Email this article Comparison of Hedging Devices in Published Research Articles by Indonesian and English Native Writers: A Corpus Based Study
Abstract
Abstract: This study aims to compare how Indonesian and English Native writers use hedges in their published research articles. The source of data was 40 research articles published in English written by Indonesian and English Native writers. The study investigated three sections of each research article (Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion) where hedging devices are usually used. To get the hedge frequencies, the data were analysed using concordance program called AntFileConverter (1.2.1) and AntConc (3.5.0). The types of hedges were categorized based on hedges taxonomy adapted from Selager-Meyer. The result of the study provides the implication that Indonesian scholars need a special instruction especially which focus on hedges proposition.
Key Words: hedges, research articles, corpus based study
Abstrak: Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui bagaimana penulis Indonesia dan penutur asli bahasa Inggris menggunakan hedges pada artikel penelitian terpublikasi. Sumber data diambil dari 40 artikel berbahasa Inggris yang ditulis oleh penulis Indonesia dan penutur asli bahasa Inggris. Penelitian terfokus pada tiga bagian utama dari artikel penelitian (Pendahuluan, Diskusi, dan Kesimpulan) dimana hedges sering digunakan. Untuk menghitung frekuensi hedges, data dianalisis menggunakan program kecocokan, yaitu AntFileConverter (1.2.1) and AntConc (3.5.0). Tipe hedges dikategorikan menurut taksonomi yang diadaptasi dari Selager-Meyer. Hasil penelitian memberikan implikasi bahwa para praktisi pendidikan Indonesia memerlukan intervensi pedagogis yang dirancang khusus untuk membekali mereka dengan pengetahuan tentang hedges.
Kata kunci: lindung nilai, artikel penelitian, studi berbasis corpus
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Agustina, R. K. (2014). Edging expressions in the thesis discussion sections of S1, S2 and S3 students (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia.
Asfina, R. (2017). Hedges and boosters in the ‘background of the study’section of elt students’ thesis proposal: Written and spoken discourses (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia.
Behnam, B., Naeimi, A., & Darvishzade, A. (2012). A comparative genre analysis of hedging expressions in research articles: is fuzziness forever wicked?. English Language and Literature Studies, 2(2), 20. https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v2n2p20.
Biber, D. E., & Jones, J. K. (2009). Quantitative methods in corpus linguistics. In Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 1286–1304). De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1016j.nurt.2009. 10.015. THE.
Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1991). Cultural expectations and socio-pragmatic failure in academic writing. Socio-Cultural Issues in English for Academic Purposes, 1–12.
Cabanes P. P. (2007). A contrastive analysis of hedging in english and spanish architecture project descriptions. Resla, 20, 139–158.
Di Marco, C., & Mercer, R. E. (2004, March). Hedging in scientific articles as a means of classifying citations. In Working Notes of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text: Theories and Applications (pp. 50–54).
Falahati, R. (2006). The use of hedging across different disciplines and rhetorical sections of research articles. Proceedings of the 22nd NorthWest Linguistics Conference (NWLC22), (1972), 99–112.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. The McGraw-Hill Companies, 53(9), 1–30. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Hashemi, M. R., & Shirzadi, D. (2016). The use of hedging in discussion sections of applied linguistics research articles with varied research methods. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(1), 31–56.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. Landmark Essays on ESL Writing, 63–85. doi: 10.1002/anie.200900673.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795–2809. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007.
Itakura, H. (2013). Hedging praise in English and Japanese book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 45(1), 131–148. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.003.
Resmayani, N. P. A. (2016). The use of hedges and boosters in thesis discussion sections by Indonesian EFL learners across genders and study programs (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universitas Negeri Ma-lang, Indonesia.
Riekkinen, N. (2009). Softening criticism: The use of lexical hedges in academic spoken interaction. Helsinki English Studies, 6, 75–87.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170. doi: 10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2.
Sanjaya, I. S. (2013). Hedging and boosting in English and Indonesian research articles (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, USA.
Sanjaya, I. N. S., Sitawati, A. A. R., & Suciani, N. K. (2015). Comparing hedges used by English and Indonesian scholars in published research articles: A corpus-based study. Teflin Journal, 26(2), 209–227. doi: 10.15639/teflinjournal.v26i2/209-227.
Seskauskiene, I. (2008). Hedging in ESL: A case study of Lithuanian Learners. Studies about Languages, 13, 71–76.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research setting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, Y. (2010). Analyzing hedges in verbal communication: An adaptation-based approach. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 120–124.
Yagýz, O., & Demir, C. (2014). Hedging strategies in academ-ic discourse: A comparative analysis of Turkish writers and native writers of English. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 260–268. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.085.
Copyright (c) 2019 Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora Graduate School, Universitas Negeri Malang
|
