DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
An Analysis of Grammatical Cohesive Device of
the Short Story of “ the Frog Prince”
by Brother Grimm
Lecturer :
Dr.Sriyono, S.S, M.Hum.
By
Muna Alfadlilah (150511100017)
ENGLISH DEPARTEMENT
FACULTY OF SOCIAL AND SCIENCE
TRUNOJOYO UNIVERSITY of MADURA
2018
I. Introduction
English is considered the first language for
the majority of the population in several countries and the second language for
others. Hence, English is becoming the language of communication globally. Communication
allows language users to interact with each other and in turn understand what
others are trying to convey. In other words, language could be understood
differently depending on the situation and context in which the discourse
occurs. Discourse, then, is any spoken or written language which includes
verbal and nonverbal elements that are meaningful (Bahaziq, 2016).
Communication is important to convey people’s message to the others. The
meaning of the communication becomes important case in term of transferring the
intentions. Usually people use some ways to convey their message. In conveying
their message, people usually use pronoun, conjunction and sometimes they use
substitution to elucidate their message. It will be difficult to understand the
message if the hearer does not know the function of both pronoun, conjunction,
and substitution. Meanwhile, both pronoun, conjunction, and substitution are
studied in cohesion, especially grammatical cohesion; the various types of
grammatical cohesion: reference, substitution, and ellipsis, and conjunction
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 274). So, communication also important to anlyze
wether have an something could be know in a knowladge discourse analyis belong
to cohesive device. Such as in the text, text is one of the communication
between writer and reader which has some a message or knowladge will be deliver
in every sentences in the text.
Basically, text is used by people to enrich
information and knowledge. Good and systematic text will lead the readers into
better comprehension. From the above explanation, text is used in linguistics
to refer any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a
unified whole (Suzanne Eggins, 2004: 24). When talking about text, it is divided
into spoken and written. Aspoken text is any meaningful spoken text. It can be
a word, a phrase, a sentence, or a discourse. A written text is any meaningful
written text. It can be a notice, a direction, an advertisement, a paragraph,
an essay, an article, a book, and etc (Siahaan and Kisno Shinoda, 2008: 01) In
this study, the writers concern on written text especially short story text.
The writers choose short story text because it is one of the genres that must
be mastered by folktales in literature. Besides that, short story text help us
to interpret the story from meaning and sense from the plot or maining. In this
paper will be explain about cohesion. The importance of studying cohesion,
especially cohesive devices (grammatical) is to create a good and systematic text,
and to make easily understand what information is delivered in it. According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 29), cohesion
covers reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion.
However, the various types of grammatical cohesion are reference, substitution,
ellipsis, and conjunction (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 274). So, grammatical
cohesion will examine reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction.It can also reduce confusion in understanding the
texts because the students will know how sentences or paragraphs are related in
reading short story.
In this paper, the writer analyzed a famous short story
written Grimm, Jacob (1785-1863) and Wilhelm (1786-1859) The Frog Prince (1812)
- The well-known tale of a princess who promises companionship to a frog who
retrieves her golden ball from a well. The princess, at her father’s command,
begrudgingly fulfills her promise.
In this paper, the writer limited the discussion only
in the references of the grammatical cohesive divice. Through this paper it is
expected that the reader could gain a deeper understanding about the reference
of the grammatical cohesive devices used in short story.
2. Discussion
The writer will be discusses
the result of the analysis as follow: Based on the writer can identify and
describe every type of grammatical cohesion; reference, substitution, ellipsis,
and conjunction. In other word, in the short story contains all types of
grammatical cohesion. Then, in the data analysis, the writer also reveals the
frequency of occurance of each type of grammatical cohesion.
1)
The Definition of Cohesion
The
term cohesion is familiar in the study of language. Richards (1985: 45) stated
that cohesion is the grammatical and/or lexical relationships between the
different elements of a text. This may be the relationship between different
sentences or between different parts of asentence. In order to strengthen the
definitions above, Halliday and Hasan (1989: 04) mention that cohesion refers
to relations of meaning that exist in the text. Furthermore, Halliday and Hasan
explain that cohesion is a semantic relation between an element in the text and
some other elements that are crucial to the interpretation of it. From the
information above, the writer concludes that the cohesiveness of a text is the
text unity.
2) Types of Cohesion
Halliday
and Hasan (1989: 25) classify cohesion into two types. Firstly, Grammatical cohesive
devices which consist of (a) Reference: pronominal, demonstrative, definite
article and comparative, (b) Substitution and ellipsis: nominal, verbal and clausal,
and (c) Conjunction: adversative, additive, temporal and causal. Secondly,
Lexical cohesive devices which consist of repetition, and collocation (Mashitoh,
2017).
a). Grammatical Cohesion
There are four types of grammatical
cohesion. They are reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction. Every
type is elaborated in the following explanation.
i. Reference
Gerot
and Wignell (1994: 105) explain that the reference refers to system that
introduce and track the identity of participant through the text. According to
Halliday and Hassan (1989: 80), reference is the relation between an element of
the text and something else by reference to which it is interpreted in the
given instance. There are three types of reference: personal, demonstrative,
and comparative reference).
ii. Substitution
Substitution
is replacement of language element into others in a bigger composition in order
to get clearer difference, or to explain some certain language elements. There
are three types of substitution, they are: nominal, verbal and clausal
substitution (Halliday and Hasan, 1989: 90).
iii.Ellipsis
Ellipsis
is the omission of a word or a part of a sentence. It occurs when some
essential structural elements are omitted from a sentence or clause and can
only be recovered by refering to an element in the preceeding text (Nunan,
1993: 25).
iv. Conjunction
Conjunctive elements are cohesive not in themselves but
indirectly, by virtue of their specific meanings. The definition of cohesion is
a relationship which indicates how the sentence or clause should be linked to
the preceeding sentence by usingcohesive ties which relate a sentence, a clause
or paragraph t each other (Halliday and Hasan, 1989: 226).
The writer analyzed based on Halliday and Hasan (1989) theory. The analysis
of data will be done in the following steps.
1.
Dividing and numbering sentences
into clauses The chosen sentences of
short story text divided into clauses, and then the clauses found
werenumbered in order to findthe cohesion items within the clauses.
2.
Identifying grammatical cohesive
devices within the clauses After considering the clauses, the writer
categorized cohesive items by underlining the text which one is grammatical cohesion.
3.
Putting the number of grammatical
cohesive devices into tables based on
its types In this step, the data showed in the form of tables. So, we knew the
cohesive devices clearly.
4.
Counting the number of grammatical
cohesive devices in the form of percentages The purpose of this section is to
know what kind of cohesive devices
perform mostly used in short story texts. Furthermore, the writer counted the
grammatical cohesion into percentages in every elements.
formula:
Where:
X : the percentage of grammatical cohesion in short story text.
N : the number of each type of grammatical cohesion in short story
text.
N : The total number of the grammatical cohesion items found in short story
text (Mashitoh, 2017).
In this short story the writer analyze, it can be
seen that they contain many aspects of grammatical cohesion such as reference,
substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction. Although, the percentage of
substitution and ellipsis are less than reference and conjunction. The
following table shows the data after being analyzed.
Table 1
|
Text |
Reference |
Subtitution |
Elipsis |
Conjuntion |
|
1 |
63,7% |
6
% |
0 |
30,2% |
To categorize whether or not recount texts are
written cohesively, the writer used certain criterion based on Halliday and
Hasan (1989: 63), the data criterion as follows.
|
Categories |
Number
of Cohesive Devices |
|
Poor |
0-25 |
|
Fair |
26-50 |
|
Good |
51-75 |
|
Excellent |
76-100 |
From the table above, the dominant grammatical
cohesion aspect occurred in these texts was reference. In addition, the
percentage of Substitution and Ellipsis are less than the other. In this analysis, there is one short story text.
From the texts the writer analyzed, it can be seen that they containmany
aspects of grammatical cohesion such as reference, substitution, ellipsis, and
conjunction. Although, the percentage of substitution and ellipsis are less
than reference and conjunction. This ini the data from short story by Brother
Grimm.
THE FROG PRINCE
Long ago, when wishes often
came true, there lived a King whose daughters were all handsome, but the
youngest was so beautiful that the sun himself, who has seen everything, was
bemused every time he shone over her because of her beauty. Near the royal
castle there was a great dark wood, and in the wood under an old linden tree
was a well; and when the day was hot, the King’s daughter used to go forth into
the wood and sit by the brink of the cool well, and if the time seemed long,
she would take out a golden ball, and throw it up and catch it again, and this
was her favorite pastime. Now it happened one day that the golden ball, instead
of falling back into the maiden’s little hand which had sent it aloft, dropped
to the ground near the edge of the well and rolled in. The King’s daughter
followed it with her eyes as it sank, but the well was deep, so deep that the
bottom could not be seen. Then she began to weep, and she wept and wept as if
she could never be comforted. And in the midst of her weeping she heard a voice
saying to her, “What ails you, King’s daughter? Your tears would melt a heart
of stone.” And when she looked to see where the voice came from, there was
nothing but a frog stretching his thick ugly head out of the water. “Oh, is it
you, old waddler?” said she; “I weep because my golden ball has fallen into the
well.”
2 “Never mind, do not weep,” answered the frog; “I can help you; but what will
you give me if I fetch up your ball again?” “Whatever you like, dear frog,”
said she; “any of my clothes, my pearls and jewels, or even the golden crown
that I wear.” “Your clothes, your pearls and jewels, and your golden crown are
not for me,” answered the frog; “but if you would love me, and have me for your
companion and play-fellow, and let me sit by you at table, and eat from your
plate, and drink from your cup, and sleep in your little bed- if you would
promise all this, then would I dive below the water and fetch you your golden
ball again.” “Oh yes,” she answered; “I will promise it all, whatever you want;
if you will only get me my ball again.” But she thought to herself, “What
nonsense he talks! as if he could do anything but sit in the water and croak
with the other frogs, or could possibly be any one’s companion.” But the frog,
as soon as he heard her promise, drew his head under the water and sank down
out of sight, but after a while he came to the surface again with the ball in
his mouth, and he threw it on the grass. The King’s daughter was overjoyed to
see her pretty plaything again, and she caught it up and ran off with it.
“Stop, stop!” cried the frog; “take me up too; I cannot run as fast as you!”
But it was of no use, for croak, croak after her as he might, she would not
listen to him, but made haste home, and very soon forgot all about the poor frog,
who had to betake himself to his well again. The next day, when the King’s
daughter was sitting at table with the King and all the court, and eating from
her golden plate, there came something pitter-patter up the marble stairs, and
then there came a knocking at the door, and a voice crying, “Youngest King’s
daughter, let me in!” And she got up and ran to see who it could be, but when
she opened the door, there was the frog sitting outside. Then she shut the door
hastily and went back to her seat, feeling very uneasy. The King noticed how
quickly her heart was beating, and said, “My child, what are you afraid of? Is
there a giant standing at the door ready to carry you away?” “Oh no,” answered
she; “no giant, but a horrid frog.” “And what does the frog want?” asked the
King. “O dear father,” answered she, “when I was sitting by the well yesterday,
and playing with my golden ball, it fell into the water, and while I was crying
for the loss of it, the frog came and got it again for me on condition I would
let him be my companion, but I
3 never thought that he could leave the water and come after me; but now there
he is outside the door, and he wants to come in to me.” And then they all heard
him knocking the second time and crying, “Youngest King’s daughter, Open to me!
By the well water What promised you me? Youngest King’s daughter Now open to
me!” “That which thou hast promised must thou perform,” said the King; “so go
now and let him in.” So she went and opened the door, and the frog hopped in,
following at her heels, till she reached her chair. Then he stopped and cried,
“Lift me up to sit by you.” But she delayed doing so until the King ordered
her. When once the frog was on the chair, he wanted to get on the table, and
there he sat and said, “Now push your golden plate a little nearer, so that we
may eat together.” And so she did, but everybody might see how unwilling she
was, and the frog feasted heartily, but every morsel seemed to stick in her
throat. “I have had enough now,” said the frog at last, “and as I am tired, you
must carry me to your room, and make ready your silken bed, and we will lie
down and go to sleep.” Then the King’s daughter began to weep, and was afraid
of the cold frog, that nothing would satisfy him but he must sleep in her
pretty clean bed. Now the King grew angry with her, saying, “That which thou
hast promised in thy time of necessity, must thou now perform.” So she picked
up the frog with her finger and thumb, carried him upstairs and put him in a
corner, and when she had lain down to sleep, he came creeping up, saying, “I am
tired and want sleep as much as you; take me up, or I will tell your father.”
Then she felt beside herself with rage, and picking him up, she threw him with
all her strength against the wall, crying, “Now will you be quiet, you horrid
frog!” But as he fell, he ceased to be a frog, and became all at once a Prince
with beautiful kind eyes. And it came to pass that, with her father’s consent,
they became bride and bridegroom. And he told her how a wicked witch had bound
him by her spells, and how no one but she alone could have released him, and
that they two would go together to his father’s kingdom. And there came to the
door a carriage drawn by eight white horses, with white plumes on their heads,
and with golden harness, and behind the carriage was standing faithful Henry,
the servant of the young Prince. Now, faithful Henry had suffered such care and
pain when his master was turned into a frog, that he had been obliged to wear
three iron bands over his heart, to keep it from breaking with trouble and
anxiety. When the carriage started to take the Prince to 4 his kingdom, and
faithful Henry had helped them both in, he got up behind, and was full of joy
at his master’s deliverance. And when they had gone a part of the way, the
Prince heard a sound at the back of the carriage, as if something had broken,
and he turned round and cried, “Henry, the wheel must be breaking!” but Henry
answered, “The wheel does not break, ‘Tis the band round my heart That, to
lessen its ache, When I grieved for your sake, I bound round my heart.” Again,
and yet once again there was the same sound, and the Prince thought it must be
the wheel breaking. But it was the breaking of the other bands from faithful
Henry’s heart, because he was so relieved and happy.
THE END
As it is know in the
table, the kinds of grammatical cohesion realized in the short story texts are
reference, ellipsis, and conjunction. The occurrence of reference appears to be
the most in this text. In this text, personal and demonstrative are realized. The
word ‘he’ in this text refers to the King. We called it as personal reference.
Whereas, the example of demonstrative are that (clause12 ) and she (clause
19). The amount of subtitution are the lowest. The last kind of grammatical
cohesion found in the texts is conjunction. The amount of conjunction are higher
than subtitution, but lower than reference. There are only saveral conjunction
existed in the text, namely but, and, then etc.
III.
Conclusion
In The Frog Prince short story, there are
types of grammatical cohesion (reference, ellipsis, conjunction). In this short
story story written Grimm, Jacob (1785-1863) and Wilhelm
(1786-1859) The Frog Prince (1812) has already analyzed by writer and has References 63,7% Subtitution 6
Elipsis 0 Conjunctiion 30,2% and
every Grammatical Cohesion there is categorize in every elemenst.
References
Bahaziq, Afnan. Cohesive Devices in Written Discourse: A
Discourse Analysis of a Student’s Essay Writing. English Language Teaching;
Vol. 9, No. 7. 2016.
Eggins, Suzanne. An Introduction to Systemic Functional
Linguistics. New
York: Continuum International Publishing Group. 2004
Halliday, M & Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London:
Longman
Hidayat Agus. An
Analysis of Grammatical Cohesive Device of
the Short Story the Little Match Girl by Hans Christian Andersen 2016/2017.
Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris Vol 9 (2), 2016, 232-244
Linda, Gerot and Wignell Peter. Making Sense of Functional Grammar.
North South Wales: Gerd Stabler. 1995.
Nunan, David. Introducing Discourse Analysis. London:
Penguin
Group. 1993.
Masithoh, Hanita. Grammatical Cohesion Found in Recount Texts
of “Pathway To English” X Grade Curriculum 2013 General Program By Erlangga. Jurnal Vision Volume 6 Number 1, 2017Ilmu,
2008.
Richards, Jack. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge
: Cambridge University Press. 2002.
Siahaan, Sanggam and Kisno Shinoda. Generic Text Structure. Yogyakarta:
Graha
The Frog Prince (1812). Short story from Brother Grimm.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar