INTRODUCTION
Rationale
Language is a fundamental element of communication, enabling individuals to express ideas and opinions, thereby facilitating interaction within society As Finegan (2008) defines it, language is an arbitrary vocal system used by humans to communicate Gender differences significantly influence language use, as noted by Holmes (1995), who emphasizes that gender intersects with various social categories Recent academic studies highlight consistent differences in communication styles between men and women, particularly in the use of politeness strategies Research indicates that women often express positive and negative politeness more explicitly than men This interest in gender-related language differences has led to my research on politeness strategies in the 2016 presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, aiming to identify variations in politeness forms between these two politicians This study seeks to enhance understanding of gender-related politeness devices and their implications for language and social interaction.
Aim and objectives
This study aims to explore gender-related politeness strategies, including hedges, boosters, and tag questions, utilized during the 2016 presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
To achieve the aim of the study, the research will focus on the following objectives:
+ To find out politeness devices used in the presidential debate 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
Clinton and Donald Trump in using politeness devices.
Research questions
To achieve the aims and objectives mentioned above, the thesis concentrates on answering the following questions:
1 What are the politeness devices in the presidential debate 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?
2 What is the frequency of occurrence of these politeness devices?
3 What are the similarities and differences in using politeness devices between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?
Significance of the study
This study aims to shed light on politeness strategies and gender-related politeness devices, such as hedges, boosters, and tag questions, which can offer valuable insights for effective communication.
- To show the readers gender-related politeness devices including hedges, boosters and tag questions
- It is expected that the finding can be useful for orther researchers to make more positive contributions to the theory of gender-related politeness
- It can also be useful for English Department Students as a contribution to their understanding of gender-related politeness devices in social reality and its connection to language and interaction
Studying politeness strategies enhances awareness and attention to the use of politeness in communication This leads to greater care in selecting appropriate words, phrases, clauses, and sentences when expressing ideas.
Scope of the study
This study concentrates on linguistic forms which may be specified as gender- related politeness devices include hedges, boosters and tag questions.
Definitions of terms in the study
A hedge is a linguistic tool used to soften the impact of a statement, often employed for reasons of politeness or to avoid sounding boastful These hedges can take the form of adjectives, adverbs, or clauses, including tag questions, and may be seen as a type of euphemism In linguistics, hedges function as markers of epistemic modality, indicating the speaker's confidence level regarding an assertion They also serve to categorize items to varying degrees and can be utilized to make polite requests or commands.
A term that serves to amplify or strengthen an utterance, such as “really” (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/booster)
A tag question is a phrase added to the end of a statement to seek confirmation or denial from the listener It often reflects the speaker's preference for a specific response.
Organization of the thesis
The study will be organized in five chapters as follow:
This chapter covers the rationale, aims and objectives, research questions, the significance of the study, scope of the study and the organization of the study.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Politeness and Gender
The relationship between language, gender, and politeness has garnered significant interest among sociolinguists, particularly through the pioneering work of Lakoff (1973), who highlighted the distinct speech patterns of men and women This foundational research has spurred numerous studies in the field While gender typically denotes a male-female distinction, it is fundamentally a social construct, encompassing a complex array of norms, values, and behaviors assigned by culture to each biological sex (Segal, 2004) Extensive research has explored the intersection of gender and politeness, notably through the contributions of scholars such as Lakoff (1975), Brown and Levinson (1987), and Montgomery (1998).
In 1975, it was observed that women's speech tends to be more polite than that of men Additionally, it was noted that men are often instructed to communicate more courteously with women compared to their interactions with other men This distinction highlights the unique characteristics of women's language style, which includes specific linguistic elements that contribute to its politeness.
Research indicates that male speech tends to be direct and assertive, while female speech often features hedges, tentativeness, and indirectness (Mills, 2003) Montgomery (1998) noted that both genders use polite language, particularly when addressing women, yet studies suggest that women generally employ more polite structures than men However, Mills (2003) challenges these findings, arguing that such perceptions are subjective and that societal dynamics between genders have evolved She points out that women can also communicate in a rough or rude manner, and vice versa Mills further asserts that what is deemed polite is often "stereotypically gendered" rather than universally applicable (p 202) While European research typically shows women as more polite, the application of politeness strategies varies across cultures, necessitating a cultural perspective in these examinations Ultimately, individual characteristics and experiences complicate the relationship between language and behavior.
Gender-related differences in the use of linguistic politeness forms
Linguistic politeness involves acknowledging others' autonomy and minimizing intrusion through negative politeness, while also fostering connection and appreciation with positive politeness In Western cultures, politeness is often marked by a tendency to avoid being overly forceful or direct Research indicates that women typically exhibit more polite linguistic behaviors compared to men, as noted by various linguists.
Brown and Levinson's positive politeness strategies include intensifying interest, utilizing in-group identity markers, seeking agreement, presupposing common ground, and offering reasons, while negative politeness strategies focus on indirectness, hedging, deference, and apologies According to Holmes (1995), women are more inclined than men to employ positive politeness in their language, demonstrating greater concern for the feelings of others in their conversations.
In English, linguistic politeness can be expressed in various ways, including greetings, compliments, apologies, and the use of hedges Hedges are defined as linguistic forms that dilute assertions, such as "sort of," "like," "I think," and "kind of" (Wareing 2004: 88) These forms indicate that speakers prefer not to sound completely certain, utilizing modal auxiliary verbs like should, would, could, may, and might, along with terms like "perhaps" and "maybe." Consequently, hedges express uncertainty, weakening the force of an utterance and softening its impact (Coates 2004: 88) Other terms also refer to 'hedges.'
‘downgraders’ (House and Kasper 1981), ‘compromisers’ (James 1983),
‘downtoners’ (Quirk et al.1985), ‘weakeners’ (Brown and Levinson 1987), and ‘softeners’ (Crystal and Davy 1975) (quoted in Holmes 1995: 73)
Holmes (1995) explored the use of politeness strategies among New Zealand women and men, focusing on linguistic devices such as hedges and boosters Hedges, which reduce the force of an utterance, are more frequently employed by women compared to men, who tend to use boosters that enhance the strength of their statements (Wareing 2004) Women often incorporate phrases like "you know," "I think," and "sort of" to facilitate discussions and express positive politeness (Preisler 1986) Although the overall frequency of the pragmatic particle "I think" was similar between genders, women used it more diversely as a politeness device, while men primarily used it to soften disagreements in educational contexts (Holmes 1995).
Similarly, Brown’s analysis of strengthening and weakening particles in
According to Tenajapa, particles that diminish an utterance contribute to negative politeness, while those that enhance an utterance are associated with positive politeness (Mills 2003: 209).
In Mayan communities, women tend to use more strengthening particles in their conversations with other women compared to men speaking with men Notably, the particle 'a little' serves as a diminutive, acting as a negative politeness marker for males and a positive politeness marker for females Furthermore, the use of 'a little' is recognized as a distinctive feature of women's speech (Mills 2003: 209).
Hedges and boosters play a crucial role in shaping the perception of politeness in communication While boosters enhance the message without directly conveying positive politeness, hedging devices often serve as the primary means of expressing negative politeness in various utterances Despite their lack of direct expression of positive politeness, boosters can still contribute to a more positive tone in conversations (Holmes 1995: 77).
Hedging is a multifaceted concept in linguistics that encompasses various aspects, including pragmatics, semantics, logic, and linguistic philosophy Its definition varies across these fields, highlighting the complexity of its application in language studies.
Brown and Levinson (1978) assert that hedges extend beyond mere content and explicit performative expressions; they also influence illocutionary force and the speaker's overall commitment.
A hedge is a linguistic tool that diminishes the intensity of a statement, effectively softening its impact Often referred to as "downgraders," hedges serve to moderate assertions in communication, as noted by Holmes (1995: 73) and discussed by House and Kasper (1981).
“compromisers” (James 1983), “downtoners” (Quirk et al 1985), “weakeners” (Brown and Levinson 1987) and “softeners” (Crystal and Davy 1975)
Hedging serves as a tool for both positive and negative politeness, highlighting its dual role in communication (Holmes, 1995: 77-78) Positive politeness focuses on maintaining respect and minimizing threats to one's positive face, often manifesting in informal and intimate contexts This approach underscores the solidarity and connection between the speaker and the listener, fostering a sense of closeness in their interaction.
Negative politeness, as defined by Brown and Levinson (1987), is characterized by avoidance and aims to respect individuals' personal boundaries, thereby preventing intrusion This form of politeness serves to acknowledge and honor others' autonomy, demonstrating a commitment to their freedom of action.
Hedges serve as multifunctional linguistic tools that extend beyond mere politeness devices, as noted by researchers like Brown and Levinson (1987) and Coates (1987) They not only help in softening statements to avoid sounding overly assertive, as Talbot (2010) suggests, but also enhance the clarity and accuracy of the information conveyed Holmes (2008) emphasizes that the interpretation of hedges, such as "sort of" and "I think," varies significantly based on context, pronunciation, and the dynamics of the interaction, indicating their complex roles in communication.
Hedging is a linguistic strategy used to soften the illocutionary force of an utterance, employing various devices such as modal verbs (like could, might, may, would, and should), lexical items (such as perhaps), and pragmatic particles (including sort of, you know, and I think).
Modal auxiliaries: may, might, can, could, should, will, would, must
Modal auxiliaries such as may, might, can, could, should, will, would, and must play a crucial role in conveying the speaker's attitude and expressing ideas indirectly These verbs serve as effective hedging devices, allowing speakers to soften statements, avoid face-threatening acts, and present information in a way that minimizes potential offense to the listener By using modal verbs, speakers can create a sense of uncertainty or ambiguity, making them essential for polite communication.
Summary of hedges, boosters and tag questions
Hedges, boosters, and tag questions are modal elements that modify the strength of statements, either by weakening or intensifying them (Talbot, 2010) These linguistic devices reflect social awareness and serve as politeness strategies in conversation, as they express respect and aim to avoid offending others (Holmes, 1995) The use of these devices is closely linked to "face work," addressing individuals' public self-image and their positive and negative face needs, which include the desire to be liked and the need to avoid imposition (Holmes, 1995) Boosters and hedges can express positive politeness by minimizing threats to the hearer's self-esteem, while negative politeness focuses on avoiding awkwardness or embarrassment (Holmes, 1995) Additionally, the context is essential for analyzing these devices, as their meanings and functions can vary significantly depending on the situation (Holmes, 1995).
Previous research
Research on politeness strategies has primarily focused on gender differences and cultural variations in communication styles A significant debate exists over whether women are inherently more polite than men Early linguist Lakoff (1973) suggested that women's language reflects their marginalized position in society, indicating distinct speaking styles between genders Keikhaie and Mozaffari (2013) found that women tend to employ more polite language when interacting with other women compared to men, supporting Brown's (1980) theory that women's higher politeness levels stem from their perceived subordinate status.
In her 2010 study, Xia highlights that women tend to employ hedges such as "well" and "you know" more frequently than men, utilizing these linguistic tools to diminish uncertainty in conversations Conversely, Xia references Coates to indicate that men's discourse patterns differ significantly from those of women.
Research by Coates (2004) indicates that men are often perceived as more talkative and directive, frequently using swear words and aggravated directives in communication In contrast, women are more attuned to the emotional needs of others, often making open requests to express affection towards friends Xia (2010) supports this by analyzing politeness strategies, revealing that while men typically employ declarative statements to establish interpersonal relationships without becoming too close, they still tend to feel threatened by women's polite imperatives, despite providing favorable feedback.
Research on politeness strategies and gender differences across cultures is extensive A notable study by Ramadhani (2014) examined the use of indirect speech acts among Javanese males and females in business transactions The findings revealed that female buyers predominantly employed positive politeness strategies, while male buyers favored a bald-on-record approach, characterized by directness in negotiation This tendency among male Javanese speakers to prefer concise conversations stems from their desire for clarity and efficiency, as they are traditionally viewed as the dominant figures at home and engage in shopping less frequently Consequently, this cultural background influences their use of bald-on-record strategies to minimize time spent in the marketplace.
In 2014, research indicated that female buyers often employ humor when negotiating prices with sellers, aligning with Brown and Levinson's theory that joking serves as a positive politeness technique, helping to ease interactions and mitigate face-threatening acts associated with requests (Ramadhani, 2014: 109) This highlights the significant role of cultural influences on the politeness strategies utilized by different genders.
In her 2018 study, Ali examined the impact of gender on politeness and communication during the 2016 presidential debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump The research highlighted significant differences in communication styles and perceptions of politeness between men and women Findings indicated that politeness in speech fosters engagement and respect among participants of both genders, enhancing effective communication Additionally, the study revealed that variations in language use during speeches reflect the audience's composition and their responses Importantly, the differences in male and female communication do not depend on the speaker's gender but rather on the implementation of various speaking strategies, such as careful word choice, minimizing interruptions, maintaining politeness, and ensuring clear communication throughout the conversation.
Numerous studies on Politeness theory have been conducted globally, each with distinct objectives and data sources However, there is a lack of research specifically examining gender differences in the use of linguistic politeness forms This thesis aims to address this gap, providing valuable insights for Vietnamese learners of English and enhancing their understanding of politeness strategies as outlined in Politeness theory.
METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE
Research methods
This study utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods to identify gender-related politeness strategies, including hedges, boosters, and tag questions, in the 2016 presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump The quantitative approach focused on analyzing the frequency and percentage of these linguistic forms, while the qualitative method aimed to identify and describe the similarities and differences in their usage by Clinton and Trump.
Besides some other methods also were used Comparative and contrastive methods help to find out similarities and differences in using linguistic politeness forms between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
The United States presidential debates of 2016
The corpus of this paper consists of the presidential debates of the United
The 2016 United States presidential election featured major candidates Donald Trump from the Republican Party and Hillary Clinton from the Democratic Party The election included three presidential debates spaced about ten days apart, culminating in the election on November 8, 2016 Despite polls indicating Clinton would win, Trump emerged victorious, shocking the nation as he became the first president elected without prior government or military experience.
This section aims to highlight the unique personal backgrounds of both candidates to enhance the practical analysis of the project Additionally, it will provide context for the three presidential debates, noting their variations in content and format.
Donald Trump, born in 1946 in Queens, New York, is the 45th and current President of the United States At the age of 13, his energetic and assertive nature led his parents to enroll him in the New York Military Academy, where he thrived as a star athlete and student leader, graduating in 1964 He furthered his education by studying Economics at the Wharton School of Finance, University of Pennsylvania.
After graduating from college, Donald Trump began his business career in his father's company, becoming president in 1974 He expanded his portfolio to include the Grand Hyatt New York Hotel, Trump Tower, casinos in New Jersey, and the Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida In 1987, he authored the bestselling book "The Art of the Deal," which served as his autobiography Despite facing significant financial difficulties and debt in 1990 due to an economic downturn, Trump persevered in acquiring and developing real estate properties.
In 1997, Donald Trump married Czech model Ivana Zelnickova, with whom he had three children: Donald Jr., Ivanka, and Eric The couple divorced in 1992, and Trump remarried actress Marla Maples the following year, welcoming their daughter Tiffany After another divorce in 1992, Trump married his current wife, Melania Knauss, in 2005.
Donald Trump gained political recognition in 2011 through television interviews, which significantly boosted his popularity He officially announced his candidacy for the 2016 presidential election during a speech at Trump Tower in June 2015.
Hillary Clinton, born on October 26, 1947, in Chicago, Illinois, grew up in a middle-class family and attended public school Her early involvement in social justice activism led her to become a prominent student leader by the time she graduated high school She then enrolled in Yale Law School, where she met her future husband, Bill Clinton Instead of pursuing a traditional legal career, Hillary dedicated herself to public service by working for the Children’s Defense Fund, gathering stories about the educational challenges faced by children with disabilities Her lifelong commitment to advocacy continued as she served as a lawyer for the congressional committee investigating President Nixon and co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, one of the first child advocacy groups in the state.
Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992 and re-elected in 1996 Therefore,
Hillary Clinton as first lady fought to reform the health care system so that all families would have access to the care they needed at affordable prices In
In 2008, Hillary Clinton ran for the U.S presidency but lost to Barack Obama, who later appointed her as the 67th Secretary of State during his administration In 2016, she made history by becoming the first woman to be nominated for president by a major U.S political party.
On September 26, 2016, a significant debate took place at Hofstra University in New York, featuring interviewer Lester Holt from NBC The event lasted 95 minutes, during which Donald Trump spoke for 45 minutes and 3 seconds, while Hillary Clinton spoke for 41 minutes and 50 seconds Both candidates were positioned at podiums in front of the interviewer, engaging in a critical exchange of ideas.
During the discussion, candidates addressed key controversial issues affecting American citizens, including economic improvement, racism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear weapons They also shared their perspectives on the potential outcomes of the elections The interviewer posed questions that were not disclosed to the commission or the campaigns, and the audience was instructed to refrain from applauding or speaking.
On October 9, 2016, Washington University in St Louis hosted a significant debate featuring interviewers Anderson Cooper from CNN and Martha Raddatz from ABC The debate lasted 90 minutes, with Donald Trump speaking for 40 minutes and 10 seconds, while Hillary Clinton spoke for 39 minutes and 5 seconds.
Unlike the previous debates, this discussion featured questions from both interviewers and the audience, including inquiries from social media Trump and Clinton addressed a wide range of pressing issues, such as Islamophobia, refugees, the economy, the Syrian war, and their past mistakes, while also highlighting why they were the better choice for the presidency Additionally, the candidates were positioned in front of the interviewer but had the freedom to move around the stage with a chair and table nearby.
On October 19, 2016, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, hosted a debate moderated by Chris Wallace from Fox News Channel The debate lasted approximately 93 minutes, with Donald Trump speaking for 35 minutes and 41 seconds, while Hillary Clinton spoke for 41 minutes and 46 seconds.
In the recent debate, Trump and Clinton addressed key issues including abortion, immigration, the economy, cyber-attacks, and the ongoing war in Syria, while also outlining their reasons for seeking the presidency over their opponent Similar to the first debate, the moderator posed questions that were not disclosed in advance to either the commission or the campaigns The candidates faced the interviewer directly, and the audience was instructed to remain silent to ensure that the focus remained on their responses.
Data collection
This study analyzes linguistic politeness forms in the 2016 presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Data was primarily sourced from transcripts of the debate, with a focus on content from The Washington Post.
In this study, the researcher utilized a checklist organized into three categories: hedges, boosters, and tag questions, treating each as a distinct unit comprising words, phrases, and sentences The analysis focused on debates, with each category examined for both male and female participants By categorizing the findings based on gender, the researcher identified notable similarities and differences in the use of gender-related politeness strategies among males and females.
This study analyzes the three debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016, focusing on six speeches that exemplify linguistic politeness forms, including hedges, boosters, and tag questions By examining these specific debates, the research aims to uncover how male and female candidates utilize politeness strategies in their conversations.
Data analysis
The analysis of the presidential debate speeches between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was organized based on the gender of the speakers This investigation utilized Holmes' (1995) theory of gender differences to examine how topic selection varied between male and female candidates.
- The speeches are divided into two groups, namely Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump to identify, analyze, compare and contrast to the different uses of gender-related politeness devices (hedges, boosters and tag questions) in them.
Research procedures
The research work was carried out with many steps as follows:
Reading the previous studies carefully to choose the topic
Choosing the speeches -in particular controversial subjects- and distinguishing between what is said Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
Calculating the number of hedges, boosters and tag questions which are produced by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the given situations
Analyzing the data collected from the perspective of Appraisal Theory and giving out the frequencies/ percentage of occurrence
Carrying out a contrastive analysis to find out the similarities and differences in terms of the linguistic features in speeches between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
Evaluating and discussing the comparison results to draw out conclusions
Putting forward some implications in teaching and learning English as well as some suggestions for further research.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Overview of hedges, boosters and tag questions in presidential debates
Numerous studies have examined the differences in language behavior between men and women, with a particular emphasis on gender-related politeness, as highlighted by Holmes (1995) This thesis aims to investigate various gender-related politeness devices, including hedges, boosters, and tag questions.
The statistical analysis revealed distinct differences in percentages between males and females across various categories As detailed in Table 4.1, the frequencies and percentages of male and female participation in the 2016/2017 presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are presented, highlighting the gender disparities in their discourse.
The statistics are graphically illustrated in the table below
Donald Trump Hillary Clinton Instances Rate Instances Rate
Donald Trump Hillary Clinton Instances Rate Instances Rate
Donald Trump Hillary Clinton Instances Rate Instances Rate
Table 4 1 Frequency of hedges, boosters and tag questions used by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the presidential debates
In the presidential debates, Hillary Clinton utilized hedges more frequently than Donald Trump, with female candidates showing a higher overall percentage of hedges at 51.6% in the first debate compared to 48.4% for males In the second debate, the use of hedges by females was notably higher at 54.7%, while males used hedges at 45.3% The trend continued in the third debate, where females accounted for 56.9% of hedge usage compared to 43.1% for males This pattern suggests that candidates strategically employ hedging devices to enhance their overall performance during the debates.
Table 4.1 reveals that males produced a higher total amount of boosters compared to females across three debates In the first debate, males utilized boosters at a rate of 62.1%, while females accounted for 37.9% This trend continued in the second debate, where males dominated with 63.3% of the boosters versus 36.7% for females The disparity was even more pronounced in the third debate, with males contributing 76.5% of the boosters compared to only 23.5% from females.
In presidential debates, tag questions are rarely utilized, with Trump occasionally employing them, while Clinton seldom does.
Hedges in the presidential debates
Hedging, as defined by Holmes (1995), is a linguistic strategy that softens statements, reduces directness, and minimizes face-threatening acts, thereby avoiding imposition on the listener Common hedging devices include modal verbs like can, could, might, may, would, and should, as well as lexical terms such as perhaps, conceivably, probably, and maybe Additionally, pragmatic particles like sort of, you know, and I think, along with paralinguistic cues such as pauses and vocal hesitations (e.g., um and er), serve to convey a speaker's reluctance to impose on others.
4.2.1 Hedges in the first presidential debate
Hedges Donald Trump Hillary Clinton
Instances Rate Instances Rate can, could, may, might, will, would, should 110 61.8% 100 52.6% perhaps, maybe, conceivably, probably 15 8.4% 6 3.2% um, uh, oh, ah, well, yeah, yes, yap 17 9.6% 30 15.8% sort of, you know,
Table 4 2 Hedges in the first presidential debate
Table 4.2 reveals a significant difference in the use of hedges between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, with Clinton employing more hedging language Notably, Trump utilizes modal forms like "can" and "could" more frequently than Clinton Additionally, male speakers tend to rely on adverbs such as "perhaps," "conceivably," "probably," and "maybe" more often than their female counterparts.
Research indicates that hedging devices such as "Um," "Uh," "Oh," "Ah," "Well," "Yeah," and "Yes" are predominantly used by females, who often appear more hesitant in their speech In contrast, males typically exhibit more certainty and utilize fewer filler words.
Recent data on hedging devices reveals that females tend to use more hedging expressions, such as "sort of," "you know," and "I think," compared to males This evidence supports the assertion that women employ hedges more frequently than men Below are examples of hedging devices utilized by both genders.
4.2.1.1 Modal auxiliaries as hedging device in the first presidential debate
In the first presidential debate, modal verbs that reflect the speaker's attitude were predominantly used by male participants, as shown in Table 4.3, highlighting a significant frequency of these verbs in their speech.
Modal Auxiliaries Donald Trump Hillary Clinton
Instances Rate Instances Rate can 7 6.4% 19 19% could 12 10.9% 4 4% may 1 0.9% 3 3% might 1 0.9% 2 2% will 45 40.9% 25 25% would 19 17.3% 34 34% should 25 22.7% 13 13%
Table 4 3 Modal auxiliaries in the first presidential debate
According to Table 4.3, Donald Trump utilizes more modal auxiliaries as hedging devices compared to Hillary Clinton Notably, Hillary Clinton predominantly uses the modal "would," while Donald Trump's most frequently used modal is "will."
(4.1) CLINTON: That means jobs in infrastructure, in advanced manufacturing, innovation and technology, clean, renewable energy, and small business, because most of the new jobs will come from small business
(4.2) CLINTON: In fact, it would be the most extreme version, the biggest tax cuts for the top percent of the people in this country than we've ever had
Clinton emphasized the necessity of addressing issues both domestically and internationally, proposing the deployment of an additional 500 million solar panels as a viable solution.
(4.4) TRUMP: Companies will come They will build They will expand New companies will start
Independent experts have analyzed both my proposals and Donald Trump's tax plan, concluding that his plan would significantly increase the national debt by over $5 trillion.
Modal auxiliaries possess both epistemic and non-epistemic meanings, with hedging devices reflecting tentativeness, possibility, and uncertainty, thereby aligning more closely with epistemic modality In examples from Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the use of the modal "will" signifies future predictions, revealing a low level of commitment from the speakers This low commitment stems from their limited knowledge about the future, prompting them to use "will" to create distance from reality.
The modal verb "would" is primarily utilized to convey epistemic modality, often serving as a hedging device for predictions and hypotheses, as demonstrated by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's statements In contrast, "can" is more frequently associated with dynamic modality, although it can also function as a hedging device, particularly in negative and interrogative forms, as noted by Huddleston and Pullum (2002) Interestingly, in one instance, "can" is used positively to indicate possibility, specifically regarding solar panels in Clinton's remarks This highlights the nuanced roles of modal verbs in expressing modality and hedging in political discourse.
(4.6) TRUMP: I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China
It could also be lots of other people
While, could, like can, it is used to convey deontic modality, dynamic and epistemic modality As hedging device, could is served to express tentative possibility
The analysis indicates that epistemic modality serves as an effective hedging device, with modal auxiliaries "will" and "would" being the most frequently used by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
In the first presidential debate, Trump exemplified how politicians often employ hedging devices as a strategy to evade direct accountability and create distance between their statements and reality.
4.2.1.2 The adverbs (perhaps, conceivably, probably, maybe) in the first presidential debate
It is noticeable that the adverbs perhaps, conceivably, probably and maybe also have the function of reducing the strength of speaker’s utterance
The frequency of occurrence of perhaps, conceivably, probably and maybe in the first presidential debate are presented in Table 4.4
Hedges Donald Trump Hillary Clinton
Instances Rate Instances Rate perhaps 2 13.3% 0 0% conceivably 0 0% 0 0% probably 5 33.3% 1 16.7% maybe 8 53.3% 5 83.3%
Table 4 4 The adverbs ( perhaps , conceivably, probably, maybe ) as hedging devices in the first presidential debate
The following examples illustrate how linguistic forms (perhaps, conceivably, probably and maybe) are used in the the first presidential debate
(4.7) TRUMP: As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary
Clinton emphasized the need for the U.S to strive for excellence, acknowledging that we may fall short She questioned the certainty of Russia's involvement in the DNC breach, expressing skepticism about the claims surrounding it.
The identity of the individual who breached the DNC remains uncertain; it could be attributed to Russia, China, or even a lone hacker This highlights the unpredictable nature of cyber intrusions, as it could also involve someone with no significant resources, underscoring the diverse range of potential threats in cybersecurity.
In Example 4.7, it is evident that males frequently use "perhaps" as a hedging tool, significantly more than females For instance, in Example 4.8, Trump suggests that approximately $5 trillion is unavailable for the country, emphasizing that with effective leadership, these resources could be quickly utilized for urban development and other beneficial projects.