An Analysis of Cohesion of Students’ Exposition Texts (A Case Study of A State Senior High School in Bandung).

An Analysis

of Cohesion of Students’ Exposition Texts

(A Case Study of A State Senior High School in Bandung)

A RESEARCH PAPER

Submitted as a partial Fulfillment of requirements for Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

By:

Nurfitri Habibi

1002645

English Education Department

Faculty of Language and Arts Education

Indonesia University of Education

An Analysis of Cohesion of Students’

Exposition Text

(A Case Study of A State Senior High School

in Bandung)

Oleh Nurfitri Habibi

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni

© Nurfitri Habibi 2014 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Agustus 2014

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian, dengan dicetak ulang, difoto kopi, atau cara lainnya tanpa ijin dari penulis.

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION ... Error! Bookmark not defined. PREFACE ... Error! Bookmark not defined. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... Error! Bookmark not defined. ABSTRACT ... Error! Bookmark not defined. TABLE OF CONTENTS ... 1 LIST OF TABLES ... Error! Bookmark not defined. LIST OF FIGURES ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER I ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.1. Background of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.2. Research Questions ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3. Purpose of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.4. Scope of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.5. Significance of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.6. Clarification of Key Terms ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.7. Organization Paper ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.8. Concluding Remark ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER II ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.1. The Concept of Cohesion ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.1.1. Text ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.1.2. Cohesion ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2. Cohesive Devices ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.1. Reference... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.2. Ellipsis and Substitution ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.3. Lexical Cohesion ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.4. Conjunction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.3. Thematic Progression ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.3.1. Theme System ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.3.2. Theme Progression Pattern Categories ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

2.4.1. Schematic Structure of Exposition ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.4.2. Linguistic Features of Exposition .... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.5. Related Study of Cohesive Devices ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.6. Concluding Remark ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER III ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.1. Research Design ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2. Site and Participant ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.1. Setting ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.2. Participant ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3. Data Collection ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4. Data Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4.1. Identification of Exposition’s Schematic Structure and Linguistic

Features………...E

rror! Bookmark not defined.

3.4.2. Identification of Cohesive Devices .. Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4.3. Identification of Theme Progression Pattern . Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.4.4. Determination of Cohesive Devices and Theme Progression Pattern Consistency ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5. Concluding Remark ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER IV ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1. An Analysis of Students’ Exposition Text .. Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.1. An Analysis of Text by Low Achiever ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.1.1.1. Schematic Structure ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.1.2. Linguistic Features ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.1.2.1. Arguments Element... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.1.2.2. Conclusion Element ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.2. An Analysis of Text by a Middle Achiever ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.1.2.1. Schematic Structure ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.2.2. Linguistic Features ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.2.2.1. Thesis Element ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

4.1.2.2.2. Arguments Element... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.2.2.3. Conclusion Element ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.3. An Analysis of Text by a High Achiever ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.1.3.1. Schematic Structure ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.3.2. Linguistic Features ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.3.2.1. Thesis Element ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.3.2.2. Argument Element ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.3.2.3. Conclusion Element ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2. Thematic Progression Pattern Consistency ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.3. Cohesive Devices Consistency ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3.1. Reference... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3.2. Lexical cohesion... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3.3. Conjunction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3.4. Ellipses and Substitutions ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.4. Effects of Cohesive Devices’ Usage toward Cohesion of Students’ Text

……….Er

ror! Bookmark not defined.

4.5. Concluding Remark ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER V ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.1. Conclusion ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.2. Recommendation ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Bibliography ... Error! Bookmark not defined. APPENDICES ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

vi

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

ABSTRACT

The primary focus of the study entitled An Analysis of Cohesion of Students’ Exposition Texts: A Case Study of a State Senior High School in Bandung is to investigate how students create cohesive exposition text seen from the

exposition’s schematic structure and linguistic features based on theme

progression and cohesive devices. In particular, this study portrays the occurrence of cohesive devices and theme progression pattern along with the effect of cohesive devices employment toward the cohesion of the texts. The method employed in the study was a qualitative case study. The data were obtained by

collecting six students’ texts from three different levels of achievement—Low-, Mid-, and High- achiever. Those data were analyzed by using cohesion analysis framework proposed by Halliday & Hasan (1976), Gerot & Wignell (1994), Halliday (2000), Halliday & Mathiessen (2004), Eggins (2004), Bloor & Bloor (2005), and Emilia (2014) and theme progression framework proposed by Eggins

(2004). The finding shows to some extents. First, it shows that the student’s texts

were cohesive. This can be seen from schematic structure used by high- and middle achiever and the employment of linguistic features. Second, in terms of theme progression, students used zigzag pattern more frequently, followed by Reiteration and Multiple Theme Pattern. Third, In terms of cohesive devices, the highest frequency of the cohesive devices occurrence was lexical cohesion, followed by conjunction, reference, and ellipsis/substitution.

Keywords : Cohesion, Cohesive Devices, Theme Progression Pattern,

Exposition text

vi

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

ABSTRAK

Fokus utama dari penelitian yang berjudul Analisis Kohesi pada Teks Eksposisi Siswa: Sebuah Penelitian Kasus pada salah satu Sekolah Menengah Atas Negeri di Bandung adalah untuk mencari tahu bagaimana siswa membuat teks eksposisi yang kohesi dilihat dari struktur organisasi dan ciri kebahasaaan teks eksposisi berdasarkan progresi tema dan perangkat kohesi. Khususnya, penelitian ini menggambarkan munculnya perangkat kohesi dan pola progresi tema bersamaa dengan pengaruh dari penerapan perangkat kohesi terhadap kohesi teks. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah sebuah studi kasus kualitatif. Data diperoleh dengan cara mengumpulkam enam teks siswa yang berasal dari tiga tingkat prestasi yang berbeda— siswa berkemampuan rendah, sedang ,dan tinggi. Data tersebut dianalisis dengan mengunakan kerangka analisa kohesi yang diajukan oleh Halliday & Mathiessen (2004), Eggins (2004), Bloor & Bloor (2005), and Emilia (2014) dan kerangka progresi tema yang diajukan oleh Eggins (2004). Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan beberap hal. Pertama, penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa teks siswa itu kohesif. Hal ini dapat dilihar dari struktur organisasi teks eksposisi yang digunakan oleh siswa berkemampuan tinggi dan sendang dan penggunaan ciri kebahasaan teks eksposisi. Kedua, dalam hal progresi tema, siswa menggunakan pola zigzag lebih sering, diikuti oleh pola

reiteration dan pola multiple theme. Ketiga, dalam hal perangkat kohesi,

kemunculan tertinggi dari perangkat kohesi adalah lexical cohesion, diikuti oleh konjungsi, reference, dan ellipsis/subsitusi.

Kata kunci: kohesi, perangkat kohesi, pola progresi tema, teks eksposisi.

1

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter firstly explains the background of choosing study’s topic, the

significance of the study, research questions, the aim of the study, and the scope of the study as well. Besides, the clarification of some terms used in the study and the organization of paper will be presented and explained in the end of this chapter.

1.1.Background of the Study

Writing an argumentative genre is significant for students’ academic success

and effective social participation (Crowhurst, 1990; Knapp & Watkins, 2005). This statement is supported by Bizzel (1992; cited in Emilia, 2005) who states that

the ability of composing argumentative genre will generate the students’ critical

thinking so that students can get an access to be a powerful society and they are ready to be a competitive people. Therefore, the ability to convey the message through the writing form is a critical skill and an important attribute for academic success and professional competence (Geiser & Studley, 2001; Light,2001).

In addition, the comprehension of writing argumentative genre is supported by the Indonesian curriculum of senior high school issued by BSNP 2006 (Badan

Standar Nasional Pendidikan) which states that one of basic competence and

standard competence of this level are to comprehend and to create argumentative writing, such as the exposition text.

However, to write an argumentative genre is not a simple instance because it requires logical and coherent reasoning (Siegler: 1996, Knapp & Watkins, 2005,p. 196). In order to achieve those requirements, the students should be able to comprehend the textual resource: the organization of an idea so that the progression of the text is linier (Connor, 1990) and the different type of cohesive links (Droga and Humphrey, 2003) to create logical text.

2

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

In fact, cohesion and ideas organization are two common problems faced by foreign language students in creating an exposition text. Researchers have found that ESL/EFL students tend to focus on the word or clause level rather than the whole discourse level (Bamberg, 1984; Ferris & Hedgecock, 1998; cited in Lee, 2002) in creating exposition text. In addition, the problem of foreign students in creating cohesive text is confirmed by Chen (2008), Witte & Faigley (2008) , Azzouz (2009) ,Vahid & Hayati (2011) to Sanczyk (2010), Ong (2011), Saudin (2013), and Sadighi & Heydari (2012). Those studies analyzed the employment of cohesive devices in argumentative writing and relationship between the number of cohesive device used and the quality in the writing. The result showed that there is a sufficient employment of cohesive devices in the argumentative writing but there is some in appropriate uses of cohesive devices. in addition, In addition, there were no interference between the number of cohesive devices and the writing quality.

In one Indonesian secondary school, the cohesion and the organizing idea or the textual function of language is not paid attention by both the teacher and the students in teaching and learning writing activity. Actually, one of the ways that

can be used in assessing cohesion of the students’ writing is by analyzing the

cohesive devices employment and theme progression pattern employment.

However, there are still few studies investigating cohesion of students’

exposition texts, which combine the analysis of the employment of cohesive links or cohesive devices and theme progression pattern. Recent publications mainly concerned to the analysis of cohesive devices only or theme progression only.

Therefore, this study focuses on both the analysis of cohesive devices and theme progression pattern in order to investigate cohesion of Indonesian senior

high school students’ exposition text. 1.2.Research Questions

The present study is going to investigate the cohesion of the hortatory text. Thus, the research questions for this study are:

1. To what extent do the students’ exposition writings fulfill the schematic structure and language features of the exposition text in term of cohesion?

3

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

2. Which Cohesion devices and Theme progression pattern mostly occur in the

Student’s exposition texts?

3. How do cohesive devices employed affect the cohesion of the student’s exposition texts?

1.3.Purpose of the Study

In accordance with the research question, this study is aimed to meet the following purposes:

1. To reveal the extent to which student’s exposition writings fulfill the schematic structure and language features of the exposition text in term of cohesion. 2. To investigate cohesive devices and theme progression pattern mostly occurs in

Students’ exposition texts.

3. To explore the effect of cohesive devices employed toward the cohesion of the

students’ exposition texts.

1.4.Scope of the Study

This study focuses on analyzing exposition texts written by six Indonesian second grade students of a state senior high school in Bandung. The analysis will only focus on five cohesive devices namely reference, lexical cohesion, conjunction, substitution, ellipsis according to Halliday’s cohesion framework. In addition, the analysis also focuses on three theme progression patterns: Zigzag, reiteration, and multiple theme pattern proposed by Eggins (2004).

1.5.Significance of the Study

This study will give theoretical and practical advantages. In term of theory, this study can contribute in enrichment of the literature about cohesion and coherence. In terms of practice, the result of the study will be useful for teacher so that the teacher can teach students the appropriate cohesive devices in the writing exposition text. The study also expected to give information to the teacher on how

to analyze the cohesion of the students’ text. Thus, the teacher can assess the students’ cohesive writing through it. In addition, teacher will know what it is the

4

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 1.6.Clarification of Key Terms

To avoid misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and misjudgments toward some concept presented in this study, this section will clarify the following terms: 1. Argumentative Essay

Argumentative essay is a piece of writing involving arguments, facts, evidences, reasons, explanation in order to support the side being argued and use reference of experts to make the writing seems indisputable and to make the reader believes what is written (Emilia, 2005)

2. Exposition Text

Exposition text is types of argumentative essay in which it emphasizes on

persuading someone to the writer’s point of views ( Gerot & Wignell, 1994)

3. Textual Resource

Textual resource means the resource of organizing information in the text and making connections across a text which (Droga and Humphrey, 2003).

4. Coherence

Eggins (1994, p. 87) asserts Coherence as one of dimension of text. It relates the text to the contextual properties such as social and cultural.

5. Cohesive Devices

Cohesive devices are the semantic relation that link the information to various items within the text that leads to the comprehension of the readers about the meaning of the text ( Haliday & Hasan, 1976; Derewianka, 2011; cited in Emilia,2014)

1.7.Organization Paper

The paper of study is organized into five chapters. Each section is provided by subsections to give an insight to the topic under investigation.

The first chapter is introduction. This chapter provides background of study, statements of problem, purpose of study, scope of study, clarification of key terms, and organization of paper in order to give an overview to the readers.

The second chapter is literary review. This chapter explains the theory shaping the study to the readers by providing definition of cohesion, categories of cohesive devices, categories of theme progression pattern, definition of argumentative text.

5

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

The third chapter is research methodology. This chapter focuses on the methodology employed in conducting the study. It covers research design, participant and site of the study, data collection, and data analysis.

The fourth chapter is findings and discussions. This chapter presents the findings of the data analysis. Those findings will be discussed and interpreted in this chapter.

The last chapter is conclusion. This chapter presents the conclusion and some suggestions to other researchers who intend to develop the research.

1.8.Concluding Remark

This chapter has presented some aspects underlying the study including background of the study, statement of problems, purposes of the study, scope of the study, significance of the study, clarification of key terms, and organization of the paper. The next section will present some theories relevant to the study.

26

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

The pervious chapter has elaborated theories relevant to the study. This chapter focuses on an elaboration of methodology conducted in this study. It covers

Research Design, Site and Participant, Data collection, and Data Analysis. First,

Research design discusses the method employed in this study. It includes the method’s principles and method’s characteristics. Second, Site and Participant elaborates the place where the study was conducted and the participants involved in the study. Third, Data Collection emphasizes on the technique used in collecting the data. Last, Data analysis explains the procedure of analyzing the data.

1.1.Research Design

The method employed in this study is the descriptive qualitative research, which is case study approach. The case study, according to Burns (1994, see Cohen & Manion, 1994), involves an observation of individual unit, e.g. a student, a delinquent clique, a family group, a class, a school, a community, an event, or even an entire culture. In addition, the major characteristic of case study is that it concerns on a particular incident in which it evolves in-depth study of a single event (Hitchcock& Huges, 1995). Since the study analyzes students’ exposition text in terms of cohesion, the case study approach is appropriate for this study because of two reasons:

First, this study observes small number of students’ exposition text and it was conducted in a state of senior high school in Bandung. It is because, according to Graham & David’s (1995), The ‘case’ in case study work is

paramount and it offers an investigation of an important way forward in terms of both design and form of writing, then, the only way to conduct such enquires, namely, via representative samples.

Second, the study aims at investigating, categorizing, analyzing, and interpreting how cohesive devices and theme progression pattern occurred in students’ exposition text suit for the schematic structure and linguistic features of

27

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

exposition text. Hence, it was suitable to the purpose of the case study in which it investigates deeply and analyzes intensively multifarious phenomena that constitute a life cycle of unit (Burn, 1994; Cohen&Manion,1994,p.106-107). In the sense that, in this study, the researcher attempts to interpret the data by creating interference and drawing conclusion (Hatch, 2002) toward the analysis of cohesive devices’ choice and theme progression pattern. In a brief, the case study approach allows researcher to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events—such as individual life cycle (Burns, 1994; Yin,2003; Yin, 2011). 1.2.Site and Participant

This section would elaborate setting of the study and participant of the study. Detail description would be elaborated as follow.

1.2.1.Setting

The study was conducted in one of a state Senior High School in Bandung. This school was chosen for several reasons. First, the school was near to the place where the researcher stayed, so it allowed the researcher to get access there easily. Besides, since the case study observed an individual unit, e.g. a school (Cohen & Manion, 1994), a Senior High School in Bandung was appropriate site to conduct the study. Second, as mentioned earlier in the first chapter, senior high school students hopefully could write a hortatory text, as stated in Standard Competence and Basic Competence of 2006 senior high school curriculum, in order to be successful in academic and social participation. Thus, the senior high school students’ awareness to create such text is essential.

1.2.2.Participant

The participants of the study were six senior high school students or eleven-grade students. They were chosen because the needs of learning exposition text was endorsed in grade eleven’ Standard Competence (Standar Kompetensi) and

Basic Competence (Kompetensi Dasar) which stated that eleven grade student should comprehend social purpose, schematic structure, and linguistic features of hortatory exposition text in their daily context (K.D. 12.2).

In addition, in order to develop in depth understanding of the study, the six students of eleven grades considered as relevant participant to the design of study,

28

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

in which in qualitative study, the quality of the sample was more concerned than number of sample ( De Paulo, 2000). In other words, it was typical in qualitative study to investigate few individual because the overall ability of the researcher was to provide an in depth instance of phenomenon (Creswell: 2012), which was in its natural context and from the perspective of the participants involved in the phenomenon (Gall at al, 2003; cited in Duff, 2008).

Those six students were categorized into three achievement categories which were determined by score of the student’s writing. Therefore, there were three categories; low achiever, middle achiever, and high achiever. Students who got 30-50 in the writing was categorized into low achiever, students who got 60-79 was categorized into middle achiever, and students who got 80-90 in writing was categorized into high achiever. By categorizing students into three achievements’ categories in analyzing exposition text in terms of cohesive devices and theme progression pattern choice, it would give several advantages; it was easier the researcher to obtain more useful data and it would give greater understanding of the context based on prior knowledge (Duff, 2008,p. 116)

1.3.Data Collection

Data, which was collected, was students’ exposition text. The collection of the data was conducted in several steps. First, the students were given four topics of exposition text; the importance of doing exercise, the dangerous of fast food,

playing games in spare time, the importance of wearing helmet and saving money from the early age. Those topics were chosen because these topics were common

issues that students encountered in their daily life.

Second, the students should choose one of the topics provided. They had to write a hortatory text based on the topics they had chosen. In this case, before students constructed a piece of hortatory writing, they had been taught and learnt about what the hortatory exposition was, exposition’s schematic structure and its language features. In addition, the students had practiced constructing a hortatory text in pairs with different topics.

Finally, the students’ text would be classified based on score of the writing, in which students who got 30-50 in the writing was categorized into low achiever,

29

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

students who got 60-79 was categorized into middle achiever, and students who got 80-90 in writing was categorized into high achiever . However only six students’ text were considered as data of the study in which two students were regarded as representative of each students’ categories. Here is, table 3.1 shows the detail of topic chosen by each category of students to their hortatory writing:

Table 3. 1 Topics Chosen by Students Categories of

achievement

Text Topic

Low achiever Text 6 The dangerous of fast food

Text 5 Playing video games in spare time Middle achiever Text 4 Learn to save money from early age

Text 3 The importance of wearing helmet High achiever Text 2 The importance of doing exercise

Text 1 The dangerous of fast food

By categorizing the students’ text based on student’s achievement was easier the researcher to analyzing the exposition text. In addition, it would give clear description of students’ texts’ cohesion based on each level of students’ achievement.

1.4.Data Analysis

The six of the students’ texts considered as study’s data were analyzed at four stages: identification schematic structure and linguistic features of exposition text, identification of each cohesive device, identification of Theme progression patterns, and determination of cohesive devices and thematic progression pattern consistency. Each stage will be elaborated as follow.

1.4.1.Identification of Exposition’s Schematic Structure and Linguistic Features

In order to reveal the extent to which students’ text fulfill the exposition’s schematic structure, the identification of exposition’s schematic structure should be conducted. The students’ texts were broke down into numbers of clauses and

30

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

were analyzed whether they consist of thesis, arguments, and conclusion or recommendation. The analysis of this identification would follow Derewianka (1990), Gerot & Wignell (1994), Anderson & Anderson (1997), Emilia (2005), Knapp & Watkins (2005), Martin & Rose (2008), Christie & Derewianka (2008), and Emilia (2012). Table 3.2 is the example of schematic structure’s identification of exposition text taken from Text 3:

Table 3. 2 Schematic Structure of Text 3 Thesis

1. One of the important thing(s) [[when riding motorcycle]] is wearing helmet 2. Helmet has function(s) [[to protect your head [[when (you) have an

accident]]b. and for (to) protect your face from dust and wind ]]a. 3. But many people ignore the safety without [[wearing helmet]] Arguments

4. The reason people using (use) helmet

5. because they are afraid getting a ticket from police

6. But in a secure area from the police, They riding (ride) motorcycle without [[wearing helmet]]

7. Beside of that, we often see the passenger [[(who is) not wearing a helmet]] 8. But actually, there are not difference(s) between rider and passenger

9. All of them must wearing (wear) helmet

Conclusion reinforces the author’s point of view 10.So we must follow the rules

11.Wearing helmet

12.When riding motorcycle

13.Although the destination is not far away

14.(it is) because safety is more important than anything

Then, the identification of exposition linguistic features in students’ texts was based on features, which created cohesion of exposition genre. Those cohesion linguistic features would be matched to Derewianka (1990), Anderson & Anderon, and Knapp & Watkins (2005) theory of exposition linguistic features. It aimed at revealing the extent to which students’ texts complied with the exposition’s linguistic features in terms of cohesion. The analysis of identification of exposition’s linguistic features would be the same as the analysis of identification of cohesive devices which would be presented subsequently.

31

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

1.4.2. Identification of Cohesive Devices

Six students’ texts collected were broken down into clauses one by one. After that, each cohesive devices, reference, ellipsis and substitution, lexical cohesion, and conjunction, were identified based on Halliday & Hasan (1976), Gerot & Wignell (1994) ,Halliday (2000), Halliday & Matthiesen (2004), and Eggins (2004). An analysis of identification each cohesive device will be exemplified below through its chains:

 Reference chain

e.g. (6) learn save money—(7) it (A)—(10) the best way (A)—(11) this way (A)—(15) this method (A) (text 4), in which numbers in parentheses indicated

clause number, followed by participants, and then followed by types of endaphoric reference coded by A for anaphoric, C for Cataphoric, and E fo Eshporic in parentheses.

 Lexical cohesion

- repetition chain , e.g (1) fast foods—(2) fast food—(5) fast food—(6) fast food—(7)fast food—(8) fast food—(9) fast food—(13) fast food—(17) fast food—(18) fast food (text 1), in which numbers in parentheses indicate clause

number.

- Synonym chain, e.g. (3)wearing– (4) use (text 3)

- Antonym chain, e.g. (1) importance—(2) damage (text 2)

- Hyponymy chain, e.g. (3)Video game – (3) action game (text 5)

- Co-hyponymy, e.g. (6) cancer – (6) Disease (text 6)

- Meronymy, e.g. (9) body—(10) digestive—(12) immune—(15) brain (text 1)

- Co-meronymy,e.g (10) digestive—(10) body (text 1)

 Conjunction—was identified by underlining and italic each conjunction found in the text. e.g But fast food is rich of sodium and the harmful additive (text1)

 Ellipsis—was identified by marking single asterisk (*), e.g. Why?* (Text 4) The identification of cohesive devices aimed at investigating the realization of cohesive devices in students’ text and at exploring how those cohesive devices affect the students’ exposition texts.

32

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

1.4.3.Identification of Theme Progression Pattern

After identifying the cohesive devices, the Theme Progression Pattern was identified. The identification of theme progression pattern based on Eggins (2004) and Bloor & Bloor (2005) aimed at finding out how students organize their idea in a sense that how they elaborate information and relate them to support evidences made in exposition text.

Eggins proposes three theme progression patterns: zigzag pattern, reiteration pattern, and multiple theme pattern. An analysis of each pattern would be exemplified as follow which was taken from the students’ text.

Zigzag Pattern Text 3

(1) (One of the important thing(s) [[when riding motorcycle]] is wearing helmet

(2) Helmet has function(s) [[to protect your head [[when (you) have an

accident]]b. and for (to) protect your face from dust and wind ]]a.

Reiteration pattern Text 1

(6) First, fast food makes obesity

(7) Fast food almost contains ‘zero’ nutrition value

(8) But fast food is rich of sodium and the harmful additive

Multiple Theme Pattern Text 1

(5) However, eating fast foods has (have) negative effects (6) First, ………..

(9) Second, ……… (13) Third, ……..

33

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

1.4.4.Determination of Cohesive Devices and Theme Progression Pattern Consistency

All of cohesive devices and theme progression patterns occurred in students’ texts were summed up after identifying cohesive devices and theme progression patterns. It was conducted to see the cohesive devices and the theme progression patterns that mostly occur in the students’ exposition text. This information became a basic parameter to determine student’s text consistency in terms of cohesion.

1.5.Concluding Remark

This chapter has presented and discussed the methodology used in conducting the study including research design, site and participant of the study, data collection, and data analysis.

64

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION

The previous chapter has been presented the analysis and the discussion towards

the finding of schematic structure and linguistic feature of students’ hortatory text,

the theme progression pattern occurrence, and cohesive devices occurrence along with the meaning and the effect of cohesive device in the students’ text. Then, this chapter provides the conclusion of the study and offers some recommendation for further study, in which the brief description of some underlying aspects— background, aims, main finding, and conclusion will be presented in the conclusion section, and the recommendation or some suggestions for the further study of cohesion will be presented in the recommendation section.

1.1. Conclusion

This study focuses on the investigation of cohesion of senior high school

students’ exposition texts. It aims at investigating how students create cohesive

exposition text seen from the exposition’s schematic structure and linguistic

features. Moreover, this study intends to portray the occurrence of cohesive devices and theme progression pattern in the students’ texts along with the effect

of cohesive devices employment toward the students’ texts.

The findings indicate that the results of the study confirm the previous research by Witte & Faigley (2008), Chen (2008), Azzouz (2009), Sanczyk (2010), Ong (2011), Dastjerdi & Samian (2011), Sadighi & Heydari (2012).

The finding of this study shows that the students are able to create cohesive text seen from the employment of cohesive devices and theme progression pattern. Although the texts produced were written once, the students have been able to fulfill linguistics features of exposition text. It can be seen from the employment of reference and conjunction in order to create cohesive text. However, the employment of Ellipsis seems to be limited in the students’ text created which indicated that they are not able to track devices, so the continuity of new information in the text cannot be maintained. In addition, three essential elements of exposition schematic structure can only be achieved by high- and

65

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

middle- achiever, in which these three elements help the students to create logical and coherent text.

In terms of theme progression pattern, all types of theme progressions are presented only in High-achievement students’ texts. The High achievers seem to be able to Multiple Theme pattern indicating that the text produced by High-achiever is well planned or well written. This pattern is also an instance that differentiates High-achievers with Middle- and Low- achievers, in which Middle- and Low- achievers are not able to apply the Multiple Theme Pattern. The high-achievers also can use Reiteration pattern in order to keep the text focus by repeating the same element as a Theme and Zigzag pattern in order to make a cumulative sense in the development of the text.

In terms of cohesive devices’ occurrence in the text, lexical cohesion is used

most frequently followed by conjunction, reference, and ellipsis/substitution. In terms of lexical cohesion, the highest frequency of lexical ties is repetition, which means it is an indication that the text provides clear focus or it might be the indication that the students have limited knowledge of vocabulary, so some word is repeated many times. Moreover, regarding the reference, personal reference occurs more frequent than the other reference tie, which means that the text is specific because the referent item is recoverable. Then, concerning the

conjunction used in the students’ texts, the causal conjunction occurs more

frequently than another, which indicates that the text produced is united and logical by giving reasoning. Next, in terms of Ellipsis, the only type of Ellipsis existing is WH-Ellipsis of the whole clause indicating that the text displays continuity that signals new information in the text. In addition, the less occurrence and the absence of substitution prove that this cohesive device occur more frequently in dialogic text.

In short, the employment of cohesive devices and theme progression pattern influence the cohesion of the senior high school students’ exposition text.

1.2. Recommendation

Relevant to the present study, the researcher intends to propose some suggestions for others researcher to develop similar study particularly in analyzing cohesion of the text. Some suggestions presented derive from the limitation of this study.

66

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

Firstly, this study focuses only on the analysis of cohesion in the students’

text, so it is recommended that further researcher can develop beyond the cohesive

device employment in analyzing students’ text. They can further analyzing the

coherence of the students’ text to reveal the texture of the text and they can apply the theme systems analysis of the students’ text along with the theme progression

pattern and cohesive device employment in order to investigate the cohesion and

coherence of the students’ texts.

Secondly, this study is also limited in examining only diagnostic texts. The process to create a cohesive writing never can be achieved perfectly by only examining first draft of writing; hence, it is better for other researcher to examining not only the first draft of writing but also the final draft of the writing,

so that the improvement of students’ writing would be seen. In addition, the first

and final draft can be compared in order to know the differentiation of the cohesive devices employment in the text.

Lastly, this study explains and discusses the student’s text only. It should

explain and discuss the teaching program as well, so, the further study should investigate the teaching program in order to know the impact of the students’ texts written.

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

Bibliography

Anderson, M. and Anderson, K. (1997). Text type in English – Volume 2. Sydney: Macmillan Education Australia

Azzouz, B. (2009). A discourse analysis of grammatical cohesion students’

writing. Dissertation, Mentouri University.

Bloor, T, & Bloor, M. (2004). The functional analysis of English 2nd edition. Great Britain: Arnold Publisher.

Burns, R. (1994). Introduction to research methods. Australia: Longman

BSNP. (2006). Kurikulum 2006 standar kompetensi mata pelajaran bahasa

Inggris sekolah menengah atas dan madrasah aliyah. Jakarta: BSNP

Chen, J. (2008). An investigation of EFL students’ use of cohesive devices. Asian

pacific education review, 5(2),215-225.

Chirstie, F & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse learning to write across

the years of schooling. New York : Continuum international publishing.

Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause, &

evaluation argumentative genre. London: Continuum.

Cohen, L. and Manion, L . (1994). Research method in education 4th Ed. New York : Routledge

Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67-87.

Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. Proceedings of the 32nd annual

conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 984-989).

Crowhurst, M. (1990). Teaching and learning the writing of persuasive/ argumentative discourse. Canadian journal of education, 15 (4), 348-359.

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

Dastjerdi, H.V, & Samian, S.H. (2011). Quality of Iranian EFL learners’ argumentative essays: Cohesive devices in focus. Mediterranean journal

of social sciences, 2(2), 65 – 76.

DePaoulo, P. (2000). Sample size for qualitative research. Retrieved from: http://www.quirks.com/articles/a2000/20001202.aspx?searchID=215035& sort=5&pg=1.

Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how text work. Sydney: PETA

Droga and Humphrey. (2003). Grammar and meaning an introduction for

primary teachers. Australia: Southwood Press.

Duff, P.A. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York: Lawrence Elbraum

Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Printer Publishers, Ltd.

Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics 2nd edition. London: Continuum international Publishing Group.

Emilia, E. (2005). A critical genre-based approach to teaching academic writing

in a tertiary EFL context in Indonesia. A PhD thesis submitted to the

University of Melbourne.

Emilia, E. (2012). Module 12: argumentative writing (A writing course

handbook).UPI. Unpublished Material

Emilia, E. (2014). Introducing functional grammar. Bandung: Pustaka Jaya.

Geiser, S. & Studley, R. (2001). UC and SAT: Predictive validity and differential

impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California. Oakland,

CA: University of California.

Gerot, L. and Wignell, P. (1994).Making sense of functional grammar. Cammeray, NSW: Antipodean Educational Enterprises

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

Halliday, M.A.K., Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London:Longman

Halliday, M.A.K.,( 2000). Introduction to functional grammar, second ed. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Halliday, M.A.K.,Mathiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to functional

grammar 3rd ed. London: Oxford University Press.

Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education setting. New York: State University of New York Press

Hitchcock, G & Huges, D. (1995). Research and the teacher 2nd ed. London:

Routledge.

Knapp, P. and Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, and grammar : Technologies for

teaching and assessing writing. Sydney: UNSW Press

Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. Journal

of second language writing. 11 (2): 135-159.

Light, R. (2001). Making the most of college. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lock, G. (1996). Functional English grammar : An introduction for second

language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: Systems and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing

Martin, J. R., Mathiessen C. M. I. M & Painter, C. (1997). Working with

functional grammar. London: Arnold.

Martin, J.R. (1992). English text: Systems and structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing.

Martin, J.R. and Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Enquinox

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

Ong, J. (2013). Investigation The use of cohesive devices by Chinese EFL learners. The Asian EFL journal 13 (3), 42-61. [online:

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com Accessed Mei 21th, 2014]

Sanczyk, A. (2010). Investigation argumentative essays of English

undergraduates studying in Poland as regards their use of cohesive devices. Unpublished Thesis, University of Oslo. [ online: https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/25244/AnnaSanczyk.pdf? sequence=1.Accessed : Juni 13th, 2014]

Saudin, H. (2013). The realization of cohesion in the students’ argumentative

writing performance. Unpublished thesis, Universitas Pendidikan

Indonesia.

Schleppergrell, M.J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics

perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Elbraum.

Sidighi, F, & Heydari, P. ( 2012). Cohesion analysis of L2 writing: The case of Iranian undergraduate EFL learners. Mediterranean journal of social

sciences, 3(2), 557-572.

Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children’s

thinking. New York:Oxford University Press.

Smalley, R.L. & Ruetten,M.K.R. (1990). Refining composition skills rhetoric and

grammar for ESL students 4th ed. New Orleans: Wadsworth.

Stern, G. (2001). Learners’ grammar dictionary. Singapore: Learners publishing Pte Ltd.

Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2010). Promoting cohesion in EFL exposition writing: A study of graduate students in Thailand. International Journal of Arts and

Sciences, 3(16), 1-34

Witte, P. S & Faigley. L. (2008). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality.

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

Xu, Ruiyun. (2000). Theme and cohesion in the writing of English expository texts

by Chinese tertiary EFL learners. Published thesis, faculty of education:

University of Wollongong

Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research design and method 3rd ed. USA: Sage

Publication

Yin, R.K. (2011). Qualitative research from ttart to finish. New York: The Guilford Press

66 Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

Firstly, this study focuses only on the analysis of cohesion in the students’ text, so it is recommended that further researcher can develop beyond the cohesive device employment in analyzing students’ text. They can further analyzing the coherence of the students’ text to reveal the texture of the text and they can apply the theme systems analysis of the students’ text along with the theme progression pattern and cohesive device employment in order to investigate the cohesion and coherence of the students’ texts.

Secondly, this study is also limited in examining only diagnostic texts. The process to create a cohesive writing never can be achieved perfectly by only examining first draft of writing; hence, it is better for other researcher to examining not only the first draft of writing but also the final draft of the writing, so that the improvement of students’ writing would be seen. In addition, the first and final draft can be compared in order to know the differentiation of the cohesive devices employment in the text.

Lastly, this study explains and discusses the student’s text only. It should explain and discuss the teaching program as well, so, the further study should investigate the teaching program in order to know the impact of the students’ texts written.

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

Bibliography

Anderson, M. and Anderson, K. (1997). Text type in English – Volume 2. Sydney: Macmillan Education Australia

Azzouz, B. (2009). A discourse analysis of grammatical cohesion students’ writing. Dissertation, Mentouri University.

Bloor, T, & Bloor, M. (2004). The functional analysis of English 2nd edition. Great Britain: Arnold Publisher.

Burns, R. (1994). Introduction to research methods. Australia: Longman

BSNP. (2006). Kurikulum 2006 standar kompetensi mata pelajaran bahasa Inggris sekolah menengah atas dan madrasah aliyah. Jakarta: BSNP

Chen, J. (2008). An investigation of EFL students’ use of cohesive devices. Asian pacific education review, 5(2),215-225.

Chirstie, F & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse learning to write across the years of schooling. New York : Continuum international publishing. Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause, &

evaluation argumentative genre. London: Continuum.

Cohen, L. and Manion, L . (1994). Research method in education 4th Ed. New York : Routledge

Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67-87.

Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 984-989).

Crowhurst, M. (1990). Teaching and learning the writing of persuasive/ argumentative discourse. Canadian journal of education, 15 (4), 348-359.

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

Dastjerdi, H.V, & Samian, S.H. (2011). Quality of Iranian EFL learners’ argumentative essays: Cohesive devices in focus. Mediterranean journal of social sciences, 2(2), 65 – 76.

DePaoulo, P. (2000). Sample size for qualitative research. Retrieved from: http://www.quirks.com/articles/a2000/20001202.aspx?searchID=215035& sort=5&pg=1.

Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how text work. Sydney: PETA

Droga and Humphrey. (2003). Grammar and meaning an introduction for primary teachers. Australia: Southwood Press.

Duff, P.A. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York: Lawrence Elbraum

Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Printer Publishers, Ltd.

Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics 2nd edition. London: Continuum international Publishing Group.

Emilia, E. (2005). A critical genre-based approach to teaching academic writing in a tertiary EFL context in Indonesia. A PhD thesis submitted to the University of Melbourne.

Emilia, E. (2012). Module 12: argumentative writing (A writing course handbook).UPI. Unpublished Material

Emilia, E. (2014). Introducing functional grammar. Bandung: Pustaka Jaya. Geiser, S. & Studley, R. (2001). UC and SAT: Predictive validity and differential

impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California. Oakland, CA: University of California.

Gerot, L. and Wignell, P. (1994).Making sense of functional grammar. Cammeray, NSW: Antipodean Educational Enterprises

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

Halliday, M.A.K., Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London:Longman Halliday, M.A.K.,( 2000). Introduction to functional grammar, second ed.

Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Halliday, M.A.K.,Mathiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar 3rd ed. London: Oxford University Press.

Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education setting. New York: State University of New York Press

Hitchcock, G & Huges, D. (1995). Research and the teacher 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Knapp, P. and Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, and grammar : Technologies for teaching and assessing writing. Sydney: UNSW Press

Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. Journal of second language writing. 11 (2): 135-159.

Light, R. (2001). Making the most of college. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lock, G. (1996). Functional English grammar : An introduction for second language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: Systems and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing

Martin, J. R., Mathiessen C. M. I. M & Painter, C. (1997). Working with functional grammar. London: Arnold.

Martin, J.R. (1992). English text: Systems and structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing.

Martin, J.R. and Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Enquinox

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

Ong, J. (2013). Investigation The use of cohesive devices by Chinese EFL learners. The Asian EFL journal 13 (3), 42-61. [online: http://www.asian-efl-journal.com Accessed Mei 21th, 2014]

Sanczyk, A. (2010). Investigation argumentative essays of English undergraduates studying in Poland as regards their use of cohesive devices. Unpublished Thesis, University of Oslo. [ online:

https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/25244/AnnaSanczyk.pdf?

sequence=1.Accessed : Juni 13th, 2014]

Saudin, H. (2013). The realization of cohesion in the students’ argumentative writing performance. Unpublished thesis, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Schleppergrell, M.J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Elbraum.

Sidighi, F, & Heydari, P. ( 2012). Cohesion analysis of L2 writing: The case of Iranian undergraduate EFL learners. Mediterranean journal of social sciences, 3(2), 557-572.

Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children’s thinking. New York:Oxford University Press.

Smalley, R.L. & Ruetten,M.K.R. (1990). Refining composition skills rhetoric and grammar for ESL students 4th ed. New Orleans: Wadsworth.

Stern, G. (2001). Learners’ grammar dictionary. Singapore: Learners publishing Pte Ltd.

Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2010). Promoting cohesion in EFL exposition writing: A study of graduate students in Thailand. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 3(16), 1-34

Witte, P. S & Faigley. L. (2008). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. Collage composition and communication, 32 (4), 189-204.

Nurfitri Habibi, 2014

An analysis of cohesion of students’ exposition texts

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

Xu, Ruiyun. (2000). Theme and cohesion in the writing of English expository texts by Chinese tertiary EFL learners. Published thesis, faculty of education: University of Wollongong

Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research design and method 3rd ed. USA: Sage Publication

Yin, R.K. (2011). Qualitative research from ttart to finish. New York: The Guilford Press