본문 바로가기
  • Home
Basic Search

A Study on the Expression of ‘Hedging’ in Korean Language during a Debate

Park Joo Hwa 1

1성균관대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

It is not easy to talk amicably with the other party. It may be effective to use inaccurate expressions or to express something indirectly in order to deliver the speaker’s thoughts and emotions well to the listener and minimize the burden, antipathy, and repulsion on the side of the listener. Of course, making clear and definite expressions may increase confidence when you speak your opinion and speak to persuade the other party. However, “vague expressions” as well as “clear expressions” can be effective in discussions that persuade the other party. It is possible to lower the antipathy and burden that may occur to the listener and the possibility of error of the proposition proposed by the speaker. The term ‘hedging’ refers to an expression that helps the speakers lead communications positively by not directly revealing their intentions. This study has examined the hedging expressions in the speaker’s remarks during the three rounds of the presidential candidates’ debates hosted by the National Election Broadcasting Debates Commissions (NEBDC). As a result, the hedging expressions can be largely divided into ‘reserved judgment on the proposition’ and ‘mitigation and enhancement of performance’. ‘Reserved judgment on the proposition’ is again classified into subjectification, possibility and conjecture, and partial judgment. First, ‘subjectification’ refers to an expression that minimizes the compulsion or burden to the opposite party by revealing that it is only a personal opinion by limiting the subject that judges the proposition to ‘I’. It is analyzed that subjects such as ‘jeo’ and ‘na’ are combined with cognitive verbs such as ‘think’, ‘see’, and ‘know’ so that the propositions are subjectified. ‘Possibility and conjecture’ refers to expressions that reserve judgment by means of probabilities or speculations without making any judgment on the proposition. Especially, by conveying opposing opinions or negative aspects of the other party euphemistically, it makes the image and attitude of the speaker more positive compared to the assertive expression. ‘Partial judgment’ refers to indicating that the proposition is not actively agreed or actively contested by partial agreement or objection to any fact or opinion. Or the speaker may make a judgment that is limited to a part of the proposition, and reserves a clear judgment. ‘Mitigation and enhancement of performance’ can again be divided into ‘expansion of subjectivity’ and ‘double negation’. The former can form a consensus through the vocabulary indicating a sense of either belonging or of solidarity like ‘we’ and ‘people’ and the speaker’s following opinion is generalized as if it were the majority opinion. ‘Double negation’ is ultimately positive and, in some cases, can lessen the burden on the listener more than positive expressions. It often appears with expressions showing the possibilities of some acts combined and in the form of the second time negation of single-ended or long form negative sentences. This expression is characterized by the fact that it expresses justice to the act while shifting the responsibility onto a situation of the inevitabile act rather than onto an act originating from the speaker’s own will. In addition, the hedging expression, which is expressed by double negation, seems to be a passive expression because the surface meaning and the attitude of the speaker are slightly different, but it can be understood that it conveys the strong will of the speaker.

Statistics

  • 405 Viewed
  • 20 Downloaded

Tools

Issue List

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

Basic Search Advanced Search