Hedges functioning as evasiveness in friends scrift
SURAT KETERANGAN
PENYERAHAN HAK EKSKLUSIFBahwa 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
Mengetahui,
Pembimbing I Pembimbing II
Dr. Nia Kurniasih, M.Hum. Retno Purwani Sari, S.S., M.Hum.NIP. 132.320.671 NIP. 4127.20.03.004
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 Advisor II
Dr. Nia Kurniasih, M.Hum. Retno Purwani Sari S.S., M.Hum.
NIP. 132. 320.671 NIP. 4127.20.03.004
Acknowledged by:
Dean of Faculty of Letters Head of English Department
Prof. Dr. H. Moh. Tadjuddin M.A. Dr. JuandaNIP. 4127.70.003 NIP. 4127.20.03.007
CURRICULUM VITAE A.
Personal Identity
a. : Mochamad Fajar Akbar Name b.
Place and Date of Birth : Cianjur, 13 October 1989
c. : Kp. Tegalkoneng RT/RW. 004/001 Home Address
Des/Kel. Pagelaran Kec. Pagelaran Kab. Cianjur Jawa Barat Indonesia 43266
d. : +6285624136140 Phone
e. : Male Sex
f. : Indonesian Citizenship
g. : Moslem Religion
h. : Friends, Music, and Movies Hobby 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
English Department 4 2008-Now Indonesia University of Computer
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 English Leadership Internal Training of 3 2009
Certified Education (ELITE)
Seminar Peningkatan Jaringan Kampus
4 2009 Dengan Komunitas Sastra di Dalam Non
Peningkatan Pembelajaran Sastra
Seminar and Workshop Copywriting as a 5 2009 Certified
Creative Thinking Copy Writing and Consumer Behavior 6 2010
Certified Seminar
Latihan Kepemimpinan dan Manajemen
7 2010 Mahasiswa (LKMM) Certified “Make a balance world through the spirit of leadership”
8 2010 Seminar IT-Preneur Non 9 2010 Workshop Translating & Interpreting Certified
Kuliah Umum bersama Barrack Obama di
10 2010 Non
Universitas Indonesia
11 2011 Seminar Feminist, Feminine and Text Certified 12 2011 Pelatihan Keprotokoleran UNIKOM Non Copywriting Seminar and Workshop 13 2011
Certified “Copywriting Linguistics on Media”
Diskusi Ilmiah Bahasa dan Budaya
“The 14 2011 Messages in The Language Expression of Certified Priangan Traditional Ceremony”
Kuliah Umum “Strategi Politik Luar Negeri
15 2011 Certified
Indonesia”
65
Public Lecture
“Manifestasi Kearifan Lokal Indonesia
- – Jepang Terhadap Arus
16 2011 Certified
Globalisasi: Tinjauan dari Aspek Sosial Budaya”
Seminar and Workshop of Semiotics in 17 2011 Certified
Literature and Media Public Speaking Seminar “Building 18 2011
Certified Confidence in
Delivering Public Speech” Grand Seminar IEC (ITB Entrepreneurship 19 2013 Challenge) 2013 Certified
“sebuah torehan nyata untuk kemandirian bangsa”
Talkshow Go Write! And Shine 20 2013 Certified
“Menggurat pena mengukir rasa”
21 2013 Seminar Copy Writing Certified Workshop Translation “Building the 22 2013
Certified Translation Skill and Confidence” 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
Member of Himpunan Mahasiswa (HIMA) English 1 2008-2009 Department UNIKOM
66
Head of Himpunan Mahasiswa (HIMA) English 2 2009-2010 Department UNIKOM
Ketua Bidang Humas Asosiasi Profesi Mahasiswa
3 2009-2010
(APM) Sastra dan Bahasa Inggris
4 2010-2012 Member of Protocoler Team of UNIKOM Member of Korps Protokoler Mahasiswa Indonesia 5 2011
(KPMI) No Year Activities in Organizations
MC Acara Pelepasan Peserta Pembekalan English Proficiency Test Jurusan Ilmu Komunikasi dan Public 1 2009 Relation UNIKOM (Certified) MC for Copywriting Seminar and Workshop 2 2009 “Copywriting as a Creative Thinking” (Certified)
Penelitian dan Pengabdian “Minat dan Baca” di
3 2009 Sukabumi bersama APM Committee of English Leadership Internal Training of 4 2010 Education (ELITE) MC for Copywriting Seminar and Workshop 5 2010 “Copywriting and Consumer Behavior” (Certified) 6 2010 Panitia Diskusi Internal Sastra Inggris
Panitia Latihan Dasar Kepemimpinan HIMA Sastra
7 2010
Inggris UNIKOM Protokoler Pelatihan Tridarma Perguruan Tinggi
8 2010 untuk Dosen UNIKOM (Certified)
67 Protokoler Pelatihan Public Speaking bagi Dosen
9 2010 UNIKOM. 10 2010 Protokoler Dies Natalis UNIKOM ke-10
Protokoler Pelantikan Pengurus Wilayah-4 APTIKOM
11 2010 (Asosiasi Perguruan Tinggi Informatika dan
Komputer) periode 2010 – 2014. Protokoler Pelantikan Pimpinan UNIKOM Masa Bakti
12 2010
2010-2012 Panitia Penerimaan Mahasiswa Baru UNIKOM 2010-
13 2010 2011 (Certified)
Panitia Wisuda Pascasarjana (S2), Sarjana (S1) dan
Diploma (D3) UNIKOM 2009-2010
14 2010 (Certified)
Panitia Pelatihan Keprotokolan Tim Protokoler
15 2011 UNIKOM (Certified)
Pembicara dalam Latihan Dasar Kepemimpinan (LDK) PRODI Ilmu Pemerintahan UNIKOM
16 2011
Angkatan 2010
(Certified)
Protokoler 3rd International Conference On
17 2011 Computing and Information (ICOCI)
Protokoler Penandatanganan MOU UNIKOM dengan
18 2011
Pemerintah Kotamadya Bandung serta „Gerakan Anti Sampah‟ (G.A.S.) Protokoler Talk Show “Peranan Kampus dalam Penyuluhan dan Konsultasi Hukum kepada
19 2011
Masyarakat” bersama Menteri Hukum dan HAM RI, Patrialis Akbar, S.H., M.H.
68 Panitia Penerimaan Mahasiswa Baru UNIKOM 2011-
20 2011 2012 (Certified)
Panitia Tes Seleksi Open Recruitment Protokoler
21 2012 UNIKOM 2012 (Certified) Performer of the
Drama “The Countess Cathleen” at 22 2013 Hari Sastra 2013 (Certified)
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 Mochamad Fajar Akbar
HEDGES FUNCTIONING AS EVASIVENESS
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 2013
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.
9. All people who have given encouragement, support, and motivation to the writer to accomplish this skripsi.
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.
- & Communication 3.185-205.
. 1990. “Hedges and Boosters in Women„s and Men„s Speech.” Language
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. Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University.
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: Data of the Research
49 AP PENDIX 2: Data based on Hedges’ Uncertainty
53
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
totally accurate or not really what the speaker means.” (Lakoff 1972; Yule 1996).
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. So the question is what are the terms and conditions and what is the investment climate which we agree with Dieter Helm, should be a long one, in which this might happen and could happen fairly and it would need a number of things. It would need a proper solution to the handling of nuclear waste.
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 diffe rent 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.To make it more different, the data source for this research is taken from the script of TV SITCOM called Friends. Friends is a comedy where the jokes mostly delivered in verbal, not practical; it means that the jokes is conveyed with utterances. Interestingly, the verbal jokes in Friends frequently conveyed with the use of hedges. Thus, it is chosen as the data source because hedges are applied in Friends.
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
This research means to analyze the hedges used in Friends script. It is conducted to show another function of hedges besides showing politeness, as often used; it is to show hedges that may function as evasiveness. Moreover, the relation of the hedges as evasiveness with the orientations of their uncertainty is also suggested. Thus, this research is expected to be useful for the readers in conveying a communicative message. By understanding hedges, they may also
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 applied in this research may be represented in figure 1 below.
6 Figure 1. Framework of the theory
H e d g e s La ko ff (1972)
Y u le (19 96)
Function Sandova (2010) Urbanova (2003)
Evasiveness Sandova (2010)
Orientations Sandova (2010) Holmes (1984)
Hyland (1996) Speaker-oriented
Sandova (2010) Holmes (1984) Hearer-oriented
Sandova (2010) Content-oriented
Sandova (2010) Hyland(1996)
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
Yule 1996). Here is the
or not really what the speaker means” (Lakoff 1972;
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.
As mentioned above, a hedge gives fuzziness to things. Fuzziness is synonymous with uncertainty as Sandova (2010) suggested; which is the term used in this research. Therefore, it may be defined that hedges are expressions used to make things become uncertain in terms of the meaning of utterance. By
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 speak er 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
(2010:145). Hesitation is used as the first immediate reaction for the speaker may find difficulties in conveying an answer. Content-oriented uncertainty serves the function as
“an attempt of the speaker to disclaim the responsibility for his/her
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. MICHAEL GOVE : But as far as I'm concerned, the important thing to do is to concentrate on acknowledging yes, that the public want to know more
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.
2.3 Orientations of Hedges Relating to their Uncertainty
There are many classifications of hedges. However, based on the definition of hedges mentioned above, it is appropriate to apply the classifications of hedges based on their uncertainty. Sandova (2010) proposes such classifications of hedges concerning on their uncertainty which refer to the classifications by Holmes (1984). They are speaker-oriented hedges, hearer-oriented hedges, and content-oriented hedges.
11
In addition, Hyland (1996) proposes similar classifications; however, he uses different terms. They are accuracy-oriented (content-oriented), writer- oriented (speaker-oriented), and reader-oriented (hearer-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 trying to overturn the government and win.
” It is hedged by the expression “I mean I suppose.
” The expression gives an uncertainty to the proposition because,
by adding the expression, the proposition may not be taken as a valid fact or the
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. 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.13
The expression, “you know,” in the example above suggests uncertainty towards the hea rer’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-orien ted 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 DAVID CAMERON : No. Listen. Let me try and explain. The reason they can do that in America is they have not got as big a budget deficit, as a share of national income as we've got. Because our deficit is basically 3% of GDP, there's nothing left in the locker. If the government had
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 expression “basically.” The expression represents an uncertainty of the content of the proposition which is about the exact number of GDP. The expression makes the exact number of GDP become vague because it suggests that the number 3% is only an approximation concluded by the speaker. Therefore, the 3% of GDP may not be indicated as the exact number. It only gives an impression that it is 3% but it is not really 3%. Thus, it may be identified as a content-oriented hedge.
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
Kothari (1994:3) states that,
“qualitative researches concerned with qualitative phenomenon, i.e., phenomena relating to or involving quality or kind.”
Thus, this research is a type of a qualitative research for discussing the phenomena of hedges functioning as evasiveness and the orientations of their
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
The writer conducts a library research in collecting the data. There are steps in conducting this type of research; they, according to Kothari (1994), are analyzing documents (the script) and analyzing the content (the hedges). Based on the steps suggested by Kothari (1994), this research conducts data collection through detail procedures as the following:
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, hearer-oriented, or content-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: There is the use of a hedge in the data above. It is showed by
Ross’s utterance,
“she's not going to remember this.” The utterance is not a relevant
answer to Rachel’s because it is not what Rachel asks for. What Rachel asks for is about the importance of early experiences. Indicated by the data, one of early experiences that is important is a first birthday party as Rachel thinks. On the contrary, Ros s’s utterance actually represents the opposite thing because the proposition/message that Ross actually conveys is,
“early experiences are not important. ” However, the proposition is not conveyed directly because Ross’s utterance does not describe what Ross means.
His’ utterance only describes that Emma is not going to be able to remember her first birthday party. With Emma being unable to remember her first birthday party, it may mean that the party (one
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.
As mentioned above, the proposition opposes Rachel ’s utterance. Therefore,
Ross’s utterance (the hedge) which represents the proposition may be used to show a disagreement.
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
The category of hedges is used to express speaker’s uncertainty of a particular proposition(s). It means that the speaker may have doubts about the utterance he/she conveys.
Data 1
Context : It is a conversation between Phoebe, Monica, and Rachel. Phoebe is
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?