Lexical Cohesion in the Narrative Writing of

Hearing Impaired Students

A THESIS

By

Agus Solichin

St.N : 120310530

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY
SURABAYA
2010

i
Lexical Cohesion in the Narrative Writing of
Hearing Impaired Students

A THESIS

By

Agus Solichin

St.N : 120310530

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY
SURABAYA
2010

iii
Lexical Cohesion in the Narrative Writing of
Hearing Impaired Students

A THESIS

Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Sarjana Degree of English Department Faculty of Humanities
Airlangga University Surabaya

By:
AGUS SOLICHIN
St. N: 120310530

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY
SURABAYA
2010

iiiii
 DECLARATION

This thesis contains no material, which has been accepted for the award of any
other degree or diploma in any university. And, to the best of this
candidate’s knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published
or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text of the
thesis.

Surabaya, January 08, 2010

Agus Solichin

iiiiv
Dedicated to:
My beloved
Family

viv
 Approved to be examined

Surabaya, January 08, 2010

Thesis advisor

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY

SURABAYA

2010

viv
This thesis has been approved and accepted by the Board of Examiners,

English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Airlangga University

On January 26, 2010

The Board of Examiners are:

Noerhayati Ika Putri, M.A

NIP. 132 307 980

vii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Alhamdulillahirrobbil ‘alamain, finally I can accomplish this thesis after

facing many obstacles and temptations. I would to say my biggest gratitude to

Allah SWT, My Lord who always patient and full of mercy forgiving my faults

and also gives a chance to come to the big moments of my life. And for my lovely

father and mother, thanks a lot, at the end I can make you smile again.

This thesis would never be accomplished without the help of my thesis

advisor, Mrs. Masitha A.S., M.Hum. Thank you for your guidance and great

patience in guiding me throughout the process of writing my thesis. I would like

to say my gratefulness to all my lectures especially my academic advisor Mr Amir

Fatah, M. Hum for his advice during my years in Airlangga University and my

proofreader Ms. Vici S. Hum for helping me correct the dictions of this thesis.

Many thanks also dedicated to the students of SDLB-B Karya Mulia I and

II Surabaya. Special thanks also dedicated to Mrs. Yayuk, the vice principal of

SDLB-B Karya Mulia I and Mrs. Jovita, the vice principals of SDLB-B Karya

Mulia II Surabaya. I would also thanks for Pak Moer and all staff in TU. To

‘Kelompok Lakon MP Unair’, I would say special grateful for your hospitality.

To my beloved family Mas Yanto, Mas Wid, Mas Antok, Mas Wawan

thank to you. I also appreciate to my uncle, Om Tri, for praying me during Hajj.

The last but not least, to my all thesis partners Neneng and Intan and also

for the all class ’05 thanks you cheer up my last year. The last of class’03 now we

can say ‘ arrividerci’ and ‘merci beaucoup’ lastly this study happily terminated.

January 08, 2010

The Writer

vii
viii
 ‘’Write It Out! For along you have not written, you
will be disappearing from society and history’s rotation’’

- Pramoedya Ananta Toer-

Rumah Kaca (2001:354)

‘’The main thing is, that one has a soul that loves truth
and that accepts it where it is to be found’’

-Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe-

‘’You never know what you can do till you try’’

- English proverb -

ix
viii
 TABLE OF CONTENT

INSIDE COVER PAGE .......................................................................................... i

INSIDE TITLE PAGE............................................................................................ ii
DECLARATION PAGE........................................................................................ iii
DEDICATION PAGE.............................................................................................iv
THESIS ADVISOR’S APPROVAL PAGE............................................................v
THESIS EXAMINERS’ APPROVAL PAGE ...................................................... vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.....................................................................................vii
EPIGRAPH.......................................................................................................... viii
TABLE OF CONTENT..........................................................................................ix
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................xi
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background of the Study 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem 6
1.3. Objective of the Study 7
1.4. Significance of the Study 7
1.5. Definition of Key Terms 8

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 9

2.1. Theoretical Framework 9
2.1.1. Cohesion and Coherence in Written Text 9
2.1.2. Lexical Cohesion 12
2.1.3. Language Development of Hearing Impaired Children 18
2.1.4. Narrative Writing 20

2.2. Review of Related Studies 22

CHAPTER III METHOD OF THE STUDY .........................................................24

3.1. Research Approach ........................................................................................ 24
3.2. Participants ...................................................................................................... 25
3.3. Technique of Data Collection ...................................................................... 25
3.4. Technique of Data Analysis.............................................................................26

xix
CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION.................................................................................28
4.1. Some Errors in Language Usage and Comprehension of Hearing Impaired
Students in Producing Narrative Writing.........................................................29

4.2. The Use of Lexical Cohesion Devices.............................................................36

4.3. The Type and Number of Frequency of Lexical Cohesion Devices 45

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 49

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................51

APPENDIX ...........................................................................................................54

xix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Classification of Lexical Cohesion Devices............................................54

Table 2: Total Number of Lexical Cohesion from All Composition.....................87

Table 3: Total Numbers of Lexical Cohesive Devices in Each Composition.......45

Table 4: Total Number of Each Type of Lexical Cohesive Devices.....................46

Table 5: Total Number of Each Type of Lexical Cohesive Devices from All

Composition............................................................................................46

Table 6: Classification of Hearing Impairment based on Hearing Loss................91

Table 7: Syllabus of Soal Ujian Akhir Sekolah Berstandar Nasional (UASBN)

BAHASA INDONESIA SDLB - B (Tunarungu) ....................................95

xii
xi
 ABSTRACT

Solichin, Agus Lexical Cohesion in the Narrative Writing of Hearing Impaired

Students. A thesis submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Sarjana Degree of the English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Airlangga
University, 2010

This study attempts to analyze lexical cohesion in the narrative writing of

hearing impaired students. The aims of the study are to disclose what types and
which types of lexical cohesion devices mostly are used in the narrative writing.
The writer uses both summaries of lexical cohesion frameworks from Yuwono in
Kushartanti et al (2004) and Rani’s et al (2006) to analyze the data critically. In
order to arrive at the appropriate conclusion, qualitative methodology is applied to
analyze the findings comprehensively. The participants of the study are 25
students from SDLB-B Karya Mulia I and II Surabaya in 5th and 6th grade. The
findings show that in the narrative of hearing impaired students reiteration about
94,85% is mostly used then followed by collocation about 5,15%. Specifically in
reiteration, identical repetition are majority about 84,55%, then sequentially
antonym3,43%, repetition in other form 3.26%, hyponymy 1,37%, synonymy
1,20%, metonymy 0,94%, and repetition by substitution 0.09%. Additionally, the
writer also finds some errors in language usage and comprehension of hearing
impaired students in producing narrative writing, especially the matters which
deal with EYD (Ejaan Bahasa Indonesia yang Disempurnakan). Generally, in this
study the narrative writing of hearing impaired students still could be perceived its
meaning and intention.

Keywords: lexical cohesion, narrative writing, hearing impaired student.

xii
xiii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

Hearing ability is a precious thing which exists in the process of

recognizing a sensation of sound. However, some people with hearing ability

rarely care about significant function of this sense because it automatically

happens such as when they suddenly hear a high pitch of train’s bell and the noisy

sound from a crowd of people in the traffic jam. So, we often think that it seems

less significant to our life than other organs such as sight sense. This condition

occurs because some people have never experienced a situation when they loose

hearing ability as children with hearing impairment. Hearing impairment is also

recognized as hearing disorder which mostly caused by damage (possibly in one

side or both side) in the outer ear, middle ear, inner ear, auditory nerve, or brain.

Particularly, the location is called the central auditory nervous system or CANS

(Silverman, 1995, p.17).

The fundamental impact of hearing organ dysfunction is that the sufferers

commonly will get serious obstacles to their language development. Then, it will

turn to the next problematic matters such as education, socio-emotional obstacles,

intelligence development, and personality obstacles (Ling, 1976 in Sadjaah, 2005,

p.1). Accordingly, language development is firmly connected with cognitive

ability. Then, cognitive development is built by sensory inputs around their

environment. Piaget (1969, in Sadjaah, 2005, p.5) considered the cognitive

development plays a role in language competence; hence there is firmly mutual

xiv
1
relationship between language and thinking process. Undoubtedly, people with

hearing impairment indicate low academic achievement because of psychological

problems such as thinking process, remembering, motivation, interest, learning,

and attitude. However, they still have adequate intelligence level as their hearing

counterparts (Sadjaah, 2005, p.5).

It is commonly known that human thinks abstractly in languages, thus it

means every factual object was abstractly transformed into language symbol.

Thereafter, human possibly thinks abstractly even the object can not be presented

directly. Hearing impaired children face difficulties while they must apply the

symbolization and language. Their obstacles of thinking abstractly and

imaginatively are probably caused by deficiency of information inputs which refer

to retardation of cognitive development (Lewton and Mackey, 1996, in Sadjaah,

2005,p.5). Additionally, the lack of information input is not always suffered by

congenital deaf but it might possibly be experienced by hard of hearing people.

These features of disabilities are often indicated by them such as their voices

appear as oddly abnormal in pitch, intensity, and quality; their rhythms are

unusual; they often produce many articulation errors (Van Riper, 1963, p.34).

A human communication system essentially could be differed into three

groups: oral communication, writing, and signing (Targer, 1949, in Sadjaah, 2005,

p.23). Hence, the education of children with hearing impairment should be

directed into delivering a message by those three kinds of model in order to be

adequately used and beneficial utility in life. Additionally, teacher should know

the set of language system which consists of sound, word, and sentence system

that is always useful and occurs in the communication process either in oral or

2xv
written form, thus the education of hearing impaired children ought to

accommodate those sets.

By looking the hearing impaired children perform the language skills well,

it is prominent to explain the language skill that ought to previously master in pre-

elementary level. Chomsky (1989, in Sadjaah, 2005, p.102) defined that as

‘speech building’, from the first assumption, hearing impaired children have not

built their mental pattern of language correctly. So, it is necessary to maintain and

educate them early. Hence, in the later time, their speech will be adjusted with

speech sound pattern correctly. Thereafter, the treatments of speech will stimulate

them to write the language originated from their pronunciation.

Failure to perceive sensation of hearing involving material, such as

language stimulation and information input turns to affect the further process of

linguistic development, in the first speech articulation then it continuous to the

reading process. In addition, according to Van Riper (1963, p.201), he stated that

as the consequence of defective articulation, it is directly impacted to the reading

delayed. He suggests that remedial reading can be mixed with remedial speech

frequently to improve both two skills all at once.

Actually, writing ability is the continuing process of the reading

development in which it was comprehended as a complex skill. Because it needs

the ability to arrange some ideas into good order sequentially in order to create

holistic comprehension. Moreover, in comparison with normal hearing children, it

can be concluded that spoken and written language developments of children with

hearing impairment might be similiar, but it is often delayed (Mayberry, 2002,

pp.75-76).

xvi
3
 Narratives are a mode to tell story which involves some ideas previously

employed in ordinary conversation. Additionally, Toolan (1988, in Scwrrato and

Webb, 2004, p.82) said that the word narrative comes from Latin narrare, ‘to

relate’, thus it refers to both what is told and the process of telling. Moreover,

narrative as product of co-authorship between those who introduce them and

interlocutors can create the relationship in which the content of the message will

be influenced by other people’s experience to construct a coherent narrative (Ochs

in Van Dijk, 1997, p.185). Thus, being a human means having some experiences

and ideas to tell others what happened in his or her life’s thoroughly. In this case,

those could be accommodated by the narrative.

In other words, the acquisition of discourse in hearing impaired children is

interesting major to observe more deeply. Since, the deficiency of hearing organ

for perceiving audio information input causing the lack of vocabulary will

influence their social interaction that was usually recognized as an indefinite

communication patterns such as a little bit of grammatical rule discipline, simple

utterances, the lack of affix awareness, and fond of using short sentences

(Sadjaah, 2005). According to those features, Barbara Arfé and Irene Perondi

(2008) revealed their investigation about the development of discourse skill of

deaf and hearing students according to the ability to organize the referential

content of narrative. They found the deaf students who applied the referential

strategies were more nominal and less anaphoric than their hearing counterparts.

This is an indication of apparently similar to the beginners of hearing writers.

Additionally, they suggested that referential strategies of deaf writers are not

always as the consequence of discourse skill delay in the deaf students.

xvii
4
 This study proposes a different attention from the previous researches.

Assuming that any discourse of hearing impaired student often shows a delay,

especially in textual level, this study investigated the textual skill which

commonly consists of generating semantic relation and the use of cohesive

devices, especially lexical cohesion. Halliday and Hasan (1976, p.2) stated that a

text depends on the cohesive relationship which determines a set of sentences

whether or not it produces texture. Hence, the researcher wants to find out what

lexical cohesion type mostly occurs in hearing impaired writing in order to inform

what types of lexical cohesion are used by hearing impaired students.

Since this study deals with lexical cohesion, it is necessary to apply the

approach of lexical cohesion in Michael Halliday and Ruquaiya Hasan (1976) that

has been supported in Jan Renkema (1993) then in Indonesia, these conception

was adopted by Untung Yuwono in Kushartanti et al (2004) and also supported in

Rani et al (2006). The application of lexical cohesion within this study will be

focused on the analysis of reiteration and collocation. Then, reiteration is divided

into 7 subtypes: identical repetition, repetition in other form, repetition by

substitution, synonymy, hyponymy, metonymy, and antonymy.

The analysis on those types of lexical cohesion takes the writings of

hearing impaired students in SDLB-B Karya Mulia I and II Surabaya, especially in

5th and 6th grades. The writing of each student entitles Memancing Ikan di Sungai,

Tertabrak Mobil Pengangkut Barang, and Banjir according to the set of pictures

taken from Umri Nur’aini and Indriyani. (2008): Bahasa Indonesia untuk SD

kelas III.

xviii
5
1.2. Statement of the Problems

In the background of the study, it has already been stated that the

deterioration or defection in hearing organ has an impact on the development of

language which mostly depends on the availability of auditory input .Then, as the

result of interruption to their language development, the hearing impaired children

show in speech delayed. It could influence their way of pronouncing words

correctly which is consequently reflected in the form of their writing from words

into sentences. So, it is prominent to investigate the lexical cohesion between

vocabularies in their narrative writing related to their ability to apply or arrange

some ideas into story in sequence time. Composing a story using narrative

requires the ability to select various kinds of vocabularies to be bound together

with cohesion relation called lexical cohesion. The purpose of this vocabularies

link intends to create the unity of meaning or semantic unity.

Accordingly, the writer conducted this study with the aim to answer these

following questions:

1) What are the types of lexical cohesion devices used by hearing impaired

students at the 5th and 6th grade of SDLB Karya Mulia I & II Surabaya in

writing narrative compositions?

2) Which types of the lexical cohesion devices are mostly used in their

narrative writings?

xix
6
1.3. Objective of the Study

The objective of the study is to find out what types of lexical cohesion are

used in hearing impaired student’s narrative writings at the 5th and 6th grades of

SDLB Karya Mulia I & II Surabaya. Afterwards, this study is necessary to find

out which types of the lexical cohesion devices are mostly used in their narrative

writings.

1.4. Significance of the Study

The study of lexical cohesion in the hearing impaired student’s narrative

writings involving students at the 5th and 6th grade of SDLB Karya Mulia I & II

Surabaya is intended to acquire an understanding of semantic unity through

lexical cohesive tie applied by hearing impaired students. Finally, the writer hopes

that the result of this study will give a considerable contribution for the reader and

also for the further studies that intend to apply cohesion framework in discourse

analysis, especially the discourse study of children with disabilities. Additionally,

this study is also expected to support the further study that wants to investigate the

early literacy development, particularly for the psycholinguistic study of narrative

development of disabled children. Then, it is likely to give benefit to practitioner

in disabilities study, especially teacher in hearing impaired school as well as

students who have interest in text analysis or psycholinguistics study of disabled

children. Finally, the writer hopes that this study could become a practical

contribution or a reference to the disabled people, especially hearing impaired

students who want to improve their knowledge about the real insight of their

writings in practical use, for example in the narrative writing.

xx7
1.5. Definition of Key Terms

 Cohesion : the concrete interrelated of propositions that stated

formally into semantic and syntactic function

(Widdowson, 1978, p. 27).

 Coherence : The view of text abstractly by hearer or reader to

perceive the relevance of part of the text to the

whole and the text as a whole to its context to grasp

‘sticking together’ sense. (Hugh Trappes-Lomax in

Kehler, 2008).

 Hearing Impairment: the auditory deterioration that turns the audio-

organs weak in respond or even absent of

perceiving sound stimulus. (Sadjaah, 2005).

 Lexical Cohesion : the semantic unity that realized from diction

choice that have meaningful links to the prior thing.

(Nunan ,1993, p.28) .

 Narrative : a kind of discourse that aims to depict the

completed events apparently in the time unity

(Keraf, 2000, p. 136).

8
xxi
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Theoretical Framework

2.1.1. Cohesion and Coherence in Written Text

Cohesion relationship among the sentences creates a unified holistic

understanding or semantic unity. Text which was indicated by the existence of

cohesive relation is the main element to differentiate it with non text by looking

texture or quality of being text (Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p.2). Widdowson

(2007, p.4) suggests that text is an actual use of language. To set an illustration, he

accounted by giving example of a notice ‘KEEP OF THE GRASS’. He argued that

we may infer ‘the grass’ which means either as the particular path where the

notice is placed or even the whole park. Therefore, the text and context are

suitable to constitute the meaning of communicative purpose (Widdowson, 2007,

p.4).

Cohesive relation set up by some elements that presuppose another in the

way of interpreting the text. Halliday and Hasan gave an illustration as follows:

Wash and core six cooking apples. Put them into a fireproof dish.

Halliday and Hasan (1976, p.191)

The anaphoric reference reflects in the relation of ‘them’ in the 2nd sentence which

refers back to the ’six cooking apples’ in the 1st sentence. It can be understood that

‘them’ which has anaphoric function giving cohesion to the two sentences, so the

two sentences could be interpreted as a whole unity of the text.

xxii9
 The implementation of cohesion into the text is divided into two terms:

grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion. According to Halliday and Hasan

(1976, in Nunan, 1993), they revealed the cohesion relation into five different

types: first, reference means act of referring to precede or follow element;

second, substitution means the replacement of a word (group) or sentence by a

word; third, ellipsis means the omission of a word or part of a sentence; fourth,

conjunction means a relationship which indicates the subsequent sentence or

clause that should be linked to the preceding or the following sentence; and fifth,

lexical cohesion means connections based on the words used. Additionally,

Halliday (1985) revised the five types became four types as the result of

substitution looked as a sub-category of ellipsis.

Theoretically, lexical cohesion is constituted from reiteration and

collocation. Then, reiteration is divided again into repetition, synonymy or near

synonymy, superordinate, and general word (Halliday and Hasan, 1976).

Renkema (1993) had the same understanding of cohesive relation, but he

developed lexical cohesion in a term of reiteration into five types: repetition,

synonymy, hyponymy, metonymy, and antonym. In Indonesia, this conception was

adopted by Yuwono in Kushartanti et al (2004) and also by Rani et al (2006).

Meanwhile, according to Cooks (1989, p.23), he argued that a good text is

only enough constructed by cohesion. He added other factors such as relevancy

and extra-textual factors that determine the unity of the text. Thus, the uniformity

between text and real world can help to construct certain understanding.

Additionally, Robert de Beaugrande (1980, in Renkema, 1993, pp. 34-37)

10
xxiii
postulated the quality of being a text should fulfill 7 criteria: cohesion, coherence,

intertextuality, acceptability, informativeness, situationality, and intentionality.

The coherence could be described as the additional knowledge instead of

our knowledge of sentential structure to explain the information. Brown and Yule

(1983) explained that it was useful to rely on some certain principles that indicate

the connection form of near linguistic meaning. Then, it leads us to interpret the

text as being connected although there is no formal linguistic link connecting

those strings. Hence, the assumption of coherence will derive us to one particular

interpretation in which elements of the message are looked to be connected, with

or without pervasively linguistic connections between those entities. Briefly, there

is a broad range of possible inferences by reader or hearer to describe the

discourse, but it is not always easy to decide whether it is the meaning of text

producer or not (Brown and Yule, 1983).

The illustration of coherence of the text can be looked from the Edinburgh

University notice board as cited in Brown and Yule (1983, p.223).

Epistemic Seminar: Thursday 3rd June, 2.00 p.m.

Steve Harlow (Department of Linguistics, University of York)
‘Welsh and Generalised Phrase Structure Grammar’

In that notice, we know that Steve Harlow as a person who gives a talk and is not

a person called Epistemic Seminar with the title displayed in quotation marks.

Additionally, the location is in the Edinburgh (not York), exactly on the 3rd June

to the time as the notice being presented. It means that it is not always enough to

comprehend text in literal level. In fact we need more information instead of

literal interpretation to derive a whole understanding.

xxiv
11
 Moreover, Baryadi (1990, in Sumadi, Sabariyanto, and Sutana, 1998, p.6)

said that coherence of the text can be looked into: first, addition which means

semantic relation by accumulating one sentence with another one; second,

contrast which means opposite semantic relation; third, causality which means

cause-effect semantic relation; fourth, condition which means conditional or

expectancy semantic relation; fifth, instrument which means tool or way

semantic relation; sixth, conclusion; seventh, temporal which means periodical

semantic relation; eighth, intensity which means extremity semantic relation;

ninth, comparison; tenth, similarity and eleventh, validity which means

semantic relation in the use of authentication relation.

Thereafter, the cohesive of the text occurred in term of internal co-textual

link among propositions could be interpreted as the coherence discourse as long as

related externally to contextual realities in which the readers are familiar with this

peculiar socio-cultural world they live in.

2.1.2. Lexical Cohesion

Lexical cohesion is semantic relation that occurs in texture form or unity

of the text achieved by selection of word or vocabulary with related meaning.

Lexical cohesion can be created with reiteration and collocation.

According to Michael Halliday and Ruquaiya Hasan (1976), the lexical

cohesion consists of four types. Those are same word, synonym or near synonym,

a superordinate, and the last is general world. Then, Jan Renkema (1993) who

denoted to Halliday and Hasan (1976), he formulates the conception of lexical

cohesion into five types. Those are repetition, synonymy, hyponymy, metonymy,

12
xxv
and antonymy. Additionally, there are conceptions of lexical cohesion in

Moeliono’s et al (1988): Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia which reveal

collocation, hyponymy and part-whole relation (metonymy) as the types of lexical

cohesion.

Secondly, for the necessary of the study, the writer wants to apply

Yuwono’s summary of lexical cohesion principles which are compiled in

Kushartanti, et al (2004) in their book entitled Pesona Bahasa : Langkah Awal

Memahami Linguistik (2004). Then it is combined with the summary of lexical

cohesion framework in Rani et al’s book entitled Analisis Wacana : Sebuah

Kajian Bahasa Dalam Pemakaian (2006) to identify the appearance of lexical

cohesion in narrative composition which is applied by hearing impaired children

at 5th and 6th grade of elementary school. In Kushartanti, et al (2004), Yuwono

distinguishes lexical cohesion devices into 2 types: reiteration and collocation.

Then, reiteration is divided again into 5 types: repetition, synonymy, hyponymy,

metonymy, and antonymy. Moreover, also describe lexical cohesion devices into 2

types: reiteration and collocation. Then, their reiteration is distinguished again

into complete or identical repetition, repetition in other form of word, repetition

by substitution, and hyponymy.

The reason why the writer chooses two summaries of lexical cohesion

frameworks from Yuwono and Rani et. al (2006) is to get the holistic analysis of

Indonesian narrative writing produced by hearing impaired students, so that

summaries mutually completes each other. Additionally, the writer assumes that

summary of lexical cohesion principles from Yuwono in Kushartanti et al(2004)

support the theory of Halliday and Hasan (1976, in Renkema, 1993) in

13
xxvi
explanation above. However, the writer also examines the significant function of

Rani’s et al (2006) summary to establish the analysis of lexical cohesion in this

study which aims to know it comprehensively. Therefore, the writer decided to

choose both two summaries by Yuwono in Kushartanti et al (2004) and the other

thing by Rani’s et al (2006).

Firstly, the writer presents Yuwono’s summary of lexical cohesion

principles in Kushartanti et al’s (2004) then followed the other thing by Rani’s et

al (2006) which aims to complete the overview of lexical cohesion devices

frameworks. Before stepping into the further discussion of lexical cohesion, it is

better to recognize about each type of lexical cohesion devices as follows.

a) REITERATION

It is a reduplication of words built into the next sentences aimed to

emphasize a word earlier mentioned as topic of discussion. Reiteration consists of

repetition, synonymy, hyponymy, metonymy, and antonymy.

1) Repetition is the reduplication of the same words, so for example:

Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi menetapkan Sumardi sebagai tersangka

dalam kasus tindak pidana korupsi di perusahan besar itu. Tersangka saat ini
ditahan di Rumah Tahanan Salemba.

Repetition is intended to create the unity of the text above as in the word

‘tersangka’. This repetition indicates the important word that needs to be

expressed.

Meanwhile, Rani et al distinguishes repetition into three items, complete

repetition, repetition by other form of word, and the repetition by substitution.

xxvii
14
 1a) identical repetition is a reduplication of same words without any form

reduced in word or phrase which aims to give stressing of the key word as a

repeating part.

Berfilsafat didorong untuk mengetahui apa yang telah kita tahu dan apa yang
belum kita tahu. Berfilsafat berarti berendah hati bahwa tidak semuanya akan
pernah kita ketahui dalam kesemestaan yang seakan tak terbatas ini.

From the example above, the word ‘berfilsafat’ is positioned in subject

function of this sentence, so it needs to be repeated to mention the main point.

1b) repetition in other form of word means that the new construction of

word has basic form (infinitive) as the prior word. Additionally, it is possible to

create a word that seems really unlike but refers to the same related reference. So

for example:

Seseorang dengan gangguan wicara akibat kerusakan di area broca

kehilangan daya untuk mengungkapkan pikiran dan perasaan dalam bahasa
yang biasa ia gunakan sehari-hari-disebut afasia motorik…Pasien dengan
gangguan wicara yang diteliti oleh Wernicke dapat berbicara meskipun
dengan kesalahan…

In that example above, the word ’pasien’ is really different with the word

’seseorang’, but the same reference. Both of words are similar with ‘seseorang

yang menderita gangguan wicara’.

1c) repetition by substitution means repeating word by the substitution

word or phrase such as pronoun. So for example:

Lulusan IPA merasa lebih tinggi dari lulusan IPS. Atau, lebih sedih lagi,
seorang ilmuwan memandang rendah kepada pengetahuan lain. Mereka
meremehkan moral,agama,dan nilai estetika.

Rani et. al. reveal that there is partial repetition of the sentence above.

‘Lulusan IPA’ and ‘ilmuwan’ are repeated by the third person plural for pronoun

xxviii
15
‘mereka’. The repetition of partial proposition above is identified as repetition

mark which is observed in the process of reduplication.

2) Synonym is the relation among words that have similar meaning, for example:

Setelah 34 tahun memendam cinta membara , akhirnya Pangeran Charles dan

Camila Parker resimi menjadi suami-istri. Pasangan pengantin ini menikah
pada Sabtu, 9 April 2005.

Synonymy creating the unity of the text above is occurred in a pair of

words ‘ suami-istri and pasangan pengantin’ . By synonymy, it is useful to make

more variety and word application interestingly.

3) Hyponymy is the relation between words with specific meaning and word with

general meaning. It is equal with the Rani’s et al. of hyponymy concepts. The

specific meaning is equal with subordinate word, whereas, general meaning is

equal with superordinate word, so for example:

Mamalia mempunyai kelejar penghasil susu. Manusia menyusui anaknya.

Paus pun demikian.

In the example above, manusia and paus are the members (hyponymy) of

the upper class (hypernimy) of mammalia, as notification that the relation of

hyponymy is unnecessary stated in front of its hyponymy, such as *mamalia

manusia and *mamalia paus. For efficient aims, hyponymy is applied in the text.

4) Metonymy is the relation between name and other things associated with

another thing or its attribution, or part vs. whole. For example:

Maskapai penerbangan Garuda meningkatkan frekuensi penerbangan untuk

rute tertentu. Garuda Jakarta-Batam sekarang akan terbang enam kali sehari.

xxix
16
 In that example, the use of the word ‘garuda’ is not related with kind of

bird called ‘burung garuda’, but the name of national airlines enterprise that

associated with the name of ‘garuda’ bird because similar association as flying

object. Metonymy makes the text to be interesting and efficient.

5) Antonymy is the relation among words that have opposite meaning. For

example:

Saat menyaksikan pelaku kejahatan yang berasal dari kalangan miskin dalam
berita di televisi, kadang-kadang muncul perasaan simpati.Namun,pada saat
yang lain muncul perasaan antipati.

Cohesion in the example above was constructed by the application of words

‘simpati’ and ‘antipati’ in order to display ‘opposite construction

(antonymy)’.Those words with opposite meaning are arranged properly, thus

interlocutor or the reader understands this text more faster.

b) COLLOCATION

It is defined as the relation of inter related word occurred in the same

realm or field. In other words, as proposed by Rani et al., the things that have

close position are classified as one entity. The example of collocation is appeared

in this following sentence:

Petani di Palembang terancam gagal memanen padi. Sawah yang mereka

garap terendam banjir selama dua hari.

In the example above, ‘petani’ has collocation link precisely with ‘padi’ and

’sawah’, thus the unity of the text could be created.

xxx
17
 2.1.3. Language Development of Hearing Impaired Children

A hearing impaired child actually is a child who is experiencing the same

developmental phases as a hearing child, but unfortunately some reasons cause his

or her hearing organ injured. Borthroyd (1961, in Sadjaah, 2005, p.1) state that

this impairment decreases his or her auditory perception quality which is directly

inter-connected with other aspects such as language and communication,

intellectual cognition, education, social emotion, even vocational or life skills.

However, hearing impaired children still have potential abilities such as motoric

and verbal or non verbal intelligence which are prominent to develop and support

his or her academic performance, for instance by involving them in the inclusive

schools normally consisting of hearing impaired and normal student in one class

(Sadjaah, 2005,p.10).

Commonly, the children who suffer hearing dysfunction are called hearing

impaired children. Samuel A. Kirk (1962, in Sadjaah, 2005) has distinguished the

hearing impaired children into two terms deaf and hard of hearing. In other words,

Indonesian society has called tuna rungu then developed into gangguan

pendengaran for the standardizing name of the children with dysfunction of

hearing organs.

To understand more deeply, it is necessary to explain the terms of deaf and

hard hearing. The children categorized as deaf are the individuals who have

dysfunction in their sense of hearing, whereas hard of hearing are individuals

whose their sense of hearing is damaged, but they can still hear using hearing aid

tool or nothing (Kirk 1962 as cited in Sadjaah, 2005).

xxxi
18
 In general, the characteristics of hearing impairment in language aspect

can be formulized into inadequacy of vocabulary, difficulty to think abstractly,

difficulty to comprehend metaphorical word, rhyme and language style is

monotonous (Sadjaah, 2005, p.27). It can be concluded that hearing impaired

children undergo the problem of communication with the people and environment.

According to Bunawan (2000, p.39) as cited in (Sadjaah, 2005, p.30), she

revealed that the development of first language happened naturally in every

children as unconsciously reflect of human being. The process of language

acquisition consists of some levels, for instance: at first, at 2-5 months a child

imitates the sound and utters of what anything have already been heard then he or

she continues to pay attention what their mother said. At the second, repeatedly, at

5-6 months, the children will imitate their mother sound as the same as their

mother’s doing after that the next utterance will follow them automatically.

Repeatedly, the age of 9 months, the children will try to say the words as the

result of their imitation, continuously after the age of 12-24 months, they will

obtain 200 vocabularies. It is accumulated to 250 words after their age 2-2 ½

years (Sadjaah, 2005, p.78).

In Suwarman’s (1981, in Sadjaah, 2005, p.178) point of view, he suggests

that in the babbling period approximately in the age of 5-6 months, babies imitate

their mother’s sound, then it is followed by other processes when the utterances of

the mother was imitated by the babies, reversely the mother will re-imitate babies’

sound and so on. Unfortunately, there is no indication in hearing impaired or deaf

children who undergo this experience since they dispossess hearing sensory. Most

occurrences are merely babbling action. In later time, it will decrease little by

xxxii
19
little. Additionally, the visual or eye contact is prominent to motivate the process

of imitating and re-imitating the language between mother and her babies in the

babbling period to prevent the potency of speech language to be vanished

(Subyakto,1988, in Sadjaah,2005).

Regarding to the facts, parents need to initiate early intervention if there is

an indication of hearing impairment in their babies. The early language education

from parents to babies will elevate their progress to learn language in the

following time. In special case, when the children possess the residue of hearing

ability, it is advisable accustomed to hear any words or sounds solely or together

with their friends in groups in order to support their speech building ability.

Therefore, theoretically hearing impaired children have not been formed their

mental pattern of language correctly, so it is needed to educate them previously.

Supposedly, in later times, their speech will be turned to agree with speech sound

pattern correctly and those will stimulate them to write the language originated

from their pronouncing (Chomsky, 1989, in Sadjaah, 2005). Therefore, this study

wants to investigate the connectivity of vocabulary in the hearing impaired

children’s narrative writing to create semantic unity.

2.1.4. Narrative Writing

Narrative is a form of discourse and text which commonly concerns with

the real or made-up memories of something happened, and often in the past event.

In addition, narrative is also full of a chronological sequence of events; however,

some of them hold merely one single event or jump around in time (McCabe and

Peterson, 1991, p.1-2). Additionally, Labov (1972, pp.360-361) defines that

20
xxxiii
narrative is one way to summarize past experience by relating a verbal sequence

of clauses to a sequence of events which is presupposed actually occurred.

Minimal narrative can be comprehended as sequence of two clauses which are

temporally ordered.

According to Hedberg and Westby (1993, in Hutson-Nechkash, 2001),

there are various types of narratives. Firstly, scripts are employed to convey

knowledge of a well-known event that is usually informed applying the second

person pronoun ‘you’ and the present tense. Secondly, recounts involve telling

about a personal experience when mostly prompted using the past tense. Thirdly,

accounts are employed to explain a personal experience without delaying and

those experiences usually are not shared by the listener. Fourthly, event casts are

employed to explain an ongoing activity, report on a factual scene, or tell about a

future plan. And finally, fictional stories are employed to the past, present, or

future events that are not real. The events are described by focusing on someone

or something attempting to carry out a goal.

Generally, children can retell their memories at around 2 years of age.

They intend to show a collection of unrelated ideas. Therefore, their points of

talking switch frequently and cohesive devices are not used to link the story

together. It may be possible for their narrative to develop over the next few years

(Nelson, 1989, Sachs 1982, in McCabe and Peterson, 1996). The further

elaboration of their narrative ability can be described as the following. At first,

narration tends to consist of reporting one event at a time. Then, it continues at the

age of 3 and 4 years, children characteristically present narration together more

than two events. Then, the children continue to tell a well-ordered story, but they

xxxiv
21
often show an ending immediately at the emotional climax of a narrative. After 6

years later, children successfully tell a narrative that meets the basic requirements

of principal form of their culture (McCabe and Peterson, 1996.) Then, in the early

elementary school about six years old, children are able to tell stories that conform

to particular schemata for story telling. Their stories commonly look more

elaboration, with multiple episodes and various numbers of points of view. For

instance, the common topics are familiar story, revealing the plot of movie or

television show, or communicating personal experiences (Wiley, Rose, Burger, &

Miller, 1998).

2.2. Review of Related Studies

In Arianti‘s study (2007) entitled Peningkatan Ketrampilan Menulis

Kalimat Melalui Penggunaan Media Gambar Fotografi Pada Anak Tuna Rungu

Kelas 5 B di SDLB Karya Mulia II Surabaya, a thesis by a student of Counseling

Psychology of Abnormal Education, UNESA Surabaya University, she examined

whether there is any escalating of sentence writing skill using the media

photographic pictures involving hearing loss children in fifth grades. The finding

shows that there is an escalating of sentence writing skill using the media

photographic pictures involving hearing loss children of five grades. Arianti’s

study gave a little bit of explanation why the hearing impaired children show an

escalating of sentence writing skill by using the media photographic pictures. Her

study used qualitative method that only focused on proving the data finding with

the non parametric statistical method.

xxxv
22
 Second, Pusparini’s study (2007) entitled the Use of Cohesive devices by

Ten Elementary Students in their Indonesian Narratives. She examined the

appearance of cohesive devices in Indonesian narrative composition of 4th and 5th

grade elementary students. It also examined cohesion devices determining the

coherence of the text. The finding showed that all types of cohesive device were

used by the students in their compositions. However, the students tend to use

lexical cohesion more dominantly than grammatical cohesion. Indeed, this study

concluded that narrative compositions owned by students were coherent, even

though the use of the cohesive devices was not fully accurate. In here, her study

did not enclose the discussion of the narratives text which was coherent but not

cohesive as the result from no cohesive devices within this text. However, the

meaning of the text still can be grasped because of coherence.

A study entitled “Deaf and hearing students’ referential strategies in

writing: What referential cohesion tells us about deaf students’ literacy

development” written by Arfé and Perondi (2008) suggested that deaf students

used the same variety of referential devices as hearing students when writing.

Mostly, those devices were used appropriately. However, the referential strategies

of the deaf students were more nominal and less anaphoric than those of their

hearing peers. In short, they added the referential strategies of deaf writers which

were only apparently like to those of hearing beginner writers.

In that study, the writers focused on the pragmatics use of pronominal and

nominal forms of reference in written stories. Deaf high school students and

hearing second graders (beginner writers) were chosen as participants. Then,

segmentation of clause (a predicate and its argument) was used in their analysis.

xxxvi
23
 CHAPTER III

METHOD OF THE STUDY

3.1. Research Approach

The aim of the study was to examine writing expression in narrative genre

focused on the selectivity of vocabularies which are built together to create

semantic unity experienced by hearing impaired children. For this purpose,

qualitative approach was relevant to be applied to this research because the main

focus was to disclose the real meaning or essence of the data, and to analyze those

real meanings by making inference according to adequate context (Wolcott, 1990,

p.135). In addition, Punch (1998, p.42) also stated that this qualitative research

approach intended to focus with issue in social live context appropriately and

conducted it in natural observation to the real life situation.

Regarding to that, in the aim to apply qualitative approach for analyzing

the data, the writer used the descriptive method since the data were majority in the

form of words rather than numbers. However, there were several number of the

data that have been collected to explain the frequently occurrence of cohesive

devices in the narrative writing of hearing impaired children.

Furthermore, the writer used case study as a design to explore a single

entity which essentially focused on the way of hearing impaired children used

lexical cohesion in their narrative writing by looking at the types of lexical

cohesion devices mostly used by them. Additionally, the writer always paid

attention to the possible data immediately occurred during the observation, for

instance the daily domestic background of the children, since the assumption that

24
it could enrich the description of the data collection (Merriam, 1988; Yin, 1989 as

cited in Creswell, 1994).

3.2. Participants

The participants of the research were 25 students of SDLB-B Karya Mulia

I and Karya Mulia II Surabaya in the class V and VI grades. In addition, the ages

of those students in the V grade were about 11-12 years old whereas the other

students in the VI grade were about 12-13 years old.

The majority of students in the V and VI grade are severe (71-90 dB) and

profound (>90 dB) hearing loss category that have indication such as difficulty to

perceive loud speech which was almost totally vanished. Thus, they normally

used hearing aid device to catch speech (Hardman, Drew, Egan, 2002, p.422).

Additionally, there were 2 the students, for instance Participant 10 and

Participant 5, suffered from moderate-severe hearing loss (56-70 dB) that had

difficulty with loud speech.

3.3. Technique of Data Collection

In collecting the data, the writer did some steps required to accomplish this

study. At first, the writer conducted the field observation to the classes while they

were learning held in two days March, 23rd and 24th 2009. Then, along that days,

the writer asked permission to the teachers for doing experiment together with the

students in the class to write narrative in Indonesian. The writer previously

assumed that all students had been taught to write, especially narrative while they

were in the first or second grade of elementary school. Afterwards, the writer

25
delivered the sequence of pictures in single theme as unity. There are three sets of

pictures entitled Banjir, Memancing Ikan di Sungai, and Tertabrak Mobil

Pengangkut Barang (Nura’aini and Indriyani, 2008). For accomplishing all the

works, the writer needed two times meeting with the participants to examine how

fast they could finish those works altogether. Finally, the results of their writings

were collected. There were 74 numbers of narratives writing totally.

3.4. Technique of Data Analysis

After collecting the data, the researcher applied several treatments in

analyzing the collection of students’ writings. Firstly, He identified the lexical

cohesion device used in the students’ writing. Along the process of identification,

he applied two combined frameworks of lexical cohesion analysis summarized by

Yuwono in Kushartanti et al (2004), and Rani et al (2006) to view more accurately

the connectivity of vocabulary selection in hearing impaired student’s narrative

writing.

In identifying process, there are two parts to be identified: (1) the kinds of

lexical cohesion devices used by hearing impaired children, (2) the accuracy of

lexical cohesion devices used in their narrative writings which is suitable to

determine whether or not the text is cohesive or not. It was important to

previously look whether the cohesion device was properly used in the text because

it determined the text to be comprehended easily.

Third, the researcher classified the findings data of all lexical cohesion

devices used by the students according to the types of lexical cohesion. He also

26
focused on the use of the lexical cohesion devices of hearing impaired students

containing specific characteristics.

Fourth, the writer counted the frequency of lexical cohesion devices

occurred in the students’ narrative writing. Then, he presented the total number of

the data into percentage.

Finally, the writer interpreted the findings of lexical cohesion framework

by identifying the existence of direct reference between any forms of reiteration

and collocation. Additionally, to presents the data, finding and interpretation, the

writer tried to explicate more clearly on what types of lexical cohesion devices

were used and which type of lexical cohesion device was mostly used by hearing

impaired students at the 5th and 6th grade of SDLB-B Karya Mulia I & II Surabaya

in their narrative composition.

27
 CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

The detailed analyses of the data are selected from 71 narrative writings

of 25 students. Previously, the total numbers of students’ narrative writings were

74 works. Afterwards, those numbers of narrative writings underwent identifying

process; finally, 71 amounts of narrative writings were chosen. Three remaining

narrative writings could not be involved in this analysis as the reason by the

writers of those three remaining narratives writing did not make a story based on

themes Banjir, Memancing Ikan di Sungai, and Tertabrak Mobil Pengangkut

Barang.

After identifying, classifying, and the last counting processes, there are

several issues which have to be explained in general previously. Those are about

some error in language usage, especially the matters about words choice, words

composition, spelling, and punctuation. Those matters of language usage could be

denoted in the spelling of standard Indonesian or EYD (Ejaan Bahasa Indonesia

yang Disempurnakan). This is to be the partial requirements of competence that

are examined in national examination of Bahasa Indonesia lesson for SDLB – B

2009-2010. The other matter needs to be explained further is about

comprehension of hearing impaired students in producing narrative writing.

According to syllabus of the national examination of the Bahasa Indonesia lesson

for SDLB – B 2009-2010, comprehension of some kinds of discourse (literature or

non literature) which involves reading text, daily experience, and myth is to be the

other competence should be taught to the hearing impaired students.

28
(www.scribd.com/PERMENDIKNAS-74-2009-TENTANG-UASBNSD-MI-SDLB).

Specifically, those explanations help to approach about understanding of the use

of lexical cohesion devices in the narrative writing of hearing impaired students.

Additionally, the writer also presents the type and number of frequencies of

lexical cohesion devices to complete the comprehension about what types of

lexical cohesion devices and which types of lexical cohesion devices are mostly

used in the narrative writing of hearing impaired students.

These explanations below are set up sequentially in order to easily

comprehend and bring to completely deep insight about the appearance of lexical

cohesion links in the narrative writing of hearing impaired students.

4.1. Some Errors in Language Usage and Comprehension of Hearing

Impaired Students in Producing Narrative Writing

The writer viewed that there are excessive number sentences of hearing

impaired children which have few variety of vocabulary. Consequently, their

sentences seem to be set up together in static way. Beside that, there are some

sentences having some words that are not linked, but stand collectively in a

monotonous appearance, so its texture as the basis of unity and semantic

interdependence within their text are arguable. It is explicitly expressed below by

Participant 9’s narrative writing entitled Banjir.

Air sampah air sotap banjir tumbuhan, pisang, sampah.(1). Rumah

hunjan kecil banjir belum siang hujan besar (2). Rumah banjir rocoh
(=roboh) pohon kayu banjir hunjir besar (3). Rumah tenda kelaurga
(=keluarga) bersama-sama (4).

In Participant 9’s narrative writing, especially in sentence 1, her ideas are

expressed in word level, instead of sentence level. She tries to describe a series of

29
Flood picture by enumerating some noun objects such as air, sampah, banjir,

tumbuhan, pisang without any verb or conjunction to link and form a sentence at

usual. Other sentences are created with the same way as previous sentence. She

merely made modification that could be noticed in sentence 2 by adding an

adjective belum, in sentence 3, by adding an adjective besar, and the last in fourth

sentence by equipping it with adverb of manner bersama-sama. In conclusion,

there is no sentence form in Participant 9’s narrative writing above since there is

nothing of verb or action in simple syntax form: Subject + Verb to form minimum

main clause. Therefore, a lot of written expressions are employed signaling poor

vocabularies, instead of indicating the problems of her while forming sentences.

Additionally, the writer also found some errors in hearing impaired

children’s vocabulary and morphology or word composition, for instance, the

addition or omission of affix in words and misspelling because of speech problem

that sometimes influence to the contents of their writing. Below is the example

from Participant 9’s writing entitled Memancing Ikan di Sungai.

Kakak memancing ikan di sugai (=sungai) (1). Kakak memancing ikan di

sugai (=sungai) lama ikut memancing air ikan (2). Kakak memancing
ikan pulang ikan tas (3).Ibu mengosok (=menggosok) ikan masak di
dupar (=dapur) (4) . Kelaurga (=keluarga) makam (=makan) lapar ikan,
nasi minum sebelum(5).

In the problem related with misspelling, Participant 9 tends to make some

misspellings, such as the word sugai(=sungai) in sentence 1 and 2, mengosok

(=menggosok) and dupar (=dapur) in sentence 4, Kelaurga (=keluarga) and

makam (=makan) in the sentence 5. Additionally, her writing also shows the

misuse of modifying word with prefix me+gosokmengosok (=menggosok is

actually the right use) in sentence 4.

30
 From the two discussions above, the writer assumes that main poverty of

hearing impaired students when applying vocabulary or word choice depends on

the process of acquiring new vocabulary in the past. They depend only on the

visual image when remembering the new vocabulary but more difficult to grasp

its acoustic image. So, they face problems if they should spell vocabularies

correctly. For these reason, we may suggest that hearing impaired children have

difficulty applying written form which comes from the transformation of speech

form in processing linguistics inputs.

Furthermore, the writer found other errors in the narrative writing of

hearing impaired student related with application of EYD (Ejaan Bahasa

Indonesia yang Disempurnakan), for instances inadequate use of punctuation,

problems in the use small and capital letter, ungrammatical sentence, and

inadequate use of preposition.

Relating with some mistakes in using of punctuation, the example below is

taken from Participant 25’s narrative entitled Memancing Ikan di Sungai. Those

mistakes actually could be noticed below and the acceptable sentence is in the

following. For instance, between sentence 1 and 2, she prefers to use full stop (.)

instead of comma (,) for joining between main clause and subordinate clause.

April 2004 lalu Kakak dari Makasar yang dulu (1). Kakak Tiara, Eka,
Om pergi pancing ikan di laut (2)
(Acceptable) April 2004 lalu Kakak dari Makasar yang dulu , Kakak Tiara, Eka,
Om, pergi pancing ikan di laut..

Those examples of sentence 1 create sentence fragments as the result of misplaced

of full stop (.).

31
 Another example related with misuse of punctuation occurs in Participant

25’s writing. In her writing, there is an absent of quotation marks to enclose direct

sentence and the suggestion in the following.

(Participant 25)

Om, ayo sudah pulang sekarang sore 17.30 wib, kata Eka (4).
(Acceptable) “Om, ayo sudah pulang sekarang sore 17.30 wib!”, kata Eka.

It can be noticed that she writes her reporting sentence whether it is a

direct or indirect sentence without any further difference, for example by using

quotation mark(“…”) to the direct sentences.

Secondly, related with the problems of the use small and capital letter,

Once again, the writer took example from Participant 25’s Memancing Ikan di

Sungai.

Maaf saya tidak bisa masak ikan goreng dan bakar, kata Eka (7).
(Acceptable) “Maaf Saya tidak bisa masak ikan goreng dan bakar”, kata Eka.

The word ‘saya’ is categorized as greeting word in Indonesian sentence context,

so it is properly to use capital letter. Mariskan (1986, p17) said that capital letter

are employed in the expression of word that pointing to relatives word

bapak,ibu,kakak,adik,etc which have a function as pronoun or greeting someone.

Thirdly, relating with the grammatical sentence, the writer would discuss

whether it is phrase or sentence of Participant 6’s utterance in Memancing Ikan di

Sungai.

Setiap minggu memancing ikan di sungai (1).

Her utterance is understandable; however it is not categorized as a sentence. It still

occurs in phrasal level, especially in VP (Verb Phrase).

32
 Other examples related with grammatical sentence are taken from

Participant 4’s narrative writing entitled Banjir. Below are her utterances:

(Participant 4)

Air banjir pohon (1). Rumah hujan angin (2). Rumah hujan
banjir (3). Rumah masuk kaka (=kakak) dan ibu (4).

The first utterance is categorized neither as a phrase nor as sentence.

Those are separated elements that stand altogether in static way without any

related meaning. In other hand, the fourth sentence is categorized as a sentence

but ungrammatical sentence in Indonesian, since the position of pronuoun or

pronominative kaka (=kakak) and ibu can not be placed as object in the active

transitive sentence, so the proper position is in the subject. Instead, this subject

position is filled by nominative ‘rumah’.

Finally, relating with the inadequate use of preposition, the writer also

found some examples from hearing impaired children’s narrative writing. These

examples are taken Participant 4’s and Participant 2’s writing entitled Tertabrak

Mobil Pengangkut Barang.

(Participant 4)

Kakak sekolah kepergi jalan warna biru dan putih (1). Lilah
kepergi jalan dimana sekolah (2).

(Participant 2)

Kakak jalan sekolah ke pergi warna biru dan putih (1). Kakak
jalan sekolah kepergi (2).

Participant 4 uses preposition ‘ke’ in front of the verb ‘pergi’ in sentences

1 and 2, so those are inappropriate. The preposition ‘ke’ is used appropriately in

front of nominative or noun to express pointing out or directing to some places or

someone. In the similar way, Participant 2 also uses inappropriate preposition

33
‘ke’ in front of the word pergi in sentence 1 and 2. However, it is acceptable if

preposition ‘ke’ is put in front of the noun sekolah in sentence 1 and 2, so it could

be functioned to express direction or place to be pointed (Mariskan, 1986, p79).

From the explanations above about the finding of inconsistency in the

application of EYD (Ejaan Bahasa Indonesia yang Disempurnakan) by hearing

impaired students, the writer supposes that inconsistency of them is as the result

of minimally interaction among them with printed textual reproduction such as

newspapers, magazine, or even story books since they was pre-school. This habit

continuous again when they should be accustomed with the reading material from

their school. To understand the message of their lessons, the hearing impaired

children almost depend on the explanation from their teachers. So, their

information updates to enrich their knowledge is actually limited. We may

supposed that the reason why hearing impaired children do inconsistency as the

consequence of inadequate of experience with punctuation, capital letter,

grammatical rules which commonly put in textual reproduction. Moreover, their

teachers possibly give them minimal intensive course of writing in the application

of EYD (Ejaan Bahasa Indonesia yang Disempurnakan).

There are also some findings stated that the hearing impaired children face

problems related with comprehension of how to produce a narrative writing. Their

writing merely concentrates on the pointing out of the elements found in the

pictures and then set altogether in sequence, it seems to be a group of isolated

utterances with no relationship one to another, for instance water flow, water

drops, house, mother and father, etc, but hardly described them further. Below is

the example from Participant 1’s writing entitled Banjir.

34
 (Participant 1)

Banjir air banyak (1). Rumah hujan(2).Rumah hujan air banjir(3).Pindah

rumah Bapak dan ibu(4).

Participant 1’s written expressions at the beginning until the end seem to

produce minimal descriptions of elements that he had already enumerated. There

is no chronological order to form logical events. For example, he set a series of

phrase banjir air, and followed by banyak in sentence 1 without any further

explanation, for instance by adding the details about time, actions of people,

depiction of situation or characters, etc. Instead, he repeated the similar pattern in

the following written expression by restricting his writing only to mention more

characters or actions without certain hints of forming story logically, for example

by using mula-mula, dan, atau, setelahnya, akhirnya, etc as conjunction or

transitional marker to relate the expressions and break its isolation.

From further discussions on the findings, the writer supposes that hearing

impaired students may have difficulty to recognize the relationship between the

one and the other characters. Actually, for beginner writer or reader looks like

hearing impaired students, the writer thinks that understanding the relationship

sequence of events, and identifying the characters may become a big deal since

they have inadequate of experiences related with using language. Therefore, the

easy part to them is pointing out what they know about objects or images in the

given series of pictures which should be made in narrative writing, instead of

thinking about relationship among them. It results to minimal descriptions of the

elements or characters in their narratives. Moreover, they relatively prefer to use

short sentences to give description about the relationship between time, place,

actions, event, and characters that should move sequentially in their narrative

35
writing. For these reasons, it can be assumed that hearing impaired students’

narrative writing are not full of accuracy and minimally in developing of their

thoughts.

4.2. The Use of Lexical Cohesion Devices

According to the text analysis, the utilization of reiteration place the

highest percentage 94.85% and the use consists of 7 subtypes. There are identical

repetitions, repetition in other form, repetition by substitution, synonymy,

hyponymy, metonymy, and antonym. The following examples of reiteration are

obtained from Participant8’s narrative writing entitled Banjir. From the 25

students, the writer found that Participant 8 produced the highest reiteration, and

identical repetition was mostly used in her composition than any other type of

reiteration. Participant 8 employed the identical repetition 90 times in her

composition.

(Participant 8)

Ia dirumah mereka yang hujan dapat lama-lama awan hujan yang

banyak cepat lama(4).
Di rumah yang hujan yang lama harus kita banjir(5).Hujan dari lama
yang banjir di rumah tinggal lama(6).Tumbuh banjir yang hujan
harus di rumah dapat(7).Ibu, ayah, kakak, dan adik sekarang
banjir yang rumah pernah tolong bawa jalan jauh jari cepat hujan
yang banjir dapat lama tinggal tebal pergi(8)…

Participant 8 started using identical repetition, for instance hujan and

banjir in the fifth sentence. The use is obviously seen when Participant 8 reiterates

the words hujan and banjir four times in the following sentence. The identical

repetition of word hujan in the sentence 5, 6, 7, and 8 also refers to the same word

in the fourth sentence previously. Moreover, the word banjir in the next sentences

(6, 7, and 8) also refers to the same word banjir in the fifth sentence at the

36
beginning. In facts, all these identical instances commonly have one lexical item

referring back to another connected by the same reference.

Beside identical repetition, repetition in other form is also applied in some

of narrative writings. A repetition is considered repetition in other forms if the

repeated word is added with affix which sometimes resulted in different syntactic

category. Below are some examples obtained from Participant 6‘s narrative

writing entitled Memancing Ikan di Sungai.

(Participant 6 )

Setiap minggu memancing ikan di sungai (1). Dude bawa

tancing (=pancing)ikan lele laut lama-lama waktu (2)…. (8) .
Makanan ikan lele, nasil (=nasi), kecap dan minuman semua
enak anak –anak makanan sudah enak semua habis lagi makan
boleh (9).

The instances above show two examples of repetition in other form. The

first is the word ‘tancing’, Participant 6 actually knew ‘tancing’ rather than

‘pancing’ as the base form of word ‘memancing’. Then, she applies repetition in

other form, especially in sentence 2 by reducing the prefix-me of the word

‘memancing’ and turns to ‘tancing’. The syntactic category also changes from

verb into noun. In sentence 9, the writer also finds repetition in other form that

change in reverse from noun into verb. It is the repetition of the word makanan

that becomes the word makan. Previously, the word makanan that consists of

makan + suffix-an repeated by eliminating suffix-an, therefore it remains makan

as the final form of this repetition in other form.

A repetition can also be identified as repetition in other form if half of the

word that is repeated in the previous phrase is different but the whole meaning is

basically the same. For instance, it shows in Participant 15’s writing entitled

Banjir.

37
 (Participant 15)

Hujan banjir air banyak tapi banjir air kecil(4) Rumah banjir di
sungai(5).
Rumah banjir aliran sungai(6). Rumah banjir air sungai(7).

Participant 15 uses the phrase ‘aliran sungai’ and ‘air sungai’. The

examples above show two instances of repetition in other forms. The first is the

phrase ‘aliran sungai’ in sentence 6 and ‘air sungai’ in sentence 7. These phrases

have undergone a kind of change. It is changed in phrasal level. The base form

(roots or free morpheme) of these phrases ‘aliran sungai’ and ‘air sungai’ is

‘sungai’ by adding the bound morpheme ‘aliran’ and ‘air’ to the word ‘sungai’.

However, the two phrases aliran sungai and air sungai refer to the same meaning,

which is river having the property of stream and water which are the inseparable

part of river, therefore, the water and the flow in the phrases aliran sungai and air

sungai are the same.

Furthermore, the examples below show repetition in other forms which are

originated from reduplication into base words. This example was taken from

Participant18’s writing entitled Banjir.

(Participant 18)

Orang-orang bisa menyumbat (3).

Rumah bocor karena hujan keras(4). Orang sakit panas tadi malam
hujan keras(5).

Participant 18 used reduplication form Orang-orang in sentence 3 and

repeated this phrase with Orang sakit panas without reduplication form in

sentence 5. However, this phrase causes ambiguity because two forms of phrases

will create different perception. On one side, orang-orang is in plural form, it can

be understood because it mentions more than one person. On the other side, orang

38
sakit panas is in the singular form. Accordingly, it is not obvious whether she

denotes to a group of people who obstruct the river’s flow, then it will cause other

people feel sick, or even one of the people in this group feels sick because his or

her acts or communal acts become the reason of fever or sakit panas. However,

the repetition does not change the coherence of this story. It still yields a

meaningful story since the main idea can still be obtained.

In addition to repetition in other form, Participant 8’s composition entitled

Tertabrak Mobil Pengangkut Barang reveals the use of repetition using

substitution that occurs in word level. Repetition by substitution repeats

component of the sentence by replacing the word or phrase with another

substitution word or phrase such as pronoun. This can be seen when Participant 8

reiterates the words murid-murid by substituting with the word mereka.

(Participant 8)

Murid-murid yang sekolah mereka teman dengan anak-anak datang bagi

kamu pulang harus jalan kumpulan teman sekolah harus jalan (1).

In her composition, Participant 8 told about her experience after class

dismissed. In the first sentence, Participant 8 used third person plural pronoun

‘mereka’ to substitute the word ‘murid-murid’. She realized that the plural noun

murid–murid can be substituted by the pronoun of third person plural ‘mereka’.

Moreover, regarding to reiteration, from the 71 numbers of writings, the

writer found that synonym is a subtype of reiteration. It is third least used about

1,20%. From the 71 writings, the writer only found a few number of synonym

occurrences, particularly from Participant 18, Participant 17, and Participant 7.

These are few instances taken from those three children’s writing entitled Banjir.

39
 (Participant 18)

Orang-orang tidak boleh dibuang sampah di selokan dan di sungai bisa

akan banjir(1)……...
Tadi malam hujan penuh sekarang banjir tenda(9).
Rumah orang dalam kotor semakin kotor sekali(10)

(Participant 17)

Sampah dibuang banyak terus setiap hari(1). Orang sampah dibuang

terus(2). Orang sampah kumpul ambil(3).Sampah dibuang larang(4).
Hujan deras lama jam 11.00 malam (5). Rumah bocor hujan deras (6).
Rumah orang keluar (7)
Rumah hujan deras tapi banjar (=banjir) 2,5 meter (8). Rumah banjir
orang meninggal(9). Rumah banjir terus (10) .

(Participant 7)

Hujan jam 12.00 siang (5)Rumah banjir turun hujan musim banjir (6).

In Participant 18’s writing, the use of synonym occurs at word level. In

the other hand, she used a word to reiterate another word which is similar. For

instance, the auxiliaries or modal ‘bisa’ and ‘akan’ have similar function to denote

some expectations or probabilities of events in the future such as banjir.

Therefore, it can be concluded that they have the same purpose too. Additionally,

she also used the word ‘rumah’ to reiterate ‘tenda’. According to her, both words

‘rumah’ and ‘tenda’ have similar aims to denote concept of the creation of

building inhabited by people for particular time. The difference is rumah or house

(in English) commonly built permanently, but tenda or tent (in English) is built

periodically. However, she looked confused about the use of two words then she

used them without splitting its context which turns to make an ambiguity.

Meanwhile, Participant 17’s composition reveals the use of synonym that

occurs in three instances which slightly have single meaning. Participant 17 used

the words ‘banyak’, ‘deras’, and ‘terus’ to denote something large in quantity and

continue in process. In this case ‘banyak’ or ‘terus’ is applied to sampah whereas

40
‘deras’ or ‘terus’ applied to banjir or hujan. Participant 17 used the word ‘deras’

in sentence five and eight to reiterate the words banyak in sentence 1 and terus in

sentence 10 because he noticed that those three series of words slightly have

similar aim. Therefore those words could be used interchangeably.

Unlike Participant 18 and Participant 17, Participant 7 produced

synonym process in the phrasal level musim banjir in sentence 6 which aims to

reiterate the word hujan in sentence 5. There is unity of meaning between musim

banjir and hujan that denote to the concept of period when water is overwhelming

in every place. Thus, there is a very close related meaning between musim banjir

and hujan.

In addition to synonym, the examples of hyponym are given below from

Participant25’s and Participant8’s writings entitled Tertabrak Mobil Pengangkut

Barang. Below are few examples taken from Participant 25 and Participant 8:

(Participant 25)
Orang Ayah dibawa anak dirawat rumah sakit (13). Orang lain dari
orang tua Bambang (14). Dimana kecelakaan itu terjadi ? kata ibu
Bambang (15).

(Participant 8.)
Murid-murid yang dengan kumpulan jalan tunggu senbentar (=sebentar
)yang mobil barang sudah jalan murid kumpul jalan macet lambat jalan
yang jari (2).Bawa kumpul mobil ambulan bawa sudah sudah pulang
mobil jalan bawa di rumah sakit kakak sakit tidur tasar yg sakit teman(4).

In Participant 25’s writing, the use hyponymy is expressed by the word

Ayah in sentence 13 and Ibu in sentence 15 functioned as subordinate of the

phrase Orang tua in sentence 14 as superordinate. She tried to broad the

characters of her narrative by using the specific word Ayah in sentence 13 and Ibu

in sentence 15. It is used as hyponymy of the generic phrase orang tua in sentence

14.

41
 In similar case used by another student, Participant 8 employed the

specific phrases mobil barang (sentence 2) and mobil ambulan (sentence 4) to

express hyponymy relation of the generic word mobil in sentence 4. Therefore,

she had practiced the use of subordinate phrase mobil barang and mobil ambulan

to elaborate the use of superordinate word mobil in sentence 4.

Furthermore, from the relation with metonymy, it is known as semantic

connection between the parts versus a whole thing meaning of something. For

instance, it demonstrates in Participant 18’s narrative writing which entitled

Memancing Ikan and Participant 9’s called Banjir.

(Participant 18)
Kakak mempunyai ikan untuk makan keluarga.(7).
Ibu memasak ikan dan nasi di dapur (8). Kakak memberi ibu ikan untuk
makan keluarga di meja (9). Ayah melapor makan karena ibu belum
memasak kok belum datang kakak(10).

(Participant 9)
Rumah banjir rocoh (=roboh) pohon kayu banjir hunjir besar (3).

The above examples show two metonymies. The first is the examples from

Participant 18’s writing. She employed the words ‘kakak’(sentence 7,9,and10)

,’Ayah’ (sentence10), and ‘Ibu’ (sentence 9,10) as parts of the whole unit of the

word ‘keluarga’(sentence 7,9). In other words, she implied that the

word’keluarga’or familiy in English can be understood if the pieces of words such

as ‘Ayah’or Dad, ‘Ibu’ or Mom, and ’Kakak’or Brother are joined together to form

single entity.

In the same way, Participant 9 also expressed metonymy in her narrative

writing by using the word ‘kayu’ or ‘wood’ in sentence 3 to reiterate the prior

word ’pohon’ or ‘tree’ in sentence 3. She implied that mostly ‘pohon’ is

composed of ‘kayu’.

42
 Next to metonymy, the writer also found the example of antonymy which

is explained the opposite meaning of two words. For instance, it is displayed in

Participant 18’s narrative writing entitled Memancing Ikan. From 25 students, she

was the highest number of the use antonymy in her composition. Below are those

examples

(Participant 18)

Kakak tunggu kok lama mencari ikan di sungai(3). Kakak tunggu

mendapat ikan di sungai 4).
Kakak berangkat jam 08.35 pagi sampai sudah pulang jam 11.00
siang(5).
……..Ayah melapor makan karena ibu belum memasak kok belum
datang kakak(10).
Ibu sudah memasak di dapur (11).

In Participant 18’s writing, the use of antonymy occurs at a pair of word

and phrase level. For instance, she prefers to employ the word ‘mencari’(sentence

3) that has opposite meaning with ‘mendapat’(sentence 4), then she used another

word ‘pulang’(sentence 5) to reiterate the contrastive meaning of the word

‘berangkat’(sentence 5). Finally, she used the phrase ‘sudah memasak’

(sentence11) to reiterate as rivalry of the phrase ‘belum memasak’ (sentence10).

Other examples of antonymy are taken from Participant 7’s writing

entitled Banjir. In her composition below, she used 3 pairs of words that are

identified having antonymy meaning relation. Below are these instances.

(Participant 7)

Pohon rusak sampah air di sungai banjir(1).Pohon potong angin

sampah air banjir di laut (2).
Rumah-rumah musim hujan air lama (3). Rumah turun hujan
kemarau (4). Hujan jam 12.00 siang (5).
...Rumah-rumah jam 18.00 malam banjir turun hujan (7)

43
 She used three pairs of words that have opposite meaning, for instance,

laut (sentence 2) reiterates the opposite meaning of sungai (sentence1).Beside

that, she also utilized a contrary pair of word kemarau (sentence 4) and phrase

form musim hujan (sentence3). Moreover, she added the antonymy by reiterating

the word siang (sentence5) with malam (sentence7) that have opposite meaning.

Finally, the last lexical cohesion devices is identified as collocation that

means the use of relationship between words or phrases that happen in the same

realm or same field. In other words, it is defined as the tendency of certain lexical

items to co-occur in text. It can reach second position after identical repetition. It

mostly occurs in all narrative writings of 25 students about 5.15 %. These

examples below are taken from Participant 2’s and Participant 4’s writings

entitled Banjir and Memancing Ikan di Sungai.

(Participants 2)

Air semua banjir ya (1). Rumah pohon hujan (2). Rumah semua hujan
banjir (3). Rumah ayah dan ibu masak makan dan minum (4).

(Participant 4)

Even padi ikan pohon air (1).Faisal jalan ikan-ikan tiga (2). Ibu guru
membantu masak ikan (3).Bapak, ibu dan kakak , adik makan nasi ,
minum putih ikan (4).

In Participant 2’s writing, collocation seems identifiable by two groups of words

that happen in the same realm or same field. Firstly, the sequences of words ‘air’

and ’banjir’ in sentence 1, and ‘hujan’ and ‘banjir’ in sentence 3 seem to have the

same perception in series of rainy season. In other side, two pairs of words

’ayah’><’ ibu’ and ‘makan’ ><’minum’ seems to have opposite meaning of

family and routine activities. Therefore, these words are closely located in the

same understanding to identify the relationship in meaning.

44
 Moreover, another example is given by Participant 4’s writing. In her

writing, it is implied by the words ‘padi’,’ikan,and ‘air’ which occur in sentence 1

having the same understanding of field rice. In other side, a series of words

‘bapak’,’ibu’, ‘kakak’, and ‘adik’ (sentence 4) can be noticed to have the same

perception related to the meaning of being part of family.

4.3. The Types and Number of Frequency of Lexical Cohesion Devices

Based on the analysis of 71 narratives writings, the writer found the

students of SDLB-B Karya Mulia I and II Surabaya in 5th and 6th grade used all

type of lexical cohesion devices. The types and frequency can be seen below:

Table 3 Total Numbers of Lexical Cohesion Devices in Each Composition

Composition Lexical Cohesion

Participant 1 24
Participant 2 27
Participant 3 9
Participant 4 19
Participant 5 21
Participant 6 99
Participant 7 78
Participant 8 99
Participant 9 27
Participant 10 42
Participant 11 45
Participant 12 35
Participant 13 19
Participant 14 88
Participant 15 65
Participant 16 20
Participant 17 47
Participant 18 96
Participant 19 93
Participant 20 30
Participant 21 20
Participant 22 40
Participant 23 18
Participant 24 16
Participant 25 88
TOTAL 1165

45
 Table 4 Total Number of Each Type of Lexical Cohesion Devices

Type of Lexical Total Number Result in %

Cohesion Devices
Identical repetition 985 84.55
Repetition in Other 38 3.26
form
Repetition by 1 0.09
Substitution
Synonymy 14 1.20
Hyponymy 16 1.37
Metonymy 11 0.94
Antonymy 40 3.43
Collocation 60 5.15

Table 5 Total Number of Lexical Cohesion Devices from all Composition

Type of Lexical Total Number Result in %

Cohesion Devices
Reiteration 1105 94.85
Collocation 60 5.15

Generally, the application of students’ lexical cohesion can be seen from

table 5 which indicates that the use of reiteration is more dominant than

collocation. Specifically, the total number of reiteration devices is 94.85 %, while

the total number of collocation devices is 5.15%. In table 4, identical repetitions

are the most often type of lexical cohesion used, which is amount to 84.55%.

More than three - a quarter parts of 25 students use more identical reiteration than

other types of each lexical cohesive device. The next order is in sequence, for

instance collocation (5.15%), antonym (3.43%), repetition in other form (3.26%),

hyponymy (1.37%), synonymy (1.20%), metonymy (0.94%), and repetition by

substitution (0.09%).

46
 Moreover, based on the background of level of hearing that the writer

could obtain previously, there is evidence that the hearing loss level of hearing

impaired student is not always linear with the quantity of lexical cohesion devices

which can be produced. For instance, Participant 6 with hearing loss level (R. 115

dB, L.110 dB) which means profound hearing loss, she could produce 99 amounts

of lexical cohesion devices. In other side, Participant 25 with hearing loss level

(R.80dB, L.84dB) which means severe hearing loss only could produce 88

amounts of lexical cohesion devices or 11 points less than Participant 25’s. In that

explanation it can be concluded that students with more acute hearing ability do

not always produce minimal lexical cohesion devices in comparison with their

counterparts with less acute in hearing ability.

In addition, from the depiction of the tables above related with frequency

of each type lexical cohesion devices, the writer sees that the students have a

necessity to provide more clear their topic of discussion in their narrative writings

by repeating the words which are placed in their following sentence. They use

reiteration more frequent than collocation because it can create a view more

variety in lexical choice because it can not happen in collocation as the reason

complexity to choose the words which have relationship and position in the same

context. Moreover, the students should adjust their lexical choice with the reader’s

background of knowledge if they prefer to apply collocation.

The other reason is why reiteration is more frequent than collocation,

reiteration is simple to use especially repetition, and continues to the others type

of reiteration which are more complex types in the application of writing such as

antonymy, hyponymy, synonymy, and metonymy. The students are only to focus

47
in words which means replication, opposite, parable, general or specific, and

associate or attribute to something.

In the part of discussion about what type of lexical cohesion devices are

mostly used in narrative writing of hearing impaired students, repetition is the

mostly used especially identical repetition about 84,55%. The students look like to

prefer identical repetition more frequent than any other type lexical cohesion

devices even for others types of repetition such as repetition in other form and

repetition by substitution. From that, the writer sees that creating semantic relation

to form texture by using word choice is easy to apply identical repetition rather

than words which means opposite, parable, general or specific, and associate or

attribute to something. Additionally, the students seem to be familiar with

identical repetition to discuss the focus of conversation in their narratives. They

prefer to repeat an ideas several times although it is possibly enough to repeat at

once. Therefore, we may think that phenomenon as characteristics of immaturity

of hearing impaired children’s communication. Actually, the good communicator

is someone who can control the selectivity of his or her vocabularies and use them

in appropriate situation, instead of repeating the same ideas several times in the

same way, such as by using repetition forms.

48
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

Through lexical cohesion analysis framework summarized by Yuwono in

Kushartanti et al (2004), and combining with Rani et al (2006), it is explicated

what type and the most occurrences of lexical cohesion in these hearing impaired

students’ narrative writing. In writing their narrative, hearing impaired students

tend to use reiteration, especially identical repetition at majority about three-a

quarter part of all lexical cohesion device use. It is also found that in general

hearing impaired students had already practiced all type of lexical cohesion

devices which consists of reiteration and collocation, specifically reiteration is

divided into identical repetition, repetition in other form, repetition by

substitution, synonymy, hyponymy, metonymy, and antonym.

The dominant use of repetition, especially identical repetition indicates

that hearing impaired students prefer to repeat a message several times although it

is possibly enough to repeat once. It is an evidence that they are not classified as

good communicator because they can not use the word choice in good variation

and effectively.

While analyzing the lexical cohesion relation in the narrative writing of

hearing impaired students, the writer also found some additional findings

generally which are some errors in language usage, especially the matters about

words choice, words composition, spelling, and punctuation. Those matters of

language usage could be denoted in the spelling of standard Indonesian or EYD

(Ejaan Bahasa Indonesia yang Disempurnakan).

49
 Vocabularies in the narrative writing of hearing impaired students are poor

in words choice and incorrect form. Additionally, hearing impaired students are

also inconsistent in applying EYD (Ejaan Bahasa Indonesia yang

Disempurnakan). For instance, they apply inadequate use of punctuation, capital

letters, and grammatical rules. Therefore, their writings sometimes are difficult to

understand because what they want to recount in their narrative writing is

confused by their arrangement of words categories that seem to be chaotic.

Those indications show that hearing impaired students have difficulties

at the lexical levels and conventionally writing process. By identifying those

notion, at least the teachers of hearing impaired students will be able to improve

the intensity and quality of teaching about language usage competence that would

be acquired by hearing impaired students in order to pass the national

examination, especially the competence which involves words choice, words

composition, spelling, and punctuation.

Another result showed that hearing impaired students also face

problems comprehension to produce narrative writing, for instance they are not

full accurate to make relationship between the elements or characters and give

minimal description of their thought. Thus, their works sometimes are difficult to

catch their meaning and intention. What they say sometimes creates an ambiguous

meaning. A lexical cohesion relation is required to preserve the unity of the

meaning and to place their story in context. Thus, at least we could get the

interrelated ideas within their narrative writing.

Finally, lexical cohesion which is found in all narrative writings of

hearing impaired students helps the writer to perceive the coherence of them.

50
 REFERENCES

Arfé, B,. & Perondi, I. (2008). Deaf and Hearing Students' Referential Strategies
in Writing: What Referential Cohesion Tells Us about Deaf Students'
Literacy Development. DOI:10.1177/0142723708091043. Retrieved
June,12,2009from http://fla.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/4/355

Arianti, U. (2007). Peningkatan Ketrampilan Menulis Kalimat Melalui

Penggunaan Media Gambar Fotografi Pada Anak Tuna Rungu Kelas
5 B di SDLB Karya Mulia II Surabaya. Counseling Psychology of
Abnormal Education, UNESA Surabaya University. (Unpublished
thesis).

Beaugrande, Robert-Alain & Dressler, Wolfgang Ulrich. (1981). Introduction to

Text Linguistic. London& New York: Longman.

Brown,G,&Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP.

Cook, Guy. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Reseacrch Design Qualitative & Quantitave Approaches.

.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication Inc.

Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English .London: Longman.

Halliday,M.A.K. (1985). An Intoduction to Functional Grammar. London:

Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd.

Hardman, M.J., Drew, C.J, & Egan, M.W. (2002). Human Exceptionality: Society
, School, and Family.(7th edit.) Boston : Allyn and Bacon.

Hutson-Nechkash, Peg. (2001). Narrative Toolbox: Blueprints for Story building.

Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.

Kehler, A. (2008). Discourse Coherence: An Article as cited in Ward,Gregory and

Hornand, R.Lawrence. (2008). the Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.

Keraf, G. (2000). Argumentasi dan Narasi. Jakarta : Gramedia.

Kushartanti, Lauder, M.MRT., & Yuwono, Untung. (2004).Pesona Bahasa :

Langkah Awal Memahami Linguistik .Jakarta : Gramedia.

Labov, William. (1972.). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English
Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

51
Mayberry, Rachel. (2002). Cognitive Development in Deaf Children: The
interface of Language and Perception in Neuropsychology. An Article
as cited in S.J. Segalowitz and I. Rapin (Eds) (2002) Handbook of
Neuropsychology Elsevier Science B.V., 2nd Edition, Vol. 8, Part II.

Mariskan,BA. (1986). Ikhtisar Bahasa Indonesia 1. Surabaya: P.T, Edumedia-

ipiems group.

McCabe, A. and C.Peterson (eds). (1991). Developing Narrative Structure.

Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

(1996). Meaningful mistake: The

systematicity of children’s connectives in narrative discourse and the
social origins of this usage about the past. In J.Costermans and
M.Fayol(eds) Processing Inter clausal Relationship in the Production
and The Comprehension of Text, Hillsdale, NJ.

Nur’aini, Umri & Indriyani. (2008). Bahasa Indonesia: untuk SD kelas III.
Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan Depdiknas. Retrieved March 25, 2009 from
www.bse.depdiknas.go.id

Moeliono, Anton M., et al. (1988). Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta:
Balai Pustaka.

Nunan, D. (1993). Introducing Discourse Analysis.London : Penguin Group.

Pusparini, Maya. (2007).The Use of Cohesive devices by Ten Elementary Students

In their Indonesian Narratives. Airlangga University. Unpublished
thesis.

Punch,. K. F. (1998).Introduction to Research. London Sage Publication Inc.

Rani, A.,Arifin, B., Martutik. (2006). Analisis Wacana : Sebuah Kajian Bahasa
dalam Pemakaian.Malang : Bayu Media.

Renkema,Jan.(1993)DiscourseStudies:AnIntroductoryTextbook.Amsterdam/
Philadelphia : Jhon Benyamin Publishing.

Sadjaah, Edja.(2005).Pendidikan Bahasa Bagi Anak Gangguan Pendengaran

Dalam Keluarga. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.

Scwrrato and Webb. (2004). Understanding The Visual. Los Angeles: SAGE
Publication.

Silverman, F. H. (1995). Speech, Language, and Hearing Disorders. Boston:

Allyn and Boston.

52
Sumadi, Sabariyanto, and Sutana. (1998). Kohesi dan Koherensi dalam Wacana
Naratif Bahasa Jawa. Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Van Dijk, Teun A. (1997). Discourse as Structures and Process( Discourse

Studies a multidiscplinary inrtroduction Vol I London:Sage
Publication.

Van Riper, Charles. (1963). Speech Correction: Principle and Method:

Englewood Clifts : prentice Hall.4th edition.

Wolcott, H.F. (1990) .Writing Up Qualitative Research: Qualitative Research

Method Series (Vol. 20).Newbury Park: SAGE PUBLICATIN Inc.

Widdowson, H.G. (2007). Discourse Analysis. New York: OUP.

Wiley, A.R., Rose, A.J., Burger, L.K., Miller, P.J. (1998). Constructing
autonomous selves through narrative practices: A comparative study
of working-class and middle-class families. Child Development, 69,
833-847.

www.scribd.com/PERMENDIKNAS-74-2009-TENTANG-UASBNSD-MI-SDLB,
retrieved on January 10, 2010.

53
 TABLE 1 Classification of Lexical Cohesion Devices
Appendix 1
J.Banjir
Participant 1 (M)
Hearing Level: R.95(Profound Hearing Loss) dB, L.75dB (Severe Hearing loss)
KM 1 / Kls V

Banjir air banyak(1). Rumah hujan(2).Rumah hujan air banjir(3).Pindah rumah Bapak dan ibu(4).

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Banjir air banyak..

2. Rumah hujan.. Hujan Collocation with banjir

3. Rumah hujan air banjir. Rumah Identical repetition

Hujan Identical repetition
Air banjir Repetition in other
form of banjir air.

4. Pindah rumah Bapak dan ibu. Rumah Identical repetition

Bapak dan Ibu Collocation

54 24
 Appendix 2
J. Tertabrak Mobil Pengankut Barang
Participant 2 (Fm)
Hearing Level: R. 110 dB, L. 115dB (Profound Hearing Loss)
KM 1 / Kls V

Kakak jalan sekolah ke pergi warna biru dan putih (1). Kakak jalan sekolah kepergi (2). Kakak jalan mobil tabar (=tabrak) akan (3). Kakak
tangan sakit rumah dokter (4). L2

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Kakak jalan sekolah ke pergi warna biru dan putih.

2. Kakak jalan sekolah kepergi. Kakak Identical repetition

jalan Identical repetition
sekolah Identical repetition
kepergi Identical repetition

3. Kakak jalan mobil tabar (=tabrak) akan. Kakak Identical repetition

jalan Identical repetition

4. Kakak tangan sakit rumah dokter. Kakak Identical repetition

Sakit rumah,dokter collocation

55 25
 Appendix 3
J. Banjir
Participant 2 (Fm)
Hearing Level: R. 110 dB, L. 115dB (Profound Hearing Loss)
KM 1 / Kls V

Air semua banjir ya (1). Rumah pohon hujan (2). Rumah semua hujan banjir (3). Rumah ayah dan ibu masak makan dan minum (4).

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Air semua banjir ya. Air, banjir collocation

2. Rumah pohon hujan. hujan Identical repetition

3. Rumah semua hujan banjir. Rumah Identical repetition

Hujan Identical repetition
Banjir Identical repetition
Hujan,banjir collocation

4. Rumah ayah dan ibu masak makan dan minum Rumah Identical repetition
Ayah, Ibu Collocation
Makan , minum antonymy

26
56
Appendix 4
J. Tertabrak Mobil Pengangkut Barang
Participant 4 (Fm)
Hearing Level: R. 95 dB , L. 100 dB (Profound Hearing Loss)
KM 1 / Kls V

Kakak sekolah kepergi jalan warna biru dan putih (1). Lilah kepergi jalan dimana sekolah (2). Kakak mobil tabar (=tabrakan) (3). Bapak tangan
sakit dokter rumah (4). L2

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Kakak sekolah kepergi jalan warna biru dan putih..

2. Lilah kepergi jalan dimana sekolah.. Kepergi Identical repetition

Jalan Identical repetition
Sekolah Identical repetition

3. Kakak mobil tabar (=tabrakan). Kakak Identical repetition

4. Bapak tangan sakit dokter rumah.. Rumah Identical repetition

Sakit,dokter collocation

57 27
Appendix 5
J. Banjir
Participant 4 (Fm)
Hearing Level: R. 95 dB , L. 100 dB (Profound Hearing Loss)
KM 1 / Kls V

Air banjir pohon (1). Rumah hujan angin (2). Rumah hujan banjir (3). Rumah masuk kaka (=kakak) dan ibu (4).

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Air banjir pohon. Air,banjir Collocation

2. Rumah hujan angin. Hujan,angin Collocation

3. Rumah hujan banjir. Rumah Identical repetition

Hujan Identical repetition

4. Rumah masuk kaka (=kakak) dan ibu. Rumah Identical repetition

58 28
Appendix 6
J. Memancing Ikan di Sungai
Participant 4 (Fm)
Hearing Level: R. 95 dB , L. 100 dB (Profound Hearing Loss)
KM 1 / Kls V

Even padi ikan pohon air (1).Faisal jalan ikan-ikan tiga (2). Ibu guru membantu masak ikan (3).Bapak, ibu dan kakak , adik makan nasi , minum
putih ikan (4). L2

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Even padi ikan pohon air padi,Ikan,air Collocation

2. Faisal jalan ikan-ikan tiga Ikan-ikan Identical repetition

3. Ibu guru membantu masak ikan Ikan Identical repetition

4. Bapak, ibu dan kakak , adik makan nasi , Ibu Identical repetition
minum putih ikan. Ikan Identical repetition
Bapak,ibu dan
kakak,adik Collocation.
Makani,minum Antonymy
Nasi, putih ikan collocation

59 29
Appendix 7
J.Memancing Ikan di Sungai
Participant 6 (Fm)
Hearing Level : R. 115dB , L. 110 dB (Profound Hearing Loss )
KM 1 / Kls VI

Setiap minggu memancing ikan di sungai (1). Dude bawa tancing (=pancing)ikan lele laut lama-lama waktu (2). Dude tunggu duduk tancing
(=pancing) ikan lele laut lama sudah (3).Dude memancing ikan lele di sungai banyak bawa sudah pulang (4). Dude bawa ikan lele banyak sudah pulang
rumah beri ibu (5). Ibu ikan lele goreng memasak di dapur waktu lama (6). Ibu ikan lele goreng memasak di dapur kecap waktu sudah (7). Keluarga
belum anak lapar nanti sabar ibu goreng lele ikan memasak di dapur waktu sudah beri keluarga sekarang sudah (8) . Makanan ikan lele, nasil (=nasi),
kecap dan minuman semua enak anak –anak makanan sudah enak semua habis lagi makan boleh (9). L5

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Setiap minggu memancing ikan di sungai. Memancing,ikan,di Collocation
sungai

2. Dude bawa tancing (=pancing)ikan lele laut Tancing Repetition in other

lama-lama waktu. form of memancing
Ikan identical repetition
Lama-lama identical repetition

3. Dude tunggu duduk tancing (=pancing) ikan lele Dude identical repetition
laut lama sudah. Tancing repetition in other form
of memancing
Ikan lele laut identical repetition

4. Dude memancing ikan lele di sungai banyak bawa Dude identical repetition
sudah pulang. Memancing identical repetition

60 30
 Ikan lele identical repetition
di sungai identical repetition
sudah identical repetition
sungai antonym of laut

5 Dude bawa ikan lele banyak sudah pulang rumah beri ibu. Dude identical repetition
Bawa identical repetition
Ikan lele identical repetition
Banyak identical repetition
Sudah identical repetition
Pulang identical repetition
Ibu. identical repetition

6. Ibu ikan lele goreng memasak di dapur waktu lama. Ibu identical repetition
Ikan lele identical repetition

7. Ibu ikan lele goreng memasak di dapur kecap waktu sudah. Ibu identical repetition
Ikan lele identical repetition

8. Keluarga belum anak lapar nanti sabar ibu goreng lele ikan lele Ikan identical repetition
memasak di dapur waktu sudah beri keluarga sekarang sudah. memasak identical repetition
di dapur identical repetition
waktu sudah identical repetition
keluarga identical repetition
sudah identical repetition

9. Makanan ikan lele, nasil (=nasil), kecap dan minuman semua enak anak –anak makanan ikan lele identical repetition
sudah enak semua habis lagi makan boleh. kecap identical repetition
anak identical repetition
enak-enak identical repetition
makanan identical repetition

61 31
 sudah identical repetition
makan Repetition in other
form of makanan
minuman,makanan antonymy

62 32
 Appendix 8
J.Banjir
Participant 7 (Fm)
Hearing Level: R. 118 dB , L. 120 dB (Profound Hearing Loss)
KM 1 / Kls VI

Pohon rusak sampah air di sungai banjir(1).Pohon potong angin sampah air banjir di laut (2).
Rumah-rumah musim hujan air lama (3). Rumah turun hujan kemarau (4). Hujan jam 12.00 siang (5). L2
Rumah banjir turun hujan musim banjir (6). Rumah-rumah jam 18.00 malam banjir turun hujan (7)
Rumah-rumah di lapangan kakak dan adik duduk baju basah jam 06.00 pagi (8) L4

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Pohon rusak sampah air di sungai banjir Air,sungai,banjir Collocation

2. Pohon potong angin sampah air banjir di laut Pohon identical repetition
Sampah identical repetition
Air identical repetition
Banjir identical repetition
laut antonymy of sungai

3. Rumah-rumah musim hujan air lama Rumah-rumah identical repetition

Air identical repetition

4. Rumah turun hujan kemarau Rumah identical repetition

Hujan,kemarau antonymy

5. Hujan jam 12.00 siang Hujan identical repetition

6. Rumah banjir turun hujan musim banjir Rumah identical repetition

63 33
 Banjir identical repetition
Turun identical repetition
Hujan, Musim Banjir synonymy

7. Rumah-rumah jam 18.00 malam banjir turun hujan. Rumah identical repetition
Jam identical repetition
Banjir identical repetition
Turun identical repetition
hujan identical repetition
malam antonym of siang

8. Rumah-rumah di lapangan kakak dan adik duduk baju rumah identical repetition
basah jam 06.00 pagi. jam identical repetition

64 34
 Appendix 9
J.Banjir
Participant 8 (Fm)
Hearing Level: R. 120 dB , L.117 dB (Profound Hearing Loss )
KM 1 / Kls VI

Setelah dari banyak membuang sampah kotor (1). Air tak dalam lama yang banyak buang sampah maju(2). Sekarang semua yang kotor dapat di
rumah ini (3). Ia dirumah mereka yang hujan dapat lama-lama awan hujan yang banyak cepat lama (4). L2
Di rumah yang hujan yang lama harus kita banjir (5). Hujan dari lama yang banjir di rumah tinggal lama (6). Tumbuh banjir yang hujan harus di
rumah dapat (7). Ibu, ayah, kakak, dan adik sekarang banjir yang rumah pernah tolong bawa jalan jauh jari cepat hujan yang banjir dapat lama tinggal
tebal pergi (8). L5
Keluar jauh jalan yang jari pergi sudah di rumah dapat bawa sekarang maju mereka di rumah tanah tumbuh daun yang dekat di rumah sudah (9).

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Setelah dari banyak membuang sampah kotor.

2. Air tak dalam lama yang banyak buang sampah maju. Buang identical repetition
Sampah identical repetition

3. Sekarang semua yang kotor dapat di rumah ini. Yang identical repetition
kotor identical repetition

4. Ia dirumah mereka yang hujan dapat lama-lama awan dirumah Identical repetition
hujan yang banyak cepat lama. Yang identical repetition
Dapat identical repetition
Lama-lama identical repetition
Banyak identical repetition
Lama identical repetition

65 35
 5. Di rumah yang hujan yang lama harus kita banjir. Di identical repetition
Rumah identical repetition
Yang identical repetition
Hujan identical repetition
Lama identical repetition

6. Hujan dari lama yang banjir di rumah tinggal lama. Hujan identical repetition
Lama identical repetition
Yang identical repetition
Banjir identical repetition
Di identical repetition
Rumah identical repetition

7. Tumbuh banjir yang hujan harus di rumah dapat. Banjir identical repetition
Yang identical repetition
Hujan identical repetition
Harus identical repetition
Di identical repetition
Rumah identical repetition
Dapat identical repetition

8. Ibu, ayah, kakak, dan adik sekarang banjir yang rumah Sekarang identical repetition
pernah tolong bawa jalan jauh jari cepat hujan yang Banjir identical repetition
banjir dapat lama tinggal tebal pergi. Yang identical repetition
Rumah identical repetition
Hujan identical repetition
Dapat identical repetition
lama identical repetition
Tinggal identical repetition
Ibu,ayah,kakak,dan collocation
adik

66 36
 9. Keluar jauh jalan yang jari pergi sudah di rumah dapat bawa sekarang maju mereka di Jauh identical repetition
rumah tanah tumbuh daun yang dekat di rumah sudah. jari identical repetition
Pergi identical repetition
sudah identical repetition
di identical repetition
rumah identical repetition
tumbuh identical repetition
yang identical repetition
dekat antonymy of jauh

67 37
 Appendix 10
J.Tertabrak Mobil Pengangkut Barang
Participant 8 (Fm)
Hearing Level: R. 120 dB , L.117 dB (Profound Hearing Loss )
KM 1 / Kls VI

Murid-murid yang sekolah mereka teman dengan anak-anak datang bagi kamu pulang harus jalan kumpulan teman sekolah harus jalan (1).
Murid-murid yang dengan kumpulan jalan tunggu senbentar (=sebentar )yang mobil barang sudah jalan murid kumpul jalan macet lambat jalan
yang jari (2). L3
Kakak melihat dengar suara bicara pernah awas jangan jari kakak yang harus tertabrak mobil pengangkut barang jatuh sakit tolong (3). Bawa
kumpul mobil ambulan bawa sudah sudah pulang mobil jalan bawa di rumah sakit kakak sakit tidur tasar yang sakit teman (4). L5

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Murid-murid yang sekolah mereka teman dengan anak-anak datang bagi kamu pulang Murid-murid identical repetition
harus jalan kumpulan teman sekolah harus jalan. Sekolah identical repetition
mereka repetition by
substitution of murid-
murid
Teman identical repetition
Anak-anak identical repetition
Teman identical repetition
Murid, sekolah collocation

2. Murid-murid yang dengan kumpulan jalan tunggu senbentar (=sebentar )yang mobil Murid identical repetition
barang sudah jalan murid kumpul jalan macet lambat jalan yang jari. Yang identical repetition
Kumpulan identical repetition
Jalan identical repetition
Kumpul identical repetition

68 38
 Mobil barang hyponymy

3. Kakak melihat dengar suara bicara pernah awas jangan jari kakak yang harus tertabrak Kakak identical repetition
mobil pengangkut barang jatuh sakit tolong. Jari identical repetition
yang identical repetition
Harus identical repetition
Mobil pengangkut repetition in other form
barang of mobil barang

4. Bawa kumpul mobil ambulan bawa sudah pulang mobil jalan bawa di rumah sakit kakak Bawa identical repetition
sakit tidur tasar yang sakit teman. Kumpul identical repetition
Mobil identical repetition
Jalan identical repetition
Kakak identical repetition
Sakit identical repetition
teman identical repetition
mobil,ambulan hyponymy

69 39
 Appendix 11
J. Banjir
Participant 9 (Fm)
Hearing Level :R. 118 dB, L.120dB (Profound Hearing Loss)
KM 1 / Kls VI

Air sampah air sotap banjir tumbuhan, pisang, sampah.(1). Rumah hunjan kecil banjir belum siang hujan besar (2). Rumah banjir rocoh
(=roboh) pohon kayu banjir hunjir besar (3). Rumah tenda kelaurga (=keluarga) bersama-sama (4). L2

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Air sampah air sotap banjir tumbuhan, pisang, sampah. air identical repetition
Sampah identical repetition
Air,banjir synonym

2. Rumah hunjan kecil banjir belum siang hujan besar . Banjir identical repetition
Hunjan kecil, hujan
besar antonymy

3. Rumah banjir rocoh (=roboh) pohon kayu banjir hunjir besar. Rumah identical repetition
Banjir identical repetition
Besar identical repetition
Pohon,kayu metonymy

4. Rumah tenda kelaurga (=keluarga) bersama-sama . Rumah identical repetition

Bersama-sama identical repetition

70 40
 Appendix 12
J. Memancing Ikan di sungai
Participant 9 (Fm)
Hearing Level :R. 118 dB, L.120dB (Profound Hearing Loss)
KM 1 / Kls VI

Kakak memancing ikan di sugai (=sungai) (1). Kakak memancing ikan di sugai (=sungai) lama ikut memancing air ikan (2). Kakak memancing
ikan pulang ikan tas (3).Ibu mengosok (menggosok) ikan masak di dupar (=dapur) (4) . Kelaurga makam (=makan) lapar ikan, nasi minum sebelum(5)

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Kakak memancing ikan di sugai (=sungai).

2. Kakak memancing ikan di sugai (=sungai) lama ikut Kakak memancing ikan Identical repetition
memancing air ikan . di sugai
Memancing air ikan Repetition in other
form of memancing
ikan

3. Kakak memancing ikan pulang ikan tas . Kakak memancing ikan Identical repetition
Ikan

4. Ibu mengosok (menggosok) ikan masak di dupar (=dapur) . ikan Identical repetition

5. Kelaurga makam (=makan) lapar ikan, nasi minum sebelum. ikan Identical repetition
makam, lapar, ikan, Collocation
nasi, minum.

71 41
 Appendix 13
J.Banjir
Participant 15 (Fm)
Hearing Level :R.104dB, L. 100dB (Profound Hearing Loss)
KM 2 / Kls VI
Sampah dibuang di sungai banjir (1). Hujan banjir terus(2).
Rumah hujan banjir di sungai (3).Hujan banjir air banyak tapi banjir air kecil(4) Rumah banjir di sungai(5). L2
Runmah banjir aliran sungai(6). .Rumah banjir air sungai(7). Tidak boleh buang sampah banjir aliran sungai(8).
Rumah banjir tenda (9). Rumah banjir tapi tidak punya rumah(10). Hujan di sungai (11). Orang kasihan tapi rumah banjir aliran sungai (12).L4

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Sampah dibuang di sungai banjir.

2 Hujan banjir terus. Banjir Identical repetition

3. Rumah hujan banjir di sungai. Hujan Identical repetition

Banjir Identical repetition
Di sungai Identical repetition

4. Hujan banjir air banyak tapi banjir air kecil. Hujan Identical repetition
Banjir Identical repetition
air Identical repetition
banyak, kecil Antonymy

5. Rumah banjir di sungai. Rumah Identical repetition

Banjir Identical repetition
Di sungai Identical repetition

6. Runmah banjir aliran sungai. Rumah Identical repetition

72 42
 Banjir Identical repetition
Aliran sungai Repetition in other
form of sungai

7. Rumah banjir air sungai. Rumah Identical repetition

Banjir Identical repetition
Air sungai Repetition in other
form of aliran sungai

8. Tidak boleh buang sampah banjir aliran sungai. Sampah Identical repetition
Banjir Identical repetition
Aliran sungai Identical repetition

9. Rumah banjir tenda. Rumah banjir Identical repetition

Identical repetition

10. Rumah banjir tapi tidak punya rumah. Rumah banjir Identical repetition
Rumah Identical repetition

11. Hujan di sungai. Hujan Identical repetition

Di sungai Identical repetition

12. Orang kasihan tapi rumah banjir aliran sungai. Tapi Identical repetition
rumah banjir Identical Repetition
Aliran sungai Identical Repetition

73 43
 Appendix 14
J.Banjir
Participant 17 (M)
Hearing Level:R.104dB , L.101dB (Profound Hearing Loss)
KM 2 / Kls VI

Sampah dibuang banyak terus setiap hari(1). Orang sampah dibuang terus(2). Orang sampah kumpul ambil(3).Sampah dibuang larang(4).
Hujan deras lama jam 11.00 malam (5). Rumah bocor hujan deras (6). Rumah orang keluar (7) L2
Rumah hujan deras tapi banjar (=banjir) 2,5 meter (8). Rumah banjir orang meninggal(9). Rumah banjir terus (10) .
Rumah sakit orang2(11). L4
Sampah buang di tempatnya bersih orang dingin keras (12).

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Sampah dibuang banyak terus setiap hari.

2. Orang sampah dibuang terus. Sampah dibuang terus Identical repetition

3. Orang sampah kumpul ambil. Orang sampah Identical repetition

ambil Antonymy of dibuang

4. Sampah dibuang larang. Sampah dibuang Identical repetition

5. Hujan deras lama jam 11.00 malam. Hujan deras Identical repetition
deras Synonymy of banyak

6. Rumah bocor hujan deras.

7. Rumah orang keluar. Rumah Identical repetition

Orang Identical repetition

74 44
 8. Rumah hujan deras tapi banjar (=banjir) 2,5 meter. Rumah Identical repetition
Hujan deras Identical repetition

9. Rumah banjir orang meninggal. Rumah Identical repetition

Banjir Identical repetition
orang Identical repetition

10 Rumah banjir terus. Rumah banjir Identical repetition

Terus Synonym of deras

11 Rumah sakit orang2. Rumah Identical repetition

Orang2 Identical repetition

12 Sampah buang di tempatnya bersih orang dingin keras. Sampah Identical repetition
Buang Repetition in other
form of dibuang
Di Identical repetition
Orang Identical repetition

75 45
 Appendix 15
J.Banjir
Participant 18 (Fm)
Hearing Level: R. 95dB, L. 95 dB (Profound Hearing Loss).
KM 2 / Kls VI
Orang-orang tidak boleh dibuang sampah di selokan dan di sungai bisa akan banjir(1). Orang-orang harus buang sampah di tempatnya(2).
Orang-orang bisa menyumbat (3). L2
Rumah bocor karena hujan keras(4). Orang sakit panas tadi malam hujan keras(5).
Rumah banjir penuh tenda(6). Rumah masuk banjir kamar tidur kamu basah dalam rumah banjir penuh(7). L4
Tadi malam hujan keras sampai sekarang pagi hujan selesai(8). Tadi malam hujan penuh sekarang banjir tenda(9). Rumah orang dalam kotor
semakin kotor sekali(10) L6

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Orang-orang tidak boleh dibuang sampah di selokan dan Orang-orang Identical repetition
di sungai bisa akan banjir. Di Identical repetition
Selokan,sungai Collocation
Bisa,akan synonymy

2. Orang-orang harus buang sampah di tempatnya. Orang-orang Identical repetition

Buang sampah Repetition in other
form of dibuang
sampah

3. Orang-orang bisa menyumbat. Orang-orang Identical repetition

Bisa Identical repetition

4. Rumah bocor karena hujan keras. - -

5 Orang sakit panas tadi malam hujan keras. Orang sakit panas Repetition in other

76
46
 form of orang-orang
Hujan keras Identical repetition

6. Rumah banjir penuh tenda. Rumah Identical repetition

. Banjir Identical repetition

7. Rumah masuk banjir kamar tidur kamu basah Rumah Identical repetition
dalam rumah banjir penuh. Banjir Identical repetition
Banjir penuh Identical repetition

8. Tadi malam hujan keras sampai sekarang pagi Tadi malam hujan Identical repetition
hujan selesai. keras Identical repetition
hujan Identical repetition
tadi, sekarang Collocation

9. Tadi malam hujan penuh sekarang banjir tenda. Tadi malam hujan Identical repetition
Sekarang Identical repetition
Banjir Identical repetition

10. Rumah orang dalam kotor semakin kotor sekali. Rumah Identical repetition
Orang Identical repetition
Kotor Identical repetition
Rumah,tenda synonymy

77 47
 Appendix 16
J.Memancing Ikan
Participant 18 (Fm)
Hearing Level: R. 95dB, L. 95 dB (Profound Hearing Loss).
KM 2 / Kls VI

Kakak memancing ikan di sungai (1). Kakak membawa tali cari cacing ikan (2). Kakak tunggu kok lama mencari ikan di sungai(3). Kakak
tunggu mendapat ikan di sungai 4). (L2)
Kakak berangkat jam 08.35 pagi sampai sudah pulang jam 11.00 siang(5). Kakak senang mendapat ikan ikan banyak 12 biji(6).Kakak
mempunyai ikan untuk makan keluarga.(7).
Ibu memasak ikan dan nasi di dapur (8). Kakak memberi ibu ikan untuk makan keluarga di meja (9). Ayah melapor makan karena ibu belum
memasak kok belum datang kakak(10).
Ibu sudah memasak di dapur (11). Ayah, ibu, kakak, dan adik sudah makan(12). Ayah,ibu,kakak,dan adik makan ikan rasa enak sekali(13).
Ayah berangkat kerja ke kantor(14) (L8)

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Kakak memancing ikan di sungai.

2. Kakak membawa tali cari cacing ikan. Kakak Identical repetition

Ikan Identical repetition

3. Kakak tunggu kok lama mencari ikan di sungai. Kakak Identical repetition
Ikan Identical repetition
Di sungai Identical repetition

4. Kakak tunggu mendapat ikan di sungai. Kakak Identical repetition

Tunggu Identical repetition
Ikan Identical repetition
Di sungai Identical repetition

78 48
 mendapat Antonymy of mencari

5. Kakak berangkat jam 08.35 pagi sampai sudah Kakak Identical repetition
pulang jam 11.00 siang. Berangkat , pulang antonymy
Pagi,siamg collocation

6. Kakak senang mendapat ikan ikan banyak 12 biji. Kakak Identical repetition
Mendapat Identical repetition
Ikan-ikan Identical repetition

7. Kakak mempunyai ikan untuk makan keluarga. Kakak Identical repetition

Ikan Identical repetition
Kakak,keluarga metonymy

8. Ibu memasak ikan dan nasi di dapur. Ikan Identical repetition

9. Kakak memberi ibu ikan untuk makan keluarga di meja. Kakak,ibu,keluarga Metonymy
memberi antonymy of mendapat
makan Identical repetition
di Identical repetition

10. Ayah melapor makan karena ibu belum memasak kok Ayah,ibu,kakak ,adik Metonymy of keluarga
belum datang kakak. Makan Collocation
Belum Antonymy of sudah
Datang antonymy of berangkat

11. Ibu sudah memasak di dapur. Ibu Identical repetition

Sudah memasak Antonymy of belum
memasak
Di dapur Identical repetition

79 49
 12. Ayah, ibu, kakak, dan adik sudah makan. Ayah,ibu,kakak,adik Identical repetition
Sudah antonymy of belum
makan identical repetition

13. Ayah,ibu,kakak,dan adik makan ikan rasa enak sekali. Ayah,ibu, kakak, adik identical repetition
Makan identical repetition
Ikan identical repetition

14. Ayah berangkat kerja ke kantor. Ayah identical repetition

Berangkat synonymy of tiba

80 50
 Appendix 17
J.Tertabrak Mobil Pengangkut Barang
Participant 25 (Fm)
Hearing Level: R.80db, L.84dB (Severe Hearing Loss)
KM 2 / Kls V

Bambang, Bagus, Dede, Rizal, Atikah, Ayu, teman2 mereka ,setelah sudah pulang sekolah jam 12.00 (1).Saya melihat orang lain, tapi saya
berselingkuh dulu (2). Bambang dan Bagus jalan mneyeberang jalan raya (3). Bagus dan Bambang akhir tabrak mobil (4). Sudah hampir tertabrak mobil
kacau (5). Bagus kaget dan Bambang jatuh tabrak (6). Bambang tidak bisa mendengar bunyi klakson (7).
Orang lain mobil bunyi panggil hape (8). Ia hape jatuh orang melihat kaca ada anak2 menyeberang jalan raya zebra cross (9). Orang mobil
memakai rem (10). Aduuuh khawatir ada anak jatuh (11). Orang banyak menjadi kacau (12). Orang Ayah dibawa anak dirawat rumah sakit (13). Orang
lain dari orang tua Bambang (14). Dimana kecelakaan itu terjadi ? kata ibu Bambang (15). Dimana rumah sakit Islam jalan A.Yani (16). Ibu sdh
(=sudah) datang akhir di RSI (17). Kenapa kamu tidak melihat hati2 (18). Maaf saya tidak tahu melihat hati-hati (19). Jangan lagi tabrak ya RSI mahal
bayar (20).

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 Bambang, Bagus, Dede, Rizal, Atikah, Ayu, teman2 Teman
mereka ,setelah sudah pulang sekolah jam 12.00.

2. Saya melihat orang lain, tapi saya berselingkuh dulu. Saya Identical repetition

3. Bambang dan Bagus jalan mneyeberang jalan raya. Bagus dan Bambang Identical repetition

4 Bagus dan Bambang akhir tabrak mobil. Bagus dan Bambang Identical repetition

5. Sudah hampir tertabrak mobil kacau. Tertabrak mobil Identical repetition

6. Bagus kaget dan Bambang jatuh tabrak.. Bagus Identical repetition

Bambang Identical repetition

81 51
 Tabrak Identical repetition

7 Bambang tidak bisa mendengar bunyi klakson. Bambang Identical repetition

8. Orang lain mobil bunyi panggil hape. Mobil Identical repetition

Bunyi Identical rpetition

9. Ia hape jatuh orang melihat kaca ada anak2 Hape Identical repetition
menyeberang jalan raya zebra cross. Jatuh Identical repetition
Orang Identical repetition
Anak Identical repetition
menyeberang jalan
raya Identical repetition

10. Orang mobil memakai rem. orang mobil repetition in other form
of orang lain mobil
11. Aduuuh khawatir ada anak jatuh. anak identical repetition
jatuh identical repetition

12. Orang banyak menjadi kacau. Orang Identical repetition

13. Orang Ayah dibawa anak dirawat rumah sakit. Orang Identical repetition

14. Orang lain dari orang tua Bambang. Orang lain identical repetition
Bambang identical repetition
Orang tua hyponymy of ayah

15. Dimana kecelakaan itu terjadi ? kata ibu Bambang. Ibu hyponymy of orang
tua
16. Dimana rumah sakit Islam jalan A.Yani. Bambang identical repetition

82 52
 17. Ibu sdh (=sudah) datang akhir di RSI. Rumah sakit islam repetition in other form
of rumah sakit
RSI synonymy of rumah
sakit islam
18. Kenapa kamu tidak melihat hati2.

19. Maaf saya tidak tahu melihat hati-hati. Melihat hati-hati identical repetition

20.. Jangan lagi tabrak ya RSI mahal bayar. RSI identical repetition

83 53
 Appendix 18
J.Memancing Ikan di Sungai
Participant 25 (Fm)
Hearing Level : R.80dB, L.84dB (Severe Hearing Loss)
KM 2 / Kls V

April 2004 lalu Kakak dari Makasar yang dulu (1). Kakak Tiara, Eka, Om pergi pancing ikan di laut (2). Om dapat ikan Gurami , kak Tiara
dapat ikan kecil , Eka tidak dapat ikan (3). Om, ayo sudah pulang sekarang sore 17.30 wib, kata Eka (4). Kamu pulang sekarang kata Om ya…Om
membawa ikan (5). Kamu bisa masak ikan goreng atau bakar,kata Om (6). Maaf saya tidak bisa masak ikan goreng dan bakar, kata Eka (7). Harus
belajar masak bersama Tanti (8). Oh….saya belajar masak Tanti bosan (9). Tanti, Bibi, dan Nenek bersama masak dapur dibelakang (10). Tanti sudah
selesai masak kata Eka (11). Ayo…makan ini bersama saudara (12). Eka , panggil saudara kata Tanti (13). Oke…….aku bisa kubantu panggil saudara
(14). Semuaaa panggil Tanti semua makan ya(15). Oh ya sebentar sabar tunggu jangan marah-marah terus ya (16). Hmm…tunggu makan bersama
berdoa (17). Sudah selesai(18). Makan ikan enak mantap s’kaliii (19). Aku sudah makan ikan enak (20).

Sent. Sentence
No. Cohesion Devices Lexical cohesion
Indonesian
1 April 2004 lalu Kakak dari Makasar yang dulu .

2. Kakak Tiara, Eka, Om pergi pancing ikan di laut. Kakak Identical repetition

3. Om dapat ikan Gurami , kak Tiara dapat ikan kecil , Ikan, gurami Hyponymy
Eka tidak dapat ikan. Om Identical repetition
Kak Tiara Identical repetition
Eka Identical repetition

4. Om, ayo sudah pulang sekarang sore 17.30 wib, kata Eka . Om Identical repetition
Eka Identical repetition

5. Kamu pulang sekarang kata Om ya…Om membawa ikan. Om Identical repetition

84 54
 6. Kamu bisa masak ikan goreng atau bakar,kata Om. Kamu Identical repetition
Om Identical repetition

7. Maaf saya tidak bisa masak ikan goreng dan bakar, kata Eka. Masak Identical repetition
Ikan goreng dan bakar Identical repetition

8. Harus belajar masak bersama Tanti . Tanti Identical repetition

masak Identical repetition

9. Oh….saya belajar masak Tanti bosan. Tanti Identical repetition

Belajar masak Identical repetition

10. Tanti, Bibi, dan Nenek bersama masak dapur dibelakang. Tanti Identica repetition
Masak Identical repetition
Bersama masak Identical repetition

11. Tanti sudah selesai masak kata Eka. Tanti Identical repetition
Sudah Identical repetition
Masak Identical repetition

12. Ayo…makan ini bersama saudara . Makan Identical repetition

bersama Identical repetition

13 Eka , panggil saudara kata Tanti. Eka Identical repetition

Tanti Identical repetition
Saudara Identical repetition

14. Oke…….aku bisa kubantu panggil saudara . Aku Synonymy of saya

saudara Identical repetition

15 Semuaaa panggil Tanti semua makan ya. Panggil Identical repetition

85 55
 Tanti Identical repetition
semua Identical repetition

16. Oh ya sebentar sabar tunggu jangan marah-marah terus ya. Marah-marah Identical repetition

17. Hmm…tunggu makan bersama berdoa. Makan Identical repetition

Bersama Identical repetition

18. Sudah selesai. Makan Identical repetition

Ikan Identical repetition

19. Makan ikan enak mantap s’kaliii. Ikan Identical repetition

20. Aku sudah makan ikan enak. Aku Identical repetition

Makan ikan enak Identical repetition

86 56
 Appendix 19
Table 2 Total Number of Lexical Cohesion from All Composition

Composition Lexical Cohesion

Number
Reiteration Collocation
Identical Repetition in Repetition by Synonymy Hyponymy Metonymy Antonymy
Repetition Other Form substitution
Participant 1 16 1 - - - - 1 6
Participant 2 18 - - - - - 2 7
Participant 3 5 - - - - - - 4
Participant 4 12 - - - - - 1 6
Participant 5 16 1 - - - - `1 4
Participant 6 81 6 - 1 1 1 3 6
Participant 7 67 1 - 1 1 - 4 4
Participant 8 90 1 1 - 3 1 1 2
Participant 9 20 2 - 1 - 2 1 1
Participant 10 38 - - - 1 1 - 2
Participant 11 39 1 - 1 1 1 - 2
Participant 12 31 - - - 1 1 1 1
Participant 13 15 - - 1 - - - 3
Participant 14 77 2 - 1 2 1 4 1
Participant 15 56 4 - - 1 - 2 2
Participant 16 18 1 - - - - 1 -
Participant 17 39 2 - 2 2 - 1 1
Participant 18 74 4 - 3 - 3 8 4
Participant 19 83 3 - 1 - - 5 1
Participant 20 27 2 - - - - 1 -
Participant 21 14 1 - - - - 3 2

87 57
 Continuing of Appendix 19
Table 2 Total Number of Lexical Cohesion from All Composition

Composition Lexical Cohesion

Number
Reiteration Collocation
Identical Repetition in Repetition by Synonymy Hyponymy Metonymy Antonymy
Repetition Other Form substitution
Participant 22 37 3 - - - - - -
Participant 23 16 1 - - - - 1
Participant 24 16 - - - - - - -
Participant 25 80 2 - 2 3 - - 1
Total Number of 985 38 1 14 16 11 40 60
Each Subtype
Total Number of 1165
Lexical
Cohesion

88
58
 Appendix 20. TABLE 3 Total Numbers of Lexical Cohesive Devices in Each Composition

Composition LEXICAL COHESION

Participant 1 24
Participant 2 27
Participant 3 9
Participant 4 19
Participant 5 21
Participant 6 99
Participant 7 78
Participant 8 99
Participant 9 27
Participant 10 42
Participant 11 45
Participant 12 35
Participant 13 19
Participant 14 88
Participant 15 65
Participant 16 20
Participant 17 47
Participant 18 96
Participant 19 93
Participant 20 30
Participant 21 20
Participant 22 40
Participant 23 18
Participant 24 16
Participant 25 88
Total 1165

89 59
 Appendix 21
Table 4 Total Number of Each Type of Lexical Cohesive Devices

Type of Cohesive Devices Total Number Result in %

Identical repetition 985 84.55
Repetition in Other form 38 3.26
Repetition by Substitution 1 0.09
Synonymy 14 1.20
Hyponymy 16 1.37
Metonymy 11 0.94
Antonymy 40 3.43
Collocation 60 5.15

Appendix 22
Table 5 Total Number of Each Type of Lexical Cohesive Devices in All Composition

Type of Cohesive Devices Total Number Result in %

Reiteration 1105 94.85
Collocation 60 5.15

90
60
 Appendix 23

Table 6. Classification of Hearing Impairment based on Hearing Loss

Hearing Loss Effect on Ability to

In Decibels (dB) Classification Understand Speech
0-15 Normal Hearing None
15-25 Slight of hearing loss Minimal difficulty with soft
speech.
25-40 Mild hearing loss Difficulty with soft speech
40-55 Moderate hearing loss Frequent difficulty with
Normal speech.
56-70 Moderate-severe hearing loss Occasional difficulty with
loud speech
71-90 Severe hearing loss Frequently difficulty with
loud speech
>91 Profound hearing loss Near total or total loss of
Hearing.

Source : Hardman, M.J.,Drew, C.J, Egan, M.W.,(2002:422). Human Exceptionality: Society , School, and Family.
(7th edit.) Boston : Allyn and Bacon

91

61
Appendix 24
 Menulis Paragraf Narasi

Bercerita dalam bentuk karangan narasi sesuai dengan gambar dibawah ini.

BANJIR

A B

C D

Source: www.bse.depdiknas.go.id

172
92
Appendix 25
 Menulis Paragraf Narasi
Bercerita dalam bentuk karangan narasi sesuai dengan gambar dibawah ini.

MEMANCING IKAN DI SUNGAI

A B

C D

Source: www.bse.depdiknas.go.id

173
93
Appendix 26
 Menulis Paragraf Narasi

Bercerita dalam bentuk karangan narasi sesuai dengan gambar dibawah ini.

TERTABRAK MOBIL PENGANGKUT BARANG

A B

C D

Source: www.bse.depdiknas.go.id

174
94
 Appendix 27 Table 7 Syllabus of Soal Ujian Akhir Sekolah Berstandar Nasional (UASBN) SDLB
4. BAHASA INDONESIA SDLB - B (Tunarungu)
No. Standar Kompetensi Lulusan
1. Memahami jenis wacana
sastra/nonsastra yang berupa
teks bacaan, pengalaman
sehari-hari, dan dongeng.
2. Memperbaiki kesalahan
berbahasa dalam hal pemilihan
kata, gabungan kata, ejaan dan
tanda baca.
95
Kemampuan yang diuji
Memahami isi teks bacaan sastra
Memahami isi teks bacaan nonsastra
Menggunakan kata penghubung dalam
paragraf
Menggunakan kata depan dalam kalimat
Menggunakan EYD dengan tepat
Mengartikan kata dasar/kata
berimbuhan
Menggunakan awalan pada kata
berimbuhan
Indikator
Disajikan teks bacaan sastra sederhana, siswa dapat:
- Menentukan tokoh utama dalam bacaan
- Menentukan watak salah satu tokoh dalam bacaan
- Menentukan peristiwa yang terjadi dalam bacaan
- Menentukan latar terjadinya peristiwa dalam bacaan
Disajikan teks bacaan nonsastra (2-3 paragraf tanpa judul), siswa dapat:
- Menentukan kalimat utama salah satu paragraf
- Menyimpulkan isi bacaan
- Menentukan judul yang sesuai dengan isi bacaan
- Menentukan tema bacaan
- Menentukan isi pokok salah satu paragraf
Menggunakan kata penghubung yang tepat dalam paragraf
Menentukan kata depan yang tepat untuk melengkapi kalimat
Menentukan penulisan nama negara yang benar menurut EYD
Menentukan penulisan ejaan salah satu kata yang tepat dalam kalimat
Menentukan tanda baca yang tepat dalam kalimat
Disajikan kalimat rumpang , siswa dapat melengkapinya dengan kata
berimbuhan yang tepat
Disajikan sebuah kalimat, siswa dapat menentukan kata dasar berdasarkan
kata berimbuhan yang terdapat pada kalimat tersebut
Disajikan kalimat dengan kata dasar, siswa dapat menentukan kata
berawalan me- yang tepat
Disajikan kalimat rumpang, siswa dapat melengkapinya dengan kata
berawalan ber- yang tepat
Diberikan kalimat dengan kata dasar, siswa dapat menentukan kata
berawalan ter- yang tepat.
175
 No Standar Kompetensi Lulusan
3. Menggunakan kata, kalimat
serta ejaan dan tanda baca
dalam berbagai ragam tulisan.
96
Kemampuan yang diuji
Menggunakan kata ganti.
Menggunakan kata tanya
Menggunakan gabungan kata
Menuliskan pemenggalan suku kata
Menerapkan pemenggalan kalimat/jeda
Menggunakan sinonim/antonim
Memahami jabatan kata dalam kalimat
Menggunakan huruf kapital dan tanda
Baca.
Menentukan kalimat tanya
Mengartikan kata
Menggunakan kata seru
Menentukan penulisan kalimat
langsung/tidak langsung
Menyusun kata-kata acak
Indikator
Disajikan kata ganti orang yang salah dalam kalmia siswa dapat
memperbaikinya dengan kata ganti yang tepat
Disajikan kalimat rumpang , siswa dapat melengkapinya dengan kata ganti
orang yang tepat
Disajikan kalimat rumpang , siswa dapat melengkapinya dengan kata
tanya yang tepat
Disajikan kalimat rumpang , siswa dapat melengkapinya dengan kata
gabungan yang tepat
Menentukan pemenggalan kata dalam kalimat berdasarkan suku katanya
dengan tepat
Disajikan kalimat, siswa dapat menentukan pemenggalannya berdasarkan
jeda yang benar
Disajikan sebuah kalimat, siswa dapat menentukan sinonim salah satu kata
dalam kalimat tersebut
Disajikan sebuah kalimat, siswa dapat menentukan antonim salah satu kata
dalam kalimat tersebut
Disajikan kalimat, siswa dapat menentukan subjek kalimat tersebut
Disajikan kalimat, siswa dapat menentukan predikat kalimat tersebut
Disajikan kalimat, siswa dapat menentukan objek kalimat tersebut
Menentukan penulisan huruf kapital yang tepat dalam kalimat
Menentukan penggunaan tanda baca koma yang tepat dalam kalimat
Disajikan 4 kalimat, siswa dapat menentukan kalimat Tanya
Disajikan sebuah kalimat, siswa dapat menentukan arti salah satu kata
dalam kalimat tersebut
Disajikan kalimat rumpang, siswa dapat melengkapinya dengan kata seru
yang tepat.
Disajikan 4 kalimat, siswa dapat menentukan penulisan kalimat langsung
yang tepat
Disajikan kata-kata, siswa dapat menyusunnya menjadi kalimat yang tepat
176
No Standar Kompetensi Lulusan
4. Mengapresiasi karya sastra
yang berupa puisi, prosa, fiksi,
dan merefleksi isinya dalam
kehidupan sehari-hari.
Source: www.scribd.com/PERMENDIKNAS-74-2009-TENTANG-UASBNSD-MI-SDLB, retrieved on January 10, 2010.
97
Kemampuan yang diuji
Menentukan kalimat sindiran
Menentukan kalimat penghalus
Menentukan ungkapan kesedihan.
Melengkapi paragraph.
Indikator
Disajikan suatu kejadian, siswa dapat mengomentari dengan kalimat
sindiran yang tepat
Disajikan suatu kejadian , siswa dapat mengomentari dengan kalimat yang
halus/sopan
Disajikan penggalan cerita sederhana, siswa dapat menentukan kalimat
yang mengungkapkan rasa sedih sesuai dengan cerita tersebut
Disajikan paragraf yang belum lengkap, siswa dapat melengkapinya
dengan kalimat yang tepat
177