Demystifying the Mitigation Devices in Philippine Presidential Speeches: A Political Discourse Analysis
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examines the use of mitigation devices—specifically, hedges, euphemisms, and parenthetical verbs—in the speeches of Philippine presidents to reveal how linguistic strategies shape political discourse. Through a detailed political discourse analysis, this research identifies the critical functions of these devices in moderating assertions, deflecting responsibility, and managing audience perception. Hedges such as attribution and plausibility shields, euphemistic abbreviations, and parenthetical verbs like "I think" and "I believe" emerge as essential tools that enable leaders to introduce ambiguity, express tentativeness, and reduce the forcefulness of statements. These devices not only soften potentially controversial or sensitive information but also reinforce the speaker’s credibility by allowing space for interpretive flexibility. Findings highlight that mitigation devices are integral to the rhetorical frameworks employed by Philippine presidents, facilitating a careful balance between assertiveness and adaptability in high-stakes communication. Implications for political communication suggest that these linguistic tools serve not merely as rhetorical flourishes but as strategic elements in fostering trust, empathy, and relatability with the public. The study concludes with recommendations for further research in cross-cultural political discourse and audience perception of mitigation strategies, underscoring the broader applicability of these devices in shaping effective political communication.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Ali, A., & Salih, S. (2020). Taxonomy of Mitigation Devices in English Language. Koya University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(1), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.14500/kujhss.v3n1y2020.pp31-40
Bates, C. (2020). Cognitive and Affective Dimensions of Mitigation in Advice. Corpus Pragmatics, 4, 31-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-019-00064-x
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-97641-000
Bull, P., & Miskinis, K. (2015). Whipping It Up! An Analysis of Audience Responses to Political Rhetoric in Speeches From the 2012 American Presidential Elections. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34, 521-538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14564466
Chandler, D. (1988). Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450-1680. The Journal of Asian Studies, 48, 942-943. https://doi.org/10.2307/2058228
Cheng, L., Mao, H., & Zhang, T. (2023). Cognitive-pragmatic functions of mitigation in therapeutic conversations emphasizing rapport management. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1114146
Chepurnaya, A. (2021). Modeling public perception in times of crisis: discursive strategies in Trump’s COVID-19 discourse. Critical Discourse Studies, 20, 70 - 87. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2021.1990780
Chilton, P. (2004). Analyzing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218
Cleofas, J. (2019). Towards a Practical and Empirically Grounded Account of Útang-na-loób as a Filipino Virtue. Kritika Kultura, 33/34, 156-179.
Delbene, R. (2004). The function of mitigation in the context of a socially stigmatized disease: A case study in a public hospital in Montevideo, Uruguay. Spanish in Context, 1, 241-266. https://doi.org/10.1075/SIC.1.2.05DEL
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage.
Enriquez, V. G. (1994). From colonial to liberation psychology: The Philippine experience. University of the Philippines Press.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.
Flores-Ferrán, N., & Lovejoy, K. (2015). An examination of mitigating devices in the argument interactions of L2 Spanish learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 67-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PRAGMA.2014.11.005
Fraser, B. (1980). Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(4), 341-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N
Fraser, B. (2009). Topic Orientation Markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 892-898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.006
Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (4th ed.). Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Pantheon Books.
Gribanova, T. I., & Gaidukova, T. M. (2019). Hedging in different types of discourse. Training, Language and Culture, 3(2), 85-99. https://doi.org/10.29366/2019tlc.3.2.6
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Haverkate, H. (1992). Deictic categories as mitigating devices. Pragmatics, 2, 505-522. https://doi.org/10.1075/PRAG.2.4.03HAV
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. Longman.
Jovic, M., Kurtishi, I., & AlAfnan, M. (2023). The persuasive power of hedges: Insights from TED Talks. World Journal of English Language, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n5p200
Kadhim, W. M., & Mewad, C. (2024). Comprehensive Review of Hedging Strategies in Political Discourse among Arab Presidents. Journal of Asian Multicultural Research for Social Sciences Study, 5(2), 60-68. https://amrsjournals.com/index.php/jamrsss/article/view/534
Ko, C. (2014). English Language Teaching: Teaching of Hedges. Journal of Education and Learning, 8, 106-114. https://doi.org/10.11591/EDULEARN.V8I2.212
Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p’s and q’s. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292-305). Chicago.
Marco, M., & Arguedas, M. (2021). Mitigation revisited. An operative and integrated definition of the pragmatic concept, its strategic values, and its linguistic expression. Journal of Pragmatics, 183, 71-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PRAGMA.2021.07.002
Martinovski, B. (2006). A framework for the analysis of mitigation in courts: Toward a theory of mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2065-2086. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PRAGMA.2006.08.006.
Obenza, B. & Baradillo, D. (2023). A Sentiment Analysis on the Resumption of ICC Investigation on the Philippine Drug War. International Journal on Orange Technologie, 5(11), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10171328
Obenza, B. N., Caloc, L. J. R., & Baradillo, D. G. (2024). A Political Discourse Analysis of the Philippine Politicians’ speech acts on People’s Initiative: A Forensic Linguistics study. European Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies, 2(2), 184–201. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejals.v7i2.559
Pastukhova, O. (2018). Hedging And Euphemisms. In Word, Utterance, Text: Cognitive, Pragmatic and Cultural Aspects: Proceedings of the IX International Conference. Chelyabinsk State University, Russia. https://doi.org/10.15405/EPSBS.2018.04.02.19.
Shank, G. (2006). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. Pearson Education.
Temple, B., & Young, A. (2004). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative Research, 4(2), 161-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794104044430
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(2), 359-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250
Vlasyan, G. R., & Shusharina, V. A. (2018). Hedging As A Mitigation Mechanism In Word, Utterance, Text: Cognitive, Pragmatic and Cultural Aspects: Proceedings of the IX International Conference. Chelyabinsk State University, Russia. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.04.02.107.
Wodak, R., & Krzyżanowski, M. (2008). Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences. Palgrave Macmillan.