ab.iv)Pragmatic Functions of Boosters

ab.iv)Pragmatic Functions of Boosters

Urbanová (2003:72-73) distinguishes these functions of boosters:

empathizers/emphasizers

assurances

markers of agreement/understanding

markers of the degree of a certain quality

subjectivity of judgment and opinion

markers of topicalization

Seven functions of boosters were identified in the corpus, which are summarized in Table 6 and Figure 2 below, together with the frequency of their occurrence. As can be seen, the functions of assurance, agreement, subjectivity, and the degree of a certain quality were taken over from Urbanová, while content-oriented emphasis, hearer-oriented emphasis and intensification by repetition were newly introduced.

Function	Male Politicians	Female Politicians	Total
content-oriented emphasis	540	383	923
subjectivity	436	387	823
degree of quality	197	228	425
assurance	219	202	421
intensification by repetition	187	191	378
hearer-oriented emphasis	222	148	370
agreement	71	38	109

Table : Frequency of Boosters by Function

Figure : Frequency of Boosters by Function

As indicated in Table 6 above, the most frequent function of boosters is content-oriented emphasis with 923 occurrences, the second most frequent function is subjectivity with 823 instances, and the third most frequent function is expressing the degree of a certain quality which appears 425 times. Assurance is almost as frequent as the degree of a certain quality (421 occurrences). Intensification by repetition and hearer-oriented emphasis have nearly the same frequency of occurrence, there is only an insignificant difference of 8 instances. Agreement is with 109 appearances the least frequent function in the corpus.

In the following sections, a qualitative analysis of all functions of boosters in the corpus will be given. Since the functions of boosters may be expressed by many various means, it is not possible to give a complete list below, therefore, only several expressions on the basis of their frequency were chosen. The list of all boosters appearing in the corpus may be found on pages I-XIII. All boosters are emphasised by double underline in the appendix of this thesis, with their categories and abbreviations of functions written in brackets (the list of all abbreviations and symbols used in the appendix can be found in the appendix of this thesis).

For example:

I think (BSO, Subj.) = I think is a speaker-oriented booster, its function is subjectivity

ab.iv.1Content-oriented Emphasis

The quantitative analysis of boosters reveals that their most frequent function in the corpus is content-oriented emphasis. The highest frequency of occurrence of this function may be interpreted as an effort of politicians to make specific parts of their utterances more prominent than the others, which makes the message more comprehensible and accessible to the listeners. When using enumerators firstly, secondly, thirdly, the reply is more clearly structured and this arrangement tells the listeners what to concentrate on.

Male politicians have used more means expressing this function than females. It is also interesting that the most frequent function used by female politicians is not content-oriented emphasis but subjectivity, even if the difference between these two functions is very slight. From this it may be concluded that male politicians concentrate more on the content of their messages than their female counterparts, who prefer presentation of their own standpoints.

I have coined the term “content-oriented emphasis” because linguistic means used to express this function relate more to the content of the message rather than to the participants of the interviews. It is expressed by dicourse-oriented boosters first of all, first(ly), second(ly), third(ly), in other words, by the way, frankly, particularly, on the one hand ... on the other hand, the question is, the other thing is, what’s interesting is that, the answer is, the problem is, to be frank, in part, after all, etc. Content-oriented emphasis is illustrated below by several examples from the corpus.

Example

SCHIEFFER: Let's talk about energy independence. We remain, any way you cut it, dependent on foreign oil. I know you want to open up the Arctic wildlife preserve for drilling, but aren't we going to have to do more than that? And I just want to bring up one thing. Tom Friedman, the columnist in the New York Times, had a column today, and he said putting on a huge gas tax is the only way to really get Detroit's attention and get them to making other kinds of cars, and he said the only way to cause people to change their ways. He says you have to change the culture. What's your reaction to that?

PRESIDENT BUSH: First of all, I'm against a huge gas tax. Secondly, I agree with Mr. Friedman that we have got to become independent from foreign sources of oil. In other words, we have got to wean ourselves off hydrocarbons, oil. And the best way, in my judgment, to do it is to promote and actively advance new technologies so that we can drive--have different driving habits. For example, there is--I'm a little hesitant because I don't want to tell you what's in the State of the Union, let me put it to you that way.

(App., p. 75, George W. Bush, 2006-01-27, ll. 259-272)

In Example 34 above, George W. Bush wants to make his statements and opinions more prominent, that is why he uses these enumerators to stress them. When using these expressions, the speaker may order his thoughts better and also provides better orientation for the listeners. The same applies to Example 35 below:

Example

I want to stay with your vote because that same day, Senator Levin offered an amendment, the Levin amendment, and this is how the New York Times reported it. "The [Levin] amendment called ... for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed." ... Senator Levin said, "Allow Congress to vote only after exhausting all options with the United States." You did not participate in that vote. You voted against Carl Levin, who was saying give diplomacy a chance and yet you said no. You voted to authorize war. The resolution you voted for, Robert Byrd said was a blank check for George Bush. Ted Kennedy says it was a vote for war. James Carville and Paul Begala said anyone who says that vote wasn't a vote for war is bunk.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, Tim, if I had a lot of paper in front of me, I could quote people who say something very differently, so I know you're very good at this and I respect it, but let's look at the context here. Number one, the Levin amendment, in my view, gave the Security Council of the United Nations a veto over American presidential power. I don't believe that is an appropriate policy for the United States, no matter who is our president.

Number two, I have the greatest respect for Senator Levin. He is my chairman on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I--immediately after we did have the vote on the authorization, went to work with him to try to make sure that every piece of intelligence we had was given to the U.N. inspectors. And Senator Levin and I sent a letter to Secretary Powell, we pushed that position very hard because we both had the same view that we were going to put inspectors back in and we needed to let the inspectors do the job that they were asked to do.

Number three, I actually joined with Senator Byrd on an amendment that would limit the president's authorization to one year. I was very strongly in favor of limiting what President Bush could do. Unfortunately, that amendment did not pass.

Fourth, it is absolutely unfair to say that the vote as Chuck Hagel, who was one of the architects of the resolution, has said, was a vote for war. It was a vote to use the threat of force against Saddam Hussein, who never did anything without being made to do so.

(App., pp. 136-137, Hillary Clinton, 2008-01-13, ll. 384-416)

In Example 36, the speaker wants to gain distance from her statement and does not want to be responsible for it, therefore, she uses an emphasizing phrase and also the name of another politician. The adverb frankly is also a sign of detachment from the proposition.

Example

JACQUI SMITH: No, what we're saying very clearly, Ruth Kelly said it very clearly is, that this, there is nothing in here that is about re-introducing selection by the back door, the front door or any other door and frankly, that's a, that is a side issue.

I know that my colleagues are concerned about admissions, that's because they share my passion to make sure that every child gets the chance to make progress, that we push all schools to be as good as they can do and that's why we spell out in the White Paper how we support you know ...

(App., pp. 252-253, Jacqui Smith, 2005-11-27, ll. 40-48)

ab.iv.2Subjectivity

Subjectivity is the second most frequent function of boosters in the interviews. Concerning this function, the difference between male and female politicians is not substantial. As already stated in the previous section, this function is the most frequently used by female politicians. The high degree of subjectivity in the analysed interviews shows that politicians concentrate on presenting their own opinions and attitudes as correct and positive ones, they try to influence their audience by emphasizing these views. They aim at sounding trustworthy and honest in front of their audience and in this way they want to influence their opinions. By employing these means, they also aim at justifying their position in front of the audience.

Subjectivity of the speaker’s opinion is expressed by the pragmatic particles I think, I mean, I guess, I hope, I believe, and further by phrases in my view, in my opinion, my point is, in my judgment, as far as I’m concerned, my attitude is, my view of this is. All these means belong to the category of speaker-oriented boosters, whose complete list may be found on pages IX-XIII.

Subjectivity may also be expressed by longer emphasizing phrases, as shown in Example 37 (the phrase I believe that -- the thing I was most concerned about, frankly) and in Example 38 (One of the things I think we need to do is) below. In both examples, there are more boosters expressing subjectivity than the phrases mentioned so they are also highlighted in bold.

Example

QUESTION: Well, I think the suggestion in the story is not that you’re at fault, but maybe the victim. I mean, do you feel that you’re been a little bit victimized either on the price, or do you have any concerns about security?

SECRETARY RICE: I believe that -- the thing I was most concerned about, frankly, is the security side. And on that, the people who I rely on to make certain that the security measures are taken tell me that they are comfortable with the security measures that we take. In terms of price, you know, we’ll just have to look into that. But I hope the GPO is giving us the best deal that they can.

(App., p. 239, Condoleezza Rice, 2008-03-27, ll. 103-110)

Example

Steve Richards

So how the heck can a government ensure such a target is reached? I mean, the private sector decides how much so and so earns if they work in the private sector. How would that target be met?

Harriet Harman

(App., p. 162, Harriet Harman, 2007-06-15, ll. 84-99)

In the following example, boosters in bold express the subjective attitude of the speaker, which again is a sign of involvement. She tries to influence the listeners and present her views as correct ones.

Example

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I have said that obviously, I would never do again what George Bush did with that vote. He misused and abused the authority that was given to him, in my opinion. And we can't turn the clock back. I've taken responsibility for it. It was a sincere vote at the time, based on my assessment of, number one, what the potential, you know, risks might be if left unchecked, given the problems that we were facing in the world with global terrorism, and the hope that we would get inspectors back in to figure out what had been going on since '98. We hadn't had inspectors since '98. I, I would not have given President Bush the authority if I knew he would deliberately misuse and abuse it. And as I said, I was told by the White House personally that the point of the authority was to send a very clear message to Saddam Hussein that he was going to have to be held accountable finally, that we would know once and for all what he had there that could be used as he had used it in the past.

(App., p. 138, Hillary Clinton, 2008-01-13, ll. 460-477)

In Example 40, there are a lot of means of subjectivity and again, not only pragmatic particles I think, I mean or I hope but also emphasizing phrases. There are more examples of I think, not only those in bold. Instances which are not highlighted in bold are hedges, which will be dealt with later (see Chapter 8).

Example

JEREMY PAXMAN: Yes, an unreasonable veto, as you put it. But if that happened, would you be prepared to go to war despite the fact that apparently the majority of people in this country would not be with you?

TONY BLAIR: Well you can only go, obviously, with the support of parliament but I think that if you do get to a situation where the inspectors say, look we can't do, you know, Saddam's not cooperating with us, we can't do this through inspections and there wasn't just the United States and Britain but other countries too were supporting us in that view, so you had a majority of countries in the UN Security Council, I think that would be, I think that would make a difference to people.

And I also think that as, as more emerges about the nature of this regime, as well, I think people, at least I hope they can realise why it is not safe to allow a regime such as this the freedom to develop these weapons.

I understand it is not an easy task because I think the very first point that Jeremy was making to me is the point that is most difficult for people, what is, you know, why now are we suddenly doing this?

And my answer to that is actually this does have a long history to it and I think the one thing that has changed my thinking about these issues, in relation to the 11th of September, is that, you know, I keep having this mental picture in my mind of August 2001 and coming along to people and saying there's this terrorist organisation in Afghanistan, they are evil people who will try and mount major terrorist attacks on our country, we've got to go into Afghanistan and deal with them.

I think people would have said to me, you know you must be crackers what on earth are you on about. I mean people wouldn't have even have heard of who al-Qaeda was but a month later it happened.

(App., p. 19, Tony Blair, 2003-02-06, ll. 775-799)

ab.iv.3The Degree of a Certain Quality

The degree of a certain quality, the next function expressed by boosting devices, is close to the function of assurance with respect to the frequency of occurrence (assurance occurs 421 times). It appears 425 times in the whole corpus. Its distribution is slightly higher in female speakers. Adverbs very, really, pretty, completely, absolutely, extremely, fundamentally, incredibly, profoundly, strongly, fully, totally, and perfectly are used to fulfil this function in the corpus. These boosters belong to the category of speaker-oriented, which means that they foreground a positive or negative quality of the following expression and in this way, they show the attitude of the speaker to the proposition expressed. Several examples of this function may be found below:

Example

KING: Why is he wrong?

MCCAIN: Well, conventional thinking, obviously, was that we faced a threat that -- of weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence was wrong. But the majority of Americans supported that decision.

It was very badly mishandled by Rumsfeld and others, and we paid a very heavy price for that. I complained bitterly about that failed strategy and I fought for the strategy that is now succeeding. And we've got a good general and we've got a good strategy and we are succeeding..

(App., p. 187, John McCain, 2007-08-16, ll. 65-72)

In Example 41 above, the speaker uses very to emphasize negative qualities of issues mentioned in the following parts of utterances. This use reflects his opposing attitude to the Iraq War and foreign policy. By contrast, Example 42 demonstrates highlighting a positive quality of the following adjective. David Miliband describes and stresses positive qualities of Gordon Brown, ex-Prime Minister of the UK, which he thinks is important for the listeners.

Example

JON SOPEL: Okay, let people draw their own conclusions about that. But another piece of honest communications now. John Prescott says that Gordon Brown is "frustrating, annoying, bewildering and prickly and could go off like a bloody volcano". Is that the Gordon you know.

DAVID MILIBAND: No. I mean I don't do book reviews I'm afraid Jon, and so I haven't read John Prescott's book. I work with Gordon Brown most days of the week. He's someone who's absolutely passionate about the values that he believes in. He's clear about the goals that we're pursuing and yes, as he said last week, he does get in to the detail but that's important.

You need a Prime Minister who is able to have command of the detail, as well as the bigger picture and so I don't recognize the portrait that John Prescott has set out and that's why I think the government has to get on with the job, because what's fatal in politics, is if you forget what you're actually meant to be doing, which is working on behalf of the people who've elected you.

(App., pp. 193-194, David Miliband, 2008-05-11, ll. 142-154)

Hazel Blears uses speaker-oriented boosters really and pretty to accentuate both positive and negative qualities of the adjectives to follow. A really good record and pretty successful is an emphasis of positive qualities, really dangerous and a pretty dim view is an emphasis of negative qualities. Again, the use of these boosters reflects her attitude to the issues expressed.

Example

JON SOPEL: I don't want to get hung up on the titles, but there was a time when a Labour person would have been thrilled to be described as Blairite, because it - you know they were being associated with the winning team. I just wonder whether it is seen a bit more maybe as a handicap now?

HAZEL BLEARS: Well I, I think it's really dangerous erm if we actually distance ourselves from what we've been doing over the last ten years.

If you think about it, in America, Al Gore kind of tried to put a bit of distance between himself and Clinton and what people did was they voted for George Bush. What I don't want us to do is to distance ourselves from all the good things that we've done over the last ten years, because I do think we've got a really good record.

Because my concern is that people then might, you know, see David Cameron and his Tories, as a bit more interesting. If people think that we're saying, well, we didn't get it all right, then I think they'll take a pretty dim view of us. I mean we, we haven't got everything right, but I think overall the record on health, on education, on tackling crime, all of that is pretty successful.

(App., pp. 66-67, Hazel Blears, 2007-02-25, ll. 31-48)

ab.iv.4Assurance

Boosters expressing assurance appear in the corpus quite frequently but their occurrence is about half that of content-oriented emphasis or subjectivity. As already stated in Section 7.3.1, the frequency of occurrence is almost the same as that of the degree of a certain quality. 421 instances of this function were produced in the whole corpus. As shown in Table 10, male politicians used the function of assurance a little more frequently than women.

Intensifying devices utilized by speakers to express assurance are these expressions: I’m sure, it’s my honest belief, I am absolutely certain, I can assure you, really, of course, obviously, absolutely, I (truly) believe, but one thing is for certain, I strongly believe, definitely, and clearly. All expressions are speaker-oriented boosters because the speaker wants to show certainty and confidence about his/her claims. As already stated, the occurrence of this function is about half that of content-oriented emphasis or subjectivity. My explanation is that politicians do not show much assurance because they want to save face in front of their audience in case their claims later prove to be untrue. They do not want to be accused of lying. Examples from the corpus to exemplify this category follow.

In Example 44, George W. Bush assures the audience of cooperation with allies of the USA in the Iraq War. He presents his personal views and certainty about his assertions, and that is why speaker-oriented boosters certainly and of course are used.

Example

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me ask you: If they continue to insist that they're going to do it in their country, Senator Clinton, for example, who seems closer to your policy on Iraq than to some in her own party, is already saying sanctions now. Do you think sanctions would work against Iran?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, first of all, we have already sanctioned Iran. The United States Government has got sanctions in place on Iran. I think probably what she is referring to is whether or not we should refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council. I have said that is certainly a very--a real possibility, and that once we are in the Security Council, of course, that's one of the options, but we are going to work with our friends and allies to make sure that when we get in the Security Council, we will have an effective response.

(App., p. 71, George W. Bush, 2006-01-27, ll. 67-78)

Similarly in Example 45, Blair wants to persuade his viewers about his confidence in the British Navy in Iraq. He wants to assure them that he knows that the situation is difficult.

Example

TONY BLAIR: Well there will be an inquiry, the Navy always do conduct an inquiry if their people are taken captive in that way and I'm sure as the Navy has already said, that they will look in to it very carefully, see what lessons can be learnt. Let's not forget the essential thing, is that fifteen of our personnel were taken capture and they were returned safe and unharmed and let me emphasise to you there was no deal made, there was no trade, there was no offer from us.

We got them back without any deal at all and we got them back safe and that was the priority we had throughout. And it's obviously a very difficult time for the Navy, a very traumatic time for the people concerned, but the important thing is that we did get them back.

(App., p. 60, Tony Blair, 2007-04-15, ll. 345-358)

In the following extract, David Cameron assures the viewers of his attitude to the family and marriage by using the phrase that’s what I believe which stresses his certainty about this proposition:

Example

DAVID CAMERON: No, not at all. If you look at what I said you know since running for Leader of the Party, I put the family absolutely front and centre. In fact some of the things I've said like Bac... are unpopular with some people, they say, oh you're going to put a lot of people off. In the end, you've got to say what you believe. I happen to believe marriage is really important and I think we should back it and if people don't agree with me, when I'm sorry, that's my view.

(App., p. 120, David Cameron, 2008-03-16, ll. 216-230)

ab.iv.5Intensification by Repetition

This function appears 378 times in the corpus. As with the previous function of assurance, there is an insignificant difference in the occurrence of this function between the male and female speakers. Repetition of linguistic forms contributes to stronger emphasis of the claims made by the speaker. Discourse-oriented boosters are the most frequent category of boosters having the function of intensification by repetition, in concrete terms, they appear in 229 cases. This function is also expressed by speaker-oriented boosters (132 times) and by hearer-oriented boosters (17 occurrences). For a better illustration, these examples form the corpus were chosen:

Example

BLITZER: Even as we speak right now, there are reports he might be released. He might be declared insane, not capable of withstanding a trial. What's the latest information you have from the government of Afghanistan?

RICE: Well, I've seen reports, Wolf, but I'm really working from largely press reports, too, that they may dismiss the case for reasons having to do with the judicial nature of the case. We have to understand -- and we do want a favorable resolution of this. Mr. Rahman should not face these charges. There should be a resolution of this case. But this is also a young democracy, and we have to recognize that, unlike the Taliban, it actually has a constitution to which one can appeal about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We as Americans know that in democracy, as it evolves, there are difficult issues about state and church, or in this case, state and mosque. But there are difficult issues about the rights of the individual.

And so we expect that, given our own history, that we would know that Afghans are going to have to go through this evolution. But we're going to stand firm for the principle that religious freedom and freedom of religious conscience need to be upheld, and we are hoping for a favorable resolution in this case very soon.

(App., p. 199, Condoleezza Rice, 2006-03-26, ll. 31-47)

In Example 48, discourse-oriented booster good for is repeated to emphasise the problems with democracy, the stress is put on the content of the message.

Example

DAVID CAMERON: Well let's take a good example where you know, parents are very worried by advertising on television to children. You know, what you should be doing as a government is trying to get business to face up to its responsibilities and behave responsibly and if that doesn't work then there is always the threat of regulation and legislation at the end of it. But I think it's much stronger if you try to get business to accept their responsibilities, which they're not doing. Take climate change... actually, you know, Marks & Spencer... (interjection)

BOTH TOGETHER

DAVID CAMERON: ... it's a very short point. Marks & Spencer and Tesco and others are doing more than the government is asking them to because they think it's actually good for them and good for their business, good for their customers and the rest of it. So don't think that business is just out to make money and doesn't care about its responsibilities, it does. And we really are beginning to see that.

(App., p. 118, David Cameron, 2008-03-16, ll. 129-145)

Repeating the speaker-oriented booster I think we will make gains, the speaker emphasises his attitude towards the message, so the focus is predominantly on the speaker, not on the content of the message as such:

Example

JON SOPEL: Okay, so you talked about that change then, give it ' you heard what we were saying with John Sergeant a moment ago, how many gains are you going to make.

WILLIAM HAGUE: That's not a game I'm going to get in to of how many gains are we going to make and it's a complex set of elections, as John Sergeant was quite rightly pointing out. I think we will make gains and I think we'll make gains in many parts of the North of England as well as in the South. In parts of the South of course, there are no Labour seats left to gain, which further complicates interpreting the election results. But, no I, we are optimistic about Thursday night, we're getting very good canvassing returns and in particular, as I say, we're getting them here in many parts of the North of England and I think that it will be a very important advance.

(App., p. 159, William Hague, 2008-04-27, ll. 49-59)

ab.iv.6Hearer-oriented Emphasis

The function which I termed “hearer-oriented emphasis” belongs to the least frequent functions in the corpus, although there is an insignificant difference of only 8 expressions when compared to intensification by repetition. It appears 370 times in the corpus; male politicians used linguistic means that express this function more frequently than females. It is represented by hearer-oriented boosters you know, you see, look, listen, as you said, let me emphasise to you, let me repeat to you, and as you know. As the designation of the function suggests, these forms direct attention to the hearer and emphasise relevant parts of the message, which allows the hearer to concentrate on the speaker’s utterances. “They can also question the validity of the given utterance, asking indirectly for its confirmation” (Urbanová 2003:69).

Turning the attention to the hearer and stressing the important parts of the message is demonstrated in Example 50 below. Theresa May uses hearer-oriented booster look because she wants to emphasise her message and at the same time she wants to have the attention of her listeners:

Example

THERESA MAY: But look. The position is that the House of Commons has to decide ultimately, what the procedure is going to be for deciding the allowance. I think it's right that we look at this issue at the moment but that we take in outside expertise and certainly as the Speaker has recently - he made an announcement to MPs about how this was progressing, it will include for example talking to people on the committee on standards in public life, understanding their views as to what parliament should be doing.

(App., p. 184, Theresa May, 2008-03-09, ll. 132-140)

In the following excerpt, Hillary Clinton asks indirectly for confirmation of her utterance, using hearer-oriented booster as you well know, you know. She puts more emphasis on her message because she is not certain about her listeners’ knowledge. You know occurring in the first utterance is not highlighted since it is a hedge with a different function.

Example

MR. RUSSERT: If you don't think Senator Obama is ready to be president, then he wouldn't be ready for vice president.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, I'm not--you're once again taking words I didn't say. I'm asking people to compare and contrast our records. I believe that we need a president ready on day one. I'm putting forth my qualifications, my experience, my 35 years of proven, tested leadership, sometimes, as you well know, you know, walking through the fires, being prepared to take on whatever the Republicans send our way. I want people to make an informed decision. Look, I trust voters. Voters decide on whatever basis they think is important to them. I just want them to have a full range of information to make that decision.

(App., pp. 133-134, Hillary Clinton, 2008-01-13, ll. 248-257)

In Example 52, when making use of the hearer-oriented phrase let me emphasise to you, Tony Blair stresses his point very strongly and turns to the hearer very explicitly. After this phrase, repetition of a part of the utterance follows (there was no ...), which is another means of showing emphasis.

Example

TONY BLAIR: Well there will be an inquiry, the Navy always do conduct an inquiry if their people are taken captive in that way and I'm sure as the Navy has already said, that they will look in to it very carefully, see what lessons can be learnt. Let's not forget the essential thing, is that fifteen of our personnel were taken capture and they were returned safe and unharmed and let me emphasise to you there was no deal made, there was no trade, there was no offer from us.

We got them back without any deal at all and we got them back safe and that was the priority we had throughout. And it's obviously a very difficult time for the Navy, a very traumatic time for the people concerned, but the important thing is that we did get them back.

(App., p. 60, Tony Blair, 2007-04-15, ll. 345-358)

ab.iv.7Agreement

The least frequent function in the corpus is agreement. It appears only 109 times in the whole corpus, with a low frequency of occurrence especially in female politicians. It is indicated by the use of speaker-oriented boosters right, rightly, absolutely, as you rightly say/imply, I (totally) agree (with you), exactly, it’s true, that’s right, yes, and yeah. They are used more recurrently in informal conversation. The reason is that in the genre of political interview, the interviewer usually asks challenging and controversial questions which s/he assumes the interviewee may not like. The politician will have to explain and vindicate his points of view, which may be attractive for the audience. This challenging style of communication explains the rare use of agreement in political interviews.

In Example 53, William Hague shows his agreement with the policy of Gordon Brown and David Miliband concerning the situation in Zimbabwe. This agreement is further stressed by the booster fully.

Example

WILLIAM HAGUE: They did have a softly softly approach to begin with but I fully agree with what Gordon Brown and David Miliband have said over the last couple of weeks. I think it's very important that Britain helps to focus international attention on the outrages that are taking place now in Zimbabwe, so I don't want to get in to criticizing the government on this. I think there are one or two additional things they could do that would send an even clearer message.

For instance I think more can be done now to prepare for the day after Mugabe, to get ready and to show the people of Zimbabwe that the world is ready to welcome them, to help them when they are set on a path to democracy and to respecting the rights of all the people of Zimbabwe. So I think we could do more on that side. But I don't think they're sending mixed messages, I think they've been saying the right things over the last two weeks.

(App., p. 159, William Hague, 2008-04-27, ll. 78-93)

In the following extract, Michael Gove reacts to the interviewer’s question specifying the date of raising the tax on fuel and confirms this by agreement:

Example

MICHAEL GOVE: Well every tax question has to be looked at through the prism of the fact that the government are re-writing their budget. It would be completely inappropriate for us now to say that we are definitely going to do this or that in terms of tax. (interjection) We're at the stage ...

JON SOPEL: This is coming in this October.

MICHAEL GOVE: Yes, exactly.

BOTH TOGETHER

MICHAEL GOVE: We're at the stage now where we can outline broad themes and we can outline in particular areas how we'd like to reform things in education we have, in health we have, in welfare we have, in prisons we have. You know that delicate questions of the precise tax rate, tax and spending questions like that, have to wait until we've actually seen the books that we inherit. We know for example ...

(App., p. 156, Michael Gove, 2008-04-29, ll. 109-123)

As with the extract above, in Example 55, Yvette Cooper confirms the interviewer’s assertion using the speaker-oriented booster that’s right:

Example

JON SOPEL: But you've had a review on this, the Barker Review, that looked at what the availability would be of brown field sites, came up with a figure of just under being able to create a million new homes, your estimate is that you need three and a half million new homes.

YVETTE COOPER: That's right. And the thing about brown field land is that it comes, it becomes available all the time because you have you know, maybe a factory that closes or maybe use that changes in a particular area, so brown field land does develop and change. But ultimately, it is for local councils to decide what is the best location in their area, and they have to look at all the areas you know, around the town, the town centre, in their communities, because they'll know best where these homes should best be built to meet their local needs.

(App., p. 144, Yvette Cooper, 2007-07-15, ll. 17-27)