A. Research Design
The design of this research was a descriptive research to analyze the students’ essay writing. Descriptive design was used because there was no treatment given to the students. It meant that the used of cohesion in the students’
essay writings was only described as what they were, without giving any treatments (Ary in Sutama, 1997: 85).
This research focused on the cohesion in essay writing made by the students, described the types of cohesion used and the frequency of occurrence of cohesion.
B. Research Variable and Indicators
1. The variables of this research were the types of cohesion and the frequency of occurrence of cohesion types used in the essay writing.
2. The indicators of cohesion were reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion.
a. Reference relates one element of the text to another for its interpretation. It is semantic relation and potentially cohesive relation because the thing that serves as the source of the interpretation may itself be an element of text. There are three types of reference:
1) Personal reference is reference by means of function in the speech situation, through the category of person.
2) Demonstrative reference is reference by means of location, on a scale of proximity.
3) Comparative reference is indirect reference by means of identity or similarity.
b. Substitution is a replacement of one component by another within a text. A substitute is word which is used in place of the repetition of a particular item. Then, there are three types of substitution:
1) Nominal substitution, which is happen where the noun or a nominal group can be replaced by a noun.
2) Verbal substitution, which is occur when the verb or verbal group can be replaced by another verb.
3) Clausal substitution is a relation in which the entire clause not an element within the clause is presupposed and the contrasting element is outside the clause.
c. Ellipsis is an omission of an element required by the grammar which is assumed obvious from the context and need not to be raised. Ellipsis is divided into three parts:
1) Nominal ellipsis is the ellipsis within the nominal group, where the omission of nominal group is served a common noun, proper noun or pronoun.
2) Verbal ellipsis refers to ellipsis within the verbal group where the elliptical verb depends on a preceding verbal group.
3) Clausal ellipsis functions as verbal ellipsis, where the omission refers to a clause.
d. Conjunction functions to connect one element of text with another.
The element which is connected can be word, phrase, clause, sentence, or even paragraph. Then, conjunction is divided into five types:
1) Additive conjunction signals the presentation of addition information.
2) Adversative conjunction is conjunction which moderates or qualifies the information in the following sentence of a text with the information in the preceding.
3) Causal conjunction interprets the relationship between the cause and consequence.
4) Temporal conjunction expresses the relationships which exit when the events in a text are related in terms of the timing of their occurrence.
e. Lexical cohesion refers to how the writer uses lexical items such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs to relate to the text consistently to its area of focus. Lexical cohesion can be classified into two major categories:
1) Reiteration is a form of lexical cohesion in which the two cohesive ties refer to the same entity or event. Then, reiteration is subdivided into four categories:
a) Repetition of same item restate the same lexical item in a later part of the discourse.
b) General nouns are used to refer back to a lexical item.
c) Synonymy used to express a similar meaning of an item.
d) Super ordinate. It involves the use of general class words.
2) Collocation is achieved through the association of lexical items that occur regularly in the same environment.
C. Population and Sample
The population of this research was the seventh semester students of English Department, Makassar Muhammadiyah University in academic year of 2015/ 2016. The total number of the seventh semester students of English education department of Makassar Muhammadiyah University was about 291 students. The researcher chose the seventh semester students because the students had studied writing 1 until writing 4 and Essay writing.
The sample of the research was selected from the total population of the seventh semester students of English education Department of Makassar Muhammadiyah University. The total sample that was used in this research was 30 students taken from the population by applying simple random sampling technique. This means, if the sample was random that all possible sampling of 30 students had the same probability of being selected.
In selecting the samples, the researcher used lottery way. Firstly, the researcher wrote 291 students name code on a small piece of paper and they were rolled and put into a glass. For instance, a student from class A and registered on attendance list as number 1 was given code A.1, a student from class B and registered on attendance list as number 1 was given code B.1, and so on.
Secondly, the researcher mixed the rolled papers in a glass and let 30 rolls dropped out from the glass. After having the total number of sample, the researcher stopped it.
D. Research Instrument
As it was mentioned before, this research was conducted to find out the types of cohesive devices used in the student’s essay writing. The instrument that was used in this research was the test of writing. The students were required to write an essay. The students were given some topics as consideration of their essays’ topic. Besides, the researcher also used the table of coding scheme provided by Halliday and Ruqaiya (1976) to list the cohesion items founded in the essay writing. The coding scheme was used as the research instrument to identify every single cohesion item founded in the essay writing.
E. Procedure of Collecting Data
After providing the instrument to collect the data, the next important thing to be discussed was the procedure of collecting data. In order to obtain the data to be analyzed, the researcher worked through the following steps:
First, the 30 essay writing took as samples were mark with number code.
The code that was used to mark every corpus was D… (stands for Discourse…).
The result of coding every corpus was listed as D1 for discourse 1, D2 for discourse 2, to D30 for discourse 30.
Second, every discourse, of course, comprised some T-units. To identify a T-unit, it was also marked by a special code. The code used was [...]. For instance, [1] was the code for T-unit1, [2] for T-unit 2, and so on.
The last step of data collection was the use of coding scheme given by Halliday and Ruqaiya (1976) as presented in the previous chapter. Every single T- unit was carefully analyzed to identify cohesion items. Every cohesion item was put into the table based on its category.
F. Data Analysis
After collecting the data, analysis became very important to did in order to answer the two problems proposed in chapter one. The problems were:
1. Types of cohesion used
2. The frequency of occurrence of cohesion
In the following section, the steps for data analysis was presented based on the order of the problem stated above.
The first problem was concerned with the types of cohesion in the essay writing written by the students, and the second one was concerned with the most frequently used of cohesion type. To obtain the answers for the two problems, some steps were taken. The steps can be seen as follows:
a) Identifying T-Unit
As it had been explained in the previous chapter, the first steps of cohesion analysis suggested by Halliday and Ruqaiya was the
identification of T-units. The data analysis, to answer problem 1 and 2, started from this steps. That was identifying T-unit. A T-unit was an independent clause. Thus, a sentence may have consisted for one or more T-unit. By this step, T-unit could be identified.
b) Identifying cohesion among T-Unit
It is clear that cohesion is a semantic relation. The semantic relation existed among T-units. Semantic relation could be identified by the presence of cohesive devices presupposing other items in other T- units. It means that the presence of reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, lexical cohesion indicated the presence of semantic relation.
c) Labeling the identified cohesion
This step gave significant contribution to the cohesion analysis.
Having identified cohesion in T-unit, labeling became an important step.
This step was done by giving codes referring to the coding scheme given by Halliday and Ruqaiya. The coding scheme was put in details in chapter II. To facilitate this step, the researcher used the following table:
Table 3.1 Table of Identified Cohesion T-Unit
Number
No. of
Ties Cohesion Item Type Presupposed
Item
d) Obtaining the frequency of occurrence of cohesion
The frequency of occurrence of particular type of cohesion in essay could be obtained by the following formula:
=∑ × 100%
Where: X = The frequency of occurrence of particular type of cohesion.
N = The particular number of each type of cohesion.
∑N = The total number of cohesion in discourse.
(Ayub, 2013: 6)
Then, the frequency of occurrence of cohesion in each essays could be obtained by the following formula:
Dx =
∑∑
Where f Dx = Frequency of discourse number ‘x’
∑C = Total number of cohesion in each discourse
∑N = Total number of cohesion in all discourse
(Haryanto, 1994) The last step, the frequency of occurrence of cohesion could be obtained by using this formula:
C =
∑∑
Where: fC = The frequency of occurrence of cohesion
∑f = The total frequency of cohesion in all discourse
∑ T − Unit = The total number of T-Unit in all discourse
(Haryanto, 1994)
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the findings of the data collection and the discussion of findings. The two things are offered as follows:
A. Findings
As it has been stated that this section presented the findings, the findings reported were those which were useful to answer the two research questions proposed in chapter I of this thesis. The findings reported in this section is based on the analysis of data collected and the application of the method described in the previous chapter.
By referring to the problem statements of the research presents in chapter I, the findings are presented based on the order of the questions. The two questions are the types of cohesion are used in the students’ essay writing and the frequency of occurrence of cohesive device in essay writing.
1. Types of Cohesion Used in the Students’ Essay Writing
In this section, the researcher provided a detailed analysis of types of cohesion used in the students’ essay writing. The analysis was conducted to the 30 essays. Based on the analysis, the researcher found that there were 13 types of cohesion used by the seventh semester students of English education department of Makassar Muhammadiyah University in their essays. The description of 13 types of cohesion found in all essays could be put in the following details:
1.1 Reference
Based on the analysis, all of the types of reference were involved in the essays. They were pronominal reference, demonstrative reference, and comparative reference.
1.1.1 Pronominal reference
Pronominal reference (R1) was one of the types of cohesion that occurred in the 30 essays under the analysis. The example of the use of pronominal reference is presented below:
In Indonesia, many fires get started when people are camping in the forest in the summer time when it is hot and dry. They make camp fires and when a sudden gust of wind comes through and blows some ashes from the fire onto some dry, dead leaves, the whole forest starts to burn. (Taken from D5 in T-unit 8-9)
The example above showed the use of pronominal reference item
“they”. The sentences were related through the pronoun “they”. The word
“they” referred to the noun “people” and there was also semantic relation between them. That was, they were cohesive.
The data analysis showed that pronominal reference used by the students were 352 times in the 30 essays and the average occurrence of this type of cohesion was 11.73 times. The use of this type was the third-highest number in the students’ essays. This implied that all the students were familiar and able to use this type of cohesion.
1.1.2 Demonstrative reference
Demonstrative reference (R2) was one of the types of cohesion that occurred in the 30 essays under the analysis. The example of the use of demonstrative reference was presented below:
Forest fires are probably the most underrated disasters in the world especially in Indonesia. Consequently, people do not normally think of forest firesas being a big catastrophe. Most peopleare more worried about tsunamis, political issues and so on rather than forest fires.
Unfortunately, our government realized that the forest fires that occur each year is very damage to society and … (Taken from D5 in T-unit 1-4)
The example above showed the use of demonstrative reference item
“the”. The definite article “the” refers to the entire sentence. The definite article “the” explained the word “forest fire” clearly which was mentioned at the preceding T-unit.
The data analysis showed that demonstrative reference used by the students were 338 times in the 30 essays and the average occurrence of this type of cohesion was 11.26 times. The use of this type was the fourth-highest number in the students’ essays. This implied that all the students were familiar and able to use this type of cohesion.
1.1.3 Comparativereference
Comparative reference (R3) was one of the types of cohesion that occurred in the 22 essays under the analysis. The example of the use of comparative reference was presented below:
Corruption causes mass destruction for people’s misery and it should be stopped by death penalty to prevent other corruption. (Taken from D4 in T-unit 6)
The example above showed the use of comparative reference item
“other”. The comparative reference item ”other” referred to word “people” in the text. This word was an endophoric reference (reference which referred inside the text). So, the word “other” then interpreted the word “people”
which was mentioned inside the text.
The data analysis showed that adversative conjunction used by the students were 46 times in the twenty-two essays and the average occurrence of this type of cohesion was 1.53 times. This implied that all the students were still able and familiar with this type of cohesion.
1.2 Substitution
Based on the analysis, there were two types of substitution involved in the essays. They were nominal substitution, and verbal substitution.
1.2.1 Nominal substitution
Nominal substitution (S1) was one of the types of cohesion that occurred in the 3 essays under the analysis. The example of the use of nominal substitution was presented below:
The growth of corruptors in Indonesia is because of some reasons, one of them is the low punishment. (Taken from D1 in T-unit 8)
The example above showed the use of nominal substitution item
“one”. The word “one” substitute for a single numbered object serves as a
substitute for the things that have been mentioned earlier at the beginning of that sentence. The word “one” was the substitute for the word “reasons”.
The data analysis showed that nominal substitution used by the students were 5 times in the 3 essays and the average occurrence of this type of cohesion was 0.16 times. This implied that the students were not familiar and rarely used this type of cohesion.
1.2.2 Verbal substitution
Verbal substitution (S2) was one of the types of cohesion that occurred in the 3 essays under the analysis. The example of the use of verbal substitution was presented below:
Seeing their favorite cartoon character kill another character may give an impression that it's funny and it is okay to do the same. (Taken from D9 in T-unit 8)
The example above showed the use of verbal substitution item “do the same”. Here, the words “do the same” substitute for the words “kill another character”.
The data analysis showed that verbal substitution used by the students were 3 times in the 3 essays and the average occurrence of this type of cohesion was 0.1 times. This implied that the students were not familiar and seldom used this type of cohesion.
1.3 Ellipsis
Based on the analysis, there was only one type of ellipsis involved in the essays. It was nominal ellipsis.
Nominal ellipsis (E1) was one of the types of cohesion that a student used in their essay. This type of cohesion occurred in an essay under the analysis. The example of the use of nominal ellipsis was presented below:
However, today television is used for many purposes andis a cause for concern when looking at its effects on the people. (Taken from D7 in T- unit 4)
On the example above, there was a sentence ‘However, today television is used for many purposes’ at the beginning of the sentence. Then, the addition of explanations ‘television’ which was characterized by the presence of ‘and’ and proceed with the next clause ‘is a cause for concern when looking at its effects on the people’. The word “television” that should be the subject of the second clause had omitted. Ellipsis is formed ties of cohesion in the sentence. Although an element of the noun ‘television’ is omitted, readers knew that the purpose of the subsequent explanation was an explanation of the word ‘television’.
The data analysis showed that nominal ellipsis used by a student was 1 time in an essay and the average occurrence of this type of cohesion was 0.03 times. This implied that the students were not familiar and rarely used this type of cohesion.
1.4 Conjunction
Based on the analysis, there were 4 types of conjunction involved in the essays. They were additive conjunction, adversative conjunction, causal conjunction, and temporal conjunction.
1.4.1 Additive Conjunction
Additive conjunction (C1) was one of the types of cohesion that the students used in their essays. This type of cohesion occurred in the 30 essays under the analysis. The example of the use of additive conjunction was presented below:
The best way to learn is when the learner is having fun at the same time and most of video game provide it to the children… (Taken from D17 in T-unit 26)
Conjunction on the data above was the simplest additive conjunction, which served to add an idea. Conjunction “and” and the data served to connect the two clauses were coordinated in a single sentence that was the clause “The best way to learn is when the learner is having fun at the same time” with clause “most of video game provide it to the children…’. The clauses were grammatically two co-ordinates. The clauses were not tied to each other.
The data analysis showed that additive conjunction used by the students were 394 times in the 30 essays and the average occurrence of this type of cohesion was 13.13 times. The use of this type was the second-highest number in the students’ essays. This implied that all the students were familiar and able to use this type of cohesion.
1.4.2 Adversative Conjunction
Adversative conjunction (C2) was one of the types of cohesion that the students used in their essays. This type of cohesion occurred in the 26 essays