AN ANALYSIS OF HEDGING USES IN SKRIPSI-S EMPLOYING QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHOD.

(1)

A THESIS:

AN ANALYSIS OF HEDGING USES IN SKRIPSI-S EMPLOYING

QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHOD

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for Master’s Degree

in English Education

Written by :

Erfan Muhamad Fauzi

1006932

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

DECLARATION

I hereby certify that this thesis entitled “An Analysis of Hedging Uses in Skripsi-s Employing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Method” is completely my own work. I am fully aware that I have quoted some statements and ideas from various sources. All quotations are properly acknowledged.

Bandung, June 2014

(3)

PAGE OF APPROVAL

This thesis entitled “An Analysis of Hedging Uses in Skripsi-s Employing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Method” written by Erfan Muhamad Fauzi has been approved

by the supervisor and the examiners:

The Supervisor

Iwa Lukmana, Ph.D., M.A. NIP: 196611271993031002

(4)

ABSTRACT

This study presents an analysis of hedging as one of metadiscourse strategies in research writing setting. This study concerns the analysis of the difference of hedging uses in research report (skripsi-s) employing quantitative and qualitative research method. Particularly, the hedging uses in this study are analyzed in terms of their surface features and their polypragmatic models. In order to analyze the problems of this study, qualitative method, particularly discourse analysis, is used to interpret the text and to examine the feature of language in use. In addition, the effort of quantification was conducted in order to display countable map of the difference of hedging uses in qualitative and quantitative skripsi-s. The data source is from chapter four of some skripsi-s of similar major (study program). They were collected by purposive sampling in order to figure out the contrast of the use of hedging in skripsi-s employing quantitative and qualitative research method. This study has two female undergraduate students with qualitative skripsi-s and two female undergraduate students with quantitative skripsi-s. The collected data were analyzed based on Hyland’s and Vartalla’s theory of surface features and polypragmatic models of hedging. From overall calculation of surface features of hedging, It can be seen that the quantitative skripsi-s (19.22) have more hedging uses than qualitative ones (12.72). The gap of difference between both groups is 33.8%. Regarding the polypragmatic models of hedging, quantitative skripsi-s tend to have hedging uses more than quantitative skripsi-s do. The percentage of difference is 36.2%. However, there is no reader-oriented hedge found in quantitative skripsi-s although in terms of hedging use frequency quantitative skripsi-s dominate.

(5)

CONTENTS

APPROVAL SHEET ... i

DECLARATION... ii

PREFACE ... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... iv

ABSTRACT... v

CONTENTS ... vi

LIST OF TABLES ... vii

LIST OF DIAGRAM ... viii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1Background of the study ... 1

1.2Research Questions ... 4

1.3Purposes and significances of the study... 4

1.4The scope of study ... 4

1.5Clarification of terms ... 5

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW... 8

2.1 Academic writing ... 8

2.2.1 Defining academic writing ... 8

2.2.2 Skripsi of quantitative and qualitative research ... 10

2.2.3 Academic writing of non-native English... 12

2.2.4 Academic writing and metadiscourse... 13

2.2 Hedging and discourse ... 15

2.2.1 Basic Notion ... 16

2.2.2 Hedging and epistemic modality ... 17

2.2.3 Categories of hedging surface features ... 20

2.2.4 Polypragmatic models of hedging ... 26

2.3 Hedging in academic writing... 29

(6)

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY... 32

3.1 Statement of problems... 32

3.2 Research design... 32

3.3 Data Source... 33

3.4 Data collection ... 34

3.5 Data analysis... 36

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 40

4.1Surface features of hedging in skripsi-s ... 40

4.1.1 Descriptive statistic display of distributional information of the surface features of hedging uses ... 41

4.1.1.1Lexical hedging ... 41

4.1.1.2Non-Lexical hedging ... 50

4.1.2 Total hedges used in skripsi-s... 51

4.1.3 The reconstruction of hedging identified from surface features ... 53

4.1.3.1Lexical Hedging... 53

4.1.3.2Non-Lexical Hedging ... 72

4.2Polypragmatic models of hedging in skripsi-s ... 74

4.2.1 Content-oriented ... 75

4.2.1.1Accuracy-oriented ... 76

4.2.1.2Writer-oriented ... 79

4.2.2 Reader-oriented ... 81

4.3Hedging uses in quantitative and qualitative skripsi-s ... 81

4.3.1 Comparison of surface features of hedging in quantitative and qualitative skripsi-s ... 82

4.3.2 Comparison of polypragmatic models of hedging uses in quantitative and qualitative skripsi-s ... 86

4.4Discussions and implications of hedging uses in skripsi-s employing qualitative and quantitative research method... 87

4.4.1 Discussions of hedging uses in skripsi-s employing qualitative and quantitative research method... 87

(7)

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS... 92

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 96

APPENDICES ... 102

Appendix 1 ... 102

Appendix 2 ... 113

Appendix 3 ... 120

(8)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Characteristics of quantitative and qualitative research method ... 11

Table 2.2 Categorization of metadiscourse from Crismore ... 14

Table 2.3 Realization of hedging in auxiliary verbs ... 21

Table 2.4 Realization of hedging in full verbs... 22

Table 2.5 Realization of hedging in adverb ... 24

Table 3.1 Data sources of this study ... 34

Table 3.2 Table to display expressions containing hedging potential ... 37

Table 3.3 The example of table for fourth step ... 37

Table 4.1 The occurrence of modal auxiliaries in all skripsi-s per 1000 words ... 41

Table 4.2 The occurrence of full verbs in all skripsi-s per 1000 words ... 42

Table 4.3 The occurrence of adverbs in all skripsi-s per 1000 words ... 44

Table 4.4 The occurrence of adjectives in all skripsi-s per 1000 words ... 46

Table 4.5 The occurrence of nouns in all skripsi-s per 1000 words ... 48

Table 4.6 The occurrence of other hedges in all skripsi-s per 1000 words ... 50

Table 4.7 The overall occurrences of hedging uses in all skripsi-s ... 51

Table 4.8 Models of hedging occurring in form of sentences per 100 lines ... 74

Table 4.9 The percentage of distributional information of overall hedging uses ... 82

Table 4.10 Hedging in qualitative and quantitative research methods ... 84

Table 4.11 The polypragmatic model of hedging uses in qualitative and quantitative research methods ... 86

(9)

LIST OF DIAGRAM

(10)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1Background of the study

Hedging has been a primarary material in writing, especially academic writing (Hyland, 1994; Hinkel, 2004). In addition, academic writing as evidence of intellectuality of academician makes teaching writing an urgent concern (Alwasilah, 2008). Moreover, most exams that assess one’s degree of education achievement often rely on writing proficiency for measurement of knowledge (Harmer, 2004). Weisser (2002) also regards the compositionists or writers of any kind of text types as public intellectuals. These show how writing is adhered to intellectuality.

In academic context, writing is an important part of university study (Zemach and Rumisek, 2005). There are many writing assignments that administered to students in many taken courses. Furthermore, writing becomes requisite for graduation from most of higher education level institutions, such as, paper, journal, thesis, or dissertation. In this context, academic writing terminology emerges. Hooks (1999; in Murray, 2006) defines academic writing as the desire to think and write more, to fill these gaps that informs the desire to leave academy. In academic writing, one thinks and writes of subject chosen, in the manner that s/he wishes to write in whatever voice s/he chooses. This becomes reason why teaching writing in academic context is necessary in academic environment. Variation of disciplines, for example, results in different typical text types, and this text types expect specific construction and representation of knowledge through the text structure and the use of register (Coffin, et al, 2003).

Hedging plays an important role in academic writing context (Hinkel, 2004; Emilia, 2008). Selecting hedging as one of writing styles to analyze is reasonable since hedging shows writers’ reducing to the truthfulness of a statement; hedging represents the use of linguistic devices to show hesitation or uncertainty, display politeness and directness and defer to reader’s point of view

(11)

(Hyland, 1998; see also Hinkel, 2004). This view about the use of hedging in academic writing shows opportunity to reveal the different tendency of undergraduate students using hedging as rhetorical device in their academic writing. Graduate study as continuation from undergraduate study is expected to produce better writing; the use of hedging as one of language devices becomes one aspect that could measure graduate students’ skill in the awareness of claiming the truth (Hyland, 1998).

Since Lakoff (1972) conceptualizes hedging as rhetorical devices to make fuzzy concept of a thing. This hedge or hedging as linguistic terminology was developed in pragmatist and discourse analysts hand. Meyer (1997) more specifically observes how hedging is used in academic writing as strengthener of arguments by weakening the claim in terms of cooperative principles. Following the observation of Meyer, Skelton (1997) also finds how hedging is used in a particular discipline, namely medical discipline. Skelton figured out that speculative judgment words such as suggest, indicate or imply become technical terms for the sake of modest uniformity of style. Some studies concerning hedging used in academic discourse were conducted in several sites of different nations. Most of them usually focused on certain discipline or the comparison among academic writings of different disciplines (Hyland, 1995; Vertalla, 2001; Martin, 2008; Taweel, Saidat and Saidat, 2011 and Nivales, 2011). Hedging is also used differently in terms of the language speaker, namely, native or non-native speaker (Riekkinen, 2009; Nasiri, 2012).

By this study, some of academic writing features can be displayed and elucidated scientifically. Since there are abundant features that can be explained from this academic writing phenomenon structurally, rhetorically or stylistically, this study focuses on the flow of the text and discourse, more particularly hedging. The use of hedging in academic writing is considerably important. In presenting factuality and truthfulness of statement, the use of hedging is beneficial in that the statement is not too assertive and judgmental. The study about hedging in academic writing across disciplines is already done by many researchers. The

(12)

result shows significant difference of the use of hedging in different disciplines (Vertalla, 2001).

On the basis of elaboration about hedging above, there is still question that needs depicting, in terms of the use of hedging in undergraduate students as they use qualitative and quantitative research method. This study qualitatively leads to the realization whether hedging as rhetorical device is acquired differently as writers use different frameworks of seeing phenomena in certain perspectives (qualitative and quantitative research method).

1.2Research questions

The following research questions realize the problems of hedging used in the skripsi-s employing quantitative and qualitative research method:

1. What surface features of hedging occur in skripsi-s employing qualitative and quantitative research methods?

2. What are the polypragmatic models of hedging used in those skripsi-s?

3. What are the differences of the uses of hedging in quantitative skripsi-s from those in qualitative skripsi-s in terms of their surface features and polypragmatic model?

1.3Purposes and significances of the study

Regarding the aforementioned background of this study, purposes and significance of the study are:

1. Presenting comprehensive evidence of undergraduate students’ using hedging in their skripsi-s. Hopefully, this can be used as needs analysis about students’ rhetorical skill in written language.

2. In terms of interpersonal metadiscourse, this study clarifies what happen to the use of hedging in academic writing context so that the use of hedging as linguistic devices is more and more realized.

(13)

1.4The scope of study

This study does not widely concern all aspects of hedging in academic writing context. This study touches only some types of hedging and identification of its pragmatic use. The strategy of hedging and semantic exploration is conducted explicitly particularly in necessary condition of explaining and describing hedging based on its surface features and polypragmatic model.

In terms of writing genre, this study concerns only academic writing. However, regarding some researches done by Vartalla (2001) and Taweel, Saidat, Hussein and Saidat (2011) concerning the use of hedging in certain register on politics, economics, medicine and technology, this kind of study focuses on academic writing in applied linguistics context. This study was conducted particularly in English education major. In this academic context, the tendency of undergraduate students’ using hedging in their academic writing becomes the main quest of this study. Systematically, the main body parts of skripsi-s as academic writing in the research site are typically divided into titles, acknowledgment, abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, findings, discussion/analysis and conclusion. The body parts analyzed in this study are only findings and discussions. They are integrated in chapter 4. The reason of choosing this chapter 4 is based on Hyland’s (1997) and Vartalla’s (2001) who found that hedging are used more frequently in result or discussion sections. It is reasonable since the argumentation is generated from these sections.

1.5Clarification of terms Academic writing:

Although there is no explicit definition of academic writing, it refers to writing in academic context and using academic language for the sake of leaving the academy. This writing can be identified through its purposes, namely, documenting and communicating scientific knowledge, research process and research outcomes (Monipally and Pawar, 2010). In the effort of defining academic writing, Murray (2009) emphasizes the conventions of publishing paper in particular discipline. It explains that every academy (discipline) has probably

(14)

variation of rules that have to be subjected by those who want to leave the academy.

Skripsi:

Skripsi in this study refers to scientific composition/writing that has to be written by students as requisite for completing academic education (Kamus Bahasa Indonesia, 2008), usually for undergraduate degree, meanwhile thesis is for graduate degree. In this study, skripsi is the realization of academic writing (Sudjana, 2004). In the beginning, terminology skripsi in Indonesian context refers to writing based on observations, reviewing some literatures and strict methodology as procedure for examining an issue. The differences of skripsi, thesis and dissertation lay in the depth of examination and explanation, and usually skripsi is for undergraduate students meanwhile thesis and dissertation are for graduate students (Suryadi, 1980). In terms of the interpretation of the depth of examination, Nasution and Thomas (2010) warn that it is not about the quantity of the writing but how effective the writing explains the issue. In this study, the skripsi-s used as data sampling are from English language education major of the same university.

Hedging:

Hedging or hedges in this study tends to use Hyland’s (1997) definition of hedging, namely, the process, conventionally admitted as academic style, whereby the author reduces the strength of statement. In its use, hedging is realized as rhetorical devices. The function of hedging so as to mitigate the truthfulness of statement is one of reason why Hallidayan includes hedging into epistemic modality, the area of meaning that lies between yes or no. However, hedging cannot be confused with booster/intensifier that has similar ability to modify the modality of statement. Fraser (2010) includes this booster as reinforcement, and differentiates between reinforcement and hedging. Hedging reduces the

(15)

truthfulness of statement, while booster/intensifier increases the grade of truthfulness of statement.

Surface Features of Hedging:

Surface features exists for the sake of quantification of hedging, practical efforts to identify hedging phenomena are needed. Hedging as pragmatic phenomenon cannot be easily identified without comprehensive judgment and recursive interpretation. This identification of hedging was designed at the first place by Hyland (1997). Those surface features of hedging are lexical and non-lexical items that frequently generate hedged expression. Some classification of this surface features of hedging were developed by Vartalla (2001). Therefore, considering those two experts, the surface features of hedging becomes primary issue in this study.

Polypragmatic Models of Hedging:

From the consideration that the use of hedging in research writing setting should regard the writer, the expected reader and the content of the research writing, Polypragmatic models of hedging emerge by considering those three aspects. Hedging is considered to be polypragmatic because hedging as language device often has different semantic interpretation and convey a range of meanings for particular users in particular contexts (Hyland, 1997). In line with Halliday’s (1994) belief above that the speaker, the interlocutor and the situation, at once, affect how language should be interpreted.

1.6Thesis organization

This thesis is presented in five chapters. Chapter I presents introductory elaboration of the stance on which the study was conducted and focus of this study by formulation of research questions their clarification.

(16)

The chapter II presents theoretical framework of this study used to interpret the data. It begins from description of academic writing as the setting of this study. The description of academic writing also includes particular characteristics of academic writing that becomes the data source. More specifically, one aspect in academic writing is taken for the focus of this study. This study concerns one of metadiscourses strategies, namely, hedging. Finally, the description of hedging in academic writing is also presented to expose some theories to put into the consideration when interpreting data.

The chapter III explains how the research is conducted from the beginning to the end. The explanation of design of research is presented in order to see how the research problems and the way to interpret it are matched. The data collection follows the explanation of research design is presented to see that data source and the way to gain the data are appropriate as it is related to the focus of this study. In the end, step by step analysis is presented to see how the data are interpreted.

In the chapter IV, answering two research questions of this study that become the guideline for this chapter. The first sub-chapter is to find out distributional information of hedging uses in skripsi-s employing quantitative and qulittive research method. The second sub-chapter is about the polypragmatic models of hedging uses in research reporting.

Chapter V presents the essential points that this study has found through analyzing skripsi-s as discourses. In addition, the recommendations that are realized from the interpretation of data are also presented so that the significance of this study in language education context is visible and the possibility for further research can be attempted.

(17)

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter explains how the research is conducted from the beginning to the end. The explanation of design of research is presented in order to see how the research problems and the way to interpret it are matched. The data collection follows the explanation of research design is presented to see that data source and the way to gain the data are appropriate as it is related to the focus of this study. In the end, step by step analysis is presented to see how the data are interpreted.

3.1Statement of the problems

The use of hedging in academic writing is considerably important. In presenting factuality and truthfulness of statement, the use of hedging is beneficial in that the statement becomes not too assertive and judgmental (Markannen and Schroder, 1997). The study about hedging in academic writing across disciplines is already done by many researchers. The result shows significant difference of the use of hedging in different disciplines (Vartalla, 2001). From such condition, there are still some problems that need depicting, in terms of the use of hedging in undergraduate. This study qualitatively leads to the realization whether hedging as rhetorical device is acquired naturally or whether level of education determines the advance of the rhetorical devices use. In short, this study tries to decipher hedging uses occurring in skripsi-s employing qualitative and quantitative research methods in terms of the surface features and polypragmatic models of hedging.

3.2Research Design

To explore the above research problem, the present study employs qualitative research method. Qualitative research is the appropriate research method dominantly used for this study because the explanation of this study concerns the comprehensive elaboration of the nature of phenomenon, namely

(18)

hedging in academic writing. Creswell (2011) believes qualitative research is the suitable research method for exploration of variables and problems that has been clearly revealed.

One of qualitative research method characteristics is exploring a problem and developing a detailed understanding of a central phenomenon (Creswell, 2011). This is in line with what Sinclair (2004) suggests trusting the text, in discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is employed in this study as one type of qualitative research methods. Jorgensen and Phillips (2002) believes that discourse analysis can be used not only as theory in interpreting the text but also in doing the procedure of analysis of text. Dealing with this, Conrad (2002; in Charles, Maggie et al, 2009) provides an overview of approaches that can be used to examine discourse phenomena and distinguishes four types: (1) studies which examine a feature of language in use; (2) studies of the realizations of a function of language; (3) studies of a variety of language and (4) studies that trace the occurrence of a linguistic feature throughout a text.

By characteristics above, exploration of hedging as (meta)discourse phenomenon can be included in qualitative research. Qualitative research design can reveal the unsuspected patterns of language through examining the nature and structure of language of large collection of text (Sinclair, 2003 and 2004).

To support qualitative research, the use of hedging in skripsi-s was depicted comprehensively in statistical display. This study is followed by discursive analysis derived from discourse analysis above in form of narrow scope of survey. Quantitative analysis in survey design by showing descriptive analysis helps us to scan an issue in order to generalize certain features (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2007).

3.3Data Source

In order to cope with the purposes of this research, the data that match for this study are those digital copy of skripsi-s of English education major students’. There are four skripsi-s selected in this study to analyse, namely, four undergraduate students’ academic writing (skripsi-s) consisting of two skripsi-s

(19)

employing quantitative research method and two skripsi-s employing qualitative research method.

Because this study tries to figure out the contrast of the use of hedging in skripsi-s employing quantitative and qualitative research method, this study used purposive sampling. In purposive sampling, the case included in the sample is the basis of judgment of typicality or possession of the particular characteristics being sought (Cohen et al, 2006). The data are taken due to the availability of this research procedure that needs digital copy of skripsi-s in the same major of study. The same university in similar management is advantageous as well, in terms of internal validity, in that the environment and management are almost equal in certain conditions. Therefore, this study has two female undergraduate with qualitative skripsi and two female undergraduate with quantitative skripsi. The following table illustrates the research participants involved in this study.

Table 3.1 Data sources of this study

Variables 2011 2010

Quantitative 1 1

Qualitative 1 1

Total 2 2

The text for research data were taken from skripsi-s of the undergraduate students from the same major. However not all the contents of the reserach are analyzed due to time constraints of the participants. Therefore, this study takes chapter IV (result and discussion sections) in similar proportion out of each skripsi-s. This effort is done in order to retain the naturality of reserach findings, bacause naturality is what qualitative study tries to hold (Alwasilah, 2008).

3.4Data Collection

There are two major data collected in this study. The first is the collection of quantitative data, portrayed in descriptive statistics. The second is qualitative data collected from text during interpretation of data source to find pragmatical

(20)

use of hedging in academic writing and from interview to support the interpretation.

Quantitative data were taken from the text selected as mentioned in data source section. However, the statistical counts are possible by counting the occurrences of words identified by Vartalla (2001) as potentially generating hedging (see appendices). This involves two main processes, namely, the collection of the texts and the computerization of the texts (Meyer, 2002). First, collection of the texts are taken manually from digital text from each participant permission. They are usually in .doc/x format. Thus, there are 4 skripsi-s selected in the qualification mentioned before (cf. § 3.3). Computerization of the text are done: 1) by converting files in .doc/x format into .txt format. Antcont was used as software to analyze occurrence of hedging based on word per word identification. The categorization using this software makes the mapping of words use in text easier.

Qualitative data were from the text (in clausal unit) to interpret according to theoretical framework of hedging. This is for the sake of superficial statistical description and in-depth understanding of phenomenon observed. The second stage of data collection of this study is to get further information about the data that are colleted in the first stage. Namely, the researcher himself who analyzed the text based on the nature of hedging, in case there are implicitly stated

expressions of hedging uses out of Vartalla’s categorization. Another instrument to support the second stage data collection was also provided, namely, interview.

The interview was addressed to the authors of the skripsi-s. The interview contains questions about hedging in the authors’ skripsi-s. It tries to reveal how they acquire the ability to use hedging; why they used hedging and the hedging in their academic world. This interview is used in this study to support findings of interpretation on hedging used in skripsi-s based on Hyland’s and Vartalla’s theory about hedging.

(21)

3.5Data Analysis

There are two parts of data analysis in this study. The first part is to answer the first research question, namely, to find out distributional information of hedging uses in skripsi-s employing quantitative and qualitative research method. The first part of data analysis involves a careful investigation into the hedging markers used in the aforementioned data inspired from Hyland (1997), Vartalla (2011), and Taweel, Saidat, Hussein and Saidat (2011). There are four steps of the first part of the data analysis. The first step is identifying the hedging markers (see appendices for hedging markers based on Vartalla’s identification) in the chosen skripsi-s in order to extract all words potentially showing hedging based on tokens identified as hedging by Vartalla. This step requires Antcone Software to search effectively for how particular words used. The second step is classifying the result of the first step based on theories proposed by Hyland (1997) and Vartalla (2001), that all expressions potentially containing hedging are classified into eight categories: modal auxiliaries, full verbs, adverbs, adjectives, nouns, clausal element, questions and other hedges. The third is interpreting the effect of the statement containing hedging especially hedging influence that modifies factuality. The third step is useful in determining whether an expression is hedged or not. The following matrix is made to display the data comprehensively in accordance with those three steps:

(22)

Table 3.2 Table to display expressions containing hedging potential

No Statement Hedging

Category Explanation

After conducting

investigation, the writer identifies that in

“AUSTRALIA” film, there

are total 44 slang words, 27 slang idioms in 80

dialogues,…

Non-factive Reporting Verb

seen as tentative devices useful in constructing reports of research by other scholars or in tentatively describing the

authors’ own work.

…some slang words are repeated several times in the whole script,…

Approximative adjective

commonly used to manipulate precision in quantification.

3 Colorful sayings which are (fairly) self-explanatory

Adverbs-indefinite degree

“seek to express only

part of the potential force

of the item concerned”

thus make it possible to

render one’s statements

less than absolute.

4. … … …

Table 3.2 shows 4 columns: number, statement, hedging category and explanation. Column number can be seen as frequency of expression occurred as hedging. The second column is column statement, that is, the clauses that contain hedging uses. Column hedging category in the third column display hedging

category based on Hyland’s (1997) and Vartalla’s (2001) theory for clauses in column statement. Items in the second column are explained in the fourth column that clarifies the inclusion of items in second column included in certain hedging category.

The fourth step is quantification of the qualitative data above into counts and percentage of each of lexical and syntactic markers based on the occurrence of words regarded as hedges. The frequency of hedging is identified based on the amount of words found per 1000 words. The following table is sample to display fourth step:

(23)

Table 3.3 The example of table for fourth step

Modal Auxiliaries ST RS TT WD Sub-Total

Might 0 0 0,27 0,39 0,66

Will 0 0 0,54 0 0,54

Total 3 0 9,42 4,64 17,06

Table 3.3 displays the frequency of hedging uses in every hedging category based on their surface feature. Column modal auxiliary shows items subcategory or items of the hedging category. ST, RS, TT and WD are initial name of the writers of skripsi-s. Columns for each initial name represent individual hedging uses.

The quantification of this hedging uses is made for displaying distributional information of how hedging are used in skripsi-s employing quantitative and qualitative research methods. The final result of this quantification is to find out the comparison of hedging uses in the form of ratio or the percentage of the difference of quantitative and qualitative skripsi-s.

The second stage is analyzing the basic pragmatic functions of lexical and syntactic hedges as used contextually in the data are interpreted by some theoretical concept of hedging, based on the data analysis steps in Table 3.2. This builds a logical chain of evidence, noting causality and making inferences.

For answering the second research question, namely, to interpret and

clarify how hedges are used in undergraduate students’ academic writing (

skripsi-s), the framework from Hyland’s (1995, 1996 and 1997) is used. The categorization of how hedging function are created are done by discerning identification displayed in Table 3.2. Those occurrences of hedging from superficial features are interpreted further, discerning their effects to content, writer and readers. In research writing, the explanation of those three is inevitable because hedging is regarded as polypragmatic phenomenon (Hyland, 1995, 1996, 1997; and Vartalla, 2001).

For more reliable interpretation of this study, interview with the authors of skripsi-s were conducted. This interview was used as qualitative data to support the interpretation of data that generates assumption. This is in line with Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007) who claim that the purpose of interview is to

(24)

develop hypothesis. Therefore, interview to explore the possibility of interpretation and enhance the interpretation is necessary in this study. in conclusion, this stage of data analysis is making conceptual/theoretical coherence: moving from identifications and categorization, to theories to explain the phenomena.

(25)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter V presents the essential points that this study has found through analyzing hedging from skripsi-s based on Hyland‟s (1998) and Vartalla‟s (2001) theories. In addition, the recommendations that are realized from the interpretation of data are also presented so that the significance of this study in language education context is visible and the possibility for further research can be attempted.

5.1Conclusions

This study focuses on hedging uses of non-native speakers of English in their academic writing skill. Particularly, the primary issue in this study is the difference in academic writing in research setting, namely, quantitative and qualitative skripsi-s. In order to decipher this issue, two research questions are formulized for clearer orientation of this study.

Based on the two research questions, this study finds out how hedging uses in skripsi-s are like. First, from belief on text based on frequency counts

using Hyland‟s (1998) and Vartalla‟s (2001) theories of edging, it is revealed that there are a two participants of this study who are close to how English expert users use hedging in research writing. Hyland (1997) and Vartalla (2001) found out that the use of hedging in Journal corpus is about 20 occurrences per 1000 words. There are some samples of this study that approaches the number of hedging occurrences found by Hyland and Vartalla in international journal corpus regarded as convention of how rhetoric of research writing was expressed. Generally, most of participants of this study used hedging similarly to what expert users did, namely, 15.97 occurrences per 1000 words. This is a close number compared to standard. However, the most frequently used hedging category is verb category. This is different finding from Hyland (1997) and Vartalla (2001) who found adverb as the most frequently used hedging category.

(26)

Skripsi-s employing quantitative research method dominates the use of hedging in most of hedging sub-categories. In another side, hedging in skripsi-s employing qualitative research method occurred more frequently in sub-categories: adjective indefinite frequency, probability adverb, adverbs of indefinite degree, tentative cognitive verbs, indicating limits of accuracy, and theoretical information. However, from overall calculation, the quantitative skripsi-s (19.22) get more hedging uses than qualitative ones (12.72). The gap of difference between both groups is 33.8%. This is implied that Phenomena of hedging uses in academic writing setting are not always naturally occurred. Implicitly, Hinkel (2004) suggests that hedging should be used as one of materials in teaching writing mechanics. This suggestion is supported by Al-Quraisy‟s (2011) finding that there are significantly different hedging uses of students‟ academic writing when they were treated by learning instruction including materials about hedging. Therefore, the explicit teaching of hedging as metadiscoursive strategy in academic writing takes important role.

Second, in answering the research questions about polypragmatic models of hedging uses, the theory from Hyland (1995, 1996 and 1997) about are used. Quantitative skripsi-s tend to have hedging uses more than quantitative skripsi-s do. The percentage of difference is 36.2%. This is in line with the findings in the difference of hedging based on surface features. However, there is one specific issues worth to mention in the polypragmatic models of hedging uses, namely, that extreme samples exist in this quantification in qualitative and quantitative skripsi-s.

The 28 exemplifications of polypragmatic models of hedging from

Hyland‟s (1997) are used as the identification of the polypragmatic models of hedging. In attribute-hedge category, there are five exemplifications that match Hyland‟s: indicating the degree to which the detected response varies from what is considered "normal"; denoting a deviation from an idealised conception of a particular process; indicating deviations from “ideal” correlations, causes, behavior, and so on; indicating the degree of precision intended and conveys the sense in which idea may be held to be true. In reliability-hedge, there are four

(27)

exemplifications: indicating an assessment of the reliability of truth, keeping interpretation close to findings, where may be less tenuous; using conventional epistemic forms in the main grammatical classes; commenting on probability of the content of a proposition being true and including both adverbs of uncertainty, which simply convey doubt on the information; and commenting on probability of the content of a proposition being true and include both adverbs of mental perception, which show how result are understood. In writer-oriented hedge, there are five exemplification: avoiding assuming explicit responsibility for an

assertion, while seeking to secure „uptake‟ by moving the reader to the writer‟s

standpoint; presenting a construction of abstract rhetors which, by nominalising a personal projection, suggest that the situation described is independent of human agency; serving qualification of specific claims; showing that the writer does not wish to be thought fully and personally committed to a belief in the proposed state of affairs; and referring to both the warrant for the claim and citing supporting. In reader-oriented hedge, there is only exemplification found, namely, using personal attribution.

5.2Recommendations

This study is concerned with the phenomena of hedging uses as metadiscoruse strategy in academic writing. Therefore there are two recommendations of this study, namely, theoretical orientation in discussion of hedging as metadiscourse strategy and practical use in language learning as teaching academic writing instruction.

For theoretical orientation, it can be suggested that hedging uses are a metadiscursive strategy in writing skill so that they can be taught and learned, although different genre or register may influence the uses in terms of expert English users. In addition, for non-native English speakers who are still in learning process of improving their English skills, instruction of hedging uses in writing class are more influential than register and genre of writing they create are. This assumption emerged from this study need quantitative proof, such as

(28)

experimental study on students‟ hedging use with and without explicit learning instruction of hedging uses.

Practically, Hinkel (2004) describes the important role of hedging uses in writing (included skripsi) addressed to non-native English speaker as materials of teaching grammar. She puts hedging into grammatical aspect of writing in order to create better writing. In setting where English is a foreign language, the teaching of hedging uses in skripsi-s would be necessary, then. Therefore, this study can be regarded as needs analysis for considering the emergence of teaching hedging uses explicitly in academic writing.

(29)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdi, R., Rizi, M. T., and Tavakoli, M. 2010. The cooperative principles in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics: Vol. 42, p. 1669-1679.

Adel, A. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2. Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Alwasilah, A. C. 2008. Pokoknya kualitatif. Bandung: Pustaka Jaya.

Anthony, L. 2011. AntConc (Windows, Macintosh OS X, and Linux) Build 3.2.4. Accessed in www.antlab.sci on May 5th, 2013

Atai, M. & Sadr, L. 2012. A cross cultural genre study on hedging devices in discussion section applied linguistics research articles. Accessed in

http://www.paaljapan.org/resources/proceedings/ PAAL11/pdfs/04.pdf on May

5th, 2013

Bruce, I. 2008. Academic writing and genre: A systematic analysis. New York: Continuum.

Coffin, C. et al. 2003. Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. London: Routledge.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. 2007. Research method in education. Sixth edition. New York: Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 2nd edition. California: Sage Publication.

Creswell, J. W. 2012. Educational research planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th edition. Boston: Pearson Education.

Crompton, P. 1997. Hedging in academic writing: some theoretical problems. English for specific purposes, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 271-287.

(30)

Declerck, R. 2011. Definitions of modality. In Patard, A. and Brisard, Frank. 2011. Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect, and epistemic modality. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Dixon, R. M. W. 2005. A Semantic approach to English grammar. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Emilia, E. 2008. Menulis tesis dan disertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Ernst, T. 2004. The syntax of adjuncts. New York: Cambridge University Press. Essen & Varlander. 2012. The mutual constitution of sensuous and discursive

understanding in scientific practice: An autoethnographic lens on academic writing. Retrieved from Sage Journal:

http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/14/1350507611431529. on

May 5th, 2013

Fraser, B. 2010. Pragmatic competence: the case of hedging. In Kaltenbock, G., Mihatsch, W., and Schneider, S. 2010. New Approaches to hedging. West Yorkshire: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Gillaerts, P. and Velde, Van de F. 2010. Interactional metadiscourse in research articles abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes: Vol. 9, p. 128-139.

Gillet, A. 2009. Inside track to successful academic writing. London: Pearson Education Limited.

Greenbaum S. 1996. The oxford English grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.

Greene, S. and Lidinsky, A. 2012. From inquiry to academic writing: a text and reader. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Halliday, MAK. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold Limited.

Halliday, MAK. And Matthiesen, Christian. 2004. Introduction to functional grammar. 3rd Edition. London: Hodder Arnold.

(31)

Harmer, J. 2004. How to teach writing. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited. Hartley, J. 2008. Academic writing and publishing: a practical handbook. New

York: Routledge.

Hatch, E. and Farhady, H. 1982. Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Hatch, E. and Lazaraton, A. 1994. The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publisher.

Hinkel, E. 2004. Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Holtom, D. and Fisher, E. 1999. Enjoy writing your thesis and dissertation. Singapore: Imperial College Press.

Hood, S. 2010. Appraising research evaluation in academic writing. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Huddlestone, R. and Pullum, G. K. 2003. A student’s introduction to English grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. 2011. Academic Discourse. In Hyland, K and Paltridge, B. 2011. The continuum companion to discourse analysis. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Hyland, K. 1994. Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbook. English for Specific Purpose: Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 239-256.

Hyland, K. 1995. The author in the text: Hedging scientific writing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching. Vol. 18, pp. 33-42.

Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 17, No.4, pp. 433-454.

Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Hong Kong: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

(32)

Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Continuum.

Hyland, K. 2006. English for academic purposes: An advanced resource books. New York: Routledge.

Jazczolt, K.M. 2009. Representing time: An essay on temporality as modality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kroeger, Paul R. (2005). Analyzing grammar: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges: A study of meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Accessed in http://georgelakoff.files.wordpress.com

/2011/01/hedges-a-study-in-meaning-criteria-and-the-logic-of-fuzzy-concepts-journal-of-philosophical-logic-2-lakoff-19731.pdf on May 5th,

2013

Leech, G. 2006. A glossary of English grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternation: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lipson, C. 2005. How to write a BA thesis: A practical guide from your first ideas to your finished paper. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D. and Festinger, D. 2005. Essentials of research design and methodology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.

Markannen, R. and Schroder, H. 1997. Hedging and discourse: approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. Berlin: Walter de Guyter.

Martin-Martin, P. 2008. The Mitigation of scientific claims in research papers: A comparative study. International Journal of English Studies. www.um.es/ijes vol.8 (2) pp 133-152.

(33)

100

Mauch, James E. and Park, N. 2003. Guide to the successful thesis and dissertation: A handbook for students and faculty. 5th Edition. New York: Marcel Dekker.

McMillan, JH., and Schumacher, S. 2001. Research in education: A conceptual introduction. Fifth Edition. New York: Wesley Longman.

Meyer, CF. 2002. English corpus linguistics: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Murray, R. 2009. Writing for academic journals. 2nd edition. New York: Open University Press-McGraw-Hill Education.

Murray, R. 2011. How to write a thesis. 3rd edition. New York: Open University Press-McGraw-Hill Education.

Nasiri, S. 2012. Utilization of hedging devices by american and iranian researchers in the field of civil engineering. International Journal of linguistics: vol.4 no.2, 2012. Accessed in www.macrothink.org/ijl on May 5th, 2013

Nivales, M. and Liza, M. 2011. Hedging in college research papers: Implications for language instruction. Asian EFL Journal Accessed in

www.asianefljournal.org on May 5th, 2013.

Nordstrom, J. 2010. Modality and subordinators. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Nuyts, J. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive pragmatic perspective. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Nuyts, J. 2006. Modality: Overview and linguistics issues. In Klein, Wolfgang and Levinson, Stephen. 2006. The expression of modality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Palmer, F. R. 1997. The English verb. Second Edition. Singapore: Longman Singapore Publishers.

(34)

101

Paltridge, B. and Starfield, S. 2007. Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language. New York: Routledge.

Paltridge, B. 2008. Discourse analysis: An introduction. New York: Continuum. Portner, P. 2009. Modality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Quirk, R. and Greenbaum, S. 1976. A university grammar of English. London: Longman Publishing Group.

Quirk, R. et. al. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.

Radden, G. and Dirven, R. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Reardon, D. 2006. Doing your undergraduate project. London: Sage Publication Ltd.

Reppen, R. 2010. Building a corpus: What are the key consideration. In O’Keeffe, Anne and McCarthy, Michael. 2010. The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics. New York: Routledge.

Richards, J.C. & Schmidt, R. 2002. Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Selangor: Pearson Education Limited

Riekkinen, N. 2009. Softening criticism: The use of lexical hedges in academic spoken interaction. University of Helsinski: Thesis.

Rowland, T. 1995. Hedges in mathematics talk: Linguistics pointers to uncertainty. Educational Studies in Mathematics: Vol. 29, No. 4.

Rowland, T. 1999. The Pragmatics of mathematics education: Vagueness in mathematical discourse. London: Falmer Press.

Savin-Baden, M. and Major, CH. 2010. New approach to qualitative research: Wisdom and uncertainty. New York: Routledge.

Silverman, D. 2004. Qualitative research: Theory, method and practices. London: Sage Publications.

(35)

102

Sinclair, J. 2003. Reading concordances: An introduction. London: Pearson Education Limited.

Sinclair, J. 2004. Trust the text: Language corpus and discourse. London: Routledge.

Song, M. 2010. Utilizing corpus analysis software in language teaching. in Presentation for LEARN Conference 2010. April 29, 2010.

Sudjana, N. 2004. Tuntunan menyusun karya ilmiah: Makalah skripsi tesis disertasi. Bandung: Sinar Baru Algensindo.

Sugono, D., et al. 2008. Kamus bahasa indonesia. Jakarta: Pusat Bahasa.

Suryadi. 1980. Paper-skripsi-thesis dan disertasi: Beserta cara pengetikannya. Surabaya: Usaha Nasional.

Swales, JM. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taweel, AQ., Saidat, EMR., Hussein A., and Saidat, AM. 2011. Hedging in political discourse. The Linguistic Journal. V. p. 169-196.

Vanderstoep, SW. and Johnston, DD. 2009. Research methods for everyday life: Blending qualitative and quantitative approaches. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Vartalla, T. 2001. Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse: Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. Dissertation of University of Tampere.

Weisser, C. R. 2002. Moving beyond academic discourse: Composition studies and the public sphere. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.

Yule, G. 2010. The study of language. Fourth Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Zemach, DE., and Rumisek, LA. 2005. Academic writing from essay to paragraph. Macmillan: Oxford University Press.

(1)

Declerck, R. 2011. Definitions of modality. In Patard, A. and Brisard, Frank. 2011. Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect, and epistemic modality. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Dixon, R. M. W. 2005. A Semantic approach to English grammar. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Emilia, E. 2008. Menulis tesis dan disertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Ernst, T. 2004. The syntax of adjuncts. New York: Cambridge University Press. Essen & Varlander. 2012. The mutual constitution of sensuous and discursive

understanding in scientific practice: An autoethnographic lens on academic writing. Retrieved from Sage Journal: http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/14/1350507611431529. on May 5th, 2013