“CONSTANT, ZIG-ZAG LINEAR, OR MULTIPLE?”: THEMATIC PROGRESSION PATTERNS ON EFL STUDENTS’ RECOUNT TEXTS
Abstract
The main problem faced by EFL students in writing English texts includes the difficulties to produce a cohesive and coherent text that it seems necessary to show how the tools of Theme and Rheme can be used to help construct the students' good English writing. This study aimed to find out the types of thematic progression patterns in each clause of the recount texts written by students and the dominant pattern of thematic progression revealed from the texts. The research design of this study is a qualitative method which employed the study instrument of the students' recount texts at class IX of SMAN 2 Langsa, Aceh. A content analysis approach by using a Theme and Rheme framework generated from a theory of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) was used to analyze the thematic progression patterns on the students' recount texts, which included several steps: reading the student's texts, identifying the theme and rheme of every clause of the student's text, describing the thematic progression patterns of student's text and drawing the thematic progression pattern on student's text. The findings of the analysis indicated that there are three (3) thematic progression patterns found on the students' recount texts: the Theme Constant, the Theme Zig Zag Linear pattern and Theme Multiple patterns. The dominant type of thematic progression patterns constructed by the students into their recount texts was revealed mostly on 123 constant or reiteration patterns (76.8%), followed by zig-zag patterns of 35 times (21.8%) and 9 times (1.25%) of multiple patterns. The results of this study will be facilitative as the tools for English language teaching and learning classrooms particularly for writing English texts.
Downloads
References
Astuti, Y.F., Suryani, F.B., & Kurniati, D. (2010). The analysis of coherence in the background of skripsi written by English education department students of teacher training and education faculty of Muria Kudus University. Jurnal Sosial dan Budaya, 3 (2), 1-15.
Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Pearson Education Company.
Butt, D., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University.
Cohen, L. Manion L. and Morrison K. (2007) Research Methods in Education (sixth edition). London: Routledge.
Devira, M. (2017). Acquisition of academic literacy in an Engineering communication course: Integration of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). Studies in English Language and Education, 4 (1), 38-53.
Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers.
Gerot, Linda and Wignell. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar, First Edition. Queensland. Australia: Antipodean Education Enterprise.
Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to Functional Grammar (3rded). London, England: Hodder Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. Milton Park:Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman group Ltd.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2004. How to Teach Writing. London: Longman.
Lengsfeld, C. S., Edelstein, G., Black, J., Hightower, N., Root, M., Stevens, K., & Whitt, M. (2004). Engineering concepts and communication: A two-quarter course sequence. Journal of Engineering Education, 93 (1), 79-85.
Marfuaty, F.A, & Wahyudi, R. (2015). An analysis of thematic progression patterns: Opinion section texts of The Jakarta Post. International Journal of Language Studies, 9 (3), 109-130.
Lock, G. (1996). Functional English Grammar: An Introduction for Second Language Teachers, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Matthiessen, C., & Halliday, M. (1997). Systemic Functional Grammar (1st ed.).
Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. Great Britain: MPG Books ltd.
Pertiwi, D., Ngadiso, & Drajati, N.A. (2018). The effect of dictogloss technique on the students’ writing skill. Studies in English Language and Education, 5 (2), 279-293.
Rakhman, A.N. (2012). An analysis thematic progression in high school students’ exposition text (Unpublished undergraduate thesis). Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung.
Safitra, Z. (2013). Theme system of systemic functional grammar in students’ narrative texts (Unpublished master thesis). Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung.
Sugijarto. (2010). Thematic progression in students’ explanatory texts: A systemic functional linguistics perspective (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung.
Tarnyikova, J. (2009). From Text to Texture. Olomouce: FF UP.
Wang, L. (2007). Theme and rheme in the thematic organization of text: Implications for teaching academic writing. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 164-176.
Younes, Z.B., & Albalawi, F.S. (2015). Exploring the most common types of writing problems among English language and translation major sophomore female students at Tabuk University. Asian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3 (2), 7-26.
Yunita, S. (2018). Theme and thematic progression in students’ recount texts. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7 (3), 524-530.
Once an article was published in the journal, the author(s) are:
granted to the journal right licensed under Creative Commons License Attribution that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship.
permitted to publish their work online in third parties as it can lead wider dissemination of the work.
continue to be the copyright owner and allow the journal to publish the article with the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
receiving a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) of the work.
