Hedging as a Crisis Communication Strategy: The Case of the Anglophone Crisis in Cameroon (2016-2020)

This paper examined the use of hedging in information subsidies about the Anglophone Crisis. More specifically, it sought to determine which hedging devices were used in government information subsidies about the crisis, establish the discourse and communication functions of these hedges, and determine the crisis response postures reflected through hedging. The paper adopted a documentation and records method to obtain 83 information subsidies (speeches, communiques, reports, policy statements, media statements or ‘outings’, press releases, press conference presentations, press kits, etc.) from twelve government institutions. These twelve institutions were purposively chosen because of their centrality to the government’s crisis communications about the Anglophone Crisis between October 2016 and December 20. Nvivo was used for content analysis of information subsidies. Quantitative and qualitative methods of data analysis, presentation and discussion were used. The study identified six categories of hedging devices which served varied discourse and communication functions. For example, approximators and rounders were used to distance the government from particularly controversial claims about key crisis issues; while contrastive conjunctions served to highlight support for government crisis management strategies, protect government credibility, and diminish the amount of crisis responsibility attributed to the government. Conditionals were used to express beliefs, claims and stances about Anglophone Crisis events in a way that restricts potentially controversial interpretations. Plausibility and attribution shields reduce the force of government crisis managers’ claims by signalling uncertainty towards crisis messaging content and attributing particular crisis-related beliefs or commitments to other stakeholders. These findings show the role of hedging in crisis communication about the Anglophone Crisis. Given the divergence in crisis response postures reflected, this study recommends greater synchrony in the use of hedging devices.