¹Hidayati,²Jaya

^1,2Universitas Madako Tolitoli, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia

This study undertook a detailed analysis of the representation of lexical cohesion within the research background sections of undergraduate theses at an Indonesian university. Utilizing a quantitative approach, the research aimed to investigate the frequency and percentage distribution of lexical cohesion devices employed by students in their writing. The primary data collection tool was note-taking, with data drawn from a selection of undergraduate theses submitted by students of English Language Education. The study revealed that repetition was the predominant lexical cohesion strategy, accounting for 93% of instances. It was followed by lesser-used strategies, such as synonym use (4%), collocation (2%), and superordinate terms (1%). However, the research has its limitations; the findings were specific to one group of students within a single university context and based solely on theses, thus potentially lacking wider applicability. The implications of the study highlight the necessity to increase students' awareness and application of diverse lexical cohesion devices. While repetition was a primary strategy, the sparse use of synonyms, collocations, and superordinates indicates areas for enhanced teaching and practice in academic writing. By encouraging a more varied use of these strategies, we can promote improved coherence, richness, and sophistication in student academic writing. This research underscores the importance of diversifying cohesive devices to enrich students' academic writing skills.

lexical cohesion, cohesive device, writing, background of the research

1) Alangari, M. A. (2019). A corpus-based study of verb-noun collocations and verb complementation clause structures in the writing of advanced Saudi learners of English. University of Reading.

2) Alarcon, J. B., & Morales, K. N. S. (2011). Grammatical cohesion in students’ argumentative essay. Journal of English and Literature, 2(5), 114–127.

3) Albana, H. H., Marzuki, A. G., Alek, A., & Hidayat, D. N. (2020). Cohesive Devices in Student’s Writing (A Discourse Analysis on Argumentative Text). Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora, 8(1), 6–11.

4) Amperawaty, A., & Warsono, W. (2019). The use of cohesive devices to achieve coherence in the background section of the students’ formal writing. English Education Journal, 9(1), 34–40.

5) Baker, M. (2018). In other words: A coursebook on translation. Routledge.

6) Carrell, P. L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 479–488.

7) Durrant, P., & Brenchley, M. (2019). Development of vocabulary sophistication across genres in English children’s writing. Reading and Writing, 32(8), 1927–1953.

8) Eguchi, M., & Kyle, K. (2023). L2 collocation profiles and their relationship with vocabulary proficiency: A learner corpus approach. Journal of Second Language Writing, 60, 100975.

9) Estaji, M., & Montazeri, M. R. (2022). The representation of collocational patterns and their differentiating power in the speaking performance of Iranian IELTS test-takers. Frontiers in Education, 7, 827927.

10) Glass, C. (2022). Collocational proficiency: The effects of ‘target language input’and ‘age.’ Cognition and Second Language Acquisition: Studies on Pre-School, Primary School and Secondary School Children, 4, 309.

11) Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). 1976: Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

12) Hamel, R., & Benzitouni, A. O. (2022). Investigating the use of grammatical cohesive devices in Algerian EFL students’ essays.

13) Hinkel, E. (2003). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Routledge.

14) Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text (Vol. 299). Oxford University Press Oxford.

15) Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum. London, UK.

16) Lebanoff, L., Muchovej, J., Dernoncourt, F., Kim, D. S., Wang, L., Chang, W., & Liu, F. (2020). Understanding points of correspondence between sentences for abstractive summarization. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2006.05621.

17) Lee, C., Ge, H., & Chung, E. (2021). What linguistic features distinguish and predict L2 writing quality? A study of examination scripts written by adolescent Chinese learners of English in Hong Kong. System, 97, 102461.

18) López-Serrano, S., de Larios, J. R., & Manchón, R. M. (2019). Language reflection fostered by individual L2 writing tasks: Developing a theoretically motivated and empirically based coding system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 503–527.

19) Maybin, J., & Tusting, K. (2011). Linguistic ethnography. In The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 535–548). Routledge.

20) McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers (Vol. 8, Issue 1). cambridge university press Cambridge.

21) Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford University Press.

22) Neville, C. (2007). Effective learning service: Introduction to research and research methods. Bradford University School of Management, 5(3), 1–44.

23) Rets, I., Astruc, L., Coughlan, T., & Stickler, U. (2022). Approaches to simplifying academic texts in English: English teachers’ views and practices. English for Specific Purposes, 68, 31–46.

24) Rokhaniyah, H., Adila, W., & Yulianti, D. A. B. (2022). Cohesive Devices Used in Argumentative Essays by Undergraduate EFL Learners. Langkawi: Journal of The Association for Arabic and English, 32–44.

25) Saputra, A., & Hakim, M. A. R. (2020). The usage of cohesive devices by high-achieving EFL students in writing argumentative essays. Indonesian TESOL Journal, 2(1), 42–58.

26) Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge university press.

27) Trebits, A. (2009). Conjunctive cohesion in English language EU documents–A corpus-based analysis and its implications. English for Specific Purposes, 28(3), 199–210.

28) Uz Bilgin, C., & Gul, A. (2020). Investigating the effectiveness of gamification on group cohesion, attitude, and academic achievement in collaborative learning environments. TechTrends, 64(1), 124–136.

29) Vujević, V. M. (2012). Ellipsis and substitution as cohesive devices. Katedra Za Engleski Jezik I Književnost, 407–416.

30) Wang, Y. (2019). A functional analysis of text-oriented formulaic expressions in written academic discourse: Multiword sequences vs. single words. English for Specific Purposes, 54, 50–61.

31) Wang, Y. (2022). Lexical Cohesion Patterns of Natural Science Academic Text and Implications for Lexical Teaching: Textual Analysis of IELTS Reading Passages. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(5), 836–845.

32) Warna, D., Wijaya, B., Sartika, E., & Riznanda, W. A. (2019). Cohesive devices used in argumentative essays of undergraduate EFL students in Indonesia. ENGLISH FRANCA: Academic Journal of English Language and Education, 3(02), 125.

VOLUME 06 ISSUE 06 JUNE 2023

There is an Open Access article, distributed under the term of the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.