LOGICO-SEMANTIC RELATION OF CLAUSES USED IN ANALYTICAL EXPOSITION WRITTEN BY THE THIRD SEMESTER STUDENTS OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
Abstract
In Indonesia, English language teaching concerns with text or genre. Consequently, systemic functional linguistics is important to apply in writing a text. However, students have difficulties of grammar, vocabulary, and how to construct word into syntactical construction. Students only concern with how to compose a text however it contains meaningless clauses. The writer is interested to choose a problem of constructing clause complex as source of the research.
The objectives of this research are to identify the kinds of logico-semantic relation and to analyze the logico-semantic relation of clauses mostly used in analytical exposition written by the third semester students of Tidar University in the academic year 2017/2018.
This study applies descriptive qualitative research which consists of detail description and explanation of logico-semantic relation of clauses in students’ writing. In conducting this research, the writer collected the documentation of students’ writing about analytical exposition. The data were analyzed by classifying the clauses and identifying kinds of logico-semantic relation proposed by Halliday and Matthiessen (2014).
Based on data analysis, it can be concluded that the analytical exposition texts analyzed in this research contain more logico-semantic relation of clauses such as expansion (elaboration, extension and enhancement) and projection (locution). It is noticed that expansion of enhancement is mostly used in the texts with 31 times or 41.89% of total occurrance and although the texts still need improvement in making a clause complex.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abrafi, Amme. 2017. “The Expansion Relations of Clause Complexing (CC) in the Editorials of the Daily Graphic”. Journal of Literature, Language and Linguistics, 30: 12-26.
Anderson, Douglas and Itule. 2007. News: Writing and Reporting for Today’s Media (7th Ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ann, Lambors. 2004. Problem Based Learning in Middle and High School Classroom. California: Corwin Press A Sage Publications Company.
Brown, H.G. 2001. Teaching by Principles: Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Longman.
.................... 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching 4th. New York: The Free Press.
Eggins, S. 2004. An Introdction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (2nd Edition). London, New York: Continuum.
Gatt. 2014. “An analysis of sentence length and complexity in news articles”. Creative Research in English and the Media, 5040: 21-22.
Gerot, L. & Wignell. P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Gerd Stabler.
Ginting, Y. F. I. 2009. “An Analysis of Sentence Structure in Tennessee Williams’ a Streetcar Named Desire”. Thesis. Sumatera: University of North Sumatera.
Gintings, Hestika. 2012. “Logical Meaning in Al-Gore’s speech, an Unpublished Sarjana’s Thesis”. Thesis. Medan: Languages and Arts Faculty State University of Medan.
Goner, Mike. 2009. Type of Text for Senior High School. http://typeoftext.blogspot.com/2009/01/analyticalexposition.html
Ghaith, Ghazi. 2002. The Problem of Teaching Writing. American University of Beirut (online). Available at: http://nadabs.tripod.com/writing/.
Halliday, M. & Matthiessen. C. 2014. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th Edition). London: Arnold.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2004. How to Teach Writing. England: Pearson Education.
........................... 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching 3rd edition. New York: Pearson Education.
Hyland, Maureen. 2009. Writing Text Types. Western Australia: R.I.C. Publication Pty Ltd.
LaPalombara, L.E. 1976. An Introduction to Gammar: Traditional, Structural, Transformational. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishers, Inc.
Muliani. 2015. “Logico-Semantic Relation in Sri Mulyani Indrawati’s Speech”. English and Literature Department, Faculty of Language and Arts, State University of Medan.
Nunan, David. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. New York: The Mc Grow Hill.
Oshima, Alice and Ann Hogue. 2006. Writing Academic English 4th Ed. New York: Pearson.
Pardiyono. 2007. Teaching Genre Based Writing. Yogyakarta: Andi Offset.
Paul, A. 2003. Corporate Communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pulverness, A., Spratt, M., and Williams, M. 2005. Teaching Knowledge Test Course. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rukmini, Dwi. 2014. “The Quality of Clause Complexes in Article Abstracts written by Semarang State University Graduate Students”. The New Teacher, English 8(1): 121-131.
...................... 2010. “The Logico-Semantic Relation in Clause Complexes in Abstracts of the Final Project Reports Procedured by the English Departments Students”. Ragam Jurnal Pengembangan Humaniora, X (3) 107-115.
Setia, E., G. M. Sutjaja, et al. 2011. Clause complex and experiential realization in court texts (Bali Bomb Case I): A systematic Functional Linguistics study. Accessed on February 08, 2018 from http://ejournal.unud.ac.id/abstract/eddy%20pdf.pdf
Sugiyono. 2006. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Whitfield, Merryn. 2000. NAPLAN Persuasive Text. Sydney: Copyright Agency Limmited.
Winarsih, Dwi. 2013. Students’ Mastery of Three Metafunctions in Systemic Functional Grammar and its Pedagogical Implication. Jurnal Penelitian Humaniora, 14 (2) 101-113.
Zemach, D.E. and Rumisek, L.A. 2005. Academic Writing for Paragraph to Essay. Oxford: Macmillan.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31002/jrlt.v1i2.247
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2018 Journal of Research on Applied Linguistics, Language, and Language Teaching
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.