COHESION ANALYSIS OF ISLAMIC READING TEXTBOOKS

Sayyidatul Fadlilah

doi:10.18592/let.v4i2.1406

Authors

Sayyidatul Fadlilah IAIN Walisongo Semarang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18592/let.v4i2.1406

Keywords:

Cohesion, A cohesive text, Reference, Anaphoric Reference, and Exophoric Reference

Abstract

There are many students of Islamic Education and Teacher Training Facultyof IAIN Walisongo Semarang who have complained that Islamic reading texts used by their teachers are hard for them to understand. I examine this issue by seeing some linguistic aspects of those reading texts. This Qualitative and Descriptive approach highlighted the types of grammatical and lexical cohesive devices and the realization of cohesiveness of those reading textsbased on Halliday and Hasan’s theory.The result of the study shows that the six reading texts (A.1, 2, 3; and B.1, 2, 3) stated in reading textbooks: English for Islamic Studies, English for Islamic Studies 2, Understanding Islam; for Islamic Studies; in terms of cohesion (following Halliday and Hasan’s principles of reading texts) respectively the average score of anaphoric references: 54.17% for text A.3, 53.85% for text B.2, 53.06% for text A.1, 48.57% for text B.3, 41.86% for text B.1, 33.33% for text A.3. After consulting to the Halliday and Hasan’s principles of cohesion of the reading texts (1989), that the most cohesive reading texts is text A.3, whereas the least cohesive one is Text A.2. Finally, these factors will assist lecturers and students in choosing the appropriate book for them.

References

Adam, MJ. (1979). A Schema-Theoritic View of Reading. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Co.

Bachman, Palmer. (1996). Communicative Competence: A Content Specified Model. Modern Language Journal. Vol. 6:7-8.

Bogdan, R.C.and S.K. Biklen. (1998). Qualitative Research in Education. London: Allyn and Bacon.

Coulthard, M. And Montgomery, M. (1981). Studies in Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Darwis, D. (1995). English for Islamic Studies. Jakarta: PT Rajarafindo Persada

Eggins, S. (1994). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistic. London:Pinter Publishers.

Gerot, L. and P.Wignel.(1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. New South Wales: Gerd Stabler.

Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. (1985). Language, Context, and Text: Aspect of Language in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Melbourne: Deakin University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. (1989). Cohesion in English. London:Longman

Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Horning, A. Readable Writing: The Role of Cohesion and Redundancy. http//jac.gsu.edu/jac/11.1/articles/g.htm ( retrieved October, 9th 2010).

Hymes, Dell. (1982). The Concept of Communicative Competence Revisited. Charlottesville: University of Virginia.

Mahsun ,T and Siti Maryam. (2005).English for Islamic Studies 2.Semarang: Unit Pembinaan Bahasa..

Mickulecky, B. S. (1986). Reading Power. Massachusetts: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

Murcia, M.C. et al. (1995). Communicative Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated Model with Content Specifications. The Modern Language Journal. Vol. 6.

Muslih MZ. (2009). Understanding Islam; for Islamic Studies. Semarang: Walisongo Press.

Patton, M.Q. (1980). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. London:SAGE publications Ltd.

Savignon. (1990). Receptive Vocabulary Acquisition for Reading Comprehension. The modern language journal Vol. 3.

Swain, (1980). Classroom Explanatory Discourse: A Look At How Teacher Explain Things to Their Students. The Journal of Language Awarness. Vol. 5.

Utomo,S. (2000). Cohesion of Reading Passages Used in English Textbooks for the First Term, Second Year of Senior High School. A Thesis. Semarang: Graduate Program, State University of Semarang.

Widdowson, H.G. (1972). The Teaching of English as Language Communication. In Brumfit and Johnson.