Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 119 Download : 91

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Coherence is one of the characteristic of good academic writing, including abstract that represent the whole content of research article in order to be able to show what messages want to be expressed in the abstract. This study investigated the English abstract TEFLIN in applied linguistisc written by Indonesian speaker in its coherence by analyzing the theme and rheme. This study focuses on (1) identifying the theme which are dominantly used in 2015 TEFLIN  article  abstracts  written  by  non-native  speaker  of English (2) identifying thematic progressions which are dominantly used in 2015 TEFLIN article abstracts written by non-native speaker of English (3) finding  out  coherences’ quality of the research  article  abstract  section  in 2105 TEFLIN article abstracts in applied linguistic  based on thematic  progression.  This study  was designed by  using descriptive qualitative. The results show that the type of theme dominantly used in 2015

TEFLIN article abstracts written by non-native speaker of English is topical theme, not all  non-native  speakers  of  English  use  textual  theme,  and  just  a  few  of  them  use

interpersonal theme. In addition, Zig Zag pattern in thematic progression is dominantly

used then followed by reitaration theme, and the last Multiple (Split) pattern, none of the abstracts use Derived TP pattern. Most of the  research  article  abstract  section   in TEFLIN abstracts in applied linguistic have fair quality, just a few included to less quality, none of them was catagorized as good and poor quality. It can be concluded that English abstracts of TEFLIN in applied linguistisc written by Indonesian speakers can be catagorized as good abstract based on their coherence.

Article Details

License

Authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
  4. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Yuned, R. O., ., A., & ., A. (2018). THEMATIC PROGRESSIONS OF THE 2015 TEFLIN ARTICLE ABSTRACTS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS. JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 1(2), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v1i2.4207
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Alam, Bryman. (2003). Triangulation: Encyclopedia of social science research method. Chicago: Sage publication.
  2. Arikuntoro, S. (2006), Prosedur penelitian suatu pendekatan praktik. Jakarta: PT rineka Ciptae.
  3. Arsyad, Safnil. (2014). The discourse structure and linguistic feature of research article abstracts in english by indonesian academics. ASIAN ESP Journal, Vol.10, issue2, pp: 191-224.
  4. Ary, Jacobs & Seronsen. (2010). Introduction to research in education. Canada: Matrix production. Belcher, Wendy Laura.( 2009). Writing your journal article in twelve weeks: a guide academic publishing success. California: SAGE
  5. Publication, Inc.
  6. Bathia, K. V. (2006) The rhetoric of article abstract: a sweep through the literature and a preliminary study. Journal of Bahasa dan Seni, 43 (2) 174-
  7. Retrieved October 1, 2015. From http://sastra.um.ac.id/wp-content/October, 2009.
  8. Bloor, M. and Bloor, Thomas. (1995). The practice of critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.
  9. Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1992). Given and new information in the thematic organization of text: An application to the teaching of academic writing. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics, 6(1), 33-43.
  10. Brown, D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York (2nd:Longman).
  13. Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (2000). Using functional grammar: an explorer’s guide. Sydney: Southwood Press.
  14. Butt, D. G., Lukin, A. et al. (2004). Grammar—The first covert operation of war.’discourse society.
  15. : 267-290.
  16. Carter-Thomas, S. (1999). Thematic networks and types. Asp, ia Reveu du Geras, 23-26, 139-147.
  17. Christie, F., & Dreyfus, S. (2007). Letting the secret out: Successful writing in secondary English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy,
  18. (3), 235-247.
  19. Coffin, C.(2001). Theoretical approaches to written language—A TESOLPerspective.
  20. Danes, Frantisek. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In Danes, Frantisek (ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague: Academia, 106-
  22. Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act in sociology.
  23. Chicago: Aldine.
  24. Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
  25. Emilia, E. (2005). A Critical Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing in a Tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia. Unpublished Dissertation in Department of Language, Literacy and Arts Education Faculty of Education. Melbourne: The Universityof Melbourne.
  26. Emilia, E. (2008). Menulis tesis dan disertasi.
  27. Bandung: Alfabeta.
  28. Emilia, E. (2010). Teaching writing: Developing critical learners. Bandung: Rizki Press.
  29. Evans, G. and Gruba, P. (2002). How to write a better thesis. melbourne: Melbourne UniversityPress.
  30. Gay, L.R. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
  32. Gerot, Linda, and Wignell, Peter. (1994). Making sense of functional grammar. Sydney: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.
  33. Guion, A, Lisa. (2012). “Triangulation: Establising the validity of qualitative studies. University of Florida.
  34. Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in english. London: Longman Group.
  35. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London; Edward Arnold Ltd.
  36. Halliday, M.A.K. (2001). Literacy and linguistics: Relationships between spoken and written language. London: Longman Group.
  37. Halliday, M. and Mathiessen, M.I.M. (2004).
  38. Introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
  39. Jordan, R.R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
  40. Joseph, L. Nancy. (1999). Research writing using traditional and electronic sources. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  41. Lawrence A. Palinkas. (2003). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. New York : Springer Science Media.
  42. Marfuaty, A, Fitria and Wahyudi, Ribut. (2015). An analysis of thematic progression patterns: Opinion section texts of The Jakarta Post. International Journal of Language Studies 9(3), pp 109-130.
  43. Martin, JR, MIM Christian, Painter Clare. (1997).
  44. Working with functional grammar. New York: Arnold.
  45. McHugh,M. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic.
  46. Biochemia Medica 2012;22(3):276-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031.
  47. McCarthy, M.(1990). Issues in applied linguistics.
  48. Cambridge. Cambridge UniversityPress.
  51. Miles,Matthew. (1990). Qualitative data analysis. an expended sourcebook (2nd Edition). California.
  52. Paltridge, B. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language. London: Routledge.
  53. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  54. Schleppegrell, M. J. 2009. Grammar for generation
  55. 5.: A focus on meaning. In M. Roberage, M. Siegal, & L. Harklau (Eds.), Generation 1.5 in college composition: Teaching academic writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL (pp. 221-234). New York: Routledge.
  56. Stemler. (2001). An overview of content analysis.
  57. Wesleyan University.
  59. Swales, John M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
  60. Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
  61. Todd, R.W., Khongput, S., and Darawangsa, P. 2007.
  62. Coherence, cohesion, and comments on students’ academic essays. assessing writing 12. 10-25. www.sciencedirect.com
  63. Vande Kopple, W. J. 1991. Themes, thematic progressions, and some implications for understanding discourse. Written Communication,8(3), 311-347.doi:10.1177/