A STUDY ON THE NOMINALISATIONS IN POLYTECHNIC STUDENTS’ TEXTS.

(1)

A STUDY ON THE NOMINALISATIONS IN

POLYTECHNIC STUDENTS’

TEXTS

A Thesis

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

Master’s Degree in English Education

By

FATONAH

1008836

ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

BANDUNG

(2)

APPROVAL SHEET

A STUDY ON THE NOMINALISATIONS IN POLYTECHNIC

STUDENTS’ TEXTS

By

FATONAH

1008836

Approved by:

Supervisor,

Prof. E. Aminudin Aziz, M.A., Ph.D.

(3)

DECLARATION

I hereby certify that this thesis entitled “A Study on the Nominalisations in Polytechnic Students’ Texts” is completely my own work. I am fully aware that I have quoted some statements and ideas from many sources. All quotations are

acknowledged.

Bandung, July 2013.-

(4)

ABSTRACT

This study reports the investigation of the realisation of nominalisations in students’ texts.

Nominalisation is one of grammatical metaphors that dominates the language of science. It is defined as the process of turning words that are not normally nouns into nouns. Three

research questions are posted, inquiring about the students’ level of understanding

nominalisation, its manifestation, and its types. This study is largely qualitative although some numerical data are used. The data were collected from 20 Polytechnic students, majoring in mechanical engineering, by conducting two English tests and an interview. One

test examines students’ understanding of nominalisation through a reading text, and the other

examines the use of nominalisation by students in an essay test. Analyses of the data used the framework of nominalising metaphors proposed by Halliday (1998, in Ravelli & Ellis, 2004). The study found that the students have moderate level of understanding on nominalisation. This moderate understanding is a bit above the average, which is 65%. Some students are high achievers but some others are low. They produced four nominalisations in their texts using suffixes -ment and t/sion like advancement and calibration. Moreover, they used

‘default’ nominalisations, the ones that usually appear in academic texts of their fields of study. This study concludes that the students’ moderate understanding on nominalisations in a reading text is not sufficient to produce nominalisations optimally in written texts. Furthermore, they still experience some difficulties in understanding scientific texts, since nominalisation is one of the characteristics of scientific text. These data are relevance to the

students’ ability in understanding scientific text. This study recommends that explicit teaching be given to them to improve their grammatical competence, particularly nominalisation.

(5)

LIST OF TABELS and GRAPHS

_Page

Table #2.1: Tri-Stratal System of language ... 9

Table #2.2: Types of Nominalisation ... 17

Table #2.3: Forming Nominalisations...18

Table #2.4: Some Metaphorical Suffixes...19

Table #3.1: Key Answer of Test #1... 39

Table #3.2: Types of Nominalisation (for Analysing Test #2 Results)...43

Table #4.1: Results of Test #1...48

Graph #4.1: Results of Test #1 (for more illustration)...48

Table #4.2: Levels of Understanding Nom. (Test #1 Results)...51

Table #4.3: Results of Test #2...64

Table #4.4: List of Nominalisation Suffixes (from Test #2 Results)...65

Graph #4.4: Nominalisation Suffixes in Students’ Text (Test #2 Results)...65

Table #4.5: Recapitulation of Test #2 Results...70

(9)

Page

Appendix #2.1: Halliday’s Grammatical Metaphor Taxonomy...85

Appendix #3.1: Test Paper #1...86

Appendix #3.1.1: Test Paper #1 with Key Answer...87

Appendix #3.2: Copy of Original Scientific Text for Test #1...88

Appendix #3.3: Lexical Density of Scientific Text (for Test #1)...89

Appendix #3.4: Test Paper #2...90

Appendix #3.5: List of Interview Questions...91

Appendix #3.6: Condensed Data from Interview... 92

Appendix #3.7: Eric Glendinning’s Text (‘Scales and Graphs’)...93

Appendix #4.1: Scanned Student’s Text #1...94

(10)

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the background of the study, which is started with a brief

illustration on nominalisation, the scope of the study, research questions, purpose

and significance of the study, some difinitions of key terms, limitation of the

study, and organisation of the thesis.

1.1 Background of the Study

Nominalisation holds a very important role in a written text. The importance of it

is illustrated with the following situations (adapted from Eggins, 2004:94-95):

i) Someone is behind in her university work and has to explain to her tutor why her essay has been handed in after the due date. When speaking to her tutor, she might say something like this:

I handed my essay in late because my kids got sick.

ii) Now that she has to write a letter of explanation, accompanying her essay. In her letter she will probably write something like:

The reason for the late submission of my essay was the illness of my children.

In sentence i), one sentence is made up of two clauses (I handed my essay in late // because my kids got sick). They are linked with logical connective (conjunction) because. Each of the two clauses describes the concrete actions (hand in, get sick), expressed by verbs, performed by different actors (I, my kids), with the actors occupying first position in each clause.

In sentence ii), the message has been condensed into one clause by turning the actions of handing in and getting sick into nouns: submission, illness. The only verb is the non-action verb is. The logical relation between two events is expressed using the reason.

(11)

Features of example i) Features of example ii)

language. Language is so central to the whole of educational process, since

no-one could conceive of education without it” (p. 96). Then, he argues that “Learning is essentially a process of constructing meaning” (p. 98) and that “Meaning is realised in language in the form of text” (p. vii).

Moreover, Halliday (1992) states “All use of language embodies a great deal of metaphor” (p. 94) and that “Written language is associated with the use of grammatical metaphor” (p. 95). He also mentions that “Grammatical metaphor

that dominates the language of science is nominalisation” (in Halliday & Martin,

2005:141).

It can be inferred from the Halliday‟s statements that language plays very

strategic roles in educational process, for constructing meaning realised in text.

So, when we learn, we use language (text) to understand its meaning. Thus the

phenomena of using language in educational process in Polytechnic need to be

investigated, particularly with the realisation of nominalisation in scientific texts.

Some previous studies have focused on nominalisations used in academic

writing (Galve, 1998; Briones et al., 2003; Banks, 2005; Holtz, 2009; Tyrkko &

Hilturen, 2009; Yuliana, 2011; and Ahmad, 2012). Baratta (2010) is the

exception. He studies nominalisation development across an undergraduate

(12)

Communication‟ (LCC), part of Humanities. He found that nominalisations do not necessarily play a prominent role within the academic writing of this community.

However, the students‟ level of understanding and realising

nominalisation in scientific texts has not been investigated, especially for the

students of undergraduate program majoring in mechanical engineering. That is

why the researcher is highly motivated to investigate the phenomenon of realising

nominalisation among undergraduate or Polytechnic students.

Furthermore, there is another argument to carry out this study. Students

need to understand the application of nominalisation, as it dominates scientific

language (Halliday & Martin, 2005). Despite of this, due to the lack of time, the

topic of nominalisation has not been taught in English program in Polytechnic

whose study background is mechanical engineering. Therefore, to portray the

phenomenon of understanding and manifesting nominalisation in scientific texts

does really encourage the researcher to conduct this study in Polytechnic.

1.2 Scope of the Study

This study focuses on nominalisations, as the results of derivation, manifested in

scientific texts based on Systemic Functional Linguistics theories. Theoretically,

there are four types of nominalisation (Halliday, 1998, as cited by Chen & Foley,

in Ravelli et al., 2004). In this study, for some reasons, only Types I and II are

investigated. For Polytechnic students, it is hard to comprehend nominalisations Types III and IV. Even in native‟s texts, these types of nominalisation are rarely used. Further discussion of these reasons is posted in Chapter III.

The investigation of understanding nominalisation in a scientific text and

the realisation of nominalisation is addressed to 20 undergraduate students of year

three in a state-owned Polytechnic in Bandung. Further details about the

participants are elaborated in Chapter III. The data analyses are mainly on

identifying and unpacking nominalisations as the results of derivation, using

nominalisation suffixes, manifesting (how many) nominalisations in students‟

(13)

1.3 Research Questions

Based on the statements written in the background, this research is carried out in

order to address the following research problems:

1. What is the students‟ level of understanding on the realisation of

nominalisation in a scientific writen text?

2. How are nominalisations manifested in the students‟ written texts?

3. What types of nominalisation are usually found in students‟ written texts?

1.4 Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of the study is to portray the students‟ understanding on nominalisations in a scientific text and the students‟ manifesting nominalisations

in written texts. To answer the questions stated above, the first thing to do is to investigate the students‟ understanding nominalisations in a scientific text, copied from an engineering textbook (Dieter, 1991). After that, the investigation is continued on the manifestation of nominalisations in students‟ texts, as it is expected that their understanding on nominalisations is productively reflected in

their written texts. Furthermore, within the same texts, the types of nominalisation

are able to be identified.

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study is potential to contribute to English education theoretically, practically,

and professionally. This contribution is particularly essential to the teaching of

scientific writing to undergraduate students.

Theoretically, the results of this study are expected to improve the variety

of findings of the same topic and to enrich the literature of nominalisations.

Therefore, they will motivate further investigation on the application of

nominalisations in academic written text.

Practically, the results of this investigation might advance the educational

(14)

They will also enable practitioners in education to improve the condition of

technical English teaching for Polytechnic students.

Professionally, the report of the study will not only contribute to the

professional sources in the teaching profession in Polytechnic in particular, but

also in teaching technical English in general. It can be reached by publishing the

results of this study in an applied linguistic journal, for example. In addition, they may increase the teachers‟ awareness with the importance of nominalisations in academic texts. It can be achieved by disseminating those findings in institutional

meetings held periodically for presenting and discussing current findings resulted

by several researchers.

1.6 Definitions of Key Terms

In this section, many prominent terms need to be clarrified in order to avoid any

sort of misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Some of them are as follows.

- Grammatical metaphor is a source for construing meanings in ways that depart from the grammar through which „ordinary life‟ is typically construed; for example, by realising as a nominal element something that

is congruently a process:

Ex 1: The bomb exploded at Hiroshima.

Ex 2: The explotion of the bomb at Hiroshima...

(Schleppegrell, in Ravelli & Ellis, 2004; Ravelli, 1999)

- Nominalisation is “the single most powerful resource for creating

grammatical metaphor. By this device, processes (congruently worded as

verbs) and properties (congruently worded as adjectives) are reworded

metaphorically as nouns. Instead of functioning in the clause, as Process or Attitude, they function as Things in the nominal group” (Halliday, 1994:352). In this study, nominalisation is defined as the formation of

nouns which come from verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and conjunctions. It

refers to the meaning of nominalise, to form a noun from verb and

(15)

- Procedure Text is a piece of text containing factual article, giving

instructions or a sequence of steps to follow (eg. instructions, directions,

rules and recipes) for making or doing something. The structure of the text

consists of social pupose, a list of materials or equipment needed for

completing the procedure, and some steps. (Butt et al., 2006; Droga et al.,

2011; Anderson et al., 2003).

- Unpacking means rewording. Droga & Humphrey (2011) mention that the

term currently used for rewording in this direction – from metaphorical to

congruent – is unpacking. Unpacking grammatical metaphor means

suggesting what the congruent realisation of the same meaning might have

been. For example:

 Recognising that war at any level can be won or lost, ...  We must recognise that war at any level can be won or lost.

- Level of understanding refers to levels (i.e. low, medium, or high) of

understanding on nominalisation realised in a text among Polytechnic

students. It is resulted by categorising the data from an English test.

1.7 Limitation of the Study

There is a limitation in the study of portraying the capacity of Polytechnic

students in understanding on nominalisations realised in scientific text. The

limitation is in term of the research instrument. In Test #2, that is an essay test, the

students were instructed to write Procedure Text. Within this text type,

instructions or commands are usually found. These constructions use verbs.

Nevertheless, by using this text type the students still have some possibilities to

realise nominalisations. The imperative sentences do not limit the students to use

nominalisations, because after the verb, in other part of the sentence,

(16)

1.8 Organisation of the Thesis

The five chapters of this thesis will be respectively presented as follows.

Chapter One discusses the introduction, covering its background, its scope,

research questions, purposes, significance of the study, some previous studies on

nominalisations, definitions of key terms, limitation of the study, and organisation

of the thesis. Chapter Two includes review of related literatures concerning to

the manifestation of nominalisations in written texts. It will elaborate definitions,

realisation, formings, types, functions, nominalisation suffixes and the effects of

nominalisation in academic texts. Chapter Three presents the methodology of

conducting this study. It includes three sections: Research Design, Data

Collection, and Data Analysis. The first describes the nature of research design

characterising this study, research site and participants. The second does not only

mentions the techniques of data collection, including English Tests #1 and #2, and

some interviews to some participants, but also the comprehensive procedure of

collecting data. The last reveals the methods of data analysis including data

analysis framework, based on a taxonomy of metaphor proposed by Halliday

(1998. In Ravelli & Ellis, 2004). Chapter Four presents and discusses the data

resulted from two English tests and interview. There are three main findings, each

of which is elaborated individually. It is followed by its argumentation based on

theoretical aspects elaborated in chapter two and practical aspect experienced by

the researcher, and some interview sessions to some participants representing low,

medium, and high achievers. Chapter Five will close this thesis. It provides some

research findings, conclusions and recommendations for the stakeholders who are

in charge of developing the educational results, and for other researchers

(17)

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter elaborates the methods used in this study, including Research

Design, Data Collection, and Data Analysis. The discussion on the Research

Design includes the nature of qualitative research, its characteristics and the

reasons of choosing qualitative research. The Data Collection section reveals the

participants and the research setting, the methods of collecting data, consisting of

two kinds of tests and interviews, and the procedures of collecting data. The Data

Analysis presents the discussion of identifying and classifying nominalisations in

order to see nominalisation suffixes, the number and the types of nominalisation

realised in students‟ texts.

3.1 Research Design

This study is practising qualitative research in which “the researcher might seek

to describe or explain what is happening within a smaller group of people”

(Dawson, 2005:48). It is believed that in qualitative research, meaning is socially

constructed. The research focus is on the participants – how participants

experience and interact with a phenomenon at a given point in time and in

particular context (Croker as cited in Heigham et al., 2009).

In this study, the researcher describes the phenomena of understanding

and realising nominalisation among 20 students. The focus of investigation is on

how those Polytechnic students practice nominalisation receptively and

productively.

In addition, qualitative research focuses on understanding the process of

what is going on in a setting by trying to understand how the gains were made.

Qualitative research is not defined by a particular set of research methods or

(18)

information about people‟s action and phenomena, and the settings in which they do these things (Croker as cited in Heigham et al., 2009).

Moreover, Bogdam and Biklen (cited in Frankle & Wallen,

1996:442-443) describe the characteristics of qualitative research, as follows:

That the nature setting is the direct resource of data, and the researcher is the key instrument in qualitative research, and that data are collected in the forms of words rather than numbers; that qualitative researchers are concerned with process as well as product; that qualitative researchers tend to analyse their data inductively.

This investigation is decided to conduct a qualitative case study approach.

There are several reasons for choosing this research approach as mentioned by

Hood (as cited in Heigham et al., 2009:68). First, the researcher has determined

the students she wished to study and the contexts intented to act.

Second, the rich data, deep analysis, and the long-term contact with the

cases afforded by the case study are better suited to these research interests than

quatitative methods. Third, the aim is not to generalise or to test a hypothesis, but

rather to improve support and training for other students on the same campus.

Fourth, case study is popular with qualitative researchers precisely because it

provides a framework for analysis such material (Hood as cited in Heigham et al.,

2009).

In this opportunity, the case is mainly focused on the manifestation of

nominalisations in 20 Polytechnic students‟ texts, that is Procedure Texts. Other

focus is the students‟ level of understanding nominalisations in a scientific text,

copied from a scientific textbook (Dieter, 1991). The framework of analysis is a

taxonomy of nominalising metaphor proposed by Halliday (1998 in Ravelli &

Ellis, 2004; Christie & Martin, 2000).

This study is qualitative in nature, but in some of its descriptive analysis,

quantitative criteria are used (Croker, 2009. In Heigham et al., 2009). The

(19)

3.2 Research Setting & Participants

Research setting. This study was carried out in a state-owned Polytechnic in

Bandung. This institution of education is running Diploma III and IV programs,

majoring in manufacturing engineering. This Polytechnic was chosen for the

reasons of practicality and accessability. First, it was practical because of its ease,

as to save time, finance, energy and effort, as proposed by Patton (1980, cited in

Lincoln & Guba, 1985, cited in Alwasilah, 2011).

Second, it was accessible because of the familiarity with condition of

teaching technical English in this Polytechnic. The researcher has been teaching

English in this institution for years. Third, it was to portray the phenomenon of

realising nominalisation, since it has not been taught in its English class due to the

lack of time. Therefore, this institution is the appropriate site for conducting this

investigation.

Participants. The participants in this study were 20 Polytechnic students of year

three. They were chosen as volunteers for several reasons. Firstly, Polytechnic

was programmed for undergraduate students. This investigation was aimed to

explore the realisation of nominalisation especially among undergraduates‟

written texts. So, these Polytechnic students were regarded the appropriate

participants to choose for this research.

Secondly, Polytechnic students had study background of mechanical

engineering. Their involvement in this study was based on the assumption that

they had experienced with the application of scientific English in their previous

years, one and two, in Polytechnic. They had opportunities to practice scientific

English receptively and productively. Some examples for the former are when

reading engineering textbooks and manuals; and the latter are when making

operational plans before working in workshop, when presenting their scientific

topics in front of the class, and when reporting their practical assingments in their

workbooks. So, it is assumed that nominalisation was frequently realised in their

(20)

Thirdly, Polytechnic students were the type of participants whom the

researcher had a big possibility to contact with (Dawson, 2009), since the

researcher was also the English teacher in this institution

There were initially 25 participants taking part in the English tests for

collecting data. But, then, in the process of sorting out the data, it was found that

five texts were not compeleted with the notions written on the test paper #2, as

attached on Appendix #3.4. So, 20 written scientific texts were considered

sufficient to gain the representative data.

In the present study, all participants were coded as P#1 to P#20. Most of

the participants were male students, only three were female, at the age of about

23-27 years. They were willing to take part in this research.

Although it is under no obligation to use English, some instructors and

lecturers (of non-English subjects) often invite students to practice English

whenever possible in their workshop, laboratory or classroom. There are some

extra points as the reward for those realising scientific English. This idea is

supported by Halliday‟s statement that nominalisation is commonly realised in

scientific texts (1998. In Halliday & Martin, 2005).

The following section is to discuss the data collection techniques to

response the three research questions posted in the previous chapter. Those

techniques include English Test #1 and Test #2 conducted among all participants,

and interview among selected participants. Before those techniques are elaborated

in detail, the comprehensive steps of collecting data are presented in the data

collection procedure, as part of data collection techniques.

3.3 Data Collection Techniques

There were two methods of data collection, conducting English Tests: Test #1 and

Test #2, and interviewing some participants, representing the high, the medium

and the low achievers. The data in the forms of scores and texts, resulted from the

(21)

triangulation improves the validity and realibility of the study (Alwasilah, 2011).

It is also asserted by Miles and Huberman (1994:266) that “triangulation is

supposed to support a finding by showing that independent measures of it agrees

with it or at least, do not contradict it”.

Test #1, using a reading text, was intended to find data to answer the first

research question. On the other hand, Test #2 was an essay test, which was

supposed to produce data to response the second and the third research questions.

The two tests were held at the same day. These were followed by interview

session which was held a few days after the researcher finished checking the test

results.

The tests were conducted in a classroom without prior information or

even students‟ preparation. This was carried out in such a way, spontaneously, in order to follow Lazaraton‟s (2009, in Heigham et al, 2009:245) idea that “the text

is produced spontaneously rather than elicited experimentally specifically for the

sake of research”.

The procedure of collecting data consists of conducting Test #1, Test #2,

interview, and data collection. It is elaborated further in the following section.

3.3.1 Data Collection Procedure

Concerning the data collection procedure, the comprehensiveness of the

sequential steps for collecting data is divided into four stages: Test #1, Test #2,

interview session, and data collection. They were described chronologically as

follows.

Stage I: Conducting Test #1. First, in the classroom the students were

asked for their readiness to perform as participants in this study. It was not the

time for English class and no prior information for the tests. So, the process of

collecting data is naturally set. Second, the students were told to follow the

instructions on the test paper for Test #1: to read a reading text, to underline

nominalised words on the reading text, and to unpack them into their roots or base

forms. It spent about 30‟. Third, they submitted the completed test papers directly

(22)

Stage II: Conducting Test #2. First, the situation was set to do Test #2.

The students were invited to recall their own experience when making a product

or operating a device in their workshop or laboratory. Second, every student was

directed to make a draft of working procedure on a draft paper, based on their own

experience. It needed about 15‟. Third, the students were instructed to rewrite

their drafts following the guidelines written on the test paper for Test #2. It took

about 30‟- 45‟ to finish their works of about 150-200 words. Fourth, the students

submitted the completed test paper #2 directly to the researcher. The test paper #2

is attached on Appendix #3.4

Stage III: Conducting interview. First, six students were sellected, based

on their test results, representing the low, the medium, and the high achievers.

Second, they were individually interviewed by the researcher in a teaching room.

The list of questions for interview is attached on Appendix #3.5.

Stage IV: Collecting and organising data. First, the data taken from the

Tests #1 and #2 were identified and classified. Second, the results of interview

were condensed. Finally, all collected data in the forms of scores and texts were

ready to present and to discuss in the next chapter.

Some of the above steps, for examples in conducting Test #1, Test #2 and

interview, are elaborated more detail in the following sections for the sake of

presenting complete and clear explanation.

3.3.2 Data Collection from Test #1

In Test #1, a scientific reading text was used. This text is entitled „Technological

Innovation,‟ containing 22 nominalised words. The text of about 202 words was

copied from a scientific textbook written by Dieter (1991) from Maryland

University. The hard copy of the original text is attached on Appendix #3.2.

This test was used to follow Droga & Humphrey‟s (2011:110-111)

exercises with the topic of nominalisation. In this test, students are asked to read a

text, then to highlight (by underlining or circling) the realisation of

nominalisations. After that, the nominalisations they have underlined are

(23)

This test‟s focus of attention is on portraying the level of understanding

on nominalisation in a scientific text among undergraduate students. Referring to

Halliday‟s (1998, in Ravelli et al., 2004) theory, there are four types of

nominalisation. However, for some reasons, only two types are tested. It is very

hard for undergraduate students of non-English department to understand a text

containing all types of nominalisation. Even in native‟s scientific texts, the four

types of nominalisation are rarely used. It refers to Eric Glendinning‟s text in

English in Mechanical Engineering (1973), wherein two types of nominalisation

are realised. This text is scanned, then attached in Appendix #3.7. It is also

evidensed by referring to Dieter‟s text (1991) used in this test, in which only two

types of nominalisation are manifested.

Furthermore, highlighting on two types of nominalisation is supported by

some linguists‟ opinions. Christie and Martin (2000) state that „through the

process of nominalisation an event (e.g. it moves) or a property (e.g. it is hard) is

construed as a noun (motion, hardness). Paltridge (2006) mentions that there is a

high level of nominalisation in written texts where actions and events are

presented as nouns rather that as verbs, and adjective is changed into noun.

In addition, in one occasion, Halliday (in Halliday & Martin, 2005:145)

states that noun is the only syntactic class that can accept thematic „packages‟, the

process of packaging turns (metaphorises) all events and attributes into textual

objects. These ideas mean that nominalisation Types I & II (shifting verb and

adjective into nouns) are more frequently discussed by those linguists than Types

III & IV (shifting adverb and conjunction into nouns). Therefore, Test#1 only use

the first two types of nominalisation.

The scientific reading text (stated above at the beginning of this section)

was chosen in test #1 for three reasons. First, the familiarity of this topic among

Polytechnic students, since their study background is engineering. Furthermore,

this text is copied from an egineering textbook used in Polytechnic, so that most

(24)

supported by Tomlinson‟s (1998) argument that materials can help learners to feel

more at ease with the texts they can relate to their own culture (in this case,

engineering) than those which are culturally exotic.

Second, the domination of nominalisation in scientific language as it is

argued by some linguists (see Halliday & Martin, 2005). The exploration of this

study is on the students‟ level of understanding on nominalisation realised in a

scientific text. So, the reading text copied from the engineering textbook is

regarded to be able to meet this need.

Third, the level of difficulty of the scientific reading text used in Test #1

is regarded moderate. This is viewed from many sources, including Ravelli‟s (1999) texts‟ lexical density (that is 7.2) and Halliday‟s (Halliday & Martin, 2005)

argument that written language tends to have around four to six (4 - 6) lexical

words per clause. In other occasion, he mentions that text‟s lexical density is

between three and six (3 – 6) (Halliday, 1985, as cited in Yuliana, 2011). On the

other hand, the lexical density of the reading text used in the test is 5.5. Therefore,

based on these data, the scientific reading text has an appropriate level to be used

by Polytechnic students in Test #1. The complete calculation of the lexical density

of those texts are attached on Appendix #3.3.

In Test #1, Tomlinson‟s (1998:8) other idea is also applied that “most

learners feel more comfortable with materials with lots of white space than they

do with materials in which lots of different activities are crammed together on the

same page.” To do so, the reading text in the test paper was retyped and

rearranged in order that it was not too thick for the participants to read. Moreover,

by retyping and rearranging the text, there was enough space for the participants

to write the unpacked words. Redesigning the test paper in such a way was for the

sake of practicallity for the participants to do the test. The test paper for Test #1 is

attached on Appendix #3.1.

The procedure of carrying out Test #1 is described as follows. To begin

(25)

Then, they were instructed to identify, by underlining, the 22 nominalised words

found in the text. Next, they were directed to unpack the nominalisations they had

underlined on the test paper. For example, taken from the reading text, „ability‟

(as a noun), was unpacked into „able‟ (as an adjective). The test paper #1

completed with key answer is attached on Appendix # 3.1.1. The complete list of

nominalisations found in the text, as the key answer, is in the table below.

Table #3. 1 : Key Answer of Test #1 (List of Nominalisations)

List of

was not only given for identifying every nominalised word correctly, but also for

unpacking it correctly. The maximum score for every task was 22, as there were

22 nominalisations in the text. Finally, their scores were collected and arranged in

Table #4.1 in Chapter IV.

3.3.3 Data Collection from Test #2

English Test #2 was an essay test. The idea of carrying out this test is inspired by

Droga et al. (2011:99) and Knapp et al. (2005). They stated that in one study of

nominalisation, some university students are asked to write a descriptive text

using nominalisation. In another study, some Year 6 students are asked to write an

article. They were given some important points and structural features as the

guidelines. This notion agrees with Halliday‟s statement (1989, in Paltridge,

2006:15) that „there is a high level of nominalisation in written text where actions

(26)

In Test #2, two pieces of test paper were prepared for each participant.

One paper was used for making a draft of „Procedure Text’. The other one,

completed with some brief guidelines, was used for finishing the text. It took

about 60‟ to finish the test.

The guidelines on the test paper consist of social purpose and the structure

of the text. The former tells someone how to make something. On the other hand,

the latter tells the goal of the activity, a list of materials (ingredients, equipment,

etc, needed to achieve the goal) and method, that is the sequence of steps to

follow by using: first, then, next, later, and finally. These guidelines are adapted

from Butt et al. (2006), Droga et al. (2011), Derewianka (2004), Paltridge (2006)

and Anderson et al. (2003).

The brief guidelines provided a framework of writing scientific text of

description, following Tomlinson‟s (1998:8) notion that „most learners are more

relaxed with materials which are obviously trying to help them to learn than they

are with materials which are always testing them‟. The test paper for Test #2 is

attached in Appendix #3.4.

The text type Procedure Text is chosen in this essay test for many

reasons. Firstly, this topic is concrete or factual. It can be related to learners‟ prior

experiences (Hyland, 2004; Anderson et al., 2003; Butt et al., 2006). In this case,

Polytechnic students‟ daily activities in their workshop and laboratory are also

factual. So, most students are expected to be able to write up their own experience

optimally.

Secondly, more familiar or easier topic can engage and motivate students

to work more optimally (Hyland, 2004). In Polytechnic, most of the content of

lesson units in English class has already been linked and matched to their needs in

their workshop, for examples: describing procedure, describing technical object,

making definition, and classification. Procedure Text is one of several lesson units

discussed in English class in year two in Polytechnic. Thus, the students get used

(27)

Thirdly, „Procedures can be found in science experiments and in

instructional manuals such as gardening, cookbooks and technical instruction

sheets‟ (Emilia, 2011: 27-28). Therefore, in this study, Procedure Text is

considered the appropriate text type to use in Test #2.

Fourthly, technological English is concerned with the processes and

technology of industrial production. It uses specialised terms and grammar to

describe technology and systematically organises the manufacturing process in

written text (Rose, in Christie & Martin, 2000).

The procedure of conducting Test #2, consisting of some steps, is

chronologically explained below. First, the participants were asked orally by the

researcher to recall their activities in the process of producing workpieces using

machinery in their workshop. This was a brainstorming session to set the situation

before starting the real essay test. Then, they were directed to choose one topic

for each participant based on their own experience. Next, they were instructed to

make a draft on an extra paper describing the procedure of making a product

within about 15 minutes. After that, on the test paper completed with a brief

guidance, they were told to write down the complete text of Procedure

Description. Within about 45 minutes, the participants were allowed to complete

this test. Finally, they handed in the texts directly to the researcher.

3.3.4 Data Collection from Interview

Besides the main data mentioned above, there were other data resulted from

interviewing the selected participants. In fact, Fetterman (cited in Frankel &

Wallen, 1996) describes interviewing as the most important data collection

technique a quality researcher possesses. The roles of these interview data were to

support, to clarify the main data, and to elicit some important information from

the selected participants, which were not obtained by conducting the written tests

only.

The interview was held individually among the six selected participants,

(28)

in a teaching room, a few days after the researcher finished correcting the first and

the second tests. It is proposed by Gee (1999) that interview with participants can

be used (keeping in mind that they are not always conscious of what they mean

and do) to achieve some degree of validity in regard to convergence and to extend

the analysis to other sources of related data.

In this study, a semi-structered interview was an appropriate type of

interview chosen. This is verbal questionnaires consisting of questions designed to

elicit specific answers (Frankel & Wallen, 1996). The reason to do is that the

interviewer has a clear picture of the topics that need to be covered, but is

prepared to allow the interview to develop in unexpected directions where these

open up impotant new areas as Richards stated (cited in Heigham & Crocker

2009).

A list of questions, prepared as an interview guide (Dawson, 2009), used

when interviewing the participants, was posted in Appendix #3.5. For the sake of

the ease and flexibility in addressing the questions, the questions were grouped

into three categories. The first category contained some questions exploring the

students‟ background in learning English. The second one explored the students‟

understanding on nominalisations. The last category asked about the results of the

tests. The results of the interview were reported in condensed version, attached in

Appendix #3.6.

3.4 Methods of Data Analysis

The focus of analysing the students‟ written texts is more on the realisation of nominalisations rather than on the their texts‟ type or the overall organisation of

the text. This section will cover the framework of data analysis and methods of

analysing data resulted from Test #1 and Test #2.

3.4.1 _{Framework of Data Analysis}

The framework of data analysis is based on a taxonomy of metaphor proposed by

Halliday (1998. In Ravelli & Ellis, 2004, and in Paltridge, 2006). According to

(29)

nominalisation, developed and elaborated by Halliday and Matthiessen (1999. In

Ravelli & Ellis, 2004), the presence of which is a typical feature of written

language . The complete taxonomy of metaphor is attached in Appendix #2.1.

The framework of analysis is the four types of nominalisation posted below.

Table #3.2: Types of Noms. (adapted from Ravelli&Ellis, 2004:196; Droga & Humphrey, 2011)

major classes, Types I and II, and two minor classes, Types III and IV. In reality,

it was found only the application of major classes of nominalisation. Based on the

above reason, the framework of data analyses implemented in this study is the

major classes of nominalisation. They consist of Type I, that is the grammatical

shiftings from adjective to noun; and Type II, from verb to noun, for examples:

unstable → instability and maintain → maintenance.

This classification of nominalisation is parallel to some definitions of

nominalisation proposed by some linguists, namely: Christie & Martin (2000),

Knapp & Watkins (2005), and Derewianka (2004). At the present moment, it is

concluded that there are two types of nominalisation which are mostly found in

Polytechnic students‟ written texts.

3.4.2 Analysing Data from Test #1

This analysis was supposed to answer the first research question, that is about the

(30)

scientific text. The process of the data analysis includes identifying, scoring,

organising, classifying and interpreting. The level of analyses of these data is the

lexicogrammatical or words used in the scientific text.

The accurate nominalisations counted in the analysis are the ones as the

results of derivation, as Ravelli (1999: 63-69) states that derivation is a device

used for detecting grammatical metaphor. The inaccurate ones are consequently

excluded from the analysis. She further mentions that many metaphorical ones are

found without any derivational suffix, like fast → speed. However, derivation

does not always indicate a metaphorical form, for example -er and -or, in singer.

In detail, the process of analysing data is described as follows. To start

with, the students‟ works of underlining nominalisations were identified,

continued with the unpacking task. Then, score was given to the correct answers

with the maximum score of 22 for every task. After the scores were classified,

they were transformed into percentages. After that, they were categorised into

five: very low, low, medium, high and very high categories. The results of

categorisation were finally interpreted.

3.4.3 Analysing Data from Test #2

This analysis was intended to response the second research problem concerning

with how nominalisations are realised in students‟ texts and to answer the third

research problem, that is about the types of nominalisation found in students‟

texts. The procedure of analysis covers identification, classification, organisation,

transfer into percentage, and interpretation of the results. The levels of analyses

of these data are sentence or clause in students‟ texts and words.

The procedure of analysing data from Test #2 is explained below. Firstly,

the nominalisations manifested in students‟ texts were identified. Secondly, they

were classified following the taxonomy of nominalising metaphor proposed by

Halliday (1989. In Ravelli & Ellis, 2004). Thirdly, they were organised following

(31)

nominalisation in each student‟s text. Forthly, the frequencies of occurence were

transfered into percentage. Finally, the organised data were interpreted.

The last group of data derived from conducting interview. The data were

presented in the condensed version, attached in Appendix #3.6. As the role of

these data was to support the main data resulted from the tests, the results of

analysing the interview data were inserted while analysing the main data.

3.5 Concluding Remarks

This chapter has elaborated research methods of conducting this study. It consists

of research design, research setting & participants, data collection techniques from

Tests #1 and #2 and from interview, methods of data analysis and its framework

of data analysis. The following chapter will describe about data presentation and

discussions. For the sake of convenience in reading this section, the data will be

presented gradually part by part. Every part of the data is presented, it is followed

(32)

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter will briefly present the concluding remarks of this present study. It

includes Conclusions and Recommendation. The Conclusions section is started

with the short background, the research questions, the findings, and the

conclusions. On the other hand, the Recommendations section elaborates two

recommendations for future research with similar topic, and for stakeholders who

are in charge of improving the results of teaching-learning activities, especially

English class in Polytechnic.

5.1 Conclusions

To have clear conclusions some elements of this study are revisited. Students

studying scientific language need to understand nominalisation, as it dominates

the language of science. For Polytechnic students, understanding scientific text is

difficult due to the lack of knowledge about nominalisation. Based on this reality,

this study was conducted among these students, whose study background is

mechanical engineering.

In relation to the above condition, three research quetions are revisited.

The first is about the students‟ level of understanding on the realisation of

nominalisation in a scientific written text. The second is how nominalisations are

manifested in the students‟ written texts. The last is about the types of nominalisation usually found in students‟ written texts.

To response those research questions, the main data were collected by

employing two methods, conducting two English tests and interviewing some

students. In the first test, a reading text was used. The students were asked to

(33)

resulted from this test were in the form of scores. In the second test, the students

were directed to write Procedure Texts, resulting the data in the form of texts.

In the interview session some students, representing the low, the medium,

and high achievers, were individually interviewed. This method resulted the data

in the form of condensed written information, intended to enhance the main ones.

The participants were 20 Polytechnic students, performing as the purposive

sampling, who are willing to take part in this investigation.

There are three main findings in this study, summarised as follows.

Regarding the first research question, this study found that in average, the students

moderately understand the nominalisations realised in a scientific written text.

Most students could identify (by underlining) nominalisations found in a reading

text. Unfortunately, their ability of unpacking nominalisations was lower than

underlining. They failed to unpack the nominalised words they had identified.

This was an evidence of inconsistency in understanding nominalisations.

This case was revealed by some interview data as follows. The students

recognised a certain word was nominalisation but they did not know its root. They

often took it for granted when finding a nominalised word, particularly when

learning engineering texts in Polytechnic. They lacked of opportunity to learn or

discuss about nominalised words. They often made mistakes when turning the

nominalised word into its base form. In this case, the students had relatively

moderate understanding on nominalisations realised in a scientific text. This level

of ability is not high enough for the students to understand academic texts.

Regarding to the second research question, the findings are presented in

three parts. Firstly, in average, the students realised four nominalisations in their

Procedure Texts of about 150-200 words. Referring to this number, it is

concluded that they have low capacity in realising nominalisations. This

phenomenon may be caused of the use of this Procedure Text. Within this text

type the sentences are usually in the imperative forms, starting the sentences with

(34)

nominalisations. However, in this construction the students still have some

possibilities to use nominalisation after the verbs.

Secondly, nominalisation is usually formed by adding a suffix to its root

or base form. Nominalisation suffixes -ment, and -t/sion are frequently used in

students‟ written texts, because these suffixes were easy to remember and to

apply. Most students used those words in their texts correctly. The more often

they met these words the more easily they realised these words in their texts.

Thirdly, the students realised „default‟ nominalisations in their written

texts. „Default‟ nominalisation is a nominalised word that might have been

subconsciously aquired, since it is frequently found in academic textbooks.

Unfortunately, they failed to use those words with different parts of speech. They

might take it for granted for the nominalised words they met without having

opportunity to learn their roots. It can be stated that most students practised using

default nominalisations correctly.

Based on the above presentation, a summary is drawn. In average, most

students were able to manifest about four nominalisations in their written texts,

mostly using suffixes -ment, and -s/tion. They were categorised „default‟

nominalisations, as they were frequently used in scientific textbooks. They were

familiar to the students and easy to practice in the written texts.

Regarding to the third research question, the study found that although

there are four types of nominalisation, the students frequently used only two

types, Types I and II. Nominalisation Type I is a grammatical shift from adjective

to noun. On the other hand, Nominalisation Type II is a grammatical shift from

verb to noun. Most students realised nominalisation Type II in their written texts

correctly, but few students manifested nominalisation Type I correctly. In

interview, some students said that nominalisation Type II was easier to remember

since it was often used in academic texts. For most students, nominalisation Type

(35)

Finally, it is concluded that the students‟ level of understanding on

nominalisations is moderate. In other words, to an average extent the students

understand nominalisations. Anyway, this achievement is not sufficient for them

to be able to manifest nominalisations optimally in their written texts. It occurs,

among others, since the topic of nominalisations is not taught explicitly, and there

is no opportunity for the students and teachers to discuss it.

5.2 Recommendations

There are two main recommendations in this present study. They are addressed to

the teaching of writing technical English in Polytechnic, and to the future research

on the realisation of nominalisation in scientific text.

Firstly, concerning to the teaching activities, some efforts are needed to

take into consideration. The teachers should be aware of the important role of

nominalisation in scientific language. It is through nominalisation technical terms

are contrued. The teachers should manage time to discuss the application of

nominalisations in scientific texts.

It is said in the previous chapter, that some Polytechnic students

experience difficulties in understanding scientific texts, if not explained. Then,

there shoul be explicit teaching on nominalisation to solve this problem, in which

the teacher “makes clear what is to be learned to facilitate the acquisition of

writing skills” (Hyland, 2004:10). Hopefully, better understanding on

nominalisation is reflected in the high consistency and ability to manifest

nominalisation in written text properly.

Secondly, concerning to the future research on the realisation of

nominalisation in scientific text, it is recommended to conduct an experimental

design, particularly an intact group design. In this design, there are two groups of

students, as control and experimental groups. Both groups will receive a posttest.

The experimental group will receive treament while the control group will not

(Hatch & Farhady, 1982). There are some reasons to choose this research design.

(36)

nominalisation. Second, the results of classroom experiment can be generalised to

other students or to other classrooms. Third, the findings of the study can be

shared with other teachers and other classrooms.

It is also recommended that in the next research, instead of using

Procedure Text, other text types descriptive, explanatory or argumentative texts

be used in an essay test. These text types provide plenty of opportunities for

students to realise nominalised words. So, it is possible for the students to use

(37)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahmad, J. (2012). Stylistic Features of Scientific English: A study of Scientific Research Articles. English Language and Literature Studies, Volume 2, No. 1; March 2012. URL: http//dx.doi.org/10.5539/ells.v2n1p47.

Alwasilah, A.C. (2011). Pokoknya Kualitatif, Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.

Anderson, M. and Anderson, K. (2003). Text Type in English. South Yarra: Macmillan Education Australia PTY. Ltd.

Banks, D. (2005). On the Historical Origins of Nominalized Process in Scientific Text, English for Scientific Purposes, Volume 24, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 347-357.

Baratta, A.M. (2010). Nominalization Development Across an Undergraduate Academic Degree Program. Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 42, Issue 4, April 2010, 1017-1036.

Briones, S., Fortuny, L., Sastre, S. (2003). Grammatical Metaphors in Scientific English, A Metafora Gramatical no Ingles Cientifico. The ESPecialist, volume 24, no 2 (131-142).

de Bot, K, Lowie, W & Verspoor (2005). Second Language Acquisition. An Advanced Resource Book. New York: Routledge.

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., and Yallop, C. (2006). Using Functional Grammar: An Explorer’s Guide. Second Edition. Sydney: Southwood Press Pty. Ltd.

Chen, Y. and Foley, J.A. (2004). ‘Problem with the Metaphorical Reconstructual of Meaning in Chinese EFL Learners’ Expositions’. In L.J. Ravelli and

R. A. Ellis. (Eds.) Analysing Academic Writing: Contextualised Frameworks (pp. 190-209). London: Continuum.

(38)

Crocker, R. A. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. In Juanita Heigham and Crocker R.A. (Eds.). Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Introduction (pp.3-24). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cullip, P. F. (2000). Text Technology: The Power-Tool of Grammatical Metaphor. RELC Journal. Vol. 31, No. 2 December 2000. University Malaysia Sarawak. Available at http://rel.sagepub.com/

Dawson, C. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods. Oxford: How To Book Ltd.

Derewianka, B. (2004). Exploring How Texts Work. Victoria: McPherson’s Printing Group.

Derewianka, B. (1998). A Grammar Companion for Primary Teachers. Erskineville: Star Printery.

Dieter, G. E. (1991). Engineering Design, A Materials and Processing Approach. Second Edition. Singapore: McGraw - Hill Book Co.

Droga, L. and Humphrey, S. (2011). Grammar and Meaning, An Introduction for Primary Teachers. Berry, New South Wales: Target Texts.

Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. Second Edition. London: Continuum.

Emilia, E. (2005). A Critical Genre-based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing in a Tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia. Volume I. Unpublished Dissertation, at Department of Language, Literacy and Arts Education, Faculty of Education, The University of Melbourne.

Emilia, E. (2011). Pendekatan Genre-Based dalam Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris: Petunjuk untuk Guru. Bandung: Rizqi Press.

(39)

Galve, I. G. (1998). The Textual Interplay of Grammatical Metaphor on the Nominalizations Occuring in Written Medical English. Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 30, Issue 3, September 1998, Pages 363-385.

Garnida, S.C. & Mirahayuni, N. K. (2012). The Role of Nominalisation in Information Packaging in English Academic Writing. Proceeding International Conference on Applied linguistics 5.

Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Theory and Method. London: Routledge.

Gerot, L. (1998). Making Sense of Text, The Context – Text Relationship. Sydney: Southwood Press.

Gerot, L. & Wignell, P. (1995). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. An Introductory Book. Sydney: Gerd Stabler.

Glendinning, E. H. (1973). English in Focus, English in Mechanical Engineering.

Teacher’s Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1992). Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: OUP.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Second Edition. London: Edward Anorld.

Halliday, M.A.K & Martin, J.R. (2005). Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Bristol: The Falmer Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1989). Some Grammatical Problems in Scientific English, taken from the Australian Review of Applied Linguistics; Genre and Systemic Functional Studies, 1989, Series 5, 6, pp. 13-37. In M.A.K. Halliday and J.R. Martin (Eds). (2005) Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power (pp. 76-95). London: The Falmer Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1989). ‘The Analysis of Scientific Texts in English and Chinese’, originally presented at the International Conference on