|
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies Volume 3 Number 4, April, 2023 p- ISSN 2775-3735-
e-ISSN 2775-3727 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
LEXICAL VERB(S) OF
HEDGING USED BY THE WHITE HOUSE SECRETARY’S RESPONSES IN PRESS BRIEFING |
|
|
|
Humairotul Husna*, Mohammad Masrukhi Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Universitas Gadjah
Mada Yogyakarta, Indonesia Email: [email protected]*, [email protected] |
|
|
|
ABSTRACT |
|
|
|
The study aims to investigate the lexical verbs of
hedging used by two White House secretaries in press briefings, namely Jen
Psaki (JP) and Karine Jean Pierre (KJP). The research focuses on the
secretary's response in answering the question made by journalists. The
corpus consisting of 22 press briefing meetings published from November 2021
to August 2022. The study identifies the most used lexical verbs by the two
secretaries through quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis to
describe their functions. As a result, the use of hedging verbs is more
widely used by secretary Jen Psaki than secretary Karine Jean Pierre.
Nevertheless, both used many verbs in the form of think in their responses. The findings reveal the uncertainty
and reduce the secretary’s commitment. Besides, the function of hedging is to
protect secretaries from forward-looking statements and seek protection
against overstatement. |
|
|
|
KEYWORDS |
Hedging verb; responses; press briefing |
|
|
|
This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International |
|
INTRODUCTION
The responses made
by the White House secretary to answer the question seem to have their style in
every spoken speech. The word seems, think, probably, would, could, might
are often uttered in spoken language, especially in the press briefing. These
devices are used for specific purposes such as ‘vague,' 'evade,' 'fuzzy,' and
‘uncertainty’. The words whose meaning shows fuzziness are first created by Lakoff (1973).
Following Lakoff (1973), it is
known as ‘hedging’ forms in Linguistics. Biber et al. (1999) have
argued that hedging demonstrates linguistic expression that decreases the
consequence of intentional statements expressing possibilities, uncertainty,
and inaccuracy. It is usually used to indicate tentative and uncertain an
assertion that can be interpreted differently depending on the conversation's
content and who employs the hedges.
Moreover,
hedging belongs an essential strategy used in communication. It follows Hyland (1998)
that hedging is
used to soften statements' accuracy, claim the precision, and show doubts. In
academic writing, hedging is used by the author to reduce the strength of what
has been written (Rabab’ah & Abu Rumman,
2015).
According to Biber et al. (1999), hedging
is displayed in linguistic expression expressing uncertainty, possibilities,
and inaccuracy, showing the consequent reduction of intentional statements.
According to Hyland (1998), Hedging
is weakening statements' accuracy, claiming accuracy, and expressions of doubt.
Itani (1998) claimed
that the word probably and suppose is considered hedging devices.
Hedging is
an essential strategy employed in political Press Briefing (Schubert, 2014; Hassan, 2016; Fu & Wang, 2022; Yang & Li, 2022).
Such as, the White
House secretary gave transparent responses to answer various journalists'
questions about government information. Addai & Gurji (2021) revealed
that there had been relevant research on equivocation, vagueness, and
uncertainty, especially in politicians' speeches. According to McLaren-Hankin (2008),
press releases aim
to communicate with the public to inform them about their work. It is related
to the past and present and the case for the future involving the community.
Press briefings involve prediction, which frequently reveals a forward-looking
statement. What the secretary conveyed in the press briefing is employing the
hedging displayed in the responses. The secretary should employ hedging in her
utterances primarily due to the occupational responsibility
to be alert to the trouble of her speech in a press briefing (Resche, 2004). That is
the importance of using hedging against the consequences that can occur. According
to Dornbusch et al. (1988),
public reactions
depend mainly on their interpretation of policy decisions. Therefore, the
secretary is fully aware that she has many opportunities for public appearance
when conveying inaccurate information will take a loss of credibility. Brown & Levinson (1987)
stated that
hedging is "a particle, word or phrase that modify the degree of
membership of a predicate or a noun phrase in a set; it says of that membership
that it is partial or true only in certain respects, or that it is more true
and complete than perhaps might be expected".
Tang (2013)
pointed out that
the classification of hedging usage is due to the perspective of the study. It
also forms with an even smaller scope as in words and phrases. According to Liu (2020), Many
words fulfill the standard of hedging usage that can be classified as adverbs,
modal verbs, adjectives, and impersonal phrases. Hedging can appear in various
linguistic forms, for instance, lexical, grammatical, and syntactical (Hardjanto, 2016).
Many researchers
have conducted hedges. Some researchers analyzed the hedges such as in the
article (Hardjanto, 2016; Mur-Dueñas, 2021; Hu & Cao, 2011; Budiarti, 2019; Triyoko, 2021), written
text (Salager-Meyer, 1994), text
message (Walker et al., 2011),
conversation (Anindyawati, 2004; Wang, 2010; Engström, 2018), gender (Namaziandost &
Shafiee, 2018; Mohajer & Jan 2015; Li & Li, 2020), book
reviews (Itakura, 2013),
broadcast (Yang & Yap, 2015),
and discourse (Pisanski Peterlin &
Zlatnar Moe, 2016; Plappert, 2019).
Although the word hedging tool has been widely used in
many previous kinds of research, both written and spoken, the word hedging may
appear in various forms and variations. It is considering Brown & Levinson (1987)
that the potential for hedging disclosure is not
semantically limited in its number of forms. It can be found in any situation,
and hedging devices are widely used in many cases with different words,
phrases, or clauses. The present study will investigate the use of the lexical
verb(s) in the secretary's response in obtaining information related to public
policy, and what the government is doing will be conveyed transparently and
also identify the function of using hedging. Moreover, the study aims to investigate the lexical verbs
of hedging used by two White House secretaries in press briefings, namely Jen
Psaki (JP) and Karine Jean Pierre (KJP).
Epistemic modality
According
to Perkins (1983),
Epistemic means a
lack of knowledge. Coates (1983) defined
epistemic as “the speaker’s assumptions, or assessment of possibilities,
and, in most cases, it indicates the speaker’s confidence or lack of confidence
in the truth of the proposition expressed”. Vold (2006)
defined epistemic
modality as a linguistic expression that expresses possibility, for example,
perhaps. Epistemic modality is characterized by how people rely on the
truth of a proposition. Depraetere & Reed
(2008)
argued that the
use of epistemic modality does not show factual information or indicate the
possible truth of a proposition.
On the
other hand, Le Querler (1996)
claimed that
epistemic modality is the way the total uncertainty toward absolute certainty.
It can be concluded that epistemic modality is a speaker's strategy to express
doubts about some information based on specific knowledge and considerations or
propositions that can be judged both true or false.
Palmer (2001)
formulated the examples of the epistemic sentence using three modal verbs:
(1)
John may be in his office.
(2)
John must be in his office.
(3)
John will be in his office.
The three
sentences above have different propositional judgments. Sentence (1) describes
the speaker’s uncertainty about John’s presence in the office. The second
sentence shows that the speaker makes a judgment based on the evidence (e.g.,
that the office light is on or hearing John’s voice from outside), and the
third sentence means the speaker generally knows about John (from a habit that
John often does). Therefore, from those explanations, it can be concluded that
the proposition presented is a possibility based on specific considerations.
Hedging’s
Classification
Some
categories of hedging highlighted the concept of Hyland (1998), Namasaraev (1997), and Varttala (1999)
can be formulated
as follows:
Table 1. Categories of Hedging
|
Hedging forms |
Types |
Parts |
Examples |
|
Lexical |
Verb |
Modal |
Can, may, must,
shall, will |
|
Lexical |
Claim, think, suggest, assert |
||
|
Adverb |
Frequency |
Commonly,
frequently, often, typically |
|
|
Degree |
Highly, strongly, significantly. |
||
|
Probability |
Possibly,
presumably, seemingly. |
||
|
Approximative |
About, almost, around, some, approximately. |
||
|
Adjective |
Frequency |
Common, frequent,
general |
|
|
Degree |
Central, large, significant |
||
|
Probability |
Likely, perhaps,
possible. |
||
|
Approximative |
Approximate, close |
||
|
Noun |
Tentative
cognitive |
Estimate,
assessment, perception |
|
|
Nonfactive assertive |
Argument, prediction, indication |
||
|
Tentative
likelihood |
Opportunity,
possibility, potential |
||
|
Grammatical |
Impersonal construction |
It- clause |
It is likely…, it was possible that…it is suggested
that… |
|
Personification |
The results
indicate that… The data show… |
||
|
Interrogative construction |
Question |
|
|
|
Conditional
construction |
Real |
If clause |
|
|
Unreal |
Based on
the table above, the verb hedging consists of a modal auxiliary and lexical
verb. The word may, will, shall, and must belong to modal
auxiliary verbs, while be, have, and do are non-modal auxiliary
verbs. Besides, the word claim, think, and suggest include a
lexical verb, while non-modal lexical verbs are drink, come, and eat (Budiarti, 2019).
The primary device
in these verb categories, often identified as hedging, is modal verbs related
to the present and the past condition (Huddleston & Pullum,
2005).
Besides, lexical
verbs are also indicated as hedging devices which will be the focus of study in
this research. By so doing, this study used the concept of Palmer (2001), which divided the lexical verb of hedging
into four categories.
Table 2. Lexical Verbs Categories
|
Categories |
Examples |
Explanation |
|
Speculative |
Think,
argue, believe, suggest |
State a claim
based on his own subjective opinion |
|
Deductive |
Assume,
conclude, interpret, presume |
State a
conclusion based on the statements he/ she made earlier |
|
Quotative |
"Peter,
the President believes in the rule of law. The President said that he
believes in the independence of the Department of Justice". |
Quote someone's
statement. |
|
Sensorial |
Feel,
see, look, appear |
Involve the use
of the senses. |
Press briefing
The press
briefing is a press conference held by the President's secretary. The
President's secretary holds the press conference, and the journalists attend.
The event is a question-and-answer interaction held by journalists with the
secretary of the white house about the topic related to issues that existed in
society. A government organization presents press briefings to convey the
information to the public through the media. The press is led by a secretary to
choose the reporters to ask questions related to the topic. It is essential to
know because a press briefing represents the President's policy and daily
issues in the nation, even related to the world. The secretary conveys the
brief information as a president's representative to provide the information
transparently, give the responses and present the information that is still a
question for the public to be delivered through the press briefing. It became
an extensive information and referral source to journalists in publishing an
issue to become public consumption. Hedging can be an essential communication
strategy the secretary employs in giving a response. The use of hedging will
likely differ based on the speaker's wishes. The speakers can choose what
language they want to convey. This study is interested in identifying the use
of hedging by the White House secretaries, namely Jen Psaki and Karine
Jean-Pierre. Even though they both served as secretaries of the White House,
the use of hedging may seem different. The researcher investigates the hedges
used by the secretary in conveying crucial information related to the news
within the government. The previous research was used as a reference to
investigate the hedges in the secretary's responses.
RESEARCH
METHOD
The study analyzes the responses given by the white house
secretary. The responses aim to answer the questions asked by journalists
attending the press briefing. The data is in the form of sentences containing
the dispreferred responses, giving information, and straightening the argument.
The response will be obtained from the secretary who once served as secretary
of the White House, namely Jen Psaki, who served as secretary from January 2021
to May 2022 and then continued by Karine Jean Pierre until now. Purposive
sampling will use in the research. It suggests that the data will be applied
from November 2021 to December 2022. Besides, the data merely 16 focussed on
the responses of the secretaries. The data is acquired from the official
website of the White House, which can be seen and downloaded at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/.
The video
of the press briefing by the White House Press Secretary also can be seen and
downloaded on the official White House YouTube account. The research employs a
quantitative method to find the frequency and distribution of hedging forms. At
the same time, to find the function of the hedging, use a descriptive
qualitative method. The data collection steps to analyze the hedges in press
briefing are formulated as follows: Collecting the conversation data in press
briefing transcription of the Press Briefing, separating the conversation into
two parts (questions and responses), Thoroughly reading the responses, and
classifying the data into hedging (Classify the data precisely in words,
sentences, or clauses). After downloading the responses, the document format
from the transcript, which initially had the extension "word," was
converted to plaintext. This conversion is done considering the software used
in this study is AntConc 3.5.9 (Anthony, 2020), which can
only process the files with that extension.
Furthermore,
the data is processed through a keyword search method in the Corpus by entering
one by one word that is classified as hedging. At this stage, keywords that
have appeared will be filtered because not necessarily all of them appear to
include hedging. After acquiring the data, the researcher identifies and
analyzes the hedging verbs found in a press briefing by White House Press
Secretary: Jen Psaki and Karine Jean Pierre based on the theory of Palmer (2001) In the end, the researcher contributes
conclusions.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
In this section,
the authors present an analysis concerning hedging used by secretaries in their
responses. First, it displays the frequency of forms of hedging used according
to Palmer (2001),
as well as a
comparison both of the frequencies of the two white house secretaries, Jen
Psaki (JP) and Karine Jean Pierre (KJP). In addition to modal auxiliary verbs,
lexical verbs also play an essential position in expressing hedging. The
hedging verb in this study will be limited to several lexical verbs often found
in press briefings, such as think, guess, seem(s), argue, believe, conclude,
feel, suggest, predict, imply, expect, and suppose. Below is two
White House secretaries in their responses: the frequency of using hedging.
Table 3. Frequency of Hedging Verbs by Two White House Secretaries
|
Secretary |
Number of Words |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
JP |
112.407 |
503 |
59% |
|
KJP |
113.354 |
356 |
41% |
|
Total |
225.761 |
859 |
100% |
Referring
to the table above is generally the use of hedging in the form of lexical verbs
by two press briefing secretaries at the white house. The table above shows
that the use of hedging in the form of lexical verbs is more widely used in the
response of secretary Jen Psaki (59%) than in secretary Karine Jean Pierre
(41%). While, Surprisingly, the number of words that appear in the response
tends to be more than the number in Secretary Jean Pierre's response. Besides,
in this case, there is a level of awareness of the two secretaries as
spokespersons for the government of the importance of using hedging, especially
in the form of lexical verbs in discussing political issues and government
policies in conveying them to the public. In order to be more detailed, the
following will show one by one the use of hedging in the form of lexical verbs
used by the two press secretaries.
Table 4. The Form and Frequency of the use of Lexical Verbs Used by Secretary Jen Psaki
|
Verb of hedging |
JP |
|
|
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
|
Think |
296 |
0.59 |
|
Expect |
74 |
0.15 |
|
Believe |
45 |
0.09 |
|
Feel |
37 |
0.07 |
|
Guess |
14 |
0.03 |
|
Predict |
13 |
0.03 |
|
Suggest |
8 |
0.02 |
|
Seem(s) |
7 |
0.01 |
|
Conclude |
4 |
0.01 |
|
Argue |
3 |
0.01 |
|
Imply |
1 |
0.0 |
|
Suppose |
1 |
0.0 |
|
Total |
503 |
1.00 |
Table (4) demonstrates that the word "think”
is the most frequently used by Jean Psaki in her responses, with a frequency of
0.59. The word “think" is often used in spoken language, especially
in a press briefing (Fu & Wang, 2022).
While the word “expect”
is the second most common word after the word “think” in Secretary Jen
Psaki's response (0.15). There are significant differences in the use of think
and expect. Then, the third order of the most used lexical verbs is “believe,"
with a frequency of 0.09 and followed by the word feel (0.07), guess
and predict with the same frequency (0.03), the use of word suggest (0.02),
seem, conclude and argue (0.01). The minor lexical verb used in
Secretary Jen Psaki's response is the word imply and suppose with
frequency (0,0).
Table 5. The form and frequency of the use of
lexical verbs used by secretary Karine Jean Pierre
|
Verb of hedging |
KJP |
|
|
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
|
Think |
224 |
0.63 |
|
Believe |
81 |
0.23 |
|
Feel |
19 |
0.05 |
|
Expect |
15 |
0.04 |
|
Argue |
12 |
0.03 |
|
Conclude |
2 |
0.01 |
|
Predict |
1 |
0.00 |
|
Guess |
1 |
0.00 |
|
Seem(s) |
1 |
0.00 |
|
Suggest |
0 |
0.00 |
|
Imply |
0 |
0.00 |
|
Suppose |
0 |
0.00 |
|
Total |
356 |
1.00 |
In table (5), the word think is the most
frequently used in secretary Karine Jean Pierre’s response, with a frequency of
0.63. It is not much different from the secretary Jen Psaki where the most
widely used word is “think”. It indicates that the use of think in
press secretary is evenly used. Unlike Jen Psaki, the second most used lexical
verb by secretary Karine Jean Pierre is the word believe with a
frequency (of 0.23). The word feel is much different from the word believe,
which ranks third with a frequency of 0.05. Then, followed by the use of the
word expect (0.04), argue (0.03), and conclude (0.01).
Surprisingly, if in the response of secretary Jen Psaki there is the use of the
words imply, suggest, and suppose, then there is a difference in
the response of secretary Karine Jean Pierre who does not use these words in
the press response at all. It can be concluded that the use of hedging for the
two secretaries has a significant difference. It can be seen that Karine Jean
Pierre's secretary tends to use less hedging in her response than Jen Psaki's
secretary.
Speculative
lexical verbs
Basically,
speculative lexical verbs are used in the form of performative verbs (argue,
propose, suggest). Besides that, it can also be realized in the form of
cognitive verbs such as believe and think. Speculative lexical
verbs are general clauses that use personal pronouns (i) and (we)
as subjects. As follows:
I think, in President Biden's
heart, he is a local elected official still, and he gets into the weeds of what
they're experiencing. (JP02)
I think he mentioned this in his -
in his statement yesterday, he
has spoken to Senator Schumer. (KJP17)
I believe it's a commission at the
Department of Defense. It's certainly an
initiative the President of the United
States supports, but I would send you to the Department of Defense for more
specifics about the timeline and membership. (JP12)
And so, again, the President se- -
believes that it is his job to level with the American people about threats he
sees to our nation and our values. And that's what you heard from him last
night. And we believe it did - it indeed resonated. (KJP05)
The use
and choice of the think verb in a secretary's response like the examples
above are generally included an opinion based on knowledge of the matter
concerned. This can be said to be a subjective or tentative interpretation and
still conveys the truth of the proposition. The use of the lexical verbs listed
above is considered a hedging device since there is a subjective cognitive
notion of press secretaries. In another sense, the proposition submitted cannot
be ascertained by the secretary but is suspected to be true because it is not
the result of objective calculations (Varttala, 2001). It is
also claimed by Hyland (1998)
that the use of
cognitive lexical verbs is a presumption meaning of the previous proposition.
Deductive lexical verbs
Deductive
lexical verbs are preceded by subject (i) and (we), as well as
speculative lexical verbs. Explicitly, this proposition is the result of the
speaker's conclusions.
I suppose - about the meeting this
weekend kind of got out there, and obviously Brian confirmed it. There are a
lot of meetings happening at one time with a lot of different officials. (JP03)
The
deductive verbs above show inferential reasoning on previous opinions or
knowledge (Budiarti, 2019).
Vass (2017) argued
that deductive verbs are used on a set of known facts in making conclusions.
Quotative lexical verbs
Suppose
some speculative lexical verbs are marked with personal pronouns (i) and
(we). In that case, the quotative lexical verbs generally have a third-person
subject which is realized by quoting a particular name or object. Like the two
types of lexical verbs above, the verbs used most often in the responses of the
two white house press secretaries are the verbs think and believe,
especially using personal pronouns I and we. Here are the
examples below:
Well, the President believes
that the Senate has the constitutional duty to proceed as they see fit on
holding the former President accountable. He spent 36 years in the Senate; he's
no longer there. (JP05)
But, you know, the President thinks
that there is an extremist threat to our democracy. (KJP07)
In the
press response of the white house secretary, many forms of quoted lexical verbs
are found in the form of believe and think. It is due to his
authority over work as a government spokesperson or President. The secretary
conveys what the President does and responds to a particular policy. In this
way, they directly provide propositions based on people who are very
influential to the public and make the public believe in certain information.
Sensorial lexical verbs
The use of
lexical verbs in this type generally involves using the senses. The quotative
lexical verbs included include the words see, feel and look. The
verb feel is most used in the responses of the two white house secretaries.
So, don't want to - you know, we feel
like it's inappropriate to talk about hypotheticals here. (JP02)
We feel that we have the time -
some time to make that happen. And so, that is - in order to continue our
progress and build on our progress, we're going to continue to fight for that
funding. (KJP05)
In this
case, quotative lexical verbs reveal the secretary's attitude, inviting the
public to agree with what he is saying. Based on the overall presentation of
the data above, the use of lexical verbs by the two secretary's responses is
the preference of each secretary in selecting lexical verbs to use according to
the function they want to use according to the context. In short, the use of
lexical verbs by the two secretaries is not much different in their usage
pattern. The difference appears in the comparison of the number of uses of
lexical verbs.
As
previously mentioned, one of the hedging functions is to reduce the speaker's
commitment. This case supports McLaren-Hankin's
(2008) research that hedging functions to
protect secretaries from forward-looking statements. It is what Hyland
(1998) has stated that forward-looking
statements involve uncertainty. Hyland (ibid) has argued that hedging has a
sign of uncertainty in making assertions and seeking protection against
overstatement. The secretaries can never be 100 percent sure of their
arguments. To overcome this, secretaries often involve the President in their
statements. It can be seen in the example below:
The President put an increase in the minimum
wage in the initial package because he thinks it's important for
American men and women, who are - have a full-time job, working hard, to have a
decent wage, and he thinks it's long past time to raise the minimum
wage. But we'll let the process see itself through, and I'm not going to
negotiate what he'd be open to and not from the podium. (JP18)
Indeed, as
well as showing caution in making statements to avoid uncertain knowledge, the
use of hedging in this case also involves predictions, expectations, and
beliefs. It is a positive attitude in conducting press briefings to outline
performance in the future, the policies to be taken, and expectations regarding
the development of something going forward. Besides, In addition, the
secretary's moral attitude in giving arguments with several sentences that use
the pronoun (we) as a form of expression for the spokesperson not to
express his point of view directly (Zhou,
2020). Furthermore, in a press conference, as
shown in this study, the spokesperson does not have to raise his voice or be
agitated and openly confront journalists. However, they have a strategy to
evade that by preventing journalists from continuing with their unpleasant
questions. It is generally because the secretary wants to have a positive image
of government performance and strengthen government authority.
CONCLUSION
This study
examines hedging, specifically in the lexical verbs used by two white house
secretaries in a press briefing, by identifying the most used lexical verbs by
the two secretaries through quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis to
describe the accompanying functions. The findings reveal that the use of
personal opinion (think) is primarily used by the two secretaries than
other lexical verbs. In addition, it is common to involve the President in
expressing arguments in press briefings. It is done to form a positive image
and gain public belief. Finally, this study opens broader insights into
evaluating the response given by the white house secretary. However, this study
has a limitation, namely due to the limited research on lexical verbs. This
research still needs to determine hedging at different levels for a broader
comparison.
Addai, S. M.,
& Gurji, R. J. (2021). Hedging In Trump Speeches About
Covid-19ة, June,
51. https://doi.org/10.33811/1847-005-003-003
Anindyawati, M.
(2004). Hedges Usage in Mixed-Gender Conversation among
English Department Students Airlangga University. 2002, 21–27.
Biber, D.,
Leech, G., & Johansson, S. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and
Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Brown, P., &
Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in
Language Usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). In TESOL
Quarterly (Vol. 22, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.2307/3587263
Budiarti, D.
(2019). Verba Leksikal Pengungkap Pembentengan dalam
Artikel Penelitian Berbahasa Inggris oleh Penutur Jati dan Nonjati.
Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Coates, J.
(1983). The Sematics of Modal Auxiliaries
(pp. 27–64).
Depraetere, I.,
& Reed, S. (2008). Mood and Modality in English. The
Handbook of English Linguistics, 269–290.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753002.ch12
Dornbusch, R.,
Fisher, S., & Startz, R. (1988). Macroeconomics.
Engström, A.
(2018). I ’ m sure women use more hedges , I think A study
comparing male and female usage of hedges.
Fu, R., &
Wang, K. (2022). Hedging in interpreted and
spontaneous speeches: A comparative study of Chinese and American political
press briefings. Text and Talk, 42(2), 153–175.
https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0290
Hardjanto, T. D.
(2016). Pembentengan dalam Artikel Penelitian
Ilmiah dalam Bahasa Inggris. Disertasi Doktor Fakultas Ilmu Budaya
Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Hassan, M. A. H.
H. (2016). Hedging In press Briefing. 70, 605–626.
Hu, G., &
Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied
linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium
journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795–2809.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
Huddleston, R.,
& Pullum, G. K. (2005). A Student’s Introduction to English
Grammar. Cambridge University.
Hyland, K.
(1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic
metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(98)00009-5
Itakura, H.
(2013). Hedging praise in English and Japanese book reviews. Journal
of Pragmatics, 45(1), 131–148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.003
Itani, R.
(1998). Semantics and Pragmatics of Hedges in
English and Japanese. Pragmatics, 8(4), 584–585.
Lakoff, G.
(1973). Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the logic of
fuzzy concepts. Philosophical Logic, 15(4), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.11436/mssj.15.250
Le Querler, N.
(1996). Typolofie des modalités. Presses universitaires de Caen.
Li, X., &
Li, F. (2020). Gender Difference in Hedging: A Corpus-Based Study to
TED Talks about Emotion. Creative Education, 11(10), 2106–2115.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2020.1110153
Liu, J. (2020). A pragmatic analysis of hedges from
the perspective of politeness principle. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, 10(12), 1614–1619. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1012.15
McLaren-Hankin,
Y. (2008). “We expect to report on significant progress in our
product pipeline in the coming year”: Hedging forward-looking statements in
corporate press releases. Discourse Studies, 10(5), 635–654.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608094216
Mohajer, L.,
& Jan, J. M. (2015). Preserving Face and the Use of
Hedges in Masculine World of Men. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences (Vol. 208, Issue Icllic 2014). Elsevier B.V.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.176
Mur-Dueñas, P.
(2021). There may be differences: Analysing
the use of hedges in English and Spanish research articles. Lingua, 260.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103131
Namasaraev, V. (1997). Hedging in Russian Academic
Writing in Sociological Text. Publishing Company.
Namaziandost,
E., & Shafiee, S. (2018). Gender Differences in the Use of
Lexical Hedges in Academic Spoken Language among Iranian EFL Learners: A
Comparative Study. International Journal of Research in English Education,
3(4), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.29252/ijree.3.4.63
Palmer, F. R.
(2001). Mood and Modality. Cambridge University Press.
Perkins, M. R.
(1983). Modal Expression in English (Norwood (ed.)).
Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Pisanski, P. A.,
& Zlatnar Moe, M. (2016). Translating hedging devices in news
discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 102, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.009
Plappert, G.
(2019). Not hedging but implying: Identifying
epistemic implicature through a corpus-driven approach to scientific discourse.
Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 163–174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.001
Rabab’ah, G.,
& Abu Rumman, R. (2015). Hedging in Political Discourse:
Evidence from the Speeches of King Abdullah II of Jordan. Prague Journal of
English Studies, 4(1), 157–185.
https://doi.org/10.1515/pjes-2015-0009
Resche, C.
(2004). Investigating “Greenspanese”: From hedging to “fuzzy
transparency.” Discourse and Society, 15(6), 723–744.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504046502
Salager-Meyer,
F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical
English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2),
149–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2
Schubert, C.
(2014). I haven’t spoken to him about it. Language and
Dialogue, 4(1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.4.1.04sch
Tang, J. (2013). Pragmatic functions of hedges and
politeness principles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and
English Literature, 2(4), 155–160.
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.4p.155
Triyoko, H.
(2021). Kategori, Makna, dan Fungsi Piranti Pembentengan
dalam Artikel Ilmiah Berbahasa Indonesia. Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Varttala, T.
(1998). Remarks on the Communicative Functions of Hedging in
Popular Scientific and Specialist Research Articles on Medicine. English for
Specific Purposes, 18(2), 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(98)00007-6
Vass, H. (2017). Lexical Verb Hedging in Legal
Discourse: The Case of Law Journal Articles and Supreme Court Majority and
Dissenting Opinions. English for Specific Purpose, 20, 83–102.
Vold, E. T.
(2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A
cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00106.x
Walker, T.,
Drew, P., & Local, J. (2011). Responding indirectly. Journal of
Pragmatics, 43(9), 2434–2451.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.012
Wang, Y. (2010). Analyzing Hedges in Verbal Communication:
An Adaptation-Based Approach. English Language Teaching, 3(3),
120–124. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n3p120
Yang, Y., &
Yap, F. H. (2015). “I am sure but I hedge”: Fear
expression kǒngpà as an interactive rhetorical strategy in Mandarin broadcast
talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 83, 41–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.013
Yang, Z., &
Li, L. (2022). No straight talk here: A multi-level analysis of
hedging strategies employed by the Fed Chair in press conferences. Journal
of Pragmatics, 188, 141–151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.12.004
Zhou, L. (2020). Moral stance taking as a device of
covert aggression in Chinese political language use. Discourse, Context and
Media, 36, 100415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100415