A Pragmatic Approach: Hedges and Booster Found in the 2024 Final Indonesia Presidential Candidate Debate to Shape the Candidate’s Image
Abstract
This study explored how the candidates for Indonesia's next president used hedges and boosters to strengthen their image to the public in the YouTube live stream that was released on February 4, 2024. To explain what caused the phenomenon of the Hedges and Booster used in the Indonesia final presidential candidate debate, the researchers of this study used a descriptive qualitative method. The 1987 theory of Brown and Levinson is used as the theoretical framework. The results of this research show that in the final Indonesia presidential debate, the candidates used 842 boosters and 391 hedges. In an attempt to make their points comprehensible to the audience, they employ hedges to help maintain their means of expression. Meanwhile, they use boosters to strengthen the arguments they make and demonstrate their objectivity in making them.
Keywords: Hedges; Booster; Debate; Hedges; Indonesia Presidential Candidate; Pragmatic
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Brown, P. & Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Language Universals In Language Use.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.
Elhambakhsh, Jalalian. 2015. Critical Discourse Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in Iranian TV Election Debates of Presidential Candidates.
Fetzer. 2008. Hedges in Context: Form and Function of Sort of and Kind of.
Harutyunyan, K. Sargsyan. 2019. The Sociolinguistic Perspective of Hedging in English.
Hendrikus, DW (1991). Skilled Rhetoric in Speech, Discussion, Argumentation, Negotiation. Yogyakarta: Kanisius (Member of IKAPI).
Holmes, J. 1982. Expressing Doubt and Certainty in English. RELC Journal.
Holmes, J. 1995. Women, Men, And Politeness. London: Longman.
Holmes, J. 1984. Modifying Illocutionary Force. Journal of Pragmatics.
Huberman, M. d. 1992. Qualitative Data Analysis. University of Indonesia Press, 16.
Hyland, K. 1998. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge.
Walter de Gruyter.
Jalilifar, Alvinia. 2012. A Functional Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in Televised Iranian and American Presidential Debates. Discourse & Communication.
Kruger, N. Arthur. 1960. Modern Debate; Its Logic And Strategy. First Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Lakoff, George. 1972. “Hedges: Study In Meaning Criteria And The Logic Of Fuzzy Concept".In Jungwei Tang, Paper Of International Journal Of Applied Linguistics & English Literature (Pp. 155-160). Australia: Australian International Academic Centre
Leech, GN 1993. Principles of Pragmatics. (Translated by MDD Oka and Setyadi Setyapranata). Jakarta: University of Indonesia.
Leech, G.N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Markkanen, R. and H. Schröder (1997). Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In R. Markkanen and H. Schröder (eds.). Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Martin & Rose. 2003. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond The Clause. London, New York: Continuum.
Moleong, LJ 2010. Qualitative Research Methodology - Revised Edition. Bandung: PT.
Muhtadi. 2008. Asep Saeful Muhtadi's Political Campaign. Bandung: Humanities.
Parandaru, I. 2024. Presidential Candidate-Vice Presidential Candidate Debate As Political Communication Instruments.Quoted from:
Https://Kompaspedia.Kompas.Id/Baca/Paparan-Topik/Debat-Capres- Vice Presidential Candidates as Instruments of Political Communication
Ponterotto. 2018. Hedging in Political Interviewing When Obama Meets the Press.Pragmatics and Society,Volume 9, Issue 2.
Riekkinen, Niina. 2009. "This is not criticism, but..." Softening criticism: The use of lexical hedges in academic spoken interaction. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Helsinki.
Santosa, 2021. Basics of Qualitative Linguistic Research Methods. Surakarta: UNS Press
Sari, DM, Nababan, Mr., and Santosa, R. 2021. Analysis of the Use of Expressions Boosters as Rhetorical Devices in Presentations at Ted.Com Proceedings National Seminar on Linguistics and Literature (Semantics). Surakarta, Indonesia. 1-2.
Sugiyono. 2009. Quantitative, Qualitative, and R & D Research Methods. Bandung: Alfabeta Publisher.
Suriasumantri, J. 1988. Science in Perspective. Jakarta: Obor Foundation.
Surtikanti. 2023. Hedges and Boosters in Building the Image of United States Candidates Reviewed from the Perspective of the Presidential Candidate Debate Genre. UNS Institutional Repository.
Vasquez, Giner. 2009. Writing with Conviction: The Use of Boosters in Modeling Persuasion in Academic Discourses.
Vassileva. 2001. Commitment and Detachment in English and Bulgarian Academic Writing. English for Specific Purposes.
Wahyuni, ES 2021. Generation Z Language Politeness Among Students of the Department ofIndonesian Language Teaching for the 2017/2018 Class of IAIN Syekh Nurjati Cirebon On Instagram.Thesis. Iain Syekh Nurjati.
Widhiarso, W. 2005. The Influence of Language on Thought: A Hypothesis Study Benjamin Whorf and Edward Sapir. Language and Thought.
Yagiz, O., & Demir, C. 2015. A Comparative Study of Boosting in Academic Texts: A Contrastive Rhetoric. International Journal of English Linguistics.
Yule. 2014. Pragmatic. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar. Oxford University Press: Oxford
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30870/aiselt.v9i1.28887
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
PROCEEDING AISELT (Annual International Seminar on English Language Teaching) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Copyright @2024 Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa [Untirta]. All rights reserved.