INTRODUCTION
Rationale
Language is a fundamental aspect of human communication, enabling individuals to express ideas and opinions, as noted by Finegan (2008), who describes it as an arbitrary vocal system It distinguishes humans from animals and plays a crucial role in societal interactions Gender differences significantly influence language use, as highlighted by Holmes (1995), who emphasizes that gender intersects with various social categories Recent studies have shown consistent disparities in communication styles between men and women, particularly in their use of politeness strategies Research indicates that women often employ positive and negative politeness more explicitly than men Motivated by these findings, I conducted a study titled “A Comparative Study of Politeness Strategies in the 2016 Presidential Debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump,” aiming to explore the differences in politeness forms used by these politicians This research seeks to enhance understanding of gender-related politeness strategies and their implications for language and interaction in social contexts.
Aim and objectives
This study aims to examine 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
+ To provide a comparison of gender-related differences between Hillary
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 of communication, leading individuals to be more mindful in their choice of words, phrases, 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 that mitigates the impact of speech, often used to convey politeness, soften criticism, or avoid sounding boastful Typically found as adjectives or adverbs, hedges can also include clauses like tag questions and are akin to euphemisms In linguistics, they serve as instruments of epistemic modality, indicating a speaker's confidence in their statements Additionally, hedges help categorize items to varying degrees and can be employed 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 an addition to a statement that seeks confirmation or disconfirmation from the listener It typically 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 interplay between language, gender, and politeness has captivated sociolinguists, notably highlighted by Lakoff (1973), who explored the distinct speech patterns of men and women, inspiring further research in this area Gender, while often perceived as a male-female binary, is fundamentally a social construct that encompasses the norms, values, and behaviors attributed to each biological sex within a culture, as defined by Segal (2004) Numerous studies have examined the relationship between gender and politeness, including significant contributions from Lakoff (1975), Brown and Levinson (1987), and Montgomery (1998).
In 1975, research indicated that women's speech tends to be more polite compared to men's It was also suggested that men are socialized to communicate more courteously with women than with their male peers Women's language style often includes specific elements that enhance this politeness.
Research indicates that female speech often includes hedges, tentativeness, and indirectness, while male speech tends to be direct and forceful (Mills, 2003) Montgomery (1998) noted that both genders use polite language when addressing women, yet studies suggest that women typically employ more polite structures than men However, Mills (2003) challenges these findings, arguing that such assessments are subjective and that societal dynamics between genders have evolved She points out that some women can speak rudely to men, contradicting traditional notions of politeness being gendered While studies in European contexts often show women as more polite, politeness strategies vary across cultures, necessitating a culturally nuanced examination 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, known as negative politeness, while also fostering connection and appreciation, referred to as positive politeness In Western cultures, politeness is often expressed by avoiding directness or forcefulness Research indicates that women's linguistic behaviors tend to be more polite compared to those of men, as noted by several linguists.
Brown and Levinson's positive politeness strategies include intensifying interest, using in-group identity markers, seeking agreement, presupposing common ground, and offering reasons In contrast, negative politeness strategies involve indirectness, hedges, deference, and apologies Research by Holmes (1995) indicates that women tend to employ positive politeness more frequently than men, demonstrating a greater concern for the feelings of their conversational partners.
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 an assertion, such as "sort of," "like," "I think," and "kind of" (Wareing 2004: 88) These expressions indicate that speakers prefer not to convey complete certainty, often employing modal auxiliary verbs like "should," "would," "could," "may," and "might," along with terms like "perhaps" and "maybe." Consequently, hedges reflect the speaker's uncertainty, weakening the force of an utterance and softening its impact (Coates 2004: 88) Other terms for 'hedges' also exist, highlighting their significance in communication.
‘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) studied the use of politeness forms among New Zealand women and men, identifying "hedges" as linguistic devices that soften an utterance and "boosters" that strengthen it Women generally use hedges and modal forms more than men, employing phrases like "you know," "I think," and "sort of" more frequently (Wareing 2004) This tendency to use hedges is a notable characteristic of women's speech (Yule 2006: 224) and serves as a politeness strategy to facilitate discussions (Preisler 1986) While women frequently use pragmatic particles such as "you know" and "of course" for positive politeness, the overall frequency of "I think" was similar between genders However, women employed "I think" in various contexts as a politeness device, whereas men primarily used it to soften disagreements or suggestions in educational settings (Holmes 1995: 94).
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 when communicating with each other compared to men conversing with men Notably, the particle ‘a little’ serves as a diminutive, functioning 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 significant role in shaping the perception of politeness in communication While boosters enhance the expression of positive politeness, they do not inherently convey it In contrast, hedging devices often serve as key elements in expressing negative politeness across various utterances Despite their differing functions, both hedges and boosters contribute to the overall politeness strategy in interactions, highlighting the complexity of how language conveys social nuances (Holmes 1995: 77).
Hedging is a multifaceted concept in linguistics that encompasses various aspects, including pragmatics, semantics, logic, and linguistic philosophy Its definition can vary depending on the specific linguistic field being considered.
Brown and Levinson (1978) emphasize 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 According to Holmes (1995: 73), other terms for hedges include "downgraders," as identified 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 dual-purpose tool in communication, acting as both positive and negative politeness strategies (Holmes 1995: 77-78) Positive politeness focuses on respecting and safeguarding the positive face of individuals, often found in informal and intimate contexts, as it highlights the solidarity between the speaker and the listener.
Negative politeness is characterized by an avoidance-based approach that respects individuals' claims to personal space and autonomy This form of politeness emphasizes the importance of not intruding on others, thereby demonstrating respect for their freedom of action.
Hedges serve multiple functions beyond merely acting as politeness devices, as highlighted by researchers like Brown and Levinson (1987) and Coates (1987) These linguistic forms can also aid the addressee and enhance the accuracy of statements Talbot (2010) notes that hedges help avoid dogmatism by preventing categorical assertions Holmes (2008) further emphasizes the complexity of hedges, stating that their meaning can vary based on pronunciation, position in an utterance, the type of speech act, and the relationship between speakers Understanding the context is essential for analyzing the multifaceted roles of hedges, such as "sort of" and "I think."
Hedging is a linguistic strategy used to reduce the illocutionary force of an utterance, employing various devices such as modal verbs (e.g., could, might, may, would, should), lexical items like "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, enabling speakers to present information with ambiguity, thereby reducing the risk of face-threatening acts By using modal verbs, speakers can formulate their statements in a way that minimizes potential offense to the listener, making them essential tools for polite and nuanced communication.
Summary of hedges, boosters and tag questions
Hedges, boosters, and tag questions are modal elements that modify the force of statements, either weakening or intensifying them, and they serve as indicators of social awareness These linguistic devices are commonly used as politeness strategies in conversations, reflecting respect and avoiding offense According to Holmes, politeness involves expressing concern for others and maintaining a positive public self-image, known as "face." Boosters, hedges, and tag questions can express positive politeness by minimizing threats to the hearer's self-esteem through agreement and reassurance, while negative politeness aims to avoid imposing on the hearer to reduce awkwardness Context plays a crucial role in analyzing these devices, as their meanings can vary based on the situation Holmes emphasizes the importance of understanding the function of each form in context, particularly when comparing linguistic usage between genders.
Previous research
Research on politeness strategies has primarily focused on gender differences and cultural variations in speech acts A key debate centers on whether women are more polite than men Early linguist Lakoff (1973) highlighted that women's language reflects a marginalization in serious societal concerns, indicating distinct speaking styles between genders Keikhaie and Mozaffari (2013) found that women tend to use more polite language when communicating with other women than with men This observation aligns with Brown's (1980) theory, which suggests that women's higher level of politeness stems from their perceived inferior status, leading to a tendency to show more politeness towards those in superior positions.
Xia (2010) highlights that women tend to use hedges such as "well" and "you know" more frequently than men, which helps them mitigate uncertainty in conversations In contrast, men’s discourse, as noted by Coates, reflects different communication patterns.
Research by Coates (2004) suggests that men are often perceived as more talkative, using swear words and direct language to resolve conflicts, while women are more sensitive to the face needs of others Xia (2010) supports this by analyzing politeness strategies in communication, noting that women express requests openly to convey affection, whereas men typically employ declarative statements to maintain a degree of distance in interpersonal relationships Furthermore, Xia observes that while men may provide favorable feedback to women's requests, they often feel threatened, even when those requests are made politely.
Research on politeness strategies and gender differences in various cultures is extensive, including a study by Ramadhani (2014) that focused on Javanese indirect speech acts in business transactions The study revealed that female buyers predominantly employ positive politeness strategies, while male buyers tend to favor bald-on-record approaches, demonstrating a more direct negotiation style This preference for brevity among male Javanese speakers is attributed to their desire for clarity and efficiency in communication, as well as their traditional roles as household decision-makers, which makes shopping less common for them Consequently, their use of bald-on-record strategies reflects an inclination to minimize time spent in the marketplace.
In 2014, research indicated that female buyers often employ humor during negotiations to secure lower prices, aligning with Brown and Levinson’s theory that joking serves as a positive politeness strategy, helping to ease the interaction and soften the impact of requests (Ramadhani, 2014: 109) This behavior highlights the significant role of culture in shaping the politeness strategies utilized by different genders.
A study by Ali (2018) on the 2016 presidential debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump examined the impact of gender on politeness and communication The research highlighted distinct communication styles between men and women, revealing that politeness in speech fosters engagement and respect among participants of both genders It also indicated that language usage in speeches influences audience perception and responses Notably, the study found that the differences in communication strategies, such as word choice, minimizing interruptions, and maintaining effective dialogue, were more significant than the speaker's gender itself.
Numerous studies on Politeness Theory have been conducted globally, each with distinct objectives and data sources However, there is a noticeable lack of research exploring gender differences in the application of linguistic politeness forms This thesis aims to fill that gap, providing valuable insights for Vietnamese learners of English to enhance their understanding of politeness strategies within the framework of Politeness Theory.
METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE
Research methods
This study employs both quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze gender-related politeness strategies, including hedges, boosters, and tag questions, in the 2016 presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump The quantitative approach focuses on the frequency and percentage of these linguistic forms, while the qualitative analysis identifies and describes the similarities and differences in their usage by both candidates.
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 U.S presidential election featured major party candidates Donald Trump from the Republican Party and Hillary Clinton from the Democratic Party The election debates took place over three sessions, spaced approximately ten days apart, leading up to the election on November 8, 2016 Despite polls indicating Clinton's likely victory, Trump emerged as the unexpected winner, making history as the first individual elected to the presidency without prior government or military experience.
This section aims to provide insight into the unique personal backgrounds of both candidates to enhance the practical analysis of the project Additionally, it will contextualize the three presidential debates, highlighting their variations in content and format.
Donald Trump, born in Queens, New York, in 1946, is the 45th and current President of the United States At the age of 13, his energetic nature led his parents to enroll him in the New York Military Academy, where he excelled as a star athlete and student leader, graduating in 1964 He later pursued a degree in 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 challenges and debt during the economic downturn of 1990, Trump persisted 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 After their divorce in 1992, Trump married actress Marla Maples, and they welcomed one daughter, Tiffany, before divorcing the following year He later remarried Melania Knauss in 2005, marking his current marriage.
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 She became actively involved in social justice activism during high school, emerging as a prominent student leader After graduating, she enrolled in Yale Law School, where she met her future husband, Bill Clinton Rather than pursuing a traditional legal career, she dedicated herself to public service by working for the Children’s Defense Fund, gathering stories about the educational challenges faced by children with disabilities Throughout her life, Clinton has remained committed to public service, serving as a lawyer for the congressional committee investigating President Nixon and co-founding 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 presidency but lost to Barack Obama, who later appointed her as the 67th U.S Secretary of State during his administration She made history in 2016 by becoming the first woman to be nominated for president by a major U.S political party.
On September 26, 2016, the first presidential debate occurred at Hofstra University in New York, featuring NBC's Lester Holt as the moderator The debate 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.
During the discussion, candidates addressed key controversial issues affecting American citizens, including economic improvement, racism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear weapons The interviewer posed questions that remained confidential from both the commission and the campaigns, while the audience was instructed to refrain from applause or conversation.
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 for 90 minutes, during which Donald Trump spoke for 40 minutes and 10 seconds, while Hillary Clinton spoke for 39 minutes and 5 seconds.
Unlike previous debates, this one featured questions not only from interviewers but also from the audience and social media users Trump and Clinton addressed a wide range of pressing issues, including Islamophobia, the refugee crisis, the economy, the Syrian war, and their past mistakes, while justifying why they were the better choice for presidency The candidates were positioned in front of the interviewer but had the freedom to move around the stage, as they were provided with a chair and a table.
On October 19, 2016, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas hosted a significant debate featuring Chris Wallace from Fox News Channel as the moderator 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 war in Syria, while also highlighting their reasons for seeking the presidency over their opponent As in the first debate, the moderator posed questions that were not disclosed beforehand, ensuring an authentic dialogue The candidates stood before the interviewer, with the audience instructed to remain silent to maintain focus 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 gathered from the transcripts of the debate, with a significant source being The Washington Post.
The researcher employed a checklist categorized into hedges, boosters, and tag questions to analyze debates, treating each category as a distinct unit of words, phrases, and sentences Each debate was examined for these categories, with separate assessments for male and female participants By categorizing the findings according to gender, the results highlighted both the similarities and differences in the use of gender-related politeness strategies among males and females.
This study analyzes the three 2016 presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, focusing on six speeches that exemplify linguistic politeness forms, including hedges, boosters, and tag questions By examining these debates, the research aims to uncover the differences in 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 in topic selection to explore the variations in their discourse.
- 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 explore various gender-related politeness devices, including hedges, boosters, and tag questions.
Statistical analysis revealed notable differences in percentages between males and females across various categories As detailed in Table 4.1, the frequencies and percentages of responses from males and females during the 2016/2017 presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are presented.
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 consistently utilized more hedging language than Donald Trump, with female candidates employing hedges at a rate of 51.6% compared to 48.4% for males in the first debate The second debate showed a notable shift, with females using hedges at 45.3% while males increased to 54.7% By the third debate, the usage rates were 56.9% for females and 43.1% for males This trend highlights the significant role hedging devices play in shaping the candidates' performances during the debates.
The data presented in Table 4.1 indicates 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 total boosters, leaving females with 36.7% The disparity was even more pronounced in the third debate, with males contributing 76.5% of the boosters compared to just 23.5% from females.
In the presidential debate, the use of tag questions was minimal, with Trump occasionally incorporating them, while Clinton rarely did so.
Hedges in the presidential debates
Hedging, as defined by Holmes (1995), is a linguistic strategy that softens statements, reduces directness, and minimizes potential face threats to 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), effectively convey a speaker's reluctance to impose on the listener.
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 highlights a significant difference in hedge usage between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, with Clinton employing more hedges overall Notably, Trump uses modal forms like "can" and "could" more frequently than Clinton Additionally, Trump also relies on adverbs such as "perhaps," "conceivably," "probably," and "maybe" at a higher rate than Clinton, indicating a trend of male speakers utilizing hedging devices more than their female counterparts.
Research indicates that hedging devices such as "Um," "Uh," "Oh," "Ah," "Well," "Yeah," and "Yes" are predominantly utilized by females, who often exhibit a more hesitant tone when employing these fillers In contrast, males typically demonstrate greater certainty in their speech, using fewer hedges and fillers.
Recent data on hedging devices reveals that females utilize more hedging expressions, such as "sort of," "you know," and "I think," compared to their male counterparts This information supports the assertion that women tend to employ more hedges than men Examples of hedging devices used by both genders further illustrate this trend.
4.2.1.1 Modal auxiliaries as hedging device in the first presidential debate
In the first presidential debate, modal verbs reflecting the speaker's attitude were predominantly found in male speech, as shown in Table 4.3.
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 Hillary Clinton predominantly employs 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 emphasizes the necessity of addressing critical issues both domestically and internationally, advocating for the deployment of an additional half a billion 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 evaluated both my proposals and Donald'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 leaning more towards epistemic modality due to their expression of tentativeness, possibility, and uncertainty For instance, in statements made by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the use of the modal "will" signifies future predictions that reflect a low degree of commitment from the speaker This choice stems from their limited knowledge about the future, prompting them to use "will" as a means to distance themselves from reality.
The modal verb "would" is primarily used to express epistemic modality, 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 is also utilized in deontic and epistemic contexts According to Huddleston and Pullum (2002), "can" acts as a hedging device mainly in negative and interrogative forms However, in certain contexts, such as Hillary Clinton's reference to solar panels, "can" effectively expresses possibility in positive constructions.
(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 a hedging device, with the 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 strategic means of evasion and defense, allowing them to distance their claims from 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 United States to strive for excellence, acknowledging that we may fall short She raised uncertainty about the identity of the hackers who infiltrated the DNC, suggesting that while there are claims of Russian involvement, the truth remains unclear.
The breach of the DNC could have been executed by various actors, including state-sponsored entities like Russia or China, or even individuals with no affiliation, such as a lone hacker The identity of the intruder remains uncertain, highlighting the complexity of cybersecurity threats.
In Example 4.7, it is evident that males use the term "perhaps" more frequently as a hedge to soften their statements compared to females For instance, in Example 4.8, Trump suggests that there is likely $5 trillion that could be brought into the country with effective leadership, highlighting the potential benefits for inner cities and other areas This reflects a tendency to focus on possibilities and past successes to envision future improvements.