Readability of the Transactional Texts in Bahasa Inggris Textbook for Grade X

Keywords: Fog Index, Grammatical intricacy, Lexical density, Readability

Abstract

This paper aims are lexical density and grammatical intricacy of the transactional texts in Bahasa Inggris as one of the English textbooks for senior high students (grade X) in Indonesia. The method applied is qualitative research method. The study supported by three methods in determining readability as proposed by Halliday (1985, 1994, 2004), Ure (1971), and a text analyzer adapted from www.usingenglish.com as the website that provided the tool. The data are taken from the textbooks as transactional texts. The texts obtained are six transactional texts. The results of the study have shown several valuable insights. Firstly, the transactional text that has the highest number of words (530 words) containing highest number of sentences could be categorized into the spoken text (lexical density= 26.44) and the level is under Easy Reading Range (Fog Index = 4.23) as described in T6. Secondly, the total unique words in transactional text has relation with hard words, lexical density and Fog Index as described in the T2. Thirdly, the lowest number of words could relate to the unique words and total number of sentences (as seen in T4). To choose the transactional text given as the material in Bahasa Inggris, it is suggested that the writer of the textbooks should be more thoughtful in deciding the transactional texts level chosen since the data shows that the level of the text is various (Fog Index 4.23 as the lowest – 10.25 as the highest) and the average transactional text level is 6.7.

References

Abbasin. G. R. & Somayeh A. (2018). Lexical Density and Readability of the Prospect Series: An Across-Textbooks Investigation. First National Conference on New Trens in English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics.

Castello, E. (2008). Text Complexity and Reading Comprehension Tests. Bern: International Academic Publisers.

Eggins, S. (1994). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.

Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. (1995). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Gerd Stabler.

Gulerer, S. (2016). “Text Difficulty: A Comparison of Readability Formulae and Experts’ Judgementâ€. International Journal of Language Academy. 4(2), 129-142.

Haliday, M. A. K. (1985). Spoken and Written Language. Geelong Vict: Deakin University.

Halliday, M. A. K, & Matthiessen, C. M. (2004). Introduction to Functional Grammar (Third Edition). London: Edward Arnold.

Hertzberg, M. (2012). Teaching English language Learners in mainstream Classes. Newtown: Primary English Teaching Association Australia.

Heydari, P. (2012). “The Validity of Some Popular Readability Formulas.†Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 423-435.

Johansson, V. (2008). "Lexical Diversity and and Lexical Density in Speech and Writing: A Developmental Perspective." Dept. of Linguistics and Phonetics, 61-79.

Khang, N. D. (2010). “Teachers’ Perceptions about Readability and Modification of Authentic Texts Chosen for Teaching Reading in the Vietnamese Contextâ€. Journal of NELTA, 15(1), 89-97.

Presnyakova, I. (2011). "Systemic Functional Analysis of Elementary School Language Arts Textbooks." Theses.

Sujatna, E. T., Yuyu Y. R.,, & Rahmat S. (2017). The Readability Test of the English Children Sort Stories. International Conference on Language, Education, Humanities and Innovation 85-92. Kuala Lumpur: ICSAI.org

To, V., Si F. & Damon T. (2013). “Lexical Density and Readability: A Case Study of English Textbooksâ€. International Journal of Language, Culture and Society. 61-71.

Zasmanian, M. & Heydari, P. (2012). “Readability of Texts: State of the Artâ€. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(1), 45-53.

Published
2019-05-17
Section
Articles
Abstract viewed = 327 times
PDF downloaded = 363 times