This study examines the transitivity system in recount texts in the English textbook English for Nusantara for eighth-grade junior high school students. It focuses on three aspects of the transitivity system: process types, participant roles, and circumstance types. A mixed-methods content analysis design was used. Data were obtained from six recount texts purposively selected from the textbook. The data consisted of 1,252 tokens analyzed across 203 clauses. Of these, 202 clauses contained processes, while one clause was a minor clause without a process; therefore, the process percentages in this study were calculated from 202 processes. The analysis was conducted based on Halliday and Matthiessen’s (2014) transitivity system by identifying, classifying, and calculating the frequency and percentage of each transitivity element. The results showed that there were five types of processes: material, mental, relational, verbal, and existential, while behavioral processes were not found. Material processes were the most dominant, with 113 occurrences (55.94%). In terms of participants, actors were the most dominant role, with 81 occurrences (28.22%). Meanwhile, in terms of circumstance, location was the most dominant type, with 76 occurrences (71.03%). These findings indicate that recount texts in the textbook mostly represent experiences through actions or events carried out by characters, with information about time and place helping to organize events chronologically. Previous studies have largely examined student-written recount texts or general reading texts; fewer studies have specifically analyzed recount texts in the eighth-grade English for Nusantara textbook using a mixed-methods content analysis that integrates process, participant, and circumstance analysis. This study addresses that gap by providing a focused transitivity analysis of six textbook recount texts. Thus, the transitivity system in recount texts can help explain how experiences are represented through language choices in English textbooks for junior high school students.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nasuha et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: