INVESTIGATION OF GRAMMATICAL COHESION ON...

i

INVESTIGATION OF GRAMMATICAL COHESION

ON STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ESSAY WRITING

(A Discourse Analysis)

THESIS

By

TAUFIQ RAHMAN

2113014000001

GRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TARBIYA AND TEACHERS’ TRAINING

‘SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH’ STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY

JAKARTA

2017 M/1439 H

v

ABSTRACT

Rahman, Taufiq. Investigation of Grammatical Cohesion on Students’ Academic

Essay Writing (A Discourse Analysis), 2017.

This research was aimed at investigating the use of grammatical cohesion on

students’ academic essay writing in the 4th Semester of English Language Department of

Ibnu Khaldun University, Bogor. In detail, it was aimed to know the types of grammatical

cohesive features, the frequent types of grammatical cohesive features, the appropriate and

inappropriate used of grammatical cohesive features, and the causes of the students’

committed incohesive writing. Besides, the method used in this research was descriptive

qualitative adopted qualiative data analyis procedures proposed by Miles & Huberman

such data collection, data reduction, data display, and conclusion. In this respect, the data

sources of this research were document and interview. Consequently, the analysis of this

research embraced two phases, textual analysis and interpretive interview. Furthermore,

the finding showed that reference (56.3%) was the predominant of grammatical cohesive

features used by the students in academic essay writing compared to other types.

Meanwhile, substitution (0.5%) was the least one. In addition, the students had sufficient

knowledge to use the grammatical cohesive features appropriately (721) compared to the

inappropriate use gained (128). In this sense, the causes of the students committed

incohesive writing derived from mother tongue interference and overgeneralization.

Meanwhile, context of learning was not defined.

Keywords: Discourse analysis, grammatical cohesion, academic writing

vi

ABSTRAK

Rahman, Taufiq. Investigasi Kohesi Gramatikal pada Tulisan Essay Akademik

Mahasiswa (Analisis Wacana), 2017.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menginvestigasi penggunaan alat alat kohesi

gramatikal pada tulisan essay academic mahasiswa di semester 4 pendidikan bahasa

inggris di Universitas Ibnu Khaldun, Bogor. Detailnya, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk

mengetahui tipe tipe alat kohesi gramatikal, frekuensi dari tipe tipe alat cohesi gramatikal,

tepat dan tidak tepatnya penggunaan alat cohesi gramatikal, dan penyebab dari mahasiswa

melakukan tulisan yang tidak kosif. Disamping itu, metode yang digunakan dalam

penelitian ini adalah deskipsi kualitatif dengan mengadopsi prosedur analysis data yang

diajukan oleh Miles & Hubermen seperti pengumpulan data, reducksi data, data display,

and kesimpulan. Dalam hal ini, sumber data dalam penelitian ini adalah dokumen dan

wawancara. Konsekuensinya, analisis dari penelitian ini mencakup dua fase, analisis

tekstual dan intepretasi wawancara. Selanjutnya, temuan menunjukan bahwa reference

(56,3%) adalah yang paling utama dari alat alat kohesi gramaikal yang digunakan oleh

mahasiswa dalam tulisan essey akademik bila dibandingkan dengan tipe tipe lainya.

Sementara, subtitusi (0.5%) adalah yang paling sedikit. Disamping itu, para mahasiswa

memiliki pengetahuan yang cukup dalam menggunakan alat kohesi secara tepat (721) jika

dibandingkan dengan penggunaan yang tidak tepat dengan jumal (128). Dalam hal ini,

penyebab-penyebab mahasiswa melakukan tulisan yang tidak kohesi deperoleh dari

intervensi bahasa ibu dan overgeneralisasi. Sedangkan, konteks pembelajaran tidak di

temukan.

Kata kunci: Analisis wacana, kohesi gramatikal, tulisan akademik

vii

انهخص

.7102انخطاب(، سحا، ذىفك. انرحمك ف انراسك انحى ف كراتح انماالخ األكادح نهطالب )ذحهم

هذف انثحث إن انرعشف عه اسرخذاو انرالحى انحى ف كراتح انماالخ األكادح نهطالب ف انفصم انشاتع ي لسى

انهغح اإلجهزح تجايعح اتى خهذو، تىغىس. ف انرفاصم، كا هذف إن يعشفح أىاع انساخ انحىح يراسكح،

ىح يراسكح، واالسرخذاو اناسة وغش اناسة نهزاخ انحىح يراسكح، وأىاع يركشسج ي انساخ انح

وأسثاب انرهز انهرصمح انراليز. تاإلضافح إن رنك، كا انشاسكى ف هزا انثحث طالب انفصم انذساس انشاتع

كاد انطشمح انسرخذيح وانعشش ي لسى انهغح اإلجهزح ف جايعح ات خهذو )أوكا(، تىجىس. إن جاة رنك،

ف هزا انثحث ىعح وصفح تاسرخذاو هج ذحهم انخطاب. ف هزا انصذد، كاد يصادس انثااخ ي هزا انثحث

وثمح )كراتح يمال انطالب( وانماتهح. وتاء عه رنك، ذث ذحهم هزا انثحث يشحهر، انرحهم انص وانماتهح

٪( كاد انسح انحىح انراسكح انر سرخذيها انطهثح ف كراتح انماالخ 5..3ج أ )انرفسشح. كا أظهشخ انرائ

٪( ألم واحذ. وتاإلضافح إن رنك، كا نذي 1.3األكادح يماسح تاألىاع األخشي. وف انىلد فسه، كا اسرثذال )

يماسح يع االسرخذاو غش اناسة ( 270انطالب يعشفح كافح السرخذاو انساخ انحىح يراسكح تشكم ياسة )

(. ف هزا انع، اسذكثد أسثاب انطالب انكراتح انرالحمح انسرذج ي ذذخم انهغح األو وانرعى 071انكرسثح )

رى ذعشف ساق انرعهىانفشط. وف انىلد فسه، نى

كهاخ انثحث: ذحهم انخطاب، انراسك انحى، انكراتح األكادح

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Praised be to Allah, Lord of the world, who has given the writer His love

and compassion to finish the last assignment in his study. Peace and salutation be

upon to the prophet Muhammad SAW, his family, his companion, and his

adherence.

It is a pleasure to acknowledge the help and contribution to all of lecturers,

institution, family and friends who have contributed in different ways hence this

thesis is processed until it becomes a complete writing which will be presented to

the Graduate Program of English Education at Faculty of Tarbiya and Teachers’

Training in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of M.Pd. in

English Education.

First of all, the writer would like to express his great honor and deepest

gratitude to his advisors, Dr. Muhammad Farkhan, M.Pd., and Dr. Alek, M.Pd.

who had empowered the writer to enhance this thesis with their intellectual

recommendations and constructive comments. His special gratitude goes to his

beloved father, mother and brothers who never stopped motivating him in

accomplishing this thesis.

The writer’s sincere gratitude also goes to:

1. Prof. Dr. Ahmad Thib Raya, M.A., the dean of Faculty of Tarbiya and

Teachers’ Training.

2. Dr. Fahriany M.Pd., the head of master program, Faculty of Tarbiya and

Teachers’ Training.

3. Dr. Jejen Musfah, M.A., the secretary of master program, Faculty of

Tarbiya and Teachers’ Training.

4. Muslikh Amrullah, S.Pd., the staff of master program, Faculty of Tarbiya

and Teachers’ Training.

5. All the lecturers in Magister Program of English Education who had

transferred their knowledge and also for the valuable guidance and

encouragement.

6. The writer’s classmates of 2013 in Graduate Program of English Education

at Faculty of Tarbiya and Teachers’ Training at Syarif Hidayatullah State

Islamic University, Jakarta.

7. All of people who participated in the process of the thesis that the writer

could not mention one by one. May Allah bless them.

Jakarta, October 19, 2017

The Writer

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER PAGE .......................................................................................................... i

TITLE PAGE ............................................................................................................ ii

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ......................................................................... iii

ENDORSEMENT SHEET ....................................................................................... iv

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................... viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... ix

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... xii

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. xiii

LIST OF CHARTS ................................................................................................... xiv

LIST OF APPENDIXES .......................................................................................... xv

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1

A. Background of the Research ................................................ 4

B. Focus of the Research .......................................................... 4

C. Question of the Research .................................................... 4

D. Objective of the Research .................................................... 4

E. Significance of the Research ................................................ 5

CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 6

A. Discourse and Discourse Analysis ........................................ 6

B. Cohesion ............................................................................... 8

1. Concept of Cohesion ........................................................ 8

a. Text .............................................................................. 8

b. Texture ........................................................................ 9

c. Ties .............................................................................. 9

2. Different between Cohesion and Coherence .................... 11

3. Types of Cohesion ............................................................ 14

a. Grammatical Cohesion ................................................ 14

1) Reference ............................................................... 15

a) Personal Reference ............................................. 18

b) Demonstrative Reference .................................. 18

c) Comparative Reference ....................................... 19

2) Substitution ............................................................ 20

a) Nominal Substitution ......................................... 22

b) Verbal Substitution ............................................ 24

c) Clausal Substitution ........................................... 24

3) Ellipsis ................................................................... 25

a) Nominal Ellipsis ................................................. 26

b) Verbal Ellipsis ................................................... 28

c) Clausal Ellipsis .................................................. 30

4) Conjunction ............................................................ 31

a) Additive ............................................................. 35

b) Adversative ........................................................ 36

c) Clausal ............................................................... 37

x

d) Temporal ............................................................ 38

b. Lexical Cohesion ......................................................... 39

4. Distance of Cohesion ...................................................... 41

5. Cohesion within or between the Sentence ....................... 41

6. Causes of Error ................................................................ 42

7. Cohesion and Teaching Writing ...................................... 45

C. An Overview of Writing in Academic Setting ..................... 46

1. Academic Writing ............................................................ 47

2. Essay Writing ................................................................... 48

3. Types of Essay Writing .................................................... 49

a. Expository Essay .......................................................... 49

b. Persuasive Essay .......................................................... 50

4. Teaching Writing at University Level ............................... 50

D. Previous Research on Cohesion ............................................ 52

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................. 58

A. Research Setting ................................................................... 58

B. Research Design ................................................................... 58

C. Participants ........................................................................... 59

D. Data Sources .......................................................................... 59

E. Research Instruments ............................................................ 59

F. Data Collection Procedure .................................................... 60

1. Document .......................................................................... 60

2. Interview ........................................................................... 62

G. Data Analysis Procedure ......................................................... 63

1. Data Collection ................................................................. 63

2. Data Reduction ................................................................. 64

3. Data Display ..................................................................... 64

4. Conclusion ....................................................................... 65

H. Trustworthiness .................................................................... 65

1. Credibility ........................................................................ 65

a. Source ........................................................................... 65

b. Method ......................................................................... 65

2. Transferability .................................................................. 66

3. Confirmability .................................................................. 66

4. Member Checking ............................................................ 66

CHAPTER IV. FINDING AND DISCUSSION ................................................. 67

A. Finding ................................................................................ 67

1. Types of Grammatical Cohesive Features Used

in Academic Essay Writing .......................................... 67

a. Reference ............................................................... 70

b. Conjunction ............................................................ 70

c. Ellipsis ................................................................... 71

d. Substitution ............................................................ 71

2. Appropriate and Inappropriate Use of

Grammatical Cohesive Features .................................. 72

xi

a. Reference ............................................................... 73

b. Substitution ............................................................ 74

c. Ellipsis ................................................................... 75

d. Conjunction ........................................................... 75

3. Causes of Students’ Committed

Incohesive Writing ....................................................... 77

a. Interlingual Transfer .............................................. 77

b. Intralingual Transfer .............................................. 78

c. Context of Learning ............................................... 78

B. Discussion ........................................................................... 79

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ..................................... 82

A. Conclusion .......................................................................... 82

B. Suggestion .......................................................................... 82

GLOSSARY .................................................................................................... 83

REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 85

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Types of Cohesion Based on Halliday & Hasan (1976) ........................... 14

Table 2.2 Types of Grammatical Cohesion Based on Halliday & Hasan (1976) ..... 14

Table 2.3 Types of Phora ......................................................................................... 16

Table 2.4 Types of Reference Expression ............................................................... 17

Table 2.5 Personal Reference Items ....................................................................... 18

Table 2.6 Demonstrative Reference Items ............................................................. 18

Table 2.7 Comparative Reference .......................................................................... 19

Table 2.8 Types of Substitution .............................................................................. 22

Table 2.9 Types of Ellipsis ..................................................................................... 26

Table 2.10 Deictic Elements in Nominal Ellipsis by Halliday & Hasan (1976) ....... 27

Table 2.11 Numerative Elements in Nominal Ellipsis Halliday & Hasan (1976) ..... 28

Table 2.12 Types of Verbal Ellipsis by Halliday & Hasan (1976) ............................ 29

Table 2.13 Example of Clausal Ellipsis ..................................................................... 30

Table 2.14 The Conjunctive Systems ........................................................................ 32

Table 2.15 Halliday & Hasan’s Classification of Conjunction ................................. 34

Table 3.1 Codes for Grammatical Cohesion ........................................................... 60

Table 3.2 Criteria for Grammatical Cohesion Appropriate & Inappropriate use .... 61

Table 3.3 Overview of Interview ............................................................................ 62

Table 3.4 Content Outline of Interview B .............................................................. 63

Table 3.5 Grammatical Cohesive Features Used in Academic Essay Writing ........ 64

Table 3.6 Appropriate & Inappropriate Use of Grammatical Cohesive Features.... 65

Table 4.1 Grammatical Cohesive Features Used in Academic Essay Writing ........ 67

Table 4.2 Appropriate & Inappropriate Use Grammatical Cohesive Features ........ 72

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Transfer, Overgeneralization, and Interference ........................................ 43

xiv

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 4.1 Grammatical Cohesive Features Used in Academic Essay Writing ........ 68

Chart 4.2 The grammatical cohesion per types ....................................................... 69

Chart 4.3 Appropriate & Inappropriate Use of Grammatical Cohesive Features .... 72

xv

LIST OF APPENDIXES

Appendix 1 Interview A with Mr. E ....................................................................... 91 Appendix 2 Interview B with AF ........................................................................... 93 Appendix 3 Interview B with AP ........................................................................... 95 Appendix 4 Interview B with KR .......................................................................... 97 Appendix 5 Interview B with MN .......................................................................... 99

Appendix 6 Interview B with SF ............................................................................ 101

Appendix 7 Interview B with DI ............................................................................ 102

Appendix 8 Interview B with FM ........................................................................... 104

Appendix 9 Interview B with TB ........................................................................... 106

Appendix 10 Interview B with MH .......................................................................... 108

Appendix 11 Interview B with AN ........................................................................... 110

Appendix 12 Instruments: Interview Guidance & Document Guidlines .................. 112

Appendix 13 Text Analysis Essay 1 ......................................................................... 115









Appendix 22 Text Analysis Essay 10 ....................................................................... 140


Appendix 24 Text Analysis Essay 12 ...................................................................... 144









Appendix 33 Syllabus ............................................................................................... 171

Appendix 34 Sample of Students’ Essay Writing .................................................... 179

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents a general account of the present research. It covers background

of the research, focus of the research, question of the research, objective of the research,

and significance of the research.

A. Background of the Research In English, there are four language skills that should be developed and achieved by

the students, which are divided into two categories. They are receptive skills consisting of

listening and reading, and productive skills consisting of speaking and writing (Harmer,

1991, p. 16). As a productive skill, writing has an important role in academic success in

order to help students develop their linguistic competences having been learnt as well as

their thoughts or ideas through a written form. As asserted by Sattayatham &

Ratanapinyowong as cited in Mawardi (2014) state that writing engages students to learn.

Some of which it reinforces what they have learnt about grammatical structure, idioms and

vocabulary. It also engages them to explore beyond the language they have learnt (p. 80).

Furthermore, Grabe & Kaplan (1998) argue that composing skills are necessary in

academic writing to modify information or the language itself (p. 17). At this point, writing

is a learning process that gives a contribution to the students in modifying the language and

the information as well as developing and organizing their ideas through written form.

Consequently, they are also engaged to clarify their own thoughts and to strengthen their

conviction.

Somehow, writing is one of the most complex and difficult skills to be mastered by

most students and even teachers since it needs a process of thinking deeply, critically,

logically, and systematically that makes a writer difficult to determine what they want to

write on. In this sense, the students is obviously required to have not only the abilities to

use the correct either grammatical forms or vocabulary items, but also knowledge of how a

text is organized and of how ideas are linked to create its unity. Especially in higher

education, undergraduate students of English Education Department are required to

produce academic essay writing by using English. In this regard, writing is one of the tasks

that cannot be avoided for university students since they are required to write essays,

articles, reports and research papers (Hanata & Sukyadi, 2015, p. 37). Furthermore,

academic writing requires conscious effort and practice in composing, developing, and

shaping ideas and tasks, which are particularly difficult for the students because they are

faced with cognitive challenges to share their ideas and critical thinking through the

academic writing.

Unlike in spoken, in written communication, there is a long gap between writer and

reader since the reader cannot get either clarification or confirmation when further

explanation from the writer is needed. Consequently, the writer as a sender of the message

2 should write cohesively and coherently so that the readers would easily follow and

interpret the delivered message in the text. In addition, Hadley (2015) has remarked, “A

written text conforms to certain rules that most good writers unconsciously follow and

native readers unconsciously expect to find” (p. 2). It is clear that writing has its own rules

to be followed, and it is a difficult task to accomplish either in first language or in foreign

language when adhering writing conventions of the target community.

Seeing that writing can be classified as a good writing if readers easily understand it.

For this reason, they have to write down what they have in mind on their writing

cohesively and coherently. In this sense, many researchers have revealed that those criteria

are very important areas in investigating a text (Halliday & Hasan 1976; Brown & Yule,

1983; Renkema, 2004; Liu & Brane, 2005; Hamid, 2010; Alarcon & Morales, 2011;

Akindele, 2011; Ghasemi, 2013; Rassouli & Abbasvandi, 2013; Jabeen, Mehmood &

Iqbal, 2013; Mavasoglu, 2014; Wahby, 2014; Mawardi, 2014; Hanata & Sukyadi, 2015).

Moreover, Corbett in Sutama as cited in Mawardi (2014) mentions three important

components to be required, such as cohesion, coherence, and adequate development to

create a good writing (p. 81). Admittedly, most researches on academic writing indicate

that students have difficulties to link their ideas by using cohesive features that makes their

essays confusing and too informal for academic writing as the result it cannot be involved

and accepted in academic work. In this case, it denotes that they are still lack of adequate

knowledge of cohesive links. In this regard, Alek (2014) stated that “the students know the

steps to make a good writing but they find many problems in conducting the writing

process” (p. 8).

English Department Students of UIKA Bogor, taking an essay-writing course in the

fourth semester of year 2016-2017, are involved in this research. At the same time, the

essay-writing course required for English Department Students. This course is designed to

produce knowledge and develop their ability to write well essay writing in English by

using their own language, and to give the students deepest knowledge and understanding

of the types of essay development such as comparison and contrast essays, cause and effect

eassays, argumentive essays, expository essays and others. Students are also given special

skills of writing, such as preparing a summary, writing a report, writing a resume using a

library, and writing a research paper. Furthermore, to enable students to write long essays

in order to encourage them to write 6-10 paragraph approximately 1000 words. (Syllabus

of English Writing in Professional 1)

In the writing class, it is demanded from the students to show their skills in writing

in the foreign language. Thus, academic writing requires from students linguistic abilities

as well as discourse knowledge as they are expected to be able demonstrate their

awareness to practice in composing, developing, and analyzing ideas.

Essay writing is one of the major skills required for the students’ academic success

although may often fail to meet the standards of lexical appropriateness and grammatical

accuracy demanded by their English writing teacher in academic writing. Moreover, some

researchers found that the students are still lack of cohesion and coherence in their writing,

3 which challenges the English educators to help the students overcome their problem

(Kusumaningrum, 2012; Reza & Ghane, 2013; Mavasoglu, 2014; Benjamin & Nartey,

2014; Mawardi, 2014).

Viewing cohesion is one of essential factors to create a text unity while most the

students often have problems on it, which is because of the inadequate choice of cohesive

ties especially in grammatical cohesive features on their writing. Therefore, it is necessary

to investigate the use of grammatical cohesive features in developing the unity of the text

in order to see what problems encountered by the students in developing the text unity,

which often affect the discourse unity that leads to confusion and misunderstanding.

Cohesion is very popular in discourse analysis studies becoming the interest object

in this reserch showing how meaning relations in the text contribute to its unity. Therefore,

it is concerned with lexico-grammatical ties denoting relations between messages in the

text creating texture of it by using cohesive features (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 2—6). In

other words, cohesion refers to the linkage of ideas in the text by using cohesive features in

connecting sentences and paragraphs as a whole. Explicitly, there are five cohesive

features proposed in binding the text together namely substitution, reference, conjunction,

ellipsis, and lexical cohesion (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 6). Those features are classified

into two main categories, grammatical and lexical cohesion. In this research, however,

only focus on the grammatical cohesive features including reference, substitution,

conjunction, and ellipsis. It is due to those features have more dominant roles in text

production rather that lexical cohesion.

The study of cohesion gives a contribution to the students in developing and shaping

their writing skill especially in academic writing. Unconsciously, it gives knowledge of

how texts are organized and how meanings of the messages are expressed. Furthermore, by

investigating the properties of cohesion, it helps the readers easily understand and interpret

the conveyed meaning of the texts since it is known that it denotes the meaning relations

unifying the text as a whole either in sentence level or in paragraph level.

In line with this, Halliday & Hasan’s (1976) theory of cohesion is also insightful and

applicable in the teaching of English writing in which it is showed by how the students

organize the intended meanings in the text through looking at the cohesive features in

creating its unity. For it, this research attempts to gain a deeper view of how this concept is

applied in essays written by the fourth semester of undergraduate students of English

Education Department at UIKA Bogor.

The study of cohesion have been done in the scientific work and English textbook

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Akindele, 2009 & 2011; Stanojevic, 2012; Dilek, 2012; Reza &

Ghane, 2013; Mavasoglu, 2014; Benjamin & Nartey, 2014; Frydrychova & Hubackova,

2014). Abundant works on grammatical cohesion have been written, but further

investigation on it is needed in the usage of grammatical cohesion appearing in academic

essay writing. In this regard, the study on grammatical cohesive features in academic essay

writing of the fourth semester of undergraduate students of English education department

is the focus of this research because of its contribution to the academic world in developing

4 the unity of academic essay writing leading the students’ academic essay writing becomes

easy to follow and comprehensible.

This research being investigated is actually related to the domain of discourse

analysis. Any piece of discourse should be studied in a way that ensures its cohesion. For

that, grammatical cohesion is used as one way to have a cohesive discourse. Indeed,

grammatical cohesion whether it is seen as a process or a product or both is an attempt to

give a general view of discourse analysis and its relation to cohesion in general and

grammatical cohesion in particular.

Therefore, to achieve this goal, the four types of grammatical cohesive features,

reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction, proposed by Halliday & Hasan (1976)

would be studied in this research. Furthermore, investigating the presence or absence of

grammatical cohesive features in students’ essay writing does not only provide insights

into the students’ difficulties identified but also suggest ways for English writing teachers

to be involved productively in students’ writing process that help them write more

cohesively.

B. Focus of the Research

To prevent the misunderstanding and to clarify the problem based on the

background of the research; this research focuses on investigating grammatical cohesion

on students’ academic essay writing concerned with the use of grammatical cohesive

features between sentences on students’ academic essay writing.

C. Question of the Research The current research seeks the following research questions:

1. What are the types of grammatical cohesive features used on students’ academic essay

writing?

2. What are the frequent types of grammatical cohesive features used on students’

academic essay writing?

3. What are the appropriate and inappropriate used of the grammatical cohesive features

on students’ academic essay writing?

4. What are the causes of students commit incohesive in their academic essay writing?

D. Objective of the Research The objectives of the research are focused on four aspects of the research questions.

First of all, the research intends to investigate the types of grammatical cohesive features

found in students’ academic essay writing. In addition, this research intends to investigate

which types of grammatical cohesive features frequently found in the students’ academic

essay writing. Moreover, this research intends to investigate the appropriate and

inappropriate used of the grammatical cohesive features on students’ academic essay

writing. Furthermore, this research intends to investigate the causes of students commit

incohesive in their academic essay writing.

5

E. Significance of the Research This research is expected to give a contribution to generate information of

students’ familiarity in using grammatical cohesive features in creating cohesive discourse

on the academic essay writing.

The finding of this research can give valued information or knowledge for the

institution to review and reorganize the syllabus of English writing course to include the

explicit teaching of cohesion in the teaching and learning of writing course engaging the

lecturers to deliver the cohesion theory in their writing class. This is hoped to be able to

engage the students’ awareness on the grammatical cohesive features and use them highly

varied and appropriately in their academic essay writing for developing a text unity.

Besides, this research can contribute the knowledge to the students referred to the

problems they encountered in using the grammatical cohesive features so that they further

would not commit the same errors in their academic essay writing.

Moreover, this research can suggest the English educators to assist the students

increase their performance in terms of grammatical cohesive features in academic essay

writing and in every genres of academic work. Also, suggest ways for English writing the

lecturer to be involved productively in students’ writing process that help them write more

cohesively.

Furthermore, this research finding contributes for me as a researcher to expand my

knowledge about the qualitative research regarding with the cohesion study in the hope

that the researcher can carried out further research much better.

Finally, this research can be used as useful information or comparison by further

researchers who are interested in conducting the research regarding with the cohesion

especially grammatical cohesion.

6

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews the relevant literature related to this research. Fundamental

literature to the review are discussions of discourse and discourse analysis that is the

umbrella term used in studying cohesion; concept of cohesion drawn from the work of

Halliday & Hasan (1976) concerning on identifying grammatical cohesive features. For

that, it is needed to discuss the terms text, ties, and texture, the difference between

cohesion and coherence, types of cohesion, distance of cohesion, and cohesion within or

between the sentences in order to get precise understanding of cohesion. Other key theories

discussed include causes of error to find out the sources of error and cohesion and teaching

writing as evidence that cohesion contributes to writing work. Consequently, it is also

important to discuss an overview of writing in academic setting, types of writing, academic

writing, and teaching writing at university level. This chapter ends by summarizing

previous research on cohesion.

A. Discourse and Discourse Analysis In linguistic sense, discourse refers to language use or language in use denoting the

connection of speech or writing found at supra-sentential levels (at levels greater than

single sentence) (McHoul as cited in Mey, 1998, p. 226).

In line with this, Abercrombic, Hill & Turrer as cited in McHoul in Mey (1998)

define discourse as a domain of language use, structured as a unity by common

assumptions (p. 226). Moreover, discourse is a type of structure; the term is used to refer to

the structure of some postulated unit higher than the sentence (Halliday & Hasan, 1985, p.

10).

From the explanation above, it can be assumed that discourse is a linguistic unit

consists of several sentences hang together and having unified meaning in forms of spoken

or written. In other words, it is the comprehensive unit of language by which its unity is

formed by sentences, which are components of its construction. In addition, it is the fully

language unit and whole since each parts of discourse are related cohesively, and any piece

of discourse is said to be cohesive if its components such as sentences, phrases, words are

bound to form a unified whole. In this sense, cohesion is one of the discourse components

contributing to discourse unity since it deals with the tightness of sentence either in spoken

or written forms.

Moreover, Beaugrade & Dressler (1981) as cited in Rankema (2004) has formulated

seven criteria for textuality, that is, criteria that a sequence of sentences must meet in order

to qualify as a discourse:

(a) Cohesion is the connection that results when the interpretation of a

textual element is dependent on another element in the text;

7

(b) Coherence is the connection that is brought about by something outside

the text. The ―something‖ is usually knowledge which a listener or reader is

assumed to have;

(c) Intentionality means that writers and speakers must have the conscious

intention of achieving specific goals with their message, for instance,

conveying information or arguing an opinion;

(d) Acceptability requires that a sequence of sentence can be acceptable to

the intended audience in order to qualify as a text:

(e) Informativeness is necessary in discourse. A discourse must contain new

information. If a reader knows everything contained in discourse, then it

does not qualify as a discourse;

(f) Situationality is essential to textuality. So, it is important to consider the

situation in which the discourse has been produced and dealt with;

(g) Intertextuality means that a sequence of sentences is related by form or

meaning to the sequence of sentences. This chapter is a discourse because it

is related to the other chapters of this book. And this book is a discourse

because it is a member of the group of textbooks.‖ (pp. 49—50)

In discourse studies, most attention has been paid to the criteria of cohesion and

coherence, sometimes taken together as connectivity. Cohesion is usually defined as

connectivity that is literally detectable in discourse by cohesive features such as reference,

conjunction, substitution, ellipsis and lexical cohesion. On the other hand, coherence is

connectivity that can be inferred from the discourse by the reader or listener, e.g., we can

place the word therefore or thereafter between the following sentences in order to explicate

the relation, we have inferred: ―She had a child. She married.‖ However, this research only

focuses on cohesion study; nevertheless, coherence will briefly be discussed to give a

precise distinction between cohesion and coherence. It is due to both cohesion and

coherence are mostly perceived as overlapping terms used in creating discourse unity.

Cohesion is one of means that creates coherence or discourse unity in the text through the

cohesive features linking sentences into a paragraph, paragraph into a passage and it also

give a text flow, and direct readers‘ attention to writer‘s arguments being developed.

Furthermore, discourse analysis is a broad term that involves the study of the ways

in which language is used in text and its context. In addition, ―discourse analysis is used as

an umbrella term which covers a range of disciplines including pragmatic, speech act

theory, conversational analysis, and the Birmingham approach to spoken discourse‖

(Simpson in Mey, 1998, p. 237). He further added that discourse analysis investigates the

organization of language above the sentence level and it explores the way in which spoken

and written are developed (Simpson in Mey, 1998, p. 237).

Cohesion is one of the central concepts in discourse analysis that has been developed

to discover substitutable items in any stretch of written (or spoken) language that is felt as

complete in itself (Hoey, 1983). Discourse analysis refers to studies of the sentence in its

8

linguistic context (Simensen, 2007). What is to be important for discourse analysts is that

―readers interpret particular meanings and contexts in the light of their own existing

knowledge and social associations‖ (Hillier, 2004, p. 16).

Halliday (1994 as cited in Tsareva, 2010) introduces the main idea of cohesion

saying that we need to establish relationships between sentences and clauses in order to

construct discourse (p. 9). The number of grammatical items in a sentence determines its

length. However, these grammatical items or the numbers of sentences in a paragraph or

the whole text are only a characteristic feature of discourse structure, but they do not

determine whether a text is coherent or not. What helps to interpret cohesion in written

discourse is the study of semantic resources used for linking across sentences in order to

see how the different parts of a text are connected. What can be observed within sentences

are structures, which define the relations among the parts (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). In the

term of cohesion, what can be observed across sentences in written discourse are not

structures but links that have particular features that are to be interpreted on the part of a

reader.

B. Cohesion

1. Concept of Cohesion To get in-depth understanding about the concept of cohesion, it is necessary to

discuss theoretically the notion of text, texture and ties related to create cohesion.

a. Text

Texts are produced for several different purposes (e.g. to persuade, to instruct, to

inform, to describe and so on). In other words, every piece of writing has its own purpose

relating to writer‘s reason for writing. At this point, variety techniques are used to achieve

the high demand relating to the interest and activity concerned. This mean such

professional and scientific reports, letters, essay, poems, novels, and any other literary

genres, have their bases in four forms of communication such as narration, argumentation,

description, persuasion and exposition. In this sense, to get successful communication

between both the reader and the text produced by the writer, it requires another important

requisite known well as cohesion. Therefore, it is important to discuss what makes a text

different from something that is not a text.

It is known that all languages are formed from the small units, such words having

form and conveying meaning. They also have sentence similarly having form and meaning

by which that meaning is determined by the meanings of the words composed and

grammatical structure (Valeika & Buitkiene, 2006, p. 7). This implies that these sentences

bound together create a text that what makes it called as the text since it has mutual

dependence between them. As what some linguists (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Bregrande &

Dressler, 1981) have characterized a text and its features and then distinguishing it from a

sequence of unrelated sentences.

9

Moreover, Halliday & Hasan (1976) define the term of a text in linguistics as any

passage of whatever length of it, either very long or very short in the spoken or written

form, what is essential is forming its unity. (p. 1). For that, it is important to know what

makes a text to be a unified whole. In this case, they asserted that the text is ―a unit of

language in use. It is a grammatical unit, like a clause or a sentence; and it is not defined

by its size‖ (p. 1). Furthermore, they noted that a text is best regarded as a semantic unit

mutually related to a clause/sentence by a realization in which it is the decoding of one

symbolic system in another (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 2). Thus, the meaning and logical

relations of words and sentences become the main components in order to create a

coherent text or texture. In this sense, it can be said that a text possesses a texture that

makes it different from non-text (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, P. 2).

b. Texture

Texture is inherent to a text. It contributes to the text unity. In the words of Halliday

& Hasan (1976), the cohesive relation that exists between the elements (the referring item

and the item it refers to) gives texture to a text (p. 2). The following example illustrates the

case.

(1) Wash and core six cooking apples. Put them into a fireproof dish.

In the item (1), the pronoun /them/ in the second sentence refers back to /six cooking

apples/ in the first sentence. In this sense, the pronoun /them/ gives cohesion to the two

sentences, so they are interpreted as a whole in which the two sentences together constitute

a text that facilitate reader‘s understanding of the relation between sentences in the text. In

relation to meaning, ―six cooking apples‖ and ―them‖ are identical in reference, or co-

referential. This degree of co-referentiality between ―six cooking apples‖ and ―them‖

provides texture. Summing up, the cohesive elements defined above provide sufficient

consistency to create texture.

In this case, the texture is provided by the cohesive relationships within and between

sentences through linguistic features linking sentences as a unified whole (Halliday &

Hasan, 1976, p. 2). Then, this what makes any length of text meaningful and coherent. This

means that a text without texture would just be a collection of disjointed sentences not

related to one another. Besides, cohesion regarded with the semantic ties within text by

which ties occur if there is the dependent link between sentences combined to create

meaning (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 4). Hence, it can be understood that texture created

within text caused by the existence of the properties of coherence and cohesion outside of

the grammatical structure of the text by which it is found through relation in meaning.

c. Ties

A tie is a technical term given by Halliday & Hasan (1976) to refer to one

occurrence of a pair cohesively related items as single instance of the existing cohesion (p.

3). It is the links, which binds a referring item to the item to which it refers, constitutes a

tie. The single instance of cohesion in the preceding example (1) (―six cooking apples‖ and

10

―them‖) represents the occurrence of a pair of cohesive items in an anaphoric relation that

constitutes a tie.

Regarding with the relation of ties to texture, they can be seen at glance that both

concepts have something in common with each other. As known that, the most important

difference between them resides in the fact that texture deals with meaning while ties

imply the most convenient lexical choice to provide the same meaning. In this way, the

previous examples of ―six cooking apples‖ and ―them‖ are adjustable to identify the idea

of the ―six cooking apples‖ contained the first sentence. In this sense, ―the concept of a tie

makes it possible to analyze a text in terms of its cohesive properties, and give systematic

account of its pattern of texture‖ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 4).

After discussing the terms of text, texture and ties, the concept of cohesion can be

drawn in accordance with those terms. As mention earlier, cohesion grammatically refers

to the existence of cohesive features provided to linking information delivered in writing,

giving the text flow and unifying it as a whole. In other words, cohesion has an important

role in constructing a text by using cohesive features that give a text flow and become

sequence of related sentences. In this sense, to make the connected sentences in the text,

the term of cohesion is used to join the ideas between sentences that create texture by using

cohesive ties proposed by Halliday & Hasan (1976).

Researchers have revealed that cohesion is one of the most important areas in

investigating a text (Halliday & Hasan 1976; Brown & Yule, 1983; Renkema, 2004; Liu &

Brane, 2005; Hamid, 2010; Alarcon & Morales, 2011; Akindele, 2011; Ghasemi, 2013;

Rassouli & Abbasvandi, 2013; Jabeen, Mehmood & Iqbal, 2013; Mavasoglu, 2014;

Wahby, 2014). It gives a contribution to help researchers know how cohesive features are

used to fulfill semantic relations of the text unifying it as a whole. This means that the

concept of cohesion cannot be separated from the text concept either in spoken or in

written form in developing a text unity. Moreover, a text is called as a text if it has

‗texture‘ that distinguishes it from non-text by which this texture is formed by the cohesive

ties (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 2). They also stated, ―if a passage of English containing

more than one sentence is perceived as a text, there will be certain linguistic features

present in that passage which can be identified as contributing to its total unity and giving

it texture‖ (p. 2).

The term of cohesion is firstly proposed by Halliday & Hasan (1976) viewing that

cohesion refers to the properties used to connect the part of the items semantically already

exist with the previous one (p. 4). Their work of cohesive features in Cohesion in English

(1976) is the symbol of establishment of cohesion theory and gains a lot of attention from

many researchers. It is proved by abundant works on it having been done in different

context by many researchers (Gutwinski, 1976; De Beagrande & Dressler, 1981; Brown &

Yule, 1983; Renkema, 2004; Liu & Brane, 2005; Hamid, 2010; Alarcon & Morales, 2011;

Akindele, 2011; Ghasemi, 2013; Rassouli & Abbasvandi, 2013; Jabeen, Mehmood &

Iqbal, 2013; Mavasoglu, 2014; Wahby, 2014).

11

In this respect, my work in this research is inevitably colored by their theory. In their

work, they conceptualize the notion of cohesion as a semantic one referring to the existing

of meaning relations within the text so called as a text (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 4).

Their definition of cohesion highlights the relationship between the meanings of linguistic

units. It means that meaning is the most important thing to make a text called as a text and

makes sense. In addition, cohesion is established when the interpretation of some elements

in the discourse is depend on the other one; it is about the relations between two elements,

the presupposing and the presupposed (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 4). In this case, the

cohesive relations occur if there are two items connected with each other creating a tie.

This means the concept of tie becomes the notion in analyzing the cohesive properties of

the text by giving a systematic account of patterns of texture (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, pp.

3—4). In addition, they distinguish between cohesion as ―a relation in the system‖ where

―the set of possibilities in the language for making text hang together‖ and cohesion as ―a

process in the text‖ which means, ―it is the instantiation of the relation in the text‖

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, pp. 18—19).

In Halliday & Hasan‘s view, the meaning can be tied together from the connected

sentences so called cohesion. According to them, cohesion is an indicator for a text unity

and it is not a collection of unrelated sentences. In their work, they proposed taxonomy of

various cohesive ties as reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion

that would be discussed more in the next section, types of cohesion.

2. Difference between Cohesion and Coherence In the investigation of text, it is important to give a concise distinction between

cohesion and coherence contributing to denote the quality of text and to discuss them in

detail with reference to relevant literature since they are interrelated and distinguishable.

Halliday & Hasan (1976) define cohesion from semantic point of view by stating

that cohesion can be interpreted in practice as the set of semantic resources for linking a

sentence with what has been presented previously enabling a text functioned as a text (p.

10). In addition, cohesion refers to lexico-grammatical properties of a text that links

sentences together and gives it texture (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, Stanojevic, 2012).

In this regards, cohesion refers to surface links involving lexical and grammatical

relations between sentences or paragraphs created to form the structure of meaning

indicating whether a text is well linked or just a group of unrelated sentences. It is

established by the relationships between the sentences via cohesive features in the surface

structure of the text. In this sense, it is noteworthy that ―cohesion does not concern what a

text means; it concerns how the text is constructed as semantic edifice‖ (Halliday & Hasan,

1976, p. 26). Therefore, cohesion does not deal with the global flow of a text across

paragraphs though it usually plays a role in paragraph itself. It mostly occurs at

intersentence.

As an illustration of cohesion, let us study the example having been given by

Halliday & Hasan (1976) as in item (1).

12

In the item (1) above, the pronoun /them/ in the second sentence refers back to /six

cooking apples/ in the first sentence. In this sense, the pronoun /them/ gives cohesion to the

two sentences that facilitate reader‘s understanding of the relation between sentences in the

text.

To see the difference between cohesive and not-cohesive text, let us see the

examples in the item (2) and (3) below. They are constituted by two or more sentences.

However, the item (2) is cohesive one another while the item (3) is not.

(2) To reach the post office, you need to go straight for about 10 minutes until you

find the intersection and then you have to turn left on the intersection and go

straight for about 5 minutes. You will see it on the opposite street.

(3) A dog ran after a cat. The motorbike broke. I went to a mini market.

On the other hand, coherence refers to the properties of a text consisting of cohesion

and register (Halliday & Hasan, 1976 as cited in Ghasemi, 2013, p. 1616). In addition,

Stanojevic (2012) stated that coherence refers to ―the semantic and pragmatic property of

the text that makes it meaningful and prompts its comprehension‖ (p. 90). He further added

that ―when there is a logical order of text elements and they are functionally linked, such a

text can be regarded as coherent‖ (p. 90).

In this sense, the distinctions of the two concepts are identifiable by which cohesion

represents cues explicitly throughout cohesive features in connecting the sentences in the

text. It also gives the text flow and directs readers‘ attention to writer‘s developed

arguments so that they find out the semantic relations between sentences in the text

whereas coherence refers to overall sense and meaning that exists in a text in which it

involves readers/listeners‘ prior knowledge and cohesion. It can be summarized that

cohesion creates meaning through cohesive features while coherence creates meaning

through reader‘s prior knowledge and register. I mean without readers‘ prior knowledge, it

will be difficult to get the conveyed meaning of the text. By cohesive features existed in

the text, it will be easy to understand the meaning of information being delivered on the

other hand.

Furthermore, the relationship between the two concepts is so closed intertwined in

developing the quality of the text. In addition, Halliday & Hasan (1985) state that the

relation between cohesion and coherence is denoted by a text and context that create a text

by which cohesion contributes to coherence through connecting a part of text to another,

and expects it appropriate with the external ones derived from the context of situation.

Therefore, a text called ―hang together‖ (Halliday & Hasan, 1985, p. 48). It means that

cohesion does not lead to coherence somehow coherence is insufficient to make a text

coherent without some additional linguistic properties that make a text coherent as

cohesion indicating linguistic properties connecting between sentences or paragraphs as a

whole.

In this regard, it can be highlighted that there are two types of semantic connection

levels, connection through cohesion in surface level and connection through coherence in

profound level. In this case, it can be summarized that cohesion and coherence seems to be

13

independent. It is due to a text can be either cohesive but not coherent or coherent but not

cohesive. It is also possible that text is both cohesive and coherent. For instance,

(4) Have you met Mr. Mustaan? He was here yesterday.

The two sentences in the item (4) are linked through the pronoun /He/ and there is

also a semantic relation between them so that they are both cohesive and coherent.

However, in the item (5) below, there are no cohesive elements but it is semantically

coherent. This means it is called as coherent without being cohesive.

(5) Manchester United shot a goal. The whistle blew.

Furthermore, in the item (6) below, it can be categorized cohesive but not coherent

since it contains the cohesive element /her/ but it is not pragmatically appropriate.

(6) My mother died. I shall see her tomorrow.

Another example that shows cohesion differs from coherence explained by

Osisanwo (2005 as cited in Akindele, 2009. P. 99) as below:

(7) He phoned the police. The midnight guests had come.

(8) He phoned the police because the midnight guests had come.

The item (7) is coherent but not cohesive. However, the item (8) is both cohesive

and coherent since it uses the cohesive feature /because/ in that text by which it gives the

reason why the police was phoned. Thus, this makes a complete text of which the parts are

well linked and meaningful.

However, the existence of both cohesion and coherence are still argued since the

detailed explanation of cohesion was outlined by Halliday & Hasan (1976) in Cohesion in

English. It was the book that made cohesion as an important concept in many fields and

raised wide discussion and application ever since.

In Halliday & Hasan‘s opinion, the concept of cohesion is ―a semantic one; it refers

to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as a text‖ (p. 4).

Likewise, the other researchers (e.g. Schiffrin, 1987; Cao, Song and Yang, 2003) see

cohesion as semantic relation connecting the element of the text together to form a unified

whole (p. 142). Somehow, other researchers have different understanding of it as what has

been discussed by Xi (2010) that some researchers (e.g. Baker, 1992; Thompson, 1996)

that see cohesion as the linguistic devices that connect the actual words and expressions

together.

These divergent opinions lead researchers to confuse the terms of cohesion and

cohesive device. In their researches, they only focus on the surface features of cohesion

regarded as cohesive devices rather than the more general features of cohesion seeing

cohesion as an element of text explicable in terms of similar to those of formal linguistics

such as Halliday & Hasan (1976) tend to look deeper and treat cohesion as semantic

concept. It is clear that, among this understanding, there are some distorted understandings

of Halliday & Hasan‘s concept of cohesion. In this sense, researchers can choose which

definition that they intended as long as they can make it clear the definition they are using

(Xi, 2010, p. 142).

14

3. Types of Cohesion As already noted, cohesion is realized by cohesive features. In their book, Cohesion

in English (1976), Halliday & Hasan (1976) have classified the cohesive features into two

terms, grammatical and lexical cohesion. Grammatical cohesion involves reference,

substitution, ellipsis and conjunction while lexical cohesion involves reiteration and

collocation (p. 6). To have general description about them, see the Table 2.1 below

adopted from Tsareva (2010) based on Halliday & Hasan‘s taxonomy of cohesive features

presenting the classifications of the types of cohesion.

Table 2.1

Types of Cohesion Based on Halliday & Hasan (1976)*

Cohesion

Grammatical Lexical

Reference

Exophoric [situational]

Reiteration

Repetition

Endophoric [textual] Synonyms

Anaphoric

[to preceding

text]

Cataphoric

[to following

text]

Superordinate

Substitution General word

Ellipsis Collocation

Conjunction *Adopted from Tsareva, 2010, p. 10.

a. Grammatical Cohesion Grammatical cohesion refers to a surface structure of the text that binds a unity of it

through grammatical cohesive features. In this respect, Halliday & Hasan (1976) point out

that sentence is the highest structural unit in grammar so that it has a significant unit for

cohesion (p. 8). Consequently, cohesive relationships that occur with other sentences in

texts create the unity of text itself.

Moreover, there are four grammatical cohesive features proposed in binding the text

together namely reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction (Halliday & Hasan, 1976,

p. 6). These cohesive features have a theoretical basis and specific types of grammatical

cohesion providing a practical means for describing and analyzing text. Halliday & Hasan

(1976) as cited in Tsareva (2010) illustrate the types of grammatical cohesion that will be

discussed further as in the Table 2.2 below (p. 13).

Table 2.2

Types of Grammatical Cohesion Based on Halliday & Hasan (1976) *

GRAMMATICAL COHESION

Reference Substitution Ellipsis Conjunction

Personals Nominal Nominal Additive

Existential Possessive one/ones,

the same,

and, and also,

nor, or, or else, I, you, we, my/mine,

15

he, she, it,

they, one

your/yours,

our/ours, his,

her/hers, its,

their/theirs,

one‘s

so furthermore,

by the way,

in other words,

likewise,

on the other hand, thus

Demonstrative Verbal Verbal Adversative

this/that, these/those, here/there do, be, have,

do the same,

likewise,

do so, be so,

do it/that, be

it/that

yet, though, only, but,

however, at least,

in fact, rather,

on the contrary,

I mean, in any case

Definite Article** Clausal Clausal Causal

the So, not so, then, therefore,

because, otherwise

Comparative

Temporal

same, identical, similar(ly), such,

different, other, else

then, next, before that,

first ... then, at first,

formerly ... final,

at once, soon, to sum

up, in conclusion

*Adapted from Tsareva, 2010, p. 13. It is not fully exemplified. For details see Halliday & Hasan

(1976, pp. 333—338).

**the definite article /the/ include in the sub-type of demonstrative reference.

1) Reference Reference is one of the grammatical cohesive features in a text only interpreted with

reference to some other parts of the text (Mavasoglu, 2014, p. 246). In addition to that,

Yule (2000) defines reference as an act of speaker or writer to enable listener or reader to

identify something by using linguistic forms (p. 17). In this sense, since reference create

cohesive links between the elements (presupposing and presupposed) in a text so that

reference can be assumed as an identifiablility by which it requires speaker or listener to be

able to identify whether a given element appropriate to relevant discourse or not. Thus,

reference has the ability to point to something within or outside a text.

Halliday & Hasan (1976) state that co-referential forms are forms which ―instead of

being interpreted semantically in their own right, make reference to something else for

their interpretation‖ (p. 31). As its function, reference can be classified into two categories,

exophoric and endophoric. Exophoric reference is a contextual by which the reference item

is identifiable through the context of the situation while endophoric reference is textual by

which the reference item is recoverable from within the text (Halliday & Matthiessen,

2014, p. 625). This means when the interpretation is within the text and cohesive called

‗endophoric‘ relation but if in situation where the interpretation of the text lies outside the

16

text or in the context of situation called as ‗exophoric.‘ For further understanding, see the

Table 2.3 describing different kinds of the pointing (phora) types (adopted from Halliday

& Matthiessen, 2014, p. 624).

Table 2.3

Types of Phora

Reference to: Before Current After

environment exophoric exophoric

text endophoric anaphoric reference item cataphoric

* adopted from Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p. 624

See the example of exophoric reference as in the item (9) below!

(9) Teacher: Stop doing that, we are learning. (some students make a noise outside)

In this research, somehow, the study focuses on the textual analysis; therefore,

exophoric relations play no part in textual cohesion meanwhile endophoric from cohesive

ties within the text becomes the main concerns. Regarding on the place of referring items,

there are two types of reference such as anaphoric and cataphoric. Anaphoric reference

points readers or listeners backwards to another word previously mentioned in a text

meanwhile cataphoric reference is vice versa by which it looks forwards in the text to

indentify the elements where the reference item refers to (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 33).

To get concise distinction, see the examples in the item (10) and (11).

(10) I ask Helendra to copy a paper, but he does not want to copy it.

The pronoun /he/ is the referring item and Helendra is the item to which /he/ refers.

In other words, Helendra is the antecedent of the referring item so that called anaphoric

reference. Anaphoric is often contrasted with cataphoric reference where referring items

precede antecedents as in the utterance as below:

(11) When I left her at the library, Delila was disappointed and angry to me.

In this sentence, the object of the pronoun /her/ refers forward to the proper noun

/Delila/ in the sentence. It means the referring item /her/ precedes the antecedent/Delila/ so

that called cataphoric reference.

Moreover, Halliday & Hasan (1976) provide the reference into three sub-types of

referential cohesion such as personal, demonstrative, and comparative (p. 38). At this

point, the definite article is included into the sub-type of demonstratives. This various

types of referential cohesion enable speakers or writers to make multiple references to

animate or non-animate within a text. In detail, see the Table 2.4 describing the types of

reference expression adopted from Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p. 626.

17

Table 2.4

Types of Reference Expression

Nominal group:

Head or

Premodifier

Nominal or

adverbial

group:

Submodifier

Adverbial

group: Head

co-reference personal personal pronoun

as Thing/Head;

possessive

determiner as

Deictic/Premodifier

or Head

- -

demonstrative demonstrative

pronoun as

Thing/Head;

demonstrative

determiner as

Deictic/Premodifier

or Head

- demonstrative

adverbs as

Head (here,

there)

comparative

reference

general adjective as post-

Deictic (same,

similar, other, etc.);

adjective such as

Epithet

Comparative adverb (identically,

similarly, otherwise, etc.) as

Submodifier in nominal,

adverbial group or as

Premodifier, Head in adverbial

group

specific Comparative

adverb (more,

fewer, etc.) as

Submodifier of

numeral serving as

numerative;

comparative adverb

(more, less, etc.) as

Submodifier of

adjective serving as

Epithet (or simply

comparative form

of that adjective)

Comparative adverb (more, less,

etc.) as Submodifier in nominal,

adverbial group or as Premodifier

in adverbial group (or simply

comparative form of adverb)

*adopted from Halliday & Mattiessen, 2014, p. 626

18

a) Personal Reference Personal reference used person category to refer is used to track individuals, things

or objects that are named at some other point in the text, and is expressed through by two

classes, personal pronouns and possessive determiners (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, pp.

37—38). In detail, see the Table 2.5 below!

Table 2.5

Personal Reference Items

Head Premodifier

Thing:

pronoun

Deictic: determiner

determinative possessive

singular masculine he/him His his

feminine she/her Hers her

neutral it [its] its

plural they/them Theirs their

*adopted from Halliday & Mattiessen, 2014, p. 628

For example:

(12) Alice wondered a little at this, but she was too much in awe of the Queen

to disbelieve it. (The third person singular pronoun /she/ refers back to

Alice.)

b) Demonstrative Reference The second type of co-reference is demonstrative ―essentially a form of verbal

pointing‖ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 57). They add that this type of reference is achieved

by means of location on a scale of proximity (near, far, neutral) (p. 57). It consists of

demonstratives as referring to words, phrases or even chunks of the text. In detail, see the

Table 2.6 below! (Adopted from Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p. 629)

Table 2.6

Demonstrative Reference Items

Nominal group Adverbial

group

Head/Thing Premidifier/Deictic Head

pronoun Determiner adverb

specific near this/these this/these here

remote that/those that/those there

Non-specific it The

*adopted from Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 629

19

For example:

(13) We went to the opera last night. That was our first outing for months.

(/That/ refers anaphorically to /last night./)

The definite article /the/ is classified together with demonstrative and possessives.

Halliday & Hasan, (1976) noted that demonstratives often refer exophorically to something

within the context of situation (p. 58). The use of demonstrative reference in speech is

regularly accompanied by gesture indicating the objects referred to as in the item (14). The

same applies to definite article that can be used exophorically by which the situation that

specifies the referent as shown in the item (15).

(14) Leave that there and come here! (/That/ and /there/ imply distance, whereas

/here/ refers to something that is near the speaker.)

(15) Look at the flower! (The situation that makes it clear to what referent is

intended.)

In this regard, the definite article has no content and thus it cannot anything on its

own. ―It serves to identify a particular individual or subclass within the class designated by

the noun; but it does this only through dependence on something else‖ (Halliday & Hasan,

1976, p. 71). They further explain that the definite article /the/ is used to signal that show

the information for identifying the element that is recoverable. It creates cohesive links

between the sentences in which it occurs and the referential information. It does not

contain that information in itself, and it also does not say where the information is located.

It is however only functioned to signal definitely (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, pp. 71—74).

c) Comparative Reference The last type of referential cohesion is comparative reflected by certain class of

adjectives and adverbs (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 77). They further distinguish between

the sub-types of comparative reference, namely general and particular. The general

comparative reference expresses likeness between things in the form of identity, similarity

and unlikeness or difference. The other one expresses comparability between things by

which it is expressed by a comparative quantifier or an adverb of comparison sub-

modifying a quantifier in term of quantity. However, in term of quality it is expressed by

comparative adjectives or adverbs sub-modifying adjective (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, pp.

77—81). In detail, see Table 2.7 below!

Table 2.7

Comparative Reference Items

Nominal

group

Adverbial

group

Post-Dictic Numerative Epithet Head

adjective adverb adjective;

adverb

adverb

general identity same, - - identically,

20

equal,

identical,

etc.

(just) as, etc.

similarity similar,

additional,

etc.

- Comparative

adjective:

such

so, likewise,

similarly, etc.

difference other,

different,

etc.

- - otherwise,

else,

differently,

etc.

particular Submodifier:

more, fewer,

less, further;

So, as, etc. +

Subhead:

numeral

e.g so many

Comparative

adjective:

bigger, etc.

OR

Submodifier:

more, less, so,

as, etc. +

Subhead:

adjective

e.g. so good

Comparative

adverb:

better, etc.

OR

Submodifier:

more, less, so,

as, etc. +

Subhead:

adverb

e.g.

1. We have received exactly the same report as was submitted two months ago.(identity)

2. The lecturer gave two similar questions for his students.(similarity)

3. A: Would you like this coffee?

B: No, I’d like the other coffee. (difference)

4. Take some more tea. (numerative)

5. We are demanding higher living standards. (epithet particular)

*adapted from Halliday & Mattiessen, 2014, p. 633; Halliday & Hasan, 1976, pp. 76—84

As the fact that comparative reference represents cohesive resources that make it

difficult to differentiate between grammatical reference and lexical repetition; however,

reference is described grammatically since it includes the category of person, number,

proximity, and degree of comparison (Tsareva, 2010, p. 15). At this point, Halliday &

Hasan (1976) use the term co-interpretation for the meaning of reference in which the role

of reference is to connect semantically an item of language tie its environment (p. 314).

Therefore, those personals, demonstratives, and comparatives are text-forming devices that

enable readers or listeners to define the identity between language instances.

2) Substitution Another type of grammatical cohesion is substitution defined as an instance of one

item replaced by another (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Akindele, 2011; Alarcon & Moralos,

21

2011; Stanojevic, 2012). It is usually categorized equal with ellipsis since both substitution

and ellipsis can be treated as the same process providing cohesion to discourse, where

―ellipsis can be interpreted as that form of substitution in which the item is replaced by

nothing‖ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 88) and also called as substitution by zero. However,

they are presented separately in the earlier work of Halliday & Hasan (1976) since they

believe that their mechanisms involved are quite different. (p. 88). Hence, these two types

of cohesive relation should be described as two different means available in providing

cohesion.

Moreover, the different mechanisms creating cohesive relations within the text can

be classified semantically or grammatically. In contrast to reference, Halliday & Hasan

(1976) stated that, ―substitution is a relation in wording rather than in meaning‖ (p. 88) and

describe substitution on the lexico-grammatical level. It is a type of cohesive relation

between words and phrases within the text. On the other hand, Reference is interpreted on

the semantic level as relation between meanings (p 89). Both types of cohesion constitute

links between parts of the text, but substitution is mostly used anaphorically in comparison

with reference items that may point in any direction. As with endophoric reference,

substitution holds the text together and avoids repletion. In contrast to reference,

substitution is used where there is no identity of referent (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 314).

Thus, it implies non-identity of meaning and serves to define a new referent.

In line with this, Halliday & Hasan (1976) use the term ‗repudiation‘ to provide a

cue to understand substitution and to distinguish it from reference. The notion of

repudiation is possibly explained in terms of the presupposition relation. In reference, the

reference item and the one that it presupposes have a referential identity of definition. In

substitution, some new specification or redefinition can be added in the presupposition

relation when a part of the element in the preceding text is not carried over (Tsareva, 2010,

p. 16). In this respect, Halliday & Hasan (1976) use the term ‗substitute‘ to characterize

substitution links. They further define that substitute is a sort of counter which is used in

place of the repetition of a particular item‖ (p. 89). For example:

(16) You think Joan already knows? I think everybody does.

(/does/ substitutes for /knows/)

Furthermore, regarding with the terms of substitution, Hoey (1991) provides an

account of substitution links and draws a special attention to some items that can be

categorized both lexically and grammatically such as (an)other, the other, (the) same,

different, similar. These items can be found in a repetition link where they accompany a

lexical item. Thus, they can function as modifiers and indicate anaphorically whether the

referent is the same or not. If these words are used with a lexical item that is not in a

repetition link with an earlier item, then they can be treated as creating a substitution link.

However, Halliday & Hasan‘s (1976) presentation of substitution and substitute

items is simple where they assume that substitution occurs when an expression is simply

replaced by another in the text. In this regards, they define three types of substitution as

grammatical relation in the wording. They also provide the three types of substitution,

22

namely nominal, verbal, and clausal. Table 2.8 provides examples for the three types of

substitution (pp. 90—91).

Table 2.8

Types of Substitution*

Nominal substitution Verbal substitution Clausal substitution

I heard some strength

stories in my time. But this

one is perhaps the

strangest one of all.

A: Lely says you study

English all day long.

B: So do you!

A:Is she going to have

dinner tonight?

B: I think so.

*Adopted from Halliday&Hasan (1976). Those are not fully exemplified. For details see Halliday &

Hasan (1976, pp. 91—141).

Referring to the three of substitution, the substitute may function as a noun, a verb,

and a clause. The substitute one, do, and so in the Table 2.8 replace expressions of the

preceding text and can be interpreted in relation to what has been said before called

anaphoric.

a) Nominal Substitution

The first type of substitution derived from the nominal substitutes such as one, ones,

and same as the example below:

(17) I have read several books by this author. But this one is the best, I think.

(18) A: I’ll have a glass of apple juice, please.

B: I’ll have the same.

The nominal substitutes, one and ones, function as head in nominal group. They can

substitute only for an item that is itself head of nominal group. A substitute nominal item

does not have to have the syntactic function as the substituted item as in the item (19) or to

preserve the grammatical features of the substitute item as in the item (20) (Halliday &

Hasan, 1976, p. 91).

(19) I only brought the red wine. The white wine must be in the fridge.

(20) Cherry ripe, cherry ripe, ripe I cry.

Full and fair ones – come and buy.

In the item (21), the noun that is presupposed is a count noun. The nominal

substitute ones is plural and thus differs from the singular substituted item in number. It is

worth nothing that mass nouns cannot be substituted by one or ones. Halliday & Hasan

(1976) define this form of substitution as substitution by zero (ellipsis) as in the item (22).

(21) These biscuits are stale. Get some fresh ones.

(Ones stands for a count noun)

(22) This bread is stale. Get some fresh Ø.

(No substitute form for mass noun)

23

It is worth to note that ―the nominal substitute one or ones is always accompanied by

some modifying element as in the item (23) which functions as defining in the particular

context‖ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 93).

(23) Can you give me the big tablecloth?

You mean the one with the red flowers.

Somehow, it is important to distinguish the nominal substitute one from the non-

cohesive forms of the word one and its function. One can function as a personal pronoun as

in the item (24), a cardinal numeral as in the item (25), a determiner as in the item (26) and

a pronoun one as in the item (27) (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, pp. 98—102).

(24) One never knows what is going to happen. (Personal pronoun)

In the item (24), one stands for you or we. It is not modified and occurs alone in a

nominal group; therefore, it cannot be treated as the substitute.

(25) He made one very good point. (Cardinal numeral)

In the item (25), one functions as a numerative modifier. It is distinguished from the

substitute one since it does not function as head.

(26) I’d like a cup of coffee. Then pour yourself one. (Indefinite article)

In the item (26), one is elliptical determiner. It cannot be the substitute since it

occurs without modifier.

(27) The ones she really loves are her grandparents. (pro-noun)

In the item (27), ones is not used anaphorically. It stands for people and cannot be

the substitute.

The nominal substitute same is typically accompanied by definite article the. The

same can be used as a cohesive element when it ―presupposes an entire nominal group

including any modifying elements‖ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 105). The nominal

substitute same presupposes the item that is non-human.

Same can substitute for a fact as in the item (28). It can be combined with the verb

do and substitute for the process as in the item (29). It can occur as attribute and substitute

a noun or an adjective as in the item (30) (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, pp. 107—109).

(28) Winter is always so damp. The same is often true of summer.

(29) They all started shouting. So I did the same.

(30) John sounded rather than regretful. Yes, Mary sounded the same.

The difference between the substitutes the same and one(s) is that the same function

as a lexical item to carry the information focus. In this respect, Halliday & Hasan (1976)

highlight that there is sometimes no clear line between nominal and clausal substitution

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 111). An intermediate relation can be obtained between the

substitutes the same and so (too) as in the item (31).

(31) John felt it was disappointed. Mary felt so. (too)/ Mary felt the same.

24

b) Verbal Substitution

The second type of substitution is verbal which is represented by the substitute do. It

is always found in final position and it substitutes the lexical verb or the predicator as in

the item (32).

(32) I do not know the meaning of those long words, and, what’s more, I do not

believe you do either!

In the item (32), the verbal substitute do and the presupposed item found in the same

sentence but different T-units. However, verbal substitution often occurs in different

sentences and serves to link the two sentences anaphorically. In this sense, it has the same

function as the nominal substitute one(s). Both substitutes function as heads and the

difference is that the verbal substitute do operates as head a verbal group.

At this point, Halliday & Hasan (1976) discuss the use of verbal substitute do in

terms of differences between British and American English. They further note that this

substitute is used more often in British English, and it occurs more than in speech than in

writing (p. 118). One considerable difference between the two varieties concerns such

lexical verbs as be, have in the sense of possess, and also verbs of the same class. The

verbal substitute do does not substitute for be and have in British English. On the other

hand, American speakers can substitute had by did, and they would choose the elliptical

form in case of verbs of the same class. The choice of this form, when there is no

substitution but omission, depends on the structure of the verbal group in the presupposing

clause has more than one word as in the item (33) (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, pp. 117—

118).

(33) Does John sing? No, bet Mary does.

(34) John is smoking more now than he used to Ø.

(do is omitted in used to do.)

The main role of verbal substitute do is to replace the verb and thus to provide

continuity in the environment of contrast, ―that the relevant item is to be recovered from

elsewhere‖ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 122). In this sense, it seems like the nominal

substitution one in which the verbal counter do should be distinguished from other non-

cohesive forms such as full verb (35), auxiliary (36), verbal operator do or ellipsis (37).

(35) He has done the job.

(36) I don’t like this cake.

(37) Does she sing? Yes, she does.

(does is the elliptical substitute for does sing)

c) Clausal Substitution

The third type of substitution is clausal. It may extend over more than the head of

the substituted item, and it involves the presupposing of a whole clause. The substitutes so

as in the item (38) and not as in the item (39) are used in clausal substitution.

(38) Are feeling better? I think so.

(39) Did he stand up to be counted in the old days? I think not.

25

In the item (38), so stands for I am feeling better; in the item (39) not substitute for

he didn’t stand up to be counted in the old days.

Halliday & Hasan (1976) describe three environments in which clausal substitution

takes place. These are reported clauses (40), condition (41), and modality (42) (p. 131).

(40) ‘…if you’ve seen them so often, of course you know what they’re like.’ ‘I

believe so, said Alice.

(41) Everyone seems to think he’s guilty. If so, no doubt he’ll offer to resign.

(42) ‘May I give you a slice?’ she said, taking up the knife and fork, and looking

from one Queen to the other. ‘Certainly not.’ the Queen said,…

In the item (40) so substitutes for I know what they are like. What is essential for

substitution of reported clauses is that they are always declarative (Halliday & Hasan,

1976, p. 131). In the item (41), so follows if and substitutes for the conditional clause if he

is guilty. In the item (42), not occurs as a substitute for the clause expressing modality. The

clausal substitute follows a modal adverb certainly that is used to express the speaker‘s

assessment of some right or duty.

What makes a difference between the three types of substitution in that unlike the

first two types, nominal and verbal, clausal substitution cannot be used to substitute a

clause that function independently. Clausal substitution is used ―to display the clause as a

repletion in a contrastive context in which it is dependent on a report, a condition or an

opinion‖ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 136). What unites all the three types is that

substitution is textual relation where the primary meaning is anaphoric.

3) Ellipsis The relation between substitution and ellipsis is very close because it is merely that

ellipsis is substitution by zero (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 142). Then, what is essential in

ellipsis is that some elements are omitted from the surface text, but they are still

understood. Hence, omission of these elements can be recovered by referring to an element

in the preceding text. In this respect, Harmer (2004) defines it as ―words are deliberately

left out of a sentence when the meaning is still clear‖. (p. 24). Moreover, Ellipsis often

occurs in co-ordinate clauses as in item (43) when there are semantic and syntactic

similarities between two units (Fawcett as cited in Tsareva, 2010, p. 21). He also mentions

that an adjunct or the negator not marks the presence of an elliptic clause (Fawcett as cited

in Tsareva, 2010, p. 21) as in item (44).

(43) The thieves have stolen our TV and Ø drunk all my whisky.

(The thieves have stolen our TV and they have drunk all my whisky)

(44) Ivy is going out with Paul and not Fred.

(Ivy is going out with Paul and she is not going out with Fred)

In the item (44), there is an example of complex ellipsis in two co-ordinate clauses

where the negator not signals the omission of some elements that can be recovered from

the previous clause. In addition to that, considering the following examples in item (45),

(46), (47) (Renkema, 2004, p. 104):

26

(45) These biscuits are stale. Those are fresh Ø.

(46) He participated in debate, but you didn’t Ø.

(47) Who wants to go shopping? You Ø?

In addition, Halliday & Hasan (1976) state that the study of cohesion is important

between sentences where there no structural relations; therefore, they define ellipsis ―as a

form of relation between sentences where it is an aspect of the essential texture‖ (Halliday

& Hasan, 1976, p. 146). Hence, they see the relevance of ellipsis in its role in grammatical

cohesion. As substitution, ellipsis also consists of three types, namely nominal, verbal, and

clausal. As showed in the Table 2.9 below:

Table 2.9

Types of Ellipsis*

Nominal ellipsis Verbal ellipsis Clausal ellipsis

My students join

mathematics Olympiad.

Both Ø are incredibly

smart.

A: Have you finished your

homework?

B: Yes, I have Ø.

A: Who was going to plant

a row of poplars in the

park?

B: The Duke was Ø.

*Adopted from Halliday & Hasan (1976). Those are not fully exemplified. For details see Halliday

& Hasan (1976, pp. 147—225).

a) Nominal Ellipsis The first type of ellipsis is nominal ellipsis that occurs within the nominal group

where the function of the omitted head is taken by some modifying element. Such elements

are deictic (determiners), numerative (numerals and other qualifiers), epithets (adjective)

and classifiers (nouns) (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 147). In this regard, Halliday & Hasan

(1976) note that deictic and numerative elements function more often as head than the

other elements. For example, in item (48), the numerative four does not function as

modifier, but is upgraded to function as head.

(48) Four other Oysters followed them, and yet another four.

In the item (48), it can be seen that the second clause is cohesive because it

presupposes the previous one that is not elliptical. The presupposed items in elliptical

clauses can be restored anaphorically and always replaced by a full nominal group (p.

149). The role of nominal ellipsis is to upgrade ―a word functioning as deictic, numerative,

epithet or classifier from the status of modifier to the status of head‖ (Halliday & Hasan,

1976, p. 148)

What is always presupposed in ellipsis is the thing. There may be several other

elements in the presupposed group, which do not occur, in the elliptical one. ―The range of

possible presuppositions is dependent on the structure of the nominal group‖ (Halliday &

Hasan, 1976, p. 151). Thus, only those items can be presupposed that can follow the

element acting as head in the elliptical group as in the item (49)

27

(49) Here are my two white silk scarves.

a. Where are yours? (your (deictic) two /white/silk/scarves)

b. I used to have three. (three (numerative) white/silk/scarves)

c. Can you see any black? (black (epithet) silk/scarves)

d. Or would you prefer the cotton?(the cotton (classifier) scarves)

In the item (49), it is shown that the thing scarves is presupposed by all the

modifying elements that function as head in the elliptical nominal group. It is only a deictic

modifier in nominal ellipsis that can presuppose a full nominal group in a non-elliptical

clause.

Furthermore, Halliday & Hasan (1976) classify nominal ellipsis according to the

modifying elements that can be functioned as head in the elliptical nominal group. Deictic

and numerative elements are the most characteristic instances of nominal ellipsis. Table

2.10 presents deictic words that often function elliptically.

Table 2.10

Deictic Elements in Nominal Ellipsis Classified by Halliday & Hasan 1976*

Deictic elements in nominal ellipsis

Deictic proper Post-deictic

Specific deictic Non-specific deictic Adjectives:

Same, other(s), different,

identical, usual, regular,

certain, odd, famous, well-

known, typical, obvious

Possessive:

-nominals:

Smith’s, my father’s, etc.;

-pronominals:

My, your, etc.; mine,yours,

hers, etc.

All, both, each, any, either,

neither, some

Demonstratives:

This, that, these, those,

which

*Adapted from Tsareva, 2010, p. 24. For more details, see Halliday & Hasan (1976 pp. 155—161)

The Table 2.10 presents the deictic words that occur as head of an elliptical nominal

group. In the case of pronominal possessives such items as hers, yours, mine, and others

presupposed both a possessor (by means of reference) and this is possessed (by means of

ellipsis). In addition to that, non-specific deictic such items as either, neither, both

presuppose two sets, and each can presuppose two or more. Post-deictic elements differ

from adjectives in their functions as epithet in a way that they combine with determiners

and may be followed by a numerative as in item (50).

(50) a. The identical three questions (deictic)

– Three identical questions (epithet)

b. The obvious first place to stop (deictic)

– The first obvious place to stop (epithet)

28

c. a different three people (deictic)

– Three different people (epithet)

In this regards, Halliday & Hasan (1976) point out that the elliptical use of deictic

elements presents a major source of cohesion in English text. These elements are used to

link the presupposed item to its verbal and situational context. Moreover, numerative

elements in the nominal group are classified by Halliday & Hasan (1976) relating to the

three subcategories, namely ordinal numbers, cardinal numbers, and quantifying words as

showed in the Table 2.11 below:

Table 2.11

Numerative Elements in Nominal Ellipsis Classified by Halliday & Hasan 1976*

Numerative Elements in Nominal Ellipsis

Ordinals Cardinals Indefinite quantifiers

First, next, last, second,

third, fourth, etc.

The three, these there, any

three, all three, the usual

three, the same three, etc.

Much, many, more, most,

few, several, a little, lots, a

bit, hundreds, etc.

Have some more coffee.

No, thanks; that was my

third. (third (cup of)

coffee)

Smith was the first person

to leave. I was the second.

(the second person)

Can all cats climb trees?

They all can; and most do.

(most cats)

*Adopted from Halliday & Hasan, 1976. For details, see Halliday & Hasan (1976, pp. 161—162)

The Table 2.11 above shows the use of numerative elements in the nominal ellipsis.

It illustrates that the ordinal numbers are generally preceded by a deictic pronominal

possessive. Then, cardinal numbers may be preceded by any deictic elements that are

appropriate in number, and by post-deictic adjectives. The noun that is presupposed by

ordinals and cardinals may be singular or plural, but it cannot be a mass noun as the

example in the Table 2.11, tea is interpreted as a cup of tea.

Nevertheless, it is worth to note that both deictic and numerative elements as heads

in nominal ellipsis may be used exophorically as in item (51) by which those are

interpreted relating to the generalized sense or the context of the situation.

(51) a. All go into the other room.

b. My three are absolute terrors.

In item (51a), a non-specific deictic all is used to mean people while in the item

(51b), a possessive deictic my preceded the cardinal numeral three to mean children.

Moreover, as for the use of epithet and classifiers in the presupposing nominal group,

substitution would be preferred to ellipsis (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 166).

b) Verbal Ellipsis The second type of ellipsis is verbal ellipsis that occurs within the verbal group

―whose structure does not fully express its systemic features‖ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p.

29

167). The verbal group is generally presented by one lexical element, the lexical verb, and

other systemic features, namely finiteness, polarity, voice, and tense (Halliday & Hasan,

1976, p. 167). To understand whether a verbal group is elliptical or not, it is necessary to

find any omitted features that can be recovered by presupposition as in item (52).

(52) What have you been doing? Swimming.

In the item (52), what is omitted is I have been swimming. It is only the lexical verb

swim that is found in the elliptical verbal group. The elliptical form swimming has various

systemic features that are not found in the verbal structure. Among these features are finite,

indicative, non-modal, positive, active, present perfect progressive. In this regards,

Halliday & Hasan (1976) distinguish two types of verbal ellipsis such items lexical and

operator ellipsis as illustrated in Table 2.12 below:

Table 2.12

Types of Verbal Ellipsis Distinguished by Halliday & Hasan 1976*

Verbal ellipsis

Lexical ellipsis Operator ellipsis

(modal and temporal operators)

Is he complaining? He may be; I don’t

care.

Mary didn’t know, did she?

Has she been crying? No, laughing.

What must I do next? Play you highest

card.

*Adopted from Halliday & Hasan, 1976. For details, see Halliday & Hasan, (1976, pp.

161—162)

In the Table 2.12 above, it can be seen that the two distinguished types of verbal

ellipsis is that in lexical ellipsis the lexical verb is omitted from the verbal group whereas

operator ellipsis involves the omission of operators. Moreover, operator ellipsis does not

include the subject. It must be presupposed. ―Operator ellipsis is characteristic of responses

which are closely tied to a preceding question or statement, and which have the specific

function of supplying, confirming or repudiating a lexical verb‖ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976,

p. 178).

The two types of verbal ellipsis can also differ in terms of the systemic features of

the verbal group such items as polarity, finiteness, voice, and tense. The initial element of

the verbal structure carries the expression of polarity. In lexical ellipsis, this element

cannot be omitted, and therefore polarity is always expressed. Negative polarity can be

expressed by the negator not or by negative adverbs (never, hardly, hardly ever). In

operator ellipsis, there can be a change of polarity. It is resulted in the restriction of

operator ellipsis to be often used in responses in which polarity cannot be presupposed

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 178).

As with polarity, finiteness is always expressed in the first word in the verbal group.

In lexical ellipsis, a verbal group is always finite or non-finite whereas in operator ellipsis,

the choice between finite and non-finite forms cannot be expressed. Finiteness and

30

modality in verbal group with operator ellipsis is always carried over from the presupposed

group (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, 182).

Moreover, a verbal group can be active or passive. In the former, there is absence of

some form of be or get before a lexical verb in the passive participate form. A passive

verbal group display both these features. In both types of verbal ellipsis, the voice selection

must be presupposed. If the verbal group is elliptical in the presupposing clause, the voice

selection cannot be repudiated (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 182).

Nevertheless, Halliday & Hasan (1976) describe the tense system of the English

verb as being complex. They, however, note that several elements are needed to make the

tense selection clear. In lexical ellipsis verb can be carried over from the presupposed

group. In operator ellipsis, the lexical verb is presented in the same form as it is in the

presupposed verbal group. The rest of the elements belonging to the tense selection can be

totally presupposed.

c) Clausal Ellipsis

The third type of ellipsis is clausal ellipsis can also involve external ellipsis. This is

the omission of other elements in the structure of the clause. Halliday & Hasan as cited in

Tsareva (2010) introduce four sub-types of clausal ellipsis as described in Table 2.13

according to the structure of the clause in English and various speech functions it can

express. These sub-types are propositional, modal, general, and zero ellipsis (p. 27).

Table 2.13

Example of Clausal Ellipsis

Clausal ellipsis

Propositional Modal General Zero

Who was going to

plant a row of

poplars in the

park?

The Duke was.

What was the Duke

going to do?

Plant a row of

poplars in the park.

Are you coming?

Yes./No.

England won the

cup. Who told you?

Omission of the

complement and

the adjunct +

lexical ellipsis

Omission of the

subject and the

finite operator +

operator ellipsis

All elements but

one omitted

Entire clause

omitted

*Adapted from Tsareva, 2010, p. 27

In the Table 2.13, the first two sub-types of clausal ellipsis are defined according to

a two-part structure of the English clause. It consists of modal element (subject and the

finite element in the verbal group) and propositional element (the rest of verbal group,

complements and adjuncts). Modal ellipsis typically occurs in response to WH-questions

where the choice of modal is not expressed in the clause. On the contrary, propositional

31

ellipsis occurs in the clause where both mood and polarity are expressed. What also

follows from Table 2.13 is that lexical ellipsis implies propositional ellipsis whereas

operator ellipsis implies the modal one. The example of zero ellipsis in Table 2.13 shows

the entire omission of the clause. It is possible to the substitute so as the cohesive form of

the reported clause such who told you so? In general, ellipsis of the clause, all elements but

one required can be omitted as in item (53).

(53) When is John coming? Next weekend.

General ellipsis can be illustrated by the presence of WH-element or some other

single clause element as in item (54). These items are used to require further specification.

(54) a. someone’s coming to dinner. Who?

b. John’s coming to dinner. John Smith?

In the item (54), clausal ellipsis is expressed in the form of Who? And John Smith?

As question rejoinders, ―a rejoinder is any utterance which immediately follows an

utterance by the different speaker and is cohesively related to it‖ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976,

p. 206). In this case, it is worth to note that ―there is no type of clause ellipsis which takes

the form of omission of single elements of the clause structure‖ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976,

p. 203). Therefore, it is not possible to say She has taken in response to item (55).

(55) Has she taken her medicine? a. she has. b. she has done.

In item (55), clausal ellipsis is used with verbal lexical ellipsis in (55a) and with

verbal substitution in (55b). It is also possible to reply with full non-elliptical clause where

the complement her medicine can be presupposed by referential it.

To sum up, ellipsis refers to the structure of sentences and clauses in which some

information is missed. Elliptical clauses are the presupposing ones, and the missing

information can be carried over from the presupposed clause.

4) Conjunction In the earlier, the three types (reference, substitution, ellipsis) of grammatical

cohesion have been presented, and the last type of grammatical cohesion is conjunction

achieved to have grammatical cohesion in texts showing the relationship between

sentences. It is the relationship indicating how the subsequent sentence or clause should be

linked to the preceding or the following (parts of the) sentence (Renkema, 2004, p. 104).

However, conjunction differs from reference, substitution, and ellipsis in that it is

not an anaphoric relation, but it is treated as cohesive devices (Halliday & Hasan, 1976;

Martin & Rose, 2007; Nunan, 1993). They note that conjunction expresses cohesive

relations indirectly through certain meanings. These meanings presuppose the presence of

other elements in the discourse (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). Therefore, the relationships

signaled by conjunction can be fully understood through reference to other parts of the

next (Nunan, 1993).

In this regard, Halliday & Hasan as cited in Tsareva (2010) define conjunctive

adjuncts as linkers between sentences in form of simple and compound adverbs, and

propositional expressions with a reference item. In addition to that, the authors note that a

32

conjunctive adjunct usually takes the initial position in the sentence, and its meaning

extends over the entire sentence. However, they add that written English has its own

conventions, and so a conjunctive expression can be also found in the middle of a sentence

(p. 29). Furthermore, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014) characterize grammatical relations

that hold between clause complexes (p. 605).

Halliday & Hasan (1976) distinguish additive, adversative, causal, and temporal

types of conjunctive relations in terms of ideational meaning (external) and interpersonal

meaning (internal) (pp. 244—270). The simplest from conjunctive relations can be

expressed by the words and, yet, so and then as in item (56).

(56) For the whole day, he climbed up the steep mountainside, almost without

stopping.

a. And in all this time he met no one. (additive)

b. Yet he was hardly aware of being tired. (adversative)

c. So by night time the valley was far below him. (causal)

d. Then, as dusk fell, he sat down to rest. (temporal)

The additive conjunction and in item (56a) signals the presentation of additional

information. As Nunan (1993) notes the adversative relationship as in (56b) is established

when the second sentence moderates or qualifies the information in the first. The causal

conjunction as in (56c) expresses the relation between cause and consequence. When the

events are related in terms of the timing of their occurrences, the temporal conjunction

relationship as in (56d) is established.

Moreover, Halliday & Matthiessen have advanced the conjunction systems that fall

into three type of expansion namely elaborating, extending, and enhancing marking the

relations between semantic domains, i.e. between text segments (Halliday & Matthiessen,

2014, p. 611. For detail, see the Table 2.14 below!

Table 2. 14

The Conjunctive Systems

Type Sub-type items

Elab. Appositive Expository In other words, that

is, I mean, to put it

another way

Exemplifying For

example/instance, to

illustrate

Clarifying Corrective Or rather, at least, to

be more precise

Distractive By the way,

incidentally

Dismissive In any case, anyway,

leaving that aside

Particularizing In particular,

33

particularly, more

especially

Resumptive To resume, as I was

saying

Summative In short, briefly, to

sum up

Verificative Actually, verivicative

Ext. Additive Positive And, also, moreover,

furthermore

Negative Nor

Adversative But, yet, on the other

hand, however

Varying Replacive Instead, on the other

hand,

Subtractive apart from that,

except for that

Alternative Or (else),

alternatively

Enh. Matter Positive Here, there, as to

that, in that respect

Negative In other respects,

elsewhere

Manner Comparative Likewise, similarly,

in a different way

Means In the same manner

Spatio-

temporal

Simple Following Then, next, secondly

Simultaneous Just then, here, now

Preceding Previously, up to

now

Conclusive Finally, lastly

Complex Immediate At once, thereupon

Interrupted Soon, after a while

Repetitive Next time

Specific Next day, next

morning

Durative Meanwhile, at that

time

Terminal Until then

Punctiliar At this moment

Causal- Causal General So, the, therefore,

34

conditional hence

Specific Result As a result.

Reason On account of this

Purpose For that purpose

Conditional Positive Then, in that case

Negative Otherwise, if not

Concessive Yet, still, though,

nevertheless

*adopted from Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p. 612.

In the Table 2.14 above, it can be seen that a number of the different types of

conjunctive relation overlap with one another. For example, is a given instance of however

‗adversative‘ or ‗concessive.‘ For that, when we meet a conjunction in text, we often have

to decide which relation it marks among different types. Other cases, The conjunctive

relation of ‗matter‘ is very close to some of those of the elaborating kind, and the

concessive (‗despite X, nevertheless Y‘) overlaps with the adversative (‗X and, conversely,

Y‘). Such pairs are characterized by differences of emphasis, and some instances can be

assigned to one member or the other; but others cannot, and may be interpreted either way.

As always, we can try to bring out the most likely interpretation by checking close agnates

to examples occurring in the text. The categories given here are those that have been found

most useful in the interpretation of texts, and their schematization is such as to relate to

other parts of the system of the language (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p. 621).

However, if referring to the classification of conjunction proposed by Halliday &

Hasan (1976), the conjunctions are divided into four categories such as additive,

adversative, clausal, and temporal. these several subclasses of each type of conjunction to

make a clear distinction between these four cohesive relations as shown in Table 2.15

below that contains the examples of some typical conjunctive words and expressions that

enter into cohesion (pp. 242—243).

Table 2.15

Halliday & Hasan’s Classification of Conjunction

Types of conjunction

Additive Adversative Causal Temporal

Simple:

And, nor, or

Proper:

Yet, but, however

General:

So, because of, thus

Simple:

Then, next,

afterwards

Complex:

Moreover, in

addition, besides

that, additionally

Contrastive:

But, on the other

hand. Actually, in

fact, at the same

time

Specific:

For this reason, as

a result, for this

purpose

Complex:

At once, this time,

the last time,

meanwhile, at this

moment, until then

35

Comparative:

Likewise,

similarly, on the

hand

Corrective:

Instead, on the

contrary, at least

Conditional:

Then, under the

circumstances

Sequential/conclusi

ve:

At first, in the end,

finally, at last

Appositive:

I mean, in other

words, for

example, thus

Dismissive:

In any case,

anyhow, at any rate

Respective:

In this respect, with

regard to this,

otherwise

‗Here and now‘/

summarizing:

Up to now, up to

this point, to sum

up, briefly

From a marketing

viewpoint, the

popular tabloid

encourages the

reader to read the

whole page

instead of

choosing stories.

And isn’t that what

any publisher

wants?

The oldest son

works on the farm,

the second son

worked in the

blacksmith’s shop,

but the youngest

son left home to

seek his fortune.

Chinese tea is

becoming

increasingly

popular in

restaurants, and

even in coffee

shops. This is

because of the

growing belief that

it has several

health-giving

properties.

The weather

cleared just as the

party approached

the summit. Until

then they had seen

nothing of

panorama around

them.

a) Additive

In the Table 2.15, the first type of conjunction is additive, Halliday & Hasan (1976)

make a distinction between additive and coordinate relations (p. 244). The coordinate

relation may be established between nouns, verbs, adverbs, nominal, verbal, adverbial or

prepositional groups as well as between clauses. The words and, or, nor can occur in

coordinate pairs such as both… and, either…or, neither…nor. These pairs function as a

single unit and therefore there is no cohesive relation. However, if it those were not used

appropriately, the meaning would be hard to define. The main distinction between

coordination and the additive type of conjunction is that the former relation is structural

whereas the letter one is cohesive (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 234). Cohesive is

established in a text when the words and, or, nor link one sentence to another and thus

operate conjunctively. They are used as additive conjunctions to connect a succession of

two sentences and add more information to what has been said as in item (57).

(57) ‘I said you looked like an egg, sir,’ Alice gently explained. ‘And some eggs are

very pretty, you know,’ she added …

Like the word and in the item (57), other simple additive conjunctions or and nor

can also be used in the initial position to cohere one sentence to another. In case of nor, it

serves to function as negative form of additive relation. The additive conjunction or has the

36

basic meaning of alternation, and it often occurs in question, request, permission,

prediction, opinion (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 246) as shown in item (58).

(58) Perhaps, she missed her train. Or else she’s changed her mind and isn’t

coming.

In the item (58), the alternative relation is established by additive conjunction or that

takes the initial position in the second sentence. Why she isn‘t coming is interpreted

alternatively by means of or that introduces another possible option and connects this

information to the one expressed in the previous sentence.

Additive conjunction can be characterized as complex, comparative and appositive

as described in the Table 2.15. Complex additive conjunctive expressions are classified

into emphatic and demphatic. Emphatic forms are used to emphasize some additional point

that is to be connected to the previous one (further, moreover, additionally), or to stress

some alternative interpretation (alternatively) as in item (59). Demphatic forms

(incidentally, by the way) introduce information as afterthought.

(59) My client says he does not know this witness. Further, he denies ever seeing

her or spoken to her.

In the item (59), further is the example of the emphatic form of the complex additive

conjunction. It is used initially and serves to emphasize he denies ever seeing her or spoke

to her in conjunction with he does not know this witness.

A conjunctive cohesive relation can be established when what is being said is

compared to what has been said. In this case, the additive conjunction can express

similarity (similarly, in the same way) or dissimilarity (by contrast, as opposed to this). In

the former sense, the presupposing sentence is added to the same effect that is expressed in

the presupposed sentence. In the sense of dissimilarity, two sentences are connected to

each other in terms or contradiction (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 247) as in item (60).

(60) Our garden didn’t do very well this year. By contrast, the orchard is looking

very healthy.

In the item (60), the comparative additive conjunctive form expresses the meaning

of dissimilarity by contrast. It serves to introduce a different point, the orchard is looking

very healthy, that contradicts the information expressed in the presupposed sentence.

One more subclass of the additive conjunction is that of opposition. It can establish

expository (that is, I mean) and exemplificatory (for instance) relation between sentences.

The former relation serves to add some explanation to what has been already said as in

item (61) whereas the letter one links sentences by giving example.

(61) I wonder whether that statement can be backed up by adequate evidence. In

other words, you don’t believe me.

b) Adversative

The second type of conjunction is defined by Halliday & Hasan (1976) as

adversative. The basic meaning of adversative conjunction is to introduce a contrary point

37

to what has been said. The adversative relation can be characterized as proper, contrastive,

corrective and dismissive as shown described in Table 2.15 already.

The proper adversative conjunction is expressed in its simple form by the words yet,

though, only or various emphatic conjunctions such as however, nevertheless, despite this.

All these adversative words can occur initially for the cohesive purpose of creating contrast

in a text as in item (62). Though has its normal position at the end of the clause, but when

it occurs initially, it is treated as fully cohesive subordinating conjunction. In case of

however, it can occupy both initial and final positions.

(62) All the figures were correct; they’d been checked. Yet the total come out wrong.

In the item (62), the simple form of the proper adversative conjunction yet expresses

the adversative sense. It occurs after the full stop and serves to link the two sentences

indicating that the sense of the presupposing sentence is in contrast to the sense expressed

in the first sentence.

Unlike yet, the proper adversative conjunction but has an extra component in its

meaning. In addition to the adversative meaning, it contents the meaning of and. Therefore

but cannot combine with and whereas yet can frequently occur with it. The basic meaning

of the adversative but is to project the and relation backwards (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p.

237) as in item (63).

(63) The eldest son worked on the farm, the second son worked in the blacksmith’s

shop, but the youngest son left home to seek his fortune.

And and but are also used to establish contrastive adversative relations in a text.

These are however, on the other hand, at the same time. Halliday & Hasan (1976)

introduce a group of avowal contrastive items that are used in the meaning of ―as against

what the current state of communication process would lead us to expect, the fact the

matter is …‖ (p. 253). Among these items are in fact, actually, to tell the truth, as a matter

of fact.

The two more subclasses of the adversative conjunction express corrective and

dismissive relation as shown in the Table 2.15. The former one can be expressed by

instead, on the contrary, rather, at least. These forms serve to establish the link between

sentences by rejecting what has been said in favour of another formulation as in item (64).

(64) I don’t think she minds the cold. It’s the damp she objects to, rather.

The dismissive adversative relation can be expressed by in any/either case/event,

anyhow, at any rate. These forms introduce a new point that refers to what has been said

with the only difference that some previous information has been dismissed as irrelevant as

in item (65).

(65) We may be back tonight; I’m not sure. Either way, just make yourself at home.

c) Clausal

Halliday & Hasan (1976) define the third type of conjunction as causal shown in

Table 2.15. This type of conjunction relation establishes a link between sentences that can

be labeled as the cause consequence relation as in item (66).

38

(66) She was never really happy here. So she’s leaving.

In the item (66), the causal conjunction so create a causal relation between the state

was never happy and the event is leaving. The meaning of so is to introduce the

consequence of the cause stated in the first sentence, because she was not happy.

Among the simple forms of causal relation are so, thus, therefore. They belong to

the subclass of general causal relations. Various emphatic forms such as consequently,

accordingly, because of that are used as general conjunctive expressions to emphasize the

cause-consequence relation.

The causal conjunction can establish specific relations of result (as a result), reason

(on account of this, for this reason) and purpose (for this purpose, with this intention). For

example as in the item (66), so can be treated as the specific clausal conjunction of result.

What it means is that she’s leaving as a result of that she was never really here. When so

establishes specific relations for a reason and purpose, it can be interpreted as for this

reason and for this purpose.

Another subclass of causal conjunction is conditional. The conditional relation can

be expressed by the simple form then or other emphatic items (in that case, under these

circumstances, otherwise) as in item (67).

(67) I was not informed. Otherwise I should have taken some action.

In the item (67), the conditional meaning can be interpreted as if I had been

informed, then I should have taken some action. Halliday & Hasan (1976) label otherwise

as a causal conjunction of reversed polarity (p. 259). For example in the item (67),

otherwise switches the polarity from negative to positive. In addition to that, otherwise can

also be used as an equivalent to such conjunctive expressions as in this respect, apart from

this, with regard to this. These forms establish a conjunctive link that is called respective.

d) Temporal

The fourth type of conjunction as shown in the Table 2.15 expresses a temporal

relation between sentences as in item (68).

(68) He stayed there for three years. Then he went on to New Zealand.

In the item (68), the temporal conjunctive link is established by means of the simplest form

of the temporal conjunction then. It serves to create a sequence in time showing that one

event happens after another. Other forms used in the same sequential sense can mean that

two events happen simultaneously (at the same time, simultaneously) or that one of the

events precedes another (earlier, before that, previously) as in item (69).

(69) The weather cleared just as the party approached the summit. Until then they

had seen nothing of the panorama around them.

Temporal expressions may have some additional components in their meanings to

specify the relation of the succession in time. For example, they may be used in the

repetitive (next time, on this occasion) or durative (meanwhile, all this time) sense. Such

forms belong to the complex temporal conjunction.

39

It is not only the sequence in time that can be established between two sentences to

mark a temporal cohesive link. A number conclusive expressions are used to mark the end

of a process (finally, at last, as a final point, in conclusion) as in item (70).

(70) All this time the Guard was looking at her, first through a telescope, then

through a microscope, and then through an opera-glass. At last he said ‘you’re

travelling the wrong way,’ and shut up the window and went away.

In the item (70), it is well illustrated that conclusive temporal relations occur with

the sequential ones (first … then, first … second). These are labeled as correlative forms

with first having a cataphoric time expression and the other forms (next, then, second,

finally) referring anaphorically to the presupposed sentence.

Halliday & Hasan (1976) define two more subclasses of temporal conjunction, here

and now (up to now, at this point, here) and summary (to sum up, to resume, briefly)

relations. The former kind of temporal relation refers to the present time in the content of

communication of what has been said.

To sum up, the term cohesion is used in this investigation for the relations obtaining

among the sentences and clauses for a text. Termed by Halliday & Hasan (1976) as

cohesive ties, these relations keep the text together in its original order. Cohesive ties may

operate within the boundaries of the sentence. They may also be anaphoric or cataphoric.

Cohesive relations do not constitute cohesion by themselves. They mark which clauses and

sentences are related and in what manner. In this respect, the contribution of the four types

of grammatical cohesion to the organization of text is obvious. Reference, as a semantic

relation, serves to retrieve the identity of what is being talked about from the immediate

context. Conjunction contributes to the semantic organization of text. Substitution and

ellipsis serve to establish grammatical relations when another item (substitution) or a zero

element (ellipsis) appears to link to a previous part of the text. In this research, I adopted

the heading provided by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014) that ―may be useful for most

purpose of analysis are the general ones of (i) elaborating: appositive, clarificative; (ii)

extending: additive, adversative, variative; (iii) enhancing: temporal, comparative, causal,

conditional, concessive, matter‖ (p. 622).

b. Lexical Cohesion ―lexical cohesion is ‗phoric‘ cohesion that is established through the structure of the

vocabulary‖ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 318). Lexical cohesion occurs when two words in

a text are related in terms of their meaning. Halliday & Hasan (1976) distinguish between

the two major categories of lexical cohesion, reiteration and collocation.

Under the notion of reiteration, we understand repetition, synonym, superordinate

and general word. Reiteration ―involves the repetition of a lexical item, at one end of the

scale; the use of a general word to refer back to a lexical item, at the other end of a scale;

and a number of things in between‖ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 278). An important

feature of reiteration is that the reiterated lexical item share a common referent with the

original. The following examples in item (71) show how cohesion is achieved by the

40

selection of vocabulary. Repetition is realized in instances that embrace the same lexical

item used across the sentences.

(71) What we lack in a newspaper is what we should get. In a word, a ‘popular’

newspaper may be the winning ticket.

A reiteration item may be not a pure repletion of lexical item. It may be synonym or

near-synonym, a superordinate or general word. Moreover, lexical cohesion can be also

achieved by the use of complementary, or different kinds of pairs opposite (boy - girl),

antonyms (like - hate) and converses (order - obey) (Halliday & Hasan, 1976).

A synonym is a word that has the same or similar meaning as another word as in

item (72). Synonyms are used to avoid repetition of the exact same word. A superordinate

is a lexical item whose meaning is included within that of another word as in item (73). It

is ―any item that dominates the earlier one in the lexical taxonomy‖ (Halliday & Hasan,

1976, p. 280). General words can be characterized by familiarity as in item (74). Many

general words carry a connotation of attitude on the part of the speaker (Halliday & Hasan,

1976, p. 280). These can be general nouns, like thing, stuff, person, woman, man, or

general verbs, like do and happen. General nouns and verbs do not carry much

information. They depend mostly on the co-text for their meaning, so that hearers or

readers can identify what a particular word is referred to. General words are also described

as superordinates of a higher level.

(72) You could try reversing the car up the slope. The incline isn’t at all that steep

(73) Pneumonia has arrived with the cold and wet conditions. The illness is striking

everyone from infants to the elderly.

(74) A: did you try the steamed buns?

B: Yes, I didn’t like the things much.

Another type of lexical cohesion is collocation. What Halliday & Hasan (1976)

understand by the term collocation are pairs or chains of lexical items that tend to share the

same lexical environment (p. 286) as in item (75). They can occur freely either within the

same sentence or across sentence boundaries. In some cases, collocation makes it difficult

to decide whether the words are semantically related and form a cohesive relationship, or

whether this relationship does not exist. That is why collocation can cause some problems

for discourse analysis.

(75) Hair – comb – curl – wave; literature – reader – writer – style

Brown & Yule (1983) introduce some other notions for lexical relationships. They

speak about hyponymy, part-whole, collocability, comparison as in item (76).

(76) Daffodil – flower (hyponyms)

Arm – a man (part-whole)

Monday – Tuesday (collocability)

My thumb is stronger than that hammer (comparison)

―The way lexical items are woven together through a text‖ is called lexical cohesion

(Carter, et al., 2001, p. 187). Each individual lexical item carries certain information in a

text and creates a lexical environment. This environment includes all words that form

41

relational patterns in a text in a way that links sentences. The way the content of sentence

is linked contributes to a specific interpretation of a text. Cohesion may be derived from

various lexical relationships, but it is ―the occurrence of the item in the context of related

lexical items that provides cohesion and gives to the passage the quality of text‖ (Halliday

& Hasan, 1976, p. 289). Several ways of creating lexical ties can be used by writers to vary

vocabulary and keep referents constant.

4. Distance of Cohesion The distance of cohesive ties was also taken into consideration since a different

distance implies different organization of a text. In this regards, Halliday & Hasan (1976)

have categorized it into immediate (presupposing an item in continuous sentence), mediate

(having one or more intervening sentences that enter into a chain of presupposition),

remote (having one or more intervening sentences that are not involved in the

presupposition), and cataphoric (relatively infrequent and almost always immediate) (p.

339).

In this sense, Meisuo (2000) point out that the frequent use of immediate ties

suggests that the student attempts to establish strong bonds in order to stay long enough on

the topic; on the other hand, the frequent use of remote ties serves to arrange and link a

bundle of ideas (p. 73).

Furthermore, the categorization of ties into immediate, mediated, remote, and

cataphoric was done by determining the number of intervening sentences between the

presupposed and presupposing item. Thus, the immediate ties were the ones that related to

each other in two adjacent sentences, the mediated ties were recovered from the one or

more intertwining sentences that shared the presuppositions, and the remote ties were

separated by one or more sentence.

However, it is important to highlight that the distance between the ties should not be

kept too long in order to avoid a difficulty of readers in the process of interpretation of

these links.

5. Cohesion within or between the Sentence Before discussing whether cohesion occurs within or between sentence, it is

important to know that Halliday & Hasan (1976) have asserted that the concept of

cohesion refers to a semantic one, where a semantic relation is built between one part and

some other parts found in the same text (p. 4). They further claim that the grammatical

structure does not establish the relation between two cohesive elements found in a text

since they have hanged together already by its grammatical structure (Halliday & Hasan,

1976, p. 8). Somehow, grammatical structure gives a contribution to lead the way of which

cohesion is expressed (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 8). In this sense, the sentence believed

as the highest structural unit in the grammar is assumed as a significant unit for cohesion.

As known already that a text conveys meaning as a text if there are cohesive

relations between one to another sentences within the text (Halliday and Hasan 1976, p.

42

28). In this case, cohesive relations are possibly existed both within a sentence and

between sentences. Regarding with sentence grammatical structure, there are bound

regulations determining how cohesion is realized. For example, the use of pronouns

referring to other nouns to prevent direct repetition is one of the examples of cohesive

reference. This type of cohesion is always expressed when one entity is referred to one or

more items in a sentence. The entity may be named again at the second mention, or it may

be referred to by a pronoun. There are bound instances of cohesion, as conjunctions, that

could be treated structurally, but only when they occur within the same sentence. Halliday

& Hasan (1976) point out that conjunctions used in sentences to express various

conjunctive relations associated with grammatical structure (p. 9).

Cohesion is realized more obviously across sentence boundaries since it produces a

more significant effect. As what has been mentioned by Hoey (1991), that two sentences

may be understood as being in contrast to each other. On the other hand, a whole group of

sentences or clauses may be interpreted as exemplifying what has been said earlier.

Moreover, cohesion contributes to form the relationships between sentences in

which its contribution to the property of text is revealed in the idea of a text functioning as

a text when sentences have a meaning together. Scholars assume that a sentence is

structured grammatically. In this case, this grammatical condition presupposes that all the

individual parts of a sentence are linked together and thus, they contribute to the

construction of a text.

In sum, those cohesive relations may occur within or between sentences. Somehow,

cohesive relations within sentence are not as significant as between the sentences because

the cohesive strength of grammatical structure within sentence is already exists by which

the sentence has linked together already. Thus, cohesion is not needed anymore to make it

unified. In this regards, the analysis of cohesive relation, intersentence, is worthwhile since

it represents the variable aspects of cohesion (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 9). Furthermore,

cohesive relations established by various ties across sentences of a text help readers to

perceive the meaning of individual sentences presented as a single entity – textual

meaning. What makes it possible for readers to understand textual meaning is the

continuity of semantic relationships described as a necessary element in the interpretation

of text (Halliday & Hasan 1976, p. 300). In this research, I adapted the classification of

conjunction proposed by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014) since it is more detail and differs

between adversative and concession for instance.

6. Causes of error After identifying and describing the use of cohesive features, and it is found that

some students use the cohesive features inappropriately, then it is necessary to know the

causes that engage them to commit errors. In this case, students have their own reasons

when they made errors in their language learning. They sometimes translate their native

language into the second language or foreign language since they think it is the easiest way

to deliver their messages to it, called as interligual transfer (Brown, 2007, p. 263). They

43

are also weak in mastering the language being learnt so that they generalize rules of target

language so that they create false hypothesis that is neither the target language nor the first

language. It is called as intralingual transfer (Brown, 2007, p. 264).

The term transfer in this study actually has two domains, positive and negative

transfer. The negative transfer is divided into two terms. Those are overgeneralization and

interference in which those transfers described in figure 2.1 below (Brown, 2007, p. 104).

Figure 2.1 Transfer, Overgeneralization, and Interference

Note: L1 = First Language or Mother Tongue

L2 = Second Language or Target Language

In this sense, Brown (2007) classified the sources of errors into, 1) Interlingual

transfer, that is the negative influence of the mother tongue or the interference from the

native language; 2) Intraligual transfer, that is the negative transfer within the target

language. In other words, it is the incorrect generalization of rules within the target

language; 3) Context of learning overlaps both types of transfer. For instance, in the

classroom context the teacher and the textbook used can lead the learner to commit wrong

generalization about the language; 4) Communication strategies, assumed as learning style,

is the production strategies used by learners in order to enhance their language learning,

but this technique can themselves become a source of error (pp. 263—266).

Meanwhile, Richards (1970) in his document resume, A Non-Contrastive Approach

to Error Analysis, classified the causes of errors into, 1) Overgeneralization, that is the

learner use his learning experience of other structure in the target language causing a

deviant structure of its language. It is the incorrect application of rules of the target

language because of their learning experience; 2) Ignorance of rule restriction, it seems

like a deviant structure of generalization. The learner does not apply the application of

rules to the context that should be applied; 3) Incomplete application of rules, that is the

occurrence of deviant structures representing the development of its rules needed to create

acceptable utterance; 4) False concepts hypothesized, it is at level of developmental errors

caused by the faulty of comprehension (pp. 6—14).

Hubbard, et al., (1983) said that there are three major causes of errors, they are

mother tongue interference, overgeneralization, and errors encouraged by teaching

material or method (pp. 140—142).

Transfer

Positive (+) Negative (-)

Overgeneralization Interference

(L1 => L1) (L1 => L2)

(L2 => L2) (L2 => L1)

44

a. Mother Tongue Interference Mother tongue interference is the result of language transfer caused by learners‘ first

language or the transfer of grammatical elements from learners‘ mother tongue to the

target language such as at morphological level; Indonesian students tend to omit the plural

suffix at the end of the word. For example, *two student instead of *two students

b. Overgeneralization Overgeneralization is the result of faulty or partial learning of the target language. In

other words, it is caused by learner creates a deviant structure based on his own experience

of other structure in target language. The learner tended to use two tense markers at the

same time in one sentence since they have not mastered the language yet. For example,

When they say *He is comes here, it is because the singularity of the third person requires

/is/ in present progressive tense and /-s/ at the end of the main verb in present simple tense.

Another example, *she drinked all the lemonade. It is because of the use of suffix /-ed/ for

all verbs in forming past tense.

c. Errors Encouraged by Teaching Material or Method Error can appear to be induced by teaching process itself. In other words, it is called

as teacher-induced errors. For that, Hubbard et al., (1983) said, ―Error is an evidence of

failure of ineffective teaching or lack control. If material is well chosen, graded, and

presented with meticulous care, there should never be error‖ (p. 142).

The errors are difficult to classify without studying the teaching material and

teaching technique or method. Corder in A Training Course for TEFL by Hubbard, et al.,

(1983) admitted, ―It is however, not easy to identify such error except in conjunction with

a close study of the material and teaching technique to which the learner has been exposed.

This is probably why so little is known about them‖ (p. 142). For example,*I am go to

school every day. It is caused by teacher giving more emphasizing on one tense, present

progressive tense, so learners overuse it when moving on to a new patterns.

Since error analysis is the study of analyzing errors in order to find the error types

and the error causes, it at least covers some procedures of error analysis such as collecting,

identifying, describing, explaining or interpreting, and concluding.

Ellis (1997) in her book, Second Language Acquisition, mentions the procedures of

error analysis such as identifying errors, describing errors, explaining errors, and

evaluating errors (pp. 15—20).

The first step in analyzing learners‘ errors is identifying the errors; the researcher

should compare the sentence that learner produces with what would be the correct sentence

in the target language. If the sentence is assumed wrong in the target language or

inappropriate for a particular context, it shows the error.

The next step is describing errors; the identified errors are described and classified

into the table description of errors in order to know the frequency of error types.

45

Classifying errors in such ways can help the teacher analyze learners‘ problems in their

target language development.

The third step is explaining or interpreting. It discusses the error types described in

the table description and It is going to be more difficult when identifying the causes of

error since the errors have a varied causes such as mother tongue interference,

overgeneralization, error encouraged by teaching materials or methods.

Finally, evaluating error is also necessary. The teacher can determine what should

be more emphasized or treated and what should be not to their students.

7. Cohesion and Teaching Writing The study of cohesion in teaching writing are usually neglected in which teaching

writing practice tend to focus on creating sentence and manipulating it in isolation that

leads the students found difficulties in discourse domain that may cause their writing

inappropriate and not cohesive.

Many research studies on cohesion in students‘ essay writing tend to conclude by

mentioning some teaching implications. As was stated before, there seems to be a need for

raising the awareness of cohesive ties in writing instruction to have more effective,

cohesive and coherent essays. Indeed, it was noted that the students encounter some

obstacles concerning cohesion, grammatical as well as lexical, in their essay writing.

Some researchers on cohesion believe that explicit teaching of cohesive features is

helpful in improving cohesion in writing compositions as Zhou whose study revealed a gap

between good and bad compositions as regards conjunctive links and reiteration, and the

formal instruction in grammatical and lexical cohesion was effective in improving

students‘ writing skills in using these links appropriately (Zhou, 2007, pp. 31-37).

In addition, Hinkel (2001) stated that, ―teachers need to work to expand learners‘

accessible repertoire of grammatical structures and lexis because all these features play a

crucial role in non-native speakers ability to construct cohesive (and coherent) academic

essays‖ (pp. 111—132).

Moreover, McCarthy as cited in Hinkel (2001) comments that matter of cohesion

and cohesive features usually play an important role in English texts and that they need to

be explicitly taught in L2 reading and writing instruction. He also points out that

demonstrative pronouns associated with enumeration and causative/resultative

relationships of ideas in text require special attention from L2 teachers and learners.

In this sense, Liu and Braine (2005) agree that focused activities should be

developed to draw students‘ attention to various cohesive links and a clear explanation by

the teacher is necessary to avoid misuse of some cohesive features. Furthermore, Han

(2012) concluded that discourse analysis could help to create a second language-learning

environment that much precisely reflects how language is used and how it encourages

learners toward their goal of communicative proficiency in the target language.

Writing seems to be complicated one since it involves not only the abilities to use

either correct grammatical forms or vocabulary items, but also knowledge of how a text is

46

organized and how ideas are linked to create a unified piece of writing. Especially in

higher education, undergraduates studying English are required to possess skills in writing

to create cohesive and coherent essays.

However, especially in academic writing essay, most students are challenged to

adequate linguistic knowledge and knowledge of cohesive links. Researches on academic

writing essay indicate that students have difficulties in connecting their ideas by using a

variety of cohesive devices; thus, their essays are confusing or too informal for academic

writing. Therefore, this study will explore whether essays of undergraduate students of

English department from UIKA exhibit cohesiveness: what grammatical cohesive features

are used in their academic essay writing, their frequency, the appropriate and inappropriate

used of grammatical cohesive features, and the causes of students commit incohesive in

their academic essay writing. The other crucial part of the analysis is whether cohesion in

academic writing is used in a proper and consistent way.

Furthermore, connections between sentences and ideas are possible because all texts

have structure. This structure may be created by grammatical cohesive links. However,

recognizing this structure and the relations found within the text can be problematic for

second language learners, and this negatively affects language acquisition. The ability to

see how grammar and vocabulary add to the linking of sentences and ideas not only helps

in their comprehension of the language, but also helps them to develop the ability to use

the language appropriately.

C. An Overview of Writing in Academic Setting In English, skills are divided into two categories. They are receptive skills listening

and reading and productive skills including speaking and writing (Harmer, 1991, p. 16). As

a productive skill, writing has an important role in academic success to help students

develop their linguistic competences as well as their thoughts or ideas through a written

form. Moreover, Grabe & Kaplan (1998) argue that composing skills are necessary in

academic writing to modify information or the language itself (p. 17). In line with this,

Sattayatham & Ratanapinyowong (2008, as cited in Mawardi, 2014) maintain:

―that writing helps students learn. First, writing reinforces the grammatical

structures, idioms, and vocabulary taught to students. Second, when students

write, they also have a chance to be adventurous with the language, to go

beyond what they have just learned, to say, to take risks. Third, when they

write, they necessarily become involved with the new language. As students

struggle with what to put down next or how to put it down on paper, they often

discover something new to write or a new way of expressing their ideas. They

discover a real need to find the right word and the right sentence (p. 80).‖

47

However, writing is the most difficult subjects in school since students have to

produce a text by using English. They have to write critically about what they think in their

mind and logically state it in written form by using the correct procedure.

The term of writing are variously defined by many experts as Meyers (2005) defines

that writing is a way to produce language you do naturally when you speak. It is a

communication to other via written forms and it is also a process of discovering and

organizing ideas, putting them on a paper, and reshaping and revising them. Moreover,

Palmer (2004) states that writing is recursive. It goes back and forth we plan a little, put

words on paper, stop to plan when we want to say next, go back and change a sentence or

change our minds altogether. In addition, Harmer (2004) states that writing is a process

and that we write is often heavily influenced by constraints of genres, then these elements

have to be present in learning activities. Boardman (2002) states that writing is a

continuous process of thinking and organizing; followed up rethinking, and reorganizing.

Besides, it is a powerful tool to organize overwhelming events and make them

manageable. In fact, it is really a form of thinking using the written word. Therefore, it can

be understood that writing is a way to produce language that comes from our thought and it

is written on a paper in accordance with the procedures applied in academic setting.

Likewise, writing skills are a vital part in communication. It is due to a good writing

skill allows us to communicate a message that we want to deliver it via written form with

clarity and ease to a larger audiences rather than via face-to-face or telephone conversation.

In this respect, the writers are required to express their skills either in the form or in the

function of the English language.

As previously discussed, writing is the complex skill. It requires the writer to

demonstrate a variety of structural form. It also involves the ability to use specific

rhetorical structures or explicit cohesive devices, especially in academic essay writing.

Therefore, writing is the complex one since it tests not only the students‘ ability to use

language but also to express ideas (Liu and Braine, 2005, p. 623).

As known, that writing is a thinking process in which it is important to consider

lexico-grammatical choices, structural options and possible organization of information

and ideas in writing. Hence, ―writing is regarded as a dynamic process; and the

construction of a text involves links at various levels- lexicon, grammar and organization‖

(Kuo, 1995, pp. 47—48). In this way, the writer should appropriately select and arrange

words into phrase, phrases in sentence, sentences into a paragraph and paragraphs into a

passage. As a result, cohesion of text can be achieved and so do coherence.

1. Academic Writing In the academic settings, writing skills are practiced in the form of compositions.

Composing consists of two kinds of writing: the writing as telling or retelling, and the

writing that involves transforming. The former contains narrative and descriptive writing,

and the latter expository and argumentative writing (Grabe & Kaplan, 1998, pp. 4—5).

48

―Academically valued writing requires composing skills which transform information or

transform the language itself‖ (Grabe & Kaplan, 1998, p. 17).

Moreover, academic writing does many of the things that creative writing or

personal writing does not by which it has its own set of rules and practices. These rules and

practices may be organized around a formal order or structure in which to present ideas

and to ensuring that ideas supported by author citations in the literature.

In contrast to creative writing or personal writing contexts, academic writing is

different because it deals with underlying theories and causes governing process and

practice in everyday life as well as exploring alternative explanations for these events. In

this regard, academic writing has some kind of structure required such as a beginning,

middle, and end. The simple structure is typical of an essay format, as well as other

assignment writing tasks, which may not have a clearly articulated structure. If you make

judgment about something in academic writing, there is an expectation that you will

support your opinion by linking it to what publish author has previously written about the

issue. In other words, Academic writing is different from creative writing and personal

writing which are informal as writing stories, letters or e-mails to your friends and family

typically using slang or abbreviations, and incomplete sentence not used in the academic

one (Oshima, A. & Hogue, A., 2007, p. 3). This means academic writing is characterized

by formality that entails frequent nominalizations, parallel structures, or sentential

organization (Wennerstrom, 2003).

One of the prominent things in academic writing is citing. It is the work of other

authors is central to academic writing due to it denotes you have read the literature, you

understood the ideas, and integrated these issues in varying perspectives into the

assignment task. Besides, it also follows the rules of punctuation and grammar that can

minimize the misunderstanding.

Therefore, academic writing is ―used in high school and college classes‖ (Oshima,

A. & Hogue, A., 2007, p. 3). It is used for publications that are read by teachers and

researchers or presented at conferences. It also could include any writing assignment given

in academic setting such as books and book reports, essays, research papers, conference

papers, academic journals, skripsi, thesis, dissertation, and so on.

2. Essay Writing An essay is designed to enable a student to learn three things: How to explore a

subject area and to make a judgment about a particular issue; how to create an argument

supporting that judgment using reasoning and evidence; how to write an interesting and

coherently organized essay (McClain, M. & Roth, D. J., 1999, p. 1).

In line with this, Zemach & Rumisek define an essay as ―a group of paragraphs

written about a single topic and central main idea. It must have at least three paragraphs,

but a five-paragraph essay is a common length for academic writing‖ (Zemach, E. D., &

Rumisek, A. L., 2006, p. 56). They also divided the structure of the essay into three

essential parts:

49

―1). Introduction, this is the first paragraph of an essay. It explains the topic

with general ideas. It also has thesis statement. This is a sentence that gives the

main idea. It usually comes at or near the end of the paragraph; 2). The main

body, these are the paragraph that explain and support the thesis statement and

come between the introduction and the conclusion. There must be one or more

paragraphs in the main body of an essay; 3). The conclusion, this is the last

paragraph of an essay. It summarizes or restates the thesis and the supporting

ideas of the essay‖ (Zemach, E. D., & Rumisek, A. L., 2006, p. 56).

In this way, the essay should be organized into an introduction, a body, and a

conclusion. Then, it is important to make those parts of the essay united known as a unity.

In this respect, all ideas are linked into single topic in writing while in essay ―all ideas

should relate to the thesis statement, and the supporting ideas in a main body paragraph

should relate to the topic sentence‖ (Zemach, E. D., & Rumisek, A. L., 2006, p. 78). Thus,

studying cohesion is a crucial in the essay writing to create its unity.

3. Types of Essay Writing There are many types of the essay writing genres as argumentative, persuasive,

expository, narrative, descriptive, and so on. However, in this research, the researcher only

discussed three types of the essay writing as expository and persuasive essay.

a. Expository Essay Expository essay is a type of essay that is used to explain, describe and inform the

information to the readers. Moreover, Nazario, Borchers, and Lewis (2010, p. 77) highlight

that expository essay writing analyzes and explains information to inform or educate your

reader. Furthermore, expository writing, or exposition, presents a subject in detail, apart

from criticism, argument, or development; i.e., the writer elucidates a subject by analyzing

it. Such writing is discourse designed to convey information or explain what is difficult to

understand. There are some requirements that should be taken into consideration when

planning to write the expository essay as follow:

3.1.1 Reading with understanding the ideas developed in an article by clearly stating

another's thesis, outlining the facts used by the author to support that thesis, and

the "values" underlying the ideas;

3.1.2 Putting what is read into a larger context by relating another's article or book to

other work in the field;

3.1.3 Clearly and effectively communicating this information to a defined audience. In

other words, you must write clearly and fully enough for your readers to know how

you have arrived at your analyses and conclusions. They should never have to

guess what you mean; give your readers everything they need to know to follow

your reasoning.

(http://essayinfo.com/essays/exploratory_essay.php)

http://essayinfo.com/essays/exploratory_essay.php

50

b. Persuasive Essay Persuasive essay utilizes logic and reason to show that one idea is more legitimate

than another idea. It attempts to persuade a reader to adopt a certain point of view or to

take a particular action. The argument must always use sound reasoning and solid evidence

by stating facts, giving logical reasons, using examples, and quoting experts. There some

steps considered in planning persuasive essay:

3.2.1 Choose your position: Which side of the issue or problem are you going to write

about, and what solution will you offer? Know the purpose of your essay.

3.2.2 Analyze your audience: Decide if your audience agrees with you, is neutral, or

disagrees with your position.

3.2.3 Research your topic. A persuasive essay must provide specific and convincing

evidence. Often it is necessary to go beyond your own knowledge and experience.

You might need to go to the library or interview people who are experts on your

topic.

3.2.4 Structure your essay. Figure out what evidence you will include and in what order

you will present the evidence. Remember to consider your purpose, your audience,

and you topic.

(http://essayinfo.com/essays/persuasive_essay.php)

4. Teaching Writing at University Level At major university, writing is virtually taught in every class. Students are often

intimidated to conduct research projects, academic papers, and taking in class writing

exam. This means that they are expected to reach informational level since they are

prepared to be teacher or to continue their study to the next level such as magister program

and doctoral program. For that, they are expected to produce new knowledge and

information by using their own language. In this sense, the students must be able to create

a text using their own words supported with references and facts to make their writing

more comprehensive and academic. The texts produced could be a research, journal or

essay such as argumentative, descriptive, and so on.

At university level, literacy is the focus of development learning English. One of the

goals in learning English at university level is to develop not only spoken but also written

one. Therefore, the lecturer/teachers must be careful in teaching writing to his/her students.

As known that, most the emphasis of writing instruction at university level is on the

final product in which lecturers tend to lecture on grammar, punctuation and usage, and

give out essay assignments. Then, they are corrected and graded. This approach completes

the final product through a focus on formal features of the writing such as correctness,

usage, explicit structure, and so on. It means that the thinking behind this approach was

students‘ writing would improve if the students successfully acquired and mastered the

necessary forms.

In this sense, English Department of UIKA Bogor, the essay-writing course required

for English Department Students. This course is designed to produce knowledge and

develop their ability to write well essay writing in English by using their own language,

http://essayinfo.com/essays/persuasive_essay.php

51

and to give the students deepest knowledge and understanding of the types of essay

development such as comparison and contrast essays, cause and effect eassays,

argumentive essays, expository essays and others. Students are also given special skills of

writing, such as preparing a summary, writing a report, writing a resume using a library,

and writing a research paper. Furthermore, to enable students to write long essays in order

to encourage them to write 6-10 paragraph approximately 1000 words. (Syllabus of

English Writing in Professional 1)

Nowadays, however, some researchers found that emphasizing on thinking of the

writing process should be taken into consideration since we know that writing is a process

of thinking and organizing, rethinking, and reorganizing (Boardman, 2002). Brown (1994)

has been adapted that the process approach to writing instruction from Shin (1986). They

are:

―(a) focus on the process of writing that leads to the final product; (b) help

student writers to understand their own composing process; (c) help them to

build repertoires of strategies for prewriting, drafting, and rewriting; (d) gives

students time to write and rewrite; (e) place central importance on the process

of revision; (f) let students discover what they want to say as they write; (g)

gives students feedback throughout the composing process, not just on the

final product; (h) encourage feedback both from the instructor and peers; and

(i) include individual conferences between teacher and student during the

process of composition‖ (Brown, 1994, pp. 320—321).

On the other hand, Harmer (2007) has classified the process approach of writing into

some stages such as ―Pre-writing phases, editing, re-drafting and final producing a finished

version of their work‖ (p. 326).

In teaching writing, there are some aspects that should be paid attention are as

follows:

1. Grammar

2. Introducing texts (narrative, descriptive, recount, expository, argumentative, persuasive,

procedures, etc.)

3. Generic structure on the texts

Furthermore, Brown (1994) highlights some micro skills for writing that should be

taken into consideration (p. 327) as:

1. Produce an acceptable core of words and use appropriate word order patterns.

2. Use acceptable grammatical systems (e.g., tense, agreement, pluralization), patterns and

rules.

3. Express particular meaning in different grammatical forms.

4. Use cohesive devices in written discourse.

5. Use the rhetorical forms and conventions of written discourse.

From the explanation above, it can be concluded that teaching writing for university

students should be relevant to curriculum. Moreover, the lecturer should not only focus on

52

the final product of students‘ writing, but also writing process. Furthermore, the lecturer

must be able to make an interesting teaching especially in teaching writing.

In line with this, Grabe & Kaplan (1996) proposed the taxonomy of academic

writing as:

1. Knowledge of intrasentential and intersentential marking devises (cohesion, syntactic,

parallelism);

2. Knowledge of informational structuring (topic/comment, given/new, theme/rheme,

adjacency pairs);

3. Knowledge of semantic relations across clauses;

4. Knowledge of reorganize main topic;

5. Knowledge of genre structure and genre constrain;

6. Knowledge of organizing schemes (top-level discourse structure);

7. Knowledge of inference (bridging, elaborating);

8. Awareness of differences in features of discourse structuring across language and

cultures;

9. Awareness of different proficiency levels of discourse skills in different languages.

(Grabe & Kaplan, 1996 as cited in Rummel, 2005,p. 34)

D. Previous Researches on Cohesion In this section, I firstly summarized what has been studied by many researchers in

the area of cohesion in written discourse. I reviewed then mention what is missing in the

previous studies.

Research on cohesion has been thriving since the publication of Cohesion in English

(1976) by Halliday & Hasan. A few researches on cohesion in written discourse were

conducted in different genres in order to see the functions and roles of cohesive features in

writing. Some of the researchers acknowledged the importance of including the concept of

cohesion in writing, some believed cohesive features could give contributions to writing

quality and others not.

First, Hamid (2010) studied about students‘ cohesion and coherence problems in

EFL essay writing. He points out that cohesion and coherence are important to develop

students‘ writing and highlights that teaching materials used by Egyptian students should

cover a wide range of cohesion and coherence skills. The findings revealed that the

students encounter some problems in cohesion such as difficulty in using catephoric and

anaphoric reference, ellipsis, substitution, and genre related to cohesive ties while

problems in coherence of EFL essay writing such as difficulty writing the thesis statement,

the topic sentences, transition the ideas, and sequence of ideas (pp. 211—221).

Second, Xi (2010) carried out a review of the notion of cohesion focused on its

development and wide application, with special attention paid to cohesion studies in China.

At the same time, this research also explores chaos in previous cohesion studies and

limitation of previous research on cohesion. The findings showed that there are still many

issues that remain unresolved, especially in connection with the Chinese language. In this

53

sense, he acknowledges that Halliday & Hasan‘s cohesion theory gives a new light on how

language works at the textual level, but there are still many areas there are to be improved

in order to develop cohesion theory (pp. 139—147).

Third, Alarcon & Morales (2011) underwent a research on grammatical cohesion in

students‘ argumentative essay. This research used Halliday & Hasan‘s concept of

grammatical cohesion as framework for analysis of the essays. The findings revealed that

reference was the highest frequency with 90.67% of the total of the cohesive devices, and

substitution was the least used type of cohesive device with 0.25% of the total of the

cohesive device (pp. 114—127). Unlike Liu & Braine (2005) who found that a significant

relationship between the number of cohesive devices used and the quality of the

argumentative writing created by the Chinese undergraduates (pp. 623—636). This

research highlighted that cohesive devices are not significantly correlated with the quality

of the students‘ essay writing. Somehow, based on the qualitative analysis, it was found

that certain cohesive types assisted the students in the argumentation process even though

the most frequency of adversative conjunction used is ―but‖ indicating that their

knowledge on the use of this kind of cohesive device is limited.

Fourth, Akindele (2011) took a research on enhancing students‘ use of cohesive

devices in selected ESL academic papers. This research adopted the taxonomy of cohesive

relationship as provided by Halliday & Hasan to establish relationship between texts. The

findings denoted that for a text to be cohesive, it must be held together by some lexical and

grammatical linguistic devices (pp. 99—112).

Fifth, Han (2012) conducted a research on discourse analysis in EFL learning. This

research underlined that EFL teachers can use discourse analysis not only as a research

method for investigation of their own teaching practice but also as a tool to study

interaction among language learners. This leads learners to utilize discourse analysis to

explore what language is and how it is used to achieve communicative success in different

context. Therefore, discourse analysis can help to create second language learning

environment that much precisely reflects how language is used, and encourages learners

toward their goal of communicative proficiency in the target language (pp. 157—173).

Sixth, Stanojevic (2012) studied about cohesive devices in written legal discourse

that is differentiated language variety with a number of prominent features. In this

research, cohesive devices were first theoretically explicated and afterwards they were

analyzed based on the examples taken from reference and corpus created from legal

documents of European Union. This research pinpointed that cohesive devices ought to be

carefully selected by legal writers and drafters in a bid to prevent ambiguity in legal texts

(pp. 89—98).

Seventh, Rajabi & Ketabi (2012) carried out a research on enhancing students‘ use

of cohesive devices through power point presentation. This research indicated preparing

and presentation power point slides had significant effect on students‘ writing achievement

and their appropriate use of cohesive devices (pp. 1135—1143).

54

Eighth, Jabeen, Mehmood & Iqbal (2013) underwent a research on ellipsis,

reference, & substitution as cohesive devices in the bear by Anthon Chekhov. The

cohesive devices of ellipsis, reference, and substitution will be illustrated on selected one

act play ―The Bear.‖ The findings revealed that each of the elements has identifiable

functions that contribute to the effective meaning of the story and then can be summed up

that these elements trigger and play important roles in passing the intention of the writer

across (pp. 123—131).

Ninth, Zuhair (2013) took a research on the use of cohesive devices in descriptive

writing. Halliday & Hasan‘s framework of cohesion was used to analyze the essays. This

research focused on investigating students-teacher of English and native English speakers

differ in their use cohesive devices in descriptive writing. The findings showed that there

was a notable difference the natives‘ and the students‘ use of cohesive devices in terms of

frequency, variety, and control. Somehow, native English users‘ writing display a balance

between the use and frequency of various types of cohesive devices meanwhile the

students overused certain types of cohesive devices (repletion & reference) while

neglecting to use the others causing their written texts incohesive (pp. 1—10).

Tenth, Ghasemi (2013) conducted a research on an investigation into the use of the

cohesive devices in second language writing, and pointed out that cohesion is an essential

textual component both in creating organized texts and make the content comprehensible

to the reader. This research reviewed some researches focusing on the use of cohesive

devices and the relationship between the numbers of cohesive devices and writing quality.

The findings showed that the students were able to use various cohesive devices in their

writing, and also highlighted that some of cohesive problems in writing and the possible

pedagogical implication for the teachers (pp. 1615—1623).

Eleventh, Rassouli & Abbasvandi (2013) studied about the effect of explicit

instruction of grammatical cohesive devices on intermediate Iranian learners‘ writing. This

research focus on investigating the effectiveness of explicit teaching of cohesive devices of

Iranian EFL learners‘ use of this features and the extent to which it can improve the

learners‘ writing quality. The findings revealed that such instruction could promote the

learners‘ use of cohesive devices by which it helps learners develop more cohesive writing

although the learners‘ writing quality didn‘t (pp. 15—22).

Twelfth, Benjamin & Nartey (2014) underwent a research on grammatical cohesion

in the language and literature abstracts of undergraduate dissertations. The findings

highlighted that Halliday & Hasan‘s four of grammatical cohesive devices (reference,

substitution, ellipsis & conjunction) in which reference and conjunction were frequently

used. Moreover, the use of grammatical cohesive devices in the language and literature

abstracts denoted more similarities than differences. However, they seem to lack

experience in the use of the grammatical cohesive devices (pp. 93—108).

Thirteenth, Reza & Ghane (2014) conducted a research on the investigation of

cohesive ties in English book 3 of Iranian High School. They pointed out that cohesion and

coherence are crucial part for a text to maintain its go. The findings revealed that ellipsis

55

and substitution were the two cohesive devices that were less often used in reading

passages of this book. Moreover, lexical cohesion pertinent to coherent was hardly used

causing the text to be incoherent (pp. 144—147).

Fourteenth, Tu, Zhou & Zong (2014) took a research on enhancing grammatical

cohesion by generating transitional expression for statistical machine translation (SMT).

This research adopted two novel models to encourage generating such transitional

expressions by introducing the source compound complex sentence structure (CSS) which

focus on capturing cohesion information to enhance the grammatical cohesion of machine

translation. The findings revealed that significant improvements were achieved on various

test data meanwhile the translations are more cohesive and smooth (pp. 850—860).

Fifteenth, Frydrychova & Hubackova (2014) carried out a research on grammatical

cohesion in abstracts that focus on investigating discourse connectives. The findings

pointed out that the most frequent discourse connectives enabling to structure the content

of abstracts logically and clearly are as follows: listing, contrastive, resultative and

appositional. Thus, they should be of an interest to teachers involved in the teaching of

academic discourse and textbook writers since they might enhance not only students‘

writing skills but also develop their thinking skills (pp. 664—668).

Sixteenth, Mavasoglu (2014) underwent a research on investigating anaphoric

reference expressed by Turkish speakers of French in their spontaneous speech. This

research highlighted that an overuse of third person pronouns, almost cumulative, in

students (pp. 245—249).

Seventeenth, Youn & Shin (2014) studied about investigating cohesive devices in

English writing textbooks and Korean learners‘ English writing through text and corpus

analysis. To understand how Korean college students actually use the cohesive devices in

writing, this research also analyzed the frequencies of sentence transitions and

demonstratives in learner and native speaker corpora. The findings revealed L2 learners‘

tendency to overuse sentence transitions and demonstrative pronouns compared to native

speakers. However, the findings also pointed out that as proficiency increases, learners

tend to use fewer sentence transitions (pp. 41—59).

Eighteenth, Minh & Thi (2014) conducted a research on an investigation on the

attention to and the use of cohesive devices in English essays written by fifth third-year

EFL majors at Dong Thap University. The findings revealed that the students‘ attention to

cohesive devices use in writing essays was not very high although they were nearing the

end of their writing series classes required. Moreover, this research showed that lexical

cohesive devices was the highest percentage of cohesive devices use in assigned essays

followed by reference and conjunctive cohesive devices. Based on this finding, they

suggested that insufficient use or making errors of cohesive devices in English essay

writing is universally a learning step for EFL learners in their course of the target language

acquisition and writing skills mastered in particular (pp. 1—14).

Nineteenth, Wahby (2014) carried out a research on the effect of implementing

cohesive ties by Saudi pre-year intermediate students on their written texts. This findings

56

highlighted that students who have better cohesive knowledge and who are more trained on

using cohesive ties appropriately write better well organized coherent texts (pp. 220—

232).

Twentieth, Mahmoud (2014) took a research on the use of logical connectors. This

research pointed out that a total of 60 essays written, out of 2936 logical connectors used

while 2672 (91%) were judged to be correct. He also pointed out that the correct

production of most of the connectors was most probably due to systematic form-focused

instruction, practice and feedback since they are closed-class words and most of them have

equivalent in Arabic. The findings also highlighted that a three-dimensional analysis of the

264 errors detected indicated that they were mostly selection and insertion errors

committed for interlingual and intralingual reasons (pp. 176—188).

The last, Karahan (2015) underwent a research on a diagnostic analysis of ELT

students‘ use of connectives. He pointed out that appropriate and correct use of

connectives in writing reflects the extent of textual competence. He also acknowledged

that it a vital to identify and prevent their errors before they become fossilized. The

findings revealed that students did not use a large variety of connectives in their essays. In

this sense, many instances of grammatical and punctuation errors were observed in their

writing and for what relations students used connectives could not be determined in some

cases (pp. 325—333).

Many research studies on cohesion in EFL students‘ essay writing concluded by

mentioning some teaching implications. As was stated before, there seems to be a need for

raising the awareness of cohesive ties in writing instruction to have more effective and

coherent essay writing. Indeed, it was noted that EFL students encounter some obstacles

concerning cohesion, grammatical as well as lexical, in their essay writing. Some

researchers on cohesion, such as Zhou (2007) & Oleteju (2006) believe that explicit

teaching of cohesive devices is helpful in improving cohesion in EFL compositions.

Zhou‘s study (2007) revealed a gap between good and bad compositions as regards

conjunctive links and reiteration, and the formal instruction in grammatical and lexical

cohesion was effective in improving students‘ skills in using these links appropriately (pp.

31—37).

In general, in the writing instruction, a practice and explanation should be taken into

consideration. The teacher needs to emphasize patterns of language use and facilitate that

through reading activities where real samples of language is shown, and there should be

also a frequent practice of writing sentences or doing coordination of messages in a text

(Oleteju, 2006, p. 328). It is helpful to analyze a sample composition in class where the

teacher emphasizes the correct use of cohesive devises and illustrates the wrong use or

overuse of such links (Liu and Braine, 2005, p. 635). In this regard, writing seems

complicated because it involves not only the abilities to use correct grammatical forms or

vocabulary items, but also knowledge of how a text is organized and how ideas are linked

to create a unified piece of writing. Especially in higher education, undergraduates

57

studying English are required to possess skills in writing to create cohesive and coherent

essays.

To summed up, based on the previous research has been described, the researcher

found very few research reports conducted on expository essay writing (except Alarcon &

Morales, 2011), very few research reports on investigating the causes of the students‘

committed incohesive writing (except Karahan, 2015), and almost previous research more

used the classification of conjunction in general rather than in detail as what has been

classified by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014). Furthermore, this research was different from

other previous reserch in terms of the aims of inquiry. This reserch investigated the causes

of the students‘ commit incohesive that was less investiagted in the previous research. This

research used interview data to support the causes of the students‘ comitted incohesive

writing so that the identified causes of the students‘ comitted incohesive writing were

verified. However, the participants in this research was less than the previous research, and

the researcher was limitted access to investigate the teaching techniques and material being

exposed by the leacturer and the students.

In line with the description above, this research would fill those gaps. This research

would explore the academic essay writing especially expository essay made by the fourth

semester students of English Education Department of UIKA Bogor show cohesiveness in

terms of grammatical cohesion. Moreover, this research investigate the causes of the

students‘ committed incohesive writing, and also adopted the classification of conjunction

proposed by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014). In this respect, some research questions are

proposed such as what are grammatical cohesive features used in the academic essay

writing and their frequency; what are the appropriate and inappropriate use of grammatical

cohesive features; what are the causes of students commit incohesive in their academic

essay writing. The other crucial part of the analysis is whether cohesion in academic

writing is used in a proper and consistent way. In this research, the researcher adopted the

theory of cohesion proposed by Halliday & Hasan since it more comprehensive in

classifying the taxonomy of grammatical cohesion. The researcher also adopted Brown‘s

theory of cohesion since it gives concise understanding in terms of error causes such as

mother tongue interference, overgeneralization, and context of learning.

58

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes approach and design adopted in the present research. This

research design guides how to collect the data from the research process. The research

setting and participants were also described to build the trust and close relationship in the

research process since reseracher was an outsider of the research sites. This research

detailed data sources, research instruments, data collection procedure as well as data

analysis procedures.

A. Research Setting The research setting regarded with place, time, and condition of the research

conducted. This research was underwent in Ibn Khaldun University of Bogor (UIKA

Bogor) located at Jl. KH. Soleh Iskandar KM. 2, Kedung Badak Bogor. Moreover, this

research was conducted in about two months held in the period of Mei–June 2017. In this

sense, this research was organized in the fourth semester of English Education Department

in which the writing IV known as writing in professional 1. Furthermore, what the

condition meant in this research was the situation in which the writer, lecturer and students

involved in this research. Firstly, the researcher asked permission to the lecturer to conduct

the research in his writing class and interviewed the lecturer as preliminary data regarded

with his writing class. Secondly, the researcher delivered my needs to the lecturer that he

wanted to get the data for my research. They were students’ written artifacts (essay

writing) and students’ interview. After that, the lecturer said that he would conduct a

midterm test in which the students were asked to write an essay especially expository.

Then, the researcher took the students’ written artifacts (essay writing drafts) from

students’ midterm test. Finally, the researcher came to the class and explained to the

students the reason why the researcher came to and asked permission to interview them

regarded with their writing products taken from their midterm test in order to support the

data of the research.

B. Research Design The design of the present research was qualitative approach. This approach was used

to discover the phenomenon ascribe from social or human problem occurring in natural

setting enabling the researcher to develop a detailed level from being highly involved in

the actual experiences, which are seen from participants' viewpoint (Creswell, 2009, 2012

& 2014). In this sense, qualitative descriptive method was adopted to describe situation,

event or phenomenon representing a broad spectrum of research activities (Brambel &

Mason, 1997, p. 37). This conveyed that the qualitative data used to explore and

understand a particular phenomenon, then discourse analysis approach was adopted since it

investigates the organization of language above the sentence level and it explores the way

in which spoken and written are developed (Simpson in Mey, 1998, p. 237). It aimed at

59

perceiving and categorizing various meaning-making processes, networks and practices

from data. This design used in this research aimed at discovering the phenomena of the use

of grammatical cohesion on students’ academic essay writing seen crucial by its

contribution to a text unity.

C. Participants The participants of this research were the 20 fourth semester students of English

Language Department of Ibnu Khaldun University (UIKA) Bogor that were participated in

Writing in Professional 1 Course in academic year 2016/2017. Those 20 participants were

purposefully selected from 38 students of Writing in Professional 1 Course in order to

provide necessary data and develop a detailed understanding of the phenomenon

(Creswell, 2014, p. 206). This purposive sampling was appropriate with the characteristic

of qualitative research in which random sampling or selection of a large number of

participants and sites are not suggested as in quantitative has (Creswell, 2014, p. 165). In

this case, those participants were homogeneous in term language background, Indonesia

language as their daily language and English as their target language.

D. Data sources The data used in this research was qualitative data. They were document and

interview. The data sources of the research were derived from students’ written artifacts

and the transcript of the interview with the lecturer and the students.

E. Research Instruments In this research, the researcher was the primary data collection instrument because

he was the one who actually gather information although he may use protocols as

instrument data collection (Creswell, 2014, p. 233). In this sense, the research instrument

protocols adopted in this research were document guidance, interview guidance and field

notes.

1. The researcher wrote the document guidelines for collecting students’ written artifacts

in order to see the students’ phenomenon regarding with the use of grammatical

cohesion contributing to a text unity on their essay writing.

2. The researcher wrote interview guidance recorded through voice tape recording for

asking questions and recording answers during a qualitative interview (Creswell, 2014,

p. 244) conducted to the lecturer and several students to get in-depth information about

the causes of the students committed incohesive on their essay writing (see appendix

12).

3. The researcher wrote field notes/taking notes to anticipate the miss of interview

recording data caused by the situation affecting the clear of voice tape recording, and

technical error of voice tape recording as the insufficient space of storage.

60

F. Data Collection Procedure In this research, the instruments used for data collection were document and

interviews to the lecturer and students. Those data gained from all sources were

triangulated to reach in-depth the necessary data. Each process of data collection described

below.

1. Document Students’ essay writing products were collected because they constituted the main

resource of information in this research in order to see and describe students’ development

on their writing at textual level. In this sense, the students’ written products represented

students’ different levels of achievement in writing skill and closely analyzed by using

discourse analysis approach investigated grammatical cohesion in which pieces of

discourse were related or tied by cohesive features creating a text unity. This text analysis,

therefore, attempted to be used as the main resources for improving the EFL writing

syllabus later. Furthermore, these students’ written products were analyzed based on the

taxonomy of grammatical cohesion proposed by Halliday & Hasan (1976) as reference,

substitution, ellipsis and conjunction. In conjunction, however, the resercher adopted the

heading for analyzing conjunction provided by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014) that ―may

be useful for most purpose of analysis are the general ones of (i) elaborating: appositive,

clarificative; (ii) extending: additive, adversative, variative; (iii) enhancing: temporal,

comparative, causal, conditional, concessive, matter‖ (p. 622). In this way, the researcher

provided codes by abbreviating the grammatical cohesive features to help me easily

identify and analyze them as showed in the Table 3.1 below:

Table 3. 1

Codes for Grammatical Cohesion

Grammatical Cohesive

Features

Sub-Types 1 Sub-Types 2 Codes

Reference Personal anaphoric ana.p

cataphoric cat.p

Demonstrative anaphoric ana.d

cataphoric cat.d

Comparative anaphoric ana.c

cataphoric cat.c

Substitution Nominal n.s

Verbal v.s

Clausal c.s

Ellipsis Nominal n.e

Verbal v.e

Clausal c.e

Conjunction Appositive app

Clarificative clar

61

Additive add

Adversative adv

Variative var

Temporal temp

Comparative comp

Causal caus

Conditional cond

Concessive conc

Matter matt

Moreover, the researcher provided the criteria as guidelines to determine whether

the grammatical cohesive features were used appropriately or inappropriately in the text.

Here are the criteria for grammatical cohesive appropriateness (adapted from cho, 1998 as

cited in Karahan, 2015, p. 329) as showed in the Table3.2 below:

Table 3.2

Criteria for Grammatical Cohesion Appropriateness

Categories Grammatical Cohesion Guidelines

Appropriate Use Reference Reference used corresponds

appropriately to link between

elements.

Substitution Substitution used corresponds

appropriately to replace one item by

another.

Ellipsis Ellipsis used corresponds

appropriately in omitting some

elements.

Conjunction Conjunction used corresponds

appropriately to link between

sentences and paragraphs.

Inappropriate Use Reference Reference used is not relevant to

link between elements.

Substitution Substitution used is not relevant to

replace one item by another.

Ellipsis Ellipsis used is not relevant in

omitting some elements.

Conjunction Conjunction used is not relevant to

link between sentences and

paragraphs.

62

2. Interview The last source of data was interviews to reveal the research question regarding

with the causes of the students’ committed incohesive on their essay writing and to verify

or to refute the information the researcher had gained from student’s text analysis. In this

case, the researcher conducted face-to-face interviews with the participants individually

through standardize open ended interviews that was best to increase comparability of

responses’ answers due to the interviewees were asked the same basic questions in the

same order (Cohen, et al., 2007, p. 353). However, the way the researcher asked the

questions to the participants were little flexible (followed-up the participants’ answer) but

focused to the basic questions having been provided. Moreover, it also used to help me

avoid from the problem might occur during the interview and save time.

Moreover, the interviews in this research were divided into two categories namely

interview A and interview B. The interview A was undertaken with the lecturer of the

writing course before collecting students’ writing products assumed needed to get

preliminary information about the students’ writing skills, the materials having been

studied and the problems they faced in writing course. On the other hand, the interview B

was undergone with the students individually after the researcher had collected and

analyzed their writing products in order to get in-depth information and to check its

accuracy obtained from my analysis on their essay writing products.

Furthermore, the face-to-face interviews with the participants (or individual

interviews) were conducted to only 10 participants from the 20 participants involved in this

research since it was ―the most time-consuming and costly approach‖ (Creswell, 2012, p.

218) to be conducted in which the researcher interviewed only one participant in a time

(Creswell, 2012, p. 218). In this research, however, it was the suitable one to seek in-depth

information (or to clarify what the students had written) based on the analysis of their

essay writing drafts individually regarding with what causes that had leaded them to

commit incohesiveness on their essay writing. In detail, the causes of error as mother

tongue interference (interlingual transfer), overgeneralization (intralingual transfers) and

context of learning proposed by Brown were adopted as an interview guidance to find the

causes of students’ committed incohesiveness on their essay writing. In addition, it also

engaged them to their consciousness about the grammatical cohesive features viewed

essential to create a flow and connectedness (a text unity). The stages of the interviews

were described in the Table 3.3 below.

Table 3.3

Overview of interview

Conduct of interview Individual

Lecturer Students

Stage 1:

Before research

investigation

Lecturer involved, 2

(Pseudonyms: Mr. E)

Used as preliminary data

63

regarding with teaching

writing activity, teaching

objective, syllabus, the

problems faced by students

and the material subject

being learnt.

Not conducted

Stage 2:

After analyzing students’

essay writing products

Not conducted

Students involved, 10

(Pseudonyms: AF, AP,

AN, MH, TB,FM, DI, SF,

MN, KR,)

Finding out the causes of

error by verifying the

identified errors on their

writing products.

Table 3.4 below described the content outline of the interview B completed with

the number of items of information adopted from Brown’s classifications of causes of error

(2007). For the interview questions, (see appendix 12).

Table 3.4

Content Outline of Interview B

NO Causes of Error Item Numbers

1 Interlingual Transfer

(negative influence of the mother

tongue)

3, 4, 9, 10

2 Intralingual Transfer

(negative transfer within the target

language)

1, 2, 3, 11

3 Context of learning 5, 6, 7, 8

G. Data Analysis Procedures Data analysis embraced two phases of analyzing data: analyzing the students’ essay

writing drafts and interviews. In this way, the researcher adopted Miles & Huberman’s

model of analyzing qualitative data conducted in steps (Miles & Huberman, 1994, pp. 8—

12):

1. Data Collection

All data obtained from all sources were collected and integrally presented in the

findings and discussion (see in chapter IV) because they were interrelated. The

researcher collected the students’ essay writing drafts to be analyzed focused on

grammatical cohesion and the syllabus to see the objective of writing course. Moreover,

he also underwent the interview data to find or verify what sources or causes of

64

students’ commit incohesive writing based on the analysis results on students’ essay

writing.

2. Data Reduction

In this step, the data were reduced by summarizing and choosing specific things in

relation to the research questions followed up by coding and finding themes. In this

way, to categorize all the data and develop them into themes, the researcher adopted

thematic analysis proposed by Braun & Clarke’s (2006) which was conducted in six

phases:

a. Familiarization with the data: the researcher immersed in and familiarized with the

data through reading and re-reading.

b. Coding: the researcher highlighted and coded the data in the hope that this coding

helped me find out in relation to research questions in order to make it simple and

easy in recognizing the data for analysis. In this respect, the text analysis of

students’ essay writing were highlighted and coded by using colored pens

indicating potential patterns in accordance with the grammatical cohesion and the

causes of incohesive writing. Likewise, the interview data were transcribed from

oral into written form (translated from Bahasa Indonesia into English) and coded

them for analysis.

c. Searching for themes: After coding the data, the researcher listed and classified the

highlighted data to find out themes of the data. It was hoped to get me closely

analyze the coded data. In this sense, he use visual representations as tables and

charts to help me sort different codes into themes presented in data display.

d. Reviewing themes: the researcher rechecked the coded themes whether they were

useful to identify the important features of the data that were relevant to the

research questions or not.

e. Defining and naming themes: the researcher defined and refined the analysis of each

finding themes. This meant he identified the essence of the themes more focused

and appropriated to the research questions for in-depth analysis.

f. Writing up: the researcher waved together and analyzed the data of students’ essay

writing products based on Halliday & Hasan’s taxonomy of grammatical cohesion

and Brown’s theory of error causes. In this way, he described and narrated the data

by including the data extracts (sufficient evidences) in order to give a concise and

coherent description and interpretation in relation to research questions.

3. Data Display

After data reduction, the researcher then tabulated and displayed the data in tables and

charts to give concise description of the entire data and help the reader easily

interpreted the data as described below.

65

Table 3.5

Grammatical Cohesive Features Used in Academic Essay Writing

Essay Reference Substitution Ellipsis Conjunction

Total F % F % F % F %

1

2

3

Total

Table 3.6

Appropriate and Inappropriate Use of Grammatical Cohesive Features

Category Reference Substitution Ellipsis Conjunction Total

F % F % F % F %

Appropriate

Use

Inappropriate

Use

Total

4. Conclusion: Drawing/Verifying

Based on the finding and interpretation, the data were then verified and concluded in

relation to research questions.

H. Trustworthiness To obtain the trustworthiness of the data in qualitative research, the researcher

attempted to get the trustworthiness through adapting some ways proposed by Creswell

(2009) as triangulation of data sources and method/instruments, transferability,

confirmability and member checking. The triangulation is intended as ―a check on data‖

while member checking is to be used as ―a check on member’s constructions of the data‖

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 315 as cited in Cohen et al., 2007, p. 142P).

1. Credibility: The researcher triangulated the sources and methods/instruments to

examine their authenticity.

a. Source: The data obtained from a data source need to be examined its authenticity

by using other sources. This meant the researcher used other participants to verify

the truth of what had been said by the participant. For instance, in the interview

found the participant argues about some information being investigated then he

crosschecked his argument to other participants. Therefore, the information obtained

was examined its authenticity.

66

b. Method/Instrument: Using various instruments to collect data was useful to obtain

the comprehensive data. Indeed, it could be used to examine its authenticity by

proving one to another. In this way, the data obtained from interview could be

crosschecked trough the data document (syllabus). Conversely, the data obtained

from document (essay writing products) could be confirmed by the data interview.

For instance, the researcher identified the students’ essay writing in relation to

grammatical cohesion. Then, based on my analysis in relation to the theory of error

causes, the researcher firstly assumed that the students committed incohesive writing

because of their first language. To ensure and verify my assumption, however, he

need additional data as interview data from the students so that the data that he

identified is valid.

2. Transferability: To generalize the research finding to other situations and contexts,

the researcher informed the readers the sufficient information about hiself, and the

context of the research, processes, participants, and my position in the research sites as

the consideration for the reader to decide that the result of research can be generalized

in their context. Because of the small participants of research, the researcher personally

suggested that the reader should consider carefully before the results of research was

generalized to other sites.

3. Confirmability: The researcher checked all the data of the research for several times.

he then documented the collected data to make sure the authenticity of the data finding.

However, he also confirmed that this research was never objective due to it derived

from my perspective, which lead in data through analytical process. In this sense, the

reader should be aware that the data that he had analyzed could be subjective due to the

text analysis of students’ essay writing and of interview was based on my perspective in

relation to the theory.

4. Member checking: The researcher translated the interview data in Bahasa Indonesia

into English for closer analysis. Regarding translation acts, he served hiself as a

translator since he was familiar with Bahasa Indonesia and English. To ensure the

meaning of the data translation, the researcher then sent back the transcribed data in

Bahasa Indonesia and the English translated version to the participants. Consequently,

this member checking examined the authenticity of the data.

67

CHAPTER IV

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

This chapter describes the research finding and discussion. The finding embraced

three phases of data analysis in accordance with the research questions. The first, it

presented the types of grammatical cohesive features used in academic essay writing and

their frequency would not separately be presented, but it would be involved in the finding

and discussion of grammatical cohesion types having been identified in Table 4.1 followed

up by Chart 4.1. The second, it presented the appropriate and inappropriate use of cohesive

features in Table 4.2 followed up by Chart 4.2. The third, it presented the causes that lead

the students committed incohesivness. Furthermore, the discussion described interpretative

data analysis based on the finding related to the research questions.

A. Finding

1. Types of Grammatical Cohesive Features Used in Academic Essay Writing

The researcher identified the types of cohesive features used in academic essay

writing by fourth semester students of English Language Department of Ibnu Khaldun

University (UIKA) Bogor that were participated in Writing in Professional 1 Course in

academic year 2016/2017. In detail, he adopted the taxonomy of the grammatical cohesive

features proposed by Halliday and Hasan (1976) consisted of reference, substitution,

ellipsis, and conjunction. In this sense, he tabulated and displayed the data in Tables 4.1

and Chart 4.1 & 4.2 to give concise description of the entire data and help the reader easily

interpreted the data as described below.

Table 4.1


Essay Reference Substitution Ellipsis Conjunction

Total F % F % F % F %

1 29 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 0.8 36

2 25 2.9 0 0.0 2 0.2 8 0.9 35

3 34 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 28 3.3 62

4 31 3.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 18 2.1 49

5 31 3.7 0 0.0 1 0.1 14 1.6 46

6 25 2.9 0 0.0 2 0.2 17 2.0 44

7 21 2.5 0 0.0 15 1.8 2 0.2 38

8 25 2.9 0 0.0 1 0.1 15 1.8 41

9 26 3.1 0 0.0 1 0.1 20 2.4 47

10 19 2.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 0.7 25

11 13 1.5 0 0.0 1 0.1 9 1.1 23

68

12 32 3.8 2 0.2 3 0.4 18 2.1 55

13 14 1.6 0 0.0 1 0.1 15 1.8 30

14 31 3.7 2 0.2 0 0.0 28 3.3 61

15 15 1.8 0 0.0 4 0.5 11 1.3 30

16 19 2.2 0 0.0 2 0.2 17 2.0 38

17 15 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 27 3.2 42

18 21 2.5 0 0.0 1 0.1 22 2.6 44

19 16 1.9 0 0.0 1 0.1 28 3.3 45

20 36 4.2 1 0.1 3 0.4 18 2.1 58

Total 478 56.3 5 0.5 38 4.4 328 39 849

Chart 4.1 Grammatical Cohesive Features Used in Academic Essay Writing

Table 4.1 and Chart 4.1 above indicated the numeric results of the use of

grammatical cohesive features. The researcher used two terms of numerical data in order to

give precise description of the data. They are frequency and percentage.

From the chart 4.1 above, it could be seen that reference (56.3%) was the most

frequently used of grammatical cohesive features by the students. Meanwhile, substitution

(0.5%) gained the lowest percentage of the grammatical cohesive feature used by the

students. This result was similar with the finding of some reseracher who investigated the

cohesion research that revealed that the reference was the highest frequency of the

cohesive features while substitution was the least used type of cohesive features from the

Reference 478

56.3%

Ellipsis

38

4.4%

Substitution

5

0.5%

Conjunction

328

39%


69

N.E 15

75%

V.E 5

25% C.E 0%

Ellipsis

N.S 5

71%

V.S 0

0%

C.S 2

29%

Substitution

total of the cohesive features (Alarcon & Morales 2011; Luthfiyah, et. al., 2015). It implied

that most students tend to use the reference to create cohesion by creating links between

elements (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p. 605). It also implied that they had sufficient

knowledge to use it when they were writing. On the other hand, it also implied that the

substitution was not familiar with the students so that it almost did not appear in the

students’ essay writing. Furthermore, if it was compared with the reference result, the use

of conjunction (39%) was almost equal to the use of reference. It was similar with the

finding done by Hananta & Sukyadi (2015) revealed that the use of the reference and

conjunction as the dominant features in the grammatical cohesive features. In this sense, it

means that the students had sufficient knowledge to use them in creating links between

elements and continuity whole clause or combine clauses (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014,

p. 605). Meanwhile, ellipsis (4.4%) was not far from the substitution. It meant that the use

ellipsis was found rare in the students’ essay writing. In detail, the grammatical cohesive

features based on the per type of each type found in the students’ academic essay writing

were described in Chart 4.2 as follow:

Charts 4.2 the grammatical cohesion per types

Per 286 59%

Dem 151 31%

Com 50

10%

Reference App

26

8%

Clar

30

9%

Addi

59

18%

Adv

8

3% Var

27

8%

Temp

44

14%

Comp

1

0%

Caus

76

23%

Cond

36

11%

Conc

18

6%

Mat

1

0%

Conjunction

70

Charts 4.2 above depicted the comparison of grammatical cohesive features per

types found in the students’ essay writing. There were four charts representing per types of

grammatical cohesion such as reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction. Actually,

each types embraced some sub-types such as reference (personal, demonstrative and

comparison), substitution (nominal, verbal and clausal), ellipsis (nominal, verbal and

clausal), and conjunction (appositive, clarificative, additive, adversative, varificative,

comparison, temporal, concession, condition, cause, and matter.

a. Reference

In the reference chart as in the Chart 4.2, it can be seen that personal reference

(59%) was the dominant one followed by demonstrative (31%) and comparison (10%). It

implied that the students tend to use personal reference items as the example (1) below.

(1) “Education has becomes the hot issue for Indonesian people. It is mostly

discussed in media. It is because education is assumed as the main factor to

create the harmonization of life. (Retrieved from essay 10: P1)

From the bold “it” represents the personal reference items. In the example (1) above,

both references refer to the word “Education” in the previous sentence. It is called

anaphoric reference since it points readers or listeners backwards to another word

previously mentioned in a text meanwhile cataphoric reference is vice versa by which it

looks forwards in the text to indentify the elements where the reference item refers to

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 33). For example (2):

(2) “To keep our life better, we should have a good education.” (Retrieved from essay

3: P2)

b. Conjunction

Moreover, in the conjunction chart as in the Chart 4.2, it showed that cause (23%)

and temporal (14%) conjunction were more dominant than the others. Meanwhile, matter

and comparison were the least one. It denoted that the conjunction of matter and

comparison were not familiar with the students. It also implied that both were basically less

used in expository essay writing. The conjunction of causes and temporal were mostly used

in the expository essay writing otherwise. It implied the expository essay writing tend to

use the conjunction of cause and temporal since it analyzes and explains information to

inform or educate your reader (Nazario, Borchers & Lewis, 2010, p. 77). As described in

the example (3) below.

(3) “Moreover, education should be given to our children because by education our

children are taught how to learn and how to think critically so that the children

may take up independent learning as an adult with their critical thinking.”

(Retrieved from essay 4: P1)

The conjunction “because” marked the relationship between “education should be

given to our children” and “by education our children are taught how to learn and how to

think critically”. It showed the reason why education should be given to our children while

71

the conjunction “so that” creates links between “…our children are taught how to learn

and how to think critically” and “the children may take up independent learning…” It

denotes the result from “education should be given to our children.”

(4) “In Indonesia economic development has been implemented since the

independence period until the current reform era.” (Retrieved from essay 13:P3)

In the example (4), the temporal conjunction “since” create cohesion by linking

between “In Indonesia economic development has been implemented” and “independence

period” while the temporal conjunction “until” combine “since the independence period”

and “the current reform era.” The conjunction “since” and “until” represented time of the

events. They are independence period and the current reform era.

(5) “Economy is defined as a social domain that emphasizes the practices, discourses,

and material expressions associated with the production, use, and management of

resources. However, Indonesia economic still have many problems in some

aspects.” (Retrieved from essay 16:P1)

In the example (5), the conjunction “however” create cohesion by linking “Economy

is defined as a social domain that emphasizes the practices, discourses, and material

expressions associated with the production, use, and management of resources” and

Indonesia “economic still have many problems in some aspects.” However, this type of

conjunction sometimes overlapped between adversative and concession as the example of

conjunction “however” above. It was not adversative, but it was concessive conjunction.

c. Ellipsis

In the ellipsis chart as in the Chart 4.2 above, it can be seen that nominal ellipsis was

the predominant compared to verbal ellipsis meanwhile clausal ellipsis was not found in

the students’ essay writing. It implied that the ellipsis was rare used in the students’ essay

writing. It might be caused by the genre of the essay that makes the students found difficult

to use the ellipsis in the written form. Therefore, it would be interesting to investigate the

comparative study about ellipsis or substitution in writing and speaking as what has been

asserted by Thompson (2004) highlighted that “ellipsis is typically more fully exploited in

speech than writing” (p.184)

(6) “They just need gadget and Ø adequate pulse to get online and Ø deal with

consumers. (Retrieved from essay 20:P1)

In the example (6) above, the nominal ellipsis of personal pronoun “they” was

followed by “Ø deal with consumers” while the verbal ellipsis showed in the sentence “Ø

adequate pulse to get online.” The cohesive links were created anaphorically by omitting

some elements in the text but they are still understood.

d. Substitution

In the substitution chart above, there are only two substitutions occur in students’

essay writing. It was similar with the ellipsis where the existence of bot kinds were rare

72

Ref

450

62.4%

Ell

33

4.6%

Sub

3

0.4%

Conj

235

32.6%

Appropriate Use

Ref 28

21.9%

Ell 5

3.9%

Sub 2

1.6%

Conj 93

72.7%

Inappropriate Use

found in writing. The relation between substitution and ellipsis is very close because it is

merely that ellipsis is substitution by zero (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 142).

(7) “Every country can imitate this, but we have to adjust what we have and what

USA has.” (Retrieved from essay 12: P3)

The substitutes “have, has”in the example (7) represent the cohesive relation to what

has been mentioned. Those substitutes showed possession “what Indonesia has and what

USA has.

2. Appropriate and Inappropriate Use of Grammatical Cohesive Features

After describing the types of cohesive features, then the researcher tried to

summarize the appropriate and inappropriate use of those grammatical cohesive features.

In this sense, the researcher firstly described the data in the Table 4.2 and Charts in order

to help the readers read and interpret the data easily and precisely.

Table 4.2

Appropriate and Inappropriate Use of Grammatical Cohesive Features

Category Reference Substitution Ellipsis Conjunction Total

F % F % F % F %

Appropriate

Use

450 62.4 3 0.4 33 4.6 235 32.6 721

Inappropriate

Use

28 21.9 2 1.6 5 3.9 93 72.7 128

Total 478 56.3 5 0.5 38 4.4 328 39 849

Chart 4.3 the Appropriate and Inappropriate Use of grammatical cohesive features

Table 4.2 and Charts 4.3 above indicated number of appropriate and inappropriate

used of grammatical cohesive features found in students’ academic essay writing as well as

their percentages. From the Table 4.2 above, it can be seen that most students used the

73

grammatical cohesive features appropriately with total (721) while inappropriate use only

gained (128). In detail, reference (62.4%) was the predominant of the appropriate use of

grammatical cohesive features while substitution (0.4%) was the least one. It implied that

most students were able to use the reference appropriately in the essay writing. It also

implied that they have sufficient knowledge about the material regarding with the

reference. Meanwhile, in the inappropriate chart, it can be seen that conjunction (72.7%)

was the predominant of inappropriate use of grammatical cohesive features in the essay

writing. This implied that the students still found difficult to use the cohesive features in

constructing the sentences. Some of them still commit incohesiveness in their writing

especially in using conjunction.

a. Reference

From the types of grammatical cohesive features, reference was the predominant

compared to other types. It was due to the students tend to use the reference in order to

create cohesion by linking one element to another.

(8) “The second, education can influence the job’s world. We as human are required

to have skills in their field.” (Retrieved from essay 3: P2)

(9) “The teacher did not engage the students to speak English. They tend to emphasize

the grammatical rules. (Retrieved from essay 6: P2)

In the two examples (8) and (9) above, the students were inconsistent to use singular

or plural pronoun of singular or plural noun. The possessive pronoun “their” did not

appropriately refer to “the job’s world”. To make it cohesive, it is better for student to

make “the jobs’ world” plural or change “their” into “its”. In addition, personal pronoun

“they” did not appropriately refer to “the teacher.” To make cohesive link appropriately,

“the teacher” should be in plural “the teachers” because in the text context. It discussed the

teacher as general one. Thus, to changes “the teacher” into the plural was the appropriate

one. This phenomena occurred because their habits in daily conversation. They generalized

it. I meant they applied what had been studied about some specific patterns to other patters

in English. It was called as overgeneralization (intralingual transfer).

(10) “We know that most people are arrogant because they do not have a good

education to form themselves more better.” (Retrieved from essay 10: P2)

The example (10) above showed the inappropriate use of comparative reference in

which the comparative words as “more better” was appropriate. In comparison, the

enumerative adverb “more” should be followed by adjective. However, in the example

above, the adjective “better” was the irregular form of the comparative adjective. It meant

that the existence of “more” should be omitted “better” to make it comparison. In this

sense, the students overgenerelized the use of comparative “more” to other patterns in

English. This meant the student used overgeneralization (intralingual transfer).

(11) “A country mentioned growth well if it economy has improved.” (Retrieved from

essay 10: P2)

74

In the example (11) above, the objective pronoun “it” in the text above should be

replaced by the possessive one “its” since it referred to the possessive of “a country.” In

this case, the student was not be able to differ the use of personal reference “it” ad

objective pronoun and as possessive pronoun. He just generalized that to refer to a thing

that is singular, then the reference “it” was the appropriate one. In this case, the student

made vague reference might be caused their incomplete learning about some rules in

English, then they adapted to other pattern. It was called as overgeneralization (intralingual

transfer).

(12) “Same like character, the insight also can be gained by education.” (Retrieved

from essay 10: P2)

The use of comparative reference in the example (12) above was inappropriate. The

student use repetitive comparative reference “same and like.” It might be cause the mother

tongue interference. It was due to in bahasa Indonesia, “same like character” meaning

“sama seperti character” was commonly used in daily conversation. In this case, they

transform the bahasa Indonesia’s structure into English. It was called as mother tongue

interference (interlingual transfer).

To sum up, in reference, students found difficult to distinguish the singular reference

to the plural one. It was occurred either in personal and demonstrative reference.

Moreover, the inappropriate use of comparative reference were also identified from

students’ essay writing they sometimes generalized the rules or patterns having been

studied to other patterns in English. However, if it was seen from the total finding of the

appropriate (62.4%) and inappropriate (21.9%) use of reference, the students were able to

integrate the sentences using reference well.

b. Substitution

In the substitution (0.4%), the occurrence of cohesive links was less defined on the

students’ essay writing. The researcher only found few cases in their essay so that only few

examples that he can illustrate it. It was due to most students used references since nominal

substitution has similar function with personal reference in constructing sentence.

(13) “Technology is always getting development. One of them is gadget.” (Retrieved

from essay 10: P2)

In the example (14) above, the nominal substitute “one” was referred to

“technology” so that the meaning makes sense. In this case, the use of substitution “one”

was inappropriate. It referred to the singular noun. The noun “technology” was singular

while the plural was technologies. In this sense, it more makes sense if it is added

“advances” before technology (advances of technology) because it talked about the

development of technology.

(14) “To make e-commerce business is low cost, because the businessman should not

pay the rent place like usual commerce…. Sometime it had advantages and

sometime it had disadvantages. We can choose which one are best based on our

75

own. We as a consumer preferable to chose that both kind.” (Retrieved from

essay 20: P4)

The example (14) above showed that “both kind” was the substitution to substitute

the words previously mentioned “e-commerce and commerce.” However, the student

failed to use the substitution “both kind” as the replacement of “e-commerce and

commerce.” It was due to the inappropriate use of singular and plural. The substitution

“both kind” should be changed into “both kinds,” because it substituted two subjects “e-

commerce and commerce.” In this sense, the students might use some rules or pattern

having been studied to other patterns in English so called overgeneralization (intralingual

transfer).

(15) “Every country can imitate this, but we have to adjust what we have and

what USA has.” (Retrieved from essay 12: P3)

The example (15) above denoted the nominal substitution. The substitution items

“have and has” in the text above represent the possessiveness. This referred to element that

was previously mentioned in the text. It was appropriate already since “have” referred to

the plural “we” in this context, Indonesia, and “has” referred to singular “USA.”

c. Ellipsis

Like substitution, ellipsis was also less found in the students’ essay writing. In this

sense, the researcher only described few examples (16) and (17) of the ellipsis.

(16) “Sometime the seller cheating the consumers with post the goods picture

that Ø not equal with the good itself.” (Retrieved from essay 10: P2)

In the example (16) above, it can be seen that elliptical verb “that Ø not equal with

the good itself” was inappropriate. If it should be omitted, “that” also should be omitted “Ø

not equal with the good itself.” It was called reducing of adjective clause called omittos

since it omitted “that and verb” in nominal sentence.

(17) “It is common knowledge that humans are competing to become successful

people and Ø can make people happy around them.” (Retrieved from essay 14:

P5)

The example (17) above showed the ellipsis of personal reference “they” which was

combined by the conjunction “and.” It was appropriate since the subject were equal and

did not change the meaning of its sentence.

d. Conjunction

From the chart 4.3 above, conjunction was more use inappropriately than

appropriate. It implied that the students were familiar it but they still had insufficient

knowledge about it. It can be assumed that students did not have adequate ability to create

text unity. From all cases of inappropriate uses of conjunction, it can be noted that most of

those errors are unable to use the conjunction items in creating cohesion by linking or

combined the clause, sentences and paragraph. The reseracher also found less the use of

conjunction as transition functioned to keep continuity of the main idea of the text. This

76

problem might be derived from overgeneralization of the rules or pattern to another pattern

in English.

(18) “It can affect the learning interest of children. Of course, it reduces the interest

and spirit of children to learn in the school. Beside that, if is viewed from

social aspect, it can make the children become individual.” (Retrieved from

essay 2: P2)

In the example (18), the use of conjunction “beside that” as was inappropriate. It

was used as additive. However, such conjunction should not be added “that”. It should be

“besides.” In this case, they two possible causes namely overgeneralization (intralingual

transfer) and mother tongue interference (interlingual transfer). They might generalizesome

rules to another pattern and they might transform the word in Bahasa Indonesia into

English since the words “beside that” in bahasa Indonesia meant “disamping itu.”

(19) “Moreover, character education will engage teenagers to have a good mental

to face their life in society so they will not give up to face the real life that is

very dangerous if they cannot face it.” (Retrieved from essay 2: P2)

In the example (19) above, it can be seen that the students used the conjunction “so”

to combine between the sentences. However, he did not pay attention to the rules of the

conjunction “so”. The conjunction “so” should be used comma “,” (, so), or it can be add

“that” after “so” become “so that.” This phenomenon might be cause by overgeneralization

(intralingual transfer). The student applied the rules of another conjunction such as “and”

that sometimes used comma (,) and sometimes it is not.

(20) “We should know that many students start to study English with the hope they

will be able to speak English when they communicate with their friends.”


In the example (20) above, the use of conjunction “with the hope” was

inappropriate. Such conjunction should be changed into “in the hope that”. This error

occurred because the student used his first language into English. It was due to the meaning

of “with the hope” in Bahasa Indonesia was “dengan harapan” that was commonly used in

Bahasa Indonesia. It implied that thecauses of the student commit error was caused by

mother tongue interference (interlingual transfer)

(21) “We can easily adapt with the society If we have a good education. Beside of

that, education also makes people to be smart.” (Retrieved from essay 3: P1)

The use of conjunction additive “beside of that” in the example (21) above was

inappropriate. Such conjunction should be changed into “besides” as transition to combine

the sentence with the sentence previously mentioned immediately. In this sense, the

student committed error because he used his mother tongue. The intended meaning of

“beside of that” in Bahasa Indonesia was “disamping itu.” However, he also added “of”

after “beside”. It implied that he generalized the rule of another conjunction to this

conjunction. It was known that the use of conjunction “because” if it was used to combine

the noun phrases it should be added “of” after because “because of.” This implied that he

77

used the rules of conjunction “because of” to the conjunction “besides.” Thus, it can be

summed up that the student commit error might be caused by mother tongue interference

or overgeneralization.

3. Causes of the Students’ Commit Incohesive Writing

After describing the finding regarding with the types of grammatical cohesive

features and the appropriate and inappropriate use of grammatical cohesive features by the

students in academic essay writing, the researcher then described the causes that lead the

students committed incohesive writing. In this sense, he explored interview data to answer

the research question related to error causes made by the students in their essay writing. In

this sense, he adopted the theory of error causes proposed by Brown (2007). They are

interlingual transfer (mother tongue interference), intralingual transfer

(overgeneralization), and context of learning.

a. Interlingual Transfer

Interlingual transfer is the negative influence of the mother tongue or the

interference from the native language (Brown, 2007, p. 263). In this respect, the researcher

provided some errors as a description of interliangual transfer as followed:

(22) “Same like character, the insight also can be gained by education” (Retrieved

from essay 1: P3)

(23) “If we take a look at the company. If we want to apply for job, most of the

company asked us to make curriculum vitae as CV” (Retrieved from essay 3: P2)

(24) “We should know that many students start to study English with the hope they

will be able to speak English when they communicate with their friends.”


In the example (22), the expression such, “same like character” in English has

meaning “sama seperti character” in Bahasa Indonesia. It was also similar with the

expression “with the hope” in the example (24). If it was translated into Bahasa Indonesia

its meaning was “dengan harapan.” In this sense, AF was commonly used that expression

in her daily conversation. When she wanted to write something in English, she usually

used Bahasa Indonesia and then translated it into English. It was similar with FM who

often used Bahasa Indonesia before translated into English (Appendix 2, interview B with

AF, 1; Appendix 8, interview B with FM, 16). Moreover, the process of mother tongue

interference was unconsciously affected the written language (Appendix 3, interview B

with AP, 3; Appendix 5, interview B with MN, 6; Appendix 9, interview B with TB, 17).

In this sense, the students unconsciously used the pattern in Bahasa Indonesia into English

as in the example (23). In addition, the influence of mother tongue interference was also

derived from the students’ vocabulary inquiry. They often looked for Indonesia vocabulary

when they wanted to write essay in English, then they translated it into English (Appendix

4, interview B with KR, 9; Appendix 10, interview B with MH, 18; Appendix 10,

interview B with AN, 19). Besides, the cause of mother tongue interference held due to

78

when the students wanted to write, what firstly came to their mind was the Indonesia

words then translated into English (Appendix 6, interview B with SF; Appendix 7,

interview B with DI, 14).

b. Intralingual Transfer

Intraligual transfer is the negative transfer within the target language. In other

words, it is the incorrect generalization of rules within the target language (Brown, 2007,

p. 264). In this sense, the researcher provided some errors related to overgeneralization as

follow:

(25) “We know that most people are arrogant because they do not have a good

education to form themselves more better.” (Retrieved from essay 10: P2)

(26) “Because of that, it is important to know get education since they are born since

they die” (3: P1)

(27) “…such free sex, drug, and so on.” and “…such family, school, and society (9:

P1)

(28) Or in the simple definition,…” and “…digits. Or today, …”? (17: P1)?

In the item (25), AF tended to generalize the rules having been learnt to other

patterns in English. It implied that she had already learnt that comparative adjective by

using “more”, but she forget that there are some adjective have their own forms called the

irregular comparative adjective. She often used the pattern “more” to make comparative

sentence. Similar with AP, NM & SF who often used the rules having been learnt to

another pattern in English as showed in the item (26) (Appendix 2, interview B with AF, 1;

Appendix 3, interview B with AP, 3; Appendix 5, interview B with NM, 6; Appendix 6,

interview B with SF, 7). Besides, KR & MN often applied the new rules having been learnt

as her practice in English as in the example (27) in which the student over generalize the

exemplifying word “such”. It was similar with what DI, MH & AN who often applied what

having been learnt into another pattern in English (Appendix 4, interview B with KR, 9;

Appendix 7, interview B with DI, 14; Appendix 8, interview B with FM, 16; Appendix 10,

interview B with MH, 18; Appendix 11, interview B with AN, 19). In addition, TB often

used the conjunction “or” when writing sentence as in the item (28) (Appendix 9, interview

B with TB, 17).

c. Context of Learning

Context of learning occur in the classroom context that the teacher and the textbook

used can lead the learner to commit wrong generalization about the language (Brown,

2007, p. 265). However, based on the interview data with the lecturer and the students, the

existence of error caused by context of learning was not identified. It was due to such

cause would be difficult to be identified without studying the teaching material and

teaching technique or method as what has been admitted by Corder in A Training Course

for TEFL by Hubbard, et al., (1983) that, “it is however, not easy to identify such error

except in conjunction with a close study of the material and teaching technique to which

79

the learner has been exposed. This is probably why so little is known about them” (p. 142).

Therefore, the resercher found it difficult to identify such error. Based on the interview

with Mr.E, it was found that he always guided the students in the classroom activities. He

also gave assignments to the students in order to get more practices. He sometime gave

feedback and asked the students to revise it. His statement was appropriate with the

interview data with the students. They stated that the lecturer always guided them in the

classroom activity through explaining, exemplifying, discussing, and practicing (Apendix

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, interview B with AF, AP, KR, MN, SF, DI, FM, TB, MH, &

AN). However, regarding with the cohesion study, he introduced the students about how

to use conjunction or transition in writing essay, and how to make the well essay.

Meanwhile, the explicit teaching about cohesion was not conducted. McCarthy as cited in

Hinkel (2001) comments that matter of cohesion and cohesive features usually play an

important role in English texts and that they need to be explicitly taught in L2 reading and

writing instruction(pp. 111—132). Moreover, all students had already learnt the material

related to grammatical features, but most of them had already forgotten especially in the

use of each grammatical feature. They also explained that the lecturer had already guided

them during the teaching and learning process in the classroom. Instead, they got many

assignments from the lecturer to write an essay (Apendix 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

interview B with AF, AP, KR, MN, SF, DI, FM, TB, MH, & AN)

B. Discussion

The investigation of the use of grammatical cohesive features in academic essay

writing by the 20 fourth semester students of English Language Department of Ibnu

Khaldun University (UIKA) Bogor showed some interesting results. The primary analysis

was based on determining the types of grammatical cohesive features used by the students

in academic essay writing, the frequent types of grammatical cohesive features, the

appropriate and inappropriate used of grammatical cohesive features, and the causes of the

students’ committed incohesive in their academic essay writing. In this sense, the

researcher then adapted the descriptive qualitative analysis was conducted to detect any

problems connected with the use of grammatical cohesive features by the students in

academic essay writing.

The finding revealed that students used numerous grammatical cohesive features in

their writing in which the reference (56.3%) was the most frequently used of grammatical

cohesive features by the students. Meanwhile, substitution (0.5%) gained the lowest

percentage of the grammatical cohesive feature used by the students. This finding of this

research was similar with the finding of Alarcon & Morales (2011) revealed that the

reference (90.67%) was the highest frequency of the cohesive features while substitution

(0.25%) was the least used type of cohesive features from the total of the cohesive features.

However, it did not automatically imply that the students’ essay writing was effective by

the predominat of reference. It implied that they overused the reference engegaging them

to commit repetitive use of reference in creating links between elements in the text. They

80

did not use another of the grammatical cohesion especially the use of ellipsis and substition

which were possible to be used in writting although most researchers satated that both

ellipsis and substitution were commonly found in speaking (Halliday, 1994; Tsareva,

2010). Referring to Chart 4.2 of reference, it showed that the use of personal pronoun

(59%) and demonstrative (31%) were dominant. It was due to both cohesive items were

important due to they provide the concept of identiability (Alarcon & Morales, 2011, p. 19)

to create links anaphorically and cataphorically between elements in the text (Halliday &

Hasan, 1976, p. 33). Consequently, most of the students tended to overuse of the use the

personal and demostrative reference. It implied that most students were familiar with the

reference and more used it to create cohesion by creating links between elements (Halliday

& Matthiessen, 2014, p. 605) rather than other types of cohesion. It denoted that they were

lack in using other types of cohesion so that they only utilitized them in the text since it

was easy to be used. On the other hand, it implied that the substitution was not familiar

with the students so that it almost did not appear in the students’ essay writing. It also

implied that the existence of substitution in text were less identified as what have been

asserted by Tsareva (2010) that it would be relevant to find more use of both substitution

and ellipsis by comparing the differences of students’ writing and speaking or using other

genre (p. 55). In addition, “substitution and ellipsis are more characteristically found in

dialogues” (Halliday, 1994 as cited in Ghasemi, 2013, p. 227). Furthermore, if it was

compared with the reference result, the use of conjunction (39%) was almost equal to the

use of reference. referring to the chart 4.2 of conjunction, the use of causal, additive,

temporal, and conditional were the dominant use of other types of conjunction. It showed

that the students tend to use these conjunction types to persuade and convince the reader

since it was known that the expository essay analyzes and explains information to inform

or educate your reader (Nazario, et. al., 2010, p. 77). In this regard, it was similar with the

finding done by Hananta & Sukyadi (2015) revealed that the use of the reference and

conjunction as the dominant features in the grammatical cohesive features. In this sense, it

meant that the students had sufficient knowledge to use both reference and conjunction in

creating cohesion by creating links between elements and “creating links (including

continuity) whole clause or combine clauses” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p. 605).

Afterwards, from the finding of appropriate and inappropriate used of grammatical

cohesive features, it can be interpreted that most students had sufficient knowledge to use

the grammatical cohesive features appropriately in creating text unity with total (721) if it

was compared to the total of inappropriate use gained (128). In detail, reference (62.4%)

was the predominant of the appropriate use of grammatical cohesive features while

substitution (0.4%) was the least one due to it less defined in the essay writing. This result

denoted that the students were able to use the reference appropriately by the students in

their essay writing and implied that they have sufficient knowledge about the material

regarding with the reference. In this sense, Wahby (2014) highlighted that students who

have better cohesive knowledge and who are more trained on using cohesive ties

appropriately write better well organized coherent texts. Meanwhile, in the inappropriate

81

Chart 4.3, it could be seen that conjunction (72.7%) was the predominant of inappropriate

use of grammatical cohesive features in the academic essay writing. It showed that most

students found difficult to use conjunction in creating text unity although they were

familiar with it. Consequently, the students should have sufficient knowledge of how to

use the conjunction in creating text unity since it affected the cohesive writing at clause,

sentence, and paragraph levels. From all cases of inappropriate uses of conjunction, it

could be noted that most of those errors are unable to use the conjunction items in creating

cohesion by linking or combined the clause, sentences and paragraph. The resercher also

found less the use of conjunction as transition functioned to keep continuity of the main

idea of the text and found that the students were not able to use variative conjunction

items. They did not have sufficient knowledge to use conjunction in intrasential level.

Most of them use conjunction items that commonly used at intersentencial level. On the

other hand, in the inappropriate of reference Chart 4.3, students found difficult to

distinguish the singular reference to the plural one. It was occurred either in personal and

demonstrative reference. Besides, the inappropriate use of comparative reference was also

identified from students’ essay writing. They sometimes generalized the rules or patterns

having been studied to other patterns in English. However, if it was seen from the total

finding of the appropriate (62.4%) and inappropriate (21.9%) use of reference, the students

were able to integrate the sentences using reference well.

Furthermore, based on the interview data result, it was found that causes engaging

the students’ committed incohesive in their writing embraced two causes. They were

mother tongue interference (interlingual transfer) and overgeneralization (intralingual

transfer). Meanwhile, context of learning was not defined due to “it is however, not easy

to identify such error except in conjunction with a close study of the material and teaching

technique to which the learner has been exposed. This is probably why so little is known

about them” (Corder as cited in Hubbard, at. al., 1983, p. 142). However, teaching

cohesion explicitly was not conducted by the lecturer (Appendix 1, interview A with Mr.E,

see syllabus appendix 33), the reseacher then assumed that the students who were lack in

using narrative cohesive features and committed incohesive writing due to they do not

aware of the important of grammatical cohesive features in writing text. This meant that

the cohesion should be taught explicitly in the writing course in the hope that the students

pay attention to it as what has been admitted by Zhou (2007) & Oleteju (2006) believe that

explicit teaching of cohesive devices is helpful in improving cohesion in EFL

compositions. In the mother tongue interference, when they were writing in English, the

students firstly used Bahasa Indonesia and then translated it into English. They tried to

search the translation of Indonesia’s vocabulary into English and often used the Bahasa

Indonesia’s patterns when constructing sentences. In fact, the Bahasa Indonesia’s patterns

were quite different from the English patterns. Thus, if the students often used Bahasa

Indonesia and then translated it into English, the error was inevitable. For that, it was

important to be accustomed with the English pattern when they were writing. Furthermore,

in the overgeneralization, the students committed incohesive because they often used the

English grammatical rules having been learnt to another pattern in English it was done in

order to practice the new rules having been learnt.

82

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This chapter summarizes the finding and discussion, and addresses the limitation of

research along with suggested directions for future research.

A. Conclusion Based on the finding and discussion, it can be concluded that reference (56.3%) was

the predominant of grammatical cohesive features used by the students in academic essay

writing compared to other types. Conjunction (36%) took the second position and followed

up by ellipsis (4.4%) and substitution (0.5%). However, it did not imply that the students’

essay writing was effective by the predominat of reference, but It implied that they

committed repetitive use of reference and it was inaffective.

Moreover, most students had sufficient knowledge to use the grammatical cohesive

features appropriately showed with the total (721) if it was compared to the total of

inappropriate use gained (128). In detail, reference (62.4%) was the predominant of the

appropriate use of grammatical cohesive features followed by conjunction (32.6%), ellipsis

(4.6%) and substitution (0.4%). Meanwhile, the students still found difficult to use the

conjunction. It was showed that conjunction (72.7%) was the predominant of the

inappropriate use of grammatical cohesive features followed by reference (21.9%), ellipsis

(3.9%) and substitution (1.6%).

Furthermore, the causes of the students’ committed incohesive writing based on the

interview data result embraced two causes. They were mother tongue interference

(interlingual transfer) and overgeneralization (intralingual transfer). Meanwhile, context of

learning was not defined due to “it is however, not easy to identify such error except in

conjunction with a close study of the material and teaching technique to which the learner

has been exposed” (Corder as cited in Hubbard, at. al., 1983, p. 142).

B. Suggestion Even though the present research provides finding in relation to grammatical

cohesive features, it is not without limitation. For that, it is suggested that the istitution to

review and reorganize the syllabus of English writing course to include the explicit

teaching of cohesion in the teaching and learning of writing course engaging the lecturers

to deliver the cohesion theory in their writing class in the hope that the students are aware

of the important of cohesion in creating text unity, and applied it in their writing activity.

Moreover, students should be accustomed to use the grammatical cohesive features in their

writing appropriately related to English’s rules and patterns. Furthermore, further

researchers should investigate comparative study about cohesion occurred in speaking and

writing in the hope that the existence of substitution and ellipsis are more defined. They

also should conduct close study to the material and teaching technique in order to get

precise data related to causes of context of learning that is hardly defined.

83

GLOSSARY

Academic Writing: A type of writing whose purpose is connected with education

Anaphora: one term referencing another which has previously been mentioned

Cataphoric: an expression which refers to a later expression

Cohesion: the way that a text connected and makes sense syntactically giving the text

‘flow’

Coherence: refers to the ways that a text is made semantically meaningful

Collocation: the ways that certain words tend to regularly occur next to or close to each

other

Conjunction: the term that connect words, phrases, clauses, sentences, or paragraph

Connection: something is related to something else

Data Analysis: The way to analyze the data collected in the study

Deixis: Expressions in language that point to referents

Description: A form of analysis which attempts to accurately describe the features of a

particular language without making value judgments

Distance: the amount of space between two place

Discourse: A term with several related and often quite loose meanings

Discourse Analysis: a broad term that involves the study of the ways in which language is

used in text and its context.

Documentation: The technique to collect the data in the form of documents like students’

writing, lesson plans, etc.

Ellipsis: an intentional omission of a word or phrase from a text

Genre: A genre refers to a categorization of a particular type of text or social practice

84

Grammatical cohesion: a surface structure of the text binding a unity of it through

grammatical cohesive features

Instrument: The tool to collect the data of study of study

Intertextuality: the ways that texts refer to or incorporate aspects of other texts within

them.

Interlingual error: negative influence of native’s first language

Intralingual error: negative transfer within the target language

Lexical Cohesion: cohesion established through the structure of vocabulary

Literature Review: The collection of related theories that are very beneficial in process

Participant: The students involved in the study

Qualitative research: A type of research that focuses on the phenomena on the activity,

event, process, or individuals

Reference: refers to some other parts of the text

Research: the systematic investigation of natural and social phenomena using established

methods of measurement and analysis.

Substitution: a word or phrase which has already been encountered in a text is substituted

by another word

Text: semantic unit that has a particular social meaning, made up of related sentences

whose main characteristic is unity of meaning.

Texture: is inherent to text contributing to text unity achieved by cohesive features.

Ties: the links binding refereeing item to the item to which it refers

Triangulation: the use of multiple approaches to research

Trustworthiness: The way to make the data of study valid or trusted

85

REFERENCES

Akindele, O. (2009). A critical analysis of the literature review section of graduate

dissertations at University of Botswana. ESP World, 5(4). 1—20.

_____. (2011). Cohesive devices in selected ESL academic papers. African Nebula, (3).

99—112.

Alarcon, J. B. & Morales, K. N. S. (2011). Grammatical cohesion in students

argumentative essay. Journal of English and Literature, 2 (5). 114—127.

Alek. (2014). Teaching argumentative text to foster students academic writing. Indonesian

Journal of English Education. 1—12.

Bramble & Mason. (1997). Research in education and the behavioural sciences/concepts.

Dublin: Times Mirror Higher Education Group .Inc

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative

Research in Psychology, 3. 77—101.

Benjamin, J. A. A. & Nartey, M. (2014). Cohesion in the Abstract of Undergraduate

Dissertations: An Intra-disciplinary Study in a Ghanaian University. Journal of

ELT and Applied Linguistics (JELTAL), 2 (1). 93—108.

Boardman, C. A. (2002). Writing to communicate (Paragraph and Essay). New York:

Longman.

Brown, D. H. (1994). Teaching by principles: An alternative approach to language

pedagogy. United States of America: Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, D. H. (2007). Principle of language learning and teaching (5thed.). United States

of America: Pearson Education, Inc.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Carter, R., Goddard, A., Reah, D., Sanger, K., & Bowring, M. (2001). Working with texts:

A core introduction to language analysis. London: Routledge.

Craswell, G. (2005). Writing for academic success: A postgraduate guide. London: SAGE

Publication.

Cresswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approach (3rd

ed.). London: Sage Publication, Inc.

86


approach (4th ed.). London: Sage Publication, Inc.


approach (4th ed.). London: Sage Publication, Inc.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. (6th ed.).

London: Routledge.

Dilek, K. A. (2012). Identifying discourse patterns: A case study with Turkish foreign

language learners. Internal Association of Research in Foreign Language

Education and Applied Linguistics, 1 (4). 255—277.

De Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London:

Longman.

Ellis, R. (2007). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Frydrycova, B. K. & Hubackova, S. (2014). Grammatical cohesion in abstracts. Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 116. 664—668.

Ghasemi, M. (2013). An investigation into the use of cohesive devices in second language

writings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3 (9). 1615—1623.

Gutwinski, W. (1976). Cohesion in literary texts. The Hague: Mouton.

Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. (1998). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic

perspective. London: Longman.

Hadley, G. S. (1995). Written discourse analysis. Investigation and implications for

National University English writing classes.

[http://www.nuis.ac.jp/~hadley/publication/nuwritnanalysis/writtenanalysis.htm].

September 2015.

Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English.London: Longman.

Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language

in social semiotic perspective. Victoria: Deankin University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. (3rd

ed.). Great Britain: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar. (4td

ed.). USA: Routledge.

87

Hamid, A. A. (2010). Students’ problem with cohesion and coherence in EFL essay

writing in Egypt: Different perspectives. Literacy Information and Computer

Education Journal (LICEJ), 1 (4). 211—221.

Han, W. (2012). Discourse analysis in EFL learning. British Journal of Arts and Social

Sciences, 8 (11). 157—173.

Hanata, N. & Sukyadi, D. (2015). The use of cohesion in students’ argumentative writings.

RJES, 2 (1). 37—65.

Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. Pearson Education Limited.

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4thed.). England: Longman.

Hillier, H. (2004). Analysis real text: Research studies in modern English language.

London: Palgrave Mcmillan.

Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of Cohesion in L2 Academic Text. Applied Language Learning,

12 (2). 111—132.

Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. London: George Allen &Unwin.

Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hubbard, P. (1983). A Training course for TEFL. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jabeen, I., Mehmood, A. & Iqbal, M. (2013). Ellipsis, reference & substitution as cohesive

devices: The bear by Anton Chekhov. Academic Research International, 4 (6).

123—131.

Karahan, P. (2015). A diagnostic analysis of EFL students’ use of connectives.

ScienceDirect: Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 199. 325—333.

Kusumaningrum, S. R. (2012). Rhetoric in students’ Classification Essays. In Cahyono, B.

Y. & Yannuar, N. (Ed.). English for communication and interaction in the

classroom and beyond. (pp. 293—308).Republic of Indonesia: State University of

Malang Press.

Kuo, C. H. (1995). Cohesion and coherence in academic writing from lexical choice to

organization. RELC Journal, 26 (1).47—62.

Liu, M. & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by

Chinese undergraduates. System, 33. 623—636.

Luthfiyah, et. al. (2015). An investigation of cohesion and rhetorical moves in thesis

abstract. Indonesian Journal of English Education, 2 (2). 145—159.

88

Mahmoud, A. The use of logical connectors by Arab EFL University students: A

performance analysis. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 7

(1). 176—188.

Martin, J.R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause.2nd

ed. London: Continuum.

Mawardi. (2014). An analysis of the cohesion and coherence of the students’ narrative

writings in the English language education department of nahdlatul wathan

Mataram University. Ganec Swara, 8 (1). 80—90.

Mavasoglu, M. (2014). Third person anaphoric reference by Turkish speakers of French.

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116. 245—249.

McHoul. (1998). Discourse. In Mey, J. L. (Ed.). Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics. (pp.

225—2236). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Mey, J. L. (1998). Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics. Newyork: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Meisuo, Z. (2000). Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two

Chinese Universities. RELC Journal, 31 (1). pp. 61—95.

Meyers, A. (2005). Gateways to academic writing: Effective sentences paragraph and

essay. New York: Longman.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook. (2nd

ed.). London: Sage.

Minh, D. H. & Thi, V. A. T. (2014). Vietnamese learners’ attention and use of cohesive

devices in English essay writing at Dong Thap University. Asian Journal of

Education Research, 2 (2). 1—14.

Nazario, L., Borchers, D. & Lewis, W. (2010). Bridges to better writing. Boston:

Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Nunan, D. (1993). Introducing discourse analysis. London: Pinguin English.

Olateju, M. A. (2006). Cohesion in ESL Classroom Written Texts. Nordic Journal of

African Studies. 15(3). 314—331.

Oshima, A. & Hogue, A. (2007). Introduction to academic writing, (3rd

ed.). Longman:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Palmer, B. C. (2004). Developing cultural literacy through writing process. USA:

Longwood Professional Book.

89

Rajabi, S. & Ketabi, S. (2012). Enhencing students’ use of cohesive devices: Impacts of

powerpoint presentations on EFL academic writing. Journal of Language

Teaching and Research, 3 (6). 1135—1143.

Rassouli, M. & Abbasvandi, M. (2013). The effect of explicit instruction of grammatical

cohesive devices in intermediate Iranian learners writing. European Online

Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2 (2). 15—22.

Reza, M. O. & Ghane, A. (2014). The investigation of cohesive ties in English book 3 of

Iranian High School. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136. 144—147.

Renkema, J. (2004). Introduction to discourse studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.

Richards, J. C. (1971a). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis, English Language

Teaching, 25, 1971a.

Rummel, K. (2005). How to write reader-friendly texts: Common problems in the English

academic writing of Estonia writers. Thesis. Tartu: University of Tartu.

Schffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

Simensen, A. M. (2007). Teaching a foreign language. 2nd ed. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Simpson, P. W. (1998). Discourse analysis and literature. In Mey, J. L. (Ed.). Concise

encyclopedia of pragmatics. (pp. 236—242). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd

Stanojevic, M. G. (2012). Cohesive devices in legal discourse.Linguistics and Literature,

10 (2). 89—98.

Tsareva, A. (2010). Grammatical cohesion in argumentative essays by Norwegian and

Russian learners. M.A. Thesis. The University of Oslo.

Tu, M., Zhou, Y. & Zong, C. (2014). Enhancing Grammatical Cohesion: Generating

Transitional Expressions for SMT. Proceedings of the 52nd

Annual Meeting of the

Association for Computational Linguistics. 850—860.

Valeika, L. & Buitkiene, J. (2006). Functional English syntax. Vilnius: Vilnius

Pedagogical University Press.

Wahby, M. (2014). The effect of implementing cohesive ties by Saudi prep-year pre

intermediate students on their written texts. European Scientific Journal, 10 (4).

220—232.

Wennerstrom, A. 2003. Discourse analysis in the language classroom. Vol. 2. Genres of

writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

90

Xi, Y. (2010). Cohesion studies in the past 30 years: Development, application and chaos.

Language Society and Culture, (31).139—147.

Youn, H. C. & Shin, J. (2014). Cohesive devices in English writing textbooks and Korean

learners’ English writings. English teaching, Spring 69 (1). 41—59.

Yule, G. (2000). Pragmatic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zemach, D. E & Rumisek, L. (2006). Academic writing from essay to paragraph. Oxford:

MacMilan Publishers.

Zhou, X. (2007). Application of English cohesion theory in the teaching of writing to

Chinese graduate students. US-China Education Review, 4 (7). 31—37.

Zuhair, A. A. A. R. (2013). The use of cohesive devices in descriptive writing by Omani

student-teachers. Sage Open. 1—10.





91

Appendix 1

INTERVIEW A

(with the Lecturer)

Project : Preliminary Information about Teaching & Learning Program

Date : Mey 3, 2017

Place : Lecturer Longue of English Department in UIKA

Time : 13.00

Duration : 8 minutes

Interviewer : TR

Interviewee : Mr.E

Speaker (s) Transcribed Dialog Topic

TR:

Mr.E:

TR:

Mr.E:

TR:

Mr.E

TR:

Mr.E:

TR:

Mr.E:

TR:

TR:

Mr.E:

TR:

Mr.E:

Ada berapa mata kuliah writing yang diajarkan di

tempat bapak mengajar?

ada writing for general 1, writing for general 2,

writing in professional 1, writing in professional 2,

paper writing.

Mata kuliah writing apa yang bapak pangku?

Writing in Professional1

Apa tujuan dari writing in professional 1?

Siswa diharapkan mampu menulis essay dengan baik

dan tepat.

Apakah mahasiswa mendapatkan kesulitan dalam mata

kuliah writing? Jika ada, apa saja kesulitanya?

Samapai sekarang, mahasiswa belum menemukan

masalah masalah yang sifatnya mayor, banyak dari

mereka mendapatkan masalah minor seperti tenses,

sun on sentence, dll.

Di matakuliah writing ini, apakah siswa diminta

membuat essay? Jenis essay apa saja yang diajarkan?

Iya, persuasive dan expository

apakah bapak sukamemberikan assignment

kemahasiswa? ada assignment

seperti buat essay

Apakah bapak membimbing mahasiswa ketika di

kelas?

Ya, sy selalu membimbing mereka,kalau mereka ada

yang tidak pahamsaya jelaskan.

Apakah bapak suka memberikan feedback terhadap

tulisan mereka?

Saya sukaberi feedback, dan minta mereka

92

TR:

Mr.E

merevisinya.

Apakah bapak mengajarkan cohesion pada

mahasiswa?

Secara explicit mungkin tidak, tapi mereka dikenalkan

dengan transition, bagaimana membuat kalimat dan

paragraf yang baik.

93

Appendix 2

INTERVIEW B

(with the Students)

Code : 1

Project : Inquiring Students’ Error Causes

Date : June 12, 2017

Place : Class of English Department in UIKA

Time : 13.00


Interviewer : TR

Interviewee : AF

Abbreviation:

Interlingual Transfer (mother tongue interference) : MI

Intralingual Transfer (overgeneralization) : OV

Context of Learning : CL


TR:

AF:

TR:

AF:

TR:

AF:

TR:

AF:

TR:

AF:

TR:

AF:

Coba lihat kata yang saya garis bawahi, apa kesalahan

pada kata “more better” (1:P1 & P2)? (case 1), saya

menemukan 2 kali anda menuliskanya pada tulisan

anda.

Apa ya, tapi biasanya pakai “more” seperti “more

diligent”, “more smart.”

Apakah anda suka menggunakan struktur atau pola

kalimat yang sama yang sudah dipelajari ke struktur

atau pola kalimat yang baru dalam bahasa inggris?

Seperti contoh “more” tadi, apakah kamu selalu

menambahkan kata “more” ketika membuat kalimat

“comparison”?

Iya pak, saya biasanya suka menambahkan “more”

Menurut anda, kenapa ini salah?

Kurang tahu, apa “more” nya salah?

Mengapa demikian?

Mungkin “more” nya dihilangkan ya, jadi “better”

gitu?

Apakah anda tahu materi yang terkait dengan kasus

ini?

Ini tentang grammar, kalau gak salah tentang

“comparison”

Apakah anda sudah mempelajarinya?

Sudah, di kelas grammar semester sebelum sebelumya

OV

OV

CL

CL

CL

94

TR:

AF:

TR:

AF:

Apa yang membuatmu kesulitan?

Mungkin kurang latihan aja

Dulu ketika belajar grammar, apakah dosen anda

membimbing anda?

Tentu saja, biasanya dosen itu menjelaskan lalu

meberikan contoh terus latihan.

CL

CL

TR:

AF:

TR:

AF:

TR:

AF:

Apa kesalahan pada kalimat “Same like character, the

insight also can be gained by education” (1: P3)? (case

2)

Gak ngerti, apa ya?

Apakah anda tahu maknanya?

Maksudnya “Same like character” itu “Sama seperti

karakter”

Menurut anda apakah bahasa ibu (bahasa pertama)

anad berpengaruh pada tulisan anda?

Iya bener, berpengaruh, soalnya kalau menulis dalam

bahasa inggris pasti dari bahasa Indonesia dulu baru

diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa inggris.

MI

MI

95

Appendix 3

INTERVIEW B

(with the Students)

Code : 3




Time : 13.00


Interviewer : TR

Interviewee : AP

Abbreviation





TR:

AP:

TR:

AP:

TR:

AP:

TR:

AP:

TR:

AP:


dari conjunction “since” pada kalimat “Because of

that, it is important to know get education since they

are born since they die” (3: P1)? (case 1)

Gak tahu,

Kalau begitu, apa makna dari kalimat tersebut?

Maknanya “karena itu, penting untuk mengetahuin

mendapatakan pendidikan sejak mereka lahir sampai

mereka meninggal” oia salah! Harusnya “until”

Apa materi yang berkaitan dengan ini? Apakah anda

sudah pernah mempelajarinya?

Udah waktu semester kapan ya, waktu belajar

grammar dulu.


Saya terkadang suka sulit dalam penggunaanya

Dulu ketika belajar grammar, apakah dosen anda

membimbing anda?

Ya,

MI

OV

CL

OV

CL

TR:

Selanjutnya, perhatikan conjunction “Because of that”

and “Beside of that,” (3: P1) (case 2) apakah anda suka

menggunakan struktur atau pola kalimat yang sama

yang sudah dipelajari ke struktur atau pola kalimat

yang baru dalam bahasa inggris?

OV

96

AP:

TR:

AP:

Iya, sering seperti itu.


anda berpengaruh pada tulisan anda? seperti pada

kalimat”If we take a look at the company. If we want

to apply for job, most of the company asked us to

make curriculum vitae as CV” (3: P2) (case 3)

Ya secara tidak sadar, pasti saya menggunakan pola

bahasa Indonesia dan itu berpengaruh pada tulisan

saya. makanya English nya English Indonesia.

MI

97

Appendix 4

INTERVIEW B

(with the Students)

Code : 9




Time : 13.00


Interviewer : TR

Interviewee : KR

Abbreviation





TR:

KR:

TR:

KR:

TR:

KR:

TR:

KR:

TR:

KR

TR

KR:


dari kata “such” pada kalimat “…such free sex, drug,

and so on.” and “…such family, school, and society (9:

P1)? (case 1)

Itukan untuk menyatakan “seperti ini,, ini,,” untuk

memebrikan contoh.

Apa bedanya “such” dengan “such as”?

Oia bener, harusnya “such as” ya.

Sudahkah mempelajari materi terkait ini?

Sudah


Mungkin cara penggunaanya yang sulit.

Dulu ketika mempelajarinya, apakah dosen anda

membimbing anda?

Iya, tapi sepertinya kurang pengaplikasianya.




Iya, kalau nulis pasti dicoba practice ke kalimat lain.

OV

CL

CL

CL

OV

TR:

Selanjutnya, perhatikan conjunction “…in society so

they will not give up…” and “…self confident so they

will…” (9: P1) (case 2), apa yang salah dari

98

KR:

TR

KR:

TR:

KR:

conjunction “so”?

Tidak tahu,

Apakah sudah diajarkan cara menggunakan

conjunction “so”?

Sudah, cumin lupa lagi


anda berpengaruh pada tulisan anda?

iya, soalnya kita menulis itu pertama dicari dulu kosa

kata dari bahasa Indonesia kemudian dtranslit ke

bahasa inggris.

CL

MI

99

Appendix 5

INTERVIEW B

(with the Students)

Code : 6




Time : 13.00


Interviewer : TR

Interviewee : MN

Abbreviation





TR:

MN:

TR:

MN:

TR:

MN:

TR:

MN:

TR:

MN

TR:

MN:

TR:


dari kata “with the hope” pada kalimat “We should

know that many students start to study English with

the hope they will be able…” (6: P2)? (case 1)

Saya tidak mengerti pak, apa “hope” nya yang salah

pak?


Artinya “dengan harapan”

Apakah anda sudahkah mempelajari materi terkait ini?

Iya sudah pak, waktu diajarkan tentang clauses

semester lalu

Apakah anda sudah belajar membuat kalimat simple,

compound, complex, and compound complex?

Oia, sudah pak, tapi itu di kelas grammar pak.


Sulit dalam menggunakanya pak, terutama kalimat

compound, dan compound complex.

Dulu ketika mempelajarinya, apakah dosen anda

membimbing anda?

Dosen membimbing pak, kita diajarkan cara

menggunakan kalimat simple yang kemudian

menjadikalimat compound.


MI

CL

CL

CL

CL

MI

100

MN:

anda berpengaruh pada tulisan anda?

Iya pak, secara tidak sadar pasti mempengaruhi, kita

nulis kan dari hasil terjemahan indo dulu pak. baru

bahasa inggris.

TR:

MN:

TR:

MN:

Apa yang kurang tepat dari conjunction “But” pada

kalimat “…their my friends. But, English environment

is not interesting so that they give up their hope”? (6:

P2) (case 2)

Komanya (,) ya pakharus dihilankan? Jadi “But

English”

Apakah anda diajarkan cara menggunakan conjunction

misalkan “But, and, so, therefore, moreover, however?

Sudah pak, cumin terkadang lupa lagi pak.

OV

CL

TR:

MN:

TR:

MN:

Coba lihat kembali kalimat ini “…their my friends.

But, English environment is not interesting so that they

give up their hope” (6: P2) (case 3) apakah kata yang

digaris bawahi sudah betul?

Kurang tahu pak,




Iya pak, sering sperti itu.

OV

OV

101

Appendix 6

INTERVIEW B

(with the Students)

Code : 7




Time : 13.00


Interviewer : TR

Interviewee : SF

Abbreviation





TR:

SF:

TR:

SF:

TR:

SF:


dari conjunction “because” pada kalimat “…in

Indonesia. Because, the new curriculum… (7: P1)?

(case 1)

Apa pak yang salahnya? Saya tidak tahu

Apakah anda sudah mempelajari materi terkait

conjunction ini? dan Apakah diajarkan cara

menggunakanya?

Iya pak, sudah dulu, tapi sudah lupa lagi pak.




Iya pak, terkadang saya suka mengaplikasikan apa

yang sudah saya pelajari pak.

CL

OV

TR:

SF:

Selanjutya, perhatika frase “By many curriculum

changes” (7: P3) (case 2) menurut anda apakah bahasa

ibu (bahasa pertama) mempengaruhi tulisan anda?

Maksudnya bahasa Indonesia pak? Iya

mempengaruhi, karena kan kalau menulis kata dalam

bahasa inggris dipikiran saya pasti bahasa Indonesia

dulu pak baru ke bahasa inggris.

MI

102

Appendix 7

INTERVIEW B

(with the Students)

Code : 14




Time : 13.00


Interviewer : TR

Interviewee : DI

Abbreviation





TR:

DI:

TR:

DI:

TR:

DI:

TR:

DI:

TR:

DI:

TR:

DI:


dari conjunction “But” pada kalimat “…is reduced.

But indeed whatever happens around us…” ?(14: P1)?

(case 1)

Tidak tahu,

Apa anda bisa merevisinya?

Harus pakai koma (,) ya pak jadi (But,)


Iya tahu pak, maknanya “tetapi”

Apakah anda sudah mempelajari materi terkait dengan

ini?

Sudah pak,dulu pernah diajarkan dikelas grammar

tentang “FANBOYS” itu kan pak?

Apakah dosen anda membimbing anda di kelas?

Iya pak, beliau suka memberikan latihan latihan,

membahas dan menjelaskanya.




Iya pak, terkadang saya suka mengaplikasikan apa

yang sudah saya pelajari pak.

MI

CL

CL

OV

TR: Selanjutnya, apa yang salah dari kata yang digaris

103

DI:

TR:

DI:

TR:

DI:

bawahi “…back to ourselves good or bad will be felt

by ourselves.” and “…ask ourselves, how our

economy is good or bad”?(14: P1) (case 1)

Apa ya, saya kurang tahu pak

Apakah anda tahu makna kalimat kamu itu? satu

kalimat penuh.

Tahu pak, maksudnya “it pasti kembalikepada kita

baik maupun buruk akan kita rasakan”

Apakah bahasa ibu (bahasa pertama) anda

mempengaruhi tulisan anda?

Bisa jadi pak, soalnya kalau nulisdalambahasa inggris

pastimulai dari bahasa Indonesia dulu baru tu

ditranslit bahasa inggris.

MI

MI

104

Appendix 8

INTERVIEW B

(with the Students)

Code : 16




Time : 13.00


Interviewer : TR

Interviewee : FM

Abbreviation





TR:

FM:

TR:

FM:

TR:

FM:

TR:

FM:

TR:

FM

TR:

FM:

TR:

FM:


dari conjunction “And” pada kalimat “…ready to

work. And the government mus be…” ?(16: P5)? (case

1)

Maaf pak, saya tidak tahu.

Apa anda bisa merevisinya?

Saya tidak tahu, bingung


Makna dari kalimat itu “dan pemerintah harus lebih

kreatif untuk membuat lapangan pekerjaan…”

Apakah anda sudah mempelajari materi terkait dengan

ini?

Iya suda pak, pernah diajarkan dikelas grammar

tentang “conjunction”

Apakah dosen anda membimbing anda di kelas?

Iya pak, kita suka diminta membuat essay hampir

tiapminggu ada terus assigmentnya.




Ya saya suka menggunakan kalau diminta nulis essay.

Apakah bahasa pertama anda mempengaruhi tulisan

anda?

Iya pak, saya kalau bicara pakai bahasa ingris itu,

MI

CL

CL

OV

MI

105

bahasa inggris orang Indonesia

106

Appendix 9

INTERVIEW B

(with the Students)

Code : 17




Time : 13.00


Interviewer : TR

Interviewee : TB

Abbreviation





TR:

TB:

TR:

TB:

TR:

TB:

TR:

TB:

TR:

TB:

TR:

TB:


dari conjunction “Or” pada kalimat “…location. Or in

the simple definition,…” and “…digits. Or today, …”?

(17: P1)? (case 1)

Itu “Or” nya dihilangkan ya? Jadi langsung “in the

simple definition” and “today”

Apakah anda sudah mempelajari materi terkait ini?

Sudah pak,

Apa kesulitanya?

Kesulitanya itu kadang dalam penggunaanya yang

sering kurang tepat.

Apakah dosen anda membimbing anda ketika

mengajar?

Suka pak, kita sering diminta buat essay pak.




Iya suka, itu kaya conjunction “Or” saya sering

menggunakanya dalam kalimat, tapi gak taunya salah.

Apakah bahasa pertama anda berpengaruh ketika and

mau menulis atau mngungkapkan sesuatu dalam

bahasa inggris?

Iya bener, bahkan saya pernah bicara bahasa

inggris,eh kata teman saya inggrisnya bahasa

CL

CL

CL

OV

MI

107

Indonesia. Ya itu kan tidak sadar pak.

108

Appendix 10

INTERVIEW B

(with the Students)

Code : 18




Time : 13.00


Interviewer : TR

Interviewee : MH

Abbreviation





TR:

MH:

TR:

MH:

TR:

MH:

TR:

MH:

TR:

MH:

TR:

MH:

TR:

MH:

TR:

MH:

TR:


dari conjunction “Or” pada kalimat “…whether we

like it or not, ready or not, is no longer …(case 1)

Kebanyakan or ya pak?

Apakah anda bisa merevisinya?

Itu di hilangkan saja pak yang “ready or not”

Mengapa demikian?

Jadi keliatan rancu kayaknya.


Artinya”siap atau tidak siap, suka atau tidak suka”

Apakah bahasa pertama anda berpengaruh ketika anda

menulis dalam bahasa inggris?

Berpengaruh pak, makanya ini keliatan Indonesia

banget ya?

Apakah anda sudah mempelajari terkait materi ini?

Iya sudah pak,

Apa kesulitanya?

Kesulitanya, kadang penggunaanya banyak yang salah

seperti pada kasus ini pak.


mengajar?

Iya pak,beliau suka menjelaskan, meberikan latihan

dalam membuat essay.


MI

MI

CL

CL

CL

OV

109

MH:



Mungkin pak, soalnya saya menerapkan apa yang

sudah diajarkan.

110

Appendix 11

INTERVIEW B

(with the Students)

Code : 19




Time : 13.00


Interviewer : TR

Interviewee : AN

Abbreviation





TR:

AN:

TR:

AN:

TR:

AN:

TR:

AN:

TR:

AN:

TR:

AN:

TR:

AN:


dari conjunction “Caus” pada kalimat “…education.

Causes high number … (case 1)

Oia harusnya “because”

Kenapa begitu?

Karena untuk menyatakan penyebab pak, jadi

“because”

Apakah anda sudah mempelajari materi ini?

sudah pak, waktu belajar grammar pak.

Apa kesulitanya?

Sulit mebedakan dalam penggunaanya pak.


mengajar?

Dosen membimbing kami pak, kalau saya tidak tahu

beliau kasih tahu




Wah kalau itu kurang tahu pak, tapiyang jelas kalau

sudah mempelajari sesuatu ya saya terapkan.

Apakah bahasa pertama anda berpengaruh ketika anda

menulis dalam bahasa inggris?

Sepertinya berpengaruh pak, soalnya kalau mau

CL

CL

CL

OV

MI

111

mengutarakan sesuatu dalambahasa inggris kita nyari

dulu dalam bahasa Indonesia baru ke bahasa inggris?

112

Appendix 12

Instrument

Interview Guidance

Description: The following interview guidance is designed to reveal the research

question regarding with the causes of the students’ committed

incohesive on their essay writing. The interviews were divided into

two categories namely interview A and interview B. The interview A

was undertaken with the lecturer to get preliminary information about

the students’ writing skills, the materials having been studied and the

problems they faced in writing course. On the hand, the interview B

was undergone with the students individually to get in-depth

information and to check its accuracy obtained from my analysis on

their essay writing products. In detail, the questions of interview B

adapt Brown’s theory of error causes as a guide to seek the causes of

error such as mother tongue interference (interlingual transfer),

overgeneralization (intralingual transfers) and context of learning.

Data Identity

Project:

Date:

Time:

Duration:

Place:

Interviewer:

Interviewee:

Type of face-to-face interviews

Standardize open ended interviews

Language used

Bahasa Indonesia

Nature of Interview Questions

The following questions can be elaborated depending on students’ response

Interview A

Interview Questions:

1. In this institution, how many English writing courses are taught? I mean the

classification of the writing courses.

113

2. What writing course do you teach?

3. What is the objective of the writing in professional 1?

4. Do the students find difficulty in this writing course? If so, what problems do

the students face in this writing course?

5. In this writing course, are the students taught to write an essay? If so, what kinds

of essay taught to the students.

6. How do you teach writing to the students?

7. Do you give an assignment (writing essay) to the students?

8. Do you give a feedback to the students’ writing products?

9. Do you teach cohesion to the students?

10. Have the students been taught how to construct the sentence as simple,

compound, complex or compound complex sentence in this semester?

Interview B

1. Take a look at this case, do you know the error on your writing?

2. Why is it an error?

3. Can you revise this error?

4. Do you know its meaning? Can you explain?

5. Do you know the theory related to this error? Have you studied that?

6. Is the material subject easy to be understood?

7. What make you felt difficult?

8. Does your lecturer guide you during the classroom activity?

9. Can you find the reason why you made this error?

10. What do you think of your first language (mother tongue)? Does it affect your

writing products?

11. Do you use the same structure that you have learnt to other structure in the

target language?

114

Instrument

DOCUMENT GUIDELINES

1. Write an expository essay writing in English for about 200 –250 words!

2. Themes: education & economic, choose one theme that you are interested!

3. The essay should be finished in 60 minutes!

4. Do not use dictionary!

5. Do not use cellphone during the test!

6. The result of your test will not affect your score. Therefore, write the essay

honestly!

115 Appendix 13

Text analyzed for grammatical cohesion adapted from Halliday & Matthiesen (2014)

Essay 1

The Important of Education Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category

P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh

P1 Education is viewed as one of the important things in

developing a country.

The first thing that should be paid attention is human temp appro*

resources that can determine the development of the

country.

ana appro

The development of the country is seen from the

quality of the human resources.

ana appro

ana appro

The high quality of

the human resources is potential to develop

the country

more better and progress.

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

ana inappro*

In this case,

the quality achievement of the human resources is

influenced by the role of education.

cond appro

ana appro

P2 Education has an important role to improve the ana appro

quality of the human resources. ana appro

The main basic of the human resources is a character

that is developed.

ana appro

The development of character is gained by education. ana appro

The character that was built by education teach us to

be more better people.

ana appro

ana inappro

In this case, teaching socialization with society, cond inappro

116

ethic, growing the high spirit, and so on.

P3

Insight that was possessed also is

the main basic of

add appro

ana appro

the quality of ana appro

the human resources. ana appro

Same like character,

the insight

also can be gained by education.

ana inappro

ana appro

add appro

By this education,

we can get a new insight in every aspects of life.

cond appro

Education also can give a good opinion

about this life.

add appro

ana appro

P4 Nowadays, most education

more prioritizes the wide

insight then the development of character.

temp appro

ana appro

cat inappro

So,

the society thinks that by having

the good and wide insights, that is enough to develop

the quality of the human resources.

caus inappro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

But, the fact,

only the insight is not enough.

adv inappro

ana appro

The insight and character are the unity. ana appro

The goal that wants to be achieved can be achieved

with the

ana

appro

two main basics of n.s appro

the human resources gained by education. ana appro

Total 24 5 1 4 6 40

*appro = appropriate & inappro = inappropriate

ana.d: 24 cat.c: 1 temp: 2 cond: 3 appro: 33

ana.c: 4 caus: 1 add: 1 inappro: 7

117

Appendix 14

Essay 2

The Influence of Gadget in Education Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 Technology is always getting development.

One of them is gadget. n.s appro

Gadget is an innovation from the technology that has

special ability and good features.

ana appro

Nowadays, we often think of gadget

as Smartphone, tablet or laptop.

temp appro

var appro

Most children are common with gadget.

They use gadget for playing games

that can give negative effect for them.

ana appro

ana appro

P2 Gadget is a popular for children.

Most children have used gadget for playing games.

It can give negative ana appro

effect to them. ana appro

It can affect the learning interest of children. ana appro

Of course, it reduces ana appro

the interest and spirit of children to learn in the

school.

ana appro

Beside that,

if is viewed from social aspect,

it can make

the children become individual.

They will spend much time alone.

add inappro

cond inappro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

Of course, It is not good for children‟s development. ana appro

P3 The influence of gadget in children‟ environment is ana appro

118

so dangerous.

One of them is reducing the spirit of learning. n.s appro

The role of parents is needed to solve this problem. ana appro

The parents are hoped to able to control and

guide the children in using gadget.

ana appro

ana appro

For example,

giving the limitation to use the gadget with

the best features provided in the gadget.

app appro

ana appro

ana appro

P4 To conclude, the existence of gadget cannot be

avoid.

clar appro

It can influence

the children‟s learning interest,

Ø reduce

the children‟s spirit in learning,

and

Ø make

the children become individual,

because they spend much time playing games with gadget.

ana appro

ana appro

n.e appro

ana appro

add appro

n.e appro

ana appro

caus appro

ana appro

Total 17 8 2 2 3 3 35

ana.p: 15 caus: 1

ana.d: 8 temp: 1 appro: 33

n.e: 2 add: 2 inappro: 2

n.s: 2 cond: 1

app: 1 var: 1

clar: 1

119 Appendix 15

Essay 3

The Influence of Education for Human Life Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 Education is very important for human life.

Education is the main point that should be obtained

by many people in the world.

Because of that, it is important to know get

education

since they are born

since they die.

caus Appro

temp appro

ana appro

temp inappro

ana appro

If we as human have a good education,

we will get easy in everywhere

we live,

because it is the main supply to face

this life.

cond appro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

caus appro

ana appro

ana appro

We can easily adapt with the society

if we have a good education.

ana appro

cond appro

ana appro

Beside of that, education

also makes people to be smart.

add inappro

add appro

So, they can solve the problem

they face in life.

caus inappro

ana appro

ana appro

120

Because of the important of the education,

almost every aspect in this worlds are influenced by

education.

caus appro

ana appro

ana appro

P2 The first, education influences the human‟s attitude. temp appro

People who have a good education, they will have a

good attitude,

because the human‟s attitude can be created through

education.

ana appro

caus appro

ana appro

To keep our life

better,

we should have a good education.

The second, education can influence the job‟s world.

caus appro

cat appro

ana appro

ana appro

temp appro

We as human are required to have skills in

their field.

ana appro

ana inappro

For example,

if we take a look at the company.

app appro

cond inappro

ana appro

If we want to apply for job, most of the company asked

us to make curriculum Vitae known as CV.

cond appro

ana appro

ana appro

It describes

our educational background,

and the company

will accepted us

if our educational background are very good.

ana appro

ana appro

add appro

ana appro

ana appro

cond appro

ana appro

121 P3 The third, education can

influence our income.

temp appro

ana appro

If

we have a good education,

we will get easy to have high income,

because we have special thing

such as skill gained through education.

cond inappro

ana appro

ana appro

caus appro

ana appro

app appro

Because of that,

if we do not aware the important of education,

it may be the main factor

that make us to be a poor people.

caus appro

cond appro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

P4 In conclusion,

the education is very important,

because

it determines

our life in the future.

clar appro

ana appro

caus appro

ana appro

ana appro

It will be nice

if we get a good education

for the better life.

ana appro

cond appro

ana appro

ana appro

Total 35 5 2 3 3 22 70

ana.p: 34 add: 3 clar: 1 appro: 63

cat.p: 1 cond: 8 app: 2 inappro: 7

ana.d: 5 caus: 9

ana.c: 2 temp: 5

122 Appendix 16

Essay 4

The Important of Education Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 Education is very important in our life. cat appro

Without education, we will find difficult in facing

our life in a society.

ana appro

Moreover,

education should be given to our children

because by education our children are taught how to learn

and how to think critically

so that the children may take up independent learning

as an adult with their critical thinking.

add appro

ana appro

caus appro

ana appro

add appro

caus appro

ana inappro

ana appro

In this case, I will explain why education is

important in our society.

cond appro

P2 Education helps the children learn “how” to learn. ana appro

It is not about the knowledge

they accumulate,

it is the way

the children is taught how to “learn” things.

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

The children may come away from school not

knowing a lot of the course,

but

ana appro

conc

appro

if

they has been taught how to learn,

then

cond appro

ana appro

cond appro

123

they may become an adult ana appro

because they learn everything independently

what they needs

from their environment.

caus inappro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

P3 Education teaches the children how to think

critically.

If they are taught how to think critically,

they will be smart to choose

what good and bad for them.

ana appro

cond appro

ana appro

ana appro

ana

appro

For example, there are lots of posts and websites on

the internet about drugs

and how dangerous they are.

app appro

add appro

If the children are not taught how think critically

they cannot choose

whether drugs are dangerous or not

for them.

cond appro

ana appro

ana appro

var appro

ana appro

P4 To sum up, education is seen as important thing to

be given

to the children

because it helps

them how to learn

and how to think critically

so that the children may take up independent learning

as an adult with their critical thinking.

clar appro

ana appro

caus appro

ana appro

ana appro

add appro

caus appro

ana appro

ana appro

Then, caus appro

124

our society will become

more smarter country in the worlds.

ana appro

ana appro

Total 22 8 1 2 5 12 50

ana.p: 21 caus: 6

cat.p: 1 cond: 5

ana.d: 8 conc: 1

ana.c: 1 appro: 48

app: 1 inappro: 2

clar: 1

add: 4

125 Appendix 17

Essay 5

The Benefit of Internet for Learning Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 Internet is one of the effects of technology

development.

Internet is more used for learning and for another

needs

such as job needs.

ana appro

app

appro

The benefit of internet is more felt by the students,

because internet is one of the information resources

that is easy to be accessed.

caus

appro

P2 Now Internet has been used as a tool to fulfill the

learning needs.

temp appro

The information from the world can be gotten easily. ana appro

We can get information about everything that we

want to know.

ana appro

This matter facilitates ana appro

us in doing a task which was given by

teacher/lecturer,

ana appro

because basically caus appro

what we are looking for is ana appro

the information. ana appro

P3 Internet also is one of the sources to find the

references of the material book.

add appro

Every students does not need spending much time to

find the book references and money to buy a book.

We can access

ana appro

ana

appro

126

it easily and correctly with internet. ana appro

In addition, another benefit of internet for learning is

as self-learning media.

add appro

This means we do not need

to wait the teacher/lecturer

give the material.

app appro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

We can access

the material before.

ana appro

ana appro

So,

we easily understand

the material given by teacher/lecturer

if

we

already learn it.

caus appro

ana appro

ana appro

cond appro

ana appro

ana appro

P4 Interactive learning is commonly used in this era. ana appro

Interactive learning is accessed through internet and

Ø used as the communication tool for learning.

add appro

n.e appro

The students can directly communicate with the tutor

as what has been done in the class.

ana appro

ana appro

It is usually used by

the students who cannot study in the school.

ana appro

ana appro

They can get a new knowledge

about the material

and also they can interact with

the tutor.

ana appro

ana appro

add appro

ana appro

ana appro

P5 To take benefit of internet still need a control.

Many information which can be accessed is positive.

The negative is also accessed. add appro

127

For that, caus appro

we should choose the information ana appro

which is better ana appro

for us ana appro

so the unwanted thing will not happened. caus inappro

Total 16 12 3 1 2 5 7 46

ana.p: 16 add: 5 appro: 45

ana.d: 12 caus: 5 inappro: 1

ana.c: 3 ` cond: 1

n.e:1 temp: 1

app: 2

128 Appendix 18

Essay 6

English Education in Indonesia Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 In Indonesia, English becomes the crucial issue in

which it has a unique and important position in many

ways.

ana

appro

For example, in formal education, English becomes

a local content subject in elementary school

and Ø become a compulsory subject in high school

and even in university level, English is taught in

every majors.

app appro

add appro

n.e inappro

add appro

But, almost of university students

Especially

the students who take English education major find

difficult to speak English

although they have

studied it

since they entered junior high school even elementary

school.

adv inappro

clar appro

ana appro

conc appro

ana appro

ana appro

temp appro

ana appro

P2 This problem may be caused by Indonesian English

education system.

ana appro

Because when I was high school students, I was

taught only how to read and basic grammar

caus inappro

such as tense. app appro

The teacher did not engage the students to speak ana appro

129

English.

They tend to emphasize the grammatical rules.

Of course, it is

also important

but it is not interesting anymore

if

we just focus on grammatical only.

ana inappro

ana appro

add appro

conc appro

ana appro

cond appro

ana appro

We should know that many students start to study

English

with the hope they will be able to speak English

when they communicate

with their friends.

ana appro

caus inappro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

But, English environment is not interesting

so that they give up

their hope.

conc inappro

caus appro

ana appro

ana appro

P3 The question is why we must study much

grammatical rules.

It is because Indonesia education system leads

the students to be accurate

when they are writing

When they are communicating,

the Indonesia English education system tends to look

at formal language.

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

P4 In conclusion, Indonesia English education system

need

more emphasizing on how to communicate in

English

clar appro

ana appro

caus appro

130

so that it can educate

more students work in international stages.

ana appro

ana appro

Total 18 5 2 1 4 4 9 43


ana.d: 5 adv: 1 inappro: 6

ana.c: 2 caus: 4

n.e: 1 conc: 3

clar: 2 cond: 1

app:2 temp:1

131 Appendix 19

Essay 7

The New Curriculum Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 Nowadays, the term of curriculum becomes a hot

issue among people in Indonesia.

temp appro

Because, caus inappro

the new curriculum, 2013 curriculum, ana appro

has taken a place of the previous one called KTSP n.e appro

and add appro

it is used in schools. ana appro

P2 The changes of curriculum is viewed as natural

process in demanding of the development of human‟s

life.

ana appro

People now should be trained

in order to be able to face the challenge of the future

life.

temp appro

caus appro

At this point, curriculum should be able

to anticipate the changes,

because education is assumed as an appropriate way

to face the advancement of science and

technology that are faced now.

mat appro

ana appro

caus appro

temp

appro

If we look at the function of curriculum,

we know that curriculum is designed as a guide for

implementation of education.

cond appro

ana appro

Schools should develop the teaching program by

using curriculum as a guide.

P3 Indonesia is really dynamic in the process of ana appro

132

developing curriculum.

By many curriculum changes,

however,

it does not mean that the national goals have been

achieved already

or it does not mean that the curriculum really run well

as the concept,

but at least we can see that the government really cares

with the education by conducting

those efforts.

cond appro

adv inappro

ana

appro

var appro

ana appro

ana appro

conc appro

clar appro

ana appro

ana appro

The process of improvement of curriculum

until now known

as the 2013 curriculum which uses the scientific

approach.

It reflects that there is still a gap which occurs

between the concept and

the implementation of each curriculum

by which it affects the national goals.

ana appro

temp appro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

P4 To conclude,

the curriculum is always changed based on

the government policy especially the ministry of

education.

clar appro

ana appro

ana appro

However,

the change of curriculum should be based on the

goals and

the needs of Indonesian country with well

preparation.

adv appro

ana appro

ana

appro

Total 9 12 1 2 4 11 39

133 ana.p: 9 n.e: 1 add: 1 adv: 2 caus: 3 cond: 2 appro: 37

ana.d: 12 clar: 2 var:1 temp: 4 conc: 1 mat:1 inappro: 2

134 Appendix 20

Essay 8

National Examination Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 As a national standardized test, UN (national

examination) is addressed to all high school students

who sit in the third year (“grade twelve” for senior

high school or „grade nine‟ for junior high school).

var

appro

The existence of the national examination provides

positive as well as negative effects for people who

are involved.

ana appro

add appro

P2 The national examination is important to evaluate the

success of teaching and learning process in national

level.

ana appro

It can be used as one of the important inputs

as well as feedbacks for the government to formulate

programs for the improvement of national education

quality

ana appro

add appro

so that Indonesian‟s education caus appro

now has the national standard education systems in

the world.

temp appro

P3 However,

the national examination gives negative effect

because‟

this policy is considered to be „injustice.

Because the quality among schools across the

regions in Indonesia are not the same.

It seems

conc appro

ana appro

caus appro

ana appro

caus inappro

ana appro

ana appro

135

like unfair

if it is applied to all schools in Indonesia.

ana appro

cond appro

ana appro

It may be easy for

the schools that has a good facilities,

but it will be hard for schools

that haven’t.

ana appro

ana appro

adv appro

ana appro

v.e appro

They would be pressured by

the parents of the students to help

the students pass

the national examination.

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

This situation engages schools

or institutions to find a negative way to help

the students pass

the national examination.

ana appro

var appro

ana appro

ana appro

P4 In conclusion, clar appro

the national examination should be existed ana appro

but conc appro

it ana appro

also should consider that all schools in add appro

Indonesia are not the same. ana appro

So, clar appro

before applying this, ana appro

the government should improve ana appro

the schools that do not have a good facilities for

teaching and learning activities.

ana appro

Total 7 15 3 1 2 6 7 41

136 ana.p: 7 v.e:1 var: 2 caus: 3 appro: 40

ana.d: 15 clar: 2 adv: 1 temp: 1 inappro:1

ana.c: 3 add: 3 conc: 2 cond: 1

137 Appendix 21

Essay 9

Building Character Education Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 Nowadays, we are faced on the globalization era. temp appro

We can easily access the information from the

internet.

ana appro

Many people especially teenagers are influenced by

the negative effect gained from the internet.

clar appro

Their life deviate from the norm and moral values

such free sex, drug, and so on.

ana appro

app inappro

This attitudes exist

because they do not have a good education of character given

by their environments

such family, school, and society.

ana appro

caus appro

ana appro

ana appro

app inappro

So, character education is very important to be taught

in school

because it can give the benefits to

teenagers to be better.

clar appro

caus appro

ana appro

ana appro

P2 Character education will form teenagers‟ attitude to

be better.

ana appro

It is

due to they will be educated by giving the moral

values that should be applied in daily life

such how to respect

other people, how to socialize with

ana appro

caus appro

app inappro

ana appro

138

other people, and so on. ana appro

If cond appro

they get early character education in school, ana appro

it will be brought ana appro

until temp appro

they become adult. ana appro

Therefore, it is important to teach caus appro

the education of character earlier in school. ana appro

P3 Moreover, character education will engage teenagers

to have a good mental to

face their life in society

so they will not give up to face the real life that is very

dangerous

if

they

cannot face it.

add appro

ana appro

caus inappro

ana

appro

cond appro

ana appro

ana appro

The teenagers that have a good mental,

they will have the high self-confident

so they will easily get the success.

ana appro

ana appro

caus inappro

ana appro

P4 To conclude, character education is very important

to be applied in school earlier

because it gives the advantages for teenager to act morally

and Ø develop a good mental of

the teenager

in order to

face their life

clar

appro

caus appro

ana appro

add appro

n.e appro

ana appro

caus appro

ana appro

139

better. ana appro

Total 19 2 5 1 6 2 12 47

ana.p: 19 app:3 appro: 42

ana.d: 2 add:2 inappro: 5

ana.c: 5 caus: 8

n.e: 1 cond: 2

clar: 3 temp: 2

140 Appendix 22

Essay 10

Education Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 Education has becomes the hot issue for Indonesian

people.

It is mostly discussed in media. ana appro

It is

because education is assumed as the main factor to

create the harmonization of life.

ana appro

caus appro

P2 We know that most people are arrogant because

they do not have a good education

to form themselves

more better.

caus appro

ana appro

ana

inappro

They do not know how to

respect other people.

ana appro

ana appro

They do not know

that they cannot live

without other people in society.

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

They do not know that arrogant

can lead them to the bad things

such as not being respected, not having friends, and

so on.

ana appro

ana appro

app appro

P3 Without education, people will find out difficult to

get a job.

It is

because education is the main criteria when you want

to

ana appro

ana appro

ana

141

apply the job. appro

It also shows

whether you have skill or not.

ana appro

add appro

var appro

It also reflects that you are educated proved by

certificate as the legalization.

ana appro

add appro

P4 Moreover, people who do not have a good education

will be underestimated by

people around them

when they live in the society.

add appro

ana appro

ana appro

For example, when people want to make program

for socialization,

then people who do not have a good education will

not be included

in that program as member of act.

app appro

caus appro

ana

appro

P5 In conclusion, education is important to give identity

of people as human being in social life

clar appro

Total 15 1 3 3 4 3 29

ana.p: 15 app: 2 appro: 28

ana.d: 1 caus: 3 inappro:1

ana.c: 3

clar: 1

142 Appendix 23

Essay 11

Traditional Market Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 Traditional roots are a place of social interaction

between traders and buyers.

The process of buying and selling is usually through

the process of bargaining the price,

and the price given for a good is not a fixed price,

in another sense still negotiable,

this is very different from the modern market.

ana appro

add appro

ana appro

app inappro

ana inappro

P2 One characteristic of traditional markets are some of

them using tents where vendors market their wares,

as well as buyers who walk back and forth to choose

and bid for items to buy.

ana

appro

ana appro

add appro

We take due to

the traditional market

such as can tighten the togetherness rope against

fellow buyers commonly discussed when meeting at

market.

caus appro

ana appro

app inappro

P3 The traditional market is often treated unfair

by this local government.

ana appro

ana appro

We can find the policy of regent / mayor who does

not side with small traders,

ana appro

for example in kec. Tanjung pura langkat modern

market is present in the middle of the traditional

app appro

143

market of 4 minimarkets (indomaret, alfamart,

alfamidi)

where their presence is open together with traditional

markets

ana appro

i.e. at 8:00 pm app appro

they have opened a mini market until 24 o'clock WIB

can reduce the income received By small traders who

are in existing traditional markets.

ana appro

P4 Many of the relocations done by local governments

harm traditional market traders.

Often we encounter traditional market traders in

relocation to inappropriate, watery, muddy and non-

standard places

and

Ø not in accordance with existing markets,

should the local government prior to relocate

should pay attention to several aspects such as

community aspect is the values that must be defended

by the government and local community.

ana

appro

add appro

v.e appro

app inappro

Environmental aspect, the government must pay

attention to the environment where the new market is

able to accommodate all existing traders and

communities.

ana appro

Total 6 7 1 5 3 1 23

ana.p: 6 app: 5 appro:19

ana.d:7 add: 3 inappro: 4

v.e:1 caus: 1

144 Appendix 24

Essay 12

Indonesia’s Economy in Future Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 Now days, Indonesia have problem on organizing

economic and how to survive

by itself to confront the economy‟s development.

temp appro

add appro

Indonesia has to prepare for competition in economic

with another country.

ana appro

Many problems in economy influence Indonesian

growth and

Ø begin a biggest problem.

add appro

n.e appro

Indonesia has to make alteration for economy,

like a policy in economy

and the rule can make every single in economy

system.

ana inappro

add inappro

P2 Economy is a thing that influence the development of

a country.

A country mentioned growth well if

it economy has improved.

cond appro

ana inappro

The economy mentioned good

if

it has a good organizing and application in economy,

so that we have to prepare

a better and best formula

for this problem.

ana appro

cond appro

ana appro

caus inappro

ana inappro

ana appro

Economy is a thing that important around the world.

Every country prepare their selves

ana inappro

145

for the economy change. ana appro

A great formula has to create by all countries,

so that the economy can improve and all of people

can feel

better in

their life.

caus inappro

ana appro

ana appro

P3 Economy is a central focus on a country.

If the economy

is better

it is means

the country was successful.

cond inappro

ana appro

ana appro

ana inappro

ana appro

For successful economy,

Ø need

a better organizing,

Ø maybe to get

this formula,

Indonesia has to see to the other countries,

that was successful in economy, like USA and

the others.

caus appro

n.e inappro

ana appro

n.e inappro

ana appro

ana inappro

ana inappro

ana appro

USA popular with their great economy,

so all of people in USA have a good grade

in their whole life,

if Indonesia imitate a little formula

or strategy from USA maybe

it can change

to be better.

ana appro

caus appro

ana appro

cond inappro

var appro

ana appro

ana appro

Every country can imitate this,

but we have to adjust

what we have

ana appro

conc appro

c.s appro

146

and

what USA has.

add appro

c.s appro

P4 We can take a conclusion

from this problem.

clar appro

ana appro

Economy still be a biggest problem in our country

Indonesia.

ana

The economy‟s system is an important thing and the

crucial thing in Indonesia.

ana appro

To increase it caus appro

we have make any changes in ana appro

our economy‟s system and organizing, ana appro

so caus appro

we can apply many new formulas and rules ana appro

that make an economy will be better and spread

bitterly.

ana appro

Total 14 7 11 2 2 1 5 12 54

ana.p: 14 clar: 1 temp: 1 appro: 40

ana.d:7 add: 4 cond: 4 inappro: 14

ana.c: 11 var: 1

c.s: 2 caus: 6

n.s: 2 conc: 1

147 Appendix 25

Essay 13

Economic Development of Indonesia Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 Many people say that Indonesia is not yet fully

developed country, because

its economic development is still low

compared to other countries.

caus

appro

ana appro

ana appro

Then, what exactly is the understanding of economic

development ?.

temp appro

The picture of a country that is said to be successful

economic development is the decreasing of

unemployment and poverty rate, increasing of

society's income,

and the quality of human resources is increasing with

marked by the increasing of education level

and the decreasing of children who drop out of

school.

add appro

add

appro

P2 There is one important element in building the

nation's economy.

The first is development as a process. temp appro

Its meaning is development

Ø is a stage

that must be undertaken by any or all society.

ana appro

n.e inappro

clar appro

For example, people are born, not directly into

adults,

but it takes several stages to become an adult.

app

appro

adv appro

ana inappro

148

Similarly, every nation must go through the stages of

development to become a prosperous nation.

comp appro

Economic development desperately needs the

encouragement or enthusiasm of

var

appro

its people, by improving the quality of self. ana inappro

P3 Economic development is one area of life that

continues to be developed throughout the world, not

least Indonesia.

The purpose of economic development is to achieve

the prosperity of all people in a country.

To achieve

these objectives, of course the state is willing to

spend large funds to build economic facilities and

infrastructure.

caus appro

ana appro

In Indonesia economic development has been

implemented since the independence period

until the current reform era.

temp appro

temp appro

Every time the government changes, the policy in the

field of economic development has always changed

until today.

ana appro

P4 To conclude, economic development in Indonesia is

still in

the development stage towards

a better economy.

clar appro

ana appro

ana appro

The objectives of economic development are to

improve the quality of a country.

ana appro

One of them is to increase human resources

to be more advanced.

ana appro

ana appro

Improve the quality of society to be better. ana appro

And eradicate the things that greatly affect add inappro

149

the economic development in Indonesia. ana appro

Total 5 5 4 1 3 5 7 30

ana.p: 5 ana.d: 5 var: 1 comp: 1 appro: 27

ana.c: 4 n.e: 1 clar: 2 temp: 4 inappro: 3

app: 1 add: 3 adv: 1 caus: 2

150 Appendix 26

Essay 14

Economy in Indonesia Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 When I look at the current economy, it is

the need of economic is higher

but the productivity is reduced.

ana appro

ana appro

adv appro

But indeed whatever happens

around us,

it will surely come

back to ourselves

good or bad will be felt

by ourselves.

conc inappro

clar inappro

cat appro

ana appro

cat appro

var inappro

cat appro

Now we have to pay attention

or ask

ourselves,

how our economy is

good or bad.

temp appro

ana appro

var appro

ana appro

ana appro

var inappro

If it is good

whether we all can

already feel it

or not.

cond inappro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

var appro

Then what about the officials who are in charge of temp inappro

151

running the Indonesian economy,

have they done

their best, that is

what we will

discuss now.

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

temp appro

P2 It can be ascertained if

our productive economy will guarantee the

prosperity and prosperity of all parties,

especially the people of Indonesia.

cond appro

ana

clar

appro

What we can see

right now is the opposite.

ana appro

temp appro

Lots of reasons and obstacles in it that's for sure,

and it will have a very lasting impact.

ana appro

add appro

ana appro

P3 When viewed in terms of human resources, humans

are one of the most important figures in the

economic process.

ana appro

”Why?”, Because

it is the human

who guarantees the advancement of the economy

either as an official or a community.

caus inappro

ana appro

ana appro

var appro

The importance of increasing the power of human

thought of responsibility is primarily what must be

inculcated.

Because most of the fall of the Indonesian economy

fell

because the Indonesian economy is largely held by people

who are not responsible.

caus inappro

caus

inappro

ana

P4 Here should be emphasized on the importance of mat appro

152

education.

Decreased morale because

it is caused

by those who are not educated

or because people who do not understand the meaning

of education.

caus

inappro

ana appro

n.s appro

var appro

caus inappro

P5 So we can

conclude,

because seeing

our Indonesian economy is

back to ourselves.

clar inappro

ana appro

clar appro

caus inappro

ana appro

ana appro

Be responsible human beings.

It is common knowledge that humans are competing

to become successful people

and Ø can make people happy

around them.

ana appro

add

appro

n.e appro

ana appro

Look for money for it all,

but keep

it running on the rules and regulations that apply.

Not in the name of volition.

ana appro

conc inappro

ana appro

Because the life of the economy is not running on

your own will.

caus inappro

Total 28 2 1 2 3 9 15 60

ana.p: 25 ana.c: 1 clar: 3 conc: 2 adv: 1 appro:44

cat.p: 3 n.s: 2 add: 2 cond: 2 mat:1 inappro: 16

ana.d: 2 var: 6 temp: 4 caus: 7

153 Appendix 27

Essay 15

Economis Development in Indonesia Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 Indonesia is one of a big country from many country

in south-east Asian.

The economics development in Indonesia become a

reason why Indonesia can become one of a big

country from many country in Indonesia.

One of a criteria from the economics development is

the development of human‟s life in Indonesia.

ana appro

All Indonesian people is have a good condition in

economics view.

Then, Indonesia is one of a big country from many

country in south-east Asian,

but

temp appro

conc appro

Ø has a good economics development. n.e appro

P2 Before a liberty of Indonesia, Indonesia have a worst

condition too in economics development.

Netherlands and Japan have a control over in

Indonesian‟ economics before the liberty of

Indonesia.

In Netherlands period, Indonesian economics was

very disorder to

describe it by a word.

Japan period was not

other than Netherlands period.

temp appro

ana

appro

temp appro

cat inappro

In both of these period, all period was made an ana appro

154

Indonesian

people become a servant in their own country.

ana appro

Indonesia never have a good economics before the

liberty.

P3 Soekarno brought Indonesia become a great country

in the world

and Ø become a country that redoubtable

in the world in his government.

add appro

n.e appro

ana appro

Soekarno’ era, Indonesia embraced a guided

economy.

This system is a system that a leader or a president

directly involved to

the economics system.

temp Inappro

ana appro

ana

appro

Soekarno refused all foreign trade in his government

era.

ana appro

Soekarno‟ government was the best government after

the liberty of Indonesia.

ana appro

Economics development in Indonesia is good,

but Ø not

as good as

others countries in Asian.

conc appro

v.e appro

cat appro

cat inappro

P4 A good development is not enough to make

Indonesia become the country that has a first ranking

in Asian.

ana

appro

According to my opinion,

The development of economics in Indonesia has a

good development,

but

app appro

ana appro

conc appro

155

Ø not enough to rival

another countries in Asian.

v.e appro

cat appro

Total 5 6 4 2 2 1 1 7 28

ana.p: 5 app: 1 appro:25

ana.d: 6 add: 1 inappro: 3

cat.c: 4 temp: 4

v.e: 2 conc: 3

n.e: 2

156 Appendix 28

Essay 16

Economic Problems in Indonesia Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 Economy is defined as a social domain that

emphasizes the practices, discourses, and material

expressions associated with the production, use, and

management of resources.

However, Indonesia economic still have many

problems in some aspects.

conc appro

P2 Economy is the result of a set of processes that

involves its culture, values, education, technological

evolution, history, social organization, political

structure and legal systems.

ana

appro

These factors give context, content, and set the

conditions and parameters in which an economy

functions.

ana appro

In other words,

the economic domain is a social domain of human

practices and transactions.

app appro

ana appro

It does not stand alone. ana appro

P3 Economic growth in Indonesia is actually very good.

But because of the inadequate system of government,

the economy is slowing down.

adv inappro

ana appro

Such as the system of contracts that apply to large

companies in Indonesia.

app inappro

They do not want to hire the power of a young man

who is still strong.

ana appro

157

For that,

their main power is needed in the production of the

company.

caus appro

ana appro

P4 The resources in Indonesia are very already adequate

but the place to accommodate

the resources is not enough.

ana appro

conc appro

ana appro

If

the government pay attention to the Indonesian

workforce,

surely the Indonesian workers do not need to go abroad to

find work again.

cond appro

ana appro

clar

appro

ana appro

Many Indonesian workers already have families,

but they leave

their families

conc appro

ana appro

ana appro

and add appro

Ø go abroad to find work. n.e appro

P5 The government must be

more creative to create jobs for new graduates who

are ready to work.

ana appro

ana appro

And the government must be firm against the illegal

foreign workforce.

add inappro

ana appro

Because there are still many workers who are illegal

and they can enter

caus inappro

add appro

ana appro

and add appro

Ø work in Indonesia. n.e appro

If only cond appro

158

the government firmly,

then

it probably will not happen.

ana appro

cond appro

ana appro

And should the unemployment rate in Indonesia

decrease.

add inappro

Total 14 4 1 2 3 6 8 38

ana.p: 14 app: 2 cond: 3 appro: 33

ana.d: 4 clar: 1 caus: 2 inappro: 5

ana.c: 1 add: 5 conc: 3

n.e: 2 adv: 1

159 Appendix 29

Essay 17

Digital Economic Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 Economy is an area of the production, distribution, or

trade, and consumption of goods and service by

different agents in a given geographical location.

var inappro

Or var inappro

in the simple definition, economy is a social domain

that emphasizes the practice, discourse, and material

expressions associated with the production, use, and

management of resources.

app appro

Then digital usually refers to something using digits,

particularly binary digits.

temp inappro

Or

today, we can understand

that digital also related with the electronic devices

and most using the latest technology.

var inappro

temp appro

add appro

so then,

the digital economy is an economy that bassed on

digital computing technologies.

caus inappro

ana appro

P2 Generally, the growth of Indonesian economy last

five years looked so slow.

clar appro

But

today, when we talk about

the growth of Indonesian e-commerce industry,

it is the opposite of the ordinary economy.

adv inappro

temp appro

ana appro

ana appro

Because e-commerce in Indonesia grow very fast. caus inappro

160

And Indonesia rated as a country that has a big

opportunity to be the biggest e-commerce country in

Shoutheast Asia.

add inappro

Because most of them as the e-commerce subjects are the

people with a small scale bussiness

which is those bussiness have a great strength to stay

stand even in the crucial condition.

caus inappro

cat appro

ana

appro

P3 When we discuss about

the digital economy,

it really has a tight relation between the internet users

and internet itself.

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

Cause all of the digital economy runs in the internet

area.

caus inappro

Though like that,

it does not mean the advantages

that there is not only for the internet itself or the

internet users,

but when the commerce is done digitally,

it also gives the advantages for the delivery service,

telecommunication provider,

the smartphone or technology devices producer, and

internet provider itself.

conc inappro

ana appro

var

appro

adv appro

ana appro

add appro

var

inappro

P4 Not only the facility for the e-commerce runner,

the economy ministry and the goverment

also designed the five principles to prove this e-

commerce.

Such as all Indonesian people should has a

same opportunity to access the internet to join the e-

ana

appro

add

inappro

app inappro

ana inappro

161

commerce,

then the Indonesian people must have an edaquate

knowledge to utilize

this technology era for economy,

then minimize lossing of employment and so on.

caus appro

ana

appro

ana appro

caus inappro

P5 So according to this condition, Indonesian people

should realize and support Indoensian e-commerce.

clar inappro

cond appro

To realize creating Indonesia as the biggest e-

commerce country in Southeast Asia, Indonesia has a

very big potential to reach it.

ana

appro

Then with the workshop and roadmap that

government will provide later,

it hoped will improve

this country in the world economy.

temp inappro

ana inappro

ana appro

Total 9 7 1 4 11 12 44

ana.p:8 app: 2 adv: 2 conc: 1 appro: 23

cat.p: 1 clar: 2 temp: 4 inappro: 19

ana.d: 7 var: 5 cond: 1

ana.c:1 add: 4 caus: 6

162 Appendix 30

Essay 18

The Preparation in Facing MEA Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 Indonesia is one of the members of Masyarakat

Ekonomi ASEAN (MEA).

In this fact,

we have to be ready to face it,

whether we like it

or not,

ready or not,

is no longer a matter that must be debated

because MEA has become a decision and the

determinaton of ASEAN countries,

and Indonesia must be ready to face

the MEA.

cond inappro

ana appro

ana appro

var appro

var

inappro

caus appro

add appro

ana appro

P2 The preparation must be balanced with the excellent

Indonesian human resources that can compete with

other countries in the MEA.

ana

appro

This is the role of government to create strategy in

creating human resources for quality improvement.

ana appro

Not only the government,

we as the young generations should be sensitive to

the realization of

the MEA

because of the influence of the implementation of

this MEA will affect various fields, economic,

education, and so on.

add inappro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

caus inappro

ana appro

163 P3 Indonesia has a lot of wealths in human resources

and natural resources,

but the government and the society are

not able enough to optimize it.

conc appro

ana appro

So, it is

our duty to be able to manage

the natural resources

and human resources with as optimal as possible

in order to provide great benefits to

this country

and Ø be able to compete

with other countries.

caus appro

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

caus inappro

caus appro

ana appro

add appro

n.e appro

ana appro

It will not run smoothly

if

it is not based on a strong spirit, courage and

independence.

ana appro

cond appro

ana appro

Therefore; courage, independence and strong spirit

both from

caus inappro

the government that makes policies ana appro

and people who run the policy are needed to realize

the efforts.

add appro

P4 We can

conclude from

the facts that MEA demands the Indonesian people

to be able to compete in any aspect

whether economic, educational, or socio-cultural.

ana appro

clar appro

caus inappro

var

appro

We must believe that the creativity of the young

generations are able to bring Indonesia to be the

ana appro

164

developed country

so that not only for earn the status of developing country,

because essentialy the abundance of natural

resources is not enough

caus

appro

add inappro

caus inappro

if cond appro

it is not supported by competent human resources in

science and technology .

ana appro

Total 13 6 2 1 1 8 13 44


ana.d: 6 var: 3 inappro: 9

ana.c: 2 cond: 3

n.e: 1 caus: 9

clar:1 conce: 1

165 Appendix 31

Essay 19

Poverty in Indonesia Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 Poverty is a humanitarian problem that has been

worldwide and

Ø is still a central issue in any hemisphere.

add

appro

n.e appro

Indonesia is one of the developing countries in the

economic crisis.

Various aspects of poverty in Indonesia.

Poverty can be caused by a scarcity of basic needs

fulfillment tools

or difficult access to jobs and education.

var

appro

Cause high number of children who drop out of

school

or unemployed in Indonesia.

caus inappro

var

appro

P2 Indonesia is one of the countries that adheres to the

concept of free market.

ana appro

The number of policy packages issued for the benefit

of the investor class or investor.

Generally the impact of the global crisis for

Indonesia is very clear.

clar appro

Since temp appro

the global crisis, Indonesia's economic growth has

decreased.

ana appro

On the other hand, Indonesia is

also experiencing a high level of dependence on

foreign markets.

conc appro

add appro

166 P3 In general,

the causes of poverty that is

now happening in Indonesia is due to several factors

such as low wages, low labor, low quality of human

resources and so forth.

clar appro

ana appro

temp appro

app appro

Corruption is one of the most famous factors today. temp appro

In the political world in Indonesia it is very unstable.

clar appro

ana ianappro

So officials, rich ministers are getting richer, and vice

versa.

caus ianappro

His lack of consciousness in terms of sharing and

lacking human gratitude.

ana inappro

All these factors are very influential,

so it is difficult to ascertain the main cause of the

problem of poverty in Indonesia.

ana appro

caus appro

ana appro

P4 Every case that has a cause then we will know

the consequences or impact.

caus inappro

var appro

From the discussion of

the problem of poverty in Indonesia,

many of its aspects and factors.

clar appro

ana appro

ana appro

From this

we will know some of

the consequences

or impacts,

such as the low level of education and

clar appro

ana appro

ana appro

var appro

app appro

the many children who drop out of school. ana appro

So many workers are still small

or not yet qualified workers

and many of his unemployment.

clar inappro

var inappro

ana inappro

167

Therefore, we as a young generation as

the successor of the nation must act or

think about this.

clar appro

ana appro

var appro

ana appro

Because

otherwise

we are moving,

then who will move.

caus inappro

cond inappro

ana appro

temp inappro

Do the best thing for the country as our home. ana appro

Total 10 7 1 9 8 11 46

ana.p: 9 var: 6 appro: 35

ana.d: 7 add: 2 Inappro: 11

n.e:1 temp: 4

clar: 7 cond: 1

app: 2 caus: 5

conc: 1

168 Appendix 32

Essay 20

Advantages and Disadvantages of

E_Commerce in indonesia

Ref. Ell./Sub. Conj. Category


P1 Nowadays, the activities of economy not only take

place on the market

temp appro

that proves us to meet face to face with the sellers

and consumers.

cat appro

But we can

also do economy activities

without meet them face to face,

it calls e-commerce.

ana inappro

add appro

ana appro

ana appro

E-commerce is a transaction of buying or selling

online.

var appro

Indonesia is famous as consumptive country.

It makes e-commerce easily raised in Indonesia

and

Ø become interested.

ana appro

add appro

n.e appro

But what are the advantages

and disadvantages of e-commerce for us?

conc inappro

ana appro

P2 There are three advantages of e-commerce in

Indonesia.

First,

it is easy to use.

temp appro

ana appro

We can do transaction

in our house without meet

seller or consumer.

ana appro

ana appro

var appro

Just check and choose it via internet and deal the ana appro

169

transaction via mobile.

Second, it does not

waste our time.

temp appro

ana appro

ana appro

Of course, when we do online shopping,

we just stay in

our place and browsing the goods via online.

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

Third advantages is low cost. temp appro

To make e-commerce business is low cost,

because the businessman should not pay the rent

place

like usual commerce.

caus appro

ana

inappro

They just need gadget and

Ø adequate pulse to get online

and

Ø deal with consumers.

ana Inappro

v.e appro

add appro

n.e appro

P3 Beside of those advantages, there are disadvantages of e-

commerce.

add inappro

ana appro

First, there are many deception. temp appro

Sometime the seller cheating

the consumers

with post the goods picture

that Ø

not equal with the good itself.

ana appro

ana appro

ana appro

v.e inappro

ana appro

ana appro

Second disadvantage is low consumer intention to

buy by commerce.

temp appro

As the e-commerce gain the usual comers fall. ana appro

It ana appro

170

because many consumers

more choose e-commerce than commerce.

caus inappro

cat appro

And

it cause

the seller earn

few many than usual.

add inappro

ana appro

ana appro

cat inappro

P4 We can

conclude that e-commerce has influenced the

Indonesian economy.

ana appro

clar appro

Sometime it had advantages

and sometime it had disadvantages.

ana appro

add appro

ana appro

We can choose which one are

best based on our own.

ana appro

ana appro

We as a consumer preferable to chose

That

both kind.

ana appro

ana inappro

n.s inappro

24 8 4 1 3 1 8 9 58

ana.p: 23 v.e: 1 var: 2 appro: 47

cat.p: 1 n.e: 2 caus: 2 inappro: 11

ana.d: 8 n.s: 1 temp: 6

ana.c: 2 clar: 1 conc: 1

cat.c: 2 add: 6

171

171

SYLLABUS AND TEACHING INSTRUCTION UNIT

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

BOGOR IBN KHALDUN UNIVERSITY

I. Course Identity

Subject : Writing in Professional 1

Code :

Semester : 4

Credits : 2

Lecturer :

II. Course Description Writing in Professional is designed to give students deepest

knowledge and understanding of the types of essay

development such as comparison and contrast essays, cause

and effect eassays, argumentive essays, expository essays

and others. Students are also given special skills of writing,

such as preparing a summary, writing a report, writing a

resume using a library, and writing a research paper. The aim

of this course is to enable students to write long essays in

order to encourage them to write 6-10 paragraph

approximately 1000 words.

III. Learning Outcomes Students write long essays 6-10 paragraph, approximately 1000 words.

IV. Course Topics

Weeks Topic

1 The Process of Academic Writing, from paragraph to essay

2 The Introductory Paragraph

3 Body Paragraph

4 Transition Signals between Paragraphs

5 The Concluding Paragraph

6 The First Draft, Essay Outlining

7 Review

8 Mid Test

9 Chronological Order: Process Essays

10 Cause / Effect Essays

11 Comparison / Contrast Essays

12 Paraphrases and Summary

13 References

14 The students are able to complete final assignment

172

172

15 Review

16 Final Test

V. Evaluation Components

The 80% attendance is a prerequisite to sit for final course examination.

The course will be evaluated on the basis of the following

percentage of components:

Attendance : 10%

Participations and assignments : 15%

Mid-term test : 25%

Final-term test : 50%

Total : 100%

Score Interval NO Score Alphabetical

score

Numerical

Score

Qualification

1. > 83 - 100 A 4 Outstanding

2. > 76 - < 83 AB 3,5 Excellent

3. > 69 - < 76 B 3 Good

4. > 62 - < 69 BC 2,5 Fair

5. > 55 - < 62 C 2 Satisfactory

6. > 48 - < 55 CD 1,5 Pass

7 > 41 - < 48 D 1 Poor

8. < 41 E 0 Fail

VI. References

Alice Oshima and Ann Hogue. 2006. Writing Academic English, Fourth

Edition.White Plains: Pearson Education, Inc

173

173

TEACHING INSTRUCTION UNIT

A. Course Identity

Subject : Writing in Professional 1

Code :

Semester : 4

Credits : 2

Lecturer :

N

O

TENTAT

IVE

SCHEDU

LE

(WEEKS

)

COMPETEN

CY

MAIN

TOPICS

SUB

TOPICS

APPROAC

HES AND

METHOD

S

TIME

ALLOT

MENT

ASSIGNMENT

S

(1

SEMESTER)

EVALUATIO

N

(INDICATOR,

CRITERIA)

MEDIA &

REFEREN

CES

1 1 The students are knowing the process of Writing from paragraph to Essay

Introduction

to the course

and learning

contract

- 2 x 40’ Build an Essay

consist of 6-10

paragraph or

approximately

1000 words

Students

Comprehend the

syllabus and

learning contract

Modul,

Infocus,

syllabus,

TIU, Oshima

Hougue’s

book

2 2 The write an introductory paragraph and review about their paragraph writing

2. The

Introductory

Paragraph

2.1 General

Stements

and thesis

statement

CLT:

Communica

tive

Language

Teaching

2 x 40’ Writing practice

on Module

Students

construct

Introductory

paragraph

Modul,

Infocus,

syllabus,

TIU, Oshima

Hougue’s

book

3 3 The students 3. Body 3.1 CLT: 2 x 40’ Writing practice Students Modul,

174

174

recognize and write the patterns of Body paragraph

Paragraph Thesis Statement for Logical Divison of Ideas

Communica

tive

Language

Teaching

on Module construct body

paragraphs, and Write Thesis Statement for Logical Divison of Ideas

Infocus,

syllabus,

TIU, Oshima

Hougue’s

book

4 4 Students use transition signals between paragraph

4.

Transition

Signals

between

Paragraphs

4.1

Examples of

Transition

siglnas

CLT:

Communica

tive

Language

Teaching


on Module Students use transition signals between paragraph

Modul,

Infocus,

syllabus,

TIU, Oshima

Hougue’s

book

5 5 The students write concluding paragraph

5. The

Concluding

Paragraph

5.1 Three

ways of

writing

concluding

paragraph

CLT:

Communica

tive

Language

Teaching


on Module The students write a good concluding paragraph

Modul,

Infocus,

syllabus,

TIU, Oshima

Hougue’s

book

6 6 The students write the outline of Essay

6. The First

Draft, Essay

Outlining

6.1 block

organization

on chain

organization

CLT:

Communica

tive

Language

Teaching


on Module

Students

construct outline

of Essay

Modul,

Infocus,

syllabus,

TIU, Oshima

Hougue’s

book

7 7 The students write the thesis statement for a process essay, Improve the outline

Review -

CLT:

Communica

tive

Language

Teaching


on Module

Students create

outline of the

essay by writing

thesis stements,

topic sentences

and concluding

Modul,

Infocus,

syllabus,

TIU, Oshima

Hougue’s

book

175

175

become Essay sentences

8 8 The students write the outline of Essay, consist of 6-10 paragraphs

Mid Test - 90’ Module,

Assessment test The students are able to write the outline of Essay, consist of 6-10 paragraphs

9 9 The students write the thesis statement for a process essay, Improve the outline become Essay

Chronological Order: Process Essay

9.1 Complex

sentences:

with adverb

and

adjective

clause

CLT:

Communica

tive

Language

Teaching


on Module

Students build

chrolological

essay

Diary,

Modul,

Infocus,

syllabus,

TIU, Oshima

Hougue’s

book

1

0

10 The students are able to review and check the organization of the essay

Cause and Effect Essay: Chain Organization

10.1

Complex

sentences

with noun

clause

CLT:

Communica

tive

Language

Teaching


on Module

Students build

cause-effect

essay

Diary,

Modul,

Infocus,

syllabus,

TIU, Oshima

Hougue’s

book

1

1

11 Students are able to know the structure of Comparison/

Comparison

/ Contrast

Essay: Point

by Point

11.1

Compound-

complex

sentences

CLT:

Communica

tive

Language

Teaching


on Module

Students build

comparison /

contrast essay

Diary,

Modul,

Infocus,

syllabus,

TIU, Oshima

Hougue’s

176

176

contrast Essay Organization book

1

2

12 Students write Comparison/ contrast Essay

Comparison / Contrast Essay: Point by Point Organization

12.1

Parralel

structures:

with

coordinator

CLT:

Communica

tive

Language

Teaching


on Module

Students

construct

parallel structure

with coordinator

Diary,

Modul,

Infocus,

syllabus,

TIU, Oshima

Hougue’s

book

1

3

13 Quotation: Paraphrasing and summary

Quotation: Paraphrases and Summary

13.1

Technique

of

paraphrasing

and

summary

CLT:

Communica

tive

Language

Teaching


on Module

Students use

quotation:

paraphrase and

summary

Diary,

Modul,

Infocus,

syllabus,

TIU, Oshima

Hougue’s

book

1

4

Students complete the information from the references

The Final Draft

14.1

Reviewing

and Revising

CLT:

Communica

tive

Language

Teaching


on Module

Students

complete the

references

Diary,

Modul,

Infocus,

syllabus,

TIU, Oshima

Hougue’s

book

1

5

15 reviewing the final assignment

Project based Students

complete

their essays

CLT:

Communica

tive

Language

Teaching

2 x 40’ Complete the

writing practice

on module

Students

produce essays

Diary,

Modul,

Infocus,

syllabus,

TIU, Oshima

Hougue’s

book

1

6

16 Students write

long essays 6-

Final

Examination

- 90’ Project based

Assessment

177

177

B. Learning Outcomes:

Students write long essays 6-10 paragraph, approximately 1000 words.

Bogor, Maret 2017

Team Teaching

8 paragraph,

approximately

1000 words.

178

178

INVESTIGATION OF GRAMMATICAL COHESION ON...

Documents

Transcript of INVESTIGATION OF GRAMMATICAL COHESION ON...