Cover not available

In:The Expression of Inequality in Interaction: Power, dominance, and status
Edited by Hanna Pishwa and Rainer Schulze
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 248] 2014
► pp. 165–191

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Powerless language

Hedges as cues for interpersonal functions

 | Technische Universität Berlin
Published online: 12 June 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.248.07pis
This paper brings together two different approaches to the analysis of hedges. They are viewed in linguistics as procedural cues relating to the propositional or phrasal contents and their cognitive counterparts. In social psychology, they are interpreted at an interpersonal level as powerlessness markers attributing lack of control and power to the speaker. A comparison of these approaches resulted in the finding that some usages of hedges can be interpreted as unintended interpersonal implicatures weakening speaker traits and persuasive force. A further function is intentional and strategic as in political speech. A third usage is appropriate fuzziness caused by hedges, whereby the hedged expression exhibits accuracy higher than an explicit statement.
References (56)
References
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ayaß, Ruth. 2008. Kommunikation und Geschlecht. Stuttgart: KohlhammerGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blankenship, Kevin, and Thomas Holtgraves. 2005. “The Role of Different Markers of Linguistic Powerlessness in Persuasion.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology24(1): 3–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1994. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambrige: Cambrige University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 2007. Mitigation. Boston: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Weakening or Strengthening? A Case of Enantiosemy in Plato’s Gorgias.” In New Approaches to Hedging, ed. by Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch, and Stefan Schneider, 181–202. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chambers, Jack K. 2003. Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and its Social Significance. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Channell, Joanna. 1994. Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Durik, Amanda, M., M. Anne Britt, Rebecca Reynolds, and Jennifer Storey. 2008. “The Effects of Hedges in Persuasive Arguments: A Nuanced Analysis of Language.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology27(1): 217–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2003. Language and Gender. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2010. “Hedges in Context: Form and Function of sort of and kind of.” In New Approaches to Hedging, ed. by Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch, and Stefan Schneider, 1–13. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan. 2004. Social Beings: Core Motives in Social Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2010. “Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging.” In Approaches to Hedging, ed. by Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch, and Stefan Schneider, 15–34. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbons, Pamela, Jon Busch, and James Bradac. 1991. “Powerful versus Powerless Language: Consequences for Persuasion, Impression Formation, and Cognitive Response.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology10(2): 115–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giles, Howard, Justine Coupland, and Nik Coupland. 1991. “Accommodation Theory: Communication, Context, and Consequence.” In Contexts of Accommodation, ed. by Howard Giles, Justine Coupland, and Nik Coupland, 1–68. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gräßel, Ulrike. 1991. Sprachverhalten und Geschlecht: Eine empirische Studie zu geschlechtsspezifischem Sprachverhalten in Fernsehdiskussionen. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halmari, Helena, and Tuija Virtanen. 2005. Persuasion Across Genres: A Linguistic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 2005. “Power and Discourse at Work: Is Gender Relevant?” In Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by Michelle Lazar, 31–60. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas. 2002. Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. “Conversation Memory: Intentions, Politeness and the Social Context.” In Language and Memory: Aspects of Knowledge Representation, ed. by Hanna 
 Pishwa, 409–424. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas, and Benjamin Lasky. 1999. “Linguistic Power and Persuasion.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18(2): 196–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hosman, Lawrence. 1989. “The Evaluative Consequences of Hedges, Hesitations, and Intensifiers: Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles.” Human Communication Research15(3): 383–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. To appear. “Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles and their Relationship to Perceived Dominance and Control.”
Hosman, Lawrence, Thomas Huebner, and Susan Siltanen. 2002. “The Impact of Power-of-Speech Style, Argument Strength, and Need for Cognition on Impression Formation, Cognitive Responses, and Persuasion.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology21(4): 361–379. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hosman, Lawrence, and Susan Siltanen. 2006. “Powerful and Powerless Language Forms: Their Consequences for Impression Formation, Attribution of Control of Self and Control of Others, Cognitive Responses and Message Memory.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology25(1): 33–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Hedges, Tag Questions, Message Processing, and Persuasion.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology30(3): 341–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo. 2007. “Negativity Bias in Language: A Cognitive-Affective Model of Emotive Intensifiers.” Cognitive Linguistics18(3): 417–443. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas, Sara W. Smith, and Tanja Lüdge. 2003. “Interactive Aspects of Vagueness in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1737–1769. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Wiltrud Mihatsch, and Stefan Schneider. 2010. „Introduction.“ In New Approaches to Hedging, ed. by Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch, and Stefan 
Schneider, 1–13. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klann-Delius, Gisela. 2005. Sprache und Geschlecht. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1972. “Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts.” Linguistic Society Papers, 183–228. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. “Language and Woman’s Place.” Language in Society2: 45–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreement in Oral Communication. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Markkanen, Raija, and Hartmut Schröder. 1997. “Hedges: A Challenge for Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis.” In Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, ed. by Raija Markkanen, and Hartmut Schröder, 4–18. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mulholland, Joan. 1994. Handbook of Persuasive Tactics: A Practical Language Guide. London and New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ng, Sik Hung, and James Bradac. 1993. Power in Language: Verbal Communication and Social Influence. Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ng, Sik Hung, and S.A. Reid. 2001. “Power.” In The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, ed. by Peter Robinson, and Howard Giles, 357–370. New York: Wiley& Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pishwa, Hanna. 2003. “Accurate Fuzziness as Constructive Reduction in Communication.” In Text, Context, Concepts, ed. by Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt, 299–332. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Planalp, Sally. 1999. Communicating Emotion: Social, Moral, and Cultural Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raven, Bertram, Joseph Schwarzwald, and Meni Koslowsky. 1998. “Conceptualizing and Measuring a Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28(4): 307–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rowland, Tim. 2007. “‘Well Maybe not Exactly, but It’s around Fifty Basically’: Vague Language in Mathematics Classrooms.” In Vague Language Explored, ed. by Joan Cutting, 79–96. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schneider, Stefan. 2010. “Mitigation.” In Interpersonal Pragmatics, ed. by Miriam A. Locher, and Sage L. Graham, 253–269. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulz von Thun, Friedemann. 200643. Miteinander reden: Störungen und Klärungen. 
Hamburg: Rowohlt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarz-Friesel, Monika. 2010. “Expressive Bedeutung und E-Implikaturen – Zur Relevanz konzeptueller Bewertungen bei indirekten Sprechakten: Das Streichbarkeitskriterium und seine kognitive Realität.” In Kultura kak Tekst (Kultur als Text), ed. by William Rudnitzky, (ed.), 12–17. SGT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shepard, Carolyn A, Howard Giles, and Beth A. Le Poire. 2001. “Communication Accommodation Theory.” In The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, ed. by W. Peter Robinson, and Howard Giles, 33–55. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siakaluk, Paul D., Lori Buchanan, and Chris Westbury. 2003. “The Effect of Semantic Distance in Yes/No and Go/No-go Semantic Categorization Tasks.” Memory & Cognition 31: 100–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, Paul, and Andrea Mayr. 2010. Language and Power: A Resource Book for Students. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talbot, Mary. 2010. Language and Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thimm, Caja, and Lenelis Kruse. 1991. “Dominanz, Macht und Status als Elemente sprachlicher Interaktion: ein Literaturbericht.” MSUniversität Heidelberg/Mannheim.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thornborrow, Joanna. 2001. Power Talk: Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse: Representation and Interaction in Discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turner, John. 2005. “Explaining the Nature of Power: A Three-Process Theory.” European Journal of Social Psychology35: 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Virtanen, Tuija, and Helena Halmari. 2005. “Persuasion across Genres: Emerging Perspectives.” In Persuasion Across Genres: A Linguistic Approach, ed. by Helena Halmari, and Tuija 
Virtanen, 3–26. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Steven R. 2002. Seeking and Resisting Compliance: Why People Say What They Do When Trying to Influence Others. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Pishwa, Hanna
2015. Information Source as Persuasive Power in Political Interviews: the Case of Obama. In The Exercise of Power in Communication, ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue