Proses Behavioral dalam Novel L'eternita di Roma (LDR) dan Cinta Selamanya

5. Proses Behavioral dalam Novel L'eternita di Roma (LDR) dan Cinta Selamanya

Menurut Halliday (dalam Eggins, 1994), proses tingkah laku adalah perpaduan antara proses material dan proses mental. Oleh karena itu, makna yang diperoleh juga merupakan perpaduan anatara proses material dan proses mental. Mayoritas proses ini hanya memiliki satu partisipan, yang disebut sebagai behaver. Dalam hal ini, walaupun ada partisipan lain yang terlibat, bukan merupakan statement ulang proses yang disebut phenomenon.

a. Proses Behavioral dalam Novel L'eternita di Roma (LDR) Proses behavioral pada novel ini pada tingkat ketiga berdasarkan kemunculannya. Berikut

hasil analisisnya.

Lalu dengan ia tersenyum dan berbalik “Benvenuto a sambil tertawa gembira, susah payah

Roma!” Serunya

lalu berlari dengan memanggul backpacknya.

(Proses Behavioral)

(L'eternita di Roma (LDR): 40)

Memandangi Alexa dari dekat, Carrie

masih terus menggeleng-geleng sambil menangis.

(Proses Behavioral)

(L'eternita di Roma (LDR): 218)

b. Proses Behavioral dalam Novel Cinta Selamanya Proses behavioral pada novel Cinta Selamanya berdasarkan kemunculannya pada tingkat kedua setelah

proses material karena tokoh utama pada novel ini mengalami kedaan yang sangat sulit. Hal ini dikarenakan tokoh utama kehilangan suami untuk selamanya.

Namun, setiap hari, ya setiap hari, ada aja moment saya menangis

Saya jadi cengeng. Bangun, terjaga melihat Kiad,

saya menangis.

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya 256 (KBSP)

IV 2016

Rabu, 13 Februari 2013 pagi,

sedang menangis. Bukan sekali dua kali di saat saya tiba-tiba saya melipir ke sedang jalanpun,

saya terbangun

pojok dan menangis

(Cinta Selamanya : 86-105)

Pada contoh di atas, proses behavorial hanya dapat bervalensi dengan satu partisipan. Proses ini menunjukkan aktivitas fisiologis dalam pengertian luas, baik perilaku fisik yang dapat dilihat seperti gerakan badan, mimik, maupun perilaku fisik yang lebih abstrak.

E. Simpulan

Transitivitas pada novel L’eternita di Roma dianalisis dari segi proses, dominan muncul adalah proses material diikuti oleh proses mental. Hal ini dikarenakan novel L’etenita di Roma merupakan novel bertema traveling dan percintaan remaja. Pada novel Cinta Selamanya, proses yang dominan muncul adalah proses material, sedangkan selanjutnya adalah proses behavioral karena novel ini merupakan kisah nyata penulis yang kehilangan suami.

Proses material dominan muncul dikarenakan tokoh pada kedua novel merupakan wanita karier dan sering melakukan pekerjaan dan perjalanan fisik. Proses mental muncul diakibatkan karena tokoh pada kedua novel mengalami konflik yang cukup pelik karena sama-sama ditinggalkan oleh pasangan.

F. Daftar Pustaka

Basuki, Fira. 2014. Cinta Selamanya. Jakarta: Kompas Gramedia Eggins, S. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter. Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as A Social Semiotics. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Massardi, Cassandra. 2015. L’eternita di Roma. Jakarta: Gramedia.

Sudaryanto. 1987. Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa. Yogyakarta: Masyarakat Linguistik Indonesia Komisariat Universitas Gadjah Mada

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya (KBSP)

IV 2016

UNDERSTANDING PRONUNCIATION VARIATIONS OF JAVANESE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH

Beny Husodo Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

benihusodo@gmail.com 081567908033

Abstract

Indonesia has many languages, as noted in kompasiana.com at 2015 by Nasir, Indonesia has 749 region languages and each language has specific characters that surely make Indonesia full of students with multiple backgrounds of languages, it is clear that ESL students in Indonesia have diversity in their pronunciation. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to describe the diversity of pronunciation which analyze in phonetics and why the diversity exists, with focus on ESL students’ major problems in articulating ( θ), (ð), (ʃ), (ʒ), (ʧ), (ʤ), that phonemes are pronounced by ESL students in Cilacap, Central Java. In this paper, the writer gives another point of view, this paper is not discusses in the term of error analysis or contrastive analysis in pronunciation but it discusses in the term of interlanguage, Selinker (1972) referred interlanguage as second language systematic knowledge independent of both first language and second language (Fauziati, 2011). Therefore, their mistake is not taken as mistake but as progress when ESL students learn the second language.

Keywords: phonetics, pronunciation variations, Javanese ESL students. Paper Background

Indonesia has 749 region languages, the richest language’s owner in the world after New Guinea, around 800 region languages (Nasir, 2015), multiple cultures and races (Hafil, 2015), this matter not only become luck for Indonesia but also lack when they learn second language, ESL students from Indonesia are mostly influence by their mother tongue dialect, they has difficulties to reduce the mother tongue dialect influence. For example, when Indonesia EFL learners pronounced “go” that should be pronounce /g ɑʊ/ but Indonesian learners usually pronounced /go/, this matter because sound /a ʊ/ does not exist in Indonesian (Riyani & Prayogo, 2013).

This case was also proven by Muhaji & Sholeh (2015), in University of Kanjuruhan Malang, they investigated pronunciation problems faced by English department students. The result showed as that the students has difficulties in removing their mother tongue dialect influence, difficulty to pronounce the English phonetics, difficulty in determining the stressed and unstressed syllables, difficulty in recognizing and pronunciation weak sounds, difficulty in pronouncing the suffix of a word correctly.

In this current research, the writer gives another point of view, the writer do not discusses in the term of error analysis or problems in pronunciation but it discusses in the term of interlanguage, Selinker (1972) referred interlanguage as second language systematic knowledge independent of both first language and second language (Fauziati, 2011). Therefore, their mistake is not taken as mistake/problem but as a progress when ESL students learn the second language.

In order to make different research from the previous, the writer takes data from Cilacap of Central Java. Cilacap was taken by the writer as setting of place of this research because Cilacap has special-specific characteristics region language (Indonesian known as ngapak language), with focus on ESL students’ major problems in articulating ( θ), (ð), (ʃ), (ʒ), (ʧ), (ʤ),. Therefore this paper try to describe the glides which make by ESL students in Cilacap in articulating ( θ), (ð), (ʃ), (ʒ), (ʧ), (ʤ), and what are the causes.

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya 258 (KBSP)

IV 2016

A Brief Theoretical Review Pronunciation is the act or manner of pronouncing words; utterance of speech. In other words,

it can also say as a way of speaking a word, especially a way that is accepted or generally understood. In the senses, pronunciation entails the production and reception of sounds of speech and the achievement of the meaning (Kristina & Rarasteja, 2006). This definition gives a briefer pronunciation’s definition. It contains some important keys in pronunciation: act, speaking, production and reception of sound. It means that the words being pronounced should be understandable, in order get the understandable, people should have clear knowledge about phonetics.

Phonetics, like any science, develops over time. New facts emerge, new theories are created, and new solutions to old problems are invented (The International Phonetics Association, 2007). The notational system of any science reflects facts and theories, and so it is natural that from time to time the Alphabet should be modified to accommodate innovations.

Ogden (2009) stated that “Phonetics itself means the study of the sounds of speech” (Ogden, 2009). For further more phonetics provides objective ways of describing and analyzing the range of sounds humans use in their languages (McMahon, 2002). Those people give a clear definition and according to them, phonetics is study of how sounds are produced and the position of mouth when the sounds are produced. Meanwhile, according to Laver (1994) phonetics refers to any learnable aspect of use of the vocal apparatus. Based on the definitions, the writer concluded that phonetics is the study of sound and how they are produced. Phonetics has the organization which focus in standardized them, it call as The International Phonetics Association or IPA. Although they has the standardized the world is so complex, when they learn about second language (especially English as International language) some phonemes cannot pronounced because of some causes, finally comes variation.

Here are the examples of some pronunciation variation in some country based on Lin (2014) research, in Vietnamese, they are hard to pronounce (t) and (d) in the final words because the final consonant does not exist in Vietnamese and then Japanese, in Japanese the entire words end with vowel so they have problems in pronouncing consonant in the final words, and so many more.

As said before though the standardized was made all become equal but the word is too complex, therefore interlanguage is needed as the subject to examine the variation. Selinker (1972) referred interlanguage as second language systematic knowledge independent of both first language and second language (Fauziati, 2011).

Method This paper described the glides which make by ESL students in Cilacap in articulating ( θ), (ð),

( ʃ), (ʒ), (ʧ), (ʤ), and what are the causes based on the principle of descriptive qualitative research, therefore in order to make sure there is no manipulation of data the writer asked the subject to read the text which contained ( θ), (ð), (ʃ), (ʒ), (ʧ), (ʤ), and the record their voice.

Finding and Discussion Finding

Subject 5 Initial

 Middle - - - - - Final

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya (KBSP)

IV 2016

In this case the subjects asked to pronounce thing, think, three, thief and thought to identify ( θ) in the initial, something, anything, everything, ethic and ethnic to identify ( θ) in the middle and both, with, math, north, south to identify ( θ) in the final. Phoneme (θ) is pronounced fricative, interdental and voiceless. The subjects are mostly good in the initial and final but in the middle the subjects are mostly different in pronouncing the phoneme ( θ). They mostly shifted from (θ) to (t) which pronounced stop, alveolar and voiceless.

Subject 5 Initial

 Middle - 

 Final - - - -  In this case the subjects asked to pronounce the, this, that, these, those to identify (ð) in the

initial, brother, father, mother, neither and either to identify (ð) in the middle and breathe, loathe, smooth, scythe and seethe to identify (ð) in the final. Phoneme (ð) is pronounced by fricative, interdental and voiced. The subjects are mostly good in pronounce (ð) in the initial and middle but in the final the subjects are mostly different in pronouncing the phoneme (ð). They mostly shifted (ð) to (t) which pronounced stop, alveolar and voiceless.

Subject 5 Initial

 In this case the subjects asked to pronounce she, show, sure, shoulder, should to identify ( ʃ) in

the initial, patient, pressure, creation, fashion and national to identify ( ʃ) in the middle and gosh, wish, push, trash and English to identify ( ʃ) in the final. Phoneme (ʃ) is pronounced by fricative, alveopalatal and voiceless. The subjects are good in pronouncing ( ʃ) in the initial, middle and final.

Subject 5 Initial Middle - - - -  Final

In this case the writer only found the phoneme ( ʒ) in the middle therefore subjects are asked to pronounce vision, version, luxury, decision and television to identify phoneme ( ʒ) in the middle. Phoneme ( ʒ) is pronounced by fricative, alveopalatal and voiced. The result shows us that phoneme (ʒ) are good enough pronounced by subject 5 and the other subjects are shifted from ( ʒ) become (ʃ).

Subject 5 Initial

( ʧ) Subject 1

Subject 2

Subject 3

Subject 4

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya 260 (KBSP)

IV 2016

Middle 

-- Final

 In this case the subjects asked to pronounce child, charge, change, cheeks and choice to

identify ( ʧ) in the initial, teacher, mature, nature, teaching and watching to identify (ʧ) in the middle and such, which, watch, match and march to identify ( ʧ) in the final. Phoneme (ʧ) is pronounced by affricative, alveopalatal and voiceless. The subjects are good enough in pronouncing ( ʧ) in the initial, middle and final whether there is still wrong pronunciation.

Subject 5 Initial

 Middle - - - -  Final - 

 In this case the subjects asked to pronounce job, just, giant, junior and general to identify ( ʤ)

in the initial, ages, pager, major, region, budget to identify ( ʤ) in the middle and bridge, usage, language, prestige and village to identify ( ʤ) in the final. Phoneme (ʤ) is pronounced by affricative, alveopalatal and voiced. Phoneme ( ʤ) are mostly shifted by four of the subject, it shifted into (ʧ) which pronounced affricative, alveopalatal and voiceless. Only subject five is good enough to pronounce ( ʤ).

Discussion In this discussion, the writer answers the aims of this paper, which the aims are to describe

the sound shift of (θ), (ð), (ʃ), (ʒ), (ʧ), (ʤ) and why they are shifted. In the finding above, the writer finds that phoneme ( θ), in the initial and final word which pronounced by the five subjects, it sound

clear enough, but the problem arise when ( θ) take place in the middle, the sound are shifted from (θ) become (t) which articulated by stop, alveolar and voiceless, it also happen in the final word of phoneme (ð). Furthermore, the writer found new result when subject read “think” ( θɪŋk), the subject lost the final (k), therefore they pronounce “think” like pronounce “thing”, the writer assumed that ESL students in Indonesia are unaccustomed to pronounce ( ŋk) and (ð) in the final because it does not exist in Indonesian alphabet.

Next are ( ʃ) and (ʒ), the subjects are clear enough to pronounce (ʃ) both in initial and middle or final, but the shift arise when subjects pronounce ( ʒ) which should be pronounced by fricative, alveopalatal and voiced it shifted become ( ʃ) which pronounced fricative, alveopalatal and voiceless. Henceforth are ( ʧ) and (ʤ), like above phoneme (ʧ) are clear enough pronounced by the subject but the shift arise when the subject pronounce ( ʤ), it should be pronounce affricative, alveopalatal and voiced but shifted become ( ʧ) which pronounced affricative, alveopalatal and voiceless. The writer assumed that this case because the manner of articulation of alveopalatal voiced phonemes is rare in Indonesia.

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya

Avoiding the problems in articulating the English pronunciation, this paper is concern to discover the variations of pronunciation in Indonesia with brief explanation. It should be received as a progress when ESL students in Indonesia learn second language. The result is glide phonemes found in the middle (θ), final (ð), middle (ʒ), and in the final and middle (ʤ). The glides not found in phoneme ( ʃ) and (ʧ). The writer assumed that cases caused by there are not existences of phonemes ( θ), (ð), (ʃ), (ʒ), (ʧ), (ʤ) in Indonesia, however, if they can pronounce phonemes (θ), (ð), (ʃ), (ʒ), (ʧ), ( ʤ) it should be pass by hard study, and also the subjects has difficulties in removing their mother tongue dialect influence and difficulty to pronounce the English phonetics correctly.

References Fauziati, E. (2011). Interlanguage and error fossilization: A study of Indonesian students learning

English as a foreign. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 23-38. Hafil, M. (2015, Desember 9). Kerajaan Warisan Budaya Indonesia. Retrieved January 12, 2016,

from Republika Online:http://www.republika.co.id/berita/koran/wawasan/15/ 12/09/nz2wsk12kerajaanwarisanbudayaindonesia

Kristina, D., & Rarasteja, Z. (2006). Pronunciation 1. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press. Laver, J. (1994). Principles of Phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lin, L.-C. (2014). Understanding Pronunciation Variations Facing ESL Students. International

Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(5), 16-20. McMahon, A. (2002). Introduction to English Phonology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Nasir, M. (2015, March 26). Mendokumentasikan Bahasa Daerah, Merawat Budaya Bangsa.

Retrieved January 6, 2016, from print.kompas.com:http://print.kompas.com/baca/ 2015/03/26/MendokumentasikanBahasaDaerah.

Ogden, R. (2009). An Introduction to English Phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Riyani, I., & Prayogo, J. (2013). An Analysis of Pronunciation Error Made by Indonesian Singer in

Malang in Singing English Song. English Education of State University of Malang, 1-9. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,

10(3), 219-231. Sholeh, A., & Muhaji, U. (2015). Pronunuciation Difficulties Encoutered By EFL Students in

Indonesia. Jurnal Inspirasi, 5(2), 698-707. The International Phonetics Association. (2007). Handbook of the International Phonetic Association:

A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya 262 (KBSP)

IV 2016

Appendix

SOUND SHIFT RESULT TABLE

Initial Medial Final origin voice origin voice origin voice Thing θɪŋ

Both b əʊθ b əʊθ Think θɪŋk

Something ˈsʌmθɪŋ

s ʌmtɪŋ

With w ɪθ w ɪð . θ Three θriː

Anything ˈɛnɪθɪŋ

ɛnɪtɪŋ

Math mæ θ mæ θ Thief θiːf

cri Everything ˈɛvrɪθɪŋ

ɛvrɪtɪŋ

North n ɔːθ n ɔθ Thought θɔːt

θif

Ethic ˈɛθɪk

ɛtɪk

South sa ʊθ sa ʊθ The ði ː

t ɔt

Ethnic ˈɛθnɪk

ɛtnɪk

Breathe bri ːð brid This ð ɪs

ðe Brother ˈbrʌðə

br ʌðər

ð ɪs

Father ˈfɑːðə

f ɑːðər

Loathe l əʊð l ɔd

Smooth smu ːð smut These ði ːz

.ð That ðæt ðæt Mother ˈmʌðə

m ʌðər

Scythe sa ɪð sa ɪð Those ð əʊz

ðiz Neither ˈnaɪðə

na ɪðər

Seethe si ːð sit She ʃiː

ð ɔz

Either ˈaɪðə

a ɪðər

Gosh g ɒʃ g ɒʃ Show ʃəʊ

ʃi

Patient ˈpeɪʃənt

pe ɪʃənt

Wish w ɪʃ w ɪʃ ʃ

Pressure ˈprɛʃə

pr ɛʃə

Sure ʃʊə

Push p ʊʃ p ʊʃ Shoulder ˈʃəʊldə

ʃʊr

Creation kri( ː)ˈeɪʃən

krie ɪʃən

Trash træ ʃ træ ʃ Should ʃʊd

ʃɔldə

Fashion ˈfæʃən

fæ ʃən

ʃʊd

National ˈnæʃənl

næ ʃənl

English ˈɪŋglɪʃ ɪŋglɪʃ

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya

Vision ˈvɪʒən

v ɪʃən

Version ˈvɜʒən

v ɜʃən

Luxury ˈlʌkʒəri

l ʌkʃəri

Decision d ɪˈsɪʒən

d ɪsɪʃən

Television ˈtɛlɪˌvɪʒən

t ɛlɪvɪʃən

Child ʧaɪld

s ʌʧ Charge ʧɑːʤ

ʧaɪlt

Picture ˈpɪkʧə

p ɪkʧə

Such s ʌʧ

w ɪʧ ʧ

ʧɑrʧ

Nature ˈneɪʧə

ne ɪʧə

Which w ɪʧ

w ɒʧ Cheeks ʧiːks

Change ʧeɪnʤ

ʧeŋ

Mature m əˈtjʊə

m əˈtjʊə

Watch w ɒʧ

Match mæ ʧ mæ ʧ Choice ʧɔɪs

March m ɑːʧ m ɑʧ Job ʤɒb

ʧɔɪs

Watching ˈwɒʧɪŋ

w ɒʧɪŋ

Bridge br ɪʤ br ɪdʃ Just ʤʌst

ʤɒb

Ages ˈeɪʤɪz

e ɪjɪz

Usage ˈjuːzɪʤ usæd ʃ ʤ Giant ˈʤaɪənt

ʤʌst

Pager ˈpeɪʤə

pe ɪjə

Language ˈlæŋgwɪʤ læ ŋgwæʤ Junior ˈʤuːnjə

ʤaɪənt

Major ˈmeɪʤə

me ɪjə

Prestige pr ɛsˈ ːʤ pr ɛsˈtiʃ General ˈʤɛnərəl

ʤuːnjɔ

Region ˈriːʤən

ri ːjən

Village ˈvɪlɪʤ v ɪlæjs *The origin pronunciation based on oxford dictionary.

ʤɛnərəl

Budget ˈbʌʤɪt

b ʌjet

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya (KBSP)

IV 2016 An Analysis of Swearwords used by Instagram Users

IKA MUFIDATUL HASANAH S200140013 ikamufidatulhasanah9@gmail.com

Postgraduate Program of Language Studies Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta

ABSTRACT

The current study deals with swearwords used by Instagram users. This research aims to find out the swearwords classfications (its function and theme), pragmatic functions of the swearwords used, and the most dominant function, theme, and pragmatic use of wearing. The writer has found fifty data taken from both Instagram users’ captions and comments on celebrities’ photos. The writer analyzes swearing types found on Instagram using Ljung’s swearing function and theme. After analyzing the swearwords using Ljung’s categories the writer would like to discuss the pragmatic of the swearwords used by using Trudgill and Andersson’s category. The writer found twelve themes in swearwords function from fifty data. There are curse (4 %), adjectives of dislike (10 %), modal adverbial (2%), name calling (24%), noun supports (10%), affirmation (12%), adjective intensifier (12%), emphasis (6%), interjection (8%), expletive interjection (8%), literal meaning (2%), and anaphoric use of epithets (2%). There are six categories of swearwords theme used; sexual activities (48%), scatological theme (20%), religious theme (16%), ancentors theme (4%), animal theme (20%), and prostitution theme (2%). There are four categories in pragmatic use of swaerwords on Instagram; expletive swearing, abusive, humorous, and auxiliary. There are fourcategories of pragmatic use of swearwords used in Instagram; expletive swearing (6%), abusive swearing (18%), humorous swearing (22%), and auxiliary swearing (68%). The most dominant function of swearwords is name-calling with twelve occurrences and 24% percentage. The most dominant theme used in swearing words data taken is sexual activities with 24 occurrences and 48% percentage. The most dominant pragmatic use of swearing is auxuliary swearing with 34 occurences and 68% percentage.

Keyword: swearwords, swearing, Instagram

A. INTRODUCTION

Swearwords seem so common these days. Moreover, the developments of social networks also influence the use of swearwords. Swearwords like holy shit! damn it! hell no! seem so very easy to find in movies, songs, and even daily posts on social networks.

There are some reasons why the writer chooses swearwords used by Instagram users as the object of the current study. The first, Ljung (2011: 3) stated that studies on swearwords were a long neglected are of research until the research was increased by the year 1970’s. So, the writer would like to contribute herself in swearwords study found in social network especially Instagram. The second, the writer is interested in analyzing the

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya (KBSP)

IV 2016

pragmatic function of swearing used by Instagram users. And the last is the writer wants to analyze the pattern of swearing used by Instagram users.

Based on the arguments the writer has shown above, the writer wants to limit this study on swearwords used by Instagram users to comment on celebrities posted pictures and how celebrities use swearwords as their Instagram captions. Therefore, the writer has arranged the research questions as follow:1) What are swearwords theme used, 2) What are the function classification of swearwords used?, 3) how is the percentage of the swearwords used?, and 4) what are the most used swearword(function and theme)? The result of this study can contribute to the field of swearing study. It can also show to readers the different use of swearing in social network. Moreover, this study also contributes to the study of cyber-pragmatic, specifically in impoliteness side.

B. LITERATURE REVIEW

Hughes (2006) mentioned two kinds of swearing, formal and informal. Formal swearing is a “ritual of social compliance and obligation”, such as in marriage, and court. On the other hand, informal swearing constitutes “a transgression of social codes ranging from the merely impolite criminal.” Montagu in Ljung (2011: 25) mentioned classification of swearing. He mentioned that swearing can be either abusive, adjurative, asservative, ejaculatory or exclamatory, execratory, expletive, hortatory, interjectional and objurgatory swearing. Pinker (2007) in Ljung (ibid) argued that people argue in at least five different ways: Descriptive swearing (e.g Let’s fuck!), Idiomatic swearing (e.g. It’s fucked up!), abusive words (e.g Fuck you motherfucker!), Emphatic swearing (e.g It’s fucking amazing), and cathartic swearing (e.g. Fuck!)

Ljung (2011) categorizes swearing based on its function and themes. He divides swearing functions into three, the stand-alone, the slot filters, and replacive swearing. He divides swearing themes into religious theme, animal theme, scatological theme, mother

theme, and minor theme. Ljung (2011) categorizes swearing based on its function and themes. He divides swearing functions into three, the stand-alone, the slot filters, and replacive swearing. Stand-alone swearing expressions have a less marked illocutionary character, for example the expletive interjections expressing anger, surprise, pain and other feelings, such as God!, Shit!, Jesus Christ!. Other stand-alone swearing expressions are affirmations, denials, ritual insults and name-calling.

Ljung (2011) mentioned some types of swearing, they are: Religious theme, scatological theme, sex organ theme, sexual activities, mother/family theme, and minor theme.

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya 266 (KBSP)

IV 2016

C. RESEARCH METHOD

The data for this research is sentences which consist of swearwords found in comments and captions on Instagram, specifically, they are taken from popular accounts of Instagram users such as singers, models, actors, actresses and so on. The method of data collection is called documentation. After the data are collected, the writer analyzes the data, categorizes them based on the swearing category, analyzes the pattern used in swearing, and identifes the data into pragmatic analysis of swearing used. After doing such analysis, the writer group them based on the categorization and then report them in finding.

D. FINDINGS

The writer has collected 50 data taken from both Instagram users’ captions and comments on celebrities’ photos. The writer analyzes swearing types found on Instagram using Ljung’s swearing function and theme. After that, the pragmatic of the swearwords were analyzed by using Trudgill and Andersson’s category. This part will be divided into three, swearing categorization (function and theme), pragmatic use of swearing, and the percentage of swearing, and the most dominant swearwords used by Instagram users.

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya

1. Fuck u miley u r a asshole

Fuck you: sexual activities asshole= adjectives of dislike Asshole: scatological theme 2. Fucking Vegas

Fuck u=curse

Curse Sexual activities 3. Fucking Sexy….Damn

Modal Adverbial

Fucking: sexual activities Damn: religious

4. Bad bitchezz only Name-calling Animal 5. Umm wtf is kortney spreg

Noun-supports Sexual activities 6. Bro u look gay AF w that

Affirmation Sexual activities blonde hair

7. U bae asffff

Sexual activities 8. This is a bad ass jacket

Noun supports

Noun supports

Scacotological

Sexual activities 10. Hot damn

9. Fuck this stuff

Noun supports

Adjective intensifier

religious

11. Slut Name-calling prostitution 12. Yuck! What’s that fucking

Fucking= sexual activities shit u’re a bristle Shit= scatalogical 13. Ur so damn cute

Adjectives of dislike

Adjectival intensifier

religious

14. Ur so damn hot

15. Nice b**** Name-calling animal 16. He fucking do like his damn Emphasis

Fucking = sexual activity

Damn=religious 17. Emirates bitches

Name-calling animal 18. Bitchimmadonna

Name-calling animal 19. Omf she’s perfect

Interjection Sexual activity 20. Fuck u

Adjectives of dislike

Sexual activity

21. We can change the world if

Noun supports

Sexual activity

you weren’t in it Justin fuck bever

Fuck= sexual activity grows up she’s gonna fck

22. North looks like when she

Affirmation

Bitch=animal

bitches up for no reason lol she be mean mugging ppl 23. Hairline looking like a

Expletive Interjection

religious

goddamn U turn 24. I am an alien fuck with me

-- 25. Lmao the brunettes are hot

LMAO=scatological af and then there’s jack j with

Lmao=expletive interjection

Fuck= sexual activity allis feet almost touching the ground

Hot af=adjective intensifier

26. Get that shit then

Anaphoric use of epithets

Shit=scatalogical

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya 268 (KBSP)

IV 2016

Hell, damn=religious bitch @jaremih damn man

27. How the hell u not tag the

Hell=

Bitch=name-calling

daaammnnn

Damn=expletive Interjection

Bitch=animal

28. Ur fricken hot Emphasis Fricken=fucking=sexual

activity

29. Dear god me nigga I loved

Name-calling

Nigga = ancentors

u 30. I love you ssooo fucking

Emphasis Sexual activity much. Keep doing your thing 31. Justin bieber looks so gay

Adjectives of dislike

Sexual activity

in this picture. Like dafuq? Stop trying sir pls

32. Oh my god so fucking

Adjectival Intensifier

Sexual activity

gorgeous 33. Lucky damn you!

Affirmation religious 34. Fake as fuck

Affirmation Sexual activity 35. Also, lily next time you go

Adjectival Intensifier

Sexual activity

to Laurel Hardware get the steak. It’s so fucking good

36. Did she steal declans bear Name-calling animal bitch

37. They r fake Ugly stupid

Adjectives of dislike

animal

spoil bitches 38. This bitch is your twin

Name-calling animal 39. What is it with people

Name-calling

Bitches = animal

talking about the devil witches Bullshit = scatological blah blah bullshit! Bitches shes @madonna

40. @madonna those young Affirmation Sexual activities days will never ever come back.. you’re old as fuck now… Bye

41. Wtf Interjection Sexual activities 42. This is so creepy omfg

Expletive

Sexual activities

Interjection

43. She not really hot niggas Name-calling Ancentors 44. Lmaoo true true

Interjection Scatological 45. Lmao with those hashtags

Interjection scatalogical tho 46. Say that again bitch

Name-calling Sexual activity 47. Fucking queen

Affirmation Sexual activity 48. Whoever tells u ur ugly or

Expletive Interjection

Scatological

dumb n shit their ugly and dumb cuz they don’t know what’s perfect n that’s u…..

49. Badass Interjection scatological 50. Ugly as fuck

Adjective of dislike

Sexual activities

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya (KBSP)

IV 2016

Based on the pragmatic function of swearing, the writer analyzed the pragmatic function of swearing used using Trudgill categorization of pragmatic function:

a. Expletive swearing means swearing is used to express emotions without directing it to others. Expletive swearing is usually used when angry, From 50

data, There are three data included into exxpletive data because there is no intention from the user to say it. There is no clear direction to whom they say it, just like Wtf (number 41), Fuck u (number 20), and Whoever tells u ur ugly or dumb n shit their ugly and dumb cuz they don’t know what’s perfect n that’s u….. (number 48)

b. Abusive swearing is used to harm the hearer. from 50 data the writer found 9 data used as abusive swearing. Here are the data categorized as abusive swearing which may cause to harm the hearer: We can change the world if you weren’t in it Justin fuck bever. In writer’s opinion, the user use this swearing to directy harm Beliebers. The effect might come up are some protest from Bieber’s Fans. That’s why it includes abusive swearing.In madonna those young days will never ever come back.. you’re old as fuck now… Bye. the user tend to mock Madonna because she is not young anymore and affirm that she is not as good as she was young.

c. Humorous swearing often looks like abusive swearing, ‘but has the opposite function.’ I t is just used as joking. From 50 data the writer found 11 data which are categorized as Humorous swearing. Swearing as joking can be calling herself with swearing like Bad bitchezz only (taken from Miley’ account), or Bitchimmadonna (Madonna). This data are taken from celebrities captions in whch they have no intention to harm anyone. Moreover Miley wrote a caption like this Fucking Vegas, of course this is just a joking. Nobody want their city to be added with swearing that way.

d. Auxiliary swearing. From 50 data taken there are 34 data included in Auxiliary swearing in which they are used as just auxiliaries, no intentions, as

a joke or even to harm people or undirect swearing (expletive). In describing the use of auxiliary swearing can be easier if we use some speech acts categories like the writer has mentioned above, for example:

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya 270 (KBSP)

IV 2016

- Complementing such in Lmao the brunettes are hot af and then there’s jack j with allis feet almost touching the ground, Ur so damn cute - Confirming like How the hell u not tag the bitch @jaremih damn man daaammnnn - Suggesting like Also, lily next time you go to Laurel Hardware get the steak. It’s so fucking good - Showing Love: I love you ssooo fucking much. Keep doing your thing

- Mocking like Fuck u miley u r a asshole, Dear god me nigga I loved u - Expressing dislike like Fake as fuck

3.3 Percentage of Swearwords used

This part will be divided into three; the first is discussing swearwords function, followed by theme, and pragmatic use of swearing. After presenting the percentage of each part, the dominant occurence will be revealed.

Table 3.3.1 Swearwords Function Percntage

FUNCTION OCCURENCE PERCENTAGE

Curse 2 4% Adj of dislikes

Modal Adverbial

Name Calling

Noun Supports

Affirmation 6 12% Adjective intensifier

emphasis 3 6% Interjection 4 8% Expletive interjection

Literal meaning

Anaphoric use of epithets

Total 50 100%

Table 3.3.2 Swearwords Theme Percentage

THEME OCCURENCE PERCENTAGE Sexual activities

Scatological theme

religious 8 16% animal 10 20% prostitution 1 2% ancentors 2 4% Total 50 100%

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya

Pragmatic Function of Swearwords Theme

PRAGMATIC FUNCTION

OCCURENCE

PERCENTAGE

Expletive 3 6% Abusive 9 18% Humorous 11 22% auxiliary 34 68% Total 50 100%

From the three tables above, we can see the most dominant swearwords used. The first is the function of swearwords. From the table above, the most dominance swearwords function used by Instagram users is as name calling with twelve occurrences and 24% as the percentage. The second is the theme of swearwords. The most dominant theme of swearwords used is sexual activities. A seen on the table, it has 26 occurrences and 52% as the percentage. The last is pragmatic use of swearing. The most dominant pragmatic use of swearing is as auxiliary with 34 occurrences and 68% as the percentage.

E. CONCLUSION

After analyzing sweaing used by Instagram users either to make a caption or comment on one’s picture the writer concludes that using same swearwords in different context may mean different interpretation. Swearing can be a used as humor, or even abuse someone. But the most important thing is to say something in the proper way based on the context.

REFERENCES

Hughes, Geoffrey. (2006). An Encyclopedia of Swearing. M.E. Sharpe, Inc.: New York. Ljung, Magnus. (2011). Swearing: A Cross-cultural Linguistic Study. Palgrave

MacMillan: New York. Pinker, S. (2007) The Stuff of Thought. Language as a Window into Human Nature. New York: Viking. Trudgill, P. and Andersson, L. (1990) Bad Language, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Limited.

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya (KBSP) IV 2016

IMPROVING STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL THROUGH DISCUSSION IN GRADE XI OF SMA MUHAMMADIYAH 5 JATEN 2012/2013

ACADEMIC YEAR

Linna Marngatun Muflikhah, S.Pd marngatunmuflikhah@gmail.com 0857 0267 2810

Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta

The objectives of this research are to describe whether or not teaching speaking by using discussion method can increase students’ speaking skill and to identify the difficulties faced by the students in using discussion as method to increase their speaking skill in grade XI of SMA M 5 Jaten. In achieving the objectives of this research, the researcher uses collaborative research. Each cycle of this research consists of four steps: planning, implementing, observing, and reflecting. The subjects of this research consist of

26 students. In analyzing the data the researcher uses both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis was done based the process of teaching and learning process. While quantitative analysis done based to the scores of pre-test and post-test. There were three cycles in this research, each cycle conducted in two meetings. The result of the research shows that the average score of pre-test is 37.6, post-test one is 5.6, post-test two is 2 53, post-test three is 3 66.15 and final test is 63. Those scores indicate that the students have an improvement in speaking ability. Through discussion the students become more confident and more critical. Then, it can be called that teaching speaking through Discussion is succesful to improve students speaking ability in SMA M

5 Jaten. There were some weaknesses of discussion; (1) just problematic materials could be used, (2) some of them depend on with clever students, (3) many students may dominated the discussion, (4) subjective scoring, (5) moves slowly the class, and (6) takes long time.

Key word: Speaking skill, Discussion, Improvement, Teaching Method, Collaborative research.

A. Introduction

Tarigan (1990:3-4) defines speaking as a language skill which is developed in childhood preceded with listening skill. It means that speaking is the basic skill in learning language. Indeed, people mostly use language for communication. Hornby (1997:37) states that through speaking language learners will be judged upon most in real life situation. It is an important part of everyday interaction and most often the first impression of a person based on his or her ability to speak fluently and comprehensively.

Discussion is one of the methods which can be used to teach speaking. According to Jones (1994:1) “discussion is an activity in which people talk together in order to share information about a topic or problem or to seek possible available evidence or a solution”. Discussion is one of the way people can improve their speaking ability with talk to each other. It is means to make students active to communicate with others then they can learn second language not intentionally. The student ought to build their critical thinking and being brave to say what in their main. The aims of the discussion based on Brookfield (2006:2) are to develop critical, informed understanding, enhance self-critique, foster appreciation for diverse views, and help people take informed action.

Previous studies have studied about method of teaching speaking, for example Nugroho (2011) used animated video, Chandra (2008) used language game for teaching speaking, Hanim (2011) used U-shape seating arrangement for teaching speaking, Awaliaturrahmawati (2012) used outdoor activities to increase speaking skill, Hartati

(KBSP) IV 2016

(2012) used games to improve students speaking skill, Ristyawati (2012) used telling short story to improve students speaking skill, Wijayani (2012) used stimulation to improve students speaking skill, Salam (2011) used Role –Play to improve students speaking skill, and Sulistyatini (2011) used semantic mapping to improve students speaking skill. Nevertheless research on the use of discussion has never been studied before, therefore this study to fill the gap.

B. Literary Review 1. Speaking Skill

Tarigan (1990:15) states that “speaking is ability to produced articulation sounds or sentences that express an idea or feeling”. Based on his theory speaking is the device to communicate ideas arranged and developed depending on listener needed. Then, Hurlock (1998:176) states that “speaking is language form that used articulation or sentences that used for delivered mean of the idea”. He defines that the idea of speaking is the effective one for communication, broader, and the important one. Hurlock (1998:176) speaking not only engages coordination between the different voice muscle mechanisms, but also has a mental aspect which is a capability to catch the meaning and the sound produced. According to Tarigan (1990:15) the goal of the speaking is “communication”. For the effectiveness to deliver the meaning of the idea then both the speaker and the listener ought to understand the idea of the conversation. There are many aspects of speaking skill there are utterance, Vocabulary, grammar, content and meaning, and pronunciation.

2. Notion of Discussion

According to Jones (1994:1) “discussion is an activity in which people talk together in order to share information about a topic or problem or to seek possible available evidence for solution”. Arends (2008:74) states that “discussion is to engage in verbal interchange and to express thought on particular subjects”. Tarigan (1985:36) states that “discussion is one of the methods that solve the problems through think group, cooperation, and steps”. Brookfield (2006:2) states that “discussion is discipline and focused exploration of mutual concerns but with no end point predetermined in advance”. According to Jones (1996:1) there are types of discussion;

a. The whole-class Discussion is the type generally referred to when facilitators employ the discussion method. The facilitator simply leads an informal discussion involving the class as a whole. The facilitator, as the director of the discussion, asks questions, clarifies student comments, and makes tentative summaries to help students achieve understanding of the topic.

b. Debate is generally used in the classroom as a small- group technique, with a small number of students teamed on either side of an issue. Each team is given a specific amount of time to present its "side" of the issue. The members can alternate presentations and often are identified as "pro" and "con" with respect to the issue. Rebuttals of specific time duration then follow the presentations. Upon conclusion of the debate, the facilitator can enter into a whole-class discussion on the issue.

c. Position Reversal Debate is similar to debate, except both groups are required to take notes on the other team 's "position presentation." Teams then switch positions and debate the other point of view using the notes.

They then work on solving the problem that started the debate utilizing vantage points from both points of view. This discussion format helps students develop conflict resolution, problem solving, and consensus building skills.

274 (KBSP) IV 2016

3. Previous Study

There have been some previous studies on method of teaching speaking; Nugroho (2011) had conducted a research on the use of Animated video to improve speaking skill. He found that the animated video could improve the students’ speaking skill especially in using grammar, using the appropriate vocabulary, and pronouncing the words correctly. Candra (2008) had conducted a research on the use of Language Games in teaching speaking skill. Her research shows that most of the students of the English as a Foreign Language are quite difficult to improve their English speaking ability since they are accustomed to use their native language in their daily life.

Although many previous study studied on methods of teaching speaking, nevertheless research on the use of discussion has never been studied before, therefore this study to fill the gap.

C. Research Method

The writer used collaborative method. A collaborative method is the method that the researcher makes collaboration with the teacher for teaching lessons. Katz and Martin (1997: 1) state that “research collaboration” could be defined as the working together of researchers to achieve the common goal of producing new scientific knowledge”. Then, both researcher and the teacher are working together to achieve the goal.

The data of this research taken from the result of pre-test and post test. Technique of collecting data, the researcher used instrument namely: observation, interview and documentation. The steps in analyzing the data as follows:

1. Observing the process of teaching learning before used the discussion method in teaching speaking in grade XI of SMA Muhammadiyah 5 Jaten

2. Discussing the process of the discussion method in teaching learning process in grade XI of SMA Muhammadiyah 5 Jaten 3. Collecting the data from the observation of teching learning process and interview the teacher and the student 4. Classify the data from observation and interview at SMA Muhammadiyah 5 Jaten 5. Discussing the finding of the research 6. Drawing conclusion and giving suggestion from the research

D. Findings and Discussion

In this research the researcher found the students’ pronounciation and fluency increased significantly. In this research the researcher used discussion in the form of debate for her method of teaching speaking. The following is the model used by the researcher:

Government Opposite

The researcher divided the class into two groups government and opposite. After that the teacher gave the students the issue for debate, the researcher gave them ten minutes for building case. After finishing building case the researcher asked government team to deliver their argument, then it was continued by opposite team argument and their The researcher divided the class into two groups government and opposite. After that the teacher gave the students the issue for debate, the researcher gave them ten minutes for building case. After finishing building case the researcher asked government team to deliver their argument, then it was continued by opposite team argument and their

Not all students speak only few of them. Just the speaker could measure their speaking abilty. The researcher solved this problem by giving direction to the students to organize their teams such as some of them delivered arguments, some of them asked question, and some of them answered the questions.

The implementation of the discussion method was conducted in three cycle and eight meetings. The researcher used discussion as her method in teaching speaking. The researcher showed the increasing students’ speaking ability in the diagram bellow:

The diagram shows that the average scores were pre-test (37,6), post-test 1 (45,6), post-test 2 (53), post-test 3 (66,15) and final test (63). The diagram above shows the effectiveness of discussion method implemented in speaking class. The students increased their speaking ability rapidly. It is supported by the result of the questionare. It is shows 96,15% students agreed to apply discussion as their method for learning English.

The result of the graphics above showed that teaching speaking using discussion method was effective because it could improve students speaking ability. The students could learn from her/his friends and solve the problems by discussion. Then, the teacher was not as the main source of the materials but her/his friends. The students who had the background knowledge tried to explain to their friends.

Although, the students still made errors in pronouncing some words such as: [s] cell phone, [ ] study, [aI] mobile, [e] lesson, and [ ɝː] disturb, the researcher also showed students’ errors as follows:

Students Number

Pre –Test

Final –Test

1 Silent - 2[ ə] [ŋ] 3[ ʌ] -

4- - 5 [i] [e] - 6 - [a ɪ] 7 Absent [e]

8- -

9 [t ]

10 Absent Absent 11 [e] [a ɪ] [aɪ]

276 (KBSP) IV 2016

12 - - 13 Silent - 14 - - 15 - -

20 Silent - 21 Absent

[e] 22 - Absent 23 [ ŋ] Absent 24 - - 25 [ ʌ] - 26 [ ʊ] Absent

The student improvement showed not only from their pronunciation but also from their fluency. In pre test the researcher used theme of discussion should not bring mobile phone to the school in the class in discussion session. The researchers choose this theme because this theme is the hot issue in that school. Then they used it for discussion in the pre and post test. Here are the example of student discussion with the theme should not bring mobile phone to the school in pre and final test:

Name Pre Test Final Test

Devi “I am agree because very disturb “In my opinion I am agree with the Anggraini

teaching learning, can make case, because can lose students student lazy”

concentration in study, to hit school discipline, make students be lazy to study. I think better should not bring mobile phone to the school. In other not disturb students achievement in study “

Istiqomah “I am agree because disturb “In my opinion I am agree with the teaching learning process better case, because if students bring teaching...”

mobile phone to the school of course will effected playing mobile phone and not study, I think better school should not give permission to bring mobile phone to the school”

Jantung Did not say anything “I am agree with it. Because if we Nawang

bring mobile phone to the school can disturb teaching learning and maybe they will use mobile phone for something not useful, for example: send message, facebook or etc. I think better if we not bring mobile phone to the school, so we can more focus in teaching learning process.”

Aliffunny “I am agree because because “I am agree because bring mobile Pusparirin

disturb the study. I hope the phone to the school students can students pay attention the teacher play games and disturb teaching and study process”

learning process. I think better should not bring mobile phone at school or off it and save it in the

(KBSP) IV 2016

home, then the students can focus in study”

After several treatments the students were more quickly memorized sentences they wrote. Because they had been familiar with the vocabularies they could memorize faster in post test than before in pre test.

Based on the result of research, discussion had advantage and disadvantage. There were some advantages of discussion; (1) it gave entire class opportunity to deliver their idea, (2) the students could drill the target language; (3) discussion could stimulate critical thinking, (4) discussion involved the whole class, and (5) the students solved the problem as teamwork. There were some disadvantages of discussion; (1) just problematic materials could be used, (2) some of them depend on with clever students, (3) many students may dominated the discussion, (4) the class moved slowly, and (5) discussion took long time.

E. Conclusion

Teaching speaking by using discussion method can improve students’ speaking ability by drilling them in argument, question and answer. It can be seen from their increasing average from pre-test till final test. By teaching speaking using discussion the students were more active, and it increased student enthusiasm, and made them think critically.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Awaliaturrahmawati, Dewi .2012. Increasing Students’ Speaking Ability Using Outdoor Activities At The Seventh Year Of SMP PGRI 13 Gondangrejo In 2011/2012 Academic Year. Skripsi thesis, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta.

Arikunto, Suharsimi. 1998. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta: Rineka cipta

Arends, R.I. (2008). Learning to Teach. McGraw-Hill Higher Education

Brookfield, Stephen. 2006. Discussion as Away of Teaching. USA. Stepehen Brookfield

Candra, Noor Eka. 2008. Teahing Speaking Skill through Language Games. Skripsi thesis. UNLAM Banjarmasin

Fauziati, Endang, 2009. Introduction to Methods and Approaches in Second or Foreign language Teaching. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University Press.

Fauziati, Endang, 2010. Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) . Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University Press.

Gall, Meredith Damien and Maxwell Gillet. 2001. The discussion method in classroom teaching. Autralia: copyright 2001

Hurlock, Elizabeth B. 1998. Perkembangan Anak. Jilid 1. Jakarta: penerbit Erlangga

Hornby. 1995.Definition of Speaking skill .New York: publisher.

278 (KBSP) IV 2016

Hartati, Sih Minarsi .2012. Improving Students’ Speaking Competence By Using Games For The Second Grade Students Of Sma Al Islam 1 Surakarta Academic Year 2008/2009. Thesis thesis, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta.

Jones. 1996. Discussion. The expert educator, 1 (1-4)

Khomarudin, Mohamad. 2012. A Descriptive Study Speaking Teaching-Learning Process at the Second Year of SMA N 2 Sukoharjo. Unpublished Research Paper. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18. Kartono, Kartini, 1990. Pengantar Metodologi Riset Sosial. Bandung: Manda Maju.

Kerap, gories. 1991. Tata Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Nusantara

Nugroho, Aris sulistyo. 2011. Improving Students’ Speaking Skill By Using Animated Videos (An Action Research at the First Year of SMP N 15 Surakarta in the 2010/2011 Academic Year). Skripsi thesis. Sebelas Maret university

Ristyawati, Dhiana .2012. Increasing Student's Speaking By Telling Short Story At The First Year Of SMP N 2 Bendosari Sukoharjo in 2011/2012 Academic Year. Skripsi thesis, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta.

Sajjad, Shahida. 2012. Effective Teaching Methods At Higher Education Level. Thesis. University of karachy Pakistan

Salam, Afdhalus .2011. Improving Students Speaking Ability By Using Role-Play (A Classroom Action Research At The Sixth Grade Of Sdn 01 Karangturi-Lasem). Skripsi thesis, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta.

Sulistyantini, Sri Esti .2011. Improving Students’ Speaking Skill Through Semantic Mapping (A Classroom Action Research of the Tenth Grade Students in SMK Negeri 2 Karanganyar in the Academic Year 2009 / 2010). Skripsi thesis, UMS.

Sugiyono. 2012. Statistika Untuk Penelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta

Tarigan. 1985. Prinsip-Prinsip Dasar Sastra. Bandung: PT Aksara

Tarigan, Hendry Guntur. 1985. Berbicara Sebagai Suatu Keterampilan Berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa

Tarigan, Hendri Guntur. 1990. Berbicara Sebagai Suatu KeterampiloanBerbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa

Tarigan, Hendri Guntur. 1991. Metodologi Pengajaran Bahasa. Edisi 1. Bandung: Penerbit angkasa

Welty, William M. 1989. Discussion Method Teaching: a Practical Guide. Nebraska Licoln: digitalcommons@university of Nebraska Licoln

(KBSP) IV 2016

279

Wijayani A.N.R , Arifah .2012. Improving Students’ Speaking Competence Through Simulation in SMA Al Islam 1 Surakarta Academic Year 2009/2010. Thesis thesis, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta.

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya (KBSP) IV 2016

THE FUCNCTION OF HEDGING DEVICES USED IN “ROOM FOR DEBATE” POSTED IN NEW YORK TIMES ONLINE WEBSITE

Risti Yani Rahmawati (yizty_rahmawaty@yahoo.com) 085727288623 MAGISTER OF LANGUAGE STUDIES ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA Jl. A.Yani Tromol Pos 1, Pabelan, Kartasura, Jawa Tengah

Abstract

According to Hyland (1998), hedging is the mean by which writers can present a proposition as an opinion rather than a fact: items are only hedges in their epistemic sense, and only when they mark uncertainty. Hedges can be either lexical (e.g.: assume, may, possible) or structural (e.g. passive form) devices through which writers can show their uncertainty towards the proposition. This study attempts 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 used 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 avoiding 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.

Keyword: Hedging, New York Times, Poly-pragmatic Model

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

Hedging has acquired considerable scholarly attention in recent years in relation to linguistics studies. In general, hedging has shown to be an essential element of different genres such as research articles (Hyland, 1998, 1999), advertisements

(KBSP) IV 2016

(Fuertes-Olivera et al., 2001) as well as newspaper opinion articles (Dafouz, 2003, 2008) and editorials (Abdollahzadeh, 2007). Hedging shows the degree of tentativeness, possibility and/or politeness that writers use in their texts. According to Camiciottoli (2003: 9), hedges help writers to present information in a clear, convincing and interesting way to promote acceptance and understanding, as well as reader-writer solidarity. Hedges can act as persuasive devices to affect and influence the reader’s reactions to texts according to the values and established rules and conventions of a discourse community.

Considering the significant of hedges, there are a large number of studies have been conducted to investigate this phenomenon in academic and scientific discourse. As evidence, the majority of studies on hedging are found to be concerned with academic writing, particularly with research articles genre across different disciplines and different languages (Salager-Meyer, 1994; Meyer, 1997; Skelton, 1997; Namsaraev, 1997; Crompton, 1997; Hyland, 1994; 1996; 1998; Vartala, 2001; Lewin, 2005; Vold, 2006; Falahati, 2007; Martin, 2008; Vasquez & Giner, 2008). Hedging has also been studied in genres even like architecture project descriptions (Cabanes, 2007) and legal discourse (Vass, 2004).

However surprisingly little attention has been given to the newspaper genre, whilst this genre can be considered as “some of the most adequate examples of persuasive writing” (Connor, 1996 cited in Dafouz-Milne, 2008), where writers should

be concerned about the choice of appropriate language to convey the information as clearly an accurately as possible, and what is more important to achieve readers’ attention and trust. It is quite noticeable that there is another important news source in the newspaper which is called “Room for Debate” containing opinion articles from experts covered in the form of written debate. New York Times is one of the newspapers which provide this column. In fact, the study on the use of hedges in “Room for Debate” is still limited since not all newspaper provides this column and this requires more studies to be conducted. Thus, the purpose of the present study is to investigate the hedging devices used in “Room for Debate” posted in New York Times online website. In this study, the writer focuses on the types and frequencies of hedge used in articles from group debate in six topics including business, economy, politic, environment, health, and technology. Further, this study will be conducted to find out the possible functions of hedging devices in “Room for Debate” published on New York Times online website.

B. Limitation of the Study

This study attempts to investigate the types and frequencies of hedging devices used in “Room for Debate” posted in New York Times online website in the section of politic, economic, business, environment, health and technology. Further, this study is conducted to find out the possible functions of hedging devices in “Room for Debate” published on New York Times online website.

C. Problem Statement

The present study attempts to address the following research questions: 1. What are the forms and frequencies of hedging devices used in “Room for Debate” posted on New York Times online website? 2. What are the possible functions of hedging devices in “Room for Debate” posted on New York Times online website?

D. Objective of the Study

In accordance with the background and the research questions, the following are the objectives of the study: 1. To describe the forms and frequencies of hedging devices used in “Room for Debate” articles posted on New York Times online website. 2. To describe the possible functions of hedging devices in “Room for Debate” articles posted on New York Times online website.

282 (KBSP) IV 2016

E. Benefit of the Study

The benefits of the study are as follows: 1. Theoretical Benefit The result of the study is expected to provide additional information about the forms of hedging devices used in online newspaper. 2. Practical Benefit a. The implications of this study will be useful for English for Specific Purpose

(ESP) developers, English for Academic Purpose (EAP) developers to teach hedges in writing and reading comprehension activities about particular topics.

b. This study can help Indonesia writers and readers to acquire a better knowledge on the use of hedges in newspaper discourses.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Historical Background of Hedging

In the field of hedging studies, there is still little clarity and agreement as to what counts as a hedge. In different studies hedges are defined differently, which reflects the difficulty of determining what exactly the hedge is.

In the brief history of linguistics, based on Hyland (1998: 1), the term “hedge” was introduced by Lakoff (1972) who defines a hedge as a word “whose job is to make things fuzzier or less fussy”. The definition of hedges is expanded and enriched by many scholars later. Brown and Levinson (1987: 145) state that a hedge is “a particle, word or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or a noun phrase in a set”, which is a supplement to Lakoff’s definition.

Hyland (1996a: 437) argued that hedging devices “ do not fit into a neat scheme of discrete categories which allows one meaning to be clearly distinguished from others”, moreover assigning specific meaning exclusively to particular forms is not always possible. The reason for this difficulty is that “hedging devices may convey a range of meanings for particular users in particular contexts” (Hyland, 1998:156). Due to the poly-pragmatic nature of hedging devices, which can cover an array of purposes such as “weakens force of statement, contains modal expressions, and expresses deference, signal uncertainty, and so on” (Hyland, 1998:103). Hyland (1998) developed a fuzzy category model for hedging devices, which allows more than a single unequivocal pragmatic interpretation of hedges and overlap of usage.

B. Hedging Functions in Poly-Pragmatic Model

Due to the poly-semous and poly-pragmatic nature of hedging devices, Hyland confirms that assigning specific meanings exclusively to particular forms is not possible. According to this model, hedges can cover an array of purposes such as "weakens force of statements, contains modal expressions, as well as expresses deference, signals uncertainty, and so on" (Hyland: 160). Hyland by proposing this scheme tries to capture the multi-functional nature of the hedges which enables them to have a range of meanings at the same time.

Figure 2.1: A model of scientific hedging (Hyland, 1998: 156)

(KBSP) IV 2016

As can be seen, Hyland (1998: 156) divided hedging devices in two main categories: content-oriented hedges and reader-oriented devices. According to Hyland (1998: 162) content-oriented hedges “serve to mitigate the relationship between propositional content and a non-linguistics mental representation of reality; they hedge the correspondence between what the writer says about the world and what the world is thought to be like”. Content-oriented hedges further subdivided into accuracy- oriented hedges and writer oriented hedges.

The accuracy-oriented hedges refer to “writer’s desire to express proposition with greater precision” which are further divided into attribute and reliability hedges. Based on Hyland (1998: 164) the first subtype of the accuracy oriented hedges, attribute hedges, help writers to specify more accurately” how far their results approximate to an idealized state and the second subtype, reliability hedges, indicate the amount of writer’s certainty or uncertainty in a proposition.

Furthermore, Hyland (1998: 170) defined the second category of content- oriented hedges is writer-oriented hedges, which are often associated with higher level claim than accuracy-oriented ones”. While accuracy-oriented hedges are proposition- focused and writer-oriented hedges are writer-focused and “aim to shield the writer from the possible consequences of negotiability by limiting personal commitment”. Based on Hyland (1998: 171), the most distinctive characteristics of writer-oriented hedged is the absence of writer agentivity, so the common means of expressing this type of hedge are passive constructions, ‘abstract rhetors’, epistemic lexical verbs with judgmental and evidential meaning, attribution to the source of claim. This category of hedges “helps minimize writers’ personal involvement and allows them to maintain a distance from a proposition” (Hyland, 1998: 171).

Along with accuracy-oriented and writer-oriented hedges, Hyland (1998) distinguished reader-oriented category of hedges. The main distinction between these categories is the reader-oriented hedges mostly deal with the interpersonal interaction between readers and writers. Hyland (1998: 182) considered personal attribution and reference marked by pronouns such as I, we, my, our as the main indicators of reader- oriented hedges. By using these markers, authors show that the propositions stated are their “personal opinion, allowing the readers to choose the more persuasive explanation” and have their own judgment (Hyland, 1998: 182).

RESEARCH METHOD

A. Research Type

This research is conducted by using qualitative method. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2000), the qualitative research approach seeks to explore and understand people’s beliefs, experiences, attitudes, behaviours, and interactions, the goal of which “is to understand the process and character of social life and to arrive at meaning types, characteristics, and organizational aspects of documents as social products in their own right, as well as what they claim to represent” (Altheide, 1996: 42). This approach is particularly relevant in the present study because the researcher sought to investigate and understand the underlying motivations (i.e. discourse functions) of the use of the hedges in articles collected from “Room for Debate” in New York Times website.

B. Research Object

The research object of this study is 150 opinion articles posted in the influential and prestigious newspaper in the United States, New York Times, particularly in “Room for Debate”. In addition, their opinion articles cover 6 varieties of topics that include business (abbreviated as Bsn), economy (Ec), politic (Polit), environment (Env), health (Hlt), and technology (Tech). Each topic consists of 25 opinion articles which are from 5 groups of debate. In other words, there are 5 opinion articles in each group.

284 (KBSP) IV 2016

The articles will be selected randomly from “Room for Debate" published in New York Times during the recent five years (2012-2015). The following table provides the distribution of length of the article in words across disciplines.

Table 3.1 Topic Business Economy Politic Environment Health Technology Total Length 8.812 10.325 9.480

C. Technique of Collecting Data

To carry out the present study, the writer uses the documentation for collecting the data. The following are the steps for collecting the data: a. Logging in to the New York Times online website. b. Collecting 200 articles from the online archives of “Room for Debate” in the

New York Times online website based on the chosen topics that will be analyzed. In this case, the writer chooses 6 topics that include business (abbreviated as Bsn), economy (Ec), politic (Polit), environment (Env), health (Hlt), and technology (Tech).

c. Saving all the texts into the computer to form a database of corpora. d. Choosing 150 articles for the analysis after checking and controlling the

topics and the length of articles.

D. Technique of Analyzing Data

One of the main objectives of the present study is to identify and classify the form of hedging devices used in “Room for Debate” in New York Times online website. Another aim is to analyze the functions of identified hedges. In order to achieve these objectives, the present study bases on theoretical framework proposed by Hyland (1998: 99).

According to this model, analysis of hedging in writing involves the following levels of linguistics description and inquiry: 1. Quantitative surface-level analysis of hedges employed in the particular genre. 2. Pragmatic analysis of their functions (Hyland, 1998: 99) The purpose of quantitative analysis is to characterize the extent of hedging and its major forms in a representative sample of texts, while pragmatic analysis seeks to identify the purposes served by items in particular cases.

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

A. The Forms and Frequencies of Hedging Devices Used in ‘Room for Debate’

Posted on New York Times Online Websites

The form of hedges analysis in this study refers to the ten types of hedges composed by Hyland (1998). Those ten categories are called surface features taxonomy. Essentially, the findings of the present study strongly indicates that news articles in “Room for Debate” published in New York Time online website employs ten types of hedges that can be seen through the following table.

Table 4.1 The Types and Frequency of Hedging Devices

Hedging Forms Bsn Eco Polit Env Hlt Tech Total % Modal

Auxiliaries Hedging

Numerical Data Epistemic

(KBSP) IV 2016

Lexical Verbs Epistemic

Adjectives Epistemic

Adverbs Epistemic Noun

2 0,21% Hypothetical

None None None 1 1 None

condition Direct Question

3 1 5 0,5% Reference to

None None

1 None

2 1 3 0,3% limited knowledge Passive

None None None None

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 are 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%.

B. The Possible Functions of Hedging Devices in “Room for Debate” Posted on New York Times Online Website

The pragmatic analysis was carried out to identify the possible functions of hedging devices which was in accordance with the adapted classification from an approach, namely Hyland’s (1998) poly-pragmatic model of hedging functions. The resulting working classification recognized three functional types of hedges that will be discussed more in detail in the following.

1. Accuracy-Oriented Hedges

As has already been noted, this functional strategy is concerned primarily with “writer’s desire to express proposition with greater precision” (Hyland, (1998: 162). The category of accuracy-oriented hedge shows some interesting finding. The principal forms used for this are for instances certain kinds of attribute type and reliability type.

Attribute hedges help writers to specify more accurately how far their results “approximate to an idealized state” (Hyland, 1998: 164). This hedge has contribution for emphasizing what the writer’s believe to be correct.

(1) Furthermore, movements of big lobsters make them more likely to be in the “right place”

to avoid adverse conditions, including unfavorably warm waters; better able to reseed areas where stocks have been depleted. (Env, 604) Some items in this relatively small class of adverbs therefore indicate that a

generalization is being made (Quirk et al, 1972:509) and therefore hedge the accompanying statement:

(2) Although prescription drugs are heavily marketed, the F.D.A. generally requires that ads

disclose side effects. (Hlt, 810) Quirk et al (ibid: 452f) refer to a category of intensifying adjuncts they call

‘downtoners’ which have a “lowering effect on the force of the modified verb”. The purpose of downtoners in formal academic prose is to restrict the meanings and reduce

286 (KBSP) IV 2016

the qualitative and emotive implications of verbs, adjectives, and abstract nouns (Hyland, 1998: 135).

(3) Preventing death is usually desirable, and we have institutions and professions to serve that purpose.(Hlt, 815) The underlined words show that the writers tend to modify the assertions that

they make by toning down uncertain or potentially risky claims. Epistemic adjectives serve to reduce the writer’s categorical commitment, the inclusion of consistent with as a hedge being confirmed by a contrast with prove: (4) The odds are, then, that we’ll end up with a vague textual guarantee. But a vague textual guarantee is unlikely to persuade judges to mandate large-scale reform given their cautious nature. (Polit, 430)

2. Writer-Oriented Hedges

Hyland (1998: 170) defined the second category of content-oriented hedges is writer-oriented hedges, which are often associated with higher level claim than accuracy- oriented ones”. While accuracy-oriented hedges are proposition-focused and writer- oriented hedges are writer-focused and “aim to protect the writer from the possible of negative consequences by limiting personal commitment”.

Based on Hyland (1998: 171), the most distinctive characteristics of writer- oriented hedged is the absence of writer agentivity, so the common means of expressing this type of hedge are passive constructions, ‘abstract rhetors’, epistemic lexical verbs with judgmental and evidential meaning, attribution to the source of claim. This category of hedges “helps minimize writers’ personal involvement and allows them to maintain a distance from a proposition”.

(5) Historic records at the Municipal Archives indicate that New York City ran out of burial space during the Great Depression. (Env, 591) The writers also need to protect themselves against the hazardous consequences

of overstatement. Hedges here help writers avoid personal responsibility for statements in order to protect their reputations and limit the damage which may result from categorical commitments. One way writers achieve this is to employ evaluative that structures with modal devices and non-agentive subjects (Hyland, 2005). Most commonly this involves use of ‘abstract rhetors’ like the following:

(6) Studies show that when inmates are more connected to family members on the outside, they create fewer problems on the inside. (Tech, 925) Here, hedges are an important mean for anticipating a reader’s possible refusal of

a proposition and for presenting claims with precision and caution: (7) It seems inevitable that video visitation will become a part of more correctional

facilities.(Tech, 927) According to Hyland (1998), the writer’s main motivation for using writer-

oriented hedges is to make a shield for the self against any probable falsification of the proposition. This is achieved through writers minimizing their involvement in the proposition and keeping a distance from it.

3. Reader-Oriented Hedges

The reader-oriented hedges mostly deal with the interpersonal interaction between readers and writers. They make the readers involved in a dialogue and address them as thoughtful individuals who respond to and judge the truth value of the proposition made as the following instances:

Within the judgement subset, speculative verbs indicate there is some supposition about the truth of proposition. It comprises mainly conventional “performative verbs” (cf. Perkins, 1983:94; Brown, 1992) which perform, rather than describe, the acts they label:

(8) To aid--and profit off of--those stymied by decision, I predict "programming tastemakers," trusted figures who create TV playlists, not unlike a radio D.J. (Tech, 923) The second types of judgments derive more obviously from inferential reasoning

or theoretical calculation than from speculation and are presented as deductions or conclusions:

(KBSP) IV 2016

(9) To end these great inequalities, we've proposed a constitutional amendment to give Americans an affirmative right to vote and empower Congress to protect that right. ( Polit,417) Questions, as exemplified below, signal an important unresolved issue or the

tentativeness of a solution, but also they genuinely seek a response. In so doing, they involve the reader more closely in the research and convey the communality of the scientific quest (Hyland, 1998).

(10) Would the simplified genius of announcing tandems like John Madden and the late Pat Summerall become lost in the technology to a younger fan base unappreciative of historical analysis? (Tech, 976)

C. Conclusion The overall results of the present study have shown that hedging phenomenon is

not merely used in academic or scientific discourse that has already been indicated by numerous studies, but it also present in other genres, particularly in the online newspaper. In this case, the hedging devices are used in “Room for Debate” on New York Times which is regarded to be well-established and respectable newspaper.

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 are 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%.

As regard, it can be said that modal auxiliaries do not only becomes the most commonly hedge used, but these become an important type of hedge in news article as well. Moreover, the finding shows that hedges are becoming the main features in news articles since the writers in every discipline used these epistemic devices in conveying their proposition.

Essentially, the finding reflects the fact that news article express three main functions of hedging devices, as follows: 1. Accuracy-oriented hedges These are used to help the writer to present the proposition or statement with greater precision. These accuracy hedges are classified into two types, such as attribute hedges that have function to specify how far a term accurately describes the reported phenomena whereas reliability hedges are enable the writer to state the her/his assessment of the certainty of the truth of the proposition.

2. Writer-oriented hedges It is functioned to reduce the writer’s commitment to statement and avoid personal responsibility for propositional truth. In other words, it is for showing a lack of full commitment to the propositional content.

3. Reader-oriented hedges This allows the writer to invite the reader’s involvement and personalize the information in the proposition.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altheide, D. L. (1996). Qualitative Media Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage.Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Buitkene, J. (2008). Hedging in Newspaper Discourse. Zmogus ir Zodis, Vol. 10. No.3, 11- 15. Retrieved on October 10, 2015. From http://www.biblioteka.Vpu.lt. Camiciottoli, B. C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP Reading Comprehension: An Exploratory

288 (KBSP) IV 2016

Study. Reading in a Foreign Language. Vol. 15. No. 1, 28-44. Clemen, G. (1997). The Concept of Hedging: Origins, Approaches and Definitions. In R. Markkanen & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts (235-248). Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter.

Clemen, G. (2002). Hedging in English Journalistic Economics. In : A. Nuopen, T. harakka & R. Tatje. (Eds.) Interculturelle Wirschaftkommunikation Forschungsobjekte und Methoden. Report 93. Vaasa: the University of Vaasa, 41-47. Retrieved on October 10, 2015, from http://lipas.Uwasa.fi/comm./publications/

Crompton, P. (1998). Identifying hedges: Definition or Divination? English for Specific Purpose, Vol. 17, No. 3, 303-311. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The Pragmatic Role of Textual and Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in the Construction and Attainment of Persuasion: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Newspaper Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 40, 95-113. Retrieved on October 13, 2015 from http://www.Elsevier.com.

Falahati, R. (2007). The Use of Hedging Across Different Disciplines and rhetorical Sections of Research Articles. In N. Carter, L.H. Zabala, A. Rimrott & D. Stroshenko (Eds.). Proceedings of the 22 nd Northwest Linguistics Conference (NWLC) at Simon Fraser University. (99-112). Barnaby, Canada: Linguistics Graduate Students Association.

Fomina, I.A. (2010). Some Discourse Functions of English Hedges. Vol.8. 206-207. Retrieved on September 12, 2015 from http://www.rae.ru. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1990). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill. Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing Doubt and Certainty in English. RELC Journal, Vol. 13, No.2, 19- 28. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: Benjamins. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate Hua, Jiang. (2011). A Study on Pragmatic Functions of Hedges Applied by College English

Teachers in the Class. M & D Forum. 562-565. Jalilifar, A. R. & M. Alavi. (2011). Power and Politics of Language Use: A Survey of Hedging Devices in Political Interviews. The Journal of teaching Language Skills, Vol. 3, No.3, 43- 65.

Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458-508. Martin-Martin, P. (2008). The Mitigation of Scientific Claims in Research Papers: A Comparative Study. International Journal of English Studies, Vol. 8, No.2, 133-152. Retrieved on 05 October, 2015 from http://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/49201.

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in Education. A Conceptual Introduction (5 th Ed). Boston: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Namsaraev, V. (1997). Hedging in Russian Academic Writing in Sociological Texts. In R. Markkanen & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. (64-81). Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter.

Neary, Colleen & Sundquist . (2013). The Use of Hedges in the Speech of ESL Learners. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, Vol. 13, 149-174.

Noorian, M., & Biria, R. (2010). Interpersonal Metadiscourse in Persuasive Journalism: A Study of Texts by American and Iranian Columnists. Journal of Modern Languages, Vol. 20, 64- 79.

Poveda Cabanes, P.(2007). A Contrastive Analysis of Hedging in English and Spanish Architecture Project Descriptions. Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol.20. 139-158. Salvager – Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical Written Discourse. English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 13, No. 2, 149- 171. Salager-Meyer, F. (1997). I think that perhaps you should: a study of hedges in written scientific discourse. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications (105-118). Washington, DC: United States Information Agency.

Skelton, J. (1988). The Care and Maintenance of Hedges. ELT Journal, Vol. 42 No. 1, 37-43. Retrieved on October, 4, 2015, from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/1/. Vass, H. (2004). Socio-Cognitive Aspects of Hedging in Two Legal Discourse Genres. IBERICA, Vol. 7, 125-141. Retrieved on October 01, 2015, from http:///www.aelfe.org. Vasquez, I., & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond Mood and Modality. Epistemic Modality Markers as

(KBSP) IV 2016

289

Hedges in Research Articles. A Cross Disciplinary Study. Revista Alicantina de Studios Ingless, Vol.21, 171-190. Retrieved on September, 15, 2015, from http://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/10401/1/RAEI_21_10.pdf.

Vold, E.T. (2006). Epistemic Modality Markers in Research Articles: A Cross-Linguistics and Cross Disciplinary Study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol.16, No.1, 61- 87. Retrieved on September, 20, 2015, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com./

Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa dan Pengajarannya (KBSP) IV 2016

Al-Qalb in the Holy Qur’an and Its Implication for Character