Main Article Content

Abstract

This study is an attempt to report the findings of the realization of types and the dominant type of markedness in Grade XI students’ recount texts departing from textual function in systemic functional perspective. Qualitative content analysis was utilized as the research design in this study. Writing sheets were utilized as the instruments for collecting the data. The data were in the form of clauses taken from 25 recount texts written by grade XI senior high school student of SMA Negeri 1 Binjai. It was found that there were 1416 clauses appeared. Specifically, both marked theme (MT) and unmarked theme (UMT) were also discovered in the data with the occurrences of MT totaling to 210 (25.70%) and UMT had 607 occurrences (74.30%). It leads to the conclusion that there were 2 types of markedness namely marked theme (MT) and unmarked theme (UMT) found. Then, UMT was discoverd as the dominant type of markedness. 

Article Details

Author Biographies

Reni Supriani, Indonesian Language and Literature Education Study Program, STKIP Pelita Bangsa

Indonesian Language and Literature Education Study Program, STKIP Pelita Bangsa

Ening Nanda Rama, Indonesian Language and Literature Education Study Program, STKIP Pelita Bangsa

Indonesian Language and Literature Education Study Program, STKIP Pelita Bangsa

Sulhaida Sulhaida, Indonesian Language and Literature Education Study Program, STKIP Pelita Bangsa

Indonesian Language and Literature Education Study Program, STKIP Pelita Bangsa

Aprilza Aswani, English Education Study Program, STKIP Pelita Bangsa, Binjai, Sumatera Utara, Indonesia

English Education Study Program, STKIP Pelita Bangsa, Binjai, Sumatera Utara, IndonesiaThe Realization of Markedness in Grade XI Students’ Recount Texts in Binjai: Systemic Functional Perspective
How to Cite
Supriani, R., Rama, E. N., Sulhaida, S., & Aswani, A. (2019). The Realization of Markedness in Grade XI Students’ Recount Texts in Binjai: Systemic Functional Perspective. JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 3(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v3i2.5998

References

  1. Ahangari, S. (2014). Thematic Organization in MA TEFL Students' Argumentative, Cause and Effect, and Process Types of Writing. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(12), pp.1-23.
  2. Darani, L.H. & Mansouri, S. (2015). Theme in English and Persian Short Stories: A Systemic Functional Linguistics Perspective. Proceedings:The International Conference on Challenges in ELT and English Literature.
  3. De Oliveira, L.C. (2015). A Systemic-Functional Analysis of English Language Learners’ Writing. D.E.L.T.A, 31(1), pp. 207-237. dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102-4450364601799092306.
  4. Dirgeyasa, I. W. (2014). College Academic Writing; a Genre Based Perspective. Medan: Unimed Press.
  5. Ebrahimi, S.F., & Ebrahimi S.J. (2012). Markedness in Writing: A Case of EFL Students; Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 2(4), pp.773-777.
  6. Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics.New York: Continuum.
  7. Ezzy, D. (2012). Qualitative Analysis: Practice and Innovation. New South Wales: National Library of Australia.
  8. Gerot, L. & Wignell, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar.Cammeray, New SouthWales: AntipodeanEducational Enterprises.
  9. Hanafiah, R., & Yusuf, M. (2016). Lexical Density and Grammatical Intricacy in Linguistic Thesis Abstract: A Qualitative Content Analysis. Proceedings Of English Education International Conference, 1(2), 43-46. Retrieved from http://capeu.unsyiah.ac.id/proceedings/index.php/eeic/article/view/14.
  10. Hanafiah, R., Yusuf, M., & Aswani, A. (2018). Theme Markedness in EFL Students’ Recount Texts: A Systemic Functional Analysis. Southeast Asia Language Teaching and Learning (SALTEL) Journal, 1(1), pp. 14-20.
  11. Harmer, J. (2004). How to Teach Writing. New York: Pearson Education Limited.
  12. Halliday, M.A.K &Matthiessen C.M.I.M. (2014).An Introduction to Functional Grammar (4rded.). London: Routledge.
  13. Martin, J.R. & White, P.R.R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English.London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  14. Martin, J.R. & Rose, D.(2008). Working with Discourse. London: Continuum.
  15. Naz, S., Alvi, S.D., & Baseer, A. (2012). Political Language of Benazir Bhutto : A Transitivity Analysis of Her Speech ‘Democratization In Pakistan’’. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(8), pp. 125-141.
  16. Nurlela. (2010). Representasi Leksikogramatika Teks Pidato Kenegaraan Presiden Soeharto dan Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. [Dissertasi]. Medan: Universitas Sumatera Utara, Sekolah Pasca Sarjana.
  17. Saragih, A. (2016). Empowering Students through Learning English in the Present Context of Indonesia. Proceedings: National Conference on Language and Culture; Medan: USU Press. Page 1-11.
  18. Sinar, T.S. (2007). Phasal and Experiential Realizations in Lecture Discourse: A Systemic-Functional Analysis. Medan: KoordinasiPerguruanTinggiSwasta Wilayah- I NAD-Sumut.
  19. To, V. (2018). Thematic Structure in Reading Comprehension Texts in English Textbooks. International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, 4(1), pp.45-51. doi: 10.18178/ijlll.2018.4.1.148
  20. Zein, T.T., Sinar, T.S., & Nurlela. (2017). Linguistic Features and Local Wisdom Content in EFL Student’s Narrative Texts. Proceedings of the international conference on teacher training and education 2017 (ICTTE 2017), 158(1), pp. 773.