Interpretation of Taxis Findings

40 Table.8. Distribution of Taxis Relation Interdependence Text A Text B Parataxis 31,11 29.41 Hypotaxis 68,89 70.59 Both paratactic and hypotactic relations play their significant role in those two text. From the result above, it is undeniable that the portion of hypotactic links is bigger than paratactic ones. The comparative percentage of each text shows an evenly close number from any interdependence category. This number describes that the use of hypotactic links is two times from the use of paratactic links in text A, and almost three times in text B. It is also known that hypotactic relation is the dominant interdependence appeared in the analysis. It means that both texts use more clause complexes which utilize subordinate or dependent clauses to either expand or project. Further comparative presentation between the two texts is explained on the representative analysis below: a Paratactic Relation Table.9. Distribution of Paratactic Relation Interdependence Text A Text B Parataxis 14 31,11 10 29.41 Text A has more paratactic relation compared to text B although the difference is not significant. It shows that text A has little more clause complexes 41 which construct independent clausal relations. The examples of paratactic relation from both texts are as follows: Data A.7 1 …...seasonal tropical storms probably contributed to the Dec. 28 crash 2 and the weather has persistently hampered efforts……… Data B.28 1 We found matching antemortem and postmortem data 2 and we also found a necklace with a pendant with the initial L on her body, Both primary and secondary clauses in data A.7 and B.28 above are independent clause. The independent secondary clauses are marked by conjunction and and and also, so it makes up a paratactic relation. b Hypotactic Relation Table.10. Distribution of Hypotactic Relation Interdependence Text A Text B Hypotaxis 31 68,89 24 70.59 For hypotactic relation, Text A has less relation compared to text B. The difference is also not significant. It indicates that text A has little less clause complexes which construct dependent secondary clauses. The examples of hypotactic relation from both texts are as follows: Data A.21 α Thirty-seven bodies of the mostly Indonesian passengers and crew have been recovered, β including some still strapped in their seats. Data B.24 α Jou Christine Yuanita was a 62-year-old female, 42 β while Soetikno Sia was a 60-year-old male. Both texts have a dependent secondary clause. It is indicated by a non-finite clause with gerund in data A.21 and a conjunction while in data B.24. So, the dependent clause makes up a hypotactic relation

4.2.2. Interpretation of Logical Semantic Relation

Logical semantic relations of expansion and projection are found in single relations as well as in sub-complexes or multi clause complexes. The identification is helped by conjunctions and verbal elements of a clause. The analysis is also focused on finite and non-finite type of relation but neglecting embedded clauses. The number of expansion and projection type is summarized as follows: Table.11. Distribution of Logical Semantic Relation Logical Relation Type Text A Text B Elaboration

17.78 26.47

Extension 22.22 26.47 Enhancement 20 17.65 Locution 40 26.47 Idea - 2.94 From the data above, it clarifies that the difference of distribution between two text sources is close but obvious. Text A has elaboration relation but it is significantly less compared to another type of expansion relation. It means that clause complexes in text A expand by adding something new or by enhancing using circumstantial information rather than specifying it in a greater detail. 43 In other case, text B shows a more supportive distribution of elaboration and extension type compared to enhancement relation. It shows that clause complexes in text B expand using less circumstantial features. In projection relation, locution relation from text B is as strong as elaboration and extension type. In indicates that the clause complexes which are projected are as equal as being elaborated and extended. Incredibly, locution relation sits at the highest position with 40 in text A compared to text B. Contrary to its partner, idea relation represents least contribution with only 2.94 in text B and none in text A. It shows that text A contains more projected clauses rather than text B. The projections are more in form of wordings rather than ideas. Table.12.Total Percentage of Logical Semantic Relation Logical Semantic Relation A B Expansion 60 70.59 Projection 40 29.41 Eventually, it is known that the total number of both expansion and projection type of the two texts is competitive. The dominant relation between text A and B is expansion relation with a percentage 60 from 45 logical relations and 70.59 from 34 logical relations. Both texts present more expanded clause complexes rather than the projected one. Regarding to the succession, locutions relation causes the high portion of projection relation. On the other hand, each type of expansion relation contributes towards the domination.