is essential
Mixed hedges integrate aspects of multiple maxims, effectively addressing various conversational concerns at once They enable speakers to express uncertainty while managing the flow of information, allowing for a sophisticated approach to communication This nuanced strategy helps maintain flexibility, reduce the risk of criticism, and convey complex messages, particularly in political contexts.
The in-depth analysis revealed the nuanced roles of hedges in the speeches of Trump and Biden, highlighting how each president employs these linguistic strategies to shape meaning, foster connection, and influence audience perception.
A comparative analysis of hedging instances in speeches by Trump and Biden revealed distinct strategies, with 180 total instances identified—106 in Trump’s speech and 74 in Biden’s The analysis, both quantitative and qualitative, highlighted Trump’s frequent use of hedges to convey assertive future intentions, while Biden’s speech utilized hedges to promote inclusivity and careful deliberation This examination offers valuable insights into how each leader employed hedging to enhance their messaging in line with their rhetorical and political goals.