AN ANALYSIS ON THE DIFFICULTIES LEVEL OF THREE ONLINE WRITTEN TEXTS

Wanda Giovani

Abstract


This research aims to elaborate the difficulty levels of three different texts that bring the same topic. This research is a discourse analysis which was done by analyzing the lexical density, nominalization, and the finiteness of the texts. The three texts that have been analyzed were taken online from Wikipedia and two personal blogs for English research. The results show that the first text can be taken as the most complex text for high level readers, the second text for the intermediate level readers, and the third text for the elementary or low level readers. In terms of lexical density, the first text gains very high percentage which is up to 60%, this shows that the text is the most informative of all. Whereas, the second text and the third text’s lexical density are both 50%, which indicates that there are lack of contents in them.  Regarding to nominalization, the first text is still on the highest level with 12 nominalizations, the second text is on the intermediate level with 10 nominalizations, and the third text is on the lowest level, without any nominalization. The last is from the finiteness side. The first text has the lowest number of finiteness; the second text has the second highest number of finites, whereas the third text has the highest number of finites of all. This is the result of the highest number of lexical density and nominalization of the first text that decreases the frequency of sentences in it. The results of this research can be useful for online readers to decide what kind of reading materials which are suitable for their English levels.

Keywords


Online Texts, Lexical Density, Nominalizations, Finiteness.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Darma, Yoce Aliah. 2009. Analisis Wacana Kritis. Bandung: CV Yrama Widya Kridalaksana, Harimurti. 2009. Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: PT Gramedia.

Johansson, Victoria. 2008. Lexical Diversity and Lexical Density in Speech and Writing: A Developmental Perspective. Working Press, 53: 61-79

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1st ed.). London Edward Arnold.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Functional grammar in the classroom. In Olofsson, Mikael (Ed.) Symposium 2009: Genrer och funktionellt språk i teori och praktik, pp. 79-95. Symposium conducted at Stockholms Universitets Förlag, Stockholm, Sweden.

Ure, J. (1971),Lexical density and registerdifferentiation. In G. Perren and J.L.M.Trim (eds), Applications of Linguistics,London: Cambridge University Press.443-452.

Castello, E. 2008. Text Complexity and Reading Comprehension Tests Reading Notes. http://adrien.barbaresi.eu/blog/e-castello-text-complexity-and-reading-comprehension-tests-reading-notes.html




DOI: https://doi.org/10.38114/joeel.v1i1.36

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 JOEEL: Journal of English Education and Literature

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

STKIP PAMANE TALINO
Hilir Ktr., Kec. Ngabang, Kabupaten Landak, Kalimantan Barat 79357
Copyright @2019 JOEEL (Journal of English Education and Literature)

SUPPORTED BY

 

Click Here fot View My Stats