A Cohesive Analysis of Exposition Text: An Indonesian Context

Nurfitri Habibi
nurfitrihabibi@gmail.com
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Lungguh Ariang Bangga
lungguhariangbangga@gmail.com
Pusat Pengembangan Strategi dan Diplomasi Kebahasaan
Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa
Abstract
As a higher level of education requires students to create more complicated text, an ability of writing
an exposition text becomes compulsory for Indonesia senior high school students, stipulated by 2013
curriculum. However, many Indonesian students could not deal with the textual resourcestheme
progression and cohesive links. The present study aims at investigating the cohesion of students
exposition texts seen from the expositions schematic structure and linguistic features based on
cohesive devices and theme progression. A qualitative approach under text analysis design is
employed in the study to get in depth understanding of the investigated issue. The participants of the
study were second grade students of senior high school in Bandung. The data were obtained by
collecting six students texts from three different levels of achievementLow-, Mid-, and Highachiever, in which each level of achievement is represented by two students. After the necessary data
were collected, those data were analyzed by using cohesion analysis framework proposed by Halliday
& Hasan (1976), Gerot & Wignell (1994), Halliday (2000), Halliday & Mathiessen (2004; 2014),
Eggins (2004), Martin (1992), Martin & Rose (2007), Bloor & Bloor (2005), and Emilia (2014);
theme progression analysis framework proposed by Eggins (2004); and an analysis framework of
expositions schematic structure proposed by Knapp & Watkins (2005), Anderson & Anderson
(1997), and Derewianka (1990). To some extents, the findings show that, (1) the higher and middle
students texts seems to be cohesive since they have already comprehend the schematic structure of
the text and applied two theme progression patternszigzag and theme reiteration pattern. (2) All of
the students are able to use simple some cohesive devicesreference, lexical cohesion, and
conjunction. However, the use of other cohesive devices, e.g. ellipses and substitution could rarely
find in their texts. (3) In terms of theme progression, the use of zigzag pattern is the most frequently
used pattern in students texts, followed by Theme Reiteration Pattern and Multiple Theme Pattern.
(4) In terms of cohesive devices, lexical cohesion is used by the students more frequent than those of
conjunction, reference, and ellipsis/substitution. Further research on different perspectives and focuses
of analysis with more representative samples is recommended

INTRODUCTION
Across educational level, students are required to engage with many texts. In primary school,
the typical texts they encounter are related to story based (Martin & Rose, 2008). As the
move to higher level, secondary school, the texts they find during their study are getting
complex. In secondary school, students accomplishment in fulfilling advanced literacy tasks
(Schleppegrell, 2004) is indicated from the way they use language to construct more
condensed and specific information from their surroundings which is different from their
everyday pattern of interaction in home or neighborhood. Those condensed and specific
information can be realized into various types of text, one of which is exposition text. In
Indonesia EFL context, particularly, the importance of students ability in creating exposition
text is supported by the new curriculum policy, 2013 Curriculum, stating that students in
senior high school are required to comprehend and create an exposition text (Permendikbud

No. 64 Year 2013). Writing an argumentative essay, exposition text, is significant for
students academic success and effective social participation (Crowhurst, 1990; Knapp &
Watkins, 2005), because the ability of composing an argumentative essay would generate the
students critical thinking in order to be powerful and competitive person (Bizzel, 1992; cited
in Emilia: 2005).
However, to write an exposition text is not a simple thing for EFL students. The common
problems found in creating an exposition text are misused of cohesive devices (Chen, 2008).
Indonesian EFL students, the exposure of encountering exposition text is still limited both in
Bahasa Indonesia or English. This condition may cause different understanding of how they
should construct an effective exposition text in English since the structure of the exposition
text in their first language might not have similar structure with the one written in English
(Hawes & Thomas, 2012), especially on the use of textual resources. These textual resources
that contribute to creating an effective text with good flow of information include the use of
Theme progression and cohesive links (Droga & Humphrey, 2003; and Derewianka & Jones,
2012, p. 33).
Research on the use of cohesive devices in EFL students texts has shown that students still
encountered some problems in using appropriate cohesive devices. Students tend to focus on
the word or clause level rather than the whole discourse level (Bamberg, 1984; Ferris &
Hedgecock, 1998; cited in Lee, 2002) in creating exposition text. The problems was also
confirmed by other studies conducted by Chen (2008), Witte & Faigley (2008), Azzouz
(2009), Dastjerdi & Samian (2011), Sanczyk (2010), Ong (2011), Saudin (2013), and Sadighi
& Heydari (2012), which showed that there were still some problems of cohesive devices
employment found in an argumentative genre created, leading to the failure in shaping the
flow of information. Utilizing cohesive analysis has several advantages. Crossly, Kyle, &
McNamara (2016) confirmed that the development of cohesive device in students texts has a
significant impact to the judgment of writing quality. In addition, cohesive analysis also plays
an important role in identifying specific ways of discourse features which guide the reader to
a line of understanding of a text as a whole (Bastrukmen & von Randow (2014). However,
there are still limited numbers of research incorporating the framework of Theme progression
and cohesive analysis in investigating students text, especially in Indonesia EFL context.
Therefore this study aims to elaborate the use of Theme progression and cohesive devices
analysis as a tool for investigating students exposition texts.
LITERATURE REVIEW
There are some relevant theories to this study, which are, Cohesion, Cohesive devices, Theme
Progression Pattern, and Argumentative genre. Those theories will be explained as follows.
Cohesion
Cohesion is considered as an internal element, which binds the passage together, (Halliday &
Hasan, 1976, p. 20). It is one of hints for the reader to relate the meaning together within the
text (Dastjerdi & Samian, 2011). In functional linguistic system; cohesion is considered as a
non-structural unit of textual metafunction. Non-structural unit, as stated by Halliday &
Hasan (1976), means that cohesion does not depend on the structural unit, such as clause or

sentence. Cohesion is beyond the sentence or clause, which is meaning. They further explain
that cohesion defines text as a text because the interpretation of some elements in the text
depends on another (1976, cited in Eggins, 2004, and Emilia, 2014, p.92). In order to define
text as a text, cohesion requires a semantic relation, named as a cohesive device (Halliday &
Hasan, 1976; Gerot & Wignel, 1994; Eggins,2004; Emilia,2014) in order to relate between
items as the text develops (Derewianka & Jones, 2012, p. 34).
Cohesive Devices
Cohesive devices, as explained by Halliday and Hasan (1976, p.8), are semantic relations
which relate an element within a text and some others that are important to the interpretation
of the text. There are four types of cohesive devices in English; reference, lexical cohesion,
ellipsis and substitution, and conjunction (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Halliday, 2000, p. 309;
Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 533, Bloor & Bloor, 2004, and Emilia, 2014). Those
cohesion devices proposed will be elaborated in some details as follow.
Reference
Reference is one of common cohesive devices. Reference means, Pointing to something
mentioned elsewhere in the text (Derewianka & Jones, 2012, p. 129). Gerot and Wignell
(1994, p. 170) explain reference as a system to which the identity of item is introduced and
tracked through text. The identity of a presuming reference item, Eggins (2004, p.34; see also
Gerot and Wignell, 1994, and Emilia, 2014) states, may be retrievable from a number of
different contexts: homophoric ,exophoric, and edophoric reference. However, the
endophoric reference will be a focus of discussion, as a result of its creation in developing
cohesion (Eggins, 2004,p.34; Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 37).
Endophoric is known as a reference which can be recalled from within a text (Gerot &
Wignell, 1994; Halliday & Matthiensen, 2004; Eggins, 2004; Bloor and Bloor, 2004; Christie
& Derewianka, 2008, p. 22; Emilia, 2014). Eggins (2004) (see also Emilia, 2014, p. 97)
categorizes Endophoric into three types: Anaphoric is backwarding looking ; Cataphoric, is
forward looking; Esphoric occurs when the occurrence of the referent in the phrase follows
immediately the presuming referent item (within the same nominal group/ noun phrase in
separate clause). Moreover, Halliday & Hasan (1976), Halliday & Matthiessen (2004, p. 554561), and Bloor and Bloor (2004, p. 94-95) classify three types of reference items: personal,
demonstrative, and comparative.
Lexical Cohesion
Cohesion can be achieved through the choice of lexical item or vocabulary to connect
consistently the text to its area of focus ( Droga & Humphrey, 2003,p. 106; Bloor & Bloor,
2004,p. 99; Eggins, 2004;p. 42; see also Emilia 2014). There are two classifications of lexical
cohesion; General (Antonymy, Hyponymy, Meronymy, Repetition, Synonym) and Instantial
(Instantial lexical cohesion includes Equivalence, Naming , and Semblance.) (see Gerot &
Wignell, 1994, p. 177-178; Emilia,2014; Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Halliday & Matthiessen,
2004).
Conjunction
Conjunction or conjunctive relation, as stated by Eggins (2004,p.47), is a term used to
describe how the writer coins and expresses logical relationship between part of the text. It
is categorized into three types by Halliday (2000; Halliday Matthiessen, 2004; and Eggins,
2004), including elaboration (e.g. in other words, that is ,I mean, to put in other way, for
example, for instance, thus, at least, in short, actually), extension (e.g and, moreover, nor,

but, yet, on the contrary, apart from that, alternatively), and enhancement (e.g. secondly,
similarly,in a different way,so, then, therefore, but, yet, still).
Ellipsis and Substitution
The omission of words, groups or clauses is called Ellipsis (Bloor & Bloor, 2004,p. 97;
Emilia, 2014,p.100). Whereas Substitution, as suggested by Droga & Humphrey (2003,p.
105-106), is a term for replacing a component of clause with a shorter word such as one,
some, do. The substitution and ellipsis occur in order to substitute a word, phrase, or clause
instead of repeating them, which occur elsewhere in the text (Droga & Humphrey, 2003,p.
105; Bloor & Bloor, 2004,p. 95; and Carter & McCarthy, 2006; cited in Emilia 2014,p. 101),
thereby, creating a cohesive link (Derewianka & Jones, 2012, p.131).
Theme Progression Pattern
Theme progression is a thematic development which aims at creating cohesion and coherence
of the text (Eggins, 2004, p. 324). This one can help the writers organize and develop their
ides or information in a good way (Emilia, 2014). There are three categories of theme
progression pattern: zigzag pattern, reiteration pattern, and multiple theme (Eggins, 2004;
see Bloor & Bloor, 2004, for similar discussion).
Exposition Text
Exposition is a piece of text that aims at persuading the readers or the listener by presenting
arguments for single position or view (Anderson & Anderson, 1997; Martin and Rose, 2008,
p, 119). There are two kinds of exposition: Analytical and Hortatory exposition (Derewianka
& Jones, 2012, p. 241; Emilia, 2014). Derewianka (1990, p. 75; Martin & Rose, 2008;
Derewianka & Jones, 2012,p. 241) explains that when the writer might be arguing simply to
justify a position or an interpretation (persuading that) is called analytical exposition. On the
other hand, when the writer might be arguing that some sort of action should be taken
(persuading to) or sets out to persuade the reader or the listener to act in particular way
(Coffin, 2006, p. 89) is called Hortatory exposition.
Therefore, in order to achieve the social purpose of exposition genre, exposition text should
have three essential elements, which are Thesis announcing the issues or topic being concern
(Gerot & Wignell, 1994) in which the author gives point of view and previews of the
argument that will follow (Anderson&Anderson,1997, p.124); Arguments supporting the
thesis by giving evidences and examples (Derewianka, 1990; coffin, 2006); and Conclusion
summing up the arguments and reinforces of writers point of view (Anderson& Anderson,
1997).
METHODOLOGY
This study employed a qualitative research under text analysis design. The participants of the
study were second grade students of senior high school in Bandung. The data were obtained
by collecting six students texts from three different levels of achievementLow-, Mid-, and
High- achiever, in which each level of achievement is represented by two students.
Those data were analyzed by using a cohesion analysis framework proposed by Halliday &
Hasan (1976), Gerot & Wignell (1994), Halliday (2000), Halliday & Mathiessen (2004),
Eggins (2004), Bloor & Bloor (2005), and Emilia (2014); a theme progression analysis
framework proposed by Eggins (2004); and an analysis framework of expositions schematic
structure proposed by Knapp & Watkins (2005), Anderson & Anderson (1997), and
Derewianka (1990) in order to meet the aims of the study.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the analysis and discussion of the students texts. Due to the interest of
space, only three texts, a low-, a middle-, and a high- achievers text, will be discuss here.
The texts presented are diagnostic texts. Those text are analyzed to find out students initial
ability in creating a cohesive text. The analysis and the discussion of the texts will be
elaborated in detail as follows.
Schematic Structure
Schematic structure is important in an exposition text because it helps the text to achieve its
purposepersuading readers to accept writers points of view (Anderson & Anderson. 1997;
Martin & Rose, 2008, p. 119). The study found that High-, and Middle- Achiever follow the
schematic structure of hortatory exposition text, which are thesis, arguments, and conclusion.
On the contrary, low achiever does not seem to fulfill the schematic structure of hortatory
exposition text, in which it consists only two elements of schematic structurearguments
and conclusion (see Appendix 4). It means that the high- and middle- achiever have some
knowledge of exposition schematic structure to create a good text, while the low achiever
does not.
Cohesive analysis across texts stages
Low-Achiever Text (Text 5)
Arguments Element
Some conjunctions to elaborate the writers idea are found in this stage. The conjunction used
are conditional conjunction if, causal conjunction because, and temporal conjunction after.
Those conjunctions are realized in clause 4, clause 6, and 7 (See Appendix 1). Conjunction
employed in this stage is used to strengthen the unity and connectedness of the messages
(Emilia, 2005,p. 198).
In addition, there are also some referential items which serve to trace ideas or participants e.g.
first personal pronoun us, we, and third personal pronoun it. The first personal pronoun us
and we, who may refer to the writer or the reader, in this case, does not contribute to cohesion
of the text. It is because they are normally interpreted exophorically by reference to situation
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 48). The first personal pronouns indicate a subjective opinion
(Knapp & Watkins, 2005) and create personal relationship between the writer and the reader.
Meanwhile, the third personal pronoun it in clause 6 refers to particular object, which is,
video game existing in the previous clause which indicates the writer of the text has been able
to connect the meaning of the particular referential element in the text to particular object in
the previous clause.

Conclusion Element
The writer begins this stage uses conjunction so to finalize the arguments stated earlier, as in
So start (from) now to playing (play) video games in spare time (clause 15). In addition, it is
used to show a result of previous ideas presented in argument stage; thus the conjunction so is
categorized as causal conjunction functioning to connect clauses as cause and effect (Gerot &
Wignell, 1994).
Besides, to maintain connectedness of meaning in this stage, the referential item it is used.
Referential item it serves an anaphoric cohesion in It is the best strategy [[to make ]], in
which it refers to the pervious clause . to play video games in spare times. In this case, the
pronoun it may refer not only to particular person or object, some entity that is encoded

linguistically as a participanta noun or nominal expression but also to any identifiable

portion of text (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 52).
The use of conjunctions and references in both arguments and conclusion stages are
considered good, because the writer has been able to use connective cohesive or conjunction
and reference in order to create cohesive exposition text. However, ellipsis cannot be found in
the low-achiever text. It shows that although the low achiever student has been able to relate
meaning of particular referential item in the text and has been able to create logical text, the
low achiever is not familiar with the use of ellipsis in order to track the continuity of new
meaning in the text.
Middle-Achiever Text (Text 4)
Thesis element
In thesis stage, there are some cohesive devices used which are conjunction and referential
item (see Appendix 2). The adversative conjunction whereas in clause 3, is used to oppose the
pervious statement (clause 2), and the causal conjunction so, as in: so this custom (clause
4) is used to create logical relation between the background of the issue and the thesis
statement.
In addition, referential items found in this stage are possessive determiner their and
demonstrative reference this. Their refers to particular object many people (clause 1 and 2),
and this in: this customs (clause 4) refers anaphorically to . waste their money [[to buy
unused thing]]b]]a (clause 1) and think about their pleasure (clause 2). The word this, in
this case, as claimed by Derewianka & Jones (2012, p. 131) may refer back to whole sentence
to create cohesion in the text.

Argument Element
Microstructural devices (Peters, 1986, p. 174; cited in Emilia, 2005, p.198) realizing by
reference, conjunction, and ellipsis are found in this stage. They are used to maintain
interconnectedness at the local level.
The references found in this stage are them (e.g clause 6); their (e.g. Clause 14) ; reference
item it (Clause 7) and reference item this (clause 11). Those items, Halliday & Hasan, (1976,
p. 51) stated, are an anaphoric reference that aims at creating cohesion since it provides a link
with preceding portion of the text.
The conjunctions existing in this stage are additive conjunction and causal conjunction.
Additive conjunction and (clause 11) aims at adding new information of arguments.
Moreover, causal conjunction so (clause 10) constructs a logical argument by explaining a
consequence caused by pervious clause; and conjunction because (clause 14) shows a reason
of the pervious statement stated in the preceding clause. These causal conjunctions aim at
showing reasoning of the arguments presented.
Ellipsis used in the stage is a WH-ellipsis of the whole clause. This ellipsis realizes in Clause
12, in which the clause omits the entire clause except WH-element .The ellipsis in this case
functions as a tracking device (Martin & Rose, 2008).
The use of reference, conjunction, and ellipsis in argument stage indicate that the writer of
Text 4 has understood how to create relation in the text. The reference usage is an indication
of the writers success in relating the meaning, the conjunction usage signals that the logical
text creation is successful implemented by the writer, and the use of ellipsis shows the
writers accomplishment in tracking continuity of the new meaning in the text.

 Conclusion Element
This stage is opened by the use of causal conjunction so (clause 15) to call for an action.
Moreover, the second causal conjunction so (clause 16) in this stage is to construct a logical
connection of persuasion stated earlier. In addition, the referential item we (Clause 15) is
found in the conclusion stage of Text 4. The personal pronoun we used in concluding stage
aims at creating personal effect when persuade someone (Chen, 2008, p. 98; Dastjerdi &
Samian, 2011). It means that, the writer of Text 4 prefers to use personal voice rather than
impersonal voice in order to show the writers subjective opinion in persuading the readers.
High-Achiever Text (Text 1)
Thesis Element
To maintain cohesion of the message, referential items and conjunctions are used in the
Thesis stage of Text 1 (see Appendix 3). The referential items used in the text are personal
reference it and we. The referential item it aims at providing anaphoric cohesion because the
identity of it is recoverable from the preceding clause. In addition, the personal pronoun we,
implying a particular group of individual by which the writer wishes to identify himself
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 53), serves as an exaphoric reference which does not contribute
to the cohesion of the text. The use of third personal pronoun indicates that the writer of Text
1 wants to show his objective opinion, whereas the use of first personal pronoun shows that
the writer wants to share his subjective opinion in order to create personal relationship
between the readers (Knapp & Watkins, 2005).
The conjunction items appearing in this stage are additive, adversative, and causal
conjunctions. The additive conjunction and (clause 3) adds new information; the causal
conjunction so, (clause 4) shows a result of statements stating previously; and adversative
conjunction However (clause 5) indicates the contradiction of the pervious clauses .The
various conjunctions used in this stage prove that the writers knowledge in applying
appropriate conjunction to make the logical text is considered good.
Besides, the last clause of thesis stage (clause 5) helps thesis statement functioning as macrotheme or introductory paragraph of the text. This macro-theme predicts hyper-theme or
introductory sentence of paragraph or opening generalization of paragraph predicting
subsequent elaboration in argument stages (Emilia, 2014, p. 244).Therefore, it can be stated
that the employment of macro- and hyper-theme illustrate that the write of Text 1 has been
able to scaffold his idea.

Arguments Element
As allude earlier, each argument in this stage derives from thesis statement or preview, which
is However, eating fast foods has (have) negative effects (clause 5), functioning as macro
theme. This macro-theme predicts hyper-theme representing each argument. With this macro
theme, the stage develops efficiently by using multiple-theme pattern (Eggins, 2004), which
indicates that the writer of Text 1 has been able to create cohesion of the text at whole. This
multiple theme pattern can be illustrated below:
(5) However, eating fast foods has (have) negative effects
(6) First, fast food makes obesity
(9) Second, the additive in fast food are isolate for our body
(13) Third, fast food contains MSG (Monosodium Glutamate) [[ (which) is not good for
health]]

Each hyper-theme is opened by using temporal connective first, second, third, and third. This
connective is used in order to maintain logical relations and to link points (Knapp & Watkins,
2005, p.188). In addition, the use of these temporal connectives indicates that the writer of
Text 1 is considered capable in arranging the argument or staging the arguments, thus the text
is easy to follow.
Moreover, some personal reference and demonstrative reference can be found in this stage.
Personal reference such as: they (clause 10 and 11) and it (clause 12) serve as anaphoric
reference in which they refer back to clause 9 and it refers back to potion in They turn into
poison to our body (Clause 11). Demonstrative reference existed in Text 1 is the. The definite
article the realizing in clause 9 indicates that the is specific and identifiable, in which the
information for identifying the is recoverable (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 72) in the previous
clause as in: But fast food is rich of sodium and the harmful additive (Clause 8). The
employment of referential item means that the writer has been able to create relatedness of
meaning between clauses or sentences.

Conclusion Element
This stage summarizes arguments presented and able to reaffirm writers position. The
conjunction overall (clause 17) is used to sum up arguments presented in the argument stage
and to signal closure as well (Christie, 2002a, p. 58; cited in Emilia, 2005). In addition,
conjunction so (Clause 18) is employed to reinforce the writer point of view of the issue
followed by statement of calling for action. Those conjunctions are generally used in
concluding statement to finalize arguments (Knapp & Watkins, 2005, p.189). Moreover, it is
interesting to note that the first personal pronoun is absence in this stage. It indicates that in
persuading the reader, the writer attempt to use impersonal voice realized in So it is better
[[ to decrease the consumption of fast foods]] (clause 18) showing that the writer serves
objectivity in persuading the reader.
Cohesive Devices Consistency
Students of three different proficiency levels have employed variety of cohesive devices in
composing hortatory exposition. The finding shows that, first, lexical cohesion is the most
common devices occurring in three level students texts (see appendix 5). It occurs 134 times
in six students texts. This result corresponds to Chen (2008), Sanczyk (2010), Dastjerdi &
Samian (2011), and Saudin (2013) which state that the most contribution of cohesive device
employment in argumentative genre is lexical cohesion. It means, as stated by Eggins
(2004,p. 52), that the text can move forward, gradually expanding and shifting its meaning.
Second, the reference and conjunction are cohesive devices which occur less frequent than
lexical cohesion, in which 48 times of conjunction are employed in the six students texts,
followed by reference which occurs 47 times. The employment of conjunction in the text
means the text is united and logic between one clause and another (Emilia, 2014), whereas,
the employment of reference indicates that the text is related in meaning.
Third, the least occurrence of cohesive devices in six students texts is ellipsis and
substitution, in which ellipsis occurs once in six students texts and the occurrence of
substitution is absent in all of the texts. It proves that ellipsis and substitution occur more
frequent in conversation or dialogic text than in written discourse (Halliday & Mathiessen,
2004; Witte & Faigley, 2008, p.190). Moreover, the least occurrence of ellipsis, as
acknowledged by Halliday & Matthiessen (2004), indicates that the text created cannot keep
the continuity of the text, which means those texts are unsuccessful in marking textual status.

Theme Progression Consistency

Based on six students texts, students employ three theme progression patterns; reiteration,
zigzag, and multiple-theme pattern .The numbers of occurrence of each pattern is different
(see Appendix 6). The thematic progression pattern occurring most frequent across three
levels is Zigzag pattern. It shows that students achieve cohesion in organizing their idea by
building on newly introduced information (Eggins, 2004; cf. Emilia, 2014), hence a sense of
cumulative development which may be absent in the repeated theme is constructed.
The second thematic progression pattern that occurs frequently across three levels is
reiteration pattern. The use of reiteration pattern indicates that student provides the text with
clear focus in order to help maintaining a strong topical theme (Eggins, 2004; cf. Emilia,
2014). This pattern allows the reader to find information being focused easily.
Next, the least occurrence of thematic progression pattern is multiple theme pattern, in which
only high-achiever students who use this pattern in their writing. The use of this pattern
signals that high-achiever students have mastered and understood the way of organizing
ideas. In addition, the employment of multiple theme pattern shows that the high achiever
text is well-planned or well-written (Emilia, 2014, p.224). Besides, by employing multiple
theme pattern, high achiever students have successfully provided underlying principle of text
organization, in which both zigzag and theme reiteration strategy are used to elaborate each
of the main thematic point (Eggins, 2004, p.326). On the contrary, middle- and low-achiever
students have failed in employing multiple-theme pattern which indicates that they have
limited knowledge in organizing their ideas into writing form.
CONCLUSION
The employment of cohesive devices and theme progression pattern influence the cohesion of
the senior high school students exposition text, of course. The result of the study indicates
that students are able to use reference and conjunction in order to create cohesive text, yet
they are not able to employ ellipsis and substitution, which show that they are not able to
track continuity of new meaning; nevertheless, the texts are considered cohesive. In addition,
the employment of cohesive devices of lexical cohesion is more frequent than other devices,
which indicate that all of the students texts can move gradually.
In terms of theme progression pattern, High achiever seems to be able to create better text
than low- and mid- achiever. This indicates that teacher has taught the students the structure
organization of exposition text, so high achiever could organize his ideas by using three types
of theme progression pattern: Multiple-Theme Pattern, Zigzag pattern, and Reiteration
pattern. However, low-and mid-achiever could not, which means low- and mid- achiever
need explicit teaching or more feedback and need more time to create better text.
This study has some pedagogical implications. First, teachers can develop their professional
capacity. It is because teachers must know the material that should be taught by observing the
students ability and inability from their writing. In addition, the teacher can evaluate whether
the text or material that will be given is appropriate or not for their students. Second,
cohesion of the text can be one point that should be considered in teaching writing because it
is one of writing assessments aspects.; therefore, the teacher should teach the cohesion of the
text explicitly in order to bring the picture to the student of cohesive text creation by using
cohesive devices and theme progression pattern correctly.

However, this study has some limitation, in which it only focuses on diagnostics text and only
focus on the analysis of cohesion and theme progression pattern. It is better if the further
study can develop beyond the cohesion analysis, such as coherence analysis, and analyze
both first draft and final draft of students writing. In addition, the next researcher could
investigate students text in every level of education, in terms of cohesive and theme
progression employment, particularly in EFL context.
REFERENCES
Anderson, M. and Anderson, K. (1997). Text type in English Volume 2. Sydney: Macmillan
Education Australia.
Azzouz, B. (2009). A discourse analysis of grammatical cohesion students writing.
Dissertation, Mentouri University.
Bloor, T, & Bloor, M. (2004). The functional analysis of English 2nd edition. Great Britain:
Arnold Publisher.
Bastrukmen, H., & von Randow, J. (2014). Guiding the reader (or not) to re-create coherence:
Observations on postgraduate student writing in an academic argumentative writing task.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 14-22
Chen, J. (2008). An investigation of EFL students use of cohesive devices. Asian Pacific
Education Review, 5(2),215-225.
Chirstie, F & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse learning to write across the years of
schooling. New York : Continuum international publishing.
Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause, & evaluation
argumentative genre. London: Continuum.
Crossly, S., Kyle, K., & McNamara. D. (2016). The development and use of cohesive
devices in L2 writing and their relations to judgments of essay quality. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 32, 116,
Crowhurst, M. (1990). Teaching and learning the writing of persuasive/argumentative
discourse. Canadian Journal of Education, 15 (4), 348-359.
Dastjerdi, H.V, & Samian, S.H. (2011). Quality of Iranian EFL learners argumentative
essays: Cohesive devices in focus. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 65
76.
Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how text work. Sydney: PETA
Derewianka, B, & Jones, P. (2012). Teaching Language in Context. Australia: Oxford
University Press.
Droga and Humphrey. (2003). Grammar and meaning: an Introduction for primary teachers.
Australia: Southwood Press.
Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics 2nd ed. London:
Continuum international Publishing Group.

Emilia, E. (2005). A critical genre-based approach to teaching academic writing in a tertiary

EFL context in Indonesia. A PhD thesis submitted to the University of Melbourne.
Emilia, E. (2012). Module 12: argumentative writing (A writing course handbook). UPI.
Unpublished Material
Emilia, E. (2014). Introducing functional grammar. Bandung: Pustaka Jaya.
Gerot, L. and Wignelll, P. (1994).Making sense of functional grammar. Cammeray, NSW:
Antipodean Educational Enterprises
Halliday, M.A.K., Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London:Longman
Halliday, M.A.K.,( 2000). Introduction to functional grammar, second ed. Beijing: Foreign
Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M.A.K.,Mathiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar 3rd
ed. London: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K., & C.M.I.M> Matthiessen. (2014). Hallidays introduction to functional
grammar. London: Routledge.
Hawes, T., & Thomas, S. (2012). Theme choice in EAP and media language. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 11, 175183
Knapp, P. and Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, and grammar : technologies for teaching and
assessing writing. Sydney: UNSW Press
Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: a classroom inquiry. Journal of Second
Language Writing. 11 (2): 135-159.
Martin, J.R. (1992). English texts: Systems and structures. London: John Benjamins
Publishing Co.
Martin, J.R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse 3rd edition. London: Continum.
Martin, J.R. and Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Enquinox
Ong, J. (2013). Investigation The use of cohesive devices by Chinese EFL learners. The
Asian EFL journal, 13(3), 42-61. [online: http://www.asian-efl-journal.com Accessed
Mei 21th, 2014]
Permendikbud No.64. (2013). Standard isi pendidikan dasar dan menengah. Jakarta:
Kemendikbud.
Sanczyk, A. (2010). Investigation argumentative essays of English undergraduates studying
in Poland as regards their use of cohesive devices. Unpublished Thesis, University of
Oslo.
[online:https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/25244/AnnaSanczy
k.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed : Juni 13th, 2014]
Schleppergrell, M.J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective.
New Jersey: Lawrence Elbraum.

Sidighi, F, & Heydari, P. ( 2012). Cohesion analysis of L2 writing: The case of Iranian
undergraduate EFL learners. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 557-572.
Witte, P. S & Faigley. L. (2008). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. Collage
Composition and Communication, 32 (4), 189-204.