THE PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF TAG QUESTION AND HEDGE IN THE UTTERANCES OF MALE AND FEMALE OF SILADANGNESE.

A Thesis

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

By

SRI MINDA

Registration Number: 8126111040

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

2014

ABSTRAK

Minda, Sri. Makna pragmatik dari pertanyaan penegas dan klausa berpagar pada ujaran bahasa laki-laki dan perempuan suku Siladang. Tesis: Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan 2014.

Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk meneliti makna pragmatik dari pertanyaan penegas dan klausa berpagarpada ujaran bahasa laki-laki dan perempuan suku Siladang. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan dengan pendekatan kualitatif deskriptif. Sumber data penelitian adalah masyarakat Siladang di desa Aek Banir, Panyabungan. Data diperolah dengan menggunakan observasi dan wawancara. Analisis penelitian tersebut dilaksanakan dengan menerapkan pendekatan Bogdan & Biklen. Penemuan dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa ada dua tipe makna pragmatik dari pertanyaan penegas pada ujaran laki-laki dan perempuan suku Siladang. Makna pragmatik tersebut adalah modal tag dan affective tag. Penemuan lainnya adalah terdapat lima makna pragmatik dari klausa berpagar yaitu a) makna perlindungan, b) sebagai makna kepastian, c) sebagai makna ketidakpastian, d) sebagai makna kesopanan dan e) sebagai makna pembatasan. Laki-laki suku Siladang cenderung mengujarkan modal tag sebagai tanda ketidakpastian, sedangkan perempuan cenderung mengujarkan affective tag sebagai tanda kesopanan. Salah satu makna pragmatik dari klausa berpagar pada ujaran perempuan suku Siladangnese adalah makna kesopanan, tetapi makna tersebut tidak terdapat pada ujaran laki-laki suku Siladang. Total makna pragmatik dari pertanyaan penegas dan klausa berpagar pada ujaran bahasa laki-laki dan perempuan suku Siladang berbeda, tetapi perbedaan tersebut tidak signifikan.

Program. Postgraduate School, State University of Medan 2014.

The objective of this study is to describe the pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese. The research was designed with qualitative descriptive method. The source of the data was male and female of Siladangnese who live in Aek Banir, Panyabungan for at least 10 years. The data were obtained by implementing participant observation and interview. The analysis of this research was done by applying Bokdan and Biklen approach. The research finding shows that there are two types of pragmatics features of tag question in the utterances of male and felame of Siladangnese. They are modal tag and affective tag. It was also found that there are five pragmatic features of hedge in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese; a) hedge as a means of protection, b) hedge as a means of certainty, c) hedge as a means of uncertainty, d) hedge as a means of politeness, and e) hedge as a means of limitation. Male Siladangnese tend to utter modal tag as a sign of uncertainty while female Siladangnese tend to utter affective tag as a sign of politeness. One of the pragmatic features of hedge in the utterances of female Siladangnese is a means of politeness, but it was not found in the utterances of male Siladangnese. The total number of pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese is different but it did not show a significant differences.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the name of Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful whom she would like to express her sincere gratitude, Allah the almighty who has given her blessing health, strength and patience in the process of completing this thesis in the title the pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in the utterances of male and female Siladangnese as a partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Magister Humaniora at the Postgraduate of English Applied Linguistics Program, State University of Medan.

This thesis would not also have been possible brought into existence without the help of a great many people. At first, in particular, the writer would like to express her gratitude to Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., and Dr. T. Thyrhaya Zein, M.A., her first and second adviser for their so generous assistance, guidance, advice, and precious time they spent on supervising and guiding this thesis.

Secondly, the writer would also like to express her gratitude to the head of English Applied Linguistics Program, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., her secretary, Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S and Bang Farid who have assisted her in the process of administration requirement during the process of her study in the postgraduate program. Special thanks to the all lecturers of the English Applied Linguistics Program, State University of Medan who have given their valuable knowledge to her in their lectures.

Thanks are due to her proposal reviewers and examiners, Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., P. hD., Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., and Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum., for their appropriate and helpful commentaries and constructive suggestions.

She would also very much like to express her gratitude to the all informants in desa aek Banir, Panyabungan who have generously given their time and chance, and supplied her with information for analysis of this study, particularly Darwis the village leader of Desa Aek Banir, Pnyabungan and his wife Irma Holila Pasasribu who have provided their time and chance in supporting this thesis.

Last but not least, on a personal level, the writer would like dedicate her love and sincerest gratitude to her parents, Ahmad Sofian Nasution and Ida Norma Dalimunthe, brothers and sisters for their sincere and most reliable comfort, and above all, their love and support. Sujatmiko Ismail Pohan, the one who always loves, supports, suggests comments, prays, and accompanies her in every condition, also deserves her thanks.

It is honor for her to convey thanks to her colleagues for their helps and supports. Special thanks to her beloved friends Reza, Tari, Kara, Icha, Zizah, Bang Amri, and Ricky for their motivation and support. Lastly, the writer offers her regards and blessings to all of those who supported her in any respect during the completion of this thesis.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... i

LIST OF TABLES ... iv

LIST OF FIGURE ... v

LIST OF APPENDICES ... vi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1Background of the Study ... 1

1.2The Problems of the Study ... 8

1.3The Scope of the Study ... 8

1.4The Objective of the Study ... 9

1.5The Significance of the Study ... 9

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 11

2.1Theoretical Framework ... 11

2.2Pragmatic Feature ... 11

2.2.1 Tag Question ... 15

2.2.2 Hedge ... 18

2.3 Gender in Interaction ... 22

2.4 The Characteristics of Male and Female Utterances ... 23

2.4.1 The Differences of Male and Female Language ... 25

2.5Reason for Different Use of Pragmatic Features ... 28

2.6Context of Male and Female Language……….. 31

2.7Siladangnese Society ... 33

2.8 Related Studies ... 34

ii

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD ... 39

3.1 Research Design ... 39

3.2 Source of the Data ... 39

3.3 The Instrument of Data Collection ... 41

3.4 The Technique of Data Collection... 41

3.5 The Technique of Data Analysis ... 42

3.6 Triangulation ... 44

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION ... 45

4.1The Data and Data Analysis ... 45

4.1.1 The Pragmatic Features of Tag Question ... 45

4.1.1.1 The Pragmatic Features of Tag Question in the Utterances of Male Siladangnese ... 45

4.1.1.2 The Pragmatic Features of Tag Question in the Utterances of Female Siladangnese ... . 49

4.1.1.3 The Pragmatic Features of Hedge in the Utterances of Male Siladangnese ... 53

4.1.1.4 The Pragmatic Features of Hedge in the Utterances of Female Siladangnese ... 56

4.1.2 The Differences of Pragmatic Features of Tag Question and Hedge in the Utterances of Male and Female Of Siladangnese……...……..………... 59

4.1.2.1 The Differences of Pragmatic Features of Tag Question in the Utterances of Male and Female of Siladangnese……...……..………... 59

4.1.2.2 The Differences of Pragmatic Features of Hedge in the Utterances of Male and Female of Siladangnese……...………..………... 62

4.1.3 The Context of Male and Female of Siladangnese Utter the Pragmatic Features of Tag Question and Hedge ... 66

iii

4.2Findings ... 69

4.3Discussion ... 70

4.3.1 The Pragmatic Features of Tag Question and Hedge in the Utterances of Male and Female of Siladangnese ... . 70

4.3.2 The Differences of Pragmatic Features of Tag Question and Hedge in the Utterances of Male and Female of Siladangnese ... . 75

4.3.3 The Context of Male and Female of Siladangnese Utter the Pragmatic Features of Tag Question and Hedge ... . 77

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 79

5.1Conclusions ... 79

5.2Suggestions ... 81

References ... 82

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 4.1.1.1 Tag Question in the Utterances of Male

Siladangnes………...………...……..46

Table 4.1.1.2 Tag Question in the Utterances of Female

Siladangnes………...………...……..49

Table 4.1.1.3 Hedge in the Utterances of Male

Siladangnes………...………...……..53

Table 4.1.1.4 Hedge in the Utterances of Female

Siladangnes………...………...……..56

Table 4.1.2.1 The Differences of Pragmatic Features of Tag Question

in the Utterances of Male and Female of Siladangnes..…..…..60 Table 4.1.2.2 The Differences of Pragmatic Features of Hedge

v

LIST OF FIGURE

Page Figure 2.9 The Procedure of Data Analysis ... 43

vi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page Appendix 1 The utterances of male and Female of Siladangnese…...……….86

Appendix 2 The Identity of the Informants ………....100

Appendix 3 The Interview Sheet…………...103

Appendix 4 The Photographs of Desa Aek Banir,

1 1.1 The Background of the Study

Indonesia is a multiethnic country which has a lot of cultural society. One of them is Siladangnese society. Geographically, Siladang people are living in the valley of Tor Sihite. It is located about 17 Km from Panyabungan, the capital of Mandailing Natal. This language becomes potential phenomenon in linguistics study to be researched. As it was informed by Multamia Lauder in Kompas (2008), about 736 of 746 vernaculars in Indonesia are endangered and one of them is Siladang language.

Communication is the means by which ideas and information are spread from person to person. People use communication to express feelings, emotions, opinions and values, to learn and teach, and to improve their status. Communication is therefore vital to human interaction whether between parents and children, bosses and employees or even husband and wife. The diversity and characteristics of those involved in any interaction can thus affect communication. Taking account of any diversity in interaction rather than assuming uniformity is important to achieving effective communication.

In general, society has constructed the belief that men and women behave differently to images of masculinity and femininity. As Spender (1992: 135) states that:

Male and masculine are two different concepts: the first term refers to biology and the other refers to identity. Being male is not complete without the existence of masculinity. Even some features of masculinity are quickly recognized as being a biological part of being male.

2 According to Herring (1992: 135):

Masculinity or femininity is not solely biological but it is constructed by the society and the surroundings we live in. Masculinity is demonstrated and expressed in various ways such as voice, physical appearance and behavior. It is also strongly associated with a deep voice, tall and wide shoulders, and a muscular body; sometimes it is portrayed in the posture and gait which require a bigger space than women.

In general, men and women are known to use language differently, but sometimes they may unintentionally exhibit feminine or masculine language characteristics respectively when they talk. Although men and women belong to the same speech community, they may use different pragmatic feature. The pragmatic feature s used by women and men contrast to some extent in all speech communities. For example, Holmes (1993: 58) mentions the Amazon Indians’ language as an extreme example, where the language used by a child’s mother is different from that used by her father and each tribe is distinguished by a different language. In this community, males and females speak different languages.

A study about Siladang language has been conducted by Sinar and Syarfina (2010) which focus on the Siladang language prosody which is interrelated with gender. The data were collected by recording the utterances in three different types such as declarative, imperative and interrogative. The findings of the research shows that women’s tone in speaking is higher than the man’s tone but not really significant. So, it indicates that there is not a great difference in female and male Siladangnese in their utterances.

From among these researchers, Lakoff (1975) proposed theories on the existence of women’s language. Her book ‘Language and Woman’s Place’ has served as a basis for much research on the subject. She mentions ten features for women’s language. As cited in Holmes (1993, p. 314), these ten features are as follows:

3

2. Tag questions, e.g. she is very nice, isn’t she?

3. Rising intonation on declaratives, e.g. it’s really good. 4. Empty adjectives, e.g. divine, charming, cute.

5. Precise color terms, e.g. magenta, acqamarine.

6. Intensifiers such as just and so.

7. Hypercorrect grammar, e.g. consistent use of standard verb forms.

8. Superpolite forms, e.g. indirect requests, euphemisms.

9. Avoidance of strong swear words, e.g. fudge, my goodness.

10. Emphatic stress, e.g. it was a BRILLIANT performance.

Lakoff (1975) stated that male seldom use tag questions and hedge in language. It often find in females’ language. Moreover, she believes that the use of tag question in female’s language indicate the uncertainty.

The same research conducted by Deumert and Masinyana (2008) study in which there is a significant gender based difference in the number of words per SMS message. Naturally, the data shows that women generally write longer messages. The participants were asked if gender differences have an effect on the length of SMS. The female participants state that “female like to elaborate and talk more than men and we are more expressive”.

Based on the researcher observation in Aek Banir in April 2013, male and female Siladangnese used tag questions and hedges when they were speaking. The tag question often found in male utterances. The transcriptions of the utterances both of male and female language are as follow:

4 a. Men’ utterances:

PB : “Sio golomu?”

(what is your name?)

HR : “jan ko golok”.

(don’t you laugh)

PB : “lah lupo oku golomu dah, sio do golomu?”

(I have forgotten your name, so, what is your name?)

HR : “Hendri”.

“Mangapo lai disapai ho goloku?” (why did you ask my name?) “Anapolupoho, iyo?”

(you are too forgetful, aren’t you?) “Inda itando ho lai au?”

(you even don’t know me anymore)

“Sabulan ma ho dison naso ako tondoi pe au”.

(you have been a year here, but you still don’t know me) PB : “Da Manyabar do ako, iyo?”

(you are Manyabar , aren’t you?) b. Women’ utterances:

ZR : “Komono kuali nta sude na?” (where is our frying fan?)

NH : “Oku pe na ku tondoi pas dah, tepe pala ahani kapalo desa naiboh, tai tong tolu doson tolu da adu. Naiboh sada, iyo?”

(I don’t know all exactly indeed, but the leader’s own is it.) but, there are three here and the other three are there. Here is one, isn’t it?)

ZR : “Nakutinggalkonpisong da adu anabanyak”. (I had left so many bananas in there).

NH : dicalo angkang ma budak-budak nek pulang sikola’ i so diobanna tong tuson boh. Mangua ho ja?

(You ask the children if they had arrived from school to bring the bananas here. Where are you going?)

ZR : “Oku nak ko pasa, manghabis ma bolanyongku dibagas jem”. “Mang upaulak ma pisou mu, iyo?”

(I want to go to the market, all food restock is going end. Have I returned your knife, haven’t I?)

“Bentak na lupa do au”.

(I doubt that I forgot.)

NH : “Ngape ku poresou, tai madung ma nurangku”. (I haven’t checked it yet, but I think you have.)

From the above conversation, the female’s conversation was longer than the male’s. In female utterances, it was found tag question and hedge. The first was tag question, the word iyo in the sentence “Naiboh sada, iyo” and the tag iyo in “Mang

5

something. The second was hedge, the italicized sentence here “

pas dah,pala ahani kapalo desa naiboh, tai tong tolu doson tolu da adu” is a kind of hedge in Siladangnese language.

The researcher also found tag question and hedge in male utterances. A kind of hedge found in the sentence “lah lupo oku golomu dah, sio do golomu?” The hedge in

a clause form “lah lupo aku golomu dah” used to lessen the impact of the next

utterances. The speaker used this hedge to soften the language. There were two tag questions found, they were Anapolupo ho, iyo and da Manyabar do ako,iyo.

From the data above, it can be stated that the frequency of pragmatic feature such as tag question and hedge used by male and female Siladangnese is the same. There are two tag question found in each male and female language. The hedge also found both in male and female language. It is not only found in female utterances but also in male language.

Based on the prior observation, there was a gap between the fact and the theory. The theory proposed by Lakoff stated that tag question and hedge are rarely found in male language, whereas the fact it was found that male Siladangnese often used tag question and hedge in the utterances.

Some studies have reported significant differences in the opposite direction. In a comparison of 36 female and 50 male managers giving professional criticism in a role play, it was the men who used significantly more negations and asked more questions, and the women who used more directives (Mulac, Seibold, & Farris, 2000). However, the study did confirm that men used more words overall, whereas women used longer sentences. One possible explanation for these contradictory

6

reports is that the different contexts in which the language samples were generated influenced the size and direction of the gender differences.

Moreover, a number of studies have reported greater female use of tag questions (McMillan et al.: 1977). He reports that tag questions are often found in women language than men. He believes that tag question in women language show the uncertainity. As Mulac & Lundell (1994) have found further evidence that women use phrases that may communicate relative uncertainty. Uncertainty verb phrases, especially those combining first-person singular pronouns with perceptual or cognitive verbs (e.g., “I wonder if”), have been found more often in women’s writing and utterances. A related interpretation of women’s use of hedge phrases is that women are more reluctant to force their views on another person.

Consistently with this idea, Lakoff claimed that women were more likely than men in the same situation to use extra-polite forms (e.g., “Would you mind…”), a claim that was supported by subsequent empirical work (McMillan et al.: 1977). Gender differences have also been examined by studying the actual words people use. Mirroring phrase-level findings of tentativeness in female language by (Palomares and Lee: 2009) state that women have been found to use more intensive adverbs, more conjunctions such as but, and more modal auxiliary verbs such as could that place question marks of some kind over a statement. While men have been found to swear more, use longer words, use more articles, and use more references to location.

Men’s language as put by Lakoff (1975: 105) is assertive, adult, and direct, while women’s language is immature, hyper-formal or hyper-polite and non-assertive. She believes that the use of tag questions by women is the sign of uncertainty. She asserts that women are more likely to use empty adjectives such as ‘divine’, ‘charming’ and ‘lovely’. Intensifiers such as ‘so’, ‘really’ and ‘very’, and qualifiers

7

forms than men use. She explains that these characteristics of ‘women’s language’ are a result of linguistic subordination: A woman must learn to speak ‘women’s language’ to avoid being criticized as unfeminine by society. As a result, women appear to lack authority, seriousness, conviction and confidence in their conversation.

Gender differences in communication may pose problems in interpersonal interactions leading to intolerance and disappointment. These frustrations also occur in daily communication. Thus, investigating of pragmatic features in language by men and women is important. The expectation is if the society has understood about the difference language between men and women, it will help them to avoid communication confusion or misunderstanding between genders.

Based on the observation and the finding of Sinar and Syarfina (2010) study, the researcher sees that male and female of Siladangnese seems not different in the use of tag question and hedge. The theory proposed by Lakoff (1975) stated that tag question and hedge are often found in female language, but the fact found in Aek Banir, it was found that the frequency of tag question and hedge are the same in male and female of siladangnese utterances. Therefore, the researcher wants to examine the use of tag question and hedge in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese. This study can be used to enhance the awareness among Siladangnese people to be more appreciative with their language. It is regarded that a better understanding of gender differences will provide exposure to Siladangnese language and enable non-Siladangnese to communicate effectively with locals. Moreover, stated in UUD 1945, chapter XII and article 32; point 21 that the government respects and keeps ethnic language as the national culture. Therefore, it is very important to conduct a study on

8

pragmatic features of tag question and hedge used in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese.

1.2 The Problems of the Study

Based on the background of the study, the researcher conducted a study about gender differences in the use of tag question and hedge among the Siladangnese people. The following questions were forwarded as the research problems:

1. What are pragmatic features of tag question and hedge found in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese?

2. How are the differences of pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese?

3. In what context do male and female of Siladangnese utter more the pragmatic features of tag question and hedge?

1.3The Scope of the Study

The scope of this study was limited into the pragmatic features particularly tag question and hedge in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese. The utterances were uttered by the native speaker of Siladangnese. They live in Aek Banir, Panyabungan, Mandailing Natal, North Sumatera.

There were three aspects which observed in this study. The first one was the pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese. The Second was the different pragmatic features of tag question and

9 female of Siladangnese.

From ten features of female language proposed by Lakoff, the researcher select two pragmatic features namely tag question and hedge as the basis of analysis.

1.4The Objectives of the Study

The objectives of this study was to find out the answer of the research problems. To be more specific the objectives of the study were:

1) to find out the pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese

2) to describe the differences of pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese.

3) to find the context of uttering more the pragmatic features of Tag question and Hedge of male and female of Siladangnese.

1.5The Significance of the Study

A study which is designed to cover some intended result should have the significances.

A. Theoretically

1. The result of the study is considered to provide valuable understanding and to enrich the theories of gender and language in linguistic study.

2. The result of the study can be used as reference for those who want to conduct a study in gender and language.

10 B. Practically

The result of this study is expected to contribute faithful information about gender and language for students, teachers or lecturers, researchers and Siladangnese people.

1. Firstly, for the students, so they can enrich their knowledge about gender and language.

2. Secondly, for the teachers and lecturers, so they can use it to support the teaching and learning materials related to the gender and language. 3. Thirdly, the result of the study can be useful for researcher to gain a

deep insight especially in gender and language in Siladangnese society. 4. Fourthly, the result of this study can be useful for Siladangnese people

79 5.1 Conclusions

The study concerned on the pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese. Based on the analysis, the conclusions are drawn as follows:

1. The Pragmatic features of tag question uttered by male Siladangnese is modal tag and the Pragmatic features of tag question uttered by female Siladangnese are modal tag and affective tag. It is also found that there are four pragmatic features of hedge found in the utterances of male Siladangnese namely hedge as a means of protection, as a means of certainty, as a means of uncertainty and as a means of limitation. Then, there are five pragmatic features of hedge in the utterances of female Siladangnese which are found in this study. They are a) hedge as a means of protection, b) hedge as a means of certainty, c) hedge as a means of uncertainty, d) hedge as a means of politeness, and e) hedge as a means of limitation.

2. The differences of pragmatic features of tag question in utterances of male and female Siladangnese is male Siladangnese tend to utter modal tag as a means of uncertainty, while female Siladangnese utter more affective tag as a means of politeness. Then, the differences of pragmatic features of hedge in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese is the function of hedging

expression “Nakupikike (I think)” and “Okoh boto (You Know)”.

The difference is that female Siladangnese utter the pragmatic features of

hedge especially the expression “Nakupikike (I think)” function as a means of

80

expression “Nakupikike (I think)” as a means of certainty . Another difference

is that the use of hedging expression “Okoh boto (You Know)” in the utterances of male Siladangnese as a means of certainty, but in the utterances of female Siladangnese the expression “Okoh boto (You Know)” function as a means of positive politeness.

3. The context of male and female of Siladangnes utters more the pragmatic features of tag question and hedge is when both of sexes are in mix sex talk. Female Siladangnese utters more the pragmatic features of tag question and hedge when talk to male addressee. While male Siladangnese utters more pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in the context when he is talking to female addressee.

82

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bunz, U., & Campbell, S. 2003. Accommodating politeness indicators in personal electronic mail messages. Presented at Association of Internet Researchers’ 3rd Annual Conference. Maastricht: The Netherlands.

Cameron, D. 2007. The Myth of Mars and Venus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coates, J. 1988. Women, men and language. A sociolinguistic account of gender

differences in language. 3rd edition. London, UK: Longman.

DeFrancisco, V. 1997. A Comparison of Gender Equality in Countries with

Gendered, Natural Gender, and Genderless Languages. A Thesis. Clayton:

Monash University Press.

Denzim, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Reseacrh. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.

Deumert, A. & Masinyana, S.O. 2008. Mobile language choices. The use of English and isiXhosa in text messages (SMS): Evidence from a bilingual South African sample. A Journal of Language and Gender. Pp 107-131.

Dubois, B. L., & Crouch, I. 1975. The question of tag question in women’s speech:

They don’t really use more of them, do they? A Journal ofLanguage in

Society. pp 38-54.

Finch, Geoffrey. 2000. Linguistic Terms and Concepts. London: Wiley-Blackwell Fishman, P. 1980. Interaction: The work women do. Language, Gender and Society.

In Eckert 2003. Cambridge University Press.

Glass, Lilian. 1992. He Says She Says: Closing the Communication Gap Between the Sexes. New York: GP. Putnam and Sons

Halliday, M.A.K. 1989. Text as semantic choice in social contexts. New York: Continuum.

Herring, S. C. 1992. Gender and participation in computer-mediated linguistic discourse. A Thesis. Leeds Metropolitan University.

Holmes, J. 1986. Functions of ‘you know’ in women’s and men’s speec Language. A Dissertation. Cambridge University Press.

83

Holmes, J. 1993. Sociolinguistics in Society. An introduction to sociolinguistics.

London, UK: Longman.

Hopper, P. 1992. Linguistics. Glossary of Linguistics Terms. New York: SIL International.

Hubermann, M. & Miles, M. B. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Method. Beverly Hills: Sage Production.

Ismail, R. 2004. Pragmatik bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Bentang Pustaka.

Johnson, Cathryn, Stephanie J. Funk, and Jody Clay-Warner. 1998. Organizational Contexts and Conversation Patterns. Journal of Social Psychology Quarterly. pp 98-127

Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and woman’s place.New York: Harper Colophon Books. Mahsun. 2005. Metode Penelitian Bahasa: Tahapan Strategis, Metode and

Techniknya. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.

Manurung, dkk. 1978. Beberapa Data Bahasa Siladang: Suatu Penelitian (Khusus Fonologi dan Morfologi). Medan: Fakultas Sastra Universitas Sumatra Utara.

Markkanen, Raija and Schröder, Hartmut. 1992. Hedging and its linguistic

realization in English, German and Finnish philosophical texts. A Journal of Language and Social Psychology. pp 102-146.

McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., & Gale, W. S. 1977.Women’s language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality? Sex Roles,

Journal of Language & Social Psychology. Pp 39-47.

Mercer, N. 2000. Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. London: Routledge.

Mey, J. L. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction. USA: Blackwell.

Morgan, D. L. 1988. Focus Group as Qualitative Research. California: Sage Publication.

Mulac, A.,&Lundell, T. L. 1994. Effects of gender-linked language differences in

adults’ written discourse: Multivariate tests of language effects. Journal of

Language & Communication. pp. 78-101.

Mulac, A., Seibold, D. R., & Farris, J. L. 2000. Female and male managers’ and professionals’ criticism giving: Differences in language use and effects.

Journal of Language & Social Psychology. pp 89- 120. Nazir, M. 1988. Metode Penelitian. Jakarta; Ghalia. Indonesia.

84

Palomares, N. A. & Lee, Eun Ju. 2009. Virtual gender Identity: The Linguistics Assimilation to Gendered Avatars in Computer-Mediated Communication.

Journal of Language & Social Psychology. pp 35- 66.

Paul. R. 2001. English Language Arts Standards. Dallas: Michigan State University Press.

Preisler, Bent. 1986. Linguistic Sex Roles in Conversation: Social Variation in the Expression of Tentativeness in English. Journal of Language & Social Psychology. pp 233-271.

Romaine, S. 2000. Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. The 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sinar, T. S. & Syarfina, T. 2010. Prosodi bahasa Siladang sumatera Utara.Presented at Masyarakat Linguistik Indonesia, 17th Annual Conference. Jakarta, Indonesia.

University of North Sumatera Press.

Spender, D. 1985. Man made language. 2nd edition. London: Routledge & Kegan Pail. Tannen, D. 1994. Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

---. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men Conversation. New York: William Morrow.

Trask, R. L. 2007. Language and Linguistics: The Key Concepts, 2nd ed., ed. London: Routledge.

Uchida, A. 1992. When difference is dominance: A critique of the anti-power-based cultural approach to gender differences. Journal of Language in Society. pp 44-56.

Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia. 2010. Jakarta: Penerbit Kartika. Wilamová. S. 2005. Expressing Politeness in English Fictional Discourse. Ostrava:

Oystraysk Univerzita.

Available from: https://is.muni.cz/th/106163/pedf_b/text_prace.pdf (accessed on 2nd March 2014).

Zimmerman, D. & C. West. 1982. Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne & N. Henley. 1987. Language and

B. Practically

The result of this study is expected to contribute faithful information about gender and language for students, teachers or lecturers, researchers and Siladangnese people.

1. Firstly, for the students, so they can enrich their knowledge about gender and language.

2. Secondly, for the teachers and lecturers, so they can use it to support the teaching and learning materials related to the gender and language. 3. Thirdly, the result of the study can be useful for researcher to gain a

deep insight especially in gender and language in Siladangnese society. 4. Fourthly, the result of this study can be useful for Siladangnese people

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

The study concerned on the pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese. Based on the analysis, the conclusions are drawn as follows:

1. The Pragmatic features of tag question uttered by male Siladangnese is modal tag and the Pragmatic features of tag question uttered by female Siladangnese are modal tag and affective tag. It is also found that there are four pragmatic features of hedge found in the utterances of male Siladangnese namely hedge as a means of protection, as a means of certainty, as a means of uncertainty and as a means of limitation. Then, there are five pragmatic features of hedge in the utterances of female Siladangnese which are found in this study. They are a) hedge as a means of protection, b) hedge as a means of certainty, c) hedge as a means of uncertainty, d) hedge as a means of politeness, and e) hedge as a means of limitation.

2. The differences of pragmatic features of tag question in utterances of male and female Siladangnese is male Siladangnese tend to utter modal tag as a means of uncertainty, while female Siladangnese utter more affective tag as a means of politeness. Then, the differences of pragmatic features of hedge in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese is the function of hedging expression “Nakupikike (I think)” and “Okoh boto (You Know)”.

The difference is that female Siladangnese utter the pragmatic features of hedge especially the expression “Nakupikike (I think)” function as a means of

expression “Nakupikike (I think)” as a means of certainty . Another difference is that the use of hedging expression “Okoh boto (You Know)” in the utterances of male Siladangnese as a means of certainty, but in the utterances of female Siladangnese the expression “Okoh boto (You Know)” function as a means of positive politeness.

3. The context of male and female of Siladangnes utters more the pragmatic features of tag question and hedge is when both of sexes are in mix sex talk. Female Siladangnese utters more the pragmatic features of tag question and hedge when talk to male addressee. While male Siladangnese utters more pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in the context when he is talking to female addressee.

References

Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education; Introduction to Theory and Methods. 2 nd edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bunz, U., & Campbell, S. 2003. Accommodating politeness indicators in personal electronic mail messages. Presented at Association of Internet Researchers’ 3rd Annual Conference. Maastricht: The Netherlands.

Cameron, D. 2007. The Myth of Mars and Venus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coates, J. 1988. Women, men and language. A sociolinguistic account of gender

differences in language. 3rd edition. London, UK: Longman.

DeFrancisco, V. 1997. A Comparison of Gender Equality in Countries with Gendered, Natural Gender, and Genderless Languages. A Thesis. Clayton: Monash University Press.

Denzim, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Reseacrh. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.

Deumert, A. & Masinyana, S.O. 2008. Mobile language choices. The use of English and isiXhosa in text messages (SMS): Evidence from a bilingual South African sample. A Journal of Language and Gender. Pp 107-131.

Dubois, B. L., & Crouch, I. 1975. The question of tag question in women’s speech:

They don’t really use more of them, do they? A Journal of Language in

Society. pp 38-54.

Finch, Geoffrey. 2000. Linguistic Terms and Concepts. London: Wiley-Blackwell Fishman, P. 1980. Interaction: The work women do. Language, Gender and Society.

In Eckert 2003. Cambridge University Press.

Glass, Lilian. 1992. He Says She Says: Closing the Communication Gap Between the Sexes. New York: GP. Putnam and Sons

Halliday, M.A.K. 1989. Text as semantic choice in social contexts. New York: Continuum.

Herring, S. C. 1992. Gender and participation in computer-mediated linguistic discourse. A Thesis. Leeds Metropolitan University.

Holmes, J. 1986. Functions of ‘you know’ in women’s and men’s speec Language. A Dissertation. Cambridge University Press.

Holmes, J. 1993. Sociolinguistics in Society. An introduction to sociolinguistics. London, UK: Longman.

Hopper, P. 1992. Linguistics. Glossary of Linguistics Terms. New York: SIL International.

Hubermann, M. & Miles, M. B. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Method. Beverly Hills: Sage Production.

Ismail, R. 2004. Pragmatik bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Bentang Pustaka.

Johnson, Cathryn, Stephanie J. Funk, and Jody Clay-Warner. 1998. Organizational Contexts and Conversation Patterns. Journal of Social Psychology Quarterly. pp 98-127

Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper Colophon Books. Mahsun. 2005. Metode Penelitian Bahasa: Tahapan Strategis, Metode and

Techniknya. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.

Manurung, dkk. 1978. Beberapa Data Bahasa Siladang: Suatu Penelitian (Khusus Fonologi dan Morfologi). Medan: Fakultas Sastra Universitas Sumatra Utara.

Markkanen, Raija and Schröder, Hartmut. 1992. Hedging and its linguistic

realization in English, German and Finnish philosophical texts. A Journal of Language and Social Psychology. pp 102-146.

McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., & Gale, W. S. 1977.Women’s language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality? Sex Roles, Journal of Language & Social Psychology. Pp 39-47.

Mercer, N. 2000. Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. London: Routledge.

Mey, J. L. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction. USA: Blackwell.

Morgan, D. L. 1988. Focus Group as Qualitative Research. California: Sage Publication.

Mulac, A.,&Lundell, T. L. 1994. Effects of gender-linked language differences in

adults’ written discourse: Multivariate tests of language effects. Journal of

Language & Communication. pp. 78-101.

Mulac, A., Seibold, D. R., & Farris, J. L. 2000. Female and male managers’ and

professionals’ criticism giving: Differences in language use and effects.

Journal of Language & Social Psychology. pp 89- 120. Nazir, M. 1988. Metode Penelitian. Jakarta; Ghalia. Indonesia.

Nguyen, V. K. 1999. Ung xu ngon ngu trong giao tiep gia dinh nguoi Viet. Publisher: Van Hoa Thong tin.

Nobelius, Ann Marie. 2004. Sex and Gender. Clayton: Monash University Press. Palomares, N. A. & Lee, Eun Ju. 2009. Virtual gender Identity: The Linguistics

Assimilation to Gendered Avatars in Computer-Mediated Communication. Journal of Language & Social Psychology. pp 35- 66.

Paul. R. 2001. English Language Arts Standards. Dallas: Michigan State University Press.

Preisler, Bent. 1986. Linguistic Sex Roles in Conversation: Social Variation in the Expression of Tentativeness in English. Journal of Language & Social Psychology. pp 233-271.

Romaine, S. 2000. Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. The 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sinar, T. S. & Syarfina, T. 2010. Prosodi bahasa Siladang sumatera Utara. Presented at Masyarakat Linguistik Indonesia, 17th Annual Conference. Jakarta, Indonesia.

University of North Sumatera Press.

Spender, D. 1985. Man made language. 2nd edition. London: Routledge & Kegan Pail. Tannen, D. 1994. Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

---. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men Conversation. New York: William Morrow.

Trask, R. L. 2007. Language and Linguistics: The Key Concepts, 2nd ed., ed. London: Routledge.

Uchida, A. 1992. When difference is dominance: A critique of the anti-power-based cultural approach to gender differences. Journal of Language in Society. pp 44-56.

Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia. 2010. Jakarta: Penerbit Kartika. Wilamová. S. 2005. Expressing Politeness in English Fictional Discourse. Ostrava:

Oystraysk Univerzita.

Available from: https://is.muni.cz/th/106163/pedf_b/text_prace.pdf (accessed on 2nd March 2014).

Zimmerman, D. & C. West. 1982. Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne & N. Henley. 1987. Language and