i
HEDGING DEVICES USED IN “ROOM FOR DEBATE”
IN NEW YORK TIMES ONLINE WEBSITE
THESIS
Submitted to
Post-Graduate Program of Language Study of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Getting Master Degree
of Language Study of English
Written By:
Risti Yani Rahmawati NIM: S. 200. 140. 012
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM OF LANGUAGE STUDY MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
vi
MOTTO
I HAVE DONE MY BEST AND ALLAH WILL GIVE THE BEST BECAUSE ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST
vii
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this thesis for: God Allah SWT
Prophet Muhammad SAW
My father (Iskandar), and my mother (Hartini), who always give a support both in spirit or finance.
My lecturers.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the name of Allah, The Most Gracious and The Most Merciful, The Lord of Universe. Because of ALLAH, the writer could finish this thesis entitled “Hedging Devices Used in „Room for Debate‟ in New York Times Online Website”. Secondly, peace and salutation are given to Prophet Muhammad SAW who has guided everyone from the darkness to the lightness.
However, this success would not be achieved without supports, guidance, advices, helps, and encouragements from individual and institution, and the writer somehow realizes that this is an appropriate moment to extend the deepest gratitude for Director of Postgraduate Program of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta Prof. Dr. Khuzaifah Dimyati, S.H., M.Hum. Then, the writer‟s truthful thank is given to Prof. Dr. Markhamah, M.Hum as the head of Postgraduate Program of Language Study.
Then, the writer would like to say the truthful thanks to Agus Wijayanto, Ph.D as the first thesis advisor, and Mauy Halwat Hikmat, Ph. D as the second thesis advisor, who have educated, supported, directed and given the writer advices, suggestions, and recommendations for this thesis from beginning until the end.
The writer would like to give my thanks to all of the lecturers of Magister Program of English Education and all of the staffs in Postgraduate Program of Language Study of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta who have helped the writer in processing of thesis administration. Special thanks much tobeloved
ix
parents, the writer‟s father (Iskandar) and mother (Hartini), who always give the writer sincere prayers for success in life. Thanks to all classmates in MPB for togetherness and motivation, and also the writer‟s participants of this thesis and everyone who help the writer to finish this thesis. To all of them the writer contributed this work.
Finally, the writer realizes that this thesis is far from being perfect, and this thesis is expected to be able to provide useful knowledge and information to the readers. And the writer pleases to accept more suggestion and contribution from the reader for the improvement of the thesis.
Surakarta,
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER... i
APPROVAL OF THESIS... ii
NOTE OF ADVISOR 1st... iii
NOTE OF ADVISOR 2nd... iv PRONOUNCEMENT...v MOTTO... vi DEDICATION... vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... viii TABLE OF CONTENTS...x
LIST OF CHARTS... xii
ABSTRACT... xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION...1
A. Background of the Study...1
B. Limitation of the Study...4
C. Problem Statements...5
D. Objectives of the Study...5
E. Benefits of the Study...6
1. Theoretical Benefit...6
2. Practical Benefit ...6
F. Research Paper Organization...6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ...8
A. Previous Studies...8
B. Theoretical Review...15
1. Historical Background of Hedging...15
2. Indirectness and Hedging...17
3. Surface Features of Hedging...18
4. Hedging and Politeness...33
5. Hedging Functions in Poly-Pragmatic Model...35
6. Mass Media...39
xi
8. New York Times...40
9. Room for Debate...40
C. Theoretical Framework...41
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD... 44
A. Research Type...44
B. Research Object...45
C. Data and Data Sources...47
D. Technique of Collecting Data...47
E. Data Validity...48
F. Technique of Analyzing Data...49
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION...55
A. Research Findings...61
1. The Form and Frequencies of Hedging Devices Used in „Room for Debate‟...55
2. The Possible Functions of Hedging Devices Used in „Room for Debate‟...76
B. Discussion...87
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION...99
A. Conclusion...99
B. Pedagogical Implication...101
C. Suggestion...102
BIBLIOGRAPHY...103
xii
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 1 : The Categories of Modal Auxiliaries Chart 2 : The Categories of Hedging Numerical Data Chart 3 : The Categories of Epistemic Lexical Verbs Chart 4 : The Categories of Epistemic Adjectives Chart 5 : The Categories of Epistemic Adverbs
xiii
HEDGING DEVICES USED IN “ROOM FOR DEBATE”
IN NEW YORK TIMES ONLINE WEBSITE
Risti Yani Rahmawati
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta
riztyrahmawaty@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This study attempted to examine the types and frequencies of hedging devices used in “Room for Debate” posted in New York Times online website. Further, this study was conducted to investigate the possible functions of hedging devices in “Room for Debate”. This research was conducted by using qualitative method. The data consists of 150 opinion articles posted in the New York Times, particularly in “Room for Debate” representing six disciplines including business, economy, politic, environment, health, and technology. The total numbers of words of the six sections were 55,015. The data were obtained by using documentation by collecting and selecting articles posted in the New York Times, especially in “Room for
Debate” during the recent five years (2012-2015). Afterward, the data were
analyzed in accordance with surface features taxonomy and poly-pragmatic model from Hyland (1998). According to this model, analysis of hedging in writing involves coding, identifying, classifying, analyzing, describing and concluding.
The result shows that the total number of hedges found in the news articles of “Room for Debate” posted on New York Times is 978. The writers of this column were inclined to use modal auxiliary as one form of hedges with the frequency of 413 (42.2%). The next considerable type of hedges found in this column is the category of epistemic adverbs with the total of 186 (19%) followed by epistemic lexical verbs 140 (14.3%) and hedging numerical data 83 (8.5%). Epistemic adjectives, passive constructions and hypothetical
condition have quite similar number in the column, that is 43 (4.4%), 55
(5.5%) and 48 (5%). On the other hand, the writers of “Room for Debate” seem to reluctantly use epistemic noun, direct questions, and reference to
limited knowledge for each of them appears less than 1%. The study also
revealed that hedging in “Room for Debate” performs three pragmatic functions. These are accuracy-oriented hedge that help the writer to present the proposition or statement with greater precision. Meanwhile, the use of writer-oriented hedge is for reducing the writer‟s commitment to statement and avoids personal responsibility for propositional truth. The reader-oriented hedge allows the writer to invite the reader‟s involvement and personalize the information in the proposition.
xiv
HEDGING DEVICES USED IN “ROOM FOR DEBATE”
IN NEW YORK TIMES ONLINE WEBSITE
Risti Yani Rahmawati
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta
riztyrahmawaty@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meneliti tentang jenis dan frekuensi pengunaan hedge di kolom“Room for Debate”yang ada di website surat kabar New York Times. Selain itu, penelitian ini dilakukan untuk menganalisis fungsi dari hedge di kolom tersebut.Ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif dengan data yang digunakan terdiri dari 150 artikel pada website New York Times dengan mengambil enam topik yakni bisnis, ekonomi, politik, ekonomi, kesehatan, and teknologi dengan total jumlah kata yaitu 55,015. Metode pengumpulan data adalah dengan dokumentasi yang meliputi pengumpulan dan pemilihan artikel di kolom “Room for Debate” di website New York Times. Kemudian data tersebut dianalisis berdasarkan taksonomi surface features dan model poli-pragmatik dari Hyland (1998). Berdasarkan teori ini, proses analisa data meliputi kodifikasi, identifikasi, klasifikasi, analisis, deskripsi dan penarikan kesimpulan.
Temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ada 978 hedge yang ditemukan di artikel di kolom “Room for Debate”di website New York times dengan prosentase sebagai berikut : modal auxiliary 413 (42.2%), epistemic adverbs 186 (19%), epistemic lexical verbs 140 (14.3%), hedging numerical data 83 (8.5%), epistemic adjectives 43 (4.4%), passive constructions 55 (5.5%) dan
hypothetical condition 48 (5%). Namun penulis jarang sekali menggunakan
tipe hedge seperti epistemic noun, direct questions dan reference to limited
knowledge karena prosentase keduanya kurang dari 1 %.
Dalam penelitian ini, juga ditemukan bahwa ada tiga fungsi dari penggunaan hedge di kolom “Room for Debate”, antara lain: (1) accuracy-oriented hedge: membantu penulis untuk menyampaikan pendapat atau opini secara cermat ; (2) writer-oriented hedge : mengurangi komitmen dalam menyatakan pendapat dan menghindari tanggungjawab tentang kebenaran suatu masalah; dan (3) reader-oriented hedge : membantu penulis dalam rangka mengajak pembaca untuk terlibat dan bersedia merunut informasi tentang suatu masalah.
