Types of Lexical Cohesion and Grammatical Cohesion in Thesis Abstracts

Authors

  • Rena Puspa Kirana University of Bengkulu
  • Mukhrizal Mukhrizal University of Bengkulu
  • Fernandita Gusweni Jayanti University of Bengkulu

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52690/jadila.v1i1.14

Keywords:

Grammatical Cohesion, Lexical Cohesion, Thesis Abstract.

Abstract

This research attempted at investigating the types of lexical cohesion and grammatical cohesion used in thesis abstracts composed by undergraduate English department students of Universitas Bengkulu and also the errors of using cohesion. The research was designed as a descriptive quantitative method. The corpus of this study was 30 thesis abstracts composed by undergraduate English department students of Universitas Bengkulu. The instrument of this research was self-developed checklist. In analyzing data, the researchers were using formula by Sugiono. The results of this research showed that : 1.) There were 458 as the total number of six lexical cohesion types found in 30 thesis abstracts and the most dominant type is Repetition (58.7%). 2.) There were 783 as the total number of four grammatical cohesion types found in 30 thesis abstracts and the most dominant type is Reference (70.2%). 3.) There werere three errors of using cohesion namely omission of conjunction and selection of conjunction. Therefore, it was concluded that the thesis abstracts composed by undergraduate English department students of Universitas Bengkulu were in the percentage of 99.76% good.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Afful, J.B.A and Nartey,M. (2014). Cohesion in the abstract of undergraduate disertation : An intra-disciplinary study in a ghanaian university. Journal of ELT and apllied linguistics (JELTAL).

Almutairi. (2017). Discourse analysis of cohesive devices in Saudi student’s writing. World Journal of Educational Research. 4(4).

Ary, D, Lucy C and Chris S. (2010). Introduction to research in education. USA : Wadsworth.

Cresswell, J. (2002). Educational research. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.

Gay, L.R. (1987). Educational research : Competencies for Analysis and Application. London : Merril Publishing Company.

Gholami and Alizadeh. (2017). A Contrastive study of lexical cohesion in introduction in research articles: Native English and Iranian applied linguistics. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research. 4(8), 307-316.

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

Heller, M. (1995). Reading-writing connections : from theory to practice. USA : Longman Publisher.

Hidayati. (2014). Mistakes And Error Analysis Of Cohesive Features In Argumentative Essay Of Fifth Semester Students Of English Department Of Jambi University. Jambi : FKIP UNJA

Hirvella, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.

Klimova and Hubacova. (2014). Grammatical Cohesion in Abstracts”. Czech Republic : University of Hradec Kralove.

Li Bin. (2009). Analysis of errors in the use of cohesive means of English Writing. Science and technology information.

Malah, Z. (2015). Lexical cohesion in academic discourse: exploring applied linguistics research articles abstracts. Yobe State University Damaturu, Nigeria.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

McHugh, M. (2012). Interater reliability : The Kappa statistic. California : Brochemia Medica.

Ngalimudin, M.E. (2016). Analisis kesalahan penggunaan konjungsi dalam karangan argumentasi siwa kelas X SMA N Gondangrejo. Surakarta : FKIP UMS.

Noermanzah, N., Syafryadin, S., Castrena, O. W., & Abid, S. (2020). Rhetoric structure of the master of ceremony and the function of the akikah event in Lubuklinggau City. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 4(2), 232-247.

Noermanzah, et al. (2020). The rhetorical structure of the Lubuklinggau Mayor's speech in building community trust. International Journal of Progressive Sciences and Technologies (IJPSAT), 19(2), 146-154.

Nurman, R, Arsyad S and Zahrida. (2019). Discourse markers in argymentative essay by the English education study program’s students of Universitas Bengkulu : A Cross-sectional Study. Journal of English Education and Teaching. 3(1).

Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis : An Introduction. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Rahman, Z.A. (2013). The use of cohesive devices in descriptive writing by Omani Student-teachers. Sage Open.

Rahmawati, I. N., Syafryadin, S., & Widiastuti, R. (2019). Teaching Narrative Writing Using Freaky Fables Game: An Experimentation. English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 12(2), 147-155.

Salkie, R. (2001). Text and discourse analysyis. London and New York : Routledge.

Saputra, D. (2019). An Analysis of lexical cohesion types useed in the thesis discussion section of thesis by English study program students at Bengkulu University. Bengkulu : FKIP UNIB.

Seal, B. D. 1991. Vocabulary learning and teaching. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Suwandi. (2015). An Analysis of lexical cohesion types used in the discussion section of thesis organized by English study program students at Bengkulu University. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 253-26.

Syafryadin, I. N. R., & Widiastuti, R. (2013). Improving grade X students’ speaking achievement under Round Robin technique. International Journal on Education, 1(1).

Syafryadin, W., & DEC, A. Noermanzah.(2020). Maxim Variation, Conventional, and Particularized Implicature on Students’ Conversation. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 9(2).

Syafryadin, S. (2020). Students’ strategies in learning speaking: experience of two indonesian schools. Vision: Journal for Language and Foreign Language Learning, 9(1), 34-47. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.21580/vjv9i14791

Downloads

Published

2020-08-20

How to Cite

Kirana, R. P. ., Mukhrizal, M., & Jayanti, F. G. (2020). Types of Lexical Cohesion and Grammatical Cohesion in Thesis Abstracts. Jadila: Journal of Development and Innovation in Language and Literature Education, 1(1), 57-68. https://doi.org/10.52690/jadila.v1i1.14