The Description of Sentences Used in The Jakarta Post Newspaper

(1)

THE DESCRIPTION OF SENTENCES USED

IN THE JAKARTA POST NEWSPAPER

A PAPER

BY

DEVI KARLINA

NIM: 112202004

ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM DIPLOMA III

FACULTY OF CULTURE STUDY

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH SUMATERA

MEDAN

(2)

Approved by Supervisor,

Dr. Matius C.A. Sembiring, M.A. NIM: 19521126 198112 1 001

Submitted to the Faculty of Culture Study University of North Sumatera

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for English Study Diploma III Program

Approved by

The chairperson of English Study Diploma III,

Dr. Matius C.A. Sembiring, M.A. NIP : 19521126 198112 1 001

Approved by the English Study Diploma III Program, Faculty of Culture Study,

University of North Sumatera

As a paper for the examination board July 2014

(3)

Accepted by the examination board in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the DIII examination of the Diploma III English Study Program, Faculty of Culture Study of University of North Sumatera.

The examination is held on: July 2014

Faculty of Culture Study University of North Sumatera Dean,

Dr. SyahronLubis, M.A. NIP : 19511031 197603 1 001

Board of examiners:

1. Dr. Matius C.A. Sembiring, M.A. (head of ESP) ……….

2. Dr. Matius C.A. Sembiring, M.A. (supervisor) ………..

(4)

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

I am, DEVI KARLINA, declare that I am the sole of author of this paper. Except where reference is made in the text of this paper, this paper contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a paper by which I have qualified for or awarded another degree.

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main text of this paper. This paper has not been submitted for the award of another degree in any tertiary education.

Signed : ……… Date : Saturday, July 19th, 2014

(5)

COPYRIGHT DECLARATION

Name : DEVI KARLINA

Title of paper : THE DESCRIPTION OF SENTENCES USED IN THE JAKARTA POST NEWSPAPER

Qualification : D-III/AhliMadya Study Program : English

1. I am willing that my paper should be available for reproduction at the discretion of the Liberarian of the Diploma III English Study Program Faculty of Culture Study USU on the understanding that users are made aware of their obligation under law of the Republic of Indonesia.

2. I am not willing that my papers be made available for reproduction.

Signed : ……… Date : Saturday, July 19th, 2014

(6)

ABSTRACT

This paper is entitled the description of sentences used in the Jakarta Post Newspaper. The news was published on Tuesday in January 7th, 2014 stated volume 31 numbers 245 the writer of this news was Obama, the President of the United states of America can get his groove back in 2014 that the journalist, Albert R. Hunt. He uses thirty one sentences of fifty four clauses out of five hundred and ninety three words. Those fifty four clauses written in thirty one clauses in the present tense, Past tense twelve, Future tense ten, Present Continuous, Past Future, and Present Perfect Tense one of each. Out of the thirty one sentences the journalist only used one sentences in the interrogative form. The rest are written in affirmative form. The tenses used in the Jakarta Post there are only five different tenses out sixteen that the English has.

(7)

ABSTRAK

Paper ini berjudul The Description of Sentences Used in the Jakarta Post Newspaper. Berita yang dideskripsikan ialah berita tentang President Amerika Serikat, Obama yang diberitakan oleh seorang journalist bernama Albert R. Hunt. Untuk memberitakan berita tersebut dia menggunakan tiga puluh satu kalimat yang terdiri dari lima puluh empat klausa yang terdiri dari lima ratus Sembilan puluh tiga kata. Surat kabar tersebut adalah volume 31 dengan nomor 245 yang diterbitkan pada hari Selasa tanggal 7 bulan Januari tahun 2014. Tenses yang digunakan ialah Present Tense (34 klausa), Past Tense (12 klausa), Future Tense (10 klausa), Present Continuous Tense, Past Perfect Tense, Present Continuous Tense, Future Tense, Present Continuous, Past Future, danPresent Perfect Tense (masing-masing 1 klausa). Jenis kalimat yang digunakan ialah hanya dua jenis kalimat, yaitu 1 dalam bentuk interrogative dan selebihnya dalam bentuk affirmative.

(8)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I would like to thank and praise to the Almighty God Allah SWT for blessing and giving me opportunity, health, and ability to accomplish this paper. Afterwards, invocations and greetings I deliver to the last Prophet Muhammad SAW who has brought us into the time of humanities.

I would like to thank to Dr. SyahronLubis, M. A. as the Dean of Faculty of Culture Studies. Then, I would like to thank to Dr. Matius C. A. Sembiring, M.A.,the Head of Diploma III English Study Program, who has shared his time to guide me in the process of my study. I would like to dedicate a deep gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Matius C. A. Sembiring, M. A. and my reader, Drs. Siamir Marulafau, M.Humfor the valuable time to give the correct and give constructive criticisms in completing this paper. Then, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to all lecturers in English Diploma Study Program for their valuable guidance and knowledge that they have gave to me during my study. The most special thank is dedicated to my beloved parents, my father,

DiditSupriyadi and my mother, Sri Ariawaty who have given me love, cares, advices, supports, and always pray for me in order to get my best. To my beloved my brother AdityaHernanda, thanks for the love, cares, advices, and motivations that you have given to me. Special thanks to my best friend for your advices, and motivations which you have given during my study. Then, I would like to thank to all of my friends in faculty of science culture for your cares, advices, and supports. Also thanks to my friends at English Diploma III 2010 thank you very much for all of you, for your attention and support to me.

Finally, I realize that this paper is still far from being perfect. Therefore, I welcome any constructive criticisms and suggestions towards to this paper.

Medan, July 19 th, 2014

The writer,

Reg.No.112202004 Devi Karlina

(9)

THE CONTENTS

Author’s Declaration………. i

Abstract ………..…….. iii

Abstrak ………..….. iv

Acknowledgement ………...…. v

The Contents ………..….. vi

1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 INTRODUCTION ……….. The Background of Writing ……….. The Problem ofWriting ………. The Scope of Writing ……… The Purposes of Writing ……….. The Method of the Research ………. 1 1 3 3 3 4 2. A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ……….. 5

3. THE DESCRIPTION …………..………. 11

4. 4.1 4.2 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ……… Conclusion ……… Suggestion ……… 37 37 37 REFERENCES ……… 38

(10)

ABSTRACT

(11)

ABSTRAK

(12)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Background of the Study

Linguistics is the study of languages. Linguistics has been defined as the scientific study of language. A more modest definition would be scientific study of human languages. Scientific study is today commonly associated with such natural sciences as physics, chemistry, and biology, whose conclusions lend themselves to objective verification more readily than those arrived at by investigators of human behavior.

A language is very important for human beings. Individual has to live his lives in a community. Without the present of a language individuals cannot have a communication. English in Indonesia is a foreign language. A language is a human phenomenon, which willone place to another and from one time to another. These variation in persons, times, and places give rise to such studies as dialectology, linguistic geography, historical and comparative linguistics; and collaborating even more with other disciplines, lexicography, the making of dictionaries, orthography, the study of spelling, and paleography, the study of ancient texts. Language,

Any language with the variety of examples is drawn mainly from English—is an extraordinarily complex phenomenon. The more thoroughly languages are analyzed, the more astonishing their complexity becomes. This complexity suggests a structure, and even the earliest ancient Greek investigators of language recognized the existence of a structure.

(13)

Since language is sequences of sound, and sound is invisible, we cannot see its structure as we can, for example, see the bony structure of a body—its skeleton. As we recognize the basic elements of the linguistic structure we invent names for them and attempt to describe the total structure part by part. It is one of the great beauties of plane geometry that its structures can be seen in their entirety. Though the native speaker seems to have a full grasp of the total grammatical structure of his/ her language, we have no way of describing that structure so that it can all be seen at once. Instead we must break it up into what seems to be its most significant or at least its most conveniently describable parts and present them one after another. This is a most exasperating approach. All the parts are interrelated and necessary to the functioning of the whole, and a native speaker controls them all, utilizes them simultaneously, and never gives a conscious thought as to how he is using the structure to communicate his/ her ideas. We know English but we seldom know how the language works. So we find it irritatingly hard to learn a lot of names for what we do so easily and unconsciously. It is the function of linguistics to discover the structure, to find names for its parts, and to use those names to explain how the system operates. Some of the basic areas of linguistic investigation are briefly defined below: - Phonology studies and attempts to describe the primary sound units of speech.

Two related approaches are made in phonetics and phonemics.

- Morphology studiesand attempts to describe theprimary meaningful units of speech; these are called morphemes.

(14)

- Syntax studies and attempts to describe the arrangement of morphemes in meaningful utterances, usually called sentences.

- Grammar is a term with a number of senses.

- Semantics studies and attempts to describe meaning. In this definition “meaning” is not used in the same sense as discussed above. Morphological meaning is restricted to the linguistic unit itself; the s on cats means “plural” and is recognized as such even though we don’t know what a cat is. For example, if the sentence “I saw a dat” is changed to “I saw some dats,” we know that dats is plural though we have no notion of what a dat is. Semantics studies the relationship between the word and what it stands for; the

relationship between cat and the concept of a feline which it represents or us is its meaning.

1.2 Problems of the Study

The Jakarta Post Newspaper is a newspaper that we can have in Indonesia. The medium applied to spread the news to the readers is English. When the readers do not understand the sentences used by the journalists of course the communication between the readers and the journalists will be broken. Or the news will not be reached the readers, so it will lead the news become useless. Therefore the problems for this kind of writing are:

a). What types of sentences are used by the journalists in the Jakarta Post Newspaper to send the messages to the readers?

(15)

1.3The Objectives of Writing

While someone is writing a kind of writing of course there can be various purposes to be achieved. In order to write this paper, the wants to find out the followings.

a). To find out the description of the sentences used by the journalist of the Jakarta Post Newspaper in spreading the messages.

b). To find out the percentages of the tenses applied.

1.4The Significances of the Study

English is not different to other languages in the world. English has its own structures of sentence. But each language has different aspects when we compare to the others. For instances, the form of a sentence and the tense. As we may know that English has sixteen different tenses. Therefore to give the description of sentences used by the journalists in telling the news to the readers will be very useful to interpret the whole text written in the newspaper. In addition of course in paraphrasing a text into types of sentence and tense will help the readers to understand the news written.

1.5Reasons for Choosing the Topic

When someone does something of course there are some reasons for him or her to do it. It also has the same ideas in writing this paper. The writer of this paper has some reasons in choosing the topic to be made as the report of her last duty to study English at the Diploma Program of the English Department at the

(16)

Faculty of Culture Studyof North Sumatera University. Such as, this topic is relatively new because there has not been written the same topic to this topic. She also is very eager to know the application of the English in writing news on a newspaper. She also has been experienced in studying English for more than nine years, three years at the Secondary High School, three years at the High School, and more than three years at the University so she wants to see it application on the newspaper. As the addition to the reason that she is very interested in writing and reading news.

1.6 TheMethods Applied to Write

According to kinds of writing it can be described deal with the techniques of obtaining the data for further writing. W hen a writer uses some informants as the resources of the data it can be categorized as a field research, if the writer uses some experiments it will be categorized as an experiment. In order to write this paper, the writer collects the required data from the Newspaper of Jakarta Post which was published on Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 (volume 31 number 245). So it cannot be denied that this kind of paper uses library research because all the data are taken from written text.

(17)

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The term ‘grammar’ is used in a number of different senses—the grammar of a language may be understood to be a full description of the form and meaning of the sentences of the language or else it may cover only certain, variously delimited, parts of such a description. Here we shall use it in one of these narrower senses, embracing syntax and morphology. Syntax is concert and with the way words combine to form sentences, while morphology is concerned with the form of words. We will launch without delay into a discussion of basic concepts in syntax and morphology, returning in §8 to the distinction between grammar in this sense and various other components of a full description and to the basis for dividing grammar into syntactic and morphological subcomponents. The only terms that we shall need to anticipate are ‘phonology’ and ‘semantics’: phonology deals with the sound system, with the pronunciation of words and sentences, semantics deals with meaning.

Syntax deals with combinations of words, we have said, morphology with the form of words. But again the term ‘word’ has been used in a variety of senses. For our immediate purposes it will suffice to draw just one distinction, which we can approach by considering the relation between, say, tooth and teeth: arc they different words or the same word? From one point of view they are clearly different words: they are pronounced and said differently, they differ in meaning, and they occur in different positions in sentences (so that we could not, for example, replace tooth by teeth in This tooth is loose or teeth by tooth in These teeth are loose, and so on). Yet they are also traditionally said to be different

(18)

forms of the same word. This is a more abstract sense: we abstract away the differences between them to isolate what is common to both. It will be helpful to distinguish both terminologically and notation ally between these two senses. I shall use word for the less abstract concept, lexeme for the more abstract one, and I shall cite words in ordinary italics, lexemes in bold face it a Uses. We accordingly say that tooth and teeth are different words, butforms of the same lexeme tooth.

More specifically, we will say that tooth is the ‘singular’ form of tooth and that teeth is its ‘plural’ form. The words tooth and teeth are thus each analyzed into two components, the abstract lexeme and what we shall call an inflectional property. These properties are relevant to both the morphological and syntactic components of the grammar (and for this reason are commonly referred to also as ‘morph syntactic properties’). The morphology will include rules for deriving the various inflectional forms of a lexeme from the ‘lexical stem’, while the syntax will include rules specifying under what conditions a lexeme may or must carry a given inflectional property. Thus it is a fact of morphology that the plural of tooth is teeth, whereas it is a fact of syntax that if tooth enters into construction with this there must be ‘agreement’ in number, i.e. both must carry the singular inflection or both the plural. Similarly, the morphology will tell us that the ‘past participle’ of the verb see is seen, whereas the syntax will say that a past participle is required in the ‘passive’ construction, as in He was seen by the caretaker.

Words are not the only units that we need in describing the structure of sentences. Although we can break a sentence down into a sequence of words, we

(19)

will not go from sentence to word in a single step but will recognise units intermediate in size between sentence and word. For example, in

The teacher must have made a mistake

it is intuitively obvious that although a is immediately adjacent in the sequence to both made nd mistake, it is more closely related to the latter than to the former: this relationship between a and mistake can then be described by saying that they go together to form a constituent of the sentence. More generally, the syntactic analysis of a sentence will assign to it a constituent structure which identifies the full hierarchy of its constituents.

The verbal component is the more central, and significant differences in this component will be sufficient to distinguish one sentence from another. By ‘significant’ differences I mean those that reflect distinctions within the language as opposed to variation in, say, the sound of a given phoneme or the shape of a given letter as spoken or written by different people, or by the same person on different occasions. Thus there is no problem in recognizing It was a bin and It was a pin as different sentences. With the nonverbal component matters are much more difficult, partly because of the problem of deciding which kinds of non-verbal signal would be relevant to sentence identity (‘tone of voice’ and overall loudness and speed would be generally accepted as irrelevant, whereas intonation is commonly but not invariably regarded as an aspect of the linguistic form of spoken sentences), partly because we are often dealing with continuous variation rather that’s with discrete units (with intonation, for example, we can talk grossly of rising or falling intonation, but it is unlikely that we can distinguish a fixed

(20)

number of discrete types of fall or rise: the steepness and extent of the pitch movement is continuously variable over a certain range). It is accordingly hardly realistic to ask, for example, how many linguistically distinct ways there are of pronouncing a certain sequence of words, such as Tom stayed in because lie was ill. Notice, moreover, that whereas in the verbal component speech and writing are in close correspondence, in the nor-verbal component they are not — there is, for example, only a very rough and indirect correlation between punctuation and intonation, with the former providing for considerably less variation than the latter.

Given the limited scope and introductory nature of the present hook, we need not worry about these problems: we shall not be dealing with those aspects of the meaning of utterances that depend simply on the non-verbal signal (and where syntactic constructions are differentiated non-verbally as well as verbally, we will be able to make do with a very limited set of international contrasts). We can accordingly work with the simplifying assumption that paradigmatic sentence identification depends solely on the verbal component, so that we shall contain to talk of sentence ambiguity—a single sentence with two or more meanings, as opposed to two or more different s ‘terms each with its Wolf meaning—even when utterances expressing the different meanings differ non-verbally, as with the sentence Liz saw John. This emphasis on the verbal component ties in with our failure to rely on punctuation in determining sentence boundaries on the syntagmatic axis: the criterion suggested above is neutral as between speech and writing.

(21)

3. THE DESCRIPTION

There are so many grammarians in th

e

world. Each grammarian usually tends to make his or her own definition deal with the aspects of the language. The major terms in the system of clause type were classified as following.

1). You make a good job of it Declarative 2). Did you make a good job of fit? Interrogative 3). What a good job you made of it! Exclamative 4). Make a good job of it Imperative

The system is usually discussed under the heading ‘sentence type’ rather than ‘clause type’: the grammarians have preferred the latter in order to make the terminology consistent with the way they are differentiating between ‘sentence’ and ‘clause’, for it is clear that the system applies in the first instance to what they are calling clauses. Thus in a sentence consisting of a sequence of clauses.

Come with us by all means but you may find it hard work. It is the separate clauses that are classified for type: come with us by all means is imperative and but you may find it hard work isdeclarative – the sentence as a whole cannot be assigned to any of the four types. Moreover, the system, applies to certain kinds of subordinate clause, where the unbracketed parts – which, clearly, are not themselves sentences – are classified as shown:

(1).[They didn’t tell me] that you made a goodjob of fit Declarative (2).[They didn’t tell me] whether you made a good job of fit Interrogative (3).[They didn’t tell me] what a good job you made of it Exclamative

(22)

Although there are certain difference of form between these and their main clause counterparts (note that in the example clause above, the whether and the different position of the subject in the clause, the paradigmatic relation between the three classes is the same, so that we shall want to apply a single classification to subordinate and main clauses. The subordinate clauses to which the type contrasts apply are for the most part content clause functioning as subject or complement of certain verbs, adjectives and nouns, and it is worth observing at this point that apart from classifying verbs, adjectives and nouns according as they can or cannot take content clauses as subject or complement, we must also classify them according to which clause type the content clause may belong; to. Tell, as we see from clause, takes declarative, interrogative or exclamativeclauses as complement; believe, by contrast, takes just a declarative (They believed that) [whether you made a good job of it] [what a good job you made of it]; and so on. Some verbs, adjectives and nouns, such as insist, essential, requirement, take a fourth type, which we shall call ‘jussive’: It is essential that you/he make a good job of it; the relationship between this type of subordinate clause and the imperative type of main clause is a matte we will have.

Where a sentence has the form of a clause, we can of course talk, derivatively, of the sentence as being declarative, interrogative, or whatever, and it will in fact be convenient in the discussion below to use ‘declarative sentence’ in preference to the more cumbersome ‘sentence having the form of a declarative clause’, and so on. But this does not detract form the arguments just given for saying that the system applies primarily to the clause – and hence for adopting

(23)

‘clause type’ as the name of the system. it may be thought that ‘type’ is hardly a transparent term for the system, given that its everyday sense is so general that it might apply to any dimension of classification; as a technical term, however, its specialization to the system, given that its everyday sense is so general that it might apply to any dimension of classification; as a technical term, however, its specialization to the system of concern to us here is well established, and ‘clause type’ is accordingly to be understood as applying to this particular set of contrasts.

A declarative sentence will typically be used to make a statement; an interrogative sentence will typically be used to pose a question; an exclamative sentence will typically be used to make an exclamation; and an imperative sentence will typically be used to issue what we shall call a ‘directive – a term that covers requests, commands, prohibitions, in structions and the like. It cannot be too strongly emphasized, however. That declarative, interrogative, exclamative and imperative are quite directive. Declarative, interrogative, exclamative and imperative are syntactic categories: they are terms in a system of clause classes distinguished from each other by certain features of syntactic structure (the position of the subject, the form of the VP, the presence of absence of the so-called ‘wh words’ who, when, etc), which we shall be looking at in more detail. Statement, question, exclamation and directive are, by contrast, semantic categories. Exclamation is in fact somewhat different in kind from the other three in that it involves an emotive element of meaning that car be overlaid on a statement, a question or a directive, as in:

(24)

2). How did you do it so quickly? 3). Take that bloody spot off your face?

That is, these would characteristically be used to make an exclamatory statement, put an exclamatory question and issue an exclamatory directive respectively. Syntactically, only those examples are included toexclamative, interrogative, and imperative. For this reason we can amend slightly what was said at the beginning of this paragraph: an exclamative sentence will typically be used to make an exclamatory statement. And in the remainder of this section we will concentrate on the distinction and relationship between, on the one hand, the syntactic categories declarative, interrogative, imperative and on the other the semantic categories statement, question, directive.

Statement, question and directive apply in the first instance to utterances – hence my formulation ‘a declarative sentence will typically be used to make a statement’, and so on. The terms “statement’, ‘question’ and ‘directive’ are in fact each used in two different but related senses: for a certain kind of act or for what we may call the ‘product’ of such an act – thus ‘statement’ may apply to the act of stating something or to what is stated, and soon. To utter a sentence is, clearly, to so something, to perform an act – and in uttering the clause,they would normally be, in one respect, performing different kinds of act: I would be stating that you made a good job of fit, questioning whether you made a good job of it and directing you to make a good job of it. I say that the utterance acts would differ ‘in one respect’, for in another they would be alike: in each case I would be uttering a sequence of words, articulating a chain of sounds or writing a sequence explain

(25)

why a more specific term, illocutionary act, is introduced for the kinds of act that we are here interested in, so that stating, questioning and directing are said to be different kinds of illocutionary act.

Precisely because they are semantic categories, the criteria that distinguish statement, question and directive from each other are of a quite different nature from those that distinguish the syntactic clause type categories. In performing the illocutionary act of stating, I express some proposition and commit myself to its truth: they tell theiradressees that such and such is the case. Statements, in the ‘product’ sense, are assessable as true or false: question and directives are not.

A directive, in the central cases at least, identifies some future action or behavior on the part of the addressee(s) (including refraining from doing something) and seeks to bring about that action or behavior. Although we cannot ask whether a directive is true or false, we can ask whether it is (subsequently) complied with.

A question defines a set of (right or wrong) answers to it. For example, the set of answers to the question posed in a normal utterance of Who broke the glass?consists of “I broke the glass”, “Tom broke the glass”, “The plumber broke the glass”, and so on. They give the answer in this format because they are defined by their prepositional content rather than by their linguistic form, so that I broke the glass, I broke it, I did, Me, etc., would all express the same answer in this case. For the same reason I will represent questions, in the product sense. For the same reason I will represent questions, in the product sense, in double quotation marks. Again, then, for the question “Where were you last week?”, We

(26)

were at home uttered by one of the addressees, You were at home uttered by the questioner, They were at home at home uttered by someone else with they referring to the addresses of the question would al express the same answer. “Answer” is to be understood in a technical sense, not to be identified with ‘response’ or ‘reply’. You may respond to a question by giving an answer or you may respond in some other way. Thus if I say Who broke the glass? And you reply I did, you have given an answer; but if you reply with I don’t know or Why as me? you haven’t. And conversely, Yes and No might be used in response to a statement, a directive or aquestion, but they would normally express answer only in the last of these three cases: said in response to a statement Yes typically indicates agreement with the statement, and said in response to a directive it typically indicates agreement to comply. For the majority of questions the answers are potential statements, as in the examples given of questions the answers are potential statements, as in the examples given so far. But with certain kinds of question the answers are potential directives: the most straightforward cases of this kind are expressed by interrogative clauses containing a first person subject and one of the modal auxiliaries shall and will (some dialects using shall, others will): shall/Will we go now?, What shall/will I tell him? For example, if you reply to an utterance of the latter with Tell him you can’t afford it, you have given a directive as answer.

In performing the illocutionary act of questioning, we usually intend that the addressee(s) should respond by providing the right answer. Here we ‘ask’ a question and ‘ask for’ the answer. But we do not invariably have this intention.

(27)

We may, for example, intend to go on to given the answer ourselves: we are simply focusing our addresses’ attention on the question, not asking for the answer–this is a not uncommon device in certain kind of expository writing or speaking. Or I might be just raising a question without any suggestion that either of us could give the right answer or should even try to: Where will we be in ten years’ time, I wonder? Or the right answer may be deemed so obvious that it would be superfluous for you to give it–this is the so–called ‘rhetorical question’, as when I say Who’s going to notice it anyway?, with the implication that no one is. For this reason, we shall not incorporate into our definition of the illocutionary category of question a condition that the speaker intends to elicit an answer from the addressee(s): we need a less specific intention, such as that of directing attention to the selection of the right answer–and we will speak of ‘posing’ or ‘putting’ a question, with ‘asking’, a question being a special case thereof.

Although the criteria for the semantic categories are so different from those for the syntactic ones, there is of course a very significant correlation between declarative and statement, interrogative and question, imperative and directive. This provides the basis for general definitions of the clause types: a declarative clause is one belonging to a syntactically distinguish able clause class whose members are characteristically used to make statements–and analogously for the others. But we cannot use the semantic categories to give language-particular definitions of the clause types, as we saw in our discussion of notional definitions mentioned, for the correlation is far from being one-to-one. This is

(28)

why they have emphasized the importance of keeping the two sets of categories conceptually and terminologically distinct.

In the first place, it should be borne in mind that the illocutionary categories apply initially to utterances, to uses of clauses rather than to clauses themselves–and they inevitably involve consideration of speakers/ writer intentions. Suppose, for example, I type out the sentence. The quick brown fox jumps over a lazy dog. I might do this simply as a typewriting exercise (it contains all twenty-six letters of the alphabet), without having any particular fox or dog in mind and thus without the intention of expressing any proposition. In these circumstances I would not have made a statement (or performed any other kind of illocutionary act) – note how absurd it would be to ask whether what I had written was true or false. But it is still syntactically declarative. In what follows, we will exclude such cases by confining our attention to ‘normal use’, but this qualification is an important one.

Secondly, the correlation between the syntactic and semantic categories is significantly less direct with main clauses. Consider again the first two examples. It will be clear that in uttering the clause that you made a good job of it they do not make a statement, and that they do not pose a question by uttering whether you made a good job of it. The uttering of the subordinate clause does not in either case constitute an illocutionary act: it is only in uttering the main clause of which it is part that I would perform such an act-and it would be a statement in both (1) and (2). This is not to deny that the category of question is highly relevant to the semantics of whether you made a good job of it; merely to say that the semantic

(29)

categories apply, if at all, in a much more indirect way to subordinate clauses (and whether you made a good job of it is indeed traditionally analyzed as an (indirect question). In what follows, we will confine our attention, in discussing the correlation between syntactic form and meaning, to main clauses.

Thirdly, even when we confine your attention to the ‘normal’ use of main clauses, the correlation is by no means perfect–because clause type is not the only factors relevant to be determination of illocutionary ‘force’. We will regard it, rather, as the initial determining factor, and say that an utterance of a declarative main clause will be a statement, an utterance of an interrogative main clause will be a question, an utterance of an imperative main clause will be directive–unless there are special factors of form, meaning, prosody, paralinguistic accompaniment or of context to override this initial assignment of illocutionary function.

Let us consider some example where such overriding factors would typically come into play:

(1). Have a good journey.

(2). Thatcompany will parade for master at 800 hours. (3). You must come in as soon as possible.

(4). Could you pass the salt, please (?) (5). She promises not to tell anyone.

(6). The young man gives me a great pleasure to declare this exhibition open. Sentence (1) has the form of an imperative clause, but if I said it to you, you would not normally take me to be directing you to do something; rather I would be expressing a wish or hope. One reason is that whether one has a good holiday

(30)

or not depends to a considerable extent on factors beyond one’s control, whereas a directive will normally be to do something that does lie within the power of the addressee(s). A second factor is the almost formulaic nature of the example: there is a rather limited range of wishes formulaic nature of the example: there is a rather limited range of wishes formulaic nature of the example: there is rather limited range of wishes we can make using imperatives – we conventionally say Sleep well soon, etc., but we would hardly say, for example, have no pain at the dentist’s or Receive the letter you’re so eagerly awaiting by this morning’s mail. (2) has the form of a declarative clause, but the utterance of it would itself be an order, and hence a directive. (3) is likewise a declarative whose most natural use would be to issue a directive – a father saying this to his children, for example, would be telling them to come in; must, as we have seen the examples, can express deontic modality, and this makes it highly appropriate for use in directives, especially where it has a second person subject. (4) has the form of an interrogative clause, but it too would most naturally be used to issue a directive; in saying this I would normally be asking you to pass me the salt. A typical utterance of (5) would count as a promise-which doesn’t belong to any of the categories statement, question, directive. One of the main themes of illocutionary theory is that there are indeed many things one can do in uttering sentences that cannot be subsumed under our three initial categories. Like a directive, a promise identifies some futures action or behavior–but this time it is action or behavior not of the addressee(s) but of the speaker/writer, who commits himor herself to doing the action or behaving in the specified way. The fact that an utterance of (5) would

(31)

have the illocutionary force of a promise is obviously attributable to the fact that the sentence contains the verb promise itself (used in the present tense, with a first person subject, and so on). Similarly the presence of declare in (4) is one of the factors that makes the sentence one that can be, and most typically would be, used to effect the opening of the exhibition. Opening an exhibition belongs to the illocutionary class of ‘declarations’-acts where the state of affairs specified in the utterance (in this example the exhibition’s being open) is brought about by the utterance itself. Other example include placing someone under arrest, as when a police officer says You are under arrest, joining two people in matrimony, as when a minister of religion says (in the appropriate context) I pronounce you man and wife, and so on.

Besides showing again that there are illocutionary acts not covered by statements, questions and directives, (4) also illustrates the important point that in uttering a single sentence one can simultaneously perform more than one illocutionary act. For in uttering this sentence I would normally not only be opening the exhibition, but also making a statement – true or false according as the ceremony is not pleasurable to me. The declaration would, we may assume, be much more important than the statement when the utterance is considered as a social act (the audience would probably be uninterested in the truth of the statement), but that doesn’t affect the point that a statement would have been made. Indeed, it might be argued that in a standard utterance of (5) it would be true by virtue of my making the promise), or again that a standard utterance of (4) would be a question as well as a directive, and analogously in other (but not all

(32)

other) cases. These, however, are matters of considerable controversy in illocutionary theory, and it would take us too far from our main concerns to pursue them here. We can avoid taking a stand on them providing it is understood that when we speak of factors ‘overriding’ clause type in the determination of illocutionary force we intend this to cover both cases where an utterance would not normally have force generally associated with its clause type and also cases where it would have some other force in addition to (and typically more important than) that deriving from its clause type.

In the following sections we will examine the four clause types in turn beginning with declaratives, the unmarked class. Of the remaining three classes there are grounds for saying that imperatives differ more from declaratives than do interrogatives and exclamatives: imperatives are non tensed while the others are tensed. Furthermore interrogatives arguably differ more from declaratives than do exclamatives: the latter allow confirmatory tags to be added, just like declaratives. It was a shambles, wasn’t it? And What a shambles it was, wasn’t it? with wasn’t it? Tagged to a declarative in the first, an exclamative in the second) and all verbs, adjectives and nouns which are subclassified as allowing exclamative content clause as complement or subject allow a declarative, whereas there are some such as inquire or investigate–that allow interrogatives but not declaratives. This then suggests the following classification:

Declarative, as just observed, is the unmarked clause-type: all kernel clauses are declarative. Subordinate declaratives belong to the class of content clauses, the primary marked of subordination being the conjunction that, as in (1).

(33)

That, however, is very often omissible. [They didn’t tell me] you made a good job of it) – as a first approximation we can say that it is optional when the content clause follows the predicator of the superordinate clause. And when the that is omitted the sub ordinate clause will generally not differ in its internal structure from a main clause. Nothing further need be said there about the syntactic structure of declaratives; rather, we shall describe the syntax of the other classes in terms of the special properties that distinguish them from the unmarked class.

Let us therefore turn to the semantics, confining our attention to main clauses. As we have said, a declarative will be used, other things being equal, to make a statement. Thus in uttering declarative I normally commit myself to the truth of the proposition that it is used to express. The strength of the commitment will vary according as I am making a statement of fact based on solid evidence, expressing an opinion or merely making a conjecture, though the distinction between these different kinds of statement need not be encoded in the sentence. Of the linguistic factors that can override declarative clause type in determining the illocutionary force of an utterance, we will mention just three (of which the first two were involved in the examples above (1 to 6 above).

(a) There are many verbs that denote a kind illocutionary act–verbs such as promise, request, order, advise, thank, apologize, etc. (as opposed to verbs like watch, like, anger, worry, etc). Most of them can be used performatively, i.e in such a way as to bring about the performance of an illocutionary act of the kind they denote. Thus I can make a promise by saying (5)–I promise not to tell anyone – or a request by saying Passangers on flight 404 are requested to proceed to Gate

(34)

6: the fact that these utterances would be respectively a promise and a request is attributable to the performative use of the illocutionary verbs promise and request. Such verb are of course not always used performatively: the above examples may be contrasted with, say, Ed woun’t promise not to tell anyone or I had requested him to leave, where the presence of promise and request is irrelevant to the illocutionary force, so that declaratives like these would normally be used as statements, as is characteristic of declaratives without such verbs.

(b) As is illustrated by (2–3), a declarative containing such a modal auxiliary as will or must can be used with the illocutionary force of a directive. This represents a special case of what we have called the deontic use of the modals; recall the discussion.

(c) A third factor that may override declarative clause type in determining illocutionary force is intonation–or punctuation. If a declarative is spoken with rising intonation, or written with a question mark, the utterance will typically have the force of a question: you’re ready, You’re ready? The intonation or punctuation here cancels my commitment to the truth of the proposition that you are ready; the effect is much like that of the interrogative Are you ready (which would of course also be punctuated with’?” or, very often, spoken with the rising of intonation, except that You’re ready? More strongly suggests an expectation on my part that you are ready, or should be. Notice that the sharp distinction we have drawn between clause type and illocutionary force means that we can handle the question force of such utterances of You’re ready whilst still analyzing the clause itself as a declarative. And there are good syntactic reasons for not treating it is an

(35)

interrogative. In the first place, there are certain words and expressions which can occur only in what we shall call ‘non-affirmative’ context – approximately, interrogatives or negatives as opposed to positive declaratives: they include ever, the verbs bother or care (with following infinitival complement), the modal auxiliaries dare and need, and so on:

(1). Has he ever been to Bali? (2). Did her bother to do it? (3). Need she know?

(4). *He has ever been to Bali (5). *He bothered to do it (6). *She need know

The examples in (4, 5, and 6) can be saved by making negative (He hasn’t ever been to Bali) – but not by pronouncing them with rising intonation, or punctuating with question mark. Thus as far as this syntactic constraint is concerned, the rising of intonation or? Punctuation cannot be regarded as an alternative means of realizing the interrogative category. In the second place, consider an example like (7) again spoken with rising intonation or written with ?

(7) I suppose he’s staying to lunch

What is being questioned here is whether or not he’s staying to lunch, not whether or not I suppose he is: it is thus not equivalent to (the pragmatically rather odd) interrogative Do I suppose he’s staying to lunch, so that there is not even any semantic reason for treating the main clause in (7) as interrogative. Nor shall we want to say that the subordinate clause he’s staying to lunch is interrogative. We

(36)

noted above that verbs taking content clauses as complement must be sub classified according to the clause type of the complement – and what we find with suppose is that it belongs to the same class as believe, allowing only a declarative (They supposed that/*whether she had arrived). Thus here again the intonation or punctuation doesn’t result in a construction that behaves syntactically like an interrogative.

The most central members of the imperative class are clauses like Be careful, Open the door!, Put it away!. They differ structurally from declaratives in two respects: (1) they have as their first verb not a tensed form but a base form (with no preceding to); (2) they have no subject. The first of these properties they share with a number of another clause constructions having varying degrees of semantic affinity with them: You be careful; Everybody stand still; Let’s go to the beach; If that is what the premier intends, let him say so; Heaven forbid!; and the subordinate [It is essential] that they be present. It would stretch the term ‘imperative’ too far beyond its traditional and currently standard use to apply it to all of these, and I shall accordingly introduce the term jussive for a more general clause type which does embrace them all. This larger class may then be divided into imperative and non-imperative, and into various other subtypes, as shown.

(37)

4. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

4.1 Conclusion

After the news analyzed which is written by one of the journalists of the newspaper The Jakarta Post which was published on Tuesday in January 7th, 2014 stated volume 31 numbers 245 the writer of this paper found that in telling the messages with the topic Obama, the President of the United states of America can get his groove back in 2014 that the journalist, Albert R. Hunt uses thirty one sentences or fifty four clauses out of five hundred and ninety three words. Those fifty four clauses written in thirty one clauses in the present tense, Past tense twelve, Future tense ten, Present Continuous, Past Future, and Present Perfect Tense one of each. Out of the thirty one sentences the journalist only used one sentences in the interrogative form. The rest are written in affirmative form. The tenses used in the Jakarta Post there are only five different tenses out sixteen that the English has.

4.2 Suggestion

The writer of this paper

suggests the other students to write the

description of sentences and tenses used in any kind of written text so

we can enjoy it.The writer of this paper also hopes that this kind of

writing can be fruit

ful for anyone who wants to write something deal with the grammar of the language. The writer of this paper will be very happy to hear some comments deal with this writing for its perfectness.

(38)

REFERENCES

Azar, Betty Schrampfer. 1989. Understanding and Using English Grammar. New Jeeersey: Prentice Hall.

Brown, Gillian. 1996. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: University Press. Candlin, Christoper N. 1986.Discourse and Learning. London: Longman. Els, Theo Van. 1984. Applied Linguistics and the Learning and Teaching of

Foreign Languages. Brittain: Edward Arnold.

Freeborn, Dennis. 1987. A Course Book in English Grammar. Hongkong: MacMillan.

Huddlestone, Rodney. 1985. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: University Press.

Langan, John. 1986. College Writing Skills. London: McGrow.

Lewis, Michael. 1990. The English Verb: an exploring of structure and meaning. London: LTP Inc.

Nasution, S. 1988. MetodePenelitianNaturalistikKualitatif. Bandung: Tarsito. Perry, Tom. 2013. Jakarta Post: 51 were killed in Egypt. Jakarta: Newspaper. Peterson, Patricia Wilcox. 1980. Changing Times, changing Tenses. Washington:

MacMillan.

Soemanto, Wasty. 1988. PedomanTeknikPenulisanKaryaIlmiah. Jakarta: MuriAksara.

(39)

Apendix: the tabulating data

Obama can get his groove back in 2014 History suggests

it is tough for Here are five ways Open upthe wagons

Ingrained habits are hard to change

old incumbent isn’t going to transform himself Katie Fallon starts congressional liaison

has a wideranging portfolio some Democrats say

is that White House Chief realizes The goal of7 million enrollees

There must be a substantial number says to keep the supportof the insurance

the white House can dois to neutralize the issue The president’s camp knows

it needs to put the Republicans on the defensive

The improving economy affords

the president an opportunity to challenge Republicans on income

White House resistance persist, look for more problems the incongruity of the recovery is beyonddispute

Obama’s automobile industry rescue czar is genuine progress

he may appreciate

elevate a president’s popularity the president is devoid

the psychology and perceptions may matter a lot. The odds remain against a real recovery

(40)

a president’s control can shape his destiny president to rebound

The economy will be critical

Will the president listen to them in the crunch? It will be instructived

Podesta will be limited to energy

The critical question in 2014will be tapped to runthe entire program and controversies that will make the website

Critics will yell about class warfare

and controversies that will make the website Critics will yell about class warfare

The critical question in 2014will be tapped to runthe entire program Obamacould defy

his insularity hurt him last year the White House initially suggested

Reagan’s administration was the most effective occupant of that position Obama had to enlistthe website

Team Obama last year was Secretary of state John Kerry was well documented

Barack Obamahad a miserable 2013

his public standing plummeted.

a conflict could undermine him

Syria’s chemical-weapons stockpile was more due to luck The outcome was much better

the Iranians would be one such successconceivable The president and Democrats are payinga huge price

there have been three important additions to the White House ranks

593 words 31 sentences 56 clauses

(1)