Nurul Aini; Djatmika Djatmika; Sumarlam Sumarlam; Diah Kristina
Abstract
The study aims at analyzing politeness and gender around the postponement of election discourse in the Rosi Talk Show (RTS). This qualitative study applies a pragmatic approach that investigates hedge markers (HM). Data were collected from the utterances of nine participants using basic tapping, free-flowing ...
Read More
The study aims at analyzing politeness and gender around the postponement of election discourse in the Rosi Talk Show (RTS). This qualitative study applies a pragmatic approach that investigates hedge markers (HM). Data were collected from the utterances of nine participants using basic tapping, free-flowing listening, and note-taking. The results indicated several findings. First, academics (males) represented hedge markers with assertive acts of expressing an opinion. However, the practitioner (female) tended to use directive acts of questioning. Second, academics and practitioners (males) often used hedges for quality maxims. While the practitioner (female) often used hedges with question tags. Third, the function of HM showed performative hedges as hesitation and meta-comments; particles to emphasize questions, soften act, and give flexibility; adverbial clauses to show cause-effect and conditions; hedges to quality maxims to show hesitation, raise objections, minimize criticism, and other corrections; hedges to relevance maxims as allegation and hesitation; and hedges in politeness as indifference, rejection, and avoidance.
Monika Widyastuti Surtikanti; Djatmika Djatmika; Riyadi Santosa; Diah Kristina
Abstract
Studies on presidential debates provide evidence that the use of boosters helps to convey strong emphasis on candidates’ ideology. This persuasive strategy is best portrayed through the schematic structure of presidential debates. Therefore, this study aims to scrutinize the boosters’ functions ...
Read More
Studies on presidential debates provide evidence that the use of boosters helps to convey strong emphasis on candidates’ ideology. This persuasive strategy is best portrayed through the schematic structure of presidential debates. Therefore, this study aims to scrutinize the boosters’ functions realized in the first American Presidential Debate 2020. This is a qualitative study with a pragmatic approach that investigates booster’s functions using the domain, taxonomy, and componential analysis. The linguistic evidence in the result shows the candidates exploited several intensifiers largely, including force indication, source tagging, accentuating, and solidarity markers. These boosters emphasize the strength of past deeds, criticizing past policies to promote definite proposals, expose repetitive emotional expression, and seek solidarity in the thesis stage. Meanwhile, in the argument stage, they function as devices for articulating offensive and defensive arguments. The results imply the essential functions of boosters in the persuasive political discourse of presidential debate viewed from its communicative purpose reflected in each schematic structure.