234 EEJ 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 English Education Journal http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej An Analysis of Rhetorical Structures of Introduction Sections in International Conference Papers Diyana Sulistyani1, Januarius Mujiyanto2, Suwandi Suwandi 3 1,2.Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia 3. Universitas PGRI Semarang, Indonesia Article Info ________________ Article History: Accepted 10 February 2022 Approved 28 May 2022 Published 20 June 2022 ________________ Keywords: Rhetorical structure theory (RST), coherence, EFL writing, article, introduction ____________________ Abstract ___________________________________________________________________ Producing a well-organized and coherent text remains a significant problem in EFL context writing. Cognitive demands and low exposure to the language contribute to this issue. Numerous researches are available to tackle EFL learners’ texts by using various ways such as Theme/Rheme and thematic progression. Some studies attempt to uncover EFL texts’ coherence by using rhetorical moves and structure. This study attempted a novel method to reveal text coherence called Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) by Mann and Thompson (1988). The data were the introduction sections of ten articles taken from the International Conference on Science, Education, and Technology (ISET) 2019, and they were analyzed by considering 23 relations in RST. The findings reveal that the Subject Matter relations category overpowers the number of Presentational relations. Elaboration ranks at the top with 72 data, followed by Background (19 times) and Purpose (18 times). However, there is no datum for Volitional Result, Otherwise, Interpretation, and Sequence relations. It suggests that the article writers preferred to provide information by giving a detailed explanation, a background of the case, and the study purposes. The results are expected to encourage future researchers to utilize various ways of tackling text coherence and to provide an alternative to analyzing text for educators. Correspondence Address: Kampus Pascasarjana Unnes, Jl. Kelud Utara III Semarang 502 E-mail: diyanasulistyani@unnes.students.ac.id p-ISSN 2087-0108 e-ISSN 2502-4566 Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 235 INTRODUCTION Writing may not be the most favored activity among the four language skills. It is a demanding activity in which most students decide to turn back from starting the initial point. This impression emerges due to the demand to function the cognitive and affective competencies during the writing process (Murray & Moore, 2006). Another issue usually arises in English for Second Language (ESL) and English for Foreign Language (EFL) context is the entailing pressure to construct a comprehensible text. A study on ESL writing scope reports that students face difficulties in putting their statements together in a logical manner (Al-khazraji, 2019). Some report that they lack knowledge on how to benefit linguistic components such as discourse markers and cohesive devices that later influence the flow management and quality of the texts due to the lack of organization (Suwandi, 2016; Sinar et al., 2021; Patriana et al., 2016). Another logical reason behind this phenomenon is the low-level exposure to language the students received, especially among EFL students (Reichelt et al., 2012). In contrast to the ESL group, EFL students received a considerably weak amount of language exposure which later developed into several issues. Paltridge and Starfield (2007) emphasized the importance of unity and connectedness in writing, reasoning that the two aspects contribute to the text quality. A text is supposed to show a connection among components inside by employing various aforementioned linguistic elements. This connectedness works in textual and mental manners. Whereas the first way refers to how a text appears in readers’ eyes, the second stretches beyond the complete utilization of linguistic tools. It is beyond the discussion about the kinds of cohesive devices the students use in the text. It is, indeed, a deeper comprehensive to unfold the relationship of each part or idea presented one to another. This subjective judgment is then referred to as coherence, a continuation of the cohesion aspect, and is one of the indicators of good writing (Boardman & Frydenberg, 2008). A good text is writing that is capable of presenting linguistics texture from the cohesive devices or discourse markers and satisfies the agreement of its role as a communicative piece of writing by possessing a sense of coherence (Fitriati & Yonata, 2017). As Kehler (2002) remarked, coherence is the main point that permits a communication process to flow between the text and readers’ minds naturally. If the communication floor is not opened, it is sure to guarantee that the attempt to understand the message and ideas fails. Reversely, if a text displays a representable layer of coherence, the readers would be able to grasp the message efficiently. In short, coherence is one element that indicates how the text makes sense according to the human’s mental judgment by displaying ranges of relations and continuity (de Beaugrande & Dressler, 1981). The current trend in studies of text and coherence under the EFL context in Indonesia mainly focuses on the local or clause level. Thematic progression is among the most streamed method to reveal text coherence. The researchers who worked under this analysis method found that the types of thematic movement in students’ texts are limited to particular patterns, such as linear and reiteration patterns (Fitriati & Yonata, 2017; Emilia et al., 2018; Farida & Rosyidi, 2019; Lestari et al., 2019). They summed up that it is uncommon and rare to count a good number for the multiple- theme pattern. It is possible to imply then that EFL students in Indonesia are more convenient in presenting their ideas in a linear or parallel motion. In other words, they pick a keyword from a previous clause or statement and generate it in the following sentence. To be innovative by employing more than one pattern in a paragraph seems to be the least favorite option from students in writing activities. Despite the comparatively safe attempt to stay on linear and reiteration patterns, Farida and Rosyidi (2019) and Lestari et al. (2019) implied that students, in general, struggle to compose writing that shows a relation of connectedness between ideas or messages. The text, in other words, lacks ties or coherence and tends to miss a crucial part in strengthening the Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 236 link. As a result, the text does not satisfy readers’ expectations (Fitriati & Yonata, 2017). The issue of text coherence in the EFL context in Indonesia is concerning as it raises awareness of the students’ skills to develop their writing. The matter is not merely limited to junior and high school contexts, as it is widely studied by researchers in Indonesia, but also in the setting of undergraduate and post-graduate writing. University students considerably possess more advanced knowledge and experience than junior and high school students, thus raising an expectation that their texts carry a good level of coherence. In reality, a study from Arsyad et al. (2020) found problems in research articles written by Indonesian authors, specifically in the Introduction and Results and Discussion sections. They revealed that the two mentioned parts do not cover complete rhetorical movements, thus making the texts lack argumentative points. Studies of the rhetorical aspect of EFL writing in Indonesia are comparatively limited. Studies mainly view students’ texts from the employment of linguistic tools, such as cohesive devices and discourse markers, and the movement of Theme/Rheme. It is scarce to find studies in the setting of EFL in Indonesia to shift their attention to the rhetorical point of view. Nevertheless, some researchers attempt to learn the rhetorical aspect of EFL learners’ texts from distinctively similar angles, namely rhetorical moves and structures (Suryani et al., 2014; Tocalo, 2021). They believe that the two aspects are possible to reveal how EFL learners construct the move of information organization which varies depending on the individual. Another way that is decently novel in the discussion of rhetorical aspect is Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST). Proposed by Mann and Thompson in 1988, RST works by labeling spans of text, composed of a nucleus (N) and satellite (S), with relations and drawing the text in a tree diagram. There are 23 relations in total and are from two categories, namely Subject Matter (SM) and Presentational (P) relations. Table 1 presents the RST relations in the discussion. Table 1. RST Relations by Mann and Thompson (1988) Subject Matter Presentational Elaboration Motivation Circumstance Antithesis Solutionhood Background Volitional Cause Enablement Volitional Result Evidence Non-Volitional Cause Justify Non-Volitional Result Concession Purpose Condition Otherwise Interpretation Evaluation Restatement Summary Sequence Contrast RST has gained an appreciation for its usefulness in giving feedback on text quality and writing analysis, especially in tackling coherence (Feng et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2019). In the following step ahead, RST is one of the potential automated text analysis tools that can point out what parts in a text need revision for students and serves as a reliable tool for teachers. As a result, the students acknowledge their weaknesses more thoroughly than the conventional writing assessment without automated equipment, such as RST. A study conducted by Wang et al. (2019) also supports the positive role of RST. Wang et al. (2019) claimed that RST could predict speaking proficiency scores up to 55.9%. It indirectly enhances follow-up studies to focus on RST and reveals what other potentials and benefits the researchers should take. Despite the prominent findings, studies on RST are scarce in the context of EFL in Indonesia. There are indeed researches involving this theory (Hellalet, 2013; Das, 2019; Jiang et al., 2019; Kawase, 2019; Liu, 2019; Scheffler et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019), but they are under the ESL context. So far, it is clear then that the need for studies under the scope of rhetoric is high. The Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 237 present study attempts to employ rhetorical analysis to unveil the coherence of research articles, specifically in the Introduction section of the International Conference on Science, Education and Technology (ISET) 2019 articles. A theory by Mann and Thompson (1988) named Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) will be employed to guide the analysis process. The significance of this study is to awaken the role of the rhetorical aspect in EFL writing in Indonesia to analyze students’ texts and create a coherent text. METHODS The corpus of the present study consisted of ten research articles from the 5th International Conference on Science, Education and Technology (ISET) 2019. ISET 2019 is an annual international seminar that focuses on presenting journals on the scientific and technological innovation in the pedagogical process topic. The focus of the data is the Introduction section. There are five articles under education topic and five articles under a non-education topic. They were from eudl.eu/proceedings/ISET/2019. After that, the Introduction section is extracted to a Microsoft Word document with labels on each text as Text 1, Text 2, Text 3, Text 4, Text 5, to Text 10 consecutively. In this study, the data were analyzed using Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) by Mann and Thompson (1988). There were 23 relations in RST that would be employed to guide during the analysis process. The relations are from two main groups; Subject Matter and Presentational categories. The subject matter relations include Elaboration, Circumstance, Solutionhood, Volitional Cause, Volitional Result, Non- Volitional Cause, Non-Volitional Result, Purpose, Condition, Otherwise, Interpretation, Evaluation, Restatement, Summary, Sequence, and Contrast. Furthermore, the relations under the presentational category are Motivation, Antithesis, Background, Enablement, Evidence, Justify, and Concession. Before the analysis, sentences in the text were labeled with the numbering of paragraphs and sentences. The paragraph was in a number, and the sentence was in the alphabet. Thus, it would appear as follows: (1b) for the second sentence in the first paragraph, (2c) for the third sentence in the second paragraph, (3d) for the fourth sentence in the third paragraph, and so on. The next thing was to transfer the label to Notepad to save the document in a .txt format. This particular format is eligible to use on the RST tool. After ensuring that the label was correct, the first step in the analysis process was to import the .txt document. By using RST Tool developed by O’Donnell, the text was imported and segmented after each label. The segmentation stage started by selecting the Segment menu and clicking on the space after the numbering label. Subsequently, the relations labeling was executed by dragging a label to a chosen part. A tab containing RST relations would appear to select. The same procedure was carried out to other labels until it formed a relational diagram. A table is available to report the number of relations occurrences. Table 2 functions as a summary of how frequently each relation is in the texts. A relational diagram is provided in the Result and Discussion section as an illustration. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The result presents a table that summarizes the frequencies of relations from RST by Mann and Thompson (1988). Then, the next part will discuss the table in terms of the variation and linguistic elements that may contribute to representing each relation. Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 238 Table 2. The Result of RST relations by Mann and Thompson (1988) Analysis Category Relation Frequency Total Subject-matter Elaboration 72 141 Circumstance 11 Solutionhood 5 Volitional cause 4 Non-volitional cause 4 Purpose 18 Condition 1 Evaluation 4 Restatement 9 Summary 11 Non-volitional result 1 Contrast 1 Presentational Motivation 11 80 Antithesis 7 Background 19 Enablement 15 Evidence 15 Justify 12 Concession 1 Table 2 presents the result of RST relations by Mann and Thompson (1988). Out of 23 relations, the research articles’ authors only utilize 19 relations, and the most numbers are on Subject Matter relations. There are no data found under Volitional Result, Otherwise, Interpretation, and Sequence relations. It indicates that the writers do not uniformly employ them and heavily depend on explaining in the form of Elaboration and Background relations. It also shows that research goals are under Purpose relation. The authors provide evidence from previous studies and procedures to do things in Evidence and Enablement relations. Regarding the frequencies, the Elaboration relation ranks as the relation with the highest number in the Subject Matter category, with 72 times of frequency. The second relation is Purpose, with the number of frequencies 18 times. In the third rank are Circumstance and Summary relations with 11 frequencies. On the other side, the relations under the Presentational category have a decent number of frequencies. Due to the limited number, they are not capable of outranking the first category. Then, the most frequently-used relations in the Presentational classification are Background (19 times), followed by Enablement and Evidence (15 times), and Justify (12 times). The present findings coincide with the study conducted by Liu (2019) that found that Elaboration, Background, and Justify relations are among the top ten RST relations across variations of RST and genres. Especially in academic writing, the three mentioned relations are crucial in text composition since the author needs to build a solid argumentative text. In addition, Kawase (2019) also found similar findings in his study. Even though Kawase (2019) focused on the discussion section, the consistency in the outcome proves that Elaboration, Background, and Justify are the three primary relations in the academic writing setting. From this point, the nature of the Introduction part of the research article is evident. The authors explain the topic, add a framework to enhance the readers’ comprehension, inform the purpose of their studies, and sum up the text for the readers to grasp the information. They also attempt to justify their position in stating an idea Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 239 by giving personal supporting statements or previous researchers’ findings. Arsyad et al. (2020) found this tendency prominent in the Introduction section written by Indonesian authors. Using rhetorical style models, they noticed that the authors utilized Move 2 (establishing niche) more than 50% in the Introduction. This move relates to how the authors present the importance of their studies to the readers. In the setting of RST, this is linear to Justify relation that represents the author’s right to bring a particular topic to the discussion. Subject Matter Relation In the category of Subject Matter relation, Elaboration ranks as the most frequently used. It presents a relationship where the satellite (S) gives detailed information regarding the topic presented by the nucleus (N). The elaborated information may include group members, instances, parts of a whole form, steps in doing an activity, or specifications about an idea. The existence of this additional information will help the readers to acknowledge the details of the discussed topic. Hence, their understanding will elevate. Figure 1 presents an example of Elaboration relation where the author provided detailed information about KKNI. Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 240 Figure 1. Rhetorical relation of Text 1 Paragraph 1 In Figure 1, the authors bring the topic of Kerangka Kualifikasi Nasional Indonesia (KKNI) related to higher education level in Indonesia in sentence 1a. They further present a definition of what KKNI means in sentence 1b and the scope KKNI covers in sentence 1c. The rhetorical relation that sentences 1a and 1b-1c have in this case belongs to the Elaboration relation. The reason is sentences 1b-1c which provide a specification of the general discussion under KKNI. The existence of those elaborations completes the understanding in the readers’ minds about KKNI in brief. Beside Elaboration, there is Circumstance relation. This type emphasizes the existence of frameworks in the satellite (S) to ease the readers’ understanding of the situation presented in the nucleus (N). Figure 2 displays the example of Circumstance relation. Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 241 Figure 2. Rhetorical relation of Text 4 Paragraph 1 The authors in Text 4 argue that the purpose of learning English, according to Curriculum 2013, is possible to realize by applying higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). The following two sentences later agree by adding that the argument is linear to the government’s expectation regarding students’ capability to perform HOTS in learning. These statements in sentences 1b-1c contain ideas from the government they consider in making a decision implied in the Curriculum 2013. These ideas serve as a basis and help construct the statement in sentence 1a. For this reason, sentences 1b-1c serve as a framework for sentence 1a, resulting in a Circumstance relation. Subject matter relation does not only focus on providing elaborations and explanations. A summary also works similarly in presenting a shorter version of information or ideas. Figure 3 shows the example of the Summary relation. Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 242 Figure 3. Rhetorical relation of Text 4 Paragraph 3 In the case presented in Figure 3, the authors discuss the increasing number of question items that contain higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). They then provide an evidence statement in sentence 3c to support the argument in sentence 3b. It results in a brief notion of the importance of applying HOTS items in standardized tests on a national scale, as mentioned in sentence 3d. The latter sentence acts as a closing statement to the topic in the paragraph since it covers the discussion in sentences 3b-3d. The sentence 3d shortens the information in a single sentence, and it contains repetition as a lexical tool to strengthen the semantic tie. Thus, the relation of the sentence 3d to 3b-3c belongs to the Summary relation. Out of the relations in the Subject Matter category, Purpose relation be as the most accessible type to recognize. In this relation, satellite (S) presents a situation that is possible to achieve by doing an activity discussed in the nucleus (N). Figure 4 is an example of the Purpose relation. Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 243 Figure 4. Rhetorical relation of Text 4 Paragraph 2 The case in Figure 4 is an example of Purpose relation. This type of rhetorical relation rules out that the situation in S is a realization of the activity done in N. The case presented by sentence 2c regarding higher-order thinking (HOTS) essentially has a purpose. The goal of Curriculum 2013 is to increase the quality of learning and graduates, as mentioned in sentence 2d. The latter sentence implies the situation realized if HOTS is thoroughly applied, so the relation between the two parts is the Purpose relation. In the case of text 4 paragraph 2, there is no straightforward lexical linguistic tool to rely on. Instead, the clause “is needed as an effort to” indicates that sentence 2d functions as the purpose of sentence 2c. Presentational Relation The dominants of the Presentational relation category are Background, Enablement, Evidence, and Justify. As discussed in the Introduction section, Presentational relations aim to increase the readers’ tendency toward a specific topic which later influences how they decide according to the information delivered by the authors. The first relation to discuss is the Background relation. The nature of this relation is that the satellite (S) contains information or ideas that will increase the readers’ comprehension of the discussed issue on the nucleus (N). The information may later alter the readers’ point of view toward the topic. Figure 5 provides an example of Background relation. Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 244 Figure 5. Rhetorical relation of Text 11 Paragraph 1 The author in Text 11 discusses the size of coastline areas in Indonesia. Under the measurement the authors include in sentence 1a, Indonesia’s coastal areas are in the second rank after Canada, mentioned in sentence 1b. The information presented by the authors in sentence 1a eventually becomes the background knowledge to this finding that with a specific size, Indonesian coastline areas are among the largest coastal lands in the world. This environment between the sentences results in the Background relation with sentence 1a as the information provider for sentence 1b. The effect this interrelation develops is the readers acknowledge the foundation argument of the statement presented by N. The Presentational category also covers how to achieve a goal by discussing the mean. Enablement relation in specific functions in such a manner. The satellite (S) lets the readers know about the methods to reach the objective stated in the nucleus (N) by elaborating the steps, procedures, or ways to follow. Figure 6 provides an example of Enablement. Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 245 Figure 6. Rhetorical relation of Text 3 Paragraph 1 In the case of Enablement relation, the authors of Text 3 imply that it is essential to focus on the nature of assessment in education, as stated in sentence 1f. It calls for an elaboration since the assessment has a crucial role in determining the quality of the learning and teaching process. They later attempt to engage the readers to improve the quality of education by paying attention to learning and assessment quality. The sentence 1g here gives the readers information on how to achieve the goal— improving the quality of education—thus resulting in the Enablement relation between the two sentences. The relations in the Presentational category, in truth, aim to affect the readers’ inclination toward a topic. There are times when the author needs to include supporting elements in the text to influence the position of the readers, either positively or negatively. This sense is prominent in Evidence relation, where the authors may add other supporting statements as evidence to their belief. Figure 7 presents an example of Evidence relation. Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 246 Figure 7. Rhetorical relation of Text 2 Paragraph 3 In text 2 sentence 3i, as presented in Figure 7, the authors argue that students face obstacles in writing essays. The following sentence later adds that the students needed corrective feedback in response to their writing skills. Sentence 3i, in this case, serves as an argument based on a previous study collected by the author. They attempt to convince the readers about the finding by including a statement of evidence from the questionnaire results. Consequently, they develop an Evidence relation in which sentence 3j is the evidence of the result in sentence 3i. The Presentational category is also about validating the author’s position in the text. In some cases, the author needs to emphasize the reason for his privilege to present a statement and, Justify relation is beneficial in this case. Figure 8 shows an example of Justify relation. Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 247 Figure 8. Rhetorical relation of Text 11 Paragraph 4 In the case presented in Figure 8, the authors suggest an alternative to provide community-based entrepreneurship education in sentence 4g. The argument is based on the reason that pemindang (pindang maker) is the essential element in the business of home industry pemindangan. That is why they argue the major role pemindang has in the text. The sentences 4h- 4i then serve as justifying sentences for the idea in sentence 4g since the information shown increases the readers’ readiness to accept the author’s statement (Thompson & Mann, 1988). It is clear, then, that the case stated in the Justify relation plays a role in preparing the readers’ minds toward the influence of the author’s statements. Most of the relations in the Presentational category in this study provide a glimpse of how the Introduction in research articles is made. As previously argued in Subject Matter relation, the Introduction part is the first two sections for the readers, and the information served is usually under an introduction purpose. Thus, Background relation is the most frequently-used rhetorical relation in this part because of the importance of providing general information for the readers in the first place. Then, Enablement acts as a medium where the author informs the readers related to procedures or steps to do an activity. Evidence relation is the next essential point. It is not only to support the argument but also to increase the readers’ belief in the statement brought up. Lastly, Justify takes a role in preparing the readers’ minds to be open and accept the authors’ arguments. Absence of Rhetorical Relation As previously suggested, a common writing problem in the EFL context is to compose a logical and coherent text. If a part does not make sense or relate, then it is likely to disturb the flow of information digestion. This particular case is also reflected in the Introduction section of ISET 2019 articles. Absences of relation are also in several paragraphs due to the unclear, incoherent relation each part has with another. Figure 9 shows a case where there are uncategorized parts in the text. Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 248 Figure 9. Rhetorical relation of Text 2 Paragraph 2 The authors firstly present an introductory statement recalling that the communicative approach dominated the L2 learning context in the early 1970s. In the following sentences, however, they seem to be lost in developing the information. Rather than going on the same issue mentioned in sentence 2a, the authors bring a topic of error correction which does not reflect the main idea. To make it more obvious, sentence 2d does not have an entailing sentence to link the questions the researchers had to the following discussion about the impact of teacher’s direct feedback. This inconsistency is pretty prominent since the author fails to construct a developed text based on one primary keyword, going back and forth from communicative approach – error correction – feedback – teacher direct feedback. There is no one lexical cohesive device to signal to the the readers what topic the authors want to discuss. A relatively similar case is available in Figure 10, which illustrates how the authors fail to keep a consistent track of the text. Figure 10. Rhetorical relation of Text 5 Paragraph 5 Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 249 In the case of Figure 10, the authors argue that curriculum is a product of human thought, making it inevitable of flaws and mistakes in the process of implementing it in real life. From this point, the readers obtain an agreement that the author will discuss further sentences 5a and 5b, which are about the imperfection of curriculum implementation. However, the expectation is absent in the following sentences. Despite tracking the already published keyword, the authors go to talk about curriculum preparedness and students’ activities. The former is relatively in line with the keyword in sentence 5a, but the latter does not compromise the points in sentence 5c. The result is a sudden turn of a topic, and it is risky to put the readers in confusion. CONCLUSIONS This study aims to explore the rhetorical relations of ten research articles written by EFL authors in Indonesia using Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) by Mann and Thompson (1988). In the Subject Matter relations type, Elaboration plays a crucial role in defining the nature of the Introduction section, followed by Circumstance, Summary, and Purpose relations. On the other hand, the Presentational relations also contribute to building up the linguistic ambiance of the section and increasing the readers’ inclination towards the topics, including Background, Enablement, Evidence, and Justify relations. These rhetorical relations found in the research articles provide us with an illustration of the components of academic writing. The rhetorical relations are beneficial to illustrating EFL writers in putting sentences. Writing, in this sense, is beyond composing grammatically correct sentences but on the burden of making a set of relatable and connected ideas. If the writers cannot perform such a task, their texts would be meaningless, tacky, and incoherent. It is what English teachers and educators at higher levels should focus on in teaching writing. Grammar may still be the top priority, but cohesion and coherence should also be taken seriously. Providing deep feedback on how the students’ texts appear to the readers is an alternative to exercising their rhetorical sense. They may not get the impression of the text from others’ perceptions. Thus, a peer-reviewing activity can be an alternative. It is, then, suggested that language educators, especially in higher levels, such as universities, pay more attention to the rhetorical aspect of students’ writing by giving thorough feedback after a writing activity. The feedback will serve as a good starting movement in building up the rhetorical sense among the students. Since they may not get the appearance of their texts to others, it is crucial to facilitate the matter. The language educators may benefit from the RST tool to facilitate the solution. It is an easy-to-use tool that teachers can try to adapt in a classroom setting. Furthermore, the present study also suggests that future researchers in writing and linguistics shift their attention to the rhetorical aspect of students’ texts. It is a step that recent researchers in Indonesia need to look at and try as a way to be innovative in research. As a consequence of this novel attempt, new perspectives about revealing and tackling the coherence aspect in EFL writing, especially in Indonesia, will emerge. REFERENCES Al-khazraji, A. (2019). Analysis of discourse markers in essays writing in ESL classroom. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 559–572. Arsyad, S., Arono, A., Ramadhan, S., & Iramaisarah, I. (2020). The rhetorical problems experienced by Indonesian lecturers in social sciences and humanities in writing research articles for international journals. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 116–129. Boardman, C. A., & Frydenberg, J. (2008). Writing to communicate (3rd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. Das, D. (2019). Nuclearity in RST and signals of coherence relations. Proceedings of Discourse Relation Parsing and Treebanking (DISRPT2019), 30–37. Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 250 de Beaugrande, R.-A., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. Longman. Emilia, E., Habibi, N., & Bangga, L. A. (2018). An analysis of cohesion of exposition texts: An Indonesian context. 7(3), 515– 523. Farida, A. N., & Rosyidi, M. I. (2019). Students’ writing quality: Its coherence and cohesion. Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature, 4(1), 121–129. Feng, V. W., Lin, Z., & Hirst, G. (2014). The impact of deep hierarchical discourse structures in the evaluation of text coherence. Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, 940–949. Fitriati, S. W., & Yonata, F. (2017). Examining text coherence in graduate students of English argumentative writing: Case study. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 8(3), 251–264. Hellalet, N. (2013). Textual coherence in EFL student writing. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 15(3), 54–58. Jiang, S., Yang, K., Casula, P., Zhang, M., & Rosé, C. P. (2019). Applying rhetorical structure theory to student essays for providing automated writing feedback. Proceedings of Discourse Relation Parsing and Treebanking (DISRPT2019), 163–168. Kawase, T. (2019). Coherence relations in research article discussions: How are sentences organised to realise genre moves? English Text Construction, 12(2), 235–264. Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. CSLI Publications. Lestari, S. H. P., Mujiyanto, J., & Saleh, M. (2019). The use of thematic progression in the journal article of “U-JET". English Education Journal, 9(4), 558–564. Liu, Y. (2019). Beyond the wall street journal: Anchoring and comparing discourse signals across genres. Proceedings of Discourse Relation Parsing and Treebanking (DISRPT2019), 72–81. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1987). Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization. University of Southern California. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281. Murray, R., & Moore, S. (2006). The handbook of academic writing: A fresh approach. Open University Press. Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. Routledge. Patriana, A. W., Rachmajanti, S., & Mukminatien, N. (2016). Students’ ability in using discourse markers to build coherence in compositions. TEFLIN Journal, 27(2), 203–216. Reichelt, M., Lefkowitz, N., Rinnert, C., & Schultz, J. M. (2012). Key issues in foreign language writing. FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS, 45(1), 22–41. Scheffler, T., Aktaş, B., Das, D., & Manfred, S. (2019). Annotating shallow discourse relations in Twitter conversations. Proceedings of Discourse Relation Parsing and Treebanking (DISRPT2019), 50–55. Sinar, T. S., Putri, L. A., & Putri, D. M. (2021). The argumentative essay: An evaluation of Indonesian University Learners’ Writing in English. Asian EFL Journal, 28(3), 162– 176. Suryani, I., Hashima, N., Yaacob, A., Rashid, S. A., & Desa, H. (2013). Rhetorical structures in academic research writing by non-native writers. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(1), 29–38. Suwandi, S. (2016). Coherence and cohesion: An analysis of the final project abstracts of the undergraduate students of PGRI Semarang. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 253–261. Tocalo, A. W. I. (2021). Move structures and their rhetorical verbs of research article abstracts across Englishes. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1–10. Diyana Sulistyani, et al./ English Education Journal 12 (2) (2022) 234-251 251 Wang, X., Gyawali, B., Bruno, J. V., Molloy, H. R., Evanini, K., & Zechner, K. (2019). Using rhetorical structure theory to assess discourse coherence for non-native spontaneous speech. Proceedings of Discourse Relation Parsing and Treebanking (DISRPT2019), 153–162. Yoon, J., & Casal, J. E. (2020). Rhetorical structure, sequence, and variation: A ste-driven move analysis of applied linguistics conference abstracts. 1–17.