Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej
1.
MA NU Hasyim Asy’ari 3 Kudus, Indonesia
2.
Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
446
Nurma Aini, Abdurrachman Faridi, Sri Wuli Fitriari/ EEJ 8 (4) 2018 445 - 451
447
Nurma Aini, Abdurrachman Faridi, Sri Wuli Fitriari/ EEJ 8 (4) 2018 445 - 451
expression, and special conversation word production word by word or the lexical of
function. Indonesian to English directly.
Therefore, we can assume that there is
d) Comparing the result for each textbooks
significant difference between native and non-
Persentage was used to compare the top 50 native authors in using of lexical bundles’
bundles for each textbook. Based on the frequencies.
result, I explain the similarities and the
Lexical Bundles’ Structures in Two Textbooks
differences of two textbooks.
As the pioneer study, Biber et. al (1999)
found that most lexical bundles were not
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS complete structural units. They found that the
most structural type in academic prose were
This part gives the explanation and the lexical bundles that incorporate noun phrase
interpretation of the findings related to the and prepositional phrase while, the most
theory and other supported researches. The structural type in conversation was lexical
findings include three points, they are; bundles that incorporate verb phrase fragment.
It was supported by the study of Hernandez
Lexical Bundles’ Frequencies in Two (2013) where in the three oral corpora found
Textbooks that verb phrase is the most structure occurred.
The most notably the diversity of two Although conversation text is in the written
register—this study is related to the textbooks form, but the content of the conversation text
with native and non-native authors, can be seen must be regarded to the real conversation which
by the frequency of lexical bundles. Chen & are characterized by high interaction. Therefore,
Baker (2010) showed that native writers more the finding of the study is in line to the finding
frequent in use of lexical bundles than non- of conversation where the dominant structure of
native writers. It is corresponding with the lexical bundles used both native and non-native
finding of the present study which found that authors were lexical bundles that incorporate
native authors (Four Corners) used more verb phrase fragments. They consist of several
number of lexical bundles than non-native sub categorizes, such as: (connector)+1st/2nd
authors (English Intensive course). Totally, 164 person pronoun+VP fragments, 3rd person
lexical bundles were found in Four Corners pronoun+VP fragments, yes-no question
books, while 106 lexical bundles were found in fragments, WH-question fragments.
English Intensive Course books. The gap between 1st/2nd/3rd person pronoun+VP
native and non-native authors is significantly fragments are used to begin an utterance, and it
seen by the difference of lexical bundles’ ends with the beginning of a complemet clause;
number. The native authors seem likely for example, I’m trying to, as I was saying.
common in using the word combination, while Besides, there were lexical bundles which report
non-native authors usually used different word negative personal stance; for example, I don’t
especially certain word combination in know, I have no idea.
production their feeling, it seem like that they Yes-no questions with verb want, asking
still try to learn how to say something. about the needs of the interlocutor/ the
Another gap was showed by the use of addressee; for example, do you want to. In
lexical bundles between native and non-native addition, the common interrogative lexical
authors. Non-native authors used different types bundles are formed with can, would, they used as
of lexical bundles, for example I wish I had, indirect requests; for example, can I help you,
where native authors rarely used that kind of would you like to.
lexical bundles. This fact showed that non- WH-question fragments with do as a main
native authors tried to translate their feeling into verb, asking about present actions. The lexical
448
Nurma Aini, Abdurrachman Faridi, Sri Wuli Fitriari/ EEJ 8 (4) 2018 445 - 451
449
Nurma Aini, Abdurrachman Faridi, Sri Wuli Fitriari/ EEJ 8 (4) 2018 445 - 451
Beside that, the finding also revealed that there Based on the findings, I suggest further
were no types of lexical bundles which were researchers to take an advance study by
used by the native authors, were used by the identfying the lexical bundles in those two
non-native authors. Therefore, it is concluded textbooks or another textbook by using different
that non-native authors tend to translate the software.
lexical of Indonesian to English directly, they
didn’t want to follow what the native say did. REFERENCES
The comparison of lexical bundles’
structures in conversation texts between Four Allen, D. (2009). Lexical bundles in learner
Corners and English Intensive Course books could writing: an analysis of formulaic language
be seen by detecting the similarities and the in the ALESS learners corpus. Komaba
differences of them. Both, Four Corners and Journal of English Education
English Intensive Course books had similarity in Bal, B. (2010). Analysis of four-word lexical
term of the dominant structural type which is bundles in published research articles
used by the native and non-native authors. Both written by Turkish scholars. Analysis, 11,
of them mostly used the lexical bundles that 30–201. Retreived from
incorporate with verb phrase fragments. More http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/alesl_theses
detail, they used a lot of 1st/2nd person Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus
pronoun + VP fragments and yes-no question –based study of spoken and written
fragments. From the result above, it is registes (Vol.23) John Benjamin
concluded that the native and non-native Publishing
authors inclined to speak about their personal Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If
experiences and they presented many questions you look at ...: Lexical bundles in
to get the responses. In contrast, the finding university teaching nad textbooks. Applied
didn’t show any differences of two textbooks in Linguistic, 25 (3), 371-405
term of structural types. Biber, D., Leech, G., & Conrad, S. (2002).
The last conclusion is about the Longman student grammar of spoken and
comparison of lexical bundles’ function in two written English. Harlow: Longman
textbooks. Both in Four Corners and English Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S.,
Intensive Course books, the most functional type & Finegan, C. (1999). Longman Grammar
of lexical bundle was special function which is of Spoken and Written English. Harlow:
the biggest part used by the authors was simply Longman.
inquiry. Besides, the result showed that there Chen, Y. & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in
were no lexical bundles that were categorized as L1 andLl2 academic writing. Language
discourse organizers. It indicated that the Learning & Technology, 14 I 30-49.
authors tend to present the question to Retrieved from
maintenance the communication between the http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num2/chenbake
speakers. However, the difference is showed by r.pdf
the second and the third dominant of lexical Conrad, S. M. & Biber, B. (2005). The
bundles found in two textbooks. In Four Corners, frequency and use of lexical bundles in
the second and the third were stance bundles converstaion and academic prose.
and referential expressions, while in English Lexicographica 20. Retrieved from
Intensive Course books was vice versa. Therefore, http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/ling_f
the conversation text in Four Corners book seems ac
like the direct conversation which contain Farista, N., Bharati, D. & Fitriati, S. W. (2018).
spontaneously while the conversation texts in The Effectiveness of Roundtable and One
English Intensive Course books closer to identify Stay Two Strays Techniques to Teach
something as clarifying.
450
Nurma Aini, Abdurrachman Faridi, Sri Wuli Fitriari/ EEJ 8 (4) 2018 445 - 451
Speaking Skill to Students with High and International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Low Self-Confidence. EEJ 8 (2) and English Literature, 1 (6).
Gailea, N. & Rasyid, Y. (2015). A study of the doi:10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.6p.142
English textbooks for senior high school Rafiee, M. & Keihaniyan, M. (2013). A
in four English skills on gender quality in comparative analysis of lexical bundles in
Serang city-Banten. IJLECR 1(1), 97-104. journalistic writing in English and
Retreived from Persian: A constrative linguistic
http://pps.unj.ac.id/journal/ijlecr perspective.
Hernandez, P. (2013). Lexical bundles in three Siricharoen, A., & Wijitsopon, R. (2017).
oral corpora of university students. Nordic Lexical bundles in authentic and business
Journal of English Studies 13 (1),187-209 textbook emails: a case study of informal
Lou, X. (2012). Structural analysis of lexical business emails. Selected Procedings of the
bundles in EFL English majors’ theses of International Conference:DRAL 3/19th
an ordinary normal university in China. ESEA
451