digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id
4. 5.
6.
c. The researcher classified each marker of the interpersonal metadiscourse markers: into frequency and percentage. The researcher used this following
formula: Percentage of each markers =
X 100 x: the frequency of each markers
y: the total number of frequency The researcher used the table of classification markers of interpersonal
metadiscourse based on Hyland 2005 to classify the data into the markers. From this step, the first and the second number of the research questions were answered.
Table 3.1 Classification Markers of Interpersonal Metadiscourse
No Markers
Code Frequency Percentage
1 Hedges
H 2
Boosters B
3 Attitudes Markers
AM 4
Self Mentions SM
digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id
5 Engagement Markers
EM TOTAL
100
d. The researcher interpreted the data based on the related theories. The interpretation represents to answer the last research question.
e. The researcher draw conclusion.
digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id
25
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter consists
of findings and the discussions about the statement of problems formulated in chapter one. The findings of this research are divided into
data description and data analysis. In this section, the researcher discusses the finding in detail.
4.1 Findings
In this part, the research findings are presented below concerning the types of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in ten project proposal of Global Peace
Foundation. The first steps are identifying the types of interpersonal metadiscourse markers found in the data source in the form of word, phrase, sentences, and
utterances or expression. The next step is investigate the frequency of it and interpreted the result to see what interpersonal metadiscourse markers can reflect to
the project proposals. The last step is drawing conclusion which is explained in the discussion.
4.1.1 Data Description
The data from introductionoverviewbackground and programprogram detailsactivities from ten project proposal of Global Peace Foundation Indonesia
were analized and tabulated into the table 4.1.1 below:
digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id
Table 4.1.1 Classification Types of Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers
No Interpersonal
Metadiscourse Hedges Boosters Attitude
Markers Self
Mentions Engagement
Markers
I. PROPOSAL ASIA YOUNG LEADER EXCHANGE 2014 1. Besides
H
, v
2. …, it is also an opportunity
B
v
3. … about
H
v
II. PROPOSAL CHARACTER AND CREATIVITY INITIATIVE:
4. … we
SM
v 5.
…, in fact
B
v 6.
… can
EM
v
III. PROPOSAL GLOBAL PEACE VOLUNTEER CAMP 1.15 7. Besides
H
, v
8. Our
SM
v 9.
… seriously
B
v
10. … especially
AM
v
11. … increasingly
AM
v
