39 Hypotactic elaboration in text B leads the distribution through 7 clause
complexes. There is no paratactic elaboration identified. The number of hypotactic extension in 6 clause complexes is two times of paratactic extension in 3 clause
complexes. It also happens for hypotactic locution. It occurs in 3 clause complexes. Otherwise paratactic locution occurs in 6 clause complexes. Hypotactic enhancement
is seen in 4 clause complexes while paratactic enhancement is seen only in 1 clause complex. Hypotactic idea only appears in 1 clause complex while paratactic idea
does not at all.
4.2. Findings
The analysis produces a clear identification on the number of clause relations found in the two articles. In text A, 24 of 30 sentences are found to have logical
semantic relations and interdependences. This number is more compared to text B which has 17 of 30 sentences. Nevertheless, the exact number of logical semantic
relation and interdependence can be more because some sentences contain more than two ranking clauses. The followings are the answers of the analysis:
4.2.1. Interpretation of Taxis
The analysis of taxis systems is presented into two parts based on the category. Both parataxis and hypotaxis occur in each article or news text. The
following is the number of interdependence relation:
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
