This study examines the strategic use of hedges and boosters in the first US presidential debate of June 26, 2024, between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. These linguistic devices are crucial in shaping political discourse by modulating confidence and authority. Hedges introduce ambiguity and caution, while boosters amplify certainty and assertiveness. Using the official debate transcript as the primary data source, this analysis employs a qualitative content analysis to identify and categorize these strategies. It highlights distinct usage patterns: Joe Biden frequently uses hedges to express caution and acknowledge complexities, while Donald Trump relies heavily on boosters to project unwavering confidence and decisiveness. Biden’s strategic use of hedges allows him to navigate contentious issues with a balanced tone, while Trump’s emphasis on boosters strengthens his assertive stance and enhances his perceived authority. This research fills a gap in existing literature by specifically analyzing these linguistic devices within the context of presidential debates. The findings provide insights into how both candidates use hedges and boosters to influence voter perceptions and address rhetorical challenges, contributing to a deeper understanding of political communication strategies and their effects on audience reception.
| Published in | English Language, Literature & Culture (Volume 9, Issue 5) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ellc.20240905.12 |
| Page(s) | 159-165 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Hedges, Boosters, Political Discourse, Presidential Debate, Linguistic Analysis
| [1] | Atkinson, J. M. (1984). *Our Masters' Voices: The Language and Body Language of Politics*. Routledge. |
| [2] | Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). *Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage*. Cambridge University Press. |
| [3] | Bull, P., & Fetzer, A. (2006). Hedges and boosters in political discourse. *Journal of Pragmatics, 38*(11), 1840-1858. |
| [4] | Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). The effect of boosters on message persuasiveness. *Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33*(3), 273-293. |
| [5] | Fairclough, N. (1995). *Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language*. Longman. |
| [6] | Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic markers. In Y. Huang (Ed.), *Pragmatics* (pp. 103-122). Oxford University Press. |
| [7] | Gee, J. P. (2014). *An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method* (4th ed.). Routledge. |
| [8] | Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. In J. Coates (Ed.), *Language and Gender: A Reader* (pp. 171-195). Blackwell Publishers. |
| [9] |
Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging, and the negotiation of academic knowledge. *Journal of Research in Academic Discourse*.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110220746-011/html |
| [10] | Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or, why do you keep saying ‘sorry’? *Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society*, 295-309. |
| [11] | O'Keefe, B. (2002). Hedges and boosters in American presidential debates. *Discourse Studies, 4*(1), 21-35. |
| [12] | Smith, A., & Jones, B. (2024). Analyzing political discourse: Methods and approaches. *Journal of Political Communication Studies, 15*(2), 45-67. |
| [13] | Simpson, P. (1993). *Language, Ideology, and Point of View*. Routledge. |
| [14] | van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997). *Discourse as Social Interaction*. Sage Publications. |
| [15] | Commission on Presidential Debates. (2024). Official transcript of the first presidential debate. Retrieved from |
| [16] | CNN. (2024). CNN coverage of the first presidential debate. Retrieved from |
| [17] | NBC News. (2024). NBC News coverage of the first presidential debate. Retrieved from |
APA Style
Halomoan, H. S. (2024). Linguistic Strategies in Political Discourse: Hedges and Boosters in the 2024 US Presidential Debate. English Language, Literature & Culture, 9(5), 159-165. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20240905.12
ACS Style
Halomoan, H. S. Linguistic Strategies in Political Discourse: Hedges and Boosters in the 2024 US Presidential Debate. Engl. Lang. Lit. Cult. 2024, 9(5), 159-165. doi: 10.11648/j.ellc.20240905.12
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ellc.20240905.12,
author = {Hot Saut Halomoan},
title = {Linguistic Strategies in Political Discourse: Hedges and Boosters in the 2024 US Presidential Debate
},
journal = {English Language, Literature & Culture},
volume = {9},
number = {5},
pages = {159-165},
doi = {10.11648/j.ellc.20240905.12},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20240905.12},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ellc.20240905.12},
abstract = {This study examines the strategic use of hedges and boosters in the first US presidential debate of June 26, 2024, between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. These linguistic devices are crucial in shaping political discourse by modulating confidence and authority. Hedges introduce ambiguity and caution, while boosters amplify certainty and assertiveness. Using the official debate transcript as the primary data source, this analysis employs a qualitative content analysis to identify and categorize these strategies. It highlights distinct usage patterns: Joe Biden frequently uses hedges to express caution and acknowledge complexities, while Donald Trump relies heavily on boosters to project unwavering confidence and decisiveness. Biden’s strategic use of hedges allows him to navigate contentious issues with a balanced tone, while Trump’s emphasis on boosters strengthens his assertive stance and enhances his perceived authority. This research fills a gap in existing literature by specifically analyzing these linguistic devices within the context of presidential debates. The findings provide insights into how both candidates use hedges and boosters to influence voter perceptions and address rhetorical challenges, contributing to a deeper understanding of political communication strategies and their effects on audience reception.
},
year = {2024}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Linguistic Strategies in Political Discourse: Hedges and Boosters in the 2024 US Presidential Debate AU - Hot Saut Halomoan Y1 - 2024/10/18 PY - 2024 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20240905.12 DO - 10.11648/j.ellc.20240905.12 T2 - English Language, Literature & Culture JF - English Language, Literature & Culture JO - English Language, Literature & Culture SP - 159 EP - 165 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2575-2413 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20240905.12 AB - This study examines the strategic use of hedges and boosters in the first US presidential debate of June 26, 2024, between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. These linguistic devices are crucial in shaping political discourse by modulating confidence and authority. Hedges introduce ambiguity and caution, while boosters amplify certainty and assertiveness. Using the official debate transcript as the primary data source, this analysis employs a qualitative content analysis to identify and categorize these strategies. It highlights distinct usage patterns: Joe Biden frequently uses hedges to express caution and acknowledge complexities, while Donald Trump relies heavily on boosters to project unwavering confidence and decisiveness. Biden’s strategic use of hedges allows him to navigate contentious issues with a balanced tone, while Trump’s emphasis on boosters strengthens his assertive stance and enhances his perceived authority. This research fills a gap in existing literature by specifically analyzing these linguistic devices within the context of presidential debates. The findings provide insights into how both candidates use hedges and boosters to influence voter perceptions and address rhetorical challenges, contributing to a deeper understanding of political communication strategies and their effects on audience reception. VL - 9 IS - 5 ER -
Faculty of Social and Humaniora (FSH), University of Buddhi Dharma, Tangerang, Indonesia
