i

 

AMBIGUITY FOUND IN BACKPACK 4 ENGLISH TEXTBOOK

 

 

ARTICLE PUBLICATION

Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Getting Bachelor Degree of Education

in English Department

by:

MELTYSARI RISCAHYANTI A320100193

SCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA

2014

UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAIJ S URAKARTAFAKULTAS KEGURUAN DAN ILMTI PENDiDIKAN

Jl. A. Yani Tromol Pos l-Pabelan, I(arlasurzr Telrp.90271)1111l7 f-ax: 715448 Surakarta 57102

Surat Persetuiuan Artikel Publikasi Ilmiah

Yang bertanda tangan dibawah ini pembimbing skripsi/tugas akhir:

_Prof Dr. Endang Fauziati, M.Hum

274

Mauly Haiwat H., Ph.D.

727

Nama

NIP/NIK

Nama

NIP/NIK

Telah membaca dan mencermati naskah arlikel publikasi ilmiah, yang merupakan ringkasan

skripsi (tugas akhir) dari mahasiswa:

Nama

NIM

Program Studi

Judul Skripsi

Naskah artikel tersebut. layak dan dapat disetujui untuk dipublikasikan.

Dernikian persetujuan dibuat, semoga dapat dipergunakan seperlunya.

Surakafia, I I Februari 2014

Pembimbing II

: MELTYSARI RISCAHYANTI

: ,4320100193

: FKIP Bhs. Inggris

: AMBIGUITY FOUND N BACKPACK 4 ENGLISH TEXTBOOK

Pembimbing I

Maul-v- Halr,vat H.. PhO.NIK:727

 

1  

AMBIGUITY FOUND IN BACKPACK 4 ENGLISH TEXTBOOK

Meltysari Riscahyanti A310100193

Prof. Dr. Endang Fauziati, M.Hum. Mauly Halwat Hikmat, S.Pd, M.Hum.

English Departement, School of Teacher Training and Education Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta (UMS)

E-mail: meltysaririscahyanti@gmail.com Phone number: 089621539360

ABSTRACT

This study deals with the ambiguity which is found in Backpack 4 English textbook. The aims of this study are (1) to describe what the types of ambiguity, (2) to describe the frequency of each type of ambiguity, (3) to describe the dominant type of ambiguity, (4) to describe the causes of ambiguity, and (5) to describe the way to disambiguate ambiguity found in Backpack 4 English textbook. The type of this research is descriptive qualitative research. The data source of this research is ambiguous words, phrases and sentences found in Backpack 4 English textbook. The data collection technique is documentation. The technique of data analysis are descriptive qualitative. The writer uses the theories from Fauziati, Kreidler, Robert, Roadman and Hyme to analyze the types of ambiguity. The result of this study shows that (1) the writer found three from four types of ambiguity namely: lexical ambiguity, referential ambiguity, and surface structure ambiguity; (2) the frequency of each type of ambiguity are 43 lexical ambiguity (24,57%), 74 referential ambiguity (42,29 %), and 58 surface structure ambiguity (33,14 %); (3) the dominant types of ambiguity is referential ambiguity; there are 74 ambiguous sentences or 42,29%; (4) the causes of ambiguity are without context, ambiguous word order, improper or missing punctuation, faulty sentence construction, ambiguous words, and faulty pronoun reference; and (5) the way to disambiguate ambiguity are using paraphrasing, truth conditional sentences, adding preposition, moving sentence construction, adding additional context, adding correct punctuation and using picture. Keywords: Ambiguity, lexical, referential, structural

A. Introduction

The existence of English teaching-learning process cannot be

separated from teaching-learning media, especially textbook. If the content of

2  

the textbook is too difficult, student cannot understand the important concept

of the material.

Some cases in textbook can make many students confused to

understand the purpose, such as: the words or sentences that have more than

one meaning. That case is called ambiguity. It can make them confused when

they translate their book. Teacher must be careful choosing the best

interpretations, so their students cannot come out of the context in that

textbook. So the writer conducts the study about ambiguity found in

Backpack 4 English textbook.

There are some previous studies related to this study. The first

researcher is Mega Irawati (UMS, 2012). Her research paper entitled “The

Analysis of Lexical and Structural Ambiguity in Your Letter Column of the

Jakarta Post Newspaper Published July 2012” talked about the types of

lexically ambiguous word and structural ambiguous word. She used

descriptive qualitative research. She also used the theory from Crystal (1980)

and theory of diagrams from George Yule (2006). Her research concluded

that structural ambiguity is the most dominant.

The second researcher is Pramitasih (UMS, 2012) who conducted a

study on the Ambiguity Found in English Exercises of Vocational School

Student’s Exercise Books. This study was aimed at 1) describing the type of

ambiguity, 2) describing the frequency and the dominant type of ambiguous

sentences, and 3)describing the way to disambiguate. In collecting the data,

Pramitasih used documentation. Based on the result of the data analysis, she

found 2 types of ambiguity. There were lexical ambiguity, and structural /

syntactic ambiguity. She found the method to disambiguate namely:

paraphrasing, adding preposition of, moving sentence construction, adding

additional context, adding Hypen (-) and picture.

The writer uses some related theories in this research. There are from:

Kreidler (2002: 11) states that a sentence that has two meaning is ambiguous.

Fromkin, Hyams, and Rodman (2011: 182) said that our semantic knowledge

3  

tells us when words or phrases (including sentences) have more than one

meaning, that is, when they are ambiguous.

Based on the Kreidler (2002), Kess in Fauziati (2009), Fromkin,

Rodman, and Hyms (2011) point of view above, the writer classifies

ambiguity in four types, there are: lexical ambiguity, referential ambiguity,

surface structure ambiguity, and deep structure ambiguity.

Kreidler (2002: 50) states that lexical meaning is a meaning that

proposed by lexeme. Some linguists divided lexical ambiguity into some

kinds those are: homonym, homophones, and polysemy.

Kreidler (2002) writes referential ambiguity occur when a speaker has

one referent in mind for a definite expression like George or the papers, and

the addressee is thinking of a different George or some other papers.

According to Kreidler (2002: 151-152) there are four types of referential

ambiguity, that is: (1) referential ambiguity occurs when 1 an indefinite

referring expression may be specific or not; (2) Anaphora is unclear because a

personal pronoun; (3) The pronoun you is used generically or specifically; (4)

A noun phrase with every can have distributed reference or collected

reference.

According to Fauziati, sentence which are ambiguous in surface level

of syntactic relationship are called surface structure ambiguity (2009: 65).

Kreidler (2002: 169-170) there are six types of surface structure, those are:

(1) constructions containing the coordinators and and or; (2) A coordinate

head with one modifier; (3) a head with a coordinate modifier; (4) a head with

an inner modifier and an outer modifier; (5) a complement and modifier or

two complements; and (6) certain function words, including not, have

possible differences in scope.

Fauziati (2009: 65) deep structure ambiguity is the Sentences which

are ambiguous on the deep structure level of logical relationship. Based on

Kreidler book (2002: 170), there are three types of deep-structure ambiguity:

(1) Gerund + object or participle modifying a noun; (2) Adjective + infinitive,

tied to subject or to complement; (3) Ellipsis in comparative constructions.

4  

The writer simplifies the causes of ambiguity from some linguists

those are: without context (Reed, 2005); ambiguous word order (Mohunen

and Portunen, 2012); improper or missing punctuation (Lamb, 2008: 1);

Faulty sentence construction (Sclenker, 1999);; ambiguous words (Creig,

1998); and faulty pronoun reference (Hasnain, 2011).

Based on some linguists, the writer divided the way to disambiguate

ambiguity into five, there are: paraphrasing (Huford, Heasly and Smith,

2007); thruth conditional (Pool: 2007); adding preposition (Hovy and Tratz,

2010); moving sentence construction (Schlenker: 1998); adding additional

context (Karov and Edelman, 1998); and using picture (Barnard and Jahnson,

2005).

From the axplanation above, the writer formulate the problem

statement of this research, such as: what is the ambiguity found in the fourth

grade of elementary text book entitled Backpack 4? Based on the research

problem above, the writer formulates the research questions, that is: what are

the types of ambiguous sentence? What is the frequency of each ambiguity?

What type of ambiguity which dominantly appears? What are the causes of

the ambiguous sentences? and What is the way to disambiguate ambiguity?

So, the objectives of this research are: to describe the types of

ambiguity such as: lexical ambiguity, surface structure ambiguity and deep

structure ambiguity found in Backpack 4; to describe the frequency of each

type of ambiguity; to describe the dominant type of ambiguity; to describe the

causes of the ambiguous sentences; and to describe the way to disambiguate

ambiguous sentences in Backpack 4.

B. Research Method

This part deals with method of the writer to analyze the ambiguous

sentences in Backpack 4. It is divided into five parts, that is the type of the

study, data and data source, object of the study, data collection technique, and

data analysis technique.

Type of the study is a descriptive qualitative research. The data in this

paper are selected words, phrases, or sentences that are ambiguous in the

5  

Backpack 4. The data source of this paper is the fourth grade of elementary

textbook entitled Backpack 4 which written by Maria Herrera and Diane

Pinkley. This textbook was published in New York by Longman in 2013.

The object of the study is all the ambiguous word, phrase, or sentence

in English textbook entitled Backpack 4 which written by Maria Herrera and

Diane Pinkley. This textbook was published in New York by Longman in

2013. In this study, the writer applies documentation as the method of

collecting data in her research to get the data accurately. The technique of

analysing data is using descriptive qualitative.

C. Research Finding and Discussion

This study explains research finding and discussion of research

finding.

1. Research Finding

Research findings answer the research problem, there are: type of

ambiguity, the frequency of each ambiguity, the dominant type of

ambiguity, the causes of ambiguity, and also the way to disambiguate

ambiguity.

a. Types of Ambiguity

The writer categorizes types of ambiguity using theory from

Kreidler (2002: 41-169) and Kess in Fauziati (2009: 64). From analyzing

data the writer found three types of ambiguity there are: lexical ambiguity,

referential ambiguity, and surface structure ambiguity.

There are some examples of lexical ambiguity found in Backpack

4: (1) Backpack is full of fun and facts, project and pictures, too

(Backpack 4: 1). That sentence is lexically ambiguous in term homonym

because the word Backpack has more than one interpretation. The first

interpretation is a bag with shoulder straps that allow it to be carried on

student's back. The second interpretation is an English textbook entitled

Backpack. (2) Make endangered animal cards (Backpack 4: 60). That

sentence contains homophone that is located in the word endangered. The

word endangered can be interpreted in two different ways, those are: as

6  

endangered or (a species) seriously at risk of extinction and as in danger

or (someone or something) at risk or in danger. (3) He doesn’t like diet

soda (Backpack 4: 30). That sentence clearly contains polysemy that is in

the word diet. The word diet can be interpreted in two ways, there are:

drink with reduce fat or sugar content, and food to lose weight.

Then, there are some kinds of referential ambiguity found in

Backpack 4:Referential ambiguity occurs when an indefinite referring

expression may be specific or not, for example: Stories, puzzles, songs,

and games— (backpack4: 1). The word stories may refer to a specific

story, or some stories, or any stories. In the words puzzles, songs, and

games may refer to specific term or not, too. Then, Anaphora is unclear

because a personal pronoun, he, she, it or they, can be linked to either of

two referring expressions, for example: Dinosaurs, dinosaurs, what do we

know? (backpack 4: 50) That sentence contains anaphora, because

pronoun we have more than one reference if it is used in the different

context, there are: Pronoun we refers to the writer(s); Pronoun we refers to

the writer(s) and the reader; Pronoun we refers to the writer(s), the

listener(s), and the reader(s).

Afterwards, the pronoun you is used generically or specifically, for

example: Can you guess who is who? (backpack4: 8). That sentence

contains anaphora because the pronoun you have more than one reference,

there are: 1) Pronoun you refers to the editor(s) of ‘Friends Forever’

column; 2) Pronoun you refers to the reader(s); 3) Pronoun you refers to

the listener(s). Then, a noun phrase with every can have distributed

reference or collected reference, for example: We have noodles for lunch,

and everyone wishes you a long life (backpack 4: 80). That sentence is

called referential ambiguity because the word every has more than one

reference, there are: in ‘everyone’ means exercise for all people or each

people.

Then, there are some kinds of Surface Structure Ambiguity found

in Backpack 4: Constructions containing the coordinators and and or, for

7  

example: It’s fun to look for and trade cards or shells or rocks (backpack 4:

86). That sentence is ambiguous because it has more than one sentence

construction, there are: [look for] and [[trade] [cards or shells or rocks]]

(It’s fun to look for goods. It’s fun to swap cards or shells or stone); and

[look for and trade] [cards or shells or rocks] (It’s fun to look for and trade

goods, such as: cards or shells or rocks).

Then, a coordinate head with one modifier, for example: They are

friendly and fun to play with (backpack 4: 5). It is ambiguous because it

has more than one sentence construction, there are: [friendly] and [fun to

play with] (They are friendly, and its fun to play with.) [Friendly and fun]

[to play with] (They are friendly to play with and fun to play with.) Then,

a head with a coordinate modifier, for example: Smelling apples or

bananas every day can help you lose weight (backpack 4: 33). It is

ambiguous because it has more than one sentence construction, there are:

[Smelling apples] or [bananas] (This structure means smelling apples or

eating bananas.) and [Smelling] [apples or bananas] (This structure means

smelling apples or smelling bananas.).

Next is a head with an inner modifier and an outer modifier, for

example: Good times cafe (backpack 4: 31). It is ambiguous because it has

more than one sentence construction, there are: [Good times] [cafe] (It is a

good time to spend time in cafe) and [Good] [times cafe] (Nice clock that

is in cafe). Last, a complement and modifier or two complements, for

example: Five friends flee from five fat flies fast (backpack 4: 9). It is

ambiguous because it has more than one sentence construction, there are:

[Five friends flee from five fat flies] [fast] (Five friends flee fast from five

fat flies.) and [Five friends flee] from [five fat flies fast] (Five friends flee

from five fat flies which are moving fast.)

b. Frequency and Dominant Type of Ambiguity

Based on the frequency, the writer finds 175 ambiguous sentences,

those are: 43 lexical ambiguity (24,57%), 74 referential ambiguity (42,29

%), and 58 surface structure ambiguity (33,14 %). The type of ambiguity

8  

that appears dominantly is referential ambiguity since the writer found 74

from 175 ambiguous sentences or 42,29 %. In detail, the dominant

referential ambiguity is Anaphora because the writer found 37 data from

175 referential ambiguity or about 21,14 %.

c. Cause of Ambiguity

From this study there are many cause of ambiguity found in the

data above, that is: First, without context, for example: Backpack Song

(backpack 4: 1). That phrase is lexically ambiguous because the word

Backpack has more than one interpretation. The reason of its ambiguity is

in the context that is not related with one of the interpretations. The

unambiguous sentences are: School bag Song (if it is a bag with shoulder

straps that allows it to be carried on student's back) or, Backpack Textbook

Song (if it is an English textbook entitled Backpack).

Second, ambiguous word order, for example: In Thailand, people

celebrate Loi Krathong, a festival of light and water, on the first full moon

in November (backpack 4: 76). That sentence clearly contains homonyms

that are in the word light. The context of that sentence does not focus on

one meaning. The unambiguous sentences are: In Thailand, people

celebrate Loi Krathong, a festival of fire and water, on the first full moon

in November. (if light means fire); or In Thailand, people celebrate Loi

Krathong, a festival of lamp and water, on the first full moon in

November. (if light means lamp).

Third, improper or missing punctuation, for example: They are

friendly and fun to play with (backpack 4: 5). That sentence above is

structural ambiguity. It is ambiguous because have more than one sentence

construction. The unambiguous sentence are: They are friendly, and fun to

play with; or They are friendly and fun to play with.

Fourth, faulty sentence construction, for example: I say I’m sorry if

I get impatient or angry (backpack 4: 8). That sentence is an instance of

structural ambiguity. It is ambiguous because it has more than one

sentence construction. The writer tries to disambiguate that sentence as

9  

follows: If I get impatient or angry, I say I’m sorry; or If I get impatient, I

say I’m sorry or I’ll be angry.

Fifth, ambiguous words, for example: Cristina Aguilera has polar

bear (backpack 4: 56). Sentence above contains polysemes because the

Italic word has more than one way to interpret. The unambiguous

sentences are: Cristina Aguilera has real polar bear (if it is the real thing);

or Cristina Aguilera has polar bear doll (if it is only doll).

Sixth, faulty pronoun reference, for example: We came back home

late on Tuesday the fourth (backpack 4: 75). That sentence above contain

anaphora, because pronoun we has more than one reference if it use in the

different context, there are: We refer to the boy in the picture and family;

or We refer to the boy in the picture and friends.

d. The Way to Disambiguate Ambiguity

Last, There are many ways to disambiguate ambiguity, that is:

Paraphrasing, for example: Back then, students didn’t have notebooks

(backpack 4: 67). The writer tries to make that sentence unambiguous as

follows: Back then, students didn’t have a small laptop; or Back then,

students didn’t have sheet of paper or known as books. Then, truth

conditional section, for example: They are friendly and fun to play with

(backpack 4: 5). From the ambiguous sentence above, the writer tries to

disambiguated it by using truth conditional section as follows: Ikey and

Mickey is so friendly animals I ever had. I always having fun if I play with

them.

Next is adding Preposition, for example: Families watch fireworks

and eat small round dumplings (backpack 4: 77). The writer presents the

unambiguous sentences as follows: Families watch fireworks and eat small

of round dumplings. Then, Moving sentence construction, for example:

They wear butterfly crowns and jewels in their hair (backpack 4: 100). It is

ambiguous because it has more than one sentence construction. The writer

presents the unambiguous sentences as follows: They wear butterfly

10  

crowns and butterfly jewels in their hair; or They wear butterfly crowns

and a lot of jewels accessories in their hair.

Then adding additional context, for example: The Komodo dragon

is also endangered (backpack 4: 53). The writer presents the unambiguous

sentences as follows: The Komodo dragon is also endangered animal

because it number is low and only found in Indonesia. Last is using

Picture, for example: Back then, students didn’t have notebooks (backpack

4: 67). The writer tries tp disambiguate the sentence above by using

picture as follows:

(a) Back then, students didn’t have notebooks. (b) Back then, students didn’t have notebooks.

(if notebooks mean book) (if notebooks mean laptop)

2. Discussion

In this research, the writer finds three from four types of ambiguity,

that is: lexical ambiguity, referential ambiguity, and surface structure

ambiguity. Then, the writer tries to compare her finding with the previous

one, there are no similarities but has some differences. The differences

between this study and the previous one are Irawati found structural

ambiguity; Pramitasih found lexical ambiguity and structural or syntactic

ambiguity; Maharani found lexical ambiguity, surface structure ambiguity,

and deep structure ambiguity; Al Hakim found lexical ambiguity, surface

structure ambiguity, and deep structure ambiguity; Irawan and Dewi found

lexical ambiguity and grammatical ambiguity; and Kusumawati found

stuructural ambiguity and lexical ambiguity.

Based on the frequency, the writer finds 175 ambiguous sentences,

those are: 43 lexical ambiguity (24,57%), 74 referential ambiguity (42,29

11  

%), and 58 surface structure ambiguity (33,14 %). There no similarities

between this current studies and all of previous study, but there are some

diferences in it. The difference between this study and Irawati’s work is

Irawati found 38 data of ambiguous sentences consists of 11 lexical

ambiguity (28,9%), and 27 structural ambiguity (71,0%). Pramitasih’s

work found 23,8% lexical ambiguity and 76,2 % structural / Syntactic

ambiguity.

Maharani’s work found 12 lexical ambiguity (30%), 15 surface

structure ambiguity (37,5%) and 13 deep structure (42,5%). Al Hakim’s

work found 25 lexical ambiguity (51, 1%), 18 surface structure ambiguity

(37, 5%) and 5 deep structure (10, 4 %). Irawan’s work found 15

grammatical ambiguity (65, 22%) and 6 lexical ambiguity (34, 78%).

Dewi’s work found 69 lexical ambiguity (83, 13%) and 14 grammatical

ambiguity (16, 87%). Kusumawati’s work found structural ambiguities is

80% and lexical ambiguities is 20%.

By using the frequency, the writer found the dominant types of

ambiguity that is referential ambiguity. There are 74 ambiguous sentences

or 42,29%. There are no similarities between this current studies and all of

previous studies, but there are some differences between them. The

difference between this study and the previous studies are: the first

previous study found structural ambiguity as the dominant types of

ambiguity; the second previous study found structural/syntactic ambiguity

as the dominant types of ambiguity; the third previous study found

structural ambiguity as the dominant types of ambiguity; the fourth

previous study found lexical ambiguity as the dominant types of

ambiguity; the fifth previous study found grammatical ambiguity as the

dominant types of ambiguity; the sixth previous study found lexical

ambiguity as the dominant types of ambiguity; and the seventh previous

study found structural ambiguity as the dominant types of ambiguity.

The writer also determines the causes of ambiguity, namely:

without context, ambiguous word order, improper or missing punctuation,

12  

faulty sentence construction, ambiguous words, and faulty pronoun

reference. The writer tries to compare this result with the previous

researchers, there is only Pramitasih that explain the causes of ambiguity.

The differeces between this study and Pramitasih’s Work is Pramitasih

found the four causes of ambiguity, that is: without context, improper or

missing punctuation, faulty sentence construction, and faulty pronoun

reference, while the current study found sixth causes of ambiguity, that is

as follow above.

The writer found some ways to disambiguate ambiguity, that is:

paraphrasing, truth conditional sentences, adding preposition, moving

sentence construction, adding additional context, adding correct

punctuation and using picture. The differences between Pramitasih’s Work

and this study is Pramitasih found the method to disambiguate namely:

paraphrasing, adding preposition of, moving sentence construction, adding

additional context, adding Hyphen (-) and picture, while the current study

found as described above. The differences between Maharani’s Work and

this study is Maharani found the method to disambiguate namely:

paraphrase selection and truth conditional selection, while the current

study found as described above. Last the differences between Al Hakim’s

work and this study is Al Hakim found the method to disambiguate

namely: paraphrase selection and truth conditional selection, while the

current study found as described above.

Then, the writer tries to compare her finding with the theory, there

are: the similarities between kreidler theory (2002: 41-169) and this study

is equally earlier finding lexical ambiguity, referential ambiguity, and

surface structure ambiguity. The diference this study with Kreidler theory

is the writer does not find deep structure ambiguity in the data.

The similarities between Kess theory in Fauziati (2009: 64) and this

study is equally earlier finding lexical ambiguity and surface structure

ambiguity. The diference this study with Kess theory in Fauziati is the

writer found three types of ambiguity that is lexical ambiguity, referential

13  

ambiguity, and surface structure ambiguity, while in Kess theory in

Fauziati divided ambiguity into on three levels, those are: lexical

ambiguity, surface structure ambiguity, and deep structure ambiguity.

The writer also tries to compare this result with some theories. The

result of this study is in line with theories above.

D. Conclusion and Suggestion

1. Conclution

The writer finds three kinds of ambiguity, namely: lexical

ambiguity, referential ambiguity, and surface structure ambiguity. The

writer finds 175 ambiguous sentences, that is: 43 lexical ambiguity

(24,57%), 74 referential ambiguity (42,29 %), and 58 surface structure

ambiguity (33,14 %). The writer assumes that the dominant ambiguity of

this research is referential ambiguity. There are 74 ambiguous sentences

or 42,29%.

The writer also detects there are a lot of causes that makes the

sentence become ambiguous sentences, namely: without context,

ambiguous word order, improper or missing punctuation, faulty sentence

construction, ambiguous words, and faulty pronoun reference. The

writer found some ways to disambiguate ambiguity, that is by using

paraphrasing, truth conditional sentences, adding preposition, moving

sentence construction, adding additional context, adding correct

punctuation and using picture.

2. Pedagogical Implication

This research enrich the student knowledge about ambiguity.

Throught the notion of ambiguity, student can understand easily whether

the sentence is ambiguous or not. It can occur in their exercise books.

From the types of ambiguity, the student can differentiate the types of

ambiguity. From the causes of ambuguity, the student gas to be instructed

to make a sentence which is unambiguous by many different ways. From

the way to disambiguate ambiguity, the student can make the

unambiguous sentences from the ambiguous one. From the several

14  

benefits when there, the teacher can immerse the students to consider the

multiplural realities when they read, assess the students’ background on

reading, make clear the authentic context of their reading and to give

clearer understanding how ambiguity is not a huge problem.

3. Suggestion

Based on the research finding above, the writer of Backpack 4

still used a lot of ambiguous words and sentences. The writer finds 175

ambiguous sentences, that is: 43 data belonging to lexical ambiguity, 74

data belonging to referential ambiguity and 58 data belonging to surface

structure ambiguity. This condition makes the students or the reader

may confuse in interpreting the sentences. The writers of Backpack 4

should expect to write and compile the Backpack 4 textbook more

clearly in order to help the student’s understanding.

The teacher that teaches student by using Backpack 4 should be

more aware about the ambiguous sentence in this book, because the

writer finds 175 ambiguous sentences. In order to avoid

misunderstanding between the meaning of the texts and the students

interpretation, the teachers have to explain the clear interpretation to the

students. Besides that, the teachers are also expected to be able to

explain the diferences in the sound and meaning of the word. So the

students are not confused in the determining the meaning of the

sentence.

The term ambiguity is an exciting case to be the research topic

but the writer knows this paper is not perfect. So the writer hopes there

will be another researcher who attempts to take the same topic but

different in object, methods, theories, etc. Honestly, the writer hopes

that there will be a researcher who takes that term better than this

research. The writer also hopes this research will provide the

knowledge on ambiguous sentences.

15  

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al Hakim, Luqman. 2009. A Study on The Ambiguity Found in English Test for Junior High School Students. Unpublished Research Paper, Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

Dewi, Retno K. 2008. An Analysis of Ambiguity in News Titled of the Jakarta

Post. Unpublished Research Paper, Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University of Surakarta.

Fauziati, Endang. 2009. Psycolinguistics an Introduction. Surakarta: Era Pustaka

Utama. __________. 2010. Teaching English As Foreign Language (TEFL). Surakarta:

Era Pustaka Utama. Fromkin, Victoria. Hyams, Nina. and Rodman, Robert. 2009. An Introduction to

Language. United States of America: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Irawan, Wening B. 2008. An Analysis of Ambiguity in the Articles of the Jakarta

Post. Unpublished Research Paper, Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University of Surakarta.

Irawati, Mega. 2012. The Analysis of Lexical and Structural Ambiguity in Your

Letter Column of the Jakarta Post Newspaper Published July 2012. Unpublished Research Paper, Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

Kreidler, Charles W. 2002 Introducing English Semantics. Londonand New York:

Routledge. Kusumawati. 2001. The Study of Ambiguity in the Articles of Hello Magazine.

Unpublished Research Paper, Jakarta: University of Kristen Petra. Maharani, Ikha M. 2012. A Study of Ambiguity in The Articles of Life & Times

Colums in The Jakarta Globe Newspaper. Unpublished Research Paper, Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

Pramitasih, Atik. 2012. The Ambiguity Found in English Exercises of Vocational

School Student’s Exercise Books. Unpublished Research Paper, Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

16  

VIRTUAL REFERENCE Al-sherkasy, Sundos I and Al-sherkasy, Istabraq I. 2009. Some Preoblems of

Ambiguity in Translation: with Reference to English-Arabic. http://www.slideshare.net/falah_hasan77/some‐problems‐of‐ambiguity‐in‐translation‐with‐reference‐to‐english‐and‐arabic.  Accessed  on  Friday, December 27th, 1013 at 4:21

Baldawin, John R. 2008. Psycology of Language.

http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/370Syllabus.htm. Accessed on Wednesday, Desember 31th, 2013 at 9:46.

Hasnain. 2011. Faulty Pronoun Reference. http://mzhasnain.com. Accessed on

Monday, June 11th, 2012 at 20:01. Lamb, Bernard. 2008. Practical Guide to Punctuation. http:// queens-english-

society.com/index.html. Accessed on Monday, June 11th, 2012 at 19:16.

Pool, Jonathan. 2007. Paraphrasal and Truth-Conditional Disambiguation of

Quantification: Which Work Better? A Pilot Experiment. (http://utilika.org). Accessed on June 25th, 2012.

Sennet, Adam, Ambiguity. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ambiguity/. Accessed

on Monday, December 16th,2013 at 7:56.