STUDI DIAKRONIS PENGGUNAAN KONJUNGSI ADVERSATIF PADA KORPUS LEIPZIG BAHASA INDONESIA
Abstract
This study examines the frequency, distribution, and interpretation of the metadiscourse of the adversative conjunctions namun and tetapi from a diachronic perspective using the Leipzig corpus, specifically the Indonesian news subcorpus from 2019 and 2024. The analysis focuses on the distribution of the conjunctions namun and tetapi at the beginning and in the middle of sentences. The study’s theoretical framework is based on Hyland’s (2005) interactive metadiscourse model, specifically the category of transition markers. The data was downloaded from the Leipzig corpus and stored on a computer. Then, the conjunctions namun and tetapi were processed one by one using AntConc software. The raw frequency results were normalised per million words to ensure cross-corpus comparative validity. Subsequently, to evaluate distributional significance, a chi-square test was applied. This study shows a significant relationship between conjunction choice and corpus year, χ²(1) = 80.31, p < .001, although the effect size is small (Cramer’s V = 0.0325). It indicates that the conjunction namun shows a gradual increase at the beginning of a sentence, while tetapi shows a more pronounced increase in the middle of a sentence. These findings suggest that variations in conjunction distribution are related to discourse organisation patterns in the Leipzig Indonesian corpus.
Keywords: metadiscourse; conjunction; corpus linguistics; Leipzig corpus; Indonesian corpus
References
Ahmed, A. M., Zhang, X., Rezk, L. M., & Pearson, W. S. (2023). Transition markers in Qatari university students’ argumentative writing: A cross-linguistic analysis of L1 Arabic and L2 English. Ampersand, 10, 100110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2023.100110
Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc (Version 4.2.0) [Computer software]. Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge University Press.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. Peter Lang.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5
Gustilo, L., Comillo, M. I., Valle, A., & Comillo, R. (2021). Managing readers’ impressions of research article abstracts through metadiscourse. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 392–406. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v11i2.34255
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
RStudio Team. (2023). RStudio: Integrated development environment for R (Version 2023.06.1) [Computer software]. Posit Software, PBC. http://www.rstudio.com/
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis. Blackwell.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
