| dc.identifier.citation | Altheide, D. L. (1996). Qualitative Media Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buitkene, J. (2008). Hedging in Newspaper Discourse. Zmogus ir Zodis, Vol. 10. No.3, 11- 15. Retrieved on October 10, 2015. From http://www.biblioteka.Vpu.lt. Camiciottoli, B. C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP Reading Comprehension: An Exploratory Study. Reading in a Foreign Language. Vol. 15. No. 1, 28-44. Clemen, G. (1997). The Concept of Hedging: Origins, Approaches and Definitions. In R. Markkanen & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts (235-248). Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter. Clemen, G. (2002). Hedging in English Journalistic Economics. In : A. Nuopen, T. harakka & R. Tatje. (Eds.) Interculturelle Wirschaftkommunikation Forschungsobjekte und Methoden. Report 93. Vaasa: the University of Vaasa, 41-47. Retrieved on October 10, 2015, from http://lipas.Uwasa.fi/comm./publications/ Crompton, P. (1998). Identifying hedges: Definition or Divination? English for Specific Purpose, Vol. 17, No. 3, 303-311. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The Pragmatic Role of Textual and Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in the Construction and Attainment of Persuasion: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Newspaper Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 40, 95-113. Retrieved on October 13, 2015 from http://www.Elsevier.com. Falahati, R. (2007). The Use of Hedging Across Different Disciplines and rhetorical Sections of Research Articles. In N. Carter, L.H. Zabala, A. Rimrott & D. Stroshenko (Eds.). Proceedings of the 22nd Northwest Linguistics Conference (NWLC) at Simon Fraser University. (99-112). Barnaby, Canada: Linguistics Graduate Students Association. Fomina, I.A. (2010). Some Discourse Functions of English Hedges. Vol.8. 206-207. Retrieved on September 12, 2015 from http://www.rae.ru. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1990). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill. Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing Doubt and Certainty in English. RELC Journal, Vol. 13, No.2, 19- 28. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: Benjamins. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate Hua, Jiang. (2011). A Study on Pragmatic Functions of Hedges Applied by College English Teachers in the Class. M & D Forum. 562-565. Jalilifar, A. R. & M. Alavi. (2011). Power and Politics of Language Use: A Survey of Hedging Devices in Political Interviews. The Journal of teaching Language Skills, Vol. 3, No.3, 43- 65. Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458-508. Martin-Martin, P. (2008). The Mitigation of Scientific Claims in Research Papers: A Comparative Study. International Journal of English Studies, Vol. 8, No.2, 133-152. Retrieved on 05 October, 2015 from http://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/49201. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in Education. A Conceptual Introduction (5th Ed). Boston: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Namsaraev, V. (1997). Hedging in Russian Academic Writing in Sociological Texts. In R. Markkanen & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. (64-81). Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter. Neary, Colleen & Sundquist . (2013). The Use of Hedges in the Speech of ESL Learners. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, Vol. 13, 149-174. Noorian, M., & Biria, R. (2010). Interpersonal Metadiscourse in Persuasive Journalism: A Study of Texts by American and Iranian Columnists. Journal of Modern Languages, Vol. 20, 64- 79. Poveda Cabanes, P.(2007). A Contrastive Analysis of Hedging in English and Spanish Architecture Project Descriptions. Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol.20. 139-158. Salvager – Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical Written Discourse. English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 13, No. 2, 149- 171. Salager-Meyer, F. (1997). I think that perhaps you should: a study of hedges in written scientific discourse. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications (105-118). Washington, DC: United States Information Agency. Skelton, J. (1988). The Care and Maintenance of Hedges. ELT Journal, Vol. 42 No. 1, 37-43. Retrieved on October, 4, 2015, from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/1/. Vass, H. (2004). Socio-Cognitive Aspects of Hedging in Two Legal Discourse Genres. IBERICA, Vol. 7, 125-141. Retrieved on October 01, 2015, from http:///www.aelfe.org. Vasquez, I., & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond Mood and Modality. Epistemic Modality Markers as Hedges in Research Articles. A Cross Disciplinary Study. Revista Alicantina de Studios Ingless, Vol.21, 171-190. Retrieved on September, 15, 2015, from http://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/10401/1/RAEI_21_10.pdf. Vold, E.T. (2006). Epistemic Modality Markers in Research Articles: A Cross-Linguistics and Cross Disciplinary Study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol.16, No.1, 61- 87. Retrieved on September, 20, 2015, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ | id_ID |
| dc.description.abstract | According to Hyland (1998), hedging is the mean by which writers can present a
proposition as an opinion rather than a fact: items are only hedges in their epistemic
sense, and only when they mark uncertainty. Hedges can be either lexical (e.g.: assume,
may, possible) or structural (e.g. passive form) devices through which writers can show
their uncertainty towards the proposition. This study attempts to examine the types and
frequencies of hedging devices used in “Room for Debate” posted in New York Times
online website. Further, this study was conducted to investigate the possible functions of
hedging devices in “Room for Debate”. This research was conducted by using qualitative
method. The data consists of 150 opinion articles posted in the New York Times,
particularly in “Room for Debate” representing six disciplines including business,
economy, politic, environment, health, and technology. The total numbers of words
of the six sections were 55,015. The data were obtained by using documentation by
collecting and selecting articles posted in the New York Times, especially in “Room
for Debate” during the recent five years (2012-2015). Afterward, the data were
analyzed in accordance with surface features taxonomy and poly-pragmatic model from
Hyland (1998). According to this model, analysis of hedging in writing involves coding,
identifying, classifying, analyzing, describing and concluding.
The result shows that the total number of hedges found in the news articles of
“Room for Debate” posted on New York Times is 978. The writers of this column were
inclined to use modal auxiliary as one form of hedges with the frequency of 413 (42.2%).
The next considerable type of hedges found in this column is the category of epistemic
adverbs with the total of 186 (19%) followed by epistemic lexical verbs 140 (14.3%) and
hedging numerical data 83 (8.5%). Epistemic adjectives, passive constructions and
hypothetical condition have quite similar number in the column, that is 43 (4.4%), 55
(5.5%) and 48 (5%). On the other hand, the writers of “Room for Debate” seem to
reluctantly use epistemic noun, direct questions, and reference to limited knowledge for
each of them appears less than 1%. The study also revealed that hedging used in “Room
for Debate” performs three pragmatic functions. These are accuracy-oriented hedge that
help the writer to present the proposition or statement with greater precision. Meanwhile,
the use of writer-oriented hedge is for reducing the writer’s commitment to statement and
avoiding personal responsibility for propositional truth. The reader-oriented hedge allows
the writer to invite the reader’s involvement and personalize the information in the
proposition. | id_ID |
