FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the research findings and the discussion of the research. The researcher presents data findings of hedges and boosters in the presidential debate and the discussion of the data result.
4.1 Findings
This subchapter serves the findings of the data as a result of the research. There are two questions related to this study and presented in this subchapter. The first research question is about the types of hedges used by Trump and Clinton in the second and third presidential debates. Second, types of boosters used by the candidate and the last question are the function of hedges and boosters used by the presidential candidate.
4.1.1 Types of Hedges
The first research question of this research is about types of hedges used by the presidential candidate. According to Salager Meyer (1997), there are seven types of hedges those are, modal auxiliary verbs, modal lexical verbs, adjectival adverbial and nominal modal phrases, approximators of degree, frequency, quantity and time, introductory phrases, if clauses, compound/ complex hedges. All of those types show in the second until the third presidential debate.
Figure 4.1 Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s Types of Hedges
Figure 4.1 indicates that there are 480 hedges found in the second to the third presidential candidate. Hillary Clinton uses hedges 255 times, while Donald Trump only 225during the debate. The figure shows that both presidential candidates used six hedges differently. In modal auxiliary verbs Hillary higher than Trump, she 117 times while Trump only 87 times. The difference in adjectival, adverbial, and nominal modal phrases is not too different, Hillary 24 times and Trump 27 times. In approximators of degree, quantity, frequency, and time, Donald Trump higher than Hillary; he is 42 times and her 31 times. Hillary Clinton uses hedges introductory phrases 67 times higher than Trump that he is only 36 times. In if clauses Hillary lower than Trump, she is only 13 times while Trump 29 times. Modal lexical verbs, this type seems at least by both candidates, which is Hillary 3 times and Trump 4 times.However, both presidential candidates are not found compound or complex hedges.
4.1.1.1 Donald Trump’s Types of Hedges
Based on data analysis, there are six types of hedges uttered by Trump during the second until the third debate; those are modal auxiliary verbs, modal lexical verbs, adjectival adverbial, and nominal modal phrases, approximators of degree, frequency, quantity and time, introductory phrases, if-clauses. Every type of hedges is explained below, including the examples.. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
4.1.1.1.1 Modal Auxiliary Verbs
Based on Salager Meyer (1997), this type is the most simple and widely used means of expressing modality. The most tentative one being: can, could, would, should, might, may.Modal auxiliary verbs show the lack of knowledge, help to evade direct criticism and uncertainty.
Datum 1
Trump: “I agree with that. It’s ao$1 million loans. But I built a phenomenal company. And if we could run our country the way I’ve run my company, we would have a country that you would be so proud of; you would even be proud of it.” [51.30]
The example above shows hedges capital auxiliary verbs of Donald Trump.He uses the word “would” to express his doubts in his argument. He explained that his performance was better than Hillary, who previously explained about his performance as a senator. Trump argued that the American would be proud of the performance of his company that he built would be reflected when he built the United States. However, in the utterance, there is a form of hedges which indicate uncertainty. The word “would,” which means he is still unsure of how he is going in the future so that he is cautious and polite when in opposition to public opinion.
Datum 2
Trump: “Boy, are they making — I mean, they are outsmarting. Look, you’re not there. You might be involved in that decision. But you were there when you took everybody out of Mosul and out of Iraq.” [01.15.16]
The example above is Trump’s form hedges, which he gives when discussing Mosul. The word “might” is expressing modality, which is a type of modal auxiliary verbs. In this statement, Trump said that Hillary “might” be involved in that decision, “might” as a hedge form expresses uncertainty and smoothes the utterance. If Trump does not say “might” in his utterance, the statement will be absolute.
Datum 3
Trump: “I mean, she calls our people deplorable. A large group. And irredeemable. I will be a president for all of our people. And I will be a people that will turn our inner cities around and will give strength to people and will give economics to people and will bring jobs back.” [01.09.54]
In Donald Trump’s utterance, he answers a question from the audience about whether presidential candidates can be a loyal president of all people in the United States. Trump said that he will be president for everyone and will be the one who will change the deepest cities and give people power. Based on these considerations, he uses “will” to disguise his claims that have not yet occurred in the future and as a hedge that can be avoided when predicting the future. Political speeches, especially those delivered before the election, discuss many future predictions.
4.1.1.1.2 Modal Lexical Verbs
According to Salager Meyer (1997), Modal lexical verbs usually called “speech act verbs” that used to take, such as evaluating and doubting when expressing the speaker’s attitude toward the proposition rather than solely describing. Variation degree of illocutionary force is: to appear (epistemic verbs), to seem, to assume, to believe, to estimate, etc. The use of modal lexical verbs in a presidential candidate is minim. The example is shown below.
Datum 4
Trump: “She was not there, so I assume she has nothing to do with it. But our country is so outplayed by Putin and Assad and by Iran. Nobody can believe how stupid our leadership is.” [01.24.25]
Trump refuted Clinton’s argument against ISIS, which at that time already existed in thirty-two countries. And there is a ceasefire of the United States, Russia, and Syria. Russia took over the plot of land and said: “We are very losing in missiles, in the ceasefire.” Then in his utterance, he uses hedges modal lexical verbs that are “assume” it means expressing Trump doubts personally about Hillary.It reveals Trump’s statement, which is doubt in judging Hillary, who was not there and means that it has nothing to do with Russia, Syria.
4.1.1.1.3 Adjectival, Adverbial, and Nominal Modal Phrase
According to Salager Meyer (1997), There are three types of modal phrases, namely, adjectival, adverbial, and nominal. There are several examples of adjectival, adverbial, and nominal phrases in the presidential debate. The datum is shown below.
Datum 5
Trump: “Their method of fixing it is to go back and ask Congress for more money. More, more money, and we have right now almost $20 trillion in debt.”[25.28]
From the data above, Trump argues that the Obama Care Act is getting worse and has a debt he thinks is “almost $ 20 trillion”. The word “almost” in his utterance as a form of adverbial hedges, it means he is still doubtful or uncertain with the figure of $ 20 trillion. By using “almost,” which can be interpreted could be under $ 20 trillion or above that number. If there is no word “almost,” his statement about a debt of $ 20 trillion would sound accurate.
Datum 6
Trump: ”I’m sure you’ve probably have heard that. It was a disaster. The fact is almost everything she has done has been a mistake, and it’s been a disaster. But if you look at Russia, just take a look at Russia and look at what they did this week, and I agree she Wasnt there, but possibly she’s consulted.” [01.02.49]
The example of Trump’s utterance above, he uses several words that form of adverbial hedges. The word “probably” in his utterance shows uncertainty or doubt about what he had heard. And in the second sentence, he uses “almost” to refine his words while blaming Clinton. The ‘possibly’ is similar to probably that includes adverbs hedges, possibly the one he used when answering the argument against Clinton showed a less assertive opinion.
Datum 7
Trump: “We sign a peace treaty, and everyone’s all excited, but what Russia did with Assadiand by the way with Iran who you made very powerful with the dumbest deal perhaps I have seen in the history of making, with theo$150 billion and with the $1.7 billion in cash, which is enough cash to fill up this room but look at that deal. Iran and Russia are against us.” [01.03.09]
Trump argues about what Hillary Clinton has done to Russia, Assad, and Iran. According to Trump, Clinton made the most stupid agreement he might have seen in history. The word “perhaps” is a synonym of possible. It reduces the power of the claim that says it is the most stupid deal Trump has ever seen. So the use of adverbial hedges tucked in the argument makes the statement less strong.
Datum 8
Trump: “You take a look at what’s happening to steel and the cost of steel and China dumping vast amounts of steel all over the United States, which essentially is killing our steelworkers and steel companies. We have to guard our energy companies; we have to make it possible.” [01.26.10]
The utterance above is answering questions raised by the audience about what steps will be taken to meet energy needs while remaining environmentally friendly and fossil power plant workers do not lose their jobs. Trump argues that the energy under siege by the Obama administration and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has killed energy companies, and foreign companies are now coming. In his utterance, he rhetorically will bring energy companies and workers back and be able to compete. He said China was dumping large quantities of steel throughout the U.S, which essentially killed steelworkers and our steel companies.
The word “essentially” in his argument makes the statement he makes more polite and smoothes the effect of criticism. ‘Essentially’ makes his argument not too strong and more polite to his argument about the loss of steelworkers and steel companies because China has dumped steel in the United States.
4.1.1.1.4 Approximators of Degree, Frequency, Quantity and Time
According to Salager Meyer (1997), the Approximator of degree, frequency, quantity, and time count all of the linguistic devices indicating imprecision of degree, quantity, frequency, and time. Probability measurement of something, in particular, is included as the approximator. Since it shows imprecision, the information delivered is being vague. The examples are shown below.
Datum 9
Trump: “The problem with Mosul and what they wanted to do is they wanted to get the leaders of ISIS who they felt were in Mosul. About three months ago, I started reading that they want to get the leaders. And they’re going to attack Mosul.”[01.12.55]
The datum above shows Trump uses hedges approximator of time in his utterance. Trump answers the question from the moderator about if ISIS can get out of Mosul and Iraq, Trump is willing to put US troops there to prevent him from returning. In his utterance, he argues that they want to get the ISIS leaders they feel are iniMosul, and he mentions “about three months ago” the word “about” is included in the type of approximators of time, which means a statement of lack about the time when he said toward Mosul wants to get leaders. Trump’s uses the word about approximators “about” shows the blurring in conveying time information, which makes the lack of information.
Datum 10
Trump: ”Whether you need to sign a document, take a look at Aleppo.iIt is so sad when you see what’s happened. And a lot of this is because of Hillary Clinton. Because what has happened, by fighting Assad, who turned out to be a lot tougher than she thought.”[01.19.11]
The example above is a response from Donald Trump on the question of Syria and Russia, which have acknowledged bombing Aleppo. Trump said that Aleppo was a disaster, and Trump blamed Clinton if a lot of things happened because of her. Because he fought Assad (the Syrian president), which turned out to be far stronger than him.
Trump’s statement of “and a lot of this is because of Hillary Clinton” expresses a lack of detail or lack of clarity on something he blamed on Hilary. He uses the word “a lot of,” which is a type of hedges, which makes the statement less clear and the amount of fuzziness he should be able to emphasize in his statement.
4.1.1.1.5 Introductory Phrases
Based on Salager Meyer (1997), the introductory phrase is shown through the use of personal pronouns. Introductory phrases express a speaker’s personal skepticism and direct involvement. This is the example of Trump’s hedges.
Datum 11
Trump: “I believe if my opponent should win this race, which I truly don’t think will happen, we will have a Second Amendment, which will be a very, very small replica of what it is right now. But I feel that it’s absolutely important that we recall because of the fact that it is under such trauma.” [09.33]
The example above is about the Supreme Court policy. In this utterance, there are hedges introductory phrases when he said: “I believe if my opponent should win this race, which I truly don’t think will happen.” Trump’s opinion shows a personal pronoun as “I+believe” in the begin statement. Trump, as a speaker, is expressing the speaker’s personal skepticism, and the introductory phrases are the use of the speaker wants to show what his say is their personal points of view.
Datum 12
Trump: ”I didn’t know any of these women. I didn’t see these women. These women, the woman on the plane, I think they want either fame her campaign did it. And I think it’s her campaign.” [00.53.52]
The moderator asks questions to Trump about the treatment of the nine women he had touched and kissed without their consent. The statement above refutes a question from the moderator, and Trump said the story was largely disputed, and he has never seen these women. He thought this was just to look for fame or a campaign by Hillary.
The use of the “I think” hedges in the statement above make avoiding criticism directly, and that word makes Trump take shelter or feel safe about his refutation. Donald Trump uses hedges introductory phrases that express the presence of a speaker’s personal skepticism when denying questions from moderators about these women.
4.1.1.1.6 If Clauses
If clauses are one of the linguistics features of hedges. Based on Hyland and Clemen (cited in Laurinaytyte, 2011, p.25), conditional clauses form is including in hedges devices because it presents a hypothetical situation and provides possibilities. Use of the ‘If’ conditional expresses uncertainty because this condition depends on other conditions and sees this as a negative courtesy as distancing yourself from the assumption.
Datum 13
Trump: “Now we can talk about Putin. I don’t know Putin. He said nice things about me. If we got along well, that would be good. If Russia and the United States got along well and went after ISIS, that would be good.” [30.59]
Examples of hedges if clauses in Trump’s speech keep between possibility and doubt. At the same time, this conditional also shows politeness because it does not force the opinion or the will of the listener who might disagree with Trump’s statement. This hedges happened when Trump stated that if it cooperated with Russia to fight ISIS, it would be good.
4.1.1.2 Hillary Clinton’s Types of Hedges
Based on data analysis, there are six types of hedges uttered by Hillary Clinton during the second until the third debate; those are modal auxiliary verbs, modal lexical verbs, adjectival adverbial, and nominal modal phrases, approximators of degree, frequency, quantity and time, introductory phrases, if-clauses. Each type of hedges done by Hillary Clinton is explained below, including the examples.
4.1.1.2.1 Modal Auxiliary Verbs
According to Salager Meyer (1997), this type is highly used in expressing modality. Words of modal auxiliary verbs like: might, can, may, could, should, would. Modal auxiliary verbs show the lack of knowledge, help to evade direct criticism and uncertainty. There are several examples of hedges done by Hillary Clinton. The examples are shown below.
Datum 14
Hillary: “These are very important values to me because this is the America that I know and love And I can pledge to you tonight that this is the America that I will serve if I’m so fortunate enough to become your president.” [11.02]
Based on the example above shows hedges modal auxiliary verbs. The use of “can” in Hillary’s statement when arguing with Trump, softened the strength of her statement. If there is no “can,” it will make her promise to serve America accurately. Therefore, the word hedges can help the statement not to be overstated. The utterance above shows a kind of uncertainty, which Hillary softens her claim when she promises to serve America well.
Datum 15
Hillary: “I have a plan that has been analyzed by independent experts who said that it could produce 10imillion new jobs. By contrast, Donald’siplan has been analyzed to conclude it might lose jobs.” [39.15]
The moderator asked the presidential candidate about creating jobs and the growth of the American nation. The utterance above is Hillary’s answer, which she uses the form of hedges “might” it means there is a lack of confidence or doubt in her statement that says Donald’s plan to lose the job. Hillary’s words are not strong enough with the use of hedges in them. Therefore, Hillary reduces her claim by showing this form of uncertainty.
Datum 16
Hillary: “That’s what my mission will be in the presidency. I willstand up for families against powerful interests against corporations. I will do everything that I can to make sure that you have good jobs with rising incomes, that your kids have good educations from preschool through college.” [01.34.37]
The example above is a statement from Hillary Clinton that answers the question about why they should choose you to be the next president. The use of the “will” hedges is often used by presidential candidates during pre-election. Hillary’s statement above contains hedges capital auxiliary verbs in the form of “will,” which expresses reducing the existence of strong claims when saying her mission to become president.
4.1.1.2.2 Modal Lexical Verbs
Modal lexical verbs usually called a “speech act verbs” that used to take, such as evaluating and doubting when expressing the speaker’s attitude toward the proposition rather than solely describing. The example of modal lexical verbs is shown below.
Datum 17
Hillary: “I’m just amazed that he seems to think that the Iraqi government and our allies and everybody else launched the attack on Mosul to help me in this election.”[01.17.00]
The example above is Hillary hedges, who uses lexical verbs to reduce the strength of her proposition. It is the use of “seems” and “to think” that makes this hedges a form of the doubt when expressing her admiration for Trump, who seems to think that the Iraqi government and allies are launching attacks on Mosul. Hedges Hillary expressed doubt in her proposition.
4.1.1.2.3 Adjectival, Adverbial, and Nominal Modal Phrases
According to Salager Meyer (1997), There are three types of modal phrases, namely, adjectival, adverbial, and nominal. There are several examples of adjectival, adverbial, and nominal phrases in the presidential debate. The datum is shown below.
Datum 18
Hillary: “This is one of the worst possible choices that any woman and her family have to make. I do not believe the government should be making it.” [19.25]
The example above is Hillary utterance, which uses “possible” forms of hedges, that one of hedges adjectival modal phrases. That statement explains the abortion rights of women, that abortion rights are a personal matter whose decisions are only made by their families, and the government has no business in making these decisions. In Hillary’s statement, she uses “possible” when she argued, “This is one of the worst possible choices that any woman and her family have to make.” That word “possible” makes the strength of the sentence is weaken. A claim Hillary said did not emphasize the strength of her statement and made the statement more polite to heard, especially by a woman.
Datum 19
Hillary: “They are doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump. Now, maybe because he praised Putin, maybe because he says he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do, maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow.” [46.10]
The utterance above clearly expresses doubt or suspicion of something uncertain with hedges adverb. Hillary delivered her rebuttal when the moderator asked whether the President could have a double-faced nature. Hillary’s response to suspecting Russia was hacking information and working hard to influence the election results, and they did not get Hillary elected. But they tried to influence the election of Donald Trump. Hillary argues, “now, maybe because he praised Putin, maybe because he said he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do, maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow.” But the use of “maybe”three times is tomake weakens the emphasis or strength of the statement. If there is no “maybe” in Hillary, the utterance will be absolute. The use of hedges makes claims or commitments in the delivery of utterances uncertain.
4.1.1.2.4. Approximators of Degree, Frequency, Quantity and Time
According to Salager Meyer (1997), approximator of degree, frequency, quantity, and time count all of the linguistic devices indicating imprecision of degree, quantity, frequency, and time. Probability measurement of something, in particular, is included as the approximator. Since it shows imprecision, the information delivered is being vague. The examples are shown below.
Datum 20
Hillary: “We neediAmerican Muslims to be part of our eyes and ears on our front lawns. I’ve worked with a lot of Muslim groups around America. I’ve met with a lot of them, and I’ve heard how important it is for them to feel that they are wanted and included and part of our country.” [35.36]
The statement above is an example of Hillary’s utterance, which shows an incorrect quantity. The word “a lot of” is the term hedges approximators of quantity. The use of hedges approximators of quantity displays the lack of accuracy of the amount to be conveyed in detail, into vague information. “A lot of” is the hedges approximators that Hillary often says in her debates.
4.1.1.2.5 Introductory Phrase
According to Salager Meyer (1997), the introductory phrase is shown through the use of personal pronouns, such as pronoun + belief, pronoun + feel, etc. Introductory phrases express the speaker’s personal skepticism and direct involvement. This is the example of a presidential candidate.
Datum 21
Hillary: ”Every time Donald has pushed on something which is obviously uncomfortable like what these women are saying, he immediately goes to denying responsibility. And it’s not just about women. He never apologizes or says he is sorry for anything. So we know what he has said and what he has done to women.” [57.50]
Hillary Utterance above is an example of a hedges introductory phrase. Hillary refuted Trump’s statements about women and cornered Hillary, using the hedges “we know” form. Hillary’s statement makes sense of direct involvement between her and the audience. That is because only this character approves the speaker to invite the listeners into the conveyed statement since the introductory phrases are made up of two linguistic units, namely pronoun and verb.
Datum 22
Hillary: “I think that is an idea that is not in keeping with who we are as a nation. I think it’s an idea that would rip our country apart. I have been for border security for years.” [24.35]
The example above is Hillary’s introductory phrases utterance when refuting questions about the policies made by Trump. She expressed the speaker’s personal skepticism when expressing her opinion. In this statement, she uses “I think” twice to express doubts that he thinks Trump’s ideas are ideas that are incompatible with the state and nation.
4.1.1.2.6 If Clauses
According toHyland and Clemen (cited in Laurinaytyte, 2011, p.25), conditional clauses form is including in hedges devices because it presents a hypothetical situation and provides possibilities. Use of the ‘If’ conditional expresses uncertainty because this condition depends on other conditions and sees this as a negative courtesy as distancing yourself from the assumption.
Datum 23
Hillary: “If you don’t vote for me, I still want to be your president. I want to be the best president I can be for everyone.” [01.14.17]
If clause in datum above keeps the balance between the possibility and the likelihood. At the same time, the use of this conditional shows adherence to the phenomenon of politeness as it does not impose opinion or will depend upon the listener. If “when”had been used instead of “if,” Hillary would have sounded ambitious or haughtily; therefore, it attenuates the force of what could possibly be face-threatening
So, the example all above is an example of the types of hedges used by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the second to the third debate. So, the researcher concludes the two presidential candidates using 6 types of hedges during the debate, while compound/complex hedges are not found on it. The type of hedges that are often used by both presidential candidates is modal auxiliary verbs. Hillary Clinton’s modal auxiliary verbs are 117 times, while Trump is 87 times.
4.1.2 Types of Boosters
The second research question about this research is about types of boosters used by the presidential candidate. There are some categories of boosters and its functions based on Hinkel (2005), universal and negative pronouns (all, no one, everyone, etc.), amplifiers (very, fully, extremely, etc.), and the last one is emphatics (of course, for sure, certainly, etc.).
Figure 4.2 Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s Types of Booster
Figure 4.2 shows in universal and negative pronoun types of boosters, Donald Trump 63 times while Hillary Clinton 47 times, the difference between the two candida looks significant. In boosters of amplifiers, Trump is higher than Hillary, that Trump is 79 times, and Hillary is 58 times. In the booster of emphatics, Donald Trump leads 42 times, and Hillary uses only 27 boosters. The researchers found all types of boosters in utterance from the two presidential candidates during the second debate to the third debate.
4.1.2.1 Donald Trump’s Types of Boosters
Based on data analysis that the researcher found three booster types in Donald Trump’s utterances, those are universal and negative pronouns, amplifiers, and emphatics. Every type of hedges is explained below, including the examples.
4.1.2.1.1 Universal and Negative Pronoun
According to Hinkel (2005), indicating the project an inflated and hyperbolic impress when the text appears to state exaggeration to increase its persuasive qualities.In this type, the words of universal and negative pronouns are such aseach, all, every- pronominals (everybody, everyone, everything), every, nothing, none, every-, no one, and no words.
Datum 24
Trump: “And you take a look at the people of Haiti. I was in Little Haiti the other day in Florida. And I want to tell you; they hate the Clintons because what’s happened in Haiti with the Clinton Foundation is a disgrace. And you know it, and they know it, and everybody knows it.” [01.02.00]
Trump’s Utterance above is an example of using universal and negative pronoun boosters. Where is Trump, who cornered Hillary with his argument about Little Haiti who hates the Clinton Foundation, which, according to Trump, is a criminal company. In his argument, he explained that the Haitians hated the Clintons. Which is Trump made his statement clear that “everybody” already knew that. That word “everybody” clarifies Trump’s opinion in his statement. Which, Trump can increase the level of persuasion in his statement.
Datum 25
Trump: “But I don’t want to have, with all the problems this country has and all of the problems you see going on, hundreds of thousands of people come in from Syria where we know nothing about them. We know nothing about their values, and we know nothing about their love for our country.”[00.39.21]
The question thrown by the moderator was about the enactment of the Muslim ban, according to Trump. Trump’s arguments above refute this question and relate a number of things related to Hilary, where he said that it was Hillary and Obama who brought Syrians to the United States. In his argument, Trump denied Hillary’s policy, he said that hundreds of thousands of people came from Syria, but we (Americans) knew nothing about them. The “nothing” form of booster makes the statement more assertive and has a strong backer. Moreover, the word is several times in his statement. That form can persuade the audience because of the impression of increased confidence in the utterance.
4.1.2.1.2 Amplifiers
According to Eli Hinkel (2005), words of amplifiers are: absolutely, far (+ comparative adjective), by all means, always, entirely, altogether, badly, awfully, definitely, much (+ adjective), completely, deeply, downright, enormously, forever, amazingly, perfectly, sharply, too (+ adjective), strongly, totally, very, so (+verb/adjective), unbelievably, terribly, very much, highly, well, etc.
Datum 26
Trump: “She lied when she said she didn’t call it the gold standard in one of the debates. She totally lied and then fact-checked and said I was right.” [47.03]
The example above is Trump’s utterance, which contains booster amplifiers. Where the presence of a booster in the utterance makes the utterance stronger and firmer. Trump said that Hillary lied when she said she didn’t call it the gold standard in one of the debates. Then, Trump added the booster form “totally” in his statement “She totally lied, and they fact-checked and said I was right” to amplify the claims submitted. If there is no booster “totally” in his statement, it will reduce the obvious power. Therefore, its hedges device amplifies Trump’s statement.
Datum 27
Trump: “And this is what has caused the great migration where she has taken in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees who probably in many cases, not probably, who are definitely in many cases ISIS-aligned. And we now have them in our country and wait until you see this is going to be the great Trojan Horse.” [01.21.07]
Donald Trump’s argument is to contain boosters of amplifiers. His argument about refuting Hillary’s mistake for immigration to tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, which Syria and Russia have only just acknowledged that they have bombed and fired on Aleppo. Trump’s statement above shows that Hillary’s mistake has taken tens of thousands of refugees who have cashiers and is in line with ISIS, which is now in the United States.
Then, from the utterance above, Trump initially argues that Russian refugees might have a case, but then he changed his utterance to a Syrian refugee who is certainly a lot of cases in line with ISIS. This changes the word to “definitely” makes the statement view also changes to become stronger and more absolute. The use of a “definitely” booster can increase or amplify his claim.
4.1.2.1.3 Emphatics
According to Hinkel (2005), Emphatics has the effect of strengthening the truth-value of a proposition or declare or the power of the writer’s or speaker’s conviction. Such of emphatics as: a lot (+adjective/noun), clear(-ly), certain(-ly), definite, extreme, exact(-ly), complete, for sure, indeed, great, pure(-ly), outright, real(-ly), strong, such a (+ noun), total, no way, sure(-ly).
Datum 28
Trump: “No, I didn’t say that at all. I don’t think you understood what was said. This was a locker room talk. I am not proud of it. I apologize to my family. I apologized to the American people. Certainly, I am not proud of it. But this is locker room talk.”
Trump’s utterance above is an example of a form of booster emphatics. Trump denies questions from moderators about Trump, who described kissing women without consent. The form of “certainly,” which is used, can express confidence if he is really not proud of what he has done. Trump’s explanation strengthens the effect of the proposition or claims he believes in with a “certainly” booster.
4.1.2.2 Hillary Clinton’s Types of Boosters
Based on the analysis data, there are three types of boosters that have been used during the presidential debate, namely universal and negative pronouns, amplifiers, and emphatics. The types of boosters are explained below, including the examples.
4.1.2.2.1 Universal and Negative Pronoun
According to Hinkel (2005), indicating the project an inflated and hyperbolic impress when the text appears to state exaggeration with the purpose of increasing its persuasive qualities.In this type, the words of universal and negative pronouns are such aseach, all, every- pronominals (everybody, everyone, everything), every, nothing, none, every-, no one, and no words.
Datum 29
Hillary: “We are going to be looking for ways to celebrate our diversity, and we are going to try to reach out to every boy and girl as well as every adult to bring them into working on behalf of our country.”[01.34]
The example above is a universal and negative pronoun in the Hillary Clinton utterance. That argument answers the question of an audience who asks whether the presidential candidate exemplifies appropriate and positive behavior for adolescents. Hillary’s explanation of the question was strengthened by the “every”booster in her statement. She said she would reach “every boy and girl and every adult” that the word “every” makes the pressure or detail of her argument increase.
Datum 30
Hillary: “The Clinton Foundation raised $30 million to help Haiti after the catastrophic earthquake and all of the terrible problems the people there had. We’ve done things to help small businesses, agriculture, and so much else.” [01.03.03]
Hillary Clinton’s argument above is an example of the “all” booster found in her argument when explaining the Clinton Foundation that helped Haiti after the earthquake, and she said even “all of the terrible problems of people there.” The use of “all” expresses an increase in confidence in its utterance. That word makes her statement is more accurate.
4.1.2.2.2 Amplifiers
According to Hinkel (2005), they can to emphasize the statement or their claim.The words of amplifiers are: absolutely, far (+ comparative adjective), by all means, always, entirely, altogether, badly, awfully, definitely, much (+ adjective), completely, deeply, downright, enormously, very, totally, etc.
Datum 31
Hillary: “This is a pattern, a pattern of the divisiveness of a very dark and in many ways dangerous vision of our country where he incites violence, where he applauds people who are pushing and pulling and punching at his rallies.” [59.00]
The statements above are Hillary boosters that use the “very” form in the statement. That word reinforces its statement when arguing about Donald Trump’s vision. She explained that Trump’s vision was “very” dark, “very” expressing confidence, and the statement was stronger. If there is no word “very,” it will make the statement less explicit. So, Hillary included a booster in his statement to be loud.
Datum 32
Hillary: “Are we going to have religious tests when people fly into our country and how do we expect to be able to implement those? So I thought that what he said was extremely unwise and even0dangerousiand indeed you can look at the propaganda on a lot of the terrorist sites and what Donald Trump says about Muslims is used to recruit fighters.” [41.40]
Hillary Clinton’s statement when answering questions from moderators was strengthened by the form of an “extremely”booster. The example above refutes Trump’s policy, which, according to Hillary, the policy made by Donald Trump is extremely unwise, like the example of whether to conduct a religious test when flying to the United States and how to implement it. The form of boosters “extremely” reinforces or emphasizes the ideas of Hillary Clinton. The use of boosters made Hillary’s doubts about arguing.
4.1.2.2.3 Emphatics
Based on Hinkel (2005), the form of empathics are: clear(-ly), certain(-ly), definite, extreme, exact(-ly), complete, for sure, indeed, great, pure(-ly), outright, real(-ly), strong, such a (+ noun), total, no way, sure(-ly).
Datum 33
Hillary: “That is not who America is. And I hope that as we move in the last weeks of this campaign, more and more people will understand what’s at stake in this election. It really does come down to what kind of country we are going to have.” [59.00]
This datum expresses the presence of force pressure in Hillary’s statement, which she conveyed during the debate. The use of boosters in the form of “really” makes the statement more assertive. Hillary refused Trump’s opinion and argued that many people would understand what was at bet in this election, “really” reflecting the country what we will have later, and by convincing and emphasizing her statement, Hillary used a “really” booster.
Datum 34
Hillary: “But of course there is no way we can know whether any of that is true because he hasn’t released his tax returns. He is the first candidate ever to run for president in the last 40 plus years who has not released his tax returns.” [01.03.50]
Hillary refused Trump’s answer about taxes and about money from the Trump Foundation’s contribution. Where Hillary said that “there is no way we can know whether any of that is true because he hasn’t released his tax returns” in his statement, which is further strengthened by the use of emphatic boosters, that “no way.” That word seems to make Hillary’s statement accurate with the word’s firmness. Because the use of a booster provides strong confidence for an assertion to their arguments.
So, the researcher concludes that both of the presidential candidates uttered three types of the booster in the debate. In this presidential debate, Donal Trump uses booster more than Hillary. Based on figure 4.2, Trump higher than Hillary in the usage of all types of boosters. Additionally, there is one type of boosters that often used by both candidates, namely Amplifiers, which is Trump 79 times while Hillary 58 times.
4.1.3 Function of Hedges
Then, Rabab’ah and Ruman (2015) revealed some of the hedges function in more detail. There are five pragmatics function of hedges based on Rabab’ah and Rumman (2015) those are expressing a lack of full commitment, mitigating claims by showing some kind of uncertainty, searching for acceptance from the audience and expressing politeness, avoiding direct criticism, especially when predicting consequences or future events and the last is requesting the listeners’ involvement.
All these functions of hedges during the second and third presidential debates. At the researcher found in those that appear during those debates, the researcher shows the finding in the figure below.
Figure 4.3 Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s Functions of Hedges
Based on figure 4.3, the researcher found all of the functions of hedges in both of the presidential candidates. There are 480 functions in the presidential debate, Hillary has 255 functions, and Trump has 225 functions. Functions used during the debate are; mitigating claims by showing some kind of uncertainty, expressing a lack of full commitment, expressing politeness, and searching for being accepted, avoiding direct criticism, especially when predicting the future and last requesting listeners’ involvement. The function that often appears during the debate are mitigating claims by showing some kind of uncertainty, while rarely used by both presidential candidate is a function requesting listeners’ involvement.
4.1.3.1 Donald Trump’s Function of Hedges
According to data analysis, there are five functions of hedges uttered by Donald Trump during the debate, and it means all the fun in Trump’s utterance is found. All of the functions hedges are explained below with the examples.
4.1.3.1.1 Mitigating Claims by Showing Some Kind of Uncertainty
According to Rabbab’ah and Ruman (2015), Modal lexical verbs, approximators, modal verbs, and other devices were particularly to reduce claims by appearance some kind of unreliability.
Datum 35
Trump: “It was a disaster. The fact is almost everything she has done has been a mistake, and it’s been a disaster. But if you look at Russia, just take a look at Russia and look at what they did this week, and I agree she wasn’t there, but possibly she’s consulted.” [01.02.49]
The example above is Trump’s utterance, which expresses something uncertainty. He reduced his claim when he said: “The fact is almost everything he has done has been a mistake.” The claim was reduced when Trump used the word “almost” in his utterance. This statement serves as mitigating claims by showing a kind of uncertainty. The uncertainty arises because there is an “almost” in the utterance that claims that what Hillary has done is wrong and becomes a disaster.
Datum 36
Trump: “Hillary Clinton in terms of having people come into our country. We have many criminal illegal aliens. When we want to send them back to their country, their country says: we don’t want them. In some cases, they are murderers, drug lords, drug problems, and they don’t want them.” [42.06]
The word “Many” was also used to express the meaning of indefiniteness. Like the example above, Trump uses the word “many” in his utterance. That cannot exactly judge how many illegal criminals come to the United States, which, according to Trump, his home country does not want to accommodate that “many illegal criminals” to back home. In datum above, Trump could mention the number of illegal criminals exactly, and more specifically, but it seems that he wants to mitigate his statement by using the approximator of quantity “many.”
4.1.3.1.2 Expressing a Lack of Full Commitment
According to Rabb’ah and Ruman (2015), The use of hedges can be the function to claim that the speaker avoids full commitment to the statement of their delivers.
Datum 37
Trump: “Whether you need to sign a document, take a look at Aleppo. It is so sad when you see what’s happened. And a lot of this is because of Hillary Clinton. Because what has happened, by fighting Assad, who turned out to be a lot tougher than she thought.”[01.19.11]
The word “A lot of, “as hedges device, expresses an undefined meaning that cannot judge precisely how many mistakes Hillary made. In datum above indicate Donald Trump approximates the estimated number of Hillary’s mistakes he made to Russia and Syria. However, it appears that he wants to minimize the threat of being rejected and save face. As noted, approximators can be used to minimize the threat and save faces.
4.1.3.1.3 Searching for being Accepted and Expressing Politeness
The goals of this function are to make the argument’s speaker confirmed by the audience, mainly when the speakers present ideas that may contrast with the listeners’ interests. In other forms, hedges are used to express politeness (Rabb’ah and Ruman, 2015).
Datum 38
Trump: “But I built a phenomenal company. And if we could run our country the way I’ve run my company, we would have a country that you would be soiproud of, and you wouldieven be proud of it.” [51.30]
Above is an example of Trump’s utterance which functions to search for being accepted and expressing politics when he said he could run the country by running his company, he would make America a country to be proud of. The word “would” reduce the strength of the commitment that he said. He softened the proposition to be polite and to be accepted because maybe his utterance contradicted with his listeners’ interests.
Datum 39
Trump: “I believe if my opponent should win this race, which I truly don’t think will happen, we will have a Second Amendment, which will be a very, very small replica of what it is right now. But I feel that it’s absolutely important that we recall because of the fact that it is under such trauma.” [09.33]
In this example, Donald Trump is seen using a hedges device when he argues that his opponent wins the second amendment that his thinking and design will not happen and will be a replica of what is now. The test used by Trump softens his own point of view and tries to be accepted to the listener about his argument.
4.1.3.1.4 Avoiding Direct Criticism Especially When Predicting Future Events
or Consequences
According to Rabb’ah and Ruman (2015), this function is given a cue by the use of hedges for predicting something in the future. Hedge makes the propositions valid. Thus, so, the speaker smoothes the proposition so that it is seen speaking the truth all the time.
Datum 40
Trump: “I didn’t know any of these women. I didn’t see these women. These women, the woman on the plane, I think they want either fame, or her campaign did it. And I think it’s her campaign.” [53.52]
The moderator threw questions to Trump about the treatment of the nine women he had touched and kissed without their consent. The statement above refutes a question from the moderator. Trump said the story was largely disputed, and he has never seen these women. He thought this was just to look for fame or a campaign by Hillary.
Some introductory phrases, such as “I think” or “I believe” are used in the political discourse that function as protecting political figures from direct criticism because these phrases show the proposition as a personal opinion. It seems that Trump is taking refuge from the word “I think,” which is to avoid direct criticism.
Datum 41
Trump: “Andiirredeemable. I will be a president for all of our people. And I will be a people that will turn our inner cities around and will give strength to people and will give economics to people and will bring jobs back.” [01.09.54]
Based on the example above, that function of Trump’s utterance is avoiding direct criticism, especially when predicting the future. In the statement, “I will be a president for all of our people. And I will be a personality thatiwill turn our inner…” he uses modal auxiliary verbs “will” when he argues about to be the next president in the future. Here, his function uses a form of hedges “will” to reduce criticism because the prediction of future is not yet certain. Political speeches, especially those delivered before the election, discuss many future predictions.
4.1.3.1.5 Requesting The Listeners’ Involvement
According to Rabab’ah and Ruman (2015), hedges devices that used to implicate listeners in what speakers are talking about, like introductory phrases. Such devices include we feel that you know it, we know, etc. That is because only this characteristic approves the speaker to invite the listeners into the statement conveyed since introductory phrases made up two linguistic units, namely pronoun and verb.
Datum 42
Trump: “Obamacare is a disaster. You know it, we know it. It’s going up at numbers that nobody’s ever seen, worldwide.” [27.37]
Some hedges, such as introductory phrases are used to listen to what the speaker is talking about. Like “we know,” “you believe,” etc. As shown in the datum above, which is the utterance from Trump that uses introductory phrases, “we know” “you know,” is to directly include the listener in the discussion. The example above Trump requested the listeners’ involvement when he was talking about Obamacare, which has become a disaster because it is no longer affordable, which is increasing in price.
4.1.3.2 Hillary Clinton’s Function of Hedges
According to data analysis, there are five functions of hedges uttered by Hillary Clinton during the debate, and those are expressing a lack of full commitment, mitigating claims by showing some kind of uncertainty, searching for acceptance from the audience and expressing politeness, avoiding direct criticism especially when predicting consequences or future events and the last is requesting the listeners’ involvement. The example will be shown below.
4.1.3.2.1 Mitigating Claims by Showing Some Kind of Uncertainty
According to Rabbab’ah and Ruman (2015), Modal lexical verbs, approximators, modal verbs, and other devices were particularly to reduce claims by appearance some kind of unreliability.
Datum 43
Hillary: “They are doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump. Now, maybe because he praised Putin, maybe because he says he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do, maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow.”
The utterance above clearly expresses doubt or suspicion of something uncertain with hedges. Hillary’s response to suspecting Russia was hacking information and working hard to influence the election results, and they did not get Hillary elected. But the use of “maybe” hedges weakens the emphasis or strength of the claim. If there is no “maybe”confidence in Hillary utterance will be absolute. The use of hedges makes claims in the delivery of utterances uncertain. So the function of Hillary utterance is mitigating claims by showing some kind of uncertainty.
Datum 44
Hillary: “I have a plan that has been analyzed by independent experts who said that it could produce 10imillion new jobs. By contrast, Donald’s plan has been analyzed to conclude it might lose jobs.” [39.15]
In the example above, Hillary Clinton shows doubt in her utterance. The word “might” is the hedges of modal auxiliary verbs that serve as mitigating her claims when she argues that Donald Trump’s plan is making people lose their jobs. However, because Hillary minimizes her claim, she uses “might” as a form of uncertainty to make her statement less accurate.
4.1.3.2.2 Expressing Lack of Full Commitment
The use of hedges can be a function to claim that the speaker avoids full commitment to the statement of their delivers (Rabab’ah and Ruman, 2015).
Datum 45
Hillary: “These are very important values to me because this is the America that I know and love. And I can pledge to you tonight that this is the America that I will serve if I’miso fortunate enough to become your president.”[11.02]
Utterance above expresses a lack of full commitment to her propositions. Hillary tried to avoid being fully committed when she promised to serve America well. The function of hedges used by Hillary is expressing a lack of full commitment. Without the use of “can,” Hillary will look committed in her promise.
Datum 46
Clinton: “If you don’t vote for me, I still want to be your president. I want to be the best president I can be for everyone.” [01.14.17]
Hillary’s utterance above shows a form of politeness. These clauses used not to force the opinion of the audience that might be counter to Hillary. So, Hillary softened her speech more to make it polite to the public. If “when”had been used instead of “if,” Hillary would have sounded ambitious or haughtily; therefore, it attenuates the force of what could possibly be face-threatening
4.1.3.2.3 Searching for being Accepted and Expressing Politeness
Based on Rabab’ah and Ruman (2015), the goal of this function is to make the argument’s speaker confirmed by the audience, mainly when the speakers present ideas that may contrast with the listeners’ interests. In other forms, hedges are used to express politeness.
Datum 47
Hillary: “I think that is an idea that is not in keeping with who we are as a nation. I think it’s an idea that would rip our country apart.iI have been for border security for years.”[24.35]
The example above is the function of searching for being accepted and expressing politeness Hillary when refuting questions about policies made by Trump. She expressed the speaker’s personal skepticism when expressing her opinion. In this statement, she uses “I think” twice to express her point of view, which, according to Trump’s idea, is an idea that is incompatible with the state and nation. Hillary is seen searching for being accepted to the listener about her opinion about Trump’s policy because maybe this opinion has a counter to some of her listeners.
4.1.3.2.4 Avoiding Direct Criticism Especially When Predicting Future Events or Consequences.
This function is giving a cue by the use of hedges for predicting something in the future. Hedge makes the propositions valid. Thus, the speaker smoothes the proposition so that it is seen speaking the truth all the time (Rabbab’ah and Ruman, 2015).
Datum 48
Hillary:“I want to invest in your family. And I thinkthat’s the smartest way to grow the economy, to make the economy fairer.”[01.29.05]
Hillary denied there was an increase in debt when she became president. Utterance above conveyed the policy she would adopt when she became president to boost the economy. In her utterance, hedges are used in introductory phrases where it can protect against criticism because the word “I think” can express a personal opinion. Therefore, the utterance above can avoid direct criticism when Hillary conveyed how she raised the family economy in the future when she was elected president.
4.1.3.2.5 Requesting The Listeners’ Involvement
According to Rabbab’ah and Ruman (2015), hedges devices that used to implicate listeners in what speakers are talking about like introductory phrases. Such devices include we feel that you know it, we know, etc. That is because only this characteristic approves the speaker to invite the listeners into the statement conveyed since introductory phrases made up two linguistic units, namely pronoun and verb.
Datum 49
Hillary: “And it’s not just about women. He never apologizes or says he is sorry for anything. So we know what he has said and what he has done to women.” [57.50]
Hillary Utterance above is an example of the hedges function. Hillary’s statement made sense of direct involvement between her and the audience. That is because only this character approves the speaker to invite the listeners into the conveyed statement since the introductory phrases are made up of two linguistic units, namely pronoun and verb. In this function, Hillary involves the listener when refuting Trump’s statement about women and cornering Hillary, using the form of the hedge “we know.”
4.1.4 Function of Boosters
There are three functions of boosters based on Hinkel (2005) those are exaggeration and inflated impression, as amplifiers and as emphatics. All of these functions of boosters are used by the presidential candidates during the second until the third debate. As the researcher found in those debates, the researcher shows the finding in the chart below.
Figure 4.4 Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s and Function of Boosters
According to figure 4.4, a clear difference is seen where the boosters function is led by Donald Trump. All the functions of the booster are found in the presidential debate. In exaggeration and inflated Trump’s impression 63 times, which is far more than Hillary, which is only 47 times. Trump’s second function is 79 times, while Hillary uses only 58 times as the function of an amplifier. Boosters as emphatics found on Trump utterance 42 times and Hillary 27 times. A more detailed explanation and examples are included in the subchapter below.
4.1.4.1 Donald Trump’s Function of Boosters
According to the data analysis, there are three function boosters of Donald Trump during the presidential debate, those are exaggeration and inflated impression, as amplifiers and as emphatics. All of the reasons for interruptions are explained below, including the example.
4.1.4.1.1 Exaggeration and Inflated Impression
This function, according to Hinkel (2005), indicates project an inflated and hyperbolic impress when the text appears to state exaggeration to increase its persuasive qualities. Exaggeration or overstatement of universal pronouns represents truth rhetorical means of expressing the strength of the speaker’s confidence and clear evidential truths.
Datum 50
Trump: “And I want to tell you, they hate the Clintons because what’s happened in Haiti with the ClintoniFoundation is a disgrace. And you know it, and they know it, and everybody knows it.” [01.02.00]
The above example is Donald Trump’s universal and negative booster pronounced as exaggeration and inflated impression. This function occurs when Trump argues that Haiti hates the Clinton foundation, and “everybody”knows that. The word “everybody” means all people whose scope is broad without any exceptions. This booster is to increase or overestimate the rhetoric and express the power of the speakers’ opinion.
4.1.4.1.2 As Amplifiers
According to Hinkel (2005), amplifiers in boosters device is a large class of intensifier that is to increase the scalar of the lexical intensity of gradable adjective or verb. Amplifiers also can to emphasize the statement or their claim.
Datum 51
Trump: “She lied when she said she didn’t call it the gold standard in one of the debates. She totally lied and the fact-checked and said I was right.” [47.03]
The example above is Trump’s utterance, which has the function as amplifiers. Trump said that Hillary lied when she said she didn’t call it the gold standard in one of the debates. Then, Trump adds the “totally” booster form in his statement, which booster function it can create an amplifier in Trump’s utterance. Utterance above can convince the listener because Trump convincing claims that he said with a booster as amplifiers.
4.1.4.1.3 As Emphatics
Eli Hinkel (2005) suggests the goal of emphatics is equal with amplifiers and has the effect of strengthening the truth-value of the proposition or declare or the power of the writer’s or speaker’s conviction. The utilization of emphatics does not certainly mean that the sentence element is certainly gradable; it is modified, but when used with emphatics, it becomes gradables.
Datum 52
Trump: “No, I didn’t say that at all. I don’t think you understood what was said. This was a locker room talk. I am not proud of it. I apologize to my family, and I apologized to the American people. Certainly, I am not proud of it. But this is locker room talk.”
Trump’s utterance above is the function of boosters as emphatics. Trump denies questions from moderators about Trump, who describe kissing women without consent. The form of “certainly” used can express accurate certainty that he is really not proud of what he has done. Trump’s explanation strengthens the effect of the proposition or claims he confidence in with a “certainly” booster.
4.1.4.2 Hillary Clinton’s Function of Boosters
According to the data analysis, there are three function boosters of Hillary Clinton during the presidential debate, those are exaggeration and inflated impression, as amplifiers and as emphatics. All of the reasons for interruptions are explained below, including the example.
4.1.4.2.1 Exaggeration and Inflated Impression
Exaggeration or overstatement of universal pronouns represents truth rhetorical means of expressing the strength of the speaker’s confidence and clear evidential truths.It is indicated project an inflated and hyperbolic impress when the text appears to state exaggeration with the purpose of increasing its persuasive qualities (Hinkel, 2005).
Datum 53
Hillary: “We are going to be looking for ways to celebrate our diversity, and we are going to try to reach out to every boy and girl as well as every adult to bring the into working on behalf of our country.”[01.34]
The example above is a universal and negative pronoun in Hillary Clinton’s utterance and has an inflated impression. The word “every” in her utterance raises a strong, strong impression of girls and boys. This booster occurs when Hillary answers a question from a moderator. This booster function makes Hillary’s statement more detailed.
Datum 54
Hillary: “The ClintoniFoundation raised $30imillion to help Haiti after the catastrophic earthquake and all of the terrible problems the people there had.” [01.03.03]
The argument from Hillary Clinton above is an example of the form of “all” booster contained in her argument and serves as an exaggeration and inflated impression when this occurs, explaining the Clinton Foundation that helped Haiti after the earthquake. The use of “all”express the detail of the word “all” means all without exceptions.
4.1.4.2.2 As Amplifiers
According to Hinkel (2005),amplifiers can emphasize the statement or their claim.The words of amplifiers are: absolutely, far (+ comparative adjective), by all means, always, entirely, altogether, badly, awfully, definitely, much (+ adjective), completely, deeply, downright, enormously, very, totally, etc.
Datum 55
Hillary: “Are we going to have religious tests when people fly into our country, and how do we expect to be able to implement those? So I thought that what he said was extremely unwise and even dangerous and indeed you can look at the propaganda on a lot of the terrorist sites and what Donald Trump says about Muslims is used to recruit fighters”. [00.41.40]
The booster function of Hillary Clinton’s utterances above is as amplifiers, which Hillary uses “extremely,”which reinforces her statement. The example above refutes Trump’s policy, which, according to Hillary, the policy made by Donald Trump is extremely unwise, like the example of whether to conduct a religious test when flying to the United States and how to implement it. The use of the “extremely” booster can make the audience feel that Hillary’s statement is absolute.
4.1.4.2.3 As Emphatics
Based on Hinkel (2005), the form of emphatics are: clear(-ly), certain(-ly), definite, extreme, exact(-ly), complete, for sure, indeed, great, pure(-ly), outright, real(-ly), strong, such a (+ noun), total, no way, sure(-ly).
Datum 56
Hillary: “But of course there is no way we can know whether any of that is true because he hasn’t released his tax returns. He is the first candidate ever to run for president in the lasti40 plus years who has not released his tax returns.” [01.03.50]
This functions as emphatics where the “no way” booster makes Hillary utterances unnegotiable. This utterance occurred when Hillary denied the answer from Trump about taxes and about money from the Trump Foundation’s contribution. The function of this utility presents strong confidence of Hillary.
Finally, all the data above has displayed the function of Trump and Hillary Clinton boosters. Of all the boosters’ functions, Donald Trump has more functions than Hillary. In both presidential candidates have all three boosters functions found throughout the presidential debate.
4.2 Discussion
Based on the results of the study above, the researcher answers the first question, which is the types of hedges used by both presidential candidates. The results show both of the presidential candidates during second to third debate used six of seven types hedges, those are modal auxiliary verbs, modal lexical verbs, adjectival, adverbial and nominal modal phrases, approximators of degree, frequency, quantity and time, introductory phrases and if-clauses, but compound/complex hedges were not found in the presidential debate. From the six types of hedges, it was found that modal auxiliary verbs are the most frequent use of hedges when both of the presidential candidate debate. There are 204 modal auxiliary verbs in all debate, Hillary is 117 times using modal auxiliary verbs, while Trump is only 87 times using it. Both of them use hedges when the rhetoric in the debate presidential. As Salager-Meyer (1997) suggests, hedges modal auxiliary verbs are more widely used. By using modal auxiliary verbs, it means to show the lack of knowledge, help to avoid direct criticism and uncertainty. On the other hand, the finding revealed that modal lexical verbs are the lowest frequency used of hedges. There are only seven modal lexical verbs in the second and third presidential debates.
Moreover, the second question is the types of boosters used by the two candidates during the first and second debates. The researchers found all three types of boosters in the rhetoric of both candidates. The results show types of universal and negative pronouns 63 times, amplifiers 79 times, emphatics 42 times. In contrast, Hillary Clinton has universal and negative pronouns 47 times, amplifiers 58 times, and emphatics only 27 times. Then, the researchers concluded that Trump used the booster more frequently in his utilities than Hillary Clinton. As Basthomi., et al., (2015) boosters as a term of those lexical items by means of which the speakers or writers can provide strong confidence for an assertion to their arguments.
Besides, the function of hedges and booster used by the two candidates in the third question has been answered. The hedges function of the two candidates is not too contrasting where there are five of the hedges functions. Both candidates use hedges in rhetoric that serves to mitigate claims by showing some kind of uncertainty, expressing a lack of full commitment, expressing politics and searching for being accepted to the listener that might be contrasting, avoiding direct criticism especially when predicting future, and requesting listeners’ involvement makes a strong connection between speaker and writer. The results of the two candidates appear to be no big difference, so the hedges based function on Rabab’ah and Ruman (2015) has been used by candidates when they persuade and rhetoric during presidential debates. The function that often appears in the debate is mitigating claims by showing some kind of uncertainty. Which are Hillary’s mitigating claims function as much90 functions, while Trump is 83 functions. On the other hand, the booster function used by Trump in debates is higher than Hillary, which means Trump more often reinforces his claims, expresses his opinion, and emphasizes the commitment to propositions by limiting the negotiation space available to audiences. Based on the result, most of the functions of boosters are amplifiers. Which is Trump higher than Hillary, that Trump 79 functions while Hillary 58 functions. According to Hyland (1998), boosters represent a strong claim, express conviction, and assert a proposition with confidence. Also, stressing shared information, mark involvement with and solidarity with the audience, and direct engagement with the audience.
Based on the findings above, the researcher tends to compare the present study with the previous study. The first study is from Hidayati and Dalyono (2015) they analyzed the use and function of hedges and boosters in the speeches of three Indonesian ministers, about government policy regarding rising fuel prices. However, not all three ministers have booster and hedges, there is one minister who does not use this device at all, it shows that the data is still incomplete. While, in this present research, all the data contained hedges and boosters. On the other hand, Fernandez and Campillo (2012) analyzed hedges and booster in political writing from a journalist, George Ridpath. The researchers put eight-volume samples to be analyzed. However, this research does not explain in more detail the nominal or the amount of difference between hedges and boosters that are used by Ridpath. While, in this present analysis, the researcher explains the nominal details of the differences in hedges and boosters used by the two presidential candidates and shows the type or function of these devices that are most often used.
To make this study clearly, the researcher includes the contributions of this research about hedges and boosters in political discourse is extremely important because boosters and hedges are devices that are frequently used by politicians to articulate their arguments or speech to the public. By exploring hedges and boosters, the researcher is in a place to express the mask of linguistic politicians so they can express the “actual” political message conveyed by politicians to the public, and people may pay attention to the messages actually delivered by presidential candidates. While in society, we can pay attention to the ethics of communication when conveying uncertain words, which can smooth conversations that can be accepted by others and show polite words, besides that emphasizing communication so that it can run smoothly and effectively.
Furthermore, this present research relates to communication ethics in the Qur’an. The ethics of Islamic communication is a guide for Muslims in conducting communication, both in intrapersonal, interpersonal communication in daily interactions, preaching verbally and in writing, as well as in other activities. In various literature on Islamic communication, we can find at least six types of speech or talk styles (qaulan) which are categorized as rules, principles, or ethics of Islamic communication, namely:
- Qaulan Sadida (true, honest words). Surah An Nisa: 9.
“And let fear (of Allah) those who if they leave a weak offspring behind them, whom they worry about (their welfare). Therefore, they should fear Allah and they should speak with the correct speech (qaulan sadida)”.
- Qaulan Baligha (right on target, communicative, to the point, easy to understand).Surah An Nisa: 63.
“They are people whom Allah knows what is in their hearts. therefore you turn away from them, and teach them a lesson, and say to them the Qaulan Baligha – the words which trace their souls.”
- Qaulan Ma’rufa (good words). Surah Al Ahzab: 32.
“O wives of the Prophet, you are not like other women, if you are cautious. Then do not submit to speaking so that those who have a disease in their heart’s desire and say Qaulan Ma’rufa – good words.”
- Qaulan Karima (noble words). Surah Al Isra’ : 23.
“And your Lord has commanded that you do not worship other than Him and do good deeds to the mother and father. If one of the two or both of them is to old age in your care, then do not say to the words “ah” and do not shout at them and say to both good words”.
From the verse, it is clear that we are commanded to say good or noble words because good and true words are communication that calls for goodness and is a pleasant form of communication.
- Qaulan Layyinan (soft words). Surah Thaha: 43-44.
“Go both of you to Pharaoh because he really has crossed the line. So speak the two of you to him with meek words, hopefully, he is aware or afraid”.
From these verses, it can be concluded that Layina Qaulan means soft talk, with a pleasant voice, and full of friendliness, so that it can touch the heart meaning not to louden the voice, such as shouting, raising the voice. Anyone does not like it when talking to people who are rude. Rasulullah always speaks with gentle words, so that every word He utters is very touching to anyone who hears it. In Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir, it is mentioned, what is meant by layina is satire words, not frank or straightforward words, let alone rude.
The above verse is the command of Allah SWT to the Prophet Moses and Aaron to speak softly, not rudely, to Pharaoh. With Layina Qaulan, the communicant’s heart (the person who is invited to communicate) will feel touched, and his soul moved to receive our communication message.
Thus, in Islamic communication, as much as possible, avoided the harsh words and voice (intonation) that is loud and high pitched. God forbids being harsh and rude in preaching because violence will result in preaching will not succeed even the Ummah will stay away. In praying God also commands that we ask meekly, “Pray to your Lord with a humble and gentle voice, truly Allah does not like those who exceed the limits,” (Al A’raaf verse 55)
- Qaulan Maysura (light words). Surah Al Isra’: 28.
“And if you turn away from them to get the blessing from their Lord that you expect, then tell them Mulanura Qaulan – easy speech.”
Truly communication is a form of human life. In the communication process, we should pay attention to ethics properly so that communication can run smoothly and effectively. With the hope that what is conveyed is easily received and gets a good response too. These ethics include: words that are true, noble, gentle, mild, and easy to understand. Islam, as a perfect religion, teaches in great detail how to communicate well.
CHAPTER V
This chapter presents the conclusion of the research findings and suggestions. The conclusion section describes the main findings of the research and proposes several suggestions for future researchers.
5.1 Conclusions
The researcher represents the conclusion based on the finding in the previous chapter. This research is about hedges and boosters used by the presidential candidate. This research focuses on types and functions hedges and boosters used by the presidential debate.
Based on the findings, the researcher finds both of the presidential candidates using six types of hedges in the second and third debates. The amount of hedges used by both candidates is 480 times during the second until three debates. As a result of finding conclusions, Hillary Clinton uses hedges than Trump. Which, Hillary uses hedges 255 times, while Trump 225 times.
From all the hedges expression found in a presidential candidate, modal auxiliary verbs are identified as the most frequency hedges used, Hillary uses 117 times while Trump uses 87 times. This type is the most simple and widely used means of expressing modality, also to show uncertainty and avoid direct criticism. The second hedges most widely used is introductory phrases, Hillary uses 59 times whereas 31 times. This types is shows through the use of personal pronoun to express speaker’s personal skepticism and softening the effect to make statement more polite. Next, is approximators of degree, quantity, frequency and time, this to indicate imprecision of degree, quantity, frequency and time. In this types Hillary lower than Trump, which Trump uses 42 times, while Hillary only 31 times. Donald Trump uses 13 times in hedges of clauses and Hillary uses only 13 times. Then, adjectival, adverbial and nominal modal phrases in figure 4.1 looks no different, Hillary uses 24 times and Trump uses 27 times. Lattermost, modal lexical verbs is the lowest frequency hedge used.
On other hand, the total of used booster by both presidential candidate are 316 times. In here, Donald Trump higher than Hillary Clinton, that total of 184 times Trump used the types of booster during the debate, whereas Hillary uses boosters as much 132 times. Three of types of booster was found in presidential candidate. First type of booster is universal and negative pronoun that to hyperbolic impress when text appears to state exaggeration to purpose increasing qualities of persuasive, in this type Trump uses as much 63 times whereas Hillary only 47 times. Amplifiers is the most booster used by both candidate, Trump uses 79 times and Hillary 58 times. Lastly, boosters of emphatics is used by Hillary only 27 times, but in Trump uses as much as 42 times.
Besides that, the function of hedges and booster by both presidential candidate was analyzed. All of the function of hedges and boosters have been discovered in presidential debate between Hillary and Trump. Five function of hedges used during the debate. First function of hedges is mitigating claim by showing some kind of uncertainty,Hillary is 90 times and Trump is 83 times. This is the most frequency hedges function during presidential debate. Then, function of expressing politeness and searching for being accepte in Hillary’s hedges function as much 87 times and Trump 74 times. Next, Hillary 35 times while Trump 27 times uses function of avoiding direct criticism. In function of expressing a lack of full commitment used by Hillary 22 times and Trump is 27 times. Latest, requesting listener’s involvem is the lowest frequency of function of hedges.
Moreover, there are three function booster in both of presidential candidate, those are exaggeraton and inflate impression, as amplifiers and as emphatics. Function booster as amplifers is the most frequency used by both candidate, which is Trump used 79 times while Hillary 58 times. In function of exaggeration and inflated impression, Hillary used 47 times and Trump 63 times. Last, function booster as emphatics by Trump is 42 time while Hillary only 27 times.
Finally, the researcher can be conclude that in second and third debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, which tends to use more hedges when arguing during all debate is Hillary Clinton as much as 255 times. She tends using hedges when deliver her rhetoric, she tends to deliver uncertainty propoition and softening her statement to avoiding direct criticism. While, Donald Trump only 225 times use hedges in the presidential debate. On other hand, which tends use boosters during the debate is Donald Trump, he is using boosters as much as 184 times to expressing convictioniand affirm a propositioniwith confidence, shows a strong claim about aistate ofiaffairs.iWhereas, Hillary only used boosters 132 times.
5.2 Suggestion
The researcher gives the suuggetions for everyone who interested in hedges and boosters; first the researcher advices can choose to compare between pre-election and post-election speech also compare between men’s and women’s utterance speech. Secondly, the researcher advice to choose other politics discourse and choose another object such as; movie, talkshow or speech and etc for the next researcher who want to conduct the research with hedges and boosters.