Pembimbing I
Dr. Nia Kurniasih, M.Hum. NIP. 132.320.671
Pembimbing II
Retno Purwani Sari, S.S., M.Hum. NIP. 4127.20.03.004
SURAT KETERANGAN
PENYERAHAN HAK EKSKLUSIF
Bahwa yang bertandatangan dibawah ini, penulis dan pembimbing, bersedia: “Bahwa hasil penelitian dapat dionlinekan sesuai dengan peraturan yang berlaku,
untuk kepentingan riset dan pendidikan”.
Bandung, 30 Agustus 2013
Penulis,
Mochamad Fajar Akbar 63708014
APPROVAL
HEDGES FUNCTIONING AS EVASIVENESS IN FRIENDS SCRIPT FUNGSI PENYANGKALAN HEDGES DALAM NASKAH FRIENDS
SKRIPSI
MOCHAMAD FAJAR AKBAR 63708014
Bandung, August 2013
Approved as a skripsi by:
Advisor I
Dr. Nia Kurniasih, M.Hum. NIP. 132. 320.671
Advisor II
Retno Purwani Sari S.S., M.Hum. NIP. 4127.20.03.004
Acknowledged by:
Dean of Faculty of Letters
Prof. Dr. H. Moh. Tadjuddin M.A. NIP. 4127.70.003
Head of English Department
63
CURRICULUM VITAE
A. Personal Identity
a. Name : Mochamad Fajar Akbar
b. Place and Date of Birth : Cianjur, 13 October 1989
c. Home Address : Kp. Tegalkoneng RT/RW. 004/001 Des/Kel. Pagelaran Kec. Pagelaran Kab. Cianjur Jawa Barat Indonesia 43266
d. Phone : +6285624136140
e. Sex : Male
f. Citizenship : Indonesian
g. Religion : Moslem
h. Hobby : Friends, Music, and Movies
B. Formal Education
No Year Institution
1 1995-2001 SD Negeri 1 Pagelaran
2 2001-2004 SMP Negeri 1 Pagelaran
3 2004-2007 SMA Negeri 2 Cianjur
4 2008-Now English Department
64
C. Informal Education
No Year Informal Education Certification
1 2008 Mentoring of English Conversation Club Certified 2 2008 Mentoring Agama Jurusan Sastra Inggris Non
3 2009 English Leadership Internal Training of
Education (ELITE) Certified
5 2009 Seminar and Workshop Copywriting as a
Creative Thinking Certified
6 2010 Copy Writing and Consumer Behavior
Seminar Certified
7 2010
Latihan Kepemimpinan dan Manajemen Mahasiswa (LKMM) “Make a balance world through the spirit of leadership”
Certified
8 2010 Seminar IT-Preneur Non
9 2010 Workshop Translating & Interpreting Certified
10 2010 Kuliah Umum bersama Barrack Obama di
Universitas Indonesia Non
11 2011 Seminar Feminist, Feminine and Text Certified 12 2011 Pelatihan Keprotokoleran UNIKOM Non
13 2011 Copywriting Seminar and Workshop
“Copywriting Linguistics on Media” Certified
14 2011
Diskusi Ilmiah Bahasa dan Budaya “The Messages in The Language Expression of Priangan Traditional Ceremony”
Certified
15 2011 Kuliah Umum “Strategi Politik Luar Negeri
65
16 2011
Public Lecture “Manifestasi Kearifan Lokal Indonesia – Jepang Terhadap Arus
Globalisasi: Tinjauan dari Aspek Sosial Budaya”
Certified
17 2011 Seminar and Workshop of Semiotics in
Literature and Media Certified
18 2011 Public Speaking Seminar “Building
Confidence in Delivering Public Speech” Certified
19 2013
Grand Seminar IEC (ITB Entrepreneurship Challenge) 2013 “sebuah torehan nyata untuk kemandirian bangsa”
Certified
20 2013 Talkshow Go Write! And Shine
“Menggurat pena mengukir rasa” Certified
21 2013 Seminar Copy Writing Certified
22 2013 Workshop Translation “Building the
Translation Skill and Confidence” Certified 23 2013 Pelatihan Pembuatan Toko Online Certified
D. Experiences
No Year Working Experience
1 2010-2011 Assistant Translator at Global Linguist 2 2011 Interpreting for a researcher from Netherland 2 2011 Production and Promotion at Si Dupan Poster
No Year Organization
66
2 2009-2010 Head of Himpunan Mahasiswa (HIMA) English Department UNIKOM
3 2009-2010 Ketua Bidang Humas Asosiasi Profesi Mahasiswa (APM) Sastra dan Bahasa Inggris
4 2010-2012 Member of Protocoler Team of UNIKOM
5 2011 Member of Korps Protokoler Mahasiswa Indonesia (KPMI)
No Year Activities in Organizations
1 2009
MC Acara Pelepasan Peserta Pembekalan English Proficiency Test Jurusan Ilmu Komunikasi dan Public Relation UNIKOM
(Certified)
2 2009
MC for Copywriting Seminar and Workshop “Copywriting as a Creative Thinking”
(Certified)
3 2009 Penelitian dan Pengabdian “Minat dan Baca” di Sukabumi bersama APM
4 2010 Committee of English Leadership Internal Training of Education (ELITE)
5 2010
MC for Copywriting Seminar and Workshop “Copywriting and Consumer Behavior” (Certified)
6 2010 Panitia Diskusi Internal Sastra Inggris
7 2010 Panitia Latihan Dasar Kepemimpinan HIMA Sastra Inggris UNIKOM
8 2010
Protokoler Pelatihan Tridarma Perguruan Tinggi untuk Dosen UNIKOM
67
9 2010 Protokoler Pelatihan Public Speaking bagi Dosen UNIKOM.
10 2010 Protokoler Dies Natalis UNIKOM ke-10
11 2010
Protokoler Pelantikan Pengurus Wilayah-4 APTIKOM (Asosiasi Perguruan Tinggi Informatika dan
Komputer) periode 2010 – 2014.
12 2010 Protokoler Pelantikan Pimpinan UNIKOM Masa Bakti 2010-2012
Panitia Wisuda Pascasarjana (S2), Sarjana (S1) dan Diploma (D3) UNIKOM 2009-2010
17 2011 Protokoler 3rd International Conference On Computing and Information (ICOCI)
18 2011
Protokoler Penandatanganan MOU UNIKOM dengan Pemerintah Kotamadya Bandung serta „Gerakan Anti Sampah‟ (G.A.S.)
19 2011
Protokoler Talk Show “Peranan Kampus dalam Penyuluhan dan Konsultasi Hukum kepada
68
20 2011
Panitia Penerimaan Mahasiswa Baru UNIKOM 2011-2012
(Certified)
21 2012
Panitia Tes Seleksi Open Recruitment Protokoler UNIKOM 2012
(Certified)
22 2013
Performer of the Drama “The Countess Cathleen” at Hari Sastra 2013
DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP
I hereby certify that this skripsi entitled ‘Hedges Functioning as Evasiveness in Friends script’ is honestly my own work. I am fully aware that I have quoted some statements and ideas from various sources, and they are properly acknowledged in the text.
Bandung, August 2013
HEDGES FUNCTIONING AS EVASIVENESS
IN
FRIENDS
SCRIPT
FUNGSI PENYANGKALAN
HEDGES
DALAM
NASKAH
FRIENDS
SKRIPSI
Submitted to fulfill one of the requirements of Sarjana Sastra Degree
MOCHAMAD FAJAR AKBAR 63708014
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LETTERS
INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF COMPUTER
BANDUNG
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This skripsi entitled ‘Hedges Functioning as Evasiveness in Friends script’ is submitted to fulfill one of the requirements of Sarjana Sastra Degree. This skripsi would not be done without the assistance and support from many people.
Thus, to show the appreciation, the writer would like to express the deepest acknowledgement for the following people:
1. Prof. Dr. H. Moh. Tadjudin M.A. as the Dean of Faculty of Letters. 2. Dr. Juanda as the Head of English Department.
3. Dr. Nia Kurniasih, M.Hum. and Retno Purwani Sari S.S., M.Hum. as the first and second advisors. Great thanks are addressed to them for their kindness, help, and motivation to the writer in working on this skripsi.
4. Dr. A. Yani and Tatan Tawami, S.S., M.Hum. as the examiners. Great thanks are addressed to them for their inputs to the writer in revising this skripsi. 5. Asih Prihandini S.S., M.Hum. as the guardianship lecturer of the writer’s
class.
6. All the lecturers involved in English Department; Diba Artsiyanti S.S., M.Si., Nungki Heriyati, S.S., M.A., Nenden Rikma S.S., M. Rayhan Bustam S.S., and the others who cannot be mentioned one by one.
7. Classmates of 2008 and friends who cannot be mentioned one by one. 8. The secretary of English Department.
47
REFERENCES
Aruma, D. P. 2011. “Adverbial hedging construction in movie script.” Bandung:
UNIKOM.
Chan, S.H. and Helen Tan. 2002. “Maybe, perhaps, I believe, you could --Making
Claims and the Use of Hedges.” MELTA Journal, The English Teacher
Vol. 31, 2002. 98-106.
Helmi, Maria. 2010. “A Study on Flouting and Hedging Maxims Used by the
Main Characters on „Daddy Day Camp’.” Malang: The State Islamic
University of Malang.
Holmes, J. 1984. “Modifying Illocutionary Force.” Journal of Pragmatics 8.
345-365.
---. 1990. “Hedges and Boosters in Women„s and Men„s Speech.” Language & Communication 3.185-205.
Hyland, K. 1996. “Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research
articles”. Applied Linguistics 17 (4): 433 – 454
Kothari, C.R. 1990. Research Methodology- Methods and Techniques, 2nd Ed. New Delhi, Wiley Eastern Limited.
Lakoff, G. 1972. “Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts.” In Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. P. M. Peranteau, J. N. Levi and G. C. Phares, 183-228. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Šandová, Jana Kozubíková. 2010. “Speaker's Involvement in Political
Interviews”. Disertační práce. On-line. 5 June 2013. Brno: Masaryk
University. <http://is.muni.cz/th/237939/ff_d/>.
Urbanová, L. (2003) “On Expressing Meaning in English Conversation: Semantic
Indeterminacy.” Brno: Masarykova Univerzita.
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: Data of the Research 49
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the general description of the research. It consists of the background of the study, research questions, objectives, significance to knowledge, and framework of the theory.
1.1 Background to the Study
“Language is the dress of thought.” –Samuel Johnson.
Language is one of the devices that people use to communicate. To communicate means to convey a thought; it can be an idea, an argument, an opinion, or anything else. However, a thought that people are willing to communicate may not always be appealing to the others if they use inappropriate language. Thus, the language sometimes may be taken, for example, as an offensive thing. Therefore, people should be careful using their language.
To make things less offensive in communicating a thought, there is a language device called hedges introduced by expressions namely as far as I know, probably, I think, sort of, too, maybe. Lakoff (1972:194) uses the term hedge itself
for the first time to mean, “Words whose job to make things more or less fuzzy.”
Lakoff’s definition of hedge indicates that, “what the speaker is saying may not be
totally accurate” as stated by Yule (1996:38). It means, “a hedge is an expression used to make things more or less fuzzy for what the utterance stated may not be
2
By making things fuzzy, hedges can mean to show politeness as seen in a previous research by Aruma (2011). Here is an example of a hedge used to show politeness:
At the Christmas party, Vincent got the chess set, which would have been a very decent present to get at a church Christmas party, except it was obviously used and, as he and his mother discovered later, it was missing a black pawn and a white knight . His mother graciously thanked the unknown benefactor, saying , “too good. Cost too much”. When they got home, his mother told him to throw the chess set away. Aruma (2011:13-14)
The situation in the example above is that someone named Vincent gets a present, a chess set. He and his mother find out that it has missed a black pawn and a white knight, and it is obviously used. His mother graciously thanks the benefactor who gives her son a present by saying the expression, “too good.” However, by saying that, it does not necessarily mean that she is pleased for what the benefactor gives because, later on, she tells her son to throw it away. Therefore, by using the hedge
“too,” she would like to refuse the benefactor politely.
However, when hedges make things fuzzy, they do not always mean that they are used to show politeness only. Here is an example taken from Sandova (2010:157-158):
JON SOPEL: What I want to ask you is are you for or against nuclear power.
ALAN DUNCAN: The, the government is not looking at that. Tony Blair's saying he is, but if you look at the terms and conditions of the Energy Review, there's no money on offer. Now we've never before seen a nuclear power station built in Britain by the private sector alone.
3
The example shows that the use of hedge, “The, the government is not looking at
that.” leads to the evasiveness. The hedge may be considered “very evasive and
he [Duncan] claims that it is not what the government is dealing with right now” as stated in Sandova’s research (2010).
Hedges functioning as evasiveness are argued for the first time in
Sandova’s research (2010). What interesting is that the form of evasiveness is
different from the other functions’ suggested by Sandova (2010). The form of evasiveness may be the whole clause or even more than one; which means it may be the whole utterance. Unfortunately, Sandova only discusses the form of evasiveness and does not discuss the proposition hedged in the utterance.
Thus, this research continues Sandova’s discussion about evasiveness by analyzing the proposition hedged in the utterance. Moreover, this research
classifies the hedges’ orientations based on their uncertainty.
In addition, there is another previous research about hedges by Helmi (2010). However, she discusses the hedges relating to maxims in the movie Daddy Day Camp. Thus, it may differentiate this research from hers for this research
does not discuss maxims.
4
By hedges frequently conveyed in Friends, it leads to the assumption of this research that there are hedges functioning as evasiveness occurring in Friends script. Therefore, as suggested, the writer decides to title this research Hedges Functioning as Evasiveness in Friends Script.
1.2 Research Questions
1. What are the propositions hedged in the utterance in Friends script?
2. What are the orientations of the hedges relating to their uncertainty in Friends script?
1.3 Objectives
1. To analyze the propositions hedged in the utterance in Friends script. 2. To analyze the orientations of the hedges relating to their uncertainty in
Friends script.
1.4 Significance to Knowledge
5
learn how to convey things without being offensive and they can still be in a safe communicative situation because of the indirectness of the hedges.
1.5 Framework of the Theory
This research uses the definition of hedges referring to Lakoff’s (1972). As he states that hedges are “words to make things more or less fuzzy.” Sandova (2010), based on the definition, suggests many functions of hedges. One of the functions is evasiveness. Thus, the theory by Sandova serves as the grand theory for this research supports hers (2010).
Moreover, Sandova proposes the classifications of hedges based on the orientations of their fuzziness/uncertainty. They are speaker-oriented hedges, hearer-oriented hedges, and content-oriented hedges. Speaker-oriented hedges are
to express speaker’s doubt or uncertainty. Hearer-oriented hedges are to express
hearer’s uncertainty. Content-oriented hedges are to express an uncertainty of the
content.
This research also applies the theories by Yule (1996) supporting Lakoff’s (1972), Urbanova (2003), Hyland (1996) and Holmes (1984) supporting
Sandova’s (2010), and some others that support these theories. These theories
6
Figure 1. Framework of the theory
7 CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
This chapter explains the theories supporting the research. It covers the description of hedges, evasiveness, speaker-oriented hedges, hearer-oriented hedges, and content-oriented hedges.
2.1 Hedges
As mentioned in chapter one, “a hedge is an expression used to make things more or less fuzzy for what the utterance stated may not be totally accurate
or not really what the speaker means” (Lakoff 1972; Yule 1996). Here is the
example taken from Heng and Tan (2002):
I believe that we need to further explore the causes behind this child abuse.
The expression I believe in the sentence above is used to mitigate the propositions of what the speaker actually means which is the need for further exploration of the causes behind a child abuse. The accuracy of the proposition,
however, becomes fuzzy for it may be the speaker’s belief only. Thus, the
expression I believe may be identified as a hedge.
8
making things uncertain, hedges may be used for several things. Thus, it leads to the functions of hedges which will be discussed in the next sub chapter.
2.2 Functions of Hedges
According to Sandova (2010), there are nine functions of hedges. They, from the most often used to the least, are attenuation, assumption, hearer-oriented uncertainty, unspecified reference, hesitation, content-oriented uncertainty, negative politeness, detachment, and evasiveness.
Attenuation serves, “the function of attenuating the forthcoming part of
the utterance and thus, the illocutionary force of the proposition is weakened,”
Sandova (2010:138). According to Sandova (2010), assumption serves the function of not making a firm assertion, and not interested in taking full responsibility to the claims. Hearer-oriented uncertainty, “relates to the speaker’s
uncertainty concerning the addressee’s attitudes or likely response in the
interaction,” Holmes (1990:189) as stated in Sandova’s research (2010:143); the
definition may be interpreted as the speaker being unsure about hearer’s reaction towards the conversation. Unspecified reference relates to the vagueness of the expression used by the speaker. However, the expression that represents unspecified reference does not carry any semantic meaning, thus, it does not,
“contribute to the factual meaning of utterances,” as stated by Sandova
9
words and thus to protect his/her face,” Sandova (2010:150). “Negative
politeness [...] may be considered as a face-saving strategy of the speaker,”
Sandova (2010:152). Detachment expresses speaker’s less involvement with the utterances. Evasiveness may be used in order to avoid things.
Even though the evasiveness is the least hedges used, it leads to the further research for suggesting a new finding proposed by Sandova. The form of evasiveness is different from the others. The evasiveness’ form takes not only word, expression, or short phrase, but also the whole sentence. Thus, the writer is interested in analyzing this particular function of hedges.
“Evasiveness relates to the tendency to avoid commitment to the speaker’s
statements,” Sandova (2010:156) argues. It means that evasiveness may be used to avoid things by making the proposition (message) conveyed uncertain in terms of avoidance, covering, disagreement, and refusal. Thus, evasiveness may be performed in a non-straightforward answer or indirect answer as suggested by Sandova (2010:156).
The following is the example of a hedge functioning as evasiveness taken
from Sandova’s research.
JON SOPEL: Wouldn't it be catastrophic for you not to win it, in the sense that you haven't won a by-election for twenty six years.
You know, Labour were piling up big majorities in places like Wirral and mid Staffordshire in the 1990s, which was the sign that actually, it looked like they were on course to win the next General Election in '97. Don't you need to be doing exactly the same thing and Crewe and Nantwich should be a plum ripe for picking.
MICHAEL GOVE: Well Jon, that's exactly the sort of thing that you and other commentators enjoy talking about.
JON SOPEL: I'm just asking you.
10
about the Conservative Party. Harriet Harman quite rightly pointed out earlier, that we're now entering that stage in the life time of this parliament, when people are going to ask about Conservative ideas and they want to know how Conservative ideas will make a difference.
The interviewer, John Sopel, mentions a sensitive issue on election result for the interviewee, Michael Gove, who has not won the election for twenty-six years.
Michael Gove’s answer, “Well Jon, that's exactly the sort of thing that you and
other commentators enjoy talking about,” avoids the interviewer’s question,
which concerns on the issue about election result and not the thing that commentators enjoy talking about. Thus, by avoiding the question, his answer is uncertain in terms of its relevancy towards the interviewer’s utterance because it does not answer the question asked by the interviewer. Moreover, Michael Gove conveys the utterance to mean that he does not want to discuss the election result; however, this proposition (message) is not conveyed directly. Therefore, Michael
Gove’s answer may be identified as evasiveness.
2.3Orientations of Hedges Relating to their Uncertainty
11
In addition, Hyland (1996) proposes similar classifications; however, he uses different terms. They are accuracy-oriented (content-oriented), writer-oriented (speaker-writer-oriented), and reader-writer-oriented (hearer-writer-oriented).
2.3.1 Speaker-oriented Hedges
Speaker-oriented hedges are the ones that the uncertainty orientation
relates to the speaker. They are “to express speaker’s doubts and uncertainty in
relation to the validity of particular proposition,” Holmes (1984:359). This type
of hedges shows the speaker’s lack of commitment to the truth of the proposition conveyed.
These hedges are marked usually by expressions consisting of subject (I) + cognitive verb, for example, I suppose, I guess, I don’t think, I mean. Here is an
example taken from Sandova’s research (2010:127):
JON SOPEL: Do you see any similarities between yourself and Barack Obama.
DAVID CAMERON: Not really no because I think American politics and British politics are quite different. He's a Democrat, I'm a Conservative. I mean I suppose we're both trying to, you know, kind of overturn the government and win. I enjoy watching him and he's a great speaker. But I'm also a big John McCain fan. I think the plain speaking of this man who just, you know, he goes to Michigan and says look, I know we've lost a lot of jobs here but I've got to tell you they're not coming back. You know, it's so frank and refreshing to see somebody who really tells it how it is.
The proposition (message) that is hedged in the example above is “we're both
12
truth. The fact that David Cameron and Barack Obama is trying to overturn the government and win may not be confirmed as a valid fact because David Cameron only (without Barack Obama) conveys the utterance. Thus, the proposition may
represent the speaker’s opinion only and the expression may represent the
speaker’s doubt about the validity of the proposition. Therefore, the expression
may be identified as a speaker-oriented hedge.
2.3.2 Hearer-oriented Hedges
These hedges expresses, “uncertainty or hesitation relating to the hearer,” as stated by Sandova (2010:128). They represent hearer’s uncertainty of the proposition conveyed by the speaker. It means that the speaker may have hesitation whether the hearer understands/knows the proposition conveyed or not. These hedges may also suggest speaker’s expectation of the hearer to understand/know the proposition conveyed.
Hearer-oriented hedges may be marked by expression, you know, or other expressions that express proposition-expected known by the hearer. For example
taken from Sandova’s research (2010:129-130):
JON SOPEL: Do you see any similarities between yourself and Barack Obama.
13
The expression, “you know,” in the example above suggests uncertainty towards the hearer’s knowledge. The expression may represent speaker’s expectation of the hearer to know about John McCain. However, the speaker is not really certain if the hearer knows, therefore, the expression is followed by the explanation about John McCain. Thus, this uncertainty of the speaker that relates to the hearer may be identified the expression as a hearer-oriented hedge.
2.3.3 Content-oriented Hedges
This category of hedges relate to the content of the proposition conveyed. These hedges may weaken the content of the proposition. Thus, they may reduce the responsibility of the speaker towards the proposition as Hyland (1996:443) states “personal commitment is either not involved or is subordinate to this function [of content-oriented hedges].”
Expressions that mark these hedges may namely be epistemic adverbs probably, possibly, and maybe, modal verbs may, might, could, and other expressions such as well, sort of, kind of, more or less, in fact, quite, simply, relatively, just, actually, or other expressions suggesting approximation. Here is
the example of content-oriented hedges taken from Sandova’s research (2010:132):
JON SOPEL: So is the American example wrong, where there are tax cuts being introduced to help kickstart the American economy (interjection) BOTH TOGETHER
14
announced some big tax cut on budget day, I think actually the markets would have taken fright.
In David Cameron’s utterance, there is the use of a hedge. It is marked by the
15 CHAPTER III
RESEARCH OBJECT AND METHOD
This chapter describes the methodology of the research. It covers research object and research method.
3.1 Research Object
The object of this research is hedges taken from the script of Friends TV SITCOM. "It's about sex, love, relationships, careers, a time in your life when everything's possible. And it's about friendship because when you're single and in
the city, your friends are your family." as stated by Crane, Kauffman and Bright as
the producers of the series.
Friends chosen as the data source is because there are many hedges used
in the script. In Friends, hedges functioning as evasiveness are frequently used in conveying the utterance. Moreover, many previous researches about hedges are focused, for example, on research articles. Thus, this research about the use of hedges in TV SITCOM script, hopefully, will enrich more various results.
3.2 Research Method
16
uncertainty that suggest three kinds of orientation; speaker-oriented, hearer-oriented, and content-oriented.
Furthermore, this research applies the method of analytic descriptive. Firstly to apply is the method of analytical research. “In analytical research, the researcher has to use facts or information already available, and analyze these to
make a critical evaluation of the material.” Kothari (1990:3). It means that this
method is conducted through the process of analyzing the facts of the research data. Secondly, this research applies the method of descriptive research. “Descriptive research includes surveys and fact-finding enquiries of different
kinds.” Kothari (1990:4). It may mean to describe the fact of the data such as to
classify data of the research. Thus, it is appropriate to apply analytic descriptive method in this research.
Therefore, the proposition hedged in the utterance is analyzed, and it is continued by classifying the orientations of the hedges relating to their uncertainty.
3.2.1 Data Collection
17
1. Searching the data source for the research by reading some scripts including the scripts of How I Met Your Mother, the Proposal, Bounty Hunter, etc. The scripts are taken from various websites;
www.simplyscripsts.com, www.dailyscripts.com, www.imdbs.com etc. 2. Choosing the script of Friends as the data source. It is taken from
www.friendstranscripts.tk 3. Reading the whole script.
4. Finding the hedges used in the script based on the definition of hedges by Lakoff (1972). It means to find words/expressions that make things fuzzy/uncertain in terms of avoidance.
5. Choosing the hedges that have the function as evasiveness which are the ones conveyed indirectly indicated as a non-straightforward answer.
3.2.2 Data Analysis
Based on the assumption of this research, there are hedges functioning as evasiveness in Friends script. Thus, there are the procedures in analyzing the data, as the following:
1. Analyzing the proposition hedged in the utterance in Friends script. It means to analyze what the speaker actually wants to convey by finding the hedges and identifying the proposition made uncertain by the hedges. 2. Analyzing the orientations of the hedges relating to their uncertainty in
Friends script. It means to classify the hedges into speaker-oriented,
18
To have more comprehension, here is the example of data analysis. Data example
Context: Rachel and Ross have a daughter named Emma. On Emma’s first birthday party, Rachel orders a birthday cake shaped like a bunny with a picture of Emma on the top of it. However, the bakery makes a mistake. Instead of putting
Emma’s picture on the top of a cake shaped like a bunny, they put the picture on a
cake shaped like a penis. Rachel is angry because of it and thinks that they have
ruined Emma’s first birthday party. She thinks that the first birthday party of her
daughter is very important. However, Ross does not feel the same way. He thinks it’s not important because Emma is just a baby and does not even aware that it’s her birthday.
Rachel: Oh, why do you even bother? I already ruined her first birthday... And do you know how important these early experiences are Ross? Very! According to the back cover of that book that you gave me.
Ross: Rach, she's not going to remember this.
Analysis:
19
of early experiences) is not important. Thus, Ross’s utterance represents what Ross means indirectly.
Therefore, Ross’s utterance itself may be identified as the hedge because it
mitigates the proposition (content) that Ross actually conveys which is, “early experiences are not important.” By mitigating it, the hedge makes the proposition become uncertain because what Ross’s utterance means is slightly different from what Ross means. Thus, the uncertainty of the proposition makes the hedge classifies as content-oriented hedges.
20 CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter shows the findings classified by the hedges’ orientations relating to their uncertainty. There are three classifications found in this research; they are speaker-oriented hedges, hearer-oriented hedges, and content-oriented hedges. This chapter also presents the discussions of the research. They are the analyses of the propositions (messages) hedged in the utterance.
4.1 Speaker-oriented Hedges giving away her work of art that she calls Gladys to Monica. It is because she is going to live together with her fiancée and he wants Phoebe to get rid of Gladys. Rachel asks who Gladys is. Rachel actually knows who/what Gladys is because she used to live with Phoebe and she does not like it. However, Phoebe does not know that Rachel does not like it.
Rachel: Who's Gladys?
Phoebe: Oh, she's that work of art I made, you know, with the woman coming out of the frame.
Rachel: (sarcastic) Oh, and Monica gets to keep her? In her house? I am so jealous!
Phoebe: Oh, I didn't know you wanted her too! Monica: Huh!
21
Analysis:
The hedge in this data is represented by Rachel’s utterance, “Well, I mean, sure, of course. But... you already gave that to Monica, so...” In the utterance there are propositions:
I mean [you already gave that to Monica, so...] So [you cannot give it to me (Rachel)]
These propositions indicate that Phoebe should not give Gladys to Rachel regarding that it belongs to Monica. Thus, it would be impolite for Phoebe to give
Gladys that has already been in Monica’s possession. In addition, the utterance
consists of two-suggested propositions as the following: Sure [I want her (Gladys) too],
Of course [I want her (Gladys) too].
Both propositions above, by using the words sure and of course, emphasize Rachel’s willingness to own Gladys.
Thus, the utterance above suggests two contradictory points. First is
Rachel’s avoidance to own Gladys by stating that it belongs to Monica. Second is
Rachel’s willingness to own Gladys by emphasizing the proposition, “I want her
(Gladys) too” twice with the use of sure and of course. This contradiction marked by conjunction, “but,” may suggest Rachel’s uncertainty of the proposition of her utterance.
22
Gladys is already owned by Monica suggests that Rachel tries to cover up her dislike for Gladys. Moreover, the propositions stating Rachel’s willingness to own Gladys may suggest that Rachel tries to avoid offending Phoebe for Gladys.
Therefore, by suggesting Rachel’s uncertainty of the proposition of her
utterance and the use of it to avoid conflict, the hedge in this data saves Rachel’s situation in the conversation. Thus, it classifies the hedge as an evasive speaker-oriented hedge.
Data 2
Context: It is a thanksgiving day. Monica cooks for the dinner. As for the pies she does not bake them herself but orders them from a bakery. In the morning, she asks Rachel and Phoebe to pick up the pies and bring them to dinner. However, it is not only that they come late to dinner but also forget to pick up the pies.
Monica: Yeah, I asked you and Phoebe to pick up the pies. You did remember, right?
Phoebe: Pies, oh, we thought you said priiiize (goes to the hall and comes back with Emma's trophy in her hand). Here! (gives it to Monica).
Analysis:
Phoebe’s utterance in the data above represents the use of a hedge. In the
utterance, there is a proposition “you said prize.” The proposition becomes uncertain when there is an expression “we thought” before it. The expression
shows Phoebe’s uncertainty towards the proposition because it represents only
what Phoebe thinks and it may not be the truth. In addition, the subject “we” adds Rachel to share the uncertainty towards the proposition.
23
Thus, she may use her utterance to cover up the truth that she forgets picking up the pies by saying the word “prize” which rhymes with the word “pies.” Therefore, it may avoid Monica from being angry with her (and Rachel).
By covering up the truth that she forgets and giving the impression that she hears the wrong word, it makes Phoebe (and Rachel) in a safe situation. Therefore, it may classify the hedge as evasiveness with speaker-oriented.
Data 3
Context: Phoebe and Rachel see Chandler getting in a car with a woman named Nancy (a real estate agent). Chandler is married to Monica and they are about to buy a house. Chandler and Nancy go to see the house that he and Monica will buy. However, Phoebe thinks that Chandler is having an affair. Then she calls him. On the phone, he lies about what he is doing.
Phoebe (on the phone): Oh, hi Chandler. It's Phoebe. Uhm... I know that Monica is working today so...(back to Central Perk) ...I was wondering if you want to come to the movies with me and Rachel.
Chandler (on the phone): Oh, uhm... I have to work too. Yeah, I'm stuck at the office all day.
Analysis:
In the data above, the hedge functioning as evasiveness is suggested by
Chandler’s utterance. The utterance begins with the expression, “Oh, uhm...”
which shows Chandler’s hesitation about what he is going to say which is, “I have to work too. Yeah, I'm stuck at the office all day.” Chandler’s utterance shows an
uncertainty because work usually has a fix schedule. Thus if he actually has to work, the expression “Oh, uhm...” would not be used and he may answer
24
day. Therefore, the expression may represent Chandler’s uncertainty relating to the proposition of what he is doing and where he is.
Furthermore, Chandler is aware of the proposition for being untrue because he knows that he is not working at the office at the moment of speaking. It suggests that he conveys his utterance to cover up the truth about what he is doing. The reason is because he would like to refuse Phoebe’s invitation because he is going to see the house with Nancy. Therefore, he says that he has to work because work is a matter which cannot be easily compromised.Thus, he can still be in a safe situation even though he refuses the invitation.
The use of the hedge to refuse may be identified as evasiveness. Moreover, it is used to cover up the truth to make the speaker in a safe situation. Thus, it may be classified as speaker-oriented hedges.
Data 4
Context: It is in the coffee house. There are Phoebe, Monica, Chandler, and Rachel there. Ross enters. He wants to celebrate him getting tenure and he brings a bottle of champagne. Then he asks the waiter named Gunther for six glasses. Gunther who is aware that there are only five people thinks that perhaps Ross wants him to join his celebration. However, Ross does not mean that. He only asks for six glasses because he thinks that Joey is there too. After he realizes that Joey is not there, he asks for five glasses.
Ross: This is the single greatest day of my professional career. Gunther, six glasses!
Gunther: Six? You want me to join you?
25 (Ross) thinks. Thus, the proposition may not be true.
Furthermore, Ross is later aware that Joey was not there. He then asks for
five glasses. Ross’s utterance, however, is not only meant to ask for five glasses.
It also represents that Ross tries to avoid the waiter, Gunther, who asks to join his celebration. By asking for five glasses only, Ross may mean to refuse Gunther’s request to join indirectly. Thus, he makes himself feel safe because he does not have to reject Gunther’s request directly.
Therefore, by refusing Gunther’s request indirectly and avoiding making a rejection, the hedge in this data may be identified as an evasive speaker-oriented hedge.
Data 5
Context: Monica and Chandler are buying a house. They have already picked a house that they want to buy. However, Monica wants to see the house next door just in case that house is better but Chandler does not want to. They then ask Phoebe about it. Instead of answering that, Phoebe makes a comment about Chandler’s shirt.
Monica: But what if it is better than ours? Should we at least look? Chandler: What do you think Pheebs?
Phoebe: Well, I think that shirt makes you look like you should work at a Baskin Robbins... Anyway... Hey, isn't Joey's agent Estelle Leonard?
26
Analysis:
The hedge in the data above is suggested by Phoebe’s utterance, “Well, I
think that shirt makes you look like you should work at a Baskin Robbins...” In the
utterance, there is an expression, “I think” which expresses Phoebe’s (I) opinion towards the proposition, “that shirt makes you look like you should work at a
Baskin Robbins.” It means that the validity of the proposition is uncertain because
the expression makes the utterance indicated only as Phoebe’s opinion and may not be true.
Moreover, Phoebe’s utterance is a response to Chandler’s utterance which asking for an opinion about the house that Chandler and Monica will buy. However, Phoebe answers it by commenting Chandler’s shirt and not by giving her opinion about the house. Phoebe thinks that it is their problem not hers. She avoids talking about the house by commenting the shirt. Thus, she can refuse talking about the house indirectly and save herself from getting involved in their problem.
Therefore, the hedge in Phoebe’s utterance in this data may be identified
as evasiveness for avoiding giving her opinion about the house. Moreover, The use of the hedge in terms of refusing indirectly to save herself from getting involved may be identify the hedge as a speaker-oriented hedge.
Data 6
27
thinks that it is a good time to talk to him. However, Joey is not so sure even though he shows an agreement.
Rachel: Ross is coming over. I think now would be a really good time to talk to him.
Joey: I guess so. I’m just... really nervous.
Analysis:
In the data above, the use of hedge is represented by Joey’s utterance, “I
guess so.” The word “so” in the utterance refers to the proposition-suggested in
Rachel’s utterance; “now would be a really good time to talk to him.” The
proposition is hedged by the expression “I guess,” because it gives an uncertainty to the proposition in terms of its validity for it only expresses an assessment of the
“I” (Joey), therefore, the proposition may not be true.
Furthermore, Joey’s utterance suggests an agreement to Rachel’s utterance
even though he is not really sure about it. Thus, it may mean that Joey’s utterance may be used to cover up his doubt in order to avoid having an argument with Rachel. Therefore, he saves himself from a conflict with Rachel.
By avoiding having an argument and saving Ross (the speaker) from a conflict with Rachel, the hedge in this data may be identified as evasiveness with speaker-oriented.
4.2 Hearer-oriented Hedges
28
Data 7
Context: It is in the coffee house. Phoebe enters with her fancy dress. She tells she is going to celebrate anniversary with her boyfriend by seeing a hockey game. Then Joey questions her if she is overdressed. Phoebe and Joey are close friends. Joey: Uhm... Aren't you a little overdressed?
Phoebe: Hey, you know what, I've never had a one-year anniversary before, so no matter where we go, I'm wearing something fancy pants, and... I'm gonna put on my finest jewelry and we're gonna have sex in a public rest room.
Analysis:
The hedge used in the data above is represented by Phoebe’s utterance,
“Hey, you know what, I've never had a one-year anniversary before, so no matter
where we go, I'm wearing something fancy pants, and... I'm gonna put on my
finest jewellery.” In the utterance, Phoebe uses the expression, “you know what.” It expresses Phoebe’s expectation of Joey to understand that it is an anniversary meaning it is a special occasion where generally people use their finest dresses. In
addition, the expression is followed by Phoebe’s explanation why she wears fancy
dress. This suggests that Phoebe senses that Joey may not understand it. Thus, it represents an uncertainty relating to the hearer (Joey) whether he understands what matters is that it is a special occasion and not the place to celebrate it.
Furthermore, Phoebe’s utterance represents a disagreement to Joey’s
utterance. Joey’s utterance suggests that Phoebe may be overdressed. However,
Phoebe’s utterance, which gives an explanation why she wears fancy dress,
29
Phoebe’s utterance suggests an uncertainty relating to the hearer whether
Joey understands or not why Phoebe wears fancy dress. Thus, it makes the hedge in this data classify as hearer-oriented. Moreover, the use of the hedge that is to show disagreement suggests that this hedge functions as evasiveness.
Data 8
Context: Ross and Joey are good friends. Joey had a girlfriend named Charlie and they had just broken up. On the night, that they broke up Ross and Charlie kissed. Ross felt bad about that kiss so before anything more happens between him and Charlie he wants to talk to Joey about it. In addition, Joey actually knew about that kiss because he saw it but Ross was not aware of this.
Ross: Okay, last night after you guys broke up... so sorry to hear about that, by the way... Well, Charlie and I were talking, and..., well...
Joey: You kissed.
Ross: Wha... (gasps) What? What would give you that idea? Joey: I saw you.
Analysis:
The hedge in this data is represented by Ross’s utterance, “Wha... (gasps)
What? What would give you that idea?” which suggests an uncertainty for it
could have been a simpler response to Joey’s utterance; yes or no that he kiss Charlie. Ross conveys his utterance by gasping which may mean that he has hesitation about what to say to Joey because he feels guilty for kissing Charlie.
Ross’s hesitation is whether Joey actually knows that the kiss happens or he only
assumes that it happens. Thus, it suggests an uncertainty relating to the hearer (Joey) whether he knows or does not.
30
anything about it. He conveys his utterance gasping because he may not ready for that. Therefore, his utterance, which does not agree or disagree to Joey’s utterance, may mean to cover up the truth in order to avoid the possibility of Joey being angry.
By suggesting the uncertainty relating to the hearer and covering up to avoid, the hedge in this data may classify as hearer-oriented and has the function as evasiveness.
Data 9
Context: Amy is Rachel’s sister. She tells Rachel that she is going to marry a man named Myron. He is old. Amy only wants to marry him because he has a great apartment. Rachel then gives her an advice that she should marry someone that she love and not marry someone only because of his or her apartment. Amy takes the advice. However, because she leaves Myron, she does not have place to stay. She then asks Rachel to let her stay in Rachel’s apartment. Rachel seems to have hesitation about it because she shares the apartment with Joey who hates Amy. In addition, Erin Brokovich is an independent strong woman. She can take care of herself alone and she has her own house.
Rachel: Amy, hi!
Amy: I took your advice, I left Myron. Rachel: Oh, good for you!
Amy: I know! I'm Erin Brockovich!
Rachel: Yes you are! Oh, I am so proud of you! Amy: Thank you! So, can I stay with you?
Rachel: But Erin Brockovich had her own house.
Analysis:
Rachel’s utterance above, “But Erin Brockovich had her own house.”
31
she is Erin Brokovich, she should have her own place to stay. Thus, she would not ask for staying in Joey and Rachel’s apartment.
Rachel realizes that she shares the apartment with Joey. Thus, she needs Joey’s permission if she is going to let Amy stay in their apartment. Moreover,
she is aware that Joey hates Amy. Therefore, she may convey the utterance to avoid the conversation so Amy would understand that she cannot let her stay. Thus, she can refuse Amy’s request to stay indirectly.
According to the description above that suggesting the uncertainty in relation to the hearer and the use of the utterance to avoid as a refusal, the hedge in this data may function as evasiveness and classify as hearer-oriented.
Data 10
Context: Rachel gets a job offer to work in Paris. She tells Ross that she is scared. By that, Ross thinks that she is not excited about the job. However, she then explains to Ross that it was a good scared meaning that she is actually excited about it.
Ross: Uhm, I hadn't no you... I had no idea you were so excited about Paris. Uhm, I mean, you said you were scared.
Rachel: Well yeah, but I mean, it was good scared though, you know? Like when I-moved-to-New-York scared. Or uhm, when I-found-out-I-was-gonna-have-Emma scared... But this is... fine. This is gonna be good. (they both stare around)
Ross: (after a long pause) You should go.
Analysis:
The hedge in this data is represented by Rachel’s utterance “I mean, it was
good scared though, you know? Like when I-moved-to-New-York scared. Or uhm,
32
know?” indicating the utterance may have an uncertainty relating to the hearer.
The expression represents that Ross should have known that what she is feeling is a good scared because he has seen her having a good scared before like when she move to New York and when she finds out that she is going to have Emma (their daughter). However, the expression is followed by the explanation by Rachel about what she means by a good scared. It means Rachel thinks that Ross may not know that what she feels is a good scared. Thus, the hedge in this data may suggest the uncertainty relating to Ross (the hearer).
Furthermore, Ross thinks that Rachel is scared (having fear). Rachel’s utterance, however, suggests a different meaning of scared by the explanation of a good scared. Thus, Rachel’s utterance may represent a disagreement by suggesting a difference.
Therefore, by having the uncertainty relating to the hearer and suggesting a disagreement, the hedge in this data may be categorized in the type of hearer-oriented hedges and functioning as evasiveness.
4.3 Content-oriented Hedges
This category of hedges is to express the uncertainty relating to the content of the message. It means that the hedge is attenuating the content of the message.
Data 11
33
hair got tangled in the chain and to get her out her mom had to cut her hair. Her hair was uneven for weeks. Ross thinks that it was irrational.
Ross: Look, I'm sorry to hear about your tragedy, ok? But the swings are perfectly safe, and besides Emma loves them. You know what, you should come with us and you'll see!
Rachel: Ross, those things go like 40 miles an hour! Ok? When you're... and there is that moment when you are at the top, when you just don't know if you're gonna return back to earth!
Analysis:
The hedge in the data above is suggested by Rachel’s utterance, “Ross, those things (swings) go like 40 miles an hour!” The utterance has uncertainty regarding to the meaning of particular proposition; “Ross, those things (swings)
go 40 miles an hour.” The proposition becomes uncertain because of the
expression “like.” The expression only represents Rachel’s assessment which is not supported by actual fact that swings go 40 miles an hour. It means that the uncertainty in this utterance relates to the content of the proposition for having an uncertainty because of the expression.
Furthermore, Rachel’s utterance is a response to Ross’s utterance. In Ross’ utterance, it is said that swings are perfectly safe. However, Rachel’s utterance suggests the opposite opinion by exaggerating the speed of the swings; thus, it indicates that swings are not safe. The utterance may be conveyed by Rachel to show a disagreement because of her traumatic swing incident.
34
Data 12
Context: Ross and Rachel are talking about their irrational fears. Rachel thinks that swings are not safe because of her traumatic incident where her mom had to cut her hair. Ross thinks that it is irrational. Rachel argues that Ross being scared of a spider is irrational too. However, Ross thinks that it is not the same thing.
Ross: Good, you don’t want to be one of those mothers, who pass on their
irrational fears on their children, do you?
Rachel: Irrational, huh? All right, well, I’ll remember that the next time you freak out about a spider in your apartment!
Ross: Oh, yeah, that’s the same, I am sure there are thirty different species of
poisonous swings!
Analysis:
The hedge in the data above is represented by Ross’s utterance, “I am sure
there are thirty different species of poisonous swings!” In the utterance, there is
an expression “sure.” It gives an uncertainty to the proposition, “there are thirty
different species of poisonous swings!” because the expression may suggest that
the proposition is only what the “I” (Ross) believes. It does not mean that there
are actually thirty different species of poisonous swings. Therefore, by making the proposition of the utterance uncertain in terms of the meaning, the hedge in this data relates to the content.
35
Therefore, Ross’s utterance in this data that suggests a disagreement may function as evasiveness. Moreover, the uncertainty of his utterance relating to the content of the proposition classifies the hedge as content-oriented.
Data 13
Context: When Monica and Chandler are hugging, she smells perfume and cigarettes. Chandler tells Monica that he was with Nancy but Monica knows that Nancy does not smoke.
Chandler: Hi!
Monica: Hey! You smell like perfume and cigarettes. Chandler: I was in the car with Nancy all day. Monica: Nancy doesn’t smoke!
Chandler: Well, at least the perfume is not mine, be thankful for that!
Analysis:
The hedge used in the data above is suggested by Chandler’s utterance,
“Well, at least the perfume is not mine, be thankful for that!” The utterance represents an irrelevant answer as a response to Monica’s utterance which states
about smoking not perfume. By stating that Nancy does not smoke, Monica’s
utterance indicates that Chandler must be the one who smoke. However, Chandler responds it by talking about the perfume. Thus, the content of the proposition
conveyed in Chandler’s utterance has uncertainty concerning on the utterance as a
response to Monica’s utterance. This irrelevancy of the proposition is marked by
the expression, “well” which sometimes in a conversation is used to start a new topic.
36
hedge to cover up the truth that he does smoke because he knows that she does not like it when he smokes; therefore, he may avoid having an argument with Monica. By representing irrelevancy relating to the content conveyed, the hedge in this data may be classified as content-oriented. Moreover, the use of the utterance to avoid a conflict with Monica makes the hedge function as evasiveness.
Data 14
Context: Phoebe is teaching Joey how to speak French. Phoebe wants Joey to repeat how she says the words. However, Joey says the words differently.
Phoebe: Je m'appelle Claude. Joey: Je depli mblue.
Phoebe: Uh. It's not... quite what I'm saying. Joey: Really? It sounds exactly the same to me.
Analysis:
In the data above, the hedge is represented by in Joey’s utterance, “It
sounds exactly the same to me.” In the utterance there is an expression, “exactly.”
It makes the proposition, “It sounds the same to me,” uncertain in terms of the meaning of the content because there is no measurement of how exact it is; it is really the same or it only sounds the same. Thus, the uncertainty of the utterance in this data relates to the content of the proposition.
37
Therefore, by having the uncertainty relating to the content, the hedge in this data may be classified as content-oriented, and by suggesting a disagreement, it may have a function as evasiveness.
Data 15
Context: It is in Rachel’s room at her father’s house. Ross realizes that he’s never been in that room before but Rachel seems to think that he has.
Rachel: What do you mean? You've been in my room before!
Ross: Yeah, sure, right! Like I've ever been in Rachel Green's room.
Analysis:
In the data above, the hedge is represented by Ross’s utterance, “Like I've
ever been in Rachel Green's room.” The utterance begins with the expression,
“like,” which gives an uncertainty to the proposition, “I've ever been in Rachel
Green's room,” in terms of the meaning carried by the content. The certainty of
the fact that the “I” (Ross) has been in Rachel’s room before is questioned because the expression, “like,” may represent that it only is a supposition. Thus, the hedge in this data has its uncertainty orienting to the content of the proposition.
38
Therefore, by opposing to suggest a disagreement, the hedge in this data may function as evasiveness. Moreover, having the uncertainty of the proposition relating to the content makes it classify as content-oriented.
Data 16
Context: Monica is having dinner with Chandler, Phoebe and Mike. Then Ross comes in to tell news. Monica does not want Ross to interrupt the dinner and she is not interested in hearing the news.
Ross: (entering) Hey, you guys... I have great news.
Monica: Ross, we're kind of in the middle of dinner here.
Ross: Oh, well, er, I already ate, but sure...! (they all look at each other when Ross grabs a plate) Guess what happened at work today...
Analysis:
Monica’s utterance in the data above, “Ross, we're kind of in the middle of
dinner here.” suggests the use of a hedge. It is represented by the expression
“kind of,” which weakens content of the proposition. The reason is because the
expression indicates that they are not in the middle of dinner while the truth is that they actually are in the middle of dinner. Thus, the hedge in this data makes the proposition considered as uncertain in terms of the meaning as a certain truth. It means that the uncertainty relates to the content for making the truth of the proposition weakened.
Moreover, Monica’s utterance suggests that she does not want to hear Ross’ news because she and her husband, Chandler, are in the middle of dinner
39
something special to her. She expects Ross to be aware of the situation that they are in the middle of a rare occasion of dinner; it means that an interruption is unwelcome. Thus, Monica’s utterance in this data may be used to avoid hearing
Ross’ news.
Therefore, by the use of the utterance to avoid hearing Ross’s news, the hedge in this data may function as evasiveness. Moreover, having the uncertainty of proposition in terms of its meaning relating to the content classifies the hedge as content-oriented.
Data 17
Context: Joey and Phoebe are at the coffee house. Joey’s agent named Estelle has passed away. Phoebe finds out about it in the newspaper but Joey himself does not know about it yet. Phoebe feels that probably it is best for Joey not to be told about it yet because she knows that he have had a hard time lately. However, Joey tells Phoebe that he is upset because Estelle does not get him any audition lately. Joey then means to call Estelle to ask her about it. Phoebe asks Joey to wait a little bit before he makes the call. Phoebe then who is pretending as Estelle calls Joey first.
Joey: Hello?
Phoebe (doing Estelle): Joey, it’s Estelle.
Joey: I was just gonna call you! That’s weird.
Phoebe (doing Estelle): It’s a little coincidental, but believable. (Joey nods in
agreement). Listen, I’m sure you’re wondering why I didn’t get you an audition
for that TV movie.
Analysis:
The hedge used in the data above is suggested by Phoebe’s utterance, “It’s
a little coincidental, but believable.” The pronoun “it” refers to the
proposition-suggested in the conversation, “Estelle (Phoebe doing Estelle) calling Joey when
40
gives an uncertainty to the propositions “it’s coincidental, but believable,” because the expression has the meaning of something less. Moreover, the word “coincidental” itself suggests an uncertainty for there is no measurement for
coincidences. Thus, it may mean that the orientation of the hedge in this data relates to the content by weakening the proposition making it uncertain in terms of its meaning.
Furthermore, Phoebe’s utterance is a response to Joey’s utterance suggesting that, “Estelle (Phoebe doing Estelle) calling Joey when he is just about to call her is weird.”However, Phoebe’s utterance suggesting it may not be weird
by conveying that it is believable; because the word believable/belief may be considered to have a certain truth. Thus, by opposing Joey’s utterance, Phoebe’s utterance may be used to show that she disagrees with Joey.
By opposing to make a disagreement, the hedge in this data may function as evasiveness. In addition, the hedge’s uncertainty relating to the content by
weakening the proposition may classify the hedge as content-oriented.
Data 18
Context: The conversation is between Ross and Rachel. Ross is palaeontology so he really likes dinosaurs-related and he wants Emma (his daughter from Rachel) to like it too. Therefore, he argues that Emma cannot sleep without her stuffed t-rex (a doll). However, Rachel does not think so.
Ross: Emma left her stuffed t-rex at my house. You know she can’t sleep without it.
41
Analysis:
The use of a hedge in the data above is represented by Rachel’s utterance,
“Oh, well, she’s asleep now.” In the utterance, there is an expression “well”
which is used to represent the opposite thing of what Ross says. However, the expression does not represent it directly. It is because as the response to Ross’s utterance, Rachel’s utterance actually means that she (Emma) can sleep without her stuffed t-rex, instead, Rachel’s utterance only states the situation of Emma at the moment. Thus, it indicates the utterance may represent an uncertainty in terms of its relevancy to Ross’s utterance; therefore, the uncertainty relates to the
content of the proposition for making it as an irrelevant answer.
Furthermore, Ross’s utterance suggests that Emma cannot sleep without her stuffed t-rex. However, Rachel’s utterance, in an indirect way, suggests the opposite proposition. Thus, the hedge in this data may be used to show a disagreement.
Therefore, by weakening the content of the proposition that Emma can sleep without her stuffed t-rex, the hedge in this data may be classified into content-oriented hedges. Moreover, the use of the hedge to disagree by opposition makes it classified as having the function of evasiveness.
Data 19
42
(making noises) which heard by Phoebe in the next room (Monica and Chandler’s room).
Phoebe: Is that Ross?
Monica: Yeah, you can hear everything through these stupid walls. Phoebe: Sounds like he's with someone.
Chandler: He could be alone. This morning I heard him do push-ups, and then talk to his triceps.
Analysis:
There is a hedge used in the data above. It is represented by Chandler’s utterance, “He (Ross) could be alone.” In the utterance, the expression “could be,” may be suggested to weaken the content of the proposition “he (Ross) is
alone.” By weakening the content, the proposition becomes uncertain because the
expression “could be” represents an assumption, which means that it may not represent an accurate fact that Ross is alone. Thus, the proposition in this data has the uncertainty that relates to the content in terms of its validity.
Furthermore, Chandler’s utterance is a response to Phoebe’s utterance,
“Sounds like he’s (Ross) with someone,” indicating that Ross is not alone.
Chandler’s utterance, however, suggests the opposite proposition of Phoebe’s
utterance. Thus, the proposition of Chandler’s utterance in this data may be conveyed to show a disagreement by suggesting opposition.
