A TRANSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF TERTIARY INDONESIAN EFL STUDENTS’ ANALYTICAL EXPOSITIONS: A CASE STUDY

Wafa Amalia; Emi Emilia

doi:10.24071/llt.v28i2.8732

A TRANSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF TERTIARY INDONESIAN EFL STUDENTS’ ANALYTICAL EXPOSITIONS: A CASE STUDY

Wafa Amalia^(1*), Emi Emilia⁽²⁾,

(1) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
(2) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a study aiming to analyze analytical expositions written by tertiary Indonesian EFL students using transitivity system of systemic functional linguistics (SFL). The texts were created by nine students of English Language Education Study Program cohort 2024 at a state university in West Java, Indonesia, for the course of Reading and Writing for Academic Purposes. This study employed a qualitative case study with data obtained from the text analysis and a questionnaire distributed at the end of the course. The results of the analysis demonstrate that the students employed all six processes throughout the texts, namely material, relational, verbal, and mental processes, which were relevant to the linguistic features of an analytical exposition. Noteworthy cases in this study are students’ choices of process type for thesis statement and its placement, manners of utilizing verbal process as arguments, and alignments of process types between thesis and its restatement. The data from the questionnaire also supported the text analysis. In light to the findings, a recommendation is proposed for more exploration involving more participants, longer time, academic text types, and all systems of grammar in SFL.

Keywords

analytical exposition; systemic functional linguistics; tertiary education; transitivity

Full Text:

PDF

References

Andrade, C. (2021). The inconvenient truth about convenience and purposive samples. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 43(1), 86–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620977000

Aunurrahman, Hamied, F. A., & Emilia, E. (2017). Exploring the tertiary EFL students’ academic writing competencies. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i1.6860

Bartley, L. V. (2018). Putting transitivity to the test: A review of the Sydney and Cardiff models. Functional Linguistics, 5(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-018-0056-x

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide (2nd ed.). Macquaire University.

Chen, S. K. (2016). Circumstantiation of projection: Functional syntax of angle in English and Chinese. Ampersand, 3, 71–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2016.05.002

Christie, F. & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. Continuum.

Christie, F. & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (2009). Language, knowledge and pedagogy: Functional linguistics and sociological perspectives. Continuum.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Danis, N. (2022). A corpus analysis of disciplinary identity in evaluative journal articles: A systemic functional linguistics approach. English for Specific Purposes, 68, 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.07.003

Darani, L. H. (2014). Persuasive style and its realization through transitivity analysis: A SFL perspective. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.066

Dare, B. & Polias, J. (2022). Our own double helix: The power of teachers and students understanding how language works in schooling contexts. In D. Caldwell, J. S. Knox, & J. R. Martin, Appliable linguistics and social semiotics: Developing theory from practice (pp. 181–196). Bloomsbury Academic.

Davidse, K. (2017). Systemic functional linguistics and the clause: The experiential metafunction. In T. Bartlett & G. O’Grady (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics (pp. 79–95). Routledge.

Derewianka, B. & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Donohue, J. P. (2012). Using systemic functional linguistics in academic writing development: An example from film studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.003

Dreyfus, S. & Bennett, I. (2017). Circumstantion: Taking a broader look at circumstantial meanings. Functional Linguistics, 4(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-016-0036-y

Dreyfus, S., Humphrey, S., Mahboob, A., & Martin, J. R. (2016). Genre pedagogy in higher education: The SLATE project. Palgrave Macmillan.

Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). Continuum.

Emilia, E. (2005). A critical genre-based approach to teaching academic writing in a tertiary EFL context in Indonesia [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Melbourne.

Emilia, E. (2014). Introducing functional grammar. Pustaka Jaya.

Emilia, E. (2016). Pendekatan berbasis teks dalam pengajaran bahasa Inggris [A text-based approach in English language teaching]. Kiblat Buku Utama.

Emilia, E., Gunawan, W., & Kurniawan, E. (2021). Pembelajaran berbasis genre: Konsep, praktik, dan kajian kritis pengajaran bahasa [Genre-based learning: Concepts, practices, and critical reviews of language teaching]. UPI Press.

Emilia, E., Habibi, N., & Bangga, L. A. (2018). An analysis of cohesion of exposition texts: An Indonesian context. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 515–523. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i3.9791

Emilia, E. & Hamied, F. A. (2015). Systemic Functional Linguistic Genre Pedagogy (SFL GP) in a tertiary EFL writing context in Indonesia. TEFLIN Journal, 26(2), 155–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v26i2/155-182

Emilia, E. & Martin, J. R. (2023). “Learning functional grammar is fun”: A snapshot of functional grammar unit at an English Education Department in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v13i1.58256

Fadhillah, A. M. & Rahmadina, K. P. (2021). Interpersonal metafunction analysis on a literary response text in tertiary education. Indonesian Journal of Functional Linguistics, 1(2), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijsfl.v1i2.43977

Fontaine, L. (2013). Analysing English grammar: A systemic functional introduction. Cambridge University Press.

François, J. (2018). The stance of systemic functional linguistics amongst functional(ist) theories of language and its ‘systemic’ purpose. In A. Sellami-Baklouti & L. Fontaine (Eds.), Perspectives from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 6–25). Routledge.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. WORD, 7(2), 241–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1961.11659756

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.

Humphrey, S., Droga, L., & Feez, S. (2012). Grammar and meaning. Primary English Teaching Association Australia.

Jackson, D. O. (2024). The longitudinal development of argumentative writing in an English for academic purposes course in Japan. System, 126, Article 103482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103482

Kress, G. (1994). Learning to write (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Liardét, C. L. (2016a). Grammatical metaphor: Distinguishing success. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.009

Liardét, C. L. (2016b). Nominalization and grammatical metaphor: Elaborating the theory. English for Specific Purposes, 44, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.04.004

Liardét, C. L. & Black, S. (2019). “So and so” says, states and argues: a corpus-assisted engagement analysis of reporting verbs. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.02.001

Mar, R. A., Li, J., Nguyen, A. T. P., & Ta, C. P. (2021). Memory and comprehension of narrative versus expository texts: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28, 732–749. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01853-1

Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. John Benjamins.

Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. Continuum.

McCabe, A. (2021). A functional linguistic perspective on developing language. Routledge.

Mustofa, M. I. & Gustine, G. G. (2025). Ideational metaphor in exposition texts in an EFL textbook and its pedagogical significance. Studies in English Language and Education, 12(2), 1052–1067. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v12i2.34906

Nurlatifah, L. & Yusuf, F. N. (2022). Students’ problems in writing analytical exposition text in EFL classroom context. English Review: Journal of English Education, 10(3), 801–810. http://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v10i3.6633

To, V., Thomas, D., & Thomas, A. (2020). Writing persuasive texts: Using grammatical metaphors for rhetorical purposes in an educational context. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 40(2), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2020.1732867

Wigati, H. T. & Norhasanah. (2021). An analysis of a tertiary EFL learner’s review text using transitivity system. Indonesian Journal of Functional Linguistics, 1(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijsfl.v1i2.43984

Yang, B. (2020). Full realization principle for the identification of ideational grammatical metaphor: nominalization as example. Journal of World Languages, 6(3), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/21698252.2020.1777682

Yolanda, F. & Zaim, M. (2021). Transitivity analysis of hortatory exposition written by third years student of English education program at Universitas Negeri Padang. Journal of English Language Teaching, 10(1), 160–169.

Yuliana, D. & Gandana, I. S. S. (2018). Writers’ voice and engagement strategies in students’ analytical exposition texts. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 613–620. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i3.9812

Zein, T. T., Sinar, T. S., Nurlela, & Yusuf, M. (2019). Process types of transitivity system in English department students’ narrative texts. In 6th International Conference on English Language and Teaching (ICOELT 2018) (pp. 149–155). Atlantis Press.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v28i2.8732