A STUDY ON COHESION IN THREE ARTICLES OF
ALWASILAH
A THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Master Degree in English Education
By:
Dila Agustini
0603782
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION
iii
DECLARATION
I certify that this thesis, “Cohesion in the Articles of Alwasilah”, is completely my own work; and that is it does not incorporate without acknowledgement any material previously submitted for a degree of diploma in any university; and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it does not contain any material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text.
Bandung, August 2009
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
There are several people who deserve a lot of credit for their invaluable
contributions to the realization of this study. First and foremost, my deeply grateful
goes to my supervisors, Prof. E. Aminuddin Aziz, M.A., Ph.D and Iwa Lukmana,
M.A., Ph.D for their generous and constructive guidance, enormous time
commitment, great encouragement, and incredible patience throughout the process.
Their helpful feedback at every stage of this study revealed their extensive knowledge
in the field of linguistics and qualitative research. I could never be able to finish this
thesis without your intense guidance, support and encouragement that have elevated
the quality of this thesis. It has been a great privilege and pleasure work under the
guidance of both supervisors, which made me experience new things.
I would also like to thank to Emi Emilia, M.Ed., Ph.D., the chairperson of
English Department, and all the lecturers of this department whose advices, expertise,
insightful comments, and supports that were instrumental to the success of this thesis.
My appreciation also goes to the examiners: Emi Emilia, M.Ed, PhD. and Dr.
Rd. Safrina Noorman, MA. whose invaluable comments and suggestions have not
only significantly improved the study but also provided considerable insight for my
future research.
I wish to thank to the Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi (DIRJEN DIKTI)
Kepulauan Riau Province and the Government of Karimun District that have
v
for the scholarship-without them, I would never be able to study in Indonesia
University of Education, Bandung. My deeply thanks also go to my principle of
SMPN 2 Karimun, R. Hernayati, for her invaluable understanding and supports.
I would also like to express my profound appreciation to all my colleagues of
Reguler Class ’06, S2 Depag students, Harni, and Piesesha who provided me with
invaluable supports and encouragement throughout the process of this study.
My intact gratitude would be for my limited edition angel and beloved
husband, Engkun Ayatullah Shiddiq who will always be my lover, friend, consultant
and Guru in my life. Many thanks for your endless supports of emotional, material,
and moral. My smart and astonishing children, Rara and Azka, thanks for your
endurance and love; Umi loves you all so much.
My heartfelt thanks also go to my parents, Mamak-Bapak in Karimun and
Emih-Apa’ (alm.) in Pandeglang; it has been a great blessing for me to be your
daughter. Thanks for the wisdom, foresight, and night praying. I’d also like to thank
every member of my family for believing in me and giving me all the supports I
vi
ABSTRACT
This study is an analysis of cohesion in published texts written by Alwasilah. The texts are taken from his anthology “Language, Culture, and Education: A Portrait of Contemporary Indonesia” (2007). The analysis aims to see the writer’s consistency in the use of cohesive devices throughout his works.
This study employed mainly a qualitative method and involved three texts of Alwasilah that were randomly chosen. Halliday and Hasan’ theory of cohesion (1976) and Eggins’ analytical strategies are used to reveal the cohesive devices that occur in the texts. There are four principles of cohesion that are analyzed in this study; they are reference, lexical relation, ellipsis or substitution, and conjunction.
This study exposes three main findings. First, cohesive devices that were employed within paragraphs are reference, lexical relation, conjunction, and ellipsis. There is no employment of substitution in the texts. Reference is the most prevalent device in all of the texts, with 683 occurrences (63%). This indicates that the writer tries to keep track of participants of the texts in facilitating the reading (Hoover 1997 as cited on Essem Educational Limited 2007). Second, cohesive devices that were employed inter-paragraphs are reference, lexical relation, conjunction, and ellipsis. There is no employment of substitution in the texts. Lexical relation is the most prevalent device inter-paragraphs, with 300 occurrences (60%). This indicates that the writer tries to keep track of topics of the texts for making texts hang together experientially (Halliday and Hasan 1976:288). Third, mostly, these texts cohesively have a clear focus, with only a couple major participants’ chains developed in each text (Eggins 1994:321), except Text #3 with four major participants. With regard to the texture of the analyzed texts (Halliday and Hasan 1976:297), Alwasilah appears to have a periodic rhythm in writing his articles, which extends a dense cluster of cohesive ties within the paragraphs and leaves the texture inter-paragraphs relatively loose. Finally, among the three texts, Text #1 is the most cohesive texts, “Resurrecting Literature in Schools”, where 94% of the devices are anaphorically interpreted, and only 6% are exophorically interpreted.Thus, it is more intelligible to the readers than the other texts. The second place is Text #3, where 88% of the devices are anaphorically interpreted, and 12% are exophorically interpreted. The last is Text #2 “Lament for Minor Languages”, where 84% of the devices are anaphorically interpreted, and 16% are exophorically interpreted.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Approval Page .………. i
Declaration ……… ii
Acknowledgement ..……….. iii
Abstract ………….……… iv
Chapter 2 Text and Cohesion 2.1 Text ………... 7
2.1.1 Definition of Text ………. 7
2.1.2 Texture of Text ………. 10
2.2 The Lexicogrammatical Resources of Cohesion ……….. 12
2.2.1 Reference ……….. 14
2.2.2 Conjunction ………...17
2.2.3 Substitution and Ellipsis.………... 19
2.2.4 Lexical Cohesion ……….. 21
2.3 Review of Related Study ……….. 24
2.4 Concluding Remarks ……… 25
Chapter 3 Research Methods 3.1 Statement of the Problems ………... 27
3.1 Design of Research ………... 27
3.2 Data Collection ………. 28
3.2.1 Data Resources ………. 28
3.2.2 Procedures of Data Collection ……….. 29
3.3 Data Analysis Methods ……….29
3.4 Concluding Remarks ……… 35
viii
4.1.1 Reference ……… 37
4.1.1.1 Types of Reference ………. 37
4.1.1.1.1 Pronominal Reference ……… 38
4.1.1.1.2 Demonstrative Reference ……… 39
4.1.1.1.3 Comparative Reference ……… 40
4.1.1.2 Systems of Retrieval ………. 40
4.1.1.6 Homophoric Reference ………. 41
4.1.1.7 Exophoric Reference ……… 42
4.1.1.8 Anaphoric Reference ……… 43
4.1.1.9 Cataphoric Reference ……… 44
4.1.2 Lexical Cohesion ……….. 45
4.1.2.1 Hyponymy and Co-Hyponyms ………. 45
4.1.2.2 Meronymy and Co-Meronyms ……….. 46
4.1.2.3 Antonymy ………. 47
4.1.4 Ellipsis or Substitution ………. 55
4.1.4.1 Nominal Ellipsis ……… 55
4.1.4.2 Verbal Ellipsis ……… 56
4.1.4.3 Clausal Ellipsis ……….. 56
4.1.3 Trends in the Use of Cohesive Devices within Paragraphs ……. 57
4.2 The Analysis of Kinds of Cohesive Devices inter-Paragraphs ………… 66
4.2.1 Reference ………. 66
4.2.1.1 Types of Reference ……… 67
4.2.1.1.1 Pronominal Reference ……….. 67
4.2.1.2 Demonstrative Reference ……….. 68
4.2.1.4 Comparative Reference ………. 70
4.2.1.2 Systems of Retrieval ……….. 70
4.2.1.6 Homophoric Reference ……….. 71
4.2.1.7 Exophoric Reference ……….. 71
4.2.1.8 Anaphoric Reference ……….. 71
4.2.1.9 Cataphoric Reference ……….. 73
4.2.2 Lexical Cohesion ……… 74
4.2.2.1 Hyponymy and Co-Hyponyms ……….. 74
4.2.2.2 Meronymy and Co-Meronyms ……….……….. 75
ix
4.2.4 Ellipsis or Substitution ……… 82
4.2.4.1 Nominal Ellipsis ……… 83
4.2.4.2 Verbal Ellipsis ……… 84
4.2.4.3 Clausal Ellipsis ……… 84
4.1.3 Trends in the Use of Cohesive Devices inter-Paragraphs …… 85
4.3 The Analysis of the Impact of the Use of Cohesive Devices on Cohesiveness of the Texts ………... 94
4.3.1 The Analysis of Meaning of Cohesive Devices of the Texts …... 94
4.3.1.1 Text #1 “Resurrecting Literature in Schools” (January 22, 1998) 95 4.3.1.1.1 The Meaning of Systems of Retrieval ……… 95
4.3.1.1.2 The Meaning of Lexical Relation Strings ….. 98
4.3.1.1.3 The Meaning of Conjunctive Relation ……… 101
4.3.1.2 Text #2 “Lament for Minor Languages” (December 13, 1997) 103 4.3.1.2.1 The Meaning of Systems of Retrieval ………… 104
4.3.1.2.2 The Meaning of Lexical Relation Strings ……….. 106
4.3.1.2.3 The Meaning of Conjunctive Relation ………….. 109
4.3.1.3 Text #3 “Ways to Better RI English Skills” (January 18, 1999) ……… 112
4.3.1.3.1 The Meaning of Systems of Retrieval ………… 112
4.3.1.3.2 The Meaning of Lexical Relation Strings ………. 114
4.3.1.3.3 The Meaning of Conjunctive Relation ………….. 117
4.3.2 The Analysis of Level of Cohesiveness of Three Texts ………. 120
Chapter 5 Conclusion and Suggestions 5.1 Conclusions ……….. 128
5.4 Recommendations ……… 131
Bibliography ……… 133
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents an introduction to the study and some basic reasons
that inspired the analysis of cohesion. It also incorporates some statements of the
problems, purposes of this study, research methods, and significance of the study.
At the end of this chapter, organization of the thesis is presented.
1.1 Background of the Study
People nowadays are demanded to understand, to read and to create
coherent texts. In order to achieve a coherent interpretation of the texts, the
readers must be able to interpret the semantic relations in the texts. Therefore,
Thompson (1994) claimed that the writers are mainly responsible for making
these semantic relations comprehensible to the readers. In other words, it is
necessary for a writer to master the concepts of written texts and the use of
semantic relations thorough grasp of their linguistic functions such as theme,
rheme, and lexico-grammatical cohesion.
Therefore this study would analyze the use of semantic relations
lexico-grammatical cohesion as one of the linguistic functions. It will focus on the
analysis of cohesion by identifying the cohesive devices that are employed in
texts, and analyzing the level of cohesiveness of the text.
Cohesion, according to Halliday and Hasan (1976), is the grammatical and
2
that hold a text together and give the text a meaning. Cohesive devices clarify for
readers the relationships among ideas in a piece of writing (Kilborn and Kriei
1999). In Cohesion in English, Halliday and Hasan (1976:4) classified cohesion into: (1) grammatical cohesive devices, which are reference, substitution, and
ellipsis; (2) conjunctive relation; and (3) lexical cohesive devices, which are in the
form of repetition, synonymy, antonymy.
According to Eggins (1994: 88), if cohesive tie is not identifiable, it will
prevent the elements in the paragraph from hanging together internally as a piece
of language. The most important function of cohesive ties may simply the
reduction the links afford the reader (Essem Educational Limited 2007). In other
words, if a text is cohesive, it will link sentence to sentence and paragraph to
paragraph. Beaugrande (De Beaugrande and Dressler:1981) also stated that
cohesion is one of the criteria that have to be used to qualify a discourse. The
other criterion is coherence.
Cohesion normally refers to how the text is related or tied together
whereas coherence refers to how the clauses or sentence relate to the context
(Essem Educational Limited 2007). Thus, cohesion and coherence are terms in
discourse analysis to describe and qualify the properties of written texts.
The interest in the study of the relations between sentences in a text is
relatively new in the study of English. It was Fries (Shibayama: 1980) who
discussed sequence signals of English sentences for the first time, then followed
by Quirk (1972) and Hasan (1976). They developed the study a little further in the
3
The study of sentence connection has made great progress in Hasan when
he discovered cohesion’s term. The study of cohesion in discourse analysis has
forwardly developed since the publication of Cohesion in English by Halliday and
Hasan (1976) (Zhou 2007). Some of the studies have investigated cohesion of
either scientific or non-scientific texts. Research to date has examined cohesion in
textbooks, novels, and articles. For example, Wanyama (2006) analyzed cohesion
in the novels of Alex La Guma, and combined the analysis with Bakhtin’s
compelling theory of novelistic discourse. Parvaz (2006) analyzed the effect of
text cohesion on reading comprehension. Crane (2000) analyzed texture in news
article by using cohesion. Utomo (2008) analyzed the cohesion of reading
passages used in English textbooks of Senior High School.
Using three articles of Chaedar Alwasilah as a basis, the textual aspect of
meaning through cohesion will be analyzed. As one of the figures in English
education, Alwasilah has written more than 20 textbooks and 300 articles about
language, education and culture (see Alwasilah & Alwasilah, 2005: 234), some of
which were published in several mass media.
As a figure that also concerns on teaching writing in classroom practices,
Alwasilah stresses the importance of collaborative writing where the teaching
would be effective if there is corrective feedback between writer and reader. The
analysis of cohesion in his articles would be helpful as corrective feedback in
teaching writing that the understanding of the employment of cohesive devices is
4
The chosen articles of Alwasilah were published in The Jakarta Post
during period 1997-2000. It was found that the texts of the articles were arranged
in a reasonable way and created coherently that makes the texts are easy to
understand. Being interested in knowing this phenomenon of the cohesiveness in
the texts, this study would analyze cohesion of Alwasilah’s articles in order to see
his works that constitute a strong cohesive.
1.2 Purposes of the Study
Based on the background above, this study was trying to acquire a deep
description of cohesion in Alwasilah’s articles. It aims to:
a. Identify the cohesive devices employed within paragraphs of Alwasilah’s
articles.
b. Identify the cohesive devices employed inter-paragraphs of Alwasilah’s
articles.
c. Investigate the impact of the use of the devices on cohesiveness of the articles
of Alwasilah.
1.3 Research Methods
The qualitative method was applied in order to identify the cohesiveness
of Alwasilah’s articles published in The Jakarta Post. The data were three of his articles that had been reprinted in his anthology “Language, Culture, and
5
articles that are analyzed in this study, which are taken from 1997-1999 year of
publication.
In this research, the data was analyzed based on Halliday’s (1978) theory
of systemic functional grammar, Haliday and Hasan’s (1976) theory of cohesion,
and Eggins’ (1994) terms of interpretation of the cohesive devices. Generally, the
data was analyzed qualitatively through the following phase: identifying the data,
categorizing the data, and interpreting the data.
1.4 Significance of the Study
The results of this study will be of great contributions to the following
aspects. First, the aspect of theoretical basis for writing text in English, it
emphasized the importance of the understanding in creating coherent and cohesive
texts. The findings of this study could be helpful as feedback for improving the
practices of writing especially in making the meaning of semantic relations
transparent to the readers, and as a guide for writers especially the beginners in
understanding and creating coherent written text. Furthermore, it is expected to
infuse all writers with an awareness of the potential effects of the use of cohesion
since the use of English language properly is able to improve the accuracy of
writing scientific or non-scientific text effectively and cohesively.
Second, the aspect of teaching writing in classroom practices. It suggests
that teaching writing should put some emphasis on the employment of cohesive
devices in discourse, either spoken or written texts. The understanding of this
6
1.5 Organization of the Thesis
This thesis consists of six chapters. Chapter one introduces the present
study, which explains the overall picture of the study, the background, the
research problems, the research purposes, the research methods, and significance
of the study. Chapter two presents the review of related literature or theoretical
foundation, focusing on cohesion theories. Chapter three elaborates methods of
the research, including statements of the research problems, the design, the data
collection, and methods of the data analysis. Chapter four reports the data analysis
that focuses on some findings and discussion. Chapter five concludes the present
27
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODS
This chapter discusses the methods of the research. The sketch of methods
is used as guidance in conducting the research and getting intended data. There
are four major sections in this chapter; they are statements of the problems,
research design, data collection that consists of data resources and procedures of
data collection, and the data analysis.
3.1 Statement of the Problems
The problems of the present study are formulated in the following
questions:
a. What cohesive devices are employed within paragraphs of the articles of
Alwasilah?
b. What cohesive devices are employed inter-paragraphs of the articles of
Alwasilah?
c. What is the impact of the use of the devices on cohesiveness of the articles of
Alwasilah?
3.2 Design of Research
The present study employs a qualitative research approach, considering
that this is the most appropriate method in investigating the phenomenon of single
28
design which yields qualitative data and provides an interpretive analysis of that
data since the aim of the study is to identify the cohesive devices of opinion
articles which correlate strongly with the cohesiveness of the texts. So, this study
is required to describe and interpret what conditions that exist, processes that are
going on, or trends that are developing to produce a ‘rich’ and ‘deep’ data.
The instrument of this study is the researcher who does not start the study
with a hypothesis and emphasizes the study on the “process” rather than “output”.
This is in line with what Meleong says in his book (1989:7). He mentioned that
qualitative research is a kind of research that emphasizes on the “process” as the
relation of each part or entry which is being examined in a process.
3.3 Data Collection
This section presents two subsections that are related to the data of the
study. The first subsection describes the resources of the data that are analyzed in
this study, and the delimitation of the data. The second subsection presents the
procedures that are used in collecting the data.
3.3.1Data Resources
The main data of the study are the articles written by Alwasilah, which
were published in the Jakarta Post and were collectively reprinted in an anthology
29
3.3.2Procedures of Data Collection
To delimit this study, the samples are selected with purposive sampling.
There are only three out of thirty-six articles were chosen for this study, as stated
by McMillan (2001) that from small samples, purposeful sampling is done to
increase the utility of information obtained.
Those articles were appointed based on the year of the publishing in
which the articles of the anthology was published during 1997-2000. This
sampling process is to simplify the analysis of the writer’s consistency throughout
his texts that constitute a strong cohesive.
. The articles of each year were appointed from the anthology that was
published during 1997-2000. The chosen texts are “Resurrecting Literature in Schools” (January 22, 1998) that is then labelled as Text #1, “Lament for Minor Languages” (December 13, 1997) as Text #2, and “Ways to Better RI English Skills” (January 18, 1999) as Text #3.
3.4 Data Analysis Methods
The data analysis will be based on Halliday and Hasan’s terms of cohesion
analysis (1989), and Eggins’ (1994) analysis terms of the interpretation of the
devices. The data are analyzed on the basis of the following steps. First, reading
each text several times carefully paragraph by paragraph, and number the
30
Underlining all related grammatical and lexical items of each text that
meet the criteria of cohesive devices on the text. They are reference, lexical
relation, conjunction, and ellipsis and substitution. For examples:
1) Reference:
The pleasures that drawour children first to literature are not those written by Rendra, Sutardji Calzoum Bachri, Goenawan Muhamad, Saini KM and others (Alwasilah 1998).
The pronoun ‘our’ in the sentence does not refer to anything in the text. ‘Our’
refers to something outside the text (the readers and the writer). It is called
exophoric reference.
2) Lexical Relation:
Many educators and words-smiths in particular, claim that the present teaching of Bahasa, including literature is a far cry from the ideal. The allocated hours for the subject are not sufficient for teaching the language, let alone for developing literature appreciation (Alwasilah 1998).
In these sentences, ‘literature’ was repeated twice. This word is called lexical
reiteration, which involves the repetition of a lexical item. This belongs to
repetition.
3) Conjunction:
Tolerance, mutual respect understanding, caring, responsibility, and cooperation are virtues offered by literature (Alwasilah 1998).
‘And’ is called additive conjunction because it adds ‘cooperation’ as virtues
offered by literature.
4) Ellipsis:
I don’t know how to work this computer. I’ll have to learn how [Ø].
31 5) Substitution:
Peter takes two weeks’ vacation and Tina does too.
‘Does’ substitutes ‘takes two weeks’ vacation. It is called Verbal Substitution.
Listing the classified data separately into tables, reference and lexical
relation are firstly put in chain shapes before in the tables, as exemplified in the
sentences below that were taken from Text #1 (Alwasilah 1998) :
• Reference:
1) Paragraph #1, sentence A:
The pleasures that draw our children first to literature are not those written by Rendra, Sutardji Calzoum Bachri,. Goenawan Muhamad, Saini KM and others.
2) Paragraph #6, sentence A:
Ours now is the era of modernization and industrialization, which in many cases have polluted established traditions and values.
3) Paragraph #8, sentence A:
Almost all over the globe, educators see literature as part of the humanities.
Table 3.1 Analysis of Reference Types
Paragraph/Se
that... Definite article/…/cataphoric 0
that draw our children…
Our children Pronominal/plural/exophoric 0 our writer & reader
Those Demonstrative/far/cataphoric 0 those written by…
Others Comparative/difference/anaphoric 0 others authors 6.A 1 Now Locational/…/exophoric -
8.A. 1 The globe Definite article/…/homophoric 0
• Lexical Relation
32
Most children will not become professional literary scholars like H.B. Yassin and the late St. Takdir Alisjahbana.
When they finish school, they are more likely to drive cabs, wait on tables, sell news-papers, to work in stores or factories, and so on and so forth.
To assume that they are interested in the works of Rendra, for example, is, in Probst's words (1988), "to make a rash leap of faith".
Teachers should realize that the questions have to do with the interests and satisfaction of the average reader.
2) Paragraph #18, sentences A and B:
This being the case, the argument that the allocated hours are insufficient is irrelevant, because avid and independent readers read intensively and extensively inside the classroom and outside. (A)
At later stages, they become fully independent readers as learners. (B)
Table 3.2 Analysis of Lexical Relation Types
Paragraph/se 2.A 1 H.B. Yassin,.. hyponymy/inclusive 0 literary scholars 2.B 1 Sell collocation/expectancy 0 newspapers 2.C 1 Rendra co-hyponyms/inclusive 1 literary scholars
3.C 2 Questions meronymy/inclusive 1 examinations Average reader synonymy/identical 0 school children 18.A 1 Outside Contrast 0 inside 18.B 1 Independent
readers Repetition/identical 0
independent readers
• Conjunction
Paragraph #6, sentences A and B:
Ours now is the era of modernization and industrialization, which in many cases have polluted established traditions and values.
33
Table 3.3 Analysis of Conjunction Types
Paragraph/s
now explicit enhancing/temporal/simult./ internal 0 in many
cases
explicit
elaborating/clarifying/dismissal/internal 0 6.b. 1 and explicit extending/additive/positive/external 0
• Ellipsis
1) Paragraph #10:
As reported by The Jakarta Post (Jan. 6, 1997), realizing that writers have the power to inform the public, the governor said: "I think you have to make easy-reading and touching stories so people—at all levels—can understand them."
2) Paragraph #15, sentence A:
First, literature is experience, not information.
Table 3.4 Analysis of Ellipsis Types
Paragraph/s entence No.
No. of Ties
Cohesive Item Type Distance Presupposed item 10 1 as [Ø]repoted by Jakarta Post… verbal ellipsis 0 as (preceding texts has)reported by… 15.a. 1 first [Ø],… Nominal ellipsis 0 first (paradigm),…
1) This last sample was taken from text #3, sentence B of paragraph #1:
Mixed in are teachers, student motivation, textbooks, bureaucrats' attitude, and government policy.
Table 3.5 Analysis of Ellipsis Types
Paragraph/s entence No.
No. of Ties
Cohesive Item Type Distan
ce Presupposed item 1.b 1 Mixed in [Ø] are teachers, student… clausal ellipsis 0 Mixed in (many variables) are teachers, …
Dividing the devices into two categories: 1) cohesive devices within
paragraph that correlate one sentence to another in one paragraph, and 2) cohesive
34
counting the frequency and the percentage of the fulfillment of cohesive devices
within and inter paragraphs, and assembling the data into tables as the examples
below:
Table 3.6 Cohesive Devices within Paragraphs
Cohesive Devices Text 1 Text 2 Text 3 Total %
Table 3.7 Total of Cohesive Devices
35
The last is recapitulating the results of data of each text based on the
connection of grammatical and lexical cohesive devices to analyze level of the
cohesiveness. Listing the results on a table, as follows:
Table 3.8 Analysis of Level of Cohesiveness
Text #1 Text #2 Text #3
1. Grammatical cohesive devices 2. Frequency of 1 per clause 3. Percentage of 1 entering in chains 4. Explicit lexical tokens
5. Cohesively interpreted lexical tokens 6. Total lexical tokens
7. 5 as percentage of 6
8. Percentage of 1 interpreted anaphorically 9. Percentage of 1 interpreted exophorically 10. Percentage of 1 interpreted ambigious
Interpreting the result of analysis based on the connection of grammatical
and lexical cohesive devices. If the number of anaphoric references is more than
the exophoric references, the articles are considered to be more cohesive, and vice
versa.
3.5 Concluding Remarks
The purpose of this study is to identify, describe, and analyze the
cohesiveness of opinion articles of Alwasilah. This study was designed based on
the qualitative approach in order to explain the phenomenon. The data were
collected from the documented materials in order to gain information of the
phenomenon under investigation. The data would be then presented in the data
128
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the conclusions of the research on cohesion analysis
in Alwasilah’s articles after which the recommendations are given. However, a
summary of the main findings is sketched. The summary is based on the nature of
the problems which were formulated in the study. They are to identify variety of
cohesive devices that are employed within and inter-paragraphs of the articles of
Alwasilah, and to investigate the cohesiveness of the texts.
5.1 Conclusions
This section presents the main findings and the conclusions drawn from
the analysis results. This study is completed by using two theoretical frameworks
of Halliday and Hasan’s, and Eggins’. A qualitative method was employed in the
analysis, which would emphasize on the “process”. It analyzed three texts, they
are: Resurrecting Literature in Schools (Text #1), Lament for Minor Languages
(Text #2), and Ways to Better RI English Skills (Text #3). Based on the analysis, the study found that:
a. Cohesive devices that were employed within paragraphs in the texts are:
reference, lexical relation, conjunction, and ellipsis. There was no
employment of substitution in the texts. Overall, there are 1092 devices that
were employed within paragraphs. As regards types of the devices, reference
129
occurrences (63%). This indicates that the writer tries to keep track of
participants of the texts in facilitating the reading (Hoover 1997 as cited on
Essem Educational Limited 2007).
b. Cohesive devices that were employed inter-paragraphs in the texts are:
reference, lexical relation, conjunction, and ellipsis. There was no
employment of substitution in this text. Overall, there are 500 devices that
were employed inter-paragraphs. With regard to the type of the devices, unlike
the devices within paragraphs, lexical relation is the most prevalent device that
was employed inter-paragraphs, with 300 occurrences (60%). From the lexical
cohesion analysis, a very tight pattern of cohesion inter-paragraphs of the texts
was identified. Lexical is the central device for making texts hang together
experientially, defining the aboutness of a text (Halliday and Hasan
1976:288). By being the most prevalent device, lexical relation in those texts
indicates that writer tries to keep track of topics of the texts in facilitating the
reading.
c. The analysis of the meaning of the employment of the devices exposes that (1)
there is a clear focus on the Text #1 and #2, with only a couple of major
participants’ chains developed in each text (Eggins 1994:321). In Text #1, the
major participants are literature and students while in Text #2 are we/our (the
addressed writer and readers) and the ethnic/minor language. However, Text
#3 indicates a more diverse number of participants, with four major
participants. It indicates that this text has unclear focus. (2) There is a
130
systems and topics of lexical relation. So the texts are cohesively related each
other. (3) The writer’s concern is to tell his readers the supplementary
information in order to improve or to make it complete. They are also high in
internal and non-adjacent link, as well as very few of the decoding works are
left to the readers. With regard to the texture of the analyzed texts (Halliday
and Hasan 1976:297), it has relatively been the characteristic of Alwasilah’s
periodic rhythm in writing his articles, which extends a dense cluster of
cohesive ties within the paragraphs and leaves the texture inter-paragraphs
relatively loose. The results of the analysis of the level of cohesiveness are
exposed that among those texts, Text #1 is the most cohesive texts,
“Resurrecting Literature in Schools” (January 22, 1998), where 94% o the
devices are anaphorically interpreted, and only 6% are exophorically
interpreted. Thus, it is more intelligible to the readers than the other texts
(Crane 2000). The second place is Text #3, where 88% of the devices are
anaphorically interpreted, and 12% are exophorically interpreted. The last is
Text #2 “Lament for Minor Languages” (December 13, 1997), where 84% of
the devices are anaphorically interpreted, and 16% are exophorically
interpreted.
Based on the main findings above, this study concludes that all the
analyzed texts are cohesive where mostly cohesive ties in the texts are
identifiable, except the substitution. Without the ties, sentences or utterances
would seem to lack any type of relationship to each other and might not
131
information the readers might need that related to the topics is contained within
the texts and thus, they are relatively easy to read.
Cohesion analysis has shown what principles exist that creates semantic
links within text between sentence and paragraph boundaries. This analysis is
helpful in improving the understanding of cohesion in English texts for writers
especially the beginners and in creating coherent and cohesive texts. This analysis
also contributes to the readers’ ability to achieve a coherent interpretation of a text
where they must be able to interpret the semantic relations lying beneath the
surface text.
Hence it is quite necessary for teachers to spend some time in introducing
and teaching cohesion to students in improving their writing skills, at least in the
area of textual cohesion.
5.2 Recommendations
Cohesion, a method developed by Halliday and Hasan (1976), is the
grammatical and lexical relationship within a text or sentence.It can be defined
as the links that hold a text together and give it meaning. As according to Eggins
(1994: 88), if cohesive tie is not able to identify, it is this absence of semantic ties
between elements in the paragraph that prevents it from hanging together
internally as a piece of language.
This study has examined the employment of cohesive devices in three
texts, the meaning of the devices, and the level of cohesiveness of the texts. There
132
a. This study is limited in the terms of the sampled texts and subject. There are
only three texts written by one subject. As the results, there are many things
that cannot be explained such as the variation of cohesive devices that are
employed by the subject in his other kinds of texts, or how the cohesive
devices are employed in text written by another subject.
b. This study is also limited in terms of its scope of investigation that only
covered broader issues, that is, number and types of cohesive devices and the
level of the cohesiveness of the texts. As a result, there remain many aspects
unanswered. It would be more insightful to discuss the other aspects such as
the reasons of the employment of a certain device. For example, in Text #3,
there are so many contrapuntal rhythms in the texture, where the writer
extends a dense cluster of cohesive ties across the paragraph boundary and
leave the texture within paragraph relatively loose. They are in paragraph 2,
10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19. These could be analyzed in term of the reasons
behind this extension.
c. This study is also limited to aspect of cohesion of text analysis while there is
other aspect that also has main role in making a good text, which is coherence.
It would be more insightful and depth to discuss both cohesion and coherence
133
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ali, Moh. Mohideen, Dr. H. (1996). Grammatical Cohesion in Bahasa Melayu (Malay). [Online]. Available: http:www.sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf4/ali1996grammatical.pdf [March
22nd, 2009]
Alwasilah, A. Chaedar. (2006). Pokoknya Kualitatif: Cara Baru Menulis Dengan Metode Kolaborasi. Bandung: PT. Kiblat Buku Utama.
Alwasilah, A. Chaedar. (2001). Language, Culture, and Education: A Portrait of Contemporary Indonesia. Bandung: CV. Andira.
Alwasilah, A. Chaedar, Alwasilah, Senny Suzanna (2005). Pokoknya Menulis: Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: PT. Dunia Pustaka Jaya.
Biklen, Bogdan. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc.
Blass, Rregina. (1990). Relevance Relations in Discourse. In Cambridge Studies in Linguistics: Cambridge University Press. [Onlline]. Available: http://books.google.co.id/books [August 4th, 2009]
Bloor, T. and Bloor, M. (1995). Functional Analysis of English. London: Arnold.Bright, W. (ed.) (1992). International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. (4 vols.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bright, W. (ed.) (1992). International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Coherence. [Online]:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/general/gl_cohere.html. [February
134
Coulthard, Malcolm. (1981). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis.RELC Journal. [Online]. Available: http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/18/1/115 [July 23rd, 2009]
Crane, Paul A. (2000). Texture in Text: A Discourse Analysis of a News Article Using Halliday and Hasan’s Model of Cohesion. [Online]. Available: http://www.library.nakanishi.ac.jp/kiyou/gaidai(30)/08.pdf. [May 27th,
2009]
Crystal, D. (1992). Introducing Linguistics. Harlow: Penguin.
De Beaugrande, Robert. (2005). The Case against Critical Discourse Analysis Reopened: In Search of Widdowson’s “Pretexts”. [Online]. Available: http://www.beaugrande.com/WiddowsonPretexts.htm [August 4th, 2009]
De Beaugrande, Robert. and Dressler, W. U. (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics. [Online]. Available: http://www.sil.org [June 3rd, 2009]
Djajasudarma, T. Fatimah. (1994). Wacana: Pemahaman dan Hubungan Antaruunsur. Bandung: Eresco.
Eggins, Suzanne. (1994). An Introduction To Systemic Functional Linguistics. New York: Continuum
El-Shiyab, Said. (1997). Lexical Cohesion with Reference to the Identity Chain: Application of Identity Chain to Different Types of Arabic Texts.
International Review of Applied Lingistics in Language Teaching (IRAL). [Online], Vol 35 (3); pg. 211, 13 pgs. Available: http://proquest.umi.com
135
Ewald, Helen Rothschild. (1983). Writing As Process: Invention and Convention. Ohio: A Bell & Howell Company
Fairclough, Norman. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. New York: Routledge
Garrido, Joaquin. (2003). Relevance Versus Connection: Discourse and Text as Units of Analysis. [Online]. Available: http://www.ucm.es/info/circulo/no13/garrido.htm [July 22nd, 2009]
Gee, James Paul. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Gerot, Linda and Wignell, Peter. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. NSW: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.
Guenther, Christine. (2004). The Role of Modification and Context in English Nominal Ellipsis. [Online]. Available: webs.uvigo.es/np1/doc/Guenther.pdf [June 26th, 2009]
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. New York: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, Ruqaiya. (1976). Cohesion in English. New York: Longman Inc.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, Ruqaiya. (1985). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Victori: Deakin University Press Inc.
136
Hansen, Randall S. & Hansen, Katharine. The Importance of Good Writing. Tersedia: http://www.quuintcareers.com/writing/skills.html [February 23,
2008]
Hoey, Michael. (1991). Another Perspective on Coherence and Cohesive Harmony. In Trends in Linguistics: Functional and Systemic Linguistics (Approaches and Uses). [Printed]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Ischool. University of Texas. (1998). Discourse Analysis. [Online]. Available: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/discourse.htm [March
17th, 2008]
Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kilborn, Judith. & Kriei, Nathan. (1999). Cohesion: Using Repetition and Reference Words to Emphasize Key Ideas in Your Writing. [Online] Available: http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/style/cohesion.html [April 17th,
2008]
Kridalaksana, Harimurti. (1978). “Keutuhan Wacana”, in Bahasa dan Sastra. Fourth Year, No. 1. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa.
Kryston, Vic. The Writing Process: The Wonderful Writing Skills (Un)Handbook. Tersedia: http://www.wonderfulwritingskillsunhandbook.com. [January
12, 2007]
Lee, Icy. (2002) Helping Students Develop Coherence in Writing. [Online]. Available:www.eric.ed.gov [April 2nd, 2008]
137
Literacy Education Online. (1999). Cohesion: Using Repetition and Reference Words to Emphasize Key Ideas in Your Writing. [Online] Tersedia: http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/style/cohesion.html [April 16th, 2008]
McCrimmon, M. James. (1967). Writing With A Purpose & From Source To Statement. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company
Moeliono, Anton M. (Eds) (1988). Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.
Ntelitheos, Dimitris. and Christodoulou, Eleni. (2005). The Acquisition of Nominal Ellipsis in Greek. Papers in Psycholinguistics. [Online]. Available:
www.linguistics.ucla.edu/faciliti/wpl/issues/wpl13/.../Dimitri_Eleni.pdf
[June, 29th, 2009]
Nunan, David. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Parvaz, Mohammad Hossein. (2006). The Effect of Text Cohesion on Reading Comprehension. [Online]. Tersedia: http:www. [June 29th, 2009]
Sanders, T. and Maat, H. Pander. (2006). Cohesion and Coherence: Linguistics Approach. [Online] Tersedia: http:// [June 24th, 2009]
Summares, Della. (2005). Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Shibayama, Morijiro. (1980). Understanding Cohesion in English. [Online]. Available: https://gair.media.gunma-u.ac.jp [June 24th, 2009)
Tai Yuen, Wong. (1993). Master of Phiosophy in Education Thesis. [Online]. Available: www.eric.ed.gov [April 2nd, 2008]
138
www.sfb632.uni-potsdam.de/publications/isis02_7teich-fankhauser.pdf
[March, 22nd, 2009]
Teleformacion. (1999). Ellipsis. In Teleformacion Resources.[Online]. Available:
http://teleformacion.princast.es[June 6th, 2009]
The LinguaLinks Library, Version 4.0, published on CD-ROM by SIL
International, 1999
Titscher, Meyer, Wodak, and Vetter. (2000). Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd
Thompson, Susan. (1994). Aspects of Cohesion in Monologue. Oxford University Press. Available: http://applij.oxfordjournals.org
Utomo, Slamet. (2008).Cohesion of Reading Passages Used in English Textbooks for The First Term, Eleventh Year of Senior High School. TEFLIN. Jakarta: UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Press
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1977). Text and Context: Exploration in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman.
Wanyama, Mzenga. (2006). Cohesion in The Novels Of Alex La Guma: A Dialogic Analysis. [Online] Tersedia: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3709/is_200604/ai_n17184340
[July 5th, 2007]
Wikipedia. (1999). Cohesion (Linguistics).In Wikipedia Online: Wikipedia Article. [Online]. Tersedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohesion_(linguistics) [January 13th, 2009]
139
Wikipedia. (1999). Discourse Analysis. [Online]. Available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Text_document_with_red_question_m
ark.svg [March 17th, 2008]
