6
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A. Previous Research
The idea on writing this thesis is based on some linguistics books that supply relevant information to the topic. The writer refers to some related analysis based
on the grammatical cohesion in discourse, as follows:
Widhiya Ninsiana 2014 has analyzed „Grammatical cohesion devices on the Indonesian translation of English bidding document’ uses qualitative descriptive
approach integrated with established case study and having the orientation on such a product using holistic critical method which examines objective, genetic, and
affective aspects. Her research findings thereof are as follows: grammatical cohesion devices in Bidding Documents translated into „Dokumen Tender‟
consisting of: First, cohesion marker of reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction. There are several grammatical cohesion devices in Bidding
Document which experience to change and not to change in cohesion marker. It causes there are differences in grammatical structure, reference, and social culture
context.
1
On the research
‘Grammatical Cohesion in Students’ Argumentative Essay’,
Alarcon and Morales have analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively method. 104 essays were collected and assessed by two interraters, but only 64 essays
statistically qualified as the corpus of the study. From Halliday and Hasan 1976
1
Widhiaya Ninsiana. Grammatical Cohesion Devices on the Indonesian Translation of English Bidding Document. International Journal of Language and Linguistics. Vol.2,No.6,2014, pp361-
367 Surakarta: Universitas Sebelas Maret
7
concept of grammatical cohesion was used as framework for the analysis of the essays. Reference had the highest frequency which is 90.67 of the total cohesive
devices with mean score 53.37. Conjunction occurred 326 times in the essays, which is 9.08. While substitution was the least used type of cohesion device
which is only 0.25. The cohesive devices are not significantly at 05 level of
significance.
Based on the qualitative analysis, it was found out that certain cohesive types assisted the students in the argumentation process. For instance, the use of
adversative conjunction helped the students establish counterclaims. However, „but‟ is the most frequently used adversative conjunction by the student which
may signify that their knowledge on the use of this kind of cohesion device is limited. There were instances where the students can use concessive like „yet or
however‟ to establish stronger claims. Hence, qualitative analysis supports the concept of form and function. In the students‟ argumentative essays, certain forms
were chosen over the others for a specific purpose that supports the overall objective of an argumentative text.
2
Tahereh Rahmati Farmani, student of Islamic Azad University Iran, was
conduct „A Discoursal- Grammatical Analysis of the 4
th
Chapter of Golestan: The Merits of Silence’. Her analysis is based on Halliday and Hasan‟s Method in
Discourse Analysis DA, at the macro level, cohesion factors and frequency of them are identified and analyzed, and the micro-level, the types of sentences and
2
Josephine B.Alarcon and Katrina Ninfa S. Morales. Grammatical Cohesion in Students’
Argumentative Essay. Journal of English and Literature Vol.25, June 2011 Philippines: University of Santo Tomas, Manila, pp.114-127.
8
frequency of them are analyzed. The total number of cohesion factors at the macro level is 688 cases, which indicate a high level of cohesion and coherence through
the text.
3
B. The Definition of Discourse
The study of discourse, or discourse analysis, is concerned with how speakers combine sentences into boarder speech units.
4
Discourse is the way of combining and integrating language, actions, interactions, and ways of thinking, believing,
valuing, and using various symbols, tools, and objects to enact a particular sort of socially recognizable identity.
5
Unlike the sentence whose boundaries appear intuitively clear, the discourse unit is not as clearly definable.
6
In other word, discourse has unlimited boundaries that cover a lot of domain, especially social
domain. It is like a statement that reveals by Teun A Van Dijk, discourse is a category that belongs to and derives from the social domain.
7
Generally, discourse refers to a text unity whether it is spoken language or written language, it does not need to refer the rational and logic contains. Such as,
poem, tragedy, conversation, etc. a unity of discourse structure closer to lexical unity than syntaxes unity. A sentence series is called disourse if it has emotional
3
Tahereh Rahmati Farmani, A Discoursal –Grammatical Analysis of the 4
th
Chapter of Golestan: The Merits of Silence. Indian J.Sci.Res.Vol. 71, 2014 Iran: Islamic Azad University, pp. 529-
533.
4
Victoria Fromkin, et al., An Introduction to Language, 7
th
Edition.Boston:Heinle, Thomson Corp, 2003, p.209.
5
James Paul Gee, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and method. New York and London: Routledge, 2005,p.21.
6
Roy O.Freedle, Discourse Production and Comprehension. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1982, p.94
7
Teun A.Van Dijk, Handbook of Discourse Analysis Vol.4 London: Academic Press Inc, 1985, p.27.
