Penelitian Dosen

METADISCOURSE MARKERS IN EFL LEARNERS’ PERSUASIVE TEXTS: A CASE STUDY OF TEXTS BY FOURTH SEMESTER STUDENTS OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT, UNISBANK, ACADEMIC YEAR 2012/2013

Tidak Tersedia Deskripsi

Ketersediaan

Tidak ada salinan data

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

-

No. Panggil

PD/041/2013

Penerbit

: ., 2013

Deskripsi Fisik

-

Bahasa

Indonesia

ISBN/ISSN

-

Klasifikasi

400

Tipe Isi

-

Tipe Media

-

Tipe Pembawa

-

Edisi

-

Subjek

-

Info Detail Spesifik

Writing activity plays a crucial role in college students’ learning process. They start writing from the early up to the late stage. Rao (2007) explains that EFL writing is useful in two respects, i.e. it encourages students’ thinking, organizing ideas, developing their abilities to summarize, analyze, and criticize. And it strengthens their learning and thinking. Thus, writing is essential for academic survival. Heng and Tan (2010) discloses that good essays have more metadiscourse features than poor essays. Metadiscourse is like glue that holds sentences and paragraphs together. This study attempted to investigate metadiscourse markers in 7 EFL learners’ Persuasive texts. It was aimed at finding out the textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the EFL learners’ Persuasive texts. Specifically, the study was aimed at listing the types of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers. Then, the dominant types were identified. The data of the study were analyzed using the following steps: identifying, classifying, and interpreting. The research results reveal that the average use of metadiscourse markers in EFL learners’ Persuasive texts is 1.88 discourse marker in 20 words. It is a bit higher than that in BAWE (British Academic Written Essays) corpus as revealed by Heng’s and Tan’s study, i.e. 1.24 per 20 words. The average use of interpersonal metadiscourse markers is 1 marker per 25.27 words, while that of textual metadiscourse markers is 1 marker per 18.17 words. It means that the use of textual metadiscourse markers is 16.34% higher than that of interpersonal metadiscourse markers. This finding is similar to that in BAWE corpus, i.e. the use of textual metadiscourse markers is 22% higher than that of interpersonal metadiscourse markers. The occurrences of textual marker types in EFL learners’ Persuasive texts are overall closely similar to those at standard proficient writing (extract from BAWE corpus), except in the endophoric markers. The occurrences of interpersonal marker types are different from those at BAWE corpus. The differences are EFL learners’ Persuasive texts employ minimum use of hedges, boosters, engagement markers. Based on the conclusions, some suggestions are proposed. Since forty-one percent of the data do not employ evidential markers, these markers need to be emphasized in the teaching because they strengthen the writer’s arguments. The teacher should also give more time allotment in teaching frame markers because only twenty-nine percent of the learner writers employ these markers. None of the learner writers employ endophoric markers. Thus, the teachers need to remind them that endophoric markers are usually needed in longer texts as reminders referring to the information in the other parts of the text. Since the occurrences of interpersonal marker types are different from those at BAWE corpus (considered as standard proficient learner writing), the teacher needs to give more practice and time allotment in teaching interpersonal metadiscourse markers. Thus, metadiscourse markers should become one of the writing teaching materials.

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

-

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar