Navigating Political Discourse: A Cross-Sectional Study of Hedging in American Presidential Speeches

Noureddine Derki; Sharif Alghazo; Rabab'ah Ghaleb; Drissi Otmane Abdelkader

doi:10.47012/jjmll.18.1.5

Authors

Noureddine Derki Department of Foreign Languages, Mustapha Stambouli University of Mascara, Algeria https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8840-8187
Sharif Alghazo Department of Foreign Languages, University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates Department of English Language and Literature, The University of Jordan, Jordan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4282-1416
Rabab'ah Ghaleb Department of Foreign Languages, University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates Department of English Language and Literature, The University of Jordan, Jordan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1804-5859
Drissi Otmane Abdelkader Department of English Language and Literature, Dr. Moulay Tahar University of Saida, Algeria https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1804-5859

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.18.1.5

Keywords:

Hedging, political discourse, ideology, American presidents

Abstract

This cross-sectional study examines the use of hedging devices in American presidential discourse, analyzing speeches from four U.S. presidents with differing political affiliations. It aims to identify and categorize hedging strategies employed during their presidency, using a corpus of 52 randomly selected speeches totaling over 265,000 words. A mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative and qualitative analyses, was employed, utilizing AntConc and Sketch Engine software. The analysis is grounded in Salager-Meyer’s (1997) framework of hedging devices and Rabab’ah and Abu Rumman’s (2015) taxonomy of hedging functions. Findings indicate a predominant use of approximators and modal auxiliaries, which varied across presidents and played a crucial role in mitigating commitment and conveying uncertainty. This variation was linked to political ideology and the specific socio-political contexts of each presidency. Democratic presidents relied more on hedging for diplomatic flexibility, whereas Republican presidents exhibited a preference for direct assertion. The study highlights hedging as a strategic rhetorical tool in political communication, allowing leaders to balance persuasion, adaptability, and authority.