Main Article Content


This study aims to find out the use of cohesive grammatical devices in twelfth-grade students’ explanation texts. In addition, this study also aims to explore the types of grammatical cohesion specifications in their essays. In this study, the researcher wanted to find out how good the quality of their student’s writing explanation texts was. To achieve this goal, the researcher used the conceptual framework of Halliday and Hasan (1976) regarding grammatical cohesion. This study applied to the twelfth grade of the Senior High School Level. The research uses descriptive and analytic studies by assigning students to write the texts. The result from the students’ explanation texts as the data in this research, there are 146 cohesive grammatical items found in students’ explanation texts. The reference occurs 68 times which has 46.5 of percentages. Conjunction occurs 53 times with 36.3% percent. Substitution occurs 23 with 15.7% percent. Ellipsis occurs two times with the lowest rate of 1.3%. The result shows that all four types of grammatical cohesion appear in students’ explanatory texts, which are the primary data in this study. However, there are subtypes of cohesive devices that don’t exist in students’ explanation texts from all of those devices. The most dominant was the reference and conjunction; on the other hand, ellipsis was the smallest presentation among grammatical cohesive, and only a few students used them. The result also indicated that the lack of grammatical cohesion devices used in terms of the generical structure of explanation text, knowledge, and ability in writing leads the college students to use inappropriate grammatical cohesion devices to be applied to this type of text. Thus, this study comes up with feedback to teachers that the discussion on the structural writing of texts and the use of coherence and cohesion should be more intensive.


Discourse Analysis Grammatical Cohesion Students‘ Explanation Text

Article Details

Author Biographies

Maulana Rizki, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta

Maulana is a postgraduate student at Department of English Education, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta

Nida Husna, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta

Nida is a senior lecturer at Department of English Education, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta

Alek Alek, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta

Alek is a senior lecturer at Department of English Education, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta

How to Cite
Rizki, M., Hidayat, D. N., Husna, N., & Alek, A. (2022). Discourse Analysis of Grammatical Cohesion Devices in Student Explanation Texts. Eduvelop: Journal of English Education and Development , 6(1), 1-12.


  1. Abdalla, A. M., & M. I. B. K. (2017). The impact of explicit teaching of cohesive lexical devices in sentence-level English writing (Vols. 1, 7-26.).
  2. Afrianto. (2017). Grammatical cohesion in students’ writing: a case at universitas teknokrat indonesia. (Vol. 2 No. 2)
  3. Afzaal, M., Hu, K., Chishti, M. I., & Imran, M. (2019). A study of pakistani english newspaper texts: an application of halliday and hasan’s cohesion model: a discourse analysis. international journal of english linguistics, 9(5), 78. v9n5p78
  4. Ahsanuddin, M., & Ma, A. (2021). Analysis of grammatical cohesion in qira’at text analysis of grammatical cohesion in qira’at text (the reading) of al-arabiya baina yadaik ii book. dinamika ilmu, 21(2), 2021.
  5. Akbulut, F. D. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of lexical bundles usage in native and non-native academic writing. journal of language and linguistic studies, 16(3), 1146–1166. jlls.803583
  6. Almutairi, N. D. (2017). Discourse analysis of cohesive devices in saudi student’s writing. world journal of educational research, 4(4), 516. https://doi. org/10.22158/wjer.v4n4p516
  7. Aurel, E., & Hsieh, S.-K. (2020). 31 Vera vujevic ellipsis and substitution as cohesive devices related papers coercion and anaphoric use of mandarin classifiers.
  8. Bahaziq, A. (2016). Cohesive devices in written discourse: a discourse analysis of a student’s essay writing. english language teaching, 9(7), 112. https://doi. org/10.5539/elt.v9n7p112
  9. Bosselut, A., Celikyilmaz, A., He, X., Gao, J., Huang, P.-S., & Choi, Y. (2018). Discourse-aware neural rewards for coherent text generation. http://arxiv. org/abs/1805.03766
  10. Canagarajah, S. (2018). materializing ‘competence’: Perspectives from international stem scholars. modern language journal, 102(2), 268–291. https://
  11. Chai, Z. F., & Swanto, S. bin. (2020). The effects of environmental problem-based learning method on malaysian primary esl learners’ vocabulary achievement. indonesian tesol journal, 2(1), 59–70.
  12. Dossoumou, A. M. (2018). Appraising the impacts of cohesion and coherence in benin ss3 efl learners’
  13. writing productions. international journal of linguistics, literature, and culture. https://doi. org/10.21744/ijllc.v4n5.293
  14. Emilia, E., Habibi, N., & Bangga, L. A. (2018). An analysis of cohesion of exposition texts: an indonesian context. indonesian journal of applied linguistics, 7(3), 515–523. v7i3.9791
  15. Jayanti, D., & Hidayat, D. N. (2021). Grammatical cohesive devices in reading text: a discourse analysis of english test for junior high school. in journal of english teaching adi buana (Vol. 06, Issue 01).
  16. Johansson, B., & Lindgren, E. (2021). Fluency and its relationship with typology, expo-sure and lexical retrieval in bilingual biscriptal persian-swedish children’s writing. L1ESLL-2020.21.01.12
  17. Johnson, D. G., & Verdicchio, M. (2017a). Reframing ai discourse. minds and machines, 27(4), 575–590.
  18. Johnson, D. G., & Verdicchio, M. (2017b). Reframing ai discourse. minds and machines, 27(4), 575–590.
  19. Khadawardi, H. A. (2020). The effect of implicit corrective feedback on english writing of international second language learners. english language teaching, 14(1),
  20. 123.
  21. Kurniawan, C., Luardini, M. A., & Karani, E. (2021). The analysis of clause complex of analytical exposition texts written by the english teachers of smkn 2 palangka raya. index.php/EJB
  22. Nunan D. (1993). introducing discourse analysis.
  23. Othman, A. K. A. (2019). Investigation of grammatical cohesive devices errors made by saudi efl students in written paragraphs: a case study of the university of tabuk, saudi arabia. european scientific journal esj,
  24. 15(2).
  25. Parazaran, S. (2015). Investigating grammatical cohesive devices: shifts of cohesion in translating narrative text type. in international journal of foreign language teaching & research (Vol. 3, Issue 10).
  26. Priangan, A., Saleh, M., & Rukmini, D. (2020). Cohesion and coherence in undergraduate students’ argumentative essays. index.php/eej
  27. Rostami, G., & Gholami, H. (2016). A contrastive study of lexical cohesion used in sport texts of washington times and tehran times newspapers written by english native and non-native iranian writers. in journal of applied linguistics and language research (Vol. 3, Issue 1).
  28. Syarif, Asiza, and Haris Sunubi. 2019. “Analyzing Learning Autonomy in Reading English Text at MTS DDI AS-Salman Sidrap.” EDUVELOP 3 (1):
  29. 1–13.
  30. Salim, H., Susilawati, S., & Hanif, M. (n.d.). Reflective writing in the pandemic period: a university students’ reflection. journal of educational technology & online learning, 4, 2021. jetol.834129
  31. Shabby, D., & John Love Joy, J. (2020). European journal of molecular & clinical medicine task-based language teaching: an approach to implement language skills.
  32. Trisnaningrum, Y., Alek, A., & Hidayat, D. N. (2019). Discourse analysis of grammatical cohesion devices in college students’ academic writing essay. ijee (indonesian journal of english education), 6(1), 79–
  33. 90.
  34. Wagner, S., Kok, K., & Priemer, B. (2020). Measuring characteristics of explanations with element maps. education sciences, 10(2). educsci10020036
  35. Wibawati, T. R., & Musthafa, B. (2019). Conjunction error analysis on indonesian efl university students’ written compositions: a qualitative study. in jurnal ilmu pendidikan dan pengajaran (Vol. 6, Issue 1).