HEDGING THROUGH THE USE OF IMPERSONAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN INDONESIAN OP-ED ARTICLES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26499/li.v41i1.392Keywords:
hedges, impersonal construction, passive voice, abstract rhetors, opinion editorialsAbstract
The presence of an opinion editorial (op-ed) page has provided room for the public to articulate their ideas about the recent salient issues at no cost. The notion that the authors of an op-ed article could express their ideas and arguments in public space makes them need certain devices like hedges to protect themselves from any negative consequences such as rejection from readers if in fact their argument is considered false. This article is intended to investigate the use of impersonal constructions as hedging devices in 45 Indonesian opinion editorial articles published by three leading national newspapers: Kompas, Tempo, and Republika. Impersonal construction in this case refers to a grammatical construction that avoids the use of a human subject in the sentence. This construction includes the use of agentless passive voice and abstract rhetors. A qualitative research design is applied in this study. This study reveals 56 occurrences of impersonal construction with details of 53 data belonging to the agentless passive voice category and 3 data belonging to the abstract rhetors category in the 45 articles examined. The use of such constructions in op-ed articles can be a means to protect the authors from the consequences of being blamed if in any case, the argument they stated is different from the reality. Furthermore, this construction can also be used to avoid the subjectivity of the claim and direct the focus of the argument to the content of the text and not the authors.Â
References
Alwi, H., Dardjowidjojo, S., Lapoliwa, H., & Moeliono, A. M. (1993). Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia.
Banks, D. (1996). The Passive and Metaphor in Scientific Writing. Cuadernos de Filologia Inglesa, 5(2), 13–22.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in Academic Writing: Some Theoretical Problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271–287.
Ding, D. D. (2002). The Passive Voice and Social Values in Science. J. Technical Writing and Communication, 32(2), 137–154.
Halloran, M. S. (1984). The Birth of Molecular Biology: An Essay in the Rhetorical Criticism of Scientic Discourse. Rhetoric Review, 3(1), 70–83.
Hardjanto, T. H. (2016a). Hedging Through The Use of Modal Auxiliaries in English Academic Discourse. Humaniora, 28(1), 37–50.
Hardjanto, T. H. (2016b). Pembentengan dalam Artikel Ilmiah dalam Bahasa Inggris. Dissertation: Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP Textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239–256.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433–454.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 456–508.
Luukka, M.-R., & Markkanen, R. (2010). Impersonalization as a Form of Hedging. In Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts (pp. 168–187). Berlin / New York: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807332.168
Mahanani, W. (2013). Hedges in The Opinion Column of The Jakarta Post. English Education Journal, 3(1), 42–45.
Malchukov, A., & Ogawa, A. (2011). Towards a typology of impersonal constructions. In Impersonal Constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 19–56). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Poos, D., & Simpson, R. (2002). Cross-disciplinary comparisons of hedging: Some findings from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. In Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation (pp. 3–23). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Runblad, G. (2007). Impersonal, General, and Social: The Use of Metonymy Versus Passive Voice in Medical Discourse. Written Communication, 24(3), 250–277.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1997). I Think That Perhaps You Should: A Study of Hedges in Written Scientific. In Functional Approaches to Written Text: Classroom Applications (pp. 127–143). Washington DC: United States Information Agency.
Sanjaya, I. N. S. (2013). Hedging and Boosting in English and Indonesian Research Articles. Dissertation: The Pennsylvania State University.
Shipley, D. (2004). And Now a Word From Op-Ed. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/opinion/and-now-a-word-from-op-ed.html
Siewierska, A. (2008). Ways of Impersonalizing: Pronominal vs Verbal Strategies. In Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives (pp. 3–26). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Socolow, M. J. (2010). A Profitable Public Sphere: The Creation of The New York Times OP-Ed Page. J&MC Quarterly, 87(2), 281–296.
van Aertselaer, J. N. (2002). METAPHOR AND METONYMY IN THE REPRESENTATION OF AGENCY. In CONCEPTUALIZATION OF EVENTS IN NEWSPAPER DISCOURSE: MYSTIFICATION OF AGENCY AND DEGREE OF IMPLICATION IN NEWS REPORTS (pp. 89–103). Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring Variation According to Discipline and Intentded Audience. University of Tampere.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The name and email address in this journal will only be used for the benefit of the Indonesian Linguistics journal and will not be used for other purposes.
