The Analysis of Translated Hedges in Trump’s Political Speeches and Interviews

This study tackles the analysis of translated hedges, in Trump’s political speeches and, interviews in the data, which have taken from three different political interviews of press conferences; that have conducted with U.S. President Donald Trump about coronavirus with their translations into Arabic. Therefore, the study has adopted Fraser’s classification of hedges and tries to apply it into the data. Moreover, the study has applied statistics to find out that illocutionary force hedges have widely used in Trump’s political speeches and interviews more than the propositional hedges according to Fraser’s classification of hedges. Thus, hedges can be considered as one of the most important linguistic phenomena because it can widely be used as a way of expressing points of view in political discourse. In addition to that, this linguistic phenomenon can be used by variety speakers of people in their daily life such as doctors, teachers, lawyers, but in particular politicians in their speeches, TV-interviews and press-conferences.

"metalinguistic operators" whereas Lakoff called them hedges, showing that they "are some lexical expressions that are used to shift the borderlines" (1972, p. 195). Lakoff (1973, p. 151), has not considered the "effect of context on the meaning, function of words", and provided a list of concepts referring that, "the boundaries of these concepts in any natural language are fuzzy and not clear-cut". On the contrary, Clemen (1997Clemen ( , 1998 was the one who adopted the effect of speech into his consideration and stating that hedges will be accomplished by "using utterances in context rather than by straightforward statement" (ibid). Based on this, Clemen "defined hedges as everything that in a way modified the truth-condition of a sentence, the commitment of the participant or commented on the sentence as such". On the other hand; Fraser (2010, p. 202), takes the effect of context into account, in the case of using hedge by a speaker. In fact, Fraser makes the intention of action so that to set the force of the whole valuable speech. Actually, hedges have used to decay the veracity value of the speech. For example: (SL) English: "I don't think I'm good" and "I'm not good" (TL) Arabic: " ‫الأظن‬ ‫مايرام‬ ‫على‬ ‫بأنني‬ " " " ‫مايرام‬ ‫على‬ ‫لست‬ ‫أنا‬ Therefore, according to Fraser (ibid,p. 205), hedges have two main general purposes: First, "attenuation of an undesirable effect on the hearer; hence being more polite in the utterance". Second, "avoiding providing the expected information; thus, being evasive and vague in the utterance".
No unanimous agreement about the functions of hedges because each one of the hedging device performs a particular function gratified by a specific device. According to Lakoff (1972Lakoff ( −1975, there are "two main aspects of using hedges: showing some kind of probability and polite attitudes. Hübler, indicated" that hedges are valuable linguistic devices that serve many functions, such as expressing politeness, showing uncertainty and indirectness". Brown and Levinson (1987) explained how "hedges" refer to "the avoidance" strategy among views, and negative politeness, that "aims at saving the face of the interlocutors". Likewise, Hyland submitted that the tools of hedges contain two "great facts": How the person is cautious while he/she is expressing his/her intellect, and discussing them in a "diplomatic way". Moreover, Fraser (ibid,p. 205), stated, "that hedges have used for many purposes, such as showing both positive and negative politeness, protecting one's ego", avoidance strategy, "getting rid of responsibility", "showing mitigation", and "appearing modest and less powerful".

Political Discourses' Hedges
Most politicians tried to use hedges within their speeches, interviews, presidential debates… etc., so that to clarify uncertain and the non-commitment to a speech, and also to reflect an inherent component of fuzziness.
On this basis, hedges in political discourse are a means of expressing thoughts and opinions. Simply, it is an exponent of diplomacy, politeness, and respect. There are three types or groups of hedge devices that can be used according to Missikova (2008, pp. 76−79), the first type or group of hedges is the hedging items of truth conditions which use phrases such as a "sort of, actually, kind of, etc." The second type of hedging device is the one that does indicate "the awareness of quantity of maxims" which distinguish between over and under information point out within the quality maxim. The third type or group, is the minimum numbers of hedges that can be used to refer "the maxim of manner and relation" for example: as they said.
President George W. Bush in 2007. The survey has found "that many hedge-type linguistic items did not serve as hedging devices". In addition to that, Fraser observed many cases of neutral hedges that did effective topic. Fraser claimed that there was no reference that hedging used for polite attitudes, but rather conveying a less accurate.
Is a matter of fact, few studies have tackled hedges phenomenon in political texts, especially the hedges that have produced by "American and European leaders". However, No studies have ever tackled hedges in political discourse produced by Arab leaders or politicians.

Translation of Hedges in Political Texts
Fraser indicated that Partington can be the only one who has done researches and studies about hedges in political texts; since that, not many studies have made. In fact, Partington has referred "that hedging is only one of the mapping for evading, others being bald on-record refusal to answer, claims of ignorance, referring the question, refusal to explain, stating the answer is famous, and saying that the question has answered already" (2010, p. 206). In political texts, hedges' translation has tackled in a few studies for many reasons, and the most important one is the sensitivity of political texts and their translations to the context makes the task of translator more difficult and critical. As a result, the product might have unpredictable "consequences". For this reason, Baker (2006) has indicated "that political conflicts involve translation and interpretation. This issue gets worse when translating "hedges" which are used by the original author to evade responsibility for what they say or to attenuate the force of the utterance". For this reason, Newmark has emphasized "that a translator should be very cautious and objective in translation of authoritative texts; hence political text" (1982). Moreover, the translator should be "sensitive and a critic of language" (ibid, p. 375). One of the most indispensable studies that have conducted about the translation of hedges in political texts; is the one by Schäffner (1988, p. 179) and her article entitled "Hedges in Political Texts: A Translational Perspective". She used Pinkal's classification of hedges believing that in political discourse, hedges devices' function is to "relieve the authors of some responsibilities for their statement".

Hedges in Political Speeches
The usages of hedges in political speeches have studied and declaimed by "Obama and George W. Bush.: pre-election" and postelection. Laurinaityte has found that some hedges such as "modal verbs, modal lexical verbs, special passive voice constructions, and introductory phrases" have used commonly in pre-election than in post-election speeches, but "approximates, adjectival, adverbial and nominal modal phrases" have used in postelection speeches.

Translation of Hedges in Political Speech
Mundy (2008, p. 42) stated that, Fairclough has believed that the "ideology" will be much better expressed over "language"; especially when it is "disguised", since that language has regarded as "social practice". Hedging has considered to be as one of the most important ways to express and imply ideologies of both the individual and society, using them at the same time. Based on this, the speaker and author try to express their dominant ideologies of the society and hedging their responsibility for what they say or write. Therefore, the phenomenon of hedging can be considered as a model of style over where "ideology" can be expressed.
The translation of hedges in a political speech has considered to be critical; specially, those of the president's speech since that the president is the speaker on behalf of the people, expressing the style, ideology of that country. Based on this, any changes in the lexical style of hedges, will lead to changes in the ideologies expressed by the SL speaker and hence their translations as a result. Therefore, Hedges' usages have been extremely critical for their doctrinaire even in the same speech; for example, the "intralingual translation" of using "Jakobson's terms", which had terrible "consequences" that have led to war. For instance, rewriting a file which had prepared by the advisers of war's criminal; the ex-UK Prime Minister Tony Blair; and result in a war against Iraq in 2003. According to this, "the hedge, "might be able to", which made by the intelligence service, "Iraq might be able to launch chemical, and biological weapons, within 45 minutes" has rewritten over, and over"; so that to reduce hedging from uncertainty to certainty. As a result, "the intelligence has suggested changes to the more certain indicates and conditional would be able to become may be and finally shifts to simple indicative are". For this reason, "the reader will believe that the speaker has been certain of the truth value of the proposition" (Munday, 2012, p. 6). In this regard, translation of hedges concerning politics and the critical role of the translator will be shown.

Hedges in Political Interviews
The usages of hedges in political interviews had discussed in four political interviews by Jalilifar and Alavi (2011). They were chosen and conducted by CNN and BBC with former U.S. Presidents George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, the senior member of Zimbabwe's main opposition party David Coltart, and Sarah Palin McCain the running mate for the position of Vice President. The study has found that there has been a relation between the quantity and quality of hedging devices and the degree of political power. Researchers have also noticed that, the types of questions which the interviewers asked and their attitudes towards the interviewees have influenced the patterns of hedges which were used by the speakers. Moreover, they claimed that, the use of hedging devices in the political interview is an indication of the use of positive and negative politeness strategies.

Hedges in Political Debates
Concerning hedges in political debates, some researchers such as Al-Rashady have found and identified hedging devices and their functions in the presidential debates between Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008 US election cycle. He has drawn a conclusion that "modal auxiliary verbs; modal lexical verbs; adjectival, adverbial, nominal modal phrases and approximates" were the most dominant hedging devices. In addition to that, the intentional purposes of the speaker play the main role in determining the function that's served. Lakoff (1973) has implied that "women have used hedges more than men so that to show 'uncertainty'…". Holmes has also found "that women used hedges and tag questions more than men". On the other hand, Pellby (2013, p. 29), indicated that women use hedges more than men in her study: Hedging in Political Discourse; for many reasons; especially signaling the uncertainty. Moreover, she stated that "the mostly used hedging devices for women are the epistemic modal function and hedges which seek confirmation, indicating that women signaled uncertainty and wanted confirmation more often than men". Results have also found that men are dominating the political discourse more than women, since men have given more time for speaking than women during the meeting. The researcher has used a classification based on the various functions of hedges, such as the epistemic modal function, the affective function which seek confirmation and shields. Based on what has mentioned before; the essential functions of hedges are either to show politeness or uncertainty, depending on both context and intonation in the situation.

Classification of Hedges
Many scholars have proposed different classifications of hedges. Fraser's classification of hedges has considered to be the most important of all.

Fraser's Classification of Hedges
Fraser believed "that the focus of hedges has varied from a word, to a phrase, the entire sentence, or the intended illocutionary force of the utterance, or its perlocutionary effect" (2010, p. 203). Therefore, he has introduced his following classification of hedges based on the distinction between the content and force hedging only.
3) Hedged performative: I must ask you to stay home. 4) Indirect Speech Acts: Could you speak nicely! 5) Introductory phrases: to our knowledge, I believe, we feel, it is our view that. 6) That: I believe that she is here. Believe and think are hedges only when they express a verifiable fact and not an opinion (Schäffner, 1988, p. 187   'Negation' I think it's a very nasty question and I think it's a very bad signal where the opposite can be (I don't think it's a very nice question and I don't think it's a very good signal). The second kind is 'propositional hedge' which can be seen in the use of (very) twice in very nasty question and very bad signal. According to Salager-Meyer's classification of "compound hedging devices" in 1995 which has indicated by Fraser; the use of the (metalinguistic comment, epistemic verb, negation and propositional hedges) together in the above stated quote called Quadruple Hedges. So in this conference, president Trump has thrown an extraordinary temper tantrum over a question about COVID-19 fears; because he has been trying very hard to send positive messages of hope to the American people; in time the media are scrambling to sow terror and fear among people. In addition to that, president Trump is referring to the drug of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as a possible treatment in an attempt to reach any spark of hope to survive deadly COVID-19 by saying: "It might(work) or might not(work)" he said on Friday. "I feel good about it…" Safwat (2018, p. 2) has referred in her research to the connection between heading and modality and how Lyons (1977) defined epistemic modality. Hedging has typically linked to modality, mostly to epistemic type of modality. Epistemic modality can be expressed in several ways. Lyons (1977) defined epistemic modality as any utterance in which the speaker explicitly qualifies his commitment to the truth of the proposition expressed by the sentence he utters, whether this qualification has made explicit in the verbal component… or in the prosodic or paralinguistic component (Lyons, 1977, p. 797).
Based on this, hedges will be found in the following: 1) "It might or might not" Illocutionary force hedges (Modal verbs (epistemic modality), Negation).
2) "I feel good about it" Propositional hedges.
"You're doing sensationalism…. Let me just tell you something … That's really bad reporting. You ought to get back to reporting." Another hedge can also be found, where president Trump has snapped to Peter Alexander NBC News' reporter by saying: "You're doing sensationalism…"; when Alexander asked for Trump's message to people who are feeling scared; meanwhile, president Tramp was trying to send hope's messages, and positive signals to the American people, but media were constantly playing a negative role, by exaggerating, and making things look harder. According to Fraser's classification, this is an Illocutionary force hedges by using (the progressive form You're doing) as in the above stated. Again, in the same place, the use of the (modal verb) "ought to get back to…." which is Illocutionary force hedges. Moreover, illocutionary force hedge also has found in the use of the (Impersonal pronoun) something, which is a singular indefinite-thing pronoun according to Fraser's classification. Propositional hedges can also be seen in Trump saying: "That's really bad reporting" based on Fraser's classification. Trump claimed, "I've been right a lot," and barked at Alexander: "You ought to be ashamed of yourself." Again, the use of the (modal verb) "ought to be ashamed of …." which is Illocutionary force hedges. Concerning the Translation, the research has found three different translations into Arabic taken from the net as the following: 6) Illocutionary force hedge/Progressive form + Negation: "I'm not going to drive this country or the world to frenzy". 7) Propositional hedges: as you say, and certainly 8) Propositional hedges: very well 9) Illocutionary force hedge (Impersonal pronoun) everybody which is singular indefinite-body pronouns: "…, that is a tremendous problem scare everybody…."

1) The first translation is taken from (News ‫)السياسة‬ (Politics News) by Suliman Al-Shekh
The study has found one translation that is taken from AnaAlaraby TV as the following:

Findings and Discussions
The research used statistics to analyze the translated hedges used by president Trump in his conferences press from English into Arabic so that to find out which is the most common kind of hedges that has been used widely according to Fraser's classification as the following: From the above stated table, the study has found that the illocutionary force hedges according to Fraser's classification; have widely used by president Trump in his press conferences, in that the (Impersonal pronouns) and (Modal verbs) have used about 15%, whereas (Epistemic verbs) and (Progressive form) have used about 10%. (Introductory phrases, Modal adverbs, Conditional subordinators, Conditional clause expressing uncertainty, and Metalinguistic comment) have used about 5%, but on the other hand, (Negation) has used about 26%; therefore, according to the above statistic, it is the most type of illocutionary force hedges that has used widely by Trump's press conferences. In Table 2, the study has found that the propositional hedges according to Fraser classification; have used less by president Trump in his press conferences as the following: (very) has used about 37.5%; whereas the others, i.e., (about, really, in fact, as you say, certainly) each one of them has used about 12.5%. According to the above statistic, it is the less type of hedges that has used widely by Trump's press conferences.

Conclusions
The research has concluded the following: 1) Hedge can be defined as the rhetorical strategy by which the political speaker shows that there is a shortage of obligations to the truth value of the speech.
2) Statistics of this research have made on three different types of political press conferences interviews conducted with U.S. President Donald Trump about coronavirus with their translations into Arabic. They found that the illocutionary force hedges have widely used about 20% by president Trump more than the propositional hedges which have used about 8% according to Fraser's classification of hedges.
3) The research found many mistakes in the first and third translations of the first conference's interview which has conducted with president Trump about coronavirus, whereas the second translation was good. Therefore, political translator should be very accurate, sensitive when translating these terms according to Newmark (1982, pp. 375−391)," translators of political texts should be "sensitive and critics of language". Based on this, the use of these hedges by most politicians will make the statements fuzzier; and as a result the translations will be less intense and modifying the original intention. 4) Hedges can be considered as one of the most important linguistic phenomena because it can widely be used as a way of expressing points of view in political discourse. It's also can be used by speakers in their daily life such as doctors, teachers, lawyers, but in particular politicians in their speeches, TV-interviews and press-conferences.