AN ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’

COMPREHENSION AT 6TH SEMESTER

STIBA PERSADA BUNDA IN
DISTINGUISHING AMBIGUITY OF
THE JAKARTA POST

By : Velly Meirisca
 CHAPTER I
Introduction
1.1 Background of the Problem :
 Reading is one of the four English skills that the students must learn to master their
English
 Newspaper as the media of the reading that people read to gain informations
 Sometimes, the ambiguity occurs when people read the newspaper

1.2 Identification of the Problem :

 Some people are not able to comprehend the word, phrase, and sentence
 The ability of students to distinguish whether the sentence is ambiguous or not

1.3 Focus of the Research :

on the comprehension of students’ at 6th semester STIBA Persada Bunda to understand
the ambiguous sentence in the newspaper in The Jakarta Post
1.4 Formulation of the Problem :
 What kind of ambiguity that used in some articles in the newspaper that makes the
readers confuse?
 Could the students who have learned syntax and semantics distinguish whether the
sentence is ambiguous or not?
1.5 Purposes of the Research :
 To find out about the kind of ambiguity used the most in the newspaper
 To find out whether the students can distinguish of the sentence is ambiguous or not
1.6 Significance of the Research :
 This research will give significant contribution to the other to get an understanding
about the ambiguity
 This research could be applied for the further researcher
1.7 Definition of the Key Terms :
 Collecting the data
 Doing the library research
 Qualitative & Quantitative research
 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Review of the Related Theories
2.1.1 Meaning of the Word
 Harley (2003 : 177) states that : “We’ve observed before that there are two main categories of
listemes : function and content. Content Listemes carry the meanings that are summarized in dictionary
entries; they carry the ‘meat’ of the message we want to send. Function morphemes restrict and
organize those meanings, providing the structure that lets us communicate better than Tarzan or
Koko”.

 Fish in Meyer (2009 : 48) notes that : “How we interpret the sentence is determined by the meaning
of the individual words that it contains”.

 Meyer (2009 : 151) : “Grammatical meanings was concerned with the meaning that could be
derived directly from the words, phrases, clauses, and sentences in which language was encode”.

 Meyer (2009 : 151 – 152) : “Pragmatic meaning, in contrast, describes meaning as the product of
the social context in which language takes place”.
 Riemer (2010 : 40) concludes that : “ ‘Meaning’ is a very vague term : in English it refers to a variety
of different relations between the world language and speakers. Most languages do not have precise
equivalents for the English term ‘meaning’, and some use a very different stock of lexical resources to
talk about meaning – like phenomena”.

2.1.2 Ambiguity
 Chafe in Dennis (2009 : 5) said that ambiguity is two or more utterances differ semantically but not
phonetically. Chafe also said it is common if we are confronted by an ambiguous utterances because we
usually recognize one of its meanings before the other meaning(s).

2.1.3 Lexical Ambiguity

 Malta (2001) states that : “Lexical ambiguity is ambiguity based on a single word”.
 Chaer (2007 : 289) : “Makna Lexical adalah makna yang sebenarnya, makna yang sesuai dengan
hasil observasi kita”.
 Hurford and Heasley in Dennis (2009 : 6) define that lexical ambiguity is ambiguity which results from
the ambiguity of a word and according to Hurford and Heasley, there are two types of lexical ambiguity :
Homonym and Polysemy.
 Kraidler (1998 : 52) : “In Homonym such as bank ‘a financial institution’ and bank ‘the edge of a
stream’,pronounciation and spelling are identical but meanings are unrelated. In other pairs, numerous
in English, such as steak and stake, pronouncation is identical but spelling is different, reflecting the fact
that the words were once different in their phonological form”.

 Chaer (2007 : 304) : “Masalah lain mengenai homonimi ini yang cukup ruwet adalah apa bedanya
dengan polisemi. Bagaimana cara menentukan dua buah bentuk yang sama adalah homonimi atau
polisemi? Patokan pertama yang harus dipegang adalah bahwa homonimi adalah dua bentuk ujaran
atau lebih yang “kebetulan” bnetuknya sama, dan maknanya tentu saja berbeda. Sedangkan polisemi
adalah sebuah bentuk ujaran yang memiliki makna lebih dari satu. Makna – makna yang ada dalam
polisemi, meskipun berbeda tetapi dapat dilacak secara etimologi dan semantik, bahwa makna – makna
itu masih mempunyai hubungan. Sebaliknya makna – makna dalam dua bentuk homonimi tidak
mempunyai hubungan sama sekali”.

 McCarthy and O’Dell (1994 : 38) : “Homographs are words which are written in the same way but
have different meanings”.

 Chaer (2007 : 303) : “Istilah homografi mengacu pada bentuk ujaran yang sama ortografinya atau
ejaannya tetapi ucapan dan maknanya tidak sama”.
 Chaer (2007) : “Yang dimaksud dengan homofoni adalah adanya kesamaan bunyi (fon)
antara dua satuan ujaran tanpa memperhatikan ejaannya, apakah ejaannya sama atau
berbeda”.

2.1.4 Structural Ambiguity

 Berry, Kamsties, and Krieger in Dennis (2009 : 9) point out that structural ambiguity
occurs when a sentence or phrase has more than one context and each has different
meaning.
 Anonymous (2010) : “Structural ambiguity arises from the grammatical structure of a
language. It means the structure or different ways in which words in a sentence can be
related meaningfully to each other”.

2.2 Review of the Related Finding

 Dennis (2009) find that the most frequent appeared ambiguity in www.kaskus.us and
www.facebook.com is lexical ambiguity which divided into four sentences contain
polysemy, seven sentences contain homonym and one sentence contain both polysemy
and homonym.
 CHAPTER III
Method of the Research

3.1 Type of the Research : Analysis Research

3.2 Setting of the Research : STIBA Persada Bunda at 6th semester that located in
Jalan Diponegoro number 42, Pekanbaru

3.3 Instruments :
 Questionnaire

3.4 Technique of Collecting the Data :

 Quantitative
 Qualitative