Hedges in political discourse: An elusive strategic technique
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper explores the phenomenon of hedging in political discourse as a deliberate linguistic strategy that enables politicians to balance assertiveness with caution, conviction with diplomacy, and truth claims with flexibility. Drawing on Hyland’s (1996) functional taxonomy, the study analyzes hedging devices in the 2012 U.S.
presidential debates between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. The research aims to identify the dominant types and pragmatic functions of hedging devices used by both candidates, demonstrating how these linguistic markers contribute to persuasion and credibility management. The study adopts a descriptive qualitative method supported by simple quantitative frequency counts to classify four primary categories of hedges: modal auxiliaries, subjectivization, approximators, and compound forms.
The findings reveal that modal auxiliaries such as may, might, can, and should and subjectivization expressions such as I think and I believe were the most frequently employed, reflecting each candidate’s attempt to appear confident yet reasonable. Obama’s discourse displayed a higher frequency of hedging, suggesting rhetorical caution and inclusiveness, while Romney’s was more direct and assertive.
The study concludes that hedging in political debate is not a sign of linguistic weakness but a sophisticated rhetorical mechanism that enhances credibility, softens conflict, and maintains politeness within the dynamics of political communication.
The paper contributes to discourse analysis by revealing how hedging serves as both a cognitive and strategic resource in constructing persuasive and ethically conscious political speech.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
How to Cite
Share
References
Abdul Majeed, R. K. (2010) ‘Analysis of grammatical forms and semantic functions of hedging in political discourse: American presidential debate’, Journal of College of Education for Women, 21(3), pp. 750–770.
Allawzi, A., Ammari, D., Salman, D. and Almazaidah, I. (2023) ‘Translation as an ideological practice in Abulhawa’s Mornings in Jenin’, Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures, 15(4), pp. 1325–1340. https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.15.4.11
Al-Thunebat, S., Al-Masarwah, T. I. and Almazaidah, I. S. (2024) ‘The duality of cohesion and coherence in Ibn Zurayq’s poem Do Not Reproach Him’, International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 13(2), pp. 227–239. https://doi.org/10.55493/5019.v13i2.5036
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cabanes, P. (2007) ‘A contrastive analysis of hedging in English and Spanish architecture project description’, RESLA, 20, pp. 139–158.
Chilton, P. (2004) Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
Falahati, R. (2006) ‘The use of hedging across different disciplines and rhetorical sections of research articles’. Paper presented at the 22nd Northwest Linguistic Conference, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, February 18–19.
Hinkel, E. (1997) ‘Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing’, Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), pp. 361–386.
Hübler, A. (1983) Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (1995) ‘The author in the text: Hedging scientific writing’, Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, pp. 33–42.
Hyland, K. (1996) ‘Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles’, Applied Linguistics, 17(4), pp. 433–454.
Hyland, K. (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Lakoff, G. (1973) ‘Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), pp. 458–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262952
Markkanen, R. and Schröder, H. (eds.) (1997) Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Rabab’ah, G. (2013) ‘Hedging in nursing and education academic articles’, Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 6(3/4), pp. 195–215.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1997) ‘I think that perhaps you should: A study of hedges in written scientific discourse’, in Miller, T. (ed.) Functional Approaches to Written Texts: Classroom Applications. Washington, DC: USIA, pp. 105–118.
van Dijk, T. A. (1997) Discourse as Structure and Process. London: Sage.
Weinreich, U. (1966) ‘Explorations in semantic theory’, Word, 22(3), pp. 235–256.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965) ‘Fuzzy sets’, Information and Control, 8(3), pp. 338–353.
Zuck, J. and Zuck, L. (1987) ‘Hedging in news writing’, in Cornu, A. M., Vanparijs, J. and Delahaye, M. (eds.) Beads or Bracelets: How Do We Approach LSP? Leuven: Oxford University Press, pp. 172–181.