COMPARISON OF TAXIS AND LOGICAL SEMANTIC SYSTEMS IN INDONESIAN AND MALAYSIAN NEWSPAPERS ABOUT AIRASIA

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, Secretary, Dr. H. Muhizar Muchtar, M.S. Rahmadsyah Rangkuti, M.A, Ph.D. NIP.19541117 198003 1 002 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 TITLE OF THESIS : YUDHA SYAHPUTRA : COMPARISON OF TAXIS AND LOGICAL SEMANTIC SYSTEMS IN INDONESIAN AND MALAYSIAN NEWSPAPERS ABOUT AIRASIA QZ8501 ACCIDENT QUALIFICATION DEPARTMENT : S-1/SARJANA SASTRA : 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. qualitative- Keyword: logical semantic relation, taxis, parataxis, hypotaxis, descriptive, 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