OTORİTE VE BELİRSİZLİK ARASINDAKİ DENGE: NEW YORK TIMES KÖŞE YAZILARINDA ÖNLEM ALMA YAPILARI

Abstract

Bu çalışma, New York Times gazetesinde yayımlanan köşe yazılarında yazarların duruşlarını ve söylemsel otoritelerini yönetmek amacıyla nasıl önlem alma yapıları kullandıklarını incelemektedir. Önlem alma yapıları çoğunlukla akademik söylem bağlamında ele alınmışken, bu araştırma türü değiştirerek, köşe yazarlarının belirsizlik, nezaket ve yazar konumlandırmasını nasıl ilettiklerini analiz etmektedir. New York Times’ta düzenli olarak yazan 14 köşe yazarına ait 42 metin incelenmiş ve önlem alma ifadeleri, yerleşik bir sınıflandırma sistemine göre belirlenerek bileşik yapıların kullanımı ve işlevleri değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, önlem alma ifadelerinin sık kullanılmadığını, ancak olasılık belirteçleri ile kişisel katılım ifadelerinin öne çıktığını göstermektedir. Olasılık belirteçleri, yazarların iddialarını yumuşatırken otoritelerini korumalarını sağlamış; kişisel ifadeler ise yazarın sesini ve söylemsel inandırıcılığını güçlendirmiştir. Az görülen bileşik önlem alma yapıları ise bağlılığın şiddetini artırmak ya da azaltmak gibi daha ince anlam işlevleri taşımıştır. Sonuçlar, köşe yazarlarının güven ile temkin arasında nasıl stratejik bir denge kurduğunu ve önlem alma yapılarının okuyucuyla etkileşimi düzenlemedeki önemli rolünü ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Önlem alma yapıları
• New York Times köşe yazıları
• Bileşik önlem yapıları
• Gazetecilik
• Köşe yazarları

BALANCING AUTHORITY AND UNCERTAINTY: HEDGING PRACTICES IN NEW YORK TIMES OPINION COLUMNS

Abstract

This study explores how New York Times Op-Ed columnists use hedging to manage stance and rhetorical authority in opinion writing. While hedging has been widely studied in academic discourse, this research shifts the genre to examine how columnists convey uncertainty, politeness, and authorial positioning. Analyzing 42 Op-Ed texts written by 14 regular New York Times columnists, the study identifies hedging devices and examines the use and function of compound forms using an established taxonomy. Results show that although hedging was not overly frequent, possibility markers and personal involvement expressions appeared most often. Possibility markers helped soften arguments while maintaining authority, whereas personal involvement reinforced the author’s voice and credibility. Compound hedges, though less common, served subtle purposes-either intensifying or softening commitment. The results highlight how columnists skillfully balance being confident and cautious and how hedging plays a key role in regulating position and reader interaction in opinion writing.

Keywords

• Hedging
• New York Times opinion columns
• Compound hedges
• Journalism
• Op-Ed columnists

References

1. Aini, N., Djatmika, D., Sumarlam, S., & Kristina, D. (2023). Hedge markers: A study of politeness and gender in media interaction. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 11(3), 226-241. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijscl.2023.2002556.3035
2. Alghazo, S., Al-Anbar, K., Rabab’ah, G., Abusalim, N., & Rayyan, M. (2024). The construction of stance in English and Arabic newspaper editorials: a case study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03418-2
3. Al-Harthi, M., Alshahrani, H. J., Hamed, D. M., & Ibrahim, W. M. (2022). Evidentials, Code Glosses, Hedges and Boosters in Academic Articles: A Cross-Disciplinary Study. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(3), 181-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.32601/ejal.803015
4. Andriani, F. (2019). Hedging as a rhetorical strategy in political discourse. Journal of English Teaching, Literature, and Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.30587/jetlal.v3i1.788
5. Bednarek, M. (2006). Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. Continuum. Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge University Press.
6. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge University Press.
7. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
8. Clemen, G. (1997). The Concept of Hedging: Origins, Approaches and Definitions. In R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Ed.), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts (pp. 235- 48). Berlin, New York:De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807332.235

9. Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric. Cambridge University Press.
10. Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00007-0
11. 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, 40(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
12. Darian, S. (1982). The Role of Definitions in Scientific and Technical Writing: Forms, Functions and Properties, A. Hodet, L. Lundguist, H. Picht ve J. Qvistgaard (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on LSP: Copenhagen, The LSP Centre.
13. Depraetere, I., & Kaltenböck, G. (2023). Hedged Performatives in Spoken American English: A Discourse-oriented Analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 51(3), 207-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/00754242231173419
14. Doyuran, Z. (2009). Önlem Alma Yapılarının Gazete Köşe Yazılarındaki İletişimsel İşlevleri. Türkbilig/ Türkoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(17), 56-68.
15. Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch, & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp. 15–34). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253247_003
16. Hubler, A. (1983). Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
17. Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433
18. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins.
19. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.
20. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
21. Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
22. Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of philosophical logic, 2(4), 458-508. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262952
23. Mur-Dueñas, P. (2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00228.x
24. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1
25. Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
26. Prince, E., Frader, J., & Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In R. D. Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the professions (pp. 83-97). Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex.
27. Richardson, J. E. (2017). Analysing newspapers: An approach from critical discourse analysis. Bloomsbury Publishing.
28. Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2
29. Skelton, J. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal, 42(1), 37-43. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/42.1.37
30. Takimoto, M. (2015). A corpus-based analysis of hedging in academic writing in English and Japanese. Ibérica, 30, 29–54.
31. Van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News analysis. Case Studies of International and National News in the Press. New Jersey: Lawrence, 226-233.
32. Varttala, T. (1999). Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine. English for specific purposes, 18(2), 177-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00007-6
33. Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse: Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Tampere.
34. Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008