|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract : |
| The present study portrays the realisation of nominalisations in undergraduate students’ written texts. Nominalisation, as one of grammatical metaphors, is defined as the formation of nouns which derive from verbs or adjectives. It is asserted as one of the essential features of academic writing (Hyland, 2004) which even dominates the language of science (Halliday & Martin, 2005). Based on these statements, a research question arises, inquiring about the phenomena of applying nominalisations in students’ texts. This qualitative study was carried out among Polytechnic students majoring in mechanical engineering. The data, resulted by conducting an essay test, are in the forms of texts. This test examined nominalisations applied in students’ texts. To triangulate the data, an interview with some participants was also conducted. After the data were analysed by implementing the framework of nominalising metaphor, proposed by Halliday, three findings resulted. First, the students used ‘default’ nominalisations, the ones they usually found in their engineering textbooks. Second, nominalisation suffixes -ment and -t/sion mostly occurred in their texts. Third, in average, they realised four nominalisations in their written texts. The last finding is relevant with the result of a previous study of the same topic that the students’ level of understanding nominalisations is moderate, not very high. This concludes that the students’ ability to use nominalisations in written texts is still low. With their low ability, they could not realise nominalisations correctly. It recommends that for Polytechnic students, the ability of realising nominalisations be improved because nominalisations characterise the language of science. |
| References |
1. Banks, D. (2005). On the historical origins of nominalised process in scientific text. English for Scientific Purposes, 24(3), 347-357. 2. Baratta, A.M. (2010). Nominalisation development across an undergraduate academic degree program. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(4), 1017-1036. 3. Christie, F. & Martin, J. R. (2000). Genre and institution. Social processes in the workplace and school. New York: Continuum. 4. Derewianka, B. (1998). A grammar companion for primary teachers. Erskinville: Star Printery. 5. Dieter, G. E. (1991). Engineering design: A materials and processing approach (2nd ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill. 6. Droga, L. & Humphrey, S. (2011). Grammar and meaning: An introduction for primary teachers. Berry, New South Wales: Target Texts. 7. Eggins, S. (2004). An introductory to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Continuum. 8. Fatonah. (2013). A study on the nominalisations in polytechnic students’ texts. Unpublished Thesis at English Education Program, School of Post Graduate Studies, Indonesia University of Education ------------. (2014). Students’ understanding of the realisation of nominalisations in scientific text. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 4(1), 87-98. 9. Gerot, L. & Wignell, P. (1995). Making sense of functional grammar. An introductory book. Sydney: Gerd Stabler. 10. Halliday, M.A.K. (1992). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 11. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. Second Edition. London: Edward Arnold. 12. Halliday, M.A.K & Martin, J. R. (2005). Writing science: literacy and discursive power. Bristol: The Falmer Press. 13. Holtz, M. (2009). Nominalisation in scientific discourse: A corpus- based study of abstracts and research articles. Lancaster University Centre, Department of Linguistic and Literary Studies, English Linguistics,Technische Universität Darmstadt. Available at holtz@linglit.tu-darmstadt.de. 14. Hornby, A.S. (2010). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 15. Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. 16. Knapp, P. & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, grammar: Technologies for teaching and assessing writing. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. 17. Ravelli, L. J. (1999). Metaphor, mode and complexity: An exploration of co-varying patterns. Nottingham: Department of English and Media Studies. 18. Ravelli, L.J. & Ellis, R.A. (2004). Analysing academic writing contextualized frameworks. Open Linguistics Series. London: Continuum. 19. Yuliana, D. (2011). An investigation of grammatical metaphor in students’ writing and its effects on the texts’ written characteristics. Unpublished Thesis at English Education Program, School of Post Graduate Studies, Indonesia University of Education. |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |