lndonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics co us http://ejournal.upi.edU/index.phpIIJAL Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics AJou mal of First and Second Language Teaching and learning HOME ARCHIVES STATEMENT ABOUT LOGIN REGISTER SEARCH CURRENT ANNOUNCEMENTS EDITORIAL TEAM MALPRACTICE AUTHOR(S)' MALPRACTICE STATEMENT AUTHOR(S) GUIDELINES Home> Vol 4, No 1 (2014) Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics A Journal of First and Second Language Teaching and Learning JJ :iI INIJONI;'$IA' }OUIU\AL UL OF "('UEI) 1I. GUISTJC - .. ~~=~~ Journal indexing Announcements IJAL now is indexed by Scopus Posted: 2014-07-16 ~ Journal Indexing Posted: 2013-06-26 IJAL now is listed under the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) ] of2 More Announcements •.. OPEN JOURNAL SYSTEMS Journal Help USER usernamel Password 1;------ Remember me Login I NOTIFICATIONS .~ .~ JOURoNAL CONTENT Search I All Search Browse .~ • By Author .~ • Other Jouma Is FONT SIZE CU RRENT ISSU E INFORMATION • For Readers • For Authors • For Lib@daos KEYWORDS Abstract: The preliminary case study was conducted to understand the effects of ref!ectlve teaching approach on English teachers' teaching performances In a short·term Intensive teacher t@inlng program and to know the participating English teachers' fee Academic Byslness English Thailand !exiCo-g@mmatical choices nominal groups ~ Critical Discourse Analysis (CPA) social practice literature power ~ Engll5h medlumof Instruction language poliCY higher edUcation 12/4/20142:50 PI\
Transcript
lndonesianJournalof Applied Linguistics
co ushttp://ejournal.upi.edU/index.phpIIJAL
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics
AJou mal of First and Second Language Teaching and learning
A Journal of First and Second Language Teaching and Learning
JJ:iI INIJONI;'$IA' }OUIU\ALUL OF "('UEI) 1I. GUISTJC
-..~~=~~
Journal indexing
Announcements
IJAL now is indexed by Scopus
Posted: 2014-07-16 ~
Journal Indexing
Posted: 2013-06-26
IJAL now is listed under the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
] of2
More Announcements •..
OPEN JOURNALSYSTEMS
Journal Help
USER
usernamel
Password 1;------Remember me
Login I
NOTIFICATIONS
.~.~JOURoNAL CONTENT
Search
IAll
Search
Browse.~• By Author.~• Other Jouma Is
FONT SIZE
CU RRENT ISSU E
INFORMATION
• For Readers• For Authors• For Lib@daos
KEYWORDS
Abstract: The preliminarycase study was conducted tounderstand the effects ofref!ectlve teaching approachon English teachers'teaching performances In ashort·term Intensive teachert@inlng program and toknow the participatingEnglish teachers' feeAcademic Byslness EnglishThailand !exiCo-g@mmaticalchoices nominal groups
~ Critical DiscourseAnalysis (CPA) socialpractice literature power
~ Engll5h medlumof
Instruction language poliCYhigher edUcation
12/4/20142:50 PI\
ndonesian Journalof Applied Linguistics
Vol 4, No 1 (2014): Volume 4 No.1 July 2014
Table of Contents
,/ ArticlesMULTILINGUALISM IN EDUCATION: THE ROLE OF FIRSTLANGUAGE
Angela RogersENGLISH MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN ASIAN UNIVERSITIES: SOMECONCERNS AND A SUGGESTED APPROACH TO DUAL-MEDIUMINSTRUCTION
Roger BarnardMULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AS PREDICTORS OF READINGCOMPREHENSION AND VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE
Abbas Ali Zerei, Nima Shokri AfsharMOVES INTENTIONS AND THE LANGUAGE OF FEEDBACKCOMMENTARIES IN EDUCATION
Josephine MiradorLINGUISTIC FEATURES OF EVALUATIVE STANCE: FINDINGSFROM RESEARCH ARTICLE DISCUSSIONS
Attapol KhamkhienRESPONDING AND ANALYSING: STAGES OF TEACHINGFUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR IN INDONESIAN CONTEXT
Lala BumelaSTUDENTS' UNDERSTANDING OF THE REALIZATION OFNOMINALIZATIONS IN SCIENTIFIC TEXT
Fatonah FatonahA PROCESS-GENRE APPROACH TO TEACHING WRITING REPORTTEXT TO SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
Dimas Pujianto, Emi Emilia, Sudarsono Muhammad IhromCOMMUNICATIVE VALIDITY OF THE NEW CET-4 LISTENINGCOMPREHENSION TEST IN CHINA
Aifi Hidayatu Miqowati, Gunadi Harry SulistyoTHE PRAGMATIC MEANINGS OF ADDRESS TERMS SAMPEYAN ANDANDA
Djoko SusantoUSING READER RESPONSE APPROACH TO GET ENGAGED INENGLISH TEXTS OF THE PAST
Nia Nafisah 156-166
10-22£ill
23-38POF
39-53PDF
54-69POF
70-86PDF
81-98PDF
99-110POF
111-122PDF
123-139£ill
140-155PDF
I (<<) .,'This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics is published by The Language Center of UPI andTEFLIN. It has been accepted to be indexed by SCOPUS
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics oleh The Language Center of Indonesia University ofEducation disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0I nternasional.Berdasarkan ciptaan pad a http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.phpIIJAL.Izin di luar dari ruang lingkup lisensi ini dapat tersedia pada http://balaibahasa.upi.edu.
Abstract: The study reports the investigation of students' understanding of the realizationof nominalizations in scientific text. Nominalization that dominates the language ofscience is defined as the formation of nouns which come from other nouns (e.g. verbs andadjectives). A strategic question comes up, inquiring about undergraduate students' levelof understanding of nominalizations in scientific text. This study was conducted among20 Polytechnic students whose study background is engineering. Some numerical datawere used, although this study was basically qualitative. The data were not only taken bycarrying out an English test, using a scientific reading text, but also by conducting aninterview among some of the participants. This test examined their understanding ofnominalization, as it is one of the characteristics of scientific text. For analyzing the data,the framework of nominalyzing metaphor was used. This study found that theunderstanding ofnominalizations was at moderate level; that was 65%. It was a bit abovethe average. It is concluded that this level of understanding nominalizations is notsufficient for the students to comprehend scientific text. Consequently, when readingscientific text, as it was stated in an interview, they experienced some difficulties. Thisfinding is supported by Halliday's statement that scientific language is difficult to readand to understand. It is recommended that for Polytechnic students some grammaticalcompetence be improved by giving an explicit teaching, particularly with the topic ofnominalizations. It is hoped that the higher the students' understanding ofnominalizations, the higher the students' understanding of scientific text.Keywords: Nominalization, grammatical metaphor, scientific text
STUDENTS' UNDERSTANDING OF THE REALIZATION OFNOMINALIZATIONS IN SCIENTIFIC TEXT
Abstrak: Penelitian ini melaporkan penelitian tentang pemahaman siswa pada pemakaiannominalisasi dalam teks ilmiah. Nominalisasi, dikatakan mendominasi bahasa ilmiah,didefinisikan sebagai pembentukan kata benda yang berasal dari selain kata benda,misalnya kata kerja dan kata sifat. Suatu pertanyaan mengemuka tentang berapa tingkatpemahaman mahasiswa terhadap pemakaian nominalisasi pada teks ilmiah. Data diambildari 20 mahasiswa Politeknik yang berlatar-belakang pendidikan keteknikan. Beberapadata diantaranya disajikan dalam bentuk angka, walaupun pada dasamya studi ini adalahkualitatif. Data diperoleh dengan mengadakan tes yang menguji pemahaman mahasiswatentang nominalisasi dan dengan wawancara. Data dianalisa dengan menggunakan
framework of nominalising metaphor.Temuan dari studi ini ialah bahwa pemahamansiswa terhadap nominalisasi berada pada tingkat menengah, yaitu 65%, sedikit di atasrata-rata. Studi ini menyimpulkan bahwa bagi mahasiswa Politeknik, tingkatanpemahaman terhadap nominalisasi ini tidak cukup memadai untuk memahami teksilmiah. Sebagai konsekuensinya, sebagaimana yang dinyatakan saat diwawancara,mereka mengalami kesulitan memahami buku teks yang berbahasa Inggris. Studi inimerekomendasikan bahwa bagi mahasiswa Politeknik kemampuan grammar perluditingkatkan dengan explicit teaching, khususnya dengan topik bahasan tentangnominalisasi. Diharapkan, dengan adanya peningkatan pemahaman tentang nominalisasimaka pemahamanterhadap teks ilmiah akan meningkat pula.Katakunci: nominalisasi, grammaticalmetaphor,teks ilmiah
87
Fatonah, Students understanding of the realization of nominalizations in scientifIc text
All useof languageembodiesa greatdeal ofmetaphor. Written language is associatedwith the use of grammatical metaphor.Grammatical metaphor that dominates thelanguageof science is nominalization. It isalso said that language is so central to thewhole of educational process, since no-onecould conceive of education without it(Halliday, 1992;Halliday & Martin, 2005). Itcan be inferred from these statementsthatlanguage has very prominent roles ineducational process, for constructingmeanings realized in text. Therefore, thephenomenaof using languagein educationalprocess need to be investigated, especiallywith the students' understanding of therealization of nominalizations in scientifictext.
There are some previous studies, whichhave focused on the phenomena of thesignificant roles of nominalizations inacademic writing among graduate students(Ravelli, 1999; Holtz, 2009; and Yuliana,2011). The study of the same topicconductedby Baratta(2010) revealsdifferentphenomena.He investigates the realizationof nominalization development across anundergraduate academic degree programwithin the community of 'Language,Literacy and Communication' (LCC), part ofHumanities. In his study, he found thatnominalizations do not necessarily play aprominent role within the academicwritingof this community.
Nevertheless, undergraduate students'understanding of nominalizations has notbeenstudied, especially among the studentswhose study program is majoring inengineering. That is the reason for theresearcherto investigatethis phenomenon:Inaddition, another argument to conduct thisstudy is that studentsneedto comprehendtherealization of nominalizations due to itsdomination in scientific language(Halliday& Martin, 2005). Despite this, to theresearcher knowledge, the topic of
nominalizations has not been taught inEnglish program in Polytechnic in Indonesiawhose study background is engineering.Thus, to portray this phenomenon, theresearchercarries out this investigation inPolytechnic in Bandung,Indonesia.
Based on the above statements, thisresearchis conducted in order to addressaresearchproblem, what the students' level ofunderstanding of the realization ofnominalizations in scientific text is. Toanswer the question stated above, theresearcher investigates the students'understanding of nominalizations in ascientific text, taken from an engineeringtextbook (Dieter, 1991).
This study is also intended to contributeto English education theoretically,practically, and professionally. Thiscontribution is particularly essential to theteaching of scientific writing toundergraduatestudents.
Theoretically, it is expected that theresults of this study increasethe findings ofthe investigation of the same topic, and toprovide wider literature of nominalizations.Accordingly, they will encourage furtherinvestigation on the application ofnominalizations in academicwritten text.
Practically, the finding of this researchmight develop the educational practice; thatis by employing the topic of nominalizationsinto the English teachingprogram, especiallyin the academicwriting skill. They will alsoenablepractitioners in education to improvethe condition of technical English teachingfor Polytechnic students.
Professionally,the report of the study willnot only contribute to the professionalsources in the teaching profession inPolytechnic in particular, but also in teachingtechnical English in wider scope. It is alsohoped that these results may increase theteachers' awarenessof the importance ofnominalizations in academictexts.
88
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 4, No.3, July 2014,pp. 87-98
The investigation of nominalization inwritten texts involves a transferencefrom a'congruent' form of expression to a'metaphorical', as stated by Veel (cited inChristie & Martin, 2000, p. 184).Accordingly, the next theoretical review isthe brief elaboration on grammaticalmetaphorbefore reviewing the main theoryof nominalization.
Grammatical metaphor. It is mentionedas one of the characteristics of scientificEnglish. It is also said that grammaticalmetaphor that dominates the language ofscience is nominalization (Halliday &Martin, 2005). Furthermore, they also putforward an opinion that "there is a high levelof nominalization in scientific text in whichaction and eventsare presentedasnoun thanas verbs" (1998, in Paltridge, 2006, p. 15).Some examples of grammatical metaphorsarewritten below.
1. Theyprepare a 9-wired cable.2. Thepreparation of a 9-wired cable...In these examples, clause I is written
using verb prepare. In scientific English, inwhich an agent (they) is usually removed,grammatical metaphor is needed. In thiscase, the appropriate kind of grammaticalmetaphor is nominalization, in which theprocessof prepare has becomepreparationin clause2 (Knapp et aI., 2005; Droga et aI.,2011; Eggins, 2004; and Hyland et aI.,2004).
In addition, Briones et al. (2003) andCullip (2000) investigate the application ofgrammaticalmetaphorsin scientific English,basedon Halliday's theory. They found thatnominalizations are essential resources forconstructing scientific discourse and thatnominalizations are the most productiveform of grammaticalmetaphor.
Nominalization. It comes from the wordnominalise (verb) which means 'to form anoun from a verb or adjective', for example'truth' from 'true' (Hornby, 2010, p. 1035).Thus, nominalization is defined as the
formation of noun which comes fromadjective or verb. It is also defined as theprocess of turning words that are notnormally nouns (e.g.: verbs, conjunctions,adjectives, and adverbs) into nouns; forexample, employ (verb) -7 employment(noun) (Eggins, 2004; Knapp & Watkins,2005; Droga et aI., 2011; Gerot & Wignell,1998;Christie & Martin, 2000).
In addition, nominalization is describedasa common form of grammatical metaphorwhich is read on two levels at once, agrammatical meaning and a discoursesemantic meaning. Furthermore, it is alsomentioned that scientific writing becomesdifficult in certain ways. The difficulties liemore with the grammar than withvocabulary. It is then asserted that"difficulties arise when processes arenominalized so that activities are codedas ifthey were things" (Martin & Rose,2007, pp.106-7).
The formation of nominalization can besimply done by using the present participleform of the verb, suchas singing, cutting, orby adding suffixes, like: -ion; -ment; -al innominalizations like discussion,development,andproposal. In addition, it isarguedthat "the processof nominalizing canalso be taught to students as an editingstrategy" (Knapp et aI., 2005, p.208). This isin line with an opinion that becausenominalization tends to make text denseandabstract,studentsstill needassistancehow to'unpack' it (Derewianka, 1998).
Furthermore, it is said that for detectinggrammatical metaphor, derivation is used.However, derivation does not alwaysindicate a metaphorical form, like suffix -er& -or in singer. In addition, it should ofcourse be remembered that manymetaphorical examples are found withoutany derivational suffix whatsoever, forexamplefast ~ speed(Ravelli, 1999)
89
Fatonah, Students understanding of the realization of nominalizations in scientific text
Effects of nominalization. There aresome effects of using nominalization inwritten texts proposed by some linguists.First, the effect of creating abstracttechnicalterm in text argued by Droga et al. (2011),for example:
- When the clouds get heavy, thesedropletsfall to the ground.
- This is called precipitation.Second,the effect of condensingprevious
information into a single word that can beused to move the text along (Droga et aI.,2011; Eggins, 2004; and Hyland, 2004), forinstance:
- When the sun heats up the water, itevaporatesinto steam.
- Evaporation causes the steam to riseinto the air.
Third, the effect of removing time andactors or those responsible for action,evidenceor argument that is also called "atimelessand agentlessphenomenon"(Knappet al. 2005,p. 56). In this case,the Processoifailing is shifted into failure. The deletionof the agent allows for more objectivity,indicatedin the following example:
- Becausethe Presidentfailed to removethe troops, manydeathsoccurred.
- The failure to remove the troopsresultedin many deaths.
Thereare someprevious studiesfocusingon the realization of nominalizations inwritten texts among many fields of study.Some of them are Banks (2005), Galve(1998) and Yuliana (2011). Their studiesarebriefly described respectively in thefollowing partsof this section.
Banks(2005) studiesthe historical originsof nominalized process in scientific texts,believing that the linguistic developmentbeganwith Newton in the late 17th century.Grammatical metaphor in the form ofnominalized processesis widely recognizedas an important feature in scientific writing.Galve (1998) investigated the phenomenonof grammatical metaphor in written text for
science and technology, focusing onnominalizations. It is found that grammaticalmetaphorcan provide clear illustration whenapproachingthe languageof science.
In line with the above studies, Yuliana(2011) investigated grammatical metaphorsin students'writing andtheir effectson texts'written characteristics. Her study wasconducted among nine research articles ofthree postgraduatestudents in a state-owneduniversity in Bandung. It was found thatthere is a high level of nominalization inwritten texts, and that nominalization is thedominant type of grammatical metaphorrealized in thoseresearcharticles.
METHODThis study is qualitative in nature, but insomeof its descriptive analysis,quantitativecriteria are used (Croker, 2009, in Heighamet aI., 2009). The data in the forms of scoreare found, but their purpose is merelysupplementary,not the central ones.
A state-ownedPolytechnic in Bandung,running Diploma III and IV programs,majoring in mechanical engineering, waschosen as the institution to conduct thisresearch for two reasons. First, it waspractical, becauseof its ease,asto savetime,finance, and effort, as proposed by Patton(1980,cited in Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Second,it was accessible.The researcherhas the familiarity with the condition ofteaching technical English in thisPolytechnic, since she has been teachingEnglish in this educational institution foryears. Third, the aim of this study is toportray the phenomenonof students' level ofunderstanding of nominalization, sincenominalization has not been taught inEnglish classesof this institution due to thetime constrain. So, this Polytechnic isregarded the appropriate site forinvestigatingthis phenomenon.
In this study, 20 Polytechnic studentsofyear three were chosen as participants for
90
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 4, No.3, July 2014, pp. 87-98
several reasons. First, Polytechnic wasprogrammedfor undergraduatestudents.Thepurposeof the investigation was to explorethe level of understandingof nominalization,especially among undergraduate students.Therefore, Polytechnic students wereassumedto be the appropriateparticipantstoparticipate in this investigation. Fortunately,they were willing to take part in thisresearch.
Second, Polytechnic students' studybackground is engineering. Theirparticipation in this study was basedon theassumptionthat they had experiencedwiththe useof scientific English in their fields ofstudy, among others when learningengineering textbooks and manuals, whencomposingoperationalplans before workingin their workshop or laboratory, whenpresentingtheir scientific topics in front ofthe class,and when writing technical reportafter carrying out practical assignments.Thus, it is regardedthat nominalization wasfrequently applied in their academicactivities andtexts.
Data collection. In this investigation, thedataare collected by carrying out a test andconducting an interview. In the test, ascientific reading text, entitled'Technological Innovation,' was used. Thetext of about 202 words, containing 22nominalized words, was taken from ascientific textbook written by Dieter (1991)from Maryland University. This test wasused to follow Droga's & Humphrey's(2011, pp. 110-111)exerciseswith the topicof nominalization. The focus of the test ismainly on portraying the level ofunderstandingnominalizations as the resultsof derivation (Ravelli, 1999).
There - are three reasons for usingTechnological Innovation text. First, thefamiliarity of this topic among Polytechnicstudents, since their study background isengineering. Second, the domination of
nominalizations in scientific language areargued by some linguists (see Halliday &Martin, 2005).
Third, the difficulty level of the scientificreading text used in the test is regarded asmoderate,viewed from many sources. It issaid that written language tends to havearound four to six (4-6) lexical words perclause (Halliday & Martin, 2005). On theother hand, the lexical density of the readingtext used in the test is 5.5. Therefore, basedon thesedata, the scientific reading text hasanappropriatelevel to be used.
According to Halliday's (1998, in Ravelliet aI., 2004) theory, there are four types ofnominalization. In this opportunity, only twoare testedbasedon somearguments.Firstly,it is very hard for undergraduatestudentsofnon-English departmentto understanda textcontaining all types of nominalization.Secondly, even in native's scientific texts,the four types of nominalization are rarelyused. It is evidencedby Glendinning (1973)that there are only two types (not four) ofnominalization realized in his text.
The following description is about theprocedure of carrying out the test. To startwith, every participant was askedto readthescientific text given to them. Then, they wereinstructedto identify, by underlining, the 22nominalizations found in the text. After that,they were directly assigned to unpack thenominalizations they had underlined on thetest paper. For example, taken from thereading text, 'ability' (as a noun), wasunpacked into 'able' (as an adjective). Thetest paper completed with key answer isattachedon Appendix 1.The complete list ofnominalizations found in the text, as the keyanswer,is in Table 1.
The key answeron Table 1 is usedto getthe scores after the participants' works werecheckedby using the list on the table above.Scoreone was not only given for identifyingevery nominalized word correctly, but alsofor unpacking it correctly. The maximum
91
Fatonah, Students understanding of the realization of nominalizations in scientifIc text
scorefor everytask,was 22, sincetherewere22 nominalizationsfound in the text. Finally,the scoreswere classified basedon the kindof taskandarrangedin Table2 below,
Table 2 contains the collection of datareporting the achievementof 20 participants.The averagescoreof underlining task is 70,which is higher than the average score of
unpackingtask, that is 60. So,the total of theaverageachievementis 65.
In addition to the data mentioned above,there were some other data derived fromconducting an interview to some selectedparticipants representing the high, medium,and low achievers. The functions of theseinterview datawere to enhancethe main dataand to elicit some important informationwhich was not obtained by conductingwritten test only. In this occasion, a semi-structured interview was chosen.It containsverbal questionnairesconsisting of questionsdesignedto elicit specific answers (Frankel& Wallen, 1996).These interview data wereinserted while discussing the main dataresultedfrom the test.
Data analysesThe analysesof the data were intended torespond to the research question in thisstudy, that is about the students' level ofunderstanding of nominalization, as theresult of derivation, in a scientific text. Theframework of analyzing the data is ataxonomy of nominalizing metaphorproposed by Halliday (1998 in Ravelli &Ellis, 2004; Christie & Martin, 2000). Thetaxonomy containing four types ofnominalization are completely posted inTable 3 below.
Table 3. Types of Nominalizationi/1trypeshf '~emall;~i,cShiftsI 'Wsii 'Examplesl!§
Nom. GrammaticalShiftsType I from quality to entity! stable - stabilitymetaphor from adject. to nounType II from processto entity drive - drivingmetaphor !from verb to nounType III from circumstancetometaphor entity! from adv. !
prep. phrasesto noun
veryfast - thespeed
Type IV from relator to entity! so - the resultmetaphor from conjct. to noun
In Table 3, there are four types ofnominalization: Types I, II, III and IV. Inreality, it is mostly found only the
92
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 4, No.3, July 2014, pp. 87-98
application of nominalizations Types I andII. Accordingly, the framework of dataanalyses implemented in this study is thenominalizations of these types. They consistof Type I, that is the grammatical shiftingfrom adjective to noun; and Type II, from
verb to noun, for examples: unstable -7instability and maintain -7 maintenance.
According to Ravelli (1999), derivation isa device used for detecting grammaticalmetaphor. Thus, in analyzing the data, theaccurate nominalizations counted are theones as the results of derivation.Nominalizations which are inaccurate areconsequently excluded from the analyses.Ravelli further mentions that manymetaphorical grammars are found withoutany derivational suffix, like fast -+ speed.However, derivation does not alwaysindicate a metaphorical form, for example-erand -or, in singer.
The procedure of analyzing the data isdescribed in the following steps. First, thestudents' works of underliningnominalizations were identified, continuedwith the identification of the unpacking task.Then, the scores were given to the correctanswers. The maximum score was 22 forevery task. After the scores were classified,they were transformed into percentages.Later, they were categorized into five: verylow, low, medium, high and very highcategories. The results the of categorizationwere finally interpreted.
FINDINGS & DISCUSSIONThis study found that in general studentsseem moderately understand nominalization.This moderate understanding is a bit abovethe average, which is 65. It was supported bythree findings. First, the students' ability inidentifying (by underlining) nominalizationswas higher than in unpacking them (Graph1). Second, 55% of the students' abilitywere categorized low, 15% medium, and
30% high (Table 3). Third, there was astudent with the highest score of 96 and thehighest consistency in doing the test.
Graph 1 is specially designed to providemore meaningful illustration of Polytechnicstudents' phenomena in understandingnominalization. It shows the data resultedfrom the test. The average score ofunderlining task is 70, which is higher thanthe average score of unpacking task, that is60. So, the total of the average achievementis 65.
Moreover, Graph 1 clearly represents thegeneral overview of the levels ofunderstanding on nominalizations among 20Polytechnic students. The blue line indicatesthe results of identifying or underliningnominalized words and the orange oneshows the results of unpacking the oneswithin the same reading text. This illustrationmeans that their ability jn identifyingnominalization is always higher thanunpacking, and in some cases they are thesame.
This situation was supported by someinterviewees. They said they often improvedtheir understanding concerning derivedwords in their academic activities inPolytechnic. Anyway, they did this withoutbeing aware whether these words werederivative or not and without havingopportunity to learn to unpack them. Thefollowing instances were given by somestudents when they were interviewed: filing,ability, and maintenance.Even, they did notknow that those words could be shifted into
file, able, and maintain. Based on theserealities, it was easy for them to makemistakes when practising or unpacking thosenominalizations, particularly in presentingscientific topics.
This finding is associated to the fact thatin English program there was lack ofopportunity, for the teacher, to explain theforms or types of nominalization as theresults of derivation. The short time spent by
93
Fatonah, Students understanding of the realization of nominalizations in scientific text
the teacherto discussgrammaticalor lexicalproblems was when giving oral feedbacktostudents in the classroom after theirpresentation sessions or when correctingtheir written assignments.
From the analyses of the data resultedfrom the test, it is assumedthat the students
tend to make mistakes in understandingnominalizations because of the lack ofknowledge of grammatical resources,especially with the topic of nominalization.That is why explicit teaching is neededbythe students, so that they have moreunderstandingof the use of nominalizations.
Classification of Students' AbilityFor leveling the students' ability inidentifying and unpacking nominalization,the test results in Table 1aboveareclassifiedinto five: very low, low, medium, high andvery high. The classification can be.seeninTable4.
Table4. Students'Levels of UnderstandingNominalizations~ Score IntervaJ
39-5051-6263-7475 - 8687-98Total
Table 4 shows that there were twostudentswho gained very low scores in thetest. They got 43 and 39 respectively. Thedataindicatedthat among22 nominalizations
found in the reading text, participant 1underlined only 10 and unpacked 9 words.So, the total scoresgained by P 1 was 43%.The other participant, P 9, is categorizedthesame, gaining the score of 39%. Thisparticipant successfully underlined 15 andunpacked7 words out of 22 nominalizations.
Table 4 also reportedthat there were nineparticipants getting low scores, categorizedas low achievers.In average,they underlined17 and unpacked 13 words. Their scoreswere in the rangeof 51 - 62. Referring to thesamedata,there were three participants whohavemedium category,with the rangescoresof 63-74. This achievementmeant that theyunderlined 18words and unpacked16out of22 nominalized words. In the same data,there were also five participants, possessingthe scoresof 75-86, categorizedas the highachievers.In average,they underlined about20 words andunpackedabout 19words.
94
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 4, No.3, July 2014,pp. 87-98
It was also reported that there were 11students below average scores. They wereinterpreted to have some difficulties inunderstanding the application ofnominalization in the scientific text. It wasopenlyacknowledgedby somelow achieverswhen interviewed, saying that they could notunderstand engineering textbook, like'trigonometry', if it was not explainedexplicitly. Consequently, they were oftendemotivatedto read the textbooks written inscientific language. Furthermore, theirbackground of learning experience didsupport their achievementas argued that intheir high school they did not take anyEnglish course becauseof no motivation todo it, andeventhey did not like it.
Based on the students' achievementsinTest 1, therewas oneparticipant who got thehighest score. It was 9. With thisachievement, this student, P5, couldunderline 21 words and unpacked21 wordsout of 22 nominalizations. In the test, P 5,only failed in identifying one nominalizationtelevision. In the interview session, hearguedthat the word television wasknown asit was but its base form was not learned. Itwas reported when interviewed that thisability was supported by his experience tolearn English in many ways, by joining asponsoredEnglish program in high schoolandby learning English through Internet andgames.
This study is summarizedinto two cases.They were about some participants who didnot do the test correctly. The first casewasthat they did not find nominalizations in thereadingtext becausethey did not know thatthose words were nominalizations, forexamples,written in the test paper, ability,television,andwell-being.
The second case was that they couldidentify the nominalizations,but they did notknow the baseforms or roots of thosewords.It was as if, for somestudents,the words inthe forms of nominalizations were more
common than their roots. In this case,because of unfamiliarity with their baseforms, then they failed to unpack thosenominalizations, for examples, taken fromthe testpaper,opportunities andability.
This secondcasewas revealedby someinterview data as follows. The studentsrecognized that a certain word wasnominalization but they did not know itsroot. They often took it for granted whenfinding a nominalized word, particularlywhen learning engineering texts inPolytechnic. They lacked of opportunity tolearn or discuss about nominalized words.They often made mistakeswhen turning thenominalized word into its base form. Interms of the teaching method, there shouldbe an explicit teachingon nominalizationstosolve this problem, in which the teacher"makes clear what is to be learned tofacilitate the acquisition of writing skills"(Hyland, 2004,p. 10).
This is in line with the statementthat textsusing a lot of nominalizations often appeartobe very denseand can be difficult to read.This is becausenominalization changestheway to 'package' information in a clause.(Ravelli & Ellis, 2004; Droga & Humphrey2011)
It is also mentioned by Martin and Rosethat nominalizations, like other grammaticalmetaphors,are read in two levels at once, agrammatical meaning and a discoursesemantic meaning. Thus, difficulties arisewhen processes are nominalized so thatactivities are coded as if they were things(Martin & Rose,2007). That is why for mostundergraduatelevel, or Polytechnic students,the application of nominalizations causessome troubles. Furthermore, Halliday (citedin Halliday & Martin, 2005:76) arguesthatgrammaticalproblem in scientific English isthat scientific texts are found to be difficultto read, because they are written in'scientific language,' and that scientificforms aredifficult to understand.
95
Fatonah, Students understanding of the realization of nominalizations in scientific text
CONCLUSIONThis study found that in average,Polytechnicstudents moderately understand thenominalizations realized in scientific texts.In other words, most studentscould identify(by underlining) nominalizations found inthe reading text. Unfortunately, their abilityof unpackingnominalizationswas lower thanunderlining. They failed to unpack thenominalized words they had identified. Thiswas an evidence of inconsistency inunderstandingnominalizations.
Therefore, it is concluded that thestudents' level of understanding ofnominalizationsis moderate. In other words,to an averageextent, the studentsunderstandnominalization,but this level of ability is notsufficient for Polytechnic students tounderstandacademictext.
Basedon the abovephenomena,therearesomerecommendations.Firstly, in relation tothe teaching of technical English inPolytechnic,the teachers(of English subjectin particular and non-English subject ingeneral) should be aware of the role ofnominalizations in scientific language.It isthrough nominalizations technical terms areconstrued. They should manage time todiscussthe application of nominalizations inscientific texts, since some Polytechnicstudentsstill experiencedsomedifficulties inunderstandingthe texts, if not explained.
Secondly, it is specially addressedto thefuture researchersinterested in studying thesametopic. The next researchshouldprovideits participantsan opportunity to apply manytypes of nominalization in their own writtenscientific texts, so that they will be able topractice their understanding ofnominalizations.
REFERENCESBanks,D (2005). On the historical origins of
