LEXICAL AMBIGUITY IN READING ANALYTICAL
EXPOSITION TEXTS FOR SENIOR
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
A THESIS
Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By:
PUTRI SEMBIRING
Registration Number: 2122121031
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all the writer would like to thank to the Almighty God for His blessing and praises. The writer could finally complete this thesis. This thesis was aimed to fulfill one of the requirements for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan of English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Medan.
During the process of writing, the writer realizes that she could not accomplish this thesis without God’s blessing and supporting from many people, therefore the writer would like to express her sincere gratitude to :
1. Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, MPd., the Rector of State University of Medan
2. Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean of Languages and Arts, State University of Medan
3. Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English and Literature Departement and as the first Thesis Examiner for her great advices during the process of accomplishing this thesis.
4. Nora Ronita Dewi, S.Pd., M.Hum., the Head of English Education Program.
6. Dra. Meisuri, M.A., her first Thesis Advisor for her great care, guidance, and advices during the process of accomplishing this thesis.
7. Dra. Sortha Silitonga, M.Pd., her second Thesis Advisor for her great care, during the process of accomplishing this thesis.
8. Drs. Willem Saragih, Dipl. Appl., M.Pd., as the second Thesis Examiner for his great advices during the process of accomplishing this thesis.
iii
11. Her beloved parents Harison Sembiring and Manur Manurung for always supporting and giving pray.
12. Her beloved brothers’ families (Bg Jetro Sembiring, K Heni, Sharon, Bg Yuki Sembiring, K Seniman and Andesta) for always supporting and giving pray.
13. Her beloved PKK and KTB in PETRA Small Group (Bg Radius, Bg Hasian, Kak Feny, Wira Manalu, and Maria Situmorang)
14. Her beloved Friends from Pengurus UKMKP UP FBS 2016 (Maria Betty, Rika, Rita, Wantika, Janwar, Wemmy, Giovani), Pengurus
UKMKP UP FBS 2017 (Jonathan, Michael, Melinda, Mei Yani,
Rosinna, Fidelis, Sarlinda, Betty, Chiko) and all her beloved friends
from UKMKP (Inra Haloho) and UKMKP UP FBS.
15. Her beloved AKK (Widy, Mesra, Sulastri, Yaebesy, Dewi, Freberika, Elpina, and Poybe)
16. Her friends in Kepompong (Bg Boy ‘gemuk’, Bg Simon ‘kancil’, Shely ‘emak’, Silmi ‘kencur’, Ratna ‘iting’, Theresia ‘mbot’ and Betaria)
17. All her beloved friends of English Education D and A 2012.
iv
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 10
A. Theoretical Framework ... 10
v
B. Relevant Studies ... 29
C. Conceptual Framework ... 30
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODHOLOGY ... 33
A. Research Design ... 33
B. Data and Source of Data ... 33
C. The Technique of Collecting Data ... 34
D. The Technique of Analyzing Data ... 34
CHAPTER IV. DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS ... 36
A. The Data ... 36
B. The Data Analysis ... 36
C. Research Findings ... 47
D. Discussion ... 51
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 52
A. Conclusions ... 52
B. Suggestions ... 52
REFERENCES ... 54
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1 Example of Analytical Exposition Text ... 27 Table 4.1 The Representatives Data ... 37 Table 4.2 The Number of the Types of the Lexical Ambiguity in Textbook
“English Today 2” ... 47 Table 4.3 The Number of the Types of the Lexical Ambiguity in Textbook
viii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
52
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusions
After analyzing the data, the conclusions were drawn as follows:
1. There were four types of lexical ambiguity, they were homonymy, polysemy, synonymy and antonymy. The homonymy were 16 words (34,8%), polysemy
were 13 words (28,2%), synonymy were 9 words (19,6%), and antonymy were 8 words (17,4%).
2. Based on the types of lexical ambiguity, the most dominant type was homonymy. Homonymy was dominantly used in “English Today 2” and “Advanced Learning English 2” textbooks because the meaning of word can change over time because
people will simply use them in different ways. It makes the information be different. That was why homonymy dominantly appeared.
B. Suggestions
In relation to the conclusions, the suggestions were drawn as the followings: 1. Theoretically, the readers could improve their understanding and enrich their
53
2. Practically
a. Teacher should be selective to choose the material especially analytical exposition texts.
54
REFERENCES
Benyamin, H. 2015. Advanced Learning English 2. Bandung: Fácil.
Britton, B. K. 1978. Methods and Design: Lexical Ambiguity of Words Used in English Text. Behavior Researh Methods and Instrumentation Journal, 10(1), 1-7.
Cline, F., Johnstone, C., & King, T. 2006. Focus Group Reaction to Three Definition of Reading (as Originally Developed in Support NARAP Goal 1. Minneapolis, M.N.: National Accessible Reading Assesment Project.
Erten, I.H., & Topkaya, E.J. 2013. Understanding Tolerance of Ambiguity of EFL Learners in Reading Classes at Tertiary Level. Novitas ROYAL Journal, 3(1), 29-44.
Flesch, R.1949. The Art of Readable Writing. New York: Harper & Row.
Fraenkel, J.R & Wallen N.E. 2006. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education Sixth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hakim, L.A. 2009. A Study on the Ambiguity Found In English Test for Junior High School Students. Journal UMS, 1, 1-11.
Ibrahim, W.J. 2005. Ambiguity Theory. College of Basic Education Researchers Journal, 2(4), 223-235.
Kaplan, J.J., Rogness, N.T., & Fisher, D.G. 2009. Lexical Ambiguity in Statistics: What Do Students Know About the Words Association, Average, Confidence, Random and Spread? Journal of Statistics education, 17(3), 1-19.
Kaplan, J.J., Rogness, N.T., & Fisher, D.G. 2014. Exploiting Lexical Ambiguity to Help Students Understand the Meaning of Random. Statistics Education Research Journal, 13(1), 9-24.
55
Kurniawan, L., & Artiningsih, S.N.2002. English Today. Semarang: Quadra
Lobner, Sebastian. 2013. Understanding Semantics. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Matzen, L.I. 2009. Recommendations for Reducing Ambiguity in written Procedures. Sandiana Report, 7522, 1-14.
Mason, R., & Just, M.A. 2007. Lexical Ambiguity in Sentence Comprehension. Brain Research, 5(1), 1-19.
Montgomery et al. 2007. Advanced Reading Skills for Students of English Literature. New York: Routledge.
Munjin. 2008. Penguasaan Bahasa Inggris Melalui Extensive Reading Program. Jurnal Pemikiran Alternatif Pendidikan, 13(2), 203-213.
Pardiyono. 2007. Pasti Bisa! Teaching Genre-Based Writing. Yogyakarta: ANDI.
Pramitasih, Atik. 2012. A Study on the Ambiguity Found in English Exercises of
Vocational School Student’s Exercise Books. UMS Journal, 1(1), 1-14.
Rahmawati, Y.I. 2012. The Readability level of Reading Texts in the English Language Textbooks Used by the Tenth Grade. Journal UNESA, 1(1), 0-26.
Richards, Jack C. 1995. The language Teaching Matrix. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rekha, A. 2014. Ambiguity Found In Passport to the World 2: A Fun and Easy English Book: Journal UMS, 3(1), 1-19.
Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Wilson, W.M. 2002. Making Sense of Semantic Ambiguity: Semantic Competition in Lexical Access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245–266.
55
Schutze, H. 1997. Ambiguity Resolution in Language Learning. California: CLSI.
Sutianah, W. 2014. The Readability Level of the Reading Texts on advanced Learning English 2. Undergraduate Thesis. Jakarta: Syarif Hidayatulah State Islamic University.
Ullmann, S. 1977. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Westwood, Peter. 2008. What Teachers Need to Know about Reading and Writing Difficulties. Victoria: ACER Press.
