THE REALIZATION OF EXPERIENTIAL MEANINGS IN STUDENTS’ WRITING OF RECOUNTS
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##
Abstract
The aims of the study are to explain the experiential meanings of participants’ element realized in the students’ recounts, to explain the experiential meanings of processes’ element realized in the students’ recounts, and to explain the experiential meanings of circumstances’ element realized in the students’ recounts. The study used is a descriptive qualitative method of discourse analysis. The data were taken from 20 students’ recounts of Writing 4 at English Education Study Program of Unissula. The unit of analysis was a clause. The result of the study showed that the dominant element of experiential meanings was participants’ element (46.5%). The participants’ elements realized by the nominal group with the dominant participants’ types in students’ recounts are actor 19.8 % and goal 14.5 %. The processes’ elements realized by the verbal group with the dominant process are material process in 43.6 %. The circumstances’ elements realized by prepositional phrase, adverbial group, and nominal group with the dominant participants are place circumstance 43.5% and time circumstance 23.7 %. It can be concluded that the experiential meanings in students’ recounts are realized by the specific participants of actor and goal, material process and circumstances of place and time.
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##
How to Cite
Wahyu Anggraeni, C., Hartono, R., & -, W. (1). THE REALIZATION OF EXPERIENTIAL MEANINGS IN STUDENTS’ WRITING OF RECOUNTS. English Education Journal, 5(1). Retrieved from http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/6847
References
Alhamdany, H. 2012 . The Usefulness of Systemic Functional Grammar and its Impact on Students’ Communicative Skills in ESL Context. European Scientific Journal, 8 (11) : 176-194.
Cresswell, J.W. 2009. Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mix Method Approcahes. California: SAGE Publication Inc.
Eggins, S. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (2nd ed.). New York: Continuum.
Gall, J.P., Gall, M.D., and Borg, W.R. 2003. Educational Research: An Introduction (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Gerot, L., and Wignell, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Australia: Gerd Stabler.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
Manchon, R. M., Rinnert, C., and Kobayashi, H. 2009. Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research. Great Britain: MPG Books Group.
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., Teruya, K., and Lam, M. 2010. Key Terms in Systemic Functional Linguistic. New York: Continuum.
Mulatsih, S. 2007. The Realization of Ideational Meanings in the Students’ Recounts. CELT Journal, 7 (2): 143-157.
Nurohmah, I. 2013. An Analysis of Students’ Recount Text by Using Systemic Functional Grammar. Journal of Passage, 1 (2): 89-98.
Rudianto,C. 2012. Do Students Write or Speak?: A paper published in the 6th International Seminar on Research in Teacher Education: What, How, and Why?, ISBN 978-979-1098-58-15. Salatiga: Faculty of Language and Literature UKSW.
Saraceni, M. 2007. Meaningful form: transitivity and intentionality. ELT Journal of Oxford, 62 (2), 164-172.
Cresswell, J.W. 2009. Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mix Method Approcahes. California: SAGE Publication Inc.
Eggins, S. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (2nd ed.). New York: Continuum.
Gall, J.P., Gall, M.D., and Borg, W.R. 2003. Educational Research: An Introduction (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Gerot, L., and Wignell, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Australia: Gerd Stabler.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
Manchon, R. M., Rinnert, C., and Kobayashi, H. 2009. Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research. Great Britain: MPG Books Group.
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., Teruya, K., and Lam, M. 2010. Key Terms in Systemic Functional Linguistic. New York: Continuum.
Mulatsih, S. 2007. The Realization of Ideational Meanings in the Students’ Recounts. CELT Journal, 7 (2): 143-157.
Nurohmah, I. 2013. An Analysis of Students’ Recount Text by Using Systemic Functional Grammar. Journal of Passage, 1 (2): 89-98.
Rudianto,C. 2012. Do Students Write or Speak?: A paper published in the 6th International Seminar on Research in Teacher Education: What, How, and Why?, ISBN 978-979-1098-58-15. Salatiga: Faculty of Language and Literature UKSW.
Saraceni, M. 2007. Meaningful form: transitivity and intentionality. ELT Journal of Oxford, 62 (2), 164-172.