HEDGING DEVICES USED IN “ROOM FOR DEBATE” IN NEW YORK TIMES ONLINE WEBSITE Hedging Devices Used in "Room for Debate" in New York Times Online Website.
HEDGING DEVICES USED IN “ ROOM FOR DEBATE ”
IN NEW YORK TIMES ONLINE WEBSITE
THESIS
Submitted to
Post-Graduate Program of Language Study of Muhammadiyah University of
Surakarta as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Getting Master Degree
of Language Study of English
Written By:
Risti Yani Rahmawati
NIM: S. 200. 140. 012
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM OF LANGUAGE STUDY
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
2016
i
ii
iii
iv
v
MOTTO
I HAVE DONE MY BEST AND ALLAH WILL GIVE THE BEST
BECAUSE ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST
vi
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this thesis for:
God Allah SWT
Prophet Muhammad SAW
My father (Iskandar), and my mother (Hartini), who always give a support both
in spirit or finance.
My lecturers.
My friends and classmates.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the name of Allah, The Most Gracious and The Most Merciful, The Lord of
Universe. Because of ALLAH, the writer could finish this thesis entitled
“Hedging Devices Used in „Room for Debate‟ in New York Times Online
Website”. Secondly, peace and salutation are given to Prophet Muhammad SAW
who has guided everyone from the darkness to the lightness.
However, this success would not be achieved without supports, guidance,
advices, helps, and encouragements from individual and institution, and the writer
somehow realizes that this is an appropriate moment to extend the deepest
gratitude for Director of Postgraduate Program of Muhammadiyah University of
Surakarta Prof. Dr. Khuzaifah Dimyati, S.H., M.Hum. Then, the writer‟s truthful
thank is given to Prof. Dr. Markhamah, M.Hum as the head of Postgraduate
Program of Language Study.
Then, the writer would like to say the truthful thanks to Agus Wijayanto, Ph.D
as the first thesis advisor, and Mauy Halwat Hikmat, Ph. D as the second thesis
advisor, who have educated, supported, directed and given the writer advices,
suggestions, and recommendations for this thesis from beginning until the end.
The writer would like to give my thanks to all of the lecturers of Magister
Program of English Education and all of the staffs in Postgraduate Program of
Language Study of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta who have helped the
writer in processing of thesis administration. Special thanks much tobeloved
viii
parents, the writer‟s father (Iskandar) and mother (Hartini), who always give the
writer sincere prayers for success in life. Thanks to all classmates in MPB for
togetherness and motivation, and also the writer‟s participants of this thesis and
everyone who help the writer to finish this thesis. To all of them the writer
contributed this work.
Finally, the writer realizes that this thesis is far from being perfect, and this
thesis is expected to be able to provide useful knowledge and information to the
readers. And the writer pleases to accept more suggestion and contribution from
the reader for the improvement of the thesis.
Surakarta,
Risti Yani Rahmawati
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER................................................................................................................. i
APPROVAL OF THESIS................................................................................... ii
NOTE OF ADVISOR 1st..................................................................................... iii
NOTE OF ADVISOR 2nd.................................................................................... iv
PRONOUNCEMENT...........................................................................................v
MOTTO.............................................................................................................. vi
DEDICATION.................................................................................................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................. viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................x
LIST OF CHARTS............................................................................................. xii
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................ xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION........................................................................1
A. Background of the Study..........................................................1
B. Limitation of the Study.............................................................4
C. Problem Statements..................................................................5
D. Objectives of the Study............................................................5
E. Benefits of the Study................................................................6
1. Theoretical Benefit...........................................................6
2. Practical Benefit ...............................................................6
F. Research Paper Organization....................................................6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................8
A. Previous Studies.......................................................................8
B. Theoretical Review...................................................................15
1. Historical Background of Hedging...................................15
2. Indirectness and Hedging..................................................17
3. Surface Features of Hedging.............................................18
4. Hedging and Politeness......................................................33
5. Hedging Functions in Poly-Pragmatic Model....................35
6. Mass Media........................................................................39
7. Newspaper..........................................................................40
x
8. New York Times................................................................40
9. Room for Debate................................................................40
C. Theoretical Framework..............................................................41
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD........................................................... 44
A. Research Type.......................................................................44
B. Research Object....................................................................45
C. Data and Data Sources..........................................................47
D. Technique of Collecting Data...............................................47
E. Data Validity.........................................................................48
F. Technique of Analyzing Data...............................................49
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION.........................55
A. Research Findings.................................................................61
1. The Form and Frequencies of Hedging Devices Used in
„Room for Debate‟..........................................................55
2. The Possible Functions of Hedging Devices Used in
„Room for Debate‟..........................................................76
B. Discussion.............................................................................87
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION.......99
A. Conclusion.............................................................................99
B. Pedagogical Implication......................................................101
C. Suggestion...........................................................................102
BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................103
APPENDIX.........................................................................................................110
xi
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 1
: The Categories of Modal Auxiliaries
Chart 2
: The Categories of Hedging Numerical Data
Chart 3
: The Categories of Epistemic Lexical Verbs
Chart 4
: The Categories of Epistemic Adjectives
Chart 5
: The Categories of Epistemic Adverbs
xii
HEDGING DEVICES USED IN “ ROOM FOR DEBATE ”
IN NEW YORK TIMES ONLINE WEBSITE
Risti Yani Rahmawati
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta
riztyrahmawaty@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This study attempted 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 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 writeroriented hedge is for reducing the writer‟s commitment to statement and avoids
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
xiii
HEDGING DEVICES USED IN “ROOM FOR DEBATE ”
IN NEW YORK TIMES ONLINE WEBSITE
Risti Yani Rahmawati
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta
riztyrahmawaty@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meneliti tentang jenis dan frekuensi
pengunaan hedge di kolom“Room for Debate”yang ada di website surat kabar
New York Times. Selain itu, penelitian ini dilakukan untuk menganalisis
fungsi dari hedge di kolom tersebut.Ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif dengan
data yang digunakan terdiri dari 150 artikel pada website New York Times
dengan mengambil enam topik yakni bisnis, ekonomi, politik, ekonomi,
kesehatan, and teknologi dengan total jumlah kata yaitu 55,015. Metode
pengumpulan data adalah dengan dokumentasi yang meliputi pengumpulan dan
pemilihan artikel di kolom “Room for Debate” di website New York Times.
Kemudian data tersebut dianalisis berdasarkan taksonomi surface features dan
model poli-pragmatik dari Hyland (1998). Berdasarkan teori ini, proses analisa
data meliputi kodifikasi, identifikasi, klasifikasi, analisis, deskripsi dan
penarikan kesimpulan.
Temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ada 978 hedge yang ditemukan
di artikel di kolom “Room for Debate”di website New York times dengan
prosentase sebagai berikut : modal auxiliary 413 (42.2%), epistemic adverbs
186 (19%), epistemic lexical verbs 140 (14.3%), hedging numerical data 83
(8.5%), epistemic adjectives 43 (4.4%), passive constructions 55 (5.5%) dan
hypothetical condition 48 (5%). Namun penulis jarang sekali menggunakan
tipe hedge seperti epistemic noun, direct questions dan reference to limited
knowledge karena prosentase keduanya kurang dari 1 %.
Dalam penelitian ini, juga ditemukan bahwa ada tiga fungsi dari
penggunaan hedge di kolom “Room for Debate”, antara lain: (1) accuracyoriented hedge: membantu penulis untuk menyampaikan pendapat atau opini
secara cermat ; (2) writer-oriented hedge : mengurangi komitmen dalam
menyatakan pendapat dan menghindari tanggungjawab tentang kebenaran
suatu masalah; dan (3) reader-oriented hedge : membantu penulis dalam rangka
mengajak pembaca untuk terlibat dan bersedia merunut informasi tentang suatu
masalah.
Kata kunci: Hedging, New York Times, Model Poli-Pragmatik
xiv
108
IN NEW YORK TIMES ONLINE WEBSITE
THESIS
Submitted to
Post-Graduate Program of Language Study of Muhammadiyah University of
Surakarta as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Getting Master Degree
of Language Study of English
Written By:
Risti Yani Rahmawati
NIM: S. 200. 140. 012
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM OF LANGUAGE STUDY
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
2016
i
ii
iii
iv
v
MOTTO
I HAVE DONE MY BEST AND ALLAH WILL GIVE THE BEST
BECAUSE ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST
vi
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this thesis for:
God Allah SWT
Prophet Muhammad SAW
My father (Iskandar), and my mother (Hartini), who always give a support both
in spirit or finance.
My lecturers.
My friends and classmates.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the name of Allah, The Most Gracious and The Most Merciful, The Lord of
Universe. Because of ALLAH, the writer could finish this thesis entitled
“Hedging Devices Used in „Room for Debate‟ in New York Times Online
Website”. Secondly, peace and salutation are given to Prophet Muhammad SAW
who has guided everyone from the darkness to the lightness.
However, this success would not be achieved without supports, guidance,
advices, helps, and encouragements from individual and institution, and the writer
somehow realizes that this is an appropriate moment to extend the deepest
gratitude for Director of Postgraduate Program of Muhammadiyah University of
Surakarta Prof. Dr. Khuzaifah Dimyati, S.H., M.Hum. Then, the writer‟s truthful
thank is given to Prof. Dr. Markhamah, M.Hum as the head of Postgraduate
Program of Language Study.
Then, the writer would like to say the truthful thanks to Agus Wijayanto, Ph.D
as the first thesis advisor, and Mauy Halwat Hikmat, Ph. D as the second thesis
advisor, who have educated, supported, directed and given the writer advices,
suggestions, and recommendations for this thesis from beginning until the end.
The writer would like to give my thanks to all of the lecturers of Magister
Program of English Education and all of the staffs in Postgraduate Program of
Language Study of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta who have helped the
writer in processing of thesis administration. Special thanks much tobeloved
viii
parents, the writer‟s father (Iskandar) and mother (Hartini), who always give the
writer sincere prayers for success in life. Thanks to all classmates in MPB for
togetherness and motivation, and also the writer‟s participants of this thesis and
everyone who help the writer to finish this thesis. To all of them the writer
contributed this work.
Finally, the writer realizes that this thesis is far from being perfect, and this
thesis is expected to be able to provide useful knowledge and information to the
readers. And the writer pleases to accept more suggestion and contribution from
the reader for the improvement of the thesis.
Surakarta,
Risti Yani Rahmawati
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER................................................................................................................. i
APPROVAL OF THESIS................................................................................... ii
NOTE OF ADVISOR 1st..................................................................................... iii
NOTE OF ADVISOR 2nd.................................................................................... iv
PRONOUNCEMENT...........................................................................................v
MOTTO.............................................................................................................. vi
DEDICATION.................................................................................................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................. viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................x
LIST OF CHARTS............................................................................................. xii
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................ xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION........................................................................1
A. Background of the Study..........................................................1
B. Limitation of the Study.............................................................4
C. Problem Statements..................................................................5
D. Objectives of the Study............................................................5
E. Benefits of the Study................................................................6
1. Theoretical Benefit...........................................................6
2. Practical Benefit ...............................................................6
F. Research Paper Organization....................................................6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................8
A. Previous Studies.......................................................................8
B. Theoretical Review...................................................................15
1. Historical Background of Hedging...................................15
2. Indirectness and Hedging..................................................17
3. Surface Features of Hedging.............................................18
4. Hedging and Politeness......................................................33
5. Hedging Functions in Poly-Pragmatic Model....................35
6. Mass Media........................................................................39
7. Newspaper..........................................................................40
x
8. New York Times................................................................40
9. Room for Debate................................................................40
C. Theoretical Framework..............................................................41
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD........................................................... 44
A. Research Type.......................................................................44
B. Research Object....................................................................45
C. Data and Data Sources..........................................................47
D. Technique of Collecting Data...............................................47
E. Data Validity.........................................................................48
F. Technique of Analyzing Data...............................................49
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION.........................55
A. Research Findings.................................................................61
1. The Form and Frequencies of Hedging Devices Used in
„Room for Debate‟..........................................................55
2. The Possible Functions of Hedging Devices Used in
„Room for Debate‟..........................................................76
B. Discussion.............................................................................87
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION.......99
A. Conclusion.............................................................................99
B. Pedagogical Implication......................................................101
C. Suggestion...........................................................................102
BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................103
APPENDIX.........................................................................................................110
xi
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 1
: The Categories of Modal Auxiliaries
Chart 2
: The Categories of Hedging Numerical Data
Chart 3
: The Categories of Epistemic Lexical Verbs
Chart 4
: The Categories of Epistemic Adjectives
Chart 5
: The Categories of Epistemic Adverbs
xii
HEDGING DEVICES USED IN “ ROOM FOR DEBATE ”
IN NEW YORK TIMES ONLINE WEBSITE
Risti Yani Rahmawati
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta
riztyrahmawaty@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This study attempted 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 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 writeroriented hedge is for reducing the writer‟s commitment to statement and avoids
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
xiii
HEDGING DEVICES USED IN “ROOM FOR DEBATE ”
IN NEW YORK TIMES ONLINE WEBSITE
Risti Yani Rahmawati
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta
riztyrahmawaty@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meneliti tentang jenis dan frekuensi
pengunaan hedge di kolom“Room for Debate”yang ada di website surat kabar
New York Times. Selain itu, penelitian ini dilakukan untuk menganalisis
fungsi dari hedge di kolom tersebut.Ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif dengan
data yang digunakan terdiri dari 150 artikel pada website New York Times
dengan mengambil enam topik yakni bisnis, ekonomi, politik, ekonomi,
kesehatan, and teknologi dengan total jumlah kata yaitu 55,015. Metode
pengumpulan data adalah dengan dokumentasi yang meliputi pengumpulan dan
pemilihan artikel di kolom “Room for Debate” di website New York Times.
Kemudian data tersebut dianalisis berdasarkan taksonomi surface features dan
model poli-pragmatik dari Hyland (1998). Berdasarkan teori ini, proses analisa
data meliputi kodifikasi, identifikasi, klasifikasi, analisis, deskripsi dan
penarikan kesimpulan.
Temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ada 978 hedge yang ditemukan
di artikel di kolom “Room for Debate”di website New York times dengan
prosentase sebagai berikut : modal auxiliary 413 (42.2%), epistemic adverbs
186 (19%), epistemic lexical verbs 140 (14.3%), hedging numerical data 83
(8.5%), epistemic adjectives 43 (4.4%), passive constructions 55 (5.5%) dan
hypothetical condition 48 (5%). Namun penulis jarang sekali menggunakan
tipe hedge seperti epistemic noun, direct questions dan reference to limited
knowledge karena prosentase keduanya kurang dari 1 %.
Dalam penelitian ini, juga ditemukan bahwa ada tiga fungsi dari
penggunaan hedge di kolom “Room for Debate”, antara lain: (1) accuracyoriented hedge: membantu penulis untuk menyampaikan pendapat atau opini
secara cermat ; (2) writer-oriented hedge : mengurangi komitmen dalam
menyatakan pendapat dan menghindari tanggungjawab tentang kebenaran
suatu masalah; dan (3) reader-oriented hedge : membantu penulis dalam rangka
mengajak pembaca untuk terlibat dan bersedia merunut informasi tentang suatu
masalah.
Kata kunci: Hedging, New York Times, Model Poli-Pragmatik
xiv
108