Article published 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

Powerless language

Hedges as cues for interpersonal functions

| Technische Universität Berlin
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.
Published online: 12 June 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.248.07pis
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Pishwa, Hanna
2015.  In The Exercise of Power in Communication, ► pp. 130 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 february 2021. 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.

References

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
Ayaß, Ruth
2008 Kommunikation und Geschlecht. Stuttgart: KohlhammerGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1994 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambrige: Cambrige University Press. Google Scholar
Caffi, Claudia
2007 Mitigation. Boston: Elsevier.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
Chambers, Jack K.
2003 Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and its Social Significance. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Channell, Joanna
1994 Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Julie
1996 Status and Power in Verbal Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, and Sally McConnell-Ginet
2003 Language and Gender. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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
Fiske, Susan
2004 Social Beings: Core Motives in Social Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.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
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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gräßel, Ulrike
1991 Sprachverhalten und Geschlecht: Eine empirische Studie zu geschlechtsspezifischem Sprachverhalten in Fernsehdiskussionen. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus.Google Scholar
Halmari, Helena, and Tuija Virtanen
2005 Persuasion Across Genres: A Linguistic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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
Holtgraves, Thomas
2002 Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 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
Holtgraves, Thomas, and Benjamin Lasky
1999 “Linguistic Power and Persuasion.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18(2): 196–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hosman, Lawrence
1989 “The Evaluative Consequences of Hedges, Hesitations, and Intensifiers: Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles.” Human Communication Research15(3): 383–406. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Hedges, Tag Questions, Message Processing, and Persuasion.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology30(3): 341–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo
2007 “Negativity Bias in Language: A Cognitive-Affective Model of Emotive Intensifiers.” Cognitive Linguistics18(3): 417–443. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas, Sara W. Smith, and Tanja Lüdge
2003 “Interactive Aspects of Vagueness in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1737–1769. CrossrefGoogle 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
Kärkkäinen, Elise
2003 Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klann-Delius, Gisela
2005 Sprache und Geschlecht. Stuttgart: Metzler.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
Lakoff, Robin
1973 “Language and Woman’s Place.” Language in Society2: 45–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam
2004 Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreement in Oral Communication. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle 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
Mulholland, Joan
1994 Handbook of Persuasive Tactics: A Practical Language Guide. London and New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle 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
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
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo
1986 Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.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
Planalp, Sally
1999 Communicating Emotion: Social, Moral, and Cultural Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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. CrossrefGoogle 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
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
Schulz von Thun, Friedemann
200643. Miteinander reden: Störungen und Klärungen. 
Hamburg: Rowohlt.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
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Paul, and Andrea Mayr
2010 Language and Power: A Resource Book for Students. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Talbot, Mary
2010 Language and Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Thimm, Caja, and Lenelis Kruse
1991 “Dominanz, Macht und Status als Elemente sprachlicher Interaktion: ein Literaturbericht.” MSUniversität Heidelberg/Mannheim.Google Scholar
Thornborrow, Joanna
2001 Power Talk: Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse: Representation and Interaction in Discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Turner, John
2005 “Explaining the Nature of Power: A Three-Process Theory.” European Journal of Social Psychology35: 1–22. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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