Hedges and boosters communicative tactics

Hedges and boosters communicative tactics

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter consists of a background of the study which contains previous studies and the gap of the study, statement of the problems, objectives of the study, significance of the study, scope, and limitation, and definition of key terms.

• Background of Study

Hedges and boosters are communicative tactics for reducing or increasing the strength of representation (Hyland, 1998).  The expression of hedges and boosters are focus on interactive character and rhetorical in academic writing or formal speech. Its importance lies when researchers and speakers gain acceptance for their research claims and persuasion by balancing trust, whether investment with trust in reliable knowledge or appropriate social interaction, or by reflecting uncertainty (Hyland, 1998). The possibility of the writer or speaker expressing the perspective of their statement, expressing the claim that has not been proven carefully and to enter into dialogue with their audience through the use of hedges, whereas, using boosters, helps to close reserves and strengthen certainty (Bastomi, et al, 2015).

Hedges was introduced as a linguistics term based on Lakoff (1972); he defined it as “words whose job is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy.” Salager-Meyer (1997) suggests that hedging is a linguistic resource that delivers the basic characteristics of science, skepticism, and doubt. Based on Hyland (1996), hedging is a pragmatic feature that writers or speakers use to look for statements that they make, reduce dubious claims or potentially claimed risks, and convey the right collegial attitude to listeners. In speaking or in speech, hedges are used to obscure a statement that is deemed inappropriate to speak or to give a courtesy effect.

In pragmatics, research on various types of hedging has been mainly associated with doubt, obscurity, politeness, uncertainty, and indirect. The terms hedge and hedging mostly refer to a large class of lexical and syntactic features of texts that have the purpose of reducing modifying and propositions. In the 1990s, research on hedging emerged to explain the use, meaning, and function of politeness, obscurity, and mitigation in academic writing and other types of discourse (Hinkel, 2005). The concept of a hedges does not only include modifying words or phrases in proposition but also changing of commitment someone to the propositional value, several researchers have begun to think it is necessary to distinguish between the two types of hedges. Writers assert their opinions, judgments, and commitments to the propositional content of the text and their readers via the use of hedges and boosters, modifying the truth values of all proposition.iHedging devices mitigate the force or strength of expression by expressing temporary nature and potential.

In contrast, boosters, increasing strength in speech or utterance, and make more forceful statements. Boosters reflect on features that express the writer’s strong confidence for a claim and assurance and affirms a proposition with confidence (Zarza, 2018). Based on Hyland (1998) argue that boosters used to express confidence, and affirm a proposition with conviction, represent strong claims about circumstances. Boosters are identified as writing and conversation discourse features that have the function to strengthen or enhance the effect of a sentence or whole proposition. In discourse, boosters have the functions of exaggerating the true state of affairs, reinforcing the truth value of propositions, or emphasizing section or all of the class (Hinkel, 2005). Besides that, these linguistic devices are really important phenomena in the construction of rhetorical style. The part of the rhetorical elements used by scholars to achieve their communicative goals (Varquez & Giner, 2009).

Many investigators have recently turned to analyze hedges and boosters. It is because hedges and boosters are an important interactional strategy used in communicating; this strategy can make communication run effectively. Hedges and boosters are also important in academic discourse to lie in their contribution to a suitable rhetorical and interactive way, delivering effective and epistemic meanings.These two linguistic tools can express positive politeness by making the listener’s face positive, assuring agreement with the listener, their commitment and admiration with a statement. Otherwise, the use of negative politeness is directed towards the hearer’s negative face; by emphasizing avoidance to impose on him or her to minimize awkwardness or embarrassment (Granqvist, 2013).

There are some previous studies of boosters and hedges with different subject; the first is in academics writing such as using of boosters persuasion in academic discourse (Vazquez and Giner, 2009), a corpus-based analysis of boosters and hedges in Englishiacademic articles(Takimoto, 2014), comparison of hedges in Ph.D. dissertation and M.A thesis in ELT (Atmaca, 2016), boosting and hedging in the rhetorical structure of English newspaper Zarza, 2018). On other hand, hedges and boosters in academics writing has been extensively studied in Indonesia, such as boosters and hedges in research articles of undergraduate students (Salichah, Irawati, and Basthomi, 2015), hedges used by Indonesian ELTistudents in spoken and written discourse (Asfina, Kadarisman, and Astuti, 2018),  hedges used in scientific EFL writing (Widiawati, 2018) and hedging in students research proposal of the English Teacher EducationiDepartment UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya (Hani’ah, 2019).

Besides hedges and boosters in written discourse, there are several previous studies analyzed hedges and boosters in political discourse, such as, using hedges in politics of both American presidents in 2008 (Rashady, 2012), the researcher analyzed three videos presidential debates between John McCain and Barrack Obama that he focused on investigating how hedging devices functioned as a political discourse strategy based on theories Meyer (1997), Hyland (2005), and Martin-Martin (2008). He discovered that hedging devices present different functions hang on the purpose or motive of the speaker. The frequency of use specific hedges devices shows to significantly promote the effectiveness of a speaker’s argument. As claimed by Rashady’s research, the most hedges used in the debates is a modal auxiliary verb. He stated that the speakers used modal auxiliary verb very great; they can differentiate between points they are mostly fixed and least fixed, and they are needed when they speak about their plans for their country, America.

Then, Rabab’ah and Ruman (2015) analyzed hedges in the speeches of KingiAbdullah II of Jordan. They analyzed twenty-five speech of King Abdullah II randomly, as the result of this study that King Abdullah II mainly used hedges device in his speech, that is modal auxiliary, the word is “can.” In this research, they used theory-based Meyer’s (1997) taxonomy. Based on this research, the researcher concludes whether is that second language and Politicians always use hedges as their rhetorical devices to perform the rhetorical function and various pragmatics. In this speech of King Abdulla II of Jordan contains five functions of hedges, such as express politeness, mitigate claims, express a lack of full commitment to their proposition, and so on. However, this study is merely focused on hedges.

The persuasive device in Geroge Ridpath’s was written by Fernandez and Campillo (2012). The researchers analyzed hedges and booster. This study took in written discourse that is in political writing from a journalist, George Ridpath, who could influence public opinion and be good at rhetoric. The researchers put eight-volume samples to analyze. The researchers argue that boosters and hedges are truly important devices in the construction of George Ridpath’s rhetorical style.The results of this study indicate that hedges and boosters in Ridpath’s political writings play an important role in shaping public opinion, moving the mind and heart, when disseminating information and ideas is highly dependent on pamphlets, newspapers, and magazines.

Further research was written by Hidayati and Dalyono (2015) they analyzed the used and function of hedges and boosters in the speeches of three Indonesian ministers, Hatta Radjasa, Jero Wacik, Armida Alisjahbana based on Hyland (1998) theory. The speeches are about government policy regarding rising fuel prices. The most hedges and booster used by the minister is adverb and modality. This study show hedges and boosters only used in two ministers that are in Armida Alisjahbana and Hatta Radjasa, then Jero Wacik did not use hedges and boosters at all in his speech. Based on the research, the most frequently used hedges their speech is Armida Alisjahbana, and the most frequently used booster in this speech is Hatta Radjasa. Although from the explanation, there are functions of hedges and boosters in the speech, there are still some functions of boosters and hedges that cannot be included in the data.

The last comes from Mentari (2018), who analyzed hedges in the debate which used Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s first presidential debate. In this study, she investigated the types and functions of hedges in those speeches. To analyzed Clinton and Trump’s first presidential debate, she used the theory of types hedges based on Salager Meyer (1997) and the theory of function hedges by Rabab’ah and Rumman (2015). Besides that, she also aimed to provide more knowledge about hedges in politics and to give a contribution to some parties such as lecturers, students, other researchers, and people in general references to improve knowledge about hedges. However, in that study, she only gives an explanation to students, other researchers, and people in general without giving an explanation about hedges to the lecturers.

Based on the previous studies above, the researcher can be concluded that many previous studies analyzed hedges and boosters focused on written discourse, such as research articles or research proposals. Besides that, there are also several studies analyzed hedges and boosters in spoken discourse, particularly in politics—however, only a few studies of hedges and boosters about the presidential debate. May look like same as Mentari (2018), who also analyzed presidential debate, but she only focused on hedges without analyzing boosters, and her topic is different from this study. However, no research conducted an analysis of hedges and boosters in the second and third presidential debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The third presidential debate had been the last Trump-Clinton presidential debate, as well. The second presidential debate is quite different from the first or third or final debate. In the second debate forum, the audience joined in the debate. However, only a handful of spectators are chosen, and they could immediately ask questions for their presidential candidates and were immediately answered spontaneously by them alternately within only two minutes.

Thus, this present research will take hedges and booster in Trump-Clinton second and third presidential debate aim to investigate types of hedges, and boosters use by Trump and Clinton in second and third presidential debate also to investigate function of hedges and boosters use by Trump and Clinton in second and third presidential debate based on theory of Salager-meyer (1997), Rabab’ah and Rumman (2015) and Hinkel (2005). Besides that, 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 that they can express the “actual” political message conveyed by politicians to the public (Hidayati & Dallyono, 2018).

Therefore, the researcher conducted to analyze hedges and boosters in politics, especially in presidential debates between Trump and Clinton. Generally, politicians can persuade the audience with their skill of rhetoric. The researcher wants to prove whether, in these debates, they use hedges and booster to soften or strengthen their speech and to investigate how its devices serve the function as a discourse strategy. In addition, this device can indicate the originality of messages intended by politicians.

1.2       Research Problems

1. What are the types of hedges used by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the secondhand third presidential debate?
2. What are the types of boosters used by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the second and third presidential debates?
3. What is the function of hedges and boosters used by DonaldiTrump and Hillary Clinton in the second and third presidential debates?

1.3 Significant of the Study

The researcher intended this study makes the readers know about hedges and boosters in politics, especially in the presidential debate. Also, the researcher hopes can give ante in theoretically and practically. For theoretically,it can enrich the study of hedges and boosters in political discourse in English Department UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya. Besides, it can be used as references for those who are interesting and make further researcher about hedges and boosters. And for practically,the researcher hopes students are more heedful in using hedges and boosters to expressing arguments or claim in their speaking.

1.4 Scope and Limitation

The scope of this study focuses on hedges and boosters in political discourse, especially the types and functions of hedges and boosters in the second and third presidential debates. The researcher concerns the relationship between language and context, which focuses on all utterances of the debate. The researcher limits the source to the dialogues line between two presidential candidates.

1.5 Definition of Key Term

1. Hedges are linguistics devices mostly reduce the power of speech, and smooth the effect of statements.
2. Boosters are linguistics device that intensifies the force in an utterance and makes a statement more powerful.
3. The presidential debate is a formal contest of argumentation between two candidates that are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Theoretical Framework

This chapter includes some theories by the experts that explain related to this research. They are types of hedges, the function of hedges, types of boosters, and the function of hedges.

2.2  Hedges

Based on Salager Meyer (1997) that hedges are a linguistic resource that expresses the characteristics of the science of uncertainty, skepticism, open-mindedness, and doubt. In linguistics, hedges are realized as mostly adverbial, and verbal expressions such as perhaps, can suggest, may which deal with of likelihood. He states hedges are connected with purposive of tentativeness and vagueness. The words of hedges are such as might, possible, and perhaps, describe impairment of a claim through a clear qualification of the writer’s commitment. It may be to indicate doubt and show that information is provided as opinion rather than appointed fact, or it may be to convey aversion, humility, and respect for colleagues’ views (Hyland, 1998).  Holmes (1995) and Hyland (2000) (cited in Laurinaityte, 2011, p.10) hedges are used to uncertain and mitigate risky statements. These devices are identified as compromisers, downgraders, weakeners, downtoners, and softeners.

Vold (2006) says that hedges are also used to persuade and influence the audience, not only mitigate the statement (cited in Laurinatyte, p.10).  Hedges can be said as a rhetorical strategy, which means a lack of a full commitment either to the full of expression or term in the utterance or intended illocutionary force of the utterance. An awareness of the pragmatics effect of hedges and the ability to admit them in texts is important to the acquisition of rhetorical competence in any discipline.

• Types of Hedges

There are any seven types of the taxonomy of hedges based on expert, Salager-Meyer (1997). He claims the seven types of hedges are reflect the most widely hedges category used in scientific English; those are:

2.2.1.1Modal Auxiliary Verbs

This type is highly used for 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 (Hyland, 1996). Based on Hall and Folley (1998) Kreck and Biber (2004) and Alexander (2003) (Cited in Laurinaityte, 2011, p.22), several constructions can act as hedges.

1. Can is showing possibility if used the construction of inanimate noun + can + linking verb/verb
2. Will would express prediction when serving the construction of will + be + adjective/noun
3. Could would indicate possibility when constructed in could + be + adjective/noun and could + perfect infinitive; can + perfect infinitive
4. Should only express probability when used the construction of should + be and should + perfect infinitive

Example: “A second reason for the large gains may be that the learners were more skilled in guessing a word from context.”

2.2.1.2 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 attitudetoward the proposition rather than solely describing. Variation degree of illocutionary force is: to appear (epistemic verbs), to seem, to assume, to believe, to estimate, to suggest, to tend, to propose, to speculate, to think, to argue, to indicate, to calculate, to infer, to predict.

Example: American dollar now seems to have dwindled by 1% in 1994

2.2.1.3 Adjectival, adverbial, and nominal modal phrases:                    

There are three types of modal phrases, namely, adjectival, adverbial, and nominal. Each type has a kind of words to show the use of hedges.

1. Probability adjectives: un/likely probable, possible.
2. Nouns: claim, assumption, estimate, suggestion, possibility.
3. Adverbs(non-verbal modals): probably, possibly, perhaps, practically, virtually, likely, apparently, presumably, actually, nearly, slightly, merely, maybe, theoretically, almost, in a way, in (this/that) case, relatively, essentially.

Example: “that is one of the worst probable choices that any man and his family have to make.”

2.2.1.3 Approximators of degree, frequency, quantity and time

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 example words of this types are: approximately, occasionally, roughly, about, usually, often, somewhat, generally, a lot of, somehow, rarely, frequently, most of time, from time to time, at least, more or less, around, one in a while, seldom, at times, sometimes, invariably, many, round.

Example: “We are, however, producing a lot of natural gas that serves as a bridge to more renewable fuels.”

2.2.1.5 Introductory Phrases

The introductory phrase is showed through the use of personal pronouns.  Introductory phrases express the speaker’s skepticism and direct involvement. This below is the kind of introductory phrases:  I think, as far as I /we know, to our knowledge/ standpoint, it is our view that I believe, we feel that.

Example: “Because I think that is the solution to get the best future for our children and grandchildren.”

2.2.1.6 “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.These types have some example words as if true, if anything.

Example: “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.”

2.2.1.7 Compound/ Complex Hedges

            Compound hedges are capable of being reached from the combination of lexical verb and modal auxiliary, even the combination of lexical verbswith hedging adverbs or adjectives. These types are divided become three parts, in each part have different example words. Those are:

1. Double hedges (this may suggest that it seems reasonable/probable, it seems likely that, this probably indicates, it would indicate that).
2. Treble hedges (it seems reasonable to assume that).
3. Quadruple hedges (it may appear somewhat speculative that, it would seem somewhat unlikely that).

• Functions of Hedges

Generally, the function of hedges are representing some kinds of politeness or showing uncertainty. Besides, these pragmatic devices function to avoid confrontation between opinions, and they are considered a negative politeness strategy, which aims to save the face of the other person (Brown and Levinson, 1987). Likewise, Hyland (1994) suggests that hedging devices have two main functions, namely, showing that you are careful when you express your thoughts and negotiate claims in a diplomatic way.

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) that 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.

2.2.2.1 Mitigating claims by showing some kind of uncertainty

Modal lexical verbs, approximators, modal verbs, and other devices were particularly to reduce claims by appearance some kind of unreliability. Besides, this function to soften the claim and reduce the strength of the proposition.

Example: “that is one of the worst probablechoices that any man and his family have to make.”

That example above is referring to showing some kind of uncertainty because Clinton not sure that divorce is the worst choice that any man did, that she used the word ‘probable’ to show uncertainty.

2.2.2.2 Expressing a 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. Some kinds of hedges such as may, think, etc.

Example: “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.”

The use of ‘can’ shows that Clinton expresses a lack of full commitment. Because her statement is tried to avoid being fully committed when she promised to serve America well. This is to weaken the strength of her statement by showing a lack of fully committed.

2.2.2.3 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. When the statement is being soft, it will be moreaccepted than a too emphatic statement. Also, since the statement becomes smoother, it saves the interlocutor’s face, which is the public self-image that everyone wants. Thus, it is also used for expressing politeness, which can be negative politeness or positive politeness. Negative politeness deals with the strategies for saving the need for getting freedom and independence for delivering ideas, whereas the need to be connected and respected is considered as positive politeness.

Example: “I believe if my opponent should win this race, which I truly don’t think will happen, we will have a Second Amendment whichiwill be a very, veryosmall replica of what it is right now.“

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 point of view and tries to be accepted to the listener about his argument.

2.2.2.4 Avoiding direct criticism especially when predicting future events or consequences.

This function is giving a signal 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.

Example: “I wantoto invest in yourofamily. And I thinkothat’s the smartest way to grow theoeconomy, to make the economy fairer.”

            In Hillary 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.

2.2.2.5 Requesting the listeners’ involvement

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. Furthermore, this function can be signed by the use of the pronoun you as well as we since this involves the listeners to the proposition delivered.

Example: “Obamacare is widely known in the community. I’m sure. You know it, we know it. That gives effect to us.”

The statement from Trump is including one of hedges function. As his statements, he used an introductory phrase to involve the listeners in his speech when he answers the question about Obamacare.

2.3       Boosters

Boosters are contradicted with hedges. According to Hyland (1998) argue that boosters attend to amplify propositions and provide the speaker or writer commitment. These also represent affectionate interaction and unity with an audience, direct engagement to the audience, and emphasizing shared information. Boosters as a term of those lexical items utilizing which the speakers or writers can provide strong confidence for an assertion to their arguments (Basthomi. et al., 2015).

There are some categories of boosters and its functions based on Hinkel (2005) and Basthomi., et al. (2015), first is 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.).

2.3.1    Types of Boosters

            There are types of boosters based on Rabbab’ah and Ruman (2015); those are universal and negative pronouns, amplifiers, emphatics. The explanation would be shown below.

2.3.1.1 Universal and Negative Pronouns

In this type, the word of universal and negative pronouns is such as each, all, every- pronominals (everybody, everyone, everything), every, nothing, none, every-, no one, and no words.

Example: “some people do the best in every their job, but some people just waiting something.”

2.3.1.2 Amplifiers

The words of amplifiers are: absolutely, far (+ comparative adjective), by all means, always, entirely,  altogether, badly, awfully, much (+ adjective),  completely, deeply, downright, enormously, forever, amazingly, ever, extremely, far from it, even (+ adjective/noun), fully, greatly, hugely, in all/every respect(s)/way(s), not half bad, never, positively, severely, perfectly, sharply, too (+ adjective), strongly, totally, very, so (+verb/adjective),  unbelievably, terribly, very much, highly,  well.

Example: “I hate it, and I am very ashamed by it; however, it is a locker room talk one of that things.”

2.3.1.3 Emphatics

Such of emphatics as: 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).

Example: “She was extremely angry about it.”

2.3.2 Function of Boosters

            Based on Rababb’ah and Ruman (2015), there are three functions of boosters, those are exaggerations and inflated impressions, as amplifiers, and as emphatics. All of the functions will be explained below.

2.3.2.1  Exaggeration and inflated impression                               

These types indicate 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.

Example: “Some people do the best in every their job, but some people just waiting something.”

Trump used the word ‘every’ is too inflated impression his speech that the word ‘every’ is to make his speech more assertive.

2.3.2.2 As amplifiers

Amplifiers in boosters device are 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.

Example: “I hate it, and I am very ashamed by it; however, it is a locker room talk one of those things.”

Trump explained to the audience about the locker room, and he used one type of amplifier that is ‘very.’ This function as amplifiers and can to emphasize his statement.

2.3.2.3 As Emphatics 

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. In the written or spoken discourse, emphatics sign conversational genre than of formal written prose and are more characteristic of speech and an informal register.

Example: “I really sorry for what I said, but that is what people say.”

In those examples above, trump wants to apologize for what he said to women that can be a negative effect on his image. So that’s why he used the word ‘really’ to reinforce his statement and also as emphatics.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODS

Thisichapter presents theresearch method in conducting her research. Those are: research design, data collection, researchidata, instrument, data collection technique, and dataianalysis.

• Research Design

This research used descriptiveiqualitative research because the researcher focused on completeidescription of the types and the function of hedges and boosters. Based on Litoseliti (2010) qualitative research deals with patterns and structures, and how something is. In other hand, qualitative research is a kind of research that can not be counted. Therefore, the researcher used this method to analyze the data because the data would be presented on types and function of hedges and boosters that exist on Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton debate.

• Data Collection

3.2.1 Research Data

The data of this study would word, phrase, a sentence that was transcribed from the second and third presidential debate between Trump and Clinton. These presidential debates were taken from youtube in NBC News and PBS NewsHour Channel. It could be accessed on Youtube, http://youtu.be/FRII2SQ0Ueg and http://youtu.be/84cJdY8wkV8.

• Instrument

A human was the main the research instrument. It refers to the researcher herself who would collect the data and analyzed them. Then, there was a supporting tool, video of debate which taken from NBC News and PBS NewsHour Channel.

• Data Collection Technique

In this study, the researcher would do some steps to collect the data:

1. First, the researcheriwould search the final presidential debate in youtube, particularly in NBC News and PBS NewsHour. This video has a very clear English subtitle.
2. Then, the researcher would download this video from youtube.
3. The third step was the researcher listens carefully and look the subtitle to find out the contents of the movie.
4. After that, to make easier to analyze, the researcher transcript the subtitle in Microsoft Word.
5. Then, the last, researcher would begin analyzing the types and function hedges and boosters through the theory of Salager-Meyer (1997), Rabab’ah & Rumman (2015) and Hinkel (2005).

3.4       Data Analysis

There was some steps to conducted the data analysis:

1. The researcher would bold the speeches which included categories of hedges and booster in the presidential debate. The researcher also gave the code according to the types and function of hedges and booster. The code description made by the researcher was as below:

Table 3.1 Types of Hedges

Table 3.2 Types of Boosters

Table 3.3 Function of Hedges

Table 3.4 Function of Boosters

After made the code, the example of bold and gave code in video transcript would present as:

• Second presidential debate

1. Third presidential debate

2. The researcher would classify the types of hedges and booster between the speech of both presidential candidates based on categories taxonomy of hedges by Meyer (1997) and categories of boosters by Hinkel (2005).Then, after classified the types hedges and boosters, the researcher would classify them to the function of hedges and boosters.
3. The researcher described each hedges and boosters found in the data by using Meyer and Hinkel theory and interpreted the function of hedges used Rabab’ah and Ruman, and also interpreted the function of boosters used Hinkel.
4. The researcher counted the frequency of each types and also the function. Then the researcher classified them into Table 5 and 3.6.

Table 3.5 Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s Types of Hedges and Boosters

Table 3.6 Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s Functions of Hedges and Boosters

5. And the last, the researcher would explain the result and after that, the researcher made the conclusion.