Syntactic Word Order between Indonesian and English: Building a Concept through Contrastive Analysis in Academic Writing

Mochamad Imron Azami; Fitri Awaliyatush Sholihah

doi:10.25273/etj.v9i2.10349

Syntactic Word Order between Indonesian and English: Building a Concept through Contrastive Analysis in Academic Writing

Mochamad Imron Azami, Fitri Awaliyatush Sholihah

Abstract

This study focuses more on syntactic word order through identify the language structure of simple sentence both Indonesian and English in argumentative essay made by English education department students at University of Islam Malang and analyze it by contrastive analysis (CA). The significance of this research is to cover the students’ difficulties in academic writing process by using contrastive analysis and to identify the highlight point of the structure differences between Bahasa Indonesia (L1) and English (L2). The researcher used qualitative method by collecting 10 students’ argumentative essay both in Indonesia and in English. The results show that the common pattern occurs in the students’ argumentative essay is SVO and the other patterns are S-V(Aux)-O, NP-S-V-O, Conj-S-V-O, S-V-O-V, S-S-V-O and Conj-NP-S-V-O. While in Indonesian are Subjek-Predikat (SV), Subjek-Predikat-Objek (SVO), Subjek-Predikat-Pelengkap (SVC), Subjek-Predikat-Objek-Pelengkap (SVOC), Subjek-Predikat-Objek-Keterangan (SVOA (Adverb)), Subjek-Predikat-Keterangan (SVA), Keterangan-Predikat-Subjek(AVS), and Subjek-Predikat-Keterangan-Pelengkap (SVAC). Students tended to write the argumentative essay in English inapropiately to the theory of simple sentence structure. While in Indonesian arguementative essay, they wrote properly based on the possible pattern of simple sentence in Indonesian.

Keywords

Syntactic word order; Contrastive analysis; Academic writing; Argumentative essay

Full Text:

PDF

References

Berninger, V. W., & Winn, W. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 96-114). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Goldsmith, John A. (ed.). (1995). The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.

Hastuti, Sri. (2003). Sekitar Analysis Kesalahan Berbahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.

Hogue, Ann. (2008). First Steps in Academic Writing: Second Edition. USA: Pearson Longman.

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, US.

McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: working memory in text composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299-335. doi:10.1007/BF01464076.

Storkel, Holly L. (2003). Learning new words II: Phonotactic probability in verb learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1312–1323.

Sasangka, S. (2015). Kalimat (Seri Penyuluhan Bahasa Indonesia). Jakarta: Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa, Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Sturm, J. & Rankin-Erickson, J. (2002). Effects of hand-drawn and computer-generated concept mapping on the expository writing of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17(2), 124-139. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00039, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00039.

Tarigan, H. G. (1992). Pengajaran Analisis Kontrastif Bahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.

Tarigan, H. G. (1988). Pengajaran Sintaksis. Bandung: Penerbit Angkasa.