Lexical And Grammatical Ambiguities In Engligsh Texbook For Tenth Grade Students

Authors

  • Ermika Magister of Education, Universitas HKBP Nommensen North Sumatra, Indonesia
  • Erika Sinambela Magister of Education, Universitas HKBP Nommensen North Sumatra, Indonesia
  • Arsen Nahum Pasaribu Magister of Education, Universitas HKBP Nommensen North Sumatra, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51601/ijersc.v2i3.87

Keywords:

Lexical Ambiguity, Grammatical Ambiguity, Reading Texts

Abstract

This study dealt with effort of finding the lexical and grammatical ambiguity in English textbook of Bahasa Inggris for the tenth grade. The objectives of the study were to find out the types of ambiguity and to find out the dominant types of ambiguity in Bahasa Inggris of the tenth grade. The numbers of the data were 21 of reading texts which were taken from English textbook of Bahasa Inggris of the tenth grade. The types of ambiguities were identified based on Fromkin et al theory. The research design used in this research is descriptive qualitative. The data were analyzed by Identifying , classifying, tabulating and interpreting. From 21 reading texts, there were 27 sentences that contained ambiguous meaning. There are two types of ambiguity found in reading texts, they were lexical and grammatical ambiguity. The lexical ambiguity consisted of homonym, polysemy and antonym. While  grammatical ambiguity consisted of coordinate structure, negation scope, active or passive meaning, gerund + object or participle modifying a noun, prepositional phrase (PP) as modifier or sentence adjunct, and a head  of inner modifier and outer modifier. The dominant type of lexical ambiguity was homonymy with 6 occurrences (20.68%). While the dominant type of grammatical ambiguity was coordinate structure as many as 8 occurrences (27.59%).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Simatupang, M.S. (2007). How Ambiguous is the Structural Ambiguity. Jurnal LINGUA CULTURA Vol.1 No.2 November 2007: 99-104. Retrieved on October 13, 2106 from journal.binus.ac.id/index.php/lingua/article/ viewFile/315/299

Pupitasari, A., Baratha,S.L.N., & Wandia, K.I. (2019). Lexical and Structural Found in Aricle in The Jakarta Post. Jurnal Humanis, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya Unud. 23(1)

Bustam, R.M. (2012). The Analysis of Ambiguous Through Structural Ambiguity Concept. Apollo Project. 1(1)

Setiani, R. (2019). Students Ambiguityin WritingAn Essay. Jurnal Elsa. 17(1)

Kurniasari, D.M. (2017). Tolereting Structural Ambiguity In Gramma Learning. International Journal of Indonesian Education and Teaching http://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/IJIET

Almahameed, Y. (2020). Resolving Lexical and Structural Ambiguity by Jordanian Learners of English. Journal of Critical Reciews https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343268503

Milne, R. (1986). Resolving Lexical Ambiguity in Deterministic Parser. Computational Linguistics, 12 (1)

Cruse, A. 2006. A Glossary Of Semantics And Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Usniversity Pers

Fromkin, et al (2011). An Introduction to Language . 9th edn. Canada: Wadswort Cengage Learning

Hurford & Hesley (2007). Semantics A Coursebook. Newyork: Cambrige University Press.

Kess, Joseph F. 1992. Psycholinguistics: Psychology, Linguistics and the Study of Natural

Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Kreidler, C W. (2013). Introduction English Semantics. London: Routledge.

Saryono. (2010) Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT. Alfabeta

Downloads

Published

2021-06-29

How to Cite

Ermika, E., Sinambela, E. ., & Nahum Pasaribu, A. . (2021). Lexical And Grammatical Ambiguities In Engligsh Texbook For Tenth Grade Students. International Journal of Educational Research &Amp; Social Sciences, 2(3), 494–502. https://doi.org/10.51601/ijersc.v2i3.87

Issue

Section

Articles