Theme Markedness in EFL Students’ Recount Texts: A Systemic Functional Analysis

Ridwan Hanafiah, Muhammad Yusuf, Aprilza Aswani


This study is aimed to discover the types and the dominant type of theme markedness in EFL students’ recount texts based on the theory of systemic functional linguistics. Qualitative content analysis approach was utilized in this study. Writing sheets were utilized as the instruments of collecting the data. The data were in the form of clauses taken from 33 recount texts written by second-year students of English literature department of University of Sumatera Utara. Based on the analysis, it was discovered that there were 1144 clauses in the data. Then, in terms of theme markedness, marked theme (MT) had 213 occurrences (18.62%) and unmarked theme (UMT) had 931 occurrences (81.38%). The conclusion can be drawn that there were 2 types of markedness namely marked theme (MT) and unmarked theme (UMT), and the dominant type of theme markedness was unmarked theme (UMT). It means that the students dominantly used unmarked theme in their recount texts.

Keywords: markedness, theme, recount text, systemic functional, content analysis


markedness; theme; recount text; systemic functional; content analysis;

Full Text:



Coffin, C. &Hewings, A. (2005). IELTS as Preparation for Tertiary Writing: Distinctive Interpersonal and Textual Strategies. In L. J. Ravelli, & R. A Ellis, (Eds.). Analysing Academic Writing (153 – 171). London: Continum.

Dirgeyasa, I. W. (2014). College Academic Writing; a Genre Based Perspective. Medan:Unimed Press.

Ebrahimi, S.F., and Ebrahimi S.J. (2012).Markedness in Writing: A Case of EFL Students; Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2 (4), 773-777.

Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics.New York: Continuum.

Ezzy, D. (2012). Qualitative Analysis: Practice and Innovation. New South Wales: National Library of Australia.

Gerot, L. AndWignel, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. New South Wales: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). Spoken and Written Language. Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K and Matthiessen C.M.I.M. (2014). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (4rded.). London: Routledge.

Martin, J.R. & White, P.R.R. (2005). The language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Martin, J.R. and Rose, D.(2008). Working with Discourse. London: Continuum.

North, S (2005). Disciplinary Variation in the Use of Theme in Undergraduate Essays.Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26 (3), 431-452.

Oshima and Hogue. (1999). Writing Academic English(3rded). New York: Pearson Education.

Nurlela.(2010). Representasi Leksikogramatika Teks Pidato Kenegaraan Presiden Soeharto dan Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. [Dissertasi]. Medan: Universitas Sumatera Utara, Sekolah Pasca Sarjana.

Saragih, A. (2016). Empowering Students through Learning English in the Present Context of Sinar (et al.). Proceedings: National Conference on Language and Culture; Medan: USU Press. Page 1-11.

Sinar, T.S. (2007). Phasal and Experiential Realizations in Lecture Discourse: A Systemic-Functional Analysis. Medan: Koordinasi Perguruan Tinggi Swasta Wilayah- I NAD-Sumut.

Teich, E. (1999).Systemic Functional Grammar in Language Generation: Linguistic Description and Computational Representation. Cambridge: Bookcraft (Bath) Ltd

Tshotsho, B. (2014).Assessing Students’ Academic Writing Using Systemic FunctionalLinguistics at a University in South Africa.Int J EduSci, 6(3): 425-433.

StatisticsArticle Metrics

This article has been read : 212 times
PDF file viewed/downloaded : 185 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.

SALTeL Journal is abstracted and indexed in




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