Comparison Of Taxis And Logical Semantic Systems In Indonesian And Malaysian Newspapers About Airasia Qz8501 Accident
COMPARISON OF TAXIS AND LOGICAL SEMANTIC SYSTEMS IN
INDONESIAN AND MALAYSIAN NEWSPAPERS ABOUT AIRASIA
QZ8501 ACCIDENT
A THESIS
BY:
YUDHA SYAHPUTRA
REG.NO.110705056
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA
MEDAN 2015
COMPARISON OF TAXIS AND LOGICAL SEMANTIC SYSTEMS IN
INDONESIAN AND MALAYSIAN NEWSPAPERS ABOUT AIRASIA
QZ8501 ACCIDENT
A THESIS
BY:
YUDHA SYAHPUTRA
REG.NO.110705056
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA
MEDAN 2015
approved by the Department of English, Faculty of Cultural Studies, University
of Sumatera Utara (USU), Medan as a thesis for the Sarjana Sastra
Examination.
Head,
Dr. H. Muhizar Muchtar, M.S.
NIP.19541117 198003 1 002
Secretary,
Rahmadsyah Rangkuti, M.A, Ph.D.
NIP.19750209 200812 1 002
accepted by the Board of examiners in partial fulfillment of requirements for
the degree of Sarjana Sastra from the Department of English, Faculty of
Cultural Studies, University of Sumatera Utara, Medan
The examination is held in Department of English, Faculty of Cultural Studies,
University of Sumatera Utara, on July 2, 2015.
Dean of Faculty of Cultural Studies
University of Sumatera Utara
Dr. H. Syahron Lubis, M.A.
NIP.19511013 197603 1 001
Board of Examiners:
Dr. H. Muhizar Muchtar, M.S.
…………………………
Rahmadsyah Rangkuti, M.A, Ph.D.
…………………………
Prof. Hj. T. Silvana Sinar, M.A, Ph.D.
…………………………
Dr. Roswita Silalahi, Dipl. TESOL, M.Hum.
…………………………
AUTHOR’S DECLARATION
I, YUDHA SYAHPUTRA DECLARE THAT I AM THE SOLE AUTHOR OF
THIS THESIS EXCEPT WHERE REFERENCE IS MADE IN THE TEXT OF
THIS THESIS. THIS THESIS CONTAINS NO MATERIAL PUBLISHED
ELSEWHERE OR EXTRACTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM A
THESIS 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 THESIS.
THIS THESIS HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF
ANOTHER DEGREE IN ANY TERTIARY EDUCATION.
SIGNED
: ………………………………..
DATE
: JULY 7, 2015
iv
COPYRIGHT DECLARATION
NAME
: YUDHA SYAHPUTRA
TITLE OF THESIS
: COMPARISON OF TAXIS AND LOGICAL
SEMANTIC SYSTEMS IN INDONESIAN AND
MALAYSIAN
NEWSPAPERS
ABOUT
AIRASIA QZ8501 ACCIDENT
QUALIFICATION
: S-1/SARJANA SASTRA
DEPARTMENT
: ENGLISH
I AM WILLING THAT MY THESIS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR
REPRODUCTION AT THE DISCRETION OF THE LIBRARIAN OF
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES,
UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT
USERS ARE MADE AWARE OF THEIR OBLIGATION UNDER THE LAW
OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA.
SIGNED
: ……………………………….
DATE
: JULY 7, 2015
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It was a long but a rewarding experience to work on this thesis. This thesis will
not be completed without my great struggle on fighting my unstable mood. This
will also be impossible without the support of many people. Firstly, I would like
to thank the Lord for all the will and bless. I would also like to give my
gratitude to: Prof. Hj. T. Silvana Sinar, M.A, Ph.D. for the advice and guidance
and Rudy Sofyan, S.S, M.Hum. for all the constant constructive and detail
things on what I should do since the beginning I wrote this thesis. I finally thank
to my parents and my family for the supports, my brother Bang Tri for his
kindness and helps, my spiritual friends (Beby, Camel, Elvi, and Ena) for the
advice and motivation, my juniors (Ira, Agung, Dila) for the encouragements
and UKM-USD (USU Society for Debating) for the love in order to make this
thesis possible.
vi
ABSTRACT
This study seeks to describe the comparative portion of taxis and logical
semantic systems between Malaysian and Indonesian newspapers’ articles about
AirAsia QZ8501 accident. The data are clause complexes in Indonesia naval
captain says may have located missing plane tail’s section’s New Straits Times
(Text A) and AirAsia tail section located, blackbox still missing’s The Jakarta
Post (Text B) articles. This study uses qualitative-descriptive method. As the
result, both parataxis and hypotaxis are obtained. The dominant taxis relation
in both newspapers’ articles is hypotactic relation by 68.89% and 70.59%. In
this respect, it is found that both articles contain more complex structures of
sentences rather than the compound ones. The logical semantic relations
obtained are all relations except paratactic idea relation. The dominant logical
semantic relation in text A is hypotactic locution relation by 28.89%, whereas
text B acquires 8.82%. It indicates that text A contains more projected verbal
information or argumentations compared to text B. The argumentations are
mostly in reported speeches. On the other hand, the dominant logical semantic
relation in text B is hypotactic elaboration relation by 26.47%, whereas text A
acquires 13.33%. It shows that text B presents more information by specifying it
into dependent secondary clauses which are in a greater detail, restatement,
exemplification, or comment compared to text A.
Keyword: logical semantic relation, taxis, parataxis, hypotaxis, qualitativedescriptive, New Straits Times, The Jakarta Post.
vii
ABSTRAK
Skripsi ini fokus mencari dan menggambarkan porsi perbandingan sistem
taksis dan hubungan semantik logis antara artikel dalam surat kabar Malaysia
dan Indonesia tentang kecelakaan AirAsia QZ8501. Data yang digunakan
adalah klausa kompleks dalam artikel Indonesia naval captain says may have
located missing plane tail’s section surat kabar New Straits Times (Teks A) dan
artikel AirAsia tail section located, blackbox still missing surat kabar The
Jakarta Post (Teks B). Desain penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode
deskriptif-kualitatif. Sebagai hasilnya, kedua hubungan parataksis dan
hipotaksis didapat. Hubungan taksis yang dominan dalam artikel kedua surat
kabar adalah hipotaksis dengan persentase 68.89% dan 70.59%. Hal ini
diketahui bahwa dalam kedua artikel terdapat lebih banyak struktur kalimat
kompleks daripada kalimat majemuk. Hubungan semantik logis yang didapat
adalah semua hubungan kecuali hubungan ide parataksis. Hubungan semantik
logis yang dominan dalam teks A adalah hubungan lokusi hipotaksis dengan
persentase 28.89%, sedangkan teks B mendapatkan persentase 8.82%. Hal ini
menunjukkan bahwa teks A berisi lebih banyak informasi verbal yang
diproyeksikan atau argumentasi. Argumentasi-argumentasi ini paling banyak
dalam kalimat tidak langsung. Di sisi lain, hubungan semantik logis yang
dominan dalam teks B adalah hubungan elaborasi hipotaksis dengan persentase
26.47%, sedangkan teks A mendapatkan persentase 13.33%. Hal ini
menunjukkan bahwa teks B menyajikan lebih banyak informasi dengan menspesifikasikannya kedalam klausa sekunder terikat dalam detil yang lebih luas,
pengulangan, eksemplifikasi, atau pendapat daripada teks A.
Kata Kunci: hubungan semantic logis, taksis, parataksis, hipotaksis, deskriptifkualitatif, New Straits Times, The Jakarta Post
.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AUTHOR’S DECLARATION................................................................................. iv
COPYRIGHT DECLARATION .............................................................................. v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................... vi
ABSTRACT ..............................................................................................................vii
ABSTRAK ...............................................................................................................viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................xii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................xiii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study......................................................... 1
1.2. Problem of the Study ............................................................... 4
1.3. Objective of the Study.............................................................. 5
1.4. Scope of the Study .................................................................... 5
1.5. Significance of the Study ......................................................... 7
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Functional Grammar ................................................................ 8
2.2. Clause and Clause Complex.................................................. 10
2.2.1. Minor Vs Major Clauses .................................................... 10
2.2.2. Major Clauses: Independent Vs Dependent ..................... 11
2.2.3. Taxis ..................................................................................... 12
ix
2.2.3.1. Parataxis ........................................................................... 12
2.2.3.2 Hypotaxis ........................................................................... 13
2.2.4. Logical Semantic Relation.................................................. 14
2.2.4.1. Expansion.......................................................................... 14
2.2.4.1.1. Elaboration .................................................................... 15
2.2.4.1.2. Extension........................................................................ 17
2.2.4.1.3. Enhancement ................................................................. 19
2.2.4.2 Projection ........................................................................... 19
2.2.4.2.1. Idea ................................................................................. 23
2.2.4.2.2. Locution ......................................................................... 25
2.3. Previous Work........................................................................ 27
CHAPTER III METHOD OF RESEARCH
3.1. Research Design ..................................................................... 29
3.2. Source of Data ........................................................................ 30
3.3. Data Collection Procedure .................................................... 31
3.4. Data Analysis .......................................................................... 32
3.5. Research Procedure ............................................................... 33
CHAPTER IV DESCRIPTION AND FINDINGS
4.1. Data Description..................................................................... 36
4.1.1. Taxis ..................................................................................... 36
4.1.2. Logical Semantic Relation.................................................. 37
4.2. Findings................................................................................... 39
4.2.1. Interpretation of Taxis........................................................ 39
x
4.2.2. Interpretation of Logical Semantic Relation .................... 42
4.2.3. Interpretation of Taxis and Logical Semantic Systems ... 44
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1. Conclusions .............................................................................. 53
5.2. Suggestions............................................................................... 54
REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 56
APPEDICES
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table.1........................................................................................................................ 15
Table.2........................................................................................................................ 20
Table.3........................................................................................................................ 22
Table.4........................................................................................................................ 34
Table.5........................................................................................................................ 36
Table.6........................................................................................................................ 37
Table.7........................................................................................................................ 38
Table.8........................................................................................................................ 40
Table.9........................................................................................................................ 40
Table.10...................................................................................................................... 41
Table.11...................................................................................................................... 42
Table.12...................................................................................................................... 43
Table.13...................................................................................................................... 44
Table.14...................................................................................................................... 44
Table.15...................................................................................................................... 45
Table.16...................................................................................................................... 46
Table.17...................................................................................................................... 47
Table.18...................................................................................................................... 48
Table.19...................................................................................................................... 48
Table.20...................................................................................................................... 49
Table.21...................................................................................................................... 50
Table.22...................................................................................................................... 51
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure.1. ....................................................................................................................... 6
Figure.2. ....................................................................................................................... 6
Figure.3. ....................................................................................................................... 9
xiii
INDONESIAN AND MALAYSIAN NEWSPAPERS ABOUT AIRASIA
QZ8501 ACCIDENT
A THESIS
BY:
YUDHA SYAHPUTRA
REG.NO.110705056
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA
MEDAN 2015
COMPARISON OF TAXIS AND LOGICAL SEMANTIC SYSTEMS IN
INDONESIAN AND MALAYSIAN NEWSPAPERS ABOUT AIRASIA
QZ8501 ACCIDENT
A THESIS
BY:
YUDHA SYAHPUTRA
REG.NO.110705056
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA
MEDAN 2015
approved by the Department of English, Faculty of Cultural Studies, University
of Sumatera Utara (USU), Medan as a thesis for the Sarjana Sastra
Examination.
Head,
Dr. H. Muhizar Muchtar, M.S.
NIP.19541117 198003 1 002
Secretary,
Rahmadsyah Rangkuti, M.A, Ph.D.
NIP.19750209 200812 1 002
accepted by the Board of examiners in partial fulfillment of requirements for
the degree of Sarjana Sastra from the Department of English, Faculty of
Cultural Studies, University of Sumatera Utara, Medan
The examination is held in Department of English, Faculty of Cultural Studies,
University of Sumatera Utara, on July 2, 2015.
Dean of Faculty of Cultural Studies
University of Sumatera Utara
Dr. H. Syahron Lubis, M.A.
NIP.19511013 197603 1 001
Board of Examiners:
Dr. H. Muhizar Muchtar, M.S.
…………………………
Rahmadsyah Rangkuti, M.A, Ph.D.
…………………………
Prof. Hj. T. Silvana Sinar, M.A, Ph.D.
…………………………
Dr. Roswita Silalahi, Dipl. TESOL, M.Hum.
…………………………
AUTHOR’S DECLARATION
I, YUDHA SYAHPUTRA DECLARE THAT I AM THE SOLE AUTHOR OF
THIS THESIS EXCEPT WHERE REFERENCE IS MADE IN THE TEXT OF
THIS THESIS. THIS THESIS CONTAINS NO MATERIAL PUBLISHED
ELSEWHERE OR EXTRACTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM A
THESIS 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 THESIS.
THIS THESIS HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF
ANOTHER DEGREE IN ANY TERTIARY EDUCATION.
SIGNED
: ………………………………..
DATE
: JULY 7, 2015
iv
COPYRIGHT DECLARATION
NAME
: YUDHA SYAHPUTRA
TITLE OF THESIS
: COMPARISON OF TAXIS AND LOGICAL
SEMANTIC SYSTEMS IN INDONESIAN AND
MALAYSIAN
NEWSPAPERS
ABOUT
AIRASIA QZ8501 ACCIDENT
QUALIFICATION
: S-1/SARJANA SASTRA
DEPARTMENT
: ENGLISH
I AM WILLING THAT MY THESIS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR
REPRODUCTION AT THE DISCRETION OF THE LIBRARIAN OF
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES,
UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT
USERS ARE MADE AWARE OF THEIR OBLIGATION UNDER THE LAW
OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA.
SIGNED
: ……………………………….
DATE
: JULY 7, 2015
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It was a long but a rewarding experience to work on this thesis. This thesis will
not be completed without my great struggle on fighting my unstable mood. This
will also be impossible without the support of many people. Firstly, I would like
to thank the Lord for all the will and bless. I would also like to give my
gratitude to: Prof. Hj. T. Silvana Sinar, M.A, Ph.D. for the advice and guidance
and Rudy Sofyan, S.S, M.Hum. for all the constant constructive and detail
things on what I should do since the beginning I wrote this thesis. I finally thank
to my parents and my family for the supports, my brother Bang Tri for his
kindness and helps, my spiritual friends (Beby, Camel, Elvi, and Ena) for the
advice and motivation, my juniors (Ira, Agung, Dila) for the encouragements
and UKM-USD (USU Society for Debating) for the love in order to make this
thesis possible.
vi
ABSTRACT
This study seeks to describe the comparative portion of taxis and logical
semantic systems between Malaysian and Indonesian newspapers’ articles about
AirAsia QZ8501 accident. The data are clause complexes in Indonesia naval
captain says may have located missing plane tail’s section’s New Straits Times
(Text A) and AirAsia tail section located, blackbox still missing’s The Jakarta
Post (Text B) articles. This study uses qualitative-descriptive method. As the
result, both parataxis and hypotaxis are obtained. The dominant taxis relation
in both newspapers’ articles is hypotactic relation by 68.89% and 70.59%. In
this respect, it is found that both articles contain more complex structures of
sentences rather than the compound ones. The logical semantic relations
obtained are all relations except paratactic idea relation. The dominant logical
semantic relation in text A is hypotactic locution relation by 28.89%, whereas
text B acquires 8.82%. It indicates that text A contains more projected verbal
information or argumentations compared to text B. The argumentations are
mostly in reported speeches. On the other hand, the dominant logical semantic
relation in text B is hypotactic elaboration relation by 26.47%, whereas text A
acquires 13.33%. It shows that text B presents more information by specifying it
into dependent secondary clauses which are in a greater detail, restatement,
exemplification, or comment compared to text A.
Keyword: logical semantic relation, taxis, parataxis, hypotaxis, qualitativedescriptive, New Straits Times, The Jakarta Post.
vii
ABSTRAK
Skripsi ini fokus mencari dan menggambarkan porsi perbandingan sistem
taksis dan hubungan semantik logis antara artikel dalam surat kabar Malaysia
dan Indonesia tentang kecelakaan AirAsia QZ8501. Data yang digunakan
adalah klausa kompleks dalam artikel Indonesia naval captain says may have
located missing plane tail’s section surat kabar New Straits Times (Teks A) dan
artikel AirAsia tail section located, blackbox still missing surat kabar The
Jakarta Post (Teks B). Desain penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode
deskriptif-kualitatif. Sebagai hasilnya, kedua hubungan parataksis dan
hipotaksis didapat. Hubungan taksis yang dominan dalam artikel kedua surat
kabar adalah hipotaksis dengan persentase 68.89% dan 70.59%. Hal ini
diketahui bahwa dalam kedua artikel terdapat lebih banyak struktur kalimat
kompleks daripada kalimat majemuk. Hubungan semantik logis yang didapat
adalah semua hubungan kecuali hubungan ide parataksis. Hubungan semantik
logis yang dominan dalam teks A adalah hubungan lokusi hipotaksis dengan
persentase 28.89%, sedangkan teks B mendapatkan persentase 8.82%. Hal ini
menunjukkan bahwa teks A berisi lebih banyak informasi verbal yang
diproyeksikan atau argumentasi. Argumentasi-argumentasi ini paling banyak
dalam kalimat tidak langsung. Di sisi lain, hubungan semantik logis yang
dominan dalam teks B adalah hubungan elaborasi hipotaksis dengan persentase
26.47%, sedangkan teks A mendapatkan persentase 13.33%. Hal ini
menunjukkan bahwa teks B menyajikan lebih banyak informasi dengan menspesifikasikannya kedalam klausa sekunder terikat dalam detil yang lebih luas,
pengulangan, eksemplifikasi, atau pendapat daripada teks A.
Kata Kunci: hubungan semantic logis, taksis, parataksis, hipotaksis, deskriptifkualitatif, New Straits Times, The Jakarta Post
.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AUTHOR’S DECLARATION................................................................................. iv
COPYRIGHT DECLARATION .............................................................................. v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................... vi
ABSTRACT ..............................................................................................................vii
ABSTRAK ...............................................................................................................viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................xii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................xiii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study......................................................... 1
1.2. Problem of the Study ............................................................... 4
1.3. Objective of the Study.............................................................. 5
1.4. Scope of the Study .................................................................... 5
1.5. Significance of the Study ......................................................... 7
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Functional Grammar ................................................................ 8
2.2. Clause and Clause Complex.................................................. 10
2.2.1. Minor Vs Major Clauses .................................................... 10
2.2.2. Major Clauses: Independent Vs Dependent ..................... 11
2.2.3. Taxis ..................................................................................... 12
ix
2.2.3.1. Parataxis ........................................................................... 12
2.2.3.2 Hypotaxis ........................................................................... 13
2.2.4. Logical Semantic Relation.................................................. 14
2.2.4.1. Expansion.......................................................................... 14
2.2.4.1.1. Elaboration .................................................................... 15
2.2.4.1.2. Extension........................................................................ 17
2.2.4.1.3. Enhancement ................................................................. 19
2.2.4.2 Projection ........................................................................... 19
2.2.4.2.1. Idea ................................................................................. 23
2.2.4.2.2. Locution ......................................................................... 25
2.3. Previous Work........................................................................ 27
CHAPTER III METHOD OF RESEARCH
3.1. Research Design ..................................................................... 29
3.2. Source of Data ........................................................................ 30
3.3. Data Collection Procedure .................................................... 31
3.4. Data Analysis .......................................................................... 32
3.5. Research Procedure ............................................................... 33
CHAPTER IV DESCRIPTION AND FINDINGS
4.1. Data Description..................................................................... 36
4.1.1. Taxis ..................................................................................... 36
4.1.2. Logical Semantic Relation.................................................. 37
4.2. Findings................................................................................... 39
4.2.1. Interpretation of Taxis........................................................ 39
x
4.2.2. Interpretation of Logical Semantic Relation .................... 42
4.2.3. Interpretation of Taxis and Logical Semantic Systems ... 44
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1. Conclusions .............................................................................. 53
5.2. Suggestions............................................................................... 54
REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 56
APPEDICES
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table.1........................................................................................................................ 15
Table.2........................................................................................................................ 20
Table.3........................................................................................................................ 22
Table.4........................................................................................................................ 34
Table.5........................................................................................................................ 36
Table.6........................................................................................................................ 37
Table.7........................................................................................................................ 38
Table.8........................................................................................................................ 40
Table.9........................................................................................................................ 40
Table.10...................................................................................................................... 41
Table.11...................................................................................................................... 42
Table.12...................................................................................................................... 43
Table.13...................................................................................................................... 44
Table.14...................................................................................................................... 44
Table.15...................................................................................................................... 45
Table.16...................................................................................................................... 46
Table.17...................................................................................................................... 47
Table.18...................................................................................................................... 48
Table.19...................................................................................................................... 48
Table.20...................................................................................................................... 49
Table.21...................................................................................................................... 50
Table.22...................................................................................................................... 51
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure.1. ....................................................................................................................... 6
Figure.2. ....................................................................................................................... 6
Figure.3. ....................................................................................................................... 9
xiii