Abstract
By the slant of their aims, presidential candidates rely on their own rhetorical arsenal to win the acquiescence of the public. Hedges and boosters, two subcategories of metadiscourse markers, are among the rhetorical tropes which assist politicians to increase or decrease commitment, blur or sharpen the boundaries between good and evil, and bolster or emasculate solidarity. Despite the many functions hedges and boosters can play in political discourse, studies that address these devices in relation to their persuasive effect in televised presidential debates cross-linguistically are tremendously scant. To this aim, the current study examined the hedging and boosting strategies used by the winners of American and Iranian presidential elections during one of their latest televised debates. A bottom–up method of analysis was adopted to analyze the debates in terms of hedges and boosters, and a functional model in light of what surfaced in the analysis along with awareness of the existing literature (e.g. Fraser, 2010a; Holmes, 1984) was proposed. The study showed that not only were the frequencies significantly different, but the functions these devices fulfilled were also varied cross-linguistically as the winners of both groups (Obama and Ahmadinejad) demonstrated diverse tendencies towards using hedges and boosters.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.