53 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
An investigation of types of logical semantic relation combined with systems of interdependence has been made. The conclusions and suggestions are drawn as
follows:
5.1. Conclusions
1. Based on the analysis, the total number of logical relations obtained from the articles is: 45 relations in New Straits Times text A and 34 relations in The
Jakarta Post text B. Both parataxis and hypotaxis appear in both texts. The total percentage of paratactic relation in text A is 31.11 and the hypotactic relation is
68.89. This number is close to the result obtained for text B. It has the total 29.41 for paratactic relation and 70.59 for hypotactic relation. The types of
logical semantic relation cross-classified with taxis systems identified are: paratactic elaboration 4.44, hypotactic elaboration 13.33, paratactic
extension 13.33, hypotactic extension 8.89, paratactic enhancement 2.22, hypotactic enhancement 17.78, paratactic locution 11.11 and
hypotactic locution 28.89 in text A and hypotactic elaboration 26.47, paratactic extension 8.82, hypotactic extension 17.65, paratactic
enhancement 2.94, hypotactic enhancement 14.70, paratactic locution 17.65, hypotactic locution 8.82, and hypotactic idea 2.94 in text B.
Text A does not have both paratactic and hypotactic idea relations, whereas text B does not have paratactic elaboration but shows a small percentage of hypotactic
idea.
54 2. The dominant relation in both newspapers is hypotactic relation by 68.89 in
text A Indonesia naval captain says may have located missing plane tail’s section
’ New Straits Times and 70.59 in text B AirAsia tail section located, blackbox still missing
’s The Jakarta Post. In this regard, the information about AirAsia QZ8501 accident in both articles is more constructed in complex
sentences rather than compound sentences because they contain at least one dependent secondary clause attached to an independent primary clause.
Combined with the taxis systems, dominant logical semantic relation appeared in text A is hypotactic locution relation by 28.89. This percentage is higher than
hypotactic locution found in text B. It shows that the article presents more projected verbal information or argumentations. The argumentations are mostly
in reported speeches. On the other hand, text B is dominated by hypotactic elaboration relation by 26.47. This percentage is higher than hypotactic
elaboration found in text A. It simply shows that article in text B presents more information by specifying it into dependent secondary clause which is in a
greater detail, restatement, exemplification, or comment. Furthermore, both texts have insignificant paratactic and hypotactic idea relations. It indicates that both
articles do not sufficiently gather people’s cognitive opinion, although text B shows an effort to do so.
5.2. Suggestions
