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 14 Text Analysis Essay 2 ......................................................................... 117
Appendix 15 Text Analysis Essay 3 ......................................................................... 119
Appendix 16 Text Analysis Essay 4 ......................................................................... 122
Appendix 17 Text Analysis Essay 5 ......................................................................... 125
Appendix 18 Text Analysis Essay 6 ......................................................................... 128
Appendix 19 Text Analysis Essay 7 ......................................................................... 131
Appendix 20 Text Analysis Essay 8 ......................................................................... 134
Appendix 21 Text Analysis Essay 9 ......................................................................... 137
Appendix 22 Text Analysis Essay 10 ....................................................................... 140
Appendix 23 Text Analysis Essay 11 ....................................................................... 142
Appendix 24 Text Analysis Essay 12 ...................................................................... 144
Appendix 25 Text Analysis Essay 13 ...................................................................... 147
Appendix 26 Text Analysis Essay 14 ....................................................................... 150
Appendix 27 Text Analysis Essay 15 ....................................................................... 153
Appendix 28 Text Analysis Essay 16 ....................................................................... 156
Appendix 29 Text Analysis Essay 17 ....................................................................... 159
Appendix 30 Text Analysis Essay 18 ....................................................................... 162
Appendix 31 Text Analysis Essay 19 ...................................................................... 165
Appendix 32 Text Analysis Essay 20 ....................................................................... 168
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)
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,
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
Grammatical Cohesive Features Used in Academic Essay Writing
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%
Grammatical Cohesive Features Used in Academic Essay Writing
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.”
(Retrieved from essay 2: P2)
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.”
(Retrieved from essay 2: P2)
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
Cresswell, J. W. (2012). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approach (4th ed.). London: Sage Publication, Inc.
Cresswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
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.
http://essayinfo.com/essays/exploratory_essay.php
http://essayinfo.com/essays/persuasive_essay.php
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
Duration : 7 minutes
Interviewer : TR
Interviewee : AF
Abbreviation:
Interlingual Transfer (mother tongue interference) : MI
Intralingual Transfer (overgeneralization) : OV
Context of Learning : CL
Speaker (s) Transcribed Dialog Topic
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
Project : Inquiring Students’ Error Causes
Date : June 12, 2017
Place : Class of English Department in UIKA
Time : 13.00
Duration : 8 minutes
Interviewer : TR
Interviewee : AP
Abbreviation
Interlingual Transfer (mother tongue interference) : MI
Intralingual Transfer (overgeneralization) : OV
Context of Learning : CL
Speaker (s) Transcribed Dialog Topic
TR:
AP:
TR:
AP:
TR:
AP:
TR:
AP:
TR:
AP:
Coba lihat kata yang saya garis bawahi, apa kesalahan
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.
Apa yang membuatmu kesulitan?
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.
Menurut anda apakah bahasa ibu (bahasa pertama)
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
Project : Inquiring Students’ Error Causes
Date : June 12, 2017
Place : Class of English Department in UIKA
Time : 13.00
Duration : 6 minutes
Interviewer : TR
Interviewee : KR
Abbreviation
Interlingual Transfer (mother tongue interference) : MI
Intralingual Transfer (overgeneralization) : OV
Context of Learning : CL
Speaker (s) Transcribed Dialog Topic
TR:
KR:
TR:
KR:
TR:
KR:
TR:
KR:
TR:
KR
TR
KR:
Coba lihat kata yang saya garis bawahi, apa kesalahan
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
Apa yang membuatmu kesulitan?
Mungkin cara penggunaanya yang sulit.
Dulu ketika mempelajarinya, apakah dosen anda
membimbing anda?
Iya, tapi sepertinya kurang pengaplikasianya.
Apakah anda suka menggunakan struktur atau pola
kalimat yang sama yang sudah dipelajari ke struktur
atau pola kalimat yang baru dalam bahasa inggris?
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
Menurut anda apakah bahasa ibu (bahasa pertama)
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
Project : Inquiring Students’ Error Causes
Date : June 12, 2017
Place : Class of English Department in UIKA
Time : 13.00
Duration : 7 minutes
Interviewer : TR
Interviewee : MN
Abbreviation
Interlingual Transfer (mother tongue interference) : MI
Intralingual Transfer (overgeneralization) : OV
Context of Learning : CL
Speaker (s) Transcribed Dialog Topic
TR:
MN:
TR:
MN:
TR:
MN:
TR:
MN:
TR:
MN
TR:
MN:
TR:
Coba lihat kata yang saya garis bawahi, apa kesalahan
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?
Apakah anda tahu maknanya?
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.
Apa yang membuatmu kesulitan?
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.
Menurut anda apakah bahasa ibu (bahasa pertama)
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,
Apakah anda suka menggunakan struktur atau pola
kalimat yang sama yang sudah dipelajari ke struktur
atau pola kalimat yang baru dalam bahasa inggris?
Iya pak, sering sperti itu.
OV
OV
101
Appendix 6
INTERVIEW B
(with the Students)
Code : 7
Project : Inquiring Students’ Error Causes
Date : June 12, 2017
Place : Class of English Department in UIKA
Time : 13.00
Duration : 4 minutes
Interviewer : TR
Interviewee : SF
Abbreviation
Interlingual Transfer (mother tongue interference) : MI
Intralingual Transfer (overgeneralization) : OV
Context of Learning : CL
Speaker (s) Transcribed Dialog Topic
TR:
SF:
TR:
SF:
TR:
SF:
Coba lihat kata yang saya garis bawahi, apa kesalahan
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.
Apakah anda suka menggunakan struktur atau pola
kalimat yang sama yang sudah dipelajari ke struktur
atau pola kalimat yang baru dalam bahasa inggris?
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
Project : Inquiring Students’ Error Causes
Date : June 12, 2017
Place : Class of English Department in UIKA
Time : 13.00
Duration : 7 minutes
Interviewer : TR
Interviewee : DI
Abbreviation
Interlingual Transfer (mother tongue interference) : MI
Intralingual Transfer (overgeneralization) : OV
Context of Learning : CL
Speaker (s) Transcribed Dialog Topic
TR:
DI:
TR:
DI:
TR:
DI:
TR:
DI:
TR:
DI:
TR:
DI:
Coba lihat kata yang saya garis bawahi, apa kesalahan
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,)
Apakah anda tahu maknanya?
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.
Apakah anda suka menggunakan struktur atau pola
kalimat yang sama yang sudah dipelajari ke struktur
atau pola kalimat yang baru dalam bahasa inggris?
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
Project : Inquiring Students’ Error Causes
Date : June 12, 2017
Place : Class of English Department in UIKA
Time : 13.00
Duration : 5 minutes
Interviewer : TR
Interviewee : FM
Abbreviation
Interlingual Transfer (mother tongue interference) : MI
Intralingual Transfer (overgeneralization) : OV
Context of Learning : CL
Speaker (s) Transcribed Dialog Topic
TR:
FM:
TR:
FM:
TR:
FM:
TR:
FM:
TR:
FM
TR:
FM:
TR:
FM:
Coba lihat kata yang saya garis bawahi, apa kesalahan
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
Apakah anda tahu maknanya?
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.
Apakah anda suka menggunakan struktur atau pola
kalimat yang sama yang sudah dipelajari ke struktur
atau pola kalimat yang baru dalam bahasa inggris?
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
Project : Inquiring Students’ Error Causes
Date : June 12, 2017
Place : Class of English Department in UIKA
Time : 13.00
Duration : 5 minutes
Interviewer : TR
Interviewee : TB
Abbreviation
Interlingual Transfer (mother tongue interference) : MI
Intralingual Transfer (overgeneralization) : OV
Context of Learning : CL
Speaker (s) Transcribed Dialog Topic
TR:
TB:
TR:
TB:
TR:
TB:
TR:
TB:
TR:
TB:
TR:
TB:
Coba lihat kata yang saya garis bawahi, apa kesalahan
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.
Apakah anda suka menggunakan struktur atau pola
kalimat yang sama yang sudah dipelajari ke struktur
atau pola kalimat yang baru dalam bahasa inggris?
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
Project : Inquiring Students’ Error Causes
Date : June 12, 2017
Place : Class of English Department in UIKA
Time : 13.00
Duration : 6 minutes
Interviewer : TR
Interviewee : MH
Abbreviation
Interlingual Transfer (mother tongue interference) : MI
Intralingual Transfer (overgeneralization) : OV
Context of Learning : CL
Speaker (s) Transcribed Dialog Topic
TR:
MH:
TR:
MH:
TR:
MH:
TR:
MH:
TR:
MH:
TR:
MH:
TR:
MH:
TR:
MH:
TR:
Coba lihat kata yang saya garis bawahi, apa kesalahan
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.
Apakah anda tahu maknanya?
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.
Apakah dosen anda membimbing anda ketika
mengajar?
Iya pak,beliau suka menjelaskan, meberikan latihan
dalam membuat essay.
Apakah anda suka menggunakan struktur atau pola
MI
MI
CL
CL
CL
OV
109
MH:
kalimat yang sama yang sudah dipelajari ke struktur
atau pola kalimat yang baru dalam bahasa inggris?
Mungkin pak, soalnya saya menerapkan apa yang
sudah diajarkan.
110
Appendix 11
INTERVIEW B
(with the Students)
Code : 19
Project : Inquiring Students’ Error Causes
Date : June 12, 2017
Place : Class of English Department in UIKA
Time : 13.00
Duration : 6 minutes
Interviewer : TR
Interviewee : AN
Abbreviation
Interlingual Transfer (mother tongue interference) : MI
Intralingual Transfer (overgeneralization) : OV
Context of Learning : CL
Speaker (s) Transcribed Dialog Topic
TR:
AN:
TR:
AN:
TR:
AN:
TR:
AN:
TR:
AN:
TR:
AN:
TR:
AN:
Coba lihat kata yang saya garis bawahi, apa kesalahan
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.
Apakah dosen anda membimbing anda ketika
mengajar?
Dosen membimbing kami pak, kalau saya tidak tahu
beliau kasih tahu
Apakah anda suka menggunakan struktur atau pola
kalimat yang sama yang sudah dipelajari ke struktur
atau pola kalimat yang baru dalam bahasa inggris?
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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.p: 18 add: 3 appro: 36
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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.p: 13 add: 5 appro: 35
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
P D C Cla V N Ela Ext Enh
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
2 x 40’ Writing practice
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
2 x 40’ Writing practice
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
2 x 40’ Writing practice
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
2 x 40’ Writing practice
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
2 x 40’ Writing practice
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
2 x 40’ Writing practice
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
2 x 40’ Writing practice
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
2 x 40’ Writing practice
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
2 x 40’ Writing practice
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
2 x 40’ Writing practice
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