MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2484421543 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v6n4p227

Processes in Bahasa Indonesia Tourism Promotion Texts and Its Equivalence in English: A Systemic Functional Linguistic Study

2016· article· en· W2484421543 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eva Tuckyta Sari Sujatna

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerbLinguisticsExistentialismPromotion (chess)TourismEquivalence (formal languages)Mental processPsychologyComputer scienceCognitionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many researchers do research on processes in English but it is still limited research on Bahasa Indonesia and its equivalence in English. It is necessary to do research processes in Bahasa Indonesia since it has two different types of clauses: verbal clauses and nonverbal clauses. This paper tries to figure out the processes on Bahasa Indonesia, especially on Bahasa Indonesia tourism promotion texts and its equivalence in English. The aims of the research are to describe the dominant of the processes found in the Bahasa Indonesia tourism promotion texts and to describe the verb used in each type of the processes and its equivalence in English. The research method employed in the research is descriptive method. The data collected are divided into major types of clauses: verbal clauses and nonverbal clauses. The data analyzed are the verbal clauses in Bahasa Indonesia since the verb as the main part of process then compared to its equivalence in English. The result of the research shows there are four types of processes found in both Bahasa Indonesia tourism promotion texts and its equivalence: material, relational, mental, and existential processes. The dominant process found is material processes 51.7%, followed by relational processes 21.9%, mental process 18.5%, and existential process7.9%. The participants involved are: agent and goal (material process), carrier and attribute (relational process), experiencer and phenomenon (mental process), and existent (existential process). The verbs used in material process in Bahasa Indonesia are tenggelam, berkunjung mencari, dipadu, akan menemani, menyajikan, menjanjikan memberikan, menyimpan, menyuguhkan, memanjakan, berlabuh, menutup, melancong, membentuk, memberi, dapat membeli, memecah, dapat memesan, menyediakan, terabaikan, dapat ditempuh, dikirimkan, dilakukan, digunakan while its equivalence in English are set, visit to look for, were combined, will accompany, serve, promise to give, put, serve, spoil, anchor, can close, visit, shape, give, can buy, break, can order, serve, was ignored, can be through, were sent, can be done, is used. The relational process in Bahasa Indonesia are adalah, berasal dari, memiliki, mempunyai, mengandung, bisa menjadi, tampak, menyerupai, merupakan, berada, terletak, berlokasi and its equivalence in English are is, comes from, have, contain, can become, seem, like, become, is, is located. The mental process in Bahasa Indonesia are dapat menikmati, terpukau, melihat, terdengar and its equivalence in English are can enjoy, will be mesmerized, can see, heard. The existential processes in Bahasa Indonesia are ada, terdapat, tersedia, and its equivalence in English is be.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207