LOGICO-SEMANTIC RELATIONS IN MENDEZ’ UTTERANCES IN ARGO.
LOGICO-SEMANTIC RELATIONS IN MENDEZ’
UTTERANCES IN ARGO
A THESIS
Submitted to Department of English as a Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for Sarjana Sastra (S-1) Degree
By:
DINA FEBRIANA
Registration Number : 2122220006
ENGLISH LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2017
ABSTRACT
Febriana, Dina. 2122220006. Logico-Semantic Relations in Mendez’
Utterances in Argo. A Thesis. Faculty of Languages and Arts. State
University of Medan, 2017
The study deals with the types of logico-semantic relations in Mendez’utterances
in Argo. The objective of the study are Describe the types of logico semantic
relations used in Mendez’ utterances and Expalain how logico-semantic relations
(unmarked and marked) used in Mendez’ utterances. This study was conducted
by using descriptive qualitative. The data of the study were clause complexes
found in Mendez’ utterances. There were 63 clause complexes found. Based on
the analysis, it was found that only seven of ten types of logico-semantic relations
were used in Mendez’ utterances. The logico-semantic relation type which
dominantly occurs in Mendez’ utterances is unmarked enhancement (24
utterances, 38,09%). Then it’s followed unmarked extension (17 utterances,
26,98%), unmarked elaboration (11 utterances, 17,46%), marked enhancement (5
utterances,7,93%), marked locution ( 3 utterances, 4,76%), unmarked locution (2
utterances 3,17%), marked ectension (1 utterance, 1,58%). Meanwhile marked
elaboration, unmarked idea and marked idea were not found in
Mendez’utterances.
Keywords : Logico-semantic relations, utterances
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thankful and praise to Allah SWT that has blessed and given the ability to
the writer in finishing her thesis as the partial fulfillment of the requirements for
degree of Sarjana Sastra at the English Department, Faculty of languages and
Arts, State University of Medan.
In accomplishing of this thesis, the writer wants to say thankful to some beloved
people who helped the writer in finishing her thesis and the writer would like to
express her gratitude to :
1. Prof. Dr. H. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Rector of State Universisty of
Medan
2. Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean of Faculty of Language and
Arts State University of Medan.
3. Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English and Literature
Department, Dra. Meisuri, M.A., the Secretary of English Department,
Syamsul Bahri,S.S.,M.Hum., the Head of English Literature Program,
Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Medan.
4. Immanuel Prasetya Gintings, S.S., M.Hum., and Tiarnita MS.
Siregar,S.Pd.,M.Hum., as her Thesis Advicers who always give precious
time they spent in correcting and supervising the draft of writeng during
the completion of this thesis. to the writer. Actually, the writer would like
to express her thankful to sir. Immanuel Prasetya Gintings who never get
bored to the writer when the writer come to his home for advising.
ii
5. Her beloved family, her father, Rudy Prasetyo SH , her mother Lusiana
thank you for the understanding and the big support in praying, love,
motovation and financial while accomplishing this thesis.
6. Her beloved guy, Kemal Muttaqin Ritonga, thank you for your love,
time, and motivation while accomplishing this thesis.
7. Her best friends HOMOGRAPHS ( Basyariah, Cindy Putri, Dian
Sukma Lestari, Dina Wahyuni Tanjung, Yeni Novita Sari, Yumi
Saniah Lubis and ) for all time and the informations that guide me to
finish this thesis.
8. Eis Sri Wahyuningsih, M.Pd, thanks for helping the writer to complete
the administration during the process of writing this thesis.
9. All others whose name cannot be mentioned one by one for their help and
support. Thanks for everything. May we get the blessed of Allah.
Finally, thewriter amits that this thesis still far from being perfect.
Therefore, the writer would like to invite the readers to give suggestion for
the improvement of this theesis leter on.
Medan,
January 2017
The writer
Dina Febriana
NIM.2122220006
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
....................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
....................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES
....................................................................... vii
LIST OF APPENDIXES
........................................................................viii
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION ...................................................
1
A. The Background of The Study
...........................
1
B. The Problem of The Study
...........................
3
C. The Scope of The Study
...........................
4
D. The Significances of The Study ...........................
4
CHAPTER II : REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...............................
A. Theoritical Framework
5
........................................
5
1. Functional Grammar ........................................
5
2. Context of Situation ........................................
6
a. Field
....................................................
6
1). Institutionalized
............................
6
2) Semantic Domain
............................
6
...................................................
7
b. Tenor
1) Formality
.......................................
7
2) Status
.......................................
7
3) Affection
.......................................
7
4) Contact
......................................
7
iv
c. Mode ..............................................................
8
1) Planning
.................................................
8
2) Distance
................................................
8
3) Medium
...............................................
8
...............................................
8
5. Clause Complexes ..............................................
9
6. Metafunction
..............................................
10
7. Logical Meaning
..............................................
11
..........................................................
11
1) Paratactic ..............................................
12
2) Hypotactic ................................................
12
4. Text and Context
a. Taxis
b. Logico-Semantic Relation
.......................
13
1) Expansion ...............................................
13
a. Elaboration
...................................
14
b. Extension
...................................
14
c. Enhancement
...................................
15
2) Projection ...............................................
15
a. Locution
...................................
15
b. Idea
...................................
16
8. Character and Main Character
.......................
17
...............................................
19
...........................................................
19
9. Main Character
10. Movie
v
11. ARGO
............................................................
20
12. Biography of the Writer ......................................
22
13. Synopsis ..........................................................
23
14. Relevant Studies ..............................................
29
B. Conceptual Framework
30
....................................
CHAPTER III : RESEARCH METODOLOGY ......................
32
A. Research Design ...............................................
32
B. Data and Source of Data ...................................
32
C.Technique of Collecting Data ..............................
32
D.Technique of Analyzing Data ..............................
32
CHAPTER IV : DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS
...........
34
A.The Data ...........................................................
34
B.The Data Analysis ...............................................
34
C. Research Findings ...............................................
40
D. Discussion ...........................................................
41
CHAPTER V : CONCLUSSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
43
A. Conclussions
...............................................
43
B. Suggestions
...............................................
43
......................................................................
45
REFERENCES
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1. Proportions of The Logico-Semantic Relations
vii
...................... 35
LIST OF APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A
................................................................................. 47
APPENDIX B
................................................................................. 52
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of The Study.
When people speak or write, they produce a language. As a social being,
language is needed to interact with other people. People will get difficulty if they
don’t use language to interact because they cannot comunicate or deliver their
thoughts and feelings without language. Language is such a need for human being
in daily life. The important things for people in using language are to talk about
their experience, to describe events and state the entities involved in them to
influence their behaviour and to express their own viewpoint and things in their
messages.
Comunication is divided into spoken and written. When people speak or write
they express what they have in their mind. While presenting ideas, people should
concern with the way language which is used because it will make their ideas
understandable. In the use of language people in many casees tend to expand their
ideas by combining or complexing the original clause to other related clause
because there are some ideas in the language user’s mind that they are going to
share. In communication speaker or writer needs to the connectiion which is
made between one clause with another.
Film is the one of literary works. Nowadays people love watching films. This
phenomenon can be seen from the number of people coming to the cinema. This
is due to the fact that watching film is enjoyable and entertaining. Many people
enjoy fictional or nonfictional stories whether in the form of films or novels. A
1
2
film creates an illusion that what occurs on the screen is an objective recording of
events. A film has become part of that extensive cultural system of constructions
that represent social reality. In the film , one of that can be analyzed is through
the utterances of the main character.
Argo is a 2012 American biographical historical drama film directed by Ben
Affleck and written by Chris Terrio. Ben Affleck is an actor and a play director in
America and had ever got win award category as the best movie writer in 1997.
Argo is adapted from U.S. Central Intelligence Agency operative Tony Mendez’s
book The Master of Disguise and Joshuah Bearman’s 2007 Wired article “ The
Great Escape : How the CIA used a Fake Sci-Fi Flick to Rescue Americans from
Tehran. Argo received seven nominations at the 85th Academy Awards and won
three, for Best Picture, Bes Adapted Screenplay and Best Film Editing. The film
also earned five Golden Globe Award nominations, winning Best Motion PictureDrama and Best Director.
Argo is the film that will be analyzed through the utterances of Mendez.
Mendez is the main character of this film. The things that the writer wants to
anlyze is the utterances of Mendez by Functional Grammar approach. In which
the
functional
grammar
recognizes
metafunction.
Halliday
(2014:30)
Metafunction as a language provides a theory of human experiences, and certain
of the resources of the lexicogrammar of every language are dedicated to that
function. It is called by ideational metafunction ,and distinguish it into two
components, the experential and the logical. Logico-semantic relation uses
prepositions, punctuatioins and certain conjunctions to relate one clause to another
3
clause in making up logic language. The logical relationship between one clause
to another clause will be analzed in order to increase the listeners’s understanding
about the information they hear. There are two basic systems which determine
how one clause is related to another namely the system of taxis and logico
semantic and the realization of logico-semantic relation (unmarked and
marked).Taxis is classified into parataxis and hypotaxis, while logico semantic
deals with how the ideas or meaning of language is structured in combination of
clauses in clause complex. Logico-semantic relation is classified into two
relationships they are expansion and projection.
B. The Problem of The Study
Based on the background of the study, the problem of the study are formulated
as the following ;
1.
What kinds of logico-semantic relation are used in Mendez’utterances ?
2.
How are the logico semantic relation (unmarked and marked) logico in
Mendez’utterances ?
C. The Objective of The Study
Related to the problem of the study, the objectives of the study are to
1.
describe the types of logico semantic relations used in Mendez’ utterances
and
4
2.
explain how logico-semantic relations (unmarked and marked) realized in
Mendez’ utterances.
D. The Scope of the Study
This study analyzes clause complex relationship in Mendez’ utterances in
Argo film. Specifically, the study is focused on analyzing the types of logico
semantic relation both expansion and projection used in his utterances.
E. The Significances of The Study
Findings of this study are expected to be theoritically and practically useful
and relevant to various sides as the following:
1. Theoritically, findings are expected to provide benefits of knowledge, at
least they can be useful as a references for futhur study
2. Practically, the findings will be usefull for movie scriptwriter and movie
audience, to enrich their information and knowledge about logicosemantic relation in script movie in others being interesting in conducting
the similiar study to get futhur information.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusions
After analyzing data on logico-semantic relation in Mendez’utterances, are
drawn as the following :
1. Only seven of ten types of logico-semantic relations found in Mendez’
utterances, they are unmarked elaboration, unmarked extension,
marked extension, unmarked enhancement, marked enhancement,
unmarked locution and marked locution.
2. The logico-semantic relation type which dominantly occurs in
Mendez’ utterances is unmarked enhancement (24 utterances,
38.09%). Then it’s followed unmarked extension (17 utterances,
26.98%), unmarked elaboration (11 utterances, 17.46%), marked
enhancement (5 utterances,7.93%), marked locution ( 3 utterances,
4.76%), unmarked locution (2 utterances 3.17%), marked ectension (1
utterances, 1.58%). Meanwhile marked elaboration, unmarked idea
and marked idea were not found in Mendez’utterances.
B. Suggestion
In relation to the conclusions previously, suggestions are staged as the
following :
1. The findings of this study can be used to describe a better
understandingfor the english learners of logico-semantic relations
42
43
2. Other researchers are advised to study and make a detail analysis of
logico-semantic relations.
44
REFERENCES
Anggara.2015.Tactic System and Logico-Semantic Relations of Clause Complexes
in Asean Free Trade Area(AFTA) Agreement. Accesed on October, 9th 2016.
Ary,D,Jacobs, L.C, Razavieh, A.2002. Introduction
Education.New York:Belmont, CA Wadsworth.
Bloor,
Thomas
&
Mariel.
2004.The
nd
English(2 ed).London:Holder Arnold.
to
Functional
Research
in
Analysis
of
Gerot.L and Wignell.1994.Making Sense of Functional Grammar.Sydney:Gerd
Stabler.
Halliday,
M.,&Matthiessen,
C.2014.An
Grammar(3rded).London: Hodder Arnold.
Introduction
to
Functional
Rahmah.2013.Functional Grammar.Medan: Universitas Negeri Medan.
Saragih,Amrin.2014.Discourse Analysis.Medan:Universitas Negeri Medan.
Siahaan,S.,Napitupulu,S.&Tampubolon.2014.The Logical Meanings of the
Traditional Wedding Speeches of Batak Toba People.International Journal of
Language and Linguistics, II(5)328-342.
Thompson,G.2014.Introducing
York:Routledge.
Functional
Grammar
(3rded).New
Wahid.2013.The Logico-Semantic Relation in The Skripsi Background of
Qualitative and Quantitative Researches of English Education Department of
Muria Kudus University in 2012.
UTTERANCES IN ARGO
A THESIS
Submitted to Department of English as a Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for Sarjana Sastra (S-1) Degree
By:
DINA FEBRIANA
Registration Number : 2122220006
ENGLISH LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2017
ABSTRACT
Febriana, Dina. 2122220006. Logico-Semantic Relations in Mendez’
Utterances in Argo. A Thesis. Faculty of Languages and Arts. State
University of Medan, 2017
The study deals with the types of logico-semantic relations in Mendez’utterances
in Argo. The objective of the study are Describe the types of logico semantic
relations used in Mendez’ utterances and Expalain how logico-semantic relations
(unmarked and marked) used in Mendez’ utterances. This study was conducted
by using descriptive qualitative. The data of the study were clause complexes
found in Mendez’ utterances. There were 63 clause complexes found. Based on
the analysis, it was found that only seven of ten types of logico-semantic relations
were used in Mendez’ utterances. The logico-semantic relation type which
dominantly occurs in Mendez’ utterances is unmarked enhancement (24
utterances, 38,09%). Then it’s followed unmarked extension (17 utterances,
26,98%), unmarked elaboration (11 utterances, 17,46%), marked enhancement (5
utterances,7,93%), marked locution ( 3 utterances, 4,76%), unmarked locution (2
utterances 3,17%), marked ectension (1 utterance, 1,58%). Meanwhile marked
elaboration, unmarked idea and marked idea were not found in
Mendez’utterances.
Keywords : Logico-semantic relations, utterances
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thankful and praise to Allah SWT that has blessed and given the ability to
the writer in finishing her thesis as the partial fulfillment of the requirements for
degree of Sarjana Sastra at the English Department, Faculty of languages and
Arts, State University of Medan.
In accomplishing of this thesis, the writer wants to say thankful to some beloved
people who helped the writer in finishing her thesis and the writer would like to
express her gratitude to :
1. Prof. Dr. H. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Rector of State Universisty of
Medan
2. Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean of Faculty of Language and
Arts State University of Medan.
3. Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English and Literature
Department, Dra. Meisuri, M.A., the Secretary of English Department,
Syamsul Bahri,S.S.,M.Hum., the Head of English Literature Program,
Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Medan.
4. Immanuel Prasetya Gintings, S.S., M.Hum., and Tiarnita MS.
Siregar,S.Pd.,M.Hum., as her Thesis Advicers who always give precious
time they spent in correcting and supervising the draft of writeng during
the completion of this thesis. to the writer. Actually, the writer would like
to express her thankful to sir. Immanuel Prasetya Gintings who never get
bored to the writer when the writer come to his home for advising.
ii
5. Her beloved family, her father, Rudy Prasetyo SH , her mother Lusiana
thank you for the understanding and the big support in praying, love,
motovation and financial while accomplishing this thesis.
6. Her beloved guy, Kemal Muttaqin Ritonga, thank you for your love,
time, and motivation while accomplishing this thesis.
7. Her best friends HOMOGRAPHS ( Basyariah, Cindy Putri, Dian
Sukma Lestari, Dina Wahyuni Tanjung, Yeni Novita Sari, Yumi
Saniah Lubis and ) for all time and the informations that guide me to
finish this thesis.
8. Eis Sri Wahyuningsih, M.Pd, thanks for helping the writer to complete
the administration during the process of writing this thesis.
9. All others whose name cannot be mentioned one by one for their help and
support. Thanks for everything. May we get the blessed of Allah.
Finally, thewriter amits that this thesis still far from being perfect.
Therefore, the writer would like to invite the readers to give suggestion for
the improvement of this theesis leter on.
Medan,
January 2017
The writer
Dina Febriana
NIM.2122220006
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
....................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
....................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES
....................................................................... vii
LIST OF APPENDIXES
........................................................................viii
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION ...................................................
1
A. The Background of The Study
...........................
1
B. The Problem of The Study
...........................
3
C. The Scope of The Study
...........................
4
D. The Significances of The Study ...........................
4
CHAPTER II : REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...............................
A. Theoritical Framework
5
........................................
5
1. Functional Grammar ........................................
5
2. Context of Situation ........................................
6
a. Field
....................................................
6
1). Institutionalized
............................
6
2) Semantic Domain
............................
6
...................................................
7
b. Tenor
1) Formality
.......................................
7
2) Status
.......................................
7
3) Affection
.......................................
7
4) Contact
......................................
7
iv
c. Mode ..............................................................
8
1) Planning
.................................................
8
2) Distance
................................................
8
3) Medium
...............................................
8
...............................................
8
5. Clause Complexes ..............................................
9
6. Metafunction
..............................................
10
7. Logical Meaning
..............................................
11
..........................................................
11
1) Paratactic ..............................................
12
2) Hypotactic ................................................
12
4. Text and Context
a. Taxis
b. Logico-Semantic Relation
.......................
13
1) Expansion ...............................................
13
a. Elaboration
...................................
14
b. Extension
...................................
14
c. Enhancement
...................................
15
2) Projection ...............................................
15
a. Locution
...................................
15
b. Idea
...................................
16
8. Character and Main Character
.......................
17
...............................................
19
...........................................................
19
9. Main Character
10. Movie
v
11. ARGO
............................................................
20
12. Biography of the Writer ......................................
22
13. Synopsis ..........................................................
23
14. Relevant Studies ..............................................
29
B. Conceptual Framework
30
....................................
CHAPTER III : RESEARCH METODOLOGY ......................
32
A. Research Design ...............................................
32
B. Data and Source of Data ...................................
32
C.Technique of Collecting Data ..............................
32
D.Technique of Analyzing Data ..............................
32
CHAPTER IV : DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS
...........
34
A.The Data ...........................................................
34
B.The Data Analysis ...............................................
34
C. Research Findings ...............................................
40
D. Discussion ...........................................................
41
CHAPTER V : CONCLUSSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
43
A. Conclussions
...............................................
43
B. Suggestions
...............................................
43
......................................................................
45
REFERENCES
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1. Proportions of The Logico-Semantic Relations
vii
...................... 35
LIST OF APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A
................................................................................. 47
APPENDIX B
................................................................................. 52
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of The Study.
When people speak or write, they produce a language. As a social being,
language is needed to interact with other people. People will get difficulty if they
don’t use language to interact because they cannot comunicate or deliver their
thoughts and feelings without language. Language is such a need for human being
in daily life. The important things for people in using language are to talk about
their experience, to describe events and state the entities involved in them to
influence their behaviour and to express their own viewpoint and things in their
messages.
Comunication is divided into spoken and written. When people speak or write
they express what they have in their mind. While presenting ideas, people should
concern with the way language which is used because it will make their ideas
understandable. In the use of language people in many casees tend to expand their
ideas by combining or complexing the original clause to other related clause
because there are some ideas in the language user’s mind that they are going to
share. In communication speaker or writer needs to the connectiion which is
made between one clause with another.
Film is the one of literary works. Nowadays people love watching films. This
phenomenon can be seen from the number of people coming to the cinema. This
is due to the fact that watching film is enjoyable and entertaining. Many people
enjoy fictional or nonfictional stories whether in the form of films or novels. A
1
2
film creates an illusion that what occurs on the screen is an objective recording of
events. A film has become part of that extensive cultural system of constructions
that represent social reality. In the film , one of that can be analyzed is through
the utterances of the main character.
Argo is a 2012 American biographical historical drama film directed by Ben
Affleck and written by Chris Terrio. Ben Affleck is an actor and a play director in
America and had ever got win award category as the best movie writer in 1997.
Argo is adapted from U.S. Central Intelligence Agency operative Tony Mendez’s
book The Master of Disguise and Joshuah Bearman’s 2007 Wired article “ The
Great Escape : How the CIA used a Fake Sci-Fi Flick to Rescue Americans from
Tehran. Argo received seven nominations at the 85th Academy Awards and won
three, for Best Picture, Bes Adapted Screenplay and Best Film Editing. The film
also earned five Golden Globe Award nominations, winning Best Motion PictureDrama and Best Director.
Argo is the film that will be analyzed through the utterances of Mendez.
Mendez is the main character of this film. The things that the writer wants to
anlyze is the utterances of Mendez by Functional Grammar approach. In which
the
functional
grammar
recognizes
metafunction.
Halliday
(2014:30)
Metafunction as a language provides a theory of human experiences, and certain
of the resources of the lexicogrammar of every language are dedicated to that
function. It is called by ideational metafunction ,and distinguish it into two
components, the experential and the logical. Logico-semantic relation uses
prepositions, punctuatioins and certain conjunctions to relate one clause to another
3
clause in making up logic language. The logical relationship between one clause
to another clause will be analzed in order to increase the listeners’s understanding
about the information they hear. There are two basic systems which determine
how one clause is related to another namely the system of taxis and logico
semantic and the realization of logico-semantic relation (unmarked and
marked).Taxis is classified into parataxis and hypotaxis, while logico semantic
deals with how the ideas or meaning of language is structured in combination of
clauses in clause complex. Logico-semantic relation is classified into two
relationships they are expansion and projection.
B. The Problem of The Study
Based on the background of the study, the problem of the study are formulated
as the following ;
1.
What kinds of logico-semantic relation are used in Mendez’utterances ?
2.
How are the logico semantic relation (unmarked and marked) logico in
Mendez’utterances ?
C. The Objective of The Study
Related to the problem of the study, the objectives of the study are to
1.
describe the types of logico semantic relations used in Mendez’ utterances
and
4
2.
explain how logico-semantic relations (unmarked and marked) realized in
Mendez’ utterances.
D. The Scope of the Study
This study analyzes clause complex relationship in Mendez’ utterances in
Argo film. Specifically, the study is focused on analyzing the types of logico
semantic relation both expansion and projection used in his utterances.
E. The Significances of The Study
Findings of this study are expected to be theoritically and practically useful
and relevant to various sides as the following:
1. Theoritically, findings are expected to provide benefits of knowledge, at
least they can be useful as a references for futhur study
2. Practically, the findings will be usefull for movie scriptwriter and movie
audience, to enrich their information and knowledge about logicosemantic relation in script movie in others being interesting in conducting
the similiar study to get futhur information.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusions
After analyzing data on logico-semantic relation in Mendez’utterances, are
drawn as the following :
1. Only seven of ten types of logico-semantic relations found in Mendez’
utterances, they are unmarked elaboration, unmarked extension,
marked extension, unmarked enhancement, marked enhancement,
unmarked locution and marked locution.
2. The logico-semantic relation type which dominantly occurs in
Mendez’ utterances is unmarked enhancement (24 utterances,
38.09%). Then it’s followed unmarked extension (17 utterances,
26.98%), unmarked elaboration (11 utterances, 17.46%), marked
enhancement (5 utterances,7.93%), marked locution ( 3 utterances,
4.76%), unmarked locution (2 utterances 3.17%), marked ectension (1
utterances, 1.58%). Meanwhile marked elaboration, unmarked idea
and marked idea were not found in Mendez’utterances.
B. Suggestion
In relation to the conclusions previously, suggestions are staged as the
following :
1. The findings of this study can be used to describe a better
understandingfor the english learners of logico-semantic relations
42
43
2. Other researchers are advised to study and make a detail analysis of
logico-semantic relations.
44
REFERENCES
Anggara.2015.Tactic System and Logico-Semantic Relations of Clause Complexes
in Asean Free Trade Area(AFTA) Agreement. Accesed on October, 9th 2016.
Ary,D,Jacobs, L.C, Razavieh, A.2002. Introduction
Education.New York:Belmont, CA Wadsworth.
Bloor,
Thomas
&
Mariel.
2004.The
nd
English(2 ed).London:Holder Arnold.
to
Functional
Research
in
Analysis
of
Gerot.L and Wignell.1994.Making Sense of Functional Grammar.Sydney:Gerd
Stabler.
Halliday,
M.,&Matthiessen,
C.2014.An
Grammar(3rded).London: Hodder Arnold.
Introduction
to
Functional
Rahmah.2013.Functional Grammar.Medan: Universitas Negeri Medan.
Saragih,Amrin.2014.Discourse Analysis.Medan:Universitas Negeri Medan.
Siahaan,S.,Napitupulu,S.&Tampubolon.2014.The Logical Meanings of the
Traditional Wedding Speeches of Batak Toba People.International Journal of
Language and Linguistics, II(5)328-342.
Thompson,G.2014.Introducing
York:Routledge.
Functional
Grammar
(3rded).New
Wahid.2013.The Logico-Semantic Relation in The Skripsi Background of
Qualitative and Quantitative Researches of English Education Department of
Muria Kudus University in 2012.