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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
%), 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.
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.
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
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.
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,
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.
