Writing Skill Mastery of the Non-language Department Lecturers in

Bina Nusantara University

Endang Ernawati

Chandra K. Wiharja

, Rahmi Yulia Ningsih

Language Center , English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia 11480

Language Center, Computer Science Department, Faculty of Humanities, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia

11480

Language Center, Primary Teacher Education Department, Faculty of Humanities, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta,

Indonesia 11480

Keywords: Department, Lecturers, University.

Abstract: The research was conducted to find out the writing skill mastery of Bina Nusantara lecturers who wrote

Bahasa Indonesia articles to be published in Binus in house journals. The writing skill mastery included the

correctness of diction, sentence, and paragraph in the article. The research applied a qualitative method by

analyzing 10 articles of non-English departments lecturers that were chosen by purposive sampling

methods. The instruments were three paragraphs in the Introduction part and then were analyzed based on

their diction, sentence, and paragraphs. The diction analysis shows that from 20 paragraphs analyzed there

are 26 standard words (76%) and 8 non-standard words (48%). The sentence analysis shows that of the 69

sentences, there are 27 effective sentences (39%) and 42 ineffective sentences (61%). The sentence

ineffectiveness was resulted from the sentence that does not meet the six terms of the effective sentence.

The results of paragraph analysis show that from 13 paragraphs analyzed there are 3 paragraphs (23%) that

have correct cohesion, while 10 sentences (77%) do not meet the cohesion within a paragraph. It is

recommended that the results of this research can be an inpuit for the Language Center for developing

writing skill mastery for Binus lectures.

1 INTRODUCTION

Lecturers have duties and obligations as educators,

researchers, community devotees, and self-

developers (Catur Dharma Perguruan Tinggi). In

carrying out these duties lecturers must master the

Indonesian language well and correctly for scientific

communication that they do in developing science,

both oral and written, in order can easily be

understood by students, fellow colleagues,

researchers, and members of society as a whole. One

of the research functions that lecturers have to do is

publication in which they are required to write

articles for publication. This research analyses the

lecturers’ draft of articles in bahasa Indonesia that

are submitted for inhouse Binus journals’

publication.

In particular, scientific articles in bahasa

Indonesia written by lecturers cannot be separated

from their knowledge and skills of bahasa Indonesia,

especially written languages. Writing scientific

articles cannot be separated with the skills of diction

(diction), sentence, and paragraphs.given and do the

exercises, then do the test for each unit and expected

they could improve unit by unit.

The problem formulation of this research indicate

what are the level of mastery of the Indonesian

language dictions, sentences, and paragraphs of the

Bina Nusantara University lecturers?.Thus, the study

aims to discuss the extent of dictions, sentences, and

paragraphs of Bina Nusantara University lecturers

on the writing of articles to be published by Binus's

inhouse journals.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Standard of Bahasa Indonesia

Standard of bahasa Indonesian is an Indonesian

language that complies with Indonesian principles

including grammar (structure), diction, and spelling.

Ernawati, E., Wiharja, C. and Ningsih, R.

Writing Skill Mastery of the Non-language Department Lecturers in Bina Nusantara University.

DOI: 10.5220/0010023000002917

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Sciences, Laws, Arts and Humanities (BINUS-JIC 2018), pages 513-517

ISBN: 978-989-758-515-9

513

The language structure involves the formation of

words, sentences, and paragraphs (Kemendiknas,

2009).

2.2 Accuracy of Diction

Diction is the precision of word choice that is

influenced by the ability of the language user

associated with the ability to know, understand,

master, and use a number of vocabularies actively

that can express ideas appropriately. The word

accuracy indicator is 1) the word is able to

communicate the idea correctly and appropriately; 2)

produces effective communication without

misinterpretation of meaning, 3) resulting in a reader

response that fits the expectations of the author /

speaker; 4) generate target communication according

to expectation of writer / speaker (Widjono, H., S.,

2012).

2.3 Effective Sentences

The effective sentence is a sentence that meets the

five requirements, namely (1) Unity: balance of

ideas with the structure of the language used, (2)

Alignment: the same grammatical form for a

particular sentence, (3) Accuracy: does not lead to

multiple interpretations, (4) Considerable use of

words, phrases or other forms is not necessary, (5)

Logic: a sensible sentence.

2.4 Cohesive Paragraph

According to Chaer (Chaer, A., 1994) good

parapraph must have two terms, namely paragraph

unity (cohesion) and coherence paragraph. Each

paragraph has only one main idea. Cohesion is a

syntactic organization and is a compact and solid

sentence for generating speech (Fuji, B., 2015).

Cohesion is a relation among sentences within a

paragraph, either on a grammatical scale or on a

particular lexical scale. The instruments used to

create the cohesiveness are (a) the grammatical

means and (b) the lexical means.

Simanjuntak (Simanjuntak, R., P., 2014) has

undertaken a research with the aim of measuring the

level of standard language proficiency spoken on

Enggano Island, Bengkulu Province, Indonesia. The

study is conducted in 6 districts, using the Sentence

Development * (TPK) test instrument and a

bilingual questionnaire. The results show that the

average English language proficiency of Enggano

oral standards is at level 2 at the ILR level

(Interagency Language Roundtable, 2007). These

results indicate the limited ability of Indonesian

language in certain situations and spheres. The

results of the analysis also show that the average

proficiency of talent between men and women is

different because it is influenced by education and

age.

3 METHOD

The research uses qualitative method consisting of

literature study and textual analysis. Data are

obtained from 10 non-lecturers' academic texts at

Bina Nusantara University which are taken

randomly. Selected article manuscripts are written in

bahasa Indonesia and are received during 2012-2015

in which after those year Binus only accept articles

in English. Of the 10 manuscripts, each is taken

three paragraphs of the Introduction chapter as the

instruments of research. Paragraphs taken are coded

before to be analysed. The research data will be

parsed into sentences and then analyzed to see the

errors of dictions, sentences, and paragraphs.

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Diction Analysis

The standard word criteria in this diction analysis is

a word that can communicate ideas appropriately

and with an indicator that the word already

contained in the Dictionary of Bahasa Indonesia

(KBBI). The example of analysis can be seen in

Table 1.

Table 1. Sample of Diction Analysis.

Para

raph Sentence Anal

sis

1a Pada dasarnya

sebuah

rancangan

bangunan

yang baik

adalah

bangunan

yang memiliki

kemampuan

untuk

merespon dan

memodifikasi

kondisi

apapun yang

ersifat

This paragraph

uses standard

diction:rancanga

n bangunan,

merespon,memo

difikasi.

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference

514

negatif agar

sedemikian

rupa bisa

berubah

menjadi

kondisi yang

ositif.

6a ABC bergerak

dalam bidang

kost dimana

proses bisnis

yang efektif

sangat

diperlukan

demi kepuasan

konsumen

maupun

kebutuhan

pihak

manajemen

dalam

pengambilan

keputusan.

The word “kost”

is not standard. It

can be replace by

finance.

The word “di

mana” must be

omitted because it

comes from the

English-Indonesia

translation. It can

be replaced by the

word “tempat”

Figure 1. Results of Diction Analysis.

The analysis of 20 sample paragraphs indicate that

there are 26 standard words (76%) and 8 non-

standard words (24%) because of unavailability in

the dictionnary, the influence of English translation,

and incorrect application, as described in Figure 1.

4.2 Sentence Analysis

The example of sentence analysis is as

follows.Errors on the unity of sentences are mostly

found because of incomplete elements of S-P-O-K

(subject, predicate, object, adverb/description) in the

sentence. A sentence only has an element of K

(information) just so it is considered ineffective, as

follows:

1. Dalam sistem yang seperti itu proses

pemilihan seorang pemimpin di Republik

Rakyat Tiongkok (RRC) dilakukan secara

tertutup atau sering juga disebut “demokrasi

internal partai.”

Analysis:

“ Dalam sistem yang seperti itu” is not a

subject, the word “dalam” should be omitted.

2. Concerning the precision of a sentence, the

sentences should not have a double meaning

(multitafsir). From the research data, there are

some sentence errors caused by violation of

precision rules, such as the following

example:

Makan tidak hanya sekedar untuk

menghilangkan rasa lapar, namun juga

sudah menjadi sebuah rekreasi dan kuliner

untuk memanjakan lidah dan mata.

3. The sentence shows an error in the use of

idiomatic pairs of words such as (not-but, not-

but-between-and, both-and, etc.). So, the

sentence cannot use the pair of “tidak hanya”

and “namun”, but it should the pair of “tidak

hanya” and “tetapi juga”.

4. The next sentence error is an error because it

does not qualify for austerity. Sentences can

be thrifty because of the redundant elements,

such as the following example:

Hampir di setiap setiap pusat perbelanjaan,

mal, gedung perkantoran, hotel dapat

ditemukan restoran Cina

This sentence indicates that the word “pusat

perbelanjaan” has the same meaning to the

word “mal”, it can only use either or them in

a sentence, as follows:

The correct sentence is:

Restoran Cina dapat ditemukan di pusat

perbelanjaan, gedung perkantoran, dan

hotel.

5. Also, the sentence is not effective because it

is not the focus or having a double Predicate

element, as of the following sentence that has

been analysed.

Lebih ekstrim lagi (S) adalah (P) dapat

dikatakan (P) bahwa tidak ada tempat di

belahan dunia yang tidak tersentuh oleh

budaya kecinaaan (O), dan salah satu

perwujudannya di Jakarta (S) adalah (P)

dalam hal masakan cina dan restoran cina

yang menjamur di berbagai wilayah (K).

(S=subject ;P=predicate; O=object; K=

adverb)

The sentence can be changed to:

Budaya Cina dapat ditemukan di seluruh

belahan dunia, termasuk Indonesia tempat

masakan dan restoran Cina.

76%

24%

Standard

Words

NonStandard

Words

Writing Skill Mastery of the Non-language Department Lecturers in Bina Nusantara University

515

6. It can be concluded that the error of the

sentence is caused by an error of unity,

thoroughness, thrift, and focus. The more

unity errors are caused by the incompleteness

of the S-P-O-K element in the sentence. Much

accuracy is due to the word's inaccuracy,

especially the idiomatic word pair. More

austerity errors are caused by excessive /

redundant word usage. Focal errors are

mostly caused by excessive or multiple

sentence elements.

Finally, the sentence analysis shows that of the 69

sentences, there are 27 effective sentences (39%)

and 42 ineffective sentences (61%). The most

mistakes are found in the errors of unity rules, thrift,

and precision. Figure 2 shows the description of the

error sentence.

Figure 2. Result of Sentence Analysis

4.3 Paragraph Analysis

Paragraphs are a few sentences that contain a certain

idea or topic. As a form of disclosure of ideas, a

paragraph must meet two criteria, namely unity

(cohesion) and cohesiveness (coherence). The

research only analyzes paragraph cohesion.

Sugihastuti and Siti Saudah (Sugihastuti, 2016;

Saudah, S., 2016) say that in a paragraph there is

only one main idea, which can also be called the

main idea. Based on the following paragraphs:

(1) Restauran fine dining yang menggunakan

pelayanan berbentuk rijstaffel memang

tidak lazim ditemukan di Indonesia

karena pelayanan rijstaffel itu sendiri

tidak lazim digunakan dalam tipe

pelayanan restoran. (2) Pelayanan yang

umumnya ditemui di restoran fine dining

adalah French service, atau bahkan

Russian service. (3)Tetapi di Restoran di

Indonesia dan Belanda, ada jenis

pelayanan yang lain yaitu Rijstaffel.

The main idea of the paragraph is on the first

sentence, that is;

(1) Restauran fine dining yang menggunakan

pelayanan berbentuk rijstaffel memang

tidak lazim ditemukan di Indonesia

karena pelayanan rijstaffel itu sendiri

tidak lazim digunakan dalam tipe

pelayanan restoran.

This topic sentence is actually difficult to be called

a topic sentence because it is not an effective

sentence having a clear, straightforward, and

communicative elements.

To present an appropriate topic sentence, the

sentence must be changed to:

(1) Restoran fine dining yang menggunakan

layanan berbentuk rijstaffel tidak lazim di

Indonesia.

(Subject (1): Restoran fine dining;

Predicate: menggunakan layanan; Object:

berbentuk rijstaffel; Adverb: not

available).

To make a correct paragraph, the second sentence

(2) and third sentence (3) must support the first

sentence (1).

The second sentense :

(2) Pelayanan yang umumnya ditemui di

restoran fine dining adalah French

service, atau bahkan Russian service.

(The subject (2) : Pelayanan yang umum

ditemui di restoran fine dining).

It shows that sentence (2) does not

support sentence (1) that is actually

having a topic sentence “restoran fine

dining”, but it tells the service

(pelayanan) in that restaurant. The

sentence (2) also mention French service

dan Russian service that supposed to be

clarified in the following sentence.

The third sentence:

(3) Tetapi di Restoran di Indonesia dan

Belanda, ada jenis pelayanan yang lain

yaitu Rijstaffel.

(Subject (3): not available, because

“Tetapi di Restoran di Indonesia dan

Belanda” is not a subject (S), it is an

adverb (K);Predicate : not available;

Object: not available;Adverb: Pelayanan

Rijstafel)

39%

61%

Effective

Sentences

Ineffective

Sentences

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference

516

The conjunction “tetapi” cannot be located at

the beginning of a sentence because if it is

so, the phrase is not a subject of the third

sentence, but it is an adverb.

Form the correlation of sentence (1),

sentence(2), and sentence (3) in a

paragraph, it can be said that sentence (2)

and sentence (3) do not support the topic

sentence (1). Therefore, the cohesion does

not meet in that paragraph.

Analysed by the same method, it can be shown that

of the 13 sample sentences, there are 3 sentences

(23%) that have good enough cohesion, while 10

sentences (77%) have not shown cohesion in one

paragraph. The results is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Result of Paragraph Analysis

5 CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusions

Based on the research results, it can be concluded

that:

a. The error diction that occurred is due to

the selection of foreign absorption word

(e.g the word "where" and "from" , and

inaccurate selection of diction (for / agar,

analysis). The results showed that from 20

paragraphs analyzed there were 26

standard words (76%) and 8 non-standard

words (24%).

b. Sentence errors are shown from 69

sentences, there are 27 effective sentences

(39%) and 42 ineffective sentences (61%)

caused by wholeness errors, accuracy

errors, austerity, and focussion

c. The paragraph errors seen from 3

paragraphs (23%) of all 13 paragraphs

that have good cohesion, while 10

sentences (77%) have not shown cohesion

within a paragraph.

5.2 Recommendation

The research recommends the same analysis of the

dictions, sentences, and paragraphs is also conducted

to the English draft of articles written by the Binus

lecturers. The results of this research can be some

inputs for the Language Center to make their

workshop material for the lecturers so that they are

capable to write the article either in English or in

bahasa Indonesia.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research was funded by Bina Nusantara

University and data collection was gathered in

Tarumanagara University.

REFERENCES

Kemendiknas, 2009 Pedoman Umum Ejaan Bahasa

Indonesia yang Disempurnakan (EYD) (Jakarta:

Kemendiknas RI)

Widjono, H., S., 2012 Bahasa Indonesia (Jakarta:

Grasindo)

Chaer, A., 1994 Linguistik Umum (Jakarta: Rineka Cipta)

Fuji, B., 2015 Pengertian Kalimat Menurut Para Ahli

Online

https://www.trigonalmedia.com/2015/08/pengertian-

kalimat-menurut-para-ahli.html

Simanjuntak, R., P., 2014 Measuring proficiency in

standard Indonesian for Enggano speakers Linguistik

Indonesia 32(1) pp 33-46

Sugihastuti, and Saudah, S., 2016 Buku Ajar Bahasa

Indonesia Akademik (Jakarta:PT Gramedia)

23%

77%

Sentences

withgood

cohesion

Sentences

without

cohesion

Writing Skill Mastery of the Non-language Department Lecturers in Bina Nusantara University

517