The Description Of Sentences Used In The Jakarta Post Newspaper

(1)

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

(2)

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

(3)

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.

(4)

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

(5)

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

(6)

‘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:

(7)

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

(8)

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

(9)

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

(10)

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

(11)

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

(12)

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

(13)

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

(14)

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)

(15)

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

(16)

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

(17)

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

(18)

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

(19)

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

(20)

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

(21)

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

(22)

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

(23)

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

(24)

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

(25)

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

(26)

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

(27)

- 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?

(28)

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

(29)

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

(30)

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

(31)

ABSTRAK

(32)

THE DESCRIPTION OF SENTENCES USED

IN THE JAKARTA POST NEWSPAPER

A PAPER

WRITTEN

BY

ASTRID DINDA PERMATA

NIM: 102202037

ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM DIPLOMA III

FACULTY OF CULTURE STUDY

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH SUMATERA

(33)

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

(34)

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:

February 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) ………..

(35)

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

I am, ASTRID DINDA PERMATA, 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 : ………

(36)

COPYRIGHT DECLARATION

Name : ASTRID DINDA PERMATA

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 : ………

(37)