A Study Of Grammatical Cohesion: Reference In The Discourse Of Nganting Manuk In Karonese Traditional Wedding Ceremony

(1)

A STUDY OF GRAMMATICAL COHESION: REFERENCE IN

THE DISCOURSE OF

NGANTING MANUK

_{IN KARONESE}

TRADITIONAL WEDDING CEREMONY

A Thesis

BY

PUTRI RIZKY SM

040705030

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH SUMATERA

FACULTY OF LETTERS

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

MEDAN

(2)

AUTHOR DECLARATION

I, Putri Rizky S.Meliala declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. Except where reference is made in the text of this thesis, this thesis contains no material published else where or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by which I have qualified for or awarded another degree.

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgment in the main text of this thesis. This thesis has not been submitted for the award of another degree in any tertiary education.

Signed :

(3)

COPYRIGHT DECLARATION

Name : PUTRI RIZKY S.MELIALA

Title of Thesis : A STUDY OF GRAMMATICAL COHESION: REFERENCE IN THE DISCOURSE OF NGANTING MANUK IN KARONESE TRADITIONAL WEDDING CEREMONY

Qualification : S-1 / Sarjana Sastra

Department : English

I am willing that my thesis should be available for reproduction at the discreation of the Librarian of University of Sumatera Utara, Faculty of Letters, English Department on the understanding that users are made aware of their obligation under law of the Republic of Indonesia.

Signed :

(4)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First of all, thanks and praises are expressed to the almighty Allah SWT for the blessing for the writer in completing her study and the writing of this thesis as a partial part fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sarjana Sastra from English Department Faculty of Letters, University of Sumatera Utara.

Hereby, she would like to express her appreciation to her supervisor, Dra. Nilzami Raswief, M.Hum and co-supervisor Drs. M. Syafi’ie Siregar, M.A for their willingness to share the time in guiding her in the completion of this thesis. In this respect, the writer also wishes to express her gratitude to Drs. Syaifuddin M.A. Phd, as the Dean of Faculty of Letters, University of Sumatera Utara, and great thanks are expressed to the Head of English Deparment Dra. Swesana Mardia Lubis, M.Hum and Drs. Yulianus Harefa, M.Ed. TESOL as the secretary of English Department.

Thanks are also expressed to all lecturers of Faculty of Letters especially in English Department for their precious guidance and assistance during her academic years. Furthermore, she would like to express her great regard to her beloved parents H. L.Sembiring Meliala and Hj.J. Tarigan, her beloved brother

Donny Syamsul Bahri S. Meliala, her beloved sister Mauleta Sari S. Meliala, her beloved younger sister Ruaida as well as the entire family, for their love, affection, prayer, spiritual, and financial support. My great thank also go to my beloved Abe, for their endless support, attention, prays and love which they have

(5)

been giving to me not only during the term of my study and my completing of this thesis, but also in every day’s motivation and encouragement for a better future.

Last but not least, she also would like to say her gratitude to her best friends, Aninta, Devi, and Kenny for their sharing, companion, ideas, and also support given to her. Then I never forget to thank to Noni, Febri, Rudi, thanks for the nice friendship.

I love you all and may Allah SWT bless you all.

Medan, November 2008

(6)

ABSTRAK

Skripsi yang berjudul “A Study of Grammatical Cohesion: Reference in the Discourse of Nganting Manuk in Karonese Traditional Wedding Ceremony” adalah sebuah analisis tentang kohesi yang terdapat dalam teks “Nganting Manuk” (salah satu upacara sebelum mengadakan pesta perkawinan dalam adat Karo, dimana keluarga dari dua belah pihak mengadakan musyawarah untuk menetapkan tertib acara yang akan dilaksanakan pada esok harinya), sebagai suatu wacana, (discourse) dalam teks akan dibahas tentang hubungan kohesi yang terdapat dalam teks acara ini. Hubungan-hubungan kohesi yang dibahas terdiri dari: referensi dimana referensi tersebut terbagi lagi seperti: Personal Reference, Demonstrative Reference, Compartive Reference. Skripsi ini terdiri dari 5 bab yaitu: Bab I Pendahuluan (Introduction) membahas mengenai latar belakang penulisan skripsi ini, Batasan Masalah (Scope of the Analysis), Permasalahan (Problem of the Analysis), Tujuan penulisan (Objectives of the Analysis), Manfaat Penulisan (Significance of the Analysis). Bab II membahas Tinjauan kepustakaan (Review of Related Literature). Bab III membahas mengenai Metode Penelitian yang digunakan. Bab IV menguraikan analisis dalam bentuk teks dari acara Nganting Manuk. Bab V berisikan kesimpulan dan saran, serta diikuti oleh daftar pustaka.

Data analisis diambil dari teks “Nganting Manuk” dengan menggunakan teori Arikunto, sedangkan untuk menghitung data digunakan teori Bungin. Dari pembahasan tiga jenis kohesi ini ditemukan bahwa personal reference yang paling dominan (73,09%), demonstrative reference(26,31%), sementara comparative reference yang sangat jarang terdapat didalam teks, merupakan jenis kohesi reference yang paling sedikit digunakan(0,58%)

(7)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION………..i

COPYRIGHT DECLARATION………..ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... iii

ABSTRACT………... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS……….vi

CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background of the Analysis………... 1

1.2. Scope of the Analysis……… 4

1.3. Problem of the Analysis……….... 5

1.4. Objective of the Analysis……….. 5

1.5. Significance of the Analysis………. 5

CHAPTER II : REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1 The Background of Karo Society………6

2.1.2 The Structure of Karo Society………6

2.1.3 The System of Kinship………8

2.2 Nganting Manuk ………12

2.3 Relevant of Study………...13

2.4 The Definition of Discourse………...15

2.5 The Function of Discourse……….17

(8)

2.6.1 Cohesion………18

2.6.2. Types o Cohesion……….20

2.6.3 Grammatical Cohesion………..20

2.6.4 Reference………...20

2.6.4.1 Personal reference……….22

2.6.4.2 Demonstrative reference………...23

2.6.4.3 Comparative reference………..25

CHAPTER III : METHOD OF THE ANALYSIS 3.1 Research Method………...26

3.2 Data collecting Method……….26

3.3 Data Analysis Method………...27

CHAPTER IV : THE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 4.1. The Selection of Data………...28

4.2. The Analysis……….36

4.2.1. The Personal Reference………..36

4.2.2. The Demonstrative Reference………42

4.2.3. The Comparative Reference………...44

CHAPTER V : CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1. Conclusions……….46

(9)

APPENDIX………xi

(10)

ABSTRAK

(11)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Analysis

Human beings always use language to make an interaction among them. Robert (1958:18) cites “Language means the system of speech by which human being communicate with one another”. In establishing a social interaction they might choose one of the language forms to use such as spoken or written forms, gestures, and other signs.

Language can also be said as a tool of communication. Language plays an important role in the process of speaking and communicating. A good communication between someone to the others can be achieved if they are able to use the language perfectly. It means that what the speaker wants to convey is understood by the listener. If the language they are applying is not understood by the listeners and the speakers, of course, the communication cannot reach the goal. Linguistics takes into account some components of language that are linked into each other. The components include sounds, the arrangements of words, and meanings.

Discourse analysis is also one branches of linguistics. It is one of the new fields in linguistic study. It deals with the various devices used by speakers and writes when they knit single sentence together into a coherence and cohesive whole. Discourse analysis is widely recognized as one of the most vast, but it is also one of the least defined areas in linguistics.

(12)

Micheal Stubbs (1983:1) notes “Discourse analysis is a study of the organization of language above the sentence or above the clause and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational exchanges or written text”.

We can see from the definition that there is another unit of language which is more complete and larger than sentence. They admit it as the high level of the language unit. It can stand for the most complex idea of speakers or writers that a sentence has failed to do. That’s why the discourse can also be described as one of the most complete highest or largest linguistic unit as the above sentences and clauses which contains a high coherent and cohesive continuously. The beginning and the ending are clearly stated orally or textually.

Halliday and Hasan (1976: 27) say “Cohesion is closely related to information structure. Information structure is a form of structure, in which the entire text is blocked out into elements having one or another function in the total configuration everything in the text has some status in the ‘given-new’ framework. Cohesion, on the other hand, is a potential for relating one element in the text to another, wherever they are and without any implication that everything in the text has some part in it. The information unit is a structural unit, although it cuts across the hierarchy of structural units or constituents in the grammar. But there are no structural unit defined by cohesive relation”.

From the quotation above we can see that the cohesive relation is not a structural relation. It is the means whereby elements that are structurally, unrelated to one another are linked together, through the dependence of one to another for its interpretation.

(13)

Cohesion refers to the relation of meaning that exist within the text. The word text is used in linguistics to refer to any passage, spoken or written, of whenever length that does from a unified whole. A text may be spoken or written, verse or prose, dialogue or monologue. It may be anything from a single proverb to a whole play, from a momentary cry for help to an all-day discussion on a committee.

Text can be divided into written text or spoken text. Both have similarities and differences. Spoken text is used for the establishment and maintenance of human relationship and is also used for the detailed transmission of factual information.

In analyzing the discourse, we study how the language users understand the text books, and know what the speaker want to convey orally in the conversation, or know which sentences are coherent or incoherent, and successfully act in the complicated activity called conversation.

We can find written text in conversation. Conversation is basic: the commonest use of language, a pervasive phenomenon of everyday life which deserves systematic study on those ground alone. If only because of its massive occurrence, spontaneous unrehearsed conversation must provide some kinds of baselines or norms for the description of language in general.

There are so many conversations that we can find in everyday life. But we will discuss the conversation that is used in traditional ceremony, in this case wedding ceremony. In Indonesia, there are many customs of wedding ceremony as Indonesia has so many ethnics and tribes. One of them is Karonese.

(14)

Karo customs can be divided in many occasions such as marriage, funeral, birth, etc. Nganting Manuk is one of the phases in marriage occasion. It is held at night by the wedding day. At that time the relatives of the bride and the groom discus the preparation wedding for the wedding day.

The formal dialogue between the leader from the bride side to the leader of the groom side will be analysed based on its textual cohesive. The writer feels that it is important to be analysed to show that the theory of cohesive can be analysed in many aspects such as a traditional custom of wedding ceremony in Indonesia.

1.2 Scope of the Analysis

Karonese is one ethnic group that has various cultures in their society life. Such as in death ceremony, wedding ceremony, entered new house ceremony etc. in this study the writer just analyze the language in the scope of grammatical cohesion in Nganting Manuk in wedding ceremony in Karonese culture.

Halliday and Hasan in their book Cohesion in English outline various kinds of cohesion, that is: Grammatical cohesion includes: reference, substitution, en ellipsis. But in this study the writer has limited the scope of the analysis into grammatical cohesion only in the reference type. The text of “Nganting Manuk” is the text found in the conversation between the relatives (In Karonese it is called “Anak Beru”) of the groom and the relatives of the bride. This phase is very important before wedding ceremony begins. Because in this phase the relatives of groom and bride make a deal or agreement with what must be done in wedding ceremony. The conversation occurring in this phase is a formal one, where it has rules to obey.

(15)

1.3. Problem of the Analysis

The problems of the study that have relation with the topic, are:

1. What kind of cohesion that is used in the discourse “Nganting Manuk” wedding ceremony?

2. What is the most dominant cohesions that are used in the discourse “Nganting Manuk” wedding ceremony?

1.4. Objectives of the Analysis

In relations of the problems, the objectives of this analysis are:

1. To find out the kinds of cohesion that are used in the discourse “ Nganting Manuk” wedding ceremony

2. To find out the most dominant cohesion that is used in the discourse “Nganting Manuk”

1.5. Significance of the Analysis

This thesis is expected to expand the knowledge of the readers about grammatical cohesion, especially and for those who are interested in this subject generally. They also can use this thesis as references for providing underlying information for further research about grammatical cohesion in wedding ceremony.

(16)

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 The Background of Karo Society

The Karo highland is mostly known as the place of Karo society to live. Although the bigger number of Karonese live outside the regency, the traditional custom of Karo people can be found in the Karo highland.

Actually, the kinship in Karo society is very strong and it is caused by the existence of “tutur” (the way of being acquaintance with someone) dealing with Merga Silima (the five clans). The way of behaving of Karo society in their daily life be oriented to the ancestor idea, that is: “Merga Silima (the five clans), Tutur Siwaluh, Rakut Sitelu”. Rakut means string or a bundle, and Si telu means three. So, Rakut Sitelu means three bundles or strings, they are:

1) Kalimbubu 2) Senina 3) Anak Beru

Tutur Siwaluh is an orientation for Karo society in communication with their peers.

2.1.2 The Structure of Karo Society

The principal of live that is a tradition custom implementation is held by the Karo society. At the time, the highest social class was not existed, and a certain thing which related to the importance of living together is settled and involved the society. Such a thing is caused the strings which has a big function of

(17)

family relationship and custom prevails. It has three difference of Karo society group, they are:

1) Bangsa Tanah or Anak Taneh

Bangsa taneh is previous group of family (the native person), that occupied such sphere of land and afterwards become the village founder and one in authority of land in sphere of village. This group is based on the society view of live and custom has high position, so that the society respect them because of their position in Kuta or village.

2) Ginemgem

Ginemgem is a group of society that occupied such sphere of village, but they were not a previous group. This group is considered as a group which is approved by bangsa taneh. Commonly, they are involved living together, moved from the previous places and still have relation with bangsa tenah.

3) Rakyat Derip

Rakyat Derip is categorized as a common society who lived in one village as the ordinary people. According to the history, they are immigrants and lived permanently in one village based on the agreement of bangsa taneh. They did not have family relationship with bangsa taneh excepted tutur or clan relationship. Moreover, it is caused by the people who married with rakyat derip or ginemgem and it can defend their position. It also must be appropriated by the tradition.

(18)

2.1.3 The System of kinship

Pertuturen is one of acquaintanceship process in making a relationship between one and another become, and the most important thing is they will know about their lineage. According to the culture, a man and woman who has the same sub clan can not get married. As mention that pertuturen is a process of introducing ourselves to the others by mentioning Merga or Beru and Bere-bere. To get a genetic relationship whether it was based on the blood relation or the marriage relationship. The three kinds of the genetic relationship or kinship are:

- Kalimbubu - Senina - Anak Beru

1) Kalimbubu

Kalimbubu means those who are from the bride’s families and relatives. It is believed according to Karonese tradition, Kalimbubu are the representative of God in the world so they are respected by Anak Beru.

In Karo society, the marriage is not merely individual case, but it is also a family problem. When someone gets married with another person, he a she is notonly himself or herself belong to the husband’s or wife’s family but their relatives are also included. In other words, the marriage means connecting two big families and strengthen the relationship between two families.

Kalimbubu is a group of bride’s family and this particular group must be respected. If there are something wrong and this particular group must be respected. If there are something wrong done by their anak beru, they will get bad effects. They will not have good harvest or perhaps misfortune will hold on

(19)

them. This case is usually known from the magician or fortune teller. To avoid the bad effects towards anak beru, there is a special ceremony in which they ask Kalimbubu’s forgiveness which is called Nabei. This means that Anak Beru have to give or to put on traditional cloth to Kalimbubu and then asking for an apology what they have done and as usual, their mistakes or errors will be forgiven. They last will eat together.

Kalimbubu are considered as the wise people. As it is explained above the Karonese societies consider that Kalimbubu are deputy of God in the world and have duties as follow:

- To solve the problems done by their Anak beru. In this case, Kalimbubu can force their own will if the groups who have the conflict are still obstinate or stubborn according to their judgment.

There are several kinds of Kalimbubu, they are: A. Kalimbubu Tua

B. Kalimbubu Bena-bena C. Kalimbubu Simupus D. Kalimbubu Siperdemui E. Kalimbubu Simbuyak F. Puang Kalimbubu A. Kalimbubu Tua

Kalimbubu Tua are Kalimbubu of ancestors who joined to build the village long time ago. They are the leaders of all Kalimbubu

(20)

In traditional ceremonies, Kalimbubu Tua will get the important places such as: to be the first person in dancing; to put fire place on entering the new house.

B. Kalimbubu Bena-bena

Kalimbubu Bena-bena are Kalimbubu of grandfather, including their family, children and lineage.

C. Kalimbubu Simupus

Kalimbubu Simupus are Kalimbubu of father, includes his families and his children.

D. Kalimbubu Siperdemui

Kalimbubu siperdemui is directly kalimbubu because of his daughter’s married. In this case includes father, close relatives and children. E. Kalimbubu Simbuyak

Kalimbubu sembuyak are kalimbubu who come from brothers who get married with other families.

F. Puang Kalimbubu

Puang Kalimbubu are kalimbubu of our kalimbubu

2) Senina

Senina is a term which has two meanings. They are special and general meanings. In special meaning senina is limited in a certain lineage from one clan. In this case, it is called senina sembuyak means brothers or sisters who have the same family (Ginting Suka and Ginting Suka, Tarigan sibero and

(21)

Tarigan sibero, etc). While in general meaning senina are those who have the same surename but different lineage, for instance:

- Ginting Suka, Ginting Manik, Ginting Munthe, Ginting Sugihen, etc. - Tarigan Sibero, Tarigan Silangit, Tarigan Tua, etc.

3) Anak Beru

Anak Beru consists of many clans or lineages: it is similar as kalimbubu. Anak beru has also many divisions among others:

A. Anak Beru Ipupus

Anak beru ipupus are anak beru who have blood ties or families ties. They are anak beru before the marriage takes place.

B. Anak Beru Langkip

Anak beru langkip mean anak beru who arise from a new marriage which does not have family relationship between bridegroom’s side and bride’s side. They are related by emas perdemun (dowry).

C. Anak Beru Tua

Anak beru tua are the oldest of anak beru. It means that they are the first anak beru of the ancestor of family and their descendants also belong to anak beru tua continuously.

The position of this anak beru is very high in Karonese tradition because a meeting can not be started before the attendance.

D. Anak Beru Menteri

(22)

2.2 Nganting Manuk

In Indonesia, there are about hundreds of traditional ceremonies. One of them that we can find in North Sumatera, as a province in Indonesia, it is the traditional ceremony in Karo customs. Karo customs can be divided into marriage, funeral, and birth ceremony. Nganting Manuk is one of the phases in Marriage ceremony.

The phase of Nganting Manuk is usually held at night by the wedding day. At that time the relatives of the bride discuss the preparation for the wedding day and to continue the discussion when Ngembah Belo Selambar that has not finished yet. In this phase, the relatives will ask the couple whether they are seriously to marry and the relatives of the groom will pay the dowry to the relatives of the bride. The discussion will be leaded by each of Anak Beru from the both sides. Anak Beru, as the mediator to say the result of discussion and to be the speaker to their Kalimbubu.

Nganting Manuk can be done in Jambur (a building for party) or in the house of the bride. All the relatives sit on the mattress that has been prepared. Before the discussion started, all the relatives from the both sides having dinner together. But, both of sides; the relatives of the groom and the relatives of the bride sit in the different mattress and sit opposite. They are divided into two groups, and sit according to the term of kinship. For example, all Anak Beru sit together, kalimbubu with kalimbubu, etc. the discussion can not be started if the exact people are not complete. Such as:

From the bride:

(23)

2. Sembuyak (sipempoken, senina): all brothers of the girls 3. Anak Beru tua: to be a speaker

4. Kepala Kampung: the headman of the village

5. Kalimbubu Singalo Ulu Emas: brother of bride’s mother

From the groom

1. Bapa Nande (sukut): His parents 2. Senina: all brothers of the boy 3. Anak Beru Tua: the speaker 4. Kalimbubu

Boy’s side introduces to the right and left side in that meeting by their anak beru while checking whether all important people have been present or not. When it is okay the topic can be continued later.

All of them will be called and sit in the special mattress. Before the conversation started, they delivery five Kampil that contain of betle leaves, cigarettes and the matches. Kampil in this case as a sign of honorable according to Karo customs. The Kampil must be prepared by Anak Beru of the groom and given to Kalimbubu of the bride.

2.3Relevant of Study

In order to support the ideas of the analysis, some books had been consulted that contains some important information related to the analysis based on the sociolinguistic. Some of the related analysis are as follows:

(24)

1. Halliday and Hasan (1976:8) state that cohesion is a semantic relation between one element in the text and some other elements that is crucial to the interpretation of it. The location of these some other elements in the text are no way determined by grammatical structure. The two elements, the presupposing and the presupposed, maybe structurally related to each other, or they may not; it makes no difference to the meaning of cohesive relation.

2. Bloor (1995) which is not much different to Halliday and Hasan’s, explains about cohesive ties in texts. He classified cohesion into four main types: reference, ellipsis and lexical cohesion. He further explains the relationship between grammar and text. A text has textual components of the grammar, lexical cohesion is a part of cohesive components.

3. Gutwinsky (1976:26) in Tarigan state that, “Kohesi merupakan organisasi sintaktik, merupakan wadah kalimat-kalimat disusun secara padu dan dapat untuk menghasilkan tuturan. Juga kohesi adalah hubungan antar kalimat didalam wacana, baik dalam strata gramatikal maupun strata leksikal tertentu.”

I also consult some thesis that relevant to my analysis, they are:

1. Whardhani Irma (1997) has also analyzed the text of the discourse in Minangkabau Traditional Wedding Ceremony in terms of cohesive ties encompassing grammatical cohesion (reference, substitution and ellipsis), lexical cohesion (re-iteration and collocation) and conjunction (additive,

(25)

adversative, clausal and temporal). She found that all the cohesive ties occur in the text especially grammatical cohesion (reference) and lexical cohesion.

2. Novayanti (1994) has analyzed that cohesive analysis; especially the reference is applicable to the analysis of scientific texts. She analyzed the cohesion in discourse; reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion in discourse, and found that reference, as one type of cohesion exists in different types of text, such as narrative, poetic and even scientific text..

2.4 Definition of Discourse

Discourse analysis discusses how the language users understand the text books, and know what the speaker’s want to convey orally in the conversation, or know which sentences are coherent or uncoherent and successfully act in the complicated activity called conversation.

A few decades ago, discourse analysis took off as a subject in linguistics. Before its existence, linguistics focused its analysis on sentence. Each streams in linguistics such as Traditionalism, Structuralism, Generative Transformational Grammar, etc. tried to analyse language based on their opinions, but never gave satisfaction results since when they analysed a sentence, they never consider the context of the sentence.

In 1952, a famous linguist, Z.S. Harris, expressed his dissatisfaction in the sentence grammar by publishing his famous article entitle “Discourse Analysis “ in ‘Language’ magazine. Since then discourse analysis is began to know. The

(26)

word ‘discourse’ was derived from Latin discursus’ which means ‘run up and down’. Some linguists gave several definition of discourse to make it understood by the reader. They are:

• Linde (1981: 85) in H.G. Tarigan says “Discourse is a natural unit with a clear beginning and ending, and also a number of internal structure.” • Edmunson (1981:4) in H.G. Tarigan says “Discourse is a structural event

manifested in Linguistic behavior (or others) whereas a text is an arrangement of structural linguistic expressions which forms a unity.” • Stubbs (1983 1) in his book says “Roughly speaking discourse analysis

refers to attempt to study the organization of language above the sentence or above the clause and therefore to study larger linguistics units such as conversational exchanges or written texts.”

• Desse (1984 : 72) in H.G. Tarigan says, “ Discourse is a set of propositions which are related to one another to creat a sense of unity or a sense of cohesion to the reader or listener. The unity or the sense of cohesion itself must come from the content of discourse, but most of it appear through the conveyance of the discourse”

• Carlson (1983: XII-XIV) in H.G. Tarigan says that discourse is a stretches of continuous utterances (a sequence of individual sentences). So, it doesn’t only consist of utterances or sentences which are grammatically well formed.”

• Kridalaksana (1984: 208) says, “ Wacana (discourse) adalah satuan bahasa terlengkap; dalam hierarki grammatical merupakan satuan gramtikal tertinggi atau terbesar. Wacana ini direalisasikan dalam bentuk yang utuh

(27)

(novel, buku, seri, ensiklopedia dan sebagainya, paragraph, kalimat atau kata yang membawa amanat yang lengkap.”

From the definition above we could see the similarities and the differences of the discourse based on the linguist’s opinions. There are some important elements that we can get from these definitions, i.e. discourse is:

• Language unit

• The most complete/ the highest • Above the sentence or clause • Tied well or coherence • Continuity

• Sense of unity or cohesion • Written or spoken

• Clear beginning and ending

2.5 The Function of Discourse

Principally, discourse analysis has double function or targets, i.e.:

a) to describe the texts in such away in order to make us easy to say something that is useful about the texts individually and also the group of texts.

b) To produce a discourse theory.

Referring to the first function, we assume that if we describe a text, we can compare the text or part of the text easily in such away in order to get the differences and the similarities. In other words, it can show as much about the differences and the similarities.

(28)

If we describe a literary text, we deserve to show rightly what the characteristics of the text and join the characteristics with the literary intuitions. When we describe a classroom discourse we should compare the differences and the similarities in discourse structure with the difference and similarities in the teaching method. We should realize that the statement about discourse structure just based on one linear structure for every unit does not allow us to get a view about kinds of similarities and differences they have.

In connection to the second target, we are convinced that if someone establishes a discourse theory, one of the main direction is to predict the distribution of surface forms, to descend and create grammatical discourse forms and to stem or prevent the ungrammatical forms. Here again the approach is based on one linear structure that gives us the limit to make someone successfully directed easily.

2.6 The Concept of Cohesion

2.6.1 Cohesion

Gutwinsky (1976:26) in Tarigan Says, “Kohesi merupakan organisasi sintaktik, merupakan wadah kalimat-kalimat disusun secara padu dan dapat untuk menghasilkan tuturan. Juga kohesi adalah hubungan antar kalimat didalam wacana, baik dalam strata gramatikal maupun strata leksikal tertentu.”

To understand a discourse well, a good knowledge and mastery of cohesion is also needed, which does not only depends on our knowledge about reality and thinking process, known as syntactic process of drawing conclusion.

(29)

Cohesion can be said as the formal aspect of language. In discourse or text or part of the system of a language.

Halliday and Hasan (1976: 4) says

“The concept of cohesion is a semantic one; it refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as a text. Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse is depend on that of another. The one presupposes the other, in the sense that cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse to it. When this happens, a relation of cohesion is set up, and the two elements, the presupposing and the presupposed are there by at least potentially into a text”.

In the example [3.4] the word them presupposes for its interpretation something other than itself. This requirement is met by the two balls in the preceding sentence. The presupposition, and the fact that the interpretation is resolved, provided cohesion between the two sentences and in so doing create a text.

Cohesion is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary. In general, we can divide cohesion into three major types, namely:

• Grammatical cohesion • Lexical cohesion • Conjunction

Reference, substitution, and ellipsis are clearly grammatical, in that they involved closed systems: simple options of presence or absence, and systems such as those of person, number, proximity, and degree of comparison.

(30)

Lexical cohesion is, as the name implies, lexical; it involves a kind of choice that is open –ended; the selection of a lexical item that is in same way related to one occurring previously.

Conjunction is on the borderline elements can probably the lexical; the set of conjunctive elements can probably the interpreted grammatically in terms of systems, but such an interpretation would be fairly complex, and some conjunctive expressions involve lexical selection as well.

2.6.2 Types of cohesion

Halliday and Hasan in their book Cohesion in English outline various kinds of cohesion, that is: Grammatical cohesion includes: reference, substitution, en ellipsis. Lexical cohesion includes: reiteration and collocation. Conjunction includes: additive, adversative, clausal, and temporal.

2.6.3 Grammatical Cohesion

As we have discussed, grammatical cohesion includes reference, substitution, and ellipsis. Grammatical cohesion can occur if the source for cohesion interpretation lies within the text, then a cohesion of the type discussed above is established. The establishment of such a creates cohesion. This is what we call grammatical cohesion.

2.6.4 Reference

According to Halliday, reference is the relation between an element of the text and something else by reference to which is interpreted in the given instance.

(31)

Reference also is a semantic relation. Since the relationship is on semantic level, the reference item is in no way constrained to match the grammatical class of the item it refers to. But what must are the semantic properties.

According to the location of the interpretation, reference can be classified into two parts, namely : exophoric and endophoric reference. Exophoric reference happens where their interpretation lies outside a text, in the context of situation. Exophoric reference plays no part in textual cohesion. Endophoric reference happens if the interpretation lies within the text and from cohesion within text.

Exophora is not simply a synonym for referential meaning. Lexical items like John, or tree, or run have referential meaning in that, they are names for somethings: object, class of objects, process, and the like. An exophora, however, is one which does not name anything. It signals that reference must be made to the context of situation

Example:

I had made a toy. Let’s play it

The word ‘it’ here refers to a toy and it is called anaphoric relation. But the specificity is conferred by the reference relation. Since this involves identity, ‘a toy’, thereby becomes ‘the toy’,. i.e. the toy that was just mentioned and specified in the process, so here ‘the toy that I made’.

Look another example:

(32)

The word ‘it’; here refers forward to a toy, and it is said to be cataphoric relation. Here we will look at the table of reference based on Halliday and Hasan’s book.

Table1 : Reference

Personal Demontrative

Existential Possesive Referential I, You

mine,

yours my, your, the

We, He ours, his, our, his, this, these, She, It hers, (its), her, its, that, those They, One theirs. their, one's

interogative who whose whose which, what

what specific pronouns specific determiners

2.6.4.1 Personal Reference

Personal reference is reference by means of function in the speech situation, through the category of person. Let’s see the table of personal reference below:

Table 2 : Personal Reference

Semantic category

Grammatical function Class Existential Possessive Head Modifier noun (pronoun) determiner

I me mine my

you yours your

we us ours our he him his his she her hers her they, them theirs their

it [its] its

one one's

Persons: Speaker (only)

Addressee(s), with/without Speaker and other person(s) Other person, male

Other person, female Other persons, object Object; passage of text Generalized person

(33)

There is a distinction to be made between the speech role (first and second person) and the other roles (third person). Only the third person is inherently cohesion. A third person from typically refers anaphorically to a preceding item in the text.

First and second person forms do not normally refer to the text at all. Their referent are defined by the speech roles of speaker and hearer. They are typically exophoric. They referent to the situation. The first and second person forms refer to the situation, whereas the third person refers anaphorically or cataphorically to the text.

The category of ‘personal’ includes the three classes of personal pronouns, possessive pronoun, possessive determiners (possessive adjective) and possessive pronouns. There is no general name for this category in the traditional grammar, because the member of it belongs to a different classes with diverse structural roles; but in fact they represent a single system, that is person.

2.6.4.2 Demonstrative Reference

Demonstrative reference is essentially a form of a verbal pointing. The speaker identifies the referent by locating it on a scale of proximity. Here is the table of Demonstrative reference.

Table 3: Demonstrative reference

Semantic category _Selective _{Non-selective}

Modifier/Head Adjunct Modifier determiner adverb determiner

this those here (now) that those there then

the

Grammaticalfunction Class

Proximity: Near Far Neutral

(34)

The circumstance (adverbial) demonstrative such as ‘here’, ‘there’, ‘now’, and ‘then’ refer to a location of a process in space and time. They typically function as adjunct in the clause. Like personal, the demonstrative regularly refer exphorically to something within the context of situation.

Example:

Leave that there and come here!

But we are concerned here with exophoric because it is not textually cohesion. In general this, these, and here imply proximity to the speaker; that, those and there, imply distance from the speaker, which may or may not involved proximity to the addressee.

For example:

a) That car seems more expensive (as modifier) That is an expensive car (as head)

b) I like the teddy bear and I like the Barbie. These are my favorites. These are my favorites, too.

The definite article the has usually been set apart, as a unique member of a class, its only relative being the indefinite article ‘a’. unlike the selective demonstrative (this, these, and here), the can never refer forward cohesively. It can only refer to a modifying element within the same nominal group as itself.

(35)

Example :

a) The man who loves me. b) The bigger city.

c) The party in power.

d) The best way to be a number one.

2.6.4.3 Comparative Reference

Comparative reference is indirect reference by means of identity or similarity. Let’s take a look at table of comparative reference below:

Table 4: Comparative reference

Grammatical function

Class General comparison:

Identity

General similarity

Difference (ie non-identity or similarity) Modifier: Submodifier/Adjunct Deitic/Ephitet (see below) adjective adverb

same identical equal identically similar additional similarly likewise

so such

other different else differently otherwise

better, more etc

so more less equally [comparative adjectives and

quantifiers]

(36)

CHAPTER III

METHOD OF THE ANALYSIS

3.1 Research Method

According to Bungin, 2005 (40-41) there are three kinds of research based on the location of the research i.e. library research, laboratory research, and field research. In this thesis, I use library research method, by collecting some related theories and information about grammatical cohesion from books, internet, and other sources which support the analysis.

This research uses descriptive method and according to Djajasudarma, (1993:2). “Metode deskripsi memberikan penjelasan secara sistematis, factual dan akurat mengenai data, sifat-sifat secara ilmiah.” “Descriptive method gives explanation systematically, factual, and accurate about the data and its character scientifically. “ In this analysis, it is used to find out the most dominant of grammatical cohesion: reference type in the discourse of “nganting manuk” in karonese traditional wedding ceremony.

3.2 Data Collecting Method

According to Arikunto 2006 (223-232) there are five kinds of method in collecting data i.e. test, questioner, interview, observation, and documentation method. In this analysis, the observation and documentation method is used in collecting the data. The data is taken from discourse of “Nganting Manuk” in karonese traditional wedding ceremony.

(37)

3.3 Data Analyzing Method

The data is analyzed by applying some procedures. First of all, some information is collected from some text books a references which are relevant to the topic of grammatical cohesion. Secondly, some theories concentrated on grammatical cohesion are consulted. Thirdly, the analyzed based on the types and classification of grammatical cohesion: reference type, then the finding are analyzed in terms of frequency and percentage which is based on the occurrences of some grammatical cohesion and finally find out the most dominant grammatical cohesion: reference type.

In order to get the dominant grammatical cohesion, the following formula from Bungin, 2005 (171-172) is used.

n

=

N fx

_x

100%

Where ,

n = percentage of types

fx = total tpes frequency of the sub-category N = total types of all category

(38)

CHAPTER IV

THE ANALYSIS OF DATA

4.1 The Selection of the Data

In Indonesia, there are about hundreds of traditional ceremonies; and many of them can be found in North Sumatera, as a province of Indonesia. In Karonese region, as part of North Sumatera we can find a number of ceremonies such as: marriage, funeral, and birth ceremony. Nganting Manuk is one of the phase in marriage ceremony.

Nganting Manuk is held at night by the wedding day. At that time the relatives of the groom and the relatives of the bride discuss the preparation for the wedding day. They will sit in two groups they are: the group of the relatives of the groom and the group of the relatives of the bride. Each group will be represented by anak beru. So, both anak beru of the bride and anak beru of the groom convey the message or opinion of their group. This is an important phase before wedding is done, because in this phase all about party talked with both of bride and groom anak beru.

The following is a text of Nganting Manuk.

(1) AB: Eak kam [PR] kalimbubu kami [PR], nindu[PR] dage ugange perpulung kami[PR]?

(2) SA: Akap kami[PR] enggome kam[PR] pulung

(3) AU: Eak kam[PR] kalimbubu kami[PR] Barus mergana nindu[PR] perpulung kami[PR] anak berundu?

(39)

(4) SN: Akap kami[PR] enggome kam[PR] pulung kerina. (5) AB: Adi bage enggo banci benaken kami[PR] runggun? (6) SA: Enggo

(7) AB: Dage sope benaken kami[PR] runggun enda. Pesuh ndu[PR] dage man Puang Kalimbubu gelah tertinggel ia[PR] lebe.

(8) SA: Banci, man kam[PR] singalo bere-bere, singalo perkempuun bage pe singalo perbibin ibenaken anak beru kami[PR] mendaranan, tertinggel-tinggel kam[PR] kerina.

(9) AU: Eak, silih sope benaken kami[PR] runggun enda[DR] peseh dage man Puang kami[PR] gelah tertinggel-tinggel ia[PR] lebe.

(10) SN: Kam[PR] kalimbubu kami[PR] singalo bere-bere, singalo perkempuun bage pe singalo perbibin benaken anak beru kami[PR] mendaranan tertinggel-tinggel kam[PR] lebe.

(11) AB: Eak mama ugandi perpan ndu[PR] ras kalimbubu nta[PR], ma enggom sikap kerina?

(12) AU: Eak ugandi perpan nta[PR] silih? (13) SN: Enggo sikap

(14) AU: Enggo sikap kerina

(15) AB: Adi bage arih kam[PR] ras kalimbubu nta[PR], enggome banci pedalan kami[PR] kampil enda[DR]?

(16) AU: Eak enggom banci aloken kami[PR] kampil enda[DR]?

(17) SN: Eak Sembuyak enggome banci aloken kami beru nta[PR] kampil ah[DR], cuba nin peruh ta[PR] kerina bage pe kalimbubu ras anak beru nta[PR]? Uga lit denga kin siman timan?

(40)

(18) SK: Enggo nindu[PR]

(19) SN: Enggo banci aloken ndu[PR] silih. (20) AU: Enta dage kampil ena[DR] ndai (21) AB: Endi

(22) AU: Endi silih bereken sada man singalo ulu emas. (23) AB: Endi peseh kampil enda[DR] man singalo ulu emas. (24) SA: Kam[PR] singalo ulu emas enda[DR] kampil ndu[PR].

(25) AU: Enda[DR] kampil ta[PR] anak beru. Enda[DR] silih, peseh kampil ena[DR] man singalo bere-bere, man singalo perkemun, man singalo perbibin ras ban ndu[PR] sukut sada.

(26) SN: Enda[DR] kampil ta[PR] sukut, senina ke enda[DR] kampil ndu[PR] singalo bere-bere, enda[DR] kampil ndu[PR] singao perkempun, enda[DR] kampil ndu[PR] singalo perbibin.

(27) AU: Enda[DR] kampil ndu[PR] ndai[DR] bere-bere. Enggo entabeh isap kami[PR] singisap belo kami[PR] siman belo, kai kin ndai[DR] sura sura ndu[PR].

(28) AB: Sue ras arih ta[PR] sanga maba belo selambar maka sendah kita[PR] nganting manuk. Bage gia erkite-kite karaben ndai[DR] kalimbubu ras diri kalimbubu nta[PR] Barus mergana enggo ngaloken pasu-pasu, emaka nungkun me ate kami[PR] “Uga nge nungkuni denga nge kami[PR] enta lanai”?

(29) AU: Eak silih, uga nge enda[DR] nungkuni denga nge enda[DR] kami[PR] entah lanai nina Ginting mergana, erkiteken ndai[DR] anak ta[PR] ras Ginting mergana enggo ngaloken pasu-pasu.

(41)

(30) SN: Uga ninta[PR] senina di bagah[DR] me nina anak beru nta[PR] ah[DR]?

(31) SK: Uga kin akap ndu[PR] maka teng teng bage ban nindu[PR] anak beru nta[PR] lang adi kita[PR] dakam bicara lanai pe belo dalih.

(32) AU: Uga ninta[PR] anak beru Barus karena si e[DR]? (33) AU: Lanai pe nungkuni labo dalih

(34) AU: Bage[DR] nge arih ta[PR]? (35) AU1, AU2 : Bage.

(36) AU: Lanai pedah kam[PR] nungkuni.

(37) AB: Adi enggome kita[PR] banci ngeranaken gantang tumba/unjuken siman alonken kalimbubu?

(38) AU: Uga dage silih, enggome banci sirananken gantang timbe e[DR]? (39) SN: Cuba oratin ndu[PR] lebe, ugang enda[DR] reh nge singalo ulu emas? (40) AU: Uga nge reh nge enda[DR] singalo ulu emas?

(41) SN: Reh

(42) AU: Adi bage kataken ia[PR] kuingan kalimbubu kami[PR], gelah ngisap-ngisap ia[PR] ras.

(43) AB: Eak silih kataken singalo ulu emas kujenda nina Barus mergana. (44) SA: Eak kam[PR] kalimbubu singalo ulu emas berkat kam[PR]. (45) AB: Ena[DR] singalo ulu emas ndu[PR] ndai[DR] alo-alo dage. (46) AU: Eak mari, are enda[DR] kam[PR] kundul.

(47) KU: Enda[DR] isap ku[PR], ban isap ndu[PR] kerina. (48) SK: Enda[DR] ka isap kami[PR], ban ka isap ndu[PR].

(42)

(50) SK: Adi bage ugakin biasana aloken ndu[PR] bas anak beru nta[PR] nari, ban siman alonken nta[PR]?

(51) KU: Biasana aloken kami[PR] bas anak beru nta[PR] nari bagenda 1.Adi kerja sintua Rp 200.000

2. Adi kerja anak sintengah Rp 150.000 3. Adi kerja anak si nguda Rp 100.000 (52) SK: Adi bage[DR], bagem siban? (53) KU: Bage-bage

(54) AB: uga enggo banci siranaken kerina siman alonken kalimbubu ndai[DR]?

(55) AU: Enggo.

(56) AB: Adi bage orati kami[PR] kam[PR] sada persada, entah ogeken kami[PR] cataten ta[PR] sanga ersinget-singet tupung maba belo selambar, je ja kari silatengteng je kita[PR] sitonjaren?

(57) AU: Bagepe merandal ogeken ndu[PR] dage.

(58) AB: Karena gantang tumba siman alonken kalimbubu bagenda: 1. Batang unjuken : Rp 1.500

2. Lanam-lanam : Rp 65.000 3. Rudang-rudang : Rp 15.000 4. Senina kuranan : Rp 5000 Ugapasa akap ndu[PR]

(59) AU: Ah mekap gantang tumba ndai[DR] ugapasa akap ndu[PR]? (60) SN: akap kami[PR] enggo tengteng

(43)

(61) AB: Adi bage uga kerina siman alonken singalo bere-bere, singalo perkempun ras singalo perbibin. Cuba arihken ndu[PR]!

(62) AU: Uga ka kam[PR] kalimbubu sitelu sada dalanen? Areih kam[PR] (63) KB: Kami[PR] ngerangguti

(64) KP: Kami[PR] ngerangguti (65) KS: Kami[PR] mantik

(66) AU: Eak bere-bere, kerna singalo bere-bere ras perkempuun nerangguti, tapi singalo perbibin mantik ia[PR].

(67) AB: Adi bage asakai bere-bere? (68) AU: Bere-bere Rp 40.000 (69) AB: Asakai perkempun? (70) AU: Perkempun Rp 18.000 (71) AB: Eak asakai perbibin? (72) AU: Perbibin Rp 12.000

(73) AB: Uga karena siman alonken ndu[PR], emkap perkembaren/sabe?

(74) AU: Oratilah Ginting mergana, ia[PR] pe teh sange asakai gel-gel aloken kami[PR], sebab sada dalanen nge gel-gel nari kami[PR] ras Barus mergana enda[DR].

(75) AB: Eak silih oratilah Ginting mergana karna perkembaren e[DR] nina anak beru Barus mergana uga nindu[PR]?

(76) SA: Uga ninta[PR] nake?

(77) SY: Bagenda nindu[PR] bas sekalenda kam[PR] kin nukati perkembaren e[DR] kami[PR] kari engkerisa.

(44)

(78) AB: Eak mama nina kalimbubu kami[PR], maka senda kam[PR] kin nukatisa Ginting mergana kari engkerisa kerina perkembaren e[DR].

(79) AU: Adi bage perkembaren Rp 12.000, orati Ginting mergana ugapasa akap na[PR]?

(80) AB: Ah silih perkembaren Rp. 12.000, nina[PR], ugapasa akap ndu[PR]? (81) SA: Payo.

(82) AB: Kai nari kap ndu[PR] sitading lupa nta[PR] mama? (83) AU: Gambir inget-inget Rp. 600

(84) AB: Payo

(85) AU: Kai nari ten ndu[PR] deba?

(86) AB: Ngerana ka min kita[PR] karna acara nta[PR] si pagi. (87) AU: Uga kin sura-sura ndu[PR] cuba turiken?

(88) AB: Siejabu rose emas, simuatsa sinerah, sinangketkenca singalo ulu emas. Simupus la remas, sembuyak na[PR] ertanda-tanda.

(89) AU: Ugapasa akap ndu[PR] sikataken Ginting mergana ah[DR]? (90) SN: Merandal

(91) AU: Enggo teng-teng akap kami[PR] ugaka seterusna? (92) Acara nta[PR] page bagenda:

Jam 08.00-09.00 kita ngukati I jambur enda[DR] 09.00- 10.00 rose I jambur enda[DR]

10.00 – 11.00 pedalan emas 11.00 – 13.00 telah-telah

13.00 kita[PR] man. Ugapasa akap ndu[PR]? (93) AU: Merandal

(45)

(94) AB: Kai nari kap ndu[PR] silupa nta[PR] kerna sie[DR]? (95) AU: Kai pagi ban ndu[PR] gulen nta[PR]?

(96) AU: Gulen nta[PR] pagi ban kami[PR] rendang, kuah na[PR] tuka-tuka ras umbut, je ban kami[PR] ka pagi terites, ugapasa kap ndu[PR].

(97) AU: Enggo mehui, saja ngenca biasi ndu[PR] lah pagi, enca mejile bahan pertasak na[PR] gelah entabeh si[PR] akap man .

(98) AB: Banci. Adi bage enggo kap kita[PR] banci sijalapen?

(99) AU: Akap kami[PR] pe mehulin[CR] nge pagi saja kita[PR] sijalpen sanga pedalan emas, erkiteken enda[DR] enggo melawen berngi.

(100) AB: Bage bage. Adi bage enggo banci pedalan kami[PR] pudun? (101) AU: Enggo.

(102) AB: Enda[DR] pudun ndai[DR]

(103) AU: Endi sada bas si empo, sada bas anak beru, sada bas sukut, sada bas kalimbubu.

(104) AU: Enda[DR] pudun, pagi mata kerja jam 08.00 (105) AU: Enda[DR] pudun, pagi mata kerja jam 08.00 (106) KB: Enda[DR] pudun, pagi mata kerja jam 08.00 (107) SN: Enda[DR] pudun, pagi mata kerja jam 08.00 (108) AB: Adi bage enggo dung runggun nta[PR] ?

(109) AU: Enggo saja, ngenca kataken ndu[PR] man singalo ulu emas gelah lampas ia[PR] pagi reh nangketken ose e[DR]. Bage pe luah siman jilenken kalimbubu sitelu sada dalanen embahken pagi kuingan kami[PR]. (110) AB: Banci. Dage enggo banci duduri kalimbubu kami[PR] isap na[PR]? (111) AU: Enggo.

(46)

Note:

PR: Personal Reference DR: Demonstrative Reference CR: Comparative Reference

SS: Simupus, SY: Sembuyak, Si: Senina, AB: Anak Beru, AM: Anak Beru Menteri, KU: Kalimbubu Singalo Ulu Emas, PK: Puang Kalimbubu (all of these are the relatives of the groom).

SS: Simupus, SK: Sembuyak, KB: Kalimbubu Singalo Bere-bere, KP: Kalimbubu Singalo Perkempuun, KS: Kalimbubu Singalo Perbibin, AU: Anak Beru, AI: Anak Beru Menteri (the relatives of the bride).

4.2. The Analysis

4.2.1 The Personal Reference

The personal references of sentence (1) are kam, kami, nindu, kami The personal references of sentence (2) are: kami and kam

The personal references of sentence (3) are kam, kami,nindu, kami The personal references of sentence (4) are kami and kam

The personal references of sentence (5) is kami

The personal references of sentence (7) are: kami ndu and ia The personal references of sentences (8) are kam, kami, kam The personal references of sentences (9) are kami, kami, ia

(47)

The personal references of sentence (11) are ndu and nta The personal references of sentence (12) is nta

The personal references of sentence (15) are kam, nta, kami The personal references of sentence (16) is kami

The personal references of sentence (17) are nta, ta, nta The personal references of sentence (18) is nindu The personal references of sentence (19) is ndu

The personal references of sentence (24) are kam and ndu The personal references of sentence (25) are ta and ndu The personal references of sentence (26) are ta, ndu,ndu,ndu The personal references of sentence (27) are ndu, kami, kami,ndu The personal references of sentence (28) are ta, kita, nta, kami, kami The personal references of sentence (29) are kami and ta

The personal references of sentence (30) are ninta, nta

The personal references of sentence (31) are ndu, nindu, nta, kita The personal references of sentence (32) is ninta

The personal references of sentence (34) is nta The personal references of sentence (36) is kam The personal references of sentence (37) is kita The personal references of sentence (39) is ndu

The personal references of sentence (42) are ia, kami, ia The personal references of sentence (44) are kam and kam The personal references of sentence (45) is ndu

(48)

The personal references of sentence (47) are ku and ndu The personal references of sentence (48) are kami and ndu The personal references of sentence (49) are kami, ndu The personal references of sentence (50) are ndu, nta , nta The personal references of sentence (51) are kami and nta

The personal references of sentence (56) are kami, kam, kami, ta, kita The personal references of sentence (57) is ndu

The personal references of sentence (58) is ndu The personal references of sentence (59) is ndu The personal references of sentence (60) is kami The personal references of sentence (61) is ndu

The personal references of sentence (62) are kam, kam The personal references of sentence (63) is kami The personal references of sentence (64) is kami The personal references of sentence (65) is kami The personal references of sentence (66) is ia The personal references of sentence (73) is ndu

The personal references of sentence (74) are ia, kami, kami, ia The personal references of sentence (75) is nindu

The personal references of sentence (76) is ninta

The personal references of sentence (77) are nindu, kam. kami The personal references of sentence (78) are kami, kam The personal references of sentence (79) is na

(49)

The personal references of sentence (82) are ndu, nta The personal references of sentence (85) is ndu The personal references of sentence (86) are kita, nta The personal references of sentence (87) is ndu The personal references of sentence (88) is na The personal references of sentence (89) is ndu The personal references of sentence (91) is kam

The personal references of sentence (92) are nta, kita, ndu The personal references of sentence (94) are ndu, nta The personal references of sentence (95) are ndu, nta

The personal references of sentence (96) are nta, kami, na, kami, ndu The personal references of sentence (97) are ndu, na, si

The personal references of sentence (98) are ndu, kita The personal references of sentence (99) are kami, kita The personal references of sentence (100) is kami The personal references of sentence (108) is nta

The personal references of sentence (109) are ndu, ia, kami The personal references of sentence (110) are kami, na.

(1) The word kam refers to the word kalimbubu, kami refers to the speaker (AB),

ndu refers to kalimbubu.

(2) The word kami refers to the speaker (SI) and kam refers to (AB) in the previous sentences.

(50)

(3) The word kam refers to the word kalimbubu, both ndu also refers to kalimbubu and kami refers to the speaker (AU).

(5) The word kami refers to the speaker and kam refers to (AU) in the previous sentence.

(6) The word kami refers to the speaker.

(7) The word kami refers to the speaker, ndu refers to (SI) and ia refers to kalimbubu.

(8) The word kam refers to the phrase singalo bere-bere, kami refers to speaker and kam also refers to singalo bere-bere.

(9) The word kami refers to the speaker, ia refers to the word Puang kalimbubu. (10) The word kam refers to kalimbubu, and kami refers to the speaker.

(11) The word ndu refers to word mama, nta refers to speaker and mama. (12)The word nta refers to (SN) in the preceding sentence.

(15) The word kam refer to (AU), nta refers to (AB) and (AU) and kami refers to the speaker.

(16) The word kami refers to the speaker.

(17) The word nta or ta refer to the speaker and (SK). (18) The word ndu refers to (SN).

(19)The word ndu refers to word silih.

(24) The word kam and ndu refer to the phrase singalo ulu emas. (25)The word ta refers to anak beru, ndu refer to the word sukut.

(26) The word ta refers to sukut and ndu here refers to singalo bere-bere, singalo perkempun, and singalo perbibin.

(51)

(28) The word ta, kita, and nta refer to (AB) and (AU), kami refers to the speaker.

(29) The word kami refers to the phrase Ginting Mergana, ta refers to (AU) and (SN).

(30) The word ta or nta refer to the word senina.

(31) The word ndu refers to anak berunta, the other ndu refers to (SN), nta and

kita refer to the speaker and (SN).

(32)The word nta refers to anak beru Barus. (34)The word ta refers to (AU).

(36) The word kam refers to (AB).

(37) The word kita refers to the speaker and (AU). (39) The word ndu refers to (AU).

(42)The word ia refers to singalo ulu emas, kami refers to speaker.

(44) The word The word kam refers to the phrase kalimbubu singalo ulu emas. (45) The word ndu refers to (AU).

(46)The word kam refers to singalo ulu emas.

(47) The word ku refers to speaker, ndu refers to all the person which present in the party. (48) kami refers to the speaker, ndu refers to (KU).

(49) The word ku and kami refer to speaker, ndu refers to (SK). (50) The word ndu refers to (KU) nta refers to speaker and (KU).

(51) The word kami refers to speaker, nta refers to the speaker and (SK).

(56) The word kami refers to speaker, kam refers to (AU), nta, kita refer to the speaker and (AU).

(52)

(58) The word ndu refers to (AU). (59) The word ndu refers to (SN). (60)The word kami refers to speaker. (61) The word ndu refers to (AU).

(62)The word kam refers to the phrase kalimbubu sitelu sadadalanen. (63) The word kami refers to the speaker.

(64) The word kami refers to speaker. (65) The word kami refers to speaker.

(66) The word ia refers to the phrase singalo perbibin. (73) The word ndu refers to (AU).

(74) The word ia refers to word Ginting, kami refers to the speaker. (75) The word ndu refers to (SI).

(76) The word ndu refers to Ginting.

(77) The word ndu refers (SI), kam refers to (AU), kami refers to the speaker. (78) The word kami refers to speaker, kam refers to (AU).

(79)The word na refers to Ginting.

(80) The word na in the word nina refers to (KB), ndu refers to (SI).

(82)The word ndu refers to the word mama, nta refers to the speaker and mama. (85) The word ndu refers to (AB).

(86)The word kita and nta to speaker and (AU). (87) The word ndu refers to (AB).

(88) The word na refers to the word sembuyak. (89) The word enda refers to (SN).

(53)

(92) The word nta refers to the speaker and ndu refers to (AU). (94) The word ndu refers to (AU) nta refers to speaker and (AU). (95) The word du refers to (AB) and, nta refers to (AB).

(96) The word nta refers to (AB) and (AU), kami refers speaker, na refers to the word gulenta, ndu refers to (AU).

(97) The word ndu refers to (AB), na refer to gulenta, si in the word siakap

refers to (AB) and (AB).

(98) The word ndai refers to (AU) and kita refers to speaker.

(99) The word kami refers to speaker, and kita refers to speaker and (AB). (100) The word kami refers to speaker.

(108) The word ndu refers to (AU), and nta refer to the speaker and (AU).

(109) The word nde refer to (AB), ia refers to the phrase singalo ulu emas, kami

refers to (AU).

(110) The word kami refers to speaker, na refers to kalimbubu.

4.2.2. The Demonstrative Reference

The demonstrative references of sentence (9) is enda The demonstrative references of sentence (15) is enda The demonstrative references of sentence (16) is enda The demonstrative references of sentence (17) is ah The demonstrative references of sentence (20) is ena The demonstrative references of sentence (23) is enda The demonstrative references of sentence (24) is enda

(54)

The demonstrative references of sentence (26) are enda, enda,enda, ndai The demonstrative references of sentence (27) are enda, ndaiand ndai The demonstrative references of sentence (28) is ndai

The demonstrative references of sentence (29) is enda

The demonstrative references of sentence (30) are bagah and ah The demonstrative references of sentence (32) is si e

The demonstrative references of sentence (34) is bage The demonstrative references of sentence (35) is bage The demonstrative references of sentence (38) is e The demonstrative references of sentence (39) is enda The demonstrative references of sentence (40) is enda

The demonstrative references of sentence (45) are ena and ndai The demonstrative references of sentence (46) is enda

The demonstrative references of sentence (47) is enda The demonstrative references of sentence (48) is enda The demonstrative references of sentence (52) is bage The demonstrative references of sentence (54) is ndai The demonstrative references of sentence (59) is ndai The demonstrative references of sentence (74) is enda The demonstrative references of sentence (75) is e The demonstrative references of sentence (77) is e The demonstrative references of sentence (78) is e The demonstrative references of sentence (89) is ah

(55)

The demonstrative references of sentence (94) is si e The demonstrative references of sentence (99) is enda

The demonstrative references of sentence (102) are enda and ndai The demonstrative references of sentence (104) is enda

The demonstrative references of sentence (105) is enda The demonstrative references of sentence (106) is enda The demonstrative references of sentence (107) is enda The demonstrative references of sentence (109) is e

(9) The word enda in “runggun enda” takes function as “modifier”. Then

runggun enda refers to the text conversation.

(15) and (16) The word enda takes function as modifier since has something it wants to refer to left beside it.

(17), (20) and (23) The words ah, ena, enda as modifier to refers to the word

kampil in the previous sentence.

(24) The word enda takes function as “head”, and it refers to the phrase

kampilndu.

(25) The word enda as head refers to kampilta, but enda in “kampil enda” takes function as modifier.

(26)The word enda refers to kampil.

(27) The word enda refers to kampil. And ndai in “kampilndu ndai” takes function as modifier. It refers to kampil.

(28) The word ndai in “karaben ndai” is exophoric reference. (29) The word enda refers to the statement in its right.

(56)

(30) The word bagah refers to explanation in sentence (29) and ah in “anak berunta ah” refers to the speaker of sentences (29).

(32) The word sie refers to the previous sentence. (34) and (35) The word bage refers to the sentence (33). (38) The word e refers to “gantang tumba” in sentence (37). (45) The word ndai refers to the previous sentence.

(52) The word bage refers to sentence (51).

(54) The word ndai also refers to previous sentence. (59) The word ndai refers to sentence (58).

(74) The word enda in “Barus merganaenda” takes function as modifier. (75), (77) and (78) The word e in “perkembaren” e refers to word perkembaren

in sentence (73).

(89) The word ah refers to speaker of sentence (88).

(92) The word enda in “bagenda” refers to the schedule of the part and enda in

“jambur enda” takes function as modifier. (94) The word sie refers to sentence (92).

(102) The word ndai in phrase “pudun ndai” refers to word pudun in sentence (100).

(104-107) The word enda refers to the word pudun. In sentence (109) e in “ose e” to “rose emas” in sentence (85).

4.2.3. The Comparative Reference

There is only comparative reference found in the data, there is in sentence (99). The comparative reference is mehulin. And it relates to sentence (98).

(57)

Based on the analysis of the data, the following table 1 is to show the frequency and percentage of the grammatical cohesion in the discourse “Nganting Manuk”

Occurrences and Percentage on the grammatical cohesion

Type of Functions Element Occurance Persentage Total %

Grammatical

Personal nindu 6 3,50 %

Reference kami 32 18,71 %

kami 14 8,18 %

ndu 31 18,12 %

ia 5 2,92 % 125 73,09 %

nta or ta 21 12,28 %

kita 8 4,67 %

na 4 2,33 %

Reference si 1 0,58 %

ku 1 0,58 %

ninta 2 1,16 %

Demonstrative enda 22 12,86 %

Reference ah 3 1,75 %

ena 3 1,75 %

ndai 6 3,50 %

bagah 1 0,58 % 45 26,31 %

si e 2 1,16 %

bage 3 1,75 %

e 5 2,92 %

Compartative mehulin 1 0,58 % 1 0,58 %

Reference

Total 171 100% 100%

(58)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusion

Discourse analysis studies the organization of language above the clause or above the sentence. Discourse is also concerned with language in use in social contexts, and particular with interaction or dialogue between speaker and hearer. One of the elements of discourse is cohesion. Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse depends on that of another in other words, cohesion is the relation between sentence. According to Halliday and Hasan in their book Cohesion in English outline various kinds of cohesion, that is: Grammatical cohesion includes: reference, substitution, en ellipsis. But in this study the writer has limited the scope of the analysis into grammatical cohesion only in reference type. The three kind of reference are: Personal Reference, Demonstrative Reference, Comparative Reference.

In this thesis, the theory of cohesion is used to analyze the textual discourse of “Nganting Manuk” in Karonese traditional wedding ceremony. From the analysis of the discourse, personal reference occurs predominantly (125 items= 73,09%), demonstrative reference (45 items=26,31%) and comparative reference (1 items=0,58%) as the lowest number occurs in the text.

(59)

5.2 Suggestions

Cohesion is a very important study in linguistic. By studying cohesion I can make a sentence more unfied. Therefore, the reader can easily understand what we want to convey in the text or the discourse.

The writer here realizes that this thesis is far from being complete because the writer just analysis the grammatical cohesion of the type reference from the discourse of the Karonese traditional wedding ceremony. There are still many aspects of cohesion that can be analysed from the discourse which may better left for the future analysis.

In other words, the writer here would like to suggest a further analysis on cohesion either in other languages in Indonesia. The writer would appreciate any criticisms and comments from the readers.

(60)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aitchison, J. 1987. Linguistics. New York: David Mckay & Co. Inc.

Arikunto, Prof. Dr. Suharsimi. 2006. Procedures Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek (Revisi VI). Jakarta : PT. Rineka Cipta.

Bangun, Teridah 1990.: Adat Istiadat Karo. Penelitian dan Pencatatan, Jakarta, Yayasan Merga Silima.

Brown, G and Yule,G. 1984. Discourse Analysis. London: Cambridge University Press.

Bungin, H. M Burhan. 2005. Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta : Kencana Prenada Group.

Cahyono, Bambang, Yudi. 1995: Kristal-Kristal Ilmu Bahasa. Surabaya, Airlangga University Press.

Djajasudarma, T. Fatimah. 1993. Metode Lingustik Rancangan Metode Penelitian dan Kajian. Bandung : Eresco

Halliday, MAK. and Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London : Longman Group Ltd.

Hartly, F.P. 1982. Linguistic for Language Learners. The Macmillan Press, Ltd. Novayanti, Amelia. 1994. A Cohesive Analysis of Reference In Scientific Texts.

Thesis. Medan.

Robert, P. 1958. Understanding English. New York: Harper and Brother.

Wardhani Irma.1997 : An Analysis of cohesive Ties in The Disscourse of The TraditionalMinangkabau Wedding Ceremony. Thesis. Medan.

(61)

Singarimbun, Masri. 1975: Kinship Descent and Alliance Among the Karo Batak. University of California Press, London.

Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sosiolinguistics Analysis of Neutral Language. England: Basil Blackwell. Publisher Ltd.

Tarigan, H,G. 1987: Pengajaran Wacana. Bandung, Penerbit Angkasa.

(62)

Appendix

The Karonese verbs used in the thesis and their meaning in English:

Karonese English

Acara to program, schedule

Adi to if

Ah to that, those

Akap to think, guess

Aloken to receive

Arenda to here

Arih to discuss

Asakai to how much

Bagah to like that, that

Bage to like this, that

Bage-bage to yes

Banci to can, be able

Belo to betel vine

Benaken to start

Berngi to at night

Biasana to as usual

Biasi to make up a lack

Cataten to note

Cuba to please (with a request to a person)

(63)

Dage to so

Dalanen to group

Duduri to serve, to give

e to this, these

embah to bring

ena to that, those

enda to this, these

endi to here! Take it

enggo to already, as certain point of time

enta to ask something

entabeh to nice, delicious

erkiteken to because of

ersinget-singet to talk

ertanda-tanda to marked

gantang tumba to bride price

gamber gambier

gel-gel to up till now

gulen to food

i to at

ia to he or she

(64)

ja to where

ke to where

kai to what

kam to you

kami to we

kapur to lime

kerina to all

kerja to party

kerna to about

ku 1. my

2. to

kuah to gravy

labo to not

lanai to not anymore

maba to bring

maka to so that

man to for, to

mantik to object

mari to call some closer

mehuli to good

mejile to good, nice

melawen to late

(65)

na to his, her, their (possessive

adj)

nari to from

ndu to your

nangkatken to put on

ngerana to talk

ngerangguti to agree

nehen to see

nina to say

ngukati to eat

nta to our

nungkuni to ask

oge to read

orati to interrogate

pagi to tomorrow

ras to with

reh to come

runggun to discussion

sada to one

sanga to when

si to we

selambar to a piece

(66)

sierjabu to bridge groom

siman to which

(67)

List of Informant

1. Name : Adat Perangin-Angin. Age : 65

Address : Desa Sukadame, Kecamatan Tiga panah, kab Karo Occupation : Farmer

2. Name : Sempurna Tarigan Age : 45

Address : Desa Munte, Kec Munte, Kab Karo Occupation : Driver

3. Name : Simon Ginting Age : 49

Address : Desa Munte, Kec Munte, Kab Karo Occupation : Junior High School Teacher

4. Name : Ibrahim Tarigan Age : 39

Address : Prumnas Simalingkar Occupation : Civil Cervant

(68)

5. Name : Mayam Br. Ginting Age : 57

Address : Jl. Sangap Encari Kabanjahe Occupation : Senior High School Teacher

6. Name : Rion Ginting Age : 54

Address : Desa Sukadame, Kecamatan Tiga panah, kab Karo Occupation : Farmer

(1)

Dage to so

Dalanen to group

Duduri to serve, to give

e to this, these embah to bring ena to that, those enda to this, these

endi to here! Take it

enggo to already, as certain point of time

enta to ask something entabeh to nice, delicious erkiteken to because of ersinget-singet to talk ertanda-tanda to marked

gantang tumba to bride price

gamber gambier

gel-gel to up till now gulen to food

i to at

ia to he or she isap to cigarette

(2)

ja to where

ke to where

kai to what

kam to you

kami to we

kapur to lime

kerina to all

kerja to party kerna to about

ku 1. my

2. to

kuah to gravy

labo to not

lanai to not anymore

maba to bring maka to so that

man to for, to

mantik to object

mari to call some closer mehuli to good

mejile to good, nice melawen to late merandal to good

(3)

na to his, her, their (possessive adj)

nari to from

ndu to your nangkatken to put on ngerana to talk ngerangguti to agree nehen to see nina to say ngukati to eat

nta to our

nungkuni to ask

oge to read

orati to interrogate

pagi to tomorrow

ras to with

reh to come

runggun to discussion

sada to one

sanga to when

si to we

selambar to a piece sie to this, these

(4)

sierjabu to bridge groom

siman to which

(5)

List of Informant

1. Name : Adat Perangin-Angin. Age : 65

Address : Desa Sukadame, Kecamatan Tiga panah, kab Karo Occupation : Farmer

2. Name : Sempurna Tarigan Age : 45

Address : Desa Munte, Kec Munte, Kab Karo Occupation : Driver

3. Name : Simon Ginting Age : 49

Address : Desa Munte, Kec Munte, Kab Karo Occupation : Junior High School Teacher

4. Name : Ibrahim Tarigan Age : 39

Address : Prumnas Simalingkar Occupation : Civil Cervant

(6)

5. Name : Mayam Br. Ginting Age : 57

Address : Jl. Sangap Encari Kabanjahe Occupation : Senior High School Teacher

6. Name : Rion Ginting Age : 54

Address : Desa Sukadame, Kecamatan Tiga panah, kab Karo Occupation : Farmer

A Study Of Grammatical Cohesion: Reference In The Discourse Of Nganting Manuk In Karonese Traditional Wedding Ceremony